Category: No particular place to go
It’s a shame that Tan would say that I’m “not using my brain”.. “don’t have my thoughts organized clearly” and then take an idea that I have clearly organized and advanced for some time, and promote it on the Hitler worshiping “Renegade Network”, saying that he has this idea that our objectivity has given us advantages but also susceptibilities.
On the topic of genocide vs suicide he has an informative discussion but it is a false either/or in that MacDonald is not taking his eye off of Jewish power and influence and arguing “suicide” by examining our own susceptibilities (nor am I arguing White suicide).
Tanstaafl argues for genocide of Whites as opposed to White suicide
Tan quotes (from a post that KM put on TOO!):
“That’s not suicide”
I was at a fare yesterday, thousands of people, 99 percent White, probably a few Jews mixed in, a few middle easterners and one interracial couple - lovely, elegant blonde with a special kind of blue eyes and a Negro in no way handsome or even somehow impressive as a physical specimen.
I used a strategy of walking near them while not looking at them directly, saying loudly, “very good! 41,000 years of evolution destroyed, giving it to an ape!”
The important point I want to make is that nobody of this White crowd even noticed or was the least perturbed by this sickening interracial spectacle.
It is legitimate to ask why a visceral response isn’t forthcoming. It would be paranoid to suggest that KM and I are trying to deny or distract from the Jewish influence. He has insisted, and so do I insist, that Whites can be brainwashed by the Jews media and academia.... lets add religion, law, politics, business procedures and financing.
I hear Tan referring to my idea that our inclination to objectivism leaves us susceptible.
Objectivism, which has appeal by yielding some spectacular practical results and insights, powerful moral warrant and innocence from subjective concern, leaves our people susceptible to be non-discriminatory - perhaps especially of the obvious - as one can readily demonstrate if not “prove” their objectivity by not noticing and making judgments upon even such obvious differences.
That’s called “rational blindness” and this relative blindness to our subjective position and interests is a requirement in quest of pure objectivism.
Rational blindness can blind us to our involvement, indebtedness and accountability to our people’s interests and other people’s impositions. Scientists can famously be dupes to Manichean trickery for the habit of this Augustinian mindset. * I remember a former MR regular who, rather than request an explanation which I would have readily provided, tried to suggest that I was being pompous and deliberately obscure with these terms: Manichean - human challenges which can change when solved in order to trick an adversary, Augustinian - natural challenges which do not change when solved just to trick you again (how does Kol Nidre versus science grab you?).
This isn’t making excuses for Jews or letting them off the hook in any way or form.
Or has KM fallen into disfavor because he does not think AH and revisionism are the royal road to White salvation?
I haven’t heard MacDonald talk of “suicide”, I know that I do not talk of suicide.
I do know that Tanstaafl has overreacted when I, and others, cited liberalism as a problem, as if we were trying to distract from the J.Q. when discussing liberalism or other causes for peoples being under threat (as if we are not aware of the shenanigans of Lawrence Auster, et.al).
In this podcast I hear Tan accurately criticizing the Jews for transforming World War II into “the Holocaust” and elevating themselves as the special victims. All true and foul.
But he doesn’t see how the Nazis, and his over-sympathy for them, have him mirror the Jews, to where Nazis are the special and only important victims, didn’t do anything (it’s all a “hoax”), their victimization is pure, removed from cause and interactive conflict.
Evidently, right-wing WN interest to make the Jews the “only problem”, to where they would even denounce MacDonald for looking at our role in the interaction, is a motivation of those who want desperately to redeem Uncle Adolf and completely disprove the holocaust, blind and oblivious to the fact that those tasks are unnecessary and largely counter-productive to pursue.
The key distinction is not “hierarchy” vs “leveling and equality”, the key distinction is (pseudo) objectivism of The Right and its susceptibility to liberal universalisms which transcend accountability to social group interests vs the unionized and therefore particular and relative social group interests of the Left, as rendered by a White Left.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 25, 2015 at 01:45 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Libertarianism, Linguistics, No particular place to go, That Question Again, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism
Posted by DanielS on Friday, January 30, 2015 at 12:59 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, No particular place to go, Popular Culture, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Africa, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage crisis - government attempt to increase minority home-ownership instigated the sub-prime housing crisis.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, November 15, 2014 at 04:04 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration and Politics, Marxism & Culture War, No particular place to go, Popular Culture, Social liberalism, That Question Again, The Proposition Nation, U.S. Politics, White Communities & Micro-Economies, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: America, White Nationalism
The Apollo 11 project, which had legions of well behaved admirers who descended upon Cape Canaveral to observe its event.
Now, if we couldn’t expect hippies, not even John Lennon, to be articulate of what was important about the hippie motive how can we expect Don Black and right wing cohorts to be articulate of their motives?
Don says Timothy Leary was the poster hippie boy with the emblematic phrase, “tune in turn on and drop out.” Not exactly.
And his colleague, “Don Advo,” preferred Ayn Rand’s take on hippies in “Apollo and Dionysus,” disparaging hippies by contrast to achieving technocrats, viz. contrasting the Apollo astronauts and witnesses to the Dionysian Woodstock performers and crowd.
But whereas Any Rand’s individualist objectivism was motivated to rupture the communality and other organization of European peoples by contrasting it with “heroic” but disingenuous individualism, the hippies did have a very important motive which is continually skirted-over by those who ignore the background of The Vietnam War Draft.
In rebellion against the draft, hippies were there at Woodstock, singing..
“Well, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. Yeah, he’s got himself in a terrible jam way down yonder in Vietnam. So put down your books and pick up a gun, gonna have a whole lotta fun.. and its one, two, three…
What are we fighting for? Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, next stop is Vietnam”..
“Ain’t no time to wonder why (Being, midtdasein, nah!) whoopee! we’re all gonna die!
Yeah, come on Wall Street, don’t be slow, why man, this is war au-go-go
Plenty good money to be made by supplying the army with the tools of its trade”
In all seriousness…
Their fundamental project was very significant in the advance of European peoples - a quest for midt-dasein - communal being amidst the class of one’s people for White males - as opposed to having those basic levels on the hierarchy of needs sacrificed by males in deprivation and privation; where a few males might make it through the stress to the higher reaches (often transformed into sociopaths for the effort), to the higher aims on the hierarchy of needs - e.g., exploring the moon. To where in fact, these traditional trade-offs in gender differentiation were exploited and exaggerated beyond reason.
Sacrificial White males on the way, as in Vietnam, no matter how needless, be damned.
The point is, these motives/needs should not and ultimately, in fact, cannot be mutually exclusive, but must be balanced in optimality. The hippies were not protesting the Apollo landing. They reasonably sought organicism and being in balance to technology. However, they might upset a Jew like Ayn Rand because they were insisting that the intrinsic value of White men - White male midt-dasein - be recognized, in fact its institution was/is a necessary priority.
But the hippies were inarticulate of that motive. Moreover, requisite to their motive of midtdasein was “racism” * - i.e., social classification and necessary discrimination thereof, duty when mature to guard the boundaries thereof - there is no being in one’s group without discriminating against its antagonists - ironically prohibited with the newly mis-coined “civil rights” making such requisite discrimination into a veritable taboo and largely illegal in fact. Needless to say that was hard to articulate at the time as it is still now. Midtdasein’s articulation was made yet harder by the fact that it could easily be emasculated against the traditional role/motive for males to quest after the top of the hierarchy and man-up in sacrificing the basic needs of the hierarchy. Furthermore, turning back from actualizing the top of the hierarchy apparently belied the whole American project as the “land of opportunity.” Indeed, White males would not necessarily want to sacrifice the possibility for the top of the hierarchy either. Nor would they want to sacrifice the middle - relationships with co-evolutionary women:
Articulating the motive of White male midtdasein was further complicated by its incommensurability and confusion with Jewish interests and right-wing interests - who sought to associate it with the Jewish radical agenda of Marxism: expressed as imposed liberalism for Whites but by contrast to that relaxation of vigilance, a unionized activism for non-Whites against Whites - the prim “civil rights” and upwardly black power totally incommensurate with White male midtdasein. As was Marcuse’s “free love and “poly- morphous perversion” incommensurate with White male midtdasein, especially as bounds of accountability and human ecology were ruptured as “violation of ‘civil rights”
The second wave of feminism, another thing wrongly correlated with hippies, was also in fact incommensurate, quite literally incommensurate with White male midtdasein.
In fact, it was the thesis of Betty Friedan, leading exponent of that second wave of feminism, that in order to be healthy, full and free, women needed access to the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
It is apparent how the “high grumbles” which Maslow called higher needs on the hierarchy, and as feminists who followed Friedan’s thesis would espouse, could cause extreme friction between White women and White men, who had the “low grumbles” of not wanting to be treated as being so intrinsically valueless as to have to be subject to a draft and die in a senseless foreign war of aggression; and rather than being left alone in peace, being amidst the class of their people, were subject in still further violation thereof - violation of their freedom from association with outsiders as imposed by “civil rights” - violation of freedom from association, violation of midtdasein - taking away the most basic freedom of White men.
* Needless to say, along with hippies, Ayn Rand found “racism” appalling - disCusting!
Sometime back a fellow calling himself Lonejack agreed with my assessment:
Thank You Lonejack
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, No particular place to go, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Social liberalism
- By Bill Giles
I think there is every indication that Britain has reached its Camp of the Saints moment, where millions of immigrants from every corner of the globe are now making their presence felt in so many negative ways, housing, jobs, overburdened institutions, social cohesion, lost of identity, crime, and not least, a national void and sense of foreboding.
Our elites are showing no sign of let up, the rip tide of humanity landing on our shores (and through our airports) is applauded by the liberal establishment, and yet still the majority of natives cannot understand the logic of it all. The tipping point looms nearer by each single day.
In Raspail’s story the liberal elites cave at every turn, until only Switzerland remains as an armed nation of resistance, only for them to crumble in the final hour in the full glare of liberal guilt, France is lost, western civilisation is lost.
There is no indication in Raspail’s thinking that the white race is under threat of existence from a deliberate attack by unknown dark forces or who would undertake such a dastardly plan.
Raspail’s tale tells us western civilisation had lost confidence in itself and in some way had no right to determine its tribe’s own future, like rabbits in the headlamp’s glare, whites are paralysed to act in their own defence.
Perhaps Britain is at this stage in the cycle of mass immigration, for there is no real sign of resistance from the mass of the people, still less as to what will galvanise them into any future kind of action.
Further, Raspail’s unfolding imagination does not extend to a narrative where Britain and America are engaged in fermenting a World war in which to bring about their New World Order, all of which throws Rumsfeld unknown-unknowns into immigration chaos.
As I have commented before, it seems when the elites have accomplished their goal, there is no plan B as to what will replace it.
How and when will we know when all is won or lost?
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, August 28, 2014 at 11:16 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, No particular place to go
While we are (in 299 words) addressing David Duke and his single greatest cause issue - Jewish power and influence - with his admonition against their strategy of divide-and-conquer, we should ask..
Is it not possible that our traitorous White plutocrats would be happy to have us fight a war against that which is also their greatest enemy - Jewish power and biocultural patterns - and use us as cannon fodder?
What, after all, have they done for us?
What have they done to merit our loyalty?
What have they done to fight Jewish power and influence? mass non-White immigration into European peoples’ habitats? the destruction of European cultures and people?
Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 15, 2014 at 06:04 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Business & Industry, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, European Union, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, New Right, No particular place to go, Political Philosophy, The American right, U.S. Politics, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, August 5, 2014 at 11:19 PM in Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, No particular place to go, Race realism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, White Genocide: Africa, World Affairs
There’s nothing very surprising in Adam Curtis’ The Trap: What happened to our dreams of Freedom? compelling as it is.
While I’m in a holiday mood, and since we have focused on some rather dry material of late, I thought it might make a change to post something entirely frivolous but still, I hope, interesting to readers - the opening chapter of a story I will doubtless never attempt to buff-up, develop and title.
Tyler was already waiting for him on the first floor landing. “Couldn’t you have found somewhere anonymous,” Coulson quipped, throwing a gesture towards the cheap, utilitarian interior of a wholly unremarkable office building.
“To be content, add not to your possessions but subtract from your desires,” Tyler shot back, almost smiling.
They shook hands in desultory fashion. It had been a year since they were both stationed in London, during which Coulson had done a stint as liaison in Washington, then, briefly, at Nashashibi Street. Tyler, a devoted careerist, had worked his charm on other, older careerists at SIS and reaped the reward promotionally. Now he had been brought in to run this nominally MI5 show which, if it produced results, would earn the gratitude of people who mattered and who weren’t part of the pink maffia of British Intelligence.
“Any other friends here yet, my old fruit?” asked Coulson. It was exactly 6.00pm. He was not always so punctual or so polite.
“Oh indeed.” said Tyler caustically, “We are waiting for you,” He leaned over the gallery . “Right Jessop, lock the place down. No one and nothing in or out unless authorised by me. All personnel incommunicado.”
Seeing the puzzlement at such excess on Coulson’s face, he explained slowly and evenly, “There will be no leaks from this operation.”
It had been four months since the Chevening event. The initial clamour - the explosion of demands for an early arrest from all quarters of the Western political Establishment, the panic of the British Establishment, the wild press speculation, the riotous glee from the internet - had died away within the first three weeks. But the pressure from within “the intelligence community” was unrelenting. The world’s foremost banker and doyen of the powerful had been assassinated on Foreign & Commonwealth Office property, dying with a maraschino cherry and a 7.62mm M118 cartridge in his throat. The fatal shot had been fired from a distance of 600 metres across fields that, though open, were secured (in theory at least) by listening devices and other counter-measures. Yet the marksman - obviously highly-skilled, obviously aware of the ground - had obtained a firing position undetected, taken his shot, left nothing behind, no DNA, and made good his escape.
There was one low-resolution image of a motorcyclist captured at 7.49 pm on a garage forecourt video, heading south two miles from the scene. Enhancement revealed a rider in black helmet, jacket, trousers and boots on a bike that may have been a Honda CBF125. He was wearing a back-pack long enough, certainly, to accommodate a sniper’s rifle and tripod. No other camera recorded the mystery biker, and no sightings of him had been reported as a result of the public appeals.
It had quickly emerged that the security operation for the weekend party had been perfunctory at best. There had been no security review for two years. Nobody seemed to have considered the possibility that a hostile could penetrate the counter-measures. In consequence, a couple of pairs of DPG officers armed with night-vision and MP5s wondering about the estate was presumed quite sufficient for all eventualities.
Today I had an informative and occasionally bloody exchange with some rather vituperate drug-takers on a DT thread to an article by Brendan O’Neill. Brendan is only moonlighting at the Telegraph. His daytime job is editor of the left-wing mag, Spiked. He is one of a small band of liberal-left journalists who abuse the DT readership in various none-too-subtle ways. Today, Brendan was making a particularly vapid argument not only for the decriminalisation of cannabis but of all drugs. It certainly brought out the libertarian tendency.
Ever since I was a very young man first encountering people socially who took “illegal substances” I have found the breed to be very annoying. I don’t think I ever met one who was not wholly consumed by the fashions and fads of the times, or who really had both feet planted on the ground. Indeed, their personalities were as light as a feather. Now, I am sure that somewhere there must be many decent people who happened to smoke weed when they were young and impressionable, and perhaps still do from time to time. But I never met one.
What I did meet were socially needy people who had few inner resources, who liked novelty, who considered themselves “free” because they did this apparently daring thing, when all the evidence was that they did it because they were in chains. It meshed neatly with my then nascent understanding that you can’t live seriously if you are not psychologically serious, and the number of serious people I met in the daily rounds of a south London life circa 1970 were not exactly encouraging.
Well, all that was a very long time ago, and I haven’t given it a great deal of thought since. But it all came flooding back as I read the “wisdom” of the attenuated specimens posting on the thread. I found myself arriving at the same conclusion: if a man gives himself and his brain chemistry up to some street drug he has already proven that he is too weak and suggestible to make responsible choices. The proper course for public policy cannot be legalisation until a real degree of personal psychological stability and self-knowledge obtains.
Of course, all these druggy creatures on the O’Neill thread were libertarians, and so they were perfectly convinced of their own “sovereign will”. They had not the slightest inkling that they are incomplete and shallow men. One of them informed me:
He did not reply. They never do if it gets difficult.
Governments agonise over what to do about the drugs issue. They should forget that. It isn’t drugs that cause the drug-taking. It’s the kind of human personalities we are producing.
ASIAN COGNITIVE ELITES SOLVE THE UK HOUSING CRISIS WITH THE MUMBAI MODEL
There has been some press coverage at last of the ingenius and rather profitable solution to the housing crisis conceived by our dusky-skinned, cognitively elite fellow countrymen. What was that you said? Did the Subcogs conceive the housing crisis or the solution to it? Ah ... erm ... both. I did not make a grammatical error, you see.
Give it time and no one will know that’s not normal…
NO THREATS, NO INCITEMENT BUT JAILTIME JUST THE SAME
Glasgow is an uncompromising place, and its football fans have a long tradition of uncompromising hostility across the sectarian line that divides Rangers and Celtic. But even there the thaumaturgists of the politically correct courts are visiting the Pax Judaica upon the warring factions.
As a result of the CMS article I received a request from Greg Johnson for an interview. In turn, I requested a QA format because that allows me to think about my replies at leisure, and avoid a few of those inevitable foot-in-mouth moments. Greg sent the first question this evening, to which I have replied as below. I am going to build up the interview on this post, as we progress with it.
Question 1: Have you had any dealings with William Regnery? If so, what transpired?
In the Anglosphere the thinking was, on one hand, essentially religious, meshing flawlessly with the 20th century fictions of a European spirit of race and mythic destiny, and, on the other, empirical, producing stone-cold certainties about human bio-diversity, sociobiology, gene interests, and so on. It was (and is) a barren coupling. I wanted to find some basis for reconciling the unreconcilable ... science and philosophy, truth and beauty, the New World and the Old, because then we might have a foundation on which others could build intellectually. And we might, if we were lucky, come into possession not just of a reactionary critique of liberalism à la de Benoist but something shattering, something epochal and renewing.
by Karl LaForce
Because I wanted to know, I spent about 6 hours running down the basic facts on as many black serial killers as I could find. I limited the list to the USA starting in 1900. I came up with more than 30.
Recently, in correspondence with GW, Graham Lister and CaptainChaos, LJ Barnes demanded we drop the tedious, pseudo-intellectual wank, and ordered that we:
In compliance, I decided to write about the rules of Politics as I understand them. In paticular, the golden rule of Political communication. Politics is not merely running for a seat in government, Political action is whenever one needs to persuade another. Politics is by definition an exchange between people where one attempts to present an idea of authority to be accepted by all, or the majority. This is a most basic rule, but it’s underlying truth lends it self-operating wisdo. All Western politicians within the Democratic/Parliamentary system, whether you love or hate them, attained majority power with a variation of this rule.
For explication, I will present the Rule in three parts:
1) People care about subjects which benefit them and are perceived to be just.
A majorities primary concern is always material subsistence, followed by the need to be free of anxiety towards their livelihood. The successful nationalist frames all arguments in terms of positive benefits to the listener and his livelihood, no matter the subject, with positive outcomes and conclusions of economy and natural justice. Many nationalists are in the habit of the exact opposite, framing the arguments in terms of negative effects and the experience of injustice. As a result, people do not give a shit. Framing one’s policy goals on beneficial outcomes for the subject, means even if they disagree, they will always care very much.
2) For authority to be functional, it must serve those who submit to it. Anything of value is determined by function alone.
Politicians frame the argument towards the audience. This is why they promise this, that and the opposite at different times of the day. But the promises they make are not the value in the equation, just the inducement…value is framed around the functions they require authority to develop. This is how successful politicians elicit devotion towards their authority, despite disdain for their policies. Example of this are Churchill, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc.
Therefore, show the result intended, but the path that benefits the majority interests. Only present the degree of ways and means that allows one to acommodate the audiences interests without a great degree of inconsistency. How to manage this is via the third part:
3) Keep It Simple Stupid
The secret weapon. The KISS principal causes friends to overestimate, and one’s enemies to underestimate the strength and wisdom of a speaker. Escalating a debate into science, philosophy or genetics is asking to disappear into a swamp of misconception. Couple this with rule 1, (keep it positive, beneficial,) and simple…and cause a dramatic impact.
I recall a Professor who on first appearance seemed a oaf ... until he began to lecture. The contrast was such that he became everyone’s favorite and most loved lecturer - so much so that one’s first impression of other Professors who were well attired and fluent communicators turned from a good impression to suspicion that they were inwardly dull and shallow. Allow an audience to develop it’s own misconceptions and exploit those misconceptions.
Finale: The purpose of this short article is to present a challenge to the reader to take their favorite social or economic policy; ie. deporting immigrants, public execution of immigration officials + Labour Party members, introducing hemisphere-wide right of personal combat, eugenics programs to diminish occurrence of the ‘faith gene’, etc, and reformulate it within the context of the rules of politics. It is advised one start by conceiving one’s policy goals in the simplest manner, then identify the functions required, and how to present these functions in a simple yet oblique manner that can be tailored towards the audience. Reframe your points towards positive outcomes for any audience. And, lastly, determine how to frame one’s policy goals to dovetail with the underlying anxiety of an audience concerning their livelihood.
Insights are appreciated. Politics is not exact science, but art ... and relies on the skills developed by its members.
“The less the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night.”
by Alexander Baron
Washington - FamilyRadio, an American-based Christian radio station, has predicted the world will end May 21, 2011. This article argues their chronology is wrong, but probably by less than a hundred years.
The end of the world? Not literally, but unless our leaders change course drastically and soon, there are children alive today who will undoubtedly see the end of civilisation as we know it – consider the evidence. First there is Professor Albert Bartlett’s doom-mongering lecture – classic and awesome in equal measure - Arithmetic, Population And Energy. This can be found all over the Internet in video, audio and text formats – the latter in French and Spanish as well as English. A video version was uploaded to Youtube in 8 parts with the modest but terrifyingly accurate title The Most IMPORTANT Video You’ll Ever See.
by Alexander Baron
This is a sort of supplement to my essay Oscar Wilde: The Straight Truth About A “Gay” Icon that was published here last month. There are two further points I would like to make: one relating to the decadence of Wilde, the other about the decadence of modern society. To take the first point first; as I pointed out, after Wilde withdrew from the criminal libel prosecution, Lord Queensberry bankrupted him. Mostly it is taken for granted that but for this, Wilde would have been able to keep his head above water. This is not necessarily the case.
According to the Law Report for August 26, 1895 which was published in The Times the following day, at a first meeting of his creditors, Wilde was said to have unsecured liabilities of £2,676 and partly secured debts of £915.
His assets were primarily the royalties on his “literary works” and a “life policy”. He declared his income from these as not less than £2,000 per annum; he had 10% of the gross weekly receipts from his play The Importance Of Being Earnest - gross, not net - and 15% over that.
The bill for his aborted criminal libel action was £677, an enormous sum in those days, but nowhere near as large as his income; according to the Times, “it appeared that the debtor had been insolvent for some time past”.
Where I share the thoughts that flicker through my mind while relaxing in the evening study; my favorite herbal tea to one side and a box of morsels on the other as the situation requires. This is my form of meditation and I find it to be much more pleasurable than the more well-known ascetic forms, even if they do intermittently engender an elevation of consciousness. What the East didn’t realize is that a refined taste for tea and chocolates has its own sense of elevation, which is both more satisfying and reliable.
One morsel down.
by Alexander Baron
The recent announcement by William Hague, David Cameron’s Foreign Secretary, that he had shared a hotel bedroom with his researcher but that he was most definitely not homosexual came as no surprise to the most scurrilous gossip I know – my solicitor. Indeed, he told me before Hague married that he was “gay” – not my word. But he also said the same thing about Gordon Brown. I was particularly intrigued by this, and asked him on what evidence he made this defamatory claim. The main evidence was that Brown was over forty and unmarried, to which I replied that I was over forty and unmarried, and told him that if he were ever to cast such aspersions on me, I’d hit him with my handbag.
Subsequently, Gordon Brown married, but that didn’t satisfy him; it had to be a lavender marriage.
Rumours and scurrilous gossip of this nature abound, not just about politicians but about anyone who is famous – deserving or not – rich, influential, you name it, there are no real criteria anymore, not in the age of the Internet.
There was a similar rumour about Tony Blair many years ago, that he had been arrested for importuning in a public toilet, was charged, appeared at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, fined £500, and walked away. Nobody realised who he was because somehow he managed to use the name Charles Lynton. This story was so durable that even one of Britain’s leading Libertarians – whom I will not name – fell for it.
In the United States, even those holding high office – including the highest office – are nor immune from this sort of nonsense. Although Slick Willy was well and truly caught with his trousers down by virtue of the sordid tale of the semen stained dress, there is really no evidence that he was a serial rapist, as has been touted by some.
The current inhabitant of the White House has been subjected to similarly scandalous charges. In 2008, a white homosexual named Larry Sinclair came forward and claimed to have performed oral sex on then Senator Obama in the back of a limousine, and also that Obama had supplied him with cocaine. Sinclair was very precise about the date and location, and even made these allegations in a press conference at the National Press Club, Washington.
Videos of this conference and others of Sinclair can be found all over the Internet. The fact that neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain alluded to Sinclair during the Presidential race is, I think, the only comment that needs to be made on their veracity.
But what is tradition to me?
A fat, middle-aged white man justifying how his personal hobby of reading Latin and Greek makes him an oracle of higher wisdom and a good candidate for Founding Mandarin of a reborn white civilization.
A similarly fat, similarly biblio-erotically inclined individual who snoots and scoffs at every normal white person in a permanent game of oneupmanship. His love of the past kept him habitually out of our present, where white people are playing sports, listening to heavy metal, being fallible, and living lives in 2010.
A man who takes a knowledge of Tertullian and Tacitus to be some keystone of Nordic survival.
A man who can look at the whole confused hodge-podge of our past, claim ownership, and say: “see that thing there, that massive blob of basically everything that happened before 1945? That is our salvation. Imitating that is our salvation. Instead of saying “imitating” I say “returning to”. Oh no, Sally, its not quite that simple. He will have rarified his argument. It was the years between 1437 and 1489 where we really hit our stride. No doubt it was also because of “Factor X”.
A man for whom mental models of the past are more real than the life that pulses all around him. A man who wants to step away from our modern confusion in thought, taking shelter from it, and retreat into a classical past that didn’t exist for the people who lived in it. The classical past as reconstructed from two hundred texts authored by the top cognitive 0.0001% of that society and passed through his own subjective prism - he will of course have his favorites, but it’s all part of “the blob” so its OK.
A man who believes that this knowledge puts him above those who start businesses, become engineers, and aren’t past-hungry and escapist, because it provides him with clues about “how to build successful societies” and “what are the cornerstones of virtue”.
Meanwhile the whole thing that is being described, beyond some interesting political theory, social dynamics, individual psychology, and the classical foundations of science - the whole big blob is basically white sociobiology across time, skinned and mounted on display for the world. Yeah - white society - that did tend to work pretty well.
Tradition means you get to search forever through the historical dumpster trying to find “the key” of the one trend, the one cultural practice, the one thing that you can analyze out from the rest of the blob and become an advocate for. Oh, it was because they were pious. Except when they weren’t. It was because they weren’t promiscuous. Except those that were. It was because they ... etc, etc.
When a traditionalist puts up his pantheon of clay gods and tries to warp every available worldview into subordination to these dieties he’s piggybacking and parasitizing off of white success like everyone else. Only now because he is the mandarin responsible for parsing the discourse of these dead civilizations, he acquires a special status. It’s like affirmative action for fat, bookish geezers. Three million more-or-less-white Romans can build a successful civilization? Well, let me spend my life reading the output of their smart fraction to see why that society might have succeeded.
White men who create compelling realities in the present: be warned. Unless you follow the blueprint laid down by Mr. Corn-Beef-Sandwich-Sitting-In-The-Library-For-Two-Hours, oops ... I mean our civilizational forebears ... everything is going to become chaos. Let’s defer to whomever Corn Beef spent the last five years reading, because the blob is so precious, he has distilled its magic into a usable form.
That’s why I don’t like tradition and its advocates.
Here’s a comment which has blossomed into a full-fledged blog post!
Notus Wind wrote:
Morality is not the basis for a social movement. It is a way to control people based on shapes that appear on the frontiers of our knowledge. New knowledge immediately overturns previously existing moral structures, if anyone was keeping score of these ghostly entities, their carcasses are strewn all over every path of knowledge acquisition like the molted exoskeletons of insects.
Social morality is the imposition of a ‘should’ without the understanding of an ‘is’ - one party telling another to do something on the basis of its own authority, not of any understanding. If you didn’t know what an electric socket was, and I told you not to stick a fork in there, but I’m not telling you why - that is what traditional morality has been. No explanation forthcoming, no free choice involved, authority cited as justification. If I convey to you knowledge that its an electric socket, then your choice not to stick a fork in it becomes strategic - and no longer moral.
The extent to which I understand what is going on, to that extent I can act strategically. To the extent that I don’t understand what is going on and have to borrow and imitate from other people, is the extent that I am being ‘moral’.
Prometheus awoke from a terrible dream one night – a dream of a war in heaven. In his vision, the gods were defeated, their powers taken from them, and their palaces and gardens destroyed. The gods themselves had fallen from heaven and many among them had perished in the conflagration. In desperation, Prometheus did something that no one had ever dared before; he stole from the mind of the sleeping Deus a flame that had been jealously guarded for aeons. Fleeing heaven with the speed of a sparrow hawk, Prometheus held the sunburst tight against his breast; as he flew through the blackness of space holding the flame next to him, he was transformed by it. From his flesh, fiery feathers sprouted, and his arms transmuted into wings; as the sun was bright, his eyes became dark. With each beat of his wings, the light bearer’s appearance became more outrageous, more avian, and more intensely colored, until erupting in one last explosion of activity, the fire consumed him. He crashed into earth as a fireball and was discovered crumpled on the ground by a man and woman. With his final agonizing breath, Prometheus called to the man, saying, “feed me dear human, that I may bestow upon you the divine wind of the gods.” So the man tossed some grain and meat into the fire, and placed upon it incense woods. As the man did so, a jeweled egg rose from the undying ashes of the fallen angel’s body.
After some time had passed, and the man and woman gazed intently at the egg incubating in the embers, the shell cracked and a hatchling struggled to free itself; in its beak it held an emerald seed. Thanking the man for his kindness, the Firebird gave him the seed and told the man to plant it in a green hill-country. The resurrected bird said to the man and woman, “I have betrayed the gods and cannot return to them. I foresaw their end and your beginning; allow my spirit to dwell with you, and I will bestow upon you many more gifts than I have given you this day.” To this the man assented, and the Firebird turned himself into a flaming “crown of thorns” and alighted on the man’s head. The Firebird said “I will be with you always, and though the gods may beset you with many hardships, you will overcome them.” As he spoke these words, Prometheus dissolved into the man’s brow. From that day forward, man was lord over the Earth.
Not much going on here by way of new posts. So I thought I might as well put up links to a couple of fun threads at the British Democracy Forum. You know the BDF. It’s the place where everybody spits on the wilton when someone mistakenly mentions the leader’s name. But they don’t spit as much as the good folk of Nationalists Online. Now, they know how to spit, I can tell you. They do practically nothing else all day, from what I can judge. They are swimming in it. At least, I think that’s what it is.
Anyway, this scurrilous person Henry Palfrey has, in the most unwelcome and improper way, been introducing the JQ to pure-hearted British nationalists on the BDF who, to be honest, do not need dynosaur thinking of that ilk. Obviously. One of the threads is titled BNP need to be more like National Front. It’s fifteen pages long at this point, so I suggest a quick skim and nothing more. You may come across Soren on it somewhere. The other thread is new and is titled Michael Savage: Now It’s A Crime To Be White? Except the person who posted it belongs to a people who are not absolutely unequivocally white themselves.
There is an ongoing debate regarding how WE might regain the reigns of power – how we might take the captaincy of the vessel, so to speak. We all know the problem – the intoxicated captain (whose name is “He Who Wrestles with God” or Jacob) is steering us directly into an iceberg. Under Jacob’s captaincy, the ship has been neglected; our vessel is already taking on water, and the boilers are running out of steam (not to mention the problem of the exploding rat population). What good will it do us to usurp Jacob’s power if the ship is no longer seaworthy?
To Silver, in fact … in response to his contributions to the That Word Again thread:-
Your analyses in terms of irrational whites and aracial whites is accurate, but historically superficial. The Western collective consciousness has been under the sway of a wide array of circumstances and influences that have about played themselves out. The forces that have mounted and steered the circumstances are also at the end of the playbook. It is not yet closing time, but it clearly the last call.
History, in a certain sense, is like a children’s game of musical chairs. The music plays and everyone dances or runs about, and then the music slows and stops, and everyone must find a chair. Inevitably, someone is left out. Not everyone gets a chair, but not everyone is left out - only some, and they disappear from the game. No amount of multicultural brainwashing nor immigration can change this historical cycle. Unlike the children’s game, those who get the chairs are not the aracial, the atomized, the isolated, the apathetic. Nor are they the self-satisfied bourgeois, happy in his townhouse. It is those - and it has always been those - who are conscious of themselves as a unity, an entity and bloodline to be preserved. It is those who see the chairs that are their own. Those that made each individual chair, know the music and have played and won the game since time immemorial.
White Genocide Project
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