Category: Social Conservatism
Anti-Racism is not innocent, far from innocent, it is prejudiced, it is hurting and it is killing people. It is an impossible, pure Cartesian ideal, prohibiting necessary social perceptual grouping and accountable discrimination accordingly.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 03:02 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Social Conservatism
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 09:15 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Education, European culture, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
I think you’ll agree, after watching this so-called “children’s film”, there must be something worthy of deconstruction if not prosecution as hate speech:
We’re finally rid of these bad old days thanks to the great work of the Frankfurt School!
The SPLC and ADL must be alerted to the sewage gushing forth from the Internet into the personal computer media players of children around the world.
by David Hamilton
More than 6 million babies have been aborted since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force in Britain and around 75 million in the USA! There are 500 abortions every day in England and Wales and the figures show 67% of are carried out before the 10th week, and 89% before the 12th week. There are about 190,000 abortions a year in England and Wales. The official practice is that an abortion can be performed up to 24 weeks and needs the consent of two family doctor’s. The woman can seek a second opinion or go private. It is usual in cases when the child is likely to be disabled or not expected to have a high quality of life.
The debate is between liberals and feminists on rights, but is never on the woman’s duty to our posterity: the needs of our ethnic group are ignored. The two sides argue where the rights lie, couching the argument in rational terms. But what about our natural instincts? What about our emotional bonding with our people and the consequent responsibility for one another and the continuity of our people?
By The Narrator
Today we find ourselves in the path of a raging storm that seems determined to bring the rafters down upon us. We must keep in mind, though, that we are not the first generation to face such perplexities. Nor, we must hope, will we be the last.
The question before us now is how to best contend with this storm. Rash people climb up on the rooftop, shake a fist at the winds, and challenge the storm to a one-on-one battle to the finish. The finish usually means getting blown away, hit by lightning, or struck by a 150mph piece of airborne debris. Then there’s the panic-stricken, who ignored the gathering storm clouds till it‘s all too late, and are too frozen with fear to work out what to do.
The assured man, on the other hand, knows that storms come and go, and prepares to meet them and weather them as best he may. He watches and stays alert, and when he sees the clouds gathering he batons down the hatches, secures the lose timbers, herds the small animals into the barn, gathers the family into one place, brings the tools into the house and keeps the candles close at hand. He may not always avoid all tragedy and loss. But he has the best chance, and the state of mind and spirit to begin again the next day.
This is the kind of man - someone naturally steady, stable, with good character and good instincts, someone who thinks clearly even in harm’s way - that we need in abundance now. So this is a post about such men, and about the all too obvious, simple lessons in life - the basic truths - which help to make them, and which we are not getting right anymore.
It seems that one essential feature influencing the fate of a culture is the canon of stories which it uses to entertain young children. I had previously thought of morality as being the result of dictated principles, when a commentator on this website suggested that morality is also determined largely by story-telling. I think that that is an astute observation - morality plays and stories with moral messages seem to be important.
It also strikes me to what extent children’s minds, say up to the age of 8, are basically marinated in non-stop storytelling. In our capacity as adults we might tend to view storytelling principally as a vehicle for different skills and concepts: the ability to identify numbers, colors, ability to read, or lessons about the animal kingdom. These are things that children typically absorb up to the age of 5. While we may view the stories as a vehicle, children seem to view them as an end in itself. I think children take great delight in storytelling.
One of the strangest, saddest and most disturbing mysteries for many years is unfolding in the South Wales town of Bridgend. The discovery at 7.45am yesterday of the body of Jenna Parry, 16, in woods near her home at Cefn Cribbwr, a small village north-west of the town, brings to seventeen the suicides of young people since the beginning of 2007. All have been by hanging.
The Independent reports
Attempts by the South Wales Police to uncover meaningful connections between the suicides have, it seems, come to nothing. Speculation in the press of a pact or of some on-line Jim Jones artfully leading his trusting victims into the darkness have been firmly discouraged by police and the local Labour MP, Madeleine Moon. After all, these are not solely angst-ridden teenagers. The oldest of the seventeen was 26.
“Huge issues” is how the police characterise the driving factor in the majority of cases - a factor given impulsion, perhaps, by the example of others who were sometimes known to later suicides, sometimes not:-
We are left, then, with a self-sustaining noumenon ... some perfectly deadly, gothic glamour that has come into being in the minds of Bridgend’s most vulnerable and suggestible young people, and easily traverses the spaces between them ... something that trips personality damage or plain depression onward into the will to self-destruction.
American traditionalist conservative Larry Auster had this to say a few days ago:
Stephen LaTulippe has a fine essay at Lewrockwell.com that repays a read. It draws the battle lines between what he calls a Postmodern and an Organic society. Here are a few passages:-
He begins with some reflections on the long-running HBO TV series, Sex in the City.
I have found myself included in a New Right mailing list which contains much interesting material ... such as this Moscow News interview of the great Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn.
One has the impression that the general population in Russia has caught the West’s disease of advanced liberalism (“total liberalism” the Moscow Times calls it) with such swiftness that large parts of the country’s elite have been left behind ... and are morally and politically resisting. I hope that is true.
All the interview is worth reading. But the sections which particularly caught my attention are these:-
I intended to write a post on the ramifications of sexual liberation (or the sexual “revolution”) in terms of its impact on our mores in the future. This is a subject which is broached quite often although the arguments in favour of greater liberation are never considered in the fullest sense of their real long term consequences.
The legalisation (or intended legalisation in the case of many American states) of Gay “marriage” was a massive step in the relentless march of liberal sexual morality (and this has occurred despite popular resistance to it - as with all the other cherished ideals of the liberal project). The question however is, how much further is this going to go? Have we gone far enough? Have we now permitted absolutely everything under the sun or are there still limits which gnaw away at the concept of the “sovereign” individual (and those limits therefore deserve to be destroyed because the individual is “sovereign”)?
Speaking after the verdict Miss Baxter’s father Stephen said: “Katie was a lovely, happy girl with her whole life ahead of her.
“Katie was never homeless. She associated with people from the homeless community and although she often stayed in these circles, it was no reason for her to be murdered. She did not deserve to die.”
Miss Pennick’s father Kevin, who is from Derby, added: “The pain of losing my little girl in such a brutal way will always remain with me.
“Zoe was not homeless. She had a home to go to but chose to associate with other people who led the homeless lifestyle.”
These are the closing paragraphs of a BBC News article reporting the sentencing of the killers of three Nottingham women. It is not a pretty story, for sure. But it is one anybody who has had dealings, however brief or tenuous, with the homeless - or rough sleepers - and with addicts can credit all too easily. For these emiserated souls have crossed the moral Rubicon. They need not be killers to have done so. They need not be violent at all, though they will almost certainly know violence.
They cannot, however, be virtuous. At least, they cannot afford the virtue of ordinary men. They are “survivors”, and that is all they are. What Zoe Pennick’s father called “the homeless lifestyle” is an absolute. The pursuit of the next deal or the next drink rules over everything, is everything. It so distorts the moral compass that the preservation of human love and friendship, where it obtains, is a miraculous thing.
An Australian compares what happened in New Orleans with what happened in our last big flood, which happened right here in my home town of Brisbane in 1974. And everything he says is true. The water was over the top of the roofs of great tracts of houses here. I guess I don’t have to tell you how differently the two situations worked out.
It is common nowadays for women to decide against having children. This decision can change later in life but is also sometimes consistently adhered to and put into practice. Is that good or bad? It would in general seem mostly to be good—as long as it is a well-informed decision. It is good in the sense that children deserve better than having a mother that does not want them.
The caveat about the decision being “well-informed”, however, is very important. Many women who have been long disinclined to be mothers but who do nonetheless for whatever reason become mothers, change their attitudes radically after the birth and become very pro-parenthood. What happened was that all that they previously knew about babies was dirty diapers, crying, social disruption and an all-round nuisance. Nobody had effectively communicated to them the great happiness that children also bring. In conversation, parents tend to stress the negatives of parenthood (it is a form of self-deprecation or politeness) and assume that you know the positives. But many people nowadays seem NOT to know the positives.
If, therefore, anybody reading this is against children on the grounds of the nuisance that they constitute, you might be wise to talk to some happy mothers and fathers and ask them what it is that they like about having children. You might hear things that you did not previously realize.
We must at the present time, however, expect that many well-informed women will still not want to have children. Up until quite recently, parenthood was virtually compulsory for all. Now that we have both the contraceptive pill and permissiveness, this is no longer so. In the past, many non-motherly women had children. They had no real choice about it. But their daughters do not have to. So their daughters generally won’t. So the non-motherly genes will steadily cease to be transmitted and women of that type will die out. The children of the future will be much more likely to have mothers that want them. Isn’t that wonderful?
This sifting out process is, of course, causing a temporary downturn in the overall birthrate but the bigger and bigger proportion of female births being of motherly types means that the birthrate will lift again as these females themselves grow up and start to have their own babies.
Liberal distopians must be delighted with the latest successes to have emerged from their glorious campaign against feminity, marriage, family, self-restraint, self-reliance et al.
How, then, do we get out of this mess?
The degradation of sexual mores in Britain in just four decades has been nothing short of astounding. More confirmation in this Times article. The sexual revolution and its consequences.
The essay below is excerpted from a longer essay on the issue of homosexual marriage. It was written by economist “Jane Galt” (Megan McArdle). See here for the original
Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.
A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. “Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual”
To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one’s masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage, and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning.
To which, again, the other side replies “That’s ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!”
Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. “That’s ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!” This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can’t justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he’s only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you—highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you—may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn’t mean that the institution of marriage won’t be weakened in America just the same…
(Excerpts from an article written by a 17-year-old. Full article here)
Evil does not shock anyone anymore. The world does not gasp in dismay as Britney Spears discards another article of clothing. People do not recoil in shocked disbelief as an Eminem song pollutes the airwaves. Polite society does not cross to the other side of the street as Madonna walks by. The filth that spews daily from television barely provokes a shrug. Those clinging to morality may be saddened and sickened, but not shocked.
Degeneracy as a form of rebellion is trite today. We have not changed the definition of rebellion in 25 years. My generation tries hard to be edgy and rebellious, but they encounter difficulty when Mom and Dad are being rebellious in the exact same way using the exact same methods. Degenerate rock music is so integrated into the culture that grocery stores play it — can it still be described as revolutionary or counterculture? Men with long hair were a staple of the hippie generation. Today, this look is associated both with aspiring rebels on college campuses and portly middle-aged motorcyclists who grow a braid down their backs to disguise the paucity of hair on top. Look through your parent’s college yearbook at those hopeful little rebels. You will find their duplicates at a high school near you, still idealistically convinced that they can shock a jaded world. Glance through headlines from 1973; talk to a parent and discover that immorality, premarital sex, and partying are assimilated parts of the culture rather than venues of rebellion.
I am posting these extracts as points for discussion. They are not necessarily my views. The full article is here
At this point it may be useful to depart briefly from the convenience of the word censorship, with all its undertones, and emphasise the positive influence one seeks by referring to ‘quality control’. The term is no euphemism but genuinely approaches the question of constraint from a constructive viewpoint.
Quality control is readily understood in industrial settings where production is involved. Commodities are produced which must meet a minimum standard of quality or be rejected. A good factory will set its own standards and enforce them; others may seek to flood the market with inferior products. If there is any danger to the purchaser, external standards of control may be applied to which the producer must conform or be subject to prosecution. The emphasis throughout is not on rejection of the sub-standard but on preservation and protection of the quality product. In order to achieve this, rigorous rejection of sub-standard products is necessary. Those who speak for censorship as a positive influence are, in effect, seeking quality control of books, films etc. in just this way. It is assumed that there are some prevailing community standards worth preserving. It is assumed that judgements about acceptability are possible even though difficult. Moreover, the responsibility for such discriminations is best left where possible with the producers themselves, be they authors, publishers or film producers.
Columnist Jeffrey Hart recently argued that women were the losers of the sexual revolution. He has a point. By making themselves available outside of marriage, women have undermined the institution of marriage. The problem with Hart’s analysis is that he assumes that men want sex and women want marriage. But what if men want marriage, too? Aren’t they also losers of the sexual revolution?
By Nathan Tabor
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