1974 - National Front march - London - Red Lion Square
Unfortunately, a communist Kevin Gately got killed attacking the Police at this demonstration.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
The latest reports of bombings in London show a very amateurish approach to commit devastation in our capital city.
Immediately, our(?) media are blaming Al Qaida terrorists.
This looks more like yet another media scare and scapegoating tranche, rather than a real bombing campaign in the UK.
This thus allows 'Darth vader' Brown, to continue with Blairs insane policies in the Middle east.
Only yesterday, THREE British soldiers lost their lives in Iraq.
Pull the troops out NOW !
What bloody wag suggested that Blair be a 'peacekeeper' in the Middle East ?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Murdered by a gang of savage negroes in Sheffield . The savage negroes included major Sheffield drug dealer and convicted rastafarian robber, Calvin Johnson, and his prostitute half /sister, Melonie Telita Ellis.
New evidence that has come to light, shows that 'at least' two more savage negroes were also involved in the robbing, beating and subsequent murder of Chris.
Chris had major mental problems associated with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD) or as they used to call it, 'shellshock' or 'battle fatigue'. Chris had served with the 2nd. battallion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers including at least THREE tours of Ulster in the mid 1970's. This is where he contracted PTSD. It was not picked up by the MOD till January 2001. Chris received no specialist treatment which he should have received due to his Army service and his mental problems associated with PTSD.
Corrupt South Yorkshire police -
Chris had been a National Front local election Council candidate and a national steward for the National Front.
East European Gypsies are robbing Londoners of £multi-millions.
THE WAR AGAINST WESTERN CIVILIZATION
The best way to defend ethnic interests is to defend a territory against immigration from other ethnic groups. The big story of immigration since World War II is of course that wealthy Western societies with economic opportunities and a high level of public goods, such as medical care and education, are magnets for immigration from around the world. We should never forget and should be immensely proud of the fact that Western societies act as magnets precisely because of the spectacular success of the peoples of European descent in creating the science and technology that is the basis for the incredible explosion of wealth and the breakthroughs in medicine and public health.
And it goes without saying that we should also be immensely proud of the extraordinary flowering of European high culture that has repeatedly produced geniuses like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, and Shakespeare. Jewish pride in their own culture is of course a very important part of the Jewish tradition, and it certainly bears emulation. Sadly, a primary effect of the culture of critique has been to produce immense guilt among so many Europeans about their own culture, their own history, and their own people.
However, because Western societies act as very powerful magnets for immigration and because we have not acted to defend ourselves against this onslaught, the result will be displacement of the founding populations, not only in the United States, but also in Australia, Canada, and throughout the European Union. If present trends in the United States continue, the founding European-derived population is set to become a minority by the middle of this century; in the British Isles the submergence date is just two generations later.
European populations that are allowing themselves to be displaced are playing a very dangerous gameâ€”dangerous because the long history of ethnic strife provides them no guarantees about the future. Throughout history there has been a tendency for majority ethnic groups to oppress minorities. A glance at Jewish history is sufficient to make one realize the dangers faced by an ethnic group not having a state and political apparatus to protect its interests. The organized Jewish community in the United States is well aware of this and has adopted a two-pronged strategy: territorial defense and expansion of Israel as an ethnic homeland, and promoting the displacement and disempowerment of European populations in the Western world. Both of these projects have had a considerable degree of success.
It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant European groups. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the European majority. And we must realize that placing ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance harbored by many ethnic activists toward Europeans.
The best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an ethnostateâ€”a nation that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests of its citizens. From an ethnic point of view, a major problem with massive immigration is that there is likely to be an increase in ethnic competition. Multicultural societies sanction ethnic mobilization because they inevitably become a cauldron of competing ethnic interests.
In this very dangerous game of ethnic competition, some ethnic groups are better prepared than others. Ethnic groups differ in intelligence and the ability to develop and control economic resources. They differ in their degree of ethnocentrism, in the extent to which they are mobilized to achieve group interests, and in how aggressively they behave toward other groups. They differ in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to which they encourage responsible parenting. And they differ in the amount of land and other resources held at any point in time and in their political power.
Given these differences, itâ€™s difficult at best to ensure peaceful relations among ethnic groups. Even maintaining a status quo in territory and resource control is very difficult, as can be seen by the ill-fated attempts of Americans to achieve an ethnic status quo with the 1924 immigration law.18 And accepting a status quo would not be in the interests of groups that have recently lost land or numbers; nor is it likely to be acceptable to groups with relatively low numbers and control of resources; nor would a status quo be likely to be acceptable to groups prone to high fertility. Yet the alternativeâ€”that all humans renounce their ethnic group loyaltiesâ€”seems utopian to say the least.
And given that some ethnic groupsâ€”especially ones with high levels of ethnocentrism and mobilizationâ€”will undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by some groups means only their surrender and defeatâ€”the Darwinian dead end of extinction. The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition in which ethnicity plays a very large role.
The alternative faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeansâ€™ promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishnessâ€”an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions.
The Conservatism of Fools: A Response to John Derbyshire1
By Kevin MacDonald2
Derbyshire lives in a sort of childlike world in which Jewish interests are legitimate and where Jewish attempts to pursue their interests, though they may occasionally be irritating, are not really a cause for concern much less malice. It doesn't require an evolutionary theory to realize that good, reasonable people can have conflicts of interest, and that the results of conflicts of interest can be devastating to the side that loses. My view is that modern evolutionary theory gives us a powerful way of understanding why this must be so. Anti-Semites have often portrayed Jews as the embodiment of evil.
Despite Derbyshire's claim, it is simply not the case that Jews have only been successful since "emancipation." Jews have very frequently achieved powerful positions: ancient Alexandria and the late Roman Empire; parts of Western Europe during the Middle Ages prior to the expulsions of Jews from most of Western Europe; the Turkish Empire after the fall of the Byzantine Christians and many other places where Jews served alien ruling elites, especially in the Muslim world (e.g., Spain after the Muslim conquest); Christian Spain beginning at least by the late 14th century and extending well into the period of the Inquisition; Poland and other areas of Eastern Europe beginning in the early modern period and extending into the 20th century.10 Perhaps most notably, the elite status of Jews in the Soviet Union had little or nothing to do with the opportunities made available by the Enlightenment, since the Enlightenment had little impact on the Russian Empire.
Derbyshire rejects my argument that without Jewish involvement, the Bolshevik Revolution and its horrific aftermath would not have happened. The percentage of Jews in early Bolshevik Party congresses is irrelevant to this issue. The questions I ask are: Would the Revolution have occurred without the key involvement of a relatively small number of very talented Jews like Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Uritsky who played such prominent roles in the Bolshevik Revolution and the early Soviet government? (In the same way, one can reasonably ask whether the neo-conservative revolution in U.S. foreign policy would have happened without the critical contributions of Richard Perle, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, and David Wurmser, to name only some of the most prominent Jews involved. Small numbers of highly talented, closely cooperating people can have enormous influence.) Would the Revolution have been sustainable in its early stages without the involvement of large sections of the Jewish community who came to staff the Soviet bureaucracy, most notably the Secret Police? Were the most powerful non-Jews accurately described as philo-Semites â€” "Jewified non-Jews," to use Albert S. Lindemann's term?11 Were Jews an elite group in the Soviet Union at least until anti-Jewish attitudes began to be government policy after World War II? Did Jewish Communists and other leftists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere identify as Jews? I see no reason to change my views on these issues as a result of Derbyshire's comments.
Similarly, Derbyshire states that Jews "were not the sole, nor even the prime, movers in [the] downfall" of European dominance in the U.S. without providing a concrete alternative. I have never stated that Jewish intellectual movements and interest groups were the sole force, but I do indeed maintain that they were by far the most important. On the critical topic of immigration, there simply was no other force that energetically pursued the goal of multi-ethnic immigration in the period prior to 1965 apart from Jewish organizations or organizations composed partly of non-Jews that were funded, organized and staffed by Jews.12 I am scarcely alone in this opinion. Consider these comments of Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham:
Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s.... Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.
And beyond the transformations being wrought by the sea change in immigration policy, I think it inconceivable that the current regime of what Derbyshire terms "racial guilt, shame, apology, and recompense, accompanied by heroic efforts at social engineering ('affirmative action')" could have been built without the influence of the intellectual and political movements described in The Culture of Critique. As Derbyshire notes, this regime is inherently far less stable than what went before, and one can only shudder at what the future holds throughout the Western world.
Derbyshire does not think it hypocritical for Jews to promote multiculturalism in the U.S. while wishing to maintain Jewish ethnic dominance in Israel. The hypocrisy comes from the fact that, as I note in Chapter 8 of The Culture of Critique, the Jewish advocacy of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate coincided with a major effort by Jewish organizations and Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements to supplant the prevailing view of the United States as a European Christian civilization with a European ethnic base. Especially hypocritical is that the disestablishment of the European basis of American identity was performed with appeal to universalist Enlightenment ideals of justice and individual rights, while it pathologized the ethnocultural basis of American civilization that had become an important foundation of American identity by the early decades of the 20th century. Although it is common for defenders of Israel to describe Israel as a democracy based on Western political ideals, I have yet to see any important Jewish organization or intellectual movement pathologize the ethnic basis of Israeli society or challenge the many ways in which Jewish ethnic interests are officially recognized in Israeli law and custom (e.g., the Law of Return). Indeed, the American Jewish community has been complicit in the ongoing ethnic warfare in the Middle East that has resulted in the dispossession, degradation, and large-scale murder of the Palestinians.
Derbyshire accuses me of being one of those who would prefer "a return to the older dispensation" â€” the older cultural and ethnic mix characteristic of the United States until the changes inaugurated in the last 35 years. I plead guilty to this charge. That regime was stable and it was good for people like me (and Derbyshire), and even for the American Jewish community who saw the modest, low-profile, non-violent character of anti-Jewish attitudes that were fairly common prior to World War II dwindle to irrelevance in the postwar period. Nothing wrong with that.
The dispossession of Europeans is the ultimate defeat â€” an evolutionary event of catastrophic proportions for people of European descent. Whatever the contributions of Jewish "entrepreneurs, jurists, philanthropists, entertainers, publishers, and legions upon legions of scholars," they could never make up for this cataclysmic loss and for the political instability and chronic ethnic tensions that have been unleashed by the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique. Further, as The Culture of Critique attempts to document, a very high percentage of the Jewish contribution to culture has been used to advance Jewish ethnic interests. The only exceptions are advances in technology and basic science, but does anyone seriously suppose that technological advances like the atomic bomb mentioned by Derbyshire would never have been discovered without Jews? (Germany, certainly, was very close.) It may be that these advances would have taken longer, but there is no question that they would have happened without Jews. After all, with a mean IQ of 100 and far larger numbers, European populations undoubtedly have far more individuals of the requisite IQ to make the stupendous contributions to culture that have occurred in recent centuries.
Western cultures have produced a long list of ethnically European geniuses in every field of science and art, from Plato and Aristotle down to the present. Pity the poor English who expelled the Jews in the Middle Ages and were thus restricted to the meager cultural contributions of Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, Newton, and Darwin even as they vastly expanded their numbers and the territory controlled by their people. Can anyone seriously suppose that the West would be unable to produce a brilliant high culture without Jews or that the Jewish contribution is of irreplaceable value?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Ronald Cohen Owns Gordon Brown
The decade has seen the emergence of a crucial post at the heart of government: private banker to the Prime Minister. It has not yet been formally acknowledged in any of the text books, but it is no longer possible to understand how Britain works without grasping that Downing Street's Mr Money Bags now occupies what amounts to a massively important new constitutional role. The first occupant of the unofficial post, Michael Levy, was introduced by Tony Blair. Sir Ronald Cohen will be Levy's replacement.
Initially, Sir Ronald will be entrusted with the task of restoring Labour Party finances. The party is bankrupt at the moment as a direct consequence of the cash for peerages scandal. Sir Ronald will be asked to help find the money to fight the next General Election. He will also be brought into the heart of government in other ways. Gordon Brown already employs Sir Ronald as a foreign policy adviser, just as Blair used Lord Levy.
The truth is that Sir Ronald, Treasury Minister Ed Balls and just one or two other key Brownites will run the country. Anyone who wishes to understand what Britain under Gordon Brown will be like has no choice but to understand Sir Ronald Cohen.
-- The Daily Mail (3rd March 2007)
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
After a long night of making love to his new girlfriend,
Fred notices a photo of a man on her bedside table.
At first, he really didn't give it much thought; she had never mentioned it so why should he.
But after a month or so into the relationship he begins to stress about it;
even imagining the photo is staring at him during their passionate lovemaking.
It was causing him so much anxiety that he finally decides to ask about it.
"Is this your ex-husband?" he nervously asks.
"No, silly," she replies, snuggling up to him.
"Another boyfriend, then?" he continues.
"No, not at all," she says, nibbling away at his ear.
"Is it your dad or your brother?" he inquires, hoping to be reassured.
"No, no, no!!!" she answers.
"Well, who in the hell is he, then?" he demands.
"That's me 6 months ago !" _________________________________________________________________
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Protest to clog Manchester city centre
MANCHESTER transport will suffer major disruptions tomorrow for Gordon Brown's prime ministerial "coronation".
The Labour party has picked the city to formally announce that the Chancellor will replace Tony Blair - and reveal who will be his new deputy.
But with thousands of anti-war expected to take part in a protest march to "welcome" Mr Brown, buses, trams and roads will all be affected. Dozens of bus routes - including the free Metrolink shuttle - will be diverted from 10am until late afternoon. Services 33 (Wigan-Manchester), 63 (Brookhouse-Manchester), 84 (West Didsbury-Manchester), 105 (Manchester Airport-Manchester), 255 (Partington-Manchester) and 256 (Flixton-Manchester) will be diverted away from the city centre from midnight tonight.
Metrolink services running through the city centre will also be stopped from 12.45pm until after the march has passed - expected to be up to 75 minutes later.
A rolling programme of road closures will include Princess Street, Oxford Street, Peter Street, Deansgate, St Mary's Gate and Cross Street.
Greater Manchester Police has pledged to minimise disruption and will reopen streets as soon as the practical after the march, which starts at 1pm in Albert Square, has passed.
The Stop the War Coalition will also hold a series of speeches outside the town hall from 2pm, including an address by Eddie Hancock - whose 19-year-old son Jamie, from Wigan, was killed in Iraq.
During the march protest leaders aim to deliver open letter to a representative of Mr Brown saying: "We urge you on behalf of millions of British voters to withdraw British troops from Iraq no later than October 2007. We also urge you to declare that this country will not participate in any attack against Iran and will pursue a foreign policy independent of the administration of the United States of America." (NWN: Our emphasis in bold)
The letter has been signed by 4,000 people including actor Pete Postlethwaite, ex-Coronation Street star Shobna Gulati and Peter Hook, from New Order.
The Labour "mini-conference", at the Bridgewater Hall, has attracted 3,000 party delegates - as well as thousands more media representatives from around the world.
It comes amid continuing controversy over Mr Brown's decision to offer government jobs to politicians from outside the Labour party.
News the Chancellor had offered the post of Northern Ireland Secretary to former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown prompted criticism from Conservative shadow Commons leader Theresa May, who accused him of "offering Cabinet positions like knocked-off watches".
Lord Ashdown himself criticised Mr Brown's attempts to "add the Liberal Democrats as a bungalow annexe to a Labour Government".
But Mr Brown defended the move, saying he had to "draw in" the most talented individuals and arguing there was "a lot of common ground" on major issues which transcended party labels. And a new poll showed more than one in three voters would be more likely to back him if he succeeded in recruiting Liberal Democrats to his first Cabinet.
NWN: For once we agree with the reds here ! Brown is a mental misfit, just check the way he breathes, he sounds like darth vader ! No offence to disabled folks, but surely we should have the very best available to run the UK.
Brown has also never been elected nor voted by the British people for the position of Prime Minister.
Also, asking Paddy 'Pantsdown' to be a Minister ? What the hell is that all about ? Ashdown has been rubbish at everything he has turned his hand too.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Best of luck to Ricky Hatton !
Ricky Hatton fights at 3.00 am GMT Sunday,24th.June 2007, in Las Vegas .
Let's hope the 'HITMAN' brings back to Manchester 'the spoils'.
Over 10,000 Hatton fans are in Las Vegas,Nevada,USA, willing him to win.
FOURTH OF JULY GIFT!
FOR EVERY U.S. SENATOR WHO VOTES IN FAVOR OF "IMMIGRATION REFORM" WE WILL SPONSOR TEN TO FIFTY CHARTER BUSLOADS OF "IMMIGRANTS" TO BE TRANSPORTED TO THE HOME ADDRESS OF EACH OF THOSE SENATORS!
Thanks to the spirit of cooperation between Hal Turner and other more well-known (and very wealthy) conservative media personalities, this Fourth of July means a big "gift" for pro-immigration-reform U.S. Senators, their wives, children and neighbors.
They will get to enjoy - up close and personal - all the benefits of the "immigrants" they're pushing down our throats!
After all, why should we average Americans be the only ones to enjoy multi-culturalism and diversity?
I think the high and mighty Senate could use a good dose of it too.
Naturally, those Senators who worked hardest for the new Immigration reform bill will get more busloads.
For instance, we think that fifty busloads (about 2500 immigrants total) ought to go to Hyannisport, MA to the Kennedy family home. Another 2500 for John McCain's house, and 2500 for Trent Lott's house!
Whereas those Senators who merely vote for reform (rather than really push it) may only get ten busloads (500 immigrants) to their homes.
Fair is fair, those who work the hardest for the immigrants ought to get the most of them!
Sadly, those Senators who vote AGAINST the immigration Bill will not get any immigrants because those Senators oppose diversity and are real meanies.
It ought to be a real hoot when Senators and their families get to hear the blaring mariachi music; encounter drunken and drugged immigrants walking across their property, shitting in the bushes, peeing on their homes, vomiting and passing out on the sidewalks.
And lets not forget how many of these poor immigrants may be tempted to "enter" the Senator's homes in the dark of night to . . . . . help themselves . . . . . to the better things in life.
A big screen TV; fine stereo system; cash, jewelry? That is why they come here, "to better their lives" right?
Who knows, maybe one of these poor souls may develop a sudden, irresistable "love interest" with a Senator's wife or daughter!
So what if a brown squat monster bends them over the kitchen table and slips them the bone?
All those so-called "conservatives" who are voting for this immigration bill certainly wouldn't have the baby aborted, so they can enjoy little brown babies running around their house!
After all, we're "all equal" aren't we?
Let's not forget that since it's a fourth of July celebration, there could be the sound of fireworks - or perhaps it's gunshots from immigrants shooting in the air to celebrate like they do in their home countries?
Yes, the possibilities are endless - just like the rest of us have found out!
Delivery tenatively scheduled for July 4.
A gift from Hal Turner and my friends. Happy Fourth of July!
NWN : ha ha ! Good funny stuff !
IRA and ETA communist marxist scum/ ETA y IRA marxismo mierde !
SOLDIER - Harvey Andrews
NWN:This record was banned by the BBC at that time. It caused havoc within the Arned Forces and hit forces morale badly by banning it. I know I was there !
Sergeant Michael G. Willets, 27, 3 Para, On the evening of the 25th May 1971 a terrorist entered the reception hall of Springfield Road Police station in Belfast. He carried a suitcase from which a smoking fuse protruded, dumping the case on the floor he fled out-side, inside the room were a man a woman and two children and several police officers. One of the police officers raised the alarm then began organising an evacuation of the hall through the reception office. Sgt Willetts was on duty in the inner hall, on hearing the alarm he sent an NCO to the first floor to warn those above and hastened himself to the door towards which the police officer was thrusting those in the reception hall and office. He held the door open while all passed safely through and then stood in the doorway shielding those taking cover.
In the next moment the bomb exploded with terrible force. Sgt Willetts was mortally wounded. His duty did not require him to enter the threatened area. All those people who were approaching the door from the far side agreed that if they had had to check to open the door, They would have perished. Sgt Willetts waited, placing his body as a screen to shelter them.
By this act of bravery, he risked and lost his life for those of the adults and children.
Sgt Michael Willetts was awarded the George Cross (Posthumous)
NWN :This was posted anonymously to our site. We think it deserves a bigger audience .
Chris Jackson or any other leadership contender will have to do a lot more than just collect 100 or so signatures.
There are at least 3 major hurdles to gaing the leadership of the BNP:
1) the 100 or so signatures
2) a majority of party members voting for him
are just the technical, visible hurdles.
Any candidate successful in the above must also
3) gain physical control of key documents and records, ie membership lists, ex membership lists, accounting records, bank account documents including mandates, lists of suppliers and records of past agreements with them.
Without these, any successor to Griffin will find it difficult to establish control of the party. All his efforts will be directed to maintaining the day to day business of the party and not to increasing its support. Expect Griffin to exploit such chaos by loudly wailing that the new leader is incompetent and should be replaced at the next opportunity.
Where are all these key documents and records? Who keeps them? Is there a BNP HQ with all these documents under safe lock and key?
I doubt it.
They are all under the control of Griffin's clan and they will all go walkabout if Griffin loses.
Chris Jackson and any other leadership contender also needs to raise the money and spend it NOW preparing for a legal injunction against Griffin & Co removing or not immediately handing over ALL documents relating to party business.
It will be too late to apply for such an injunction after winning the leadership contest and after discovering the documents are not there.
That application must be made immediately the election is won and enforced immediately. Any delay, even of 15 minutes or so in handing over EVERYTHING must be immediately followed by another application to the court.
This is expensive, BUT...the costs can be recovered from Griffin PERSONALLY.
That is a big club to wave at a man concerned with money.
Does Chris Jackson have the nerve to stare Griffin down in such a poker game? By constantly raising the stakes until Griffin cracks?
We shall only see that if Jackson wins.
However, having read the blog about Griffin sending Tony Lecomber to address a meeting and then appearing from behind a curtain towards the end, only to give in to the demands of that meeting, I reckon a large rabbit could stare Griffin down.
Sorry Nick, but if you want to be leader, you must LEAD....ie do what is necessary yourself and not send others to do things you dare not.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Have a look at this new blogsite;
Although it is written in Spanish, it has articles and images of interest from many European nations, including the NF demonstration last weekend in London.
They are also reporting on the BNP's forthcoming Leadership election;
Del 1 al 30 de Junio se abre el plazo para la solicitud de candidaturas a la jefatura del partido, siendo condición indispensable llevar militando 5 años y contar con el aval de otros 100 afiliados.Aun siendo una elección anual, desde el año 1999 en el que Nick Griffin ganó por una notable mayoría, no se ha presentado ningún candidato a la presidencia. Situación que podría cambiar ya que todo indica a que Chris Jackson, responsable del area noroeste, se postulará como alternativa a la actual jefatura.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Who Was the 'Father of Racism'? (the correct term is of course Racialism)
Arthur de Gobineau on racial differences.
by Thomas Jackson
Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau (1816 – 1882), to use his full name and title, has been called the "father of racism," usually by people who think he was the intellectual precursor to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. For a host of reasons, this is a silly way to think of him, but he does deserve study--both because of his influence as a thinker and for the inherent interest of what he wrote. As Gobineau recognized, many people had written about race before he did--"The idea of an original, clear-cut and permanent inequality among the different races is one of the oldest and most widely held opinions in the world."--but he was the first to study race seriously as an important force in world history.
Gobineau was a French diplomat, journalist, novelist, Orientalist, and poet as well as a race theorist. He was a confirmed elitist, and was deeply annoyed that his birthday was Bastille Day, the commemoration of what he thought was one of the most shameful movements in French history.
Arthur de Gobineau
Although anti-racists today try to pigeonhole Gobineau as a "racist" and nothing more, he was a man of considerable parts. He was, for example, a friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, who invited him to collaborate on a history of moral attitudes. They never completed the project, but some 80 letters remain from their correspondence. In fact, Tocqueville had a large role in Gobineau's career. In 1849, Tocqueville became foreign minister of France, and invited Gobineau to become his private secretary. Tocqueville did not last long at the ministry, but his friend spent the next 30 years as a diplomat, deepening his understanding of the role of race. He had two postings in Iran, and held near-ambassador ranks in Athens, Rio de Janeiro and Stockholm. He was reported to be a man of great charm and an effective diplomat.
Gobineau published his major work, Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, in four volumes, from 1853 to 1855. It did not attract much notice, and only began to influence European thinking 20 years later, after Gobineau became friends with Richard Wagner. The two men died within a few months of each other, and the Wagner/Bayreuth movement promoted Gobineau along with Wagner. The Nazis later adopted Gobineau as one of their own--thereby considerably damaging his reputation--but as we will see, it was only with considerable distortion that Gobineau could be claimed as an early National Socialist.
Gobineau begins his famous essay by explaining how he discovered the importance of race. He wanted to know why civilizations die, and found all previous explanations inadequate. Bad governments, he decided, do not kill off civilizations because bad government is everywhere: "Thank heaven they [the people] have the power of soon becoming accustomed to their sufferings." Decadence and effeminacy are not the cause because some nations "have lived and grown fat on it." Nor does loss of faith in a society's gods explain collapse because some civilizations have died during times of religious fanaticism.
These studies led to what is Gobineau's most quoted insight:
"I was gradually penetrated by the conviction that the racial question overshadows all other problems of history, that it holds the key to them all . . . . Everyone must have had some inkling of this colossal truth, for everyone must have seen how certain agglomerations of men have descended on some country, and utterly transformed its way of life . . . ." The rest of the essay is an extensive elaboration on this insight.
How Races Differ
Gobineau divided all men into three races: black, white, and yellow. Although he put whites at the top, his orderings have a strange resemblance to Philippe Rushton's well-known findings that blacks and Asians are at the extremes on many traits, with whites somewhere in between.
Blacks, wrote Gobineau, are dull-witted and have strong, crude feelings. They do not care what they eat, since they consider all food good. The "prognathous Negro" (a phrase Gobineau liked--"prognathous" means having a jaw that juts forward) is at the same time capricious in his feelings, and "kills willingly, for the sake of killing." Blacks are incapable of civilization: "Ages have passed without their doing anything to improve their conditions."
Gobineau described the
yellow races as "the exact
opposite" of the black.
Gobineau describes the yellow race as "the exact opposite" of the black:
"[H]e commits none of the strange excesses common among Negroes. His desires are feeble, his will-power rather obstinate than violent; his longing for material pleasures, though constant, is kept within bounds. A rare glutton by nature, he shows far more discrimination in his choice of food."
The Asian has a respect for order but "he does not dream or theorize; he invents little, but can appreciate and take over what is useful to him." Gobineau says the yellow races are the perfect middle class; one could not have better, more useful masses. However, he writes, "no civilized society could be created by them; they could not supply its nerve force, or set in motion the springs of beauty and action."
Conversion to Christianity still
leaves them "eating whale blubber."
It is whites who build civilizations because of their "love of liberty" and their restless will to create and govern. They have an "extraordinary attachment to life. They know how to use it and so, it would seem, set a greater price on it . . . ." Gobineau believed whites are more sparing of the lives of others. "When they are cruel, they are conscious of their cruelty; it is very doubtful whether such a consciousness exists in the Negro."
Gobineau believed that whites are uniquely preoccupied with honor, and are the only race that shows true physical beauty. They are also the source of all civilization: "[E]verything great, noble and fruitful in the works of man on this earth . . . belongs to one family alone, the different branches of which have reigned in all the civilized countries of the universe." Gobineau claimed that even Chinese civilization arose when whites migrated east from India. For him, the category that cannot rise above the primitive stage "includes the vast majority of the pure-blooded yellow and black races."
As was common in his time, Gobineau saw sharp differences even among national groups of the same race; he believed that the Napoleonic wars showed that the French are physically tougher than Germans and other Europeans. Seventy years later, however, the Nazis were pleased to find that Gobineau often referred to the civilizing people as "Germanic" or "Aryan."
Although he wrote in terms that today sound harsh, Gobineau was not dismissive of any race, noting that some individual blacks are more intelligent than European peasants or even average townspeople. He even criticized anthropologists for criticizing blacks unfairly. However, in the essay, he cared only about a race's ability to build a civilization. Individuals could be exceptions to the general rules that applied to races, but it was races, not individuals, who built and destroyed civilizations.
Gobineau could be sarcastic about anyone who doubted race differences:
"So the brain of the Huron Indian contains in an undeveloped form an intellect which is absolutely the same as that of the Englishman or the Frenchman! Why then, in the course of the ages, has he not invented printing or steam power? . . . [How can one explain] why his bards and sorcerers have, in some inexplicable way, neglected to become Homers and Galens."
At least in his writing, Gobineau seems to have been an orthodox churchman. He wrote about "the hand of God" that directs human affairs, and argued that all races have the capacity to accept Christianity. This changes nothing, however, because when Eskimos, for example, convert to Christianity they are still left "eating whale-blubber."
Gobineau wrote before Darwin, and he found it hard to reconcile racial differences with the Biblical creation. If men had been on earth for only a few thousand years and all were descended from Adam, how did they separate into such clearly distinct races? He considered the possibility that Adam was the ancestor only of whites, but finally concluded that unless we are to doubt the Biblical account, the origins of races must remain a mystery.
"Ages have passed without their doing
anything to improve their conditions."
Somewhat paradoxically, he believed that the races existing today were the result of ancient mixtures, some of which had actually been improvements. He thought, for example, that today's whites, whether European or Middle Eastern, were considerably different from the original white race of "Aryans" or "Germanics." He even wrote: "Viewed abstractly, the white race has disappeared from the face of the earth."
Although some past racial mixtures had been beneficial, he looked with horror on further mixture, which, he was convinced, would destroy whites and denature other races. He feared that miscegenation would eventually go so far that all people would resemble each other, and that "their general level will be revoltingly low."
Sometimes he seemed to despair of human beings, wondering whether social insects like ants or bees are not happier. They live entirely by instinct, but all their instincts are good and useful to them.
Conquest and Decline
Gobineau applied his theory of racial differences to the problem with which he began the book: Why do civilizations rise and fall? Racial differences have ordained forever that only a few groups have the capacity to lift themselves from the primitive tribal stage. These dynamic Aryan groups then conquer and dominate their neighbors. This, however, is their downfall, because empire-building brings the conquering races into contact with people who do not have the same abilities, and mixture leads to degeneracy: "From the very day when the conquest is accomplished and the fusion begins, there appears a noticeable change of quality in the blood of the masters." Gobineau even had a theory of immigration: Civilizing races build cities that attract inferiors from distant realms who then drag down that civilization.
Only whites could achieve true beauty.
As he often did, however, Gobineau made room for inconsistencies; some mixing can be good. He wrote that when races are pure, they stick to their original, governing principles until expansion leads to mixing. "Such change," however, "will sometimes mean real progress, especially in the dawn of a civilization, when the governing principle is usually rigid and absolute, owing to the exclusive predominance of some single race. Later, the tinkering will become incessant . . . ."
Gobineau thought civilization cannot be transmitted to people who cannot create it. This, he explains, is why European culture could come to the New World only in the form of massive migrations of Europeans that left the natives untouched. Gobineau believed that the Indians of Spanish America were better off than those of North America because the Spaniards left them to live as they always had. He sharply criticized Americans for meddling with both blacks and Indians. Enslavement and displacement were cruel, and any attempt to civilize non-whites would only confuse and distress them.
Gobineau thought that some portion of civilization could be transmitted between closely-related groups but that "the civilizations that proceed from two completely foreign races can only touch on the surface. They never coalesce . . . ."
Gobineau is perhaps at his most eloquent when he describes how civilizations decay:
"[W]hile the blood of the civilizing race is gradually drained away by being parceled out among the peoples that are conquered or annexed, the impulse originally given to these peoples still persists. The institutions which the dead master had invented, the laws he had prescribed, the customs he had initiated--all these live after him. No doubt the customs, laws and institutions have quite forgotten the spirit that informed their youth; they survived in dishonoured old age, every day more sapless and rotten. But so long as even their shadows remain, the building stands, the body seems to have a soul, the pale ghost walks."
"Societies perish because they are degenerate," he wrote: "[T]he people has no longer the same intrinsic value as it had before, because it has no longer the same blood in its veins, continual adulterations having gradually affected the quality of the blood." By this time, "the degenerate man, properly so called, is a different being, from the racial point of view, from the heroes of the great ages. . . . He is only a very distant kinsman of those he still calls his ancestors."
In this context, Gobineau touched on the inevitable decline of the United States. He approved of the original British stock of the founders, but disliked what came later. Like the American Nordicists, he believed that "Irish, cross-bred Germans and French, and Italians of even more doubtful stock . . . . will inevitably give birth to further ethnic chaos." When this mix was combined with blacks, Indians, and whatever other flotsam might drift into America, "it is quite unimaginable that anything could result from such a horrible confusion but an incoherent juxtaposition of the most decadent kinds of people . . . ." Civilization was therefore doomed in the United States even before the Civil War!
Gobineau is remarkable in his utter pessimism. He offered no political program, believing that degeneracy was inevitable. Well before Spengler, he saw civilizations almost as organic creatures, with fixed life and death cycles. No individual, not even an entire nation, could change the destiny of its race. He predicted that all people would sink to the lowest level and be "like the buffalo grazing," with no idea of their own degeneracy: "Perhaps they will think themselves the wisest and cleverest beings that ever existed." In what could be considered his epitaph for the species, he wrote: "What is truly sad is not death itself but the certainty of our meeting it as degraded beings."
Besides its great, central theme of civilizational decay, the essay offers many other related observations. For example, because individuals differ as much in their abilities as races, Gobineau believed European civilization was a veneer. "The lower strata of the French people . . . . form an abyss over which civilization is suspended," he wrote. No other European country was any better, because so many whites were complete strangers to their own culture.
Japanese: Gobineau thought Asians made the perfect middle class.
Gobineau thought Asians were different. They might not be an inventive race, but even the lower orders were immersed in and understood their civilization:
"If in China everyone or nearly everyone, has reached a certain level of knowledge, the same is the case among the Hindus. Each man, according to his caste, shares in a spirit that has lasted for ages, and knows exactly what he ought to learn, think and believe. . . . Everyone has similar convictions on the important matters of life."
Gobineau's admiration for the caste system and contempt for "the lower strata of the French people" were consistent with his uncompromising elitism. He believed that no society could be stable or harmonious without hierarchy. Socialism was, for him, the most revolting denial of human differences.
The "Father of Racism"?
It is not difficult to see how uncongenial Gobineau would have been to National Socialism. To the extent that it was socialist, he would have despised it. He would also have been baffled by its optimism, its assumption that a political movement could save a nation or race. He would have warned against any form of conquest or expansion as leading inevitably to mixture and decline.
Finally, he would have disagreed on the subject of Jews. He cited them as the best refutation of the view that geography or climate influence achievement, pointing out that Jews have succeeded everywhere they have gone. He saw their dispersal from the land of Israel as a tragedy for them but a gain for others: "I repeat, it was a people capable in all that it undertook, a free people, a strong people, an intelligent people. When, with their arms still in their hands, they lost bravely the position of an independent nation, they furnished the world almost as many learned men as merchants."
Popular Nazi portrayals of Gobineau were necessarily selective.
What drew Nazis to the essay was no doubt the same things that make the anti-racists so afraid of him. It was not that he laughed at egalitarianism and ranked the races in strict hierarchy. As Gobineau himself noted, people have always done that. As if in confirmation, a professor at the University of Tel Aviv named Benjamin Isaac even published a 560-page book in 2004 called The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Hume and Kant wrote scathingly about blacks well before Gobineau. Practically all the American founders were white supremacists, and men like Josiah Nott and Hinton Rowan Helper wrote detailed accounts of black/white racial differences.
Gobineau differed from these men in his careful attempt to trace how race unfolds in history. He got many things wrong--some comically so by today's standards--but his clear understanding of inherent racial differences and their importance in all human outcomes makes him not the father of racism but the founder of race realism.
Eduardo López Pascual
PROCESO A UN HOMBRE MUERTO
215 págs., ilustrado, 215 págs.Cubierta a todo color, con solapas y plastificada brillo. 15x21 cms.
P.V.P.: 15 €
Ahora que se está falsificando la historia aprovechando la ignorancia histórica de una inmensa mayoría de españoles, el autor ha querido mostrarnos, aunque de forma novelada, que la mentora nunca puede quedar impune porque «la verdad os hará libres». Esta y no otra ha sido la intención del autor de esta novela Proceso a un hombre muerto que no ha tolerado la profanación de que los hunos y los hotros, en palabras de Unamuno, carguen sobre José Antonio Primo de Rivera todos los males poniendo siempre como pantalla la palabra fascista, cuando el mayor peligro para la humanidad ha venido siempre de la mano de la ideología marxista —la época en que vivió José Antonio, el PSOE era marxista—, pues no hay nada a lo que no se atreva y allí donde ha conquistado el poder, se muestra en todo momento salvaje e inhumano. El autor ha sido a través de su novela implacable con tanta mentira, lo que hace que su lectura vaya calando poco a poco hasta tal punto que invita al lector a leer su trabajo de un solo tirón. López Pascual defiende a José Antonio y piensa, como también lo pensó María Teresa León, que su juicio fue una equivocación política además de injusto, porque no se estaba juzgando a un hombre sino a una ideología política y por tanto su proceso fue una gran farsa porque ni tan siquiera aceptaron su oferta de intentar encontrar la paz, como bien recoge el testimonio de quien fue presidente de las Cortes y presidente de la República en el exilio, Diego Martínez Barrio. Quienes condenaron a muerte a José Antonio Primo de Rivera fueron los seguidores de esa ideología que produjo a los largo de su historia más de cien millones de muertos. El fundador de Falange fue uno de ellos; ya lo dejó muy claro la Pasionaria: «Más vale condenar a cien inocentes que absolber a un solo culpable». Y lo dijo en Valencia en un mitin comunista, según dejó escrito el destacado miembro del Comité Ejecutivo del POUM, Julián Gorkin.
LIBRERÍA EUROPA La otra cara de la HistoriaHorario de 10 a 14 horas y de 16.30 a 20.30 de la tarde de lunes a sábado.Calle Séneca, 12 bajos (Metro "Diagonal")Apartado de Correos 9169 E-08006 BarcelonaTelf.: 00-34-932370009 Fax: 00-34-934159845Nuestra cuenta bancaria: La Caixa 2100-1344-60-0200026408IBAN ES32 2100-1344-6002 0002 6408 / BIC CAIXESBBXXXhttp://www.libreriaeuropa.info/
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
June 17 --
As he prepared for a visit this week from Israel's prime minister, President Bush held an unannounced meeting with the top leadership of the United States' Jewish community to discuss the dramatic events in the Middle East and other foreign policy issues.
Bush meets with smaller groups of Jewish leaders from time to time, but the gathering Thursday was the first time he had met with the entire leadership community, about 50 heads of Jewish advocacy, service and religious organizations of different political orientations.
The White House did not disclose the private session on the president's schedule, and officials asked participants to treat Bush's remarks as off the record.
Present for the session were the president's most senior aides, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and political adviser Karl Rove.
Several people present provided a general outline of the session, which included Bush giving an opening statement for 10 to 15 minutes and answering questions for more than an hour. The conversation touched largely on foreign policy issues, including the situation with Iran and Syria, the fight against Islamic extremists and -- especially -- the situation in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas's seizure of power this past week has further complicated Bush's faltering efforts to help settle the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.[ Bull.....there never has been ever any intention to settle the matter other than the way the Israeli Zionists have been doing for the last 60 years...]
"He has not resigned himself to saying that he gives up," said Malcolm I. Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which set up the Bush meeting. "He's wrestling with it."
The Arab-Israeli conflict has been something of a back-burner issue for Bush in the past year, despite his promise to help create a new Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. But the events of the past week are forcing the issue back on to the White House agenda, and Bush is slated to sit down with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for a long-scheduled meeting in Washington on Tuesday.
Bush offered few clues to the Jewish leaders about how he plans to handle the upcoming visit, other than to praise Olmert as a strategic thinker and to say how much he respects him.[ yeah another mass murderer and butcher of children, I suppose one gangster needs to respect another.]
The president has not been hesitant about trying to help the beleaguered Israeli prime minister, who is perhaps even less popular at home than Bush is here.
The president called Olmert in late April, something of a show of support at a time when Olmert was being harshly criticized for his decisions during last summer's war in Lebanon.
The White House appears to be grappling with how to deal with the stunning developments of the past several days, which saw Gaza being taken over by Hamas, a group dedicated to Israel's destruction, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dismissing the coalition government.
On Saturday, in apparent reprisal for Hamas's military sweep in Gaza, Fatah gunmen stormed the municipal building in the largest city in the West Bank. Men from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah's armed wing, raised the party flag over the city hall in Nablus and ordered the Hamas-controlled city council and its supporters to leave.
With Abbas set to form a new government without Hamas, some Middle East analysts see an opportunity for the United States to reengage on the issue. And they expect Bush to press Olmert to release the long-held tax revenue the Israelis have been keeping from the Palestinian Authority because of the presence of Hamas in the government.
The U.S. consul general in Jerusalem met with Abbas on Saturday and indicated that an international embargo on funds for the Palestinian Authority will be lifted once a new government is sworn in."This administration has been trying to figure out a way into this issue.[ another lie...there is only one way they have always thought...what the Juzis want]
The developments in Gaza have been a real opportunity for the administration to engage in a proactive way," said Larry Garber, the executive director of the New Israel Fund who formerly directed U.S. aid efforts in the Palestinian territories.But Garber and other analysts noted the roadblocks confronting Bush, Olmert and Abbas, particularly the continuing power of Hamas to shape events on the ground. "I don't think the U.S. strategy to strengthen President Abbas even stands a chance of success," said Haim Malka, a Middle East specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Thought you'd be interested in this editorial on global geopolitical situation after the G8 Summit in Germany a week ago:
Bush-Putin Dance Leads to a "Wedding," Funeral of Hope (for Kosovo Serbs)
Also check out...
"Death Merchants" Only Benefactors of Missile Shield
Russia Has the Right to Defend Herself
Hillary: A DEMONcratic Candidate :-)
If you want more info, you can go to the www.truthinmedia.org web site and click on the links there for additional information.
---Truth in MediaScottsdale, Arizona
Monday, June 18, 2007
A humbling, exhilarating experience that will set you free
Many, many thanks for sending these links.
This unassuming man from Wales took two of the most beautiful pieces of music ever penned and "knocked the ball out of the park."
If the definition of art is anything that can move you to your very soul , then this is some of the best. The world has been searching for another Luciano Pavarotti, and I think we have found him. We will be hearing a lot more from Mr. Potts. And just when I thought the cultural war was lost. Thank God for miracles.
I am going to circulate widely to friends and associates. If you are tired of all the gutter trash that is being shoved down our throats then turn on these links, give it time to load and enjoy. Be prepared to be "elevated." Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnold Leibowitz"
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: A humbling, exhilarating experience that will set you free
> If you saw "The Shawshank Redemption" you will recall the scene when Andy > Dufresne (Tim Robbins) played The Flower Duet over the loudspeaker system at > Shawshank Prison, stupefying the entire prisoner population in glorious awe > of the spiritual truth and sense of freedom conveyed by the singers.> > Well folks, here is such a real-life emancipation, Parts 1 and 2, in which > you can also join in with these exhilarated audiences.> >
PAUL POTTS sings.......................
Part 1:> > http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=646496&cache=1> >
Part 2:> > http://www.thedailyreel.com/spotlight/tv/archive/2007/06/15/paul-potts-wows-again-in-semi-finals?gnewsid=1181889729.86> >