by The Narrator

Reading Tom Wolfe’s The Me Decade and the Third Great Awakening circa 2010 doesn’t’ evoke nostalgia because it isn’t really dated. From asinine New Age psychotherapy to asinine New Age psychobabble, little has changed over the past 30 plus years. (The part about “communication” in that article is particularly contemporary, as well as spot-on.)

Of course that’s not surprising. Thirty years isn’t really that long ago and the twenty-something post-hippie, seeking “crystal healing”, adults of thirty years ago are now the middle-aged scholars and politicians informing much of social thought in America today. Still, there is a certain unexpectedness in how far we haven’t come in general attitudes and experience since then.

That can extend back even further though. Reading Charles Dickens or G K Chesterton describing America in their respective times is, in many ways, no different than reading a modern “stuck up” European article on America today. America then, as now, is painted as a country full of potential and problems, seemingly to perpetually reside on the precipice of calamity and comedy even as she continues to survive and thrive.

It is from that that I suspect the philosophical Me People are born. Which is to say, it is not consumerism that creates the philosophical Me People (as opposed to the materialist ‘Average Joe’ Me People), it is the discovery that the universe does not revolve around you and the age in which you live. It is not that they believe themselves to be the center of the universe. No, they simply believe they have found the perch from which the universe can be objectively observed in all its silly innateness. And from there they observe all the little human ants marching this way and that, foolishly believing that their little lives have meaning or individual purpose within the “greater scope of history”.

READ MORE...

Here for all seasonal romantics and climate change “deniers” is a picture shot in our back garden by my daughter on the morning of 18th December, just as the Copenhagen Conference was slowly, delightfully falling through the floor and the threat of carbon taxation was receding.  Virtually all the snow has also receded now from our part of the world, and the Met Office will not be declaring a White Christmas tomorrow, except north of the border.  No matter, it has been a good end to the nationalist year in this country.

The high point, of course, was the election in June of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to the European Parliament, closely followed by the blue funk into which this happy event tipped the entire political and media Establishment.  Now we all await the favour of Gordon Brown to know when the next electoral challenge for the BNP, the General Election, will take place.  The smart money appears to be going on March or April.

However the BNP fares in its target seats, the story for the party next year will be one of re-adjustment to the new Cameron government.  If recent form is anything to go by, we are looking at a minimum of two terms of Tory rule.  So adjust the party must, in my view.

Not just in Britain but all across the European world the decade that is just beginning will surely not be like the decade that went before it.  Our collective situation will grow darker, that is for sure.  But the political options which nationalists understood long ago are crystallising for more and more of our people, and the arguments are clarifying.  It is our privilege and duty at this small blog to participate, insomuch as we are able, in the furtherance of that process.  On behalf of all the contributors to our site, then, I wish its readers and, especially, its commentariat not only a happy Christmas but an intellectually adventurous and politically rewarding 2010.

by musonius

I wanted to write this article because I’ve been thinking about this particular subject for a long time, especially since I opted for a world-view that I currently hold. This is not scholarship, a thesis, or a standard theory that I am trying to create; rather, this is just a commentary that I hope to shed light on since it relates to the Modern World as a whole but also because it’s highly reflective of the area I live in. Writing in the form of a commentary allows more freedom of expression and intellectual activity but at the same time it lacks any objective credibility in the eyes of 3rd parties because it doesn’t appeal or point to outside reference points or 1st person sources.  Though I don’t use any sort of references like this in the article I will say that my personal influences are Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Nouvelle Droite, Julius Evola, and other intellectual forces and those influences will manifest themselves in particular ways in this article.

THE BEGINNINGS OF HOSTILITY

Hostility, in a general sense, can be a position, emotion, idea, and view that sets itself in opposition to another position, emotion, idea, and view. The opposition doesn’t necessarily have to be embodied in any entity (human, cat, horse, spider, etc.) but can be inherent within the oppositional view itself; for example:

View A: Abortion is wrong because you’re murdering a fetus that has a soul and has inherent worth.

Opposition to View A: Abortion is not wrong because a fetus is still a part of the woman and the woman should have a right to get rid of a “thing” in her body she doesn’t want. The soul is also “non-existent” and therefore does not have inherent worth.

This is just one of many examples of oppositional views that are inherent in the Cosmos and especially more narrowly in society itself. Every view that is upheld always has an oppositional view that is directly opposite of it. Hostility is the manifestation of that opposition at various levels of intensity and degree. For this example, I am going to use a measurement of this hostility in 3 levels that in a sense corresponds to real world degrees of manifestation but it not necessarily an absolute measurement but just a way to systematize it.

READ MORE...

Garrison Keillor admonishes “Nonbelievers, please leave Christmas alone”:

‘Such as the brilliant economist Lawrence Summers, whose presidency brought Harvard to the verge of disaster. He, against the advice of his lessers, invested Harvard’s operating funds in the stock market and lost the bet. In the cold light of day, this was dumber than dirt, like putting the kids’ lunch money on Valiant’s Fancy to win in the 5th. And now the genius is in the White House, two short flights of stairs above the Oval Office.’

[...]

‘And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write “Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we’ll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah”? No, we didn’t.’

Maybe Mr. Keillor has realized that freedom from is as important as freedom to.

At his blog Simon Darby has uploaded the first of two videos of Nick Griffin speaking to camera after the Copenhagen failure.  I can’t embed it here yet, but this is the link.

I will add the link to the second video when it is available.

Here it is.

A commenter by the philosophically respectable if possible unsuitable name of Zarathustra asked a question on my Black Cab II thread which, whilst it is undoubtedly tawdry and boring, does deserve some elucidation.  And not only from me.  It seems to be addressed to everyone who reads this and is not already really, really convinced that negrifying the European genepool and filling up our living spaces with total aliens is not a Wholly Good Thing.

Here it is:

Could you enlighten me on whether or not you are racist? And what is your definition of racist?

READ MORE...

If it is possible for the European Union to do something other than continue on its current mission of destroying Europe—if it is indeed thinkable that (now, I know this is fantastic but please bear with me) the European Union is captured by pro-Europeans, what would they do with all those immigrants?

Interestingly, most of the hard work may be done by the current European Union, in preparation for the sea level rise (imagined or real) resulting from global warming:

Dam the Strait of Gibraltar.

Once the Strait of Gibraltar is blocked, the obvious next step is to pump out the Mediterranean Sea.

There have been proposals of this kind before, of course, the most famous being Herman Sörgel’s “Atlantropa” which, instead of completely draining the Mediterranean, would attempt to maintain all the current shipping routes and allow a continual flow of sea water through the dam to generate electricity—resulting in a smaller and ever saltier Mediterranean Sea.  Moreover, Sörgel’s proposal was for a more integrated Euro-African continent, facilitated by a rail system from Italy to North Africa—it being inconceivable to the 1920s European mind, such as Sörgel’s, that mass immigration from Africa would ever be allowed. 

Simply dispensing with the Mediterranean altogether (all 255km^3/year fresh water inflow could be solar deionized for irrigation) would not only create vast areas of habitable land on the North African coast to which the non-Europeans could be moved, there is an equally vast solar energy resource available from solar collectors placed in the Mediterranean equivalent of an impassable Death Valley.

Yes, there are profound ecological consequences.  Yes, it would raise the sea level around the world.  But consider the mind-set of the current leadership of the European Union:  Global warming will result in a rise in the sea levels world wide anyway and such macro-engineering projects to protect coastal lands will already be a matter of course with the likely result that the technology will be extended to create more coastal lands around the world.  Everyone will be competing to create land for themselves at the expense of the height of everyone else’s sea barriers.  The Strait of Gibraltar provides the European Union with a strategic advantage in that war.

I don’t know how much it would cost but it is trivial compared to the loss of Euroman.

PS: What could possibly compensate the Mediterranean nations for the loss of their sea ports?  How about more than doubling their territorial areas with vast solar energy and deionized water resources?  They could certainly use the economic boost!

Majority Radio now has audio of Bill White’s letter of November 16, 2009 to Alex Linder describing his imprisonment for accusations of speech crimes.

Jim Giles of Radio Free Mississippi reads and comments on a longer such letter.