President Elect Barack Obama wants to run a Web 2.0 collaborative government. The transition team has a website up soliciting input from citizens. OK. I’m a citizen. Here’s my submitted input:
To immediately fix the economic crisis while solving the longer term problems with entitlements and medical care, call up Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute and ask him to construct legislative language implementing his plan as described in “In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Wefare State”. Murray’s credentials guarantee very little Republican opposition if the Obama administration advances the idea.
Pres. Elect Obama says he wants ideas that will work and he’s not prejudiced by their source. This is his chance to prove he’s serious.
The closest we are likely to come to stability is if Obama is elected and imposes a net asset tax. But this will merely trade private sector rent-seeking for public sector rent-seeking as there is no way Obama will let working whites have any of their patrimony back without walking hat-in-hand into their local government offices and/or precinct political meetings to genuflect appropriately. Even then it will be very grudging and selectively doled out only to the most obsequious and “non threatening” of whites—which immediately disqualifies almost all working whites who don’t have biracial children.
I hope he proves me wrong about his supposed seriousness as a valid leader of a mutiracial society. If he does implement something like Murray’s equivalent to a citizen’s dividend, it will let lower income Euroams, including young people, migrate much more freely. For many will this will mean flight from diversity or what I’ve called “assortative migration”. Even though this is handicapped assortation—since there will be others who will pursue Euroams (particularly young Euroam women) wherever they flee—the existence of true freedom to migrate will make obvious the most fundamental human right of all—freedom of association—is directly attacked by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Yes, history will absolve us indeed. And the best thing is that the wheel of history has taken yet another violent turn this fall. I am absolutely ecstatic how the new world is forming before our eyes - the collapse of global capitalism is here and how neatly it happens just when the ethnic tension is growing in western societies. It is as if all this was a product of some heavenly Hollywood script writer who brings all the plot lines to a climax right at the end of the movie. To an unsuspecting viewer these different plots are accidental and have nothing to with each other—BUT WE, THE FEW, THE OUTCASTS OF THE STUDIO SYSTEM, who knew the script even before it was written know that all the crises and plot lines stem from the same source. Unlike most people we can see the big picture and we can recognize the pattern.
An unsuspecting viewer is also equally unaware of how the movie will end but once again WE, THE FEW will know the end of this movie. And luckily for those viewers with a very short attention span everything is going fast forward. This is not the rise and fall of Rome—the pace of collapse is so quick that the global economy can be wrecked by the time you have finished watching an episode of Friends. Chaos theory in action makes the world an interesting place - when tension has reached its height a flutter of butterfly’s wing may bring everything to an end. WE,THE FEW saw this coming, of course, but still it was difficult to estimate the exact time when everything would change. Now, however the dominos are falling and there is no turning back.
The current economic crisis will wipe out the structures of global liberal capitalism, the current economic crisis will bring the corporate world on its knees and crush the hubris of the economists and corporate captains - these high priests of liberal capitalism will have to admit that they know nothing and that their god is dead. The current economic crisis will destroy the naive optimism of middle class and deprive the working class of any hope for stability and prosperity. The current economic crisis will ruin the western societies and drive them to chaos so that in the end the Europeans will have nothing left but hate, fear and despair. All the symptoms are clearly visible: The out break of FUROR EUROPEICUS is nigh.
Everything that happens today serves our cause - the old dying world cannot save itself and the elite of the dying world cannot do even one thing right. Everything the elite does will only prepare ground for its own downfall. The elite is always the mirror image of the world it rules - in a world that is destined to die, a reverse evolution takes place and only inept fools will rule - Louis XVI and Nicholas II were no unfortunate accidents but examples of a pattern in history.
Soon the elite of the western civilization will taste the bitter pill of dialectics in history: Force creating its counterforce! Everything we have been doing in the white western world since 1945 and especially since the mid 60’s has been a counterreaction to the horrors of the Second World War and the Third Reich. The dominance of left-green humanism is the residue of the generation conflict of the 60’s between the baby boomers and their parents. The more the Europeans have tried to escape the ghosts of nationalism, racism and militarism the more feverishly they have embraced leftist humanism spiced with a hefty dose of self-hatred.
But all will come to an end. Just as the current world is a counter reaction to World War II, this current world will create its own antithesis. And when that happens, we will be there.
If that info gets a bit more public, this could be the end of the BNP - home demos, leafleting neigbours, alterting workplaces etc - we could seriously fuck the BNP up!
Come on, do the right thing - give us those addresses
(A) Sab x
The list itself is of dubious currency. Excluding family members under eighteen, there are 12,215 names on it, many of whom are lapsed members. The latest entries are June 2008, but most relate to the 2007 membership (apparently there is a very fast turnover of the BNP membership).
So, who did it?
Theory One: The list was leaked by a former party-member
Actually, a “hard-liner” who, according to Nick Griffin, “didn’t like the direction the party was going and broke away, taking the list with him”.
But EnoughisEnough has issued a rapid and firm denial, together with a demand for an apology to former Head of Administration, Kenny Smith. There was a report that Griffin is now backing away from this theory, but I can’t locate the link.
Theory Two: The list was leaked by another left-wing mole in the party
Theory Three: The list was leaked by an agent of MI5 within the party
The rationale here is that the BNP is on the verge of a “national breakthrough”, and could well grab a seat in the election to the European Parliament next June.
Just yesterday we heard how the party was planning an assault on the first direct elections for police authorities.
“We will be having a real go, there’s no doubt about that,” said Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP. “We have a staunch core of voters who are guaranteed to turn out and they could be enough to win us seats in these circumstances:-
“Crime will undoubtedly rise in the recession – burglaries go up, car theft rises, there will be problems with drug pushers. People don’t want to put up with that and they’ll want something done about it.
That reference to an increase in popularity as the recession bites was a major point of interest at last week’s BNP national conference in Blackpool, and might also be weighing on minds in high places.
This would be a good moment, then, to release sensitive information that could starve the party of membership and members’ party fees. But ... why would an intelligence agent use an old list?
So, I favour Theory Two for now. But the police have been called in, so perhaps we shall eventually learn who is the guilty party.
… divide America like no other, which I presume to be a good. Should the nationalist American, then, hope that Hillary so scares the cattle he actually wins the nomination? Should the hope even be that he strides to victory on November 4th next year over a prostrate John McCain (or Rudi Giuliani)?
The Giuliani thing wasn’t such a great call, that’s for sure. But, anyway, now we’ve got this black - a probable empty suit - and his blacker, angry wife on their way to the White House we can ask ourselves what the result could be for WN.
For all of those twenty-two months the general assumption has certainly been that a black in the White House will create a tidal wave of new support for “the movement”. It seems inevitable. The Obamessiah is bound to experience a little difficulty in blessing his errant people with “change”. Human nature does not change. Radical leftist objectives are never gratefully seized upon by a subject people. They are imposed by force.
But, it seems to me now that a great deal depends on how successfully Obama’s team and the “liberal” media can play on the violent redneck factor, while at the same time confounding white fears of KFC parties on the White House lawn and fresh Affirmative Action legislation before Congress. That could keep the fence-sitters a-sitting and those who become disillussioned with the trope of “change” still convinced of the electoral claim that only white racism is holding America back from a golden new dawn.
Obviously, the media power exists to do this. Indeed, the image of the redneck with a noose in one hand and a sniper’s rifle in the other is already getting the full SPLC treatment:-
Shades of the Weimar Republic.
...
Cutting the budget deficit by halting pointless wars and unnecessary military spending and reducing the trade deficit by bringing jobs back to America are simple tasks compared to confronting inflationary depression.
I thought that the Jewish group organism would use the crisis brought on by the centralization of wealth to just grab the money and run/diaspawn, as it usually does. I expected someone like Obama to step in with huge government programs funded by printed money filtered out to prop up consumer debt—causing hyperinflation—sooner than they have. Instead, what has happened is the remedial action has been delayed until literally trillions of new money is pumped in at the top of the financial system to help bankers take control of vast tracts of houses while emptying their former residents into tent cities around the nation—further centralizing wealth prior to the hyperinflation. The motive for this is simple enough—unbounded greed—but to actually pull it off was something I didn’t explicitly anticipate 2 years ago when I first made my prediction of a Weirmar-like hyperinflationary depression.
So, we’re now seeing the bailout money being used to further centralize hard asset ownership while insulating Jewish elites from the effects of hyperinflation as they prepare to migrate to greener pastures in the Jewish organism’s life-cycle of horizontal transmission.
listen, there is an aristocracy
but hidden, hinted at in demeanor
or cropping out, outlying orgule
as if one had tempted: come see your crown
clouds hide fires and the moon is gone
wake dust of stars in the seeming opaque
each conical palp shedding vortex from vertex
of nanokrill instars everready to molt
in their turn shedding vortices, tiny antennae
embedded within the abyss between zero
and dot dot dot (not a number) but wonder
at where in the infinite sequence or ladder
is useless. either the same thing is said,
or—there it goes, rehiving off
the selfsame selfsimilar image
no name in its infinite language
analemmatic, not even for queen
bearing the deluge before her
drowning all but the distal massif
it is ... one cannot say it
aspiring sparks snuffed by failure of deixis
now fading to dark purple dye in the eye
listen: johanna rules the 3rd kingdom
The pages of this book illustrate that as instruments of socialization and sites of ideological discourse textbooks are powerful artefacts in introducing young people to a specific historical, cultural and socioeconomic order. Crucially, exploring the social construction of school textbooks and the messages they impart provides an important context from within which to critically investigate the dynamics underlying the cultural politics of education and the social movements that form it and which are formed by it. The school curriculum is essentially the knowledge system of a society incorporating its values and its dominant ideology. The curriculum is not “our knowledge” born of a broad hegemonic consensus, rather it is a battleground in which cultural authority and the right to define what is labelled legitimate knowledge is fought over. As each chapter in this book illustrates curriculum as theory and practice has never been, and can never be, divorced from the ethical, economic, political, and cultural conflicts of society which impact so deeply upon it. We cannot escape the clear implication that questions about what knowledge is of most worth and about how it should be organized and taught are problematic, contentious and very serious.
There is something deeply offensive about the knowledge of the workings of the mind claimed by these educationalist creatures. Everything is somebody’s myth, they say. It’s all relative. It’s all about power ... all about politics. The only question is whether we are serious about building a better, more tolerant, more equal world. Etc, etc.
I’m glad I’m not a “senior lecturer in History in Education” like Dr Foster. I can cling to the fond belief that the point of educating children is to equip them with the capacity to think for themselves all life long. But Dr Foster very specifically does NOT share that belief. In his mean little world, students are no more than human blotting-paper - except, of course, those like his own student self who possess the powers to freely discriminate for the marxian concept of Man. Gods in a postmodern system that makes the rest of us less than human, they are the final word in hypocrisy.
Due to all the nonsense regarding political economy and real estate nowadays, I figured I’d start posting some of my thoughts as they occur to me on the relationship between political economy and asset value, particularly liquidation value in-place, since people are finally starting to at least pretend to be interested in the fundamentals of political economy.
The lads in their hundreds to Ludlow come in for the fair,
There’s men from the barn and the forge and the mill and the fold,
The lads for the girls and the lads for the liquor are there,
And there with the rest are the lads that will never be old.
There’s chaps from the town and the field and the till and the cart,
And many to count are the stalwart, and many the brave,
And many the handsome of face and the handsome of heart,
And few that will carry their looks or their truth to the grave.
I wish one could know them, I wish there were tokens to tell
The fortunate fellows that now you can never discern;
And then one could talk with them friendly and wish them farewell
And watch them depart on the way that they will not return.
But now you may stare as you like and there’s nothing to scan;
And brushing your elbow unguessed-at and not to be told
They carry back bright to the coiner the mintage of man,
The lads that will die in their glory and never be old.
AE Housman’s remarkably prophetic “The Lads in their hundreds to Ludlow come in for the fair”, from his collection “A Shropshire Lad” of 1896, later set to music by George Butterworth.
Last Sunday afternoon BBC Radio 3 broadcast a highly interesting contribution to its Discovering Music series titled Vaughan Williams and the Lost Generation. The highly interesting aspect of it was its concentration on early 20th century English music thematically drawn from some deeply recondite folk sources - what presenter Stephen Johnson terms “music of the people”.
This reaching towards the life of the rural people by artists and intellectuals was a political fashion on the left at the time, but a rather honourable one given that Marx was already entering the working class movements of the industrial centres. The leading musical spirit of the time was Ralph Vaughan Williams, who died fifty years ago this year. He, along with other young composers, broke with the High Victorian conventions and sought out ancient English folk songs at their source. Vaughan Williams spent his entire professional life in the act of reaching musically for a spirit of landscape and of people, and he is probably known and loved for it by English music-lovers more today than at any time in the past.
On the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the signing of the Armistice (as I post this it is already the 11th day of the 11th month in England), it is mete to remember the meaning of this search for an English essence. The search for self, and a putting away of falsehood, is always a valid exercise. When the French speak of La France Profonde, this self, ageless and unchanging, is what they mean. For those lingering romantics at the turn of the 20th century who looked at urban life and saw nothing but falsehood and artifice there was only one, now all-changed place to search out a cure.
But as an intellectual fashion, the search itself died in the trenches of Northern France. When peace finally returned it was gone. One can argue, I think, that with the witness died the thing itself. The connection to the land, the character of place were greeted thereafter with a general disinterest. The national focus was on the city and on the struggle of the industrial poor, which meant that the spirit of a deeper and more inchoate English reality ceased to be any kind of professionally useful metric.
Evidently, there is a millenarian mood in the air at this point in time. So it is appropriate that John “Birdman” Bryant circularised his contact list earlier in the week to draw attention to a re-write of his, let it be said, never inflammatory or seditious article, Final Solution to the Washington Question. The original was circularised on 19th Aug , 2008. The re-write is reproduced here under the fold.
John belongs in that fine tradition of flinty and indomitable, free-born and proud American citizens for whom that phrase from V for Vendetta was surely written: “The people should not fear their government, their government should fear the people.” And it is on the theory of governmental fear that John wrote - and rewrote - this essay.
I must say, it brings to mind Geoff Beck’s time at MR, and his heady exhortations to the “Men of the West” to take up their arms and march up the steps of the Capitol Building. But Geoff’s romanticism was a cry in the dark, and I don’t think he gave it very much thought beyond the pleasures of its utterance. John, on the other hand, is theorising cooly and logically about change. His question is: If the point arrives - or has arrived - when lethal violence is the only path left by which white Americans can secure a future for themselves and their children, what is the minimum degree of violence that will lead to that happy end?
Now, I have three criticisms to make of the scenario that John sketches very skilfully. The first is that, in his eagerness to arrive at a minimal cost in life, he has underestimated the enormity and profundity of the task. He has not allowed for the resilience of the Establishment, nor its strong preference for giving not an inch, and for a security solution.
Establishments do not go weak at the knees in the face of terror attacks. They pursue a dual strategy of endeavouring to snuff out the physical threat while buying off popular support. They pose constant questions for the resistance movement at every possible level via visible security, surveillance and interdiction, arms stings and false flags, infiltration, fund tracking, hearts and minds propaganda, political initiatives, etc. Their objective is always and in everything to win. A war with a government is always a long war.
The second criticism is in that old and very moral cliché, one man’s freedom-fighter is another’s terrorist. If the people whom a freedom-fighter seeks to release from bondage view him only as a terrorist there is an immediate problem of legitimacy. Without legitimacy, without a recognised shared cause, there will be no support from the people, and a resistance movement cannot prosper in a fight against a government without considerable tacit and active support. Compare the political impact of the Provisional IRA with that of Brigate Rosse, or the political impact of ETA with that of Baader Meinhof.
This brings us straight back to the abiding issue of why American WN is so splintered and ghettoised. A movement that cannot be heard at all beyond the badlands of the internet obviously has quite a job to do if it expects terroristic attacks on government officials to be understood in the wider community as the people’s own struggle. Realistically, the movement should be in a position to lead popular opinion ... to tell a moral story to the hearts of the people while they absorb news over breakfast of the latest “act” done in their name.
The third criticism is an ideological one. Like many race-loyal Americans, John is a believer in the theory - which is what it is - of isostatic recovery. If the causes of the malaise are removed, the theory goes, everything will slowly and inevitably return to a point of societal balance and health. Resolve Jewish power, kick the race-traitors out of their positions of influence, and the process of recovery will commence automatically and proceed unguided.
This theory is predicated on faith in the foundational instruments of the Republic, and on the enduring, indeed, eternal goodness and conservatism of White America. It denies agency to the America of the past in the creation of the America of the present - since, of course, everything creatively bad rests with Jews and the race-traitors. It eschews complications like the hyper-moralism and consumerism of modern America, which have their antecedents in Puritanism and the myth of progress, and which tend to far from balanced and healthy outcomes. If one refuses to acknowledge the extrusions of the past into the present, one is almost certainly inviting what is euphemistically known as “unforeseen events”. One must know oneself, I think.
Anyway ... here, for you to judge for yourself, is John’s provocative essay:-
To insinuate that those of us who follow a traditional conservative way, and love a nation that lost thousands fighting Nazi Germany, are ourselves nazis or fascists is malicious, disrespectful and offensive. A racial world view is a traditional world view. It goes back to our Anglo-Saxon tribal days. Hitler ventured far beyond that, of course, and fashioned not simply something that held his people together but excused military aggression and race-hatred. But he was an historical exception and no part of my tribal tradition anyway.
In fact, many aspects of wanting to conserve or recreate our homogeneity can be traced back deep into our history. Britons have a great and noble tradition of conserving our homogeneity, and, at least until the end of the war, had a better and more pleasant life for being homogenous.
Queen Elizabeth was firmly in the Great Tradition. In 1596, she sent an “open letter” to the Lord Mayor of London, stating:-
“there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie,”
She order that they be deported. A week later, she repeated the treatment:-
“good pleasure to have those kinde of people sent out of the lande.”
And commissioned the merchant Casper van Senden to “take up” certain “blackamoores here in this realme and to transport them into Spaine and Portugall.”
In 1601, she again complained about the:-
“great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which [as she is informed] are crept into this realm … infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel,”
And she had them repatriated.
Edmund Burke offered a definition of a nation which involves a shared identity, history, ancestry, and continuity:-
As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.
Today we are concerned that “those who are to be born” will be dominated by immigrant populations. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities. The immigrants are human and like us, are subject to the same failings, and are likely to treat us no better than they perceive we treated them.
About half-way through Obama’s acceptance speech, my wife had to stop watching. I asked her what was wrong and she said she found it too depressing. I stopped the streaming video and put my copy of Idiocracy in the DVD drive. She emerged from her funk presently. I don’t have a link to the full movie but this scene may be sufficient for most cases of post-acceptance speech depression:
The context for this essay picks up from the following comment on this apparent Jew hoax.
ADL, Stormfront, Don Black, etc.
To address Henry’s questions, crypto-Jews/agents for the Jews are
obviously regulars at stormfront, but the question is how deep is the
infiltration? Here is a clue.
Set up an account at Stormfront and post there that Ashkenazi Jews are
white. Count the number of seconds that elapse before you are banned. Now,
this should be very encouraging news to someone who is looking for a big
outlet to share with others his discovery - with lots of supporting evidence
- that the Jewish crime network planned and orchestrated 9/11. So thought Eric Hufschmid, a
few years ago. Boy, wouldn’t stormfronters be elated? Wouldn’t a link to
the evidence be placed at a prominent location so that the tens of thousands
of people who go through stormfront everyday don’t miss it? But Hufschmid
got banned.
One of the big stormfronters is Dr. David Duke (Ph.D., history). Dr. David
Duke has for many years posted a link to his article on 9/11 at the sidebar
of his site:
This article talks about Israeli complicity in 9/11 by virtue of
foreknowledge of the coming 9/11 attacks by Muslim terrorists, which Israel
didn’t warn America about.
I have included a screen capture in case the article is changed. The 9/11 video promoted by Dr. David Duke features extensive evidence that the Jewish crime network
masterminded 9/11 - from planning to orchestration and cover-up - but the
title uses the term ‘Israeli involvment,’ which suggests mere complicity.
In the title, ‘attacks’ is spelt ‘atatcks’ and ‘involvement’ is
spelt ‘involvment’...consider in regard to search engine traffic. The
editorial commentary is very brief, uses the meek term ‘Zionist
involvement’ and is unenthusiastic coming from someone who apparently lives
and breathes hatred of Jewish criminality. The entry is also buried obscurely
among other entries. The original 9/11 article that is linked from the
sidebar is intact even though the evidence of Israeli complicity in it is
comparatively very inadequate and fundamentally flawed.
Isn’t this rather curious behavior from a professional
‘anti-Semite’? Isn’t it very curious that a professional
‘anti-Semite’ with a Ph.D. in history who tirelessly works for the
heritage and freedom of white people still professes ignorance about the
Holocaust and not see it for the Holohoax it is, inspite
of the Holohoax being abused by Jewry to smear as genocidal racists those of
us who stand up for white rights?
Ladies and gentlemen, ask yourselves the question whether the behavior of
Dr. David Duke is consistent with someone who is elated to have come across
solid, irrefutable evidence - in the form of the 9/11 missing links video -
framing his mortal enemy or is it the behavior of somone who is increasingly
under pressure to admit the true role played by Jews regarding 9/11? And why
would THE anti-Semite - as per the certification of the revered ADL
and the venerable SPLC - be under this pressure? There is much more to Dr.
David Duke that will make a very interesting discussion, but for now chew on
Dr. Duke and Don Black being long-standing buddies. So how deep is the
infiltration at stormfront? Go figure.
Snax responded.
JR, I would expect that Duke justifies and promotes holocaust revisionists
and their theories rather than comes straight out and say he doesn’t
believe because of the laws in Europe (and perhaps one day America to be
applied retrospectively). He has a greater influence than just about anyone
advancing holocaust scepticism and I don’t mind at all that he’s careful
to keep it. Hufschmid also favours the ‘meek term’ Zionists in the
article you link to, and I KNOW you can’t have very much respect for the
way that article is written.
Stop griping and just help get the word out, the petty squabbles and
endless accusations these guys make of each other being agents for the Jews
does nobody any favours.
Snax has raised points that should be addressed at length.
Just time for one last blast before the US election - this one from Martin Hutchinson at Prudent Bear.
GW
The number of economically damaging policy ideas imposed on the United States has greatly increased in the last few months. However from the statements of the Presidential candidates, the next few years may turn this storm of bad ideas into a blizzard. Those with an emotional attachment to the US economy should brace themselves for trauma.
The new salience of bad economic ideas is not particularly surprising. The US economy is heading into an economic downturn that promises to be at least as severe as those of 1974 and 1980-82, whose memory is already fading a generation into the past. Additionally, the 2000-07 period was one in which US voters made very small if any income gains, with such gains arising only through refinancing of ever more gigantic home mortgages. Meanwhile the distant and dislikeable titans of Wall Street apparently scooped up all the money generated by the economy.
Now the housing bubble has burst, the average jaundiced voter naturally sees the free market system and the George W. Bush administration as responsible for the recent not-particularly-pleasant years and the economic horror that has followed. Claims by Republican politicians that the debacle was all the fault of the housing finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while partly true are wholly unconvincing.
With voters miserable and facing a disastrous economic position that they believe was caused by free market excesses, it is not surprising that they are looking favorably on statist nostrums. Both political candidates have propounded bad ideas; Obama more than McCain largely because he has more ideas in general. In addition, there are a few bad ideas that have embedded themselves into the system, accepted by both political candidates and the political class as a whole.
It appears to be the season for lecture series. BBC Radio 3 has been hosting its Free Thinking 2008 series, involving approximations to wisdom and originality by a colourful variety of folk. One of these is the smooth-mover of the MultiCult, Trevor Phillips, who has discerned six questions, no less, which liberal democracy cannot answer. Sadly, when he last had a proper job is unlikely to be one of them. The BBC has a 7-day storage system for its radio output. So I will listen to Trevor tomorrow and, if he is remotely interesting, I will post accordingly.
But now I want to focus on last night’s speech by the only slightly wierd writer, broadcaster and lecturer in psychology, SusanBlackmore. Her subject was one close to my own heart: The myth of Free Will.
In my last post on it I explained the significance of an absence of free will in humans thus:-
Now, there is no small difference between the self equipped with free will and the self bereft of it. It is the difference between consciousness and mechanicity, between “I” and “it”. What emerges from John-Dylan Haynes study is a model of Man in whom Mind, in its ordinary waking state at least, weaves the story of a decisive self over the endless blizzard of electro-chemical impulses in the brain?
And from that, if we are honest, there emerge only questions for which we never have more than an inadequate answer.
For example, if “I” am only a dream of self, a piece of artifice made in the moment and remade in another, is there really any sense in which “I” can be said to exist at all? In a mechanistic sense only, perhaps. If one is prepared to dispense with the usual dignifications, the mechanicity of Man is not so great an affront. It is what it is, and there are a fair number of reflective people who have always known it. None of them are radical liberals, of course. The notion of the “fully-human” director of a free and unfettered will absolutely does not fly. It never could. Liberal political philosophy is a flightless bird.
Susan Blackmore is a lot closer to the action than I am, and these are the significant passages from her lecture:-
Global media billionaire Rupert Murdoch, the Chairman and Chief executive of News Corporation, has returned to his native land to deliver the 2008 Boyer Lectures. The series is titled “A Golden Age of Freedom”.
The Boyer Lectures are a series of six live speeches touching on politics and society, and given each year by a different major public figure in Australia. The equivalent in the UK is the Reith Lectures.
Murdoch opened today with an offering rather oddly titled “Aussie rules: Bring back the pioneer”. It served to outline his intentions for the rest of the series:-
My theme for these lectures is the great transformation we have seen in the past few decades: the unleashing of human talent and ability across our world, and the golden age for humankind that I see just around the corner.
... I will talk about how the opening of new markets is leading to the rise of new nations and adding hundreds of millions of people to a new global middle class. I will address technology, education and the importance of cultivating human capital.
... Most of all I will speak of the challenges which all these developments pose for the land of my birth. The main reason I agreed to come to Australia to deliver these lectures is that the country I see before me simply is not prepared for the challenges ahead.
One wonders what “the rise of new nations” means. It does not sound like the rise of old nations like India and China. Then again, “internationalisation”, as Murdoch later calls it, implies not new nations but the post-nation - essentially the MultiCult. Is he saying that the condition of Australia is that of a post-nation, and that the advent of the artificial “new nation” awaits - if the appropriate internationalist outlook is internalised by Aussies?
I assume so. But right away we see what Murdoch’s new nation will amount to. The only understanding that the man who made his money from Page 3 has of human purpose is material advancement. He is offering a life of consumerism and wage-slavery in return for the cinematic Arthur Jensen’s:-
“perfect world in which there is no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquillized, all boredom amused.”
Here it is again in Murdoch’s only slightly more prosaic version:-
Earlier in the year libertarian Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com wrote an article for Taki Mag arguing that racialism was pseudo-science. Now he’s back just in time for the apparent election of Barack Obama with White Supremacists for … Obama?.
(I’ve always been annoyed by the term “white supremacists”. After all we don’t hear advocates of other races referred to as “supremacists").
Raimondo writes:“‘These people are crazy, of course, as are all racialists: they have race on the brain, and very little else in their brains”.
I responded:
So Justin believes that any white who wishes to preserve his race is a white “supremacist”. I guess Palestinian nationalists must be Palestinian/Arab supremacists.
His previous foray into the area of race and genetics showed him to be a complete ignoramus lacking even an elementary school knowledge of the subject. One has to conclude that he only publishes these anti-white articles to maintain some kind of street cred in San Francisco. JR seems to believe that white Gentiles should should just bend over for every other ethnic group whilst he says nothing about the racial agenda of non-whites.
JR seems to understand that terrorism against the US is a reaction to American policies. But apparently it is too much for him to show similar understanding of beleaguered whites living under the daily terror of multiculturalism. If JR is such a neocon/Marxist on racial issues it is strange that he contributed to the old Rothbard/Rockwell Report - a newsletter that often had articles on black violence against whites.
I then picked up my back issues of the Rothbard/Rockwell Report from the 1990s. (Justin Raimondo occasionally wrote for the RRR and he also wrote a book on Murray Rothbard).
From the June 1994 edition of the Rothbard/Rockwell Report it seems Lew Rockwell - who occasionally publishes Justin Raimondo articles - got his information from the “white supremacist” magazine American Renaissance.
On page 21 under the category P.C. Watch Lew Rockwell writes about how virtually all interracial crime is black-on-white but that it never gets any media coverage. On page 22 he mentions that a black man in Los Angeles, Darryl Arnold, purchased a gun then shot the first white person he saw because, according to JR’s friend Lew Rockwell quoting from “white supremacist” American Renaissance, Mr Arnold wanted to start a race war. Rockwell concludes by saying: “You’ve never heard the story, but imagine the unlikely event of the races being reversed. It is all you would have heard of.” The next article is about a white guy in Pennsylvania facing 28 years in prison for merely offending a couple of Puerto Rican girls.
JR aren’t you concerned about associating with a “white supremacist” like Lew Rockwell? After all Lew noticed that whites are victimized by non-whites more than the reverse and he quoted Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance. Doesn’t that make Lew a white supremacist in your book?
Libertarians are the first to criticise white collectivism but are very shy about similar activity from non-whites. Yet it is hard to think of a whiter ideology than libertarianism. White libertarians absolutely have to know that black Americans, Latin American immigrants to the USA, Asian immigrants to Canada and Australia, and Muslims in Europe will never ever become individualists quoting Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard. They have no interest and never will have any interest in Anglo-Saxon individualist anti-statism. (I can’t say I blame them). Libertarians also must know that such immigrants have little interest in pet libertarian concerns like the right to smoke dope and consume homosexual and child pornography. If libertarians are sane (?) then they must be the most die-hard believers in the idea that human beings are blank slates. Leftists, at least, understand that Third World immigrants are useful to their cause. Libertarians cannot say the same thing yet they continue to support racial egalitarianism and open borders. Libertarians are not serious people.
Today, in its campaign to present the negro Maclaren driver Lewis Hamilton as a national icon, the Telegraph finally came to the point.
… he is a hero to be emulated.
I demurred on the thread. However, my brief if somewhat uncompromising comment was removed by the Telegraph moderators.
There are three fundamental reasons for admiring sportsmen. One is that they reflect some glory on one’s own people.
Hamilton is not English. I am, and I would prefer any Englishman, and indeed anyone of European lineage, to win anything before a Bantu, half or full.
The next reason for admiring a sportsman is that he or she has such a peerless talent, one is bound to applaud.
Hamilton has been silver-spoon fed by his Dad’s friend, Ron Dennis, since he climbed into a kart. In F1 anyone can win in the best car - remember David Coulthard’s introduction to F1 in the all-conquering Williams. Further, uniquely in Hamilton’s case, his team-mate is subtly disadvantaged and, last year, was outrageously regarded by Dennis himself as someone “we are racing against”.
So for now the peerless talent issue remains moot.
The third reason for admiring a sportsman is his or her moral nature. All sport involves a tremendous struggle against the body, and it also offers a stage for the play of moral characteristics and the making of moral choices. Men such as Michael Johnson, Bobby Charlton and Bobby Moore, Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers brought dignity or modesty or a purity of sporting passion that elevated them to the status of the genuine hero.
Michael Schumaker, in contrast, was a very great driver but morally he failed the test, and he was unloved in consequence. The signs are that Hamilton will never be ranked among the heroic.
Finally, and unrelated to the admiration issue, I am very tired of the “Poster-Boy” element in the press’s treatment of Hamilton. There is something political in it which I am bound to reject outright. I don’t like having my views on race prescribed by the media, which is what most of the Hamilton kerfuffle is about.
Well, it was surely the second paragraph, and that too naked truth, “Bantu”, that did it. The view that Lewis Hamilton is a negro living in the wrong country, like all negroes living in Europe, is problematic for a Judaised mind. It cannot process the withholding of legitimacy from African populations in the ancient European homeland without experiencing a fit of the vapours. The resulting censorship is only the latter-day ammonium carbonate for a correct-thinking MSM moderator.
In fact, over the last twenty months or so I have posted the simple thought that “Lewis Hamilton is not English” on a wide variety of MSM threads and even on the Autosport forums, almost always in response to journalists’ casual description of him as an “Englishman”. Where my correction posted automatically it was almost always subsequently removed. On the rest it never made an appearance at all.
There is something here that needs bringing out. I know perfectly well that a claim that some rap artist in the news, or a black poet, is not actually one of the English people will sail through unremarked. A white mother won’t make any - or enough - difference. Nor should it. Genetically, the English are a northern European people. African admixture ends this.
But Hamilton is a media-created special case. We have to believe the media story. They want us to believe the story. It is as if the arising of a potential black hero is too rare and, by its rarity, too precious to them to have the stark and uncompromising truth of his inalienable alienness pointed out. And this, lest you failed to notice, is the racism of the Establishment. This is the untrammelled desire to meddle in our sense of self, to engineer in us “higher feelings” and an end to racist ones. The unspoken assumption that we are racist in this way, instead of merely human, and the sheer affrontery that these people have the right to alter us, is the endemic racism of the modern age.
I hope Hamilton fails to finish in tomorrow’s Brazilian GP. But I fear that his car will be too good, and he will be able to coast around to finish fifth or higher and pick up the point he needs to win the championship. Perhaps the boy can drive, I don’t know and don’t care. I do know that we will see more ... much more ... of this media lionisation, all of it pure culture politics.
The British press has been full of the Affair of Andrew Sachs’ answer-phone. A full transcript of the offending Radio Two and web broadcast of October 16th is here.
The details of the case and the sticky ends and financial pain of the wrongdoers are very tiresome. I’m more interested in the sociological significance of a prank call gone disastrously wrong that leads to an amazing 30,000 people registering complaints with the BBC, steals the headlines away from global financial meltdown, and forces top BBC management into a five-hour emergency damage-control meeting.
To find out what’s going on here one has to look back to the Thatcher years, and the change to broadcast comedy that was wrought by a new generation of producers, writers and comics. This was Alternative Comedy. What had began as stand-up for a young and educated, right-on audience that, naturally enough, had no respect for the established way of doing things was soon brought into the mainstream of broadcasting.
The sheeple laughed at their little glowing tubes just the same. All at once it was funny to see broken social taboos, and cool to deride the Thatcher government. It had to be funny and cool because lots of people said it was. So there.
Along the way the sheeple got to laugh at lots of things they never knew were worth laughing at before. Men’s backsides, especially, but also any hitherto unspeakable bodily functions suddenly became riotously funny. The sheeple seemed to understood that this was a humour, if one can call it that, predicated on racial and sexual equality. They did not demurr. It wouldn’t be cool. The long tradition of the robust comedy characteristic of the British, and so loved by the working man, was being swept aside, and there was nobody around to prevent it.
So, Alternative Comedy’s proponents were, in their odd little world, revolutionaries, even those who were simply swept up in the outrageous audacity of it all. These were the very first stirrings of political correctness this side of the Atlantic. Its force and potency was not understood, nor its singular function of the ruthless dismantling of organic society.
District Judge Daphne Wickham ruled the warrant invalid today at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, saying it contained inadequate detail about the offences. It neither states the name of the website nor where the propaganda is said to have been published from - only referring to the ‘world-wide internet’.
After discharging Toben, Judge Wickham granted him bail pending an appeal after imposing strict conditions which include a £100,000 security. Other conditions include residence at an approved address, written confirmation from the Australian High Commission of which passports he holds, and not to access the internet. He is also banned from giving press interviews.
Judge Wickham added that she had not been required to decide at this stage whether the alleged crimes were valid extradition offences.
Grey wavy-haired Toben, smartly dressed in a suit, appeared pleased on hearing the judge’s decision from the glass-fronted dock at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The public gallery was packed with supporters of Toben.
So Dr Toben has been returned to his cell, pending his meeting the bail conditions and appeal by the German authorities. Round one in this particular fight against the globalisation of Jewish justice is in the bag.
But the appellant will certainly now review the grounds for dismissal and the prospects for modifying their warrant. It is interesting that, initially at least, they were so shy about making too much of the Adelaide Institute. They are attempting to create a very wide legal precedent, whereby it’s not just that the accused can be extradited for an offense committed in Britain which exists only under German law, but he or she - we should never forget the splendid Sylvia Stolz - can be extradited by the British courts for an offence committed anywhere which exists only in German law.
If my memory serves me right, this might have been much more straightforward for the German authorities had the Lisbon Treaty not been sidelined by the Irish “No” vote, and had the British government not secured an opt-out - I think - from the extradition provisions in the Treaty. In that sense, then, the Germans really are trying their luck. I suspect they know they are not going to win, and they will not appeal. Unless, of course, there is so much malice, they will do it anyway just to punish Toben.
But the final outcome should be clear to them. Without the defining elements of the Lisbon Treaty in place, and since the British courts do not promiscuously extradite people just anywhere for an offence which does not exist under British statute, an appeal must fail. Otherwise, it would open up the chaotic possibility that states with legal codes completely different to ours - Sharia, for instance - could similarly try their luck. That’s a direction the court could never take.
And all this before any consideration of the court’s duty to uphold freedom of expression!
