Millenial Woes is the YouTube channel of a “a GenX/Millennial Scottish guy pontificating about the world we live in, and are heading towards.”  In January of this year, following the appearance of a DT article by Jamie Bartlett titled “The Dark Enlightenment” - a critique of the work of Nick Land that managed to be both patronising and naive - our millenial man posted a video-talk not about the article so much as the thread that accompanied it.  This afternoon Morgoth kindly drew the attention of DT thread campaigners to its existence, and I thought it might be interesting to MR readers to see it.

So, with thanks to Morgoth:

In citing Yockey’s definition of liberalism, I do believe Tanstaafl captures some of the “it’s a bit more than that” to the definition of liberalism that GW advised over and against the one that I was proffering in the interview with Metzger.

http://age-of-treason.com/2014/06/10/yockey-on-liberalism-part-2/

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8oaBXD8l-58Z01FZ3RKb3drbzQ/edit?usp=drive_web

Fortunately for me (and for us as a race), it is not really contradictory of the definition which I would venture as most useful. Though it is, I admit, more articulate in some significant ways that GW would/does appreciate.

I would have liberalism be defined primarily as permission of the violation of the classification - which is the parameters of the group systemic organism of race.

Yockey, like GW, focuses even more meticulously on the individual (as well), to where liberalism would be the experimentation with going beyond the normal parameters of our biology as individuals as well.

That would have several “more than that” interesting implications which provide clues as to where GW was going.

One implication would indicate why GW focuses so much on the Ontology of who we authentically are as European group(s) and individuals. We cannot even know what liberalism is, entirely, or what is inauthentic response to liberaism, a reaction, until that is settled…

READ MORE...

by Neil Vodavzny

Because race is quintessentially tied to the sensual world – rural, resource-based – creative outsiders are also tied to that world. The aforementioned Harlan Ellison, R. Crumb, KT Tunstall, Tanita Tikaram (sci-fi fantasist, cartoonist, folk-rockers) in their disparate ways fantastically creative, originating works tangled-up in the fecundity of a natural cornucopia – erotic, psychedelic, mythopoeic. These types are for sure not enemies. For the reason they’re outside the mainstream they’re more likely to appeal temperamentally, not through any political affiliation, but from their antithesis to either/or, modernity/the Cartesian multiverse. That is folk, or pop-folk.

Their work exists in a folkloric world which we already know as quintessentially racial. To take Ellison’s case, ancient Egyptian or Babylonian gods. Crumb would be the blues lineage of classic Black shellacs. KT Tunstall interestingly is Irish/Chinese, Scottish operating in a Scottish folk idiom (Golden Frames, a typically enigmatic ditty, has something to do with fame and alien abduction). Tikaram is Fijian operating in an indie-folk milieu.

Environment and temperament are equally vital to race, for the reason that races don’t develop out of thin air. We are cavemen – I mean, Alan Moore  still is. Can you imagine him driving a car? Not quite 18th or 19th century enough. Those who instinctively recognize images of racial, temporal, folkloric origin, are friends in the sense their work supports the sensual world, which is the life-support of all God’s chillen – I mean, races.

READ MORE...

http://age-of-treason.com/data/audio/MRR_Guessedworker_Tanstaafl_20140529.mp3

READ MORE...

by Neil Vodavzny

If you check the reference in Competitive-Edge to J-L Godard, to him the erotic is a thing in itself, and which signifies value. To Freud the opposite is true, value signifies the erotic - Freudian-capital (libido applied to products). However, both of these guys are to a lesser or greater extent talking about capital, and Godard is rabidly anti-capital. Why not literally leave capital to one side?

Consider that the sensual world also needs must be anti-Freudian, since it is associated with praxis (production), or the source of all value. If you extract things from the world, say iron ore, they could become something else – capital or technology. Both of these could be related to techne in Heidegger’s sense; capital isn’t something abstract, it’s valued in coinage – metal – and gained precedence over the industrial revolution.

The language of libido and capital can’t be applied to a world of praxis. Praxis in Heidegger’s scheme cannot be completely divorced from the natural world. You could cite maybe ancient engineering feats: Roman aqueducts, city-states, large-scale irrigation works (pioneered in Babylonia) etc. They relate to landscape, terrain, water-tables and natural features of all types (same for a boat on water).

READ MORE...

The polls are open.  Today, the electorates of all the member states of the EU will elect their 751 members of the talking-shop which is the European Parliament.  The performance of Front National, Golden Dawn, Jobbik, Vlaams Belang, and Gert Wilders’ Freedom Party, among others, will create much interest for nationalists.  In Britain, too, the politics of dissent is the chief talking point of an increasingly desperate and totally unprincipled press.  There is a sense that the electorate has handled the smears maturely and, by and large, has not been swayed.  The pollsters report a settled feeling that, in England, at least, something big is about to happen.

Something so big, in fact, that I thought I might jot down some observations together with a very few markers for how we might assess it:

READ MORE...