Posted by Selous Scout on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:18 | #

I’m looking forward to this. I’d also like to hear him talk at the AmRen conference in 2010. Maybe you could ask him:

(1) What are the prospects for a Boere secessionist movement in South Africa?
(2) What does he think of Eugene Terre’Blanche and the AWB?
(3) Who is Arthur Kemp and did he really work for the ANC intelligence services at one time?
(4) What are the chances of civil war or race war in South Africa?
(5) Why do Western companies continue to invest in South Africa despite the risk environment? Is it simply not dangerous enough yet?
(6) What is the role of China in the new South Africa?
(7) Will Clive Derby-Lewis ever be freed?

Posted by Jack on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:39 | #

Ultimately, the only hope for white South Africans is secession.  You should ask Dan Roodt about that.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:27 | #

What does he think about Orania? Is it a model for the future or insignificant to Afrikaners as a whole?

Posted by Guest on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:19 | #

Extraordinary opportunity. Sorry I missed the chance to ask Alex Linder a question.

I won’t ask Mr Roodt to comment on the JQ, seems all too many Whites in RSA are sensitive on the subject, what with their long collaboration with Israel.

I would ask him how long before the black government disarms the Whites?
Also does he have any recommendations along those lines for Whites in the other homelands of our race? Specifically what type or make of firearms. It is coming down to that you know.

denver and the west
Denver arrests may be part of trend of gangs videotaping attacks

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:30 | #

The Afrikaners continue to vote massively for the ultra liberal DA party instead of the moderate nationalist Freedom Front+.

Meanwhile the majority of their people between 20 and 44 years have been forced to leave South-Africa to work abroad because of the so-called Black Economic Empowerment affirmative action system. And since 1994 at least 30.000 Afrikaners have been brutally murdered and much more of them injured. Among these assassinations are the 3.000 commercial Afrikaner farmers, making their farmlands relatively more dangerous than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And since the fall of apartheid, the country’s infrastructure has been ruind too.

So my question is: how could you explain this psychosis to vote for the liberals? But perhaps the ANC is better in propaganda and police intimidation, seeing everywhere the “racists”, than in management and so they have smashed psychologically the Afrikaners. Or is it more complicated to explain?

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:08 | #

OT, but here’s a good one from today’s featured article at Trickypedia:

Here the term “races” is used as an alternative for “varieties” and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to “the several races, for instance, of the cabbage” and proceeds to a discussion of “the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants”.[43]

First, the tricky language: it doesn’t carry the “modern connotation of human races.”  True, since liberals have poisoned the well, and Darwin didn’t subscribe to such nonsense.  But more importantly, this is a bald-faced lie, since “the several races” of cabbage correspond well to the several races of man.  Amazing the kind of crap that’s of “neutral” POV over at Trickypedia.

Just in case anyone reading this bothers to fight the cabal of liars at Wikipedia.

Posted by Wanderer on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:45 | #

since the fall of apartheid, the country’s infrastructure has been ruind

I hear the stories of deteriorating infrastructure just as much as the next man.

Yet RSA’s GDP growth is respectable.

GDPs in billions of 2008-dollars (I crudely corrected for inflation with this; the resulting estimates are corroborated by this).
1960:  $52.8
1965:  $74.3
1970:  $98.2
1975: $146.1
1980: $208.2
1985: $132.6
1990: $182.3
1994: $195.1
2000: $164.7
2008: $277.0

The disastrous impact of 1980s sanctions is apparent. 1981 was the peak GDP year, adjusted for inflation, till 2004(!).

But what explains the sudden rise of GDP levels in the 2000s? GDP went from $132billion(adjusted) in 2002 to $277billion in 2008. How is that possible? Especially in light of the generalized decline we hear about, the power outages and the like? In fact, it seems to be because of the wild fluctuation in the value of the Rand—the statistics are necessarily converted to dollars so this shows false contraction and growth.

Yet, it is unmistakable that realGDP has risen since 1994, and respectably so. Nothing like the remarkable post-Independence/pre-Sanctions years, but nonetheless respectable.

In Zimbabwe’s case, their GDP as of today is a laughable one-third of what it was in 1980 (in constant 2008 dollars). [In fact, in Zimbabwe’s case, their inflation-corrected GDP today is equal to what it was in 1955. It is hard to imagine a country with a net-0-growth in the past 55 years. But Zimbabwe is such a country (See here - scroll down one page].

My questions are—> How does one explain this continuing GDP growth in South Africa, in light of all we know and hear so regularly?
—> Is it just mining that’s keeping the economy afloat, or what?
—> When will the inevitable decline come?
—> What should whites in the country do now so as to keep their assets safe?

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:10 | #

What reliable evidence can Roodt point to to indicate the number of Whites killed since Apartheid fell?

Posted by PF on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:14 | #

Can you ask him to flesh out a day in the life of a typical white south African teenager, and a typical white south AFrican man, living in or near a big city? What do they go through, what are the safety zones, what are the danger zones?

Also, what would be the reaction of most whites to the discussion on this website - disgust, sympathy, something in between? Do the whites in SA think that we need to be punished for our views?

Does fear really permeate the air in SA, or is that the expression of illiberal malcontents? If so, can he give anecdotal evidence of how this fear manifests subtly in the daily lives of whites? Does it disrupt their social existence, people appear close to breakdown, etc. - or behind gated walls is everything hunky dory?

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:48 | #

Ask Roodt if the White race has an evolved tendency to master its external environment, then isn’t that quite consistent with the contention that the White race is the Master Race?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:15 | #

CC,

The mastery which, imo, northern European Man wills on Nature is quite straightforward and specific, and simply is not willed on other men in other lands.  It is not part of this evolutionary strategy to bounce into Paris or Bamoko or Isfahan and lay down control on all whom he finds there.

I think you are probably conflating a (merely possible) racial evolutionary strategy with individual mate selection strategy (the will to power, for want of a better term).  Alex did the same at one point in the interview.  I didn’t correct him.  Perhaps I should have.

Posted by Q on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:19 | #

Ask him about the planned white genocide after Mandela dies. The blacks keep repeating this threat:

“The day Mandela dies, we will kill you whites like flies!”

Is there a real chance this will happen? If so, what preparations are being made to thwart it.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:48 | #

Ask Roodt if the White race has an evolved tendency to master its external environment, then isn’t that quite consistent with the contention that the White race is the Master Race?

Mastering yourself is way more important than mastering the environment.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:33 | #

Mastering yourself is way more important than mastering the environment.

Mastery of self -> mastery of environment.

The mastery which, imo, northern European Man wills on Nature is quite straightforward and specific, and simply is not willed on other men in other lands.

Then what was the British Empire?

It is not part of this evolutionary strategy to bounce into Paris or Bamoko or Isfahan and lay down control on all whom he finds there.

I guess the English would be best served by ceding London to non-Whites, as was Dare’s first inclination (funny, all those Krauts were rightly burned in his opinion because of a hypothetical plan to invade Britannia, yet, he’d give up London with a shrug - not that it surprises me).

P.S. Ask Roodt what he thinks of total reconquest of South Africa and Rhodesia for the White race.  If baulks at the idea, says it is not feasible, or whatever, press the matter with the hypothetical scenario of the assistance of White troops from outside the country.  I’m willing to bet a hundred thousand American troops could accomplish the task handily.  Not plausible?  Well, unless we win in North America, our race is toast globally.  And if we win in North America, it could be quite plausible.

The goal: total reconquest of all our lands globally.  Nothing less.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:07 | #

Controversial writer and self-styled conservative Dan Roodt said: “Each time a new book is written or published in Afrikaans, we spit in the faces of our former British and current Afro-Imperialists.”

Contrast and compare Anglo and Afro-Imperialists and which of the two is deserving of the greater amount of spittle?

Posted by Frank on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:10 | #

CC,

the only reason I morn the loss of Western dominance is I fear the morality of those rising to power. And that’s often the cause of empire: to conquer foreign threats…

If we but sort out our own countries and leave the rest alone, maybe they’ll collapse and we’ll de facto come to power again without having to impose anything on them… Protectionist trade for their resources.

To the extent I’m interested in meddling, it’s to prevent Jews and Jew-worshiping whites (a major source of Israeli power) from destroying archaeology and ancient peoples.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32 | #

I guess the English would be best served by ceding London to non-Whites, as was Dare’s first inclination (funny, all those Krauts were rightly burned in his opinion because of a hypothetical plan to invade Britannia, yet, he’d give up London with a shrug - not that it surprises me).

Sounds like a populist position. Populism rarely makes sense.

Posted by SUCH on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:50 | #

1)How is the Roti?
2)How much have the sins of the father (apartheid) affected the mindset of Boere people?
3)Are coloured still refered to ass coloureds?  Have they held a place as a model minorty in SA?
4)How tall is your fence?

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:57 | #

In correlation with the question Wanderer asked above.

The blacks of South Africa think that their economic model is a great success because of the nominal growth it shows in statistics.

But what to think about a country that invests nearly nothing in infrastructure (the electricity grid, the roads, education etc. become a disaster) and hands out all the money it should invest to tens of millions of black poor people who simply consume it.

In fact this is the inverse traditional Keynesian economic model and indeed temporarily it gives a big consumption boost to the economy, but how long will this last? Are there already early signs of an inevitable total collapse of the economy?

Posted by Frank on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:47 | #

Johan,

it’s similar in the US. Capitalism plans for the short term, and democracy makes it even more apathetic about the future.

Democratic capitalism is a perfect storm for societal destruction. The better the quality of voter though, the better he’ll foresee the future.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:08 | #

CC,

Think it through.  Going off as a population to re-find Nature and conquer her in the New World would count as a very clear expression of what I was talking about with Alex.  Going off to India to make your fortune wouldn’t.  The Raj was a means for the British Establishment to profit and advance its status.  It was not done for or by the British population at large.

Mastery of self -> mastery of environment

You seem to be stuck on Germano-martial claptrap.  I urge you to move on.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:55 | #

Going off as a population to re-find Nature and conquer her in the New World would count as a very clear expression of what I was talking about with Alex.

The godly Puritan viewed it differently. It’s not mastery of the world, but mastery of one’s own life and conduct. The Puritan “errand in the wilderness” is such an example. Racial expansion through a belief in choseness and a mission from God. Their errand, with the eyes of the world upon them, was not to master Nature but master self. Mastery of self is mastery of their ecology.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:41 | #

The Raj was a means for the British Establishment to profit and advance its status.

Profitability was also the intent of granting the Virginia, Newfoundland and Plymouth Charters. A population of indentured servants contracted by the company, in exchange for worldly goods, to return a profit for the shareholders, were carried to the New World by company ships.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:50 | #

The contention that lower-class Brits could not enhance their social and economic status by manning the garrisons and bureaucracies of the Empire, and doing that did not evince a sense of racial pride is ahistorical “claptrap.”

It’s always fun, and handy, to triangulate against the Krauts, that is until one needs dip into their bag of Krautish tricks oneself.  “We will militari[z]e.”  Indeed.

Upper Crust: “There’s a good chap.  Is your equipment all in order?”

Chav: “Yessir.”

Upper Crust: “Now remember what I told you.  What you do today is not for glory, nor honor, nor for the pride you have in your people, but the quest to re-find Nature and enhance your reproductive fitness in so doing.”

Chav:  “Huh?”

Upper Crust:  “Oh, never mind!  But you do know what is expected of you, right?”

Chav:  “Yessir!  To go kill some niggers and Pakis, sir!”

Upper Crust: “Erm, that’s quite right, but you didn’t hear it from me.”

Chav: “Innit.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:16 | #

The contention that lower-class Brits could not enhance their social and economic status by manning the garrisons and bureaucracies of the Empire, and doing that did not evince a sense of racial pride is ahistorical “claptrap.”

The issue is self-interest. A contract is signed for a seven year stint in the God forsaken wilderness in the hope a piece of land is acquired, attracting a wife and love, marriage and a horse and carriage. Racial pride was never really an English thing, class was the overwhelming group magnet.

“the British Empire waged cultural war; ultimately it was directed at the whole of Western Christian Civilization and not exclusively Celts and Catholics. The great truth that Cannadine highlights is that the empire for and by WASPs was erected upon a simultaneous loathing for not merely non-British whites, nor even for Celtic and/or Catholic whites, but also for the masses of non-wealthy English Protestants…”

Cannadine’s Ornamentalism:

Cannadine cites Thackeray’s view of England in the 1850s as “that Gothic society with its ranks and hierarchies, its cumbrous ceremonies, its glittering antique paraphernalia.” Still, as Cannadine points out, much of this paraphernalia was recently invented, including the ceremonies of Empire: the splendid Durbars in Delhi; the hundreds of glittering orders of this and that; the bejeweled Nawabs, Nabobs, and Rajahs, and the viceroys in ermine and silk; the thousands of statues of kings and queens; the construction of Kingsways, Queensways, and monuments to lords, viscounts, and marquesses; the state visits and the royal birthdays—all these were meant to enhance the authority of British rule through a network of native proxies, and as a prophylactic against change abroad and at home.

The original architect of all this sorcery was none other than Benjamin Disraeli [!], the man who bewitched his queen with eloquent flattery and dazzled his peers with fables of Jews as the most ancient of aristocratic races[!! - just can’t get away from it], which would save old England from falling apart in a frightening new age of industry, urban disobedience, and foreign egalitarianism. It was Disraeli who made Queen Victoria the Empress of India, who oversaw the creation of all kinds of new honors and baubles, and who said that “it is only by the amplification of titles that you can often touch and satisfy the imagination of nations.” The fact that he, the grandson of an Italian Jew, managed to become Lord Beaconsfield would seem to prove Cannadine’s point about status trumping race. But it is not so simple. The fact that Disraeli felt the need to convince English squires that Jews were an aristocratic race, and as such by nature bound to the English, complicates our picture of Victorian racial geography.

What Themistocles outlines is not really new. Cannadine’s ‘Ornamentalism’ details the perceptions of the evil empire, over a century ago.

Cannadine observes, ‘depending on context and circumstances, both white and dark-skinned peoples of the empire were seen as superior; or alternatively as inferior.’ British imperialists loathed Indians and Africans no more nor less than they loathed the great majority of Englishmen and were far more willing to work with maharajahs, kings, and chiefs of whatever colour than with white settlers, whom they generally considered as uneducated trash. Just as Jamaican peasants and East End costermongers were viewed as equally inferior, so Indian princes and West African tribal chiefs were often understood as the social equivalent of English gentlemen. Indeed, British rulers were often amused that lower class white settlers were unable to comprehend that aristocratic breeding cut across differences of colour. Lady Gordon, wife of Arthur Hamilton Gordon, the governor of Fiji, thought the native, high-ranking Fijians ‘such an undoubted aristocracy’. ‘Their manners’, she wrote, ‘are so perfectly easy and well bred… Nurse can’t understand it at all, she looks down on them as an inferior race. I don’t like to tell her that these ladies are my equals, which she is not!’

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:20 | #

Desmond,

You have no idea what you are talking about.  You are so profoundly wayward I really don’t know where to begin with you.  At least CC has a reason for his waywardness - he is trying to demonstrate the utility of NS.  But you can’t even claim that.  You have your naked contrariness and nothing else.

For the record, no externalising religious pursuits have any impact whatsoever on anything that might be considered in any sense real.  They exist, all of them, in the place of confusion or exile or whatever.

You know, many people write many things.  My advice to you, as someone who knows you better than you know yourself, is to place less credence on Google and more on your own thought processes.  The effort to think for yourself might at least expose to you the motives in your own breast, and cause you to think twice before clicking the “submit” button.

Posted by PF on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:05 | #

CaptainChaos wrote:

The contention that lower-class Brits could not enhance their social and economic status by manning the garrisons and bureaucracies of the Empire, and doing that did not evince a sense of racial pride is ahistorical “claptrap.”

The first boldened part just means they could make money. Yes, in some circumstances, money could be made, fortunes advanced.

The second boldened part fails to interface with the [average?] British person’s mentality of that era. People did not see things in terms of racial struggle when they were shipped off to God-knows-where. It would take a lot of “de-anglicizing” before a British person at that time could even clearly objectify what their identity meant. People who dont live in a diaspora dont give a rats ass about racial pride, typically.

It’s always fun, and handy, to triangulate against the Krauts, that is until one needs dip into their bag of Krautish tricks oneself.  “We will militari[z]e.” Indeed.

Who are the Krauts? You certainly don’t mean the modern day Germans.

How can one triangulate against them, didn’t the men you are referring to die in bunkers, under mortar and shell fire, and by being sentenced to death by various tribunals? Didn’t history offer a criticism of them, a factual and unanswerable one? If so, why are we still lauding their failed methodology - especially since for the most part it was our own grandfathers who sent them to Valhal? It seems a kind of proud contrarian masochism.

Are you so distrustful of whites’ loyalty that you will only accept the most extreme, self-outing, martyrdom-eager, shrill and blatant battle call as evidence of a willingness to resist? Do you assume every white man who elects not to go this route is, at some level, a coward and traitor? Why can’t you see that loud proclamations and willingness to do all kinds of nasty things does not guarantee victory, and mettle and loyalty can lie sleeping in all sorts of men, whether they are willing to embrace your loud words or not? Thats my objection to this style: it presumes cowardice where it sees soft-spokenness. That in itself is a kind of anti-white and uniquely anti-British contempt. Which of course I dont like to see. lol. Because you are basically hating on Brits based on a manner of bearing, which isn’t necessarily connected to the issues (loyalty, willingness to fight) which you imagine it to be. Everyone seems to want to read into the veneer of british niceness some kind of cowardice, and TBH, I used to also think this way.

Posted by PF on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:11 | #

This is an awesome song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNVfNc1IQM

Kayleigh is it too late to say I’m sorry,
and Kayleigh could we get it together again?
I just cant go on pretending
that it came to a natural end.

Kayleigh, I just want to say I’m sorry
But Kayleigh I’m too scared to pick up the phone,
(To find you’ve found another lover).

It was written by a white man. B-b-bonus!!!

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:56 | #

Selous Scout,

Here’s what Mr Kemp has to say about Clive Derby-Lewis:

http://www.arthurkemp.com/?p=459

PF,

In the popular music scene there is more interest to be got out of lyrics than the actual music - little of it expressly white, though.  For example, these lyrics written by David Byrne and other members of Talking Heads:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/talking+heads/once+in+a+lifetime_20135070.html

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/talking+heads/heaven_20135027.html

Cut CC plenty of slack.  He is more than a friend to anyone on this journey.  It’s just that he would rather it leads towards what he holds most dear.  He’ll find a way around that.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:20 | #

GW, I have witnessed scenes which might bear out Desmond’s quote about the affinity between White elites and their native counterparts.

One lunchtime I was drinking in the bar of the KL Hilton, waiting for a friend to arrive, when two acquaintances, one an English long-time expat CEO of a listed company and his drinking partner, a Malay prince, waved and called me over to their end of the bar. These two had been at school together (Haileybury).

Anyway, I thanked them and politely declined saying that I was waiting for someone. A minute later three English oilfield hands came in and started talking fairly loudly in uncompromising Liverpudlian accents. My two acquaintances rolled their eyes and, temporarily switching to the Malay language, agreed that the bar had gone downhill rapidly with the arrival of hoi polloi.

Posted by PF on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:23 | #

You are the great Sphinx of white nationalism, Guessedworker. Now I am going to be going over the talking heads lyrics….

ok ok…“remove the water, carry the water”... what can that mean? If I am the water… or perhaps the World is the water….or are my friends and family the water? what the hell does it mean?

Stuff to puzzle over is always welcome.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:14 | #

At least CC has a reason for his waywardness - he is trying to demonstrate the utility of NS.

Yes, but not always.

That is a powerful critique of Hoffmeister, and a stirring tribute to the manliness and honor of the SS by you.  My faith-gene wants to believe.  But what do you say to Frank Salter’s description of fascism/Nazism as a ‘fitness bubble’ that went burst?  And just what the fuck do you say to the Nazi plan to ethnically cleanse most Slavs to the east of the Ural mountains, to freeze on the cold steppe, whilst the rest stayed on to slave for the Master Race?  In other words, Hitler was prepared to give the Jews a better deal than Slavs.  Hitler, rot in hell.

Two naked men, one arrogant and one contrary, and which path did he chose?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:11 | #

PF,

It isn’t a puzzle.  It is very clear.  You or, to be more precise, your “state” is water.  Remove the water, carry the war and so on ... it does not make sense.  It is not meant to.  But once in a lifetime you might, and you may find yourself ...

You need to bear in mind that although New Wave was, like Punk, a reaction to the overblown, very fake super-group/prog rock thing, and brought the emphasis back down to earth in terms of the sincerity of the songwriting, song-length, simplicity of the musicianship etc, it still had strong artistic pretentions.  To what degree David Byrne’s output is simply “art”, and possibly even substance-induced art, I wouldn’t really like to say.  The lyrics to Heaven read very like a commentary on the quality of induced euphoria which, although it can be replicated with no personal effort - indeed, because it can be replicated with no personal effort - slowly flattens to nothing.  On the other hand, it might be a contemplation on the quality of fundamental existence, which we can never touch with our intellects - our reach being limited to the existent which, so to speak, emerges through it.

But don’t ask me.

The fairly obviously “high” And She Was and the more conventional Road to Nowhere are other interesting Talking Heads tracks.

I’m not a fan, incidentally, but I do wonder about some of Byrne’s ideas!

Posted by PF on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:45 | #

GW

The lyrics to Heaven read very like a commentary on the quality of induced euphoria which, although it can be replicated with no personal effort - indeed, because it can be replicated with no personal effort - slowly flattens to nothing.

Induced euphoria is something I dont know about. I dont know how to replicate it without drugs - how do you induce euphoria without drugs? Also, it flattens to nothing… OK, but it flattens to nothing because it can be replicated with no personal effort? Thats sphinx-speak to me.

Incidentally I did meet one ‘psychonaut’ (i.e. drug user seeking mind expansion) who was able, apparently, to detach from his thoughts in a method similar to that described in Buddhist texts, after consuming a quantity of a certain pharmaceutical drug his thoughts “looped in a circle forever until I just realized I didn’t need them anymore”. As an outside observer I can only be astonished by the extent to which this drug-user was using similar language and explaining similar things to me as I had read about in Buddhism/other materials. At the same time he smelled bad and looked like a half-wrecked man. Any thoughts?

I’m not a fan, incidentally, but I do wonder about some of Byrne’s ideas!

What music are you a fan of GW?

Posted by Frank on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:54 | #

PF,

Buddhist meditation is supposed to focus the mind and improve concentration. The drug user sounds like he’s doing the opposite.

Buddhism is about seeking nothingness… I think. But regardless the meditation I’d heard of is to be focused on one thing or on music. It was described as mental push-ups and somehow difficult.

I just read to improve concentration. If you can force yourself to focus on difficult material, the mind has to adapt.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:56 | #

Buddhism supposedly helps soldiers to fearlessly face death in battle.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:23 | #

how do you induce euphoria without drugs?

Me I know nothing.

it flattens to nothing because it can be replicated with no personal effort?

Well, yes, of course.  Homeostasis is the unchanging goal of the central nervous system.  Your psychonaut friend is on a slippery slope to nowhere, never mind a road.

What music are you a fan of?

Piano, mostly early romantic (Schubert, the late Beethoven sonatas), and I also enjoy the last flowering of the romantic symphony (Richard Strauss, Sibelius).

Posted by Paul Wilson on Sat, 24 Sep 2016 15:59 | #

In the popular music scene there is more interest to be got out of lyrics than the actual music - little of it expressly white, though.  For example, these lyrics written by David Byrne and other members of Talking Heads:
Cut CC plenty of slack.  He is more than a friend to anyone on this journey.  It’s just that he would rather it leads towards what he holds most dear.  He’ll find a way around that.

Talking Heads one of the most complete bands, Once in a Lifetime is still my favorite song.

Posted by Dan Roodt on Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:11 | #

Dan Roodt interviewed by “the McSpencer Group”

Related at Majorityrights:

A genocide in South Africa

Dr Dan Roodt, Part 1

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 04 December 2009

Dr Dan Roodt, Part 2

Dr Dan Roodt, Part 3