|
|
|
Whom do we murder next? Why not Gaddafi? A review of a recent publication by a senior researcher for the House of Commons which suggests murdering Colonel Gaddafi would be lawful. by Alexander Baron The extra-judicial execution of Osama Bin Laden was met with a mixed reaction; on the one hand there was jubilation that the fanatic who had taunted the world for a decade had at last been made to pay for his crimes. On the other hand, there was concern in some quarters that Bin Laden had not been arrested and brought to trial, and there was also the very minor objection that the United States had violated the sovereignty of a friendly nation. Now, a House of Parliament senior researcher has published an official paper in which she uses the execution of Bin Laden as a justification for the proposed murder of Colonel Gadaffi, who presumably has succeeded Bin Laden as the baddest man on the planet. In her own words, House of Commons researcher Arabella Thorp “arrived in the Home Affairs Section of the Library in 1997, fresh out of music college” and was “very pleased to have found a job that I actually did want to do” because “there is a wide variety of people working here, they are all friendly and open and extremely helpful.” Obviously though some are more friendly than others because according to Thorp in Killing Osama bin Laden: has justice been done?, “Some of the arguments used to present bin Laden’s killing as lawful could also be applied if coalition forces kill Colonel Gaddafi. General Sir David Richards, the UK’s Chief of Defence Staff, has reportedly said that the killing of Osama bin Laden should serve as a warning to Gaddafi”, and “a wider implication is that the killing may be seen as a precedent for targeted killings of individuals by any state, across international boundaries, at least where terrorism is involved.” Great, so the United States, no, any state, can kill people it designates as terrorists, including across international borders, but according to the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism in the UK is defined in the following text as:
Did you get all that? The definition of terrorism includes both “serious damage to property” and “seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.” What does serious damage to property mean? Smashing up the office furniture? Trashing a car? Throwing a brick through a neighbour’s window? And what does “designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system” mean? Stealing a laptop? Jumping on your ex-girlfriend’s mobile phone? The execution of Osama Bin Laden has not only set a precedent but paved the way for the next such action, at least according to our budding Modesty Blaise, and after Qaddafi, and as many senior Al-Qaeda as Uncle Sam can manage, if she has her way there will be an abundant supply of legitimate targets for Navy Seals, SAS men and sundry other special operations task forces to take out, both at home and abroad. It’s lucky for the rest of the world we’re the good guys, ain’t it? This article appeared first in Digital Journal. Comments:2
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 19 May 2011 02:45 | # Given the visits from our Marxist friend recently it got me thinking about something. In the 80’s a group of Anglophone Marxist academics had a project. The project was to take Marx and reformulate and defend his hypotheses/ideas with the best that modern analytical philosophy and social science has to offer (such as using game-theory etc.). As a group they called themselves “Analytical Marxists”. The key figure was G.A. Cohen (yes yes I know) and his work “Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence”. In his introduction he even tells his reader that, in simple terms, his project is to produce and defend a ‘non-bullshit’ Marxism. But guess what? Cohen and this fellow travellers COULD NOT DO IT. They have all become ex-Marxists (albeit still on the left). For example, Cohen became an ‘ethical socialist’ defending it as a political project upon normative grounds. A 180 degree turn around from Marxism (within the confines of remaining on the left, of course). Anyways if you are bored and ever want to really piss-off a ‘Marxist’ in debate ask them if they are an ‘analytical Marxist’ or if they agree with their attempts to defend Marxism in this manner and sit back and watch the shitstorm. They hate these critiques more than any others as it comes form within their own side. Citing Roger Scruton or whomever, well the little Trots can have the delusional comfort of as dismissing it as the musings of a silly old reactionary. But the likes of Cohen tried to show that Marxism wasn’t a form of ‘higher’ bullshit and did the opposite. I think such forms of intellectual Jujutsu are invaluable. Understanding the enemy and using their own argumentative premises against themselves and/or to make our case. Another example is the real-world trade-off between diversity and relative equality/social solidarity. The average PC libtards head explodes when presented with this idea. 3
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 19 May 2011 03:59 | # Honestly Graham, I ask you….can your really argue with Marxists? I mean, in your experience…. The whole point of critical theory and such is to get around bourgeoisie concepts like logical consistency and plausible relevance. It’s like debating with a sack of turnips. 4
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 19 May 2011 05:36 | # Grimoire, May I kindly remind you that I haven’t received answers to my questions, where I have expressed my keen interest in your opinion. I reproduce my inquiry here again for your convenience:
Gute Nacht, Grimoire. Erinnern Sie sich bitte, dass ich Sie mag. 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 19 May 2011 09:52 | # Dr. Lister, Instead of wasting time actually reading the “Analytical Marxists” may I suggest David Gordon’s excellent dissection and critique of them entitled Resurrecting Marx. It’s on sale here: http://mises.org/store/Resurrecting-Marx-P22.aspx Re Marx more broadly, it is indeed necessary for the serious rightist intellectual to be familiar with Marxian doctrines, as so many have seeped into conventional liberal and thus MSM discourse. But no one should actually read Marx, beyond maybe The Communist Manifesto and The Eighteenth Brumaire (or at most some anthology of Marx and Engels which reprints those selections from the entirety of their work most generally accepted as expressive of the key elements of their doctrines). NO ONE SHOULD EVER WASTE PRECIOUS TIME READING DAS KAPITAL! I say this simply because Marx was almost totally worthless; his writing, especially on political economy, is extremely boring; and we all suffer from the classic intellectual’s problem: life is short, time is scarce, and there is so much more worth reading, even just in areas germane to the problems of race and civilization, than there will ever be time to read it. We should all resolve to make maximally efficient use of our time (and thus I should follow my own advice and simply ignore ineducable trolls like Arse-lan and Ivan). 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 19 May 2011 10:25 | # Let me add that if one wishes for a short, masterful explanation of Marxism and its flaws, one could do worse than (British classical liberal) David Conway, A Farewell to Marx. Of course, if one wants a detailed overview of the whole sweep of this rancid ideology, the classic rec is Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, originally a trilogy, now reprinted in one huge volume. 7
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 19 May 2011 10:31 | # Those ‘intellectuals’ that think ‘arging with marxists’ is a useful thing for nationalists to do, are the sort of ‘intellectuals’ nationalism can do without. What we need are ordinary people who can talk to ordinary people about ordinary things that ordinary people care about and get them to support nationalist parties in elections or to accept the vaility of nationalist ideas. Arguing with Marxists is as much a waste of time as arguing with a lamp post. Marxists are by definition thick as pig shite, otherwise they would not have become marxists in the first place. Secondly - as marxists their views and beliefs are not predicate on logic or rationality - hencer to argue with them is like arguing with a rabies infected pitbull. You will not persuade them to change their minds - so dont bother. Ignore them. INSTEAD GO TO YOUR LOCAL PUB / BAR / GYM / COMMUNITY CENTRE / CAFE / RESTAURANT ETC ETC and talk to the ordinary people there and try to get them to vote for nationalist parties. Leave the ‘intellctuals’ like Graham to argue with the Marxists. Now then El Graham Don Quixote - its time to saddle up Dapples again and charge at the Marxist windmills ! Onwards dapple - there a carrot waiting for you in the event of victory. 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 19 May 2011 11:14 | # Look it’s not about winning the minds of our enemies but understanding and destroying their ‘narrative’. That narrative and ideas shapes the lives of every ordinary person in the West (and is the basis for the insanity of ultra-liberalism). Arguments as to why international law is bluntly a crock of shit strike me as quite important if one wants to argue, at anything above pub-talk level against ‘universal human-rights’ et al., moreover any cogent argument against liberalism is valuable in some way. But given the ‘quality’ of those on the British right I’m not shocked that they are not deep thinkers. Griffin et al., can’t argue their way out of a paper bag. The only person I’m aware of (who is a ‘public figure’) and can effectively debate at a non pub-talk level is Jonathan Bowden. And what’s the the snide ‘intellectual’ comment? Lee look at my contributions on the Murros thread with the ‘Marxist’ - are they ones of someone that’s a thicko? Can you do better? As for talking common-sense how precisely is you modern-day “hi-tech Spartans” theme going down in the “Dog and Duck”? It’s almost as good Murros and his fashion tips. P.S. Lee are you not some sort of lawyer? Read any Carl Schmitt? Or is it all too difficult to go beyond the movie “300”? If people don’t want me to post then it’s no problem for me. 9
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 19 May 2011 11:59 | # Graham, you need to go back and re-read the thread about the spartans. You keep saying I was saying ’ thats what the west needs’ when my point was that in an organic european society that sort of warrior culture will arise organically as well. How can the ordinary man in the steet destroy a ‘narrative’. They cant. Trying is futile. The struggle is not win over the enemy, it is to win over the neutral and the passive supporters of nationalism to become active supporters of nationalism. We aint got time to try and win over the enemy. If you think the British public will be won over by ‘intellectuals’ then you are bonkers. The British public will be won over by the people they respect in their own communitis talking to them, not by intellectuals berating them for their stupidity. I havent read schmidtt - just had a quick read of his work. I am an Libertarian who believes the role of the state must be limited only to protecting liberty itself. I do not support dictatorships, I support the right of the state only to act in order to defend liberty itself and to defend the right of its citizens to assert their liberty, not to usurp liberty in order to defend the state. The state that awards itself dictatatorial powers is already a dictatorship, even if it doesnt use those powers. I believe the Organic National Community is the best model for the gurantor of liberty - a national community of people of the same stock and culture. In such a state, the state itself is a minimal state - not a power in itself. You can post what you like, its not my site. Just expect us to say what we want about iwhat you post. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 19 May 2011 12:35 | # I am an Libertarian who believes the role of the state must be limited only to protecting liberty itself. I do not support dictatorships, I support the right of the state only to act in order to defend liberty itself and to defend the right of its citizens to assert their liberty, not to usurp liberty in order to defend the state. The state that awards itself dictatatorial powers is already a dictatorship, even if it doesnt use those powers. I believe the Organic National Community is the best model for the gurantor of liberty - a national community of people of the same stock and culture. In such a state, the state itself is a minimal state - not a power in itself. (LJB) This is quite close to my own position. One problem: you are not a libertarian, because that cannot be squared with any real nationalism. The libertarian believes he has the right to associate with whomever he wants, including the right to bring that person, if foreign, into his country. The nationalist does not believe this, holding that individual liberties are always conditional, subject to being overridden for the good of the nation (or ethnic group). Libertarians and WNs (or any type of nationalists) diverge in first principles. That said, I, too, am a White and American nationalist who places a high value on liberty and property. 11
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 19 May 2011 12:44 | # Newsflash…much of the British population is somewhat stupid (and certainly many millions are totally misinformed about a whole array of topics - I mean millions read that fucking comic sheet called “the Sun” and there is barely any serious journalism at all in the MSM). It’s a fact much of the population is dumb and/or misinformed as, in any society, because cognitive skills will vary in a population and we also live with our ideological guardians that manufactured consent. But the real issue is undoing the ideological underpinning of liberalism and all of its toxic effects. If you think all liberals or leftists are, ipso facto, dumb or have no arguments then you haven’t read enough. Defeating liberalism as the ‘deep’ ideology of the West does require some serious intellectual work (and no, don’t be silly, Ayn Rand is NOT an intellectual in any way shape or form - libertarianism is simply more right-facing liberalism). The ultra-liberalism of the post-war period is unfortunately the most ‘successful’ ideology in history. It’s the unstated ‘common sense’ from our elites to most ordinary people. That state of affairs badly needs to be disrupted and broken. Now obviously taking about the cultural history of sub-Saharan populations or Carl Schmitt and the antinomies of ‘universal international law’ are NOT the topics a ethnically-aware political party would use in order to fashion an appealing and popular image for the masses. However going on about leather jackets, Nazi’s and the need for ‘modern Sparta’ et al., isn’t exactly a winner either. (On that topic why not read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and if the techniques are useful why not adopt them to our purpose?). And any serious political movement requires rigorous analysis and a somewhat robust intellectual framework behind it, yes?. Discourse is war, yes? I’m only trying to offer my thoughts which are still developing. I’m not trolling. As a aside there was rather amazingly someone in the American MSM recently discussing the death of the white race in explicit terms. I stumbled over it here - 12
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 19 May 2011 14:32 | # Leon, You are detailing Libertarianism in the present globalist system. The Libertarianism in an Organic National Community context secures liberty for the people of the National Community within the national community - in such a system you will not have the right to import in people to the nation state nor for them to have access to rights specific to the indigenous community. You will though have the right to leave the nation and marry who you like and live abroad. State Nationalism that rejects liberty and places the interest of the state ahead of the individual / ethnic community only does so as nationalism and its state model exist as an aspect of the contemporary globalist system. In the Organic National Community, the nationalism that exists in that nation state sees no distinction between the rights of the individual and the the protection of the national community - they exist as one and the same thing. The aim of the state is to secure the rights of the individual so that the whole community may benefit from the full flowering their innate skills and talents. 13
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 19 May 2011 14:34 | # Sorry, a slight amendemnt as was in a hurry ; The aim of the state is to secure the liberty of the individual so that the whole community may benefit from the full flowering their innate skills and talents. 14
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 19 May 2011 14:37 | # NOTHING is more important than this evil trend. Non-White British population reaches 9.1 MILLION http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/18/non-white-british-population-ons?intcmp=239 HOW can anyone, who is honest, possibly deny that the destruction of European populations is occuring at a rapid rate??? Shocking figure. 15
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 19 May 2011 14:38 | # Graham, I have read Alinsky. His whole theory is predicated on individuals working in their own communities to radicalise , agitate and exploit politically community issues for political gain. He doesnt state activists should waste time engaging with the enemy - the aim is to win over the and gain the support of ther community, not the marxists. 16
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 19 May 2011 19:56 | # Graham: Discussing intellectual and cogent debate with them is naive. Unfortunately for civilized people, a discussion on bullet-proof leather jackets and baseball bats in terms of dealing with marxists, is more realistic than discussing cogent facts and rhetoric. As unpleasant as that is for civilized people, that is the reality we are facing. One of our self-defeating traits as a people is that we hope that good sense, good will, sacrifice, hard work and constructive criticism will prevail. They have identified this as our Achilles heel and developed a strategy to use this against us. This is why immigration and social equality are among their main weapons….their main weapon is the good in us and our society. We have to separate the idea of talking to our people, people of European tradition, and people of Marxist tradition - as soon as a marxists enter a discussion, we have to switch gears. In a fight for survival it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, only who kills the other and is left standing. Too many of us have been sheltered from reality (Guessedworker, hope your reading this…) and some cannot bear the truth and hide from reality in abstractions. These people inadvertently serve as the vector for the marxists. If there is anything we have to get across to our people, it is that. 17
Posted by Foundation on Thu, 19 May 2011 23:48 | # Grimoire said: ‘In a fight for survival it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, only who kills the other and is left standing. Too many of us have been sheltered from reality (Guessedworker, hope your reading this…) and some cannot bear the truth and hide from reality in abstractions. These people inadvertently serve as the vector for the marxists.’ Couldn’t agree more mate. I’ve come across Marxists three times in my life. The first was at technical college in the 1970’s when I was on day-release and it was this beardy bloke who taught us ‘humanities’ one hour a week. The second was in the workplace fifteen years later and it was a union official with a serious personality problem. The third and last time was at Ruskin College, Oxford (where I tried to educate myself beyond the IQ setting I received in the womb) a place infested with Marxists of every persuasion. I started thinking about this miserable ideology after I left Ruskin: many there were suspicious of me because I’d served in HM Forces - especially when I told them I was a former Commando. One tutorial I went to was bizarre, the tutor’s room was filled with communist memorabilia and a large picture of Karl Marx hung on the wall. There was even a bronze bust of him on a sideboard. You get the picture. That was 2001, I was in my early forties and yet the experience changed me like no other. Suffice it to say the empty, emotionless, self-hating dogma that is Marxism had me reaching for my heritage, my ancestors and England. I became an ethno-nationalist a few years ago after meeting others like me, both online and in the flesh. There are hundreds of us now and almost half are ex-forces. We don’t do politics, we do culture. Culture trumps politics and we will fight to the death to keep it that way. So, to any Marxists, Fabians or socialists who read this forum I say this: The theft of our identity: reducing us to a skin colour in our own land. You will pay for this. Dispossession: 270 areas in England where our kinfolk no longer live. You will pay for this. Race-replacement: Becoming a minority in our homeland before the end of this century. You will pay for this. You want war and you’re going to get it. 18
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 20 May 2011 00:17 | #
It’s this kind of thinking that got us here in the first place. This is the vector, post-WWII, that fundamentally destroyed scientific racism. The ultimate victory goes to the fucker not the fighter. 19
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 20 May 2011 02:07 | # Desmond:
this isn’t a ‘type’ of thinking - this is reality. 20
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 20 May 2011 02:53 | # Foundation: Here’s to you and the best of health always Foundation. 21
Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 20 May 2011 04:58 | #
Madison Grant expressed this observation/prediction in The Passing of the Great Race, writing in the midst of WWI. He died childless. He who gets others to fight while leaving himself standing may not be the ultimate victor, but at the moment he’s doing better than the White man. 22
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 20 May 2011 08:00 | #
Are you a Nordicist, Gmoire? Not much “talk” required, a simple yes or no will suffice. 24
Posted by anon on Fri, 20 May 2011 12:44 | #
Grimoire’s too much a man of the world to be a Nordicist. Don’t you know, he, Silver and PF used to bang around Stamboul together scoring Zazaki broads. 25
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 20 May 2011 19:03 | # Isn’t Nordicist where you run around naked with a soup pot on your head, throwing rocks through people’s windscreens shouting ‘Yabba Dabba Doo’ ? Done that. Do I get a free set of squirrel pelt boxers and 15% off a oil change at Loki’s if I join? No one told me this. Not interested in right-wing hippie shit. 26
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 24 May 2011 01:10 | # Why Gaddafi’s Libya has been attacked by money changers: Post a comment:
Next entry: The Headhunter, a nationalist novel ... Review Call
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 19 May 2011 01:26 | #
Welcome to ‘1984’.
Suggest you read Danilo Zolo’s “Victors’ Justice: From Nuremberg to Baghdad” even if he is starting from a rather different premises, it is very good in parts - in fact it’s a rather forensic critique of the rampant inconsistencies within the ideological construct that is the liberal theory of international justice.
Zolo has also written articles such as “Against Universalism” dealing with themes such as;
“The same can also be said for notions such as ‘equality’, ‘democracy’ and ‘rights’, which are swiftly proposed as universal panacea for the realization of peace and justice among human beings. This is done despite the existence of several debates. Firstly, there is an extremely rich literature – from Alf Ross to Norberto Bobbio – on the antinomies, even the conceptual emptiness of the notion of justice. Secondly, the theory and the praxis of representative democracy, in the West as well as in the East, have been subjected to a caustic critique that denounces the ‘unkept – and unredeemable – promises’ of the founding fathers of the European liberal-democratic tradition…”
I think most would agree that slippery notions like equality, democracy and human rights have been ruthlessly abused in an ideological war upon Europeans.
Another interesting book on international law is by Martti Koskenniemi (From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument) but time is limited and I haven’t read it yet. The basic premise is that international law is an argumentative practice that attempts to remove the overtly political from international relations. International law thus is vulnerable to criticisms of oscillating between an irrelevant moralist utopianism or an apology to Realpolitik.
I view international law is a fiction - but what a dangerous fiction! Again it has been used as a formidable weapon against Europeans and our ethnic interests. Understanding how and why is a very important task IMHO.
Yes I know these people I mentioned are Marxian leftists, however as Jonathan Bowden once stated in a very perceptive lecture on the far left, some very serious Marxists tend to really hate liberals and liberalism (perhaps in part due to their own prejudice that the Right are all stupid reactionaries and can be safely ignored but liberals are the real scum as they should know better etc.) .
I find liberal political philosophy and ideology (of both the right and left facing varieties - liberalism is an incoherent Janus-faced formulation) to be utterly bankrupt as a serious conceptual framework to understand human nature or human communities. So why not pick out the analysis we find useful and mold it our worldview?