A friend passes along a discussion O.D. readers will undoubtedly find of interest:
Good to talk to you last night. I wanted to continue this discussion we had last night regarding Britain as the weak link in the chain, which I think it most certainly is. As you will recall, what began our discussion was an article in the Daily Mail of January 2nd, concerned the newly-founded English Defense League. That article noted:
The rise of the English Defence League has been rapid. Since its formation at the start of the summer the group has organised nearly 20 major protests in Britain’s cities, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Luton, Nottingham, Glasgow and Swansea.
Its leaders are professional and articulate and they claim that the EDL is a peaceful, non-racist organisation. But having spent time with them, there is evidence that this movement has a more disturbing side. There is talk of the need for a ‘street army’, and there are links with football hooligans and evidence that violent neo-Nazi groups including Combat 18, Blood and Honour and the British Freedom Fighters have been attending demos.
Violence has erupted at most of the EDL’s demonstrations. In total, nearly 200 people have been arrested and an array of weapons has been seized, including knuckledusters, a hammer, a chisel and a bottle of bleach.
As the EDL gains support across the UK, Muslims have already been targeted in unprovoked attacks. In the worst incident, a mob of 30 white and black youths is said to have surrounded Asian students near City University in central London and attacked them with metal poles, bricks and sticks while shouting racist abuse. Three people – two students and a passer-by who tried to intervene – were stabbed.
Following the Manchester protest, when 48 people were arrested during street violence, the Bolton Interfaith Council Executive issued a stark warning that race relations were under threat and Communities Secretary John Denham compared the EDL to Oswald Mosley’s Union of British Fascists, who ran amok in the Thirties. In response to these fears, the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit, a countrywide police team set up to combat domestic extremism, has been investigating the EDL.
‘The concern to me is how groups like this, either willingly or unwillingly, allow themselves to be exploited by very extreme right-wing groups like the National Front and the British Freedom Fighters,’ Metropolitan Police chief Sir Paul Stephenson has said.
Obviously we agree that the spontaneous organization of heretofore un-politicized portions of the White English working class, with what appears to be rational, level-headed leadership, is an event of much significance. A long time ago, conservative writer Mark Steyn pointed to the well-known conflict in Northern Ireland and the rise of opposing paramilitary groups there, with associated political fronts and parties, and noted that this arose since the combatants to a real political dispute could not rely on a state to impose a decision or were faced with a state that so heavily favored one side that an imposed solution was unacceptable to the point where thinking men convinced themselves of their moral right to resort to violence. It appears to me that the EDL is the beginning of this process in England itself.
Why England? Why England and not France? Why are English men willing to stand up and engage in battle while masked with Muslim settlers in their land while American men have yet to even take much exception to the massive Mexican settlement of their land? I think I know the answer to that question, but it will require a bit of explanation.
Conservative scholars have traced the introduction of what most call modern liberalism, what I would call cultural Marxism, to the influence of the Frankfurt School following the war. Allan Bloom’s “Closing of the American Mind” attracted a lot of attention due to Prof. Bloom’s critique of the students he found before him at the Univ of Chicago in the 70s and 80s as compared to those he knew and taught in the 50s and early 60’s. The first part of the book, dealing with his “I was there” account of the surrender of the traditional university to liberal social forces in the late 60s, and the third part of the book, in which he drew attention to the emptiness of his “nice” students with regard to their passion, sex lives, music, friendship and solidarity (a theme which Wolfe brought to a dramatic close with a book which I believe historians will be assigning 100 years from now, “I Am Charlotte Simmons”), but the bulk of the book, the second part, deals in depth with this importation of post-war Germanic philosophy into the Anglo-American world.
Many people who read that best-seller glossed over or simply skipped that second part. It is, however, the most important portion of the book and in fact is the explanation for the phenomena Bloom spends the rest of the book describing. Here is a very good summary of the argument from Professor Tom West of Claremont:
The cause of our current malaise, in Bloom’s diagnosis, is modern philosophy, which has infected us in two ways — through politics and through 19th and 20th century continental European thought. As for politics, says Bloom, America was founded on modern principles of liberty and equality that we got from Hobbes and Locke. Liberty turned out to mean freedom from all self-restraint, and equality turned out to mean the destruction of all differences of rank and even of nature. Our Founders may have acted, or have pretended to act, “with a firm reliance on divine providence” (Declaration of Independence) but their natural-rights philosophy, says Bloom, came from the atheists Hobbes and Locke. (Bloom hedges on whether the Founders were self-conscious atheists or merely the dupes of clever and lying philosophers.) Bloom characterizes the Lockean doctrine of the Founders in this way:
“[In the state of nature man] is on his own. God neither looks after him nor punishes him. Nature’s indifference to justice is a terrible bereavement for man. . . . [This doctrine] produced, among other wonders, the United States.” (163)
The practical result: “God was slowly executed here; it took two hundred years, but local theologians tell us He is now dead.” (230)Similarly, the Founders may have thought they were establishing a political order based on reason: Bloom stresses our initial claim to be the first political order so grounded. But the regime of reason turned out to be the regime where reason discovers the virtue of unleashing the passions. At first reason legitimates only the modest passions of industriousness and money-making. But having abandoned its older claim to be the rightful master of the soul, reason eventually lost its authority and became impotent against demands for self-indulgence and mindless self-expression.
The story of America, according to Bloom, is a tale of the practical working out of the degradation inherent in the logic of our founding principles:
“This is a regime founded by philosophers and their students. . . . Our story is the majestic and triumphant march of the principles of freedom and equality, giving meaning to all that we have done or are doing. There are almost no accidents; everything that happens among us is a consequence of one or both of our principles. . . . [T]he problem of nature [is] always present but always repressed in the reconstruction of man demanded by freedom and equality.” (97)Eventually, Bloom says, the infections occasioned by our political principles sapped the strength of religious faith and traditional morality. The relativism of today’s students is, in Bloom’s view, a perfect expression of the real soul of liberty, which from the start, in Hobbes’s thought, meant that life had no intrinsic meaning. Here, in Bloom’s view, is the ultimate source of the view that liberty means nothing more than self-realization or self-expression with no intrinsic moral limit. The anti-nature dogmas of women’s liberation, which deny the obvious natural differences between men and women in the name of equality, are destroying the last remnants of the family, which had been the core of society through most of America’s history. Likewise, the anti-nature dogmas of affirmative action — insisting that equal opportunity be suppressed until all categories of Americans come out exactly the same — deny the obvious natural differences among human beings in regard to ambition and intelligence.
Thus, according to Bloom, equality and liberty eventually produced self-satisfied relativism, which sees no need to aspire to anything beyond itself — “spiritual detumescence.” They also produced left-wing political movements which try to implement the “reconstruction of man demanded by freedom and equality” and which not only threaten but dominate important parts of our leading universities. Further, Bloom argues, Hobbesian-Lockean liberty was also designed to liberate scientific technology in order to conquer nature and make life comfortable. The very idea of a conquest of nature implies disrespect for natural limits and has contributed to the decline of respect for nature’s guidance in all areas of contemporary life.
The second cause of our problems today, Bloom tells us, is post-Lockean modern philosophy. The big names are Rousseau, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, but their views have been popularized (and degraded) by such men as Marx, Freud, and Max Weber. Their ideas have worked their way into our universities and our speech, giving us “The Self,” “Creativity,” “Culture,” and “Values” (four of Bloom’s chapter titles). These continental writers, more radical than Hobbes and Locke, all strongly denounced “bourgeois society,” i.e., democracy American style. From them we have learned to think of ourselves as despicably low. Yet at the same time, we have vulgarized the grand conceptions of especially Rousseau and Nietzsche and fitted them into our own democratic prejudices. Thus every nursery-school child is encouraged to be “creative.”
While Bloom was most immediately concerned with the effect of this importation on the United States and its academies, the same phenomena Bloom describes quickly blew through the entire Anglosphere, including far off New Zealand. The inherent logic of a regime based on liberty and equality, tied to the post-War Frankfurt School’s powerful critique of source of meaning or morality outside of the autonomous self, has swept through all of us, and all of our institutions. Professor Paul Gottfried’s work is almost entirely on this subject. A review of his masterful “After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State” summarizes his conclusions:
But good Whiggish liberalism lost out to other ideologies operating under the same label, and Gottfried devotes a good share of his book to identifying the rogue minds that undermined the bourgeois order. John Stuart Mill was the prototype of the new liberal, synthesizing the expressive liberty” of the individual with a plan for extensive income redistribution, and arguing for armed interventions in other nations to achieve liberal ends.
T.H. Green theorized about the “ethically engaged state,” which would renew communal identity through a new balance between liberty and order. John Dewey brought to the “new liberalism” the submersion of “individuality” into the sea of deliberate social change. Herbert Croly taught twentieth century liberals how to deconstruct “outdated habits” and “American provincialism” and how to hide personal preferences behind “historical necessity” and appeals to science. American Commissioner of Education John Ward Studebaker talked about “a living democratic faith” that the American government would first impress on its own citizens and then on the remainder of humankind. Karl Loewenstein theorized on the use of therapeutic methods to make democracy “fascism-resistant.” Teodor Adorno showed the new liberals how to relabel underdesirable political views as “prejudice,” relegating them to the clinic, or the jail. The work of John Rawls completed this transformation of liberalism from “fear of the state” to a program that would “continuously recreate civil society.”
* * *
In Gottfried’s view, a “new” America is already here, with most inhabitants of the United States without fixed habits or solid communal loyalties. Public education serves as a center of indoctrination into the new American faith. U.S. foreign policy aims at building a “divine kingdom on earth” which conflates U.S. military, economic, and political patterns into a spiritual mission similar in its scope to that of seventeenth century Spain. As bearers of “the democratic will,” Americans are taught to see themselves as “more sincerely religious, better educated, and of nobler minds and of purer words than the men of any former republic.” The modern liberal creed sees government as a vehicle to promote individual gratification. The size of the American welfare state, Gottfried says, is no unintended policy accident, but fully in line with social democratic intent. The welfare state succeeds because it gives to most people what they want. The now dominant American ideology of pluralism, the author says, grants legitimacy to social plans that “transcend the present social reality by shattering it,” and at the same time justifies the projection of American power around the globe.
Note that Gottfried’s book was 1999 and this review in 2000, before 9/11, the War on Terrorism and our now entrenched policy of bringing democracy to the Muslim world, before the American creation of a new Muslim state in Europe founded on liberal principles, before the current financial crisis led to massive state involvement in our economy on a scale that was unimaginable in 1999. In other words, if political analysis involves seeing in the present undercurrents of ideas trends that will lead to certain real-world outcomes as night follows day, then Professor Gottfried has done an amazing job.
What does this mean for Britain? If Bloom was right, one would expect that, unlike the United States, a nation built and framed by ancient institutions with strong social standing would be able to resist the “infection” much more strongly than a nation, like the United States, that accepted the philosophical foundation of the regime of liberty and equality that is the source of the rot, the taint in the blood.
Here is where I leave these learned men and venture my own opinion.
While Bloom was right in his diagnosis his concern for the United States led him to ignore the implications of his theory for the UK. While at first glance it would appear that the UK would be more resilient to the Liberal Revolution than the U.S., in fact the opposite is true. This is so for two reasons.
First, as the Liberal Revolution involves de-legitimizing all sources of traditional authority outside of individual desire, its effect on the U.S. was minimal in scope (though still devastating) since the U.S. simply did not have very many strongly-entrenched sources of traditional authority. In the U.S., the only real source of authority is the Constitution, which the Warren Court found very easy to mould to fit the dictates of the new Liberal Revolution. This is so because of the very reason Bloom points out: the logical outcome of a doctrine of liberty and equality was already present at the Founding. The only real obstacle that needed to be smashed in the U.S. was Jim Crow and the legacy racial laws, which were fairly easily shot down, despite massive resistance in the South, and was shot down precisely on the basis of the Constitution.
On the other side of the ocean, however, we see an ancient kingdom literally groaning with long-entrenched sources of traditional authority arising outside of mass democratic consent or individual desire: The Church of England, the House of Lords, the Crown, the Common Law and thousands of local customs, petty officials and minor offices whose roots go back centuries. As the Liberal Revolution swept the Anglo world, rather than providing areas of resistance, these ancient institutions instead appeared, overnight, absurd. Absurd, out-dated, un-democratic, backwards, oppressive and illegitimate. As a result, all had to be swept away.
Which brings me to my second reason: the political structure. In order to do its work, the Liberal Revolution had to assault the then-existing sources of traditional authority. In the U.S., with its weak executive, divided legislature, a real federal structure that requires 50 battles on one issue if the issue is a state issue (and most are) and a largely independent Federal judiciary who, while obviously the strongest of the branches, they can (and have) their jurisdiction to reach decisions on certain matters stripped of them by Congress. In other words, while the Liberal Revolution was still powerful enough to reshape the country, its political effect has been diffused as it passed through the U.S.’ unique political system, a system designed to prevent wholesale change quickly.
In the U.K, however, the executive arises from the legislature. In fact, the executive is the executive precisely because the Prime Minister commands a majority (usually outright, sometimes in coalition) in Parliament. The judiciary is much weaker, as it has no power to expressly overrule Parliament. The result was that the Liberal Revolution seized complete control of the political levers of power in a flash and were able to completely remake the nation in a matter of a few years. While lingering social views and mores, as well as institutional tradition, slowed the revolution in some areas of British life, it never stopped them. As a result, take a look at the U.K. today. Where do those traditional sources of authority stand?
The Church of England is a joke, its bishops retain no real authority, moral or otherwise. Lords has been abolished. The Crown is not only powerless (or, to be more precise, it is convinced of its powerlessness—as I said last night I believe that the Crown retains more power than it realizes and that, properly exercised, such power would be backed by the British people) it feels itself beholden to the dictates of the new liberal order or face its own destruction, the Common Law has given way to E.U. Civil Law, ancient counties have been abolished in favor of new geographic administrative regions that retain no place in the hearts of men and retain no independent power, the police—once the envy of the world—are now reduced to a worldwide joke.
All of this has been possible due to the extreme power of the central government of the U.K. Relatively speaking, the Prime Minister of the U.K. is many times more powerful than the President of the United States. If the PM needs legislation he can, by definition, have it. If the President needs legislation, he has to ask 425 petty lords for permission.
An even better example of the transformative power of the Liberal Revolution mixed with the Parliamentary system is the late, great nation of Canada, which was transformed into a totally different nation under one Prime Minister, Trudeau. All of modern Canada is a creation of Trudeau and his Liberal Party.
For these reasons, the Liberal Revolution has been able to fully implement its program in the U.K, while in the U.S. it still faces a good deal of popular and—in places—authority-driven resistance to its dictates.
Thus, it is the British man—or to be more specific, the U.K version of the villainous American White Straight Man—who is now facing the real-world consequences of the full imposition of modern liberalism and cultural Marxism. Thus, he is the first to see the mortal danger he is in and the first to begin the stirrings of a fight.
Eventually, American men will be in the same position, but not quite for a while yet I think. For now, it is the duty of American White Nationalists to watch Britain with exceeding attention—to learn by example, to be ready for that day—a day which has been hastened by the Gods-sent victory of Lord Obama of Oak Park—when American men start looking around them and thinking: Perhaps we should fight back?
Thank you so much for this incredible entry! It’s really giving me a lot to chew on.
When history is written as to how and why (if liberalism triumphs) the British people allowed it to happen what will history record?
It’s a brave man who will sit down and enumerate the cause/s of why modern Britain allowed it to happen.
OTOH, the fat lady has not yet taken centre stage.
I suspect whole volumes will be written but also suspect a recorded consensus will be hard to come by.
The EDL is a Jewish lead front group that is may be linked to state intelligence. It is not spontaneous and and it is not pro-white. It has been proscribed by the BNP and Nick Griffin stated publicly that “Zionists” are behind it. The EDL is a classic false flag operation. This may sound a little nutty, but the same thing happened in the 90’s with a state run group called “Combat 18” that was used to gather intelligence on and discredit “right wing extremists.” Seriously, do a little research.
Here is the proof:
Businessman bankrolls ‘street army’
By Nick Lowles
A middle-age, respectable looking man has emerged as a key figure behind the English Defence League. Alan Lake, a 45-year-old businessman from Highgate, North London, sees the EDL as a potential “street army” willing to be deployed against what they claim is rising Islamisation of modern Britain.
Lake, who claims to have made money through computers, runs a series of intranet services for far-right groups across the world. Addressing an anti-Islam conference in Sweden last month, organised by the far-right Swedish Democrats, he told delegates it was necessary to build an anti-Jihad movement. He spoke of the need for “people that are ready to go out in the street” and boasted that he and his friends had already begun to build alliances with “football supporters”.
“We are catching a baby at the start of a gestation,” Lake later told The Guardian. “We have a problem with numbers. We have an army of bloggers [on the far right] but that’s not going to get things done.
“Football fans are a potential source of support. They are a hoi polloi that gets off their backsides and travels to a city and they are available before and after matches.”
In addition to funding materials and publicity, Lake has established a website that he hopes will become a clearing house for the EDL and like-minded organisations. He says that people in the movement must choose their roles. Some can debate on forums, some can be experts on the Koran. He is, however, quick to distance himself from fascist organisations and one of his only demands of the EDL in return for his funding is that it distances itself from groups such as the British National Party.
Indeed, Lake appears to want to build alliances with all groups who might fall foul of the strict Islamic code, including lesbian and gay organisations, other religions and ethnic groups and supporters of free speech.
Lake wants the message to be short and easy. At the Swedish conference he announced a manifesto based on four freedoms: free speech, democracy, equality in law and cultural tolerance, with no exemptions for any ideology or religion.
He also stressed the urgency of the issue, claiming that within 40 years Muslims would be in the majority.
Lake’s offer to finance the EDL appeals to the Luton division, who remain at the EDL’s core. What began as a local reaction to the protest by a handful of Islamic extremists at a parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment in March has mushroomed into a national network that has increasingly been under the media spotlight due to several clashes in cities around the country.
Violence has already occurred in Luton, Birmingham and Harrow and further EDL events are planned for Manchester, Leeds, Swansea and Glasgow.
The EDL is run by 15 key people across the country who co-ordinate activists via email and social networking sites, such as Facebook. The group lacks a coherent message or vision, and even within its core, the EDL means different things to different people. Indeed, none of the 15 so-called leaders appears to have actually met all the others.
The EDL seems to have become an umbrella name for a number of existing anti-Islam groups, such as the Birmingham-based British Citizens Against Muslim Extremists, the Welsh Defence League and March for England.
While the group will claim to be open to anyone it remains centred around the football hooligan network and in particular gains support from the football gangs of Luton, Aston Villa, QPR, Southampton, Bristol Rovers, West Bromwich Albion and Wolves.
It has become apparent that some in Luton EDL have become uneasy over being linked to the BNP and far-right politics. For some this is a genuine aversion, while others might have been persuaded of this by Lake, who appears acutely aware of its negative impact on the group.
However, it is also clear that some other EDL leaders, in different parts of the country, have no problem with being linked to rightwing groups. The newly formed Scottish Defence League has known fascists at its core, while the Swansea Division shares many of its followers with the Swansea Jack hooligan group, which in turn supplies activists to the local BNP.
At the EDL protest in Birmingham fascists and rightwing extremists were clearly visible, some happily giving Nazi salutes. They included Chris Renton, a BNP supporter from Weston-super-Mare, who runs their website.
As publicity about the EDL continues, the group is likely to grow across the country. New units will form and new activists will take to the streets. Whatever Lake’s wishes it is unlikely that he will be able to direct EDL philosophy and actions too tightly. By its very nature and its core activity – taking to the streets – the EDL will attract people not averse to violence, particularly around the football hooligan network, and hardcore racists keen to use the group to spread racial hatred.
BNP blame Zionists for EDL
posted by: Nick Lowles | on: Sunday, 27 September 2009, 08:40
The BNP leadership are rehashing age-old conspiracy theories
The BNP leadership are rehashing age-old conspiracy theories
BNP leader Nick Griffin has claimed that the English Defence League is being manipulated and directed by Zionists to create a race war on the streets of Britain. Trying to distance the BNP from any potential problem, Griffin and his deputy Simon Darby have set out in an audio message their position on the hooligan-based group.
And surprise, surprise – it’s all the fault of the Zionists. Griffin explains how he initially thought the EDL was a State-sponsored honey trap to embarrass the BNP but now he doesn’t believe that even they would do that. In fact, he argues, there are far more sinister forces at work.
It is Simon Darby who begins to shine the light on those behind the EDL. “It’s been set up by a powerful organisation,” he tells his leader. “People with the power to manipulate, who are used to manipulating and have the organisational structure, the facility and the financial clout to promote it.”
“Let’s spell it out shall we,” Griffin responds.
Darby laughs, nervously. “Who’s going to do the spelling?” Obviously not him that’s for sure!
“I’m going to spell it out,” his leader adds pompously. He goes on to pin the blame on those he considers responsible.
“Spelling it out in simple terms, you look at the owners of the Daily Express, the Daily Star and their interests. This is a neo-con operation. This is a Zionist false flag operation, designed to create a real clash of civilisations right here on our streets between Islam and the rest of us.”
He rants and raves a bit more, before adding: “I’ve no doubt that this is something designed to spark physical clashes between Muslim communities en bloc and the people who are coming in to hold a demonstration. They are out of it. The people who are going to get it in the neck, who are going to get the blame when it all goes wrong, are ordinary white working class communities.
“The people behind this are pushing for a low level civil war.”
Railing against the support given to the EDL from the Daily Star, he concludes that the real agenda of these Zionists is a civil war on the streets of Britain and to “nuke” Arab countries in the Middle East.
Now while Griffin is right to be alarmed and even outraged at the support the Daily Star is giving to the EDL – something we shall be taking up very shortly – his conclusion contains traditional nazi antisemitism. Suddenly the actions of one newspaper owner, if indeed that’s what it is, become an international Zionist conspiracy. The actions of a single British newspaper become the work of a “powerful organisation” who are “used to manipulating” and hell bent on a world war.
The Jewish community in Britain is alarmed and appalled at the rise of the EDL and the potential conflict it might cause. Jews are appalled because they have a proud history of opposing racism and fascism. But even from a self-interest perspective it would make no sense. Why would British Jews want race war on the streets as that would ultimately only lead to increased support for extremist groups – on all sides – and an increase in terrorism for which the Jewish community would be a target.
As for the Daily Star I think it is simply running an anti-Muslim campaign with an “English nationalist” agenda. Its support for the EDL follows the platform it has given over the last couple of years to the English Democrats, of which the Star’s TV critic Gary Bushell is a leading member.
Griffin is scared, though not necessarily for the reasons he gives in the interview. The EDL, backed by the Daily Star, is gaining momentum and the BNP could lose out. The hooligans following the EDL are increasingly voicing their contempt for the BNP, believing the fascist party is more interested in good jobs in Brussels than in defending the white race back home. There is now talk of the EDL turning itself into a political party and the BNP is getting left behind.
And I have to be sceptical over Griffin’s concern over a civil war on the streets. The Oldham riots were triggered by a gang of white men running down a street attacking Asians and their property. At the next BNP meeting, attended by Griffin, these men were given a standing ovation.
If Griffin were serious about opposing the EDL then he would immediately expel any BNP member associated with it. And he could start with booting out a BNP candidate in a forthcoming council by-election in the West Midlands who attended a recent EDL protest!
Here is Alan Lake’s website: http://4freedoms.ning.com/
As you can see, it is pro-Israel, anti-racist and supports a aracial, civic nationalist line.
Here is the site’s “mission”:
4Freedoms is where many groups work together against racism and supremacism. Our goal is 4 civil rights by equal application of the law to words and deeds, with no exemptions. Those rights are:
(1) Free Speech (2) Democracy (3) Equality in Law (4) Cultural Tolerance
The EDL is bunch of low IQ, non political football hooligan types being mislead by Jews who operate behind the scenes. There is a Jewish controlled European “Anti-Jihad” movement that is gaining support and threatening to undermine ethno-nationalist political parties. This is a very serious issue. If the “Anti-Jihad” movement succeeds, it will destroy racial nationalism in Europe and substitute a Judeocentric American style civic nationalism that will not oppose race replacement. We could see a repeat of the neocon purge of all elements sympathetic to white identity from the American conservative moment.
I’m extremely concerned about these developments and even more concerned by the lack of a strong, unified response from European nationalists, The Anti-Jihad movement makes no secret of the fact that it puts Jewish interests first, is against white identity and against nationalist political parties like the BNP and FN. Yet still, many pro-whites are deluding themselves into think they are on our side.
Population density probably has a lot to do with it. They have white gangs in Britain, from what I understand, as well as white organized crime. The typical American reaction to this is, “white gangs? WTF?”
I think Britain will be the front line of ethnopatriotism in the west.
Thanks, ATBOTL, this pretty well confirms my feeling that they were a group of racially-mixed, Anglo, patriotard, street thugs -come ‘spice boys’ wanna be’s.
I remember an old Mad Magazine book that had a story that started out with a murder. The murderer stabbed, strangled, and shot the victim. Pretty, damn straightforward. Later, a detective shows up at the crime scene and explains what he thinks really happened. The victim was working in his kitchen with a knife and slipped and plunged the knife into his chest; then he struggles to a drawer and pulls out his gun to blast out an alarm for help, aims the wrong way and shoots himself; he then decides to lower himself out his window by tying a rope around his neck but somehow trips and is strangled. It was a classic.
Talking about how the “liberal” takeover in the U.K. and U.S. occurred without mentioning the Jew is thinking just like that detective. Even when the Frankfurt School is mentioned it is called “Germanic”. This is harmless, conservative stuff since it never looks behind the curtain.
The EDL is a legitimate anti-Muslim organisation. It may not be explicitly “pro-white” (a term that only makes sense in nationless societies like the US — Poles and Italians should be deported from Britain, just like Muslims and Arabs), but it is parochially pro-English and virulently anti-Muslim. And that’s good enough for me.
It’s Zionist, you say? It supports Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself from Arab and Muslim vermin? As a white nationalist, I say: Good for the EDL! Another point in its favour.
Were he Serbs calling themselves “pro-white” when they were systematically cleansing their society from the Muslim menace during the Yugoslav wars? Was Isabella of Spain calling herself “pro-white” when she deported the Jews? Were the Romans “pro-white” when they were eliminating the threat posed by the Semitic Carthaginians during the Punic wars? Were the Crusaders “pro-white” when they conquered Jerusalem? Did they have any notion of their battles as being part of a wider struggle for white preservation? You live in a fantasy world if you think that traditional homogeneous ethno-nations like England, the Netherlands, or France are going to advance a nationalistic cause on an openly “pro-white” basis. Such a notion would be alien to any people outside of nationlesss societies like the modern United States.
England is at the forefront (with America) of the NWO.
Where England goes the rest of civilisation will follow.
For years, the self ordained elites have by-passed the people in the decision making process – witness most British laws are now issued by the EU and rubber stamped by an elected British parliament.
Net result. The traditional ruling class has long since ceased to exist, the new left ruling elites have abandoned the masses and regard them with disdain, low cattle in fact.
Our people are leaderless, the elites have not only declared open war on their people but have abandoned them to the other.
The retention of the sham party political system is largely responsible for the people being bamboozled by events, ably abetted by the welfare state and bread and circus media.
Political parties come and go, but the public face of real power behind the curtain, the media, remains a constant permanent reminder in our lives.
Britain is still largely a disciplined society steeped in the tradition of traditional noblesse oblige leadership, it is only the deception of the new liberal left that keeps them (people) bewildered in a sea of chaos, again, ably abetted by draconian EU laws in the guise of war on terror.
Awareness has been, and is, slow in manifestation, but in the last few years signs have emerged that an increasing number are waking up.
The BNP is, and will become even moreso, a beacon for this growing awareness.
It must be said, the core of this awareness is solidly in the Internet sphere
EDL – BNP The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Thanks for the long posting. A minor point: Heidegger’s effective career began after the works of Marx, Freud, and Weber, so it makes no sense to say that they “popularized” his work.
Bloom certainly worth reading, especially on his notion of the “Nietzscheanization of the Left”, but it should be borne in mind that Bloom himself was a Jewish homosexual neocon academic who helped shape the transformation of our notions of “conservative” into the unrecognizable mess they now embody. Gottfried much closer to us on all this. Much to digest.
Thanks ATBOTL for the (unsurprising) reminders about the true provenance of the EDL. This is one of the obvious tactical moves by the Jewish elite–take white outrage and channel it into directions that will help, not hinder, the further consolidation of Jewish domination. This is what “Friedrich Braun”‘s advice leads to. Demonization of Muslims while giving the Jew a pass.
As for “Yosemite”, I find it suspicious that he casually assumes the “right” of the Israeli state to exist, even though the creation of said state (whose existence may be more fragile than he thinks) was very recent, the result of savage ethnic cleansing, terror bombings (including of European actors), and continued brutal repression. It always makes oppressors sleep better if they characterize their victims as “vermin.” Basically the way Jews by and large tend to view ALL non-Jews, despite tactical and opportunistic “alliances”.
The people of Gaza are living in what is, to all intents and purposes, a vast concentration camp. And this is all true before we even start to recognize the influence of the Jews on all Western societies and polities. Why did Truman (against the strenuous urgings of virtually all his advisers) decide after all to recognize Israel? Is there truth to the “bag of cash” story?
Bloom certainly worth reading, especially on his notion of the “Nietzscheanization of the Left”, but it should be borne in mind that Bloom himself was a Jewish homosexual neocon academic who helped shape the transformation of our notions of “conservative” into the unrecognizable mess they now embody.
Bloom is also a bit vague as to Nietzsche’s contribution to the Left.
Nietzsche’s perspectivism (no facts/text, only interpretations) – which he slowly abandoned for “conceiving reality as it is” – was adopted by the Left in order to conveniently dispense with inconvenient reality. So, don’t bother to argue IQ science with that now-invulnerable element – you’re just a backward bigot, ipso facto.
For the multi-culturalist position arises here, permitting its proponents to claim that *any* argument, however based, ostensibly, in evidence and logic, is merely an argument from interest – there being no uninterested, unbiased, agenda-less position – in principle.
And Nietzsche, because he failed to distinguish epistemology from psychology (if he was even so capable) in all but his latter work, granted his enemies a sword with which not only to cut to ribbons all ordered thought about social phenomena (see the Sokal Hoax) but also with which to enoble themselves as inscrutable celebrity intellects.
That’s “post-modernism” right? Sokal Hoax.
A worthy goal
I hope you write a blog post about Higgs boson.
Trudeau’s liberalism is not what destroyed Canada. It was self-interest and organised Jewry, that shifted state emphasis from protecting the right to discriminate to making discrimination a full scale abomination. It was also organized Jewry that severely limited speech. It happened in the US as well, but speech in the US was saved because of the first amendment.
I posted proof that the EDL is being funded and “advised” by Jews. All real nationalists in the UK already knew this anyway. This group is explicitly in favor of multi-racialism, against the BNP, and has black members. Anyone who supports it is either very stupid or not on our side.
Komme doch endlich von deiner Paranoia herunter!
Und befasse Dich mit den wircklichen Problemen, die wir Menschen
in Europa haben!
“David Cameron Conservative leader does not support the UAF”
That’s the title of a video on a site associated with the EDL. So basically, the EDL is telling its followers to support the Tories! Everything this group is doing is straight out of the Fox News, Rush Limbaugh type playbook. They are basically trying to undermine the BNP by doing the same kind of thing the conservative movement does here: rally white anger over immigration and racial issue’s towards a neocon type agenda that focuses solely on Muslims and officially praises non-Muslim diversity and immigration. This is the mainstream view among nationalists in Britain, including the leader of the BNP.
>Were he Serbs calling themselves “pro-white” when they were systematically cleansing their society from the Muslim menace during the Yugoslav wars?
Are there any black Serbs?
Dear all, England=BNP=Nick Griffin= please go to this web page and you will have pretty good Idea of who pulls the strings in theUK,GB.=The mind- bending power of the masters of the Media-Nick Griffin.= Enter that into your search bar. I am sure some one amongst you will post the correct url for it. After reading you will think ,sounds familiar.