Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, British Politics, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration and Politics, Linguistics, Myth and modernity, Psychology
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 05:42 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Conservatism, Education, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, White Nationalism
Adding (August 4th, 2014) a definition of Peace (at bottom).
In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions
I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.
However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.
Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.
The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.
Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.
We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.
It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.
I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.
These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.
We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).
The White Left as:
A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.
It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).
It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)
It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.
As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.
Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”
Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.
Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.
The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.
As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.
This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.
In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”
In connection with that, both Migchels and Bowery seem to have a concern to maintain individual integrity as an authentic and distinguishing characteristic among Europeans. GW’s close readings have some similarity there as well.
In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.
It is important to note that this hermeneutic view not only permits of individuality, integrity of self, I would argue that hermeneutics is absolutely necessary for it - a coherent, agentive and warranted self. What it does deny is that there is no social relatedness and indebtedness to its make-up, its construction and its constitution; or that one has no accountability for its direction other than “the countenance of Jesus” or some other unverifiable source.
Adding a definition of Peace
I will probably turn this into a post later, but I will propose this definition/ working hypothesis of “peace” in comment here.
Later, I will invite others to contribute to a working hypothesis of peace and correlate it to prior definitions proposed.
Peoples as they correspond with nations, states, regions, localities, mutually respecting and recognizing sovereignty of genetic accountability, prerogative to discriminate and prohibit association accordingly; while those who wish to leave may go to a consenting receiving nation, their return to the people they departed from may be prohibited; their offspring, if any, may be prohibited as well.
Negotiative, persuasive, non-lethal tests are sought as the normal recourse in conflict resolution (lest there be any misunderstanding, miscegenation is not a normal problem requiring negotiation - that is prohibited; expulsion being a softer variant in resolving the problem).
This would include the capacity for a people to maintain its genetic kind and the reasonable capacity for individuals to find an appropriate mate; with that, to have the means to provide for a family that does not require a detrimental number of hours away from family and leisure, is grounds of peace.
Those who overpopulate, burden the world’s ecosystem and create spill over effect - let alone deliberate exploitation or usurpation of other nations’ land - are seen as in violation of the peace.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, White Nationalism
I am one who tends to think that concern regarding homosexuality is exaggerated beyond its true importance in WN circles.
Perhaps because I was at one time confronted directly and from a complexity of different angles with the implication to myself, but having no doubt that I wasn’t, and wanting to be unburdened of any accusation’s tedium, I was forced to make efficient intellectual work of putting aside any such accusation, to master the ways in which the issue could be deftly set aside as it is - largely irrelevant.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 03:09 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Awakenings, Conservatism, Feminism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Health, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Social liberalism
In citing Yockey’s definition of liberalism, I do believe Tanstaafl captures some of the “it’s a bit more than that” to the definition of liberalism that GW advised over and against the one that I was proffering in the interview with Metzger.
Fortunately for me (and for us as a race), it is not really contradictory of the definition which I would venture as most useful. Though it is, I admit, more articulate in some significant ways that GW would/does appreciate.
I would have liberalism be defined primarily as permission of the violation of the classification - which is the parameters of the group systemic organism of race.
Yockey, like GW, focuses even more meticulously on the individual (as well), to where liberalism would be the experimentation with going beyond the normal parameters of our biology as individuals as well.
That would have several “more than that” interesting implications which provide clues as to where GW was going.
One implication would indicate why GW focuses so much on the Ontology of who we authentically are as European group(s) and individuals. We cannot even know what liberalism is, entirely, or what is inauthentic response to liberaism, a reaction, until that is settled…
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 03:06 AM in Anthropology, Conservatism, Liberalism & the Left, MR Radio, Psychology, Social liberalism, The Ontology Project
Is liberalism in my European head?
...or in interaction with social influences such as media?
Posted by Guessedworker on May 05, 2014, 12:18 PM | #
“There is no psychological immune deficiency. MacDonald made a mistake. He is a psychologist, not a philosopher. He looked in the structure of the mind for what exists in its thought. Those who have internalised it and speak from it are not to blame for their suggestibility. But nothing useful can come of a mistaken beginning.”
Posted by Guessedworker on May 06, 2014, 02:27 AM | #
“Incidentally, how does this crazed universalism of the European Mind square with the evidence for implicit racism?”
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 03:37 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Conservatism, European culture, Far Right, Feminism, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences
Monoculturalism meets Rockefeller (and eats him)
Posted by DanielS on Friday, April 4, 2014 at 01:29 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Conservatism, European culture, Globalisation, New Zealand Politics, Popular Culture, Race realism, Social liberalism, White Nationalism
A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance
His colleagues noted that some species of crabs have asymmetrical appendages, one being larger than the other, but when one of the pair was lost, another grew back in mirror image to the other. To this they were disposed to ask, how did the crab gain symmetry?
Through the extended analysis, Bateson hypothesized that his colleagues had been asking the wrong question. They should rather have been asking, “how did the crab lose asymmetry?”
It was in fact, in the course of this very investigation into the biological laws of symmetry that William Bateson first coined the term “genetics.”
The rule by itself is not of particular relevance to our concerns for European ontology and nationalism. However, steps taken in ecological and cybernetic analysis and arrival at Bateson’s rule of morphology do have significant implications, suggesting hypotheses for semiotics of ecological (and ontological) correction - including of human ecology.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 06:29 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Conservatism, Demographics, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Origin of Man, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
I thought I should replace Graham’s somewhat florid reflections upon the passing today of Baroness Thatcher with something more considered. There will, of course, be hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken about her in the media over the next few days. Much of it will reflect the divisive impact upon British and international politics that this extraordinary woman had. I am not going to tell the story of her life, but I will offer some personal reflections upon the person and period - she was Prime Minister for eleven tumultuous years from 1979 to 1990.
She had four characteristics that set her apart from the politicians about her. She was restlessly energetic, dominant, courageous, and ideological (which she called principled). All the really important moments of her career in Downing Street were expressions of one or more of these. She galvanized millions of us to admire or to hate her for it.
Personally, I couldn’t bear her public mannerisms and speech because it was all so plainly produced and inauthentic. But I found her enemies to be deeply repellant, and therefore took her side in most of the battles she fought - and there were many, for she was nothing if not an agent of change. Few people had no opinion of her, and those who hated her the most, by and large, were the revolutionary socialist left and the Europhile right who expected their agendas to be followed by government without serious challenge. In her, however, they found an implacable foe, and this tendency to stand up and fight for a different, non-authorised vision in a world as cravenly pragmatic as British politics is what most ordinary folk will probably remember her for.
There are several moments of her career that, while not particularly important in themselves, have stayed with me. In particular, I remember her visit to Poland in 1988 as “the Iron Lady” and an icon of the freedom of the West. She was invited to the church of St.Stanislaw Kostka in the north of Warsaw. It had been the church of a priest who inveighed against state repression from his pulpit until, in 1984, the Security Services abducted and murdered him. Hundreds of people, including the parents of the murdered priest, packed the church and the street outside to thank her for coming. When they broke into a spontaneous rendition of a Polish hymn she was unable to hold back the tears.
This image of a leader moved by the sincerity and heart of the people is a near perfect figure for a true nationalist politician. Margaret Thatcher came to the door of No.10 in 1979 wittering away about harmony and St Francis of Assisi. But she was too much the courageous warrior leader and the ideologue caught up in the battle with the Labour Party, with union power, with the machinery of European integration, with the Soviets, with the Argentines, with the miners and, finally, with her own scheming ministers to understand that such unity and faith is even possible. She was no intellectual and no visionary. She used ideas that roughly fitted into her political rubric, the foremost of them the Friedmanite and Hayekian nostrums that were introduced to her by Keith Joseph in the years immediately after her accession to the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1975. She never understood that the petty freedoms she gave people were insufficient for a truly rich lived life, for she never saw people in their social context, only as putative “individuals” awaiting release from an overbearing, over-socialist state.
There was a moment I recall when, early in her premiership, she used the word “flood” in relation to immigration. I thought she might actually be listening to the sentiments of her own party supporters. She did, for example, stand up for the white South African government against the diatribes of governments and international agencies everywhere. But no, the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power, except in the context of protecting national sovereignty from the dictates of the European Commission. The battle above all others that I wanted Margaret Thatcher to fight she assiduously avoided. It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day. The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand.
Of the battles she did fight, she only lost two: to the Europe integrationists and, eventually, to the grey-suited assassins around her. We are now witnessing the slow, ineluctable coming apart of the European process and also the arising of an anti-politics which disdains the careerists of the political class. Margaret Thatcher will be shown to have been on the right side of history on most matters. She will not, I think, be remembered as the great national heroine or as the vile hate object which she succeeded, by her relentless and divisive political energy, in fashioning herself as.
GW has expressed the constraint:
DanielS has expressed the constraint:
An approach offered by John Harland is to admit the historicity of Jesus in His essential mythic image as descendant of God evidenced in his own over-ruling of texts with direct bodily connection with God as Father, but to deny the historicity of the extant texts—deny them as yet another means by which dastards attempt to interpose themselves between the God-heritage of individuals and their Father, in spirit and flesh.
Ridicule of Harland’s own editing of the texts to suit his view may be conducted only at the sacrifice of the two constraints establishing the context of this presentation. Offer a superior approach if you don’t like Harland’s—either that or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.
Click this link for a pdf document containing part of Harland’s account starting with “The Germans” (in the anthropological sense meaning what many identify as Celtic and Nordic pagans of the pre-Christian era), “The Catholic Church Promotes Judeo-Christianity”, “The First Breaking Apart of the Church Serpent” (regarding Henry VIII and Martin Luther), “A Further Break From the Serpent” (regarding the establishment of America), “The Strange Phenomenon of ‘Money-Mad’ Americans” (regarding the closing of the frontier and replacement of Nature and Nature’s God with money-based “culture”), “The American Dream” (the commodification, by conspirators, of the American spiritual renaissance), “The German Reich” (the parallel processes occurring in what became the nation state known as “Germany” during the 1800s leading up to WW I), “The World Picture After WW I” (the situation leading up to WW II) and the concluding section of this pdf document is “The Second World War”.
The entire book is “Word Controlled Humans” by John Harland, ISBN 0-914752-12-X available from Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579 (with which I have no business or personal relationship).
Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 08:37 PM in Anthropology, Archeology, Books, Christianity, Conservatism, European culture, History, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, Psychology, Revisionism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, U.S. Politics
Yesterday, the United Kingdom Independence Party, a collection of “nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”, to quote David Cameron from 2006, ran the Tories into third in the Westminster by-election at Eastleigh. Today the quality press is resisting offering the usual excuses (ie, it’s mid-term madness ... a mere protest vote, etc). It is asking a few significant questions about UKIP, in particular. The most interesting is: how much of its support expresses that exasperation and exhaustion with the professional political class that is now known by the term, anti-politics?
Anti-politics is a completely normal response on the part of any electorate confronted with a self-referential elite that has forgotten even how to feign representation of the people. Lower order politicians are only too well aware of this failing. After the Eastleigh result Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, told the London Evening Standard:
So while the speed of UKIP’s rise might surprise some, the rise itself shouldn’t. The straws were in the wind for both right and left with the early Tea Party movement and, later, the Occupy Movement. Now we have the rise of, among others, Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece, the youth identitarian movement in France, the astonishing success of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Party in Italy ... all non-Establishment or anti-Establishment movements. Has the grand political project of The Globality reached the stage where it is no longer possible to advance its agenda and affect an interest in the opinions of their supporters? Are electorates of European descent finally awakening to the nature of modern political elitism and internationalism?
If so, Eastleigh offers little encouragement to British nationalists beyond the unsatisfactory proxy that is UKIP. The BNP did not stand. The fatally civicist English Democrats, to which the Butler retinue decamped, did stand. Its candidate polled just 70 votes in a constituency of 79,004. The Elvis candidate finished above them.
It looks very like UKIP is our only horse in the race, and must be supported accordingly. We have to hope that there will be no electoral pact with the Tories in 2015 but, on the contrary, Nigel Farage’s party will literally kill the Tory Party - just as it did in Eastleigh - as the political right’s natural party of power. Beyond that we must hope that no new alignment of the right in Britain takes place along the lines of that which brought Stephen Harper’s Canadian conservatives into existence in 2003. Nationalists must find some way to influence a realignment process so that any new party will, first and foremost, be loyal to our people rather than to a set of easily “liberalised” and corrupted, petty principles about self-improvement or personal liberty.
To do that we have to work from within. We have to join the party if we can (and former BNP members can’t - they are pre-banned), and stay in the party. I wonder how many nationalists have the requisite degree of focus to pull off something like that.
There are two types of politics in this country: mainstream, for saying things that are socially acceptable, and underground, for saying things that if said on television would bring a wave of condemnation from folks trying to prove they’re better than me or you.
In underground politics, people talk about diversity and political correctness as the destructive things they are. No one dares do that in mainstream politics, although they hint at it and will dance around it because it makes their audience momentarily hope.
Not one mainstream conservative has ever identified himself as racialist.
by David Hamilton
We must understand the difference between a patriotic way of thinking and that of “Progressives” and “Internationalists.” Their ideological view is often based on a book and people are expected to refer to it and divergence from orthodoxy leads to being denounced or given correctional training. This happened in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cambodia under Pol Pot and in the West now under Political Correctness. This is a Marxist strain but it came in with the New Left under the guise of a new Liberalism. Even now well-meaning liberals promote PC without understanding its totalitarian nature.
This debate is contemporary Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. It includes the relationship between mind and matter, essence and attribute and fact and value. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing. What is real, what is illusion; what is actually happening and what are political myths.
Progressivism encompasses Liberalism through to Marxism: the “isms” that grew out of the French Enlightenment. They believe in abstract universals, we believe in concrete “particulars.” These type of Universals are abstract terms like humanity whereas a specific people is a particular. Abstract universalist thinking leads to intervention in the internal policies of other sovereign states. We concrete particularists are concerned with our own nation. We do believe in substantial universals which I will come to later.
Progressives erect a set of idealisations – what we are becoming, what we should think and how we should behave. Our human nature is fixed in the sense that we inherit genes, which give us our essence, but how we act it out or think is given form by our cultures and communities which themselves grew out of our collective psyches. We can not step outside what we are and where we belong. We are part of it and it is what makes us social beings.
by John Gordon
John Gordon is an Australian New Right activist and can be contacted through the New Right Australia/New Zealand website.
Political principles which are founded only on a posture of character or a feeling – like “conservative” (i.e., being resistant to political change, especially if that change is of a fundamental nature) and “progressive” (an older term for being inclined towards a liberal or revolutionary political stance) are prone to lose their meaning over time if they are not linked to substantive principles (viz. fundamental principles of politics which do not change over time as objectives of policy). This loss of original meaning has also occurred with the terms “left” and “right” – which are no longer pure concepts, but now hopelessly conceptually skewed and mixed into their opposites, and therefore almost useless for purposes of clarification or analysis.
The clear meaning that they once possessed – as they did, at their origin – has long since passed and this has had a negative impact on the understanding of contemporary politics and on what the way forward is for those who want a good society or who want to work towards such a society. However, the course of this progressive confusion of terms can be readily traced.
The origin of the terms (“left” and “right”) was in a specific political and historical context, and an examination of what they meant at their birth can provide us with both the type of character which tends to favour either one and – more importantly – the substantive content which they were meant to embody.
... some retain the ability to surprise.
John Redwood is a senior Conservative politician and former minister who is currently co-chairman of the party’s Policy Review Group on Economic Competitiveness. His blog is here. If you scroll right down the thread you will eventually get to the point of my post now, which is a terse 33-word statement from Redwood in the form of a reply to my, as usual, lengthy missive.
That’s all I need to know. I’ve posted a (mercifully brief) sign-off to the interchange, but it’s yet to be moderated.
By David Hamilton
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:-
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:-
And she had them repatriated.
Edmund Burke offered a definition of a nation which involves a shared identity, history, ancestry, and continuity:-
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.
Then there is the threat of miscegenation.
by David Hamilton
Conservatism was an attempt to preserve traditional ways and differed from Liberalism but became Liberal, Classical then Social Democratic - abstract rights, capitalism, economics, laissez faire and self interest- now Cultural Marxism.
Like the other parties they offer the electorate incentives to get into power and at election time pretend they will introduce popular policies like controlling immigration but once in office pursue their own agenda. This should be a criminal offence and the Party name subject to trading standards law.
Academic Conservatives have tried to revive Conservatism by turning it into a competing ideology but it has no goal only living life by belonging to a historical community and culture and passing it on to one’s children. It is not a different opinion in a rational debate but an attitude and temperament in life. Rational plans and formulae are for the rationalist-ideologues: which is why these are “intimations” not a blueprint and cannot be stated a priori like utopian ideologies. There is more to human nature than reason.
It is not just reaction to current dominant doctrines nor a rejection of future utopias as fantasy in order to re-live a past utopia, not an attempt to turn back the clock to a bygone time but is a traditional way of thinking and feeling for one’s own ethnic community. The turning point is now as we who feel alienated and dispossessed begin re-developing a tradition for our common good and to revive our collapsing civilisation. We value wisdom over rationalist ideologies.
From the Wikipedia page on Plato’s Republic, commenting upon the inappropriateness of the title as given in English:-
How we live ... we. In ways we all understand, the whole of the 20th Century was a working out of the question of how we may live, justly, as people of the modern era. The answer to which postmodernity, ably assisted by certain interested parties, seems to have brought us is that our children’s generation and all the generations that follow them shall never take up arms against their neighbour nor threaten the Jewish destiny nor enslave the backward African.
For these, the worst sins in the world, our children shall be of a people no more. They shall be consigned to racial anonymity. One among many, they shall be atomised individuals laying claim no more to the lands of their fathers. Their lives shall be lighted no more by the ancient, natural virtues of dignity and honour, which all European peoples have held dear, but by a petty tolerance, fairness and false decency. Mindless work shall fill the daylight hours and dedicated consumerism shall follow. Drinking, drug-taking, gambling, football shall dull their senses, analgaesia in consolation for the loss of everything.
As I’ve mentioned before, I hang around Troy Southgate’s New Right Forum a fair bit, shooting up the clouds when there’s nothing else to do. By and large I am a rather disruptive presence, I think, behaving particularly badly towards a white American Moslem (who’s never done anything to upset me!) and one or two other “creatures of the right”. But tonight I got my chance to put up (a proper argument) or shut up. I put up, of course, and now wait to be attacked ... or ignored. If it isn’t the latter I’ll update the following accordingly.
The thread was about a new post on revisionism at Welf Herfurth’s New Right Australia/New Zealand blog. Welf is in the habit of announcing new posts, which are usually very long (not as long as this, though) and often interesting, on Troy’s Forum. On this occasion he added some afterthoughts, amongst which was this:-
I think that says it all about Conservatives today, in general.
That’s what I thought too, but clearly it isn’t if self-professed Conservatives are to be believed. By that metric I am a Conservative, but I’d just as soon leave the appellation to the mass that claims it.
In any case, the piece makes for a good read.
A few posts down, a certain commentator put forth the view that a defence of what we conservatives (used in the broadest sense) hold dear is necessarely threatened by the free market. Here is my reply, after cogitating much on the questions and dilemmas raised by the debate.
It was stated that we need an economic policy that best serves our interests, with which I can scarcely disagree, and then this was used to conclude that we need a more socialist one then what we have now. I would disagree, arguing on the contrary that reducing the burden of taxation and regulation on middle class enterprise and small business would lead to both greater wealth and a more secure yeoman class (or its modern equivalent). We can argue about this, but we must first stop pretending that pragmatism must necessarely mean more governemnt power.
Mention was made of Enron and Oprah as examples of market failure and I would have to agree with that assessment. But what about the great American car companies? (That is, before the US goverment’s irrresonsible taxation policy sold them down the river). What about Tesco or Sainsbury, companies which provide their customers with good agricultural produce? What about the UK mills which created its prosperity? Those comapnies which, like Enron, engage in underhand methods often find themselves quickly out of business, with angry investors and corporate lawyers hot on their heels.
More generally, further evidence that private actors are more efficient than the state can be provided. We saw how the USSR and the West before the 80s attempted and failed to run much of its heavy industry. In the UK, coal mining was a viable enterprise until three decades of state ownership had crippled it, leaving the tax payer without his money, and, eventually, the coal workers without their jobs and the country without its internal coal supply. And as for the USSR and, say, Chernobol, that scarcely requires any elucidation. This should concern as especially, as we believe that it is essential that certain industries stay within our borders.Government over-regulation and over-taxation has played a great part in creating the sell off of the western industrial base.
What is Left? What is Right?
Does it Matter?
Since its inception, The American Conservative has been dealing with questions of what Right and Left mean in the modern context and to what extent the terms even apply anymore. Commentary memorably took up similar issues in a 1976 symposium, and, 30 years later, in a time of renewed ideological flux, we think a reconsideration is in order.
In the interest of hosting a lively discussion, we chose contributors from across the political spectrum and asked for their thoughts on the following questions:
1. Are the designations “liberal” and “conservative” still useful? Why or why not?
2. Does a binary Left/Right political spectrum describe the full range of ideological options? Is it still applicable?
Not all of these authors share TAC’s editorial orientation, but we believe there is wisdom in the council of many, and each was chosen as representative of a particular perspective. We leave our readers to decide which insights most accord with their own.
The author of Tomorrow is Another Country, Myles Harris, has popped up with a free article in the current Salisbury Review. It is titled “Made in Broadcasting House” and, fairly obviously therefore, is an attack on the liberal media’s long culture war against the native British peoples.
Here are the best bits:-
What makes us free? According to liberals it is our liberation from whatever might impede individual choice.
But this is a definition which takes us in odd directions. Take, for instance, the views of Jessica Brinton, who recently wrote an article on the young women of Tokyo (“Maid in Japan”, Herald Sun, not online).
The article was intended as “a snapshot of a culture where radical fashion, sexual bravura and cultural weirdness are finally beginning to liberate its women.”
So what is the evidence that young Tokyo women are being liberated? First, there is a changing attitude to work,
When the French Revolution broke out in 1789 it was greeted with enthusiasm by the young intellectuals of Europe.
The English poet William Wordsworth was no exception. He wrote verses in support of the Revolution, including these significant lines,
In these lines Wordsworth is claiming that man is naturally free in the liberal sense of having no impediments to his individual will and reason. The individual man is superior to everyone else but God; he needs no restraints and recognises no laws except those accepted by his own reason; he follows his own will in all things (but always chooses to do the right thing).
A few decades later another famous young English poet, Shelley, was still holding firm to the same political ideal. In his work Prometheus Unbound (1820), Shelley advanced his ideal of a “new man” who would “make the earth one brotherhood”. This new man would be,
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa