“Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them”

  D: Don’t be silly. I can’t draw a conversation. I mean things.

  F: Yes—I was trying to find out just what you meant. Do you mean “Why do we give things outlines when we draw them?” or do you mean that the things have out-lines whether we draw them or not?

  D: I don’t know, Daddy. You tell me. Which do I mean?

  F: I don’t know, my dear. There was a very angry artist once who scribbled all sorts of things down, and after he was dead they looked in his books and in one place they found he’d written “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them” but in another place he’d written “Mad men see outlines and therefore they draw them.”

  D: But which does he mean? I don’t understand.

  F: Well, William Blake—that was his name—was a great artist and a very angry man. And sometimes he rolled up his ideas into little spitballs so that he could throw them at people.

  D: But what was he mad about, Daddy?

  F: But what was he mad about? Oh, I see—you mean “angry.” We have to keep those two meanings of “mad” clear if we are going to talk about Blake. Because a lot of people thought he was mad—really mad—crazy. And that was one of the things he was mad-angry about. And then he was mad-angry, too, about some artists who painted pictures as though things didn’t have out-lines. He called them “the slobbering school.”

  D: He wasn’t very tolerant, was he, Daddy?

  F: Tolerant? Oh, God. Yes, I know—that’s what they drum into you at school. No, Blake was not very tolerant. He didn’t even think tolerance was a good thing. It was just more slobbering. He thought it blurred all the outlines and muddled everything—that it made all cats gray. So that nobody would be able to see anything clearly and sharply.

  D: Yes, Daddy.

  F: No, that’s not the answer. I mean “Yes, Daddy” is not the answer. All that says is that you don’t know what your opinion is—and you don’t give a damn what I say or what Blake says and that the school has so befuddled you with talk about tolerance that you can-not tell the difference between anything and anything else.

READ MORE...

                                   
Veteran Conservative MP has claimed that Enoch Powell was right to warn against immigration in his controversial ‘rivers of blood’ speech.

“It is time for England to ‘fight back’ against political correctness’ and he added:
‘If you don’t like it, go live somewhere else.’

Sir Gerald Howarth said that he stood by the letter and said his views had been reinforced by the child sex abuse scandal in Rotherham, where gangs of Asian men groomed and abused children.

‘For 40 years we have been subjected to a left wing political correctness which has stopped the British people from expressing perfectly legitimate and reasonable views. More than 1,400 children in Rochdale have paid the price for decades of political correctness, now people are speaking up.’

He said that it is time for England to ‘fight back’ against political correctness, adding:
‘If you don’t like it, go live somewhere else.’

Mr Powell delivered his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in Birmingham in April 1968, calling for the “repatriation” of non-white immigrants and claiming that the increased diversity would lead to riots…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11060168/Tory-MP-claims-Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech-was-right.html

READ MORE...

                                                    - By Bill Giles

I think there is every indication that Britain has reached its Camp of the Saints moment, where millions of immigrants from every corner of the globe are now making their presence felt in so many negative ways, housing, jobs, overburdened institutions, social cohesion, lost of identity, crime, and not least, a national void and sense of foreboding.

Our elites are showing no sign of let up, the rip tide of humanity landing on our shores (and through our airports) is applauded by the liberal establishment, and yet still the majority of natives cannot understand the logic of it all. The tipping point looms nearer by each single day.

In Raspail’s story the liberal elites cave at every turn, until only Switzerland remains as an armed nation of resistance, only for them to crumble in the final hour in the full glare of liberal guilt, France is lost, western civilisation is lost.

There is no indication in Raspail’s thinking that the white race is under threat of existence from a deliberate attack by unknown dark forces or who would undertake such a dastardly plan.

Raspail’s tale tells us western civilisation had lost confidence in itself and in some way had no right to determine its tribe’s own future, like rabbits in the headlamp’s glare, whites are paralysed to act in their own defence.

Perhaps Britain is at this stage in the cycle of mass immigration, for there is no real sign of resistance from the mass of the people, still less as to what will galvanise them into any future kind of action.

Further, Raspail’s unfolding imagination does not extend to a narrative where Britain and America are engaged in fermenting a World war in which to bring about their New World Order, all of which throws Rumsfeld unknown-unknowns into immigration chaos.

As I have commented before, it seems when the elites have accomplished their goal, there is no plan B as to what will replace it.

How and when will we know when all is won or lost? 

READ MORE...

Our football coaches were not Marxists imposing integration with blacks.
Rather, they were objectivists imposing integration with blacks.
                                           
Consider “the great football coach”, Vince Lombardi, and his indignation with regard to “racism.”
Vince Lombardi was not a “cultural Marxist.”

Vince Lombardi’s Unprejudiced nature

In 1960, on at least one team, a color barrier still existed in the NFL. But Jack Vainisi, the Scouting Director for the Packers, and Lombardi were determined “to ignore the prejudices then prevalent in most NFL front offices in their search for the most talented players.” Lombardi explained his views by saying that he “... viewed his players as neither black nor white, but Packer green”. Among professional football head coaches, Lombardi’s view on discrimination was not de rigueur in the midst of the American civil rights movement.

  An interracial relationship between one of the Packer rookies and a young woman was brought to the attention of Lombardi by Packer veterans in his first training camp in Green Bay. The next day at training camp, Lombardi, who had a zero tolerance policy towards racism, responded by warning his team that if any player exhibited prejudice, in any manner, then that player would be thrown off the team. Lombardi, who was vehemently opposed to Jim Crow discrimination, let it be known to all Green Bay establishments that if they did not accommodate his black players equally as well as his white players, then that business would be off-limits to the entire team. Before the start of the 1960 season, he instituted a policy that the Packers would only lodge in places that accepted all of his players.

...

                                         
Forward 1986:                  “Hall of famer,” James Lofton

.. woman claims Lofton forced her into the stairwell next to the elevator at ground level and forced her to perform a sex act - L.A. Times

The same objectivist paradigm that flouts “equality” may insist on integration of “the best” on objective grounds.

Perhaps because I was never immersed in Marxist/Leftist literature, but rather was repulsed by radicals, their advocacy of non-Whites in particular, repulsed enough to be averse to embracing even their better critiques, I never saw “equality” as an issue one way or another.

But even though it may have had something to do with not circulating among Marxists or immersing in their literature, I never really heard many “leftists” or anybody, for that matter, talking about wanting “equality.”

It has been rightists who have been overusing opposition of this term, adopting this paradigm and its blueprint for disaster - setting matters into false comparison and necessary conflict/dominance-subordination, whereas our concern for separatism is to be negotiated* in qualitative terms of differences that make a difference (qualitative non-sameness, paradigmatic incommensurability as opposed to inequality).

*“Negotiation” more in the sense of ‘negotiating an obstacle’ than in trying to reason with people, though we will do that too where our interests are yet to be violated.

Coming back to “the point of the day”, objectivism and its most pointed corollary of turning issues into quantitative comparisons - equality/inequality - is what our football coaches were going by - not cultural Marxism - when they considered it unthinkable that blacks should be kept off the football team and eventually, that the cheerleaders should not cheer them on…and couple with them:

                  Interracial marriage proposal flaunted at 2012 Super Bowl half-time

Runaway objectivism, its “rational” blindness flouting “equality,” is a load of race mixing poison that our right wing brings to the equation. This part of the blame derives disproportionately from a susceptibility of our ranks, not only or even mostly from Jews, though they have exploited it from the days of Christianity through the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice, to “civil rights” and anti-racism.

READ MORE...

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns - that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.”                     
                                              - Gregory Bateson, Paradigmatic Conservatism.

“When you breach a holistic structure, and say, or do without saying, I’m only going to attend to this end of a relationship - I’m going to study the role of the doctor - role - r-o-l-e”..[or in our case, the role of Jews, one other race, or our own people] ..“now a role is a half-assed relationship, you know. It’s one end of a relationship. And you cannot study one end of a relationship and make any sense. What you will make is disaster.”

     

Grantchester, said to have world’s highest concentration of Nobel Prize winners, most of these presumably being current or retired academics from the nearby Cambridge.

“The healthy system, dreamed above, may be compared to an acrobat on a high wire. To maintain the ongoing truth of his basic premise (“I am on the wire”), he must be free to move from one position of instability to another; certain variables such as the position of his arms and the rate of movement of his arms, have great flexibility, which he uses to maintain the stability of other more fundamental and general characteristics. If his arms are fixed or paralyzed (isolated from communication), he must fall.

In this connection it is interesting to consider the ecology of our legal system. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to control by law those ethical and abstract principles upon which the social system depends. Indeed, historically, The United States was founded upon the premise of freedom of religion and freedom of thought - - the separation of Church and State being the classic example.

On the other hand, it is rather easy to write laws which will fix the more episodic and superficial details of human behavior. In other words, as our acrobat is progressively limited in his arm movement but is given free permission to fall off the wire.

Note, in passing, that the analogy of the acrobat can be apropos at a higher level. During the period when the acrobat is learning to move his arms in an appropriate way, it is necessary to have a safety net under him, i.e., precisely to give him freedom to fall off the wire. Freedom and flexibility in regard-to the most basic variables may be necessary during the process of learning and creating a new system by social change:

These parades of order and disorder the ecological analyst must weigh.

It is at least arguable that the trend of social change in the last one hundred years, especially in The USA, has been toward an inappropriate distribution of flexibility among variables of civilization. Those variables which should be flexible have been pegged, while those which should be comparatively steady, changing only slowly, have been cast loose.

Even so, the law is surely not the appropriate method for stabilizing the fundamental variables. This should be done by the process of education and character formation - those parts of our system which are currently and expectably undergoing maximum perturbation.” Steps, p.503

READ MORE...

Thread Wars 3:

MR taking it to the threads, stepping-it-up and further cultivating strategies, noting successes, charting obstructions to bringing nativist nationalism to public acceptance.

READ MORE...

What does this implicate for separatists from centralized government?

Some White Nationalists note training programs for US Police conducted in Israel.

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

There is a missing dimension to the Israel/Palestine question, not the elephant in the room, ie something nobody will mention for fear of ostracism - Jewish power for example – but one no one mentions because they literally do not see it. Here, that dimension can be summed up in one word: race.

In the UK, all mention of race except on liberal/socialist terms has long been taboo due both to the stranglehold our enemies have over the media and other institutions, and to their none-too-subtle but extremely successful brainwashing campaign that involved associating all opposition to non-white immigration and then to forced race-mixing with a particularly bizarre form of sex shop Nazism.

On the other hand, the liberal/socialist hate campaign against South Africa never did try to evoke that spectre, and with good reason, the South African government never had any sympathy with Nazism, nor indeed with “racism” as it is usually understood. This may sound a curious claim to make, but anyone who has studied the contemporaneous South African press will realise that was indeed the case. White newspapers regularly featured stories about blacks, who even appeared in advertisements. Ordinary white South Africans did not regard themselves as “racists”, and had no time for people who tried to stir animosity between the races; they believed simply that the two races should develop separately, as the short-lived South African National Front discovered when its two leading lights Jack Noble and Ray Hill attempted some stirring.

READ MORE...