|
|
|
Who do you wish to hear from on Majorityrights Radio? Talking to people for the radio project isn’t exactly difficult. A bit of research and some thought beforehand, and the rest is, well, normal really. But finding the right people to talk to - people who not only have some salience in our world and something interesting and important to say, but will also attract listeners - is not quite so easy. So I thought it would be useful to throw the floor open to suggestions. Who do you think we should ask to be interviewed? The candidate must be someone likely to accept, and must speak clear English. Other than that, the field is open. Comments:3
Posted by Bill on Sat, 15 May 2010 12:31 | # Forgive me if MR have previously referenced the BNP’s autopsy of their election performance, for I must have missed it. It can be found here. http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.com/ Any chance of getting the man himself? 5
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 15 May 2010 12:41 | # Thank you for this, GW I wouldn’t object if silver were unavailable. The rest sound seriously good, though, especially that shy and nocturnal Texan, Wintermute. Friedrich Braun would also be a peerless catch. Desmond Jones is near the top of my list, but I suspect he may be happily ensconced in academe, the milieu of which would be enormously disapproving. I like everything captainchaos contributes, so please ask cc. 6
Posted by danielj on Sat, 15 May 2010 12:50 | # Eh or Uh or whatever his name is. nocturnal Texan You’ve noticed this too? Guy is a vampire! 7
Posted by Armor on Sat, 15 May 2010 13:31 | # “I wouldn’t object if silver were unavailable.” If he accepts a phony invitation for an interview, maybe he could be captured and silenced for good! 9
Posted by Homer on Sat, 15 May 2010 14:32 | # Fred Scrooby Does he speak as eloquently as he writes? He’s the most brilliant writer on the Internet, perhaps in the history of the planet. 10
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 15 May 2010 16:28 | # Wintermute; Jonathan Bowden; a joint interview of PF and uh so that a stake can be driven through the black heart of the palingenetic vampire at last; NeoNietzsche; Tanstaafl; Harold Covington; Greg Johnson; “Red” Ken Livingston; David Cameron; Nick Griffin; Melanie Phillips; Bill Gates; Bill Clinton; Bill Kristol; Christopher Hitchens. 11
Posted by Tc on Sat, 15 May 2010 16:47 | # James Wesley, Rawles
12
Posted by Tc on Sat, 15 May 2010 17:34 | # Don’t you get it? For the Race to survive an incommunicable(unspeakable) disease, you don’t give them another disease - you give them the antidote: the tools. The survivors of the past pandemics didn’t know, what the disease was, where it came from, what was the best way to defend against it: they were utterly clueless. They simply survived it - through luck, skill, isolation, or whatever other means. The rest died off. Let the infected die. In fact help them to… 13
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 15 May 2010 18:25 | # Sunny Hundal, Sunder Katwala, our old chum OZY. Others of that ilk. 14
Posted by Tc on Sat, 15 May 2010 18:50 | # “...our old chum OZY. Others of that ilk….”
It is the same ol’ same ol’. You’ve been stuck in it. Where did it get Ya? Yeah, Glenn Miller is change, better believe it. He’s got nothing to lose, that he didn’t consider before. That has been his life: fuckin’ LOSS. I don’t know how he does it. You wanna be smart about it? Fuck off! We have had that, oodles, centuries, decades, and it leads to a black fuckin’ hole of no return. If You are not willing to fight, if You are looking for a political solution, if You are daydreaming, that the kikes are giving back the loot by some democratic vote, well, I will have to fuck You up as well. My fella rebels…:-) 15
Posted by jamesUK on Sat, 15 May 2010 19:14 | # Norman Lowell you have to have him on MR Radio to talk about his book and what he thinks of Dugins Eurasia movement. @Captainchaos Heres a video you might like. 16
Posted by VMV on Sat, 15 May 2010 19:39 | # Jonathan Bowden, and perhaps another interview with Norman Lowell( 2012 is a lot closer now, I’d like to know if he still fervently believes the Imperium will begin then). 17
Posted by Tc on Sat, 15 May 2010 19:43 | # Certainly: First and foremost I recommend the above mentioned by me site. The owner-operator runs mindless from suggestions, that he even perceives race implications as an issue in the logistics of the works. It would provide a priceless contrast to reality. Not for me. Prolly not for You, but for him and his mainly readers, since he is with both hands fighting off the accusations, that his website is ....gulp…racist…
As a definition, I am a killer of all, that hinders me in this pursuit. It is that simple - an that is why I - despite participating in MR - have no further interest in it. It has served it’s(and is doing that) purpose. Helped me out of my slumber in some aspects, but offers no solution. In fact it begs for one if I understand correctly. Isn’t the current questionnaire proof enough??? Well, I have one…solution of sorts…‘course, will have to put some gloves on…
What I suggest is separation - from the XX century on the basis of the XXI in terms of technology, sociology…and certainly biology. I cannot collaborate much more regarding my principles on a public sheet. Think! 18
Posted by Tc on Sat, 15 May 2010 20:14 | # You welcome Ivan. I read You, and wish, with all my heart You were right in Your sarcasm. 19
Posted by Griffinwatch on Sat, 15 May 2010 20:19 | # F.Y.I.
21
Posted by Tc on Sat, 15 May 2010 21:18 | # Anything else I can do for You? Except urging You to get ready for the fight of Your life both physically and technologically? There is no there sphere, that interests me in your conversation -except: Glenn Miller, Jim Giles, - anyone, who are unapologetically racist. Those are MY peeps. In case You happen to tag along - fine. Behave. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 15 May 2010 21:27 | # Ivan, You are a guest in my house. Guests generally make an effort to accomodate themselves to their surroundings. Here, that means they do not behave like low-IQ bores. If you are able to contribute productively to the kind of discussion we have here, you are a welcome guest. But Soren has already been forced to take action against you on another thread, and now I see you are set on causing trouble again. That is not going to continue. Shape up, please, or get out. The choice is yours. 24
Posted by Tc on Sat, 15 May 2010 22:21 | # Well, sure chap, why the hell not? I was thinkin’ about it anyways. But just so You understand, I’ma not cheap: I’m frugal…:-) 25
Posted by Tc on Sat, 15 May 2010 22:53 | # Have traveled back a few decades on account of the expenditures of a televitz set - and programme. Mabbe I’ma freak, but as far as remember, I have only payed for the programming for about six months in California for satellite. Middle of nineties. Years back. Years. The net was getting underway - I never looked back. Never bought a tv set, ever - yet always had a big-screen. After the Cali quake someone gave me a flat panel big-screen to bring out the rest of his belongings from his house. Money - has never been my vehicle. Here we come to some of the essentials: we are fighting peeps, who do all - at least in their minds - for embetering humanity, while WE here are committed to insulate ourselves from the golden horde… Who is the blessed? In the long term? No, don’t answer, those questions are for private consideration. 29
Posted by PF on Sat, 15 May 2010 23:40 | # Wandrin 30
Posted by BGD on Sat, 15 May 2010 23:43 | # Lot of good suggestions above. Outside the tent how about someone like Sean Gabb? Sympathetic to our concerns but combative and with his own ideological viewpoints that don’t generally follow those expressed here. Likely to be some interesting moments.. 32
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:03 | # What I’d really like to hear is Guessedworker discussing paganism or Europe’s religion and culture before Christianity. In interview with Alex Linder he had some very good points about the topic and I wish he said more. Guessedworker sounds like he can discuss the topic without letting it devolve into a Christianity-vs-Paganism flamewar. Our old culture was defeated by Christianity, and Christianity has proven itself unable to defend against the rise of liberalism. Why the trend? Why can’t Europeans defend their own culture? 33
Posted by BGD on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:10 | # Per Sam Davidson’s suggestion, or James C. Russell’s take on that topic (following on from his interesting but controversial Germanisation of Christianity book..) 34
Posted by FB on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:15 | # I don’t think my willingness to collaborate with Right-wing Jews would suit GW’s Weltanschauung, uh. It could just be too upsetting. 35
Posted by Gussie Fink-Nottle on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:16 | # Yes, Silver would be very interesting. We could play “Count the Mendacious Lies”! Will he flip out and call Guessedworker scum? Think of the drama!
36
Posted by FB on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:32 | # I’m not a neo-conservative and I don’t promote neo-conservatism, this seems very difficult for MR’s legions of anti-Semites to understand. Gussie has fantasized his own ideological approach, but has no clue what mine is. 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:43 | # Four votes for Jonathan Bowden then, so far, and three for Wintermute (but I strongly suspect he would decline - pity), and three also for Friedrich (but he would decline too, I believe). A friend has suggested in an email that those who do not wish to exercise their vocal chords could opt instead for a written interview, and I will offer that to them. Meanwhile, keep the names coming, please. I’ll start giving some thought to contacting JB. To BGD: Matt would be Soren’s interviewee, and they have done a couple of recordings I think. They live in the same city and they are friends. Sean Gabb would be a very good choice. He’s quite an adventurous and unorthodox character, and he has pretty good instincts. He might be willing to give it a go. sirrealpolitik is perhaps another suited better to Soren’s style. I have the feeling that we have not seen the whole story with sirreal. We should always bear in mind, though, that some people like to write and are not incredible keen to be pushed into the spotlight, and that will certainly be true of some MR commenters. If sirreal or anyone else feels they want to give it a go, they are very welcome to contact me or Soren. Jared Taylor and Paul Fromm are good suggestions from Friedrich. HW seems to have his hands full at the moment. Fred will not be tempted. He likes doing exactly what he is already doing, and I can’t blame him for that. Harold’s thoughtful suggestion of Razib Khan is sweet but I think I’ll have to pass on that one. I’m banned from GNXP, as I recall. PF should consider interviewing uh himself, but the latter might want to come up with another name. Anything but er or um will do. Wandrin should be writing for us. If he’s interested in that, he can mail me. Same for trainspotter, but he knows that. Dan will, I hope, have a crack at producing his own podcasts in time. We missed a chance to do a live two-hander for the GE in Britain. But there’ll be another one soon! A conversation between NeoNietzsche and our friend Grimoire would be a peach, though the latter is German, of course, and English-language radio may not be his preferred medium. To Sam Davidson: Someone whom one might choose to discuss that issue would be Troy Southgate. Troy has declined my invitation in the past, but might be tempted by the prospect of such a conversation. It’s worth thinking about. I prefer that to a conversation with one of the Christians because we have the Christian case made on these pages pretty regularly, and more is likely to be forthcoming from DanielJ in due course. I do not know Glenn Miller or Varg Vikernes. I will check them out, and anyone else I have not mentioned here. 38
Posted by Claymore on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:48 | # I know James Bowery has been on a few times already, but it would be interesting to hear him with someone well-versed on scientific matters that could match his knowledge and expertise. Perhaps someone like “n/a” of the Race/History/Evolution Notes blog. 39
Posted by FB on Sun, 16 May 2010 00:57 | # Marc Lemire could be a very good choice. Nobody has done more to advance the cause of free speech in Canada than this courageous individual. I think he would make a very good interviewee. 40
Posted by remnant on Sun, 16 May 2010 01:04 | # Jeff Gates Dr. James Chatters; Dr. Dennis Stanford 42
Posted by danielj on Sun, 16 May 2010 03:37 | #
I’m working on it. 44
Posted by John on Sun, 16 May 2010 04:01 | # Any chance of getting Glenn Miller as he is running for office and his campaign has caused quite a stir in the American jew media. 45
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 16 May 2010 04:05 | # Interviews: Svigor Tanstaafl Wintermute
46
Posted by Homer on Sun, 16 May 2010 04:35 | # People who should not be interviewed (for now): Jared Taylor Why? They’re interviewed often and should be left alone unless have new announcement. Especially Jared Taylor. He merely repeats the AmRen basic talking points, in a very controlled manner. He doesn’t go off-topic, which is fine as a spokesman to the outside world but no good for an interview. 47
Posted by graham_lister on Sun, 16 May 2010 05:31 | # Hi GW, If you do interview JB could you ask him on his views on Geert Wilders and other trends on the European right such as Vlaams Belang? I only ask as Wilders seems to be able to draw upon much more middle class support (an absolutely vital strata for any political party). It seems to me that broadly a party with “cultural nationalism” as it base public propaganda/ideological framework is a far more sellable product politically than anything we may have in the UK. Additionally within the context of “cultural nationalism” it seems one can be far more subtle, flexible and oppurtunistic with regards framing public discourse whilst undermining liberal orthodoxies. I mentioned Vlaams Belang as well as someone like Roger Scruton is happy to be associated with them and give speeches to their members. Obviously that would not be the case in the UK and I’d be interested in JB’s views on how to broaden support for the radical right. 48
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 16 May 2010 07:02 | # Homer - where/when does Yggdrasil get interviewed regularly? 49
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 16 May 2010 09:15 | # My votes (for persons you might actually be able to get) would be for: Derek Turner (on BNP, Britain generally) Steve Sailer (racial demographics and US political future) Tomislav Sunic (European New Right) Srdja Trifkovic (on Islam, situation in Balkans) Alain de Benoist (wow! - but would he?) Claude Polin (legacy of French Rev, relation to racial Jacobinism) Roger McGrath (Old West truths) Roger Scruton (Mr. Erudite Conservative - what does he really think of modern Britain, esp viz race?) But what are your preferred topics? I would try to get intelligent experts, even if they are not nationalists or even necessarily conservatives. The point would be to learn from them while challenging them to confront truths about race, identity, secularism, Europe’s future, terrorism, growth of global mafias/gangs, collapse of West, etc. 50
Posted by BNP FOREVER on Sun, 16 May 2010 10:00 | # JONATHAN BOWDEN!! JONATHAN BOWDEN!! JONATHAN BOWDEN!! JONATHAN BOWDEN!! JONATHAN BOWDEN!! JONATHAN BOWDEN!! JONATHAN BOWDEN!! JONATHAN BOWDEN!! 51
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 May 2010 11:36 | # Graham, I will see what can be done with Jonathan Bowden. We could discuss culture. But I don’t think he is a cultural nationalist himself, and I suspect he would say that a party with “cultural nationalism at its base” would, once in power, not do what must be done. On the other hand, a cultural bias in discourse (but not in foundational principle) is tolerable if it gets around legal issues and helps the prisoners of the zeitgeist to come, little by little, to the light. But to have meaning and utility for us at this moment in history, nationalism must pump real blood, not stories and symbols, through its heart. Leon, Interesting list, Benoist excepted. He and Tom Sunic made a poor two-part interview at VoR quite recently. His “novel restatement of fascism”, as his Wikipedia entry charmingly puts it, really is cultural nationalism, and looks to me to have been left behind by history. I think he has been living off his reputation as the anti-liberal enfant terrible of French 1960s radicalism for too long. He has served his purpose, which was important in its time but transitional in nature. He saved the anti-liberal right from its obviously suicidal fixation with 1930s Germany and the revolt against Jewish ethno-aggression. But he has little or nothing of value to say to us today. Roger Scruton I would love to interview, largely to unpeel the limits of his right-wing sensibilities and to see what, if anything really, he is willing to contemplate by way of action to save his people. But I think he would be very puzzled as to who we are, and why he should waste his time on us. Trifkovic would probably have to be a subject for someone else. I am a poor student of the Islam Question, and I doubt if I could do him justice. Likewise, Steve Sailer who would be a much better subject for James to interview. I thought Derek Turner had retired into a more politically sedentary life. What is he doing now? Polin and McGrath I know very little of and need to check out. Thank you for the suggestion. Have you thought about interviewing these people yourself? I would be very happy to discuss that with you, if you like. Homer, I feel sure that we would not conduct an interview of Jared Taylor in his comfort zone. MacDonald would likely not be willing to be interviewed by us, given his connection to A3P. I would, though, like to know whether he is as narrowly focussed intellectually as he appears. Daniel, I am in regular touch with Dasein and we have discussed an interview, but he may prefer to interview other people himself, especially people with a scientific bent. I know that at the moment he is busy working with somebody well known to us on a specific problem, namely the measuring of genetic structure. Lurker, Svi and Tan are interesting possibilities. I had not thought of either. I will do that link today, btw. Don’t think the suggestions aren’t appreciated - I’m just very, very busy. 52
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 16 May 2010 12:18 | # How about Guillaume Faye, and in specific relation to his thesis in The Convergence of Catastrophe. Thats who I would like to hear most and on that topic. 53
Posted by GriffinWatch on Sun, 16 May 2010 12:54 | # Jonathon Bowden. Probably one of the best speakers in Britain, educated, succint and very knowledgable. 54
Posted by BNP FOREVER on Sun, 16 May 2010 13:06 | # JONATHAN BOWDEN IS THE KING. Here’s another idea, though: ARTHUR KEMP!! ARTHUR KEMP!! ARTHUR KEMP!! ARTHUR KEMP!! ARTHUR KEMP!! ARTHUR KEMP!! ARTHUR KEMP!! ARTHUR KEMP!!
55
Posted by Armor on Sun, 16 May 2010 13:34 | #
If Jews support race-replacement whereas WNs oppose it, I don’t understand why you don’t understand the objection among some WNs to “Jews joining.” John Tyndall had written a great text on the subject. 56
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 16 May 2010 14:19 | # Lee, Last I heard, Faye had gone a bit Freidrich-like. Now, our Breton nationalist Armor interviewing Faye en Anglais - though would be something. BNP FOREVER, Arthur Kemp is possible for the future, but not so soon after talking with Lee. 57
Posted by Armor on Sun, 16 May 2010 14:35 | # Thank you, Guessedworker. I am honored to be considered as a potential interviewer. I wish I had the requisite skills. 58
Posted by Griffinwatch on Sun, 16 May 2010 14:42 | # http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.com/2010/05/laptop-scam-and-spying.html 59
Posted by Englander on Sun, 16 May 2010 14:55 | # Since it appears that a tally of votes is being kept, I’ll add one for Jonathan Bowden. Are you sure, GW, that you can get half of these people whose names you seem to be considering? 61
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 16 May 2010 17:35 | # Those within our circles: Svigor - one of the more original racialist thinkers Tanstaafl - great attention to detail re: JQ; has a talent for turning the antifa arguments around ‘Uh’ - I’d be curious to hear more of his personal perspective as he has gained notoriety mostly for his critiques of racialism NeoNietzsche (has been silent of late) - I like GW’s NN/Grimoire idea but NN has enough material to do a solo interview easily CC - make sure to go heavy on the Rockwell style I’d say Scrooby too but GW says it won’t happen. Maybe Dan Dare but for some reason I doubt he would do it. Silver might be interesting for an opposing viewpoint, as he is a fairly aggressive arguer. Just for a start. 62
Posted by Armor on Sun, 16 May 2010 17:39 | # Fred: “acquiring additional land for itself by means of Eurosphere Land Clearances analagous to the Highland Land Clearances of 1700s Scotland, the Moslems as the sheep in Europe and the Mexicans in North America, in both places the Euro races taking the place of the crofters.” That’s a clever (and funny) comparison ! 63
Posted by FB on Sun, 16 May 2010 20:19 | # Q is more lucid than all of MR’s posters put together. His “novel restatement of fascism”, as his Wikipedia entry charmingly puts it, really is cultural nationalism, and looks to me to have been left behind by history. Of course, ethnic nationalism in today’s France would get him a stiff fine and/or a prison sentence. Even cultural nationalism is risky business as the prosecution of Wilders illustrates. It’s always fun and easy to call other people cowards while using a pseudonym on a blog hosted in the U.S. and steadfastly coming up with excuses for refusing to enter practical politics in your home country. 64
Posted by FB on Sun, 16 May 2010 21:39 | # That must be why Guillaume Faye is sitting in jail right now as we speak.
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=162 I find self-hating Jews particularly annoying. 65
Posted by FB on Sun, 16 May 2010 21:46 | #
Larry Auster, but GW burned that bridge a long time ago. I don’t know why any Jew would grant GW an interview. 66
Posted by Armor on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:08 | # “ethnic nationalism in today’s France would get him a stiff fine and/or a prison sentence.” (—FB) If so, the time that cannot be spent arguing for racial nationalism should be spent denouncing Jewish nationalism, Jewish nepotism, and Jewish discrimination against non-Jews in politics, the media, and public institutions. There isn’t enough discussion about that. 67
Posted by PF on Mon, 17 May 2010 00:20 | #
Someone said this at Amren. Its interesting because trying to understand it may highlight the divide between certain concepts.. Taking the definition of nation that we hold to, i.e. blood-related group, which for europeans coalesced into these super-tribes called nations… Seen from this angle, the actual default position of our governments is that we form new nations. To maintain the country post-mass-immigration without erecting barriers of exclusiveness is to form new nations by merging and mixing with foreigners. This is what they want us to do: keep the country, and conceive a new nation, in the name of the country. We are supposed to have so much respect for our laws, our customs, geography, and the government, that we mix our blood with anything to further the existence of these abstract non-entities. The commentator above means precisely the opposite of this, however. He means essentially this: form new countries, by reverting to our old nations. Withdraw into communities, erect barriers in culture and in life, and start to do what people are already all doing by default - carving up the high-trust universal-access-to-public-goods high-social-capital reality that was our old res publica into the ‘neighborhoods’ and enclaves which don’t yet have their own flags, but where people have taken the audacious step of no longer speaking with the Other. The first step of many. Interesting that we still think a nation is defined by things like language and cuisine (i.e. we are our kitsch). We are our kitsch, and if you really insist, we are our idols. Which is to say no critical mass of people exists with the awareness to appreciate the phenomenon occuring beneath these outward secondary phenomena. This is probably both a problem of articulation - i.e. people actually understand viscerally but cannot say, and then a problem resulting from the degraded communication - i.e. people do not understand because no one else can tell them. It may be representative of the fact that human beings didn’t evolve to think about things at high levels of complexity, nor to perceive subtleties, yet the requisite thinking on this topic requires them to do both. Often people will look at this theoretical framework of nationalism proposed here, recognize the marked absence of verbal symbols corresponding to things with social meaning attached (where are the idols? where is the kitsch? what can I get a hold on here?) and draw the conclusion that nothing else exists beyond some preference for blue-eyed friends and neighbors. It would mean one isn’t aware of the instincts and feelings of kinship and togetherness which don’t require philosophically verified symbol sets to trigger them. It would also mean that realities which do not have a verified presence yet in our thought-world, i.e. cannot be argued on paper, are taken as non-existent because they cannot be argued for. Imagine ‘The Selfish Gene’/‘Extended Phenotype’/EGI/Genetic-Similarity-Theory all had not yet been discovered. Imagine Putnam’s research had never been conducted. Would these things then have a voice? Yet is our present knowledge on these topics representative of the whole reality, or is there more that has not been discovered? I wonder if it can even be said that nationalism exists in European thinking. Apparently marching armies of men beneath flags is enough to convince some that this thing has existed. But look at the unclean conceptual hands we use to get a hold of this thing, and one can realize that every form of nationalism previously existing has been in some sense ‘culturalist’, and/or focused on some form of grand dreaming on the part of its authors. There was no way for humans to approach this massively complex reality without being inveigled into embracing external markers as significant and overcoming the desire for a stirring image of self, or for beautiful imaginary conceptual symmetry in whatever form (nova roma, rebirth of virtue by diktat, realizing God’s purpose, etc.). I see that Asians accomplish tribalism by emotion and instinct, which then informs their culture. For us, who rely by nature less on these things, it is much harder to be tribalist, since we are querying a thought-apparatus for knowledge of an entity which we are not evolved to perceive, it being a part of the background. Tribal life enclosed us throughout evolutionary history like water for fish, its nearly impossible not to take it as a given in all sorts of ways. Therefore accomplishing the perspective shift that can name what a nation is without also simultaneously describing “my cr4zy dr34ms” as a property of the phenomenon - is something so rare, and so hard to give a social presence. To describe this phenomenon as it really exists - without idols pretending to justify it and all sorts of kitsch wrapping stuck to it - and thus provide an intellectual basis for European man to conceptualize what is for all others (and also us) an instinctive, primal reality - and thus give it a presence in European man’s intellectualized universe, bringing his belly into harmony with his head by giving the latter the power to speak what the former can feel, it seems we would have done something useful. This is my understanding of what ontological nationalism means. 68
Posted by PF on Mon, 17 May 2010 02:40 | # http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-david-simon-project-to-investigate-happy-upper,17426/ hilarious onion piece! 69
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 17 May 2010 03:34 | # Contra FB: There is no reason Jews cannot come out in support of our right to exist and attendantly in support of the necessary conditions to secure survival. Paul Gottfried, liberated to speak more freely at the new venue afforded to him in Alternative Right, has effectively done just that. Brother Nathanial Kapner, though he has repudiated his Jewishness in about as strong a manner as is possible to do, does it. There is no reason whatever, if these be individuals of Jewish descent that with justice we can call friends, would not give voice to their solidarity with us in this profoundly moral pursuit. If they will not openly declare their unshakable fealty to resistance to our destruction, they are ipso facto no friends of ours. If we are to treat Jewish individuals as friends, then let them truly be our friends. What is there, in the end, for them to lose. If the White is not above all others imbued with honor, then none are. Honorably men do not betray their friends. 70
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 03:38 | # I’d like to hear GW interview either Jonathan Bowden or PF (in that order). 71
Posted by Armor on Mon, 17 May 2010 03:52 | # Re: TOQ 72
Posted by FB on Mon, 17 May 2010 03:57 | # Off topic: anyone know why toqonline.com went dormant three weeks ago? (I’ve been assuming Greg Johnson is on vacation or something?) TOQ fired Greg Johnson, so I assume he decided to take his ball and go elsewhere. I must say that it was a good and wise decision, although made too late. Not only were the issues of TOQ constantly, chronically behind schedule but he was much too much visible online. I don’t object to his personal enthusiasm for all things German and National Socialist, but why did he insist in make it public [under his name]? A man with the status as editor of a White Nationalist journal should know better and cultivate a degree of discretion, since any overt association of White Nationalism with National Socialism is highly toxic and counterproductive. Hence, he was not only inefficient or derelict in his professional duties but also showed poor judgment. Firing offences, both. 73
Posted by Neverwinter on Mon, 17 May 2010 04:37 | # Please interview Sir Norman Lowell who hails from Malta. 74
Posted by Neverwinter on Mon, 17 May 2010 04:55 | # @Fred Scrooby 75
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 17 May 2010 06:33 | # The Chinese in Malaysia would never have been allowed to be “invasive” in such population numbers if the Malays had been in charge of immigration to their own homeland. The vast influx of Chinese came during British colonial times when the UK decided that Malaya possessed serious economic potential provided that Western technological modernity could be both imposed and combined with cheap labour. The Malays, small farmers and fishermen, mainly, refused to tap rubber or mine tin for almost nugatory wages so the Indian rubber tappers and Chinese tin miners were imported. Also, the Chinese minority members in Malaysia do not display the same, culture - altering, anti - host behaviour as Jews do in the West. 76
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 17 May 2010 07:55 | #
There are three reasons: 1. Greg Johnson experiences a high emotional resonance with his conception of National Socialism that is aesthetic in character. 2. He realizes that there is much of National Socialism that commends itself to the survival of our race. 3. Greg Johnson is aware that eventually National Socialism, both as actually, historically incarnated, and in the abstract, will eventually have to be faced square on. Accordingly, it should be asked, what is true of National Socialism, both as actually, historically incarnated and in the abstract (assuming there can even be such a thing)? My provisional answer: An ad hoc ideological construction which facilitated the maximization of the authority of Adolf Hitler to pursue those means he deemed necessary, flowing from his deeply visceral and only partially intellectually grasped awareness of the pursuit of EGI, to sweep mightily away all obstacles preventing the survival of our race and to build a lasting order consistent with the survival of our race. That were National Socialism historically triumphant I think it is not arguable that the former would have been accomplished, that the latter would have been achieved I think is doubtful - though the slate would have been cleared for the latter.
At present, the theoretical frameworks you enumerate lead to the clear inference of “it”, whatever precisely that is, being functionally existent, though a known-unknown. What I take it you mean by “it” is some kind of instinctual will to life, to the genetic continuity, to the propagation of the essential of what we are. I don’t know that a human kinds module with its attendant affinity for ‘us’ and disaffinity for ‘them’ fully fits that bill.
But what precisely is that “entity?” Is the ‘we’, the ‘us’, as opposed to ‘them’, that “entity?” Or is “it,” that less than satisfactory, at least by our lights, will to ‘our’ life that “entity?”
We must face the possibility that what is sensed by us, cannot be sensed by them, in which case, we are left with constructing a ghost in the machine in order to manipulate them to satisfy what are our more strongly expressed instincts. Your “glyphs.” That being the case, all those Krauts did indeed burn for nothing. 78
Posted by fellist on Mon, 17 May 2010 09:09 | # Several of Bruce Charlton’s interests overlap with MR’s issues. Same reasons for James P. Hogan, Peter Myers, and Anna Bramwell. All are likely able to overcome PC hurdles to talking with MR. Known-friendly: Ron McVan. H. Millard. Troy Southgate. The guys who put together Voice of Reason Radio, a great model of independent, collaborative revolutionary-normal media. Same goes, ‘One Third of the Holocaust’. Macrobius. Frank. Frank Ellis. Svigor. Ted Sallis. More Bowery, I was disappointed when the talk of a regular spot at VNN came to nought. 79
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 09:39 | # I see the issue has once again become the role and power of Jews, Jewish intellectuals and Jewish groups in our non-society. Once again people cannot see the wood for the trees. The reason why our white non-society has allowed ethnic groups of all race and religions to acquire power over us is because we have failed to organise as an ethnic community in order to ensure our interests as an ethnic group are dominant in our society. It is the failure of nationalists and nationalism to understand that dialectic and dynamic of multi-culturalism, and put in place political and community strategies that allow us to organise and represent our interests as a race and as ethnic groups, which has allowed ethnic communities to exploit the vacuum we have created. Any ethnic minority group that organises legal, community and lobby groups in the multi-cultural system will always be far more powerful in that society than any ethnic majority group who are divided on the grounds of politics, economic, class etc etc. It is our failure to organise as communities to defend our social interests in our countries that has allowed other ethnic groups to take power in our society. Instead of whining all the time about the power of the Jews, we should be copying EXACTLY how the Jews, blacks, sikhs, hindus etc etc all organise their communities. Only when we stop fighting amongst ourselves over politics, economics, class etc and just start to establish our own groups that operate as autonomous nationalist groups in society each pushing towards the same goal - A UNITY OF PURPOSE - will we win our countries back. The longer people attack the Jews instead of studying what the Jews have achieved and then copying them, the longer we will continue to lose power. Learn from the Jews - only morons attack those who have demonstrated their success. Copy them, dont attack them. 80
Posted by fellist on Mon, 17 May 2010 10:07 | # Even before the recent intervention of the EHRC and courts, the BNP had a policy of respecting ‘Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state’ including the necessary discrimination that entails against the English, Scots and Welsh. Yet at the same time, and while discriminating against all other asian peoples, the BNP welcomed Jews into the party. It’s silly and dishonest, Lee, to attack others for responding to the ‘power of the Jews,’ and to try and pretend Jews are just another minority, when the BNP clearly recognises the special position of Jews in the ‘dynamic of multiculturalism’ and our political appeals for ‘autonomous nationalist’ development. 81
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 May 2010 10:30 | # CC, You were asked by PF some weeks ago to list the formal aspects of NS that were of utility today, but I am not aware that you replied. Would you do so now, please. 82
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 11:03 | # Even before the recent intervention of the EHRC and courts, the BNP had a policy of respecting ‘Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state’ including the necessary discrimination that entails against the English, Scots and Welsh. Yet at the same time, and while discriminating against all other asian peoples, the BNP welcomed Jews into the party. It’s silly and dishonest, Lee, to attack others for responding to the ‘power of the Jews,’ and to try and pretend Jews are just another minority, when the BNP clearly recognises the special position of Jews in the ‘dynamic of multiculturalism’ and our political appeals for ‘autonomous nationalist’ development.
I note that the anti-semites that say ’ The poor palestinians in Israel who had their land stolen from them by the Jews’ never talk about ’ the poor Native American Indians in America who had their land stolen from by the Europeans’. That double standard says a lot doesnt it. 2) I have never seen Israel ‘discriminate against the english, scots and welsh’ - I wonder how they can do that when Israel is in the Middle East and Britain and the english, welsh, scots are in Northern Europe ? 3) Err it may come as a surprise to you, but the majority of Jews in Britain are British and most of them are assimilated into British culture. The Israel Dual Nationality Jews that live in Britain and who support Israel over Britain and also the Orthodox Jews who live apart in their own communities DO NOT JOIN THE BNP. The only Jews that join the BNP are British Nationalists who want to live in Britain with a British culture - whilst the Asians in Britain are primarily colonists who want to impose Islamic culture on us rather than assimilate. You silly little man.
The retards are anti-semites, the leaders of the future nationalism are prepared to learn from the Jews. 5) The Jews are people we should learn from. The fact they have organised their community, and kept their ethnic and communal loyalty intact in the multi-cultural process, means they have learnt the secret of how to manipulate multi-culturalism for their own benefit. The retards just want to attack the Jews for being brighter, more succesful and better organised than we are. The retards think anti-semitism is a positive force in our society. Every anti-semite is an idiot and usually working for the system itself - as anti-semites merely empower the system to pass ever more laws to clamp down on free speech and political organisation. Anti-semites must be removed from the movement and relegated to the status of morons and losers amongst our ranks. The day that Kevin McDonald writes a book for the Nationalist Movement that acts as a template for community activism and political and cultural activism which is based on the strategies of the Jewish community, is the day Nationalism will take off as a movement. The point is not to just diagnose the disease, the point is to offer a cure. The disease is multi-culturalism, the Jewish model of ethno-activism and ethno-communalist politics is the solution to our communities disenfranchisment. But hey why bother thinking right, when you can hate. An Europeans mind is not designed to hate, it is designed to think. Those Europeans that hate are rejecting the greatest gift Nature gave us, the ability to out think our opponents. But retards love hate as it makes them feel big, whilst in fact they are small, stupid, little people who are poison to our political and social advancement. 83
Posted by john on Mon, 17 May 2010 11:42 | # Bishop Williamson: http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2010/05/interview-with-bp-richard-williamson.html Andrew Fraser - when will his book be published? Some liberals, just for fun. 84
Posted by john on Mon, 17 May 2010 11:45 | # Andrew Fraser Bishop Williamson:http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2010/05/interview-with-bp-richard-williamson.html And some liberals. 85
Posted by BGD on Mon, 17 May 2010 12:26 | # Lee, As per the above are you saying that Jewish groups in this country are above criticism? That we can’t point out the promotion, design and passing of some of the laws restricting our right to argue against our usurpation (plus the inference that to do so is in some way illegal) frequently comes with a heavy contribution by Jewish steering groups, the drafting by Jewish hands, promotion in Jewish owned MSM and the passing in many cases by Jewish Home Secretaries? That it is wrong to make people aware of the J ethnic element behind some pressure groups, the J ethnic elements behind Blair and Brown, their advisors, party funders etc? Are these off limits because they are wrong or because it’s not politics. Obviously it’s not the whole story and with Ivor Benson (I think it was??) it’s right to point out that it is our failings as the prime mover in this situation but… Zionism is not pure nationalism. It has become arguably a form of hidden Imperialism - pace control of certain sectors of the US effectively directed by Jewish lobby groups and backed by J media. as the world’s (current) main superpower this determines in large part resource distribution and global geopolitics and is a strong reason why our boys are currently serving and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and the same sources are currently trying to engineer similar in Iran as well as problems such as why our national debt has spiralled out of control and whatever the inhabitants of this island are in a hundred years they’ll still be servicing the interest on the debt unless something changes. And the actions of the Zionist government if repeated in our own country (say we move the immigrant population here to the Isle of Wight and have sniper towers every 200 yards) would fast get us some very negative repercussions. We weren’t around during the colonisation of the US and the scramble for the colonies generally so had no hand in it. They were decisions taken by a different class to most of us and were decisions taken and executed even before the advent of universal suffrage. A different ethic / mindset existed then and some of the bitter fruits of that earlier mindset (slavery in the US, South Africa etc) has contributed its own source of problems to our present situation. Therefore you are juxtaposing something that is a historical entry over which we had (and really still have) no control with something that’s ongoing. And this without getting into the arguments of whether the colonists of the Americas or Australasia have any defence to make. Surely the J element can be discussed soberly and within its proper context in a wider picture without it being assumed that you are unfurling the hakenkreuz and yes it’s unwise (and wrong) to argue that all roads lead back to Israel (or Jews) and that our salvation is not wholly in our own hands. 86
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 12:44 | # Where have I ever said ‘Jews’ are beyond criticism - nowhere thats where. Nationalists, Jews, Blacks, Sikhs, Raelians, Scientologists, Muslims, Christians should all be criticised when they deserve it - but anti-semitism is not criticism is it. As for the race laws - it was a Parliament composed of 100 % WHITE BRITISH INDIGENOUS TRAITORS that passed those laws from Parliamentary bills into legal acts in law by voting for them, and it is our people, police and CPS that prosecute people under those laws. Blaming the jews for the race laws being passed into law is not just wrong, it is dumb. It makes us appear like feeble minded stupid children and also means that the traitors amongst us who have betrayed our nations can argue ‘hey man it werent me , it was the jews’. Fuck no - the traitors amongst us are primarily responsible for our plight, and I will not let them escape the day of judgement by them simply saying ‘ze jews made me do it’ or ‘it werent me, sniff, sniff, it was the jews that did it’. Fuck no - they will pay for THEIR crimes one day. I have not said that making people aware of the role of Jews in politics / economics / education etc is wrong nor that we should not do so - I believe that as they spend an inordinate amount of time boasting about their power as a community, so they should be ready to be outed as having that power when it is justified. Those that play the race card, should expect to have the race card played back at them when they abuse their powers or position and get caught out. They have to take the criticism with the praise when they deserve it - but that is not anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews for being Jews, and that is just pathetic. You obviously do not read my blog as you will see that I am the most vocal opponent of Zionist Imperialism in Israel, America and the UK in nationalist politics. Ian Dale even had a pop at me the other week about it - I just dont tolerate the madness of anti-semitism thats all. I despise Zionist Imperialism both in Israel and also the agents of Zionism in our media, economic and political systems, but I support Israels right to exist as a nation. I despise Islamism and the idea of the Global Caliphate and the Islamist colonists in the UK, but I support the right of Muslim nations to run their nations as they see fit. 87
Posted by BGD on Mon, 17 May 2010 13:00 | # OK thanks for the clarification. It seems we agree on this and so apologies for any misinterpretation. I’m not sure there are any here that hate Jews as Jews. The fact that the corrupt and debased drecks that are fed up through the party system to occupy the HoP are due for their 15 minutes of fame on the gallows (Deo volente) is unarguable. And I do read your blog.. 88
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 17 May 2010 13:40 | # Lee John Barnes: I am in substantial agreement with your longish post above, and in the past at MR I have said some similar things. I would note, as someone who is more correctly termed an Occidentalist than a racist or white nationalist (though of course I’ve been called racist for decades, and my ‘racism’ - actually, racial honesty plus racial conservatism - repeatedly has gotten me banned from many leading “conservative” blog sites), that I am primarily concerned with the survival of the (pure) white race as the recognized foundation of Western Civ. I am also ruthlessly pragmatic and not romantic in my analyses, though my personality runs to “romantic Occidentalism”. As such, I constantly think about Tomorrow, even while doing what I can today to add my voice, activism and sometimes money to the cause of our people. Thus, in wanting to save the West, I will consider the plausibility of any tactics, from Christian extreme pro-natalism (eg, The “Quiverfull” movement) to nationalist party activism to guerilla warfare, that could serve the cause. But I try to do so with jaundiced eye, always focused on what might really work, as opposed to what I merely wish would work. I mention all this only as background to my agreeing with you on the vital need for psychologically stable and emotionally mature white preservationists to learn from the Jews, specifically, to discover and emulate the mechanisms by which they have been enabled to maintain a high degree of ethnic purity and cultural cohesiveness despite existing for millenia in Diaspora. That is an amazing and very possibly unique achievement! Unfortunately, diaspora may be the impending condition of Western Man (unless enough of us follow the advice I suggested in earlier comments to another post, and emigrate-to-demographically-conquer an independent country). It breaks my heart to say this, but before very long the white race may find itself without majority control of any nation, a minority in all its traditional homelands. While I believe, for reasons I have written about elsewhere, that such a condition would not last forever, but would eventually result in the extermination of the last remaining whites, I may be wrong about that. If I am, then the great danger to the preservation of white civilization would come from miscegenation and/or even just cultural absorption into hegemonic alien cultures. Think of the so-called hip-hop loving “wiggers”: are they white? Yes they are, as race is at bottom a biological reality. But are they Western (that is, are they bearers into the future of European civilization)? Not at all. If whites are to become minorities in all polities they reside in, and if their extermination is forestalled, then how will we avoid biological extinction-through-miscegenation? And for the Occidentalist who wishes to preserve European High Culture, how will we inoculate our people from assimilating to the demographically dominant races’ cultures (eg, as the number of Muslims in Europe continues to grow, the advantages to whites from embracing Islam will as well - how do we prevent that?). I suggest we study the Jews to see how they have maintained their psychological apartheid, even as they have simultaneously not only structurally assimilated to, but utterly mastered, many different systems of political economy. [Here I have to plug my continuing belief in the vital importance of our developing a Christian racialism (not the inanity of “Christian Identity”, which no theologically literate person could take seriously as doctrine), or, race-realistic and conservative Christianity. Clearly, the long survival of the Jews as a people is linked to their possession of a religion which fosters community cohesion and cultural memory. Religion, even if empirically false (not that I’m saying it is), is a basic and powerful feature of mankind. A movement or people or nation with religious underpinnings will far outlast secular competitors. That’s just the way of things. And for any type of white preservationist (historic nationalist, white nationalist, or Occidentalist) except Nazis, our only religious option is Christianity. Christianity is intellectually and empirically plausible in a way paganism is not and never will be (even to argue with this point would be to display a risible ignorance of the massive strength and depth of Christian theology, as against the paucity and piffle of what passes for pagan theory). And Nazism will not take flight again in large numbers, and not merely because of the seven decades’ worth of universal and relentless condemnation. Even genuine philosophical Nazis need to understand the intense historicity of their cause, and that the objective intellectual and historical conditions facilitating the rise of NS no longer exist, nor ever will.] 89
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 May 2010 13:58 | # Lee, In our interview I steered away from this issue of what is Nationalism and what is merely Nativism, but it needs to be grasped - at least by us. Nativism and Nationalism are not the same. Nativism is the instinct for collective life. It does not need to be described. It is, or should be, in us all. We know it, and we worry continually why our brothers around us do not also know it. It is, therefore, what informs the activists of all popular movement, including the British National Party, and it is a fine and natural thing, to be sure. But Nationalism is not that. It is (or would be if it really existed) an explicit, over-arching philosophy which directly opposes, and seeks to replace, the over-arching philosophy which is liberalism, under which we suffer today. That is to say, Nationalism is a macro-revolutionary philosophical system. It has the characteristics of a machine rather than an instinct (like Nativism’s perfectly organic instinct). Remove one idea from it and its traction and utility is diminished. Reduce it by one foundational principle, and it falls. Once a system of this category achieves a certain, viable mass of principles and ideas - all of which flow from an exposition of first cause - it extends downward via much intellectualisation into political ideology and policy formation. The whole is a process of emergence, and it takes time. It does not arrive in this world justified and ready to fight like Nativism, a real Athena who leapt fully-armed from the head of her father, Zeus. When we speak of Nationalism on this blog we are articulating the perception that Nativism is not enough of itself, and the philosophical void must be filled. This is what distinguishes MR from other Nationalist and Conservative media. This is why we debate Nativism, National Socialism and Christianity, and gesture in the direction of something tentatively named Ontological Nationalism, of which you might hear more later. Now, I know you will not agree with this analysis. You are, after all a Nationalist, and the BNP is a Nationalist party. But a compilation of very British traditions, values, opinions and analyses of social and economic history do not amount to the over-arching philosophy of which we speak. Philosophy is a specific animal. We cannot point to a few artifacts - physical, historical, traditional or cultural - and say “That is my Nationalism.” It doesn’t work that way when one’s real goal is to replace - replace not merely amend - the entire milieu in which we presently politick, think and live. 90
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:01 | # Interesting post Leon. I agree with most of what you say. My theory is that we must try everything we can re the methodology of racial survival all at the same time in order to ensure we exist and perpetuate ourselves. That means no more putting all our hopes on a political solution - we must engage at every level of activism from autonomous groups, religious groups, cultural etc we must embrace a totality of struggle united only by a UNITY OF PURPOSE as opposed to actual unification. I believe personally that all multi-racial societies collapse - and that we can learn this from nature herself with the bee ‘sudden colony collapse ’ disaster we are seeing today ; an audio link on my blog defines this theory here ; http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2010/05/bees-and-sudden-country-collapse.html All multi-racial societies throughout history from Rome, Egypt, The British Empire and the Soviet Union all collapsed and returned to their organic roots. Multi-racial Britain and America will go the same way, and then it is all down to who has the strognest Will To Power in the aftermath of the Fall itself. Therefore multi-cultural societies will collapse and then the reconquista can begin. The aim is to preserve what we can until the collapse occurs. I am sure Christianity will have a role in preserving our people, but I am also sure that a form of racially conscious paganism eg Odinism will also have as much of a role to play as well. There must be no more religious wars between whites, no more petty doctrinal schisms that lead to racial conflict - therefore the fundamentalists who preach division on the basis of religion amongst our people must be regarded as the inner enemy. We must work to regain control of the media as way to regain control of our culture. I have stated many times that the most important Nationalist since WW2 has been Silvio Belusconi. What he realised was that before you can change the nature of the culture of a people you must regain control of the media. A degenerate culture spawns a degenerate people. By controlling the Italian media he changed the culture of Italy and re-nationalised the country. When we have access to the media, or control our own nationalist media, we can disseminate nationalist memes into the minds of the people via media conditioning. In order to preserve our genes we must also disseminate memes. Therefore a totality of struggle targets all these areas at once - we create nationalist banks, credit unions, media outlets, cultural groups, political groups, community groups etc who are all independent of each other but which are all working towards the same goal.
In the meantime we engage at all levels of community activism, politics, culture etc to have cadres ready when the collapse begins. 91
Posted by Marlowe on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:02 | # Wintermute Representatives from: 92
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:18 | # GW, The role of Nationalism is to enact Nativism, which I define as Organic Nationalism. I believe that, as being defined now by the science of Cultural-Neuro Science, that genes and culture are linked and that the culture, economics, politics etc that will come after the creation of the Organic Nationalist State will arise naturally - and I also believe that by seeking to force that process prematurely by seeking to define it and ideology encapsulate it, one actually hinders the development of the creation of the Organic Nationalist State . Therefore the aim of Nationalism is primarily and simply to take power. Then once in power Nationalists must remove the cultural, political, economic etc barriers that prevent Nativism, or as I define it Organic Nationalism, from existing. The fact is that we cannot ever anticipate, nor guess, what form the Organic Nationalist state will be - let alone define it via a language or ideology that by its very nature is a product of the past systems. To define what has never been in the obsolete language of the ideologies of the past is idiotic. Once we are in power and removed the barriers to the creation of the Organic Nationalist State a moment of punctuated equilibrium will occur that will create an entirely new species of politics, culture etc that reflects the Organic Nature of that state and society. A new society will arise, a new politics will arise, a new culture will arise - and a new species of Nationalism itself will arise. Our aim is to prepare the way for a political speciation, to create a new species of Nationalism, not to perpetuate the junk memes of the past and the obsolete forms of the past. The aim of all nationalists therefore is not to waste time or effort trying to define what comes next after the creation of the Organic Nationalist State, the aim must be to remove the barriers that prevent the Organic Nationalism State from coming to its true natural fruition. We must weed the garden, prepare the soil, plant the seed and nurture the saplings. We must not impose an ideology or form on that which by its very nature is at the moment formless. We cannot define the New Species of Nationalism, as it will be a new species - an organic new creation. Its form will only reveal itself once it has grown to its natural form. Only then will the new species of Nationalism arise. 93
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:18 | # Leon, Interesting list, Benoist excepted. He and Tom Sunic made a poor two-part interview at VoR quite recently. His “novel restatement of fascism”, as his Wikipedia entry charmingly puts it, really is cultural nationalism, and looks to me to have been left behind by history. I think he has been living off his reputation as the anti-liberal enfant terrible of French 1960s radicalism for too long. He has served his purpose, which was important in its time but transitional in nature. He saved the anti-liberal right from its obviously suicidal fixation with 1930s Germany and the revolt against Jewish ethno-aggression. But he has little or nothing of value to say to us today. Roger Scruton I would love to interview, largely to unpeel the limits of his right-wing sensibilities and to see what, if anything really, he is willing to contemplate by way of action to save his people. But I think he would be very puzzled as to who we are, and why he should waste his time on us. Trifkovic would probably have to be a subject for someone else. I am a poor student of the Islam Question, and I doubt if I could do him justice. Likewise, Steve Sailer who would be a much better subject for James to interview. I thought Derek Turner had retired into a more politically sedentary life. What is he doing now? Polin and McGrath I know very little of and need to check out. Thank you for the suggestion. Have you thought about interviewing these people yourself? I would be very happy to discuss that with you, if you like. _______________________________________________ GW, Re Benoist, I merely myself would like to hear him discuss European paganism,among many other matters. Whatever his ideological faults, he is a major intellectual figure, and incredibly learned man. I agree with you completely re Scruton. But he is another unbelievably erudite and productive scholar (I’m a bit in awe, frankly), and such are always worth having (plus he’s your fellow Englishman). Trifkovic is one of my favorites. I’d like to hear him asked about race vs Christianity in Occidental survival. He’s excellent on immigration and multiculturalism, but I’d like to know where he thinks we should go, policy-wise, in a post-invasion situation (repatriation or what’s the alternative?). Re Sailer, I’m not sure who “James” is, but I understand Sailer very well myself. If you’re referring to his biological journalism then you’d want him interviewed by a geneticist (but why? Sailer is a popularizer, not a scientist). Sailer’s real value is in crunching demographic numbers, and coming up with interesting sociological points based on those numbers. Doesn’t Turner now edit a Brit journal called Quarterly Review? I think Turner would be interesting for his political observations on the present situation in Britain (eg, should England secede from the UK? Why not?). Polin is just a very learned French Christian conservative, but honest about the disaster of immigration. He is an expert on their Revolution; it would interesting to hear his take on the relationship between Jacobinism and the Rev and contemporary Western gutlessness on race. Also, I’d like to ask him about the proper Christian stance towards white survival. McGrath is just an excellent conservative hardcore historian who likes to debunk false PC claims about history, esp race and US history. Haven’t you seen his affiliation with American Renaissance? I forgot Guillaume Faye and Frank Ellis. Finally, it never occurred to me to interview these people myself. My understanding was that you were looking for possible interviewees, not interviewers. I could be interested in such an assignment, but please provide some details as to how that would work. I have no idea how one speaks to people over the ‘net (sorry), logistically. I’m based in CA, btw. Perhaps you should devote a separate, general post to how one of your readers could do an interview for MR radio. Best, PS - I’d like to read your thoughts on the Con/LibDem coalition. What’s this I’m reading about a non-EU immigration cap? That can’t be too bad… 94
Posted by BGD on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:21 | # I am sure there’s many admirable and practical things we could copy and take from the Jews, lessons learned, community organisation, is it good for Europeans etc. But it’s surely not a case of going to Jew school and just learning to be them. We are a different people down to our core and much of their success comes from that fact - that they are a different people too, a small breeding group that has interbred for a long time and having a cultural and religious outflowing that is a product of that. We can’t learn that as such. We also are unlikely to be able with the timelines we are facing to “do a Joseph Smith” and come up from our basement with a newly discovered religious tract and lo.. 96
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:27 | # Hi Fred, I agree we need to talk in order to progress - but the aim of talking but not be to define what comes next, but simply how we can remove the barriers to taking control of our nations. We need debate on methodology, not ideology. We have had for long enough already people Kevin McDonald and David Duke diagnosing the problem but offering no solution to the problem - what we need know is people putting plans together that offer the solution. For example - if I read one more fucking article by Nationalists on how many Jews there are in the media and who are the Jews are that control the media, then I will puke. What we need is articles from Nationalists that tell us how we take back control of the media, how we create our own media organs, that encourage our activists to go to university and infiltrate the media, that offer scholarships to nationalists to get them through the universities so they can run, join, set up or control media corporations. Thats what we need - not endless articles diagnosing the fucking problem. We need people to focus on the cure, not the disease itself. 97
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:29 | # Leon, Interesting list, Benoist excepted. He and Tom Sunic made a poor two-part interview at VoR quite recently. His “novel restatement of fascism”, as his Wikipedia entry charmingly puts it, really is cultural nationalism, and looks to me to have been left behind by history. I think he has been living off his reputation as the anti-liberal enfant terrible of French 1960s radicalism for too long. He has served his purpose, which was important in its time but transitional in nature. He saved the anti-liberal right from its obviously suicidal fixation with 1930s Germany and the revolt against Jewish ethno-aggression. But he has little or nothing of value to say to us today. Roger Scruton I would love to interview, largely to unpeel the limits of his right-wing sensibilities and to see what, if anything really, he is willing to contemplate by way of action to save his people. But I think he would be very puzzled as to who we are, and why he should waste his time on us. Trifkovic would probably have to be a subject for someone else. I am a poor student of the Islam Question, and I doubt if I could do him justice. Likewise, Steve Sailer who would be a much better subject for James to interview. I thought Derek Turner had retired into a more politically sedentary life. What is he doing now? Polin and McGrath I know very little of and need to check out. Thank you for the suggestion. Have you thought about interviewing these people yourself? I would be very happy to discuss that with you, if you like. ______________________ GW, Dammit! I responded at length, and somehow lost the comment. OK, I’m only going to restate that I hadn’t thought of being an interviewer myself, and could be interested, but would like to hear more about the logistics of it. I have no idea how persons in widely diffuse places could be brought together over the net for a live discussion. LH 98
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:32 | # I am sure there’s many admirable and practical things we could copy and take from the Jews, lessons learned, community organisation, is it good for Europeans etc. But it’s surely not a case of going to Jew school and just learning to be them.
Until we have taken power and changed the nature of our society, then in order to obtain power we must emulate those strategies that have allowed the present ethnic groups who are in power to obtain political, economic, media power in our society. Thats why we copy what the Jews do, until we are in power and then we change society for our benefit as a community - which is our duty to do as the whole point of democracy is that it serves the interests of the majority rather than minorities. 99
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:39 | # Here is the motto for Nationalism and White Survival in the 21st Century ; METHODOLOGY NOT IDEOLOGY.
In other words we concentrate on the cure, and cease perpetually diagnosing the disease. 100
Posted by Bill on Mon, 17 May 2010 14:57 | # Posted by Leon Haller on May 17, 2010, 01:18 PM | #
Don’t be fooled! A non-EU (third world) cap is referring to work permits only. Not non-EU migrants per se. I first heard this from a BBC reporter during a BBC News night election report from Oxford and Reading. The reporter was visiting an old folks home and he said Britain’s hospitals and care industry would collapse without immigration. I couldn’t believe it on the night I thought I’d missed something. There will never be any restriction of non EU migrants as it will be viewed as discrimination. Now we couldn’t have that could we? Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s how I interpret it. 101
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:56 | # Lee, There is no reason why you cannot get on and do politics, and we are certainly not saying that you can’t. But you should be aware of the limits to your actions and effects. The disease that is killing us is liberalism, and it is in its advanced stages. Presently, you have no serum to kill this disease. Whatever effect you have, it will not be that. And you would not expect it to be, because one enters into the realm of foundational ideas when one embarks upon a venture on that scale. I repeat, we are not trying to frustrate your desire to get on, Lee. We are simply thinking in terms of scale. 102
Posted by PF on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:28 | # CC wrote:
This is a great effort at thinking through the problem. Its amazing how well you articulate yourself when you’re not in “kick-ass” mode. As per the questions raised relating to my post, will think about them and answer if time permits. 103
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:35 | # GW,
Although liberalism is part of the problem, because it naturally downplays and erodes our ethnic identity, it is really the socialist impulse that is killing us. The socialist impulse to create a more equal, fair, and just society is the taproot of the false morality in whose name our people are being deconstructed. Continuing in this vein we should note that the socialist impulse is fundamentally illiberal, because in order to create the kind of society that it theorizes it must dominate an unequal human nature that doesn’t conform to its standards of justice. I think that this is the esoteric reason for why the socialist impulse to totalitarian governments wherever it is implemented. 104
Posted by LeeJohn Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36 | # GW, I disagree that the problem is Liberalism, the power of liberalism in our society is primarily a symptom of our failure to put in place political, social and cultural models that would have prevented the rise of liberalism in the first place. It was the failure of nationalism and nationalists in the past to ensure the supremacy and popularity of nationalism itself, that led to liberalism’s rise to power. Britain was once a nationalist state and virtually everyone in the UK was a nationalist, and Liberalism usurped nationalism in our society. Liberals in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s were a minority whilst Nationalists and Nationalism were the norm in our society. The demise of Nationalism was caused by Nationalists who were too obsessed with anti-semitism, nazism, racism and hatred - and thereby their extremism disengaged nationalism from public support and thereby alienated the public from being able to support Nationalism in the public sphere, and hence nationalists were pushed into a ghetto from which they have never escaped from. And since then the main voices, and loudest voices, in Nationalism have primarily been Nazism obsessed fuckwits who think a re-run of The Third Reich is the form of populist nationalism that the public want or would support. And by so doing they have allowed the enemies of Nationalism to define, propagandise and attack Nationalists and Nationalism as Nazis and National Socialism, thereby ensuring that Nationalism became despised and hated by the masses. The solution is the same as the problem - it is the failure of nationalism to prevent the rise of liberalism, the failure of nationalism to defend itself and define itself away from the Nazis that sought to equate Nazism as Nationalism, the failure engage with the public by creating a Nationalism that rejected Nazism and hence the failure of Nationalism to remain the dominant ideology in society and a failure of nationalists to develop populist nationalist models that re-engaged with the public and enabled us take power back in our society. Liberalism is a symptom, not the cause. 105
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:40 | # Apologies. I meant to write the last sentence in my last comment as follows: “I think that this is the esoteric reason for why the socialist impulse leads to totalitarian governments wherever it is implemented. “ 106
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:44 | #
107
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:50 | # I agree with PF’s praise for CC’s attention to the NS problem. As I say, it would be interesting to learn from CC what aspects of the actual politics of NS has value to us today. The economics, perhaps. The ethnic awareness. But at the moment CC is saying that Hitler and NS strove to “save the race”. I do not believe that NS addressed the existential. There was no existential element prior to 1939. NS addressed the millenarian, and it did it narrowly - notwithstanding the acknowledged concentricity of German and Nordic interests. Had the Wehrmacht defeated the Red Army the second half of the 20th Century would most certainly have seen an upsurge of violent Slav nationalism which, if it reached the stage of formal warfare, would probably have been settled by the Wehrmacht’s use of nuclear weapons on the European mainland, and the devestation of the very soil Germany fought to annexe. One does not love that which one does not own, irrespective of one’s desire to control it. 108
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:53 | # I think the Hermann Gorings statement ’ I decide who is a Jew’ tells us all we need about the so called ‘racial’ nature of the ideology of Nazism - in that it was not based on science or the interests of the German people, but on political and personal interests. How could Nazism be based on anything scientific or logical when the science of genetics and DNA was not discovered until it appeared in April 1953 in the scientific paper where James Watson and Francis Crick presented the structure of the DNA-helix, the molecule that carries genetic information from one generation to the other. Therefore any statements on race, ethnicity etc by the Nazis were not based on science but nonsense. Therefore how then can proponents of Nazism regard Nazism as an ideology that is able to defend the interests of the race, when it had no scientific understanding of the nature of race. The nazis were as far from reality on the issue of race as the scientists of the sixties who stated that race did not exist. It was only two weeks ago that DNA testing revealed that modern Europeans and East Asians are the descendants of Neanderthals and that the Cro-Magnon ancestors of modern Europeans are a hybrid species of Homo-Sapiens and Nanderthals - therefore those that promulgate the idea that Nazism could be the foundation of a logical, scientific state and society that protected our racial and ethnic interests are talking pure bollocks. 109
Posted by lee john barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:01 | # Hey notuswind, have you any idea why the hippies and liberals of the 1960’s were called ‘The Counter Culture’ ? Nah, thought not. Its because they were a minority in society you retard. The predominant culture was nationalist in the West. Why do you think the Left and Liberals undertook a ‘long march through the institutions’ in order to take the institutions from the nationalists ? Yeah thats right retard, because back then Western nations and societies were run by nationalists who embraced nationalism. It was the retards in nationalism who sought to equate nationalism with nazism and who became the dominant voices in nationalism during the 1970’s and 1980’s that destroyed the popularity of nationalism in our societies, not liberalism. The rise of the Nazi Skinhead in the nationalist movement paralleled the fall in popularity and support for the ideology of nationalism, as people saw that Nationalism had rejected nationalism for some fetishistic worship of Hitlerism and thuggery as epitomised by the nazi skins. The idea that nazi skinheads would ever be popular with the public and would take nationalism into power via the ballot box, was an idea that only the truly stupid would entertain. Jeez, its like dealing with people who live in an idiot bubble. 110
Posted by PF on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:04 | # Lee John Barnes wrote:
Lee after listening to that interview with you I have to say I was struck with what a brilliant, scrappy defender our people have in you. Inspiring. However I think that even within that interview, GW was able to lead you into some corners where you tripped over yourself and betrayed the shaky basis of your worldview. You too are inveigled in the same web of liberalism as the rest of us, and your rhetorical method of shouting down questions by declaring them practically irrelevant doesn’t hold water for (1) environments where that can’t be done, (2) people who don’t choose to operate that way. Your personal forcefulness isn’t going to win the silent battle for anyone’s mind, nor is it going to be a workable tactic for people who aren’t rhetorically gifted. It is a tactic that patches over a hole in our ideational structure, which GW would rather fill in with something more lasting. Like GW said, Jonathan Bowden’s esoteric Nietzschean pretend-paganism, Dowson’s Heroics, Kemp’s handful of ideas about demography and nationhood, and the rest of the gang’s uneasy cobbling together of native outrage and nazi fascination, do not an intellectual movement make. These are either beginnings, hobby-horses, or something in between. 111
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:14 | # LJB,
[sigh] In that time period the overwhelming majority of our people were patriotic liberals, your mistake is that you are confusing their patriotism with nationalism. I would also argue that the leftist counter-culture movement of the 60s/70s was more socialist than liberal.
I’m sorry that you don’t like my sense of humor. 112
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:24 | # Oh yeah, and on the retards point that ‘socialism’ is the cause of our social downfall - are you living on the fucking moon ? There is not one Socialist regime in the West, we are Capitalist regimes or havent you noticed that ? The idea that socialism is the reason why nationalism has failed makes about as much sense as blaming agrarianism. The CORPORATE Media is not socialist, the global banking system is not socialist, the NWO is not socialist, the oil companies that demanded war with Iraq are not socialist and nor is Israel socialist (which you probably think controls the world) as Israel is a NATIONALIST state. The idea that nationalism is being held down by the power of socialism is so absurd that only a true fool could promulgate it. There are about 5 socialist councillors in Britain and no MP’s ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(England_and_Wales) There are less socialist MEP’s in the EU than Conservatives http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/guides/newsid_8214000/8214446.stm Oh yeah, we are so dominated by socialists with a conservative and Lib Dem government. Even the Labour Party was not socialist when it was in power, but followed Thatcherite Neo-Liberalism Free Market Economics. We may be dominated by the ideology of Liberalism as paid for via the business taxes of the capitalists - but we are not controlled by socialists. Political Correctness is pushed on us by liberals and multi-culturalism first pushed on us by liberals in Canada - or didnt you know that ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_Canada Liberalism is not socialism, socialism is empowered via the state whilst liberalism primarily seeks the removal of the state and its power whilst maximising individualism and individual liberty to the point that the interests of the state and the nation become secondary to the demands of the individual. Fuck me. 113
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:33 | # notuswind, My apologies if I slipped into the English vernacular with the word “liberalism”, and forgot the tendency for Americans to cut the cake as “conservativism” (right-liberalism to me) and “liberalism” (left-liberalism). Socialism, communism, Marxist-Leninism, et al are on the left of left-liberalism. They are not separate from it. They do not oppose it. They do not even oppose right liberalism, notwithstanding your comment about their illiberality. They complete it. The real taproot of the desire for fairness and equality is Paulian universalism. This disease has had a very long gestation. On totalitarianism, liberalism in the round must lead, in fact, to enslavement. Left-liberalism enslaves us to government, right liberalism to money ... to a dehumanised existence of wage slavery and endless consumption. Lee, The whole kaboodle is liberalism. It draws our societal horizons and provides us with if not all that we, as individuals, socially acquire, certainly a vast preponderance of it. Your psyche belongs in this moment ... in the England of now. You belong to liberalism, you are contained by it, you are fundamentally a liberal just as the people of England before the Reformation were fundamentally Catholic. Systems of ideas on this scale extend into everything, and our relationship with them is symbiotic. We inhabit the noumenal psychologically, and it inhabits us. When you say you are a Nationalist you leave out the words, “within the psychological limits available to me, of course.” When you say “the failure of Nationalism was to prevent the rise of liberalism” you are acknowledging that something much more vast than the petty allegiances available to us was required to counter this system. It’s a question of scale, Lee. 114
Posted by danielj on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:34 | #
There are people working on it. 115
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:37 | # Humour has its place, but not when we are debating the survival of our nations, people and culture. As for the issue that people in the sixties were patriotic liberals - that is an oxymoron. The mass of society back then was nationalist and patriotic. You are right that the hippies etc were socialists and thats why I said the left as well as the liberals . Liberalism arose as an antidote to socialism - those people on the left that realised socialism led to communism became liberals in order to defend society from the socialist state and in order to defend liberty and individualism from the ‘socialism’ of the soviet union. True Liberalism is as much the enemy of nationalism as it is of socialism. Liberalism arose to popularity as a result of the pseudo-nationalism of the west that led to Vietnam etc etc - whilst true nationalist regimes would not have undertaken wars against communism, unless communism was a threat to their own nations - the pseudo-nationalists used wars for capitalist profits and wrapped the national flag around their armies as they sent them into battle and hence polluted the good name of nationalism. Pseudo-nationalism, which was merely global capitalism expanding its resource base, called itself nationalist in order to hide its true nature and thereby polluted the name of nationalism in the eyes of the people. Hence nationalism and socialism were opposed by liberalism and why liberalism rose to power in the west. Socialism led to communism and pseudo-nationalism led to capitalist wars. On the issue of building an alternative ideology - why bother ? Lets just concentrate on bringing the system down - once it has fallen then we can debate what comes next ? Dont debate, destroy. 116
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:46 | # LJB, I define the socialist impulse to be the modern struggle to create a more fair, equal, and just society. One attempt at realizing this goal was state socialism, where the state controls the means of production in order to create a classless society that is more equal and fair than its [capitalist] predecessor. State socialism was one of the 20th century’s biggest failures and it goes without saying that those of us in the West never experienced it. However, I would argue that we in the West struggle against the socialist impulse in our own way. Because, if you think about it, the kind of political activity that seeks to deconstruct our civilization and its identity is not done in the name of freedom and liberty (as would befit a liberal movement) but in the name of fairness and equality (as befits a socialist movement). Ergo, I conclude that the socialist impulse is the taproot of the false morality that motivates the kind of political activity that destroys (and anesthetizes) our people. Lastly, it doesn’t hurt my case to point out that socialism has more distinctly Jewish origins than does liberalism. 117
Posted by Matra on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:49 | # Political Correctness is pushed on us by liberals and multi-culturalism first pushed on us by liberals in Canada - or didnt you know that ? I don’t know if you’re being serious or not but given that Canada has zero influence on other Western nations it is comical to think it pushed anything on the rest of the West. During all the hung parliament talk I haven’t seen or heard even a single reference to Canada’s experience. BTW some of the Liberals in Canada who pushed multiculturalism were influenced by socialism. the oil companies that demanded war with Iraq are not socialist Most of the oil industry not only opposed the war but they even opposed sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq. At the core of the neocon MidEast agenda is destabilisation - the last thing the oil industry wants. 118
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 17:59 | # GW,
America is the most liberal of all Western societies in its character and in its founding. Full stop. Conservatives in America are people who are trying to reestablish the liberal principles of our founding. They are not right-liberals, they are pure liberals.
This is wrong. The socialist movements are anti-liberal because mankind does not naturally conform to the ideals of the socialist impulse (e.g. the natural political order of man is neither fair nor equal). Freedoms are increasingly restricted in an attempt to realize the ideals of the socialist impulse.
Which is why it took almost two thousand years for the [Jewish] Karl Marx to co-author the communist manifesto! The fact that the socialist impulse is usually led by a Jewish vanguard gives it away that we’re dealing with a movement that has non-Christian origins. 119
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 17 May 2010 18:00 | # Fred, in response to your earlier point about the ‘Windrush’, I suppose you are using this in a symbolic sense since to spend any significant amount of time researching the driving mechanisms behind this particular single incident might not be tremendously productive. The really important questions are how did the British Nationality Act 1948 come about, why did it take so long for any restrictive legislation to come into effect, and why is ‘New Commonwealth’ immigration still continuing today. I’m working on an extended piece that explores all these points and much more, with due credit for all the principal actors. 120
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 18:13 | # LJB,
No. If they were truly nationalistic, as opposed to simply being patriotic, than we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today with our very identities at the precipice of oblivion. We may suffer from other problems (and we do), but the loss of our identity shouldn’t be one of them if our society were truly nationalist so recently in the past. Ideally, nationalist societies cultivate an exclusive and robust identity that informs the workings of the entire civilization (political, economic, artistic, et cetera). None of this can really be said about the anglophone societies that came out of WWII. 121
Posted by BGD on Mon, 17 May 2010 18:53 | # I’ve got a feeling this isn’t getting us anywhere but here goes
Perhaps there’s just some confusion about the terms being used? Our whole modern zeitgeist, where the argument runs that the right won the economic argument and the left won the cultural one is not really that controversial is it? The whole ideological superstructure we labour against that is made up of identity politics, feminism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, class based analyses, diversity, group privilege etc all have their roots in an outgrowth from Marxist theory. In that sense it’s socialist but I’ll give you in the broader sense. This Marxist critical theory took over many university departments within the Anglosphere over a number of years (sociology, literature, education, psychology, some biological sciences, history, politics)and churned out generations of students that were imbued to greater or lesser extent with its broad philosophy and way of looking at the world. Education in these subjects was frequently one part learning and two parts social control, although it seems to be opening up a little now. Liberalism: It would depend on the type of liberalism that we are referring to. There is a difference between 18th and 19th century liberalism and the type of ‘liberalism’ that imbued with progressivism (read, Marxist critical social theory) came to predominate in the late 20th century, or put another way between classical liberals and left liberals. No doubt GW argues they are part of the same family or share the same family name but there are still strong family differences. Additionally classical liberalism was one of the motors of the nation state and its defender. Now whether general classical liberal philosophy contained the seeds of its own destruction and morphed into a monster is another issue. As is whether perhaps it was the philosophy that was promoted as best suited to the emergent middle classes as the industrial revolution and rivalries between the nations powered ahead and the franchise was opened up / forced open (and who later turned away from nationalism to internationalism for perhaps business purposes). 122
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 18:56 | # Political Correctness is pushed on us by liberals and multi-culturalism first pushed on us by liberals in Canada - or didnt you know that ? I don’t know if you’re being serious or not but given that Canada has zero influence on other Western nations it is comical to think it pushed anything on the rest of the West. During all the hung parliament talk I haven’t seen or heard even a single reference to Canada’s experience.
BTW some of the Liberals in Canada who pushed multiculturalism were influenced by socialism. ## Yes they were, primarily because they opposed it. Classical Liberals, as opposed to leftist liberals, opposed socialism as much as nationalism as both represented an attack on the individual and individual liberty. the oil companies that demanded war with Iraq are not socialist Most of the oil industry not only opposed the war but they even opposed sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq. At the core of the neocon MidEast agenda is destabilisation - the last thing the oil industry wants.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16159790.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40586.html 123
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 17 May 2010 18:58 | # GW, with regard to your comments to Lee, do you have a questionnaire that would enable a liberal nationalist to be distinguished from an ontological one? 124
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 19:09 | # BGD, I would argue that there is nothing liberal about the socialist impulse. On my view, the socialist impulse seeks to realize its peculiar vision of a fair, equal, and just society by political means that necessarily curtail (if not eliminate) the kinds of freedoms and liberties that a liberal society seeks to advance. In fact, the political clash between the Left and Right in post-WWII America is over precisely these ideological fault lines. 125
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 17 May 2010 19:09 | # Socialism: Our whole modern zeitgeist, where the argument runs that the right won the economic argument and the left won the cultural one is not really that controversial is it?
The whole ideological superstructure we labour against that is made up of identity politics, feminism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, class based analyses, diversity, group privilege etc all have their roots in an outgrowth from Marxist theory. = agreed. In that sense it’s socialist but I’ll give you in the broader sense. This Marxist critical theory took over many university departments within the Anglosphere over a number of years (sociology, literature, education, psychology, some biological sciences, history, politics)and churned out generations of students that were imbued to greater or lesser extent with its broad philosophy and way of looking at the world. Education in these subjects was frequently one part learning and two parts social control, although it seems to be opening up a little now. Liberalism: It would depend on the type of liberalism that we are referring to. There is a difference between 18th and 19th century liberalism and the type of ‘liberalism’ that imbued with progressivism (read, Marxist critical social theory) came to predominate in the late 20th century, or put another way between classical liberals and left liberals. No doubt GW argues they are part of the same family or share the same family name but there are still strong family differences. Additionally classical liberalism was one of the motors of the nation state and its defender. Now whether general classical liberal philosophy contained the seeds of its own destruction and morphed into a monster is another issue. As is whether perhaps it was the philosophy that was promoted as best suited to the emergent middle classes as the industrial revolution and rivalries between the nations powered ahead and the franchise was opened up / forced open (and who later turned away from nationalism to internationalism for perhaps business purposes). = agreed.
New Labour became a form of Fabianism, a merger of marxism and capitalism and hence regarded as more dangerous than conservatism to the liberals who saw its obsession with ID cards, the surveillance society, oil wars, suspension of civil liberties as more of a threat than conservatism. Liberalism now opposes socialism and fabianism. instead33 126
Posted by BGD on Mon, 17 May 2010 19:30 | # Notuswind I’m not so sure that one can draw a line between classical liberalism and modern leftist liberalism anyway. What’s in a name and all that. i.e. are they that closely related bedfellows or a cover under which leftist critical theory and assorted zealots did a Bodysnatchers? TBH it’s been a decade or more since I actively considered a lot of these topics which is why I don’t get involved in much of the to and fro on them. So I might well be missing the bloodline but.. 127
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 19:48 | # BGD,
I see the axis between Left and Right as being more spiritual than ideological. Specifically, the Left is the champion of the revolutionary while the Right is the champion of the traditional. The actors and ideologies of history will change from one era to the next but this tension between the revolutionary and the traditional will always remain so long as human society endures. In practice, this theory predicts that in a struggle between liberalism and socialism that the Right would take up liberalism while the Left would take up socialism (as is the case in America today). The reason is that while both ideologies are inimical to traditional forms and patterns over the long run, liberalism is more accommodating to the traditional than is the (more revolutionary) socialist impulse. 128
Posted by graham_lister on Mon, 17 May 2010 20:48 | # @Lee John Barns re:genetics Yes the structure of DNA was dicovered in the 1950s but advanced mathematical genetics has a much longer history - for example Fisher, Haldane etc., and the Neo-Darwinian synthesis pre-dates the 1950’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis In my view those on the right need to articulate and ground their politics in a far more intellectually rigorous way in order to win over the educated middle classes (as GW has stated the most important strata within modern politics). More Carl Schmitt and James Fitzjames Stephen LESS thugs with Dr.Martens. On a related note does ANYONE seriously think that Bowden or Brons would NOT have performed with much greater efficacy on Question Time than the buffoonish Griffin? 129
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 17 May 2010 21:49 | # Trudeau wasn’t a liberal, he was a fascist ( or a Catholic corporatist) with the sole aim of preserving French Catholicism in North America. Multiculturalism was founded on that fact and that fact alone. And considering that Canada was still overwhelmingly white in 1970, it might also be dubbed ‘white’ nationalism. Catholic corporatism rose in response to classical liberalism and Marxism. Mill advocated liberal corporatism. It opposed liberal pluralism and the granting of special consideration to interest groups (like ethnics).
The perversion of classical liberalism, orchestrated by self-interest, capital and organised Jewry in the 1950s was entrenched in the Canadian constitution thirty years later. It is evident in Mill’s work that free institutions cannot exist in a multi-racial polity. In a purely Anglo-Saxon construct liberalism is dependent upon a strong ethnocentric state. 130
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 May 2010 22:47 | # notuswind,
If you substitute the word “radical” for “socialist” in that sentence you have the kind of disagreement that figured large in the French, Russian and Maoist revolutions. What is the use of it, really? To my, I suspect, extreme radical nationalist mind, the distinctions between this liberal form and that do not profit us to observe. I retire before them all and, from a suitable distance, perceive instead a holistic organising principle of Western sociality ... that which, politically at least, characterises our condition. It is against this whole that I would have nationalists rebel. No half-way measures. We kill it, and grow a politics that does conform to our anthropology, that let’s us live according to our nature.
Individualism will always be at odds with collectivism where the organising principle (liberalism in the broad sense) cannot reconcile personal genetic interests and ethnic genetic interests. The fact that the socialist impulse is usually led by a Jewish vanguard gives it away that we’re dealing with a movement that has non-Christian origins. Well, let’s leave that one there, and not begin another battle between criticism and faith. Dan, The simple test is to look at one’s life. Of course, it is a liberal life. We all lead liberal lives in a liberal age. There are no Nationalists, only stubborn, bloody-minded, bloody wonderful nativists. And there’s not enough of them. BGD, Your commentary is good. 131
Posted by notuswind on Mon, 17 May 2010 22:53 | # GW,
Fair enough.
Agreed.
Agreed. 132
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 May 2010 22:58 | # To all those who cannot detach from one or other of the familiar political distinctions of our time, I offer PF’s words earlier in this thread. He is describing what, for him, all our talk of an ontologically-seated nationalist politics could mean:
133
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 17 May 2010 23:40 | # Ivan the Angry, I think you should style yourself. You do OK for a while, building up your argument (which may or may not be worth building, but this is a free-thinking blog so what the heck), even making some sense. But then you go suddenly over the top with the frustration of it all and rush out a quick hate-phrase. We don’t do hate phrases. But I know you only did it for effect, really, and not out of need. You are not so dumb that you can’t keep your emotion off the page. Especially when you are asked civilly and nobody is threatening to summarily ban you. Can you please keep it civil while addressing the problem of our elder brothers in faith? We have got a pretty fair idea of how you feel. You don’t have to tell us that part in lurid detail. 135
Posted by FB on Tue, 18 May 2010 02:36 | #
I don’t have anything against your attacks on Nazis, but to say that they couldn’t be racialists because of their lack of understanding of genetics is weak; physical anthropology predates the discovery of DNA. I think it’s unwise to completely dismiss Carleton S. Coon or Hans Günther. 136
Posted by PF on Tue, 18 May 2010 05:00 | # Dan Dare, I was secretly hoping since reading your Discrimination series that you would get to that other thorn in the side of English existence, the Nationality Acts, and bring to bear on that the same thinking and writing that make the Discrimination series such powerful reading. The Nationality laws are the only written document I know of whose substance is literally almost terrifying. I get an adrenaline rush and have to avert my eyes to something different. Even writing about this here is too fucking heavy. good on ya if you do decide to explain to us the motivation behind that collective suicide-pact. 137
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 18 May 2010 06:05 | # Yes PF, the BNA 48 is an almost classic instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences writ large. As Christian Joppke observes, it was not simply an anachronism, but also an expression of immense self-confidence. At a time when other all other Commonwealth states were busily engaged in controlling the admission of British subjects (especially those of duskier hue), Britain deliberately abstained from such controls as part of its perceived mission to “... maintain our great metropolitan tradition of hospitality to everyone from every part of out Empire*”. It’s all very reminiscent of the ‘Ding dong, remember us?’ sketch from Monty Python. They took the liberty of inviting a few friends along ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GH7pfVvCII *That would have been Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, erstwhile prosecutor at Nuremberg and principal architect of the European Convention on Human Rights. As far as I am aware Maxwell-Fyfe was not of Levantine extraction. Sorry Fred. 138
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 18 May 2010 07:49 | # I enjoyed immensely your delightfully deadpan comment, danielj, viz., “There are people working on it”. ‘We’ll look into it”, might also have provided the necessary gravitas. 139
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 18 May 2010 07:59 | # Who is this person called splice, whose adroit employment of a commonplace punctuation mark aroused so much admiration in Mr Renner? 140
Posted by fellist on Tue, 18 May 2010 10:18 | # LJB:
Quoting from my blog:
If I’m wrong and it wasn’t fear of Jews that made English politicians and judges go along with the ‘hate’ laws, I could also be wrong about why the BNP’s policies on Jewish Israel and Jewish Britain are not objectively anti-English, anti-Scot and anti-Welsh. If Lee can try to answer that question rather than take it as an invitation to generalise about whatevers on his mind, it’d be good. 141
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 18 May 2010 11:15 | # I don’t have anything against your attacks on Nazis, but to say that they couldn’t be racialists because of their lack of understanding of genetics is weak; physical anthropology predates the discovery of DNA. I think it’s unwise to completely dismiss Carleton S. Coon or Hans Günther. ##
It just doesnt make sense does it. To base a model of contemporary politics to ensure our racial survival on a political ideology that had no idea of the fundamental basis of race, which is genes and DNA is equally absurd. ———————————————————————————————————-
I am well aware of who drafted up the race relations acts, but the fact remains that before they could become laws in Britain, then the British Parliament had to vote them into law - and it was a virtually 100 % white british indigenous cabal of traitors in the British Parliament who voted them into law. They were not zombies, they were not microchipped drones, they were not hypnotised before they entered the chamber of the House of Parliament - they voted for it, and they were OUR people. Therefore to blame the Jews for the race relations laws is like blaming the gun itself for killing someone, when as well know the guilty person is the person who picked up the gun and pulled the trigger.
How, in any way, is our policy on Israel and the Jewish community in any way anti-english, scots and welsh ? If you explain how they are, then I will try and explain why they are not. At… the….moment…. the ..... question….does…..not…..compute !!! 143
Posted by FB on Tue, 18 May 2010 15:25 | #
Do you dismiss Darwin for the same reasons? 144
Posted by FB on Tue, 18 May 2010 16:09 | # Mr. Singh identifies the enemy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKMcT4kDtok&playnext_from=TL&videos=HVVdjqnGP1I 145
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 18 May 2010 17:23 | # I never knew Darwin ran a political dictatorship or espoused a political ideal. But as for his ideas on evolution - Darwin was only half right ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[38][39] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influence of catastrophism put forward by Georges Cuvier which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay “Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false.”[40] It is often incorrectly assumed that he insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so, but even the first edition of On the Origin of Species states that “Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms… The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus”. Lingula is among the few brachiopods surviving today but also known from fossils over 500 million years old.[41] In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that “the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.”[42] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin’s conception of evolution.[40] According to early versions of punctuated equilibrium, “peripheral isolates” are considered to be of critical importance for speciation. However, Darwin wrote, “I can by no means agree ... that immigration and isolation are necessary elements…. Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely.”[43] The importance of isolation in forming species had played a significant part in Darwin’s early thinking, as shown in his Essay of 1844. But by the time he wrote the Origin he had downplayed its importance.[40] He explained the reasons for his revised view as follows: Throughout a great and open area, not only will there be a greater chance of favourable variations, arising from the large number of individuals of the same species there supported, but the conditions of life are much more complex from the large number of already existing species; and if some of these species become modified and improved, others will have to be improved in a corresponding degree, or they will be exterminated. Each new form, also, as soon as it has been improved, will be able to spread over the open and continuous area, and will thus come into competition with many other forms ... the new forms produced on large areas, which have already been victorious over many competitors, will be those that will spread most widely, and will give rise to the greatest number of new varieties and species. They will thus play a more important role in the changing history of the organic world.[44] Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin’s ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.[40] 146
Posted by FB on Tue, 18 May 2010 17:34 | # To MR’s anti-Semites: no serious politics in the West today can have as their foundation anti-Semitism. This is particularly true for nationalism. I assume that at least some here are interested in moving beyond posting messages on widely unread blogs. 147
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 18 May 2010 18:09 | # Ivan sends his regrets. The Last Round-up at the VNN Tard Corral, itz. 148
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 18 May 2010 20:48 | # Ditto, on the origin of hate laws in Canada.
http://ezralevant.com/2009/05/the-canadian-nazi-party-a-part.html Delayed impact: the Holocaust and the Canadian Jewish community 149
Posted by FB on Tue, 18 May 2010 22:45 | # I never knew Darwin ran a political dictatorship or espoused a political ideal. Straw man. I don’t care about Nazis. I was asking whether Darwin’s views on race should be discarded because he didn’t mention DNA. 150
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 18 May 2010 23:14 | # Actually the entire context of the issue re Darwin was in relation to the politics of Nazism and how it could defend the interests of the white race. Therefore when you mentioned Darwin it was in relation to a critique of my statements on that issue. I have already stated that Darwins ideas on race are the foundation of the science of evolution, they are as accurate and relevant as Newton and his apple to contemporary Quantum Physics. They are the root, they are not the fruit. 151
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 19 May 2010 02:42 | #
No serious politics in the West today can hope to secure the survival of the white nations without a clear understanding of why it’s absolutely neccessary to remove jews from our living space. jews aren’t the problem. The root of the problem is two tribes on the same piece of land will inevitably compete and come into conflict. jews are just a particulary extreme example of the general problem. The most fundamental and universal example of this if the elite of a nation become too far detached from the people they effectively become a separate tribe themselves. That’s the first crack. If a nationalist constitution could prevent that first crack everything else would follow naturally.
my nationalist politicking generally involves no anti-semitism at all, nope, no sirree. 152
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 19 May 2010 02:47 | # GW,
I’ve thought about it. I will if i change job. 153
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 19 May 2010 09:23 | # This is a typical gobbledygook from pseudo-intellectual who wants to sound solid, but has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
# I was seeking to draw an anaology between the two sciences in order to demonstrate that Darwinian theory was always a flawed theory, an incomplete theory and the start of the science of evolutionary biology. To base a political theory on classical Darwinism is idiotic.
Quantum physics is neither the root nor the fruit of Newtonian mechanics.
Quantum physics is neither more accurate nor less accurate than Newtonian mechanics. Both are simply physical theories for different scales of physical reality.
For your information, not a single significant development took place in Quantum theory ever since the dogma of the Copenhagen interpretation, with the Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty at its core, took place. Albert Einstein and, especially, Erwin Schrödinger, the father of wave mechanics, have pointed out numerous absurd implications of Copenhagen interpretation from which it never recovered. Quantum physics is in shambles today, and it is nothing but an orthodox religion in science, as tolerable to new ideas as the church in times of Galileo.
Have you been hiding in a cupboard with a duvet over your head going ‘la la la la la la la la la la la la’ for the last fifty years moron ? Heres something I find very interesting in relation to quantum physics ; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203131356.htm It appears that in relation to the Darwinian struggle and the Herclitan nature of that struggle, the average man in the street is not vastly superior to a mollusc - as the average algae has been utilising quantum mechanics for more than two billion years. So, I wonder, does that make algae more intelligent than humans. Perhaps the Neitscheans, and Herclitan fans, may want to ponder that. You though I van can get back in the cupboard and pretend science hasnt moved on from Darwin and Einstein. I can already hear the la la la la already you plonker. 154
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 19 May 2010 09:30 | # Imagine the scene at the trial of a soldier in the American Civil War ;
The counsel for the prosecution - Sir, the accused was found being ironic on the battlefield. He made a joke about how liberty seems to love flags and death. The judge - HE DID WHAT. How dare you use irony on the battlefield. Dont you know that this is AMERICA ! We have outlawed irony in order to allow us to become the most pompous, conceited pricks on the planet and in order to allow us to establish an future global empire based on invading and subjugating nations, when our nation itself was based on the principle of national independence, securing liberty from tyranny and fighting British Imperialism. Irony would undermine that vital project. Take the accused outside and shoot him !
155
Posted by fellist on Wed, 19 May 2010 10:04 | # LJB:
Those British politicians were the gun, the instrument of the Jews.
You agree with Zionist Jews that they may/must distinguish themselves from the English, Scots and Welsh if they are to survive and also pursue an authentically ‘autonomous nationalism’, but you don’t permit that we require/ may enjoy the same advantage - to distinguish ourselves from them and separate from them. You rave against those of us demanding mere equality. 156
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 19 May 2010 12:52 | # You agree with Zionist Jews that they may/must distinguish themselves from the English, Scots and Welsh if they are to survive and also pursue an authentically ‘autonomous nationalism’, but you don’t permit that we require/ may enjoy the same advantage - to distinguish ourselves from them and separate from them. You rave against those of us demanding mere equality.
Yeah thats right- I am the worlds first British Nationalist that wants to put the interests of the British people secondary to all others. Jeez. 157
Posted by Wild Bill on Wed, 19 May 2010 23:21 | # David Duke .com Alex Jones .infowars.com (probably he would do a simulcast and get MR 200,000 new hits) Sam Dickson .amren.com Norman Lowell Zbigniew Brzezinski 158
Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 20 May 2010 16:39 | # @Lee John Barnes
US/British lead NWO has been since the collapse of the USSR and really before that prior to WW1policy is to create independent nationalist states around the world in key geo-political and strategic locations usually in areas with large natural resource and oil to advance the NWO agenda most being on the payroll of NED and other organisations like the Jamestown foundation. So do you support the independence of Kosovo and if so then I guess you support independence of Mexican dominated areas of Texas is they decide to form terrorist/separatist movement and ethnically cleanse native white Texans supported and financed by Mexican drug cartels and Latin American governments?
159
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 20 May 2010 20:05 | # Of course I do not support of the CIA sponsored, Al Qaeda linked, SAS trained, BDV funded islamist Narco-Terrorist state of Kosovo. What Serbs do to fight terrorists is nothing to do with me, just as what Israel do to fight terrorists in their lands is of no interest to me, as much as what the PLO and Hamas do in Palestine do to defend their territory from the state terrorism of Israel is of no concern to me. I am a Nationalist. Kosovo is Serbian territory. Would we ever have ever surrendered Wales to the holiday home burning nutters of Welsh Nationalism - of course not. Re Arizona what the Southern Confederate States of America like Arizona need to do is form a New Confederacy against the tyrannical US Federal government and the Federal Reserve. You need to demand economic and regional autonomy - what the New Confederate States supporters must do is set in place a locally produced Southern Greenback Currency using the Regional Currencies Model run by not for profit Credit Unions that do not use Fractional Reserve Banking, but use a deposits only based system eg they only give out what they have in and do not borrow any money to run the bank nor invest the money - the money stays as money in the bank. A dollar goes in - a Greenback dollar goes out. Users are charged a fixed rate for the transfer of dollars by a small fee that is charged to use the service eg 1 cent charged on the dollars swapped to cover staff and admin costs of the credit unions that run the system. Savers are paid only a small interest rate on their savings so the currency stays stable in the event of the dollar crashing or inflation pegged to the dollar growing. The Confederate States can then peg the value of the greenback in relation to the collapsed collars, and by doing so impose local prices controls ensuring the Greenback Currency retains its purchasing power in the local economy. Then when the dollar collapses the Confederated Greenback can be used as an alternative to the dollar. This will be a voluntary system across state lines supported by regional states, and each Confederate Greenback can be swapped for dollars in banks, shops etc across the confederated states. The Greenback Currency can be used to buy goods in shops, swap for dollars, be paid in wages etc. 160
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 21 May 2010 03:37 | # @Lee John Barnes Thank god and I extend that to other states like Dahlia Lamas Kleptocracy in Tibet supported by the CIA and British intelligence from the very beginning and the Hollywood crowd. http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/ajax/photos/53
. I have you wrote articles on the subject before? Who are the BDV I have not heard of them before? The genocide of the Serbs based on phoney and debunked Serb atrocity stories and the Srebrenica massacre myth (not the real one of 3,500 Serbs by Nasir Oric’s Muslim brigades international and domestic who used the UN safe zone in Srebrenica to launch attacks) does not seem to be an issue among nationalists including this blog.
But what would the value of the Greenback be based on. All of US industry, the ones that have not outsourced oversees are owned by the international elite and US domestic infrastructure has been rotting for decades like the energy grid in New York and California and the damns that collapsed in New Orleans. 161
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 21 May 2010 05:41 | #
I dont think thats correct. There has been plenty of pro-Serb talk here. I dont recall anyone here taking the anti-Serb line at all on Kosovo. Do a search. Maybe it wasnt discussed much or in much detail. 162
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 21 May 2010 07:47 | # @Lurker
@Lurker I didn’t mean that they were taking an anti-Serb stance or a pro-Albanian one but it is amazing that MR can have numerous posts on Muslims in Europe like in Sweden, Britain or elsewhere yet overlook the fact the their origin and base of operation and major victory in Europe with establishment of a phoney Muslim persecution backed by Holocaust iconography and propaganda is largely overlooked or at least not given the prominence you would expect given the Bosnia/Kosovo connection to both the Madrid and London train bombing or Bosnian/Austrian connection to 9/11.
163
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 21 May 2010 08:31 | #
That is because of the implicit Nordicism of English “ontological nationalists.” I take it you do realize that the Final triumph of our race of the Jews will be effected, if at all, by Nordics.
You mean White lemmings internalize the victimology of a people who are not their own, Jews, as you internalize the victimology of non-Nordics, Slavs? Go figure. 164
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 21 May 2010 18:34 | #
Nordicism of English and Jewish nationalism which are both internationalist in nature are one and the same.
No I mean they literally used Holocaust iconography comparing the Serbian death camps hoax to Nazi death camps like Belsen and people like Simon Wiesenthal and holocaust survivors where used to lobby efforts against Serbs who along with Milosevic was compared to Hitler. Part of the answer is provided by a REVEALING INTERVIEW by Mr. James Harff (director of Ruder & Finn Global Public Affairs) given to Mr. Jacques Merlino in Paris in October 1993. Ruder & Finn are public relations company, currently registered as foreign agents. Here are Harff’s statements, slightly abbridged. Question: What achievement were you most proud of? Harff: To have managed to put Jewish opinion on our side. This was a sensitive matter, as the dossier was dangerous looked from this angle. President Tidjman was very careless in his book “Wastelands of Historical Reality”. Reading this writtings, one could accuse him of of anti- semitism. In Bosnia, the situation was no better: President Izetbegovic strongly supported the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in his book “The Islamic Declaration”. Besides, the Croatian and Bosnian past was marked by a real and cruel anti-semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps. So there was every reason for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile towards the Croats and Bosnians. Our chalenge was to reverse this attitude. And we succeded masterfully. At the beginning of August 1992, the New York Newsday came out with the affair of (Serb) concentration camps. We jumped at the opportunity immediately. We outwitted three big Jewish organizations - B’Nai Brith Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Congress. We suggested to them to publish an advertisement in the New York Times and to organize demonstrations outside the U.N. This was a tremendous coup. When the Jewish organizations entered the game on the side of the (Muslim) Bosnians, we could promptly equate the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind. http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-atrocities-egypt1967.html#anchor30120 Just as you promote the fictitious victimology of whites with the exception of whites in South Africa. I just speak the truth I don’t internalize anything. When then the British lead NWO commits genocide to advance there one world government I speak against the evil whether they be white, Asian, Hispanic, etc while you side with it. You never answered my previous question did you like the video I posted about the good news that the US birth rate is increasing just like in Russia? 165
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 22 May 2010 14:42 | # To MR’s anti-Semites: no serious politics in the West today can have as their foundation anti-Semitism. This is particularly true for nationalism. I assume that at least some here are interested in moving beyond posting messages on widely unread blogs. Don’t worry. FB. GW’s philosophy—which will save the white race—will be unveiled soon. It will SHOCK THE WORLD! LOL 166
Posted by GT on Tue, 25 May 2010 22:09 | # Lee John Barnes’ bit about whites doing a “long march through the institutions” excites the hell out of me! When can we get started? Newsflash, bubba: You’re 70 years too late. 167
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 26 May 2010 15:02 | # Guessedworker, Why not try to land an interview with Ann Coulter? This way you can match wits with someone you feel is your intellectual inferior. After the interview, we can all judge who won the debate. I’ll take 10:1 odds that Ann Coulter would clean your clock and not even break a sweat doing so. I’d extend that to anyone who posts here at MR. I’m not saying the people who post at MR are stupid; it’s that you fellas are definatly not ready for prime time, that’s all. ———————————————————————————————————————— Newsflash, bubba: You’re 70 years too late. You’re exaggerating a bit there, GT. I’d say 65 years is more like it. 168
Posted by Eumaeus on Wed, 26 May 2010 16:09 | # You guys are hilarious. WTF do you know about Frazier Glenn Miller? Either crap you’ve read on SPLC or crap spun out by the Order apologists. He is no loser. Back in the 80s he put a few hundred men in camoflauge uniforms on the streets of NC and other states explicitly stating WN ideas. If you had seen the video of some of those events, you could hear his pithy, Southern-style populist rhetoric and appreciate the solid appeal of the WPP to regular folk of that time. Who is doing anything remotely near to this now? Nobody. He probably helped the Ft Smith Sedition trial defendants win their aquittal by cooperating lnot with the government but with Louis Beam’s cross examination of him that easily raised reasonable doubt for the jury. Some “cooperating witness” eh? Goes into the witness protection program and resurfaces years later unapologetic. Can you imagine the embarassment this was to the fedgovs? I get a laugh about it often. Roll forward, to VNN-times, he helped blanket various parts of the USA with the TAA tabloid editions where over 100,000 tabloids were hand distributed to people on lawns or in person. Who had even approached this—other than what he’d done before in the WPP—maybe the NA back when it was still being lead by someone besides Punchy. Now what is he up to? Running radio ads for White nantionalist ideas on radio stations. Imagine that! Nobody can even keep WN radio on shortwave hardly, let alone mainstram AM stations. How? By running as a candidate, and using FEC guidelines to force his content onto the airwaves. Let me tell you this. He is a genius of insurgency, a true Patriot and white leader, who took his training in insurgency/ counterinsurgency from the US fedgovs and turned it against the Jew. If we had a lot more like him we’d be way farther down the road. The man has a lot of faults to be sure but you ought to focus on his successes. I have outlined the major points. Another figure that gets ignored by the suit and tie racialist crowd is Tom Metzger. He is another one who has done amazing things that were incredibly successful. Oh he is also running for office as a write in candidate. he’s done that before. Why dont more people use the levers of mass democracy for our cause? The point is not to win elections the point is to get out the message. Anyhow these things make a difference just like David Duke’s election bids made a huge difference. Nobody wants to do it now, why not? I tell you why I would, I lack the balls to do what they have done. At least I can admit it. 169
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 27 May 2010 02:00 | # Thorn’s admiration for Ann Coulter’s intellect is touching. Here’s the diapasonic diva in her own pathetic words : “I know Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that’s all I really need to know”. As far as MR’s bloggers not being “ready for prime time” goes, that is probably just as well considering the filthy, anti - host tribe which controls it in the USA, as Edmund Connelly’s excellent essay, The Jews of Prime Time, so amply demonstrates. 170
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 27 May 2010 15:23 | # Al Ross, Ann Coulter’s personal religious beliefs aside, she has a message that resonates with most of the non-lib populace. Her ideology actually has widespread support. Its true her public message is nowhere close to someone like Glenn Miller, but those in the MSM on our side can’t come out and say so lest they be fired. It all boils down to “who’s your daddy!” 171
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:06 | # J.B. Campbell .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 172
Posted by DanielS. on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:35 | # Ken Humphreys http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) <ken@jesusneverexisted.com> 173
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:24 | # I would like a radio interview/talk with Andrew Anglin….or Kyle Hunt, for similar reasons - Kyle is awfully cool with some true-to-life Nazis, such as Markus - “World War II never officially ended” - whom I mention below). But regarding Anglin, I’m curious about how he reconciles White Nationalism with his beliefs and the imagery of his site, Daily Stormer. In his last talk with Carolyn Yeager, he claimed that there was unassailable proof that Hitler wanted peace. I guess that most people, myself included, would see those “proofs” as not worth the paper they are printed on. He uses a header on his site which shows the Luftwaffe dropping bombs - on what must be other sovereign White countries. Fundamentally, I would like to ask, what good is reanimating World War II going to do for WN? There are many figures in WN now who are gaining audience and perhaps funding by pandering to a Nazi POV - gaining a ready consumption from some people of the former Axis powers and the likes of vast German and Irish demographics in The US - playing the violin for the grievances of the German national/imperialist perspective as it was, and vilifying or ignoring the interests of other European nationalists and history as they are inconvenient. It seems a good way to stir-up inter European animus rather than cultivating White Nationalism and its unioned cooperation. If the borders were as they are now after Versailles, I might understand indignation. But not now, not consequent to World War II. Germany lost World War I, and not only they, but other European nations lost millions after Germany decided it was entitled to rape Belgium. While Germany overcompensating for the overcompensating terms of Versailles is understandable, isn’t the Allied overcompensation also understandable - if also incorrect? Not talking about the Jewish stuff or the economics now, but territory: for the small areas that were difficult to draw perfectly for historical ambiguity and territorial practicality after World War I, I cannot see genuflecting over Hitler for his military “solutions” regarding those Versailles borders. But of course that is a moot point. Nobody with any sense believes he was going to stop there and respect the sovereignty of nations to the east. Hitler’s militarism is clear in Mein Kamf as is his imperialism; i.e. this is not White Nationalism, it is German imperialism. Rather, German nationalism would be cooperative with other European nationals - wherein we secure our distinct European peoples; where additional land is seen necessary, we would (ought) to cooperate to secure it from other continents and spaces: land, sea and air. But that’s not the way of the present day Nazi advocates; they remain imperialist and supremacist. I am supposed to say “Oh boy! Hitler shot the brave Poles who took their ancient capital of Poznan back (fort VII); he would take the property of others, put the men to work in camps and give their wives to Krauts. Lets get behind the leader!” From a White Nationalist perspective, it is clear that Hitler drew his lines of interest too narrowly around Germans, Germanic people, their imperialistically aggrandized borders; and went over the top in overcompensation. Those nations who were not inconvenient to that view could be a party to their interests. ............... Annihilation is defined as “total destruction” or “complete obliteration” of an object; having its root in the Latin nihil (nothing) Hitler not only had intention to annihilate Poland, but proclaimed it as a matter of German pride.
“World History knows three battles of annihilation: Cannae, Sedan and Tannenberg We can be proud that two of them were fought by German armies. Today we can add to them our battles in Poland and the West and those which we are now fighting in the East All others were battles of pursuit.” 174
Posted by Pete Cvjetanovic might be good to talk to. on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 17:07 | # Though a bit green and naive in getting caught up in the Unite the Right movement, this guy, Pete Cvjetanovic, who got inadvertently featured at the front of the torchlight march, is apparently well meaning and reasonable… could be good to talk to; he claims that he’ll talk to anyone… Part 1 Part 2 175
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:16 | # Give him time to gain experience and develop and deepen his understanding. 176
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:06 | # He probably doesn’t need any more heat on him, true; but it would be good if he were talked-to before he becomes entrenched in the suspect view of Eli Mosley. 177
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:42 | # I should say this: A quote from Eli Mosley was presented out of context by anti-Whites. He is recorded talking to Whites about strategy before “Unite the Right”, Charlottesville; and at one point says, that he doesn’t care if you want to say x thing about y people in your own podcast or wherever, but don’t say it here, because that’s not the objective of this rally. That was taken as meaning that he absolutely advocates x. The quote can be heard here: Reveal News, “Street fight: A new wave of political violence”, 23 Sept 2017. On the other hand: A west coast anti-fa - calling himself “Dominik”, a resident of Oakland - was among five “anti-fa” filmed kicking and beating White protestor, Keith Campbell, 54, in Berkeley; even when Campbell was on the ground. The anti-fa, Dominik, states positively that he is entitled to do violence to Whites - even if they are unarmed (as in the case of Campbell) - if he takes them to be White supremacists, since he thinks that they might do violence themselves in the future.
He calls Keith Campbell, 54, a known fascist.
Post a comment:
Next entry: Suggestibility and not-being in modernity
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsGuessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:50. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:49. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:15. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 15:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 10:43. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:01. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:56. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:54. (View) |
Posted by required on Sat, 15 May 2010 11:56 | #
Wintermute
Silver
N/A
PF
Kevin McDonald
Frank Salter
F. Roger Devlin
Richard Lynn