This is a tale of two newspaper articles.  One is a Philip Johnston piece run in yesterday’s Telegraph, reporting on the upcoming report by the House of Lords economic affairs committee into the true economic benefits of foreign workers in Britain.  The other is a Tim Hames piece in The Times, reporting on the stone-cold certainty of a first seat for the BNP on the London Assembly when Londoners go to the polls on May 1st.

The articles themselves were pretty fair.  Philip Johnston has form for bravery on the Great Existential Question.  Tim Hames hasn’t, but he only managed one reference to Fascism.

You can read the articles if you wish.  But my purpose here is not to draw your attention to them, but to their threads.

Both are long for right-wing rags (the Guardian crowd love the sound of their own typing).  Thusfar the Telegraph has reached well over 200 comments, the Times well over 100.  Here are a few examples, among many, of sound thinking.

From the Telegraph:-

“Even putting economics aside, who the hell are you to judge who is and isn’t worthy of a better standard of living, just for having the misfortune of being born in a different country? Why is a British citizen’s well-being so much more important than a Pole’s? Does carrying a British passport somehow make you more worthy? I smell a racist.”  sp0rk in New York

the government is elected by the people of the nation to represent the interests of the nation, that’s really rather simple and fundamental to the way politics work.

We do not owe anyone else anything, if immigration is in the interests of a nation then that’s fine, it becomes a contract of mutual benefit between state and migrant. No nation on earth works anything like you seem to want it to be, nor should it. Why should a migrant hold any nation to ransome and “demand” anything? What use would a illiterate peasant farmer from a 3rd world nation be to a post-industrial, information economy? Yes, no doubt his living standards would improve dramatically, but what do we get out of it having paid for those increased living standards? We already have millions of natives and immigrants, who are effectively unemployable and will be kept on benefits until they die. How would you suggest Western society would function if this numbered billions, which given the practical upshot of your “thinking”, it would be? As a British citizen I cannot unilaterally turn-up and demand to live anywhere other than in the EU by mutual governmental consent, so why should someone else?

How do you expect any nation, even the US to fund equal lifestyles and opportunities for the entire 6 billion around the globe? That’s before you get to the imperialistic tone of “global responsibility”, which I understand is deeply unfashionable these days.

If you smell racism, may I suggest an appointment at your local, ear, nose and throat clinic might be of benefit?
Posted by Peter B on March 31, 2008 8:01 AM

The main aim of uncontrolled immigration is to destabilise the indigenous population economically, politically and psychologically. People can then be afraid for their jobs, their standard of living and their security. In this situation it is imagined that the population will then have to rely more heavily on the state to provide, indeed it is the state that has caused the situation to exist. Problem - reaction - solution. Hegel couldn’t have done it better. Reports and criticism are just fleabites to the government, they scratch and then move on to the next agenda.
Posted by Michele, Saumur, France on March 31, 2008 9:18 AM

Since God chose Israel as his chosen people…how come he is not accused of racism…

Racism is an invention of racists to further their own undeserved interests…and its been working really well for fifty years.
Posted by Hugh E Torrance on March 31, 2008 9:32 AM

Repatriate about ten million immigrants especially those on benefits or who cannot speak English. Then we would no longer have crowded roads and trains, no heavy demands on electriciy and so no need for the blight of wind farms, no need for three million new homes or for “eco new towns” (which is a misleading term anyway) all eating up our countryside. Then England would become English again and most of our problems would be solved.
Posted by Arnold on March 31, 2008 10:00 AM

READ MORE...

Max Keiser, the engaging and extremely well-travelled financial journo at Al Jazeera, on the clear implications of central bank support for dumb and busted speculators:-

The money quote - sorry for the pun - comes right at the end.  “In this globalised financial world the profits have been privatised and the risks have been socialised”.  In other words, the bankers can’t feel the effects of their crazier speculations because government simply shifts the losses to the taxpayer.  In effect, the more crazy the speculation and the more spectacular the losses, the more certain it is that government will insulate the errant banker from the pain he causes.  Government actually condones his most irresponsible speculation.

How sustainable this nonsense is, we are now engaged in discovering.  Economic common sense dictates that it isn’t sustainable at all, and the longer it takes for the cost to return to source, the more likely the financial system will not be able to accomodate it, and will collapse.

Another very good financial dissection by Keiser, this time on what the yen carry trade is doing to Iceland, is available here.

The removal of Fitna.  Official LiveLeak statement.

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill-informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could affect the safety of some staff members,  LiveLeak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and wellbeing of our staff above all else.  We would like to thank the thousands of people from all backgrounds and religions who gave us their support.  They realised that LiveLeak is a vehicle for many opinions and not just one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one another’s cultures.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

LiveLeak.com

BUT IT’S STILL ON YOUTUBE

Yesterday’s original post ...

Geert Wilders’ has now found a host on-line for his much trailed and relentlessly tragic film, Fitna the Movie.  It is in Dutch, but scarcely needs translation.  It is too uncomplicated for that. [Actually here is the English-language version, with my thanks to Hibernia Girl - Ed]

Let it be said that Wilders’ message of Islam’s alien-ness and its implacable opposition to Western liberal democratic values is unmoderated by any political context.  OK, one wouldn’t expect too much of a critique of those values in a short film like this.  But the responsibility for transferring Moslem populations into Europe - and apparently they now stand at 57 million - goes totally unaddressed.  The viewer is left to assume that it’s simply a product of Islam’s expansionist ambitions.

Likewise, no attempt is made to investigate the nature of Moslem anger towards the West.  The vast offence that Moslems feel at America’s machinations in the dar al-Islam and the humiliation occasioned by Israeli aggression are not touched upon.  All the blood-letting is portrayed as a product of the “problematic” surahs.

We all know Wilders has a penchant for populist anti-immigration politics.  But Wikipedia helpfully explains that he also has a very special feeling, not to put too fine a point on it, for Israel:-

In the past twenty five years Geert Wilders has visited Israel about forty times, he says. According to his own sayings, he has met Ariel Sharon (“many times”) and Ehud Olmert, among others, in Israel. Furthermore, he claims tight connections with the Mossad.

... More than a few members of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy suspect Wilders of taking guidance from the Israeli Embassy in the Netherlands

... in 2005 Wilders proposed implementing Israel’s administrative detention in the Netherlands, a practice heavily criticized by human rights group Amnesty International. Also, at the time Wilders was member of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, he had an employee who directly came from the Israeli Embassy.

So perhaps Wilders is not all that interested in telling his own people that, fundamentally, Moslems are in Holland for the same reason that 1,350 Dutch soldiers are in Iraq.  Perhaps his pro-Israel sensibilities baulk at the very notion of a mutual separation - them from us and us from them.  After all, no employee in the Israeli Embassy would want to see a Dutch Holland or a West careless of its “duty” to the Jewish state.

View Fitna, with all its shock value, as an agitprop vehicle for an ambitious and energetic politician.  A serious contribution it aint.

I am indebted to onlooker for the following story, which is also the story of European Man’s questing mind.  On another thread onlooker posted a link to an innovation blog where the tale - perhaps tall, perhaps not - was told of John Kanzius and his radio frequency transmitter.

In an important sense it does not matter whether Kanzius’ little idea has at a single stroke cured every cancer and solved the energy crisis.  He is demonstrating the daring of the Western intellect.  Tens of thousands of men like Kanzius - not necessarily geniuses or giants of the scientific world - have set their eyes beyond the known horizon, and started walking.  Enough of them have found something new and useful to make our civilisation what it is, and set it far above all its forebears.  Half the world would rejoice in its destruction, such an affront to their self-respect is our ascendency.

The creativity of a Kanzius defines us.  We are not as spiritual as the Indian or as given to faith and hope as the Arab.  We are not as ethnocentric as the Jew, or as rooted in tradition.  We are not as bound to instinct as the African.  We are innovative.  We are restless.  We are takers of risks, albeit ones calculated to free us from sorrow, and raise this extraordinary European life still higher.

By Bo Sears

Most of us diverse white American people have had a hard time understanding US Senator Barack Obama’s mind. We now know about his policies toward European Americans (more LBJ-syle set-asides, affirmative action, and quotas), but he has also provided us with a window into his mind about how he views us.

Taking offence vs. analysing the speaker’s mind

The Hannity’s and Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s seem unable to discuss Obama’s willingness to label and describe us without getting tangled up in the concept of “giving offense.” Their lack of intellectual acuity doesn’t speak well for us.

Resisting Defamation has made it clear that slurs, slanders, names, labels, descriptions, and definitions don’t need to be offensive to us. They simply give us permission to look into the mind of the speaker to find out more about him. This is an important distinction—being “offended” is a highly specialized skill set, and most white American people do not realize that hours are spent in training in college dorms, human rights seminars, and minority-run segregated professional and occupational meetings to know when to shed one tear, two tears, or three tears for maximum impact; when to gasp in pain on hearing any of over 200 words that “give offense”; how to share with a left-wing racialist reporter one’s distress; and when to claim “I’m so afraid!” in public discourse.

Yes, dear reader, the “spontaneous” outbursts about offense are almost always fraudulent, but reporters who are in on the secret make a great to-do about minority claims of offense, frankly, as part of the campaign of defamation against the diverse European American peoples.

As sensible adults, we diverse white American peoples don’t claim offense, but we do find speech that denigrates, stereotypes, and uses code words or phrases worthy of analysis to determine the mind of the speaker.

So let’s take a look at Obama’s mind.

READ MORE...

The manipulation of the American political machine is the sole privilege of Jews.  Everyone knows that.  Or rather, everyone in the American political machine knows that, of course.  But nobody else should, and no one needs to.  And really, what’s it to ordinary disempowered Americans where policy comes from?  Nothing whatsoever.

Brave little Israel they must know about, of course ... the Holocaust ... MLK ... white guilt.  That sort of thing.

But the Israel Lobby?  Are you nuts?

So here, from a couple of years ago, is Eliot Cohen in the Washington Post ritually demonising the Walt & Mearsheimer paper out of existence.  He hopes.

Inept, even kooky academic work, then, but is it anti-Semitic?  If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information—why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.

Trouble is, those three little words “The Israel Lobby” have escaped into the public consciousness and cannot so easily be recalled, especially while some dumb Jewish journalist can lose the plot as royally as Dana Milbank did.  Reporting for the Post on a public meeting last Monday called by a “group of Jewish leaders” to discuss the 2008 presidential election, he actually wrote:-

The Audacity of Chutzpah

... Daroff said he had “heard in the hallways here” that Obama “doesn’t see the U.S.-Israel relationship as much of the mainstream of the Senate or the Jewish community sees it.”

Kurtzer [supporter Obama - Ed] blamed such sentiment on “attack dogs” and writers of scurrilous e-mails. “He’s right within the mainstream of American society and Jewish community concerns.”

... Next question to Kurtzer: Obama’s assertion that he needn’t have a “Likud view”—that of Israel’s right-wing party—to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a “plurality of views.” Silence in the room.

To that, Lewis [supporting Hilary - Ed] retorted: “The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.”  The audience members applauded.

So let’s run that thought-crime from Ann Lewis by once more.  Remember, this is a senior advisor to the Lizard Queen speaking.

“The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.  It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.”

READ MORE...

The only programme of the five in the BBC2 White season which has garnered any kind of praise from right-thinkers is “Rivers of Blood”, a surprisingly sympathetic and rounded portrayal of the great and courageous Enoch Powell.  Naturally, it has found its way onto YouTube.  My thanks to wintermute for sending me links to all six parts.

Part 1

Part 2

READ MORE...

The following review by Andreas Faust of Troy Southgate’s book of selected essays and poetry, Tradition & Revolution, provides a good introduction to that strand of thought which is National Anarchism.

NA might be seen as an ark in the worst-case scenario.  Some aspects of it leave me perplexed - the Wodenism, for instance, which appears gratuitous and artificial.  But NA is gathering adherents throughout the West, and Troy is certainly its leading spirit.  It is worth knowing about.
GW

This book contains a varied selection of essays, poems, and other short written pieces by Troy Southgate, one of the founders of the philosophy known as National-Anarchism. National-Anarchism is a cultural current rather than an organisation. It is a long-term strategy. N-A developed simultaneously in England, France and Germany, in just the same way that modern Odinism simultaneously sprang up in at least four different countries in the early 1970s.

N-A is a form of anarchism which has no roots in the political left, but neither is it right-wing. It differs from the ‘mainstream’ anarchist movement in its support for racial separatism (amongst other things), but at the same time has no problem with those who want to establish mixed-race communities also. As Southgate puts it: “We have no desire to rule over an administrative structure or disaffected population of any kind [...] Whilst they choose their own destinies, we shall choose ours.”

If N-A took off on a wide scale, this would theoretically lead to a series of independent communities, which “may or may not wish to form part of a confederated alliance”. Each community, of course, would be primed for self-defence. The regional alliance or federation would support any group of individuals wishing to found a separate community to preserve their own identity – regardless of what that identity might be.

So, has the book converted this reviewer to National-Anarchism? Well, hmmm, hmmm…I believe it might have. I still dislike the term. But on the other hand I can’t really think of a better one. On explaining the concept to a friend recently, he pointed out that as soon as you start throwing the word ‘anarchist’ about, it will automatically turn people away. The word has become linked with images of violence, chaos, disorder…sinister men in black balaclavas throwing bombs.

READ MORE...