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,
What Britain’s new Conservative Party leader stands for is listed succinctly here. Like John Kerry he appears to want to be everything to everybody. It may even win him an election but whether it will do Britain much good is doubtful.
I think Britain has a long hard road ahead.
Have you ever read an article which begins well but then takes a disastrously wrong turn?
There’s an article being praised amongst some conservative groups here in Melbourne, written by Augusto Zimmermann. Augusto hails from Brazil but is undertaking his Ph.D in law at Melbourne’s Monash University (he appears to be of German descent). Augusto is an obviously intelligent young man, who appears regularly in the Christian conservative press.
His latest article takes aim at Victoria’s religious vilification legislation. Augusto begins by noting that the legislation contradicts the Western legal tradition by disallowing the truth of a statement as a defence. That’s why two Christian pastors could be prosecuted under the legislation for accurately quoting parts of the Koran to a private church gathering.
Augusto then criticises the idea that the legislation will help to create a “multicultural democracy”. He argues that not all cultures are equally committed to democracy, and that democracy and the rule of law might not be preserved if Australia “eventually decides to reject its own culture on account of multiculturalism”.
Augusto’s article then reaches its high point when he observes that,
David Cameron, the young lion of the left of the Conservative Party … and the centre … and everywhere, really, where desperate men dream, has spoken. And he has written. So there is no longer any cause for doubt about what this blank-faced, almost smart, tolerably personable font of ambition stands for. Besides himself, of course. We have been told.
We have, in fact, been told this:-
Oh dear. Changed. Attractive. The man has been thinking about change and attraction. As if the electoral angst of politicians hadn’t done enough to change Conservatism and repel people already.
What, young lion, is the history of post-Reform Conservatism but the failed effort to adapt to the sinking game of One-Man-One-Vote democracy and a liberal polity?
Readers may recall Kevin Lamb was fired from his post as editor of Human Events magazine after a complaint from the SPLC, a hate organization. VDARE has just published Kevin Lamb’s account of his experience at Human Events. (permalink).
I’ve just finished reading The Cousins by Max Egremont. It’s about two members of the English gentry, Wilfrid Scawen Blunt and George Wyndham, who were both politically active in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The impression you get of the gentry in the book is largely positive. Being part of the tradition of a landed estate, and having a good education and time for leisure, seems to have made the gentry both more cultivated and more genuinely conservative than the upper class we have today.
The view that seems to be most passionately held among those that frequent this blog is that attachment to one’s Volk (or “ethny” in Salter’s terms) and its traditions is the essence of conservatism and that therefore conservatism in the Anglosphere died out sometime in the 19th century. So what is called conservatism today is really just a variant of liberalism or individualism. Mark Richardson is a particularly insistent advocate of that view.
A good response to that here.
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