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.

As a follow-on to my criticism of the happy talk of Harpending and Cochran, I offer for your edification and amusement the recent bioinformatic research into the biohistory of IQ from Stanford’s Gerald Crabtree from which he draws the conclusion:

‘I would be willing to wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions.’

Professor Crabtree’s research is presented in Our fragile intellect. Part I and Our fragile intellect. Part II.

The basic argument is that the evolution of humanity’s general intelligence involves many pleiotropic genes on many chromosomes.  Moreover this multigenicity of intelligence as a phenotype is more synergistic (multiplicative) than it is additive.  The multigenic chain therefore can be easily broken by just a few mutations.

In other words, the 10,000 year explosion may be blowing human intelligence to smithereens.

Notwithstanding the vast amount of straitening post-election commentary that has appeared across the right-wing media, I thought it might be in order to offer one or two thoughts of my own.  Apologies now to anyone who doesn’t mind if they never read another word about this sorry issue!

As every politically-minded person has surely realised, the impressive block-voting of non-whites has put demographics at the centre of political calculation. The GOP in its current form is already electorally obsolete.  Two-thirds of a static white electorate will never again be sufficient to command an electoral majority.  The one-third of white Americans, particularly single women, voting Democrat were already gestured towards by the GOP’s rejection of Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, and the libertarian Constitutionalist Ron Paul.  Romney was supposed a flip-flopper, a RINO, and therefore electable to all those Republican voters lost in 2008.  Now he is the point from which the party has to migrate to find a majority.  It has to reach out to blacks and Hispanics, and it cannot even rely any more on conservative minorities like Alan West.

For mainstream political observers the interesting question is how the GOP will adapt to this new reality and retain its present constituencies.  Nationalists, however, already know that the constant pursuit of conservative movements is not principle but relevance.  Ultimately, it’s about power, and nothing is likely to change this time.  The party managers will take the Christian Right for granted.  After all, where can it go without entirely marginalising itself?  The new party line will say little that is critical of illegal migrants, abortion, or homosexual politics.  It will trumpet a more anti-statist and economically liberal platform.  This, in turn, will redefine the political centre, and narrow the national debate even further, and that will generate a new bout of radicalism on the left.

Now let’s look for a few aspects in this of particular interest to nationalists.

READ MORE...

Congressman,

First of all:  Congratulations!

I am proud to have designed and help construct your 4’ by 8’ sign at the highest traffic intersection of Shenandoah, IA.  Your election, with the presence of Des Moines in our district, made our Tuesday night victory party here in Shenandoah a true celebration.

I grew up in Iowa and lived for 18 years in California starting during the Reagan Administration.  Indeed, I lived on the border of Mexico, in Imperial Beach, CA, during Reagan’s 1986 amnesty.  Over the next 15 years I watched California change until I could no longer tolerate living there.  I first moved north to Washington State where I was on the State platform committee for the GOP, but finally saw the fruits of the 1986 amnesty fall there as well.

That’s when I moved back to Iowa.

Immigration, both legal as well as illegal, is killing this country.  I can even see incipient signs of it here in southwest Iowa.

If the House doesn’t stop this destruction of America during this term, when the Republican’s have control of the purse strings—possibly for the last time—I’ll have no country.  My father, who joined the nascent Air Force prior to Pearl Harbor because of Lindbergh’s warnings of Germany’s air power—before he died in 2008—expressed a similar feeling, having retired to southern Texas.  We talked about how privileged he was to be able to truly fight for his country and how deprived I had been:  to watch my country be conquered without even being given a chance to fight for it.

Sincerely,

James Bowery

I’ve decided to vote for Mitt Romney and enthusiastically recommend that others, including die-hard Obama and Ron Paul supporters, vote for him. I do this with with a vague feeling of nausea because I know I’ll be misunderstood. Please let me explain. I’m not kidding. I’m serious as a heart attack about this endorsement.

The government’s scientific establishment has been suppressing a technology that would disintermediate virtually all centralized structures of civilization: cold fusion. The general elite attitude has been that something that can save the world dare not come out of a podunk university—let alone one in Utah. There’s also the vague unconscious sense that disintermediation on that scale would upset just about every establishment apple-cart, but that’s not the proximate reason for the suppression. It’s really just religious piety showing obescience to the Ivy League that’s the bottom line on why we don’t, today, have a completely clean, decentralized and virtually limitless energy source you can by at Home Depot for a few hundred dollars. This is so entrenched in the scientific establishment—so much of the “church of physics” claim to piety depends on maintaining this falsehood that it really would take Presidential attention to counteract it enough that even private capital, let alone public funding, would be allocated appropriate to the potential.

So what has this to do with Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney has made a comment, about as ignorant is you can get, about cold fusion that is, despite its ignorance, a positive comment. Understand that to the government’s physics establishment this is tantamount to a candidate for Pope proclaiming Beelzebub a candidate for Sainthood. Moreover, being a Mormon, he is far from biased against a major discovery coming out of Utah. Although in this particular case the Mormon university BYU’s scientist, Steven Jones, played a significant role in helping the scientific establishment suppress cold fusion, that bit of history is obscure enough that it falls well beyond the abject level of knowledge that Mitt Romney has displayed about cold fusion.

Four years ago Barack Hussein Obama II was elected to the office of President of the United States of America.  It was something new, and while everybody in White Nationalism saw the “hope” nonsense and the “change” nonsense for what it was, by no means every White Nationalist was unhappy about Obama’s victory.  Some even voted for him.

There was, of course, another, darker, grittier hope of change, born in the belief that, inevitably, white Americans would be pushed closer to, and perhaps even beyond, what they can bear.  The hand of federal government control would grow heavy.  The economy would slump.  The taxes would increase.  The racial injustice would mount.  Everything in the white American life would become worse, and not by a little but a lot.  Anger, frustration and cynicism would take hold.  A search for alternatives beyond the GOP, beyond the prescribed news of the media, would take hold too, and WN’s long hoped-for change in the somnolence of white America would come closer.

Well, we got the Tea Party and Arizona SB 1070, I suppose.  But tomorrow the incumbent is expected by most onlookers to secure his second term.  So what do WNs expect “worse-wise” from that, and how do they assess the viability of the “worse is better” scenario?  Are we seeing any movement at all in the white American thrall to the mainstream?  What, after all, would it look like?  How long would it take to become obvious?  And what, if anything, can be expected to develop in the next four years?

Leicester is the tenth largest city in England, and the first, it is said, in which the English natives have been tipped over into minority status (though that is not officially confirmed).  It is also the burial place of “the last English king”, and of the arising of the first English Community Group.

The group was formed last year with the help and guidance of the English charity, The Steadfast Trust.  Its first significant project has been a poll of local opinion in areas like Braunstone where there is a high proportion of English people resident.  Some 5,000 questionnaires were sent out, and 112 were returned completed.  That’s a 2.24% response rate.  Now, that’s not a high rate, and probably doesn’t exceed the average vote in the city (these days) for the BNP.  But if one doesn’t pay too much heed to the number, there is some pretty startling stuff here.

The question, of course, is how far from representativeness the results are for the English of Leicester.  A YouGov study conducted in 2006 showed that 55% of respondees agreed with BNP policies when the name of the party was not attached to them, falling to 49% when it was.  So I wouldn’t write it off merely as an exercise in assorting the BNP supporters from the good folk of Leicester.

Here, anyway, are the survey results.

READ MORE...