Stan Hess, formerly of Voice of Reason Radio, DanielS and GW discuss the hippies and activism today, with some dropping out (but not that dropping out). 43.6 megabytes, 47 min 45 sec.

..and movements. Proscriptions of European organization and defense, promulgated under a guise of moral acceptability, that have European peoples arguing against their own interests and organization thereof.

                                                       
                                                  promulgating the perversion of terms…

Conservatism

Racist/Racism

Leftism

Equality

Diversity

Multiculturalism

Post Modernity

Social Constructionism

Hermeneutics

Marginals

Tolerance

Civil Rights

Hippies/Feminists

Sexual conservatism as pathological

Christianity

 

READ MORE...

A chat with Jimmy Marr following his interview by Circus Maximus reveals..

daniel sienkiewicz: nice show.

Jimmy Marr: Thanks. I knew you were listening, so I didn’t worship Hitler even once.

daniel sienkiewicz: wise guy

daniel sienkiewicz: the Irish guy was cool too

Jimmy Marr: Yeah. We kept talking for nearly an hour after the show was officially over. There were actually two Irish guys on there. Was that part audible to you?

daniel sienkiewicz: yes…and I was very pleased with what you did with Nietzsche..

... that you were taking-on scientism

daniel sienkiewicz: that it will be left to us to create what is important to value

Jimmy Marr: Oh great. I’m glad someone was out there to appreciate that. I felt like maybe I was getting too abstract.

daniel sienkiewicz: But you know Jimmy that is, in essence, social constructionism

daniel sienkiewicz: and that is not wrong.

daniel sienkiewicz: it is right.

Jimmy Marr: Yes.

daniel sienkiewicz: v good.

daniel sienkiewicz: lots of subtle ideas..I was impressed..I look forward to listening to the show a second time.

....it also clarified some of the things with “the bugs people”..fascinating..

you acquited yourself quite well, I thought.

Jimmy Marr: Great. Thank you. It was tough.

daniel sienkiewicz: you’re welcome..these things are tough…when people whose best interests you have at heart are tangled-up with antagonistic forces.

READ MORE...

Germans in Slavic Lands, Poles and Other Eastern Europeans in Western Europe

Nathan Mayer Rothschild

When grappling with the extent and length of entanglement of Jewish interests in European affairs, perhaps one can come to appreciate GW’s fastidious concern to separate what is authentic native/nationalist European - and what is not - through his ontology project.

READ MORE...

Ebola

READ MORE...

by Neil Vodavzny

Scotland is the home of the Scottish Enlightenment, which is known as the home of humanism. But that was then. Today, humanism is synonymous with destruction of tradition and anything and everything that belongs to a distinct, self-confident people. So, for example, the latest pronouncement of AC Grayling of the New College of the Humanities . Whether or not you’re a believer, there is something appealing in collective worship - as opposed to individual brainwashing. But not for Grayling, who has suggested RE in schools be replaced by philosophy lessons (run by him).

This same manipulative focus on impressionable youth was taken up by the Scottish Nationalists in their referendum campaign (even if the final results were not quite as expected). Salmond’s shallow mockery of the established way of doing thing, albeit probably a permanent aspect of his twinkly personality, was yet more evidence of humanist thinking. Salmond may be smarter than most, but it was easy to second-guess his intention of adding “a few more percentage points” to finally emerge a with a mandate for a free, independent Scottish State (with hints of Shylock to boot).

Nowhere is naturalism to be seen, and yet this is the real glory of Scotland. Man must mingle with nature, and nowhere is this more evident than in that most Scottish of creations, Royal & Ancient:

READ MORE...

 
Frank Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours, that we may rebuild radically anew, embedding our national interests of our people.

In the West people are not mobilized in their own defense and why is that? Our Majorities are faced with a fundamental structural problem.

That is historically based….. when the nation states of Europe were formed (such as) England initially, there were a dozen Kingdoms….the consolidation of those small principalities came about through an implicit promise ..the promise was that the new centralized government would adopt the functions of the small tribal governments: so it would defend the people, on the same principle, it would defend externally and maintain internal peace.. it would not betray the basic interests of the society….there was an implicit understanding or assumption that the elite is invested emotionally in the people, that it is tied to the people, that it comes from the people….the people expected their elites to not be alien, not to hate them, not be hostile towards them, but to be drawn from them, and to actually feel one with them…so there was an assumption of identity defense…of concern about continuity and so on…

That is all broken down now. The elite do not identify with the people anymore - those normal aspirations for identity continuity. The fact is that the nation/state model (two separate terms there) - Nation, the bond of the heart, and State, the apparatus of government - have become separated; they don’t have the same relationship one to the other that they did even a hundred years ago. But still the assumption is there, that those functions are being performed; when the opposite functions are being performed! These States are actually overseeing replacement, a demographic revolution that’s taking place.

So, I argue that in this light what needs to happen is that the Majorities actually, in a way, need to accept their defeat. Sort of a radical thing, some people object to this. But I think we need to accept, acknowledge the profundity of our defeat and accept that the government is no longer ours. The State no longer belongs to the people. Once one has faced that harsh truth, then one can start thinking what we can do to survive in the future as a people.

We need to starve these governments of resources; and rather we must build-up alternate national organizations that are well embedded in the people.

We are on a healthy trajectory right now with some fight-back in Europe. But for me the real sign of health will be when Tony Blair finds himself in court charged with treason. That would be a clear sign that something healthy is happening.

You know that the Blair government deliberately set-about to flood Britain with third-world immigrants as a way of breaking the spirit of conservatives…so that they would give up the fight to try to retain their country. I view that as least arguably criminal and if laws don’t exist - and I suspect laws don’t exist for prosecuting people like Blair - the law should be created.

 

READ MORE...

So Glasgow is in.  It’s a good win for Yes.  But the tide for No running across the rest of the country is unstoppable.  The British political Establishment has won, and Scottish independence is off the agenda - if the “vow” to devolve maximum powers to Holyrood can be sneaked through the Westminster Parliament.

There are signs already of a substantial rebellion among MPs - perhaps over 100 Tories.  But that won’t be enough to stop it.  The question is: will it be enough to force a resolution to the constitutional element of the English Question - England, vastly the most populous, wealthy, and economically powerful part of the Union has no voice of its own.  Not only that, Scottish MPs vote on English matters at Westminster while English MPs have no say over Scottish matters decided at Holyrood.  Ditto Welsh matters decided in Cardiff.

Granting the Scots Devo-Max, allied to the preservation of the Barnett Formula (a subsidy from England to the Scottish taxpayer), will probably necessitate the minimum offer to the English of restricting voting on English matters to MPs representing English constituencies.  That will have dire consequences for a future Labour government which, if it could not command a majority in such a congregation, could not put through any legislative programme disagreeable to the Tories.

Regardless, an English congregation at Westminster is not at all the same constitutional animal as an English parliament, which is the only truly equitable arrangement, and the only one likely to satisfy the English electorate.  Of course, the Westminster parties cannot countenance a (likely hostile) English assembly.  Yesterday’s vote in Scotland has opened the proverbial can of constitutional worms.  There are still opportunities here for those of us interested in expanding the self-awareness and self-assertion of the English people - not on the scale of those that would have followed from a vote for Scottish independence, and the break-up of the Union, but a scrap of stale constitutional bread is a hearty meal to a starving man.