by Happy Cracker

Ontology is the study of being, and the reason why such a simple concept is gifted such lofty Greek-derived nomenclature is to underscore the need for sufficient circumspection in this endeavor.

We are just now recovering from a period where a flowering of scientific methodology, and the resulting accumulation of knowledge, have lead to a breakdown in our ontological models of the world. The adoption, implementation and breakdown of ontological models due to accumulation of contradictory scientific knowledge, can be visualized as a series of parabolic figures on a coordinate plane. The x-axis represents historical time and the y-axis represents certainty of ontological knowledge. The parabola thus represents the adoption, implementation and breakdown of the ontological model - consistent with a rise, peak and fall in the certainty or belief in this knowledge. Some parabolas are in series, such as Rousseau’s “Natural Man” and Robespierre’s terror-as-virtue Republicanism:

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: “Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”

Decades later, the nature of man had changed; Robespierre needed to use the state to enforce terror in order to create a virtuous order:

“We wish that order of things where all the low and cruel passions are enchained, all the beneficent and generous passions awakened by the laws; where ambition subsists in a desire to deserve glory and serve the country: where distinctions grow out of the system of equality, where the citizen submits to the authority of the magistrate, the magistrate obeys that of the people, and the people are governed by a love of justice.”

Arrest of Robespierre on 19 March 1794. He went to the guillotine five days later.

READ MORE...

As an addendum to the episode of JR’s “Scroob” post, which is now gone from the page, I am publishing the last two emails between JR and myself on the subject, plus JR’s response to criticisms he received in the thread.

First, a reply to me from JR.

Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:07 AM

Leaving it is better than taking it down.

Reader’s support is not the main issue.  MR attracts over 2000 readers a day.  Few of these leave comments.  Who’s telling you to take it down?  Crypto members of the tribe, those fearing that it may lead to nordic nationalist philosophy and some who haven’t understood what the hypothetical thought experiment is about.

And it’s not just about one person.  The situation is fairly generic; there are many scroob’s commenting at MR.  If there weren’t implications for the big picture, I wouldn’t bother posting on a single commentator.

The most dangerous part of it, for members of the tribe, is the list of their serious crimes that need to be exposed.  You bet members of the tribe will try to do something to not be seeing such an expose.

And the post isn’t about tribal exclusion.  It’s a thought experiment.  Let me clarify the thought experiment in a comment and see if they still have things to object to and offer rational objections.

I will shortly be preparing a response for the entry.  Trust me, it’s for the long-term good, and the path won’t be smooth.  There will be plenty of bumps along the way.

And here is my response to that.

Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:21 AM

JR,

Since we started this conversation yesterday I’ve had mails from other MR writers, reacting exactly as I did when I saw the post, and asking whether we are coming apart at the seams.  Some “thought experiment”!

It should be very obvious that the blog isn’t a place where hypothetical thought experiments like this can be conducted on the readership, as if it was a lab rat bred for vivisection.  I can’t stand around and watch this rat cut up and thrown away, JR.

MR exists to examine all the issues pertaining to the fate of our people - not just one.  Those issues flow as four great dynamics, like four wheels on the tumbril taking us to the Place de la Révolution.  On each wheelhub is painted a word: “Globality”, “Profit”, “Equality”, “Final Solution”.  The motives of every individual labouring in the machine of our destruction is contained in those four words.

In its very small way, MR has contributed to the understanding of that from every angle: the political, the philosophical, the scientific, and the angle of the JQ.  There is far more here than the narrow and absolutist reading of the last of those, about which you have become so passionate.  Such committment always contains a seed of destruction because it does not respect limit.  You, for example, have reached the stage of “intellectual hygeine” now, throwing to the winds people who you charge with secret attachments and agendas - not only Fred, who is my friend as you are, but others we know and countless more we don’t.

Our people will not ... can not unite behind such a view.  The inevitable effect (on intellectuals, particularly) is that they will be splintered into groups competing for attention and going nowhere.  In other words you act, honourably enough, out of a fear that our progress will be frustrated by Jewish agents.  But your zeal does the agents’ work for them!

MR is an organ of synthesis, the requisite condition for which is equilibrium.  That is the only basis for our intellectual momentum, and for attracting the able to contribute their very valuable and welcome thoughts here.  That’s what we have to maintain, even above our committment to free speech.

Since you won’t act on my requests, which was my preference rather than taking the post down myself, I will have to do it this morning.  In its place I will publish these two mails plus your comment from the thread.  It will be interesting to see what productive thoughts the thread engenders.

Kind regards,

GW

READ MORE...

By David Hamilton

A change of consciousness is spreading through Britain as we realise that we are being discriminated against by our elected representatives.  People can find no work, and one reason they have now understood is that foreigners are brought in as cheap labour to undercut wages.

People are realising that the main parties, the media, academics and corporations are promoting an agenda which is destroying them.  Politicians are effectively at war with them, and slowly the realisation is dawning.  People hear them degrading white children as “chavs” and “yobs” while praising ethnics.  They see their communities turned from safe areas into places of fear and uncertainty. They see politician’s children sent to the best schools while theirs have to risk knife gangs from imported ethnic communities.

The seeds of revolt have always been there:-

The Cambridge village of Cottenham is an unlikely place for an old-fashioned revolt against authority. But earlier this year, some 1,000 residents declared they would withhold their council tax until something was done about the travellers on the outskirts.

For decades there have been Gypsy communities living legally on two sites for 30 or so families near the village. Then, at Easter 2003, the site grew as a number of Irish Traveller families arrived in the area.

Local tensions rose, as villagers believed their way of life under threat. Angry residents demanded answers and established a campaigning website, Middle England in Revolt.

… but now politicians are beginning to lose confidence:-

READ MORE...

These are getting harder to find now.  But ... late last night a man named Michael Keith, who is a director of the execrable Centre for Migration Policy and Society (COMPAS for short), posted his first journalistic offering online at the Guardian.  It is temptingly titled Don’t leave migration policy to the BNP.

The usual mud-wrestling proceeded.  But in the course of it a southern European gentleman going under the soubriquet of JorgeG offered an argument which I paraphrase thus:-

The English can emigrate wherever they please, and have done so in their millions over the centuries, ‘race-replacing’ not just cities but whole continents, eg. North America, Oceania.  But Jonny Foreigner is not welcome here.

So, does one defend the right of the intelligent to prosper wherever they please, including their own homeland of course?  Does one argue that native-Amercians, Aboriginal Australians, Maoris, etc had a natural right to resist, very often did so but lost, and we have a natural right to resist also?  Does one take the judo option that race-replacement is not morally sustainable under any circumstances?

Today the disgraced former minister and Cabinet member and founder of violent anti-racism, Peter Hain, graced the Guardian today with another of his graceless scribbles.  It was titled We need to wake up and tackle BNP poison head on.  This is the gist of it:-

Unless the rest of us get our act together, the British National party could easily win three seats - and quite possibly six or more - in June’s European election ... the most successful fascist party in Britain ... far-right and fascist parties in Europe ... the BNP’s racist and fascist politics ... the BNP needs to be confronted wherever its supporters march or appear in public ... They wear suits rather than openly flirt with nazism ... scapegoating of black people, Muslims, Jews, foreigners, gays and lesbians for social and economic problems ... racial violence and racial hatred are barely beneath the surface ... desperate to conceal its fascist and racist instincts ... Its poison should be combatted on the doorstep ...

Etcetera.

I don’t think I have left anything out.

On their respective blogs Simon Darby and Martin Wingfield both celebrated this new free exposure for the BNP.  Darby noted:-

This is the best bit though:

There is also a debate on whether leaders of established political parties should steer clear of leading the fight against the BNP. Campaign groups such as Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine, believe that attacks from mainstream Westminster figures will only add to the BNP’s anti-establishment credentials.

In other words here we have an actual admission that figures like Peter Hain and Ian Austin are so publicly despised that criticising the BNP actually swells the BNP vote. How must that feel, to be told that you are so ineffective that it is in the Labour Party’s best interests to keep your mouths firmly shut?

For his part Wingfield noted:-

This is what Hain has to say in The Guardian this morning:

“The lesson of the Anti-Nazi League’s success is that the BNP needs to be confronted wherever its supporters march or appear in public.”

Well, we know that the “success” of the Anti-Nazi League was based on its violent attacks on innocent people. The BNP don’t hold marches, so it seems Hain is advocating attacks on BNP supporters out campaigning for the forthcoming European and County Council elections.

READ MORE...

Here’s an interesting one, again from the Guardian - a recent thread on homosexual marriage.  Some bright spark objected to the appeal to Nature used by a supporter of traditional marriage.  He said:-

“Define Nature for me and I’ll cede your point.”

Define Nature?  Can’t be too difficult, surely.

by Happy Cracker

What follows are adumbrations of the spiritual dimension of nationalism.

Nationalism, by its nature, ultimately demands for itself the right to call it’s sons to die for the collective. That is the secret (and not-so-secret) understanding that lies behind a system of thought that glories in collective existence and continuity. Behind the old symbols is the underlying understanding that one may have to risk one’s life for the group - even give up one’s life for the group.

Our fathers’ and grandfathers’ generations were called upon to to answer this demand, in two intra-European fratricidal wars which perhaps lacked a proper Grand Strategy, but were nevertheless fought with courage and self-sacrifice. [note: this post is not about World War I or II.]

Any proper understanding of nationalism will be heroic, that is to say it will acknowledge the central nature of this “ultimate promise to pay” in the nation’s social contract; just to make this clear, I will sometimes refer to this ultimate promise to pay as “the honor-promise”, going forward.

In times of war, nations survive by the sacrifice and willing bloodshed of their young men. Nationalism places the eternal nation in the elevated, august position such that a young man’s life can be sacrificed to it without loss of dignity on his part - regardless of the achievements, background and character of the young man. A family which assiduously stores up human capital through generations of careful breeding and attainment, would no doubt be loth to give up their proudest specimens and representatives of their blood-lines, to die grisly deaths on foreign soil - were it not for the honor-promise which underlies all national belonging.

READ MORE...

Nate Silver, a vectorist, presents his final solution to the racism question to the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference.  I respond:

The time is coming, and it is not that very far off, when guys like Nate Silver and groups such as TED that implicitly share their values, will be seen as a de facto state religion which is justly resisted.

“Separatists”, racial or otherwise, are are more enlightened than “integrationists”:

Scientifically enlightened because they admit the need for separation in experimental tests of causal hypotheses in human ecology—rather than claiming that “predictable” implies “designable” when the data sources are subject to not only the ecological fallacy but to conflation of correlation with causation.

Politically enlightened because they posit human rights founded self-determination rather than a tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced “human rights”—such as “human rights” which presume that anyone who prefers members of their own race thereby forfeits his right to refuse any treatment no matter how well-intentioned the “therapist”.