Friday 18 February 2011

Jonathan Bowden on Robert E. Howard: A Lecture in Seven Parts

(In the recent hubbub, I realised that I had written, but not published, something fairly relevant to the discussion. The reasons why will become fairly evident.)


Jonathan Bowden is an outspoken right-wing speaker, and was for a few years a member of the BNP. The BNP being a political party whose aim is to, through legal and peaceful methods, offer "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home". Essentially, to kick all the non-whites out of Britain. So for him to speak about Howard is worrisome, to say the least. I have no problem with anyone from any political background talking about Howard, but the potential for him to be hijacked to make political points is there.



Part 1 is riddled with errors: Howard wasn't born in Cross Plains, for example, he was born in Peaster.  He just lived in Cross Plains.  Bowden also asserts Howard wrote 160 stories, whereas I've heard estimates from 300 to nearer 600 (my count was 400 and something when I went through HowardWorks). I also dislike leading off almost immediately with the suicide - I bet Mark Finn won't like it either - though at least he doesn't tie it in with Hester's coma. Then there's the emphasis on "pre-civilized" settings, which only really affects his fantasy stories, and they only account for a fraction of his work. I seriously have misgivings with the "Aquilonia = Partly Britain, Picts = Scots" point of view, but it's better than the Aquilonia = Rome analogy.

Bowden brings up the apparently common criticism of Howard being "Barbara Cartland for Men," in that men are handsome, women are beautiful, magic works instead of science, and problems can be solved by brute force.

Wait, that sounds familiar...

How would you like to go to a world where men are mighty, women are beautiful, problems are simple, and life is adventurous... and where nobody so much as mentions the income tax or the school-dropout problem or atmospheric pollution?
 - Introduction to Conan the Swordsman and countless others

Of course.  Why do we need Howard critics when de Camp gives them all the ammunition they need in the collections themselves?



Part Three (The second video appears to be mixed with the audio from another lecture) paints Solomon Kane as a "protestant extremist." Dresses all in white, except for "a little white bib around his neck." Yeah... no. Plus he completely misrepresents Welles' War of the Worlds' radio broadcast as only revealed as a stunt afterwards (in fact there were constant disclaimers throughout the broadcast)



Part Four quickly descends into a screed about the renaming of the D.W. Griffith Award due to Spike Lee's protestations (I hadn't heard about his involvement, but given the PC nature of Hollywood these days I wouldn't be surprised if the Director's Guild didn't just retire it on their own initiative), before he gets back to Howard at about 3:40. And whaddya know, he gets political. Since I can't make hide nor hair of politics in general, I can't comment on how accurate Bowden's statements about REH actually are, but I'm immediately suspect given his inaccuracies so far. I will say that he seems to have gotten Kirby O'Donnell and El Borak mixed up: it's the former who goes native in Afghanistan, while FXG retains his American Gunslinger identity, for the most part.  And then he goes into a rant about the demilitarization of Britain, how you hardly ever see policemen and soldiers and whatnot.  I can tell he's never been round Glasgow, or Belfast Lite.



Part Five continues the rant, but goes on into something that (horror of horrors) actually makes sense: the de-masculinity of modern life. I was originally going to post a big huge thing about a man's sense of entitlement, white male privelage, double standards and whatnot, but it got way too rambling and confusing for me to make any sense of, so I omitted it: suffice to say, I think everyone's right to a degree, and that there is a double standard at work both ways.

Anyway, Bowden chooses one Howard story to discuss in detail. His choice is "Rogues in the House": not a bad one, and the political elements would seem to make it a natural for him. He hits the first pitfall, by saying Howard had "slightly Nordic-Germanic traits" mixed with "Slightly Celtic traits", which is, as we all know, complete balderdash. He also falls into the "civilization is weak" pitfall: the Gundermen, Poitanians, Bossonians, Aquilonians, Argosseans etc would like a word. Just because they aren't as badass as the barbarians doesn't mean they're "weak at the knees."  And then he goes off in another tangent - why is this man praised as an orator when he constantly rambles off topic - about hospitals and healthcare and such that has nothing to do with "Rogues in the House."

He gets back on track at 4:40, and again makes the mistake of assuming Howard was "a bit of a Nordicist."  Read any of the Cormac Mac Art or Turlogh Dubh stories, and get back to me on that.  He also alleges that Howard thought of the Mediterraneans as "a bit foppish" in comparison to the Northern Europeans.  In addition to pointing out countless instances of this being a joke, I'm just going to point out that the Picts - out of all Howard's barbarians, the single iconic epitome of barbarism - are stated more than once to be of Mediterranean descent.

Jon.  Buddy.  According to Howard, the Picts were Mediterraneans.

Anyway, more errors: Corinthia is called "Corinth," Nabonidus is "Nabonius," he alleges that Atlantis was "possibly a fantasy itself" in the Conan stories(!)  On the other hand, he correctly notes the Machiavellian nature of nobility in the Hyborian Age.  Conan is stated to be "twice the size of a normal man"(!!), and apparently "all Howard heroes are physically enormous(!!!)"  Presumably apart from guys like Bran Mak Morn, El Borak, Solomon Kane, Turlogh Dubh, Cormac Mac Art... At 8:30 - Crom almighty - we get the dreaded "Howard imagined Conan next to him" phrase, though thankfully it isn't as misleading as certain other examples that can be found on certain DVDs.

Again, Bowden brings up some fascinating insights: the correlation of Nabonidus' severed ear with warnings made to Renaissance nobles, the great hound possibly being inspired by Conan Doyle's huge mastiffs in the Holmes stories. It's such a shame a lot of it's marred by shoddy research and political offroading. This continues in the next video.



Part Six has Bowden explain more of the plot, including the very Renaissance feel of the House of the Red Priest. Thak is called "Tak" here, unless I'm mishearing it. Bowden then somewhat mangles his recollection of Conan's famous "when I cannot stand alone, it will be time to die," giving the impression that Conan was talking about everyone, rather than exclusively himself. He also says all the stories with the exception of Kane are "pre-Christian" - well, apart from a good three-quarters of the rest of his stories. Still, Bowden equates Conan with the likes of Tarzan, Doctor Who and James Bond, albeit at "a slightly lower level,"



Part Seven, the final part, simply wraps things up. There are no glaring inaccuracies, but it does finish on two notes: that Howard presented the idea of respecting the enemy, and that modern times could learn a lot from that. I think in the story he chose, that is true, as well as in many others: however, I also think Leo Grin had a great point when he noted the enemy is not just to be fought, but to be hated. Can one respect that which one also hates? I think so, even if it's difficult.

Well. What to make of all this?

Frankly, I'm annoyed at more than a few of Bowden's suggestions, as well as one or two omissions that would seem pertinent to discussion. The inaccuracies don't help either. However, I don't feel offended that Bowden has "tainted" Howardom with his presence. Far from it: I think it's further proof that Howard's work is diverse and profound enough to appeal to many diverse groups, regardless of race, gender, creed or political position. As I love pointing out, any author which could receive equal enthusiasm and praise from a liberal like Steve Tompkins and a republican like Leo Grin speaks volumes.

Now we see that a very high-profile leader of an extremely controversial, but also public, political party is giving praise to REH. Should I be horrified? Should I fear that people will use Bowden's talk as ammunition against Howard?  Howard's work is there, and there are always going to be far right nationalists who take elements of his stories to heart. Howard (and Tolkien) turns up on Stormfront regularly, and I'm sure many a Neo-Nazi would read into many of the stories.

And yet, Howard's work could equally draw in folk from the opposite political spectrum, who latch onto the left, liberal aspects of his work. Political views are just the beginning: many men and women, of multiple ethnicities, of many religions or none at all, are drawn to him. Take a cross-section of the Official Robert E. Howard Forums: you'll find men, women, white people, black people, Mexicans, Brazilians, Scots, English, Germans, Scandinavians, liberals, conservatives, anarchists, religious, agnostic, atheist. All for the Man from Cross Plains.

For Jonathan Bowden to praise Robert E. Howard should not be a cause for despair, but for celebration. Just another example of Howard's relevance to modern times.

Hmm. Maybe I should stick to commenting on adventure yarns and stay out of politics.

(Reviewing this article has made me reconsider my position on Leo's argument.  In short, while I still maintain that the crux of the article is sound, the political elements have damaged it, and Leo's hyperbolic proclamations designed to provoke don't help. The fact that my Lost Soul count appears to have dropped by one concerns me: either someone's deleted their account, or they're so offended by my association with a staunch conservative that they've purposely taken their name from the roster.


I'm not going to defend Leo's political comments (save that it's a free internet and all that), but neither am I going to relinquish my association with him due to them. If one of my readers thinks less of me or my work because I have a great deal of respect for a man who happens to have highly controversial and outspoken political opinions, then I'm just saddened.)

13 comments:

  1. well I can certainly see where this sort of thing would or could cuase problems.. I wish we didn't live in a world where that was the case but.. we do. thats the whole point of writers like Howard.. this sort of thing wouldn't be particularly important in the Hyborean age.. and I wish it wasn't here.

    it's something rather similar I've noticed with Jack London.. an avowed socialist.. is deeply loved by a large number of Libertarians and other wise conservative people I've met.. Appeal is Appeal.. they can't read Ayn Rand all the time...

    And yes I imagine having the dreaded BNP on record as having noticed Howard could cause problems.. at least he isn't associated with the EDF or Combat 18..

    As for his spurious comment in regards the de-militarization of the UK.. I actually have got to comment on that.. when I was there.. and mind you this was before the Tube Bombings.. I noticed a rather larger number of heavily armed PC's in London.. at Gatwick Airport, in tube stations, museums and out walking around. I've been to some fairly dodgy bits of the USA.. and I've yet to see a beat cop packing an MP5... but I did in London.. outside of London that wasn't noticeably.. but it was there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have a deep suspicion of anyone with lots of power. Lawmakers come to mind immediately but this extends to other types of people in other areas of society as well. Maybe this suspicion was shared by REH, but that's not even in the top ten reasons why I read his works.

    Politics is constantly in flux. The liberals and conservatives and communists and whathaveyou of today are unlike those of the various past political eras. That's why it makes no sense to me to judge a work of fiction by such means. There are other, far more pertinent elements—elements with more weight and longevity, indeed more sheer importance to human beings—of REH's and Tolkien's creations by which to analyze them.

    Leo may have been attempting to address such philosophical concerns within a political frame, but it looks like it didn't so much touch off debate as it did a storm of all-too-typical pot-shots. I found it rather thought-provoking, but most just found it provoking. That sounds bad, but politics is nebulous while support for these authors is solid and unflinching, regardless of affiliation. A generation from now politics will have once again transformed, while these authors will remain untouched by time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Taranaich. Well considered and thorough analysis! The intersection of Howard's work (particularly the heroic fantasy) with the politics of gender is something that is really of interest to me. I also agree with the point concerning the "de-masculinization" of modern society. I'm wondering if you (or anyone else) is familiar with a genre called "mythopoeticism" where this idea is explored in depth. We're talking about writers like Robert Bly, Sam Keen, and Robert Moore. I once even presented a paper at the International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts (IAFA) concerning Sword & Sorcery as an expression of mythopoeticism.

    Finally, I'm glad you're reporting about this! It's important to guard Howard's work from political ideologues. Just look at how Nietzsche was co-opted by the Nazis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You can't disassociate a man from his actions/deeds/words just because he's got some common grounds. Should dog-lovers have a soft spot for Hitler because he was kind to his dog? Should we admire Mussolini because he made the trains run on time? I don't think so...

    There's a fallacy in demonizing such characters (because portraying Hitler as something inhuman blinds people to the idea that his type is all too common), but neither should we be blind to the power of their words.

    In your review of this man's bits, I see you list mostly the 'inaccuracies': that Howard wrote (at least) 400 stories, not 150. That he grew up in Cross Plains, wasn't born there, etc. The biggest problem, of a literary body of work, a concept, being hijacked for a despicable political movement, gets lost underneath this. "worrisome" you call it... At the least, indeed!

    Yes, perhaps there's honour in admiring one's opponents. Perhaps there's this thing called 'playing fair'. But this stance seems to be purely adopted by the white hats. How many films have I seen in which the good guy and the bad guy have a sword fight, in which the bad guy loses his sword and the good guy hands it back - to be (contrary to sporting behaviour) kicked in the gonads by the villein?

    One shouldn't greeting this man with a "chapeau! Thou'st truly a worthy adversary". We're not in a James Bond movie! Don't be saddened if people think less of you because you're not relinquishing your association with a scumbag... It seems to be much more honest to take the plunge and deconstruct this kidnapping of REH and undermine what the man is trying to gain with it, and if THAT costs you readers - well, be happy with it. *I* wouldn't want to have any Stormfronters as my loyal readers!

    Living in Scotland you'll know how powerful the BNP is becoming, how they feed on the underbelly feelings of the disgruntled masses. And, to drag a cliche from the cupboard, there'll be guys in string vests in Glasgow hearing the above words, and thinking: "Yeah! Conan was a Celt! I'm a Celt! Celtic Power! Out with the Non-Celts!" - and there you have it!... REH, safe to say, would turn in his grave!

    I know I am flogging a dead horse here, and by reading your article over once more it is clear which side of the fence you are sitting. Likewise I hope you read the comment in the spirit in which it is meant. I would like to add my voice against the right wing (and the BNP are not the most worrisome of the bunch - the present rulers of this Domain are doing a pretty good job themselves of demonizing the disenfranchised). It's always the bad guys who get to shout, drowning out the more sensible voices.

    Perhaps balance, Al, the above article (which does have it's merits) with another one - why is it that Barack Obama is a fan of Conan? Sure, it was the comic (Conan, not Obama), but still... Sure, he's not the second coming of Christ some had expected (Obama, not Conan), but still... Show your colours - and I'm not meaning the pasty white, topped with ginger ;-)

    You too can make a difference, and inspire!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think Howard's writing attracts people from all ends of the political spectrum, because it doesn't pander to one extreme or another. Just some damn good yarns for all to enjoy.

    I'm someone who doesn't easily fit on any political compass, and don't usually let another's politics put me off. Reading some of Howard's letters and reading One Who Walked Alone recently, I found myself alternatively agreeing and disagreeing with some of Howard's views.

    As for the BNP, they're considered a joke by most here, there was talk of them being bankrupt recently. The new far right group the EDL with an entirely different agenda gets more publicity these days.

    ReplyDelete
  6. well I can certainly see where this sort of thing would or could cuase problems.. I wish we didn't live in a world where that was the case but.. we do. thats the whole point of writers like Howard.. this sort of thing wouldn't be particularly important in the Hyborean age.. and I wish it wasn't here.

    Too true.

    . I found it rather thought-provoking, but most just found it provoking. That sounds bad, but politics is nebulous while support for these authors is solid and unflinching, regardless of affiliation. A generation from now politics will have once again transformed, while these authors will remain untouched by time.

    Amen, Butcherhammer.

    Hello Taranaich. Well considered and thorough analysis! The intersection of Howard's work (particularly the heroic fantasy) with the politics of gender is something that is really of interest to me. I also agree with the point concerning the "de-masculinization" of modern society. I'm wondering if you (or anyone else) is familiar with a genre called "mythopoeticism" where this idea is explored in depth. We're talking about writers like Robert Bly, Sam Keen, and Robert Moore. I once even presented a paper at the International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts (IAFA) concerning Sword & Sorcery as an expression of mythopoeticism.

    Finally, I'm glad you're reporting about this! It's important to guard Howard's work from political ideologues. Just look at how Nietzsche was co-opted by the Nazis.


    Thanks very much, Matt! I'm not sure if mythopoeticism is the same as mythopoeia: if it is, then I am indeed aware of it, and Howard was a prime practitioner of the genre.

    The sad thing is Howard has been co-opted by a number of politickers. I remember someone trying to allege an undercurrent of Berber nationalism in Conan, for instance.

    I know I am flogging a dead horse here, and by reading your article over once more it is clear which side of the fence you are sitting. Likewise I hope you read the comment in the spirit in which it is meant.

    Thanks for the comment, Remco. Well, first of all, I was talking about my association with Leo Grin, not Bowden. I don't really care enough about Mr Bowden whether I associate with him or not. However, while Leo's politics are controversial, Leo has spoken at length about Howard and Tolkien, and done it in a way that doesn't politicize either.

    Secondly, in no way is it my intention to somehow ignore or gloss over the political agenda inherent in Bowden's article, since it simply isn't my area of expertise. Howard is, and so I commented from that point of view. If I were more well-versed in political matters no doubt I would address them, but I rarely feel comfortable shooting my mouth about things unless I feel I know what I'm talking about. Perhaps you think the political co-opting could be easily rebuked and torn apart, but I'm just not qualified for such a response. Therefore, I responded in a way I do feel qualified to.

    As for losing certain types of fans, well, perhaps I shouldn't worry. My desire to meet people on common ground isn't an attempt to downplay things, so much as it's attempting to formulate a sense of community. There's already enough mudslinging on the internet, and I'm guilty of my own share of denigrating the misinformed and disingenuous. Simply put, I don't want to establish any sort of "your kind aren't welcome here" - even Stormfront members.

    I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I'm useless politically-speaking.

    Nonetheless, a counter-argument sounds interesting. Nobody has done an article on why Obama might like Conan comics, and it might well make an interesting exploration.

    ReplyDelete
  7. On the subject of the political appropriation of fantasy... Have you read Leo Grin's latest piece? I must say that I have always found the argument for Tolkien being read as "right-of-center" very ironic. I can't understand this, especially given the context of the political environment in which Grin lives. Tolkien was an academic (strike one), even a careless reading of his work reveals themes of egalitarianism and environmentalism (strike two), while nationalism and industrialization come under thorough assault (strike three).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I feel sorry for you all, you know not the philosophical prison you keep yourselves in. Rather than discussing the merits of ideas, you don't even feel that these opposing views are worthy of contemplation, that a movement is automatically 'despicable' purely for being non-liberal.

    What exactly is wrong with being celtic? What is wrong with being white? What is wrong with being proud to celebrate your identity and ancestry? You must really despise the Japanese, the Polynesians, every other ethnicity on this planet who all have a sense of pride and self worth.

    Why is something inherently better because it appeals to diverse audiences? Why diversity for it's own sake? If whites make up the vast majority of Howard fans because there is something essentially european about his work, what exactly is wrong with that? I'm confused.

    Stop apologising for what you love, and celebrate it for what it is. Like your heros, don't hide, but face the world head on with truth, unflinching and unashamed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. From Howard's original text, which has subsequently received the 1984 treatment:

    "Kane stood, an unconscious statue of triumph – the ancient empires fall, the dark-skinned peoples fade and even the demons of antiquity gasp their last, but over all stands the Aryan barbarian, white-skinned, cold-eyed, dominant, the supreme fighting man of the earth, whether he be clad in wolf-hide and horned helmet, or boots and doublet – whether he bear in his hand battle-ax or rapier – whether he be called Dorian, Saxon or Englishman – whether his name is Jason, Hengist or Solomon Kane."

    The fact of the matter is that Howard had very racial feelings; Bowden, even if he got the details a bit wrong about where Howard was born (as opposed to raised), is giving us a far more accurate portrayal of how Howard's work should be viewed by Westerners than any PC mainstream rag would dare do. Too bad your blog seems to fall into the latter category as well.

    But I understand. There are social consequences to being honest about the validity of Bowden's speech and overall message.

    Good day.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I feel sorry for you all, you know not the philosophical prison you keep yourselves in. Rather than discussing the merits of ideas, you don't even feel that these opposing views are worthy of contemplation, that a movement is automatically 'despicable' purely for being non-liberal.

    I'm sorry that's how you interpret my choice not to bring politics onto my personal blog.

    What exactly is wrong with being celtic? What is wrong with being white? What is wrong with being proud to celebrate your identity and ancestry? You must really despise the Japanese, the Polynesians, every other ethnicity on this planet who all have a sense of pride and self worth.

    Ah, but being Scottish and Catholic, surely being ashamed of my heritage is what being Scottish and Catholic is all about! In all seriousness, I'm perplexed you seem to have missed the many points on my blog where I talk about my pride and fascination with Scottish history and culture, and how you could come to the conclusion that a pride in where you came from is equated with an antipathy to where others have. Being fiercely patriotic and Scottish doesn't necessarily mean I genuinely hate the English, after all.

    Why is something inherently better because it appeals to diverse audiences? Why diversity for it's own sake? If whites make up the vast majority of Howard fans because there is something essentially european about his work, what exactly is wrong with that? I'm confused.

    This isn't about percentages and diversity, it's about quantity. I just want more people coming to Howard and reading him regardless of colour or creed. Since some people might be turned off by Howard because he's perceived to be only for white males, I think it's a shame that this limits the amount of people enjoying Howard.

    Stop apologising for what you love, and celebrate it for what it is. Like your heros, don't hide, but face the world head on with truth, unflinching and unashamed.

    Which is why I'm not apologising for Howard.

    ReplyDelete
  11. From Howard's original text, which has subsequently received the 1984 treatment:

    Not in The Savage Tales of Solomon Kane. The reason that passage usually fails to appear in books is because publishers are using the Weird Tales version published in July 1932, when the passage was omitted. Using the original, unabridged text would cost more than the now public-domain Weird Tales version. Rather than a case of Orwellian retroactive censorship (something I most certainly do not endorse), it's more a case of taking advantage of the public domain.

    The fact of the matter is that Howard had very racial feelings; Bowden, even if he got the details a bit wrong about where Howard was born (as opposed to raised), is giving us a far more accurate portrayal of how Howard's work should be viewed by Westerners than any PC mainstream rag would dare do. Too bad your blog seems to fall into the latter category as well.

    Nobody's denying that Howard, being a white Texan living in the 1930s, had very racial feelings: what I want to be more clear is that Howard's racial feelings were complex and very easily misunderstood.


    But I understand. There are social consequences to being honest about the validity of Bowden's speech and overall message.


    No doubt being the reason you choose to remain anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Rather than a case of Orwellian retroactive censorship (something I most certainly do not endorse), it's more a case of taking advantage of the public domain."

    You rather miss the point. Howard's writing and thinking on race parallels with much of the racial sentiment found among people in the BNP which you make note to disparage. Yes, "racism" was more common in Howard's day but I think that might tell us something about how such feelings are based on some semblance of legitimacy, rather than contemptible. Unless you're arrogant enough to believe that everyone in the past was wrong and that we just magically figured out race after WWII with the dawn of the liberal dispensation of thinking on the subject.

    If you take the honest time out of your schedule to tear yourself away from the mainstream media propaganda, it becomes very difficult to deny the legitimate concerns of Bowden and the BNP. And it's also not unreasonable to assume that these concerns would be shared by Howard given his racial feelings.

    I'm one of the few living today who's proud to be descended from the a great culture of dead white European men. I don't lament their past racism and I defend their legacy whenever I can and that includes from people like yourself who try to whitewash "the ugliness" with bias commentary on the significance of Howard's work because of their own pathetic white guilt. Any attempt you try to make to square Howard's writing with modern liberal sensibilities is simply disingenuous. It's actually both annoying and amusing to see you try to square this circle. I do find some wisdom in the past as I look at the unraveling of Western culture today and the perversity that's come from modern liberal promiscuity which Howard himself loathed.

    Howard's feelings on race are far more similar to Bowden's than they are to yours, yet you sit aloft in your self-righteousness passing judgment on Bowden for engaging in the secular sin of "racism," all while dismissing it from the likes of Howard. Yet, never do you consider that maybe Bowden and the BNP may just have a point (nonono...we know he's wrong a priori because the TV says he's a monster) and that the modern world may have a dreadfully faulty value system and that maybe...just maybe...that speaks to why you found "racism" in the past. But you seem like one of those types who's certain we know more about EVERYTHING today than we did in the past (or at least you seem progressive) which I find funny for someone who claims to take Howard's work to heart.

    I find that hypocritical and convenient (and intellectually cowardly) case of cognitive dissonance on your part. One cannot say that that writing, irrespective of WHERE it was published, is not indicative of Howard's feelings on race (which you seem to hint that you have some sort of uniquely esoteric understanding of).

    Such racial sentiment is actually not unusual anywhere else outside the Western world where being a "racist" is like having a scarlet letter. The modern West's view on the subject is what's screwed up. It's self-destructive. It's not the past that got it wrong. Nor is it Bowden today who is wrong. And Howard's views only corroborate such sentiments.

    "Nobody's denying that Howard, being a white Texan living in the 1930s, had very racial feelings: what I want to be more clear is that Howard's racial feelings were complex and very easily misunderstood."

    What is it exactly that makes Howard's feelings on race "complex and very easily misunderstood" (and I'm assuming thus conveniently forgivable for those who finding themselves appreciating Howard's work)?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd argue the people who dwell on race like Bowden have vastly more complex views on the subject than knee-jerk little "antis" like yourself who tow the mainstream line on the subject like cowards and sell outs to their antecedents. There will be no recognizable Western culture in the very near future because of people like you just as there would be no recognizable Japanese culture if they started importing millions into their country and called all those who objected were publicly ridiculed with the fake slander of "racist." But the Japanese are proud of who they are. They aren't a bunch of sniveling cowards who don't even know who they as most white people are today. Howard certainly wasn't one. And neither is Bowden who you seem to loathe.

    But, pray tell, how do these "complex" views of Howard's schism so sharply from the BNP or Bowden's views? They're both "racists" by any stretch of the Trotskyite construct and thus damned as far as "polite" mainstream consensus would have it. The difference is that Howard's views are de-emphasized and brushed under the rug because he created a franchise vehicle people have used to profit off of. And it kind of rocks the boat if a "racist" is the creation and inspiration of it all.

    Furthermore, I can't understand why a man who wants his country to remain white (as it's historically been for centuries when its culture thrived) is any worse than a Chinese person who doesn't want to see his country overwhelmed by foreigners (they don't, btw). I'm saying this as someone who's lived overseas and who can appreciate a foreign peoples sense of racial solidarity and how massive immigration undermines that.

    Howard would also likely never resort to using a Marxist-coded phrase like "white male privilege."


    "No doubt being the reason you choose to remain anonymous"

    Is this some sort of dig at me? Right, because going along with the mainstream consensus on race and national attitudes towards it so you can condemn anonymous "racists" like myself is proof of how noble you are.

    It's like you're proud to be a part of the herd.

    ReplyDelete