Yesterday saw a vital indictation of the viability of the coalition – and it was George Osborne who delivered an extremely good result.
Last week I blogged:
Next week, the EU Council of Ministers plans to adopt strict regulations enforcing transparency on hedge funds and private equity firms and limiting their leverage, ie how much they can gamble. NuLabour resisted these very sensible Franco-German proposals, because NuLabour was 100% bought by the City. The Tory right wants to oppose the plans because they are European regulations. Already we are hearing bleats that hedge fund managers will move abroad. Good. The attitude to these proposals will be an imprtant early indication of whether this government is more progressive than NuLabour.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/on_my_way_to_li.html
This is from the lead story on the front page of today’s Financial Times:
The approval of the controversial rules by finance ministers follows a similar endorsement by a group of EU lawmakers on Monday and brings regulation of the “alternative investment” industry closer.
Mr Osborne decided not to use up political capital in Brussels fighting to dilute an EU directive that has been ferociously pushed by France and Germany
end
More to the point, these regulations had been ferociously resisted by New Labour, just as Brown and Mandelson had ferociously resisted Franco-German proposals to limit bank bonuses and apply other brakes on casino banking. New Labour’s total defence of even the most extreme practices of most unacceptable faces of capitalism – hedge funds and private equity funds – was sickening.
It was notable in the election campaign that the Tories stance on banking regulation – in their manifesto, their rhetoric and the leaders’ debates – was much stronger than New Labour’s, and closer to the Liberal Democrats. There was room to doubt if this was just election populism. Osborne’s decision yesterday is a welcome sign that he Tories really are willing to take on City interests to which New Labour were slaves.
But the significance does not stop there. This decision also shows Cameron and Osborne are prepared to take on their own Europhobes. There will be fury from the combined forces of private equity millionaires and anti-Europeans, being poured down the lines into Conservative Central Office today.
Osborne in fact cleverly played the pro-EU card in the ECOFIN meeting and used his agreement to fund regulation to push forward the single market in financial services – something which has been disgracefully obstructed on continental Europe.
A friend of mine in UKREP Brussels tells me this morning that the view there is that it is great to have Ministers who do not confuse the interest of the City and the national interest as automatically the same thing.
And the icing of the cake for the coalition is that these very proposals for transparency and limitation of risk of hedge funds and private equity funds were initiated in the European Parliament by Lib Dem MEPs – led by my old mate Graham Watson.
Arthur?
Who is Arthur? Me perhaps?
Re: Marvin Antelman,
Since Antelman’s claims to scientific achievement are fraudulent, one needs to regard any other claim that he may make with great caution.
You say, referring to me and you,
“if either of us had just a modicum amount of the talent that Rabbi Antelman has…”
But where’s the evidence of talent. As I indicated, as a scientist he is a nullity according to Google Scholar which indicates with fair accuracy how many times a scientist’s work has been cited in the literature as a whole.
Marvin (s) Antelman has a few dozen cited articles, patents and books. His biggest hit is his “Encyclopedia of Chemical Electrode Potentials” published 28 years ago, which has been cited 68 times, a negligible count for a major text. His other works have been cited even less frequently, for a total of two or three hundred citations to all works.
Modesty aside, I can claim several times as many citations to my published scientific work, i.e., over 1000. To put that in perspective, Craig Ventor of the Human Genome project has about 25,000 citations to his ten most widely cited works.
Antelman is clearly a fanatical Zionist who hates Reformed Juadaism and Orthodox Judaism. As a Jew and a Zionist, he can accuse his co-religionists of every conceivable perversion without much risk of ostracism. However, any gentile adopting his line of attack on Jews would very quickly be labelled an anti-Semitic bigot. It is unquestioning belief in what people like Antelman say that surely gives rise to much anti-Semitism. Perhaps that is Antelman’s purpose, for Zionism seems to thrive on a Jewish persecution complex.
In any case, from the little I know, it is clear that not all that Antelman says about a conspiracy to destroy the Jews (if such indeed exists) is factually correct. In particular, he misrepresents both Carroll Quiqley and the Round Table movement that Quiqley studied.
Quigley did not conclude that the Round Table movement (a development of Cecil Rhodes’ secret society and the Milner Kindergarten) was anti-Semitic. Far from it. The movement was in part financed by Rhodes business partner Beit, a Jew, and Milner’s successor as the intellectual leader of the group was the Jew Leopold Amery. On both Israel and Germany the group was divided, with Amery going with the Zionists and for war with Germany.
Okay, since now on this thread there seems to be a preoccupation with, and deep love for, things Jewish, here’s my own piece of Judaic esoterica: Has anyone heard of Obadyah Maimonides? Grandson of Moses Maimonides, Obadyah was a Jewish Sufi who wrote a tract entitled, ‘The Treatise of the Pool’.
Dive in, people, dive in.
http://www.octagonpress.com/authors/obadyahmaimonides.htm
Alfred, did you read about that (white) professor who was spouting-off about Africans and intelligence and then had his own genome checked and discovered that it was something like 15% African? I thought that was a real hoot. Haven’t heard much form the learned (African) prof. since then.
Sorry, just a pebble in the pool…
Alfie
What’s all this about,Marvin Antelman.
You haven’t read To Eliminate The Opiate or listened to the Israeli radio interview.
You’re steering clear of Chamish and Scholem and clearly have only a superficial understanding of this body of work.
Antelman does not misrepresent Quigley at all.Neither make any claims re-the Round Table Group being anti-semitic.
You seem to have missed the point about Jewish financiers and Empire builders like Rhodes.And the Balfour Declaration in which the Group played a leading role is omitted from your account.
If you are more secure with mainstream sources-so be it.But the more rounded perspective which a range of sources provides will always escape you.
techni
please desist from your irritating inane commentary.Without Cathouse Larry you’re a nobody.
Suhayl,
Re: The white professor who …
No, I haven’t, why do you ask?
Are you and Techie back in white race-baiting mode?
Steelback, aka, Tungsten, Strontium, aka Plutonium,
Re: “You haven’t … listened to the Israeli radio interview.”
But I have.
You say, “Antelman does not misrepresent Quigley at all.Neither make any claims re-the Round Table Group being anti-semitic.”
But he does. Are you simply careless in what you say, or are you a liar?
Furthermore, I have read Quigley, his entire works — which you obviously have not, and know, therefore, that Antelman lies about Quigley’s account of the Rhodes-Milner and the Round Table group.
Antelman, uses Quigley’s authority to justify his own false assertions. If you look at the Quigley biography in Wikipedia you will see that this is a trick a number of other people have used, and to which Quigley strongly objected.
Anyway, I have already established that Antelman is a fraud, who boasts of a fake cure for AIDS, a man who allows himself to be described as a scientific genius when he is, scientifically, a nullity. So why do you continue to present him as an authority? He has no authority. He is nothing but a blowhard Zionist, fascist.
You say, “You seem to have missed the point about Jewish financiers and Empire builders like Rhodes.And the Balfour Declaration in which the Group played a leading role is omitted from your account.”
Rhodes was not a Jew. But neither was was he a racist and worked readily with Jews and all other races.
Balfour was not of the Rhodes-Milner group. He was a member of the Cecil Block, he was a close relative of Lord Salisbury.
I looked at the Bzrezinski clip you referred to. Our impressions of the man are greatly at odds.
To me, he comes across as an astonishingly arrogant, with a total contempt for his audience.
What kind of a school can Columbia be? Universities are supposed top instill a capacity for rational discourse?
Bzrezinski treats the questioners with contempt. No doubt they are ignorant, but it is to cure ignorance, not to despise it that a university should exist.
Suhayl,
I am aggravated at being misnamed repeatedly by idiots.
I am aggravated by sly, unsubstantiated implications of a racism of which I am incapable.
I also appreciate your attempts to maintain a civil discourse, and enjoy your literary allusions.
I have lived in various places in Canada. Ottawa, Vancouver, and in Toronto for three days, after which I resigned my tenure track position at the university and returned, with much relief, to the West Coast where I have lived happily ever after.
“How do you find it there?”
Physically, it is a wonderful country. The people are vigorous and practical. No doubt some are literary — though I never met any of them.
Canada has all the problems of a modern western nation: tied into America’s (and the Rhodes-Milner) plan for global empire (Federation); unrestrained growth of bureaucracy; transformation of education into a process of totalitarian indoctrination with political correctness; outsourcing of manufacturing and intellectual work.
Going for us is that there are still some jobs in the natural resources sector that cannot be outsourced. And we still have space: a dozen hectares per person versus one fifth of a hectare in England, which means if you want to, it is still possible to drop out and live away in the bush. Almost no one does. But it seems good to know that you can.
Cheers
Thanks, Alfred. That sounds fascinating – the ‘big country’! Lots of clean air. Yes, I’ve heard from everyone who’s ever been there that Vancouver is a fantastic place.
When I was in Montreal a couple of years ago, I met an interesting guy who runs a radio station in Ottawa called The Biblio Phile.
http://nigelbeale.com/
Steelback,
My mistake, the vid of Zbig Zbrezinski spitting contempt at youthful questioners was not posted by you or even on this thread.
Sorry. Obviously, I need a break, which I will take beginning now.
Alfie
You must have been blowing hard on something!
Rhodes not a racist,someone who worked with all races?
You’ve been spending too much time with techni and the airheads.
No-one in their right mind would make such a ludicrously inaccurate statement.Rhodes shared the same views about racial hierarchy as the vast majority of his contemporaries.
Get a grip.
You seem to have a unique ability to completely miss the point.This must be down to a failure to clarify terms.
For the Round Table Groups:RIIA,CFR Quigley is, as Antelman says, an impeccable source.
On the impact of the schism in Judaism that occurred in the 17th century on Zionism and Israel Antelman and Scholem are invaluable sources.
Antelman and Quigley would agree that the abnormal nationalism that was foisted on World Jewry by the aforementioned elite planners in no way had the wellbeing of Jews at heart.Rather both see Zionism as a movement looked on by elite planners as one they can control in order to obtain certain geo-strategic objectives.
It is utterly misconceived to imagine that Antelman is misrepresenting Quigley in order to sell some fascistic form of Zionism.
A feeling among Israelis that they have been betrayed and steadily degraded morally and spiritually in a vast laboratory experiment by insidious
corrupt elites in the CFR and elsewhere is hardly surprising or unnatural.
It’s certainly not the same as Zio-fascism.
Steelback,
You have an ability, remarkable if not unique, for creating your own reality.
“For the Round Table Groups:RIIA,CFR Quigley is, as Antelman says, an impeccable source.”
I don’t know if Quigley was an impeccable source, but he appears to be the most prolific source. But Antelman uses Quigley’s name to justify his own claims about the Round Table Movement that are totally unsupported by Quigley. The lack of racism among this group was clearly asserte by Quigley. For example, here’s a direct quote:
“The effort of the Round Table Group to create a common ideology to unite the supporters of the British way of life appears in every aspect of their work. It was derived from Rhodes and Milner and found its most perfect manifestation in the Rhodes Scholarships. As a result of these and of the Milner Group’s control of so much of Oxford, Oxford tended to become an international university. Here the Milner Group had to tread a narrow path between the necessity of training non-English (including Americans and Indians) in the English way of life and the possibility of submerging that way of life completely (at Oxford, at least) by admitting too many non-English to its cloistered halls. …”
There are many other passages in the “Anglo-American Establishment” that make it absolutely clear that Rhodes was not an anti-Semite and he wished to bring the non-white dominions and colonies into a Federation in which British ideas about liberty and democracy would prevail. Not only was Rhodes’ business partner, Beit, a Jew he was also a trustee of the Rhodes Trust that administered the Rhodes scholarships, etc. Furthermore, in several versions of his will Rhodes designated Lord Rothschild as his sole executor.
So I am sorry, but you are speaking whereof you have no knowledge, and about which you are relying on what I have established is a totally unreliable source.
“It is utterly misconceived to imagine that Antelman is misrepresenting Quigley in order to sell some fascistic form of Zionism.”
I did not say that. I said that Antelman falsely attributed to Quigley the idea that the Round Table Movement was anti-Semitic. This is obviously absurd for the reasons I have stated above and in view also of the fact that Milner’s successor as intellectual leader of the group was the Jew Leopold Amery who became a staunch backer of the state of Israel.
“A feeling among Israelis that they have been betrayed and steadily degraded morally and spiritually in a vast laboratory experiment by insidious
corrupt elites in the CFR and elsewhere is hardly surprising or unnatural.”
That may or may not be so, but it is certainly not justified by anything that Quigley said about the Round Table Group. Quigley’s chief criticism of the Group was what he considered to be its unrealistic belief in the possibility of applying to world affairs the ethical message of the Sermon on the Mount — or do you say that the Sermon on the Mount was anti-Semitic?
Dennis Healey, one time Labour Party heavyweight, recounted an amusing incident from his student days at Oxford, which confirms the international flavor of the Milner-Group-dominated Balliol college. During a showing in Oxford of movie “The Queen of the Nile”, as a group of Africans came in sight furiously paddling a canoe, someone brought the house down with a shout of “Well rowed Balliol”.
Alf
Look,mate I’ve read The Anglo-American Establishment and I know a bit re-the elite conspiracy it describes.
Your idea that Rhodes was some kind of multi-cultural imperialist who loved the Jews is anachronistic claptrap.
Your thoroughly PC concern with compartmentalizing and labelling people means you end up thoroughly decontextualizing their original aspirations.
Rhodes’s circle wanted to create a world empire.They shared this aspiration with elite Jews like Rothschild who had the means to bring it about.
Whether Rhodes was anti-semitic or not is neither here nor there.In Antelman’s terms the RIIA,CFR,Trilaterals et al that have followed in his wake are working to an elite agenda for world government and will make a burnt offering of the thoroughly artificial nuclear statelet these organizations helped bring about for the sake of achieving this long-term goal.
Thinking about the Round Table elite forums Rhodes et al set up to be the invisible world government means examining the military industrial complex,political elites,and intelligence networks behind them to uncover their hand in crucial world events.
This is what Quigley’s work enables researchers like Antelman and any number of several others,of whom he may well have not approved,to do.
Yea,let’s put Quigley on a pedestal because he wrote long books,shall we?
Like Apostate I use Quigley as a starting point only.As an elite insider to the machinations of The Group of course he’s indispensable.But the fact that he shared The Group’s elite aspirations should make us wary-certainly not regard his assessment as sacrosanct!
Quigley quickly became must-read confirmation for all those who subscribed to right wing conspiracy theories re-the US establishment emanating from such forums as the John Birch Society.It was these groups who Quigley disparaged.
This does not mean he would automatically have disparaged Antelman
for being a Zionist!
Conspiracy researchers today have moved well beyond the left-right paradigm and adopt perspectives from across the political spectrum.Thus Zionists like Antelman and Chamish home in on the connections between the Israeli political elite and the CFR in NY.
Nowadays personal interest rather than political affiliation or academic supervision affects the direction in which any researcher will gravitate.
The following discussion includes extensive references to Quigley’s work. I am struck by the links between the various political and intelligence circles across which various members of Rhodes’s group moved.
For example,William Wiseman is mentioned as reporting to Lord Cecil at the Foreign Office.Wiseman was Head of British Intelligence during WW1.According to Anthony Sutton it was he who insisted that the Canadian authorities who had arrested Leon Trotsky when he landed in Halifax on his way to Russia immediately release and allow him to make the onward journey.
If Wiseman was linked to the Cecil bloc,he was linked to the Milner Group.Along with the Rockefeller interests in the US The Milner Group were keen for the Bolsheviks to gain power.
That Milner was fascinated by the Bolshevik experiment and Marxist ideas generally is evident from his interest in Isaiah Berlin’s work on Marx.
Incidentally Berlin was another All Souls recruit of The Group.He was of Russian Jewish extraction.
Funny old world t’aint it and one that bears no resemblance to the orthodox so-called “history” I learned in college.
I can remember spending hours poring over an essay with the title:Did Stalin Betray The Promise of 1917?
Now I understand the promise had been betrayed long before Stalin got control of the Revolution.It had all begun when Trotsky got control of the army and Lenin the secret police.
And of course how did Lenin and Trotsky get where they were in the first place?
No,they didn’t teach us that either!
Now that Mr Murray is censoring contributions,I have decided to move on.
Bye,bye saps!
P.S.Cathouse Larry,techni,crabs,angri and Murray deserve each other!
Checking out.
If you can’t make what Murray refers to as “malicious comments” ( read criticize Jewish supremacists or Israel or the rich and powerful generally ) it’s not a democratic forum.
What does he think we are a chain-gang of establishment ass-kissers?
I hope Cathouse Larry,angri,techni and the rest keep you guys entertained!
THIS IS A KNOWLEDGE-FREE RESEARCH-AVERSE SITE UNWORTHY OF ANYONE’S ATTENTION.
If Craig has actually given Steelback and co the boot, I think he has struck a blow for free speech, for it is impossible to hold an intelligent conversation amidst a howling mob that insists that black is white.
Clearly, neither Steelback nor Apostate, if they are in fact different people, have read Quigley as they claim, or if they have read Quigley, they are misrepresenting what he said. Either way they are liars.
However, the personality of Marvin Antelman, to which they draw attention, seems worthy of further examination. In it one may find the key to the Jewish supremacist, ultra virulent settler mentality that is turning the State of Israel into a humanitarian disaster zone.
Alfred,
as far as I know, Craig never bans anyone, and has not set up the technical means to do so. ‘Steelback’ is probably complaining about some deleted comments. I’m convinced that Apostate, Steelback, Freeborn, Tungsten and Juniper are all the same person. ‘They’ even have arguments amongst themselves!
Mostly they criticise “zionist elites” or such, but sometimes produce more generally anti-Jewish material, or link to racist or anti-Jewish sites; this is what usually results in deletion. Sometimes they make good points or post interesting links. It can all get very confusing.
Alfred,
having said all that, you’re not exactly the least confusing commenter yourself. You’ve managed to fool some people into believing that you’re racist, or, conversely, fooled others into thinking that you’re not. Some of your earlier stuff seemed to support the BNP. And you seem to share reading material with Apostate etc.
Alfred,
you’ve also claimed to be incapable of racism. I know that biology is a large study and that what follows may be peripheral your field, but doesn’t evolutionary biology have theories about the instincts that lie behind racism? Like fear of other / trust of similar + aggression is a response to threat?
I personally believe that nearly all of us harbour the instincts that can result in racism. Some exhibit racism, some repress the feelings with varying degrees of success, and some recognise those feelings within themselves, and thereby develop.
Clark, you are a cosmic being.
In honour of which, here is a song from those who dwell far beneath the earth’s crust, but who know…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jm263nN4hk
Clark
Re: “As far as I know, Craig never bans anyone, and has not set up the technical means to do so.”
Oh well, the good news is that Steelback says he’s gone for good.
You say, “Mostly they criticise “zionist elites” or such, but sometimes produce more generally anti-Jewish material, or link to racist or anti-Jewish sites… ”
Yet he/she/they/whatever promote Marvin Antelman a fanatical Zionist who spews hate for both Reform Judaism and orthodox Judaism. So yes, they are anti-Semitic as viewed by some Jews. However, they are, in fact, Jewish racial supremacists urging on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from Israel and the occupied territories.
Moreover, they propagate a paranoid theory about a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews, and in so doing they claim support in the work of Carrol Quigley. This is something that other conspiracy theorists have done, and something to which Quigley, during the last years of his life, strongly objected.
The reason they do this is for three reasons.
First, Quigley was a historian of the first rank. Probably the most notable twentieth century historian of the English-speaking world, which means his authority carries much weight.
Second, as a student of Rhodes Secret Society, the Round Table Groups and its various spin offs, including the Council on Foreign Relations, Quigley can plausibly, but falsely, be represented as a conspiracy theorist. In fact, as a good historian, Quigley did not engage in theories about historical facts. Furthermore, there was nothing very secret about the activities of the Round Table Groups and those associated with them. These people simply used personal contacts and the substantial funds made available to them through the Rhodes Trust to promote research and advocacy about ideas they supported, which is what all the many other politically oriented foundations and think tanks do today.
Third, they cite Quigley in support of their conspiracy theories because they know that almost no one has read him. The reasons this is so are many-fold, including the fact that as one of the most original thinkers in his field he upsets a lot of ideas that the duller kind of historian is loathe to discard. But in addition, his books are quite long. Longer than most people with busy lives have time for. Thus it is possible to misquote Quigley with little risk of exposure.
You say, “you’re not exactly the least confusing commenter yourself.”
Well what can I say? I will try to be clearer in future! Actually, my comments about the BNP were made partly to provoke discussion and partly because I am genuinely interested in the paradox that I have spelled out before, which is that the BNP claims — and I am talking of their policy statements on the Web, to stand for policies that are collectively, very popular, yet in the election, as I predicted, they got essentially no votes.
As for the provocation, it was provoked by the enthusiasm here for the Welsh and Scots Nationalist Parties. Why, I wanted to know, and am still interested to know, is Scottish and Welsh nationalism good, but British nationalism bad.
I am probably quite naive about this, but to me, nationalism equates to sovereignty, not to some Nazi-like theory of British racial supremacy, which would obviously be idiotic.
In fact, on the basis of the sovereignty issue, I would be inclined to support UKIP if they weren’t such a hopeless lot, with their pink website and their wonderful specimen of upper class irrelevance as party leader.
It is unfortunate that UKIP lost their founder, Jimmy Goldsmith (Golden Balls to Private Eye) who whatever his personal faults understood the catastrophe that globalization would be for the working and middle classes and courageously, and quite contrary to personal interest, stood out against it. He died very shortly thereafter, as troublemakers nowadays often seem to do, of a very unusual and fast acting form of cancer.
As to the BNP paradox, I have outlined my explanation elsewhere and won’t repeat it here. Essentially, though, I believe that the BNP is a fraudulent party controlled by the security services or some other dark force for the purpose of alienating support for the mostly sensible and popular policies that the BNP advocate.
You say, “you’ve also claimed to be incapable of racism.”
Actually, I have not claimed this. I stated that I was aggravated by allegations of “a racism of which I am incapable.” There is difference here.
The racism of which I am incapable has a number of facets. But first, on the emotional level, I believe it is impossible to be a deep dyed racist if you are brought up in the absence of racism. This was my experience simply because, in the 50’s in South Devon, my family from the Midlands, were the only immigrants. But in addition, I do not hold any foolish preconceptions about racial hierarchies or, therefore, the inherent superiority of one race over another.
As a biologist, I am simply interested in knowing the facts about racial differences, how they arise, what the significance is in terms of environmental and social adaptation, etc.
I am also opposed to discrimination on the basis of race or any other non-moral criterion, which is why I maintain that whatever one’s views about immigration to Britain or Canada, those who obtain citizenship legally are entitled to absolute equality of treatment under the law.
Nevertheless, I oppose mass immigration to the UK for several reasons. One is the belief that in a supposedly democratic state, it is the responsibility of the government to act in the interest of the majority, and I believe that mass immigration to Britain is not in the interests of the majority. Another reason is that I value human diversity. And just as I would be horrified by a nuclear holocaust perpetrated against Iran, or against the Arabs as advocated by the Zionist maniac Barbara Amiel, I am against the elimination of the British as a distinct nation.
Of course, people come and go, and limited immigration does not threaten the existence of the British nation. However, if you look at the demographics, it is clear that mass immigration if long continued will totally transform the British nation as a biological entity.
Could some of the difference b/w British and Scottish/ Welsh nationalsim resides in the perception that the former is associated still with concepts of empire as constructed in C19th – with ‘Britain’ as the New Rome.
Furthermore, while France, etc. had several revolutions and got rid of its monarchies, the UK (or rather, England) had a revolution but thereafter restored its monarchy and since C19th, the concept of ‘Britain’ seems to me to have been tied-up very tightly – and deliberately so – with that of its monarchy, aristocracy, its class system.
On the other hand, until the last decade years or so, many ‘black’ people (I use the term in its inclusive, 1970s sense) would call themselves ‘British’ rather than ‘English’, though this has changed somewhat recently.
I think your expression of alarm wrt immigration is hyperbolic, Alfred, I’ve said that, or something similar, before. I think you’re looking at a plastic duck through a periscope and seeing a monster. I’m not saying there aren’t problems, but you know, South Devon and much of the rest of the UK – I’m in Elgin this evening, for example -haven’t changed that much in terms of ethnic composition since you lived there. I mean obviously Britain has changed since the 1950s. But so has France and most other European countries. So has South Korea, for that matter. I think you need to relax about it and not compare it to a nuclear holocaust. It’s this type of metaphor which I sense drives people bananas. Being opposed to what you term, mass immigration is a valid point-of-view. But comparing it nuclear war is not. I realise you were using a metaphor, but you’ve used it several times and I think it actually undermines your argumentation, Alfred.
The material about the historian is really fascinating though. That’s the thing about your posts, Alfred, and imay be why Clark expressed perplexity. More than most, as presented here on this auspicious blog, you are a paradox, or perhaps a set of paradoxes, a stone, cut with many surfaces, not all of which seem (to the outsider) to align with the others.
Suhayl Saadi,
thank you. Somehow we are all cosmic beings and selfish animals simultaneously, despite the seeming paradox. Mud that sat up.
Alfred,
thank you, too; that was a very clear answer. I don’t think the “BNP is a fraudulent party controlled by the security services”; I think they are really like that. But I’d like to know where they got the money for their electioneering, including the massive leaflet drop, and yes, I think they are used, but only by giving them money and letting them get on with it.
I was invited to an animal rights meeting around 1990. It was a very strange affair. The public were the ‘anarchist’ and ‘hippy’ types I expected, festival sorts (I was one of these, I suppose). The ones who seemed like organisers or activists seemed more like BNP; spiv suits and shaved heads or crew cuts, with an atmosphere of threat about them. They evangelised at me; I didn’t like it, and I never went to another.
Suhayl and Alfred,
I think that one effect on this site is that several different threads are being added to by many people; sometimes, when it’s busy, it can be difficult to keep up, especially if composing comments of ones own. It’s not linear. I see something by person B, and comment on it out of context, because I didn’t notice that it was in answer to person A. Or I spend a while composing a comment, click “Post”, only to see that another comment has arrived meanwhile, changing the context of my own.
This is why I’m often trying to smooth things over; misunderstandings can easily arise.
Suhayl,
the elimination of the British as a distinct nation would amount to a holocaust.
It is irrefutable that the significance of the impact of immigration is a matter of numbers. Vague, hand-waving comments about it “not being as bad as you think” do not constitute a valid position. Some of the numbers are horrifying to anyone opposed to the elimination of the British nation as a distinct entity.
In London, for example, almost half the native population has already gone, and the birthrate data presents an even more devastating picture.
In my father’s home town of Leicester, the immigrant population is already the majority. I don’t have the birthrate data for Leicester to hand, but they must signal the virtual extirpation of the indigenous population within a generation.
Your are an advocate of large scale immigration to Britain. You are free to take that position. I will never agree with it. And I reject absolutely your notion that I am suffering from a distortion of vision that transforms an inconsequential phenomenon into a phantasmagoric monster.
You say, “Could some of the difference b/w British and Scottish/ Welsh nationalsim resides in the perception that the former is associated still with concepts of empire as constructed in C19th – with ‘Britain’ as the New Rome.”
Well that may be the case in the minds of some, but the BNP seem to advocate a Swiss style neutrality for Britain, not an empire. So to those advocating British nationalism, that argument does not stand up.
Clark,
You say “I don’t think the ‘BNP is a fraudulent party controlled by the security services'”.
You may be right, but in that case Cambridge University graduated one dumb lawyer in Nick Griffin, since he almost single-handedly threw any chance his party had in the last election with his nose-pulling, Marmite waving, attempted murder alleging, absurdities, not to mention the secretly filmed racial slurs that promptly went mainstream.
The thing is though, when seen arguing a case, Griffin does not seem dumb. He argues as you would expect a Cambridge-trained lawyer: competently. Looking through U-Tube videos I have never seen him floored.
But, you may be right. The whole lot of them may be nuts. But then why have a reasonable and populist platform and then go out of your way to nauseate everyone? Very strange.
A BNP animal activist certainly sounds scary. But in a way it makes sense. Knuckle-draggers opposed to sticking needles in monkeys’ brains.
Suhayl,
Life it seems to me, is far too complicated to explain according to some unified theory. As an empiricist, I do my best to figure out bits and pieces. If the result is paradoxical, I attribute that to the material one has to work on.
Alfred, that’s a bit like picthing-up in particular parts of Brooklyn, NYC and extrapolating from that that North America is being taken over by Koreans/Russians/Italians/Caribbeans/Vietnamese, etc., etc. You’ve picked the most concentrated areas in the UK and extrapolated. Furthermore, you that immgrants and descendents of immigrants actually create net jobs and that what you term, ‘the British nation’ benefits from that process. There areas of deprivation in the UK, but that’s an economic issue to do with fundo capitalism and affects immigrants and others, alike. Leicester actually is a success story. Every city in the UK will not become Leicester, it’s specific place and the demographics reflect specific circumstances. Same with Bradford and some other towns. There is absolutely no chance of ‘The British mation’ being expunged from the face of the earth. Most immigration nowadays is ‘white’ immigration from Europe. London is replete with white South Africans and French people – oh, and Canadians! One might, if one were in a naughty mood, say to you, Alfred, “Why don’t you come back to where you came from?”, but I’m not in a naughty mood this morning. Perhaps white British people ought to have more babies… what d’you think?
Take this in good spirit, Alfred.
Lucky for Alfred the censor came in and saved his bacon.
Steelback and Apostate were eating you for breakfast.
The idea that Rhodes was not a racist is patently absurd.I can assure you that the men who worked his mines were black-and it was melanin not mineral deposit!
Just how many black people were in the Round Table Group do you think?
On Rhodes’s legacy of racism and Quigley’s account of the Milner Group’s role in the Balfour Declaration,the post-WW1 Mandates,and the League:
http:www.biblebelievers.org.au/saiia.htm
On the phenomenon of Zionist bankers,if the censor thinks he can airbrush all the evidence of their role in revolutions and wars throughout history he’s got his work cut out.
On their role in prolonging WW1 by re-supplying Germany via the Belgian Relief Committee and the execution of Edith Cavell:
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/11/war-is-racket.html
On Trotsky and the Billionaires Club who financed Bolshevism:
http://fufor.twoday.net/stories/3248889/
Alfred,
you wrote: “the elimination of the British as a distinct nation would amount to a holocaust”.
That is just silly. ‘Holocaust’ means killing and suffering, the violent deaths of many people, not a gradual transformation of culture. This is the sort of statement that leads to you being identified with the BNP; wouldn’t you rather retract it?
Seems the real researchers are getting space on the comment board again.
Maybe Craig’s in Africa again?
So, Alfred you’re not off the hook after all.
With a political hero like Jimmy Goldsmith no wonder you think so much of Rhodes’s Round Table.
Like Rhodes Goldsmith was close to the Rothschilds,being a distant cousin of “Fifth Man” Victor Roth.
Like Rhodes Jimmy loved elite intrigue and in 1973 at Victor’s suggestion Jimmy met with members of the Clermont Set including David Sterling,Peter Wright to discuss how they might best prevent the return of Harold Wilson to power.
Notwithstanding Jimmy’s intrigues to stop him in the following year Wilson was in Number 10 again.Jimmy started funding the Centre for Policy Studies launched with support from Thatcher,Joseph and its director Alfred Sherman.
By 1977 Sir Jimmy ( he’d been knighted by Wilson with whom he had latterly formed a friendship) launched the Adam Smith Institute to promote deregulation and economic liberalism.
Thatcher’s 1979 election win saw Jimmy return to business while she implemented the decidely monetarist agenda he’d been busy promoting.
By 1989 Jimmy was launching the Bruges Group to campaign against further EU integration with the shortly to be dethroned Thatcher continuing as a powerful ally.
In 1996 Jimmy set up the Referendum Party.Perhaps it was this that was the one step too far and made him enemies who were even more powerful than himself.
Jimmy’s legacy is a bit like Rhodes’s but on a decidedly smaller scale.
Jimmy laid the ground for the birth of Thatcherism,1975-79.
His anti-EU integration campaign helped ensure that the UK would not participate fully in the EU project.
In Simon Matthew’s assessment of Jimmy’s legacy (Lobster 55) he notes that it was Goldsmith’s money that played the decisive role in the achievement of these outcomes.The UK’s democratic deficit allowing men of influence such as he to lobby for their desired political ends.
If you share Jimmy’s political goals he will be a hero in the Rhodes mould.When we look at Goldsmith’s career in Africa it bears uncanny resemblances to his imperialist forebear.
Like Rhodes,Goldsmith enjoyed the company of robber barons,imperialists and fascists.Such figures as John Aspinall,Lord Lucan,Tiny Rowland,the Cecil family,and Julian Amery.Jimmy and these others part of the same business,international intelligence circles.
They financed the training of African rebels across the continent officially to counter the Soviet threat but like Rhodes their real abiding interest lay in extracting minerals.
Human rights and democracy mean little in such circles so unsurpringly some of the worst dictators were backed by the Goldsmith crowd.Pinochet,Mobutu,Ian Smith to name but a few.
Goldsmith took over SAS pal,Sterling’s security company KAS Enterprises in 1990 when the latter died.KAS was hired by wealthy conservatives,like Prince Bernhardt, to stamp out not rhino poachers but ANC activists!
With incipient fascist heroes like Goldsmith we get a pretty good idea where our resident biologist is coming from!