|
|
Are we bound by social contracts with our ancestors?by PF My grandfather will one day be dead. In as far as I am typing this here, he lives on genetically. But is there any sense in which I am bound to him and his memory beyond merely carrying his last name, blue eyes, and penchant for seriousness? What if blue eyes aren’t enough - what if I love this man so much that I want part of his vision inflicted on the world, even if that vision is simply that the world he lived in and was a part of should not completely perish? Technological currents have destroyed most cultural traces of those times, but biological continuity is the last common denominator with meaning. He wouldn’t recognize most aspects of modern Britain as anything understandable to him; in fact, in his daily comings and goings he is beset by difficulties which are similar to the experience of people living in foreign countries, so difficult is the translation between old Britain and new - is it too much to ask that he at least be able to recognize the people living there? Did we enter any agreements, when he was spending time with me? Did you enter agreements when you were spending time with your families? Agreements that you would wish to see enforced, whether or not the people themselves are here to speak up on the topic? Do you speak for yourself, or for those who came before you as well? Are you their emissary, or simply a purveyor of your own world vision you thought up yourself? Furthermore, are any of us bound even to prior ancestors whom we may not be acquainted with? That seems a more subjective question. Considering the massive work behind our inheritance, I think we are. That boggles the average mind, however - and if understood can only be understood as ancestor worship in a religious or mythical context. When we honor our family, we do what they would want us to do. Especially in respects pertaining to them. We have a desire to see their dream of the world become reality. These social contracts lock us into nurturing relationships with those who are close to us. Its hard to decipher whether our grandparents and ancestors would have opinions about what beverages we drink, what color clothes we wear, or what type of techno we listen to. On many matters of our life, we have to interpret our ancestors voices as an anachronistic ambivalence towards our present state. There is no way to extrapolate them back to the present for everyday matters. Only for great matters, considered timeless, is this possible. I know that they would feel strongly that England is the ancestral right of the English. ‘Strongly’ is a euphemism and understatement in this case, perhaps ‘vehemently’, ‘zealously’ are more fitting. When they perished from this earth, did they lose all claim to see their will work in the world? Am I not here as in certain, very few respects, as an emissary of them and their will, their heritage? Isn’t that in one sense what they expect of me, as a just return on all that they gave me? Even if it was only life and a home? Or do we just all make everything up fresh with each generation? If so, why even bother writing this. My grandson will be an MTV muppet and forget I ever existed. People don’t build things if that’s how it works. People wouldn’t. You’d get a world like the present, except absent all the technology and culture that is the only glory in a moral void. We who’ve seen London, and know our ancestors and grandparents, know the shame and disgrace that sits with us. Its bitter. Whatever can be said about agency and responsibility, this happened to some extent on our watch. Well, its open to question where the blame is attributed, that’s not what I’m after here. The decision to import millions of foreigners was the decision to break the social contracts which tens of millions of Britons had with their parents, grandparents and ancestors. We might have not agreed to avoid David Bowie concerts, and never read Oscar Wilde, and never read Beat poetry (all of these probably against their tastes, excesses of the liberal Zeitgeist) - but keeping what they gave us to re-gift it later was a prerequisite placed on the inheritance. They wouldn’t have given it so strongly and cleanly as they did, if they knew we would destroy it. There is a song that goes like this:
Who doesn’t feel the knife turn in them a bit as they hear this line, and contemplate the supreme injustice of what we have allowed to let happen?
. We have betrayed myriad millions of English ghosts with this act. And that lies with us - only the cognizant, only the aware - only those who are developed enough morally to understand the obligation to their grandparents and great-grandparents, even to people they may have never seen, but who built this world in blood and stone, words and content. Jewish, perhaps even Scottish people can scoff at this. Ghosts, you say? haha, it’s all just my silly nutters dream. I must not be getting enough cash and good sex! They aren’t beholden to that past, it doesn’t even exist for them. No conflict there. Opportunism and crafty words is their loadstar there, whereas ours is obligation, because we actually belong and we actually were meant to receive all this cornucopia of beauty, culture and affluence, and didn’t get here by usurpation. Still, it bodes badly for them to have the wishes of so many million dead against them - even if the power to act on it exists only in the hand of grandchildren who have remembered, and who are few and far between. Who struggles for this dream, puts forth his hand in a well-hallowed cause. Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, August 29, 2009 at 05:01 PM in Comments:2
Posted by Andrew on August 29, 2009, 06:22 PM | # I suppose it was they – who had given us what we have today – in engineering- Education- and Science and Technology ; we have to learn from them and learn to ignore the pretentious Useless Idiots who project themselves as the New Intellectual masters, as if they are the new Gods of the Universe – but being only a brain dead bastard’s , who would not get a job using their head to scrub the side of a Public toilet bow- And they are dictating to us now – They exist because of the stolen wealth of others and they exist not by intellect , but by agitprop and nethatism- self perpetuating loot plundering opportunities if you like Whilst stealing and destroying the Moral – and ethical fibre of Civilization- and now we can add the total wealth and being of Nations destroyed beyond repair. My ancestors did not create this cesspool of toxic excrement called Secular society, when in fact it is the exact opposite , all of it has become Sectarian primitivism. 3
Posted by queequeg on August 29, 2009, 09:35 PM | # I’m not sure many of our ancestors would want us to do what would presently be necessary to regain our homelands. They might, if we could imagine ourselves in their company, prove to be not much different from the masses today—the women less wanton, the men graver, but at bottom too domestic to condone counter-displacement or anything else that might upset the oppressive silence of the dinner table at eventide. Very few of our ancestors were heroes; fewer yet, revolutionaries. No, ancestors are not the answer; it is more romanticism, not a philosophy. 4
Posted by Frank on August 29, 2009, 11:01 PM | # PF, Beautiful article - I wish I’d written it. The living are but stewards of their ancient nation. 5
Posted by PF on August 30, 2009, 01:56 AM | #
I don’t imagine ancestors to be heroes. I don’t see them in glorified stature, but rather in their everydayness which, built up day by day, stone upon stone, generation upon generation, leads up to glory (or shall we say, civilizational progress and manifestation of spirit). How they would interact with the whole matrix of thoughts, beliefs, strategies and philosophies necessary to conduct a modern political action… that line of thinking isn’t how I interface with them. Territoriality is one such instinct. It is only in these gut instincts that I believe overlap can be presumed, and I believe next to nothing is so visceral an instinct as to defend your homeland against invasion. When I have an ancient instinct, i.e. when something stirs in me that is deeper than my thinking, I know it belongs to the past. Because I didn’t read about it on a website or think some new idea. 6
Posted by the Narrator... on August 30, 2009, 03:51 AM | # You’ve articulated something here that I think could be a critical point of defense for The West. G.K. Chesterton wrote,
Everyone knows the expression, “you can’t take it with you”. But that expression is a twisted notion. Our ancestors didn’t leave. They are still present in the blood that flows through our veins. Their eternal presence is reflected in the very thought processes that goes on in modern Western Man. Our personality, moods, temperament, intellectual reflexes and so on are not ours alone, but are part of a much larger community in the form of our forebearers. No one really leaves this world. We are here forever, bound to the soil, the sky, the rocks, the trees and, most strongly, to our progeny. Our ancestors never tried to “take it with them”......cause they never left! What they fought and struggled to build, they kept. It is only now being stolen from them. Their voices should still be heard as their actions and deeds still ring clearly across time. It may be why our adversaries work with such fervor to silence our ancestors by attempting to erase their memory in the minds of their descendants. . ... 7
Posted by James Bowery on August 30, 2009, 04:58 AM | # There is the question of what we think the social contract of our ancestors is. For a clue to that we must each ask ourselves: “Would I sign such an agreement today were the government removed from this land?” If there is no such contract to which all would consent, then assortative migration is the only option to force. Isolated enclaves of individuals defecting from the surrounding social contract is ecological defection. Once ecological boundaries are set according to consistency of the social contract—thereby creating what might more accurately be called ecological title, there is, in Common Law the notion of covenant running with the land. There is also the allodial concept that freehold title to land may not be lawfully alienated from familial inheritance. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2009, 12:56 PM | # James: “Would I sign such an agreement today were the government removed from this land?” Do I want to bequeath “all my earthly goods” to my child or to the child of a Nigerian, Turk or Tamil? Only someone with a sickness in the mind would find this question difficult to answer. Yet the certainty somehow disappears when it is phrased: Do we want to pass our forefather’s land down to our own descendents or the descendents of Africans and Asians? Then, the answer has a way of coming back: “Well, I’m not going to get into that. I’m not going to be around to know anything about it, am I? So what does it matter to me? Anyway, things have a way of always working out, don’t they? And I’ve got Indian mates at work, and they’re great.” This lack of gravity and seriousness afflicts a substantial swathe of (especially young) people. It brings us back to PF’s pomo unbearableness. We’ve lost something critical to the collective mental health. The loss must be temporary - human nature does not change in a matter of a decade or two. It was caused by cultural manipulation and it can be corrected, over time, by cultural manipulation. But meanwhile we perhaps need to find a better way to deal with it than we have to hand at present. Don’t ask me what that might be, though! 9
Posted by Marwinsing on August 31, 2009, 08:39 AM | #
Madonna and Angelina Jolie come to mind. And Jolie just happens to be a CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member. Hmm… 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2009, 10:02 AM | # Angelina Jolie is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations? And to think so much of our lives and the fate of what is dearest to us is controlled by the likes of the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission. The French Revolution and the guillotining of France’s entire ruling class from the king and queen on down was touched off by outrages far lesser than that. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2009, 10:07 AM | # How come I’m not a member of the Council on Foreign relations? How come James Bowery isn’t? How come Guessedworker isn’t a member of the Bilderbergers? How come the race-replacement-advocating Jew, Max Boot, who came to this country as a Russian immigrant at age 12 with nothing to his or his family’s name, and a one-hundred-percent asshole, is a member? Go down through the membership lists and ask a similar question about 90% of the names there? How come this collection of weirdos, assholes, morons, Jews, and degenerates controls our lives and holds in their hands the fate of all we hold dearest in this life? Isn’t it time some of these outfits were dismantled? 12
Posted by James Bowery on August 31, 2009, 11:36 AM | # Keep in mind that we’ve just been through an unprecedented period in the history of human fertility when a variety of socioeconomic and technological conditions converged on the largest and most educated demography in human history to render the best of them largely genetically childless and proud of it. This is _not_ something we are adapted to and it results in the evolutionary equivalent of “bequeathing all my earthly possessions to my precious little boy Scruffy whose unconditional love sustained my spirit through my final years”. 13
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on August 31, 2009, 01:03 PM | #
But at the beginning of the Cornucopian Revolution the system did benefit us; in early industrial Germany it was not uncommon to see families of scientists with 8 children, for example. It is not by choice that we have rendered our best infertile. The Judeo-Plutocrats world victory after WWII and their subsequent subversion of our knowledge and technology for their pernicious and transient ends did that. Now, isn’t it just a matter of yanking it back from their greedy hands? Hence microcommunities, citizens dividends, etc (speaking of which those two ideas are hardly mutually exclusive). 14
Posted by James Bowery on August 31, 2009, 01:22 PM | # MI writes: Hence microcommunities, citizens dividends, etc (speaking of which those two ideas are hardly mutually exclusive). Indeed citizens dividends and resilient communities are synergystic as I’ve attempted to explain to GT repeatedly, with little but hostility in return. My 1992 proposal for a citizens dividend was largely inspired by Control Data Corporation’s work during the late 1970s when William Norris, the founder and mentor of Seymour Cray, promoted decentralizing technologies with profound hostility from Wall Street
15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2009, 01:56 PM | # Young non-whites are getting paid to have tons and tons and tons of non-white babies using money confiscated from young whites at the point of a gun. Young whites are having all money confiscated from them so that they will have no white babies, zero white babies, and the white race will be race-replaced by non-white races, the inevitable result. To the extent Jews are pushing such policies (they’re not the only ones, but to the extent they are involved) we are witnessing fourth-generation warfare waged by Jews against Euros with the goal of race-replacement genocide of the loser. Somehow the military geniuses and multiple book-writers Lind and van Creveld don’t talk about this particular type of fourth-generation warfare already well underway since the mid-1970s. They don’t see it? They must be blind. Penniless young whites who are willing to go on welfare to have babies include a large proportion who don’t mind having mixed Negro/white or other nonwhite-mixed babies just in order to have a baby, any baby, rather than remain barren for life. This is welcomed by the powers-that-be; it’s part of the plan in fact: the white race has to be taken down a few notches; in fact has had it coming for a few centuries now, and hitting it in its demographics is the main way that’s going to be accomplished. The white race is long overdue for a take-down. This multipronged drive to phase out the white race in part by taking away the concept of the “family wage” for workingmen, forcing young mothers out of the home and into the workplace and newborns into the crèche where they turn out autistic if they even survive the abuse at the hands of creepy lazy stupid jealous very often non-white crèche women, suctioning off every single penny earned by young whites to go into the pockets of non-whites galore for the purpose of having all the non-white babies they and the race-raplacing Jews behind 90% of this stuff could want, ramming homosexuality, homosexualism, women’s lib, and homosexual pretend “marriage” down society’s throat, and so forth, was first put on the drawing boards behind closed doors in the mid-1970s at the latest, and has been galloping since the mid-1980s. People reproduce when impediments aren’t put in the way and white people are no exception. Take away the fourth-generation warfare impediments to their reproducing and watch white people multiply like rabbits. All of this low-white-birth-rate shit (or what they misleadingly call “low fertility” when there’s not a thing in the world wrong with white women’s fertility) is artificially imposed and deliberately engineered by the most evil élites who ever walked the earth. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2009, 01:59 PM | # That comment of mine above was intended as an extension of Mark IJ’s of 5:03 a couple above it which hearkened back to the day when eight white kids was common. 17
Posted by GenoType on September 28, 2009, 12:22 AM | #
The “inviolability of contracts” is one of the silly things impressed upon me during my teens and young adulthood. Oh, I “knew” better. I “knew” the Golden Rule was for idiots and that the man with the gold wrote, interpreted and bought the enforcement of rules, but this “knowledge” was superficial. I hadn’t internalized it. If I had internalized it I would have recognized, from the onset, the uselessness of litigation against the stronger party. And I would have recognized mediation for what it is - a salve or pain killer for the ego of the weaker party, upon realizing that litigation wasn’t worth the cost to him and that, perhaps, a little bit of something gained from the dispute was better than nothing (assuming the mediation worked). I could have spared myself the loss of much time, effort, money and “face,” as Orientals put it. Contracts 101 Westerners have convinced themselves that a contract breech can be mitigated through negotiation. This ignores the fact that contracts are the result of negotiation and that contractual protections may only be enforced by the application of money, lawyers, courts, and time. The stronger signatory to the contract has the advantage in these areas, one that is overwhelming if he is a government or corporation. He can ignore his contractual obligations while stringently enforcing the obligations of the weaker party. For the stronger party a contract remains an important coercive tool. For the weaker party contracts offer little or no protection unless the time and costs associated with sending the dispute through the courts can be endured. Contracts are decided in favor of money. Laws are decided in favor of naked force. The rights of the little man are tentative, at best. It could be that the wronging of the little man is a permanent feature of the human landscape. Despite the pretentious crap, every one of us here are little men. We wouldn’t be here otherwise. So, perhaps I haven’t internalized the lesson. Still I rebel. Still I look for ways to circumvent the circumvention of contracts by the stronger party. And still I look for ways to kill him. 18
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on September 28, 2009, 12:50 AM | # Congrats to GT for a civil and intelligent post. 19
Posted by GenoType on September 28, 2009, 09:57 PM | # The stronger party has circumvented the original contract. The weaker party cannot circumvent the circumvention. It’s a done deal. So, what should the weak do? Negotiate? “Force” the stronger party to give us what we want at the ballot box? These are emotional salves at worst and a stall for time at best. Buy out the stronger party? The stronger party is not interested in reversing positions. Bribe members of the weaker party with a Citizen’s Dividend? Bribes are a tool of the stronger party. Digression: Conservatism is the weaker party. It may be compared to labor unions which collaborate with management. Collaborating unions are weak, but their leadership are wealthy. Leaders know that a sailor at sea can’t have his home and security. The best way for the weaker party to “revise” a circumvented contract is to dispense with it altogether and write a new, better one. This presupposes alternatives, preparation, work, confrontation, and risk. 20
Posted by GenoType on September 29, 2009, 10:20 PM | # Hate unions? Good for you! But be advised… Employers “circumvent labor laws by using subcontractors to recruit the workers and by hiring ‘permanent temporary’ workers — who receive consecutive short term contracts for their labor — to ensure that they are not entitled to protections that ordinarily come with full-time work, including the right to organize.” Love unions? Good for you! But be advised… Employers circumvent the labor contract by dominating the union. According to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the employer dominates a union when “the impetus behind formation” of the union “emanates from the employer and the organization has no effective existence independent of the employer’s active involvement…” Well, so says the NLRB. Evidence of employer domination may include, under certain circumstances, union membership as a condition of employment or the (surprise!) inclusion of one or more company labor relations representatives in addition to full managerial representation at a low-level grievance hearing without a word of protest from the union. More specifically, I would look for vague terminology in the contract, one example of which is the term “operational needs.” Do you suspect non-white favoritism in hiring, transfers, promotions, and lay-offs? You would simply be amazed at how the retroactive implementation of certain managerial prerogatives – a hiring/transfer freeze justified through company “operational needs,” for example – can be used to neutralize what is clearly a case of racial favoritism. The stronger signatory controls the contract. What are you, the weaker signatory, to do? Appeal to his better nature? Apply a little intellectual or media jiu-jitsu? Outsmart his legions of advisers? Pray for day when “complexity” brings down his house ‘cause, after all, “he’s only human and prone to mistakes?” Bribe or persuade others in the weaker party that you’re right and its present leadership wrong? Try it. Together with the leadership of the weaker party, the stronger party will cancel your ass. Your only choice is to minimize the contract’s influence in your life. Liberate your mind. Pursue alternatives. Become a free agent, if possible. Advocate these things. Lead where it counts – on the ground. Next entry: Culture Of The Hearth Previous entry: What it is to be human, part 1 |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Bexserutver commented in entry 'Paranoia at a neck-tie party' on 05/23/12, 01:11 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Cogfreero commented in entry 'Obama-speak' on 05/23/12, 12:51 PM. (go) (view) Cresenewona commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/23/12, 12:50 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) bookofratricks.de commented in entry 'Hearing Jonathan Bowden' on 05/23/12, 12:35 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) UnsefsZetle commented in entry 'More thread wars' on 05/23/12, 12:12 PM. (go) (view) Endadytexitty commented in entry 'A conversation with Alex Linder' on 05/23/12, 12:08 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Cogfreero commented in entry 'Diversity and moral transformation' on 05/23/12, 11:16 AM. (go) (view) Mopnoictscoft commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 10:59 AM. (go) (view) Click here commented in entry 'Christmas is Racist' on 05/23/12, 08:51 AM. (go) (view) Moilallwriday commented in entry 'Ripples under the White ice' on 05/23/12, 08:43 AM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The French shooter' on 05/23/12, 08:22 AM. (go) (view) Joinnamenviaw commented in entry 'Hollywood In Danger of Making Historically Unprecedented Returns From Pro-Euroman Movies' on 05/23/12, 08:15 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) Teptcrakarp commented in entry 'The Jewish decade in post-war Poland' on 05/23/12, 06:31 AM. (go) (view) terostik commented in entry 'The Human Rights Fraud' on 05/23/12, 06:21 AM. (go) (view) angemsRag commented in entry 'The Mendacity of the Realist' on 05/23/12, 04:53 AM. (go) (view) carlos penny commented in entry 'Bankers Swindling the Guarantors of their Reserve Currency' on 05/23/12, 04:36 AM. (go) (view) abibemume commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/23/12, 04:33 AM. (go) (view) Leone Siciliani commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/23/12, 04:27 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) angemsRag commented in entry 'The Jewish decade in post-war Poland' on 05/23/12, 02:27 AM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/23/12, 01:38 AM. (go) (view) alexaesjiong commented in entry 'Seeking Chinese Nationalist For Majority Radio Guest Spot' on 05/23/12, 12:43 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Europe 2015' on 05/23/12, 12:28 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Precious Williams' on 05/23/12, 12:22 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'The Bear’s Lair: The immortal Smoot' on 05/22/12, 11:53 PM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 11:48 PM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Fair shares all round it is, then' on 05/22/12, 11:22 PM. (go) (view) Lise27 commented in entry 'A reply to Happy Cracker' on 05/22/12, 11:14 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Odin's Raven on August 29, 2009, 06:20 PM | #
Wasn’t it Burke who remarked that the dead are more numerous than the living, and should have a voice in their decisions? The current inhabitants of Britain, those who are not actually aliens, have mostly lost contact with their history and ancestry. Anything that would in the not so distant past have been regarded as common decency is now derided. The dead disown them. They shall not long survive, and the land falls under the sway of strangers.