A reply to Happy Cracker

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 01:20.

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.

On 19th February, Prof MacDonald posted a piece at Occidental Observer on the high incidence of white racial treachery among the fair sex. It pulls together a number of strands to address this from, as is his wont, an evolutionary perspective. It’s all pretty interesting without being new in any way. But what struck me was the stark contrast between Prof MacDonald’s carefully tended area of professional expertise and the appeal to faith which characterised his description of “some rays of hope”.

In fact, the good professor saw two such rays. The first is the usual Inevitablism:-

It is likely that at some point the gap between rhetoric and reality in American life will be so large that no one will believe what they are hearing from the hostile elites that dominate public discourse — much like the Soviet Union in the decades before its fall. When that happens, the [black] cultural icons promoted by the media will lose their credibility and allure as well.

The comparison here with the Soviet Union very much brings to mind the close of Prof MacDonald’s foreword to Tom Sunic’s Homo americanus: child of the postmodern age:-

At some point the negative consequences to the European population of the U.S. of multicultural ideology and massive influx of other peoples will become so obvious that current levels of control will be ineffective. We will be like the Soviet Union when it became, in Sunic’s words, “a make-believe system in which nobody truly believed and where everybody, including former communist party dignitaries made fun of in private.”

“At some point ... at some point”. It’s all inevitable, of course.

The other “ray of light” Prof MacDonald gives us is the internet:-

... the opportunity to hear divergent opinions and become aware of information that is suppressed by the mainstream media has never been better. All around us we can see the collapse and increasing irrelevance of the old media. The internet has already created communities where prestige and social approval can be obtained completely outside the norms created by our hostile elites. And at least some of these communities are dedicated to transforming America by asserting the legitimacy of white identities and interests.

So alongside his magnificent critique of Jewish ethnocentrism, Prof MacDonald is proffering Inevitablism, an unprecented and uncertain, very large-scale sociological development, plus the small-scale assertion of “the legitimacy of white identities and interests” on the internet. He hasn’t actually thought through whether these marry up or whether they can, in fact, generate results. He has simply alighted upon them as “happening events”, and made them the centre of a very large hunch, basically. They might come off. They might not. It’s all in the lap of the gods, or G-d.

Now, when I began this site I thought I had a little map, like the heroes of Treasure Island. It was a map of what a successful white society looked like, and it was both a conservative map and the map of a revolution. I wrote about it from every angle, demonstrating its superiority to other maps purporting to show the whereabouts of buried European treasure.

Eventually, the penny dropped. I realised that it wasn’t a map at all but a landscape painting. A real map has navigational notes, which presupposes a known starting point. That was what was missing. Merely possessing the picture of a successful white society was not going to change anything, and certainly would not overturn the liberal milieu as we require.

So the game changed completely for me. It became a matter of finding the starting point.

Now, starting points are not analyses of the ills which afflict us. They are not commentary on the state of our collective soul. There are scores of European nationalist intellectuals, race-realists, Jewish Single Causers, Christian traditionalists and evolutionary psychologists providing such commentary and analysis. They all think they have the right formula or the magic bullet or the unanswerable argument. But not one of them is operating from what might pass for the starting point. Every single one - de Benoist, Linder, the volkspolitik activists, Prof MacDonald, everyone - is constructing his ideas somewhere else, floating above terra firma in the belief that a revolution is a relative thing that has no need of absolutes and fundamentals.

Well, I am profoundly convinced that something so vast as overturning liberalism and disaccomodating its elites and its Jewish niche-fillers cannot be accomplished without a full set of navigational notes, as it were, starting from First Cause.

Yes, I understand the temptation to cast all this annoying pedanticism aside. We all have eyes. We all know the daily costs to our people of our inaction. We all want to press the red button, to get the job done. We want progress. Some of us want revenge. Speaking for myself, I really can’t stomach the family fare offered on television these days. Popular culture is so shot through with “diversity”, I don’t even hang around long enough to reject it aesthetically. A journey through London - my London - has me smouldering with discontent from first to last. Hell, I want to change this, and I mean change it totally, gut it, leave it lifeless on the floor. But that is a mighty political undertaking which we fail ourselves in not taking seriously.

For example, the last communication I had with the late John Bryant asked me to publish his long essay titled Final Solution to the Washington Question. John was at pains not to advocate violence. But he set out a practical basis for it which - and I feel rather bad about it now - I critiqued on three grounds, the last as follows:-

Like many race-loyal Americans, John is a believer in the theory - which is what it is - of isostatic recovery. If the causes of the malaise are removed, the theory goes, everything will slowly and inevitably return to a point of societal balance and health. Resolve Jewish power, kick the race-traitors out of their positions of influence, and the process of recovery will commence automatically and proceed unguided.

This theory is predicated on faith in the foundational instruments of the Republic, and on the enduring, indeed, eternal goodness and conservatism of White America. It denies agency to the America of the past in the creation of the America of the present - since, of course, everything creatively bad rests with Jews and the race-traitors. It eschews complications like the hyper-moralism and consumerism of modern America, which have their antecedents in Puritanism and the myth of progress, and which tend to far from balanced and healthy outcomes. If one refuses to acknowledge the extrusions of the past into the present, one is almost certainly inviting what is euphemistically known as “unforeseen events”. One must know oneself, I think.

Something very similar could be said of the micro-community ideas of our friends GT and maguire. These are good ideas which could bring satisfaction and independence to many lives. They deserve a wide audience. They deserve to be given a chance. But they are nothing like optimal ideas for a full-scale, head-on revolutionary challenge to liberalism. Very like the Birdman, the basic assumption is that the human qualities of farm communities in Kansas or Idaho are sufficient in themselves. It is a hunch again.

Troy Southgate’s national anarchism is yet another local “solution” that is, in seafaring terms, a life-boat and not a battleship. It is reactionary, not revolutionary. Norman Lowell’s IDEA is about the dispensation of power in a magically-created ethnocentric Europe. How did that ethnocentrism happen? Kai’s speeches about the rising sap of national resistance are beautiful and gripping. But there is a whole catalogue of convenient assumptions.

These are all men I like and respect, and listen to attentively. I will never stop doing so. But do I believe that any of them is really offering more than a hunch? I don’t think I do. It’s very tragic, given our people’s present travails. But I am afraid that none - not one - of the ideational tools fashioned for our freedom really, definitely merits our investment in life and treasure. There is far too much that is uncertain or unknown in them all.

So I come back to my post of January 2008 renouncing that landscape painting and committing myself to search for something solid and foundational, out of which political activism grows revolutionary. I believe I have drilled down as far into bedrock as I can, and have the beginnings of something, at least. I think MR’s newest contributor, the aptly named Dasein, is working separately on a no doubt far better-informed version of his own. I’m not going to attempt to put mine down on paper in its current form, not least because one of the difficulties with it is the langauge with which it can be communicated.

HC requested a working definition of Martin Heidegger’s “Dasein”. Here, instead, is a very brief, incomplete and highly provisional glossary of the more unusual terms for “an unknown ontological nationalism”, just to give him and you a flavour of where I’m (probably) heading with this.

Absence

The state of confusion in which our people ordinarily exist, without unity or will, self-estranged, self-harming and self-forgetting, convinced of opinions in diametric opposition to our own interests, the possession of forces inimical to us.

Being

Both the “ground” quality or fact of subsistent Nature and the quality evolved from that which characterises us racially, sub-racially and/or ethnically.

Consciousness

The seat of the individual self, primarily situated in the thinking faculty. Also the state in which self-direction is possible individually and collectively.

Eternal Nation

The true ethnic group, free from the damage done by gene incursion, and discoverable historically by genetic or genealogical methods.

Mechanicity

The state in which action is subject solely to impulsion from without. Devoid of all possibility of self-direction.

Presence

The state of awareness of the collective self, collective responsibilities, collective interests. Free from the confusions of Absence and from the ownership of external forces.

Reclamation

The process of physical reclaiming of the ancestral homeland.

Redemption

The process of redeeming the collective self from all the debilitations of this postmodern age. Nationalism at work.

Let what is be forever.

Tags: Political Philosophy

Comments:

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 12 May 2009 03:02 | #

If what changes we observe in the psyches of BNP activists are not at least heading in the right direction, that is if consciously acting on behalf of one’s group does not improve one’s pro-social ethnic comportment, I see very little hope. That would lead me to believe there is not the possibility of a feedback loop between attitude and action related to ethnic consciousness. I believe their activism does lead to an improved attitude. And that their activism, which shows them visible improvements in their own lives, is necessary to provide sufficient traction for a wholesale replacement of the liberal zeitgeist. Whatever inevitablism there is, is built on the backs of folk like them.

Posted by GR on Tue, 12 May 2009 03:21 | #

But we have this idea, you see, that the king of all ideas, the one that rules over you and me and the boys in Knoxville, Tenesee, this idea conditions everything that happens in the world.

You’ll admit German Idealism from the head of an Englishmun is a bit strange, and of questionable value to the “project” as a whole. This is what HC can’t get his head around, and I don’t blame him; it’s so much metaphysical overlay (or even parallax) on the “biopolitical” problem, despite the heideggerian note’s pretension of being less-than-metaphysical. Imagine him struggling to comprehend this bizarre twilight world of Dasein and the old, old “Idea” revived to elaborate itself in a nouveau-nationalist cocoon: Alex Linder’s approach will always be fresher, realler than the slightly neurotic hunt for methodology, or ever greater verbal subtilization, which in the end is nothing but a gentleman’s hobby. But both GW and Linder come up against a bedrock through which neither can drill, and both attempt to get round it by respective rhetorical feints: GW through hegelianism, which mistakes burrowing into language for sociopolitical breakthrough; and Linder, through a belief in capturing the media. The question then is which fantasy, carried to their ends, would be more likely to shed the light of enfranchisement upon our ideas, our lives? another book—or filling the heads of the goyim with those ideas, directly, in the only form they really know?

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 12 May 2009 04:52 | #

Somewhat O/T, sorry.

Silver is in action over at Steve Sailer’s and its a classic:

I don’t think it can be seriously doubted that s. europeans are dumber than northern.

Silver

One day at MR bleating about those horrid Nordicists, the next - sneering at southern Europeans.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on Tue, 12 May 2009 05:56 | #

the opportunity to hear divergent opinions and become aware of information that is suppressed by the mainstream media has never been better. All around us we can see the collapse and increasing irrelevance of the old media. The internet has already created communities where prestige and social approval can be obtained completely outside the norms created by our hostile elites.

Major Newspapers Struggling to Survive: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3647.0

N.Y. Times to File Notice It Will Close Boston Globe: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3643.0

The nation’s largest left-wing newspaper and the bible for network news producers and bookers may be going under. This week, the New York Times announced more staggering losses: nearly $75 million dollars in the first quarter alone. The New York Post is reporting the Times Company owes more than one billion dollars and has just $34 million in the bank. A few months ago, the company actually borrowed $225 million from a Mexican billionaire, Carlos Slim, at a reported 14% interest. With things going south fast, pardon the pun, Mr. Slim might want to put in a call to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.

The New York Times is most definitely a committed left-wing concern that is openly contemptuous of the conservative, traditional point-of-view. That is the primary reason the paper may soon dissolve. And all the cash in Carlos Slim’s fat wallet is not going to change that.

http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-c-2009-04-30-177616.114126-sub_Major_newspapers_struggling_The_end_of_Times.html

———————————————————————————————————————

Monday, May 04, 2009
Boston Globe may shut down within weeks
The New York Times Co. said last night that it is notifying federal authorities of its plans to shut down the Boston Globe, raising the possibility that New England’s most storied newspaper could cease to exist within weeks.

COMMENTARY: This comes as no surprise and is long overdue. The Boston Globe has been an anti-white, anti-Christian, ultra liberal cesspool for decades.

People in and around Boston started waking up to this ugly reality when The Globe backed forced busing of minority students into majority white schools. As family after family experienced their children coming home beaten up, robbed, and terrified to go back to the formerly safe schools,. The Globe brow beat anyone daring to speak out about it. The Globe regularly tried to portray this was somehow normal.

As more and more white women in and around Boston got raped by minorities, the Globe went out of its way to conceal the races of both the victims and the perpetrators.

When AIDS first appeared, The Globe did everything in its power to support the filthy lifestyle that generated the disease. Anyone who talked candidly about who caused it and how they did so, was vilified by The Globe.

Politically, the Globe seemed to always back liberal Democrats, including Ted Kennedy who killed a girl in Chappaquiddick, MA decades ago—and got away with it.

In a grotesque example of hypocrisy, The Globe was perfectly willing to support gays when it came to the issue of AIDS or the gay lifestyle, but when those very same gays were pedophile priests in the Catholic Church, the Globe went out of its way to vilify and attack the Church. Not the gay pedophiles, the church.

It is long overdue that The Boston Globe go out of business. We have a feeling its fate will be shared by many more liberal rags in the near future. In our view, that can’t happen soon enough. Good riddance!

http://turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com/2009/05/boston-globe-may-shut-down-within-weeks.html

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 12 May 2009 10:09 | #

What GW’s friend in Gatwick may intuitively understand by his strong emotional attachment to NS is the concept of momentum, and where the real battle is being waged, which is within ourselves. It is laughable to contend that there is one thing our enemies could do to us if we were again strong. One cannot speak of being as if it were static, of letting something forever be. A thing either has positive or negative momentum projecting itself into the future. Heidegger certainly understood that, for it is part of his conception of Dasein. Not enough of our people will even be receptive to the radical surgery of a paradigm replacement until winning momentum can be demonstrated. Palingeneticism may well be required, and as someone whom it galls to his core to see what his race has become, how far it has fallen, I cannot think that would wholly be a bad thing. Just to shuffle along “being” really is quit pathetic, and as we can see, not even sufficient for that meager goal.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 12 May 2009 10:27 | #

Griffin has got people out there doing, and believing they can achieve something. It is a necessary condition to achieve anything, it is a little bit of momentum. That is no small thing to be shat upon. All we have in Amerikwa are dissembling faileocons. With further successes on Griffin’s end maybe we will have something to show our people here of momentum.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 May 2009 13:26 | #

CC,

Nick Griffin undoubtedly believes, as every committed nationalist does, that he has history on his side, as well as the support of every true-hearted Englishman. But it is still action without any real anchor.

If you look at British Conservatism over the last two centuries you see the perfect illustration of an instinctive politics that had no means to resist the democratisation of freedom, education and prosperity. It could not conserve its values, and could not defend itself against the charges of privilege and reaction. The Conservative political class is as liberal as anyone today, having embraced the MultiCult as unreservedly as the Labour Party has embraced economism. The victory of liberalism is complete. But then, within the liberal milieu, only liberal outcomes are possible.

So the 64,000 dollar question is whether any instinctive politics, which is all the BNP’s nativism is, can ever hold the line in our ideational universe. Now, we don’t know the answer, and there’s only one way to find out. It might work. It might be that the historical dynamic of a rising anger among Europeans everywhere, allied to the obvious exhaustion of “things that can be done with liberty” and its morphing into illiberality and the security state, will be enough. The BNP, against all the electoral odds, wins power at the ballot box. That’s one thing. But does it then have what it takes to institute the total ideological shift that would realise only nationalist ideas and underwrite our genetic survival? Does it even know that this is what it must do, or everything will be lost to the gravitational pull of a still extanct liberalism?

It is impossible to say that the people currently engaged in running the party - among them Griffin, Arthur Kemp, Simon Darby and Martin Wingfield - really comprehend that. They are, in any case, understandably engrossed in the daily political round, which is a far cry from the great purposive questions.

Here is Griffin yesterday on the BBC’s Daily Politics show, making his accomodations with political reality:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8044337.stm

... and doing pretty well.

How much of this accomodationism, though, is strategic, and how much is simply a sign that, once again, instinctive politics cannot defend itself against the clamour of individualism?

Posted by Englander on Tue, 12 May 2009 14:08 | #

GW, have you tried writing (either by pen or electronically) to any of the BNP leadership? At the least you could give them advice on how to defend themselves against certain specific arguments.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 May 2009 14:22 | #

GW, I have no philosophy but if I were given power I’d know what to do. You, who have way more philosophy than I, still don’t have, so you say, the ultimate philosophy you’re looking for which you feel is needed. Yet, if you were given power you’d know what to do.

Why is “philosophy” needed if men know what to do? This position that “philosophy” is needed is of course Prof. Gottfried’s position as well as yours, “lack of a philosophy” being one of the criticisms Gottfried leveled at our side over at Taki’s months ago.

Why is “philosophy” needed if what was taken from us — namely, our race — wasn’t taken by means of “philosophy” but simply because men who didn’t like our race or the things that sustained our race got stronger than men who valued them? The other side has not one jot more “philosophy” than we have. A “better philosopy” isn’t why they’re winning or a “worse” why we’re losing. They got strong so took what they wanted, that’s all. Naturally they trotted out some “philosophy” to justify it, Marx, Adorno, Ché, Sartre, whoever, but that claptrap was intrinsically no “stronger” than the philosophy our side can cite. It’s not as if there’s an impartial judge out there who is going to examine both “philosophies” and hand the prize to the side with the best, most convincing “philosophy.”

Men take what they want and discard what they don’t. Right now men have discarded our race. We have to get strong enough to make our race live again. That’s all I see. I see no need for a “new philosophy.”

“Philosophy” isn’t like Samson’s hair, the source of a movement’s strength (or to the extent it is the source we have it already: it’s called normaless and whatever philosophy already in existence that backs that up: start with Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and go on from there: backing for our side permeates all of it from then to now). The source of a movement’s strength is men forcing what they want, philosophy-based or not (generally not, or no more so based than any other side).

I cannot comprehend this “need for a new philosophy.” Once we have this “new philosophy” will it make us any safer from attack? Of course not. What will make us safer from attack? Getting and staying strong.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 May 2009 14:45 | #

“what was taken from us — namely, our race — wasn’t taken by means of “philosophy” but simply because men who didn’t like our race or the things that sustained our race got stronger than men who valued them” (—my comment above)

Or, they didn’t “get stronger,” they simply lied very craftily, in ways we didn’t expect because we’re not as low and filthy as they are, and they sucker-punched while we were asleep. That’s how they took our race away from us, not with some “philosophy.” Someone lies to you and sucker-punches you while you’re sleeping, and you have to develop a whole new “philosophy” before you can take back what’s rightfully yours which he swindled you out of and stole from you? I don’t get that part. Just tell him you know what he did, then take back what’s yours. He wants a fight, now that you’re awake? He’ll get one.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 May 2009 14:53 | #

Fred,

The reason a philosophy is necessary even for men who know what to do is the same reason a compass is necessary at sea. The winds and tides of individualism blow ships whether they wilt, and constant correction is needed.

Why is “philosophy” needed if what was taken from us — namely, our race — wasn’t taken by means of “philosophy” but simply because men who didn’t like our race

The men, including the Jewish ones, were only in a position to do all the things they did because liberalism provided a sympathetic home for them. It is impossible to sweep the men away without first sweeping their house away. You make the point that their “claptrap was intrinsically no “stronger” than the philosophy our side can cite.” But their claptrap was mandated by the ideational world in which we all live. That’s the point. You have to replace that world with one mandating life for European peoples.

Men take what they want and discard what they don’t. Right now men have discarded our race. We have to get strong enough to make our race live again.

Yes, of course. But the winds and the tides, Fred.

Take a look at that Griffin interview. See how he struggles to limit the political damage of his past holo-denial. The Jews who instituted Holocaustism did not do so merely in order to grab reparations from Germans, Swiss, Frenchman, Americans and so on ... or to bind the diaspore together with victimology ... or to keep the life-instincts of the goyim in check. At least some of those men are millenarians, and did it to sanctify Jewry in the eyes of the world because Jewish sanctification is what must set them apart when the work of making the world fit as the home of G-d is done, and He comes into his house.

This is the central meaning of Judaism, and it is not in anyway restrained by the liberal milieu. But it damned well would be by a thoroughgoing nationalism. Do you really think that Griffin, a man who certainly “knows what to do” by your lights, understands that?

Once we have this “new philosophy” will it make us any safer from attack? Of course not. What will make us safer from attack? Getting and staying strong.

I am not talking about a single political tract, a single song sung by one thin voice in the storm which somehow people are supposed to listen to. I am talking about a thousand tracts and a great choir of voices that sings for art to be renewed, faith to be restored, life at every level to be given again to our people.

If you understand what philosophy is, Fred, you know that its possibilities are vast, and contain everything that we need for our purposes.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 May 2009 15:05 | #

Englander,

I contacted the BNP through its website when Soren was looking for interview subjects. They did not reply, and I am not surprised. We are the most radical website in Anglosphere nationalism. Any association with us could, in some small way, be used against a party struggling to present itself as electable.

As far as “snappy refutations go, I don’t know that anyone outside of MR readers would take kindly to drawing from our argumentational well. It seems to me that most other folks like their own arguments too much.

I’d still like to interview NG, of course.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 May 2009 15:29 | #

“it’s called normaless”

normalNess

Posted by GR on Tue, 12 May 2009 15:33 | #

I cannot comprehend this “need for a new philosophy.”

The need lay in GW’s personality (which isn’t an insult). He needs to philosophize it; what we would need is power; faute de mieux there are worse things than fine-tuning nationalist discourse; and GW believes this—his hobby, essentially—is the key to political reenfranchisement. Idealism vs. Realpolitik; neither has any pull with reality, and reduce to ideological expressions of different personalities, perhaps even to English vs. American temperament. Linder said it well enough in that old link. But for as long as Western society stands, however tenuously, or as long as Western men have access to and ability to understand philosophical texts, there will always be a small crop of philosophers, or let’s say a philosophic type, who’d put the cart before the horse and repeat the idealist error of centuries. Even so, the way GW goes about it is certainly tempting:

I am talking about a thousand tracts and a great choir of voices that sings for art to be renewed, faith to be restored, life at every level to be given again to our people.

Hosannah, hosannah!

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 May 2009 17:16 | #

CC,

One cannot speak of being as if it were static

Perhaps you mean something different from the two interpretations I give it. For me, Being is both static and in motion. “Subsistent Nature” means continuity of existence, but existence itself is not motion. Motion is temporal, yes, but is only replicatory method. The thing itself that is being replicated is still.

If you apply that to any contingent fact of Nature, like race, you see why ontology and nationalism are such a good fit.

Incidentally, I do think that Being in the second and emergent sense of our collective Being has to be left alone. The attack on us is an existential attack.

Changing the focus slightly, one must reduce oneself thoughtwise to stasis in order to touch Being with the mind. This, however, takes us away from politics into metaphysics, something I always try to avoid. But polarity is absolutely no problem there! I believe a long-dead Christian sage - name forgotten - said something about three hypostases in one ousia (an Aristotelian expression of uncertain meaning but generally taken to be “substance”).

Not enough of our people will even be receptive to the radical surgery of a paradigm replacement until winning momentum can be demonstrated.

That is another way of saying revolutions are not delivered through the ballot box. Which is another way of saying that, left to themselves, the activists will not do what we know must be done.

Just to shuffle along “being” really is quit pathetic, and as we can see, not even sufficient for that meager goal.

There we disagree. As GR says, this may be a Brit thing. The “fuck you, mate” derision with which the common man in Blighty viewed notions of aryan supremacy had a wonderful, earthy realism. I like that very much.

Posted by Englander on Tue, 12 May 2009 17:16 | #

GW, I was thinking more of contacting them anonymously (or as yourself) rather than as the owner of this blog. Wouldn’t it be great if when Griffin or Darby were interviewed they were capable of conveying the sort of ideas that you have had success with on various web media sites? (Guardian CiF, etc) They couldn’t use it all (They’d avoid mention of The Tribe, for one thing) but there is plenty in what you say that is within the realm of what the BNP is willing to say, but you articulate it a lot better than they tend to.

It just seems to me that there is so much talent here tucked away in various corners of the internet, and it needs to be put out there. Put the right words into the right mouths and CiF debate victories - which must surely shake the earth beneath some readers - could spread to the wider audiences that the BNP are now reaching.

Posted by Wild Bill on Tue, 12 May 2009 17:38 | #

There is a solution.

The solution is: exponential personal empowerment through the meme of high technology self directed positive subliminal programming.

There are about 2 million references available from Google and good discussion previously conducted here at Majority Rights, here: http://tinyurl.com/yvr3tf

Use this resource or continue to be used by those that do.

Wild Bill

Posted by Anon on Tue, 12 May 2009 17:41 | #

Testing Testing

Posted by Bill on Tue, 12 May 2009 18:26 | #

The BNP are winning because they cannot lose. Unless the establishment start playing real down and dirty that is. I think the BNP do trawl these sites and I’m equally sure they take on board and use some of it in their thinking.

It’s this inevitability thing, is like gravity, you cannot buck it.

Did our warriors down the ages sit down and discuss philosophy before they started to slay the enemy. Keep pounding gentlemen.

The British people have an inate sense of fair play, (remember play the white man?) they are slowly, oh so slowly, beginning to smell the coffee, and they don’t like it one little bit. The BNP should be telling the people straight that the elites want them gone.

The BNP are either playing a very canny game or they are so naive it’s unbelievable.

Listening to Griffin discussing with Andrew Neil, Griffin misses the open goal time after time. I’m not saying for one moment that he should even allude to the tribe let alone come straight out with it. That would be suicide. I still can’t see why he doesn’t tell it like it is (extermination by any other name) by using names and faces that we all recognise - Blair Brown. The people can see it but cannot bring themselves to believe it, the BNP could confirm their (peoples) worst fears and herd them into the fold.

The establishment wouldn’t call them on it cos it would blow their (establishment’s cover) wide open.

The people can feel the tide around their ankles, it’s everywhere, yet there are still posters at CIF who are in denial, but they are getting less and less as each day passes.

The gods are with the BNP, but they are making heavy weather of it, it’s like Fred says, they have normalcy (truth) on their side - they can’t lose (in a straight fight.)

Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 12 May 2009 19:22 | #

I just want tp point out that Steve Sailer is completly silent about predatory post-1965 asians in OUR America. This should be take as support for post-1965 LEGAL asian immigration policy. This makes Steve Sailer an enemy of Native Born White Amerians. The hindu lobby owns over 150 memebers of the US congress(India policy group). There has not been a peep out of vdare.com about this.

The proper response to post-1965 immigration policy is a highly racially radicalized Native Born White American population. There should be massive intolerance towards the predatory post 1965-geneline in America(most of this geneline).

Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 12 May 2009 19:32 | #

Once the BNP comes to power in England, there should be a grass roots network of English peoples organizations to keep it honest. The temptations towards corruption will always be great. Just the nature of politics. The BNP should have a extremely bottom up rather than top down structure. BNP politicians must be impecable in terms of personal morality. This should be the goal at least. Odinary English people should be running the show. Politicians should only exist to serve the people. Ok that is what they all say. But the BNP should mean it. Accountability structures must be implemented. Set an example for White America BNP.

Posted by RLI on Tue, 12 May 2009 20:21 | #

The endless philosophising does get tiresome.

At the very least set up a network of clubs throughout Britain and the US, for discussion, networking, and (later) activism. Perhaps someone should create a blog and establish a template for such an organisation. Get the word out. Just do it.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 12 May 2009 20:23 | #

GW said:

… But does it [the BNP] then have what it takes to institute the total ideological shift that would realise only nationalist ideas and underwrite our genetic survival? Does it even know that this is what it must do[?]

It seems unrealistic to expect a paradigm shift to occur the day after a patriotic-nationalist regime were to arrive at a position of decisive political influence, let alone come to power. It has taken more than sixty years for the Long March to arrive at its present destination, and realistically we have to count on taking at least as long to undo its effects. The important thing is to make a start, and in that respect it seems to me that the BNP’s political platform has identified the correct short-term priorities in calling for an end to third-world immigration including family formation and ‘reunion’, the repeal of the Race Relations legislation and the implementation of the existing ( but long dormant) legislative machinery for voluntary repatriation. None of these are in themselves going to resolve the long-term existential question but collectively they would send a clear and unmistakable signal that the game has radically changed.

… It is impossible to say that the people currently engaged in running the party - among them Griffin, Arthur Kemp, Simon Darby and Martin Wingfield - really comprehend that. They are, in any case, understandably engrossed in the daily political round, which is a far cry from the great purposive questions.

One of the BNP’s principal weaknesses, in my view, is that it has failed to obtain the support or endorsement of any significant figure on the intellectual right. To what extent this is a reflection of the political baggage that still lingers from the NF and Tyndall era, or of the oikish image that still persists, remains an open question. On the other hand, it would probably be a mistake for the party leadership to wax over-philosophical given the antipathy and distrust that most Brits feel towards Continental-style ‘fancy’ talk. It seems to me though that the limit on what BNP could achieve is not caused by any fundamental unpopularity of its political platform (polls indicate the contrary is the case) but rather by the lack of a charismatic and telegenic leader, an Enoch Powell, if you like.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on Tue, 12 May 2009 22:45 | #

Posted by Jupiter on May 12, 2009: I just want tp point out that Steve Sailer is completly silent about predatory post-1965 asians in OUR America. This should be take as support for post-1965 LEGAL asian immigration policy. This makes Steve Sailer an enemy of Native Born White Amerians. The hindu lobby owns over 150 memebers of the US congress(India policy group). There has not been a peep out of vdare.com about this. The proper response to post-1965 immigration policy is a highly racially radicalized Native Born White American population. There should be massive intolerance towards the predatory post 1965-geneline in America(most of this geneline).”

The YELLOW PERIL: Australia muscling up as America’s power wanes: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3642.0

ANTI-CHINESE TENSIONS ON THE RISE IN AUSTRALIA: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3658.0

ASSIMILATION is easiest “among people who are culturally similar to the dominant group,” but when different races are involved, “assimilation efforts become irrelevant”. Milica Zarkovic Bookman, ‘The Demographic Struggle for Power’, 1997.

The historical record indicates that ethnic separatism among Caucasian-derived groups has a tendency to collapse within modern Western societies unless active attempts at ethnic and cultural segregation are undertaken. As expected from a resource-reciprocity point of view, in the absence of rigid ethnic barriers, marriage in Western individualist societies tends to be importantly influenced by a wide range of PHENOTYPIC features of the prospective spouse, including not only genetic commonality but also social status, personality, common interests, and other points of similarity. This individualist pattern of marriage decisions has characterized Western Europe at least since the Middle Ages. The result has been a remarkable degree of ETHNIC ASSIMILATION in the United States among those whose ancestry derives from Europe. This is particularly noteworthy because ethnic conflict and violence are on the rise in Eastern Europe, yet European-derived groups in the United States have an overwhelming sense of commonality. The long-term result of such processes is GENETIC HOMOGENIZATION, a sense of common interest, and the absence of a powerful source of intrasocietal division.

The recent MULTICULTURAL movement may be viewed as tending toward a profoundly non-Western form of social organization that has historically been much more typical of Middle Eastern segmentary societies centered around discrete homogeneous groups.

ETHNIC SELF-INTEREST is important in human affairs, and obviously ETHNICITY remains a common source of group identity in the contemporary world. People appear to be aware of group membership and have a general tendency to devalue and compete with outgroups. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own group in terms of resource control and relative reproductive success. They are also willing to take extraordinary steps to achieve and retain economic and political power in defense of these group imperatives.

It is noteworthy that minority groups, especially African-American and Latino groups, have already developed strong ethnic identities in the U.S. These movements often have militant, racialist overtones. For example, Afrocentrism is often associated with racialist ideologies, such as those of Molefi Asante (1987), in which ethnicity is viewed as the morally proper basis of self-identity and self-esteem and in which a close connection exists between ethnicity and culture. Latino ethnic activists Latino activists have a clearly articulated policy of “reconquering” parts of the United States via immigration and high birth rates.

In the long run, globalism and multiculturalism are a threat to almost everyone’s ethnic interest because both ideologies actually legitimize and increase ethnic competition. Globalism results in increased competition because everyone has potential access to everyone else’s territory, opening opportunities for plundering another’s backyard. Multicultural societies sanction ethnic mobilization because they inevitably become cauldrons of competing ethnic interests. In this very dangerous game of ethnic competition, some ethnic groups are better prepared than others. Ethnic groups differ in intelligence and ability to control economic resources. They differ in their degree of ethnocentrism, in the extent to which they are mobilized to achieve group interests, and in how aggressively they behave toward other groups. They differ in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to which they encourage responsible parenting. They differ in the amount of land and other resources held at any point in time and in their political power. Given these differences, it is difficult at best to ensure peaceful relations among ethnic groups. Even maintaining a status quo in territory and resource control is very arduous, as can be seen by the ill-fated attempts of Americans to achieve an ethnic status quo with the 1924 immigration law. Accepting a status quo would not be in the interests of groups that have recently lost land or numbers. It would also likely be unacceptable both to groups with relatively low numbers and control of resources and, conversely, to high-fertility groups. Yet the alternative—that all humans renounce their ethnic group loyalties—seems unrealistic and utopian. Indeed, given that some ethnic groups, especially ones with high levels of ethnocentrism and mobilization, will undoubtedly continue to function as groups far into the foreseeable future, unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by other groups means only their surrender and defeat and disappearance—the Darwinian dead end of extinction. The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition. And ethnicity will play a crucial role.

From the present perspective no fundamental conflict exists between the latter two sources of American identity; social homogeneity and hierarchic harmony may well be best and most easily achieved with an ethnically homogeneous society of peoples derived from the European cultural area. Indeed, in upholding Chinese exclusion in the nineteenth century, Justice Stephen A. Field noted that the Chinese were unassimilable and would destroy the republican ideal of social homogeneity. The incorporation of non-White peoples, and especially peoples derived from Africa, into peculiarly Western cultural forms is profoundly problematic.

THE CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE, 130 U. S. 581 (1889): http://supreme.justia.com/us/130/581/case.html

http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3057.15

WESTERN SURVIVAL: Emulating Key Elements of Judaism: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3292.msg15286#msg15286

In the United States we are presently heading down a volatile path—a path that leads to ethnic warfare and to the development of collectivist, authoritarian, and racialist enclaves. Although ethnocentric beliefs and behavior are viewed as morally and intellectually legitimate only among ethnic minorities in the United States, the development of greater ethnocentrism among White peoples is a likely result of present trends.

The prediction, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of social identity research, is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the White peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-a-vis the other ethnic groups. Other groups will be expelled if possible or partitions will be created, and Western societies will undergo another period of medievalism.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on Tue, 12 May 2009 22:49 | #

Spread the Word…

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3376.0

Claim # 169. We live not in a world of angels. The reign of Satan is not ended; neither are we to expect to be defended by miracles. The pillar of the cloud existed only in the wilderness. In the nonage of the Israelites. It protected them in their retreat from Pharaoh, while they were destitute of the natural means of defence, for they brought no arms from Egypt; but it neither fought their battles nor shielded them from dangers afterwards.

Claim # 178. Self defence is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; this primæval principle, the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges every one to remonstrate against the strides of ambition, and a wanton lust of domination, and to resist the first approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away the rights for which the brave sons of America have fought with an heroism scarcely paralleled even in ancient republicks.

Claim # 180. The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.

Claim # 562. Providence has given this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. Federalist 2

Claim # 570. In the long run highly successful group strategies spawn mirror images of themselves as non-group members increasingly perceive a need to organize against the group strategy. The result is a fascinating historical dynamic in which the individualistic tendencies of prototypical Western societies have been punctuated in critical historical eras by the development of highly collectivist Western societies with powerful overtones of anti-Semitism.

Claim # 571. Ethnic cleansing has been in operation across the globe since time immemorial. It is historically speaking neither new nor remarkable.

Claim # 573. Assimilation takes place in the spheres of religion and language most easily and is most successful among people who are culturally similar to the dominant group. When race is the distinguishing feature, assimilation efforts become irrelevant.

Claim # 578. Racial homogeneity is the sine qua non of every stable nation state.

Claim # 583. Contemporary multiculturalism in the context of high levels of immigration of peoples of all racial and ethnic groups presents the greatest challenge to Western universalism in its history.

There is no need of revolution in a healthy State and society and indeed there can be no talk of it. Each revolution has been preceded by the SELLING OUT of the existing ruling class. And who else but they are in charge of all the building blocks of a civilization’s government, church, profession, military, arts, etc.? These things all go when the ruling class sells out and becomes decadent, unfit to rule any longer. This amounts to total revolution.

We’re talking about a very large body of people who have sold out, or, perhaps better put, have burnt out. With no vital signs left. Yet, to remove them would be to see the U.S. at an end. Not to remove them will be to see another Africa arise on the North American Continent. It is not so much a conspiracy as it is a head being out of touch with its body but yet striving to make certain that the body becomes as vile and perverse as the head, thus spelling doom for the entire organism. The people of this country and indeed most of the West have been betrayed by their own rotten leaders. This is why no renaissance can be possible here. Only revolution. It must be DEATH to an entire strata of the population…and a new fresh ruling elite established.

It has historically been the task of each revolution to destroy that which is unclean. That accomplished, nature and man can once again assume their proper course upward.

Posted by dago-american on Tue, 12 May 2009 23:06 | #

A WOP who isn’t so dumb:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5305030/Italy-does-not-want-to-become-multi-ethnic-says-Silvio-Berlusconi.html

The usual suspects are freaking out: jews, communists, homos, multi-culti freaks, etc…

Berlusconi may be doing this for merely political reasons, but I’ll take it. As for the BNP, it beats anything in the US by miles…

Posted by GR on Tue, 12 May 2009 23:08 | #

Bataille, you should probably make a blog for all this. It’s good information but it does clutter the page.

Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 12 May 2009 23:13 | #

Bataille, you should probably make a blog for all this. It’s good information but it does clutter the page.
>GR

Seconded.

Bataille, you can get a free blog account at Blogger, Wordpress, etc. Just follow the directions when you sign up. It takes about 3 minutes to set up a working blog. We promise to come over and read it.

Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 12 May 2009 23:15 | #

If you’re American you oughtn’t worry about the free speech stuff.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on Tue, 12 May 2009 23:16 | #

Thanks GR… feel free to use it folks. Feel free to use it HERE.

Always cite the source: RTCR: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3376.0

Claim # 98. Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy.

Claim # 105. There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class.

Claim # 123. In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.

Claim # 132. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Claim # 138. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Claim # 139. If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Claim # 144. All government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.

Claim # 611. Mankind is divided, physically, into three great races, entirely distinct in appearance, color, and even in anatomical structure: the black or Ethiopian race, the yellow or Mongolian race, and the white or Caucasian race. These are the only three pure and simple types of man. All the other races, the red race, the Malayan-Polynesian races, etc., are but varieties and mixtures of these three primitive races. The particular characteristics that distinguish each of these three types are so marked that many of the learned have considered them, not as different modes, so to speak, of the same human type, but as three distinct types, as three patterns of the human form. The Caucasian or white race is divided into two great branches: the Semitic race, and the Indo-European or Japhetic race. All the civilization of modern humanity has come from these two races; to the Semitic race we owe our religious and moral life, our life of conscience; to the Japhetic race we owe our intellectual, political and social life.

Claim # 612. History belongs to the white race, and to no other. Civilization is its true work, and all the societies, political or other, formed by the men of the other races, are but imperfect, gross or repulsive figures of those which had their origin in the white race. It is through the Caucasian race that man has taken possession of the earth; it is through it that he has broken and every day breaks the net-work of external fatalities with which nature surrounded him. All the different religions of mankind sprung up under the pressure of the force of sympathy of that race; all the literatures of the world were produced by the glow of its imagination; its power of invention seems inexhaustible, and its fertility of combination infinite. Only its labor has been blessed, for only its labor has been truly fruitful. When we take a rapid glance at all that has been accomplished by our race, we experience a feeling similar to that experienced by the traveler, who, from a mountain height, sees spread before his eyes cultivated fields and rich cities, and we feel ourselves taken hold of by veneration and respect.

Claim # 613. The languages of those nations with whom our civilization originated belong to two primal races, the Indo-Germanic and the Semitic. The ancient culture of the former reached its culminating point in Greece; of the later, in Judaea. In these two countries the typical antithesis between the Indo-Germanic and Semitic races reached its highest point, and the fundamental differences in the views of life of these two races were expressed in the classical works of the Hellenes and Hebrews.

Claim # 614. The history of the ancient world is largely made up of the struggle between the southern Semitic line, which issued from the southern grasslands, and the northern Indo-European line, which came forth from the northern grasslands to confront the older civilizations represented in the southern line. Thus we see the two great races facing each other across the Mediterranean like two vast armies stretching from Western Asia westward to the Atlantic. The later wars between Rome and Carthage represent some of the operations on the Semitic left wing, while the triumph of Persia over Chaldea is a similar outcome on the Semitic right wing. The result of the long conflict was the complete triumph of our ancestors (the Indo-European line), who conquered along the center and both wings and finally, as represented by the Greeks and Romans, gained unchallenged supremacy throughout the Mediterranean world. This triumph was accompanied by a long struggle for mastery between the members of the northern line themselves. Among them the victory moved from the east end to the west end of the northern line, as first the Persians, then the Greeks, and finally the Romans gained control of the Mediterranean and oriental world.

Claim # 615. The two opposite races have everywhere come into contact, everywhere into hostility.

The great victory won by Charles Martel over the Saracens gave a decisive check to the career of Arab conquest in Western Europe, rescued Christendom from Islam, preserved the relics of ancient and the germs of modern civilization, and re-established the old superiority of the Indo-European over the Semitic family of mankind.

Claim # 616. When we compare the purest types, the guiding genius of the Indo-European and Semitic races seems to be almost opposite in spirit manifested and in mode of thinking.

Claim # 617. The Indo-European is enterprising, adventurous, progressive, inventive, analytical in thought, and philosophical. The people of this stock have ever been of a restless, venturesome disposition, always seeking more worlds to conquer. Tractless forests and unbounded seas must yield up their secrets to these explorers, and even the uncharted skies are traversed by IndoEuropean ships of the air.

Claim # 618. The Semite is unadventurous and more stationary in locality. He is, therefore, naturally more narrow in his interests, but he is very intense in thought and feeling at the spot where he applies himself. His imagination is of the concrete sort rather than the abstract. In his mode of getting at truth he is intuitional and prophetic rather than argumentative and rational.

Claim # 619. The philosopher and the scientist, analytical in thought and cold in feeling, represent the highest type of thinking among the Indo-Europeans; the prophet, intuitional and very intense, is the climax of Semitic attainment.

Claim # 620. Western civilization has its roots in the Indo-European and Semitic cultures.

Claim # 621. The two principal branches of the Caucasian race—the Aryans and the Semites—are distinguishable from each other, not only by their languages, but by moral and intellectual qualities which have never been known to change throughout all the generations.

Claim # 622. The intellectual qualities predominate in the Japhetite, and the moral in the Semite. Philosophy is the vocation of the one, and religion is the mission of the other.

Claim # 623. Through the Semitic race have come forth the most sensual and debased conceptions in mythology which have ever cured mankind, while from its deep sense of divinity have sprung all the religions of the civilized world.

Claim # 625. The variety of the world’s races and language families formed part of a providential pattern in human history. Different races had contributed, by way of their particular aptitudes and mentalities, to the unfolding of civilization, religion and progress. The Aryan alone could not supply man’s deeper spiritual wants. The Semite, while ennobling man in his ‘moral bearings’, was incapable of bringing about wider intellectual and scientific changes. The Chinese and Negritic peoples had their own particular characters and aptitudes, but would have raised only a low level of civilization without the beneficial leavening of Semitic and Aryan race influences. A mixture of quite different racial cultures supported the elevation of humanity.

Claim # 172. The Framers of the Constitution viewed the individual ownership of firearms as the ultimate check on the power of the government because an armed citizenry is in a better position to resist tyrannical behavior. Symbolically and practically, firearms represents the relationship between the government and the people, and the subordination of the former to the latter.

Claim # 173. To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms. A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms.

Claim # 190. The right declared [the right to keep and bear arms] was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

Claim # 192. The firearm in the hands of the citizen symbolizes that we, the people, are our own masters, and we do not exist at the whim of the government. History has shown on numerous occasions that a disarmed society almost always becomes an obedient and complacent society when faced with a tyrannical government. Such fears were paramount in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution, who had experienced, first-hand, the tyranny of King George III and his attempts to disarm them. Indeed, such fears of government tyranny have been present since time immemorial. Moreover, these fears were by no means unique to the eighteenth century; nor have they been reduced with the passage of time. Even as late as the twentieth century, more people were killed at the hands of government than in all of the centuries that preceded it combined. The right of individuals to bear arms still represents the ultimate insurance policy against tyranny and gives meaning, rather than just rhetoric, to the intentions of the Framers. Firearms in the hands of private individuals affords Americans the confidence and security to enjoy their other rights, safe in the knowledge that they are free from the risk of government oppression. American citizens are better able to defend themselves, their families, and their possessions with firearms than without. This is entirely within keeping with the great American traditions and values of individualism and self-reliance.

Claim # 827. The entire past history of humanity originally moved only in the circle of race and class struggle. The race struggle is the primal one, and the class struggle secondary.

The struggle which means destruction for the fundamentally weak race steels the strong; the same struggle, moreover, by eliminating the weaker elements, tends still further to strengthen the strong.

Claim # 828. The history of civilization is the history of the slow and painful enfranchisement of the human race.

Claim # 829. Recorded history, more than anything else, is the story of the mankind’s struggle for freedom. There is, within the soul of man, implanted there by Almighty God, a desire to live in peace, and free from the tyrant’s chains. It is the institution of government that has always posed the greatest danger to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. There have been, throughout history, many great men, our Founding Fathers among them, who have warned about the dangers posed by the great powers of government, and the certainty of their abuse, unless held in check by a written Constitution, a constant vigilance, and the security of the force of arms borne by the people. Among these historical and ongoing abuses by government are unjust wars waged for the sake of power, money, and empire. History shows that evil men within governments have more often used their offices and powers to suppress and enslave the domestic populace than foreign enemies. They have created famine and starvation in lands of plenty, murders, false imprisonments, rape, plunder, degradation and destruction of lives, the wanton depletion of the national treasuries of nations, debilitating, unjust and unequal taxation schemes, favoritism, monopolies, unlawful confiscations of properties, destruction of churches, disarming of the populace, impairing the right of conscience, kidnappings, encouraging immoral lifestyles, promoting gambling, prostitution, homosexuality, the destruction of the traditional family, and promoting the murder of the innocent by abortion. These are but a few of the documented abuses by governments down through the ages that compel us to choose Almighty God as our Sovereign and Lord. Therefore, We the People, when choosing our own form of government, rejected once and forever, all earthly kings, setting in place a Government under the Almighty Lord God as our Sovereign.

Claim # 833. The supreme of all laws, in all cases, is that of self-preservation.

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on Tue, 12 May 2009 23:20 | #

Bataille, you should probably make a blog for all this. It’s good information but it does clutter the page.
>GR

Seconded.

Bataille, you can get a free blog account at Blogger, Wordpress, etc. Just follow the directions when you sign up. It takes about 3 minutes to set up a working blog. We promise to come over and read it.

Gudmund, thanks for that.

Most of the information will be used in my book…

I just wanted to share some of it with you folks.

You can download the PDF version here:

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3376.0

And are free to use it. Cite As “RTCR: http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com”

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 May 2009 00:54 | #

GW,

To what degree do you believe this adoption of the mode of German Idealistic thought to explain and induce to better understand the English to themselves is itself an act of estrangement for the English, assuming, as I do, that the English tradition of empiricism is more genetically rooted, and therefore more ‘natural’ to the English, than to Germans? In other words, are English ‘boyishness’ and German ‘brooding’ more than merely stereotypical and cultural in your opinion?

Posted by q on Wed, 13 May 2009 01:23 | #

Posted by Lurker on May 12, 2009, 03:52 AM | #

Somewhat O/T, sorry.

Silver is in action over at Steve Sailer’s and its a classic:

There is no doubt, silver’s motivation for that comment was a left-handed swipe/insult at his nemesis: JHW.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 13 May 2009 01:36 | #

Because of JWH using the name Rienzi?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 May 2009 01:48 | #

CC,

Heidegger was in the analytic tradition, you know. But I don’t object at all to empiricists thinking I’m being Idealist. It would be nice if it worked the other way round, too. I believe in setting a goal, at least, of synthesis. AdB’s contempt for American WN and for empiricism in general is unhelpful and unnecessary. His failure, and the failure of so many European thinkers, to defend blood is a malaise rooted in the defeat of Germany.

Btw, I would like you to reconsider that offer I made you a while back. You so obviously have the intellectual penetration and writing skill to make a highly successful blogger, you should think about giving it a go.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 May 2009 01:55 | #

CC,

are English ‘boyishness’ and German ‘brooding’ more than merely stereotypical and cultural in your opinion?

If only cultural, the culture is long in the making, if you consider that empiricism and scientism possessed America despite the fancy Enlightenment ideas of the Founders.

But no, it cannot be that there are biological traits that control philosophical character differently among, essentially, the same people on each side of the North Sea.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 13 May 2009 02:10 | #

It appears you answered your own question, Cap. Heidegger, finally a Nazi the English can love…;)

This secular teleology will always fail because it must deny Darwin to live. Individualism is not a product of liberalism, that’s the Auster lie. It’s an evolved trait, an extended English phenotype.

Viva Italia!!!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 13 May 2009 02:14 | #

But no, it cannot be that there are biological traits that control philosophical character differently among, essentially, the same people on each side of the North Sea.

Proof enough, Cap?

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 May 2009 04:08 | #

Proof enough, Cap?

Eh, maybe Heidegger gets some Brownie points for being a Nazi who acted in a civilized fashion toward Jews (he boffed the Jewess Hannah Arendt who went to bat for him later during the process of denazification though he remained unrepentant - apparently she was under the spell of her intellectual mac daddy - Aryans taking a page out of the Straussian book, gotta love it - LOL!).

But, I agree with GW, that liberalism has got to go, and must be replaced with something life affirming, so if his ‘magic bullet’ philosophy lives up to its advertisement by half, that will be a good thing. The rest we can pluck from Goebbels, if necessary.

However, if it is a choice between NS and death, it will be time to break out those jackboots. I’m sure Wintermute would agree.

Posted by Valerian on Wed, 13 May 2009 04:40 | #

This article actually provides a solution, in the case of America, but in the end I don’t see any one core idea as the absolute foundation for the survival of European peoples and it’s societies. Though I do believe that the New Right and other 3rd position groups do offer a much better “philosophy” then other strains of WN.

http://foster.20megsfree.com/371.htm

Posted by Bill on Wed, 13 May 2009 07:54 | #

Here’s an interesting take from a poster Andraste over at Lee Barne’s 21st Century Nationalism 12.05.2009.

...“A lie is a very hard thing to maintain, whereas the truth requires no energy as it lies in natural equilibrium, that is why the establishment and their lackeys are struggling because the energy they are using to maintain the lies of their corrupt system is extremely demanding and stressful. Whereas we however are simply presenting the truth, and the truth cannot be contained, this is a law of nature as certain as gravity.

We have won already because we are a national factor on the political scene, this will permeate into the subconscious of the people and they will, more and more, consider the BNP as a viable alternative to the Lib/Lab/Con axis of evil – we are already now being seen more and more as a viable alternative. People will visit the website in larger numbers, and then see the truth. It has been the strategy of the establishment (including of course the media) to marginalise the BNP and make the BNP appear as political outsiders (this was their strategy of containment), this strategy has been defeated and is no longer viable due to the national presence of the BNP and our rapidly expanding membership. Whereas trailing in our wake the old-gang self-serving, narcissistic reactionary politicians are at once desperately trying to deny reality and cling to their old ways whilst denying the fact that the BNP are now entering the mainstream politic, like survivors of a shipwreck clinging to wooden planks whilst denying that their ship has sunk!”....

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 13 May 2009 08:15 | #

So alongside his magnificent critique of Jewish ethnocentrism, Prof MacDonald is proffering Inevitablism, an unprecented and uncertain, very large-scale sociological development..

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 12:20 AM

I’m not sure I agree with the way you phrased that.

Liberalism is constructed on false premises that are artificial and self injuring to those who adopt it. It’s a house of cards.

It’s much like economic bubbles. It is, in fact, inevitable that they will pop.

And the two are connected as the unusual economic prosperity of the past 300 years has been the primary means by which liberalism has constructed its artificial reality.
But nothing lasts forever.

And in as much as we might like to think history will reach some sort of apex (good or bad) in our own lifetimes, it won’t.
The struggle is eternal.
The current battle we are in began before we were born and will most likely not be concluded till long after we have died.

Empires, regimes etc… are all like gravity. What goes up must come down. There’s nothing unprecedented about it.

The only real question is how long will it take for the leftist regime currently ruling in Western Civilization to fall back to earth. And what mitigating factors (economic, social, political) will facilitate (as in assist in) its inevitable plunge.

So that the demise of liberalism is inevitable does not mean that we do not act in the present to help it pass away as to be able to best take advantage of the aftermath to better our people.

...

Posted by BATTAILE ('BATTLE') on Wed, 13 May 2009 09:15 | #

Excellent thoughts, Narrator!

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 13 May 2009 10:16 | #

you should think about giving it a go.

Thanks, GW. If can think of anything I deem worthy I’ll submit it.

Posted by Rollory on Wed, 13 May 2009 17:41 | #

Starting point:

TOTAL COLLAPSE.

The current regime can be stable - or at least, stable long enough to turn the USA into Brazil and Europe into Lebanon or Morocco. By its own stupidity, it is not stable. In the USA at least, the mounting ideological spending and crashing tax receipts and economic activity are driving us straight for the point where the bond market collapses. This isn’t inevitable. It is in fact very avoidable; it would simply require the people in power - Obama, Bernanke, Summers, Pelosi - to be provident and demonstrate some foresight; to stop spending money on short-term power gain and help for their friends, and to focus instead on the long-term health of the country, which would in turn be good for the long-term health of anybody else. In short, it would require them to be that which they are not. And really, their nature is precisely one of the major objections to having them have power over the rest of us in the first place.

So, we assume things will continue. Spending will mount. Bailouts will continue. The rule of law will be set aside, replaced with Rand’s aristocracy of political pull. The productive members of society will retreat. Obama and Pelosi will engage in cargo cult economics and may vaguely wonder why it doesn’t seem to be working as well as it should. In the not too distant future - within two years is my prediction - we come to a point where the foreign creditors who have been funding the US deficits either will not or can not continue. Treasury bond auctions fail.

At this point, things get interesting. The bond market is the lifeblood of the government’s day to day operations. When it can no longer do so, suddenly there is no money to pay the federal employees, or for all the various bribery programs. Tax receipts this April are down 40% from last year; a two trillion dollar deficit is not particularly improbable. Knock out the support of deficit spending, and federal expenditures suddenly need to contract by 60% or more, literally overnight.

This is not going to happen smoothly, it is not going to happen easily. Most people will continue acting as though nothing has changed for a while. THAT will stop when large numbers of federal employees start realizing they aren’t getting their paychecks on time. Social Security and Medicare payments can also be expected to stop without explanation. If they have ANY sense they’ll keep paying as much of the military as they can. However this will have shock waves throughout the rest of the economy: everyone who expected to pay for something with federal money they were promised, every federal employee who suddenly has to find an alternative source of income to put food on the table that evening, every contractor who suddenly isn’t getting paid for work they did.

Events quickly become chaotic, but certain predictions seem reliable. Law enforcement - armed with guns, a mental predisposition to use them, and the attitude that they are superiorly entitled to such use - will become predatory. The cities will all become permanent floating riot zones as the underclasses, freed from supervision, indulge themselves. The government, with no money and, as events proceed, less and less ability to raise additional funds on the scale required to set things back on the previous course, will be unable to arrest the collapse. They may try printing money. As there is no mechanism tying wages to inflation, this will merely cause everything to become unaffordable and destroy the last vestiges of the middle class economy.

In short, everything goes Mad Max over the course of a month or two.

Out of that chaos, other organizations will arise. One will certainly be the federal government attempting to reassert control, using well-meaning people’s assumptions that everything SHOULD go back to the way it was before. Others will be MS-13, the Mexican drug gangs, and MEChA/Aztlan. “Three Percenters”, anti-racist 2nd Amendment followers with the idea that the original Republic can be restored even with a thoroughly different population, can also be expected to play a part - and they will be likely to claim the loyalties of quite a few Americans trying to reconcile loving patriotism and hating racism. We can expect the various white nationalist groups to agitate also.

I do not expect white nationalism, as such, to make any long-term progress. “White” is not a nation; “English”, or “French”, or “German”, or even “American” before it was diluted, that is a nation. “Texan” might become a nation, as may other regions - or the whole thing might eventually be subsumed back into the imperial concept of the whole North American population being a blended One.

What happens to Europe while all this is going on - I don’t feel comfortable predicting, I don’t know enough. Karl Denninger (market-ticker.org) keeps saying that whatever happens to the USA, matters will be worse in Europe, and he does know his way around this stuff. But I can also imagine the collapse being rather less severe, simply because the governments there are historically more used to taking charge and keeping it even in the face of severe crisis, and have less territory to administer.

If matters _are_ worse in Europe - and we can expect that an American collapse would trigger whatever remaining events were to unfold elsewhere - then the most immediate consequence would simply be ongoing open urban warfare from the Muslims.

People in such situations will be looking for simple and sensible explanations as to how exactly they got into this mess and how to get out of it. Second, a well-organized group, with plans and at least some equipment for keeping its adherents fed and relatively healthy during the chaos - including, and this is critical, firearms and ammunition resupply - can make tremendous strides.

In the end none of the philosophical matters discussed on this site matter, until and unless it comes to the point where someone can stand on a crate and shout things at a crowd and convince them to head in more or less the right direction.

Posted by AD on Wed, 13 May 2009 18:03 | #

One day at MR bleating about those horrid Nordicists, the next - sneering at southern Europeans.

I wasn’t sneering. (And if I was, I’d only be sneering at myself, which isn’t something I’m in the habit of. Honesty, yes; sneering no.) There are only so many way you can state the fact that S. Europeans are less intelligent, ie, they’re less intelligent or they’re (we’re) dumber.

That’s not even controversial (in these circles), much less a “classic.” If it offends some people, well, that’s racial reality—you can hardly expect to be allowed to put others in their place without occasionally being put in your place yourself. The good news is that, like any dispiriting realization (like discovering a cheating spouse), the shock and disappointment eventually wears off and most can get on at least as well as before (some perhaps with renewed resolve).

As for the nordicists, I’ve “bleated” about nutzis (deranged racial lunatics, eg skinheads), not nordicists. I’m actually very supportive of nordicism (the non-nutzi variety). If a non-nordic could be a nordicist, I’m it.

Finally, with respect to philosophy, I’ve been dying to say this: all philosophy is an exposition of preference. (Test it, go on.) That’s how the propinquity of the nigger sparked the decline. Once sufficient numbers were seized by the idea that a better world could be brought into being if “all these differences” ceased to matter, all the “evidence” in the world wasn’t going to stand much of a chance: if evidence appeared to matter a philosophy would have to be devised to overwhelm it, and that is what happened. Thus began the long retreat. (See Occidental Dissent’s “racial timeline.”)

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 May 2009 04:19 | #

Liberalism is long gone, Cap. It’s been replaced by a Leviathan that serves the interests of the ethnic group that dominates it. Liberalism provided no more a sympathetic home to that group than Norman England, pre-Inquisition Spain or the Polish arenda system. Barbiplease also promoted a magic bullet philosophy based on the denial of evolutionary theory. Heidegger’s ontic/ontological abyss cannot exist unless the good professor denies the descent of man.

You’ll never get the English and the diaspora to do NS. They don’t do gangsterism.

Why is it that the Italians don’t need a grand unifying theory but the English do?

Lungamente vive la lega nordica

Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 14 May 2009 15:05 | #

I would only say that when one is willing to die for one’s faith (whatever that faith may be- whether hypercapitalist neo-conism, talmudism, or Orthodox Christian trinitarianism) at that moment, you will be successful.

We in the West have disincarnated ourselves from our race, our homelands, and our Faith. We see the Incarnation of the Messiah as a nice bit of theological trivia, and that’s about all. Instead of seeing Jesus as the ‘author and FINISHER of our Faith’, instead of seeing Him as prior eras did (even in the midst of all those internecine fraternal wars in Europe) as the “King of Kings”, we would rather ‘slouch toward Gomorrah’ as Judge Bork noted some twenty years or more ago… or adopt Shari’a law, as the utterly redundant resident fool of Cantuar has blathered on about.

When one sees that the only choice left unto us, in order to live, is to Die and become a true Martyr; then the legions of Satan are doomed, and, as a Church father so wisely noted, from the ‘blood of the martyrs’ rise the ‘seed of the Church’ - in this case, Christendom.

As a seed must die in order that that plant may live, so to, we that remain of Christendom may have to give our lives, livelihoods, and fortunes, to restore the good honor of our sons and daughters.

I don’t like that scenario any more than you do. But, God help me, if I must die for my faith, in order to save the West, then I’d rather ‘die to self, and life unto God.’

It is all in His Hands, anyway.

Pax

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 15 May 2009 06:48 | #

It’s an evolved trait, an extended English phenotype.

Wouldn’t that be a tragedy of Greek proportions if the best men of our race, with titanic heroism unsurpassed in all time, took a final stand against impending racial death, were taken down by their own brothers for whom they never had but good will, and for whom they also fought?

The “fuck you, mate” derision with which the common man in Blighty viewed notions of aryan supremacy had a wonderful, earthy realism. I like that very much.

Indeed, and for it those filthy fucking “Krauts” were well burned and well starved, and well neutered. Reduced to a “lobotomized corpse” as one Krautophile once observed. Ah well, what is done is done. And cannot be undone. Well done (*sizzle*).

Posted by Watson on Thu, 28 May 2009 08:26 | #

Happy Cracker,

I wish you would write a novel.

You have the ability, the talent, the sensitivity, the insight. You have everything it takes.

I think that writing a novel would be - BY FAR - the most beneficial contribution to “the movement” that you could make.

Consider the enormous impact of the few relevant novels. I’m familiar with only two: “Hunter” and “The Turner Diaries”, both written by that patron saint of white nationalism, William Pierce.

I can’t say enough good things about Pierce, but I will also say this: you are a far more talented writer than he was. You have the ability to write a novel that will inspire both fence-sitters and hard-core adherents for generations to come.

You have the ability to write a novel better than 99% of those on the bestseller lists.

You have the ability to incorporate and universalize the disparate threads, the psychological nuances, the motivational factors, the epochal moments, the personal epiphanies… you can write something of tremendous and eternal value.

Please do it.

Posted by PF on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:24 | #

What the fuck is going on here? I discovered this thread just now!

I can’t remember what activity of mine prompted this reply nor what the last commentator is talking about.

At any rate, I am growing into an understanding of the void filled by the nascent philosophy and this post is really what I have always desperately desired be explained to me about it.

So thanks, I guess I dont have to ask anymore, at least about these facets.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:39 | #

PF,

Happy Cracker’s last MR post was a plea for some real-world action, for certainty, for an end to the clubbish comforts of internet racialism, for progress, and I took it as a criticism of me personally. Hence this reply.

I am glad you are back with us.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments