|
|
|
Myth and self-interest in the creation of a white American republic So Michael O’Meara beat off nineteen other entries to win the TOQ essay contest with his rumination titled “Towards a White Republic”. We will pass over the oddity of someone winning an essay competition run by the publication for which he writes. It’s not something I’ve heard of before. We have to take editor Greg Johnson’s word that O’Meara’s offering was superior to the others, although I was permitted to read one of them in advance of its submission and, for scholarship and new thinking at least, it comfortably surpassed the winning entry. That essay was of particular interest to me, it’s true. It handled its subject with no less surety than the foundational work of a certain ex-MR specialist in that area (who is currently adorning the TOQ sidebar). O’Meara plainly scored for style – he’s an easy writer to read. But more than that, he was topical. The star of the White American Republic is definitely rising in nationalist circles. It is evident from O’Meara’s references in the essay to his own relationship with White Nationalism that he sees himself as something of an onlooker. Rather, I think he is attached to the European New Right and its tradition of philosophical critique as opposed to creativity. I say “opposed” and mean it. In the West the world of ideas is cleaved between the Analytical or empirical, with its natural outlet in scientific enquiry, and the Idealist, with its appeal to mind and art. There is no reconciling the two. ENR Idealists disdain the Anglo-American Analytical tradition for its materialism and its spectrographic bloodlessness - though even the harshest critic among them is in no hurry to eschew the modern, technological world which is its fruit. How could they? The undeniable and wondrous progressiveness of science is an expression of the European sociobiology, eternally conflicted with a hostile natural world as that is. It is of us. Indians who live a life filled with the shades of god-like men and the symbols of ancient gods gave the world the Vedas and Sanskrit and the numeral system. But they did not create modernity. Only we did that. We could not live as Indians live and be true to our questing nature. And yet ... so harmful to our collective existence has the concentration on narrow proofs and material conclusions been, the question inevitably arises: can we survive at all as we are, without shades and symbols, without religiosity and romance, and without the cavalier and vague presumptions of Idealist thinking? This, of course, is the question I first rehearsed here, and summed up in the following:
Now, O’Meara does not, in fact, explain why the myth-filled life is essential to our future. He makes the presumption that it is, in a similar way that White Nationalists have tended, down the years, to presume that “raising racial consciousness” is the key to the new world. O’Meara writes:
Prozium, another on the TOQ sidebar, has written warmly of the winning entry, wholly approving of a steroidal act of mythicisation to move the white American masses:
Well, is any confirmation of the potentcy of the mythic conclusion to be found in the recent European past? Not really, because neither of the two major, popularly-based attempts at expansion in the modern or industrial era - one successful, one not – were presented to the public in an unapologetically mythic form. In the West, John Gast’s American Progress gestured very roughly in the direction of myth. But it communicated no deep truths, no unresolved yearning, and no Wagnerian vision of a final triumph of light over darkness in the West. For the latter, Gast employed mundane school books and the telegraph. He characterised the westward expansion as a bringing of civilisation to wilderness (note, not to the savage tribes but to the land they roamed). John B L Soule’s “Go West, young man, and grow with the country”, later truncated by Horace Greeley, was still more prosaic and worldly. Yet young men and women did exactly what Soule recommended, and they did it for their own reasons of which there are two - and only two - sufficient to the task of making a large body of people move. One is the desire for increase, of which the desire for land is part, and the other is the desire to live free. In other words, Manifest Destiny, which was more a national attitude than official US government policy, was not realised for some higher altruistic purpose. It was not for civilisation’s sake as Gast sought. It was for the individual settler’s own sake that he walked and rode and drove his wagon westward. This is not a hopeful precedent for O’Meara. But there is one other presentational model of racial expansion to consider. Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda machine was not shy about idealising the aims and deeds of the Fuehrer and the party. It even gave the treatment to forced labour! But here’s how Goebbels himself wrote of “The East as Fulfilment” in 1942:
“Yellow ears will wave here on vast fields, bread for our people growing on our own soil” … this is romanticism, not myth. And so it was in the treatment of landscape by artists in National Socialist Germany. They portrayed the life of the German peasant-farmer as an expression of the German soul. But, from what I can tell, they did almost all of it without straying eastward beyond their own national borders.
An interesting point here is that lebensraum was rather more than a dream of dominion in the east. German agriculture, which even today is a mess of small, inefficient farms kept afloat by EU subsidy, had remained deeply rustic and anti-modern right up to the outbreak of war. Hitler approached the deep structural changes it needed in full knowledge of Stalin’s modernising handiwork (which, of course, concluded with the famine of 1932-33 in the very bread basket he, Hitler, most coveted). He settled for a short-term programme of small reforms and land distributions to aid the peasantry, while reserving the ambition of expansion to the east as the ultimate solution. Thus, even lebensraum was predicated on rational thinking, not on some wild, atavistic intoxication with race and destiny. That said, the idea of living space in the east was not new. It had been circulating among German nationalists for seventy years. In 1919, a Heinrich Himmler in his late teens wrote:
And here, at last, we see a glimmer of the mythic. Himmler was preparing himself for a future of fighting battles, presumably against the forces of regression and darkness which must be driven back from the lands they hold in their barbarian grip. It is a long way from Gast’s vision of the triumph not of the will but of the written word ... a triumph of the thinking mind over those “pre-rational human instincts”. It’s even further from Soule’s. What we do not know, of course, is the extent to which Himmler’s yearning for a life of greatness in the east lived in the hearts of simple working men and women in early 20th century Germany. The suspicion has to be that it was substantially a preoccupation of nationalists alone and, therefore, that the romanticisation of that life … its shades and symbols … was also really only a nationalist preoccupation. Germans generally might have been open to the idea of beginning a new life on conquered eastern soil. But any decision to migrate once peace came to the world again may have had much more to do with self-interest than the vision of racial glory. The question for O’Meara (and Prozium) is: what evidence do you have that not just Irish- and German-Americans but Anglos, Swedes, Dutch, Poles, Italians and all the rest will respond “pre-rationally” to the mythic rather than a rational call to self-interest? Another question. If you have nothing but a hunch, a gut feeling, are you really only expressing your fealty to the Idealist tradition? And another question. Given what MacDonald has told us about implicit and explicit racism, might the implicit variety prove sufficient when combined with a clearly enunciated self-interest? And one last question. If, essentially, that enunciation comprises the first Analytic cause of genetic interests, where does that leave Idealist thinking? Comments:99002
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:45 | # I already showed my opinion about the Yeomanry to go back to 1994 and I can easily prove goes back to at least 1982. If the “change of heart” went back to Jan 30, 1954 would we then assume that I had a prenatal experience of envy, Silver?
99003
Posted by Q on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:03 | # Silver, Fred Scrooby, Guessdworker= axis of intelligence. CC too. GT, Castro, Jane Fonda = axis of idiots. I-DEE-ITS! 99004
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:02 | # Now you’re talking my “white trash”, Fred! Those are the Bowery’s. Its those kind of folks I had in mind in 1982 when I was referring to “pioneers”. I don’t think anyone would confuse East Tennessee folk like us with what “Q” above refers to as “upper middle class”. In my 1982 paper, the passage:
...was motivated by my early thinking along the lines of an agrarian distributed barter system that would come into play eventually as the network revolution played itself out (resulting in part from my responsibility in 1982 for doing the encryption of “shop at home” services in the VIEWTRON system). This is part of the reason I later convinced Dan Brumleve to apply his computer cracking skills to implementing a distributed barter system called “dBarter” that won the prize for most promising software at the 2001 Hackers Conference in Santa Rosa. But I have to admit, the history of the state of Franklin is something that didn’t make it down as family lore—so I need to do a more detailed autopsy on the death of that experiment in human ecology. Although, I do know from family lore there were several cases where Cherokee massacred settlers—women and children—including Bowery’s in those counties, I suspect Franklin’s failure had to do more with the tax base than the Indian attacks. You just can’t tax homesteads, the assets _or_ the supporting activities, and get away with it unless you have something like a citizen’s dividend to liquidate it. That is what Shay’s Rebellion was about as well. PS: If only I’d known of GT’s prior work in electronic barter in 1982, or of Q, CC and Silver in 1982, they might have provided me with the “leadership” I so clearly needed to avoid ending up with fears of Mole People with atrophied genitalia! 99005
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:13 | #
Fighting needs to be coupled with fucking to the greatest degree possible, within the existing realm of the prescriptive Boweriverse of course. So, the victor in a contest of single combat to the death should be given all the females under the control of the sovereign he has just dispatched. Some of which he will give to Muslims as a placatory gesture, if he so chooses. 99006
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:38 | #
I think GT is right, 90% of Whites do deserve to be left to the niggers who will in turn fuck them and eat them, though not necessarily in that order. Everything we ever needed to know about morality was indeed conveyed in the Turner Diaries. Yet it is all the stuff of such a rarefied ethos I’m having trouble deciding. No matter, I’m sure Diamed would give his thumbs up to either proposal. Who says at least some Jews can’t be spiritually White? 99007
Posted by Q on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:47 | # Re: barter system. Times and laws have changed .. and not for the better. As for microcommunities, all it would take is for one pissed-off asshole to drop a dime to the IRS which would destroy the whole operation. http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html James, Your “Citizens Dividend” idea has much merit. The only problem is it requires people in power to implement it. The current power structure has too much invested in the welfare system as it exists. Too many peoples’ income and fortunes are built upon and around it—especially the negroes. A ‘Citizen Dividend’ would in effect knock the keystone right out and cause the whole welfare structure to collapse. Which in turn would spark riots from coast to coast. That would be bad for bussiness; therefore. the big money men (whom control the government) won’t allow such sweeping changes to the social order. 99008
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:19 | # I really have only one question for you, Q: Why won’t the BNP use the citizen’s dividend plank to take over the UK and, more generally, the New Right parties use it to take over the EU? 99009
Posted by Q on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:13 | # Why won’t the BNP use the citizen’s dividend plank to take over the UK and, more generally, the New Right parties use it to take over the EU? James, All I can say about that is they certainly should. Unlike our two party system—which would surly block such attempts—they have the political avenues in which to advance that plank. So there is no good reason for them not to. Except, of course, there is a certain group of interlopers (mainly Jews) whom will fund a media campaign along with back channel lobbying (i.e. bribes and threats) designed to overwhelm and discredit the proponents of a ‘Citizen Dividend’. 99010
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:22 | #
Careful, Cap’n. You’re starting to sound like Pastor “Slay All Whiggers” Lindstedt. 99011
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:46 | #
I was being sarcastic. 99012
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:06 | # Q responds to my very specific question: “All I can say about that is they certainly should.” Unfortunate that is all you can say. Please meditate on my question put directly to you for it is important that you should come up with what you believe to be the answer. I repeat it for clarity: “Why won’t the BNP use the citizen’s dividend plank to take over the UK and, more generally, the New Right parties use it to take over the EU?” 99013
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:04 | #
Several reasons: 1.) They have not yet humbled themselves before Bowery’s omniscience. 2.) The seek to sway the minds of the lemmings, and the lemmings are conventional people. 3.) The citizen’s dividend, as opposed to the existing dispensation of the use of taxes, comes across as a bit of kookiness which emerged straight of of left field. 4.) Conventional people (the people they are trying to sway) don’t respond terribly positively to what they perceive as kookiness. 5.) The lemmings are decadent, and like the nanny state. They don’t want it dismantled in favor of actually having to manage their own money and lives. Pulling the lever for the BNP, and donating anonymously to it, are much easier. 6.) The overriding issue, the meta-issue, at hand is not erecting a new economic dispensation (i.e., a citizen’s dividend as opposed to the nanny state), it is galvanizing a sufficient number of our people to the cause of securing the existence of our race to effect said. Political and intellectual leaders probably figure, to the degree they are aware of the citizen’s dividend and have considered it at all, that the direct approach which promises to rock the boat as little as possible is most effective. Basically for all the reasons GT rants about: “Lazy, greedy, stupid human sheep that don’t deserve my pearls nor to survive for that matter!” Any questions? 99014
Posted by Q on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:20 | #
Unfortunately change in politics is invariably a slow and painful process. Change requires a groundswell of support and more importantly, people in power to effect change. Right now the BNP is only beginning to acquire power. Hopefully the BNP will exponentially increase their power as they become more and more successful at the ballot box. Bowden articulates how that works at the end of this speech. Question: To your knowledge has any of the BNP handlers engaged in focus group research as to the marketability of Citizens Dividend? Have any polls been taken to see how popular the idea is within the general public? What percentage of the general population understands what a Citizen’s Dividend is, yet alone Now, James, I would like hear why you think the BNP, et Al, are not proposing Citizen’s Dividend? Or are they and I am just unaware? 99015
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:05 | # If anyone wants to know why there is no point in communicating with Captainchaos, let alone directing serious questions to him:
Definitely a minus for MR. 99016
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:09 | # Q asks: What percentage of the general population understands what a Citizen’s Dividend is, yet alone That’s a bit like asking “What percent of the general population understands what 1000€/month deposited straight into the bank account of every resident adult citizen (rather than giving it to immigrants and political favorites) is, let alone what a € is?” Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual class, Q. As for my explanation for why the BNP and EU New Right won’t focus their energies on the Citizen’s Dividend: Politics attracts second and third rate leadership—generally acting as a lightning rod to ground real talent. You’re dead wrong about the people not getting the idea. They’re desperate for it right now—starting prior to the bailouts of their creditors last year in fact. It’s a slam dunk hanging over the hoop—defying gravity by waiting there with the West down one point and seconds left in the game. And the BNP and New Right parties of the EU will piss it away anyway because they have people even less worthy of leadership than you in charge. The only good reason to involve one’s self in politics, as I have said repeatedly of the Ron Paul campaign, is that one meets people one can network with to form resilient communities. (GT’s moniker, “microcommunities” is a conflation with “microstates”.) 99017
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 05:59 | # James Bowery, 1000 / month is enough to live off of. I acknowledge it’d be difficult, but it could be done nevertheless. Blacks and Mexicans would sit around having babies while whites would struggle for a middle class standard of living. And much of it would be consumed as opposed to invested, so the economy would be weakened. And you’d still have people who fall ill in need of medical services, and thus draw sympathy. Have you done the figures anywhere as to which services would be replaced and what amounts are involved? I like (Jewish) Hartman’s proposal: BTT. Add to that limits on the wealthiest people - e.g. cap ceo salaries as Japan does, even consider restructuring the corporate system to allow for liability, reform the media system (no monopolies), and reform the banking and financial system (no gambling, no Federal Reserve, no lending of money that isn’t there, no usury, etc.) 99018
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:03 | # Giving people money might be a cunning strategy for winning them over, but I fear there’d be no taking it away from them once given. Ideally, people would be made self sufficient, and those who need a handler could find help at the local level. And ideally, wealth would not be over concentrated - some standard would be set. That’s the difference between the (perhaps impossible) ideal of distributism and socialism. Distributism though should (by my definition) take the entirety into account, but such policies (imo) should be best for the overall state under normal circumstances (though during unusual circumstances different policies might be ideal). 99019
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:09 | # First of all, Frank, it is only 1000€ if they get rid of the parasites—it is more like 600€ if they don’t cut the parasites out of CITIZENSHIP. But more fundamentally, you don’t get the name of the game, Frank: Pay your people from public coffers so they have enough time to engage in political action to protect their interests. Whites can’t protect their interests because their life is being drained from them by “protected groups” paid from the public coffers—drained to the point that guys like CC and GT just want to kill them as lifeless zombies. They’re not zombies. They’re victims of parasites that need the hemorrhage slowed enough that they can see more clearly the suckers attached to them, draining the life from the body politic. As for health care and compassion: Dump them off at the doors of the preachers and priests that import them. As for “self sufficiency”: What do you call it when a land owner lives off the rent he collects from his tenants? The Citizen’s Dividend is called a “dividend”, not because of the need for a rhetorical slight of hand (the way “entitlement” is used to justify paying parasites to eat out the substance of the posterity of the founders of the US)—but because man enters into a social contract with other men and in the process gives up his right to kill another for enough land to support himself and his children. Moreover, modern technology has made it more than reasonable to expect that men should have the same kind of leisure that only accrued to slave-owning classes in prior history. 99020
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 07:51 | # James, What’s to stop a few anonymous Euro activists from spreading this idea among the rank-and-file citizenry esp. those most affected by the present economic dystopia? Whether in the form of pamphlets or a bit of demagogue-ism away from prying eyes, the dividend idea could be shopped directly to the folk - cutting out the middlemen as it were. Is this so unfeasible that Euro common folk need rely upon careerists, er, “leaders” to shop the idea? No indeed, they can do it themselves if they gather the initiative. I’m sure it could be framed in language accessible enough that the man on the street could see clearly what it means for them. There are a few questions (viz. political action; legal barriers from EU members and Brussels alike) on this matter still, however. I’m just too tired to get into them tonight. 99021
Posted by Q on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:48 | # Bottom line. Citizen’s Dividend is a half-baked, short sighted, solution to a complex social/economic/racial problem destined to remain within the confines of think-tanks. The fact is: most of the general population never heard of it. (Note: I never said they are not capable of understanding it, on the contrary.) But once they become familiar with the details, the obvious negatives will become evident; thus, they will duly reject it due to the inevitable social upheaval it will ignite. Surly you’re familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences? There are just too many people—a majority I venture to say—that depend on, and enjoy ‘handout-heaven’. Let’s face it, most people are statists, pure and simple. If you can change the prevailing statist mindset, then meaningful reform can take effect within the corrupt and racially biased welfare-state. 99022
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:13 | #
Ideally we’d have an aristocracy to run the state, and the ignorant wouldn’t need to worry about voting if they didn’t want to pursue the hurdles in their path to voting rights. Talk of social contract and other ideological claims are solely for argumentative purposes and shouldn’t actually be believed. Ideologies that are in the ethnic interest should be taken up over those that are not. They’re useful for pursuing ethnic interests (which I do not equate with EGI - though the two are nearly equal there’s a material difference and for me at least EGI is only useful as an ideology itself). I never signed a social contract, though I was born a Southerner and as such I have a duty to that nation as well as its origin nations in Europe. My ancestors helped carve out the South, but we were conquered and then tamed and brainwashed and made to forget who we are. I’m a dereconstructed residue who’s awakened to find he’s a serf in his own homeland enthralled to invaders, the remnant Yankees who mixed with them, and his people’s former slaves. 99023
Posted by Frank on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:24 | # An aristocracy couldn’t work in America today, but my intent was to remind of how ridiculous mass democracy is. The nation should be run by the best, and there’s no sense in giving each “individual” an equal say. The best (most virtuous) should rule in the interests of the whole. It just so happens that in America at the present a mass movement is more in white interests, but that’s only temporary. In the long term, the masses will fall prey to demagogues and greed.
I suspect the opposite is true. We’ve grown wealthy and soft. As the middle class shrinks and as discrimination against whites, esp white males, becomes more painful and apparent, more will stand up against it. The problem isn’t a lack of power so much as a lack of will. 99024
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:59 | # Mark IJsseldijk writes: What’s to stop a few anonymous Euro activists from spreading this idea among the rank-and-file citizenry esp. those most affected by the present economic dystopia? What is to stop them is the need for a party apparatus as a vehicle—and it is clear that even guys like “Q”, who are both head and shoulders above the party leadership and in a financial position to influence them—are incapable of perceiving the reality of trillion dollar bailouts of financial institutions being just as “half baked” as sending out monthly subsistence checks to all resident citizens. In other words, the best hope of influencing the BNP leadership—head and shoulders above the BNP leadership—has shit-for-brains. The only way the grassroots can influence party leadership is basically to threaten violence. 99025
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:48 | #
Get this through your head Bowery: I was satirizing some of the more extreme, morally depraved things you and GT have recommended. Yet the reasons I gave as to why no political or intellectual leaders have adopted your citizen’s dividend ought to be taken seriously. 99026
Posted by Frank on Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:40 | # James, I might not be won over by your plan, but it sounds better than paying 260 pounds per household for membership in the EU! If you want to win folks over, just draw the numbers. No matter how foolish the plan, if you make it into an appealing proposal many will be won over just from the confidence and promise of it… Whether or not it’s a good idea probably doesn’t matter as much as whether the presentation is good. Post a comment:
Next entry: Press Call
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:50. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:49. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:15. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 15:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 10:43. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:01. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:56. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:54. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 22:27. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 20:02. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 13:22. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:41. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:09. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 05:03. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:11. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:16. (View) |
Posted by Silv on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:53 | #
GT: Do you buy this, folks?
Sure. People routinely experience changes of heart. Bowery’s, however temporary, isn’t inconsistent with feeling his talents merited greater socioeconomic standing than he has managed to attain. Holding him to any higher standard sets the bar too high for anyone to clear, which is probably something worth bearing in mind if those microcommunities plan to attract any mere humans.