We’ve been off-line with a server issue which our hosting company now seems to have put right.  There have been short outages caused by similar technical issues in the past, but this one was unusual since it produced a completely blank page - a “no show” - and lasted for something like eleven hours.  Anyhow, I can assure you that there was nothing suspicious about it, and I hope we can return to normal uninterrupted service.

My apologies for the break.

The fact is, I am not noticeably impoverished.  I have a house and a bit of land, a business, cars, a few sticks of old furniture, young wine in the cellar, no debt and money in the bank.  I don’t know why, because I haven’t done what you would call a decent day’s work since I was sorting bedsheets and theatre gowns in East Dulwich Hospital Laundry, aged 18.  Maybe life’s unfair like that.  Maybe it’s a mistake to go off and do the uni thing, I don’t know.

But is it wrong?  Is it morally wrong and spiritually - even racially - debilitating to graze the sweet meadows of middle-class life?  Are the bourgoies, as people who juice oranges and read French novels like to call us, to be despised for wringing some solace out of liberal capitalism?

Well, I hope not.  But this afternoon Tom Sunic circularised me with his his latest piece for Occidental Observer, and I’m beginning to wonder.  Specifically, I’m wondering how we creatures of modernity are supposed to be other than what we are.  I’m wondering what demands can realistically be placed upon mere men.

Tom’s article sways between a high-critique of the banking equivalent of “money in furs” and perfectly ordinary white people who “live on credit in their petty little niche with their petty little pleasures and without incurring any risks”.  Well, Tom has been in my home and knows the shameful truth!

Here are some extracts from his article:-

READ MORE...

HC,

In my own mind I’ve been turning over this problem of European survival for three decades or thereabouts.  Fred has talked of his emergence into the light beginning with an encounter with Steve Sailer’s writings.  I can’t really say for sure how or when I began.  I know how I proceed.  It is a journey that is osmotic in method, like a salmon smelling one molecule from the stream of its birth amid the billions of tonnes of seawater around it, one then another then another.

The molecules, however, are not the stream.  I have never found any source of knowledge that wholly satisfies me or about which I could say, yes, that is the solution that we must all place our shoulder behind.  I have only found signposts.  And, of course, that’s the point.  That’s the tragedy of the European situation.  Even at this perillous moment, there are still only signposts.

The ground is thick with them, in fact.  There’s Alain de Benoist, but he despises analytic materialism and so, naturally enough, finds himself mounting only a cultural defence.  Which is no bloody use.

There’s Alex Linder who visited us one time to press the case for the Single Jewish Cause, castigated me for being “in philosophy” not politics, and then let it be known that he is a libertarian.  More or less.

There’s the popular nationalist movements on the edges of European politics.  Actually, most, like the BNP, are broad churches of nativism - not really nationalist at all.  But image is everything, and you can’t blame them for thinking they are nationalists.  How many, though, could really define the word?

And then there’s Kevin MacDonald.  Let’s look at his prescription in greater detail.

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

One thing that I really regret about the philosophical discussions on this website is that they are never distilled into bullet-point form that can be appropriated by the masses. The highest level discussions in any arena always looks like a mess: scattered manuscripts, little ‘chits’ with scribblings on them, and red marker. Yet, at the end of the day, you are supposed to always hand the simple-minded man an index card with the main points underlined. Except we never seem to get around to doing that around here.

Imagine MR were to end tonight. What has the average Englishman profited from its existence? What new memes have we brought him, what aides in his ideological struggle? That is the question you must always be asking yourself if you want to avoid being lead astray by corrupting influences.

Its not philosophical endeavor itself that frustrates me - its the fact that we can’t even really explain what we are talking about to each other. I have contributed many articles to this website, yet when the main writer GW addresses me, I understand only vaguely what he is actually talking about. This makes me quite mad, because it looks as though all this has been in vain. I am supposedly a part of the inner circle and I don’t even get what is being discussed.

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

I was pondering what memetic support we can provide which might concretely help in the establishment of a government that adheres to our philosophy. At some point I came to the consideration of founding documents, and asked myself: what sort of a founding document would we produce to articulate our political philosophy?

What I came up with will be easy to criticize on the grounds that it is obvious, and that it is ultimately just another statement.  But I hope you’ll give the following example a fair hearing.

“Charter of the Existence of the English Nation”.

This would be a document which establishes, in a persuasive and accessible style:

1. The existence of the English nation,

2. What constitutes membership of that nation,

3. The value that the English nation has for its members,

4. The fact that the nation can die, and thus needs to be preserved,

5. The existential threat posed by loss of territory, esp. via mass immigration

6. Calls for the death of the English nation (cite: Steyn, Darby, Derbyshire, others),

7. The right of the English nation to exist into futurity,

8. The right of members of this nation to puts its preservation as foremost priority.

9. Further reading: reference MacDonald’s works and others.

I can imagine a very embellished version, possibly even giving specific genetic data to delineate the boundaries of the nation.

At the very least, a stripped-down and simplified version could be written for distribution to schoolchildren; it might take the form of a pamphlet.

Its my opinion that nationalists and those raised in right-leaning households will view many of these memes as being self-obvious and barely worthy of being stated. I disagree, which is why I wrote this and will proceed to write the document. I think that there is a benefit to be had from stating these things explicitly and on paper.

My reasoning is that, despite the obviousness of this to some, the left has been able to insert so much relativizing logic and uncertainty into discourse, that even while within one’s own four walls nationalism may reign, in the public space, all of these things are regarded as “up in the air”. Basically the left maintains an air of permanent skepticism about all assertions of nationhood. It is perhaps shocking to some that people believe enough in this to actually state it. Put simply: there is value in being explicit.

Suggestions welcome.

Today the Telegraph leaked some delicious details of MP’s expense scams, beginning with the PM himself and his senior cabinet members.  They include Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary,  David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, Caroline Flint, the Minister for Europe, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary.

In high dudgeon the Telegraph leader proclaimed a scandal at the heart of our democracy:-

The systematic misappropriation by MPs of the allowance paid to defray the expense of keeping a second home is one of the great scandals of modern public life. It is a story that our readers, indeed the whole country, need to be told. Now, for the first time, it can be.

As The Daily Telegraph discloses today, it goes far beyond the now familiar tales of barbecue equipment, bath plugs or adult movies bought at the taxpayer’s expense. Many honourable members (of all parties, because this is, explicitly, not a party political matter) have been complicit in what amounts to an officially sanctioned and sustained abuse of public funds perpetrated against their own constituents over many years.

The extent of their rapacity is astonishing; and its scale can only be fully appreciated with the disclosure of the information being published by this newspaper. It will make uncomfortable reading for the MPs, for their families and for their voters. But it is right that the public should know what has been going on.

Not everyone is at this game.  Some honour still obtains.  But not much.  Setting the tone, our beloved leader blames the system for dealing with MPs’ expenses.  It made him do it, apparently.

READ MORE...

Today is Europe Day!

Celebrate European Identity!