Saturday, January 12, 2008

My Support For Lionheart Ends

Sphere: Related Content

I've written about Brit blogger Lionheart who is facing arrest for "inciting racism". You can read the posts at the links for background.

Anyway, Charles Johnson wrote a post supporting Lionheart and then as an update added this:

UPDATE at 1/7/08 10:43:47 am:

Konservo notes that Lionheart is a supporter of the neo-fascist British National Party, which leads me to state clearly that by posting about the case, I am not supporting what Lionheart says on his blog—just his right to say it.

As with my position on Vlaams Belang and other European neo-fascist parties, I want nothing to do with the BNP. But criminalizing speech is exactly the wrong way to handle them.
A disagreement on his ideology but Charles explained that he thinks what they are doing to him is wrong.

Well, Lionheart didn't like the update Charles added and posted the following:

Little Green Footballs you are a traitor, nothing less than the equivalent of a Second World War Nazi collaborator who would have been shot because of his treason - I am sure there are many who would have obliged!
Well I'll say right now in no uncertain words that you scare me Lionheart. Not scare as in I fear you but scare as in your ideology is no different than the Jihadi's and other Muslims you rail against. You want this to become a religious war akin to the Crusades and will do everything to stoke that. Your belief in God does not make you the Crusader you think it does, it makes you sound like a raging zealot. You say Charles is a "traitor", a traitor to whom or what? I'm assuming you mean a traitor to the white race by context used and that would make you a racist and would bolster Charles' rationale for updating that post the way he did.

I'm sorry for your problems with the law but I feel strongly that I can no longer support you individually or the words you write. There are two sides and they aren't Christian and non-Christian. Those two sides are right and wrong and you fall into the latter.

I hope things work out in the future for you and I hope you find it in your heart to let go of the hate.

Update: My thoughts spelled out in previous posts about the the actions of the British government stand. It is wrong that they are threatening arrest for a man because of the words he wrote. That's censorship and to an American is abhorrent. By saying I end my support, I mean that I will no longer post anything about the man with the possible exception of legal proceedings, etc. in the interest of pointing out the abuses of the UK legal system.

Update: More on this issue here and why I believe that Lionheart and his supporters are so venomous.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now that's a principled stand. Well said dude.

VinceP1974 said...

Good going man! Way to defend Free Speech!!!

If I'm ever in trouble I know i could count on you to offer strings-attached support and be compelled to adhere to your politics.

/s

doriangrey said...

I hope you prove to be as wrong about Lionheart as he is/was about Charles Johnston. I have read several of his articles over at Lionheart and do not see any obvious racist connection. BMP has many racists in it but is not necessarily a racist party.

His strong desire to not have his home overrun by Islamic hordes in the latest of Islam's attempts to conquer the world is both noble and courageous and he deserves our support for that.

If he is a racist than shame on him, Jesus Christ would not find racism endearing or amusing. As Lionheart claims to be a Christian I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually understands Christian theology and knows that Christian theology adamantly condemns racism.

I suspect that Lionhearts attack on Charles Johnston has more to do with his reading of Atlas Shrugged and Gates of Vienna than it does of a genuine Christian understanding of the positions taken by Charles Johnston and LGF.

guftafs said...

From BNP's mission statement

"The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia.

We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe.


The migrations of the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples have been, over the past few thousands years, instrumental in defining the character of our family of nations." (my bold)

Secure a future for the people with a certain ancestry, i.e., from a certain birth, i.e., with certain biological/genetic characteristics. That is racist. If there are any other interpretations let me know.

Yiddish Steel said...

My moral Thomas Guide has always shown that Freedom Way and Tolerance Avenue were 2-way streets. Props to you for recognizing a mind that is over-wrought and distorted with hate.

Anonymous said...

"Secure a future for the people with a certain ancestry, i.e., from a certain birth, i.e., with certain biological/genetic characteristics. That is racist. If there are any other interpretations let me know."

Do me a favour and answer these questions for me - whenever I ask them, I usually (make that never) get a reply.
Is it racist for the Palistinians to have their own homeland?
Is it racist for the Kurds to desire their own homeland, where they can live in accordance with their customs, culture and way of life in their traditional territory?
Is the United Nations racist for stating that indigenous people have a right not to have colonisation and assimilation forced upon them?
Are the Tibetans racist for wanting to remove the ethnic Chinese from their lands whom the Chinese government have settled in order to destroy the traditional Tibetan ethnic make-up of that nation?
Were the late 19-century indigenous Africans racist for starting up their 'Africa for the Africans' campaign?

Yes, you think a wonderful multicultural utopia is possible, where everyone loves each other and gets along. But human nature is different, and nationalism states that we have been seperated by God into nations, following Babel, for, as Paul says, our own good. It is the utopian cultural marxists who wish to wipe out the diversity of our world by mixing everyone up and replacing our traditional morals and way of life with a globalised consumer society whose only loyalties are to the hedonistic urges of man's fallen nature. For this reason, I will proudly support the anti-globalist and nationalist (not racist - they are not saying wipe everyone else out, colonise their countries, etc) policies of the British National Party, as an Evangelical Christian who is opposed to the New World Order of Bush, Blair, the UN, World Bank, Monsanto, EU and ultimately of Satan himself. And if in your foolishness, safe and secure in suburbia somewhere, no doubt, you wish to call me unChristian, untrue, meaningless Trotskyite names like 'racist', then the problem is with your ignorance.

VinceP1974 said...

"Secure a future for the people with a certain ancestry, i.e., from a certain birth, i.e., with certain biological/genetic characteristics. That is racist. If there are any other interpretations let me know."

Uh.. yeah.. it's the basic definition of Nationalism.

My God now being a nationalist is racist!

Well you know what.. who gives a flick about the boogeyman "racism"

Why do people think they can unleash this single word and act as if they have supported an argument or proved some point.

Sorry but you dont build a case for something by just stating the conclusion.

Anonymous said...

... who is opposed to the New World Order of Bush, Blair, the UN, World Bank, Monsanto, EU and ultimately of Satan himself.

You forgot the Jooooz, dude!

Unless that's who you meant by the reference to Satan himself -- as your Nazi forefathers routinely (and just as casually) invoked during their quest to create a greater Germania.

See you at the next Stormfront meeting?

guftafs said...

anonymous:

Introductory remark: no people has a right to self-determination solely on ethnic grounds. The only rights a state should protect are the rights of the individual. Group rights are by their nature discriminatory, since they include only certain individuals, be the division religious, racial/ethnic. Like the sharia, or apartheid, or the segregated American South.

You're examples are a mix and I'll do my best to address them.

Palestinians: definitely no. They are tribal, racist, religious primitives whose claim to self-determination is merely a facade to mask their true intents: the destruction of Israel.

Kurds: Don't know, tentatively no. The tribal/racist mentality of people from these parts of the world is well-known.

The UN: Don't know what their purpose is with that declaration, but I'd reject out of hand anything that comes from the UN, the primary lobbying group for third world dictators and Islamic countries.

Tibetans: They are surely right to resist a foreign invader. Whether they are able to secure individual rights is a whole other matter which I'll leave unanswered.

The Left has been tremendously influential, more so than most would like to admit. They have made us all think about "group pride", it's only the logical step from "minority identity" and "black pride" and all that crap, that "whites" should define themselves by colour to. Wrong, wrong in all cases.

vincep1974:

Yeah, so? You're waving a definition in front of my eyes and expect me to be ... what?

Explain to me how I "unleash this single word and act as if they have supported an argument or proved some point"?

guftafs said...

... so what the BNP in effect are doing is lowering themselves (and the Britons who are taken in by them) to the level of those contemptible wogs they want to get rid off. Kinda ironic, innit?

Anonymous said...

"... so what the BNP in effect are doing is lowering themselves (and the Britons who are taken in by them) to the level of those contemptible wogs they want to get rid off. Kinda ironic, innit?"

Actually no - the BNP believes that all races and people have a right to their own homeland. They reject the left-wing nonsense that we are just individuals with roots in community and culture. But since they believe that this is the right of all ethnic groups, how can they be racist, since they do not claim for themselves what they deny for others? Whereas the socialist left hate whites and consider whites racist, you seem to consider as backward any tribal group (especially if they happen to be Muslim) who rejects the atomistic individualism of the West, sneering down at them with condescending arrogance. Clearly, like the leftists, you are happy to create a globalised world with no ethnic or cultural differences, where everyone looks the same, with no more whites, blacks, yellows etc - just one coffee-coloured mass of consumers. A brave new world indeed - and a stupid one. But then you've proven you have to resort to puerile tricks and meaningless words as part of your argument. Ok, substitute Palestinian for Jews (oh, and before you say it, I support self-determination for the Jews just as much as for the Palestinians, though you couldn't help the snide and false remark that I missed out the 'joos' in my list - showing me that your weapons are lies and smears). Are you going to claim that Jews are not an ethnic group? Go ahead and try it. So the Jews get a homeland that they don't have to share (agree), but it's 'racist' (if you insist on using Trotskyite terms/concepts) for the British to want to preserve their way of life and ethnic identity for future generations? But your world, your mind, your mentality, your conceptions, are built upon meaningless buzz words, so I really shouldn't expect more higly from you than that which you have exhibited. I really do need to get that BNP membership sent off.

Anonymous said...

"individuals with roots in community and culture"

That should be 'without'. It's interesting that scientific studies are catching up to what human experience teaches: that multi-culturalism is psychologically damaging, and breeds mistrust and depression. We are communal beings, not atomistic individuals as our resident nonsense-talker is spouting.

VinceP1974 said...

>Introductory remark: no people has a right to self-determination solely on ethnic grounds.

According to whom?

But don't answer because your statement is built on false premise. There is no universal set of tests that determine the legitimacy of any particular State.

In Europe, nationality is coupled with ethnicity. In North American nationality is not coupled with ethnicity.

In Caliphate Islam there is only the community of co-religionists.

>Yeah, so? You're waving a definition in front of my eyes and expect me to be ... what?

I dont expect a thing from you.. I wasn't talking to you, was I?

guftafs said...

anonymous:

You are assuming things. I am not a multi-culturalist, I abhor that particular movement as a terribly destructive influence on society. It is fundamentally racist, as you can see from the policies that spring from it, such as diversity and affirmative action, both based on the racial origins of the participants of these programs.

I think you are mistaken in claiming that the left are propagating any kind of proper individualism, other than mindless hedonism. Notice that they are the source of multi-culturalism, which, as I noted, is a regression to primitive tribalism. And the left are propagating all kinds of minority rights, gay, black, whatever, except individual rights. And, I agree, many leftist express a clear hatred of whites, but that is more evidence of their collectivist (as against individualistic) outlook.

As I said, there are no group rights as such, since any implementation of them would be in conflict with the rights of the individual. The rights of the individual are an objective recognition of man's nature, of his need to be able to act according to his reasoning mind in order to survive and prosper. As evidence watch the US, the most successful and prosperous nation on earth, where the rights of the individual were largely implemented, albeit inconsistently.

My rejection of the demands of the Palestinians rests simply on the fact that they are murderous primitives, while Israel is a legitimate state that protects the rights of its citizens, if inconsistently (the only state in the Middle East to do so.) I couldn't care less what their ethnic origin is. I may not sneer at expressions of backwardness such as tribalism, but I feel superior to them, yes, because I know I am above that.

You further assume I want to mix all peoples into a "coffee-coloured mass". I said nothing of the kind. I have no interest at all in whom you or anyone else marry, raise children with, etc, etc. That is entirely your own business. I note however your interest in the question. Explain to me why such a "mixture" would be negative. I believe your explanation would be enlightening.

kudzu-zoo said...

LGF, is appalled with the idea of giving 'palestinians' a state. Good for them. Just words though.

I small minority of Europeans are very worried that Europe may become a 'palestinian' state. I stand with Lionheart et al. LGF by trusting something will in the end make both Israel and Europe a third world mess.

Leftist guilt? Neocon regret? I think both.

Look back at all those antiwar rallies where Israel was pissed on by Democrats, the us flag was burned and W was burned in effigy.
Those who became neocons after 911 (like many who I love at LGF) need to decide if this is a WOT or a latte break.

Anonymous said...

Leaping lizards.

Does the FBI monitor this site too?

Justin said...

Just for the record: http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-apology-to-lgf.html

I think you're dealing with someone under a LOT of stress that could probably stand to be cut a little slack. ;-)

Anonymous said...

"You are assuming things. I am not a multi-culturalist, I abhor that particular movement as a terribly destructive influence on society."

Yes, you rightly see that leftist multi-culturalism is actually anti-white racism, however my response was based upon your rejection of nationalism. Therefore I took aim at your obvious atomistic individualism which says that a person's ethnic origin is simply a matter of genes and biology, and has no impact in the real world unless we allow it to via 'racism', whereas I have stated that we are social animals who find our identities in the extended biological/cultural community, as increasingly shown by scientific studies. We are not atomistic individual cogs in an artificial society bound together by 'neutral' laws and compacts. We are far more than that! Why do you think there have been so many inter-ethnic wars? Because these things are at the root of who we are. Post western man can deny that reality, and look down at others who live in accordance to their natural state as primitive 'racists', but I do not believe the type of society you espouse will be around much longer to gloat, whereas - unless we suddenly rediscover our roots - the Muslims will still be around when our civilisation is smouldering in ruins. The West has lost its way into meaningless hedonistic slavery, ruled over by trans-national corporations and supra-national organisations. Our children have no sense of identity and care for nothing but their own pleasures. Islam, for all its weaknesses, is a strong and manly religion, and for that reason it will survive. The only question is whether we will rediscover our own nature and identity in time before we are submerged in theirs. Your Enlightenment atomistic individualism has no future - the seeds of its own destruction are within it, because it pretends that we are purely rational beings, not social animals.

"I think you are mistaken in claiming that the left are propagating any kind of proper individualism, other than mindless hedonism."

Yes, as the word is usually used today, the left has gone the way of collectivism, using first the working classes and now the tyranny of the minorities and special interest groups to bring about the removal of the old western institutions and beliefs that they feel stand in the way to the manifestation of utopia. But another strand of 'liberalism' is the libertarian, which, like marxism and socialism, also interprets the world from an economic perspective, and ignores the social and biological dimension of kith, kin, and community (though some of the right do take into account families - just so long as it doesn't surpass 2 parents, 2 children and a dog, of course - Thatcherism). The left have, as you noted, given reign to individualism via hedonism. The individual becomes a slave in his mind in exchange for being given free reign to his lusts. How is that different from your position? The libertarian emphasises the individual to the exclusion of legitimate collectivist expressions which are part of our natural make-up - the family, the extended community made up of those biologically close, and the tribal or national unit. Instead, like the leftist, you are left with the individual and the state - only you disagree with them as to the extent of the rights of individuals to live free from state-interference. How are you going to stop corporatism if the local community cannot decide as a local body who can and can't trade in their local community? How will you stop Wal-Mart pushing out the store-owner? How can you stop the process of dehumanisation taking place in the world? You can't because you are just another side of the same basic problem of a false enlightenment view of humanity which is creating suffering and exploitation on a global scale. That's why I buy fair trade (yes, supporting 'wogs' - what a terrible BNP supporter I am!!!).



"As I said, there are no group rights as such, since any implementation of them would be in conflict with the rights of the individual."

The other poster noted that you are assuming a universal standard to judge rights. However, the only standard, I believe, is human nature, and we are created as communal, tribal people. Man, attempting to create the ideal society, influenced by the scientific revolution that gave rise to the enlightenment, thinks if he can just hit upon the right economic or political principles, and ignore human nature, that the perfect society will be achieved. Do you see how your view derives itself from the same presuppositions as those of the marxist? The community also has rights - the right not to be invaded, colonised, deprived of the use of its land. It has the right to protect its traders and shop owners and small business owners from trans-national corporations built on semi-slave third-world labour. But the individual, though agreeing that in the long run buying from Wal Mart will hurt them, will still do it if the community doesn't step in because he knows everyone else will too. So they need to agree together to protect the local community, and hey presto the compact theory of your libertarianism is shown to be in total contradiction to the global free trade aspect of it (I'm guessing you're economically libertarian - if you are not, you're the first I ever come across who argues like you do and is not).

"As evidence watch the US, the most successful and prosperous nation on earth, where the rights of the individual were largely implemented, albeit inconsistently."

America is an economic mess. The wealth gap has been increasing. We have a massive trade deficit. We have credit issues that some economists think will prove more fatal than the great depression. We rely on foreign debt. We have a federal reserve system that leaves the value of our notes in the hands of the global banking elites. I believe the wealth of America is partly because it used to have conservative economic policies (not libertarianism - true conservatism, including moderate protectionism), and because of the technological revolution fueled largely by fast-disappearing oil. We are way past seeing the cracks appear.


"Explain to me why such a "mixture" would be negative. I believe your explanation would be enlightening."

Because when you mix up everything in one bowl, instead of a variety of different dishes, you now have one bland one with no unique flavour to it. I like living in a world with diversity, but it can only be preserved when each ethnic group has its own piece of land where it can be what it is in peace. Put people together, they will fight. I like being British. I respect the French, but I'm not French. I don't like what I see in the ethnic ghettos of Britain - the things Lionheart talks about. It's not the future I want, because it's a future which will be filled increasingly with suffering and inter-ethnic conflict and eventually bloody civil war. You cannot pretend human nature is not tribal, without life itself becoming meaningless, filled only with empty consumerism. We are who we are, and if we want to preserve the wonderful diversity of human beings, then we need to allow these diverse groups their own environments. Like Enoch Powell said, I am fascinated by India, but Birmingham is Birmingham. Birmingham isn't India.

doriangrey said...

Justin,

Yes, that is my thought as well. Stress makes people over react and that is what Lionheart did.

guftafs said...

anonymous:

You claim that we are much more than individuals, I take it, and in the next sentence ask why there are so many inter-ethnic wars. I take that to be a misprint, because you seem to be valuing inter-ethnic wars more than "atomistic individuality". So, Rwanda-style genocide would then be more valuable than going shopping at GAP? I think not. I seriously don't think you do either.

The answer should be obvious. The re-surgence of primitive tribalism is the cause of inter-ethnic friction and wars. You're part of the problem, not the solution. You are by your own admission at this point ascribing yourself to a tribal/ethnic/race-based view of man, so I wonder what your first objection about my characterization of the BNP was all about?

That man's nature is not tribal and mystical is demonstrated by the fact that wherever tribalism, racism or religious factionalism is allowed to thrive, life is hell or stagnant misery. That a proper life for man is individualistic and reason-based is demonstrated by the fact that people live longer, better, more productive, more varied, more interesting lives in the West, where the individualistic, reason-based outlook still is alive.

Are you referring to the Putnam report? Well, it's a report coming from the despicable leftist intellectual elite first of all, and secondly, it is one (1) survey, so I think you're a little too eager to jump to conclusions here. Here are some interesting comments on the Putnam report.

You are way off on the economics of the US. It was the near laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century that served as the base for America's formidable success. The main culprit today is the Fed through its guarantees to lendors and inflationary policies, that is government regulation and not capitalism. Regardless of the sorry state the US economy is in now there is no getting around the fact that it is the economical power house of the world, and why it is so.

Your tribal outlook is yet again revealed by your last paragraph. In a free nation you have every right to practice whatever traditions you want provided you harm no-one. I don't give a toss as long as you leave me be. But you have to "secure" the "tribe" and its "rights" and its "preservation" against foreign elements. And you have to secure this through the government through discrimination in some form.

Speak for yourself, mate.

Anonymous said...

"The answer should be obvious. The re-surgence of primitive tribalism is the cause of inter-ethnic friction and wars."

It should be obvious, but it still isn't to lots of people including yourself. You can not change human nature! You think you can, but you can't. Get every white person in the world to accept the cloud-cuckoo land fantasy you espouse, and that wouldn't change the fact that every other tribe and nation are tribalistic too. You know what the worlds like, but you think that tribalism is simply a product of the mind. You need to learn about genetic relatedness and other studies done on human nature. At the foundational level, you are a leftist, no different, believing that the utopia can be achieved with the adoption of right principles. How much worse the world needs to get before you wake up I don't know, nor does it matter because fortunately you are a minority. If groups like the BNP don't succeed in securing a future for white British people, then there won't be a future for them, it's that simple, because while you toy with these fantasies, there is a real war going on in Britain, as Lionheart shows on his blog.

"You are by your own admission at this point ascribing yourself to a tribal/ethnic/race-based view of man"

No, human nature ascribes that. I simply point out the obvious. You'll never get it out of man, never. The leftists think that only whites have this nature: you at least realise that it is more prevalent than that, though you haven't yet realised it's part of the fabric of who we are.

"so I wonder what your first objection about my characterization of the BNP was all about?"

Objection? You stated:
"That is racist. If there are any other interpretations let me know."

It's nationalist, not racist. My viewpoint does not claim anything for one ethnic group which it then denies to another.

"That man's nature is not tribal"

What an amazingly naive and ill-conceived view of man. Look around you! Read your history books! Man's nature could barely be any more tribal! Please do people like me a big favour from now on, and when you attack the BNP, leave a little note saying that your view is based upon denying that man is tribal, so that you can save sensible people alot of time and typing.


"That a proper life for man is individualistic and reason-based is demonstrated by the fact that people live longer, better, more productive, more varied, more interesting lives in the West, where the individualistic, reason-based outlook still is alive."

I'm afraid this half-hearted attempt at offering scientific validity to your viewpoint is thwart with problems. Psychological health is actually in much poorer shape in the west than elsewhere, and the fact you are not aware of that is quite shocking. I've already attributed the present appearance of wealth to factors, and have added my reasons as to why it is temporary. You of course believe that enlightenment philosophy will keep improving the world until it becomes a utopia where nobody has any loyalties to kith, kin, culture, but are happy in their psychologically disfunctional atomistic consumer society. Amazing, truly amazing.

"Are you referring to the Putnam report? Well, it's a report coming from the despicable leftist intellectual elite first of all, and secondly, it is one (1) survey, so I think you're a little too eager to jump to conclusions here."

No, that was one study. There are others, and I would also point out the works of biologists like Robert Wright. But you cannot dismiss the Putnam study either, since it simply states what most sane people experience and know to be true, if they have any history with this sort of thing.

"You are way off on the economics of the US. It was the near laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century that served as the base for America's formidable success."

Nonsense. I was talking about protectionism, and the fact that in ante-bellum America there was no such thing as corporate personhood. But this is a large subject, and though I have debated it with many libertarians in the past, I can't really be bothered doing so now. Foreign trade under un-restricted conditions was beneficial to countries like the US and Britain, now it is not. I will point you to the book by Pat Buchanan that deals with this, and leave you there. People have seen for themselves, I'm glad to say, what I suspected and posted in my replies - namely that you deny that human nature is tribal, and that you are libertarian in your economic views. People can make their own judgements with regards to your attack on nationalism, armed with that knowledge.


"The main culprit today is the Fed through its guarantees to lendors and inflationary policies, that is government regulation and not capitalism."

The federal reserve bank is privately owned, and was able to buy off lots of government officials and even bump people off at times. That is capitalism. When you take power away from communities, and simply have the individual/state dichotomy, things like that can and do happen. It's the story of the Bush administration, and of the Clinton one before that.


"Regardless of the sorry state the US economy is in now there is no getting around the fact that it is the economical power house of the world, and why it is so."

If this is the end of the story, then yes. However if the very foundations you espouse take the US through a cycle of prosperity followed by total collapse, then they are not worth anything. The way we are going is obvious.

"I don't give a toss as long as you leave me be."

"But you have to "secure" the "tribe" and its "rights" and its "preservation" against foreign elements. And you have to secure this through the government through discrimination in some form."

That is why governments are established - to maintain inner law, in accordance with the legal understanding (which is always determined by the underlining culture) and to protect the group from outsiders and invaders. In other words, government is there to preserve the people and there way of life, not to ensure that mr guftafs gets to live the way his ego dictates, irrespective of social cost.

Catttt said...

Well put.

Charles at LGF said this: "...I am not supporting what Lionheart says on his blog—just his right to say it.

As with my position on Vlaams Belang and other European neo-fascist parties, I want nothing to do with the BNP. But criminalizing speech is exactly the wrong way to handle them."

Lionheart's response was to allow as how Charles should be shot.

To me, that crosses a line from free speech to threats. I see where people here have said "give Lionheart a break - he is under stress." Personally, I don't care if a guy who's threatening people with violence is under stress or not - I care that they not be allowed to incite violence. That's way across the "free speech" line, imho.

guftafs said...

(hint: there are no points for number of words in your comments)
anonymous:

I said that the causes of ethnic wars was obvious and you agree and then deny that I understand it. What do you want me to do, run into the Alps shouting "The Hills Are Alive" and so on? Mama mia!

You're not making any sense. You're saying man is tribal by nature and when I state that your outlook is tribal/ethnic/racist then your answer is "No, human nature ascribes that." It's like me saying "The sun will rise tomorrow" and you replying "No, it's in the nature of the sun to do that every morning. Can't change that." It could either be brilliant rhetoric or something else.

And, you would, if you were more consistent have said "Damn straight! It's in man's nature!" when I pointed out that the BNP's position is in agreement with your views. So your objection so far amounts to "Yes, I agree with the BNP but I won't have you calling it racist, because it is in man's nature to be racist/tribalistic/ethnic."

I would have to say that history supports my point. It is full of miserable tribes killing each other who were quite unsuccessful compared to the "atomistic individualism" we have today.

A successful tiger hunts, kills and eats its prey. Successful man conquers nature through science and technology, he develops a social system that ensures a balance of power and equal rights under the law. Now, you may pretend this is not so. The facts, however remain, regardless of your desires.

No, the purpose of government is not as you have stated it. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, without passion or prejudice.

A little more sense, please, for the next round.

Anonymous said...

"The tribal/racist mentality of people from these parts of the world is well-known."

This is the most self-contradicting statement I have ever seen.

It never ceases to amaze me how many conservatives are just no different than the Nazis, yet they hate associating with them as much as a Muslim would hate to associate with a bloodthirsty conservative.

VinceP1974 said...

"It never ceases to amaze me how many conservatives are just no different than the Nazis"

Well considering how stupid your analysis is, i'm not surprised you're amazed every time your little gerbil in a sqeaky wheel comes up with it.

Ben-David said...

guftafs:

sorry - I don't see any logic to your distinction between those ethnic groups that do and do not have a valid right to self-determination.

It seems that those who jibe with your values and seem "harmless" get the seal of approval, and those whose cultures seem foreign to you don't.

What about the Basques (to bring in another example)?

What are the standards? Must a group have a distinctive language or other markers of ethnic identity?

What about areas of the world that only recently have been introduced to the notion of the nation-state? For example, the Arab world has divided itself for centuries along lines of religious sect (sunni/shia), dialect of spoken Arabic, and clan/tribal allegiance. Most modern Arab states were created by the strokes of (Western) pens, very recently. So why are these new "ethnicities" respected, and not the only-slightly-more-recent Palestinian identity?

guftafs said...

ben-david:

Groups (ethnic/religious/dietary/sexual preferences) do not have rights as such, only individuals. (see my comments above)

As I understand any state that violates the rights of its citizens, such as the various Middle Eastern dictatorships/semi-dictatorships, exist only because no-one (read: the US) has bothered to destroy them. Not that it's any duty of the US to do so.

Sodra Djavul said...

Charles posts a link to Lionheart's blog because his entire readership had been discussing it, and then provides an "update" condemning him as a Neo-Nazi supporter.

Who the hell wants his support anyway? Lionheart is on the right side of this issue.

And if you consider yourself to be in the middle of an actual war, as some of us do, then saying someone should be shot for opening fire on friendly units is proper.

Of course it is figurative, but I second the sentiment.

- Sodra

kevin said...

I have to agree with the post. I too feel jilted by Lionheart, and for those of you who think the BNP is harmless, read this. We don't have to support the BNP to be on the right side of this issue.

VinceP1974 said...

This is a comment I made at Chesler's blog in response to another comment by a guy who said that cuz of the BNP thing he can no longer support Lionheart:

"Oh Jeremy says Lionheart is on his own!

Well my goodness.. please Jeremy.. tell us about the great and wonderful things you were going to do for your own countryman and his battle against people who wish your death just as much as his ?

Please Jeremy, do astound us with such greatness of resources that we all will reconsider our politics to make sure they conform to yours so that we may benefit from your kindness and assistance!

Though seriously, you should get things in their proper order.

He is not relying on you... for ANYTHING, you venal coward.

You rely on him and the countless others like him in the fight against Sharia and dhimmitude.

You should be worried when folks like Lionheart decide it's you who no longer deserves help."