Category: Conservatism

Are there explicit liberals with implicit sympathy up that path?

                                      jacktour

While defending our ghetto square and the merits of strengthening our grass roots community by preaching there to its choir, deepening our understanding and resolve, it seems that at this point Majority Rights could also do well with forays to visit those down some side streets - to pursue interviews not only with those who are most aligned with our views, but also to follow a path of those who might be slightly off - i.e. slightly antagonistic to our views in a somewhat liberal direction, at least explicitly, while having some implicit sympathy through connection to our square, our cause; such that MR’s platform might bring-out that connection with their underlying fairness in concern for our people and our kinds. The more public, known or respectable the person, perhaps the better. They might come to us with an intent to criticize us or save face in cover inasmuch – fine. Perhaps we can stand corrected. That’s not so much the problem as coming-up with good candidates for this kind of discussion/debate, those who may be lurking in what are the shadowy side-streets for us. Therefore the reason for this post is to ask for suggestions as to fairly prominent/respectable liberals, etc. Those fairly askance of our views, but not so antagonistic as to be futile to hope to engage. Rather to pursue those who might be ripe to debate GW or another MR representative, to at least hear-us-out. We might see where the dimly lit path takes us…

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 06:10 AM in ActivismAwakeningsBritish PoliticsConservatismEducationFeminismLibertarianismMR RadioPolitical PhilosophyPopular CultureRace realismSocial liberalismSocial SciencesWhite Genocide ProjectWhite Nationalism
Comments (11) | Tell-a-Friend

Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored

Judging by his vigilant stream of Ebola updates, it is clear that James considers the threat of Ebola to be under-reported in terms of its significance.

Ebola remiss an alarm for border control as even most objective standards of human ecology ignored by authorities:

        redcrossebola

The handling of the Ebola threat by institutional bodies such as the Centers for Disease Control, supposedly responsible for safeguarding public health, provide a glaring example of how we cannot rely on them to serve our needs, not even as a by-product of the most ostensibly objective concerns of human ecology.

Furthermore, as the remiss demonstrates that these bureaucracies cannot be entrusted to look-after the interests of our relative human ecologies it should create awareness that now is the time to step-up participation in border re-establishment.

As James explains, the mishandling of the threat of pandemic disease, as in the case of Ebola, has been made evident not only through border crossing, but in a pattern of decades, extending to misreadings of the H.I.V. epidemic by these same responsible institutional bodies - such as the CDC, with its authoritative media organ, “Nature” magazine, taken to be definitive of science journalism and featuring assessments by experts such as Princeton’s R.M. Anderson - experts and their fact-checkers who are all too capable of committing fundamental errors in epidemic prediction.

Specifically, Anderson’s initial indication for Nature magazine suggested that an increased number of sex partners was not a particularly significant factor in H.I.V. transmission. This took for granted its operating on a relatively homogenous population, with steadier patterns and where outlier behavior is more compartmentalized into niches. Promiscuous heterosexuals in this sort of population were not particularly at risk as their partnering was in linear alignment and separate from the infected homosexual population. However, with the increasing introduction of diverse populations, not only are more promiscuous sorts added to the ranks of the population, but also those more capable of transmitting the disease, those still more recklessly transgressing niches and even those with malicious intent to deliberately transmit the disease.

“Strength in diversity indeed - for pandemic disease!”

The take-away is that European peoples must take initiative in border control to protect the interests of our human ecologies - for our very survival. Institutional bodies entrusted to be competent and concerned cannot be relied upon for even the basics of public health management - they are not even taking into account such basic factors as the mass introduction of alien biology and behavioral patterns on stable human ecologies; the direct introduction of virulence from primeval breeding grounds and bio-power, e.g., of Sub-Saharan Africa - which your European biology may not withstand. In fact, these bureaucrats in their faux-objectivism, whether the result of pandering or being pandered-to, malicious intent, indifference or incompetence at best, are subjecting European populations to experiments that your European biology should not have to hold up-to, as conducted upon you and the ancient human ecology of our European peoples unwillingly, unbeknownst, without consent.

More, for their very nature as fixed places, James likens nation states to immobilized patients in a clinic, and therefore draws the possibility of their susceptibility to pandemic, such as Spanish flue, which spread rapidly through immobilized patient concentrations in Red Cross hospitals after World War I. Immobile as the nations states are then, it is imperative to secure their borders against mobilized virulence.

Ebola having reached The U.S. highlights this fact. Thriving at length, transmissible even from a corpse, passively, potentially mutating airborne transmissability, Ebola can be far more destructive than the H.I.V. epidemic which the CDC blundered about..

James details the analogy in the misreading of H.I.V. and Ebola epidemiology:

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Monday, October 6, 2014 at 04:23 AM in ConservatismCrusade against Discrimination in BritainDemographicsEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityGlobalisationHealthImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsSocial liberalismWhite Genocide ProjectWorld Affairs
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

Jewish tricks: paradoxic injunctions, reversal of terms

..and movements. Proscriptions of European organization and defense, promulgated under a guise of moral acceptability, that have European peoples arguing against their own interests and organization thereof.

                                                        moses
                                                  promulgating the perversion of terms…

Conservatism

Racist/Racism

Leftism

Equality

Diversity

Multiculturalism

Post Modernity

Social Constructionism

Hermeneutics

Marginals

Tolerance

Civil Rights

Hippies/Feminists

Sexual conservatism as pathological

Christianity

 

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 29, 2014 at 11:24 PM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsConservatismCrusade against Discrimination in BritainFeminismJournalism
Comments (1) | Tell-a-Friend

Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours and rebuild radically of our people

  salter
Frank Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours, that we may rebuild radically anew, embedding our national interests of our people.

In the West people are not mobilized in their own defense and why is that? Our Majorities are faced with a fundamental structural problem.

That is historically based….. when the nation states of Europe were formed (such as) England initially, there were a dozen Kingdoms….the consolidation of those small principalities came about through an implicit promise ..the promise was that the new centralized government would adopt the functions of the small tribal governments: so it would defend the people, on the same principle, it would defend externally and maintain internal peace.. it would not betray the basic interests of the society….there was an implicit understanding or assumption that the elite is invested emotionally in the people, that it is tied to the people, that it comes from the people….the people expected their elites to not be alien, not to hate them, not be hostile towards them, but to be drawn from them, and to actually feel one with them…so there was an assumption of identity defense…of concern about continuity and so on…

That is all broken down now. The elite do not identify with the people anymore - those normal aspirations for identity continuity. The fact is that the nation/state model (two separate terms there) - Nation, the bond of the heart, and State, the apparatus of government - have become separated; they don’t have the same relationship one to the other that they did even a hundred years ago. But still the assumption is there, that those functions are being performed; when the opposite functions are being performed! These States are actually overseeing replacement, a demographic revolution that’s taking place.

So, I argue that in this light what needs to happen is that the Majorities actually, in a way, need to accept their defeat. Sort of a radical thing, some people object to this. But I think we need to accept, acknowledge the profundity of our defeat and accept that the government is no longer ours. The State no longer belongs to the people. Once one has faced that harsh truth, then one can start thinking what we can do to survive in the future as a people.

We need to starve these governments of resources; and rather we must build-up alternate national organizations that are well embedded in the people.

We are on a healthy trajectory right now with some fight-back in Europe. But for me the real sign of health will be when Tony Blair finds himself in court charged with treason. That would be a clear sign that something healthy is happening.

You know that the Blair government deliberately set-about to flood Britain with third-world immigrants as a way of breaking the spirit of conservatives…so that they would give up the fight to try to retain their country. I view that as least arguably criminal and if laws don’t exist - and I suspect laws don’t exist for prosecuting people like Blair - the law should be created.

 

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 07:11 AM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideAustralian PoliticsAwakeningsBritish PoliticsConservatismCrusade against Discrimination in BritainDemographicsEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean cultureEuropean NationalismGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityGlobal ElitismGlobalisationImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsMarxism & Culture WarMediaPolitical analysisSocial SciencesWhite Genocide ProjectWhite Genocide: EuropeWhite Nationalism
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

“Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them”

                                    blakecompass
                “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them”

  D: Don’t be silly. I can’t draw a conversation. I mean things.

  F: Yes—I was trying to find out just what you meant. Do you mean “Why do we give things outlines when we draw them?” or do you mean that the things have out-lines whether we draw them or not?

  D: I don’t know, Daddy. You tell me. Which do I mean?

  F: I don’t know, my dear. There was a very angry artist once who scribbled all sorts of things down, and after he was dead they looked in his books and in one place they found he’d written “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them” but in another place he’d written “Mad men see outlines and therefore they draw them.”

  D: But which does he mean? I don’t understand.

  F: Well, William Blake—that was his name—was a great artist and a very angry man. And sometimes he rolled up his ideas into little spitballs so that he could throw them at people.

  D: But what was he mad about, Daddy?

  F: But what was he mad about? Oh, I see—you mean “angry.” We have to keep those two meanings of “mad” clear if we are going to talk about Blake. Because a lot of people thought he was mad—really mad—crazy. And that was one of the things he was mad-angry about. And then he was mad-angry, too, about some artists who painted pictures as though things didn’t have out-lines. He called them “the slobbering school.”

  D: He wasn’t very tolerant, was he, Daddy?

  F: Tolerant? Oh, God. Yes, I know—that’s what they drum into you at school. No, Blake was not very tolerant. He didn’t even think tolerance was a good thing. It was just more slobbering. He thought it blurred all the outlines and muddled everything—that it made all cats gray. So that nobody would be able to see anything clearly and sharply.

  D: Yes, Daddy.

  F: No, that’s not the answer. I mean “Yes, Daddy” is not the answer. All that says is that you don’t know what your opinion is—and you don’t give a damn what I say or what Blake says and that the school has so befuddled you with talk about tolerance that you can-not tell the difference between anything and anything else.

 

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideArt & DesignBritish PoliticsConservatismCrusade against Discrimination in BritainDemographicsEnvironmentalism & Global WarmingEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityGlobalisationImmigration and PoliticsLinguisticsMyth and modernityPsychology
Comments (0) | Tell-a-Friend

Gregory Bateson on Pathology - Context and Relation

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns - that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”                     
                                              - Gregory Bateson, Paradigmatic Conservatism.

“When you breach a holistic structure, and say, or do without saying, I’m only going to attend to this end of a relationship - I’m going to study the role of the doctor - role - r-o-l-e”..[or in our case, the role of Jews, one other race, or our own people] ..“now a role is a half-assed relationship, you know. It’s one end of a relationship. And you cannot study one end of a relationship and make any sense. What you will make is disaster.”

     
grantchester
Grantchester, said to have world’s highest concentration of Nobel Prize winners, most of these presumably being current or retired academics from the nearby Cambridge.

“The healthy system, dreamed above, may be compared to an acrobat on a high wire. To maintain the ongoing truth of his basic premise (“I am on the wire”), he must be free to move from one position of instability to another; certain variables such as the position of his arms and the rate of movement of his arms, have great flexibility, which he uses to maintain the stability of other more fundamental and general characteristics. If his arms are fixed or paralyzed (isolated from communication), he must fall.

In this connection it is interesting to consider the ecology of our legal system. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to control by law those ethical and abstract principles upon which the social system depends. Indeed, historically, The United States was founded upon the premise of freedom of religion and freedom of thought - - the separation of Church and State being the classic example.

On the other hand, it is rather easy to write laws which will fix the more episodic and superficial details of human behavior. In other words, as our acrobat is progressively limited in his arm movement but is given free permission to fall off the wire.

Note, in passing, that the analogy of the acrobat can be apropos at a higher level. During the period when the acrobat is learning to move his arms in an appropriate way, it is necessary to have a safety net under him, i.e., precisely to give him freedom to fall off the wire. Freedom and flexibility in regard-to the most basic variables may be necessary during the process of learning and creating a new system by social change:

These parades of order and disorder the ecological analyst must weigh.

It is at least arguable that the trend of social change in the last one hundred years, especially in The USA, has been toward an inappropriate distribution of flexibility among variables of civilization. Those variables which should be flexible have been pegged, while those which should be comparatively steady, changing only slowly, have been cast loose.

Even so, the law is surely not the appropriate method for stabilizing the fundamental variables. This should be done by the process of education and character formation - those parts of our system which are currently and expectably undergoing maximum perturbation.” Steps, p.503

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 05:42 PM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideConservatismEducationEnvironmentalism & Global WarmingEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityGlobalisationWhite Nationalism
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Definitions

Adding (August 4th, 2014) a definition of Peace (at bottom).

1933 words

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.”

Liberalism:

Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.

Racism:

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.

Anti-Racism:

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.

Modernity/Post Modernity:

As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//standing_corrected_on_the_its_more_than_that_to_liberalisms_definition#c144061

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.

Peace is:

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.

 

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsChristianityConservatismCrusade against Discrimination in BritainEuropean NationalismGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityHistoryImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsLiberalism & the LeftLinguisticsWhite Nationalism
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Queers Assuming The Position

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.


4,308 words

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 03:09 AM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideArt & DesignAwakeningsConservatismFeminismGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityHealthLiberalism & the LeftMarxism & Culture WarSocial liberalism
Comments (23) | Tell-a-Friend

Standing Corrected on the “It’s More Than That” to Liberalism’s Definition

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.

http://age-of-treason.com/2014/06/10/yockey-on-liberalism-part-2/

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8oaBXD8l-58Z01FZ3RKb3drbzQ/edit?usp=drive_web

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…

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 03:06 AM in AnthropologyConservatismLiberalism & the LeftMR RadioPsychologySocial liberalismThe Ontology Project
Comments (17) | Tell-a-Friend

Is liberalism in my European head?

Is liberalism in my European head?

...or in interaction with social influences such as media?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREeweMWTZk

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?”

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 03:37 AM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideBritish PoliticsConservatismEuropean cultureFar RightFeminismPolitical analysisPolitical PhilosophyPopular CulturePsychologySocial ConservatismSocial liberalismSocial Sciences
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

White Post Modernity

rockyfeller

Monoculturalism meets Rockefeller (and eats him)

 

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Friday, April 4, 2014 at 01:29 PM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideConservatismEuropean cultureGlobalisationNew Zealand PoliticsPopular CultureRace realismSocial liberalismWhite Nationalism
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance

fivestars

A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance


Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.


While becoming the first geneticist to popularize Mendelism, William Bateson observed puzzlement in his colleagues over a strange morphological phenomenon in crustaceans.

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.”


…....


And from this inquiry he established “Bateson’s rule”, which asserts that when an asymmetrical appendage is regrown after loss, the resulting limb will be symmetrical, in mirror image with the other limb.

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.

 

Continued...

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 06:29 PM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideArt & DesignConservatismDemographicsEnvironmentalism & Global WarmingEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityOrigin of ManSocial SciencesThe Ontology ProjectWhite Nationalism
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

Margaret Thatcher, 1925 – 2013

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, April 8, 2013 at 10:00 AM in ConservatismObituaries
Comments (142) | Tell-a-Friend

Christianity As Expression of Authentic European Culture

GW has expressed the constraint:

“It is a pity that Christianity, as flawed as it is from a European racial perspective, is undeniably part of the unity of north and south.  We are stuck with it, for it has been too close for too long to us - and the faithful must have their faith expressions, after all.”

DanielS has expressed the constraint:

“Adding yet another knot in the tangle is the argument that with the Christian texts already being the terms in which many of our people think, the currency for two thousand years now, there must be some ontological basis beneath, and we may as well find the positive logic to it for our purposes. However, with the texts being what they are, the motivations of the texts being as convoluted, Jewish and ambiguous as they were to begin, all that winds-up happening with the deciphering of our “true” logic behind Christianity is a contribution to the mess.”

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 AnthropologyArcheologyBooksChristianityConservatismEuropean cultureHistoryNational SocialismPolitical PhilosophyPsychologyRevisionismSocial SciencesThe Ontology ProjectU.S. Politics
Comments (257) | Tell-a-Friend

Anti-politics and entryism to UKIP

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:

“Unless things are demonstrably different in terms of public perception by the early summer he [David Cameron] will have great difficulty in persuading the electorate that we can win a general election.

“He is out of touch with the party. Both gay marriage and EU migration feed into a narrative that too much emphasis is going to the liberal metropolitan elite and not enough to the blue-collar working vote that Margaret Thatcher had the support of.”

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, March 1, 2013 at 07:17 PM in British PoliticsConservatism
Comments (75) | Tell-a-Friend

Why aren’t mainstream conservatives racialist?

Brett Stevens

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.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, August 15, 2011 at 09:45 AM in Conservatism
Comments (55) | Tell-a-Friend

A basis for a conservative challenge to progressive thinking

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.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 10:52 AM in Conservatism
Comments (5) | Tell-a-Friend

Left - Right Out

by John Gordon

John Gordon is an Australian New Right activist and can be contacted through the New Right Australia/New Zealand website.
GW

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.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 03:58 PM in Conservatism
Comments (22) | Tell-a-Friend

Not all politicians are bad

... 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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, April 13, 2009 at 07:13 PM in Conservatism
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

The Great British Tradition of Conserving Homogeneity

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:-

“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.

Then there is the threat of miscegenation.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 09:32 AM in Conservatism
Comments (76) | Tell-a-Friend

Nationalist Conservatism

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.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 07:36 PM in Conservatism
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

I promise you

From the Wikipedia page on Plato’s Republic, commenting upon the inappropriateness of the title as given in English:-

An ancient Greek politeia was considered to be a way of life; so in actuality a proper translation would be ‘how we live as people’

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.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, April 8, 2007 at 05:19 AM in Conservatism
Comments (82) | Tell-a-Friend

How to get wiped out intellectually in one easy lesson - Updated 29.03.07 (and updated again)

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:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 06:56 PM in Conservatism
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

Derbyshire: Race and Conservatism

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3891&sec_id=3891

Alas, there is no justice in politics.  Republicans got stuck as the party of racial discrimination.  Since racial discrimination soon came to be seen as the most unspeakable of all evils, and since, from the 1970s on, most conservatives were Republicans, it is not very surprising that conservatives don’t want to talk about race.

I think we should, though.  Our current silence keeps us out of present trouble, I’ll grant; but I believe it stores up future trouble.  Let me try to explain.

IEmphasis added)

I think that says it all about Conservatives today, in general.

Conservatism, to me, is the politics of the Cold Eye.  It strives to see human beings as they are, not through a smeared lens of wishful thinking or abstract ideology.

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.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sunday, September 3, 2006 at 07:35 PM in ConservatismRace realism
Comments (56) | Tell-a-Friend

Is the free market inimical to conservatism?

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.

Continued...

Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 at 07:00 AM in ConservatismEconomics & Finance
Comments (44) | Tell-a-Friend

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

JoaquinFloresAtRI commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/20/14, 10:14 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/19/14, 08:55 PM. (go) (view)

Jeff Traube commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/19/14, 06:54 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/19/14, 06:49 AM. (go) (view)

SouthernNationalism commented in entry 'Forced Integration of remaining White flight neighborhoods by Obama Administration' on 12/19/14, 01:25 AM. (go) (view)

FrankDesilvaAtRI commented in entry 'MR Radio - Tom Metzger, Jimmy Marr, Daniel ... and me' on 12/18/14, 02:35 PM. (go) (view)

BlackImpulse commented in entry 'Officer Wilson Interview' on 12/18/14, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/17/14, 10:11 PM. (go) (view)

Mummy commented in entry 'An Exhortation From Stanistan' on 12/17/14, 09:38 PM. (go) (view)

MarkH commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/17/14, 09:20 PM. (go) (view)

Max Hastings commented in entry '100th Anniversary of World War I' on 12/16/14, 05:12 PM. (go) (view)

Question Time commented in entry 'Hyperbolic Neo-Liberal Immigration Policy Misnamed "Leftist" By YKW Media (Be Even More Afraid)' on 12/16/14, 04:06 PM. (go) (view)

SnowManDreaming commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/16/14, 07:45 AM. (go) (view)

Italian"FarRight" commented in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 12/16/14, 07:06 AM. (go) (view)

Ashlea Harris commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 12/16/14, 06:05 AM. (go) (view)

Saul commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 12/16/14, 05:56 AM. (go) (view)

ItaliansWarOnImmigrants commented in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 12/16/14, 04:45 AM. (go) (view)

Yes, it happened. commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 11:28 PM. (go) (view)

Peter commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 10:25 PM. (go) (view)

AnthonyOnBasicIncome commented in entry 'MR Radio: Migchels, Bowery Address Malign Economics' on 12/15/14, 02:07 PM. (go) (view)

? commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 11:31 AM. (go) (view)

Firepower commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 09:48 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry '(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter' on 12/15/14, 06:27 AM. (go) (view)

Stan'sExhortation commented in entry 'Poland' on 12/14/14, 11:55 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 12/14/14, 04:36 PM. (go) (view)

Stan Hess Alert commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/13/14, 10:50 PM. (go) (view)

UkrainianNationalism commented in entry 'Pensions and Basic Services Denied to People of Eastern Ukraine' on 12/13/14, 01:05 PM. (go) (view)

Bob in DC commented in entry 'James Watson Doesn't Exist' on 12/13/14, 11:59 AM. (go) (view)

MakingSenseOfHeidegger commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 12/13/14, 08:56 AM. (go) (view)

Ricardo commented in entry '(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter' on 12/13/14, 02:36 AM. (go) (view)

Radix commented in entry 'Are Jews White?' on 12/13/14, 01:59 AM. (go) (view)

Patricia commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 12/12/14, 03:59 PM. (go) (view)

PI commented in entry 'Poland' on 12/12/14, 01:03 PM. (go) (view)

Stan Hess Alert commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/12/14, 12:44 PM. (go) (view)

namedroid commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 12/12/14, 12:29 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa