The forces of evil will enjoy every word of it.
According to Salvador Astucia, the singlemost important reason behind the assassination of JFK was JFK’s attempt to establish détente with the Soviet Union. Let’s see why this was a big issue.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 at 01:54 PM in Books, Economics & Finance, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Military Matters, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
J.P. Mroz has written a three-part essay titled Will the Real Wikipedia Please Stand Up?: http://www.ctka.net/2010/wiki.html.
The essay is related to the futility of trying to correct blatant disinformation on Wikipedia pages regarding the JFK assassination. What is the “real Wikipedia” according to Mroz? It’s simply what Wikipedia claims to be: a wiki edited by the general public, and one that maintains a neutral viewpoint. Mroz’s problems at Wikipedia certainly haven’t stemmed from his being in the minority. In the U.S., surveys have shown that two-thirds to three-fourths of the population doesn’t buy the lone assassin/Oswald claim. So how does one explain Wikipedia “neutrality”?
Posted by R-news on Saturday, November 23, 2013 at 03:57 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
The previous parts established that JFK was killed by at least three hitmen: Lucien Sarti and the other two likely François Chiappe and Jean-Paul Angeletti. Hired guns are mercenaries, and have no personal stake in the matter. This part addresses the people who hired these hitmen.
The following factors would’ve motivated the murder of JFK:
Posted by R-news on Friday, November 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
This part addresses the assassins of JFK.
JFK’s would-be assassination was revealed a month before his murder. The revealer was U.S. army cryptographer Eugene B. Dinkin. An early source of this information is Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman, and it’s mentioned in LBJ, the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip Nelson. The following excerpts from Nelson’s book are found on pages 360-362:
What happened to Dinkin? From Phillip Nelson we have:
Posted by R-news on Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 02:28 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
The 50th anniversary of JFK’s murder is on Nov. 22, 2013. Some believe that before 9/11, the JFK murder was the greatest game-changing event in the century that has passed. I don’t know whether this assertion is correct, but the event had major significance, and it’s time to take a look at the JFK murder.
Part 1 addresses whether the official story about who killed JFK is correct.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 at 02:01 PM in Books, Education, Global Elitism, History, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, World Affairs
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
In this fascinating narrative advanced by Scottish Theologian Alexander Hislop, all supra-scriptural practices instituted by Catholicism (naturally) are attributed to insidious expression of the evil Babylonian Mystery Religion:
by Graham Lister
Agents, of both a collective and individual nature, have an interest in some state of affairs if it enables them to achieve their wants. But it is quite another thing to be aware of this interest; that entails both an ideological and imaginative transformation that allows that interest to be fully visible and informs an agent on how to potentially realise its interest. Often within our political discourse a restriction upon the exercise of a given interest or frustration of a want will be expressed in the idiom of injustice.
Precisely what are justice and injustice are obviously both, at least partially, ideologically and imaginatively forged concepts. For the ancients justice typically occupied a primary place in the pantheon of virtues. It was often conceived as the master virtue, the one that orders all the others. Plato tells us in The Republic, a just individual is one in whom the three parts of the soul - reason, spirit, appetite - and the three virtues associated with them -wisdom, courage, moderation - stand in the right relation to one another.
In the just city, a precisely analogous situation prevails each class exercises its own distinctive virtue by performing the task suitable for its nature, and none interferes with the others. Most philosophers have rejected the specifics of Plato’s view. Almost no-one today believes that the just city is one that is rigidly stratified with a permanent ruling class, a permanent military class and a permanent working class, whose lives differ from one another in all major respects. Yet many philosophers have retained the belief that justice is not simply one virtue among others, but enjoys a special status as the master or meta virtue. A version of this conception informed Rawls’ treatise, A Theory of Justice, in which he claimed that “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”. By this he did not mean that justice is the highest virtue, but rather that it is the fundamental one, the one that secures the basis for developing all of the rest. In principle, socio-political arrangements can display any number of qualities - for example, they might be efficient, orderly, harmonious, caring or ennobling. But the realisation of those possibilities depends on a prior, enabling condition, namely, that the socio-political arrangements in question be just. Justice is thus the first virtue in the following sense: it is only by overcoming institutionalised or systemic injustice that we can create the ground on which other virtues, both societal and individual, can flourish.
If Rawls is right on this general point then when evaluating socio-political arrangements, the first question we should ask is: are they just and more importantly for whom are they just? To answer, we might build on another of his insights: “the primary subject of justice is the basic structure of society”. This statement orients our attention from the great variety of immediately accessible features of social life to the deep grammar underlying them, to the institutionalised ground rules which set the basic terms of social interaction. It is only when they are justly ordered that other, more directly experienced aspects of life can also be just. Certainly, Rawls’ specific views of justice - like those of Plato - are problematic. However, it may be useful as a starting point if we endorse his basic idea that the justice is a meta virtue and that our reflections on justice should concern the basic structures of a community. To explore this approach I will examine the Anglo-Japanese author Kazuo Ishiguro’s thoughtful and beautifully written novel, Never Let Me Go.
by Graham Lister
Nationalism has a rancid stench. It has been thought pivotal to some of the worse horrors of recent human history, yet it will not go away. If, as a character from Joyce’s Ulysses suggests, “History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake” then one of the most persistent phantoms haunting our nightly terrors is nationalism, particularly in the conditions of our freshly constructed ‘global’ village, built primarily through the medium of neoliberalism (the most successful ideology in history).
In the UK thinkers as wildly different as the ‘deep-blue’ conservative Roger Scruton and the Marxian theorist of nationalism (and Scottish nationalist) Tom Nairn both write with perceptive insights into the phenomena of nations and nationalism. Like any other ism, nationalism has its own internal spectrum. And due to its overall plasticity nationalism is hard to place within any conventional political axiality. It can take almost any political form and find support from anywhere in the ideological firmament – witness the radical-chic associated with various decolonization struggles – or indeed the burbling of the blessed Saint Michel (of Foucault) over the exciting new ‘political spirituality’ unleashed by the Iranian revolutionaries. However, some forms of nationalism are generally considered to have been radio-actively toxic.
Approximately eighty years ago, events occurred, which were obscure at the time, from whose dire consequences the world has not yet totally recovered. The location was Munich, capital of the historic Kingdom of Bavaria and second city of the recently formed all-German Reich. The time was five years after the end of World War I, when this new would-be imperial state had been defeated, and then both punished harshly and utterly humbled by the victors. What was to become the most extreme currency inflation in history had begun. By that autumn the Reichsbank would be issuing 100-trillion-mark notes; it took a pocketful of them to buy a US dollar.
The excellent publisher Arktos Media Ltd has put out a review call for Fighting for The Essence: Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance? by Dr. Pierre Krebs.
Dr Krebs is a leading member of the Neue Kultur (the German New Right) and director of the Thule Seminar. He is a doctor of French literature and also holds degrees in law, journalism, sociology, and political science.
Should anyone wish to review Fighting for The Essence for us, please contact me through the button under the header and I will arrange for a copy to be forwarded.
Arktos Media’s product description is as follows:
by Graham Lister
In the Anglophone world, in particular where it has been picked up by cultural studies, the term ‘body’ is a fairly reliable warning of hot air to come: a flashing sign for the sensible and time-poor to stay well away. But there are exceptions. One of which might well be The Coming of the Body by Hervé Juvin, in which premonitions of a new and radical regime of individualism under the aegis of the human body, as life distends and capital mutates to meet it, emerge (somewhat incongruously) from the French insurance industry.
Social agendas in the West are in flux, as new kinds of issues gain salience - pension provision, immigration policies, reproductive rights, marital arrangements. Juvin’s contribution belongs to the genre concerned with such issues; illustrated with an abundance of striking data, and delivered with an intellectual mordancy and crisp literary style that remain, even today, peculiarly French. The author might also be regarded as a very particular and local phenomenon. In the Anglophone world business and culture are typically strangers, yielding at best, earnest middle-brow apologetics at the level of Adair Turner’s “Just Capital”; but in France the intellectual executive is a not unfamiliar or strange figure. Operating within the insurance world, Juvin writes without any overt political attachments.
“The Coming of the Body” announces a time when the human body has started to pre-empt all other measures of value in the West, separating the experience of contemporary generations from that of all predecessors, and the rest of the world. The basis of this sea change lies in the spectacular transformation of life expectancy. When the Revolution broke out in 1789, the average span of life in France was 22. By 1900 it was just under 45. Today, it is 75 for men, and over 83 for women, and continually increasing. Quoting Juvin; “We have every reason to hope that one girl out of two born in France since 2000 will live to be a hundred years old”. This prolongation of life is “the present that a century of blood and iron has left us - the present of a life that has doubled”. It amounts to “the invention of a new body, against need, against suffering and against time; against the world too - the world of nature, which was destiny”. The gift is restricted to the rich. “An entire generation will soon separate Europe from its neighbours to the south, when the median age of its population passes 50 (towards 2050), while that of the Maghreb remains under 30”. If we were from the developing world we too would be desperately doing everything within our powers to make it to the West.
Drew Fraser speaking to an audience in Stockholm in August this year about his essay on “the bio-cultural evolution, present predicament, and future prospects of the invisible race.”
Warum die Deutschen? Warum die Juden? Gleichheit, Neid und Rasenhass 1800-1933 is the title of the new book by German historian Götz Aly, the author of another controversial recent work, one which focused on the economic aspects of the Third Reich: Hitler’s beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War and the Nazi Welfare State.
The subtitle translates as “Equality, Envy and Racial Hatred from 1800 to 1933” and quite neatly encapsulates both Götz’s thesis as well as the particular historical period under examination, which ends with the assumption of power by the Nazis in 1933. The publisher’s webpage, which can be accessed here, includes a press release with outline summary as well as a downloadable version of most of the first chapter.
Neither seem to be available in English, so I provide a quick and dirty translation below the fold (usual disclaimers apply). I would expect that a book dealing with this particular subject matter, and especially one by an author as internationally controversial and as faithful to the canonical account as Aly, will have little trouble finding an English-language outlet in due course.
At first sight, Aly’s proposition might appear to simply be a Goldhagenesque retread. However, in focusing on the time period that he has chosen, Aly effectively discounts the religious anti-Semitism which had been a salient feature of “German” society since medieval times, and places the emphasis instead on the racial anti-Semitism which did not take form until the mid-to-late 19th century. If we are to take his thesis as set out, then 20th century German animus towards Jews arose not from their status as a ‘People Apart’ or as an Antichrist, or from what Goldhagen described as an “eliminationist antisemitism” which was “the cornerstone of German national identity” but rather out of a new and completely modern sense of jealousy and envy at the alacrity with which Jews were able to negotiate the challenges, and profit from the opportunities, presented by Modernity.
It’s an interesting perspective which bears some serious consideration.
For the last week I’ve been attending to my occasional occupation as a Telegraph thread contributor, sometimes in company with my colleague and friend Lurker. The older I get the more single-minded I have to be, I’m afraid, and so I’ve been neglecting MR, my post-bag, my duty to comprehend messers Hegel and Heidegger, and lord knows what else. Hope it was worth it, but of course there’s no way to tell.
One of the neglected mails in my inbox was from Alexander Merow, the author of the Prey World series. My apologies to Alexander. His mail announced the translation into English of the second instalment in the series, Organized Rage.
This time the narrative of resistance is set in Japan. The ebook can be read in PDF form here.
In the foreword Alexander and his translator Thorsten Weber again appeal for a native English-speaker to cooperate with them in the task of making the translation easy on the ear:
If anyone fancies that undertaking, please let me know.
by Graham Lister
It is my opinion that Michel Houellebecq should be on the reading list of any committed non-liberal - assuming, of course, this paragon of nationalist virtue is interested in culture. And I think people who are seriously interested in understanding the grotesque spectacle of post-modern, ultra-liberal, hyper-modernity should be so interested. Cultural values are at the core of self-conception and define the contours of the political imagination.
The malaise facing the West goes far deeper than PeeCee and multiculturalism, even if they can be regarded as the most egregious symptoms of our total embrace of liberalism (that is, liberalism as the foundational paradigm for politics, culture, economics et al, rather than a secondary “corrective” ideology which is how classical liberalism arose).
Unfortunately no-one has a positive agenda to rebalance the West upon a sustainable course. There are of course some excellent critiques of the problems but, as yet, no really credible, putative solution has coalesced into a substantive form.
A comments elsewhere on the blog mentioned the spurning of Houellebecq, and I want to return to that. It strikes me that American nationalists in particular have a very narrow range of “cultural resources” that they bring to their politics. This also is true of many ‘nationalists’ across the board. How many times have the virtues of institutional religion (typically in the ‘Jesusland’ style) been offered as the “solution”, or indeed some bizarre “new” version of fascism offered up? Pardon the paradox but both are deeply trivial non-answers (for rather obvious reasons). The exhaustion of the already exiguous political and cultural imagination of nationalists is palpable (neo-Nazi techno anyone??? - Jesus wept). There is, sadly, a lack of genuine radicalism or innovative thought – in the true sense of thinking about these issues both deeply and widely, and in being ruthless in the analysis of old assumptions and outdated or discredited shibboleths.
Returning to Houellebecq, he is deeply anti-American in outlook, and this animosity is not without very good reason. It seems that, in general, Americans - nationalists often included - completely fail to understand that their own nation is the most profoundly liberal nation in history. America was conceived as an inorganic “social experiment” in terms of Enlightenment-derived individual liberty. Individualistic liberalism is the true American ideology/religion. To be sure, it is not the only theme in American life but the others have been peripheral to the cardinal (liberal) impetus animating American culture and society. I have encountered very few American non-liberals (a Hayekian liberal who thinks he is a conservative is still a sub-species of the liberal genus). The axiomatic and defining role of liberal philosophy in American society is something that the overwhelming mass of American people, even self-described conservatives and nationalists, have a very hard time understanding. Collectively, America has drunk from that particular (liberal) well more deeply, and for longer, than any European society.
Of course, all of the West has caught the liberal disease which is deeply corrosive to the collective well-being of ordinary Europeans – truly, we are Voltaire’s bastards. To be sustainable, any society must balance the collective interests - those unifying forces that build cohesion and social capital - and the legitimate individual impulses that invariably tend to differentiation and fragmentation. Equally, a balance must exist between the interests and desires of the present generation and those to whom we will bequeath our collective life and national community. That is why post-liberal politics is actually the “radical centre”. It is a fulcrum conceptualised, for me, in more Aristotelian terms. It is not simply the centre as conceived in the conventional political spectrum, which presently represents only relative variations of liberal political philosophy.
A final thought on American nationalist thinking. I note that the ideal of white Zion has been floated on the blog. Nothing ... nothing illustrates the difference being the inorganic, propositional societies of the New World and the organic ones of “old” Europeans. The idea that whites should move to one place is the ultimate in white-flight fantasies, and is a council of despair. No European patriot could possibly think that abandoning our ancestral homelands represents anything other than the nadir of complete and humiliating defeat.
Why should the British tribes (the Anglos and the Celts) give up our homelands? When I am in the beautiful Highlands of Scotland I reflect on all those generations that lived in this land before me and bequeathed it to us, and I feel deeply connected to the past. What right do we have to surrender our inheritance? Do we really want to run off like cowards scared into self-destruction when faced by some uppity Africans and Pakistanis? Our American friends must try to solve their own problems in a way they judge is appropriate to their situation. However as a European patriot, I for one, will never surrender – anything else is little short of traitorous.
P.S. So we have Houellebecq as a dissector of liberal cultural values, and I would also suggest Ballard and Coetzee in this regard also. But who else might be on the “contemporary literature” reading list for the by no means narrow-minded non-liberal?
Is there a prospective literary editor with a bit of time on his hands out there? Or, at least, someone who fancies shaping-up a translation from the German of the first volume of Alexander Merow’s Prey World series.
Prey World is a dystopian fiction series currently standing at three volumes with a fourth in progress. To quote Merow, only a fool would think it nothing more than fiction. The narrative opens in 2027 and concerns the efforts and sacrifices of people and peoples in Europe and the East to free themselves from a totalitarian new order - a global state sustaining an elite of a clearly Jewish and Masonic character above peoples bound to a life of kafkaesque greyness, poverty and official brutality.
Merow is a thriller writer, not a creative artist. But he is not writing for the reader with a developed aesthetic taste. He is writing for the mass audience. Here is what the translator (I presume) has to say about his work:
Editing the translation is, I feel, less than it really needs. I found myself less offended by the translator’s understandable and admitted shortcomings than by the author’s evident refusal to pause and really finish each paragraph he has written. At the close of this first volume there is a passage in which the World President dismisses his secretary’s concern over a brutally put-down rebellion in Paris. I’ve corrected both the grammar and word selection and also completed the artistic portrait. The latter, of course, is well outside the task of Anglicisation requested by the translator, and would probably ruffle the authorial feathers. Nonetheless, it’s what the narrative needs to make it attractive to a game publisher and a wide readership - and it is a wide readership that the message deserves.
The publisher Arktos Media has circularised details of Prof Andrew Fraser’s new book, The Wasp Question. Andrew, whose travails in 2005 at Macquairrie University were followed closely at MR, and who was twice interviewed for MR Radio, is an expert in legal history and constitutional law. His book, however, also treats of the ethnogenesis of the Anglo Saxon people and of their religious expression.
Frank Salter has written the customary blurb, describing The Wasp Question as:
Structure and chapter titles:
Introduction: The Anglo-Saxon as Pariah
I. Ethnogenesis: Toward a Biocultural History of English Constitutionalism
II. Pathogenesis: Anglo-Saxon Identity in the Novus Ordo Seclorum
III. Prognosis: The Return of the Repressed
I received an email yesterday informing me that Michael Whitehouse, author of a fast-paced new novel about a prolonged and deadly-violent attack on the British Establishment by a terrorist cell of nationalist persuasion, has placed the opening three chapters on-line for your perusal. You can view them here.
By way of a taster, this is the style of the writing:
Arktos.com has put out a review call for the new translation of Faye’s 278-page book Pourquoi Nous Combattons. The paperback edition appears in three days and the hardback on 5th May.
Arktos describes the book thus:
If you are interested in writing a review for MR, please let me know. I will arrange for a review copy to be forwarded to you.
Arktos http://www.arktos.com/ has published (2011) the English translation of Democratie: le probleme (1985), a short and excellent book by Alain de Benoiste. The footnotes alone more than justify the purchase of this enticing little volume. Not, it must be added, the ordinary footnotes which plod along the bottom margin of the text: no, there are actually two strata which are cunningly intercalated, translated notes from the original and notes added by the translator. And what notes! A cavalcade of names pours through them like Roland’s army through the valley of the Pyrenees: Herodotus, Churchill, Plato, Mannheim, Pericles, Aristotle, Sorel, de Tocqueville, Hitler, Guenon, and many more, not as gilt on a secondrate essay but as fitting ornament for a superior text.
The “democracy” of post-Enlightenment regimes is a brutal chimera: “liberalism” and democracy together make a monster. Arbitrarily starting with Max Stirner, we can trace the development of an idea of lonely revolutionary violence through Georges Sorel and Wyndham Lewis to Alexander Dugin: the loneliness here is not that of the liberal “self” but of its opposite, the transcendental subject. Benoist would likely deny that this arc runs through his work; Dugin might approve of the adaptation of his own recent remark:
And all of these critical formulas were embedded in [liberal democracy] from the very beginning. That which is appearing now is the outcome: not the evening of [liberal democracy], but the morning of its horror.
My thanks to MR guest blogger Last Celt for the link to a PDF version of Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, and also to the English transcript of a video interview with Raspail, posted a few days ago at GalliaWatch.
It opens with this:
... and is worth reading in full.
I have been asked whether we would be interested in producing a review of the recently translated The Problem of Democracy by Alain de Benoist. The hardback edition is to be released in a few days.
The book discusses how the very concept of democracy has moved away from the original Greek idea of a folk ruling itself through responsible citizens participating directly in the governing of the state, towards a soft-totalitarian, multicultural catch-phrase. If, as an MR regular, you would like to review it please let me know and I will arrange for a copy to be despatched to you.
You may already know that Tom Sunic’s new book Postmortem Report: cultural examinations from postmodernity has been published. Tom is a fine essayist - among the best we have - and Postmortem Report brings together the best of his work in this format. He asked me to produce some blurb to announce the book here, but I thought a few short passages might be more to your taste. These are what he selected.
From the (suitably straightening) foreword by Kevin MacDonald:
And from the text, a subject which just occasionally gets an airing here:
Norman Lowell speech Embassy Complex - Valletta.
18th July 09 – Book Launch
Today is a momentous day for Europe and the European Man.
Now why is this? Today, with the launching of this book Imperium Europa: the book that changed the world, today we have fired the opening shot of the Third World War of Liberation – the liberation of European Man from the enemy knocking at the gates – and much more lethal, the enemy within – the hidden enemy. This is the start of the final countdown - the final battle.
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