Majorityrights Central > Category: No particular place to go

While I’m in a holiday mood, and since we have focused on some rather dry material of late, I thought it might make a change to post something entirely frivolous but still, I hope, interesting to readers - the opening chapter of a story I will doubtless never attempt to buff-up, develop and title.

Chapter One

Tyler was already waiting for him on the first floor landing.  “Couldn’t you have found somewhere anonymous,” Coulson quipped, throwing a gesture towards the cheap, utilitarian interior of a wholly unremarkable office building.

“To be content, add not to your possessions but subtract from your desires,” Tyler shot back, almost smiling.

They shook hands in desultory fashion.  It had been a year since they were both stationed in London, during which Coulson had done a stint as liaison in Washington, then, briefly, at Nashashibi Street.  Tyler, a devoted careerist, had worked his charm on other, older careerists at SIS and reaped the reward promotionally.  Now he had been brought in to run this nominally MI5 show which, if it produced results, would earn the gratitude of people who mattered and who weren’t part of the pink maffia of British Intelligence.

“Any other friends here yet, my old fruit?” asked Coulson.  It was exactly 6.00pm.  He was not always so punctual or so polite.

“Oh indeed.” said Tyler caustically, “We are waiting for you,”  He leaned over the gallery .  “Right Jessop, lock the place down.  No one and nothing in or out unless authorised by me.  All personnel incommunicado.”

Seeing the puzzlement at such excess on Coulson’s face, he explained slowly and evenly, “There will be no leaks from this operation.”

It had been four months since the Chevening event.  The initial clamour - the explosion of demands for an early arrest from all quarters of the Western political Establishment, the panic of the British Establishment, the wild press speculation, the riotous glee from the internet - had died away within the first three weeks.  But the pressure from within “the intelligence community” was unrelenting.  The world’s foremost banker and doyen of the powerful had been assassinated on Foreign & Commonwealth Office property, dying with a maraschino cherry and a 7.62mm M118 cartridge in his throat.  The fatal shot had been fired from a distance of 600 metres across fields that, though open, were secured (in theory at least) by listening devices and other counter-measures.  Yet the marksman - obviously highly-skilled, obviously aware of the ground - had obtained a firing position undetected, taken his shot, left nothing behind, no DNA, and made good his escape.

There was one low-resolution image of a motorcyclist captured at 7.49 pm on a garage forecourt video, heading south two miles from the scene.  Enhancement revealed a rider in black helmet, jacket, trousers and boots on a bike that may have been a Honda CBF125.  He was wearing a back-pack long enough, certainly, to accommodate a sniper’s rifle and tripod.  No other camera recorded the mystery biker, and no sightings of him had been reported as a result of the public appeals.

It had quickly emerged that the security operation for the weekend party had been perfunctory at best.  There had been no security review for two years.  Nobody seemed to have considered the possibility that a hostile could penetrate the counter-measures.  In consequence, a couple of pairs of DPG officers armed with night-vision and MP5s wondering about the estate was presumed quite sufficient for all eventualities.

READ MORE...

Today I had an informative and occasionally bloody exchange with some rather vituperate drug-takers on a DT thread to an article by Brendan O’Neill.  Brendan is only moonlighting at the Telegraph.  His daytime job is editor of the left-wing mag, Spiked.  He is one of a small band of liberal-left journalists who abuse the DT readership in various none-too-subtle ways.  Today, Brendan was making a particularly vapid argument not only for the decriminalisation of cannabis but of all drugs.  It certainly brought out the libertarian tendency.

Ever since I was a very young man first encountering people socially who took “illegal substances” I have found the breed to be very annoying.  I don’t think I ever met one who was not wholly consumed by the fashions and fads of the times, or who really had both feet planted on the ground.  Indeed, their personalities were as light as a feather.  Now, I am sure that somewhere there must be many decent people who happened to smoke weed when they were young and impressionable, and perhaps still do from time to time.  But I never met one.

What I did meet were socially needy people who had few inner resources, who liked novelty, who considered themselves “free” because they did this apparently daring thing, when all the evidence was that they did it because they were in chains.  It meshed neatly with my then nascent understanding that you can’t live seriously if you are not psychologically serious, and the number of serious people I met in the daily rounds of a south London life circa 1970 were not exactly encouraging.

Well, all that was a very long time ago, and I haven’t given it a great deal of thought since.  But it all came flooding back as I read the “wisdom” of the attenuated specimens posting on the thread.  I found myself arriving at the same conclusion: if a man gives himself and his brain chemistry up to some street drug he has already proven that he is too weak and suggestible to make responsible choices.  The proper course for public policy cannot be legalisation until a real degree of personal psychological stability and self-knowledge obtains.

Of course, all these druggy creatures on the O’Neill thread were libertarians, and so they were perfectly convinced of their own “sovereign will”.  They had not the slightest inkling that they are incomplete and shallow men.  One of them informed me:

If anything we are a Pleasure seeking Pagan Isles and it us druggies who are the free English who are doing what the English do best.

I responded:

While you are indulging your weak, pathetic self in those thoughts, the African and Asian populations are steadily colonising and replacing us.

What use are you to Englishmen?

He did not reply.  They never do if it gets difficult.

Governments agonise over what to do about the drugs issue.  They should forget that.  It isn’t drugs that cause the drug-taking.  It’s the kind of human personalities we are producing.

ASIAN COGNITIVE ELITES SOLVE THE UK HOUSING CRISIS WITH THE MUMBAI MODEL

Southall from space.  But not much space.

There has been some press coverage at last of the ingenius and rather profitable solution to the housing crisis conceived by our dusky-skinned, cognitively elite fellow countrymen.  What was that you said?  Did the Subcogs conceive the housing crisis or the solution to it?  Ah ... erm ... both.  I did not make a grammatical error, you see.

THEY are the slumdogs of Southall – a mass of immigrants living in ramshackle garden “sheds” and garages which brazenly flout planning laws.

Staring down from jets landing at nearby Heathrow, travellers could be forgiven for thinking they were arriving over Mumbai’s shanty towns — made famous by the hit movie Slumdog Millionaire — rather than a west London suburb.

Hidden from view from the street in garden after garden, the so-called “sheds with beds” have been jerry-built by rogue landlords cashing in on new arrivals.

Some sheds are homely bungalows with flat-screen TVs, power showers and central heating. Others are filthy potential death traps, with poor wiring and sanitation and plagued by rats and cockroaches.

Give it time and no one will know that’s not normal…

Exotic West London.  Sorry, Mumbai.

NO THREATS, NO INCITEMENT BUT JAILTIME JUST THE SAME

Glasgow is an uncompromising place, and its football fans have a long tradition of uncompromising hostility across the sectarian line that divides Rangers and Celtic.  But even there the thaumaturgists of the politically correct courts are visiting the Pax Judaica upon the warring factions.

READ MORE...

As a result of the CMS article I received a request from Greg Johnson for an interview.  In turn, I requested a QA format because that allows me to think about my replies at leisure, and avoid a few of those inevitable foot-in-mouth moments.  Greg sent the first question this evening, to which I have replied as below.  I am going to build up the interview on this post, as we progress with it.

Question 1: Have you had any dealings with William Regnery? If so, what transpired?

Unusual place to start.  Back in 2007 Tom Sunic suggested that I make an introduction.  At the time I was interested in identifying and bringing together in a virtual but real-time environment a small group of people distinguished by the capacity for originality.  My experience of what passes for the apogee of radical right thinking - I mean foundational philosophy - was that it draws in large measure from the same wells as fascism and National Socialism, and from these ideologies themselves.  Of course, on both sides of the Atlantic there was also a quantity of serious thought given over to interpretation, analysis, strategising, protest, and so forth.  But there was nothing that I could see that was newly culled from a modern understanding of Man and Nature, and that opened out into an expansive and creative enquiry into the truths of who we are and how to live.

In the Anglosphere the thinking was, on one hand, essentially religious, meshing flawlessly with the 20th century fictions of a European spirit of race and mythic destiny, and, on the other, empirical, producing stone-cold certainties about human bio-diversity, sociobiology, gene interests, and so on.  It was (and is) a barren coupling.  I wanted to find some basis for reconciling the unreconcilable ... science and philosophy, truth and beauty, the New World and the Old, because then we might have a foundation on which others could build intellectually.  And we might, if we were lucky, come into possession not just of a reactionary critique of liberalism à la de Benoist but something shattering, something epochal and renewing.

I raised this heady notion with a few people I respect, some of whom are members of CMS.  I offered my own theory that one possible path to reconciliation was to move the philosophy into existentialism and the religion into esoterism ... at all times asking the question: what is true?

Perhaps not surprisingly, what I found was that, by and large, the scientists saw the point quickly.  The few philosophers I was able to talk to would not look beyond the famous “impossibility” of reconciling thought and experience.  It was clear, though, that in reality they were hostile to any threat to the Weltenschauung they had carved out by their own hand from the bedrock of the Western canon.  They were, I’m afraid, telling me that they did not possess the capacity of original thinking.  I believe few original thinkers, even those given to Idealism, would be disinterested in a group endeavour to change the European Mind.

So I let go of the group project and did not take up Tom’s suggestion of talking to William Regnery.  The only point of doing so would have been to use his contacts to potential participants.  Today, I am using MR to encourage an ontological approach to the problem.  It has many critics and disbelievers.  But they are not the ones who hold the key to the future.  Fascism will never be our new thought world, and will never gift us a sovereign and free European life.

by Karl LaForce

Because I wanted to know, I spent about 6 hours running down the basic facts on as many black serial killers as I could find. I limited the list to the USA starting in 1900. I came up with more than 30.

1
Howard Allen (black)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Allen
Birth name Howard Arthur Allen
Born February 10, 1949 (1949-02-10) (age 62)
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
Killings
Number of victims: 3
Span of killings 1974–1987
Country United States
State(s) Indiana
Date apprehended August 4, 1987

2
Terry A. Blair (Black)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blair_(serial_killer)
Born 16 September 1961 (1961-09-16) (age 49)
Sentence Life imprisonment
Killings
Number of victims: 8
Span of killings 1982–2004
Country U.S.
State(s) Kansas City, Missouri
Date apprehended September 14, 2004

3&4&5
The Briley Brothers (Anthony Ray Briley, James “J.B.” Briley, Jr. and Linwood Briley) (Black)
were responsible for a series of killings in Richmond, Virginia in 1979 that lasted seven months before their arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briley_Brothers
Orline Christian, Michael McDuffie,  Mary Gowen, Christopher Philips,John “Johnny G.” Gallaher, Mary Wilfong, Blanche Page and Charles Garner,
Harvey Wilkerson his 23-year-old wife Judy Barton (who was five months pregnant at the time) and her 5-year-old son Harvey

6
Charlie Chop-off (black)
Background information
Birth name Unknown (possibly Erno Soto)
Also known as Unknown
Conviction Never convicted
Sentence Never sentenced
Killings
Number of victims: 6
Span of killings March 9, 1972–May 15, 1974
Country United States
State(s) New York
Date apprehended Unapprehended
(the only surviving victim who is black said Soto, who is black, looked like the killer)

7
Posteal Laskey Jr. (black)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Strangler
Posteal Laskey Jr., the man believed to be the “Cincinnati Strangler”
Birth name Posteal Laskey Jr.
Also known as The Cincinnati Strangler
Born 1938
Died May 29, 2007
Cause of death Natural causes
Killings
Number of victims: 7
Span of killings 1965–1966
Country USA
State(s) Ohio
Date apprehended December, 1966

READ MORE...

by Grimoire

Recently, in correspondence with GW, Graham Lister and CaptainChaos, LJ Barnes demanded we drop the tedious, pseudo-intellectual wank, and ordered that we:

Write some fucking articles that allow nationalists to communicate nationalists ideas to normal people - not more of this student wanker drivel that appeals only to about six fucking people on the whole fucking planet.”

In compliance, I decided to write about the rules of Politics as I understand them. In paticular, the golden rule of Political communication. Politics is not merely running for a seat in government, Political action is whenever one needs to persuade another. Politics is by definition an exchange between people where one attempts to present an idea of authority to be accepted by all, or the majority. This is a most basic rule, but it’s underlying truth lends it self-operating wisdo. All Western politicians within the Democratic/Parliamentary system, whether you love or hate them, attained majority power with a variation of this rule.

For explication, I will present the Rule in three parts:

1) People care about subjects which benefit them and are perceived to be just.

A majorities primary concern is always material subsistence, followed by the need to be free of anxiety towards their livelihood. The successful nationalist frames all arguments in terms of positive benefits to the listener and his livelihood, no matter the subject, with positive outcomes and conclusions of economy and natural justice. Many nationalists are in the habit of the exact opposite, framing the arguments in terms of negative effects and the experience of injustice. As a result, people do not give a shit. Framing one’s policy goals on beneficial outcomes for the subject, means even if they disagree, they will always care very much.

2)  For authority to be functional, it must serve those who submit to it. Anything of value is determined by function alone.

Politicians frame the argument towards the audience. This is why they promise this, that and the opposite at different times of the day. But the promises they make are not the value in the equation, just the inducement…value is framed around the functions they require authority to develop. This is how successful politicians elicit devotion towards their authority, despite disdain for their policies.  Example of this are Churchill, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Therefore, show the result intended, but the path that benefits the majority interests. Only present the degree of ways and means that allows one to acommodate the audiences interests without a great degree of inconsistency. How to manage this is via the third part:

3) Keep It Simple Stupid

The secret weapon. The KISS principal causes friends to overestimate, and one’s enemies to underestimate the strength and wisdom of a speaker. Escalating a debate into science, philosophy or genetics is asking to disappear into a swamp of misconception. Couple this with rule 1, (keep it positive, beneficial,) and simple…and cause a dramatic impact.

I recall a Professor who on first appearance seemed a oaf ... until he began to lecture. The contrast was such that he became everyone’s favorite and most loved lecturer - so much so that one’s first impression of other Professors who were well attired and fluent communicators turned from a good impression to suspicion that they were inwardly dull and shallow.  Allow an audience to develop it’s own misconceptions and exploit those misconceptions.

Finale: The purpose of this short article is to present a challenge to the reader to take their favorite social or economic policy; ie. deporting immigrants, public execution of immigration officials + Labour Party members, introducing hemisphere-wide right of personal combat, eugenics programs to diminish occurrence of the ‘faith gene’, etc, and reformulate it within the context of the rules of politics. It is advised one start by conceiving one’s policy goals in the simplest manner, then identify the functions required, and how to present these functions in a simple yet oblique manner that can be tailored towards the audience. Reframe your points towards positive outcomes for any audience. And, lastly, determine how to frame one’s policy goals to dovetail with the underlying anxiety of an audience concerning their livelihood.

Insights are appreciated. Politics is not exact science, but art ... and relies on the skills developed by its members.

“The less the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night.”
- Bismark

by Alexander Baron

Washington - FamilyRadio, an American-based Christian radio station, has predicted the world will end May 21, 2011. This article argues their chronology is wrong, but probably by less than a hundred years.

Prophets, cranks and ordinary people have been predicting the end of the world since before the Great Flood, including one guy who had the foresight to build an ark so that he, his kin and their family pets could repopulate the Earth, be fruitful and multiply. More recently, the Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted Judgment Day would arrive in 1914; if your name was Harry Patch and you’d been caught up in the living hell that was Passchendaele three years later, you might have thought they’d got it half right. The latest such prediction is for May 21 this year, less than two weeks away according to Americans Brian Haubert and Kevin Brown, and their favourite radio station, FamilyRadio. Their reason for believing the end is nigh is a somewhat novel interpretation of Christian theology, one of the signposts of which is the rise of gay pride and same sex marriages. There must be a joke there somewhere, but this is a family show. Haubert and Brown don’t appear to have mentioned that in .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) with Barbara Bradley Hagerty, but although the world most certainly will not end on May 21, their chronology may not be too far out, and this time we are talking science rather than religion.

The end of the world? Not literally, but unless our leaders change course drastically and soon, there are children alive today who will undoubtedly see the end of civilisation as we know it – consider the evidence. First there is Professor Albert Bartlett’s doom-mongering lecture – classic and awesome in equal measure - Arithmetic, Population And Energy. This can be found all over the Internet in video, audio and text formats – the latter in French and Spanish as well as English. A video version was uploaded to Youtube in 8 parts with the modest but terrifyingly accurate title The Most IMPORTANT Video You’ll Ever See.

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

This is a sort of supplement to my essay Oscar Wilde: The Straight Truth About A “Gay” Icon that was published here last month. There are two further points I would like to make: one relating to the decadence of Wilde, the other about the decadence of modern society. To take the first point first; as I pointed out, after Wilde withdrew from the criminal libel prosecution, Lord Queensberry bankrupted him. Mostly it is taken for granted that but for this, Wilde would have been able to keep his head above water. This is not necessarily the case.

According to the Law Report for August 26, 1895 which was published in The Times the following day, at a first meeting of his creditors, Wilde was said to have unsecured liabilities of £2,676 and partly secured debts of £915.

His assets were primarily the royalties on his “literary works” and a “life policy”. He declared his income from these as not less than £2,000 per annum; he had 10% of the gross weekly receipts from his play The Importance Of Being Earnest - gross, not net - and 15% over that.

The bill for his aborted criminal libel action was £677, an enormous sum in those days, but nowhere near as large as his income; according to the Times, “it appeared that the debtor had been insolvent for some time past”.

READ MORE...