|
|
Put your hands together.Posted by Søren Renner on Friday, September 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM in European Nationalism Comments:2
Posted by Dasein on September 18, 2009, 11:36 AM | # Bowden is a fantastic speaker. He should be invited to the next Amren conference. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on September 18, 2009, 12:17 PM | # I notice he slipped in that buzz-word of his: glory! How to go to hell in a moral handcart: convince the working-class man he is a Nietzschean, or would be if only he could find someone over whose dead body he could obtain his moment of silver-lined ascension. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 18, 2009, 12:29 PM | # Glory is more a French concept and a French goal than an Anglo-Saxon or Germanic one. It’s a Napoleonic sort of concept, typically French. Excellent speech by Bowden. I’d love to see the rest of it. Amazing man who can speak so well without notes. 5
Posted by Captainchaos on September 18, 2009, 01:08 PM | #
C’mon, to have won out in the end against all odds opposed by the greatest evil imaginable - the destruction of one’s people - and to have suffered grievously without self-pity for love is glorious. Tolkien at least actually did something he believed approximated that, and forfeited not honor, not decency, nor his manhood. If the lemmings need the trappings of myth to get them in gear, you couldn’t much better than Tolkien’s stuff - it really is all in there, or at least could be teased out. The English love Tolkien. Also, probably more morally wholesome than Kraut Kampf or Nietzsche. 6
Posted by Captainchaos on September 18, 2009, 03:29 PM | #
This is the moral bind. Were White men to fight in a headlong rush for glory, which I take to be in an unrestricted fashion, the bayonet being at the belly of the existence of their people, even if outnumbered 3 to 1, their non-White opponents would be rolled up like a cheap rug, doused with gasoline and burned to the ground in short order, so to speak. Because in all the ways that truly matter from the perspective of resource competition non-Whites are our racial inferiors. It would not really be a fair fight, much less one against overwhelming odds, and therefore not truly glorious. It would be an unmitigated slaughter in our favor. And could not the revulsion in the eyes of fence-sitters cause them to be swayed against us because of the “unfairness” of it all? Quite possibly. But one has to wonder, what number of atrocities stacked upon atrocities committed against our own people will a critical mass of them bear before they no longer care and say lustily, “Let the butchery begin!” 7
Posted by Guessedworker on September 18, 2009, 04:48 PM | # CC: C’mon, to have won out in the end against all odds opposed by the greatest evil imaginable - the destruction of one’s people - and to have suffered grievously without self-pity for love is glorious. The thing is, we would all do that for its own sake, and not for the silver-lined pay-back. But JB isn’t really referring to that. He is positing glory as The Big Philosophical Idea To Make Life Go With A Zing ... essentially, the ultimate value of human life. But ... it isn’t, and that means forcing it will have “unforeseen consequences” (like World War). Glory itself is a side-show, a bit of emotionalism that accompanies getting the job done. People who venture on something great for the emotional pay-off are fundamentally suspect. Full stop. The English love Tolkien. The English are duty-bound last-ditchers, and in that they find something unquenchable and eternal. This is why Dunkirk is dearer to them than D-Day. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on September 18, 2009, 05:48 PM | # And, of course, I would extend exactly the same character reference to the Scots and the Welsh, and the Scots-Irish. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on September 18, 2009, 06:46 PM | # CC, The “butchery”, as you call it, has to be approached in another way ... with eyes open and reason unclouded. It is not a cause for self-glorification, all bells and lights. It is a cause for regret that this lot falls to you ... regret that there is no other, no better way to give your people a future once more. In execution, it is a cause for military discipline and dedication to duty, and for holding to oneself the vestiges of humanity that war leaves us. It is a cause, afterwards, for life-long reflection, and for some it will be a cause of life-long pain. In short, the deeds of war are not to be taken lightly. Like Leontes, we must see the spider in the cup, and drink. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 18, 2009, 07:09 PM | #
Which is why war should never be declared lightly, or declared falsely, as Bush did in Iraq, a supreme crime against humanity, one of the most heinous crimes a leader can commit. Bush committed it, among other heinous crimes that piece of filth masquerading as a human being committed. War is sacred. Its goodness is sacred, its badness is sacred. To enter into it lightly or falsely, or to prosecute it immorally, is a variety of blasphemy. 11
Posted by Frank on September 19, 2009, 02:13 AM | #
Political meddling could be added to that list too. People shouldn’t meddle unless they know what they’re doing or they at least have a better understanding than the alternative meddler who’d go in the stead. This second generation of neocons is a far cry from its parents. They actually seem to have believed Iraq would be a cake walk. They’ve become as weak and ignorant as we are. 12
Posted by Robert Reis on September 19, 2009, 09:27 AM | # The real heroes of D-Day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v73P2ntLWP0&NR=1 Saga - “Krigarens själ” (The Warrior’s Soul) 2 minutes into video in English 13
Posted by Captainchaos on September 19, 2009, 09:51 AM | # I guess the mystery of why the Krauts folded like a house of damp cards is now answered, they were in it for the emotional high of stomping around in jackboots, and not out of a sense of duty. Har har. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on September 19, 2009, 10:40 AM | # CC, Look, do you remember the Empirical Gap article I wrote, critiquing teleology? It began with a quote by Ernst Jünger from his memoir Storm of Steel:
You understand. It couldn’t last. It was not real. Teleology finds a natural home in politics. But in war, no. 15
Posted by Captainchaos on September 19, 2009, 11:27 AM | # GW, I do fully accept the proposition that the meaning of our lives is propagation of our being, which is mostly ontological in character. I say mostly because one could argue, I think reasonably, that there is a teleological component which sets us striving for said propagation, however dimly, or falsely we may be aware of that. The trick then, if indeed that teleological component is indispensable, or at least non-removable (e.g., breed out the faith gene), is to wield it responsibly in light of continuing the eternal chain of our being. That is consciously. And in so far as the National Socialists neglected that (i.e., the realization, and its accompanying acting aright, that National Socialism was but a tool, one of several possible, in propagating the eternal chain of our being) then they were remiss. But, if this all ends bitterly, at the bitter end, those that know the truth will say, “The National Socialists were indeed benighted, yet they tried to do what was right according to Nature per instinct, crawling forward as only they could in light of their condition, in the dark. Our ancestors should have been with them. Now all is forfeit.” 16
Posted by Guessedworker on September 19, 2009, 01:18 PM | # CC, Irrespective of its potential utility or, in the light of that, its failings, as a movement dedicated to Life NS was salient. That is what we can take from it, that salience. It was scaled to the times. Look at the alternatives in the 21st century Anglosphere: 1. One hits and hopes for the inevitable like Kevin MacDonald (from his Foreword to Sunic’s Homo americanus):
2. One “does politics” like Lee Barnes & Co. 3. One rails at the wind and vows to “go through the Jew” while remaining in every detail a product of the advanced liberal age, and never committing philosophically to any more than reversing back to classical liberalism, or maybe doing some Randism or Popperism instead. For me none of these offers a satisfactory prospect of success ... especially Inevitablism. The war against our being has progressed to such a point of danger that a reliance on the re-emergence of the instinct that served European Man so adequately in the past (for example, via faith, tradition, conservatism, etc) reeks of passivity and complacency. It amounts to doing nothing. We need to do something, and it has to be big ... no less salient than NS was, and with no less traction on the times. That, really, is the full extent to which I can praise NS. It was defeated by instinct in 1945 - obviously, the Greatest Generation did not fight for neoliberalism, American Empire, etc. But instinct was played for a sucker and all is indeed forfeit. 17
Posted by Gorboduc on September 19, 2009, 06:40 PM | # Like the man says above…‘Glory’ and like the other one says, this equals ‘la gloire’. Yes, I too hear the MARSEILLAISE… As GKC says: ‘Fulham may seek for wealth, and Kensington for art, but when did the men of Bayswater care for anything but glory?’ Thw WWII bit is WONDERFUL; is the ghost of Churchill to be called up from wherever it lurks? Will it come shimmering arm-in-arm with the shade of UNCLE JOE? Someone mentioned Tolkien: it was JRT’s opinion that in that famous Teheran group photo, “our little cherub, W.S.C. actually looked the biggest ruffian present” - yes, even worse, that is, than Stalin, previously characterised by JRT as “that bloodthirsty old murderer”. I only ask because I’ve been re-reading Evelyn Waugh’s ‘Men At Arms’ trilogy about WWII, which charts the growing disillusionment of its sad hero Guy Crouchback as he realises that something worse than the destructive philosophy and tendencies he joined the army to combat, is in full swing at home… our unholy alliance with the USSR… Waugh might have agreed with JRT’s judgment about the ‘Americo-cosmopolitanism’ Britain was fighting for: Strange that Bowden symbolizes the horrors of conflict by referring to frying eggs on a tank! A wretched failure of the imagination. For illumination on how Bowden’s imagination REALLY works, visit the Saatchi Gallery online and look at a few of JB’s products: here’s how: http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/artpage/35621.html/ Amazing to find a BNP officer in league with a Saatchi, isn’t it? Erm, well, ISN’T it? Hmmmmmm ... Anyway, it’s plain that JB’s srtistic talents would just about enrol him in the rear rank of the most minor of the German-Jewish expressionists of about 1910-1920. I expect there are portraits of Schoenberg and Kandinsky somewhere. in his opera - me, I wouldn’t let him paint my outside lavatory. 18
Posted by Captainchaos on September 19, 2009, 08:08 PM | #
LOL! It looks like crap to me too. Charles Murray speculates in his book Human Accomplishment that we have evolved standards of beauty, in Europeans this obviously tends towards realism, or an idealized hyper vision of the real. GW says we need something big, commensurate to National Socialism to win the day. I agree with that. We need a big mobilization of our people, a movement. Dressing up as Nazis and giving each other stiff-arm salutes ain’t going to cut it since all that has been so pathologized in the minds of the lemmings. Appropriating the image of the Spitfire and Churchill for the BNP EU Parliament campaign was a slick idea. Again, I think it would be a great idea to capitalize on the extant popularity of The Lord of the Rings and recontextualize it for party purposes. Some great paintings have been done by British and Dominion artists depicting scenes in LOTR that look a lot better than Bowden’s rubbish. Reintroducing the lemmings to an idealized vision of Northern European beauty and virtue could unconsciously condition them to getting in touch with their being. It could work well if done in tandem with GW’s developing philosophy. I think it’s at least worth a roll of the dice. 19
Posted by Gorboduc on September 20, 2009, 04:51 AM | # Agree, CC. There are some stunning LOTR illustrations that REALLY make the point about Sauron and the hordes of Mordor! It’s a great shame that The Scouring of the Shire was omitted from the recent film version. (Interesting to discover that JRT was a lifelong reader of Candour!) The Scouring of the Shire really needs to happen here, but the BNP aren’t the folks to do it, are they? Well I do hear that in the London area some of them are waging fearless campaigns to de-litter local bus-shelters… Gandalf picked up his staff. “My dear hobbits, there is one more way to strengthen the fainthearted and to lessen the power of the Ring, but you will need to hire the back room of ‘The Prancing Pony’ and have another leaflet-folding session. You could ask Sandyman and Sharkey to help” Ha! We should have borne before us a great banner (let as try some Bowden-type rhetoric here, “a streaming oriflamme barbarically emblazoned with rich gold and vermilion”) with the White Horse or the White Dragon on it; but just fancy, it’ll turn out to be a dirty old rag with Bowden’s picture of poor old Hoppy Hopkins printed on it…does that former Angry Young Man really look like Grayson Perry now? It was good of Bowden though to remind those who used to know Brons that he was once big in the old NF. O quantum mutatus ab illo… 20
Posted by Guessedworker on September 20, 2009, 06:52 AM | # A couple of days ago the Telegraph ran a slideshow of the work of Alyssa Monks, who has developed an art of supra-real representation to get at, she says, the truth of life in a way that mere photography cannot. I had not heard of Monks, and was intrigued enough to visit her website. http://alyssamonks.com/port.asp Now, Monks is a very female artist whose life-view is typically intimate. She is a genuine master in the treatment of water, especially large bodies of water: http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7682/08ci7.jpg ... and does not suffer too much even in comparison with Ingres (http://www.dl.ket.org/webmuseum/wm/paint/auth/ingres/ingres.broglie.jpg) in her treatment of fabric: http://www.paintblog.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/alyssamonks.jpg But her truest art lies in intuiting something about the experience of living. It is the antithesis of Bowden’s ironic, sub-Baconian (http://www.artquotes.net/masters/bacon/bacon_study1953.jpg) scribbles. But, in its fidelity to human experience, it is also the antithesis of the LOTR illustrators. And this is the point, really, that a man’s role at the end of Europe’s racial history is to restore these gentle truths to his family and his people, to restore quietitude and safety, to allow the space for self-absorbtion and self-expression. It is not to be engrossed by conquest or valour or glory. In other words, the male concentration on valour and glory is as close in range and small in scale as any woman’s view of her world, but this is not natural to us. Our nature reveals itself in action which contains no thought for such closeness. My Dad, who wrote a book about male action, used to say that once he had his Lanc lined up by the flight caravan, all four engines singing, every rivet dancing and the whole aircraft and every crew member straining to go, his pre-flight nerves fell away. For the next six or seven hours he would be too busy to give them a thought. Just so with la gloire. It is a confection. This, though humbly represented in pencil, was real: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/theartofwar/img/pics/works/INF3_0435.jpg Flt Sgt James Ward, fighting a fire over the Dutch Coast, an action which saved the plane and crew, and earned my father’s squadron it’s only VC, and one of only fifteen awarded to Bomber Command throughout the war. 21
Posted by G on September 20, 2009, 07:33 AM | # Yeah, well, GW, there used to be a silly old joke about portraits, “It looks more like me than I do myself!” Somewhere CS Lewis attacks those prats who say that modernistic art brings us closer than our own unaided perceptions could to the textures or appearances or actual natures of granite, wood, water, grass, flesh: something like, “What’s wrong with you that you hadn’t noticed these wonders already?” I agree that when you’ve endured 5 minutes of Maxwell Davies or Turnage a simply scored chord of C major is like the opening of the Gates of Paradise, but I’d rather not have to inhale the reek of sewage to give me an appetite for my Sunday lunch. (As GKC said, what healthy man needs an aperitif?) Is supra-realism the same as surrealism? In which case it’s just another expression of marxist theory. Are you now a Churchill/Spitfire/Orwell’s “Moon under the Water”/Spinster-bicycling-off-to-matins sort of bloke? Don’t see the connection between your father’s experiences in a Lancaster and Bowden - oh, wait a sec, is it tied up with the sub-Jungeresque egg-frying-on a-tank incident? Many men in combat have reported the feeling of just needing to get on with the job, and a falling away of the sense of peril. Peter Simple of the Daily Telegraph used to quote Junger a lot, possibly hoping to epater the DT bourgeoisie by means of an apparent flirtation with nazism. Although surnamed Wharton, PS was actually Nathan: and, citing his own ancestry, his son became a Zionist. I like the theory of sub-Baconianism. I didn’t think you could get MUCH lower than an unpleasant homosexual who before going out to party rubbed boot polish into his hair and who was known to brush his teeth with sink-scourer. “No, no, it’s the ART we’re talking about.” “ART? For God’s sake man, WHAT ART?. Don’t tell me you like Bacon because he insulted Renaissance Popes? HE - COULDN’T - PAINT. OK? And neither can Bowden, no matter how “ironic” he might be.” The little vignette sketched by Kingsley Amis in his autobiography of a subdued Bacon trying to interest him in a gay porno mag makes me laugh. Confection? as in puffs, cakes and pastries? or as in Gloria in excelsis Deo? Hand me my laurel wreath! Sonnez, trompettes! I’m going down the pub. 22
Posted by Gorboduc on September 20, 2009, 08:24 AM | # Back for an instant: (Yes, G is Gorboduc).I looked at the URLs. The lady’s works do seem absolute tours-de-force, and technically wonderful. But the I-am-a-camera approach raises all sorts of problems. de Falla produced a brilliant piece of orchestration to imitate the effect of a squeaky unoiled pulley-wheel, and Villa-Lobos and Honneger both reproduced the sounds of steam locomotives. I have not heard Berlioz’s railway music nor studied the score but I have come across Mossolov’s Factory Music and Milhaud’s Machines Agricoles (this last is more of a suggestion than an imitation) While breathtakingly virtuosic, these sound events don’t neccessarily attain high artistic worth: they are wonderfully examples of aural trompe-l’oeil. Some criticism of certain of the pre-Raphaelites takes them to task for employing a sort of photographic realism, and for avoiding a humanist approach by merely reproducing or duplicating an appearance rather than interpreting it. It may not be an artistic virtue for the eye and hand to imitate in paint the effects of the mechanical process of photography. I expect some composers could cleverly imitate the effect of a piece’s being heard on a phonograph cylinder or being reproduced by some other mechanical means. Some WWI poetry falls into self-parody by producing stuff like: So Bowden’s Hoppy Hopkins is a virtuoso portrait of photographic supra-uber-hyper naturalistic realism and he REALLY DOES look like that? Poor bloke. As the olde joke hath it, 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 20, 2009, 09:02 AM | # Gorboduc welcomes race-replacement. Bowden doesn’t. I know which of the two I prefer, modern abstract art notwithstanding. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 20, 2009, 09:06 AM | # Gorboduc also follows a degenerate Christianity, and not just follows it himself but comes around here wanting to fob it off on everyone else. No thanks, I’ll stick with the healthy variety. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 20, 2009, 09:09 AM | # GW, is that a man on the wing in that drawing? What’s he doing? 26
Posted by Guessedworker on September 20, 2009, 10:19 AM | # Fred, Jimmy Ward was a quiet and unassuming New Zealand pilot who was assigned to 75 Squadron RNZAF, which flew Wellington bombers from, at that time, Feltwell airfield. Ward, a rookie, was flying as second pilot on a small raid in early July 1941 to Munster, in advance of him being set loose with his own crew. The trip out was uneventful but on the journey home they were attacked by an Me110. Though hit in the foot, the rear-gunner managed to get a burst of fire at the attacker and hit it, saving his aircraft from a follow-up attack. But the Wellington was in a parlous state. Half the rudder was shot away. The elevator was damaged. The flaps were gone. The hydraulics were ruptured, and the bomb doors had fallen open. But worse than any of that, a petrol pipe feeding the starboard Hercules had been severed and fire was blasting over the wing. The skipper ordered preparations for a bale-out. Then he turned to his green co-pilot and told him to try to douse the fire. Ward went back and three of the crew promptly tore away the fabric that coated the fuselage, and tried to squirt an extinguisher plume into the source of the fire on the leading edge of the wing. But the gale whipped it away as soon as it left the bottle. Ward, however, wasn’t finished yet. He went back to his seat and returned with a cockpit cover than had been stowed under it. “Think I’ll hop out with this,” he said. Of course, the rest of the crew thought he has crazy. But he assured them that he wanted to try stuffing the tarp into the seat of the fire. They assented if he would clip on a chest pack (parachute). Then they roped him to the chest of another crew-member and he went out through the astrodome. God knows how, but he punched and kicked through the fabric to expose the airframe beneath, and crawled spider-like down the fuselage and across the wing until he reached the gaping hole beside the engine. The heat was intense. He let go one hand from the airframe and managed to force the cover into the hole. He had to let go because of the heat but almost immediately the gale worked the cover out. Ward hung on and tried again. This time he kept his hand on the cover. But again the heat beat him and this time the cover was lifted out before he could react, and was gone. There was no more he could do. He began the climb back via the same route he had come, and was pulled through the astrodome by his crewmates a few minutes later. The fire went out shortly after, partly through Ward’s efforts, partly through it having consumed most of the combustible fabric. The Wellington, however, was still flying. They made it back to Feltwell. The brakes were gone and the night ended against a barbed wire fence on the perimeter of the airfield. A DFC was awarded to the pilot who somehow kept the aircraft in the air, and the injured gunner was awarded a DFM. However, it was Ward who was the hero of the hour. His commanding officer recommended him for a VC, and the award was approved in August to the wild acclaim of everyone on the station. http://www.feltwell.net/raffeltwell/images/chapman/ward_friends.jpg Ward was eventually allowed to return to duty with his own crew. On the night of 15th September 1941, on his eleventh raid, his Wellington was hit several times by anti-aircaft fire over Hamburg. Two of the crew got out. The three others, with Ward, all perished. They are buried in Ohlsdorf Cemetary. 27
Posted by Gorboduc on September 20, 2009, 10:21 AM | # Two posts from FS. [1a] Citations, please: [!b] Why should anyone be interested in your preferences? [2] Again: proofs, please. I expect your “fob it off on” is meant to mean “foist it on”. Either way yr. meaning’s unclear. I don’t think I’ve undertaken to proselytise anyone. But I just might pray for you, Scrooby. Dominus tecum. What do you mean by degenerate? Are you a Calvinist or a Marcionite? Just in case you’re a Julianist, I’ve got the 3 vols. of the Loeb edition of his writings here - debate? What’s the “healthy” variety of Xtianity about? Sedevacantism? Ben Klassen? (just where was BK born, btw: was he ethnically Jewish?) Footnote re Bowden: don’t you be so cocksure, Scrooby, that Bowden doesn’t favour race-replacement. In so far as Bowden is a member of the BNP and the BNP is a pro-Zionist party which favours replacement of the Palestinians by the Khazars, he’s voting for replacement. You may not give a s**t about the Palestinians, but it’s the principle that counts, isn’t it? in his book the Palestinians are low-life, the Jews aristocrats. And as I said, Bowden “paints” like a Jew and the chosen peddle his pictures. Some would call that active collaboration. But it gets the Scrooby “clean bill of health” certificate. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 20, 2009, 11:22 AM | #
Your glib dismissals of concern about forced race-replacement of white people are amply on record at more than one blog. I have no time to waste going back and digging them out. It should be enough to say, for those who remember you, that aside from “Gorboduc” you are “The Monitor” who polluted Prozium’s previous site’s threads at one point for months on end with, among other sheer crap, your snide put-downs of commentary expressing alarm at the demographic portent of current Eurospherewide government-enforced, Jew-instigated-and-backed immigration policy. You said nothing but their own straying from Christianity threatens Europeans with harm today, and what that harm consists of has strictly nothing to do with race which is insignificant, you said, only Christianity is significant. All of that is what you spouted and spout continually. You are a race-replacement advocate. You advocate the forced race-replacement of white people with non-whites.
It’s not about praying for the negrification of whites everywhere, or for the death of Christianity, to be succeeded by the total Islamification of Europe. It’s not about cowering before the Christian-hating Jews and asking their permission to breathe. It’s not about that which the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury do every day, in other words.
That at the least. Bishop Richard Williamson, who rejects Sedevacantism, is an exception: he’s a mentally, morally healthy Christian. For most of us others, Sedevacantism is a sine qua non. Father John, who often comments here, is another type of healthy Christian. So are the Christian Kinists at the Spirit, Water, Blood blog (linked at Prozium’s links list, I don’t have it handy). Father John also has his own blog. There are other examples of mentally healthy, morally sound XXIst-Century Christianity. No mainstream Church is among them. They’re all praying for the triumph of Islam, performing the kow-tow before the Jews, and colluding with Jew-influenced governments in forcing the eradication of the white race the quickest way possible. They are all, in other words, false religions. 29
Posted by Frank on September 20, 2009, 11:24 AM | #
How could someone possibly make such a claim? I want to read the book now just to see it done. It’s often said Jews are cunning, but I doubt even Jews themselves would take up the label “aristocratic”. They’re the very antithesis. Someone supporting Zionism could conceivably wish to send Britain’s Jews there. What church do you attend btw? 30
Posted by Frank on September 20, 2009, 11:26 AM | # Gorboduc doesn’t write in the same style as The Monitor. This guy’s a bit vain. 31
Posted by Captainchaos on September 20, 2009, 12:16 PM | #
But Gorboduc actually has a brain…and thereby comes up with interesting, plausible counterpoints. Who is the bigger racist of the two? My money is on Gorboduc. Plus he’s an anti-Semite. Monitor? Not so much. The Monitard believes he is smart enough to trick his interlocutors into conceding their position (LOL!). 32
Posted by Frank on September 20, 2009, 12:16 PM | # Gorboduc, sorry I shouldn’t have said you’re vain since I don’t know you. I was automatically defending The Monitor… I actually enjoyed your posts, though the style is not the same. 33
Posted by Dan Dare on September 20, 2009, 12:25 PM | #
Like Arthur Balfour? And another thing. What’s so awful about inevitablism GW? I see you pooh-poohing Macdonald for it and then, almost in the same breath, suggesting that NS is a splendid exemplar of the sort of big thing we need to construct (metaphysically speaking). Wasn’t there a fair amount of inevitabilism about the events of the 1920s and 30s which created the economic, social and political landscape in which the Führer cult was able to root and thrive. Would the Nazis have been able to seize control if not for those mood-altering events? 34
Posted by Gorboduc on September 20, 2009, 12:59 PM | # Scrooby, I am not Monitor! A few months ago, in a moment of pissed-offness - after you’d levelled this accusation at me in a very aggressive way - I think I said “I may be Monitor…” That was said in the spirit of Tennyson, replying to an attack on him for his supposed opinions: some journo had said of him, “If a man prate of murder, adultery and suicide, set him down as a practitioner of those vices!” and Tennyson replied “Murderer I MAY be, adulterer I MAY be, suicide I am NOT YET”. Nor do I recognise myself nor any of my opinions, political, racial or religious, in what you post concerning me. If you perist in identifying me with Monitor you will only confuse yourself and your readers. I will admit that I was very recently Leon Boliakov. That was because I’d stayed away so long after one of Scrooby’s maulings that I’d quite forgotten my name: I toyed with the idea of staying LB (I’m sure you’ll see a stylistic similarity) even after my poor old age-sapped memory grudgingly restored my pen-name to me. I don’t think I’ve ever visited Prozium. I really feel we could get on better if you took this on board! Procedamus in pace. Vain? Yes, and another little compliment like CC’s and my head will simply burst… wish there was an exploding smiley for that… 35
Posted by Frank on September 20, 2009, 01:22 PM | #
Sorry again, it was an argument that I sensed allies (Scrooby and The Monitor) as well as my kin race were threatened. And I’d found one of your references obscure, the camera reference, before looking it up. Then I found it funny… Ask CC. I have a tendency to get carried away while blogging. It’s a flaw, and I don’t want to waste more space explaining another outburst of mine when it’s best to just let it pass… 36
Posted by Captainchaos on September 20, 2009, 01:24 PM | #
Yet it did get Germans quickly mobilized, eager for the ‘action’ to begin.
As you implicitly conceded above, no, the Krauts were not indeed “fundamentally suspect,” unless of course is meant by that they should have quickly seen the error of their ways and surrendered to their civilized betters.
Yet if America had not come to Britain’s aid, in both World Wars, the Krauts would have won; precisely because Germans were not “fundamentally suspect,” despite their “palingenetic” trappings. One wonders if Germans could have indeed accomplished all they did without said “palingeneticism,” that is, unless it was incidental, and Krauts really are the Master Race.
The end?! Why all the doom and gloom? There are more Europeans alive today per absolute numbers than ever before. Since the lemmings and the short-sighted were tricked into burning the Krauts to the ground we really haven’t done squat as far as explicit racial strategizing. Let’s fire our best shot before we concede defeat.
Uh, that doesn’t sound like anything “big” to me. Sounds like ‘a return to traditional values’ faileoconservatism. Not “revolutionary” in the least. We need a mass movement, end of story. 37
Posted by Frank on September 20, 2009, 01:30 PM | # I might as well correct the damage I’ve done: it’s a good tradition to use whit and rhetoric skillfully as you do here - such encourages mental use and is enjoyable. It’s of course not admirable to make obscure references for the sake of making a reader feel ignorant, but again once I looked up the reference I changed my mind on it. And it is of course good to make worthwhile or curious references a reader might find worth knowing or enjoyable to hear about. And it’s good to encourage that certain things be known - ah that should be expected of a “literate” man. One slip of the tongue and so much trouble, haha. 38
Posted by Gorboduc on September 20, 2009, 02:12 PM | # Dear Frank, Monitor seems to have left a few sticky memes about. I fact, I don’t think that I ever read many of his posts: I certainly can’t remember any of them. It’s a little hard to be taken to task by Scrooby for someone else’s misdemeanours. btw, I’m sure there ARE references to jews as nature’s aristocrats. I shall start the search by looking in my Cecil Roth collection: I just love all those books that tell you that Leonardo, Michelangelo, Thomas Tallis, Rembrandt, Newton, Wren, Corneille, Racine, Davy, Browning and just about anyone you can name in any field was actually a Jew. Have you read Roger Peyrefitte’s amazing novel, called ‘The Jews’ - just like that? It starts off by claiming jewish ancestry for anyone famous, starting with our own Royals. Well there’s a theory that the first element in Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (part of their surname) is to do with the Spanish-Jewish name Seixas rather than what I always took it to be, something to do with Saxony. In “The Jews” they’ve almost all got nob titles! And they are ALL stinking rich. it strikes me now that it may be a satire - but as RP is/was a french Freemason he’d probably be a philo-semite. 39
Posted by Guessedworker on September 20, 2009, 03:27 PM | # Dan: What’s so awful about inevitablism, GW? Well, there is the story of Mark Twain’s response, while he was holidaying in some plush spot, to a couple of holiday-makers who sidled up to him and bemoaned the constant rain, which was spoiling their plans. “Do you think it’s going to stop?” asked the husband, surveying the horizon. Twain, bored beyond measure by the middle-classes, replied, “It always has.” But there’s nothing “always” about our current situation. Our very being is under attack. I find Inevitablism to be a mile too Micawberish. What if something doesn’t turn up, and systemic hyper-individualism, materialism, anti-racism, self-loathing, etc etc go on their merry way? What will we say? That we didn’t know? That we weren’t desperate enough to really try? No, let’s try. Let’s do everything we can possibly do. We alone are the people on whose shoulders this historic responsibility lies. We must discharge it, not sit around waiting for something to develop elsewhere. Wasn’t there a fair amount of inevitabilism about the events of the 1920s and 30s which created the economic, social and political landscape in which the Führer cult was able to root and thrive. The reactionary nature of NS is well known, and certainly it accorded in an inchoate way with the mood of a substantial swathe of the German electorate. But that was then and this is now. Reaction in the required strength is by no means guaranteed. Further, reaction to what? We need a reaction to liberalism in the broadest sense, and the people are not going to deliver us that. Even if we have no work to do to lift the awareness of the people ... even if the times will do that by themselves ... we still have to create the true political thinking of the anti-liberal force. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on September 20, 2009, 07:37 PM | # CC, I am writing for the revolutionary cadre, not the masses. Nothing serious can be said if we have to channel everything through the strainer of mass mobilisation. You observed earlier that there is a certain striving in Nature. It does seem that way. But it is an illusion. In reality, the old girl does not strive. Locked in her cosmic battle with darkness, or the second law of thermodynamics, she sacrifices her own son for the eternal life of those that come after. We, then, are mortal phenotypes of her immortality. If we strive at all, we do so only within her bounds ... that is, to transmit her unto the morrow, beyond the reach of death. It certainly isn’t anything Zarathustra would have been satisfied with. But the reason why the magnificent conception of masculine striving cannot be intellectually combined with the ontology of life and time is because it does not exist. It is very beautiful, but it is not true. This has implications, and one of them is that you will eventually be bound to decide for once and for all about telelogy. That is, either you will choose to tease out human truth, and build something at least a little inspiring on whatever opportunities present themselves - and there are some, self-sacrifice for instance - or you will join the believers and the spirit people and give yourself up entirely to the cult of beauty. This is a choice between the heart and the head, and I don’t envy you. 41
Posted by sdfsd on September 21, 2009, 12:32 PM | # All of Gorboduc’s ultra-witty British nattering makes GW sound like a Teuton. He’s like a mash-up of Larkin, Pound, both Lewises, and a bunch of other boring scatterbrained writers no one should waste time on. I can read five of his posts and all I seem to hear by the last period is “FANCY ER PINT WUT?!” And You may not give a s**t about the Palestinians, but it’s the principle that counts, isn’t it? no, it is not the principle that counts here; that’s the ingrained mistake of the leftist and white nationalist “masses” who mistake symbolism for politics. What counts is the real: Israel is the real, “Palestine” is not. The Palestinians are not your people, not my people, not Fred’s people, not Bowden’s people, therefore we have no stake in their destiny, and taking up the violin because their oppressors are Jews accomplishes nothing. “Symbolic” opposition is no opposition at all. Also, genetics (apart from the history which never went anywhere) has most conclusively disproved the stupid opportunistic Khazar theory. Amazing that WNs ever took that bait - ultimately from Koestler - otherwise so suspicious of Jewish sources; and here again we see the tenacious belief in useless, groundless symbolic opposition (“Jews aren’t Semites, therefore Israel has no justification!”). 42
Posted by Gorboduc on September 21, 2009, 12:36 PM | # Scrooby, you protest so much about your own healthy state and the healthy state of your creed and all the rest of it that I begin to fear that actually, deep within you, “all is not sweet, all is not sound”. You bang on so much, so loudly and ludicrously, about Monitor and Prozium, that I began to look up a few references, and found I wasn’t the only person to have doubts about the real state of your beliefs and allegiances. I don’t know any other professed Christians - such as you claim to be - who are QUITE so rude as you, except for a few US redneck Baptists I once encountered. And even they didn’t accuse me of being a “cancer”. Was that just another example of your perhaps rather revealing obsession with “health”? I think you were the man, weren’t you, that fed his self-respect by a daily enjoyable contemplation of his image in the mirror each morning, rejoicing to see a good ol’ boy, clean of limb, sound in wind, muscular and upright, every inch an Arno Breker? I know that regular bowel movements are very important to people like you, but please don’t dump here, Narcissus. 43
Posted by sdfsd on September 21, 2009, 12:40 PM | # Though the BNP’s support of Israel is just as much a useless symbolic support, of course. Can’t lose sight of the fact that Jews don’t care what we think one way or another. There’s absolutely no way to sweeten the message for them, and any message sweet enough for their consumption is sour for us. Pro, con—we’re all still just goyim and must be kept in line. Palestine means nothing for us. Palestinians don’t care what we think, either. They’ve been leftist for forty years; they took up the “Bush = Hitler!” slogan during that reign. Even if they were aware of symbolic “support” from the West’s political fringe, they’d neither want nor need it. 44
Posted by sdfsd on September 21, 2009, 12:58 PM | # Even if we have no work to do to lift the awareness of the people ... even if the times will do that by themselves ... we still have to create the true political thinking of the anti-liberal force. Then I hope you’re writing a very long book, for so far that’s been the only method of getting everyone in line. Everyone got behind MacDonald, for example, and his work is nowhere prescriptive or philosophical. Do what O’Meara, Sunic, and Norman “Bates” Lowell wish they could do: write the book. 45
Posted by Gorboduc on September 21, 2009, 01:27 PM | # Oh gosh, now sdfsd has overtaken me. Look, sdsfd, if you don’t want to waste time on me or my supposed British confreres, why not keep quiet about us? Why read five posts if you don’t like them? Read Scrooby’s instead. Or write one for him. Which Lewises? I know three famous ones. Wyndham, C.S., and D.B. [Bevan] Wyndham Lewis. There are several others. I don’t care much for Pound, and if you can find any traces of Larkin in my submissions, please point them out. You are 100% wrong about Koestler. Plenty of people knew about the Khazars before Koestler. You know that, don’t you? Got access to the Jewish Encyclopedia? Ah, I thought so: look ‘em up there. David Cesarini didn’t like Koestler either. You know that too, don’t you? Nathaniel Weyl, whom I recently quoted somewhere on MR, mentioned the Khazars in 1966, and identified some of their physical characteristics. Is that what’s bugging you? You can find references to them all over the place. What do you mean by the slipshod and careless “genetics ... has most conclusively disproved ...”? That’s like my saying “Mathematics has most conclusively proved/disproved that Pythagoras was wrong”. It doesn’t mean anything. Who? When? How? I’d like to buy you a drink down the pub: how about “The Refectory” just across the road from Golders Green Underground? 46
Posted by sdfsd on September 21, 2009, 02:21 PM | # Look, sdsfd, if you don’t want to waste time on me or my supposed British confreres, why not keep quiet about us? That’s the problem with you over-read Brits: your confreres are all in your fucking head. Always references, incunabula, inside jokes, condescension, blah blah blah. Why read five posts if you don’t like them? Cuz you were interesting a while ago. You are 100% wrong about Koestler. But I’m not wrong about the Khazars, because genes don’t lie. It is nonetheless obvious that WNs got on their Khazar kick grâce à Koestler, or reverberation therefrom, and not the Jewish Encyclopedia or the other names you mention. It really shouldn’t be so hard to accept that the Khazar theory’s place in the anti-Israel narrative is opportunistic. It doesn’t mean anything. Who? When? How? Ain’t tempted by your casuistry, dawg. You tell me to “look it up”, I could tell you the same, but why bother? You cleave to “Khazars” like others cleave to the “9-11 conspiracy”. You’re living in the past. The Khazars’ conversion was a fluke, the whimsy of a ruler: nothing more. The inhabitants of the realm once called Khazaria don’t look like Jews, they look like Mongols, because that’s exactly what they are. How many Jewish equestrians can you name? Blah blah blah. You’re a smart dude, no one doubts that. But you may have to consider that you’ve been misled by ideology to believe in this how-the-leopard-got-his-spots tale of Jewish origins, which plays into modern rhetoric purporting to undermine Israel’s right to exist. Not claiming the Khazars were unknown before Koestler; that’d be absurd. I am claiming that your stake in this disproved theory has evolved from its popularization by Koestler and the subsequent politicization by White Nationalists. Let me ask you this: Did you care about the Khazars before you became an anti-Semite, excuse me, anti-Hebraized-Turkic? Do be honest, but allow me, without condescension, to anticipate that your answer will be no; though even if it were yes, you wouldn’t be so dishonest as to claim that it isn’t true of most others. 47
Posted by Gorboduc on September 21, 2009, 04:06 PM | # Sdfsd, But I can’t see that I mentioned the Khazars in this thread, did I? It’s their relationship to the Messianic promises rather than to Deir Yasin that interests me. Well, you DID say “ultimately from Koestler”: and it was that I was disputing. As I don’t think I know anyone on this blog personally, and certainly haven’t formed a or joined a clique, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse me of making “inside jokes”. I certainly don’t think I’ve made any friends - except Fred Scrooby. I shall keep the longer reply on file until I’ve thought more about it. No hard feelings, I hope? 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 21, 2009, 04:42 PM | #
Sucking Jewish and Moslem cock 24/7 isn’t my idea of healthy Catholicism (or healthy Anglicanism) but hey that’s just me, I don’t claim to be infallible. I thought the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury were supposed to be doing something else but I could be mistaken, probably am.
I respect Prozium. As for The Monitor, I think I said when he becomes a regular commenter at your blog it’s the equivalent of your blog getting cancer, but you’ve denied being he and I’m satisfied with that so no need to dredge him up. If I called you cancer in the mistaken belief you were he I apologize (but not if I had good reason to call you cancer).
Sounds like you ran across what Godless Capitalist once said about me. That, or maybe what JW Holliday called me in one of his bad moods? (or what Wintermute or Friedrich Braun did in one of their good ones?). Then there was Gongstar, Nux Vomica, Iceman, …. Google can be a real bitch for reputations.
If you want me to be polite don’t advocate race-replacement. I’m always extremely rude to race-replacement advocates. I make a point of it.
Whoever you’re talking about there, I’m not an Arno Breker fan — his taste in the esthetics of the human body isn’t my cup of tea. Now, if you don’t want to clash with me don’t advocate forced race-replacement. 49
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 21, 2009, 05:27 PM | # I have always enjoyed Jonathans speeches, though is art is the equivalent of an surrealist version of a migraine. It always reminds me of the story about Joshua Reynolds who on seeing a painting by a budding young artist said, ’ It looks like it is suffering. Take it outside and shoot it’. Thats what I always think when I see Jonathans art, that it is suffering and needs shooting as an act of mercy. The fact Saatchi has bought one is evidence enough that its worth is primarily as firewood. I once had a quick, but very revealing conversation with Jonathan at a BNP conference. Jonathan was demanding the banning of abortion, yet only moments before had been glorifying the ‘Neitzschean will to power’. I asked him, ’ if you are a Neitzschean, then how can you be against abortion ?’. This was of course a reference that the females will to power is predicated upon her being able to do what she like to her own body, and therefore one cannot be a Neitzschean and be against abortion. If might is right, and the will to power, then every women has the ‘right’ to treat her body as her own temple, and sacrifice what she wishes within it. ‘Because I am’ was the response. Very Neitzschean. Show me a nationalist who wants to be a hobbit, and I will show you a nationalist who doesnt talk bollocks and who deserves to be given political power. As Plato knew - the last people that should be given power are the ones that want it. The nationalists that want to get into power because they see themselves as Strider, but who mainly look like Golem, are the last people who should be trusted with power. Those motivated by such myths, are the Walter Mittys of nationalism. Give me an army of Hobbits and we would have power in a decade, lumber us with an army of wanna be Striders and we would have no power and a narcissists support group within a week. Hobbits work, Striders pose. The primary problem with contemporary nationalism is that it is a haunt of the dead, a thing of ash and old memories, a cult of nostalgia. Nationalists see politics as a revolutionary reprise, rather than a long slog. Thats why they like fantasy and myths, as that way they can avoid doing the real work of getting elected into power. 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 21, 2009, 05:36 PM | #
LOL 51
Posted by Gorboduc on September 21, 2009, 05:46 PM | # “Scrooby had better carry out a bit of cleansing on this site, just to show us he can” (—Gorbo, aka The Monitor, the cancer of the blogosphere) Good idea: let’s cleanse you, Monitor. You’re the equivalent of a cancerous tumor. Drop off, please, or drop dead, one or the other. Take your brand of stinking genocidal “Christianity”-filth with you. It’s not wanted by the self-respecting, those able to look at themselves in the mirror every morning. ...I think the above, posted by you, Scrooby, on 10 April, will be sufficient, when taken with today’s tasteless little offering - Sucking Jewish and Moslem cock 24/7 isn’t my idea of healthy Catholicism (or healthy Anglicanism) but hey that’s just me, I don’t claim to be infallible. I thought the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury were supposed to be doing something else but I could be mistaken, probably am. - to show that you are an arrogant self-conceited berk, with a rather sinister imagination. Does your chum Bishop Williamson talk of “sucking cock” when something annoys him? Scrub your mouth out boy, then admit you’re wrong. 52
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 21, 2009, 06:10 PM | # When the stakes are genocide, Gorboduc, I don’t mince words. Save the rest for your next tea party. Now, as President Truman used to say, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 21, 2009, 06:14 PM | # Part of Gorboduc’s problem, apparently, is he hasn’t yet figured out what the stakes are. He thinks we come here to preen or practice our diction or something. He can’t understand why people seem so .... unamused ..... 54
Posted by Gorboduc on September 21, 2009, 06:33 PM | # Oh well, Lee, you’ve just lost MY vote at any rate. So Gric Niffin DOESN’T want power? he’s a humble hobbit? What happens to those in his party who oppose or criticize him? EXPELLED, that’s what. Straight into Mirkwood or Mordor! Philosophically, Bowden is pretty incoherent. I’m sure I’ve heard him defend abortion, or it might be defended in some screed of his. I once tried to read some tracts of his. Incoherent and opaque, despite Prof Anthony Flew’s encomium. If JB’s changed his mind I salute him. (Same goes for Flew) How come you know so much about LOTR readers? I’m a nationalist and a LOTR reader: how dare you assert that I have a fetish about it? Arrogant fool, to suppose that you can read my mind, and the same will be said by lots of us, I guess! Well, you mightn’t know too much about the text of the book itself: I suppose that JRRT would, as a student of myth in general, have known quite a lot about the GOLEM, but I think the relevant character in the book is called GOLLUM. (Thank Scrooby for silently amending your variant) JRRT devoted a lot of thought as to how far Sauron might be said have the power of producing living things: I think he concluded that Sauron might only be able to produce an appearance of life, rather as the older Catholic theologians conceded Satan the power of moving by his own will artificial bodies he had constructed from existing materials, or of deluding our senses to produce an illusion of life and movement. Your incoherence is seen in your alternately desiring and rejecting power - do you want it or DON’T you, and do you think that a quick Nolo Episcopare should confer it on you - and your arrogance is shown in such a boast as: Give me an army of Hobbits and we would have power in a decade… me!... me!...me! Although LOTR is an inspiring read, I doubt its general political application. I agree with Scrooby here, (possibly!) that its relevance is largely symbolic. When asked if he was going to write more about the Shire, JRRT despondently said that he’d gone back there once or twice to look in, but the younger hobbits were all involved in some Orc cult. I don’t know if that refers to any old skinheads you’ve got lurking about, but it might apply to your party’s championing of Churchill, of whom (see above, Sept 19, 10.40) JRRT was none too fond. You’ll be having a Princess Diana pilgrimage next, or be saying Kaddish for Robert Maxwell. 55
Posted by Gorboduc on September 21, 2009, 06:46 PM | # Didn’t know you were the boss, Scrooby. Bit of a Prima Donna ...? Or don’t you like being… contradicted ...? If you ARE the boss, then you can fix for this to be removed, just like GW or whoever removed the [removed] Boots post, which was put up earlier by some joker. If you aren’t, then I’ll appear when I like. OK ...? 56
Posted by Dan Dare on September 21, 2009, 06:46 PM | # The Saatchis do seem to have a bit of a thing for Entartete Kunst. Strange that.
57
Posted by BGD on September 21, 2009, 06:54 PM | #
Actually anyone can upload their ‘work’ onto the online Saatchi Gallery site. Try it with your children’s earliest scrawls. The fact he did so and links it on his site in a slightly misleading way “(see) Jonathan Bowden at the Saatchi Gallery” is unfortunately a little sad. As is the chosen homepage index photo - bit pseudy. Still his talks generally seem interesting. 58
Posted by Frank on September 21, 2009, 07:03 PM | #
I’m a hobbit who’d be bad with power and who likes myths and fantasy and sees them as valuable to a future movement. If whites would write a few more songs, movies, and books rather than leaving such important tasks to Jews, we might not be in the current mess. Plato would probably agree, though if you challenge me on that I likely won’t reply until this weekend.
There is a core of truth to this, but it should not be misunderstood. 1. We should refrain from centering around old wars that divide us, albeit while honouring the dead who are worth honouring. 2. We should drop old ideologies that are no longer useful in favour of ideologies that are relevant. Abandoning ancestors or transforming into progressives simply to “win” would be a very Strideresque thing to do. Hobbits would be more reverent. 59
Posted by Frank on September 21, 2009, 07:22 PM | # Only a very foolish Strider would be posting on a near-taboo blog like this. Other than the transhumanists, I doubt there are any Striders in here. A true Strider of at least luke warm intelligence would declare himself in agreement with all the popular positions - so far as they are winning positions… The danger of Striders comes up when our side begins to enjoy success. That’s also when our side picks up “respectability” and CC’s “lemmings” jump on board. - There’s nothing inherently Strideresque about being a part of the chattering class here. There’s a core of truth to the statement as it applies to Nietzschians, but sloppy logic risks deriving the wrong lessons from it. The Internet is a powerful means to getting normal, everyday views out - opposing the mainstream media’s domination. This is also a good way for us to share ideas and thus learn how we can make a difference. This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list of reasons why the chattering class is important. 60
Posted by Captainchaos on September 21, 2009, 08:19 PM | #
Barnes is talking out of his arse, Nietzsche neither supported women’s emancipation nor the “will to power” of the masses, such as it is, seeing the latter as the scaffolding upon which great men stood, and hence the need for a sound foothold.
It was Strider, upon claiming his kingship, who forbade “big people” from entering the Shire, an injunction he abided by himself. So…the indispensable condition of genetic continuity, exclusive living space, was secured. I don’t suppose you give a rip about that, do you Barnes? 61
Posted by danielj on September 21, 2009, 08:31 PM | # Barnes is talking out of his arse, Nietzsche neither supported women’s emancipation nor the “will to power” of the masses, such as it is, seeing the latter as the scaffolding upon which great men stood, and hence the need for a sound foothold. It doesn’t matter whether Nietzsche supported anybody’s will to power… What matters is whether or not the argument Barnes was making was valid. Just because Nietzsche didn’t believe in Nietzschean women doesn’t mean there is no such thing right? 62
Posted by Frank on September 21, 2009, 08:42 PM | #
He didn’t want power either, so he fits Barnes’s ideal. However, everyone can’t be king. - Nietzsche should just be forgotten. Plato’s Thrasymachus or insight from Machiavelli should take his place on the “will to power”. I’m not saying that because I somehow don’t like Germans - I certainly prefer them to Greeks and Italians. Nietzsche is the Jewish porn of philosophy, and he should be banned for at least those under 18. He’s screwed up far too many bright white children to be legal. 63
Posted by danielj on September 21, 2009, 10:11 PM | # He’s screwed up far too many bright white children to be legal. I’ve really only read The Birth of Tragedy and a bunch of his aphorisms. The aphorisms are wicked funny and a good read. Nietzsche is the Jewish porn of philosophy It seems slightly appropriate then that the preeminent translator of our boy is Mr. Kaufmann. I wonder if Mr. N is in hell and disturbed by this? Why would he be? The Jews seem to perfectly exemplify that burning will to (collective) power. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 03:26 AM | # Nietzsche is the Jewish porn of philosophy, and he should be banned for at least those under 18. He’s screwed up far too many bright white children to be legal. I read Z in my early twenties, and I’ve the vaguest idea that I was interested enough to go out and buy some other Nietzsche tome, though I’ve no idea what it was or if I ever read it. At the time I was a super-competitive person very intrigued by, and sometimes involved in, pedal-to-the-floor behaviour, and might have been expected to be an ideal candidate for the Nietzschean life. But I was also reading a lot of psychology books, and the overblown masculinity of Nietzsche struck me as suspiciously poofy. I became quite interested in Alfred Adler, though (but that was probably because I found Freud offensive and anti-human and Jung just fanciful). Nietzsche is no use to the middle-aged, and I think I’m safe from him now. I might go back and read Z again, just out of curiousity. 65
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 04:50 AM | # ” Barnes is talking out of his arse, Nietzsche neither supported women’s emancipation nor the “will to power” of the masses. “ I was actually talking about the appropriation of the Nietzschean ideal by Jonanthan and how perverse it was that an anti-abortionist can be a Neiztschean, I was not offering a critique of Neitzsche. I actually like Nietzsche, I bet he would have been great fun at parties after a few beers as he had a real mischevious sense of humour beneath the intellect - though this would be before the horse incident though of course. As for the LOTR critique - I was making the point, which you all know is correct, that most nationalists do not idealise themselves as a Hobbit, they all see themselves as some CGI Strider bestriding the world as a sword weilding, phallus throbbing, warrior slaying dumb Orcs - not a simple peasant famer connected to the soil, free on their own land in accord with their own culture. I blame the History Channel personally - all those films of ze nazis strutting around in those Hugo Boss designed SS uniforms and shiny leather jackets, it has warped the minds of a generation of young nationalists. As for Neitzcshean women, Thatcher anyone. Nicks not a Hobbit, nor a Strider. He is though a consumate politician, far better than any of the idiots presently in Parliament. We need politicians to run the machinery of state, but the state I believe must be removed from the lives of the Hobbits. Nick would be excellent running the machine of the State, but the real nationalist revolution is in the Shires with the Hobbits, and the Hobbits, after the revolution, wont ever need the state again. Never the twain shall meet except when the nation during times of existential threats to its survival from war or terrorism needs the Hobbits to defend their shires. Power must be devolved down to the Hobbits, whilst at the same time all devolved national sovereignity and legislative authority returned back to the State from all supra-national institutions. Only by ruling ourselves, can we free ourselves. Politicians in a nationalist state will ensure the state serves the people, not its own interests or the interests of supra-national bodies and global corporations. The aim of the nationalist revolution must be to free the Hobbits, whilst ensuring the minimal national security state, and covering the health system, pensions, welfare and national security serves the people as a safety net. I aim to be a Hobbit, not a Strider. The Hobbits should form their own communities and run their own affairs, whilst the State restrained acts primarily to defend the Nation and protect the people from internal national security and external national security threats and to act as a safety net for the vulnerable in society. Society and community are not the same thing - Hobbits should live in autonomous communities, whilst the masses should live in society. Each should exist alongside each other, but run according to different rules. Striders should join the British army, not indulge in fantasies of politics. 66
Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 05:37 AM | # As for Neitzcshean women, Thatcher anyone. You might be confusing Nietzchean with ugly. 67
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 06:22 AM | # Actually Thatcher wasnt ugly, she was surprisngly attractive in her younger days ; Blonde, pale skinned, pale blue eyes, slim and intelligent. Ok she needed a set of massive tits but you cant have it all. 68
Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 06:49 AM | # LJB wrote:
Many who enter politics come from “good” (often merely rich as opposed to honourable - ie. staying married, serving one’s duty as necessary, working hard, etc.) families. I came in thinking I was R. E. Lee. Ah, that’s not to say my family is rich, but I did enter as proud nonetheless. I’ve seen myself as a hobbit thanks to the paleos and distributists and my many faults (otherwise I’d probably have stuck with the Strideresque R. E. Lee identity); but I’ve now taken to desiring to win honours in this life to be enjoyed in the next - that is to win honour for the next life via service. One can think of himself as sword wielding (albeit not phallus throbbing!) in a truly hobbit-like way. I’m sure you’ve heard this: “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.” (from someone I’m sure you English admire, haha) I’ve no wish to be king, but I do wish to figuratively slay Orcs. A peasant must fight when the Orcs are pillaging. Gorboduc writes:
I’m sure there are, but Cicero would abel them vulgar.
I’m an illiterate American. However, I’m going to order The Jews from amazon - that’s too good to pass up. - danielj,
Indeed. And now that they have it, they’ve dropped the “woe is the fate of the Jews” for “we’re the Chosen”... I keep saying vanity will destroy them. Though maybe they’ll buy their own prop and truly become noble… 69
Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 07:01 AM | # Cecil Roth is quite the character. I can see the benefit of gilding their history, but I’d hate to live such a lie. If whites are ever free again, they should be sure to pass on a true history and not garbage. Santa Claus and Washington chopping down the apple tree are one thing, but what could possible be in Jewish Art[/] (1961)? haha. And similarly this is bad: “and just about anyone you can name in any field was actually a Jew”. Lying to and thus manipulating one’s own… But who cares so much about ability and scientific achievement? They don’t yet seem to understand nobility. As a start, I’ve read a claim somewhere that Jews are supremely moral - the horrible Civil Rights movement was given as an example… They have no qualms about totally rewriting history and not just for us but for their own too. Truth has no value for a Jew. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. 70
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 07:18 AM | # ” I’ve no wish to be king, but I do wish to figuratively slay Orcs. A peasant must fight when the Orcs are pillaging. “ The primary enemy of the peasants are the politicians from within our own ranks, the Saruman THE WHITE’S of our own folk. Tolkein used Saruman as a metaphor to represent the inner enemy within our race and nations, and clarified this by calling him saruman THE WHITE, as a metaphor for the true betrayers of our folk and race - as Tolkein realised that the real enemy were not the ‘orcs’ (who are metaphors for immigrants) for they were simply the tools of Saruman, but that the real enemy is our own WHITE leaders from within the White race and our folk nations who work for Sauron - sauron being the New World Order with the all seeing eye of the pyramid represented by the tower of Suaron - globalisation etc. The Orcs were used by Saruman for the ends of Sauron - just as the immigrants in the West did not invade, they invited in by the politicians. Therefore first stem the flood by dealing with the Sarumans who serve Sauron and closing the gates to our nations, and to do that the politicians must be dealt with, not concentrating on the ‘Orcs’. The Orcs were a product of Saruman who served Sauron, they are a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 22, 2009, 07:50 AM | #
Here’s an excellent two-part series, just up over at The Occidental Observer, explaining Saatchi’s degrading influence on (what gets called) “art” and unmasks the whole charade quite nicely including the disastrous role the (fill in the blank) _______ have played: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtI.html , and http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtII.html .
If you do order from Amazon, don’t forget to log onto Amazon not directly, but by clicking on the little Amazon link at the Vdare.com home page (left-hand margin, a little down from the top; scroll down till you get to it): Vdare.com will receive a small commission on the sale at absolutely zero additional cost to you! Be a mensch. Do it! 73
Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 07:53 AM | #
You’re right. Thanks for pointing that out. However, Jews deserve honourable mention at least. Regardless of the culprit, however this went: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” As is the nature of Celto-cromagnons (lol), we’re more apt to squirrel away on some project than to bother about politics. 74
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 08:16 AM | # Tolkein also stated the identity of the tre enemy with Gandalf. Gandalf is first Gandalf the Grey - he is representative of the White reactionary right elite, those who are supposed to defend the interests of the white race, our nations and folk. They are grey as they are white but contaminated with liberalism that means they are ambivalent when we are attacked. Gandalf the grey is a stoner, content to smoke his weed and sit back whilst the world drifts by - thereby he is neither a defender of Whites or an enemy of Saruman. Then after the battle with the ancient fire demon he changes - this incident thereby representing the night journey ; The night sea journey is a kind of descensus ad inferos—a descent into Hades and a journey to the land of ghosts somewhere beyond this world, beyond consciousness, hence an immersion in the unconscious.[“The Psychology of the Transference,” CW 16, par. 455.] Jung interpreted such legends symbolically, as illustrations of the regressive movement of energy in an outbreak of neurosis and its potential progression. The hero is the symbolical exponent of the movement of libido. Entry into the dragon is the regressive direction, and the journey to the East (the “night sea journey”) with its attendant events symbolizes the effort to adapt to the conditions of the psychic inner world. The complete swallowing up and disappearance of the hero in the belly of the dragon represents the complete withdrawal of interest from the outer world. The overcoming of the monster from within is the achievement of adaptation to the conditions of the inner world, and the emergence (“slipping out”) of the hero from the monster’s belly with the help of a bird, which happens at the moment of sunrise, symbolizes the recommencement of progression.[“On Psychic Energy,” CW 8, par. 68.]
He is no longer grey, he has been reborn in order to defeat Saruman the White, the inner enemy and betrayer of our race and nations. 75
Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 01:03 PM | # LJB, what’s all the Jung stuff for? Jung is preferable to Freud, but he was a bit of an old fraud too. Few on the right will be Freudians, I hope, but some folks on t’ther side may fall for Jung’s Wotanist fantasy, which is a snare and a delusion. He stole “discoveries” from colleagues (see Richard Noll, who convicts him of having picked up his ‘solar phallus’ theory [which underpins the theory of the collective unconscious] from a colleague AND of further deliberately disguising its origins) and his famous “Memories, Dreams and Reflections” was cobbled together by someone else. He has a strange ability to manipulate the unconscious of his students and readers: after studying his alchemical writings in depth I enjoyed for weeks a non-stop stream of brilliantly-coloured dreams all deploying the intriguing imagery of Mediaeval and Renaissance alchemical treatises. If I hadn’t stopped myself by turning to Young’s Winter Warmer in four-pint instalments I’d probably have become a total zombie. He also has the power of inducing his disciples to tell lies. A prime example of this is provided by that egregious Jungian mythologer, the late Laurens van der Post, favourite symbological myth-spinner of Prince Charles. You must understand that he traded a great deal on his cosmic understanding of myth, and based a great deal of this on the “fact” that his childhood nurse, a Kalahari pigmy bushwoman (he came from S.A.) had taught him all the traditional myths of her own folk, in her own tongue: he found, Jung-style, their counterparts in the myths of other peoples, all these myths representing outcrops of the COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS. I attended the launch of LvdP’s last book at Dillon’s Bookshop, where the elderly sage was all set to sign copies bought by his gullible admirers. He gave a Jungian talk on myth and other favourite Jungian topics: his Kalahari nurse had taught him the story of the bushman who looked for a feather from the Great White Bird, Ng. The bushman is the equivalent of Galahad: the feather is the Grail: and he’d just got to the point where the feather was floating down from heaven to the delighted bushman, the Quest now being joyously accomplished, when someone got up from a corner and said a few words in an incomprehensible tongue. LvdP looked puzzled: the words were repeated again and again: eventually LvdP muttered “I’m sorry, I don’t understand you”. “I’m not at all surprised,” said the man, “I’m from the School of African and Oriental Studies,” (that branch of London University being just around the corner) “and I’ve just said. ‘Good evening, how nice to meet you’ in the language you claim to know so well. I’ve long had my suspicions about you” Still, I’m glad that you don’t like Bowden’s pictures: it’s a start, Lee, it’s a start. *) Footnote for US readers : Young’s is a brand of traditional ale. So’s Theakston’s. 76
Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 01:49 PM | # Ah, Youngs. I do remember Youngs Special, a substantial beverage. Funnily enough, I was drinking the stuff of a lunch-hour in the saloon bar of The Brewery Tap in that remnant of all-white London, Wandsworth. I was “working” there at the time, though the work left hours unfilled in every day and ample time to read Herr Nietzche and sundry others. It would have been in 1976, the summer of stinking drains and exiguous female dress. Isn’t Theakstons for CAMRA poseurs, Gorboduc? 77
Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 01:53 PM | # My post above: 3rd. line down:, “t’ther” more than a typo, sheer bloody incoherence. Probably meant for “this” or “the same”. Right-wing Freudians? Some quite well-meaning people use terms like “inferiority complex”, “compensation”, etc. Who popularised “libido”? 78
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 01:56 PM | # Who said ‘frauds’ dont contain essential truthes. Every fraud is based on a truth. Jung could never be totally correct, simply as humanity is constantly evolving therefore the essential nature of man is constantly evolving. Jung was essentially correct in his time. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I find nothing dignified about humiliating an old man in that way. I may not be a Church Christian but I can see the importance of the comfort the church gives to people. Myths may not be real, but if they ‘feel’ real to some people, then they are real. If they offer solace and comfort to people, then no one should destroy them out of spite. As for Jonanthans paintings - they remind me of agonised animals caught in a trap. Pitiful suffering things that should be euthenased quickly with matches and lighter fuel before they suffer any more. Not being horrible, but they are horrible. 79
Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 02:14 PM | # I’ve been to The Brewery Tap too! Remember the dray horses? Winter Warmer was seasonal: thick, a bit treacly and very dark, not too hoppy. (Connection with main post follows:Bowden’s EXTRAORDINARY portait of Hoppy Hopkins on the Saatchi thing.) (I know who that REALLY reminds me of now, Elisabeth Lutyens the composer: there are some striking images of the old trout on Google Images, but the URLs are MUCH too complicated to copy, running to abt 5 lines sometimes) So you were reading Z in your early 20’s, in 1976?Y ou’re younger than me then, you lucky bastard! A couple of pints certainly puts a bit of spring into the step for all that dancing in freezing rarefied air on giddy Alpine heights! Regarding Theakston’s; “What does not kill us makes us stronger,” (heard from under the table at drinking-up time) CAMRA’s OK, mate: fairly white membership. (No kosher beers easily obtainable) 80
Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 02:23 PM | # LEE;
Then I’ve moved on from your primitive type of meaning, LJB, and your words, stuck in the past, convey NOTHING to the new me! Then if human nature is evolving, it’s not essential, is it? Somewhere you claimed to be a lawyer: I’ll defend myself, thanks. And when my time for a dignified exit comes, I don’t think matches and lighter fuel will be my choice. I’m not Abp. Cranmer, or Joan of Arc. 81
Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 02:37 PM | # Lee, I really, really do advise you to drop the evolving spirit stuff. At least here. You will only get yourself into all sorts of nasty scrapes, from which you cannot possibly emerge with your dignity intact. 82
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 03:21 PM | # Then if human nature is evolving, it’s not essential, is it? Somewhere you claimed to be a lawyer: I’ll defend myself, thanks. And when my time for a dignified exit comes, I don’t think matches and lighter fuel will be my choice. I’m not Abp. Cranmer, or Joan of Arc. 1) The essential nature of man is that man is evolving. 2) Defend yourself all you wish, I am not here to defend you. 3) Are you one of Jonathan Bowdens paintings ? as the matches / fire quip was based on a painting. Blimey, he has more talent than I thought if he has made sentient paintings capable of posting comments on the internet. Saatchi has bought a blinder ! 4) No, you are not. Who are you though ? 83
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 03:26 PM | # Lee, I really, really do advise you to drop the evolving spirit stuff. At least here. You will only get yourself into all sorts of nasty scrapes, from which you cannot possibly emerge with your dignity intact. Errr where did I say ‘evolving spirit’ ? I mentioned evolution. I did not mention evolving spirit. I have had a quick read through my posts in this section and I cannot see any the words ‘evolving’ and ‘spirit’ linked anywhere. Have you been on the ‘spirit’ ? 84
Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 04:03 PM | # Lee, Since genes do not “evolve” in a single lifetime I assume you are referring to some transsubstanial evolution, there being no other possibility. Unless you want to profess Lamarckism. 85
Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 04:19 PM | # Please, Mr Scrooby, I KNOW we’ve had our differences - this Lee bloke provides a topic I’m sure we can happily agree on! Bury the hatchet with me and then wield the scalpel, the jackboot, whatever on him! Your friend, Gorbo PS: I MEAN THIS…DESPERATELY (Otherwise I shall go to HARRY’S PLACE and blog as Mandelson…) 86
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 04:28 PM | # I am talking directed human self evolution via genetic engineering. That is not Lamarckianism as that is based on an organism passing on characteristics it has acquired during its existence. The future is man taking charge of his own evolution, and each generation progressively becoming ‘fitter’ than the previous one based on technological advances linked to genetic engineering. Each new generation will supersede and rise above the previous one. Man will dictate his own genetic inheritance, not nature or chance or random mutations of genes. The real ‘Intelligent Design’ is to come when Man takes charge of his own evolution - intelligent design is not where life came from as defined by the Creationists, it is where Man is heading via science. 87
Posted by Lee John Barnes on September 22, 2009, 04:33 PM | # Please, Mr Scrooby, I KNOW we’ve had our differences - this Lee bloke provides a topic I’m sure we can happily agree on! Bury the hatchet with me and then wield the scalpel, the jackboot, whatever on him! Your friend, Gorbo PS: I MEAN THIS…DESPERATELY (Otherwise I shall go to HARRY’S PLACE and blog as Mandelson…) Ha ha ha - the bad man made me cry. Make the bad man go away or I wont play anymore. Pathetic. What a pitiful arse licking little crawler you are. Dont worry you sad twat, you can still swim in your little pond and pretend to be a big fish as, to be frank, I havent got the time to waste on sad, pathetic little dicks like you. 88
Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 04:42 PM | #
Another possible future which could triumph over your “inevitable” future: a united white state bound by virtuous traditions and strong bonds of blood face off against a GE mob of untouchables plagued by moral anarchy. 90
Posted by Guessedworker on September 22, 2009, 04:54 PM | # Lee: I am talking directed human self evolution via genetic engineering. In that case, as CaptainChaos said, every variety of racial nationalism, popular and intellectual elitist, loses its raison d’etre. The only people who need to be racial nationalists are the tiny handful of genetic engineers. Elitist racial nationalism wins after all? Why, then, are you a populist racial nationalist? Well, let’s be sensible. Genetic engineering is not going to re-engineer Mankind or particular races of Mankind or ethnies of Mankind. It isn’t going to re-engineer countries with multiracial populations. It isn’t going to re-engineer sections of those populations. It might, over time, engineer the removal of certain genetic deseases from particular genotypes. But that’s it. We cannot claim any more, we cannot look to the starry future, without sinking into wild-eyed speculation. So, it isn’t pointless after all to be a populist racial nationalist, Lee. In fact, it’s necessary, and I’m glad that you are out there doing it. I am also extremely glad that you are not seeking to create new ideational forms for racial nationalism to inhabit. 91
Posted by Gorboduc on September 22, 2009, 05:08 PM | # He said “barrister” somewhere, but I think he meant “barrista”. 92
Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 05:55 PM | # Actually Thatcher wasnt ugly, she was surprisngly attractive in her younger days You are right. I can’t believe I forgot since I was quite stunned seeing some of the pictures. She turned into an ugly old hag though and looked even all the more uglier when I read about her dedication to maintaining the international stability provided by a divided and weak Germany. 93
Posted by Frank on September 22, 2009, 06:05 PM | # GW writes:
Good old fashioned neutering works just the same, and you don’t have disrupt anyone’s heritage in the process. You can also try to reward those with good genes, e.g. by having the state pay child support for those deemed exceptional or at least lacking whatever disease is targeted. The Spartans sure managed without GE. 94
Posted by Captainchaos on September 22, 2009, 06:11 PM | #
That’s because God’s covenant with the Jews has now passed to the Germans. Those that bless the German nation will be blessed, those that curse the German nation will be cursed. 95
Posted by Dan Dare on September 22, 2009, 06:13 PM | #
96
Posted by danielj on September 22, 2009, 07:02 PM | # That’s because God’s covenant with the Jews has now passed to the Germans. Those that bless the German nation will be blessed, those that curse the German nation will be cursed. Well, we all know those filthy Krauts only achieved so much, were only dragged from their barbarian stupor, by intermarriage with and exposure to the Tribe. 97
Posted by Al Ross on September 22, 2009, 10:10 PM | # Dan Dare is correct to note Singapore’s well - intentioned policy regarding Eugenics. Sadly, however, the ‘grad - marry - grad’ policy was not attended by much success (in the sense that a notable increase in such behaviour did not materialise). Speculation in my local watering hole, the Tanglin Club, was that Singaporean males were too insecure to marry women as academically bright as themselves. 98
Posted by Gorboduc on September 23, 2009, 09:31 AM | # I never really fancied Maggie that much… I was aware that my rivals, mostly red-faced elderly gents in suede shoes and spotted bow-ties, had a bit of a thing about her -“What a girl, eh!” - but I got one of them to admit that it was all a “disciplinarian” thing and he REALLY wanted her to wear a traffic-warden’s uniform while smacking him. GAH! She was billed as a “scientist”: her great technical discovery was apparently this, how to aerate and thus expand a batch of ice-cream, so that more profit could be made by selling it by volume rather than by weight. Private Eye made much of her comic annoyance with her apparently gin-sodden wreck of a husband, Dennis, claiming the true state of their relationship was this, that he liked to get out of her forbidding presence as much as possible for a round of golf with his cronies, followed by a few (or more) rounds of G&T;, and that he hardly ever made it home to No.10 in a sober state. After Dennis’s death Ingrams or Booker or Hislop or someone from PE admitted that this image was a deliberate construct, and that they’d been asked to run this idea so as to distract any investigator who might have asked about Dennis’s relationship with the world of oil-trading, a business in which he was actually extremely powerful. But it was the way her eye-shadow dribbled all down her face as she obediently wept at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial that finished it for us as an item, I think. 99
Posted by james on May 04, 2011, 10:30 PM | # READING AN INTERESTING REVEIW OF THE JEWISH EUROPEAN ZIONISTIC COUNCIAL IN 1908 HUNGURY Next entry: League of American Nationalists Previous entry: Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992 |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) RES commented in entry 'Who caused the 2008 housing bubble to burst in the U.S.?' on 02/09/12, 05:44 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:48 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:10 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:49 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:45 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:21 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:17 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:08 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:03 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 05:53 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 05:51 PM. (go) (view) dc commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 05:13 PM. (go) (view) Lurker commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:55 PM. (go) (view) MP commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:43 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:31 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:07 PM. (go) (view) Wild Bill commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:02 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 03:47 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 03:24 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Englander on September 18, 2009, 11:32 AM | #
I do hope part 2 (and further parts if the speech was long enough - and I hope it was lengthy) is uploaded soon.