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...

“Can European Civilisation Survive?” the publicity asks.  Not without Europeans, one must reply.

But Identity Crisis, a two-day chatter starting this very day (Thursday) at the European University of Rome, does not concern itself with us.  This is Judeo-Christian country.  What happens to Europeans doesn’t matter, so long as Western Civ can be salvaged in an executable form for the godly and the

paragoniac.

The moving spirit of the conference appears to be Avi Davis, a man of many talents according to his bio, since he is an attorney, documentarian (?), senior fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, and a senior editorial columnist for Jewsweek, among other Israel-gripped rags.

What Avi and his friends are up to here should be pretty plain.  They are trying to shape the countours of future government opinion.  You can tell it’s government opinion-forming they are interested in because their method - the international conferences, the “scholarly studies”, the complex little knot of “Institutes” and “Forums” - is the same as that employed by the New Left when it culturalised discourse in the 1980s.  They have money, as the left surely had money - and no doubt from some rather similar sources.  They have some influence, at least, in places of power on both sides of the Atlantic.  And they have an enemy: not European Man this time but Islam in and beyond Europe.

They are cultural preservationists, I suppose.  They are not like us.  We set out to preserve the greatest of peoples while Jews see only anti-Semitism in that sacred goal, and Christians see the worship of a craven image.  To the question, “Should European peoples be free to live as they please, and with whom they please, in their own lands” these people would be constitutionally unable to answer in the positive.

So is Avi’s effort a help or hindrance to our goal.  Well, right now the discussion at high levels in European politics of Islam as a threat in itself is not unhelpful to nationalist parties like VB and the BNP.  And since the true political and philosophical nature of nationalism is too revolutionary to be entertained at any level of government, there is no material loss to us if Jews and Christians push the anti-Islamification agenda successfully.

But, of course, the point arrives when civilisation as a value in itself misses the mark.  It is to genetic survival what citizenism is to blut und boden.  It will contribute nothing to our cause, other than the educational experience of seeing the opinion-forming exercise professionally - and lavishly - undertaken.

JW Holliday has produced a revised version of his landmark essay on the work of Frank Salter, originally published in the February 2003 issue of American Renaissance magazine.  It is in PDF form so as to facilitate easy transmission by e-mail.  It has been written accordingly, and is perhaps the clearest, most accessible formulation of Salterism thusfar.

The essay extends over three and a bit pages, and can be downloaded here or by clicking on the EGI.pdf link in the index column, under Important Issues.  It will have a permanent home there.