I invited and received from Prozium a response on the subject of the utility of Michael O’Meara’s TOQ article on the mythicisation of a white American republic.  Here, I am just going to make a very few remarks about the reply and set down a few principles to clarify the terms of debate.  I will not be posting on this subject a third time, except to comment on the thread if required.

My previous post argued that mythicisation had not been employed to move public will in either of the two historically most recent attempts at nation-building by Europeans (Manifest Destiny and lebensraum).  Prozium disagrees but offers very little beyond post-facto romanticisations to indicate what inhabited the minds of the people of the time.  His sole concrete attempt to demonstrate a mythicisation process at work in Manifest Destiny is Thomas Jefferson’s dream “of an empire of liberty in Transappalachia and the Louisiana Territory.”  Let us be clear that Jefferson’s plan did not constitute myth, and very likely had no influence whatsoever over the men and women who walked and rode westward all those years later.  It probably had some incremental role in the politics of expansion.  But I think it would be a hell of a stretch to make more of it than that.

Prozium’s other justifications for the mythic cause (DW Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, and “Gone with the Wind” and “Roots”) are just puzzling to me.  They testify to the appetites of cinema and TV audiences in their respective eras.  But I have no idea what they are doing in this particular conversation, standing as they do at decades remove from the event in question.  Further, they demonstrate a resounding lack of interest in what myth is, and is not.

So let’s think about that, because until we know what myth is there is very little point in batting opinions back and forth.

READ MORE...

The following video graphically demonstrates the consequence of ignoring total fertility rate.  It does not make any strong arguments for a course of action, but merely calls for action.  The course of action is the next layer of taboo after breaking the sound barrier of merely talking about the consequences of differential fertility rates.

by David Hamilton
                               
The contribution of the British judiciary to the attack on our people and way of life has two main planks: undermining us through the culture and promoting Muslim extremism.  Here are some of the judges and the judgements that have made the law an instrument in the war against our culture, traditions and mores.

Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference, of all things, that she supported gay adoption, the legal recognition gay partnerships, enhanced legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit, and the removal of fault from divorce law.  This is an ideological statement and shows that there will be no impartiality if this aspect of “the Culture Wars” comes about.  She has said beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values and will take sides in any case.

Lord Judge’s predecessor, Lord Bingham, expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities.  It is, he said:

“intrinsically counter-majoritarian ... [it] should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.”

Well, I don’t know about that, but he was admitting that he is a radical who is against us.  For him, we the majority are always wrong but the minorities never are.

In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives.  Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt.  She was a leading family judge.  Lord Bingham, in answering a question, responded that the law needed to “keep in touch with changing social attitudes.”  In one case heard in his court Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family. His opinion that “family” need mean neither marriage nor blood relationship shows beyond any doubt that the judiciary is seeking to reform families for the New Utopia.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against local planning law must be allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.”  This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are required to obey.  That was a court legally encouraging law breaking.

Human rights law is the reforming judiciary’s principal weapon.  The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the propostrous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that gender at birth was what he/she now claimed it was and agreed by a panel of experts. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born.  Therefore their birth certificate is now deemed a lie!

READ MORE...

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!