|
|
|
Margaret Thatcher, 1925 – 2013 I thought I should replace Graham’s somewhat florid reflections upon the passing today of Baroness Thatcher with something more considered. There will, of course, be hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken about her in the media over the next few days. Much of it will reflect the divisive impact upon British and international politics that this extraordinary woman had. I am not going to tell the story of her life, but I will offer some personal reflections upon the person and period - she was Prime Minister for eleven tumultuous years from 1979 to 1990. She had four characteristics that set her apart from the politicians about her. She was restlessly energetic, dominant, courageous, and ideological (which she called principled). All the really important moments of her career in Downing Street were expressions of one or more of these. She galvanized millions of us to admire or to hate her for it. Personally, I couldn’t bear her public mannerisms and speech because it was all so plainly produced and inauthentic. But I found her enemies to be deeply repellant, and therefore took her side in most of the battles she fought - and there were many, for she was nothing if not an agent of change. Few people had no opinion of her, and those who hated her the most, by and large, were the revolutionary socialist left and the Europhile right who expected their agendas to be followed by government without serious challenge. In her, however, they found an implacable foe, and this tendency to stand up and fight for a different, non-authorised vision in a world as cravenly pragmatic as British politics is what most ordinary folk will probably remember her for. There are several moments of her career that, while not particularly important in themselves, have stayed with me. In particular, I remember her visit to Poland in 1988 as “the Iron Lady” and an icon of the freedom of the West. She was invited to the church of St.Stanislaw Kostka in the north of Warsaw. It had been the church of a priest who inveighed against state repression from his pulpit until, in 1984, the Security Services abducted and murdered him. Hundreds of people, including the parents of the murdered priest, packed the church and the street outside to thank her for coming. When they broke into a spontaneous rendition of a Polish hymn she was unable to hold back the tears. This image of a leader moved by the sincerity and heart of the people is a near perfect figure for a true nationalist politician. Margaret Thatcher came to the door of No.10 in 1979 wittering away about harmony and St Francis of Assisi. But she was too much the courageous warrior leader and the ideologue caught up in the battle with the Labour Party, with union power, with the machinery of European integration, with the Soviets, with the Argentines, with the miners and, finally, with her own scheming ministers to understand that such unity and faith is even possible. She was no intellectual and no visionary. She used ideas that roughly fitted into her political rubric, the foremost of them the Friedmanite and Hayekian nostrums that were introduced to her by Keith Joseph in the years immediately after her accession to the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1975. She never understood that the petty freedoms she gave people were insufficient for a truly rich lived life, for she never saw people in their social context, only as putative “individuals” awaiting release from an overbearing, over-socialist state. There was a moment I recall when, early in her premiership, she used the word “flood” in relation to immigration. I thought she might actually be listening to the sentiments of her own party supporters. She did, for example, stand up for the white South African government against the diatribes of governments and international agencies everywhere. But no, the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power, except in the context of protecting national sovereignty from the dictates of the European Commission. The battle above all others that I wanted Margaret Thatcher to fight she assiduously avoided. It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day. The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand. Of the battles she did fight, she only lost two: to the Europe integrationists and, eventually, to the grey-suited assassins around her. We are now witnessing the slow, ineluctable coming apart of the European process and also the arising of an anti-politics which disdains the careerists of the political class. Margaret Thatcher will be shown to have been on the right side of history on most matters. She will not, I think, be remembered as the great national heroine or as the vile hate object which she succeeded, by her relentless and divisive political energy, in fashioning herself as. Comments:2
Posted by Bill on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:53 | # I wonder if it was the dark forces of liberalism at work when they propelled the first woman into Number Ten Downing Street? Where did all her stuff come from? Same place as where all the rest we’ve had since? 3
Posted by Momus on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:24 | # GW is far, far too kind and superficial here (to put it mildly). I blame his residual Home Counties Toryism (well no-one’s perfect). I’m still delighted the old “no such thing as society” cunt is dead. As I have said many times neo-liberalism now has full spectrum dominance - in the UK context with Tony Blair and New Labour as Thatcher’s key legacy. Of course her politics lives in all parties and must be defeated. But I tell you this it wasn’t much fun growing up in Thatcher’s Britain if you or your family or your community were on the vicious receiving-end of her vision. I’ll leave others to ponder just why so many slime-ball Jews where among her favourite colleagues and inner circle. Ding dong the Hayekian Witch is dead and this is a good day. God knows why the item is tagged with ‘Conservatism’. Since when was right-facing liberalism conservatism? Since when did the free-market respect any value other than the bottom line? The politics of the Anglosphere in the 1980s is something we will look back on with much regret in the wider historical perspective.
4
Posted by jrackell on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:57 | # A damning assessment from Sean Gabb:
5
Posted by Momus on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:00 | # GW is far, far too kind and superficial here (to put it mildly). I blame his residual Home Counties Toryism (well no-one’s perfect). And I think he made a lot of money in the 80s. I’m still delighted the old “no such thing as society” cunt is dead. As I have said many times neo-liberalism now has full spectrum dominance - in the UK context with Tony Blair and New Labour as Thatcher’s key legacy. Of course her politics lives on in all parties and must be defeated. But I tell you this it wasn’t much fun growing up in Thatcher’s Britain if you, or your family, or your community were on the vicious receiving-end of her vision. I’ll leave others to ponder just why so many slime-ball Jews where among her favourite colleagues and inner circle. Ding dong the Hayekian Witch is dead and this is a good day. God knows why the item is tagged with ‘Conservatism’. Since when was right-facing liberalism conservatism? Since when did the free-marketry respect any value other than the bottom line? The politics of the Anglosphere in the 1980s is something we will look back on with much regret in the wider historical perspective. One cannot embark upon an all out ideologically zealous mission of socio-political decollectivisation of life (along with maximal economic and social ‘individualism’) and somehow expect the process to magically stop at the trivia of how British Rail is managed. The economically driven neo-liberalism (of the late 1970s to the present) is of course the ideological twin of the cultural/values/life-style liberalism and ersatz ‘individualism’ of the 1960s - as Adam Curtis in his ‘Century of the Self’ argues (in my view with some accuracy). The politics of atomistic individual consumerism - the height of human achievement is in making, marketing and, most importantly, in buying an iPod etc., - is deeply corrosive to both the width and depth of the collective political imagination (which is palpably exhausted). The doctrine of TINA (there is no alternative) to globalisation under the free-market and a ‘cosmopolitan’ social-order is at the heart of neo-liberal project (which is but the latest episode in the wider liberal project). Fuck Thatcher and fuck anyone that ‘loves’ her. 6
Posted by Alexander Baron on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:04 | # Margaret Thatcher had a unique characteristic, she could talk down to an older, more intelligent, more erudite person as though she were addressing a child. It was the women of this country who brought her to power, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. 7
Posted by It's Got to be UKIP. on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:13 | # Not really a fan of hers, but somehow I dobt that she was happy with black and brown immigration, but she was too ‘well mannered’ to actually come out and say so. I do remember an odd moment of candour in a ‘World in Action’ interview circa 1978 in which she uttered the immortal words ‘....people do feel swamped….’, I think that was the real Thatcher coming through. The TV has been full of guff non-stop about how ‘Thatcher changed Britain forever. Bollocks. Blair changed it forever. To a Briton of 40 years hence what does it matter if you pay your gas bill to a state monopoly or French price gougers? ‘tis trivia. But living in a street full of Pakistanis is not trivial. 8
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:35 | # Might as well just make Baron Rothschild King of England & America & Israel—King of the Realm, so to speak—and dis-band Parliament and the US Congress. It would be honest at least—At least we wouldn’t have to sit around & spend so much time and energy trying to figure out if “our” leaders truly represent us or not. Momus has the correct view about Thatcher. Momus’ piece about Thatcher should rightfully be put back up. I thought it was excellent. I caught it just before some shape-shifter deleted Momus’ “memorare” to Thatcher : I thought it was a be-fitting memorare to Thatcher, and the only kind she deserves.
9
Posted by Momus on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:50 | # As fellow Scotsman Frankie Boyle said: so many will want to dance on her grave they will have to bury her in Ibiza. When the Tories were looking to close coal mines and other industry they ultimately destroyed a way of life. That’s exactly what Thatcher wanted to do and did. There was no concern for those areas or communities afterwards - it was all ‘“you’re scoungers and get on your bike for the very few jobs available” - many at 50p an hour and so on. France closed its coal mines at the same time but the govt of the time pro-actively helped the Nord-Pas de Calais region to rebuild and diverisfy through decent service sector jobs and car manufacturing (Renault and Citroen if I recall correctly), consequently there wasn’t the same deep social conflict, bitterness and violence. Nord Pas de Calais was always militantly socialist and communist, today still represented by many leftist representatives in govt. Yet they are still a valued part of French society and its commonweal. Thatcher was the architect of neo-liberalism in the UK and hence didn’t believe in the nonsense of ‘society’ or the ‘common good’. She described trade-union members as the enemy within. Look who’s really ruined Britain recently; the bankers and self-serving, immoral, greedy beyond belief financial sector. Any ideology that had the ordinary working men of the Govan shipyards, the Lanarkshire steel mills, the Durham mines et al., as the ‘enemy’ is genuinely my meta-political enemy. The same class of men that fought two world wars for this nation. My nation doesn’t stop at the Home Counties, estate agents, and with the comfortably off ensconced within golf clubs. Me, myself, and I - what a brilliant basis for society – not! 10
Posted by Momus on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:47 | # Where are all the Thatcher lovers tonight? Cat got the neo-liberal tongue? Hundreds of people already gathered in Glasgow city centre on Monday night to “celebrate” the death of Baroness Thatcher. see http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/220638-council-says-stay-away-from-george-square-party-for-thatcher/ I’m extremely disappointed - I’d expect 1000s. 11
Posted by Morgoth on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:12 | # Thatchers views on immigration were expressed in her famous ‘’ Swamped’’ statement, a little digging turns up this : ‘‘In a 1978 television interview for current affairs programme World in Action, Conservative MP Margaret Thatcher claimed that British people feared being ‘swamped’ by immigrants from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. Racial tensions had been brewing in the UK and Thatcher brought immigration and race to the forefront of the political debate in the year leading up to the 1979 general election. When asked by the interviewer how severely she would cut the immigration numbers if she got to power, Thatcher replied, ‘If we went on as we are then by the end of the century there would be four million people of the new Commonwealth or Pakistan here. Now, that is an awful lot and I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.’ She went on to say, ‘The British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in.’ Following the interview, Enoch Powell, the Conservative MP infamous for his 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech, expressed his ‘hope and relief’ at Thatcher’s comments. Though Thatcher was widely condemned and criticised by Labour politicians and Cabinet colleagues, her statement had an immediate effect on the British public. After her comments, a survey by National Opinion Polls showed the Conservatives holding an 11-point lead over Labour (just before Thatcher’s comments, Labour had led by two points in a poll by the same organisation). Thatcher concluded the interview, ‘If you want good race relations, you have got to allay peoples’ fears on numbers. […] We do have to hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration…’ Thatcher was elected Prime Minister the following year and her government maintained a hard-line attitude towards immigration.’‘ Even more interesting is that Thatcher stated in a private meeting that Asians should not be given social housing ahead of whites ! Lady Thatcher responded that “in her view all those who wrote letters in this sense should be invited to accept one into their homes,” the minutes disclose. “She thought it quite wrong that immigrants should be given council housing whereas white citizens were not.” Lady Thatcher asked what the implications of such a move could be given that an exodus of the white population from Rhodesia – now Zimbabwe – was expected once majority rule was established. She made clear, however, that she had “less objection to refugees such as Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians, since they could more easily be assimilated into British society”. The meeting was held about 18 months after Lady Thatcher made comments in a television interview that came to be seen as a watershed in mainstream politicians’ handling of race and immigration. “People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture,” she told World In Action. “If we do not want people to go to extremes we ourselves must talk about this problem and we must show that we are prepared to deal with it,” she added. “We are not in politics to ignore people’s worries. We are in politics to deal with them.” The comments were held responsible for a collapse in support for the National Front, which had been gathering momentum in working class communities. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2417947/posts 12
Posted by Harumphty Dumpty on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:59 | # “...early in her premiership, she used the word ‘flood’ in relation to immigration…the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power…It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day. The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand.” We’ve been publicly displaying the link between immigration and White Genocide at the White House for 5 months now, in the form of monthly “petitions” like the ones linked below. We explain to Whites that they are being genocided worldwide by MASSIVE immigration and FORCED assimilation, and we hammer the phrases, “anti-white,” “White Genocide,” “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” and “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” until those phrases find a happy home in White minds where the dreadful R-word now squats. These “petitions” have inspired national media to repeat some of our phrases to nationwide audiences! (Very gratifying!) But to turn these monthly petitions into the national phenomenon we hope to, they probably need many thousands of initials added to them each month, and that’s why I’m at this site where White Genocide seems to be well understood. But instead of just asking you to initial them, I’d like to invite you to a very special party! Party down! Liquor, drugs, chicks, horseshoes!…Naked mud wrestling…on the FIRST! the FIRST! the FIRST! Here’s the link to April’s “petitions.” See if you like #5. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:04 | # Question: Why did I approve of Margaret Thatcher? This question is about political consanguinuity. ... nothing to do with Thatcher’s party or with her adopted neoliberalism or any other piece of superfice that may get people excited. This is about Thatcher’s (and your and my) political acidity ... the essential will to the destruction of the status quo wherever it is to be found. Thatcher was, for all her championing of conservative values, a revolutionary in the Adlerian mold of the second son. She didn’t like being pushed around. She had next to no choice in life, upon perceiving yet another reactionary element, but to rally her forces and attack. If it did not generate wealth or embody success or, failing that, the virtues of thrift and hard work, it came in for the treatment. We should remember, of course, that before she began her rise, the whole of politics had become a rotten borough. The two political Establishments had learned not to venture upon each others’ sacred ground. A sclerotic corporatism with added union militancy hung over everything like a political smog, and had the audacity to call itself the political centre. We lived off inflationary pay rises. The economy staggered from one balance of payments crisis to the next. We were the sick man of Europe. Then she challenged and beat the corporatist Tory Establishment in 1975, and challenged and beat the hubristic and bumptious Labour Establishment in 1979. From that point on it was a wild water ride which some, myself included, felt to be pretty invigorating after the suppurating, self-inflicted wounds of the previous fifteen or so years. The process of destruction itself was gripping and fascinating, and kind of hopeful. Of course it was flawed politics, because it is not enough to bulldoze an eyesore and wait for Nature to return the landscape to pristine beauty. But to a revolutionary spirit even imperfect politics that knock away some of the hated objects are better by degrees of magnitude than the suffocating stasis that prevailed before. 14
Posted by wibbly on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:06 | # I think she was a patriot who saw the main enemy as the Soviet Union and those things she believed were an extension of the Soviet Union i.e. the unions, and focused on that. However at the same time she overlooked the cultural marxists, europhiles and the money power more or less completely taking over the Conservative party. So at this moment i’d say on balance the bad outweighs the good however time will tell if the collapse of the Soviet Union and the revival of Russia and Eastern Europe as nations ends up saving the day. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:06 | # Morgoth, thanks for correcting my use of the term “flood”. Very interesting material. 16
Posted by CFE on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:16 | # Greetings Morgoth. We can add these:
17
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:22 | # She is condemned for destroying mining communities in England, Scotland and Wales but those same people doing the condemning would have a fit it were pointed out that immigration has destroyed as many and is destroying more. 18
Posted by CFE on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 00:24 | #
Didn’t the former give the contract to the latter? 19
Posted by JS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:28 | #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Joseph
“Margaret Thatcher Makes Immanuel Jakobovits the First Rabbi to Be One with the Lords” http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20098423,00.html
20
Posted by Joe on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:49 | # “Thatcher : Gay Icon and Friend of Israel” : http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/04/thatcher-gay-icon-and-friend-of-israel.html 21
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:35 | # I appreciated what I believed to be her poised defiance of liberalism. That’s what I liked about Reagan. He pissed the right people off. In fact, it was in perceiving yet another reactionary element - Clinton - that actually got me to vote for the first and only time in my life for the first George Bush. That’s how much I hated the archetypal pandering Clinton right from the start, along with the liberals/ flagrantly anti-White democrats. It was a process for me to fully appreciate that the Republicans were nowhere near the lesser of the evils but at least as bad. However, I get it - I tried to cash in in the 80’s too, but was a little late for that game. Nevertheless, hatred for our enemies is not the same as knowing who our knowing friends are - Our knowing friends are those who treat us (natives/UK and other European Natiosn and Whites US) as a complete people, not disingenuously proclaimed Hayekian parts in need of strengthening and weakly as they are seized upon by the collective virus, in its “sincere” Darwinism. I don’t know about the union situation prior to Thatcher. However, when I think of unionization, I not only like to think of the entire native British people as a union against scabs (non-natives), but that I am meaning it in a very different way than the unions as they were troubling in Britain. In effect, the union is to me synonymous with the border. I think GW would like to extract an element of her character toward nationalism, I understand that. I would hope it would be toward a union of the boarder, that such a thing as society. 22
Posted by Harumphty Dumpty on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:42 | # [I’m not familiar with your policies here, so maybe a comment I unsuccessfully submitted here much earlier today transgressed in some way. I’ll try putting it up slightly differently and in sections]: “...early in her premiership, she used the word ‘flood’ in relation to immigration…the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power…It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day. The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand.” We’ve been publicly displaying the link between immigration and White Genocide at the White House for 5 months now, in the form of monthly “petitions” like the ones linked below. We explain to Whites that they are being genocided worldwide by MASSIVE immigration and FORCED assimilation, and we hammer the phrases, “anti-white,” “White Genocide,” “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” and “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” until those phrases find a happy home in White minds where the dreadful R-word now squats. These “petitions” have inspired national media to repeat some of our phrases to nationwide audiences! (Very gratifying!) But to turn these monthly petitions into the national phenomenon we hope to, they probably need many thousands of initials added to them each month, and that’s why I’m at this site where White Genocide seems to be well understood. http://whitegenocideproject.com/the-berkeley-stop-white-genocide-petitions/ 23
Posted by Harumphty Dumpty on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:44 | # [I’m not familiar with your policies here, so maybe a comment I unsuccessfully submitted here much earlier today transgressed in some way. I’ll try putting it up slightly differently and in sections]: “...early in her premiership, she used the word ‘flood’ in relation to immigration…the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power…It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day. The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand.” We’ve been publicly displaying the link between immigration and White Genocide at the White House for 5 months now, in the form of monthly “petitions” like the ones linked below. We explain to Whites that they are being genocided worldwide by MASSIVE immigration and FORCED assimilation, and we hammer the phrases, “anti-white,” “White Genocide,” “anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white,” and “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” until those phrases find a happy home in White minds where the dreadful R-word now squats. These “petitions” have inspired national media to repeat some of our phrases to nationwide audiences! (Very gratifying!) But to turn these monthly petitions into the national phenomenon we hope to, they probably need many thousands of initials added to them each month, and that’s why I’m at this site where White Genocide seems to be well understood. http://whitegenocideproject.com/the-berkeley-stop-white-genocide-petitions/ 24
Posted by Harumphty Dumpty on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:45 | # anti-racist is a code word for anti-white 25
Posted by Harumphty Dumpty on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:49 | # “...early in her premiership, she used the word ‘flood’ in relation to immigration…the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power…It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day. The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand.” We’ve been publicly displaying the link between immigration and White Genocide at the White House for 5 months now, in the form of monthly “petitions” like the ones linked below. We explain to Whites that they are being genocided worldwide by MASSIVE immigration and FORCED assimilation, and we hammer the phrases, “anti-white,” “White Genocide,” “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for EVERYBODY?” (and our tag line that your filter apparently rejects) until those phrases find a happy home in White minds where the dreadful R-word now squats. These “petitions” have inspired national media to repeat some of our phrases to nationwide audiences! (Very gratifying!) But to turn these monthly petitions into the national phenomenon we hope to, they probably need many thousands of initials added to them each month, and that’s why I’m at this site where White Genocide seems to be well understood. But instead of just asking you to initial them, I’d like to invite you to a very special party! Party down! Liquor, drugs, chicks, horseshoes!…Naked mud wrestling…on the FIRST! the FIRST! the FIRST! Here’s the link to April’s “petitions.” See if you like #5. 26
Posted by Harumphty Dumpty on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:52 | # For God’s sake, will someone please email me and tell me what is objectionable (“spam”) in the posts I’ve been trying to put up here? I’m pretty sure I’ve posted here before. 27
Posted by GW fan on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:57 | # Nicely said, GW (as usual). Why do you allow DanielS to pollute your site? At least he has the decency to put his drivel below the fold. But are we that desperate for content? Remember: addition through subtraction. MR would be better off if it were just you and Jim writing. 28
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 05:08 | # “GW fan”, probably Silver, doesn’t like my “drivel” on behalf of native and White solidarity, does he? 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 07:25 | # “Just when I thought I was out, they pulllllll me back in ...” I had to check in at MR with this terrible news of the death of by far the second greatest Briton of the last half-century (I hope everyone knows who was first). [Where are Lister’s florid reflections, btw? Please repost if removed.] Thatcher quite literally saved Britain - at least for a time - and, in standing with Reagan against the monsters of international Bolshevism, which included many a filthy and parasitical (and overpaid) mine “worker” (cf Neil Kinnock), she earned a share in having saved the world - again, at least for a time. It wasn’t her fault that the national Traitor Blair deliberately sought to destroy Old Britain by importing a flood of foreign savages. The invasion began well before 1979 (did Dan Dare ever finish his excellent series on the history of the UK’s immigration disaster?), and it dramatically worsened when those ‘nasty’, but actually very moderate, ‘Hayekian’ Thatcherites were replaced by typical Labour scum. It was the Left, the socialists, who destroyed Britain, racially as well as economically, not decent conservatives who understood economics and preferred prosperity to paupery for their homeland. I recall visiting the UK in the 70s, and my parents (esp father) remarking on what a shithole it had become thanks to the greedy socialists. Certainly, America in the 70s-80s was much wealthier than the UK at that time (I went back in the early 80s for the Henley Regatta). Granted, I myself came from a wealthy area of Southern CA, attended a very expensive East Coast boarding school (and later Ivy university, which itself had a high percentage of rich kids), and came from a wealthier than average family. But I was really shocked at how poor Britain was, outside of select areas. [And it wasn’t like I didn’t know about Watts or East LA back home.] There was a lot of class resentment, too, I recall, directed at “rich Americans” by the “piss-poor” English (and I bet Wales and Scotland were poorer still). My dad had traveled to the UK in the 50s, before he was married, and thought the world of the English - or the “true English”, as he would say, the conservative grassroots. He always regarded leftists as alien to British (and most assuredly, American) soil. My parents had several transplanted English couples as friends, from the 70s to the early 90s. They were all wonderful people, so “old school” and “old boy” in their manners and charms, and, if I’m remembering rightly, all strongly Tory and fiercely loyal Thatcherites. My best friend at boarding school was also an English immigrant. I got to know my friend’s parents a bit, as they sometimes visited the school to take their son (and me, a few times) out to dinner. His dad was in real estate development not far from the town where my school was located. His dad was also fiercely conservative, as was my friend. Both were hardcore racialists, totally opposed to “Black Britain”, and strongly supportive of white South Africa, and recently fallen Rhodesia (two of my parents’ friends were a Rhodesian ‘refugee’ couple, who had left in the late 70s). They thought the world of Maggie. So let’s cut the revisionist crap, shall we? Most WNs (with perhaps a few, really extreme exceptions) supported Reagan, but thought he was too liberal and generally a disappointment. I think most British nationalists were the same wrt Thatcher. They may have wanted Enoch Powell (whom I would have supported above anyone), or even the NF, but between the decent, well-mannered, God-fearing folk who rallied to Maggie, and the low class, greedy, subversive, agitationist bastards rallying to Red Labour, what choice was there? Reagan and Thatcher were of another generation, one in which whites as whites were culturally self-confident. Should they have understood the unfolding catastrophe of immigration, as Enoch did? Of course. But they were products of a different era, when the great threat, domestically as well as internationally, was Marxism. They did not have the ‘advantage’ of growing up with a deep awareness of encroaching ‘diversity’, as I did. Margaret Thatcher was a great PM, who, however, did not quite understand the real driving forces of Western destruction. But she understood some of what was wrong, and fought that nobly and skillfully. In the US one can divide the serious patriots from the poseurs by ascertaining their views on Martin Luther King, Jr. While the best British analogue would be Enoch, something of the same test can be applied to the British wrt Thatcher. Anyone who dislikes Thatcher is, ipso facto, a leftist, and inherently untrustworthy. May the great Iron Lady rest in peace! 30
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 07:40 | # I should have added that Thatcher was the last patriotic UK PM. I think the UK will dissolve before England shall have another patriotic leader, and indeed, it may well be centuries of alien tyranny ahead. Thatcher didn’t save you, but who else even tried? A great person, a true daughter of Albion. RIP. 31
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 07:42 | # Posted by Leon Haller on April 09, 2013, 02:25 AM | # “Just when I thought I was out, they pulllllll me back in ...” “They” would 32
Posted by Joe on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:27 | # Being a working-class American , I’m not an expert on the intrigues and power struggles of Downing Street and The-City-of-London. Still, I think it’s a stretch of the imagination to call Thatcher a “true daughter” of Albion. That’s going over-board. Sarah, Maid of Albion is a real, true daughter of Albion, not Thatcher : http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/ Sarah is a true—and truly—patriotic daughter of Albion. She had a baby about 6 months ago, so she hasn’t blogged very much since—But the articles in the archives are excellent. Sarah is a True Daughter of Albion. 33
Posted by Sandy on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:19 | # “Rust in Peace: Death of the Iron Lady” April 9, 2013 Colin Liddell http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/4/9/rust-in-peace-death-of-the-iron-lady
34
Posted by Morgoth on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 18:06 | # I have to say I’m quite surprised at the vitriol coming from Nationalist circles in regards Thatcher. Why was it so wonderful having a massive swathe of our people living in Social Housing projects and living and paying to fund Old School Marxists? The remnants of the Unions are directly funding groups who campaign to see people like us on this forum jailed for our ideas. I am White Working Class, born and bred in North Tyneside and my parents were the first EVER in their families to own their own home, thanks to Thatcher. That is not shallow ultra liberal or braindead consumerism its a better life. Buying then selling your council home and then buying a larger house with a bigger garden changed the working class, they became ‘‘upwardly mobile’‘. Its crucial to remember that in the 80’s Britain was still around 97% White, and Thatcher was of and for the people, as my post above explains she had an innate bias to her kind. Thatcher sought to improve the lot of the British while staying within traditional boundaries, the existence of the people was never in doubt, only the way they lived. Its worth considering what Tony Blair had to face when he came to power, the Unions crippled, working class people free of the Marxist claw, or at least having a choice. Britain had been sheltered from the excesses of Liberalism starting to appear on the continent and Tony Blair had a huge task ahead. @Sandy, is Colin Liddell the Alt Right blogger who lives in Japan? Its a good site but I’m wary of taking advice on Nationalism from a White man living in Japan with a seemingly terminal case of Yellow Fever. Does anybody know of any work done on Amsterdam and its ludicrous Liberalism, I’m starting to think that Amsterdam was a test ground for Cultural Marxism in practice, Amsterdam has also had a heavy presence of politicians called things like ‘‘Cohen’‘... 35
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 18:07 | # Pardon the digression from the Thatcher thread I just wanted to post a quick note here for those who soured on part 3 as it was only sketched out - quite rough - I have finally had time for a thorough proofreading of part 3. Typos were rife. Many things made no sense and seemed absurd because they were only sketched-out. It is much less awkward now, though some of the content will still seem awkward - nevertheless, what is there now, I am willing to defend. Non deliberate errors are gone. There is probably a bit too much redundancy on the idea of asymmetry; it is also likely that some other significant aspects of our ecology are underplayed as yet. Other than having corrected the grammar and style, one content revision that jumps out at me occurs where I changed the word lie for deception. Truthfulness and reasonable coherence can be at odds, particularly regarding a relativist matter of our relative class against the ravages of objectivism, that has some merit as a concern; nevertheless, that should not require too much strain on the judgment of the fundamentally honest - a white lie just to move on where it will not hurt as opposed to a black lie: it is fundamentally different than full blown deception. Ok, So this part is far more ready for comments for those who might care, if anybody: perhaps nobody would be better than Joe, Silver, Thorn or Haller: I think they should go back to their church or FBI office, or from wherever they came. Of course I will be working to make it and the other 2 parts more clear, but the content is largely here (even if awkwardly redundant in concern not to leave important issues under stated). 36
Posted by Bill on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 21:19 | # If anyone commenting on this site is any doubt as to the debt the globalists owe to Thatcher then you must be living on another planet. Have you been watching Television news this last 48 hours? Have you seen the printed press headlines? Just look at the Telegraph and the Mail, it’s wall to wall, they’ve elevated her to Joan of Arc and Princess Diana all in one. I lived through the Thatcher years, I was no youngster but only saw what the media wanted me to see, no change there then. Come to think of it, she changed my life. I took my redundancy* and paid off my mortgage. Personally, all these years later, I cannot raise any head of steam one way or the other about the woman. If you see Syd, tell him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nedVpG-GjkE * Thatcherism gave employers the green light to get rid of employees which until then had enjoyed protective status. Industry and employers obliged, millions went to the scrap heap. 37
Posted by Momus on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:32 | # If neo-liberalism (there’s no such thing as society and all the rest) is on the ‘right side of history’ then to echo Heidegger only a God can save us now. If Hayekian liberalism is the answer what is the question? I’ve been busy putting together some longer thoughts on the rise of neo-liberalism in the UK (the local variety was called Thatcherism). Thatcher is but part of a much wider story. After all we do not want to offend any passing ‘Sun’ readers do we? 38
Posted by wibbly on Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:49 | #
Over the last forty years the people where i grew up were violently ethnically cleansed from their home by inter-ethnic violence that was censored from the news. There’s some elderly people still left there but everyone else was forced out and now live as scattered refugees. Now although this process has been greatly magnified since 2000 by New Labour the area i personally grew up in was one of the first to be cleansed and the bulk of it happened during Thatcher’s time. 39
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:12 | # Thatcher broke the back of the filthy, Sovietized labor unions, and thereby gave Britain several extra decades of economic existence. The UK in the late 70s was truly the “sick man of Europe”. Learn some history, all you British ingrates. It’s like saying Reagan was responsible for the “diversification” of the US. NONSENSE! Reagan was a huge disappointment to me precisely because he not only did nothing to end the invasion, something I was perfectly well aware of by 1980, he made it worse through his idiotic 1986 amnesty, which itself directly paved the way for the election of the Obama nightmare. Note, however, that Reagan was sold out by the neocons on that issue. I had it from a source who worked with Reagan in the White House that he greatly resisted that amnesty bill, but was only persuaded by treasonous (Jewish) neoconservative and left-libertarian ideologues (such as those presently found at the CATO Institute, which not only supports the current amnesty proposals, but filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the “gay marriage” side in those recent cases (yet to be decided)), as well as various Chamber of Commerce traitors. That Reagan was mentally weak enough to be persuaded to back alien amnesty was a black mark on his record, the worst of his administration. Thatcher to my knowledge did not enact any type of amnesty, nor was she especially supportive of New Commonwealth immigration. She simply did not understand ending immigration to be the first priority that it should have been. But to blame her for the invasion, when it started long before she became PM, and was so dramatically worsened by the arch-traitor Blair (whom you British buffoons elected and reelected by massive majorities, despite the street-level evidence of his campaign of indigenous dispossession), is disingenuous if not vile. Let us not allow weaselly socialists and labor union thugs (or their adult children today) to use weakness on racial issues as cover to criticize all the wonderful measures that both Reagan and Thatcher took to restore their respective nations to economic competitiveness, military power, and firm and finally spectacularly successful opposition to the Soviet Empire. The world is a much better place for those two fine persons having exercised supreme power in their lands. May the memory of the noble and heroic Lady Thatcher be forever cherished! 40
Posted by Silver on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:23 | #
Nope. I’m not a fan of GW nor of Bowery nor do I ever call the latter “Jim.” Re Thatcher She was a strong leader and able politician, but ultimately she was only a politician. There’s a limit to how much politicians can achieve in the face of a general culture that is so violently opposed to nationalistic thought and practice. The changes that WNs want to see could only possibly have ever taken long decades, but WNs, so blinded by racial passion, have enormous difficulty accepting or even understanding that.
41
Posted by Sandy on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:31 | # @ Morgoth Yes, I do believe Colin Liddell lives in Japan, though I don’t know if he has a “terminal case of Yellow Fever”. And I don’t know that he offers “advice on Nationalism”. He writes about nationalism and other political topics. Your affection for Thatcher apparently largely stems from the fact that your parents were able to go into debt to buy a house during a period of asset price inflation. I don’t think Thatcher can be judged to have been prudent in political economy, let alone in general leadership, for policies promoting debt and asset price inflation. 42
Posted by Erin go Bragh on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:52 | # ‘Tis a shame she wasn’t blown to bits but at least she’s finally rotting in hell. 43
Posted by Trainspotter on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 05:36 | # I was in middle school when people like Thatcher and Reagan came into office. At the time, I liked them both. In a certain manner, and in my naivete and ignorance, I saw them as restorers and redeemers. Now? While a slight flicker of childhood nostalgia remains, I can’t help but see them as diverters into blind alleys, and enablers of our enemies. Babbling on about Hayek as the anti-whites consolidated their grip on every chokepoint of power, clucking over “statism” as the non-white hordes poured through the gates. They restored nothing and redeemed nothing. It’s not just that they failed. They didn’t even try. It’s unforgivable. Their major accomplishment was to corral opposition to the Left into neo-liberalist clucking. All one has to do is look at one’s “fellow citizens” today to see how that turned out. The legacy of Reagan and Thatcher is now clear, and it has been a disaster. They took the sincere hopes and dreams of millions, and like Judas goats led them up the garden path. They deserve neither honor nor respect, nor shall they get any, from me at least. 44
Posted by JS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:18 | # http://michael-hudson.com/2013/04/1843/
45
Posted by JS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:26 | # http://michael-hudson.com/2013/04/1843/
46
Posted by Bill on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:42 | # To me, with the benefit of Internet hindsight and a few thousand Google searches, Thatcher was just another place-man by the men behind the certain, just another place-man in a long line of place-men. Thatcher was a woman, the first woman prime minister of the legend that was Great Britain, just think about that! Whoever was behind Thatcherism sure knew how to think outside the box, as GW says, she took a wrecking ball to the status quo and paved the way to a gagging globalism. What did she do to stem the long march, bugger all, I doubt whether she knew there was such a thing. And then comes along the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a certain Mr Gorbachev enters the world stage, another place-man across the pond, also puts in an appearance at this time, in fact I suggest that all three were placemen by the men behind the curtain. And then there is the fusion of communism and capitalism added to the mix. Mass immigration into white lands is slowly ramped up. Just prior to all this, Kissenger and Nixon played ping- pong with the Chinese and invited them to join the Western world. Come on Majority rights we can do better than this. 47
Posted by Momus on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:08 | # @Bill MR ‘doing better’. I honestly doubt it Bill. Golf-club bores with all the insight of a Daily Mail editorial is about the maximal intellectual and political level here of the vast majority of British based contributors/commentators. The term intellectual lightweight is to be very kind in this context. Radical comes from the Latin radix i.e. “root”. Radical thought isn’t ipso facto ‘left-wing’ rather it’s an attempt to examine more deeply and fully a subject or idea etc. Really to drill down to the fundamentals. Uncritically holding such banal ‘Holy Cows’ such Thatcher (or Reagan) as ‘sacred’ suggests a lack of serious ability do really radically examine the issues at hand. Even someone like Roger Scruton found Thatcher somewhat disagreeable - then again he was dubbed ‘too weird’ in his views to stand for the Conservative party as an MP under Thatcher’s leadership. So that tells a tale. Given the general comments here one would think Thatcher was a Powellite nationalist instead of dogmatic and zealous Hayekian. She of course famously held up a copy of Hayek’s ‘The Constitution of Liberty’ to senior colleagues and declared to them “this is what we believe” then ordered them to read a copy themselves. Why not add ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to the reading list? When Thatcher used language such as “her people” or “is he one of us?” she emphatically did not mean the nation as an organic socio-cultural ‘whole’. Put it this way Scots very quickly picked up that we (and our values and communities) were held in the highest contempt by her regime. Very well, Essex man will be Essex man I suppose. Like I’d said if non-hagiography is ‘allowed’ at MR on this persona then I’ll give my longer and more in depth assessment (well as much as one can in 8000 or so words) in the coming days. Given much of the - let’s be honest - utter shite that is allowed on the ‘front page’ one would hope that this isn’t a no-go ‘off-limits’ topic. 48
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:36 | # Graham, I don’t know if you mean my three part essay among that front page “shite”, but if you were to you say its worthless that would be to proclaim that you don’t know what’s going on or that your ego is the most important. It was a mistake on my part to post it before it was ready. A little of the pressure I felt came from you and your alliance with Silver. You are “above” us White Nationalists, I know. I understand that I am stepping on toes but the project of recalibration calls especially for some of the feral, “unprofessional”, angle that I am afforded to take as I am not bound to poodle requirements, can rather go into authentic concerns the “mature” are “above.” Fuck it. Of course I should not have let the antagonism fluster me, but my being “unprofessional” is part of what makes me both good and bad Nevertheless, I’ve got this done now. And I am becoming more satisfied with it as I’ve corrected it. 50
Posted by Dude @ Bill on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:24 | #
One interesting source for considering the background to the rise of Margaret Thatcher is the left-wing periodical Lobster magazine. The suggest an alliance of ‘right-wing’ business groups and the domestic intelligence service(s). In this hall of mirrors world, there is also talk of accusations of covert Communism, subversion and the like. Here is one issue, entitled Wilson, MI5 and the Rise of Thatcher (PDF). Issues 1-31 can be found online there, whereafter a split occurred at LM and Dorrill (he of the later vituperative bio on Mosley) went off to become more respectable, leaving his old writing partner Ramsay in sole charge of the magazine. It is easier to cast a more sceptical eye on the output of the left, whereas sometimes we are more willing to accept things that emanate from our ‘own’ side more readily. Still, it is interesting material as is the murky background to that whole era.
52
Posted by Momus on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:56 | # @Danny On the ‘shite’ reference I wasn’t actually meaning you in this case. I think conceptually, politically, and morally there are far worse offenders (I was actually thinking of Richards and his J-lizards behind ever shadow nonsense - which was indulged and tolerated for far too long by the owner of this part of cyberspace). Look Mr. Bowery for once had something sensible to say in his advice on structuring your writing. As someone that finds good writing a bit of a struggle myself I’d echo his advice. Danny I don’t mean to appear supercilious or patronising but you really do seem to need something like a study guide on how to write essays. Something like this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Write-Better-Essays-Palgrave-Skills/dp/0230224806 is a decent starting point. I’m sure there must be online guides too. Right now it’s difficult to tell what your ideas actually are as they seem packed into some very badly structured prose. And lots of editing on the hoof in the comments doesn’t help at all. Look anyone can have the odd typo but not to the extent of whole paragraphs. Write something, leave it for a week, carefully revise it, leave it for another few days, revise again and then publish it perhaps? You know scientific papers go through dozens of revisions before the authors submit them to even the lowliest academic journal and then any prospective paper will have to be additionally revised to statisfy the editor and the reviewers (typically two independent reviewers). Obviously the internet is not like that so try to be your own critical reviewer/editor. 53
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:36 | # Right now it’s difficult to tell what your ideas actually are as they seem packed into some very badly structured prose. And lots of editing on the hoof in the comments doesn’t help at all. Look anyone can have the odd typo but not to the extent of whole paragraphs. Write something, leave it for a week, carefully revise it, leave it for another few days, revise again and then publish it perhaps? You know scientific papers go through dozens of revisions before the authors submit them to even the lowliest academic journal and then any prospective paper will have to be additionally revised to statisfy the editor and the reviewers (typically two independent reviewers). Obviously the internet is not like that so try to be your own critical reviewer/editor.
However, the essay is corrected for th blatant errors now. As for the form, well, you know, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, eastern sorts, feel the need to meander too. I’m not saying all of that is ok, I may have to make some changes. Sorry for having lost my temper. I do understand how you, GW et al could be upset at putting up the unedited stuff. That’s water under the bridge. It’s pretty readable now. 54
Posted by Joe on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:24 | # @ DanielS You’re working so hard correcting your article, you might as well just throw the article in the garbage can, and move on to something else. If this goes on any longer, very soon you’ll be correcting corrections you corrected already about 12 times already. Might as well fuggedaboutit, I have. 55
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:09 | # Posted by Joe on April 10, 2013, 09:24 AM | # @ DanielS You’re working so hard correcting your article, you might as well just throw the article in the garbage can, and move on to something else. If this goes on any longer, very soon you’ll be correcting corrections you corrected already about 12 times already. Might as well fuggedaboutit, I have. Listen fuck face, the article is complete and you are an idiot. I will throw only you in the garbage. 56
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:29 | # Also to note, Graham, beyond the consternation that Joe the troll succeeded in causing me despite MR’s patience, I was irritated by your claim about the organization, “to say the least”, after the first part because I knew exactly where I was going and what I was saying. I could answer any questions. So, I had the feeling that you were just going to take a negative view. That’s your prerogative, but to side with Silver? Its automatic that he is going to attack. Now then, about the form of the whole, I knew where I was going, and it now goes where and how I mean it to - enough. Joe’s obnoxiousness, getting up from the audience and playing the next part in some screwed up way as he would like it to go, that pissed me off enough to just throw up the stuff that I was working and walk away for a day. As I said, that was a mistake. But I am happy with it now. And for fuck face Joe to say throw it in the garbage just goes to show what a piece of shit that he is. If he were to be bleeding on the street I would “fuggetaboutit” Fucking scumbag provocateur. 57
Posted by Joe on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:03 | # Perhaps it’s because I’m some kind of “provocateur” or something , but I just don’t understand why the traditional, conservative Leon Haller loves Margaret Thatcher to kibbles-and-bits. She wasn’t that wonderful ; ” Thatcherism” : http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/ Leon Haller reminds me of the “conservative, liberty-loving” Americans who love Reagan to kibbles-and-bits, yet Reagen signed the Jew’s communist Noahide Laws into American law. Plus, Reagan let tens of thousands, probably even more, “erstwhile” Jew commies from the erstwhile Soviet Union into the US while simultaneously signing the Jew-commies’ Noahide Law into American law. Anyhow, Leon Haller is in California. What makes Haller an expert on the behind-the-scenes intrigues of Downing St/City-of-London? The Noahide Laws were the ontological basis/premise/ Talmudic “religious”-excuse for the Jew commies in the Soviet Union to mass-murder millions of White Orthodox Russian Christians. Eustace Mullins writes about the massive slaughter of White Christians in the Jew-Commie Soviet Union : ” Eustace Mullins + The Secret Holocaust pdf “ To read all of Mullins’ erudite, scholarly, and truthful work, Go To : Mullins is one of the most honest historians we have. He greatly suffered in his life to bring us truth. 58
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:21 | # we are already familiar with Eustace Mullins Joe. You are not needed here. Ask Tanstaafl why he sent you away. 59
Posted by Dude @ Shit MR website on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:46 | # Another post lost waiting for ‘moderation’ that never comes. WTF is up with this site? An overhaul with teething problems I can understand but this site must have had at best a recent underhaul, a walking backwards into dysfunction. Surely someone can make some simple changes to update either the template, the functionality, or, Deus avertat, both…. 60
Posted by Joe on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:31 | # @ DanielS I would very much like to debate Tanstaafl at “Age-of-Treason” website , but his secretary “Mary” is like a German Shepherd Nazi SS attack-dog. “Mary” deletes all my fact-filled posts complete with source references before Tanstaafl ever gets a chance to read my fact-filled posts complete with solid, factual source references. I notice facts/solid source references/ and logical, NON- cognitive-dissonant thinking/premises/conclusions are “Verboten” with Jews and “Verboten” with White Nationalists. Not suffering from Cognitive Dissonance myself, I’m compelled to ask : ” What EXACTLY is The Difference between Jews and White Nationalists?” They both have the same exact “narrative” concerning Nazi Germany, they’re both obsessed with Jews [ 24/7 jew-obsessed]: They only argue about the #‘s involved in The Holocaust; Other than The Holocaust #‘s , they both have the Same Exact “narrative”. While I have nothing against the Jews I meet in everyday life here in my working-class Northern California world, I simultaneously have No Desire Whatsoever to be Jew-Obsessed either—let alone Jew-obsessed 24/7. It’s a bit much : That’s going a bit over-board, don’t you think? How dismissive WN’ers are to Eustace Mullins, one of Our Own Kind ; Mullins : A White Non-jew American Christian, who suffered in his life to give us White Americans truth. Yet, Mullins goes un-mentioned, or any way acknowledged—let alone thanked—by the White N’ers. It’s Beyond Cavil. 61
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:49 | # Dude (and others) - Ive freed up the stalled comments. I dont know why but any comment containing a link seems to be setting off the spam filter. 62
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:07 | # Joe, I don’t blame tanstaafl for not debating you. He is right. Does it occur to you that he got rid of you because you are not worth debating? You may not suffer from cognitive dissonance, but your whole thing is trying to create it in others. That’s what a scumbag that you are. White Nationalists are the same as Jews? You are either some kind of idiot who has the mind of a child, a child who thinks he is cute, waiting for the approving smile of mommy, after showing how obnoxiously disruptive he can be with his conspiracy theories and Christian bullshit: Joe’s mommy does not want us to think, so he thinks his promoting diversionary nonsense is cute, waits for her approving smile at his pile of shit. Either that personality disorder or Joe is just some sort of agent asset told to create as much cognitive dissonance as possible, to spread conspiracy theories and direct Whites into religious idiocy.
63
Posted by Joe on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:33 | # @ DanielS My Mother, and especially my Father, both, also got annoyed at me for asking “too many” questions, and always wanting to debate them. I like debate. Docendo discimus and all that. “Deus avertat” Tanstaafl should hear an opinion—even if said opinion is backed up with solid, factual, source references—Tanstaafl is loath to hear because certain facts don’t fit in with his particular world-view. Not my problem. I’ve always been a curmudgeon. Personally, I handle curmudgeon-types with aplomb, always have. I always been nice to Momus, for example. 64
Posted by Momus on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:02 | # @Joe While I find you a total dullard (and don’t want to encourage you) I’ll answer your query about Mr. Haller. With regard to Mr. Haller’s ideology it’s not too confusing in reality. He’s a Hayekian liberal with racist tendencies – yes he’s in some mysterious form of denial about the Hayekian liberal part - which is odd as he is a self-confessed true-believer in the ‘Austrian’ school of economic theology. Praxeology etc., is axiomatically correct and is securely unfalsifiable by any possible imaginable (or indeed observed) empirical realities. Counter-factually Mr. Haller is always correct. In this he echoes (in a 20th-rate way obviously) the conceptual framework of his intellectual heroes - merely following in the footsteps of a long line of eminent economic theorists who argue that all would be well with the world if only everyone behaved according to the precepts of their textbooks. And indeed it is reality that is wrong and not their theories. Of course for people on speaking terms with the scientific method such invariantly ‘correct theories’ seem more akin to a branch of theology. It’s not a shock that Mr. Haller has taken up the study of applied Voodoo. His mind is well suited to the subject and its implicit assumptions. As for his insights in British politics and culture - well he fancies himself an expert in almost anything. With regard to British politics of the time (that are under discussion at the moment) his insights amount to the square root of fuck all. This is after all the person that defended the largest largest illegal amnesty in US history with the analytically stunning explanation that dear old Ronnie Reagan was “duped” into the policy. To call that intellectually pitiful is an insult to the concept of ineptitude or inadequacy. P.S. I’m kinda glad I’m not the only one with technical issues in connection to the piss-poor IT of this site. P.P.S. Sorry all that’s ‘off-topic’ . . . hmm wasn’t Maggie wonderful! Kelvin MacKenzie and GW have said so (on the right side of history and all that). Last night one working-class Tory activist from Essex (and self-described Thatcherite) when asked on the BBC’s ‘Newsnight’ show “what does the country need?” answered that the privatisation of the Royal Mail was the solution and what Thatcher would have done. Yes the wisdom and insight on offer stunned me with its self-evident profundity. Yes your bog-standard postie on the minimal wage or thereabouts is the ‘enemy within’ - all those fucking commie scum and that junk mail - why the whole lot of them are evil ‘you know whats’ in that subversive and anti-British outfit called the Royal Mail! Jesus wept. And then cried some more. Then he realised there was no alternative, had a leucotomy and read ‘The Sun’ each day for the rest of recorded history. A thought arose from somewhere. . . politics is always constructed through an ontological battle. Politics certainly presuppose an ontology - to take a glaring example, the key slogans of Thatcherite era, for instance (“There is no such thing as society, only individuals” and “There is no alternative”) were explicitly ontological claims, claims about what sort of entities can be said to exist in the world. . . then he returned to looking the big tits on page 3 of ‘The Sun’ and thought what a marvellous fellow Rupert Murdoch is. The lady is not for turning - my, my, my Cicero had nothing compared to brilliant rhetoric like that. 65
Posted by Bill on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:08 | # I was thinking more 1982. But a quick Google search tells me it was more likely 1984 when I found myself one morning on my usual 7 or so miles journey to my place of work. To those who have read my @ 46 I had by this time gotten a new job some 3 months after I had taken my redundancy. That my new job was far less demanding and more pay, I mention only in passing. Here I was on a perfectly ordinary morning, driving to work, when on approach to my destination something up ahead was definitely puzzling me, I couldn’t make out what I was seeing. My place of work was a medium size Electricity Generating Power Station, one of a series in this locality. The station was visible for miles around with its familiar cooling towers rising from the flat pastoral meadows of the river’s floodplain. The ample entrance for all traffic into the plant lay up ahead on a dead straight road, about half a mile or so on my left. Red tail lights began winking as traffic slowed, the something that I couldn’t make out was slowly revealing itself as a large gathering of picketing striking miners. Opposite the miners protecting the gates was a line of linked policemen. The column of traffic was mainly people like me, day workers reporting for work. As the police moved to protect each vehicle through the gates, the angry crowd of jeering men crowded forward. The entrance gates to the station was cordoned off by a linked line of police. The atmosphere was electric (ok-ok) there was menace in the air. As the cars progressed into the confines of the station a hostile volume of catcalls and bellowing accompanied a surge forward from the striking miners, only to be met with an equally determined wall of police. How many people in all? Hard to call. Maybe 100 miners and half as many police. (Whose counting?) I breathed a sigh of relief when safely through, I didn’t like that one little bit! I thought multiply that scene by several factors and you could only guess at maelstrom of anger taking place. The next day the flying picketing miner’s chose a different target and we never experienced them again. I consider myself an average chap, I abhor violence and will retreat until the line is drawn. I’ve led a sheltered life and had never experienced anything remotely like that morning, and yet I could see both sides of the argument and sympathised with both. The liberal would say this is relativism, it all depends from which platform you’re viewing. Damn! 66
Posted by Joe on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:35 | # @ Momus Thank you for your cogent explanation concerning Leon Haller’s Cognitive Dissonance, and Haller’s lack of insight and lack of discernment. I still think ” SarahMaidofAlbion” at her excellent website by same name, knows a lot more about Albion—has the true feel for Albion—than Leon Haller, who lives in California. Haller sounds like one of the California “conservatives” who think Reagan was the real thing. Haller also seems to think the Communist Maritain was a true old-fashioned, traditional Catholic—even though Maritain worked hand-in-hand with the communist Alinksy in Chicago, plus Maritain was married to a Jewess communist for 56 years. Haller also thinks Teilhard de Chardin was a true old-fashioned, traditional Catholic even though Chardin was hooked-in with Satanists. Teilhard is a hindoo like Savitri Devi is a hindoo. 2 dastards serpents. No, 3 dastard serpents, excuse me : Maritain, Teilhard de Chardin, and Devi. 67
Posted by wibbly on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:18 | # Dude
I think this is the gist of it. Patriotic cold-warriors teaming up with people they thought were on the same side but whose hostility to the Soviet Union was financial and globalist rather than patriotic. They themselves - Thatcher and Reagan and the security service types - may have had honest intentions but they were - at least partly - being played by the money power.
68
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:38 | #
Which of course she didnt do when she could have done. 69
Posted by JS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 01:46 | # http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/08/the-queen-mother-of-global-austerity-financialization/
70
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 02:01 | # Posted by Joe on April 10, 2013, 03:33 PM | # @ DanielS My Mother, and especially my Father, both, also got annoyed at me for asking “too many” questions, and always wanting to debate them. I like debate. Docendo discimus and all that. You don’t ask many questions Joe and you don’t debate, because you don’t wait and listen for what people have to say. You are an impervious idiot who just goes ahead and spews conspiracy theories and Christian bullshit, obliviously. You are talking about Satanism? Tabloid - that is your speed.
Tanstaafl is loath to hear because certain facts don’t fit in with his particular world-view. Not my problem. Tanstaafl recognizes you to be a selfish child in middle aged man’s body.
Your self proclaimed “aplomb” is imperviousness, nothing more.
71
Posted by JS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 02:33 | # http://michael-hudson.com/2013/04/failed-privatizations-the-thatcher-legacy/
72
Posted by JS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 02:34 | #
Joseph, Sherman, and Lawson were all Jews. 73
Posted by Gogol on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:19 | #
Even back in the late eighties when I attended primary school, half the school was brown and black, with every pupil speaking Jafaican: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicultural_London_English Apart. from giving a ephemeral opportunity to buy council houses to the working classes, I’m failing to see what she actually did for us. 74
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:08 | #
Joe, I have given you the benefit of the doubt because you wish to save the white race, and recognize the centrality of the Catholic Church, both to a correct metaphysics of existence, and to Western Civilization. But you are very confused in so many ways that are simply not worth my time analyzing. The statements above are painfully ignorant, esp wrt Maritain (I don’t know that much about Chardin - and where did I post anything on him? - other than that he had some interesting but strange evolutionary views). They illustrate what is obvious to me, because unlike so many here (all?), I have actually had a rigorous and elite education, one almost unsurpassable in contemporary America - which, I grant you, is not nearly at the level that Old World intellectuals underwent prewar, but we do what we can in the age and place in which we find ourselves - and can recognize those like you utterly lacking in the higher discernment (in this you are unlike Momus, who is not exactly unerudite, but willfully ignorant and ideologically purblind, petulantly refusing to consider arguments and theories he finds intuitively uncongenial); namely, that you merely wander through your readings, picking and choosing to remember whatever loose “facts” fit your preferred narrative(s). Ill-educated persons are fodder for conspiracism. Acquiring wisdom is hard work. Delve deeply and long in Aquinas, and the end result might be your transformation into a critical-minded person with something to contribute. Might. 75
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:24 | # Momus@64 Virtually everything said about me in this comment is false, as I have demonstrated in the past. I find it tiresome to have to repeatedly disprove the same ad hominems. This, however, is something else:
Hardly, old boy. Perhaps it is you who is lacking in the relevant knowledge? Why don’t you give us your rendition of the state of the UK’s economy circa 1979? Was it better in 79 than, say, 89? You may also give us your insights into the state of the world at that time. Was Britain a rising or declining power when Thatcher took over? And when she left? And am I to understand that you hold her responsible for the Third Worldization of Britain? Facts are stubborn things, and getting them correct is the foundation of productive debate.
76
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:48 | # I have a little test. I would never expect Scotsman Momus to have my knowledge of American history, so he should hardly expect me to be his learned equal in British history. And yet ... Let us hear from all British. If not Thatcher, then who was the greatest UK PM of the postwar period (leave out Churchill’s last term - I consider him wartime)? I’d like to hear who Momus et al admire. Give me something to sink my teeth into. For the record, despite my very considerable disappointments with Reagan, he was so overwhelmingly the best President since Eisenhower that to suggest otherwise, one would have to be either a fool or a leftist. We might as well all face it: we live in an age dominated by what, in historical light, has been the Far Left. I suspect that if Hitler had won, the ideological history of the second half of the last century would have been very different. But he lost, and thus it may well have been that Reagan and Thatcher were the very best we could have gotten. Anyway, they were the best we did get. How you will one day long for Thatcher, as Britain continues down the Muslim/social democratic shiitehole. 77
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:20 | #
Why don’t you give us your rendition of the state of the UK’s economy circa 1979? Was it better in 79 than, say, 89?
78
Posted by Momus on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:12 | # @Leon Whatever you say I’m sure you’re axiomatically correct in all things. But we have heard all before so you’re a kind of a Joe-style spammer with a better vocabulary – that’s nice, but you don’t really engage in a serious way with views that are not approved in Hallerworld. That’s OK as again very few people do ever (or are capable of) seriously and honestly engaging with ideas or concepts that are not their ‘own’ so to speak. One of the qualities of Carl Schmitt – as an first-class political thinker and intellectual in general terms (regardless of the variable quality of this own thought) - is in his determination to take seriously different views and arguments outside his own ideological milieu. Schmitt was – if nothing else - not an second-rate ‘echo-chamber’ merchant. This is an attitude and habit (serious engagement with others) that anyone that’s ever been involved in scientific work has to adopt as their baseline methodology. Imagine if scientist X has hypothesis Y and has some reasonable grounds for asserting hypothesis Y - yet scientist Z performs experiment A that strongly contradicts the predictions of hypothesis Y. Thus he produces an alternative explanation of the observable data called hypothesis W. There’s a lot of back and forth but the rest of the scientific community repeats experiment A (and methodologically and conceptually appropriate variations upon it) and the evidence stacks up on the side of hypothesis W. For scientist X to declare “but I am axiomatically correct” with regard to hypothesis Y and hypothesis W (and the interpretation of the evidence for it) is a gross misreading as it contradicts my “axiomatically correct hypothesis” then he would rightly be regarded as buffoon. Obviously that’s a very simplified account of a much more complex process by which scientific paradigms shift and change. But such a process of dealing fairly with ALL of the available evidence and not cherry-picking you favourite bits marks the difference between theology and genuine knowledge (in philosophy, science, engineering or whatever). It’s not simply in science either that such mechanisms exist. Take legal arguments. Say someone has an non-mainstream interpretation of the US Constitution that is continually rejected by almost everyone involved in the profession – other lawyers, Judges, legal scholars, political scientists etc. Well perhaps their unusual reading of the legal arguments are ‘correct’ - then again perhaps they have terrible, and in there own terms, utterly incoherent legal arguments. They may even think they are ‘axiomatically correct’ that some form of negative liberty (like freedom from association or some such) should trump all others. Well what can one say? One might want to hire a lawyer that consistently gets humiliated in court (because why one simply ‘knows’ he’s right) or one might think his legal reasoning is lacking. Or the Biblical literalist that will not accept any counter-evidence or say of such evidence that it doesn’t really count somehow (the Devil put those fossils there to test our faith – yes someone in America really did tell me that this was their ‘explanation’ for the fossil record). At a certain point unless such people are willing to seriously question their own premises (there own ‘axiomatic’ royal roads to truth) then one has to move on and have a conversation with individual’s that are frankly more conceptually and analytically serious - or you know less of an intellectual lightweight or intellectually dishonest ideologue. Now I’m sure that you right about everything Leon. I’d never be so silly as to think of you as a lightweight in matters of the mind. Maximal economic freedom for the individual within a maximally unrestricted regime of free-markets is the ‘essence’ of European man. And thus is cardinal to any social-order that might emerge into what we could call post-modern, post-liberal society. Market-exchange in all possible services/goods/labour etc., and indeed relationships (there’s a demand for rent-boys and crystal meth that could be very profitable and to interfere with freedom of the free-market is axiomatically wrong). Self-evidently you’re also correct that Catholicism is also the ‘essence’ of European man and that a return of a foundationally religious society is also a cardinal feature of any newly emergent social-order. Again individuals are by far the best judges on what their true economic needs and interests are acting within the free-market - but obviously need to and will voluntarily accept (without serious question) the need for a strictly hierarchical system to deliver key elements of the narrative of the moral-order informing societal values. That moral-order being with regard to the rump of non-individuated, non-market values (whatever those might be) shaped on behalf of us all by people with an intimate knowledge of what God wants on their side (lucky for the Priests – and us plebs - that they know that important stuff eh?). Leon truly your meta-political world-view is of a level that mortals can only dream of – quite simply it’s a brilliant and deeply impressive vision, full to bursting with profound wisdom and startlingly amazing insights. I can’t see how anyone could suggest it’s superficial, incoherent, or the product of self-willed ideological mystification, considerable ignorance, and cognitive dissonance. As for Thatcher I’m still thinking about what and if I should write anything of length - particularly if it’s on condition that I have to mind my Ps and Qs or be edited for ‘ideological correctness’. As I’ve said before the smorgasbord of shit that is happily put on the front-page makes such a prospect hard to swallow. You know ‘ideas’ like a notorious Norwegian murderer ‘does not exist’ and such like. Being critical of Thatcher or even dear old Ronnie is far more egregious – intellectually, politically, and morally – axiomatically so! Give all that I can well understand GW’s (and MR’s wider) squeamishness and reticence to enter onto this ‘no-go’ territory. To be honest I think I probably have better topics and more interesting folk to engage with my ‘axiomatically incorrect’ ideas. Leon I think you really should do you duty, step up to the plate and become a front-page writer for MR. I’ll be happy to give up my slot to you if required. I’m not actually interested in temporary blips in GDP (or otherwise), asset price bubbles, petro-sterling and the rest, but if was to write something on the political economy of debt, neo-liberalism and all the rest Leon with the very best will in the world I doubt you have the intellectual or psychological capacity to honesty and serious engage with such issue. Again the ‘free-market’ and free-market ideology is and always will be ‘axiomatically correct’. Scandinavia doesn’t exist for you or Charles Murray - again that’s very nice for you both. Look at the financial crisis. For the Haller’s of this world that isn’t market-failure on a massive scale. No the market wasn’t free enough! Even if the majority of exotic speculative products were in fact totally unregulated by any public body or framework other than the free-market. And yes the Devil really planted those fossils too. OK good now we all know ‘there is no alternative’ and ‘society doesn’t exist’ so we can now fully enjoy our status as atomistic Lockean subjects. It’s all good. . . right? Quite seriously do carry on in this vein. It’s axiomatic that you will impervious to evidence or logic. 79
Posted by Joe on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:29 | # @ Leon Haller It must get lonely for you to be surrounded by those who are not as well-educated and intelligent as we are. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have to enucleate the most elemental knowledge to the riff-raff and rabble ; To constantly explicate the most basic and irreducible concepts anyone who is anyone already knows, I must say. How monotonous. How tedious the peasants are. You have the patience of a saint. I find peasants to be rather un-amusing myself, as one can hardly have even a half-way intelligent conversation with incorrigible riff-raff, the beer drinkers. That’s what I call the rabble. I only do white wine and an occasional brandy, bourbon on holidays and special occasions, like the times I christen a new yacht, or when I win the golf championship. Beer : never, never that. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo is how I handle the riff-raff. How time consuming it must to instruct the rabble. How fortunate the impervious illiterates and sub-illiterates are to have such an erudite, learned elite scholar such as yourself to tutor the unfortunates in the correct and proper, rigorously elite manner to which you and I are accustomed, to which comes natural to us, considering our innately superior intellectual patrimony. Omnis vir tigris, as we say at the club. Sniffle, sniffle.
80
Posted by Joe on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:12 | # @ Leon Haller Isn’t it a bore how repetitious it all gets. Teilhard de Chardin, the “New-Age” provocateur : http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/rc_teilhard.htm http://amaiceducation.blog.com/teilhard-de-chardin-trojan-horse-of-Vatican-iiheretic-extraordinaire The following search terms will access many more websites that detail Teilhard de Chardin’s satanic ontology/metaphysics : Search Terms : ” Teilhard de Chardin Satanist” ” Teilhard de Chardin Satanic” Jacques Maritain, the Communist provocateur : Search Term : ” Maritain Alinksy Montini “ Many websites delineate Maritain’s Communist affiliations. The search term will access a lot of information about the Communist Maritain. One would think traditional Catholics, who were always traditionally well-educated , would already know about Maritain, the communist provocateur and infiltrator ; And certainly, one would think traditional Catholics, being traditionally well-educated , would already know by now about the ontological roots of Teilhard de Chardin’s worldview—the “New-Age religion” de Chardin promoted and promulgated—and the satanic metaphysics at the very foundation of Teilhard’s eschatology. How impervious some are to The Truth. 81
Posted by Joe on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:00 | # @ Leon Haller I’m quite sure, as you’re a devout traditional Catholic—devout traditional Catholics are always well-educated about The Faith, as well as wordly-matters, you must already know about this excellent work, which can be accessed with the Search Term : “Hanussen Hitler’s Satanic Handler” ; “Satan’s Tactics In Building And Maintaining His Kingdom Of Darkness” http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/10_4_PDFs/05_Robb.pdf And I’m quite sure you’re simply appalled considering all disdain and scorn True Christianity receives in our mainstream culture—and even in “alternative” culture. So I fully well know you have already read this by now ; ” Jesus : Why Do they Hate Him” Keep in mind when reading above article that the “White Race religions” were conjured-up in the satanic donmeh Jew satanic Freemasonry Halls of Turkey. See the post I wrote yesterday under “Authentic Christianity” article. Search Term : ” Hanussen Hitler’s Satanic Handler”
82
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:00 | # /.......... To establish a sequence before and after Thatcher/Reagan Ginnie-May and Fannie-Mae had seemed like safe investments for people, with a modest return and a moral basis - government backed housing loans for ordinary folks. Now, the whole interest bit, we know, its bad news, but.. it was not quite so toxic in its first permutation. Prior to Thatcher Reagan, a L.B.J. “big society” move: The Rumford Fair Housing Act prevented home sellers from not selling to minorities if they did not want to - free market, well, maybe in some universal terms. Then to the Clinton era: The housing bubble was caused to some extent by banks being forced to give out risky loans to minorities - hard to say that is axiomatic of free market principle (and who would be doing that forcing?). Thus, Ginnie-May and Fannie-Mae bonds were being sold on top of this risky practice; further, there was a fashioning of investment mediums sold as “insurance” of those bonds. I am not sure that is a corollary to a free market, but rather a deception and a rip off. The doing away of the Glass-Steagall Act is another gem of the Clinton era. As I understand it, that took away the wall between private and investment banking such that bankers could use private accounts to invest. Maybe that is free market if the private savers are aware and have the option to go to a private bank whose monies are not available to investment banks. I am not defending Leon’s economics, just looking to add some nuance that helps flesh out the broader picture - the common thread before Thatcher/Reagan and after, not only stupid Americans, but manipulations against them. When you call Leon a racist, I take to mean for the elitism that he bears upon the equation - not really my angle either. Nor am I really interested in Leon’s economics As you’ve said, it is as if there is nothing else that can be done and nobody should say anything. All else is “Marxist.” I’d much rather hear your thoughts. I was relieved when Leon said he was off to other ventures - it should be, as he wants to be a Catholic, he wants to be Misian. (“pray” Joe leaves even faster, incredibly obnoxious guy). I value your input here at MR very much. Unlike satanism and Misian economics, your critical stance toward freedom from association does bear upon something under fundamental consideration. I would like a better explanation as to what is supposed to be wrong with freedom from association and what Americans, for example, are to do other than to remain in dangerous and destructive situations? In my huff, I rendered a counter cartoon of you, from the American perspective upon someone sipping wine in a lovely, secure, Scottish village, knowing blacks from John Coltrane music, but not his Philadelphia neighborhood. Drawing cartoons of all Americans as getting their come uppance. Billions in welfare to blacks, affirmative action, etc have not been enough, a huge violent crime rate against Whites (a US rate that would be more like Switzerland if you could take the blacks out) - all of the Whites nevertheless, beer bellied redneck evangelicals, all affluent legacy of slave holding and black exploitation.. no freedom from association for them, they must stay right there and build community with blacks and get their come-uppance - they deserve it, or so the Jewish portrayal of American Whites and blacks would have Europeans believe. In “A time to kill” ? A black girl gets raped by a White. The story is fictional and it never happens in reality. As we know, the reverse cannot quite be said. But Europeans do not see any movies as such. In reality, slavery and its legacy was bad for everyone and impacted White workers terribly all along. Ok, White oligarchs and Jewish elites have been largely responsible for forcing the races together and we should take that into account when recalibrating the channeling of amygdalic response - i.e. that where possible, it first look at the cause, not the black symptom Still, it is really hard for people who do not grow up with blacks to know what they are like to live with, to go to school and work with in numbers - to be in “the element” - and to not at least have the recourse in the back of your head that “I am English dammit, my people have been here and own this territory for ages.” Before I was subject to bussed integration, I always thought of White southerners as ignorant. Needless to say, the experience taught me to think differently. It is true even for people who grow up in White parts of the US to think southerners, for example, are ignorant. Imagine how off the mark people from Europe might be in their assessment, particularly as skewed through the Jewish controlled media. I am not saying there are not mild mannered blacks, but as a southern exponent noted, they, the mild ones cannot control the wild ones, and yes, the mild ones open the gates. Hopefully, therefore, people will have judgment and the good ones will be encouraged to go and help their own people. However, just because it would not hurt to add nuance to your criticism of America and Americans does not mean that I do not find your contributions to our most important cause in the world to be invaluable - in fact, yes, even your criticisms of America are important, that’s why I hope for more nuance. Criticize of America and Americans is important and it does require characterizations, cartoons even. Nevertheless, at a local university, for example, there seemed to be a mantra among students: “Americans are fat, they eat McDonald’s, they don’t know geography.” For the common understanding of what’s coming, it would be a good idea to take more into account that there are some American who may only seem stupid. The need for some kind of escape can be dire. Personally, I cannot do what I do (try to, anyway) without scientists like you and Bowery. I’ll be happy to subject my ideas for critical analysis. As you have seen, I did not defend Joe just because he is Italian. Nor do I defend Americans just because they are American - but because not all of what all of them have been up against is their own blind stupidity, but a Manicheanism that they don’t deserve. 83
Posted by Joe on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:43 | # @ Momus I didn’t know you’re a Scotsman. Someone mentioned that. I didn’t know. I thought perhaps you were a Greek, considering Momus was originally from My Olympus. How did you get from Mt Olympus to Scotland. Is it to Scotland you journeyed after Aphrodite booted your butt off The Mount Of The Gods? I’m currently working on, that is—-> Striving to improve my, shall we say, my less than high-brow, pretentious, “vocabulary”. But first I have to listen to my beautiful indigenous Italian music first off : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV9JxBXLDzo Then it’s back to my English studies. That’s why it’s always a good idea to study Latin as a means to improve one’s English ; In addition to the fact it was The Latin that Unified the White Race in the Very First Place —Europe—when Europe was United under The Banner of The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdjYBDD8b2I To Momus in Scotland : 85
Posted by Joe on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:14 | # @ Momus Please excuse me, Momus. In addition to my rather under-par vocabulary, my spelling is atrocious as well. It most certainly isn’t “My” Mount Olympus [ it’s :“Mt”] Mount Olympus is a lot more yours than mine, Oh Momus. Well, it was yours until the Gods booted-your-Momus-butt-off The Mount for your Momus-like attributes : Your Momus-like quickness to make unfair criticisms. Still, I see you’re improving, Momus : You were Objectively on-target as concerns Leon Haller’s Cognitive Dissonance : And Leon Haller’s severely deficient lack-of-knowledge concerning the Communist -infiltrator Maritain, and the satanic “new-age” infiltrator Teilhard de Chardin., for example : So I see you making an improvement from your usual haste to foment didactic incitement. Negative criticisms based on Objective Reality—On hard solid facts—is not unfair, so I see you’re trying to improve yourself, as I try to improve my vocabulary. Hence my tribute to Scotland. The Scots must have a lot of patience to put up with Momus, though I see the good traits of the Scottish are finally beginning to-rub-off-on-you. One must be patient. Aplomb is always a good thing vis-à-vis the un-educated. I admire how you handled Leon Haller with such aplomb. That’s a good thing, an admirable quality. 86
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:39 | # Joe, you are as flies looking for a nick, a slight scent of blood to lay your filthy Jew thinking eggs in. That’s right, that is what makes you so virulent. You do not even know that you have the Jew virus, compelling you as it is to lay its eggs into others by way of a flurry of distraction in conspiracy theory and then setting in an ultimate Jewish disease of Christianity. You are a filthy disease Joe, and we will defeat you because we must. You think you are capricious, a cute kid, your mother permitted of that, but we recognize you as the filthy fly disease that you are, hovering around any mere nick it can find - you look for our discard, our waste, that to you is the essence - that is what you eat. Joe, wouldn’t it be nice to see your face beat until its bones were red jelly? Agony coming across your face, that is well deserved.
87
Posted by JS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:36 | # Our good friend David P. Goldman aka “Spengler” on Thatcher’s passing: http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/04/11/goodbye-to-blighty/
88
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:01 | # In the following, I think David Yeagley puts Margaret Thatcher’s place in history in a proper light. Margarete Thatcher looks great by comparison especially when contrasted against the putrescence we now have leading us in the U.S. and the U.K. Here is his somewhat tribute:
89
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:08 | # In the following, I think David Yeagley puts Margaret Thatcher’s place in history in a proper light. Margarete Thatcher looks great by comparison especially when contrasted against the putrescence we now have leading us in the U.S. and the U.K. Here is his somewhat tribute:
90
Posted by JS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:10 | # This is just too rich, even for someone like Goldman. First he says how great it was that Thatcher “unleashed a wave of creative destruction” that destroyed British industry and led to foreigners flooding into Britain to take jobs away from “lazy white spongers”. Then he says that he doesn’t ever want to visit London again because foreigners have taken it over and the British have become marginalized! And he blames this all on “envious, lazy, white spongers” in Britain! Somehow, the fact that places like London have been taken over by foreigners and that the British have become marginalized is the fault of “envious, lazy, white sponger” Britons who deserved to be replaced by “upwardly-mobile, enterprising young people from all over Europe and beyond.” 91
Posted by Momus on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:37 | # @Danny Economics is politics by another name - there is no such thing as a ‘politics free’ economic policy. It’s political economy you need to understand not the banalities of free-market ideology. All markets are complex human institutions and shaped by human concerns - including who has power and politics of power - they are not the fetishised Platonic ideals that emerge ‘axiomatically error-free’ magically from the ether (which is at base what ‘free-market’ ideology would suggest). Platonic ideals that in theory are prefect and the messy realities that somehow never quite live up to the prefect form - but if only we make markets genuinely free then utopia of a sort awaits. “Comparisons are always odious, of course, but this is particularly so for neoliberalization. Circumscribed neoliberalization in Sweden, for example, has achieved far better results than sustained neoliberalization in the UK. Swedish per capita incomes are higher, inflation lower, the current account position with the rest of the world better, and all indices of competitive position and of business climate superior. Quality of life indices are higher. Sweden ranks third in the world in life expectancy compared to the UK’s ranking of twenty-ninth. The poverty rate is 6.3 per cent in Sweden as opposed to 15.7 per cent in the UK, while the richest 10 percent of the population in Sweden gain 6.2 times the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent, whereas in the UK the figure is 13.6. Illiteracy is lower in Sweden and social mobility greater.” From “A Brief History of Neoliberalism” by David Harvey (2007 - Oxford University Press - yes that well known producer of Marxist agitprop). Harvey (in this book) has lots and lots of data and graphs on income distributions, long-term economic growth rates, and so on from the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD etc., - all well known anti-capitalist and socialist organisations. I know they only produce ‘hate-facts’ and all, but still they are generally accepted to be facts by most. With that I think I’ll leave you gentlemen to it. As now I’m seriously losing the will to live. To ape Eliot a man can only bare so much idiocy. I’m going to read the extreme socialist Charles Taylor and his account of irreducibly social goods. It’s what we leftists do to entertain ourselves inbetween bouts of dreaming about stealing the rightfully earned wealth of Goldman Sachs et al., naturally. The wealth that Mr. Haller rightfully, axiomatically knows, must be protected and indeed fundamentally increased forever and without limit or else individual freedom will slip from this world. Cui bono gentlemen, cui bono indeed. 92
Posted by Momus on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:55 | # OK this is about my 5th attempt to comment. @Danny Economics is politics by another name - there is no such thing as a ‘politics free’ economic policy. It’s political economy you need to understand not the banalities of free-market ideology. All markets are complex human institutions and shaped by human concerns including who has power and politics of power - they are not the fetishised Platonic ideals that emerge ‘axiomatically error-free’ magically from the ether (which is at base what ‘free-market’ ideology would suggest). Platonic ideals that in theory are prefect and the messy realities that never live up to the prefect forms - but if only we make markets genuinely free then utopia of a sort awaits. “Comparisons are always odious, of course, but this is particularly so for neoliberalization. Circumscribed neoliberalization in Sweden, for example, has achieved far better results than sustained neoliberalization in the UK. Swedish per capita incomes are higher, inflation lower, the current account position with the rest of the world better, and all indices of competitive position and of business climate superior. Quality of life indices are higher. Sweden ranks third in the world in life expectancy compared to the UK’s ranking of twenty-ninth. The poverty rate is 6.3 per cent in Sweden as opposed to 15.7 per cent in the UK, while the richest 10 percent of the population in Sweden gain 6.2 times the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent, whereas in the UK the figure is 13.6. Illiteracy is lower in Sweden and social mobility greater.” From “A Brief History of Neoliberalism” by David Harvey (2007 - Oxford University Press - yes that well known producer of Marxist agitprop). Harvey (in this book) has lots and lots of data and graphs on income distributions, long-term economic growth rates, and so on from the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD etc., - all well known anti-capitalist and socialist organisations. I know they only produce ‘hate-facts’ and all, but still they are ‘generally’ accepted to be facts by most. With that I think I’ll leave you gentlemen to it. As now I’m seriously losing the will to live. To ape Eliot a man can only bare so much idiocy. I’m going to read the extreme socialist Charles Taylor and his account of irreducibly social goods. It’s what we leftists do to entertain ourselves inbetween bouts of dreaming about stealing the rightfully earned wealth of Goldman Sachs et al., naturally. The wealth that Mr. Haller rightfully, axiomatically knows, must be protected and indeed fundamentally increased forever and without limit or else individual freedom will slip from this world. Cui bono gentlemen, cui bono indeed. Yes more and more free-marketry is the answer but what’s the political question and the ontological query? I might have a listen to The Flaming Lips as I read Taylor. This one is good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjrUOlK2714 How does it go? If you could make everybody poor If you could watch everybody work If you could take all the love And so we cannot know ourselves 93
Posted by Momus on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:06 | # OK this is about my 9th damn attempt to comment. @Danny Economics is politics by another name - there is no such thing as a ‘politics free’ economic policy. It’s political economy you need to understand not the banalities of free-market ideology. All markets are complex human institutions and shaped by human concerns including who has power and politics of power - they are not the fetishised Platonic ideals that emerge ‘axiomatically error-free’ magically from the ether (which is at base what ‘free-market’ ideology would suggest). Platonic ideals that in theory are perfect yet we have the the messy realities that never quite live up to the perfect forms - but if only we make markets genuinely free then utopia of a sort awaits. Trade unions and any form of welfare state are both evil plagues upon this world preventing this joyful promised land. “Comparisons are always odious, of course, but this is particularly so for neoliberalization. Circumscribed neoliberalization in Sweden, for example, has achieved far better results than sustained neoliberalization in the UK. Swedish per capita incomes are higher, inflation lower, the current account position with the rest of the world better, and all indices of competitive position and of business climate superior. Quality of life indices are higher. Sweden ranks third in the world in life expectancy compared to the UK’s ranking of twenty-ninth. The poverty rate is 6.3 per cent in Sweden as opposed to 15.7 per cent in the UK, while the richest 10 percent of the population in Sweden gain 6.2 times the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent, whereas in the UK the figure is 13.6. Illiteracy is lower in Sweden and social mobility greater.” From “A Brief History of Neoliberalism” by David Harvey (2007 - Oxford University Press - yes that well known producer of Marxist agitprop). Harvey (in this book) has lots and lots of data and graphs on income distributions, long-term economic growth rates, and so on from the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD etc., - all well known anti-capitalist and socialist organisations. I know they only produce ‘hate-facts’ and all, but still they are ‘generally’ accepted to be facts by most. With that I think I’ll leave you gentlemen to it. As now I’m seriously losing the will to live. To ape Eliot a man can only bare so much idiocy. I will not even start on the conceptual car-crash that is methodological individualism - again is there any point in having the discussion? I’m going to read the extreme socialist Charles Taylor and his account of irreducibly social goods. It’s what we leftists do to entertain ourselves in between bouts of dreaming about stealing the rightfully earned wealth of Goldman Sachs et al., naturally. The wealth that Mr. Haller rightfully, axiomatically knows, must be protected and indeed fundamentally increased forever and without limit or else individual freedom will slip from this world. Cui bono gentlemen, cui bono indeed. Yes more and more free-marketry is the answer but what’s the political question and the ontological query? I might have a listen to The Flaming Lips as I read Taylor. The ‘Yeah Yeah’ song is good. Google it - links are not allowed it seems. How does it go? If you could make everybody poor If you could watch everybody work If you could take all the love And so we cannot know ourselves 94
Posted by JS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:38 | # “Thatcher and the Jews” “Margaret Thatcher was a staunch defender of Jewish causes and a supporter of Israel in her political career, unlike most Tory politicians before her” http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/87027/thatcher-and-the-jews
95
Posted by JS on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:44 | # http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/87027/thatcher-and-the-jews
96
Posted by Joe on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:33 | # @ Leon Haller “Kierkegaard on Truth” http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2013/04/kierkegaard-on-truth.html 97
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:01 | # In principle, I support the poll tax, but as always, Rothbard was right: the overall level of government expenditure must be dramatically reduced first. Politically it was beyond stupid. Who knows? Without this policy “innovation”, Thatcher might have gone on ruling in the 90s.
98
Posted by wibbly on Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:23 | #
The money power are parasites, Their boom was based on looting the capital that had been built up in the rest of the UK over centuries and then investing it abroad for their own benefit. This made them very rich at the cost of destroying the rest of the economy. Those people on the dole are on the dole because of the nest of treachorous vipers in the City of London and the politicians who knowingly or unknowingly obey their orders. The same thing happened in America with Wall St. for the same reasons at the same time. The big difference being America has so much more natural resources which provide more of a buffer. 99
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:20 | #
I trust you will enjoy the words here: Its the work of Atilla The Stockbroker, I fear we wouldnt see eye to eye on every issue but when it comes to the bankers/money power. . . 100
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:15 | #
101
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:18 | # Except of course that as you properly set out the case, it would not be stealing. 102
Posted by Trainspotter on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 05:34 | # “With that I think I’ll leave you gentlemen to it. As now I’m seriously losing the will to live. To ape Eliot a man can only bare so much idiocy.” It is darkest before the dawn! “I will not even start on the conceptual car-crash that is methodological individualism - again is there any point in having the discussion?” Yes, more point than ever. We are now able to view Regan and Thatcher with the benefit of hindsight. The verdict of history is in: their legacy is a disaster. Futher, we are currently witnessing (in the United States, at least) something akin to Peak Libertarianism, with the spectacular rise and equally spectacular failure of the Tea Party, and currently the Rand Paul phenomenon which, presumably, will blossom in full in 2016. Perhaps that will be the true Peak. Libertarianism has, for far too long, gathered for itself a disproportionate amount of our best white blood, the very sorts that should be laboring long for the ethnostate. They are, in that very real sense, a major competitor. And yet, even as we approach Peak Libertarianism, the rot becomes ever more visible. This pseudo-philosophy is utterly incapable of defeating anti-white Leftism. Instead, it is a pied piper leading resistance into a blind alley. That’s the trajectory of Randian heroics: fawning over blacks at Howard, extolling the virtues of MLK, and denying that race matters with the fervency of a Berkley professor circa 1968. Supporting amnesty. Rosa Parks (and maybe Juan), hero extraordinaire of Galt’s Gulch! The intellectual heirs of John Galt are nothing but liberal sycophants and water carriers for both the plutocracy and the anti-white ideologues. Basically, a fetishist who accepts the core principles of anti-white liberalism, but is too short bus to follow them to their logical conclusions. Reagan and Thatcher were, in essence, libertarian-lite, clucking on about “statism” as the hordes poured through the gates, and the anti-whites and culture destroyers secured their stranglehold on every meaningful avenue of cultural transmission. Fetishizing the individual resulted in their being totally disarmed to resist the onslaught, or perhaps even realizing that an onslaught was going on. At it’s heart, it’s a fraud, just a useful part of the broader Punch and Judy show. For that reason, it must be attacked, deconstructed, mocked and denigrated at every opportunity, and replaced by a coherent worldview with a sound racial basis. Only organic, natural communities are sustainable in the long run, and only such communities, and the high trust social capital that they can create, can possibly allow for meaningful solutions across the board, from improving the local school district to reversing cultural damage, to having walkable communities and a worthy public realm. Or to keeping taxes reasonably low, for that matter. Ironically, such communities will likely enjoy far more individual liberty than the libertarians are ever going to win for themselves. Organic white communities have less inherent need for the Surveillance State. Only we have the solutions, the way forward. Especially in the United States, this fetishization of individualism over organic communities has been an absolute catastrophe, completely derailing and misdirecting any hope of stopping the anti-white onslaught, much less reversing it. But really, the problem is not just with us, as Thatcher demonstrated. So let us enjoy, with relish, the constant denigration and deconstruction of these pathetic water boys for the money power and sycophants of the anti-whites. They’ve earned our contempt, plus interest. Interest at the usurious rates they so celebrate when practiced by their much beloved plutocracy. 103
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:30 | # /././.. Not surprisingly, a good comment coming from Trainspotter. I recently learned that Rand Paul’s first name comes from Ayn Rand! Can you believe it?!!! I also thought your direction of the community ideal was well placed toward Dr. Lister. That’s a precious cause for him and a good one. However, while pursuing organic communities is well, good and an integral part of the plan, I do maintain that organic communities alone is a precarious notion, taking much for granted that it should not - in all likelihood, they will need some coordination and recourse to the broader nation and to the maintenance of the ancient human ecologies of Europe. At any rate, they have the freedom to not participate should any fear that coordination might go sour or should a given community find that such coordination in fact, it is not worthwhile to them. Nevertheless, just because Matt Parrott or Reich/Nietzsche fetishists* did not conceive of the DNA Nation and it might be threatening to them somehow does not mean that it does not provide necessary means of coordination with and beyond community; it is meant in such a way as to take into account and find ways to deal with any problems in coordination, to find checks and balances necessary as they might correspond with such a parallel nation in an effort to coordinate with lived realities. It has been open to consultation and correctives right along, from Prof. MacDonald to Bowery, et al.
104
Posted by Euro on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:57 | # Just speculating: Could Thatcherite and Reaganite individualism be motivated at some level by an Anglo-American desire to distance and differentiate themselves politically from the mass of Continental Europeans? Was this a great part of their (Thatcher and Reagan) appeal to large sections of their respective electorates? Was being more Lockean than thou an attempt to reestablish Anglo-American exclusivity and supremacism in a manner more consonant with contemporary circumstances and sensibilities in place of older, outmoded forms of the same—such as Fox’s anti-papist writings or Chamberlain’s racialism—which have become more problematic and difficult to uphold in recent times? Finally, could all of this go far towards explaining Thatcher’s Judeophilia—forging an alliance with Europe’s ancient enemy in a desperate effort to maintain an anti-Continental stance at any cost? 105
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:47 | # JS@87 Those excerpts from Mr. Goldman exhibit a confused and confusing mind. I would note one personal irony: “Spengler” banned me (at the ISP address level) from commenting at his First Things blog for being too “racist”. My racism? Merely providing well-known Race and IQ stats in the context of discussing the likely long term impact on the US of mass Hispanic immigration! No Holocaust denial, no revolutionary white nationalism, etc. This was a few years ago. The goofball went ballistic. Anyway, more broadly: The main problem with the Thatcher/Reagan regimes is that they did nothing to reduce or restrict nonwhite immigration. I would also say their insufficient commitments to genuinely free markets (we have not had free enterprise in the West since the 19th century; to argue otherwise, as Momus does, is to betray the most childish historical as well as economic ignorance), combined with a non-laissez faire series of deregulations, led to an unhealthy over-financialization of both economies - something (“Straw Man Momus” notwithstanding) I never supported. Deregulation usually must be total, or not done at all. The financial deregulations, at least in the US, in the 80s (and more of the same nature in the late 90s), were partial and done at the behest of the ‘money interests’, and all involved a “privatization of profit, socialization of risk” model that is deeply unethical as well as economically destructive, and all the true free marketeers, such as the “Austrians”, opposed them for that reason. T/R inadequacies on immigration notwithstanding, they will be remembered by all national patriots as giants mainly because, first, they were responsible for a certain amount of genuine economic revitalization, brought about through a combination of ‘harder’ monetary policy, marginal tax rate lowering, reductions in union power, and simply holding down the rate of socialistic + interventionist government growth, thereby allowing natural market growth to occur; and more importantly, because, second, their joint foreign policy partnership was among the decisive factors bringing down the Soviet Empire, which itself was a world-historical improvement in the human condition. 106
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:41 | # Trainspotter@102 Yes, you are referencing one of the major elements of what true conservatives have always disliked about liberals, old or new: their excessive individualism, and failure to understand the importance of real (biology plus history-based or, if you prefer, “organic”) communities to successful human flourishing. Even liberty is easier to maintain in a “high-trust” situation based on common biology and ethnoculture, regardless of whatever formal freedoms exist juridically. That acknowledged, beware several fallacies and historical misrepresentations. Recognizing the importance of true communities, and therefore rejecting puerile Ayn Randianism, in no way requires that one swing over to the other side, and start believing a bunch of socialist crap, which is demonstrably illogical in theory, and disastrous in historical practice. Eg, “you didn’t build that”, says our ass of a President, as an excuse to loot the white man’s wealth. Well, I was formerly a partner in a smallish marketing firm that I and the other principals certainly did create from scratch, and build. Society, let alone government, had precisely NOTHING to do with it, except in ways for which my taxes had already vastly overpaid (eg, yes, I commuted on public roads - are there private ones?), or in ways so broad as to render differentiating individual vs. group action impossible (eg, I use the English language - an historico-cultural group artifact - to conduct business). Persons like Momus and DanielS and many others think that the reality of intergroup competition at the biological and civilizational levels somehow thereby obviates competition at the individual level. They then use this false logic to smuggle into nationalist thought their merely personal socialistic policy preferences. From the fact that I don’t want white women miscegenating with muds, it “therefore” follows that I have to support “free” (taxpayer provided) cradle to grave healthcare, “free” public schooling, govt-run airports, public utilities, grossly inflated public sector pensions (when no one in the private sector, which pays for those public PARASITES, even has a pension), inflationary central banking, “stimulus” spending, unemployment “insurance”, etc etc. Really? How so? They have no answer, because there is none. Of course one can be both a strong racialist, AND a strong capitalist, AND a strong believer in the LIMITED Constitutional govt bequeathed to Americans by our Founders. Indeed, our Founders were that very thing, as were generations of pre-1960s Americans. In fact, though correlation does not equate to causation, it should at least be mentioned that, throughout the West, the growth of “creeping socialism” has occurred in tandem with “creeping diversification”. Coincidence? Accident? Possibly, but I think not. That said, I recall the whole R/T period, and while I was an anti-immigration fanatic even then, few others were (I suppose I had the “advantage” of being Southern Califorian). Certainly, R/T saw their duties as rebuilding military power, revitalizing their economies (which can only ever be accomplished through capitalist principles), and resisting communist expansion. I don’t blame them for not realizing the significance of immigration (inexcusably, how different is it even today?!). My family always did, but many did not. I recall arguing in college among campus Republicans (who were a small minority) that we had to stop immigration, but most were more interested in economics or anticommunism. It’s not as though the British exactly rallied to the truly great Enoch Powell (even if he was a bit weak on race, Enoch was an extremely impressive man, and should have been PM), anymore than Americans did to Pat Buchanan (even if Pat had garnered the GOP nomination in ‘96, I doubt he would have defeated Clinton). Our white peoples are mostly race leftists, as I continually point out. Why aren’t the French indigenous coming out in waves for the Le Pens? (now we’re coming back to WhiteZion territory - yes, Momus I AM right on almost everything) R/T were really the best we could have done, and they did breath some greater life into the West, even if they were too weak or dumb to stop the main decline. I think we owe them gratitude (Blair and Bush, OTOH, deserve nothing but scorn and nooses). 107
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:12 | # ... .. 108
Posted by wibbly on Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:49 | # Lurker
Yes. I don’t like to be too 100% about it as i think one half of the partnership were motivated by genuine patriotic instincts - misplaced or otherwise - vis a vis the Cold War but the other half were just doing it so they could loot Russia. .
I don’t think Thatcher or Reagan were as smart as the vultures surrounding them. I can see that idea being used to manipulate them - basically using the psychological template of WWII but applied to the Eastern Bloc - but personally i think they were mostly motivated by simple anti-communism and that anti-communism was used to lead them into supporting the neo-liberalism of the money power. . 109
Posted by Trainspotter on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 02:45 | # Haller: “Even liberty is easier to maintain in a “high-trust” situation based on common biology and ethnoculture, regardless of whatever formal freedoms exist juridically.” Absolutely true. Libertarians, however, completely fail to understand even this much. It shows the danger of fetishizing individualism, which ironically has the outcome of diminishing individual freedom, as we are seeing today. In practical effect, libertarians are underminers and enemies of liberty. Haller: “Recognizing the importance of true communities, and therefore rejecting puerile Ayn Randianism, in no way requires that one swing over to the other side, and start believing a bunch of socialist crap, which is demonstrably illogical in theory, and disastrous in historical practice.” Here is where we start getting into more nebulous territory. I agree that a belief in community does not require that one become a socialist. In fact, a given racial community may well choose to have a minimalist government and maximum personal liberty. However, this decision must come from a place of what might be called an intra-family consensus, not a fetishization of the individual. In other words, the integrity of the community, its sovereignty and continuity must come first. That must be the starting point - the Tribe. Within that context, some national communities may of course choose to have a less active government. If the sovereignty and continuity of the community does not come first, if instead there is undue focus on the individual, then you just end up with what we have today: demographic invasion coupled with plutocracy. Individualism has no basis upon which to stop these things, it is disarmed. Only the nationalist has the worldview to combat these problems. Again, the irony being that the typical citizen will ultimately end up with more freedom in a high trust, organic racial community than he will in the multiracial, corporate plutocracy. Much of life is like that. For example, it is normal for people to enjoy things that are, well, enjoyable. But if one focuses primarily on immediate gratification, and fails to meet one’s other responsibilities, then the typical result is an impoverished, friendless and unhealthy couch potato. On the other hand, the person who meets his responsibilities in life is more likely to have enjoyable experiences. In other words, “enjoyment” results more as a byproduct than as a primary focus. Similarly, individual liberty should be seen as a pleasant byproduct of a high trust, racially sound community, not as the end all and be all of existence. Because, for all practical purposes, that’s exactly what it is. The person who identifies primarily as a libertarian is saying, in effect, that he has no comprehension of the basis of liberty. His starting point is fallacious, which is why the primary effect of his position is simply to carry water for the plutocracy and the anti-whites. Haller: “Eg, “you didn’t build that”, says our ass of a President, as an excuse to loot the white man’s wealth. Well, I was formerly a partner in a smallish marketing firm that I and the other principals certainly did create from scratch, and build. Society, let alone government, had precisely NOTHING to do with it…” Here again, we are in nebulous territory, demonstrating how confused the modern political lexicon has become, since mainstream political discourse is dominated by false concepts. I agree with you that Obama’s argument was, essentially, a justification to loot the wealth of whites. And yet, I disagree that society had nothing to do with building your business. You had the advantage of building a business in a society that had established and developed the rule of law, technology, infrastructure and hell, even the concept of marketing itself. A society that provided the necessary foundation for your business to exist, or even be imagined as a possibility. Does this mean that, therefore, society “owns” you? No, of course not. But in my view, it does mean that you have certain responsibilities to the community, for example to assist in defending it from invasion, to abide by its laws, and to make reasonable contributions to its infrastructure. Fundamentally, it means that you have the responsibility to help, not hinder, its continuity and sovereignty. I doubt you disagree with those responsibilities. But libertarians do, in effect, disagree. They recognize no obligation above their fetishization of “liberty.” They had the advantage of growing up in a largely white community, but future generations will grow up in Tijuana North? They couldn’t care less, as long as they can slap the label “voluntary” on it. Their position is not only ridiculous, but unconscionable. That’s where they are coming from, and where they are coming from is determined by where they START, which is a fetish devoid of meaningful basis or context. This allows them to sign off on the most nasty and vile policies, as we are seeing now in real time. I’ll wrap up with this, Leon. I’m more concerned with whether my people continue to exist than with marginal tax rates. I’m guessing you agree with this, but libertarians don’t. That’s not to say tax rates aren’t important, they are. But that is not the fundamental thing. The truth of the matter is that if we survive as a people, the centuries and ultimately millenia will pass. During that time, the size of government is likely to shrink, and grow, and shrink, and grow. And then shrink again. Different generations, and different circumstances, will see government waxing and waning. It so happens that I favor a government that prevents plutocracy and extreme concentrations of wealth, but beyond that fosters a high level of individual liberty. I favor a government that allows people like yourself to create a marketing agency, and gets out of your way to the extent possible, so long as you meet your fundamental obligations to the community. But that is not essential, and it is not my starting point. What is essential is that our people survive so that they can even have arguments over marginal tax rates and sound monetary policy. On the other hand, if our people no longer exist, I couldn’t care less what happens. I don’t care about “Sound Money For Brown People.” Bizarrely, libertarians do. 110
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 03:12 | #
Thats good, much the same as when we hear various jews/neo-con/useful idiots obsessing over radical Islam but not mass immigration. If our people no longer exist, I couldn’t care less what happens. I don’t care about “Islam For Brown People.” 111
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:32 | # Persons like Momus and DanielS and many others think that the reality of intergroup competition at the biological and civilizational levels somehow thereby obviates competition at the individual level. They then use this false logic to smuggle into nationalist thought their merely personal socialistic policy preferences. From the fact that I don’t want white women miscegenating with muds, it “therefore” follows that I have to support “free” (taxpayer provided) cradle to grave healthcare, “free” public schooling, govt-run airports, public utilities, grossly inflated public sector pensions (when no one in the private sector, which pays for those public PARASITES, even has a pension), inflationary central banking, “stimulus” spending, unemployment “insurance”, etc etc. Really? How so? They have no answer, because there is none.
Are you an idiot Haller? How about from caring about my people to considering optimal economic systems. I do not believe your purpose here is honest. You are on the order of a Joe - here to gunk up the threads with misdirection. it “therefore” follows that I have to support “free” (taxpayer provided) cradle to grave healthcare, “free” public schooling, govt-run airports, public utilities, grossly inflated public sector pensions Where do I say anything like that, Haller? I am considering economic alternatives, not specifying such details as you have here. 112
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:09 | # Trainspotter, it is true that decentralizing the individual and taking it away from fetishism is important because the social make-up of its basis is a fact - as is the social basis of any degree of its ongoing independence. However, sufficient balance and maintenance requires a broader connection than face to face community. To say it must begin in that form of “community” is like a prohibition of thinking. As if it must begin in this community or that community or it is not real. The fact is that it must begin in communication. If you want to call that community, fine. It is community enough for me. But to say that some face to face community, removed from communication with its wider family, the race (what I call the class) is the ultimate arbiter of the real, would be to subject it to distortions and leave it cut off from perspective, resource and balance. Organic politics are born of a group of families agreeing upon things? Communitarians are welcomed and encouraged in their efforts, but people who focus on community to the exclusion of the broader social classification would be the most idealistic of all. To begin with “the community” alone, as a species, and ignore its connectedness to the genus, the class (“race”), is detrimental. Rather, we must, from the start, endeavor to function at least non-conflictually, if not symbiotically, among essential components: the ancient ecologies of Europe, the more newly formed European ecologies outside of Europe and the broader Nation to assure that being European and not interfering with its various kinds, authentic patterns of expression, remains the criteria; while advancing its interest optimally. Relying on “community”, well - you’ll have Henry Ford’s wife insisting that he render an apology to the international Jew. Lincoln’s wife having a nervous breakdown because he does not make Africans his priority. Not to mention the many many stupid things that Alpha males (and Beta males for that matter) do, when not balanced off by a broader “community.” That is, the idea of community absent the broader context is precarious nonsense - especially in this context, our present context, that does not allow the context of a Euro DNA Nation. More, The DNA Nation does not exist void of context.
One more remark for Haller on his snide comment that my subjective concern for miscegenation leads to x, y and z imposition on the social good. That is totally wrong. It is not subjective interest to say that blacks and mulattoes are not the same as Whites. You are pandering to women when you try to flout the concern as subjective, as you have - it is to suggest that the “subjective” assessment of a miscegenator is equally valid. Again, to reject miscegenation is not the starting point, it is rather not to start too late 113
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 06:47 | # To say that “it” must begin meaning: To say that sovereignty must begin..
114
Posted by Trainspotter on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:33 | # Daniel, let me clarify: I employed a variety of terms, more or less interchangably. For example, when I spoke of family in this context, I didn’t mean literally a nuclear family or some other relationship that requires face to face interaction, but rather the extended racial family, as well as particular subgroupings thereof: Norwegians, Germans, Estonians, etc. I also used the terms “community” and “Tribe” more or less in the same sense. Jews use the term Tribe to mean, well, Jews. I use it to mean Whites of European descent. In time, it will come to mean those particular subgroupings of Whites that wish to remain White. I could perhaps be criticized for a lack of precision in doing this, but I’m trying to reinforce the substance and depth of that “thing” that this is all about: Tribe, family, community. Perhaps that is only the tip of the iceberg, but it will do for a start. As a purely practical matter, the starting point of any politics has to be the Tribe (again, not to be taken too literally). Without the Tribe, there is no politics, or at least none that could concern a non-existent Tribe. This is why ideologies that ignore Tribe end up being at best rather ridiculous and silly, but often horrible and destructive. Libertarianism, which fetishizes individualism detached from any broader context or meaning - detached from and indeed rejecting Tribe - fits the bill nicely. It’s utterly ridiculous, and is now signing off on some pretty destructive stuff. Of course, it should be noted that by rejecting Tribe, this does not mean that the rejection is meaningful in the sense that the libertarian intends it. It just means that someone else’s Tribe emerges victorious over the corpse of your own. 115
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 10:51 | # Ok. So you are using the word tribe in a way correspondingly similarly as I am using the term social class(es) of Whites. No problem. 116
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:39 | # correspondingly similar (ugh) these optical oversights 117
Posted by Joe on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:15 | # Controlled Opposition : George Soros : http://earstohear.net/soros.html George Soros was [is] a Nazi : What a strange world we live in where one man is allowed to have so much power. What I don’t understand : The Jews are very upset about what happened during WW2 [ the holocaust and all ]. Yet, the Jews never seem to get around to confronting their fellow Jews who were/are* Nazis. The Jew Nazis get a free pass from the great number of Jews. One would think the Jews would have bumped Soros off a long time age for being a Nazi. Not only do the Jews allow Soros to live, he’s also allowed to be a type of Jewish leader**. Yet, he was a Nazi. I thought Jews hated Nazis for being anti-Semitic and for having killed so many Jews during WW2 ? Jews suffer severe Cognitive Dissonance. What say you Rabbi Lipshitz? ** Another term for Soros would be “Mishpuka” : That’s Yiddish for big-shot Jewish gangster/mafia Boss. Meyer Lansky was a Mishpuka. Lansky was an angel compared to Soros. [ and no, I’m not condoning in any way Lansky’s behavior]. Just want to point out how truly evil Soros is. I can understand how my fellow whites allow Soros to rule over them—so many whites venal and mercenary [ see my posts about the innate faults of the white race ]. I don’t understand why the Jews allow Soros to be one of their Main Leaders/Mishpukas as Soros was a Nazi during WW2, and Soros has a lot of Jewish blood on his hands. Doesn’t make sense. Then again I don’t suffer from Cognitive Dissonance, as does Harland and John de Nugent, *John Kaminski : Kaminski =yet another jew-nazi-jew Nazi, and so many others***. One would think the Mossad would have bumped Soros off a long time ago for having so much Jewish blood on his hands. Doesn’t make sense. But what do I know, I’m just a “goyim”—is that not so Rabbi Lipshitz? *** Including the jew-nazi-jew : Search Term : ” Frank Collins + Jew + Skokie Nazis” Jews suffer from massive, collective, and very severe schizophrenia, big-time. Did I spell “Mishpuka” correctly, Hymie-in-Afula, Israel? How’s the matzoh-ball/won-ton soup your “Asian hottie” you’re banging/slamming/f*cking/race-mixing/ with cooks up for you? Umm, yummy, matzoh-ball/won-ton soup. 118
Posted by Joe on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:59 | # Search Term : “Dasein Nazism Sufism ; The Hidden Origins of Nazism : http://blackraiser.com/nazorig4.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST_GCEK2Ur4 Dasein comes from Sufism. Nazism/Dasein is infused with Sufism, as is Islamic Jihad. Many Jews are Nazis; Watch the video : This is the type of people the great Viking-Teutonic-Hyperborean-Aryan WN’ers get their philosophy/ “white race religions” from, donmeh jews. It’s a hoot. Looks like the big-shot Zionist*/Nazi* Jews put the Jews in a real bind. Zionist Jew big-shots started the Muslim Broherhood, now Israel is surrounded & under siege. While Hymie is busy race-mixing with his “Asian hottie”. It’s all very schizophrenic. This is the kind of people who gave you WN’ers your “white race religions”. You crackers crack me up. It’s a hoot. * Redundancies 119
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:41 | # ... The extended Jewish phenotype “Joe” wants at tanstaafl, an honest and intelligent threat to Jews - and with the nerve to have a Jewish wife. It (“Joe”) goes after anything precious to Whites - Dasein. It imperviously, relentlessly, inhumanly does its best to trivialize that which is precious to Whites and to distract, to swarm it with conspiracy theories until it can finally lay the virus of its controlled opposition, Christianity, into an available wound. It (“Joe”) is an opportunistic disease. It, offers up Soros as controlled opposition, as surely as Glenn Beck had passed on this “insight.” ... Its swarm has been done something unpleasant by Soros. It, does not like Hymie for similar reasons, because Hymie has betrayed its Jewish conspefics, having taken up with an Asian hottie. It seems like a virulent Jewish female. ... 120
Posted by Joe on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:14 | # The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking !!!!!! http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-holocaust-just-got-more-shocking.html About the bind the Donmeh-Jewish/Zionist/Nazi leadership put the Jews in : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WURWORvM8wo Sunni Islam is the war-mongering branch of Islam [ compared to Shia Islam] Sufism is Sunni Satanism ; Where the war-mongering starts—where the ontology/metaphysics of Islamic Jihad is created—conjured up. Sunni/Sufi Islam is controlled by donmeh Jews. Always has been. It’s very well known in the Middle East amongst the Muslims. Hence, the split between the Shia and the Sunnis. Nazism was/is infused with Sunni-Sufism-Jihadic thought, ontology, metaphysics, eschatology. It’s what Nazism, Zionism, and Islamic Jihad have in Common ; What they have in Common : Satanic Sufism. That’s why all 3 are war-mongering. That’s why all 3 are Supremacist and War-Mongering. The same group of Satanic Sufist Donmeh Jews started all 3. Dasein, by the way, is part of the eschatology of all 3. Dasein comes from Sufism. Sufist thought, metaphysics, and eschatolgy also informs Protestant Christianity, to a degree. Especially the churches based on Calvinism and Lutheranism. Calvin was a Jew Himself. So was Melcanthon—Luther’s buddy. Islam and the Protestant Reformation : Search Term : ” Islam And The Protest Reformation” The search term will access a lot more info about how much the Protestant Christianity has been/is influenced by Islamic [ sunni-sufist ] ontology, metaphysics, and eschatology. Keep in mind as you watch the video that Christianity also is very much under-the-gun & under siege in our present-day culture. Looks like the NWO gang don’t want either Christians or Jews around in their New World Order. Seems like it to me. [ see my posts about the DHS + Christians]. 121
Posted by Joe on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:56 | # @ DanielS Thank you for the information about Tanstaafl. I didn’t know he has a Jewish/Zionist wife. His Jewish/Zionist wife must that “Mary” over at Tanstaafl’s “Age-of-Treason” who deletes all my posts. That’s because I mention : ” Dietrich Bronder + Bevor Hitler Kam pdf ” [ an honest Jewish historian] Search Terms : ” Who Owned IG Farben During World War Two” ” Hitler’s Jewish Solders” ” Hitler’s Jewish Army” ” Hitler’s Muslim Legions” http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-and-african-roots-1.309938 [ Jewish + North African blood/DNA = Donmeh Jew, I would say ] ” Anthony C Sutton + Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler pdf “ ” Guido Preparata + Conjuring Hitler pdf “ Hitler and the top leading Nazis Never investigated who owned IG Farben. IG Farben was the very foundation of Nazi political/economic/military strength. IG Farben built the Third Reich and put Hitler into power in the very first place. Yet, Hitler Never investigated IG Farben for Jewish influence. A lot of people think Hitler broke off with the world’s banking matrix [ i.e. Jewish bankers]. Hitler did NOT break off with the world’s banking matrix. It’s true Hitler cut ties with Jewish banks : It’s also true there are other ways to finance political/military/governments/“movements”. Wall Street and the City of London bank-rolled the Third Reich via IG Farben. Read the 1945 US War Dept. Report to the US Congress concerning the Third Reich vis-à-vis IG Farben. It’s especially interesting as we now know Wall Street owned the IG Farben cartel. The Report is in the Congressional Records and can be accessed at The Library of Congress, or one can go to : http://www.profit-over-life.org/ The website has a lot more truthful information about the Third Reich as well, in addition to the 1945 US War Dept. Report to Congress. The IG Farben Cartel, by the way, was founded in 1919, the same exact year Dietrich Eckart—one of Europe’s leading Satanists—took Hitler “under wing”. T Now I know why “Mary” the Zionist wife of Tanstaafl doesn’t care for me none.
122
Posted by Joe on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:42 | # Excuse the typo : The “T” all by itself. I was going to say something about Tanstaafl, but then I got to start thinking about his Zionist wife/secretary “Mary” who deletes all of my truthful posts complete with solid, reference sources. My proof-reading skills can be atrocious at times, especially when I get riled up. Tanstaafl, like Harland, like the jew-nazi-jew John Kaminski, like Kaminski’s Fuck-Buddy the “Hyperborean” Viking-Aryan from Thule—John de Nugent—like “Mary”, get me riled-up big-time. It’s Safe and Okay now to send The Dasein-Hyperborean deNugent donation $$$ again because the great cold-loving Viking/Aryan from the furhrer-most Northern regions—farther North than the North Pole even—John deNugent, who happens to be located in Warm and Sunny Florida right near-by the jew-nazi-jew Kaminski, out-foxed the Florida Jews and “Placed” patriotic All-American WN’ers in his local Florida post office so the crafty Jews in the local post office can’t steal the donation $$$ in their Jooish attempt to hinder deNugent from building us Whites a real razzamatazz Nazi party of our own : So we Whites can fly to Mars and beyond-the-stars, forever and ever amen. Ad Astra!!!! Thank you Odin !!! “T” stands for “Tibet”. That’s where the White Race was born. I know that’s true because Savitri Devi told me so : ” Hitler’s Priestess pdf ” Gallia omnis divisa partes tres : 1 : The Zionist “narrative” of Nazi Germany 2 : The White Nationalist “narrative” of Nazi Germany 3 : The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Truth of nazi Germany. 123
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:51 | # Joe, Why do you post this stuff under a post on Thatcher? Move it to another place where it might be relevant! You’re just taking up screen space here, and derailing the discussion. 124
Posted by Joe on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:57 | # @ Leon Haller Well, Thatcher was a type of Zionist—so a discussion of Zionism under a thread of commentary about Margaret Thatcher is not being off-topic or irrelevant, nor is it “derailing” anything. We’re not on a train anyway. We’re talking about Thatcher and she was a type of Zionist : http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/61436/Margaret-thatcher-an-embedding-zionist You Never replied to any of my posts about the satanic Teilhard de Chardin, and how he worked so hard to usurp true Catholic eschatology. I know —because you said so—you’re an old-fashioned, traditional, devout Catholic, so I’m curious as to what you think about the New World Order, and your thoughts about Chardin and Maritain greatly undermining true Catholic ontology/metaphysics/eschatology, as they were working for the NWO. What do you think about the “great catholic intellectual” Teilhard de Chardin who worked so hard for the New World Order ? What about the “great catholic intellectual” Jacques Maritain—who was a card-carrying Communist while pretending to be a Catholic—what do you have to say about Maritain? As a devout, traditional, and old-fashioned Catholic, what are your thoughts about Teilhard and Maritain? You have yet to respond to this matter. I’m surprised you haven’t responded to this topic as sincere, traditional Catholics are very concerned about the New World Order. As I’m sure you know, there’s No room in the Novus Ordo Church for traditional Catholics. Thanks in part to Teilhard de Chardin and Maritain. About The New World Order, Zionism, The novus-ordo Church, Teilhard de Chardin : http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/the_organized_church/one_world_religion.htm Search Term : ” Maritain Alinsky Montini “ To access info about the ” catholic intellectual” Communist-infiltrator Jacques Maritain. 125
Posted by Momus on Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:57 | # @Mr. Haller and anyone that’s interested I know very well that competition exists at every level of the biological hierarchy within hierarchical selection theory. All social evolution (in the Darwinian perspective) involves the dynamic interaction between forms of competition and co-operation (and that co-operation is itself a form of competition). I also know that something in evolutionary ecology called the ‘scale of competition’ dramatically effects the possibility for the evolution of traits such as co-operation or altruism. This factor (the scale of competition) also shaped human social evolution and continues to shape contemporary social formations in a myriad of ways. How the scale of competition effects the evolution of ‘co-operation’ or groupishness - both in a general terms (across taxa) and in the specifics of human behaviour is a topic that is of considerable interest in those people interested in adaptive social evolution. Groupishness (or co-operation etc.) is very vulnerable to ‘defector’ phenotypes of individualist competitors within a group - unless strong mechanism exist to punish ‘defectors’ and/or ‘free-riders’. All of this is in the primary scientific literature of adaptation and Darwinian social evolution. All of these processes reflect more basic mechanism within standard population-genetics and a very basic trade-off found with life-history theory. In addition it is a deeply naïve notion it think relatedness trumps all within social evolution – it does not. It is but one factor within the wider context of life-history trade-offs, forms of intra-genomic conflict, and the scale of competition – or why on Earth could fatal sibling rivalry evolve or be adaptive? OK so I’m bullshitting about all of this and I don’t know what I’m talking about. Well read Frank’s ‘Foundations of Social Evolution’ (still the best technically rigorous introduction to the topic in my view - but what the fuck do I know?) for at least the basics on hierarchical selection (of which inclusive-fitness theory is effectively a sub-section within that wider framework – Hamilton recognised this himself back in the early 1970s). Now we come to the human being, in the context of power and power-relationships, and to what is objective and subjective in human experience and knowledge. First Bhaskar – for Bhaskar how we explain the reliability of real scientific knowledge is a genuine philosophical challenge. Without going into his very complex ideas, (but to my ‘limited’ mind pretty robust arguments), Bhaskar claims this; one that ontology is inexorable – all serious world-views, theories of how science, or knowledge as such ‘work’ etc., have an implicit and often very crude ontology that is their unacknowledged basis. Second reality itself (not merely our social realities) is differentiated and stratified in ontologically important ways both ‘horizontally and hierachically’ (in ways that make ‘emergent properties’ and different ‘levels’ of reality real - again to translate Bhaskarian ontology into very crude terms that you might just be able to grasp). Next Bhaskar with his ontological model (he calls it a brand of transcendental realism – no it’s not anything to do with God) attempts to account for how scientific knowledge can be reliable and robust yet without falling into the naivety of positivism or naïve scientific realism (which if you knew anything about debates within the philosophy of science you would know is hopelessly bankrupt). Bhaskar offer something he calls critical realism. Again I’m not going into it but it involves asking how and why objective knowledge can arise from with an epistemically relative, ‘situated’ perspective? What is the interaction between intransitive domains of reality and the transitive domains of human knowledge? Again I have not the patience nor inclination to spell out all of these ideas in painstaking detail. But they involve a rejection of naïve scientific realism (human-beings simply unproblematically and error-free are able to directly ‘read’ nature and natural phenomena) and naïve social constructivism (everything is a narrative - why everything is dimply subjective) with a very interesting middle-ground that recognises the human experience and knowledge (as such) is situated in the very middle of this objective/subjective split. Right. Next up is Aristotle – one his ideas is of course on the issue of parts and wholes, the connection between differentiated levels of the polis and how ethical/moral subjectivities are formed, as well as offering an account of human nature in terms of potentialities (and enjoy a wide degree of plasticity but not limitlessly so), and indeed if viewed correctly offers us something on why what we might now call alienation only brings various forms of individual and collective pathologies and unhappiness. As for Aristotle’s underlying ontology - well it’s nothing like the ‘autonomy orthodoxy’ at the centre of all liberal theory including the underlying ontology of free-market ideology (the ideological conceptualisation of the ‘free-market’ is of course the economic form of liberal modernity par excellence). Aristotle is not a subscriber to atomistic ‘methodological individualism’ nor the underlying ontology of such a view (which again is in various forms THE conceptual core of all manifestations of liberal theory). We then move on to Schmitt and the inescapable nature of the political – power and groups. Human beings compete for various form of power – economic, military, political, social etc. But this competition occurs at both levels of social reality - the individual and the group level. Now Schmitt has a certain view of what those groups look like etc., how fixed or stable they are etc., which I think is inadequate. Human beings cannot escape power-relationships but the ‘shape’ of such relationships can encompasses an enormous variety of forms. Equally what and how human beings socially, culturally and politically coalesce around (in terms of our in-group/out-group sensibilities/propensities) is again extremely plastic. And these grouping can always be dissipated or split from ‘below’ by sub-groupings and/or individuals ‘defecting’. But obviously axiomatically, economics and differentiated power-relationships between different groups are not part of this world-view or the proces of power-relationships and never will be (why because that’s Marxism). Nor was Acton right in suggesting that unconstrained power is dangerous. Power does not corrupt, let alone absolute power corrupting absolutely. What tosh – political, economic, and any other form of power do not remotely have anything of Acton’s suggestion. Plutocrats (those with massive economic power) as corrupt and ruthlessly self-serving – why that’s more Marxism – the politics of jealously at work. Free-riders abusing asymmetries in power? Cultural, social, environmental externalities generated by such asymmetries - such talk is fucking Commie/Jew crap very obviously! Returning to the ideas of in-groups and out-group formation and power, as Swift suggest cleavages over which end to eat a boiled egg from can - if linked to the dynamics of power – quickly become lethal conflicts. Again groups and groupishness within the dynamics of power vary in both their stability and their form. The notion of relatedness trumping all (in this context) would have an enormously difficult time explaining various ferocious and bloody civil wars (within previously tightly bound and homogeneous ethno-linguistic groups/populations such as the Irish Civil war etc.). That wasn’t ‘foreign’ Protestants versus native Catholics. It was Irish Catholic Nationalist versus Irish Catholic Nationalist. Or the partition of India which resulted in around a million dead - based not on any remotely ‘large’ or causally important ‘racial’ differentiation but instead a rather complex interaction of religious identification and politically explosive power-relationships. I could go on to talk about the topic of just how are these ethical subjectivities and political commitments formulated, shaped and maintained? The Hegelian tradition concerning mutual recognition and intersubjectvity and whatnot (yes the idea that any part of any human world-view as being socially constructed is but Marxist dogma – like that well know ‘Marxist’ John Searle with his appalling efforts in ‘The Construction of Social Reality’ – why that’s Jew talk!). I could discuss how all human sociality is a complex interaction between horizontal and vertical forms of the social - expressed both in synchronic and diachronic terms. I could then bring in the whole issue of nihilism and the ground upon which values (both ethical and political) can be build under the shadow of an inescapable ‘background’ nihilism. But to what end? I could discuss the phenomenology of the self and what the autonomy orthodoxy badly gets wrong in its model of the self and so on, and on, and on. Again to what fucking end? OK I often enormously simplify what I say at MR because of time constraints and to be frank I think the natives are a little bit on the thick side. Now let’s imagine I tried to fully collect my thoughts at both length and depth to be semi-decent - with more fully developed and nuanced positions, the full subtleties explored to the best of my abilities (all academic references and so on). What would be the reaction? “It’s all about J-lizards” “You’re axiomatically incorrect!” “Leftist dogma” “Voodoo is essential” blah, blah, blah. I know when I went to America I initially loved debating and talking with creationists offering both scientific and philosophically sophisticated views as to why both their specific ‘hypothesis’ was incorrect (beyond the banal science disproves religion trope) to critique their implicit ontology, epistemology etc. And then realised I was totally wasting my time in an exhausting effort to attempt a semi-serious and semi-rational conversation: “well it’s my faith, radioactive dating is ‘wrong’, the devil put those fossil in the ground” etc., what precisely can one do with such people and the mindset represented by them? Of course as a fallibilist (without a royal road to such axiomatic correctness) I admit everything I have ever believed could be wrong. Thus I must submit to superior and infallible intellects. So I will just admit it - Mr. Haller is ‘axiomatically correct’ in all things. Market Hobbesianism plus some old-style ‘true’ Christianity is the formula for meta-political success. Mr. Haller can discuss this until his heart is content with the petit-bourgeois Tory philistines of this parish (GW and other ‘Daily Mail’ reading friends) and find out what precise variety of liberal ontology (with some flag waving for secondary dressing) is the terminus of collective human history (sorry more Marxism with the c word). Why is it 19th century classical liberalism? Whig-style liberalism?, Lockean?, Hayekian?, Randian?, Kantian?, or the latest take on things namely neo-liberalism? After all this body of thought does represent the ‘right side of history’ yes? No-one can be foolish enough to suggest otherwise can they? And yes that was all a bit of rant - so what I don’t care at this point. Frankly, I have much much better things to do than take part in this conversation anymore. Now I think I’ll watch Andrew-Graham Dixon’s excellent looking documentary series on the history of Dutch art. Dutch art is a wonder of European culture. Dixon is an excellent art historian both in his writing and his documentaries. Civilised, cultured, and thoughtful. All things MR do not ‘do’ in the slightest. Goodbye. It has emphatically NOT been a pleasure. P.S. Why not invite Mr. Richards back? It seems that’s the natural level of things here. His ideas are ‘axiomatically true’ as well I believe. 126
Posted by Joe on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:15 | # @ Momus Considering the fact Leon Haller thinks the Communist Jacques Maritain’s work and the satanic Teilhard de Chardin’s work represent the ontologoly, metaphysics, and eschatology of true Christianity, how can you possibly come to the conclusion Leon Haller “is axiomatically correct in all things” ? It’s not at all self-evident Leon Haller is “axiomatically correct in all things”. Quite the Opposite is self-evident , in fact : As Leon Haller thinks Maritains’s Communism, and Tielhard’s New-Age philosophy of pantheism—both Maritain’s work and Teilhard’s work strives toward the ultimate goal of undermining Christ—and replacing Christ with the Talmud—which is Communism—which is nihilism, which is existentialism, then it’s axiomatic Leon Haller is axiomatically In-Correct in everything Haller says ; Haller is In-Correct in everything because the premise of his argument is Wrong. Very wrong. Haller builds on a false premise. Haller’s premise that Talmudic, Noahidic, Jewish Communism is the ontological foundation of Christianity is Very In-Correct, to say the least. The pantheism of Teilhard’s, by the way, is a ruse to blend Christianity into Talmudic, Noahidic, Communist Judaism : In other words, to make Christianity amenable to Jewish Talmudic/Noahidic Communism. So Leon Haller is axiomatically In-Correct in everything he says : The complete opposite of your false assertion. I greatly enjoy Dutch art, especially the Dutch painter, Maarten van Heemskerck: http://paintingdb.com/view/3006 If painting is small on screen, simply click to enlarge to see painting clearer. I’m sure you’ll greatly appreciate the painting, as you so very much esteem fine Dutch art, as we all should—as I most certainly do—as Dutch art is very much an integral part of Authentic European Heritage and Culture. 127
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:47 | # Joe, When you start defining what another person is without knowing what you are talking about, it, conversely, defines you as the epitome of ignorance and or arrogance. Take your pick. Listen , dude: by your attempts to discredit the credible, you discredit yourself. Maybe that behavior can be attributed to your spaghetti-bender ethnicity, I don’t know. But one thing is for sure, you are becoming a real pest. 128
Posted by Joe on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:56 | # The so-called difference of opinion between Maritain and Teilhard de Chardin is contrived didactic incitement—the epitome of contrived didactic incitement. At the very foundational level, both agree on, both support, “spiritualized” Darwinism. The difference between the two is a matter of semantics— ultimately it’s an example of contrived didactic incitement. They both worked towards the same exact goal. Both Maritain and Teilhad de Chardin work toward the same exact goal : A Zionist* New World Order. A NWO were Christians, Jews, Muslims* are to be blended into one—and any who resist will be labeled enemies and terrorists, and treated accordingly : Like in Nazi Germany, like in the Soviet Union. * In the world of Islam, The Shia Muslims will especially come under-the-gun in the NWO. In the West, devout Catholics, sincere Protestant Christians, and Torah Jews will taking-it-on-the-chin, big-time. Read Eustace Mullins’ : “The Secret Holocaust” “The New World Order” All of Eustace Mullins’ books can be found in pdf format at : Go to “Works” icon. * Zionism, Nazism, Communism, Sunni Islamic Jihad, are all interchangeable as they’re all controlled by the same people—the same war-mongers, the same totalitarians : George Soros is one of the people. The Rockefellers, Dick Cheney, the Bush family, the Rothschilds,and the leading banking families in the world, the great majority of Freemasonry secret-societies, etc.. 129
Posted by Joe on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:27 | # @ Thorn My vocabulary is not as high-brow as some who post here at “Majority Rights”; And most certainly, my writing style is not as convoluted and disambiguous as some who post here at “Majority Rights” ; Still, I’m quite capable of discerning the English language. As we’re communicating via the written-word, I can only judge by the words fellow commentators choose to use, and how our fellow commentators arrange such words in such a manner as to invoke certain meanings, however nuanced. My vocabulary is not high-brow, and my writing style is not the least bit convoluted and disambiguous, still I’m quite capable of discerning the English language, including all the subtleties and nuances of the English language. 130
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:41 | # Joe, Please take Leon’s advice, and leave the extraneous material to some future thread actually dealing with such matters, should one ever arise. Final request. 131
Posted by Bill on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:25 | # Why not rename the trash bin and shunt Jo’s prodigious output into the sidings, letting through normal traffic on the main-line. Plus anyone else intent on gunking up the threads. Let readers browse at leisure in the sidings. 132
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:00 | # Joe, The claims you make about Maritain are simply ignorant. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no intellectual nuance at all. I’m a very hard rightist, but I don’t think that everyone who disagrees with me is a communist or New World Orderite. For example, take John Paul II. I’ve been quite harsh wrt him at various religious conservative events I’ve attended precisely because he refused to take a stand against the Islamic demographic invasion of Europe. Does that mean I think he was secretly trying to undermine Christian civilization? No, his mind simply worked along other lines. What he saw as the main threats were communism, and modern secular relativism. Should he have recognized the danger from Islamic migration? I think so, but that he did not is psychologically (let alone logically) insufficient to prove his insincerity. I have never in my life told another person to be more tolerant. But I think you need to be more intellectually tolerant. Not everyone who disagrees with us is evil; far more are merely misguided (of course, some out there really are our mortal enemies: eg, the SPLC, the ADL, the ACLU, MALDEF, Soros, etc). DanielS@111 I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to myself. I myself oppose miscegenation. I have never said otherwise. I do object to the weird notion, prevalent around here, that somehow opposition to the race-denialist agenda is incompatible with support for strong private property rights and free markets. You and Momus have continually insinuated such. I, OTOH, have repeatedly defended the logic of human action, arguing that economics offers real, value-neutral insights into the way humans behave in allocating (and increasing) resources. I have further argued that free markets rooted in strong property rights best reflect and accommodate human nature, and thus best promote human flourishing. That fact does not make me into some kind of fetishist of radical individualism, apostle of the ‘unencumbered self’, or denialist of the need to occasionally restrict absolute economic freedoms in order to protect the larger social system within which economic activity occurs (eg, I don’t want an American land owner to be allowed to sell his 40 American acres to al Qaeda for use as a jihadist training ground; I’m not sure narcotics should be legally available; I have no problem with sexual decency or public health laws banning the production of pornography, or forcibly closing gay bathhouses; etc). Not one person at MR, in the now many years I have visited here, has provided even the rudiments of a persuasive case for how yet more Big Government will help whites, esp in the overall present multicult situation. One can imagine a quasi-collectivist economics within a fascist state, but few if any around here have argued for fascism. I’ve made a few passing references to my preference for a more socially authoritarian conservatism, though that would not extend to the economic realm, as I see a radical return to ultra-strong private property rights as itself constituting a massive Foucauldian ‘disciplinary project’ (private property is not “anything goes” - not at all). It is modern social welfare democracy which recrudesces “Hobbesianism”; the free market produces civilized order. I have in the past put forward some ideas for a specifically nationalist political economy, but these were never taken up by others. I continue to wait (doubtless in vain) for the anti-capitalists here to offer some specific examples (as opposed to vague and often irrelevant rhetoric) of what their preferred economy would actually look like, in terms of laws and policies and institutions. 133
Posted by Joe on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:40 | # Search terms : ” Jacques Maritain + Saul Alinsky” ” Maritain + Alinsky + Communists” ” Maritain + Alinsky + Montini” ” Maritain + Alinsky + Montini + Communists” Jacques Maritain was most certainly a Communist : http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f062_Scenario.htm http://christorchaos.com/AlinskysSheen.htm The “Christ or Chaos” article is especially informative as it’s about Obama also. It’s a long article. Starts off about Obama. Maritain and Alinsky is towards middle of article. The “Tradition In Action” article is very much worth the read also. Very informative. http://www.traditioninaction.com/ “Tradition In Action” is an excellent website for traditional Catholics. Other excellent traditional Catholic websites : 134
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:00 | # I do object to the weird notion, prevalent around here, that somehow opposition to the race-denialist agenda is incompatible with support for strong private property rights and free markets. You and Momus have continually insinuated such. LEON, NEVER NEVER NEVER DID I SAY I WAS AGAINST PRIVATE PROPERTY. That kind of misrepresentation is what has made me frustrated with you. 135
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:46 | # ...................... I would like to address only a few things in your comment number 125. Firstly, I am and have been aware that close genetic relation does not guarantee cooperation. I believe that E.O. Wilson discussed that and cited the example of Jews and their neighbors being closely related genetically and yet fighting as bitterly as can be. I have taken this into account and I especially appreciate your insights on the role of the “parent” to stave off such “sibling rivalries.” That has got to be an important line of inquiry. “Ho ho ho, they want to say that race is a mere social construct.” However, though I am a bit rusty, my criticism of John Searle is something that I must dig out of a bottom draw somewhere. Finally, I would like to remark that I found Richards noxious and dubious of motive. My guess is that similar as Joe, he was attempting to bury serious discussion in hyperbole. Personally, I do not find Haller’s comments and ideas to be productive either, but at least he tries to be a gentleman. I can move past his comments if I like - though from my point of view, he gunks up the threads. While I admit to enjoying most of Jim’s contributions, the extent to which he seeks to defend Christians and redo the text in Aryan form, I think is highly unproductive - dungeons and dragons, etc. - the latest debacle of encouraging this Joe guy to comment here is an example of what that can lead to; though Leon “welcomed him aboard! as well”. ..the pair-wise duel thing, I am trying to turn that argument into sanity. Graham, I would miss your input here very much. Needless to say I would not miss Joe and whatever aspect of folks that would have them insisting upon inflicting Christianity or Misian economics upon the threads (i.e. right wingers). I see that as the heart of the low quality and quantity of what is gunking up MR’s threads at this point: People who are in the habit of seeing deviations from Christianity and Misian economics as Jewish/Marxist totalitarians. That/they are a much bigger problem here than anyone who might suggest that Jews control the weather. 136
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:55 | #
....or people who are in fact, here as agents to promote hyperbolous theories about Jews and conspiracy in order to derail our discussions and make them seem ridiculous. 137
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:28 | #
Don’t make yourself sound so desperate, Danny. Don’t fret. He’ll be back in due time. I can assure you of that. There, Danny, I said it to comfort you. I do hope it makes you feel better. 139
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:06 | # I missed this note on Thatcher from English expat Peter Brimelow at vdare.com:
140
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:40 | # EXCELLENT short article! MUST READ!
141
Posted by Bill on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:30 | # This piece caught my eye in today’s Guardian 24.4.2013 A piece by Stuart Hall entitled….
Since the 1950’s Stuart Hall played a key roll in the schemed convergence of Marxism and neo-liberalism in post Thatcher’s Britain. What irony! The unintended consequences in all of all this is laid bare by the man himself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/kilburn-manifesto-challenge-neoliberal-victory
142
Posted by Bill on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:00 | # @ 141 For those interested, the following is from Soundings, (a journal of political thought - 1995.) A more in depth analysis of the present state of the left.
Stuart Hall, Doreen Massey and Michael Rustin http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/pdfs/s53hallmasseyrustin.pdf 143
Posted by Demonisation of the working class on Sat, 27 Jun 2020 11:42 | # 144
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 27 Jun 2020 14:58 | # That video, Daniel, is by a socialist female quoting a book by the homosexual activist and socialist media butterfly Owen Jones. It is worth taking the time to wade through videos you want to post. Then you might get to the bit where the little lady is explaining that the BNP was a “far right fascist” party in 2010, and it is “racist” to support it; and the socialist penny might drop. Margaret Thatcher, btw, did not “demonise the working class”. She freed them from the dictates of class-warriors and union bullies. After the Wall went down in 1989, of course, they sashayed overnight into culture war and manic anti-racism. Thatcher’s successor, John Major, proved entirely useless in combating them. But useless might even be a virtue compared to the contributions of Cameron, May, and Johnson and their governments, all of which have fought alongside the hating left. 145
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 27 Jun 2020 15:01 | # I did get to that part. I didn’t say that I agree with her, its just that she laid out some of the territory (a specificatory structure - lol) for those of us less familiar with the details of the history. The comments are here for objections and corrections such as yours. I’m confident to have established my ethnonationalist and anti-anti racist cred. I have also made it clear many times that I am against internationalist socialism; but it is scarcely possible to avoid at least a modicum of socialism within the nation (if the nation is to be responsible); how much, is up to the nation, and less my concern than the national borders themselves. I’ve said many times that I favor private property, free enterprise within reason, am not bothered by unequal outcomes according to merit.. can see how vast centralized planning schemes can meet with disaster, etc. I also acknowledge (and have) that unions can possibly unionize the wrong thing - e.g., obsolete industry, and can form a powerful bond that actually works against the best productivity, interests of the natives and their naturally corrective manifestation. Post a comment:
Next entry: Boston. Who? Why?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:10 | #
I look back on my quiet and rarely stated preference for Reagan not so much with embarrassment but the realization that he was not the answer to liberalism - that I was quietly approving the first neo-con.
I guess that Thatcher’s similar kind of patriotism (Heyakian and Mises) would correspond to some kind of sense that Reagan’s did not, given that his nation, the US was more a propositional nation than England of its given demographic make-up.
Yes, we want to see patriots, but we want to see real ones, given what we know now.