Tuesday, 31 January 2017

For those who blame Trump for the Quebec City mosque massacre

Alexandre Bissonnette - the angry young man who did what other angry white men only dream of doing

Anyone who is anti-immigration would love Trump.

It is just possible that he hated Muslims before he was even aware of Trump.

The mosque has about 5,000 members and is one of six in the Quebec City region

You just have to expect this sort of thing when you have high levels of immigration and allow people to own guns, I'm afraid.

There will always be people who will use violence to prevent themselves from becoming a minority in their own country, when all else fails. 

People who want to impose high levels of immigration should therefore consider this.

I predict Canadian feminazis will propose banning guns for men who want them for hunting unless they prove themselves to be perfectly happy with immigration, not at all racist and utterly pro-feminist.

It is up to effete Canadian men to indulge them, I suppose.

“Every country has the right to determine their policies. I can only tell you that we will continue our long-standing tradition of being open to those who seek sanctuary,” Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen told the CBC.

The more the Canadian government brown-noses the immigrant population, the more this will happen.

Looks like libtards in Canada are doubling down on previous policies. "We will be even nicer to immigrants, invite even more of them in and be shittier to angry white men."

Yeah, way to go.

Muslim Population in Quebec

1991         44,930      0.6%

2001       108,620      1.5%

2011        243,430      3.1%


This adequately explains the massacre unless you expect white Canadian men to just sit back and become a minority in Quebec City.

But blame Trump if you want.

Marginalisation of the beta male more the cause of mass-murdering gunmen than lax firearm regulation?

The spree killer may be at the outer boundary in the range of normal human behaviour, but nonetheless his is the natural response of the social animal provoked beyond endurance. He is merely the forerunner, and until he is given legitimate expression of his valid and justified anger, and allowed to respond to the daily injustices and affronts he must presently endure, each new atrocity will only herald more to come.

Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer

Deborah Orr explained it so well:

When I was about 14, I went to a local farm to pet the horses. There, we found that the last of a litter of kittens was to be drowned, because a home could not be found for it. I called my mother, asked if we could have it, and she said yes. Joyfully taking the kitten home, I was devastated by the family dog's reaction.

It wasn't just that she snarled at the kitten in a most aggressive way, causing the kitten to spit and arch his back with equal aggression. It was the reproachful, hurt, betrayed looks the dog threw at me. She seemed to be communicating that she simply could not believe that I had done this to her, had introduced this clearly unwelcome interloper on to her territory. I went straight to the local vet and asked for the kitten to be humanely destroyed, which it was immediately – in retrospect, surprisingly, because I was only a kid. My mother, when she got home looking forward to seeing the new kitten, was absolutely amazed that I'd made this decision and acted on it so definitely and irreversibly, alone. I did it out of absolute love and sympathy for my grieving dog.

Monday, 30 January 2017

Jan Halper-Hayes reassures the British about her temperamentally-suited President

From 27th minute

From the 14th minute

Why Donald Trump Has the Perfect Presidential Temperament

Why Donald Trump Has the Perfect Presidential Temperament, Part II

Pankaj Mishra's Age of Anger does not mention how feminism makes men of all races angry

Perhaps he doesn't want to go there. He has an English wife, after all.  (Daughter of the infamously supine, effete and Europhiliac Ferdy Mount)

Richard Evans in his review took the words out of my mouth:

 ... none of this in the end actually explains the crisis Mishra has identified. There are many problems with his argument, not least its almost total neglect of Marxism and social democracy as alternatives to and critics of the liberal and neoliberal economic and political order. Above all, long stretches of the book represent what the Germans call Ideengeschichte, a method of approaching the past that treats prominent, “big-name” thinkers as representatives of wider historical trends and interprets the present through a genealogy of their writings instead of situating them in the material and cultural context of their own time.
Unlike Evans, my view is that Mishra has entirely neglected feminism as the cause male anger, female promiscuity, bad parenting and an apparently unstoppable cycle of degeneracy and depravity which our democratic politicians refuse to discuss, let alone address.

I particularly disliked Mishra constant sneering at Trump, but I suppose Mishra cannot help the libtard neocons whom he mixes with, or can he? I cannot imagine that his wife and his father-in-law Ferdy approving of Trump.

All the problems Mishra lists will be dealt with by nationalism and the eradication of feminism. There is a reason why Trump is hated by feminists. They know that Trump is an alpha male and the leader of beta males whose loyalty is increased by every promise he keeps to them. This is of course the definition of a patriarchy which would directly challenge the current matriarchy where all men are beta males lower than sluts whose government governs according to the preferences of sluts where no man may criticise immoral women who are bad wives, bad mothers and insufferable sluts.

I list below two Jewish Englishmen who tried to tick off the tarts but ended up having their careers destroyed:

All the White Man's problems come from his thraldom to his women, who are mostly sluts wielding too much power and who have taken over and infest all the important institutions of the West. They will cling like limpets to their positions unless removed, which they will have to be. Because they are in fact mere women and physically weaker, it will not be a problem for the men to just shoo them away, like you would chickens.   

Trump the builder probably knows something about demolishing buildings past their sell by date.

Think of the building below as the edifice of the matriarchy.

23/01/16 at 9:38 AM

Dear Pankaj Mishra

Is neo-liberalism the same ideology as neo-conservatism?

If not, what is the difference?


Claire Khaw

23/01/16 at 9:44 AM

Dear Pankaj Mishra

You wrote " ... the need for masculine bonding and assertion is hugely important. The conservative male sensibility, whether in India or in the US, is deeply threatened by the empowerment of women, and its backlash takes many different forms, from overt violence to the micro-aggressions of everyday sexism. Its sense of siege is further aggravated by the demands the new culture of neo-liberalism places on individuals."

Have you heard of MGTOW?


Claire Khaw

 23/01/16 at 9:59 AM

Dear Pankaj Mishra
  1. Has the West been failed by Christianity?
  2. Can Christianity be said to have failed because it has fallen to gay marriage?
  3. Can Christianity be said to have failed because it has failed to maintain morality?
  4. What would you say is the purpose of morality?
  5. Have you read the Koran?
  6. Is Islam conceptually superior to Christianity because its source is the Koran, said to be transcribed Word of God directly revealed?
  7. "While the Koran is the directly revealed Word of God, the Bible is merely the reported speech and deeds of God and His prophets by more than one reporter." Would you agree with this assessment?
  8. Between patriarchy and matriarchy, is patriarchy the lesser evil if your goal is to extend the life of your society and your civilisation?
  9. Could Western governments be said to be suffering from collective dementia?
  10. If Western governments could be said to be suffering from collective dementia, what do you think are the causes?
  11. Does feminism cause collective dementia in governments, especially in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage?
  12. Have you read Daniel Bell's China Model?
  13. Should the West should give up representative democracy in favour of a system of government that would produce better government?

Claire Khaw

I tried to make the point that perhaps Islam could perhaps be the middle way between Capitalism and Communism as well as Patriarchy and Matriarchy, but he wasn't interested in engaging at any level.

And this is why he continues to seek the answer, as he was saying to John Humphrys on The Today Programme, rather than already having it in his book.

One has to understand that for large numbers of people the fundamental experience of the modern world is humiliation. If literature fails to furnish evidence of that, if journalism fails to furnish evidence of that, then we are lost.

Simon Sheppard explores the mind of the spree killer

The sexually frustrated beta male is the type most likely to go on a killing rampage

Sunday, 29 January 2017

My review of #Denialmovie

Even if I was initially very sceptical of its ability to tell anything approaching the truth, already disgusted by the deliberate miscasting: ex-supermodel Rachel Weisz - the wife of James Bond, no less - playing the spinster who lives alone with a dog while Britain's ugliest actor Timothy Spall was chosen to play David Irving - an undeniably attractive man when younger with the looks of a matinee idol, I was very glad I saw it.  I did enjoy David Hare's adaptation of The Master Builder at the Old Vic last year and had a vague memory of thinking Wetherby terribly profound in my youth.

The other annoying thing is that Rachel Weisz did not even have a proper dialogue coach so she could learn to speak with a proper Queens accent which is Deborah Lipstadt's and only had a very anodyne mid-Atlantic accent. The Queens accent is also the accent of Donald Trump, the Great Emperor of the West. Yes, I know it is  a bit much expecting Rachel Weisz to talk like Trump, but like to think Miriam Margolyes would have done it better. Margolyes is obviously more suited for all sorts of reasons to playing the part of a spinster living alone with her dog.

Miriam Margolyes - the Jewish British actress who should have played Deborah Lipstadt in my view doing many Jewish accents on Johnny Carson. Isn't she just great? Rachel Weisz is not a patch on her. But perhaps it is not too late. A remake of Denial could be made, but this time told from David Irving's perspective, with a properly handsome actor playing David Irving setting women's hearts a-flutter ...

One cannot help wondering if David Irving managed to drag himself to the cinema to see it and whether he spotted his fatal error when he agreed to a judge-only trial.

In the film Anthony Julius and Irving are in front of the judge. (Julius had earlier told Lipstadt that getting a judge-only trial would be key to winning. Lipstadt asked how he would manage to get Irving to agree and Julius said he would appeal to Irving's vanity.)

Scene in the Judge's Chambers where Julius asks the judge for a judge-only trial:

Irving raises his eyebrows.

Julius points out that many of the facts the jury must understand in order to arrive at their verdict are technical and complex, requiring a lifetime's study. They cannot be expected to understand easily and quickly what it took Irving a lifetime to understand.

Irving immediately agrees. 

I feel almost certain that a gentile English jury would have given David Irving the benefit of the doubt while a single judge would have succumbed to all kinds of dark forces trying to influence him to find against David Irving.  Twelve jury members would be just a bit harder to nobble than a single judge, in my view.

Poor old Sally Bercow too lost her case because a single judge decided that she had libelled the late Lord McAlpine in a tweet. It is simply unimaginable that twelve tweeting jury members would have found an emoticon of a surprised face libellous, as Justice Tugendhat found.

I am no Holocaust bore and find the technicalities of whether there were gas chambers at Auschwitz or anywhere else frankly quite unintelligible, unconvincing on both sides.

The judgment was presented on 11 April 2000, although the lawyers had received the decision 24 hours earlier.

In the film, journalists outside the Royal Courts of Justice were complaining that, although they had read the judgment, they were quite unable to tell from its reasoning whom the judge would favour in his decision.

It is therefore still not clear to me how David Irving falsified the evidence beyond interpreting it in a way that departed from the official version and being guilty of infuriating the powers that be.
is an example of an exchange I had with someone who claimed to have read a book on the David Irving trial I have confessed not to have read, but who was quite unable to explain in any intelligible way how Irving falsified the evidence.

It was almost as if Justice Gray was given 1 + 1, but inexplicably said the sum was 3. Even more inexplicably, nobody has pointed out this error and everyone just went along with it.

In practice therefore, even though Holocaust Denial is not officially a crime in the UK, it is in fact treated as if it were one, so beware.

Alison Chabloz is undeniably denying the Holocaust in this song here, but as far as I know, it is legal to deny the Holocaust in the UK. However, will the Jews get her anyway on 24 March 2017?

If they do manage to nail her for Holocaust Denial when there is in fact no law against Holocaust Denial in this country, would that not be a blatant display of Jewish power?

And if this Jewish power is displayed, why are Jews - who are supposed to be a clever people - surprised that the gentiles subject to this Jewish power in their own land in which the majority of people are gentile would resent it?

Is their resentment not increased exponentially when they are told they cannot complain or criticise those whom they feel have the whip hand over them?

If I were a Jewess exercising such power over the majority of gentiles, I like to think I would have the good grace to allow them to complain about me. If you allow people to complain about you, you would have a greater understanding of their grievance than if you arrogantly dismissed all complaints as motivated from people who not deserve to have their concerns and grievances aired. Most unwise. However much you despise the goyim hoi polloi, they are still the majority and understandably wish to enjoy the right to free speech in their own land, which is supposedly part of the Free West in which free speech is enjoyed.

What Jesus said about Jews in his sermon on the Mount

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Why do so many Jews hate any sensible move or gentile leader if he says or does anything to protect his national interest?

I seem to remember Hitler often conflating with Jews with Liberals in Mein Kampf. Perhaps there is an argument that only observant Jews are Jews. Unobservant Jews should not even be alive, according to This means that the halakha, which states that a person is Jewish if his mother is is a damnable innovation, because the Torah should trump all other competing and subsequent views on who is a Jew.

A Liberal Jew is an assimilated Jew.

An assimilated Jew is a Jew that has assimilated into degenerate goyim liberalism.

Will I now be accused of anti-Semitism?

These days, you are accused of being an anti-Semite if a Jew hates you!

If liberals hate truth and logic, then it follows that an assimilated liberal Jew would also hate truth and logic. Sensible observant and Orthodox Jews tend to agree with me, I find.

 Irving mentions Lipstadt from the 17th minute

From the 29th minute, I ask him questions about his libel action and Denial, which he hadn't seen, to my annoyance.

From the 36th minute the Kol Nidre is mentioned by David Irving.

The vows annulled at Kol Nidre do not include vows made to people and this includes gentiles, only to God. In other words, the purpose of Kol Nidre is not a licence to not keep promises to people, but is intended to make the promisor think which vows to God he will renew after Kol Nidre and which he will allow to expire, if they are found to be foolish or redundant. This is an excellent idea giving us a chance to perform an annual review of promises made to God and decide on their necessity, folly or redundancy, which can only increase our wisdom and self-knowledge.

Below is a talk by Rabbi Sacks on the nature and purpose of Kol Nidre. It does not mention my suggested reason, but my theory hangs together better, in my ever so humble opinion. 


Jane Garvey interviews Deborah Lipstadt on BBC Woman's Hour and advertises Denial as "a great film, well worth seeking out"

Jane Garvey:

Let's talk to Deborah Lipstadt, the American academic who was living a successful but to be honest quite obscure life in Georgia when she wrote a book called Denying the Holocaust in 1993. She came to international prominence when a British historian a man called David Irving sued her. She made reference to him in that book describing him as somebody who said the Holocaust never happened. The case reached the High Court in the first few weeks of the year 2000 and is now the subject of a new film called Denial. Now here's a quick extract after a bad day in court when Irving is getting headlines for his views and creating soundbites. Deborah, who is played in the film by Rachel Weisz is understandably angry.

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

Irving got what he came for. He wanted headlines, he got them: "No holes, no Holocaust." He wanted a catchy phrase, he got it. It's gonna spread like a virus.

Female voice:

More tea?

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

No, I don't want more tea! 

Female voice [aggrieved]:

I was just asking. 

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

Don't you see what he's doing? He is making it respectable to say that there are two points of view. People are going to see the news now and think "OK, some people think there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and, oh, this is interesting, and some people don't!"

Jane Garvey:

That was Deborah Lipstadt as played by Rachel Weisz. The real Deborah Lipstadt joins us now from the BBC Studios in Salford. Deborah, good morning to you.

Deborah Lipstadt:

Good morning. Thank you for having me.

Jane Garvey:

It's really interesting to talk to you for a multitude of reasons and what a time for this particular film to come out!

Deborah Lipstadt:

Unbelievable! Unbelievable!

Jane Garvey:

What do you make of that?

Deborah Lipstadt:

None of us thought - not the producers, not Mick Jackson the director, or anybody who acted in it, not the actors or David Hare - none of us assumed when we first began planning and working on this that it would have the contemporary relevance that it does but given the first part of the show where we spoke about the marches, we live in a world where people have alternative facts where truthiness - Stephen Colbert calls it truthiness where if I really believe something it has has as much value as facts. 

Jane Garvey:

Just remind us, who used the phrase "alternative facts" in the last couple of hours?

Deborah Lipstadt:

Well, in the last 24 hours, Kelly Conway, the Trump Campaign Manager, now a pivotal person in the White House, when the President's Press Spokesman went out in front of the press and completely lied and said this was the biggest inauguration ever and called the press liars for saying it wasn't when the pictures show great gaps in the number of people and stands at the parade were empty - not all of them but a lot of them, he just went on this rant when the NBC interviewer called her on this and said this is not true and, she said "We have alternative facts." Well, there's no such thing as alternative facts and another word for alternative fact is shorter and quicker and stronger is lies. And this is the third day of the Administration!

Jane Garvey:

Yes, well, OK, it's going to be - I don't know how best to describe it - interesting is an adjective that catches everyone. Let's stick to that.

Deborah Lipstadt:

It's a Chinese curse!

Jane Garvey:

Let's go back in time then to you writing this book - and I said your life was obscure but I don't mean to be offensive - it was a very satisfying one, I'm sure. You cannot have expected ....

Deborah Lipstadt:

I wasn't on Woman's Hour!

Jane Garvey:

You weren't at the time, no. What did you expect when you wrote Denying the Holocaust?

Deborah Lipstadt:

Denying the Holocaust was a book that was suggested to me by two leading historians of the Holocaust who said "You should look into this phenomenon" and I said, "Are you kidding? It's like studying flat-earthers," but they really felt it was important and I have a lot of respect for them so I figured I would write the book and I didn't have a title for the next book at that moment. I said I'll spend two years writing this book and that's it, I'd be finished with the topic and I'm gonna move on. Little did I think it would shake my life and it was because David Irving came after me and sued me for libel.

Jane Garvey:

That's the important fact, isn't it? He sued you. I think some people thought it was the other way round.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I don't believe history belongs in the courtroom. I am against laws outlawing Holocaust Denial. I don't think politicians should be deciding what we can and cannot say, what is permissible and what is not permissible. I am a firm believer in our First Amendment. It's hanging on by its fingernails but it's still hanging on. Freedom of speech is important. The best antidote to bad speech is more good speech.

Jane Garvey:

In the film, you are portrayed as coming to London where incidentally in the film it rains the whole time. I would like to say it isn't actually true, Deborah.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I know, I was here!

Jane Garvey:

... And you're mystified and you do get a lot of tea at times when you are particularly stressed.  You are an American at sea in the English legal system and you appeared to be baffled by it. Was that the case?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I was, I was, because British libel law is the mirror image of American libel law. Here, the burden of proof is on me to prove the truth and that's why people suggested that I settle, and there were a lot of people here and in the States who thought it wasn't worth my time. If I had settled, I would have to apologise for [sic] him and David Irving offered to settle before the trial and I refused because it meant my apologising for calling him a Holocaust Denier, my accepting that his version of the Holocaust was true and agreeing to pulp all my books. He was trying to curtail my freedom of speech.

Jane Garvey:

In the film you visit some members of the Jewish community in London and they also urged you to pack it in to leave it. Did that happen?

Deborah Lipstadt:

That's right. It happened quite precisely how I described it in my book. They were frightened. They thought David Irving would get publicity and even if he had lost he would win. Anthony Julius felt quite differently.

Jane Garvey:

He was your lawyer.

Deborah Lipstadt:

He was your solicitor, he was terrific, he really structured the defence together with his partner James Lipson and Richard Rampton, my barrister. He said "We're gonna fight a good fight, we're gonna decimate this man, we're gonna show he's a liar, he's a falsifier of history and we're going to expose him, and they did.

Jane Garvey:

But they did it without your actually contributing in court. Now I've only known you for a couple of minutes but I'm guessing you might have found that quite difficult keeping quiet.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I have friends saying that either the biggest miracle of this case was that I kept my mouth shut for the ten weeks that the case was and even for the year before it went to trial. Other people have described my keeping quiet as an unnatural act. It was very hard, but I came to understand the wisdom of their decision. I had written my book. I was being sued for what I wrote in my book. Our strategy was to keep the focus on David Irving. We followed his footnotes back to his sources and showed a consistent - not once or twice, not a mistake here or there - but I think 25 or 26 different instances - major instances - of lies and distortions in which he manipulates history.

Jane Garvey:

You also managed to win without the direct involvement of Holocaust survivors, so no Holocaust survivors gave evidence in court and again the film suggests you were very angry about that. Was that true?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I was upset about that. I think I understood sooner than Rachel Weisz does in the film the way it was written why they were doing that. Again, Holocaust survivors would have been witnesses of fact. We didn't wanna raise questions about the factual nature of the Holocaust, we wanted the spotlight to be on David Irving and his lies, and bringing them in would have changed that. Some were upset, some were concerned, but the overwhelming victory, the overwhelming judgment we got from the court when the judge said he lies, he falsifies, he distorts and he does it deliberately I think satisfied them that it was the right strategy.

Jane Garvey:

The plain fact though is that David Irving did get his days in court. He did get attention, he did get publicity. What do you think of that?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I think he got publicity, but it was the wrong kind of publicity. Before when he made his claims people would say "Oh, that's interesting," but nobody knew it was true or not true. Anybody who was in that courtroom, anybody who has read my book, anybody who has seen this film will see that what he claims is not what's there. He takes a fact and he distorts it, so, yes, he got publicity, but I think it was an exposure of his lies. No one takes what he has to say seriously unless they are already anti-Semites and already racist, because racism was very much a part of it as well. 
[There appears to be a liberal presumption that anyone who is perceived to be racist and/or anti-Semitic must by definition be a liar whose legal rights must therefore be counted at nought from then on. The definition of racism and anti-Semitism is vague and wide and can include saying anything that a person of another race might take an offence at. To be called an anti-Semite these days, all that has to happen is that a Jew hates you enough to accuse you of it. Justice Gray appears to have accepted this presumption without much difficulty. Independent judiciary, my eye.]

Jane Garvey:

The plain fact is, Deborah, is that we all pick our version of the truth, don't we? Everyone knows the Holocaust took place and it was hideous beyond anything that I can think of. However, when I look at my Twitter feed, for example, I largely get the views of people who might be tempted to agree with me or think along the same lines as me. Where do we go from this, particular in this age of social media? Where do we find every bit of truth we can grab hold of?

[Jane Garvey has blocked me on Twitter and so has the brunette woman on @BBCr4today. Libtards like living in their own echo chamber only occasionally wondering out loud if they should take account of other views more, but they basically broadcast for each other. Some of the Radio 4 programmes sound so cosy, just like friends talking to each other, don't they? That's because BBC journalists find their friends and lovers from the BBC itself eg Victoria Derbyshire stole Fi Glover's husband. These fucktard libtards don't care about us and are now even more afraid of venturing out of their own echo chamber. If any of them started expressing non-libtard normal views in the BBC canteen they would soon find themselves ostracised by their narrow-minded bigoted BBC village.]

Deborah Lipstadt:

You know when David Hare the playwright took on writing I was so thrilled by that because I have so much respect for him and he has now become a friend. He sent me a long document sort of laying out exactly what happened to me. For anyone who's going to write a biography of David Hare, it's going to be a very interesting document because it shows how he is going to shape the story and shape the screenplay, but at the very end he included a quote from Bertold Brecht's Life of Galileo, and it goes back to Galileo: the sun does not move around the earth, and you can insist that it does and you can put someone who claims that it does to death and whatever it is, but the facts stand and I think we don't all have our own versions of the facts. We may have our own explanations of why this fact happened as it did. Could World War Two have been prevented? Could the Holocaust have been prevented? Could the war in Iraq have been prevented? There are many things why but that they happened, that's the truth. Could we stop the snow caps melting? They're melting. The climate is changing. Slavery happened. It was not a good thing. There are facts and I think this movie, while it's ostensibly about Holocaust Deniers, it has a much bigger message and I never dreamt, as I said at the beginning that it would have the contemporary relevance that it does, and sadly, it does. 

Jane Garvey:

So, very briefly, Deborah, to our younger listeners, your advice in life would be listen and ask questions?

Deborah Lipstadt:

And check. A friend of mine right at the beginning of the election said to me "I hear Hillary Clinton is sick." I said to this person - she was tending towards Trump - "Really, where did you read this?" "On the internet." "Who said it?" "I don't know." "Where did he say it?" "I don't know." "What was the proof?" "I don't know."

The internet is a great gift but with every gift comes responsibility and we who care about facts - doesn't matter what your political outlook is - Conservative, right-wing, left-wing, it doesn't matter - check the facts. Check the truth. There are truths and we have to make sure we know them. 

Jane Garvey:

Good to talk to you, Deborah. Thank you very much.

Deborah Lipstadt:

Thank you very much for having me. 

Jane Garvey:

A great pleasure. Deborah Lipstadt. The film is Denial. Starring Rachel Weisz, Timothy Spall and Tom Wilkinson. It's a great film, well worth seeking out.

What Jesus said about Jews in his sermon on the Mount

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

BBC Today Programme interview on Denial with David Irving, Timothy Spall and Richard Rampton QC

Nick Robinson:

Today a new film opens in the cinemas. It has a one-word title, a simple title: Denial. The denial it refers to is the denial of the Holocaust on this Holocaust Memorial Day. The movie tells a true story of a landmark legal case which established that David Irving who spent his life challenging survivors' accounts of the gas chambers was not as he said a historian, but was in fact a falsifier of history, motivated by anti-Semitism.

At a time when phrases like alternative facts and fake news are being bandied around, it shows how difficult establishing the truth can be. Sanchia Berg now reports.  

Sanchia Berg:

Excerpt of Denial with Timothy Spall as David Irving:

My lord, if we were to seek a title for this libel action, I would venture to suggest pictures of an execution: my execution. 

Timothy Spall as David Irving in the new film Denial. It tells the story of his libel trial seventeen years ago when he brought a case against the historian, Professor Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, publishers of Denying the Holocaust.

[Timothy Spall's voice as David Irving continues:]

The word denier is particularly evil. For the chosen victim, it is like being called a wife-beater or a paedophile ... 

David Irving casts doubt on the scale of the Holocaust and what happened at Auschwitz. To win the case, Professor Lipstadt and her team had to prove he deliberately falsified history - something particularly resonant now. John Wilkinson plays the lead barrister in the case, Richard Rampton QC:

Mr Irving calls himself a historian. The truth is however that he is not a historian at all. He is a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar. 

David Irving claimed he was a sceptical historian; he was simply looking for the evidence. He questioned the gas chambers at Auschwitz, for instance, because there were no holes in the ruined roof.

[Timothy Spall's voice as David Irving:]

My lord, there are no holes in that roof. There never were any holes. Therefore they cannot have poured cyanide capsules through that roof.

That was challenged by experts for the defence. Lawyers and historians scoured David Irving's diaries, his writings, his speeches to demonstrate his racist views and to show they had influenced his interpretation of events. The trial took ten weeks. In the pause waiting for the verdict, I met David Irving in his Mayfair flat. He was still confident. 

David Irving:

If I carry the day on Auschwitz and I said this to the judge "If I am right on Crematorium No 2 on Auschwitz and as far as I am concerned I am right on my position on the Holocaust: that it has been grossly inflated and there has been a hell of a lot lying by the eye-witnesses, and I don't have to prove I am right on the other counts as well."

Sanchia Berg:

David Irving had never been to Auschwitz while I had spent three years in Poland as Warsaw Correspondent.

Sanchia Berg interviewing David Irving:

I have been to Auschwitz myself many times.  

David Irving:

What did they show you when you went to Auschwitz?

Sanchia Berg:

They showed me what they show everybody.

David Irving:

Did they show you the gas chamber?

Sanchia Berg:

You know the Germans blew them up as they left.  

David Irving:

Somebody blew them up. I don't think it was necessarily the Germans. It was either the Russians or the Germans. We don't know which. This is the kind of extraordinary grey area which has not been properly researched. 

Sanchia Berg [triumphantly]:

That was not the judge's view. His verdict was damning. He said David Irving had for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence. David Irving's reputation, already on the wane, was destroyed, but on the internet, Holocaust Denial lives on, unchecked, along with many other dubious claims.

Timothy Spall:

People are very good at making noises that make things seem like they are irrefutable but how can one call out that fact when it is being shaped in another way. It is not something you can just call immediately. You have to be an expert.

Sanchia Berg:

That's what happens in the film, doesn't it? Because you need a tremendous amount of work and researchers going through all these pages of his diaries. You might think it was all pretty straightforward to say "You're just wrong", but it isn't. 

Timothy Spall:

No, no, it is difficult. It's very difficult to get to the truth and ironically, in the Information Age, which we would have thought meant channels to the truth is in fact obfuscating the truth.

Nick Robinson:

Timothy Spall there talking about Denial. One of the other stars is the real life QC - the man who did expose David Irving as a liar - Richard Rampton QC who joins us on the line. Good morning to you, Mr Rampton. Why did it matter then to give so much of your life? Why does it matter now to establish one man's books didn't tell the truth about the Holocaust?

Richard Rampton:

It was about three years, I suppose. Because I was asked to do it and people at the Bar do. You don't have a choice. You stand in a cab rank, someone hails you, you have to let them in. That's what happened to me. It turned out to have been the most fascinating case. In one sense I didn't know anything about the history of it. I do now. 

Nick Robinson:

Do you think it was a good use of your three years? If so, why?

Richard Rampton:

Yes, I do. Because - I think, I still think, perhaps I'm a bit old fashioned - that truth matters. I think truth matters particularly when it concerns an event of such horrendous quality. It was the worst, probably the worst massacre, if you'd like to call it that, in the world's history - considering the scale of it and the fact that it was done deliberately during wartime.  

Nick Robinson:

People may think you could have lined up a series of survivors - people who saw the gas chambers, but the point of the very way you ran that trial - the point of the film indeed - is that that wouldn't do. You had to do something else, did you not, in order to win this case?

Richard Rampton [waffling nonsensically]:

Yes, we had to uproot the source of the poison. Putting deniers in the witness box would have gone some way. [sic] There some of the evidence of the existence of the Holocaust at Auschwitz in particular but by no means the whole of it. [sic] What we had to do was prove that one of the leading Holocaust Deniers. [sic]  

Holocaust denial is not only a falsification of history, it is an expression of anti-Semitism. 

If we can uproot, as I say, the source of the poison then perhaps the house would fall down.

Nick Robinson:

Do you worry that you couldn't in a sense repeat this now whereas it was possible in a court about a single book to prove it was true or not, the internet has no certification of truth - anything goes, people can say what they like?

Richard Rampton:

I quite agree with you. I think it is horrifying in one sense. I think the answer is probably education. I have three children and seven grandchildren and not a single one of them has any single bother distinguishing between what I might call post truth or relative truth or mad opinion from what I call real truth. They, unlike me, spend a lot of time on social media and so on and they are all familiar with Twitter and Instagram, Facebook and all that and they have no problem about distinguishing between matters from what is froth and poison and that kind of thing, but it does matter if it gets hold of people then people can start doing nasty things and then it is dangerous.

[Do you suspect, dear reader, that Richard Rampton's children and grandchildren are not quite as clever and wise as he makes them out to be and that Nick Robinson gave him a very easy ride with his bluff nonsense and never challenged him sufficiently or at all in this interview? Isn't it also very annoying the way Richard Rampton runs his sentences together so it is hard to interrupt him when he comes out with his rubbish? He was shown in the film as doing nothing more than being very rude about David Irving in court. The tactic of not calling Deborah Lipstadt or any Holocaust survivor to avoid them being cross-examined by David Irving was Antony Julius's idea, according to the film, not that old windbag's. They must have known how disastrous it would have been if David Irving had had a chance to expose her for the philosophically inconsistent position she held. On the one hand, she assumed that anyone who doubted the Holocaust must be an anti-Semite and to be libelled without the law's punishment, and on the other hand she did not want Holocaust Denial to be a crime. On the one hand, she believed in free speech, but on the other hand, she believes that there is only one view one is legally allowed to hold on the Holocaust without losing one's right to be defamed at will by the likes of her and suffering serious financial and reputational damage as a result of being libelled.]

What Jesus said about Jews in his sermon on the Mount

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Saturday, 28 January 2017

The meaning of nationalism and the difference between race and nation

A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again.
    George Bernard Shaw


Why are so many people alarmed by Trump saying "America First"? Who should be first if you are an American? Mexico?


RT interview ex-President of Austria Heinz Fisher, Social Democrat with Oksana Boyko

HF: It has to do with nationalism. The nationalistic ideas, ideologies, and philosophies were totally out of the game. They led to a disaster – to WWII and to this fascist movement. So nationalism was brought down and the European idea was flourishing. And now I have the feeling that many people, or some people at least, feel that there is too much integration.

RT: This is a very interesting point because in your perception of nationalism, you definitely see this as something negative, you just made reference to the Nazi ideology. But the way nationalism is perceived in Russia, for example, is just standing up for your national interest, putting your country first as a matter of projecting its interest and standing up for them. Don't you think that you are, perhaps, exaggerating the dangers of nationalism? Because it is one thing when you are calling for, you know, aggressive moves towards other countries, but it is another thing when you are simply saying “We have the right to stand up for our country's interests”?

HF: First of all, you must understand, I definitely do not want to compare present philosophies or ideas with the Nazi ideology as such. But one thing is true, nationalism in my eyes means to grade down other countries. Patriotism is positive. Nationalism is to overdo the own country and to downgrade other countries...

RT: In your understanding, what is Mr. Hofer campaigning for in Austria? Is he campaigning for nationalism or is he campaigning for patriotism?

HF: There is too much nationalism in my judgment. Because the judgment on refugees or on other nations or on people from Africa is negative and there are prejudices and these prejudices are used for gaining a political advantage.

OB says nationalism is about “Getting your country back.”

HF says Nationalism is Nazism, which led to WW2, replaced by the European ideal. Now there is too much integration.

OB: You see nationalism as something negative by referring to the Nazis. The way nationalism is perceived in Russia is that it is standing up for your national interest, putting your own country first. Don’t you think you are over-exaggerating the danger of nationalism? It is one thing if you are being aggressive towards other countries, but another if you are just standing up for your interests.

HF:  Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. [At no time does he distinguish between the two.]

Why do East European Russians think nationalism is good but West Europeans think the opposite?

Because they have an very uncomfortable feeling that it was nationalism that destroyed European hegemony causing them to end up handing their empire to the Americans -  their empire which otherwise they would have retained if they had not destroyed themselves in two World Wars caused by nationalism. 

Russians think nationalism is a good thing because they saw it as the force which defended them against the Nazi invasion.

With Trump, Americans now share the same healthy attitude towards nationalism as the Russians while the West Europeans see it as an ideology that caused death, defeat and disaster, when European nations plunged their continent into war in what they thought was the pursuit of their national interest. 

These Western Europeans have never been able to discuss this properly either within their own nations or between nations to agree on where they went so horribly wrong and brought such disaster upon themselves that they collectively lost the empire they had conquered, handed it to the Americans on a platter after having bankrupted themselves. 

And this explains their neurosis. 

Their neurosis makes them conflate a road traffic accident with a conveyance.

But this can be resolved.

To avoid accidents, we must drive carefully.

To drive carefully we must make sure that we choose the best possible driver available. 

Do we have the best possible system for choosing the best possible leader? (But that would have to be the subject of another talk!)

Nationalism is natural. In pre-history, people existed in groups called tribes. As time went on these tribes went to war with each other, conquered each other and eventually agreed that it would be better if they joined forces to administer a bigger piece of territory together than if they had remained separate.

Wales was invaded and conquered by the English.

But the Tudors were from Wales and eventually took the English Crown. Then the English crown was worn by a Scottish king James called James VI who became James I of the Ireland, England and Scotland.

In the end, these warring tribes decided that it didn’t matter whether James was Welsh, Scottish or English as long as the rules of succession were followed and agreed.

Is the Queen English or German? Does it matter? European monarchs have for centuries been playing musical chairs on each other’s thrones with the occasional infusion of new blood.

In my opinion, everyone should logically and necessarily be loyal to their nation, even if they disapprove of government policy. If they think government policy is wrong, then they should consider and propose corrections and improvements. If the government is enlightened there should be a process for allowing this to happen in an environment of free speech, avoiding the need for rioting and violent revolution to remove a government that does not rule for the benefit of the people. A Ministry of Complaints should be created in every well-run nation, perhaps.

Everyone should be loyal to their nation simply because the nation is the most powerful group we can join that is strong enough to matter but small enough to care. The nation, if well-administered, is the source of our individual advancement and well-being.

If you agree with this, then you are probably are already a nationalist or potentially a nationalist.


The Principles of Nationalism should be synonymous with the Principles of Good Government
I have said in my previous talk that Conservatism should be about conserving the national interest, but what is it that Conservatives are supposed to conserve?

I suggest the following:

Solvency,  social stability, stable prices, decent standards of behaviour and education

What is the nation state?

The nation state consists of a defined people on a defined piece of land with its own laws which are distinct and different to its neighbours. 

Who are these defined people and how are they defined?

It would depend on what the rules are and whether the entry threshold is low or high. How low or high it is depends on the preferences of the people in power and whether they are prepared to enforce those rules, raise or lower standards of entry.

There was a time when you expected a Briton to be white, but now they come in all races. You can expect a Japanese or Chinese national to look like what you imagine a Japanese or Chinese person to look from the movies, and that is because the Chinese and Japanese have not relaxed their rules of admission into their nations, while the West has for demographic and political reasons. Perhaps things will one day change too in China and Japan, for similarly demographic and political reasons.

There are still many people who confuse race and nation, and here I suggest a rough guide. Race is something you are born with cannot change, while nationality is something you can acquire and lose, like your passport.

There was a time when most nations were racially or at least culturally or linguistically distinctive, but now no longer because people have moved around and settled in different parts of the world, bringing their religion, language, culture and food to the lands they now reside in. 

This understandably unsettles the host population who preferred how things were before.

Probably, even if everyone were the same race, great conflicts could arise.  Europe was not exactly a peaceful place before the foreign hordes arrived, was it?

Before the foreign hordes arrived, they fought not just one but two World Wars. 

There was the Hundred Years War from the 1300s to the 1400s.

 There were the European Wars of Religion from the 1500s to the 1600s.

And there were the Napoleonic Wars from the late 1700s to the early 1800s. 

And then there were the wars of German and Italian unification while the Austrian empire weakened and eventually collapsed.

With so much war in Europe, it was not surprising that the Europeans became rather good at it and started taking over the world. 

Because of the wars and religious persecutions of the Old World, the Pilgrim Fathers escaped it to live in the New World where they then had their War of American Independence and then their American Civil War. 

Why did these Europeans fight so much? Was it because of their schismatic religionwhich they could never agree with each other on?

Muslims, who had very little to disagree with each other on religious matters and hardly ever went to war with each other were taken by surprise and easily invaded and conquered by these warlike and battle-hardened Europeans. 

Compare the warlike Americans of European stock - who cannot have a parade without injecting something militaristic into it with drums and marching, with the South Americans who cannot think of having a parade without dancing and peacock displays, and you will see the difference in national character.  

But what should the rules be for admission and what would we like our national character to be?

If we want to change our current national character then we would have to change our laws.

If we want to change our laws then we must have a different political ideology to the one currently operating.

With the Trump victory, it would appear that the political landscape is about to change. A Professor Malloch - tipped to be the US Ambassador to the EU - suggested that we short the the euro and there might not even be an EU to do a deal with very soon. This must be so if Marine Le Pen wins the French Presidential election in May and Angela Merkel loses the German Federal Election in September. If that were to happen, he was in fact saying nothing more than 1 + 1 = 2. Not so shocking after all. But he has made clear that a Trump administration wants to see the back of the EU and without American support it cannot hope to remain in business. 

If everything goes to plan then our new political ideology will be nationalism, but what are the principles of nationalism? 

I will tell you what it is not:

It is not transnational progressivism, a term I recently came across at

Transnational progressivism or Globalism, if you prefer,  is a term coined by the American Conservative Think Tank Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte in 2001 to describe an ideology which endorses a concept of post-national global  and promotes the authority of international institutions over the sovereignty of individual nation-states.

It is about divide and rule and advocates an oppressor/victim dichotomy, for example the “privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy," with "immigrant groups designated as victims.

It advocates proportional representation by group: "Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."

It advocates change in institutional values: "the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented" within dominant social and political institutions in order to weaken and subvert it.

It advocates the promotion of diversity.

It advocates the redefinition of democracy: "Changing the system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens."

It advocates the deconstruction of Western national narratives and national symbols in favour of post-modern multiculturalist views.

Imagine yourself paying to join a club and then finding that non-members can use its facilities for free and have the same voting rights. You decide to stop paying its fees but discover you cannot.

Imagine what would happen if you went to any non-Western country, especially ISIS, and asked them if they fancied a bit of Transnational Progressivism.

It would appear that Transnational Progressivism can only be injected into a weak and sleeping people without an alpha male leader like Trump. 

Now that he has woken them up, liberals and Transnational Progressivists will see their political landscape changing from  something only a sleeping people would accept unknowingly, to something that an awakened people will now comprehensively reject.

Thursday, 26 January 2017

Tanya Gold of The Spectator calls Claire Khaw "tedious and dangerous" and blocks her

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

Libtards wondering how to deal with Trump supporters

Only patriarchal moral values count as morality

Matriarchy - the antithesis of the above. (Some might call it legal positivism which allow such ideas as Transnational Progressivism to contaminate the body politic. Transnational Progressivism can only be pushed on a society that has already been corrupted by feminism.)

What is the purpose of patriarchal moral values? Group solidarity and social cohesion.

What is the nature of matriarchy? Degeneracy and then the defeat of the group by a group practising patriarchal moral values.

What is the essence of patriarchy? Moral restraint.

What is the essence of matriarchy? Sexual liberation.


Saturday, 21 January 2017

Review of Mark Collett's Fall of Western Man

Make no mistake, this is a mature work by Mark Collett who has taken a sabbatical from politics and in the meantime analysed the problems of British nationalism since his expulsion from the BNP.  If you did not know that he was once a senior member of the BNP, I like to think that you too could read it and nod in agreement to most of this frankly unobjectionable book if you were already concerned about the moral and social health of this country. 

Jews are only mentioned once in the context of the Holocaust Denial. The existence of this crime in 14 countries makes it almost impossible for the gentile Westerner to even tentatively raise the question of his own national interest without being shouted down as a Nazi and the discussion abruptly and brutally ended. 

Collett repeatedly refers to the enemies of the West and I asked him whom these might be. His response was "the politicians, the bankers, the money lenders and those who control the media. The people with a liberal, feminist and anti-western agenda."

Other races are praised for their ability to practise marriage and family values, and the indigenous white proletariat implicitly criticised for not so doing in sufficient numbers.

Cleverly and surprisingly, Collett uses Freud's structural model of the psyche to explain the current moral and emotional state of the British Nation as if he were a patient on a couch.

Collett's analysis of the songs of Bill Hailey, Katie Perry and Lady Gaga in the context of the slippery slope argument cannot be gainsaid. Worthwhile points were also made on cinema and soap.

There is even a soulful examination of the soul of the British nationalist.

The most politically useful chapter is Collett's devastating critique of Conservatism as a hopelessly inadequate substitute for Nationalism and I particularly enjoyed the military metaphors used.

Libertarianism is also demolished but it hardly needs demolishing when we already know what spoilt brats and potheads rich kids who take up libertarianism are, incapable of organising a piss-up in the proverbial brewery.

It must be borne in mind that Conservatism was really a term that came into being as a defensive reaction to the ideas of the French Revolution. As political ideologies, both Conservatism and Liberalism are fairly new ideas in the context of human history, and will doubtless go the way of Communism onto the scrapheap of tried and failed political ideologies.

Conservatism was in essence about using only homeopathic elements of theocracy and divine law, but without now even acknowledging or ever discussing this in case liberals and feminists in the 21st century get "triggered" by the idea of obeying the sexual restrictions as stated in the Bible and the Koran.

Let us remember that it was a supposedly Conservative and Christian Prime Minister who legalised gay marriage, heedless of the Biblical prohibitions against sodomy, quite unconcerned that he was sanctifying something God if He exists would have regarded as an abomination. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury protested feebly against gay marriage and then eventually decided to let it all wash over him, and no one cared or said anything much.

Not only has the British establishment forgotten its Judeo-Christian heritage, it is actively seeking to erase all traces of it by promoting policies that promote even greater sexual liberation, gender confusion and degeneracy. 

An omission in this book in my view is how a nationalist social and political reformer would go about addressing these ills in practical terms of legislative change. This is something I hope Collett will address in his next book.