From the moment the bereaved families challenged the psychological diagnosis of Anders Breivik as a paranoid schizophrenic with active psychosis, there was never really any doubt that he would be found criminally accountable (ie, sane in our parlance) for his deeds in Oslo and on the island of Utøya on 22nd July 2011.

The court’s order to re-assess Breivik, with the result that he was diagnosed as suffering “only” from narcissistic anti-social personality disorder, satisfied the Establishment, the families, the Norwegian public, and Breivik himself.  The latter’s greatest fear was to be committed to a mental institution and have his actions put down to psychosis and his stated causes and goals written off as the logic of a madman.

But the court’s declaration of Breivik’s sanity put an end to that and re-focussed proceedings on his politics, and that, of course, does a grave disservice to the cause of the Norwegian life.  The judge herself said, “Breivik’s views are not a sign of madness but consistent with extreme political views,” as if the natural, normal, healthy, moral desire that Norway’s people must not be colonised and replaced by racial aliens is “extreme”.

It seems likely, however, that, far from making a shock wave that will loose an avalanche of “nationalist” violence, Breivik will simply disappear into his secure prison cell, and be lost to view.  The memory of his sad, stubborn little salutes and his blushes at the mention of “Knights Templar” and “justiciar knights” will occasion only contempt and loathing, and Norway will move on.  That is certainly what Norwegians hope, nationalists among them.

Meanwhile, membership of the Labour Party youth wing, which was the organiser of the Utøya summer camp attacked by Breivik, increased during the last year from 9,600 to 14,000.

Most of that increase was likely driven by the Rose Marches that followed the attacks, and the feeling of national unity that was generated by them.  But that has ebbed away and the realities of division and discontent that were there before 22nd July 2011 are exposed once again.  Norway’s population increased by 1.3% in 2011, one of the highest rates in Europe.  Net immigration accounted for 71% of growth, but this figure is deceptive because Norway’s oil-rich economy has sucked in as many European-descended professionals and skilled workers as it has racial aliens.  The proportion of the population that is racially alien is very likely not less than 7.5%.  Grønland, east of the Akerselva river which runs through Oslo, is already as good as lost.

Politically, Norway has the small-c conservative Progress Party, to which Breivik belonged before his radicalisation.  It is sceptical about multiculturalism but not opposed to immigration.  It is a dog in the nationalist manger, like all such respectably culturist and assimilationist mainstream parties.  In the immediate aftermath of the attacks even a party with such a weak-tea platform suffered a loss of membership.  But it has clawed it back since, and appears to be advancing further.

An authentic Norwegian nationalism is impossible to advance, of course, crushed as it is between the Progress Party and Breivik’s murderousness.

As for the rest of us, well, nationalism found some respite from association with Breivik in his original diagnosis, as well as in the scarcely nationalist Christian Zionist anti-jihadism he espoused.  As someone who spends a fair amount of time on newspaper threads arguing the case for the European life, I encountered few references to the Utøya massacre beyond the immediate aftermath.  Now the court has tied Breivik to the motives of every nationalist, there will likely be a longer tail to the damage he has done.

But that, too, will pass. The horror of Breivik is receding, and just as Norwegians cannot hide from the realities of the world their politicians are creating, neither can any of us.  Nationalists remain the only political actors with a true heart and a true analysis.

Ever since the 1992 “Race, Gender and the Frontier” (part1 and part2), I’ve been awaiting the arrival of Pan-Western Fascism—not as Jews predicted it would arrive but on the strength of the Jews themselves.

Yes, I did predict the rise of Leo Strauss’s neoconservatism with its turn-of-the-millenium “Reichstag” incident to initiate US aggression in the middle east, but I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop:

The arrival of the “antisemitic” successor to Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum.

I believe it has finally arrived.  But not even I expected it to be another female.  Yes, a Jew, but not another Jewess!  What a coincidence!(?)

The purpose of the “antisemitism” is clear:  Clean house but only to the point that the “natural” superiority of the Jews in “Western Civilization” can be fully accepted to place them in the Biblically prophesied position of princes and priests of all nations.

The essay in which the other shoe dropped for me was, unsurprisingly, titled “Jews, Leftists, Immigration: My Journey To Nietzsche”.

I’m not going to excerpt it. 

You really should read it in its entirety. 

It is a milestone.

(Granting J Richards priority in recognizing the subject of this post.)

Start watching at 15 minutes and 10 seconds into this video:

You will see something that matters.

Neocon Zionists starting WW III by inciting the US to attack Syria thence Iran doesn’t matter. 

This does.

National Instruments is a company that every scientist and technologist in the world knows and respects.

In that video the president of National Instruments is, in the most highly visible role he takes, essentially accusing the physics establishment of institutional incompetence.  The physics establishment has been, since WW II, the most politically powerful aspect of the entire scientific establishment.

That is noteworthy in itself.

That it is over a matter of suppression of clean energy technology is even more noteworthy, but it doesn’t, in itself, hold a “candle” so to speak, to the threat of nuclear Armageddon posed by the neocon Zionists.

So what’s the big deal?

I mean, if solving civilization’s energy problems isn’t such a big deal, why does this really matter?

Here’s why…

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...

This essay consists of some unfinished philosophical ramblings and some related historical interpretations.  If the philosophy is too rambling, I hope at least that the history holds some interest.

Reaction has a bad name but a rather long and complex history.  For the sake of brevity, as well as relevance to us, we can place an age limit on it and date it from the onset of modernity.  So, for example, a reactionary’s history might commence with the aesthetic of romanticism, that emotionally freeing and humanising response to the encroachment upon nature and the transcendent of industrialisation and urbanisation, materialism, the beginnings of mass consumption, and everything that was “modern”, say, when Beethoven composed his Symphony No. 3 in E flat major Op.55, the Eroica, between August 1804 and April 1805.

No rabble but a nation in the making

However, nationalism did not begin in reaction, and for most of its existence it has not been reactionary.  Its intellectual history is usually traced to the thought of Johan Gottfried Herder, who invented the word and, in acknowledging the place of the national community, was the first thinker to challenge the distinction of sovereign and subject, replacing both within a Volk who were in no wise the eponymous common rabble.  Apparently, up to this time people who could think actually thought there was only their gilded selves and the civilisationally incompetent Platonic masses.  Which makes one wonder what William Shakespeare was describing nearly two centuries earlier when he wrote in King Richard II, Act 2 scene 1 of “This happy breed of men, this little world”.  But, then again, there were the tribunes and the commoners of The Tragedy of Coriolanus, written c. 1605:

Sicinius Velutus: Assemble presently the people hither;
And when they bear me say ‘It shall be so
I’ the right and strength o’ the commons,’ be it either
For death, for fine, or banishment, then let them
If I say fine, cry ‘Fine;’ if death, cry ‘Death.’
Insisting on the old prerogative
And power i’ the truth o’ the cause.
Aedile: I shall inform them.
Junius Brutus: And when such time they have begun to cry,
Let them not cease, but with a din confused
Enforce the present execution
Of what we chance to sentence.
Act III 3, scene 1

... sentiments appropriate to any modern media moghul pondering democracy and his own self.  But what were the sentiments and the real will of the people themselves?

In settled times, of course, European peoples (who we might, after the modern globalist practise, term “the post-tribe”) do not require a constant expression of national community.  It retires to its abode in the instincts of the people and in the personnification of the sovereign.  The collective will to be ... to be secure in the possession of all that is necessary for life ... makes its settlement with the world and turns to smaller things, attenuating to a will to increase and, finally, to live collectively in a way that satisfies the intellect, the senses and the heart, and leaves no collective need unmet and no wrongdoing undone.  And part of that latter, it would seem, is a Heideggerian care of altruism for suffering humanity, regardless of tribe, regardless even of race.

I think this progressive retirement of ethnocentrism is particularly condign to Europeans.  With us, the imperative to be does not begin (or end) in tribal competition.  It begins in the struggle against climatic circumstances under which human existence is parlous at best.  The audacious European response is the act of challenging Nature herself.  That is what nationalists mean when they speak of the restless creativity and prometheanism of the European race.

That does not, by the way, imply some bracing movement towards a state of, say, “greatness” or “triumph”, but a return to our one state of truth, which is great enough and which is in us always and requires that the people be healthy and whole, and their identity authentic (that is, detached from artifice, from the acquired).

In other words, of herself Nature is subsistent, not purposive.  She does not destin beyond her struggle to be.  Notwithstanding European creativity, then, our struggle is the endless struggle of all life, and such purposivity as may enter it is always party to that.  To be precise, teleology roams the space between existence and subsistence, and never goes beyond, though to the eyes of all believers it will certainly appear to.

READ MORE...

One of the most endearing things about the erstwhile human, E. O. Wilson, is the manner in which he, as now a mere extended phenotype, expresses his selective brain-death.  Its almost as though a remnant of his humanity remains to telegraph the exact way in which his mind might have gone if he hadn’t become infected with the metaphorical gordian worm.  Here’s a beautiful example of what I mean, drawn from his book “The Social Conquest of Earth”, chapter “The Creative Explosion”:

Changes in gene frequency due to evolution at the level of one gene or a small ensemble of genes, whether linked on the same chromosome or not, and referred to by biologists as microevolution, are expected to continue as a natural process into the indefinite future.  For the immediate future, however, emigration and ethnic intermarriage have taken over as the overwhelmingly dominant forces of microevolution… This change, unique in human history, offers a prospect of an immense increase in different types of people worldwide, and thereby newly created physical beauty and artistic and intellectual genius.

The first sentence of the above quote is what I’m calling a remnant of E. O. Wilson’s humanity.  The rest, of course, is typical extended phenotype speak with which we are all so familiar.

Why is that first sentence so endearing?

Well, a clue is that it makes indirect reference to genetic correlation structure hence Lewontin’s fallacy..  In so doing, he is pointing out the very reason why panmixia, that his extended phenotypic blather proceeds to praise, is so irreversibly destructive:

It is hard enough for an adaptive mutation of a single gene to arise, overcome the forces of genetic drift, and become fixed in a population.  Sure, there will be occasional conjunctions of alleles with beneficial effects (and more often conjunctions of alleles with deleterious effects that we are all but legally commanded to ignore), but panmixia will immediately disperse their correlation structure rendering them subject to the forces of genetic drift.  Consider then the difficulty of two synergistically adaptive mutations arising, overcoming the forces of genetic drift, and becoming fixed in a population—particularly if they are on different chromosomes where their linkage is far lower than on a single chromosome:

In a panmictic environment, these two mutations will be exponentially less likely to overcome genetic drift to ever meet each other in enough single individuals with enough consanguinity to establish their co-presence in a population.  Even in a natural population mixing situation, the gradual accumulation of adaptive genetic correlation structures will require vastly longer time horizons than will single adaptive mutations.

As panmixia takes hold of populations that have gone through the tens of thousands of years of consanguinity that, alone, can give rise to such microevolution, these conjunctions of synergistic alleles will meet up with each other with decreasing frequency and, unable to express their adaptive phenotypes, doom the original “created physical beauty and artistic and intellectual genius” Nature created.

I appreciate the spirit of the now long-departed human that went by the name of “E. O. Wilson” for this message, written though it may be, on the soft underbelly of the empty vessel now dominated by the extended phenotype of The Other.

Giving Guessedworker’s subject its due as a main blog post (and moving related comments here), Guessedworker wrote:

The questions raised here are extremely important.  They go to the very heart of the meaning and utility of politics.  If we do not address them but, on the contrary, simple assume that “everything will turn out right” providing Jewish struggle is removed from the equation, then we are proposing an anti-politics and a void where history should stand.  We become mere racial actors in a racial world, sans the traction of intellect.

Now, obviously I am not an advocate of the single Jewish cause.  I am an advocate of the European genius.  I believe that the long cycle of self-forgetting in modernity has to be broken, and the return to self-awareness that characterises less creative peoples, and which characterised Europeans during our collective phase of emergence from mere survivalism, has to be re-ignited.  I believe that is the challenge which the Jewish racial paradigm presents us (and it is a drive for the singular possession of ethnicity), and that it can be resolved only through that process of rediscovery.

But we will never achieve that through protest alone.  We will achieve it through philosophy.

READ MORE...

If Obama’s forgery attempt was as incompetent as indicated by the above video from Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, we are left with a confusing dilemma:

Couldn’t Obama come up with at least one competent digital document fabrication expert from among those decidedly nerdy white campaign volunteers?  Is there something about being an African extended phenotype that makes white nerds stupid?  The explanation sticks in my craw, not because I’m ashamed to be associated with such stupidity even if only by race, but because my prior experience with African extended phenotypes is that they are selectively brain-dead—not generally brain-dead.

What’s really going on here?

Here’s part of the story:

Documents that have been scanned to PDF and opened by Adobe Illustrator apparently do create layers automatically:

Indeed, from this video it appears that it is Adobe Illustrator, itself, that controls the scanning of the image hence creation of the layers in the resulting PDF.

So, we’re on our way to a forensic re-creation of the “crime”.  Next up, I suppose, is the variation in pixelation between these layers.  What caused that?