Oath Keepers is an interesting military take-off on the evangelical Promise Keepers.  The subtext of this conflation is basically: “Women tend to be faithless to men whose promises are no good, so if you don’t want to be cuckolded by your wife, you better keep your oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

I have received an urgent request from one of the producers of The Agenda, a Press TV weekly current affairs programme broadcast worldwide by Sky.  On Thursday 13th August, at 2.30pm in London they will be recording a programme titled “The spread of the far right in Europe and economic climate”.  It will be a studio discussion among a four-man panel overseen by Yvonne Ridley, which is a name to conjure with.  They are seeking a serious contribution from our side.

I imagine the show will have a Muslim-centric, Al Jezeera feel to it.  The usual hostility may be in the offing.  Still, I would be tempted to accept the invitation myself, if only to make sure that the argument for our people’s survival is expressed in my own terms for a change.  However, I am on family duty this week and cannot get up to town for the day.  That said, MR is a broad church, and there are highly competent and trustworthy people on our slate and in our commentariat who might like to engage in this exercise.  Please contact me through the button under the header if you are interested.

You will need to be quick about it, though.

So Michael O’Meara beat off nineteen other entries to win the TOQ essay contest with his rumination titled “Towards a White Republic”.  We will pass over the oddity of someone winning an essay competition run by the publication for which he writes.  It’s not something I’ve heard of before.  We have to take editor Greg Johnson’s word that O’Meara’s offering was superior to the others, although I was permitted to read one of them in advance of its submission and, for scholarship and new thinking at least, it comfortably surpassed the winning entry.

That essay was of particular interest to me, it’s true.  It handled its subject with no less surety than the foundational work of a certain ex-MR specialist in that area (who is currently adorning the TOQ sidebar).  O’Meara plainly scored for style – he’s an easy writer to read.  But more than that, he was topical.  The star of the White American Republic is definitely rising in nationalist circles.

It is evident from O’Meara’s references in the essay to his own relationship with White Nationalism that he sees himself as something of an onlooker.  Rather, I think he is attached to the European New Right and its tradition of philosophical critique as opposed to creativity.  I say “opposed” and mean it.  In the West the world of ideas is cleaved between the Analytical or empirical, with its natural outlet in scientific enquiry, and the Idealist, with its appeal to mind and art.  There is no reconciling the two.

ENR Idealists disdain the Anglo-American Analytical tradition for its materialism and its spectrographic bloodlessness - though even the harshest critic among them is in no hurry to eschew the modern, technological world which is its fruit.  How could they?  The undeniable and wondrous progressiveness of science is an expression of the European sociobiology, eternally conflicted with a hostile natural world as that is.  It is of us.  Indians who live a life filled with the shades of god-like men and the symbols of ancient gods gave the world the Vedas and Sanskrit and the numeral system.  But they did not create modernity.  Only we did that.  We could not live as Indians live and be true to our questing nature.

And yet ... so harmful to our collective existence has the concentration on narrow proofs and material conclusions been, the question inevitably arises: can we survive at all as we are, without shades and symbols, without religiosity and romance, and without the cavalier and vague presumptions of Idealist thinking?

READ MORE...

A movie titled Second Skin was just made free viewing. It’s worth the time to view it.

As the author of the first (1974) Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) virtual reality game, I claim at least pundit-rights on the MMO “community” documented by this film:

A comment was made during the course of the film by one of the interviewees that MMO “addiction” is a legitimate diagnosis only if we ignore the fact that huge portions of humanity are unhappy with reality. This was the strongest point in the film. But its weakness is that these addicts represent not merely the “discontents of civilization”, as Freud would have us believe, but entire demographies suffering genocide at its hands.

To many, this is merely natural selection in action. However, if we are to admit “disparate impact” of our public policies in civil rights matters, how can we ignore the fact that these policies are having a “disparate impact”, not simply on the happiness, but on the very existence of entire demographies? And in the face of such brute ignorance in high places, how can we expect those so disparately impacted to react?

If I have a sense of guilt about having participated in the creation of the virtual worlds into which people escape from genocide that they themselves are coerced by the zeitgeist to deny, it is the guilt that a supplier of morphine might have on, not the field of battle, but in a world built on the slaughter of the innocents.

“What we’re seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics,” Baird, D-Vancouver, said in a phone interview. “I mean that very seriously.”

So, it’s true a lady in a brown shirt was wielding a swastika!

We can now see what I expect to be the final shape of the Establishment response to the BNP’s success in Europe.  The strategy comprises three separate lines of attack which are, in no particular order:

DEATH BY STATUTE

The government of Belgium did it to Vlaams Blok in November 2004.  Now the equality minister Harriet Harman is pursuing a judicial kill with her new bill:

The Equality Bill will outlaw ‘apartheid’ constitution of the BNP

The BNP’s “apartheid” constitution will be outlawed under legislation before parliament, Commons leader Harriet Harman told MPs yesterday.

Ms Harman said she was “shocked and horrified” by the election of BNP leader Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to the European Parliament last week.

She said there was “no place” in Britain for having a political party that only accepted white people as members and that the Equality Bill would prevent this.

... According to the BNP’s constitution, members must be from the “indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of Indigenous Caucasian”’.

... A spokeswoman for the Government Equalities Office said: “The Equality Bill would give individuals a right to take legal action against the BNP, in respect of it excluding anyone from membership on grounds of race.”

Unable to contain his enthusiasm long enough for Harman’s new law to become available,

John Wadham

smooth-moving Trevor Phillips has already brought his, er, big legal instrument of the Race Relations Act to bear.  Wadham told the world on 22nd June that his:

READ MORE...

I think you’ll agree, after watching this so-called “children’s film”, there must be something worthy of deconstruction if not prosecution as hate speech:

Heidi

We’re finally rid of these bad old days thanks to the great work of the Frankfurt School!

The SPLC and ADL must be alerted to the sewage gushing forth from the Internet into the personal computer media players of children around the world.

Citizen’s dividends—the replacement of all government transfer programs with a simple cash dividend paid equally to all citizens—is the single-plank political platform that can, in the present climate, be used by a minor party to capture control of virtually any parliamentary government in the West.

The rationale is simple:  Immigrants are not citizens and they would be deprived of public benefits.  This would be immensely popular.  Moreover, it would “empower” the populace to fight for their “entitlement” to their own country in a manner far more effective than any “get out the vote” campaign. 

The response by the political parties now in power—traitors that they are—would, of course, be to fast-track “a path to citizenship” for immigrants, but they would be doing so in an economic environment far from conducive to popular apathy toward such shenanigans.

This can’t work in the United States without the take over of one of the 2 major parties because of the way the electoral system works in the US.  But in parliamentary governments, minor parties can get a foot in the door, as demonstrated by the recent EU elections.  That’s all it takes because once this idea is aired in the halls of power, it will necessarily attract an enormous amount of attention from the usual suspects:

“Isn’t this racist?  Isn’t this inhumane?  Isn’t this xenophobic?  What about refugees?  Why should immigrants pay taxes if they aren’t going to get a citizen’s dividend?”

It would be wonderfully clarifying.

As for the economic effects, I’ll simply point out what should be fairly obvious by now:  The current economic crisis is caused by centralization of wealth to the point that the populace isn’t simply impoverished, but is so deep in debt that the consumer base has collapsed.  This was caused not by “easy money policies of the central banks” but by the subsidy of wealth built into any society that protects property rights by taxing economic activity.  The would-be upwardly mobile pay the bills—not the recipients of the primary government service:  protection of unnatural concentrations of wealth.  Although it is true that this means the proper source of revenue for the citizen’s dividend would be a net asset tax on in place liquidation value—a tax that eliminates taxes on economic activity—it is not essential to political success that such a tax reform be another plank in the platform of the citizen’s dividend party.  That change would come in due course as people were empowered to fight back against centralized wealth’s capture of government.  However, once the tax reform is adopted, the populace would be very motivated to maximize the net in-place liquidation value of the nation’s assets.  They will become keenly interested in the real externalities of immigration, graphically demonstrated in places like California.  They might even start thinking other taboo thoughts about human ecology, sociology, economics and politics.