|
|
|
Nationalist Conservatism by David Hamilton Conservatism was an attempt to preserve traditional ways and differed from Liberalism but became Liberal, Classical then Social Democratic - abstract rights, capitalism, economics, laissez faire and self interest- now Cultural Marxism. Like the other parties they offer the electorate incentives to get into power and at election time pretend they will introduce popular policies like controlling immigration but once in office pursue their own agenda. This should be a criminal offence and the Party name subject to trading standards law. Academic Conservatives have tried to revive Conservatism by turning it into a competing ideology but it has no goal only living life by belonging to a historical community and culture and passing it on to one’s children. It is not a different opinion in a rational debate but an attitude and temperament in life. Rational plans and formulae are for the rationalist-ideologues: which is why these are “intimations” not a blueprint and cannot be stated a priori like utopian ideologies. There is more to human nature than reason. It is not just reaction to current dominant doctrines nor a rejection of future utopias as fantasy in order to re-live a past utopia, not an attempt to turn back the clock to a bygone time but is a traditional way of thinking and feeling for one’s own ethnic community. The turning point is now as we who feel alienated and dispossessed begin re-developing a tradition for our common good and to revive our collapsing civilisation. We value wisdom over rationalist ideologies. Wisdom is passed down by tradition, especially the family and develops from naivety through learning the lessons of life, how people behave and what they are capable of doing to each other, to practical wisdom which we pass it on to our children to prepare them for life. Received ideology is arrested development. We are born into a family, community and nation with history, culture and a civilisation that pre-exist us and we imbibe it as we grow up: It lives in us, and we in it. This has a conscious and an unconscious effect which makes us what we are. We have piety for our past and reverence for the achievements of our ancestors and a duty to pass it on to our descendants. It is an affective relationship that endures in time not a rationalisation into independent individuals interacting; much less the Cultural Marxist prejudice of slotting selected groups - blacks, homosexuals and women - into abstract categories with legal privileges. We belong to a nation as Edmund Burke explained: “A nation is not an idea only of’ local extent, and individual momentary aggregation: but it is an idea of’ continuity which extends in time as well as in numbers and in space. And this is a choice not of one day, or one set of people, not a tumultuary and giddy choice; it is a deliberate election of the ages and of generations; it is a constitution made by what is ten thousand times better than choice, it is made by the peculiar circumstances, occasions, tempers, dispositions, and moral and special habitudes of’ the people, which disclose themselves only in a long space of time(1) Enoch Powell defined our belonging succinctly in the debate on the 1981 British Nationality Act “Your nation is who you will fight for.” T.S.Eliot, our ways, ”… the term culture… includes all the characteristic activities and interests of -a people: Derby Day, Henley Regatta, Cowes, the twelfth of August, a cup final, the dog races, the pin table, the dart board, Wensleydale cheese, boiled cabbage cut into sections, beetroot in vinegar, nineteenth century Gothic churches and the music of Elgar.” (2) Our Christian faith activates our spiritual natures but Ideology is a secular religion which replaces national religion and having no spiritual content gives rise to earthly fanaticism. It has nothing transcendent only a forced move towards utopia on earth instead of heaven. This developed from the French Enlightenment: one of the most significant events in human history that changed the human focus from looking back to the past for wisdom, the Bible, Aristotle and Plato, say, to working towards a vague, future utopia. It requires an idea of the person as abstract and malleable, with substance removed conceptually to fit them into a mental blueprint for utopia - Marxism’s classless society, the feminists’ androgynous society, the liberal brotherhood of man and the Nazis’ thousand year Reich of pure Aryans. The present Utopia is the coffee coloured, Multi-Racial society. Norman Pannell urged a practical approach to immigration at the 1958 and 1961 Conservative conferences suggesting immigrants have health checks and those who are criminal be deported; Colonial Secretary Iain Macleod countered at a fringe meeting with his utopian belief in the brotherhood of man. The Ten Commandments are duties which have been more important than rights in our historical and cultural achievement with the greatest art, literature and music inspired by God. A nation based on the duty of men and women is conscientious about responsibilities and obligations: a right-centred society is one in which individuals assert their personal desires. They are encouraged by Human Rights Acts to demand rights, with no consideration for the consequences of those demands on other people, like the right to protest and demonstrate conflicts with the right of pedestrians and motorists to use the public roads. Human Rights are the modern Rights of Man. Conservatives believe in liberty but derived from belonging to a nation and is opposed to the universal, abstract rights of liberals and the group rights of cultural Marxists. Because of the Human Rights Act “travellers” are being given our countryside. They buy farming land and convert it into caravan parks, then claim right of settlement. In the Spectator of December 17th 2005 philosopher Roger Scruton urged rural residents to save their countryside by clubbing together and buying it. Rural communities should “take power into their own hands” as they had shown that the Hunting Act cannot be enforced we must now rescue our countryside from outsiders who are favoured by the Government. Neighbours (we) should club together to buy small parcels of land from desperate farmers then rent it back at a peppercorn rent.” They have done this in Professor Scruton’s neighbourhood and saved them from both travellers and agribusinesses. The Conservative sense of nation was described by Cambridge don Dr John Casey in an address to the Conservative Philosophy Group. In the nineteenth century,” culture was taken to be the whole life of the people, and not just its highest achievements in, say, the fine arts. This involved an attempt to understand society and the nation through the sum total of its practices, traditions and institutions. This tradition of thought has always had political implications, since the public institutions of the nation - religious and political - are clearly part of the whole life of the people. And the term most frequently invoked to express the whole life of the people, including the sense of itself as a political entity, was nation. The idea of the nation was something that could include the life of local communities, relations between classes, and indeed all those ways in which people impose a sense of themselves upon merely economic arrangements.” (3) He was persecuted and recanted but it still stands as an example of how we can become homogenous again safe from imported gang murders, muggings and Muslim bomb attacks. Civilisation is created by effort and genius and must be renewed daily but is being undermined by our rulers for a new world order. Through studying history we learn that civilisations decline and fall when they become decadent and the people indulgent, as in Egypt and Rome which is why history is being phased out of state education. People expect the state to solve their problems and spoiling them makes them dependent for not only material needs but their beliefs which are provided by the media and opinion formers so they become decadent and indulgent. Discrimination against us is presented as moral superiority - affirmative action. We who have emotionally bonded with our people and territory and belong here are being dispossessed by our rulers for unrealistic hopes of one world and those they brought here as cheap labour. It takes totalitarianism to make disparate groups unite and our lives are being increasingly regulated. A hospital visit needs a password and our confidential relations with our G.P.s have been destroyed now that our personal medical histories are put on a national database. We are becoming state property. The “Enlightened” ruling and cultural elites try to dismiss our views as prejudice but when examined their views are rationalisations of their prejudice in favour of other ethnic groups. In fact it is more accurate to define our ruling elites as an “Ideological Caste” because only those who think and act in the correct way are admitted and any who say the wrong thing are forced to publicly apologise or destroyed. London’s Science Museum cancelled a talk by Nobel prize-winning geneticist Dr James Watson, winner of a Nobel Prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, had been due to speak at the museum, because he suggested black people were less intelligent than white people. Watson, told The Sunday Times he was “inherently gloomy about the prospects of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” The Science Museum, said “We know that eminent scientists can sometimes say things that cause controversy and the Science Museum does not shy away from debating controversial topics…However we feel that Dr Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling his talk.” Where was their reasoned argument? That was naked prejudice on their part. Sir Winston Churchill tried to heal the rupture in our national continuity in 1955 by having a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.” (4) The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grandson of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendent of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth1, wrote to Viscount Swinton in 1954, in a letter preserved at the Public Records Office, ”We are faced with a problem which, …With each year that passes, and with the general improvement with methods of transportation, the flow increases. Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time. We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main cause of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.” That Queen Elizabeth I had “Blackamoors” expelled from her realm in 1601 shows what a Conservative value it is. The Daily Telegraph of 4/10/07 reported, “Foreign criminals are moving out of big cities and infiltrating rural towns and villages. The gangs include Jamaican “Yardies” selling crack in Hereford and Cambridgeshire, Chinese criminals called “Snakeheads” in Lancashire and Norfolk, Albanians running prostitution rings in Hampshire and Colombian cocaine networks in Chelmsford, Essex. A television series, “ Crime Invasion — Britain’s New Underworld”, for the Virgin 1 satellite channel, was presented by Rageh Omaar, a journalist who has worked for the BBC. Omaar said: “Crime in the UK is changing and making the series has shown me that it is happening right underneath our noses.” The chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Julie Spence, has said that immigrant workers were importing their national feuds and criminal behaviour to rural England.” Democracy is a myth. Few people bother to vote. It attracts inadequate and ignoble people to office because it involves bribing and deceiving people into voting for them; it attracts hypocrites who preach family values and commit adultery or who preach equality but send their own children to public schools. As few voters read the parties manifestoes they have no mandate. The main issues are general movements that political parties conform to, not attached to a political party. In our time it is multi-racialism and all three follow it. Culture is treated as independent of people and anyone can come and adopt it like putting on and taking off clothes. Aristocracy is a form of rule that suggests permanence and continuity as they embody the nation and its traditions. A warrior class based on the land, their duty was to defend the nation was well as rule it. The House of Lords must be re-created as the new chamber will be for rewarding members of the political elite and to stack decisions in the elites favour. Only the gullible think this will be democratic. It is part of the ongoing takeover of our lives by moneyed elites whose loyalty is to themselves and whose vision is the dissolution of our nation for unworkable Globalist aims. They are using people for cheap labour - both outsourced and imported. Re-creating the Lords will be a step back to aristocratic and monarchical rule. Rights were demands of the capitalists that led the French Revolution. Our main historical references are the American and French revolutions and the nationalist revolutions of 1848. It began the destruction of the natural order of sceptre and crown for rule of the Liberal-Capitalist class where membership was not by blood but money. They wanted the disestablishment of religion, the dissolution of nationhood, the denial of race as a social factor, and finally World Government or Utopia. The media elites manipulate the masses into supporting these ideas. The main issues of the day are movements that political parties conform to: they are not Traditional prejudice conveys wisdom to new generations but Liberals and cultural Marxists think they have transcended prejudice yet beneath their high-mindedness is the prejudice that immigrants are essentially good but whites are essentially bad and they take sides with immigrants a priori - the rationalisation comes after: “They are going to become English”, “they are bringing diversity”; “Islam the religion of peace”, “they are enriching our culture”, “the hospitals could not run without them”, “we need their doctors”. This justifies them asset stripping the third world of workers and doctors. It is motivated not by guilt but shame: if you feel guilty you are remorseful and seek to make amends which our elites do not do but direct immigrants into our communities so we are used to make amends for them. They live in lovely areas or safely in gated communities while ordinary people get mugged, burgled and raped, and put at risk of Aids and T.B. They do not spoil their own areas but use worthy causes like Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England to preserve them. When centres for asylum seekers are proposed for the countryside, the elites are in uproar to keep them out. Political, intellectual and corporate elites are selfish and think only of themselves. The one gets cheap labour, the others pose as moral beacons to the un-enlightened. They loathe their own people and do not care how much we suffer as long as they feel virtuous. Many illegals work unlawfully long hours for almost nothing and have their liberty restricted by their masters and classic hypocrisy is the elites apologising for historic slavery while importing wage slaves! This is opposite of the Conservative virtue Noblesse Oblige: the obligations of the noble to the lower orders who reciprocate by loyalty and service. Modern Noblesse Oblige would be adopting economic protectionism. This value was preserved in opponents of immigration including working-class Socialists as the British are naturally Conservative. In the Commons immigration debate on the 5th of December 1958 Labour’s Frank Tomney (Hammersmith), remarked “We have been sent here by the electorate to give expression to issues which concern them.” Conservative Cyril Osborne (Louth) 25th March 1965 spoke up for the working class in an immigration debate in the House of Commons. He said that in 1958 he could see the social evils and could still see them, “…for more than ten years I have begged this house – my own side as well as the party opposite – to face this problem which haunted me, as it still haunts me because I could see the social evils”. If anything goes wrong it cannot be others so they blame their own people and the connative word is “racism”. It is only applied to whites. We are the scapegoats for the setbacks on the road to their utopia. The ideas that we are told rule our lives are but rhetoric. Equality masks hierarchy. Dr.Frank Ellis left Leeds University after an Inquisition for speaking of, amongst other things, “humane repatriation.” The University stated: “Dr Ellis has acted in breach of our equality and diversity policy, and in a way that is wholly at odds with our values. Second, in publicising his personal views on race, Dr Ellis has recklessly jeopardised the fulfilment of the University’s obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. As a public body, the University is required under that Act to promote good relations between people of different racial groups.” Modern society has been built on the foundation of “equality” and therefore statements like this type threaten its roots. The analogy with the 17th century Papacy persecuting Galileo is apposite. Yet the elites are a hierarchy. The law was passed by the rulers then acted on by bureaucrats and academics lower down the hierarchy and finally the students protested obediently. Equality is imposed from the top, down a hierarchical chain of authority. That is the natural state and our recognition of natural hierarchy is only acknowledging what Liberals and Cultural Marxists try to deny! Nationalist Conservatives are protective of civil society which took centuries to grow! If we are split up by introducing masses of aliens, the basis of civility, which is trust, is destroyedbecause they have different ambitions and goals and each group become rivals and neither we nor they, know when historical enmity will surface. A major value is Tradition: ribs that hold communities together. One of the most important is our language and there is a new political vocabulary developing, un-self consciously. Take the word English. During the Empire the home countries were subsumed under the word British and it is PC to say British now but people are describing themselves as English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster to emphasise their national identity. This happened with flags and the authorities’ rationalisation against is re-claim them from extremists! We need a concrete vocabulary with which to explicate the world around us and describe human nature. The Welsh have it right in their great anthem “Land of my Fathers”. “English” is changing as the English affirm their collective identity, mentally disentangle from the EU and the term British disintegrates. This reflects change in British relationships. Country is vapid but land means something. Anglo Saxon words are folksy and Latin more abstract so our political vocabulary requires old English words. Joseph de Maistre, the Savoyard counter-revolutionary, encapsulated the unreality of abstractions in his famous quote, ”In the course of my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians; ... but man I have never met” The ruling bureaucrats of the E.U. and our regional Government are restricting our vocabularies through P.C. so that we speak and think in the way they want us to, and are devising an artificial way of describing Muslims to avoid calling some terrorists. This totalitarian control of thought through language began with the French revolutionaries, was continued by the Bolsheviks, Mao’s cultural revolution and in the west by cultural Marxists with their gradual cultural revolution. Take our degraded art and literature: it is for talented people to re-link with spiritually uplifting art and re-grow it. For example, in Poetry, re-link with our original Anglo-Saxon forms such as the beautiful internal rhyme of alliteration, whereas end rhyme is dull and monotonous; or, Medieval because of the importance of Ballads as a vehicle to convey our suffering under our elected representatives who are against us. The matter of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham is precedent. The family is exemplified in Monarchy. The institution of Monarchy is the embodiment of the nation and the Monarch is on our stamps, our court cases are Regina v X; we walk and drive on the Queen’s highway. The throne goes automatically to her successor. It is not the person but the office. The king is dead long live the king. It is continuity but also has a deep archetypal import that touches our deepest instincts. The natural form of Government is absolute Monarchy. It is the summum bonum of our family system and the family is its reflection. King and Queen are Father and Mother of the nation. Our current royal family are badly advised and reflect the general chaos instead of setting an example. I once read that the Queen Mother liked Ali G! This is propaganda to make them more ordinary in deference to demands by the tabloids and their global-elite owners but has made them contemptible. We must begin working towards absolute monarchy. They have archetypal importance to their people and a relationship with the whole nation not certain classes and factions. From the fifth Commandment we learn to honour our mothers and fathers. The family is the beginning of civilisation and we have warnings from one-parent families to go by - the misery and trouble they are often in. The bonds that unite us are affective not rational - we feel that we belong and are comfortable. We feel at home. We like our land because we have bonded with it and this bond has been sanctified by time. These affections grow naturally within the family where responsibility for our community begins and is perpetuated in creating and rearing children and renewing our community so what was handed down to us is passed on. Homosexuals do not have this fulfilment as they have no further stage to move onto and remain in adolescence. Our babies have been devalued as little more than attributes of the woman’s body, her rights are paramount and the father does not count. Abortion is erasing our posterity and 6 million babies have been killed since the 1967 Abortion Act! Fetishism is being popularised by our cultural and intellectual elites. This is deriving thrills from injury and degradation. It is the erotic form of hatred and consent is no excuse because if not countered evil spreads and soon those who do not consent will be abused and bullied by perverts. With outside forces working to destroy our boys and girls parents must regain sovereignty over their families and take responsibility for their children and Home School to rescue them from state corruption which is teaching them to give their land away and to become sexual perverts. An early progressive William Godwin wrote in Political Justice(1793) that marriage and parental duties are irrational and believed as utopians do that society would become better and that men and women would in the future not behave so narrowly but for the benefit of everyone. The family is not narrow: its influences emanate outwards. Nearly all our traditions and institutions have been destroyed so we are going to have to re-link with many of them and grow others from our roots. The cultural Marxists are planning “Faith Schools” to allow other ethnic groups to instil standards of behaviour and education but try to ruin ours. Jim Knight, the schools minister, was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 8 October 2007 as saying the Government was considering how to simplify the balloting process adopted under 1998 legislation.” Ministers are paved the way for the adoption of fresh powers to abolish academically selective education. They said parents should get the chance to force the closure of grammar schools in their area if the majority of families opposed selection by ability. Jim Knight, the schools minister, said the Government was considering how to simplify the balloting process adopted under 1998 legislation in which schools could be forced to drop the 11-plus.” The education Guardian on Monday June 25, 2007 told us the other part of the political elite the Conservative party ”announced last month that if it won the next general election there would be no return to We must counter these attempts to destroy our children by cultural Marxists. Parents must take back responsibility for their sons and daughters from the state. We need to re-introduce grammar Schools or even found new public schools to impart traditional values like honour, duty and service; others must consider Home Schooling networks to give their young the standard of education the state schools are denying them and to instil self-worth and a sense of belonging instead of teaching them to give up their country to outsiders and to become sexual perverts. We must revive local fairs and festivals and develop our Folk music traditions by taking traditional forms but using words and sentiments suitable for our present time to express our sufferings under the elites. These are not rationalist formulae but suggestions for our creative young people to develop in practice. They will forge natural, emotional bonds with their own people, their traditions and civilisation.
See also: pat buchanan.org. November 1998; and David Hamilton writes the Philosophy Blog for the Conservative Democratic Alliance Conservative Democratic Alliance, the leading voice of British Conservatives who straddle the divide between loyalty to kin and loyalty to the Conservative Party, with a marked leaning towards the former. Comments:2
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:24 | # Great article. Yes, Conservatism is NOT an ideology. I think it funny that the writers and intelligentsia insist on creating a “Conservative ideology”. There is no such thing. True conservatism is based on Wisdom, not ideology. And there is no true Conservatism in America. The True Conservatives in America were the Loyalists that fled to Canada and the Carribean, or were killed. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:37 | #
... and, apparently, have been in hiding there ever since ... 4
Posted by danielj on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:04 | # They had their own Marxist revolution. Oh that the world were full of Proudhonists instead of Marxists… I could deal with that. 5
Posted by danielj on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:50 | # Sorry. Canadians that is. From: http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1999_March_April/article_13.html Preferential hiring has benefited what Statistics Canada calls “Prime Women” (ages 35-54) who have “recorded large increases in employment and striking increases in earnings.” Between 1983 and 1992, these women registered earning growth of 18%, while “Prime Men” saw only a 2.5% increase. Young males (20-24) have been struck the hardest by policies and division. They have experienced the greatest decline in earnings: 24%! In 1994, 18.5% of males aged 15-24 were unemployed compared to 14.3% of women. Loney comments: “There are no tax-funded lobbies who claim to speak on their behalf, no government departments mandated to address their ‘marginalization’.” Canadian men, who interpret this as personal failure, are the unrecognized victims of discriminatory preferential hiring. Although it is a fact that women got 84% of the new full-time jobs between 1990 and 1996, Alexa McDonough still stated in 1997: “Women are losing ground, losing the battle of equality.” 6
Posted by David hamilton on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:39 | # In “State of Emergency” Pat Buchanan tries to how that the Founding Fathers spoke for a people, an ethnic group and did not create a proposition nation. America is a people notjust an idea. I hve always thought that theproblem there is that they beganas Liberals with all that guff about “born equal” and “inalianable rights” but Buchanan is doing a good job and should be a beacon for worried American patriots to follow. I am not attacking that magazine in particular, I have never read it but thelist of contents could be from the french nouvelle Droit or the Socialist New Statesman. 7
Posted by MacGregor on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:58 | # >>>The True Conservatives in America were the Loyalists that fled to Canada
>>>In 1965, Grant published Lament for a Nation, where he regretted what he claimed was Canada’s inevitable absorption by the United States. Grant articulated a political philosophy which was becoming known as Red Toryism. It promoted the collectivist and communitarian aspects of an older English conservative tradition, which stood in direct opposition to the individualist traditions of liberalism, and subsequently neo-liberalism. ... This short work created a sensation with its argument that Canada was destined to disappear into a universal and homogeneous state whose centre was the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Toryism >>> In distinction to the American experience where class divisions were seen as undemocratic (although still existing), Canadian Tories adopted a more patriarchal view of government. Monarchy, public order and good government - understood as dedication to the common good - preceded, moderated, and balanced an unequivocal belief in individual rights and liberty. This type of Canadian conservatism is derived largely from the Tory tradition evoked by English conservative thinkers and statesmen such as Richard Hooker, the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, and Benjamin Disraeli, later the First Earl of Beaconsfield. The primary influences on Canadian Toryism in the Victorian age, were Disraeli’s One Nation Conservatism, and the radical Toryism advocated by Lord Randolph Churchill. Inherent in these Tory traditions was the ideal of noblesse oblige and a conservative communitarianism. In late Victorian times, these were the pre-eminent strains of conservative thought in the British Empire, and were advanced by many in the Tory faction of Sir John A. Macdonald’s conservative coalition in the Canadas. None of this lineage denies that Tory traditions of communitarianism and collectivism had existed in the British North American colonies since the Loyalist exodus from the American colonies between 1776 and 1796 however; and it is this aspect that is one of the primary points of difference between the respective conservative political cultures of Canada and the United States. 8
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:59 | # No, the true conservatives in North America were the French-Canadians at least until WWII. Trudeau was full of admiration for the writing of the French nationalist Charles Maurras.
Until of course he (Trudeau) discovered the power of Jewish influence. 9
Posted by MacGregor on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:01 | # I assumed the discussion was limited to the context of the English-speaking world, the only domain where ‘conservatism’ has any substantial historical relevance. The social fabric of the French Canadians was always more complete, and that is exactly why conservatism did not exist there. Conservatism exists in dichotomy with enlightenmentarian liberalism, which the British Empire ironically shielded French Canada from. Clerical totalitarianism and anti-Semitism, probably aspects of the French Canadian character that would be cited here, are only ever incidentally related to conservatism. Trudeau’s admiration for corporatism was certainly not conservative, as Max and Monique Nemni pointed out in their book, if this is what you are referring to. 10
Posted by Bill on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:24 | # “The ruling bureaucrats of the E.U. and our regional Government are restricting our vocabularies through P.C. so that we speak and think in the way they want us to, and are devising an artificial way of describing Muslims to avoid calling some terrorists. This totalitarian control of thought through language began with the French revolutionaries, was continued by the Bolsheviks, Mao’s cultural revolution and in the west by cultural Marxists with their gradual cultural revolution.”
Now then, if we have the courage to look toward the future (a quality in remarkably short supply), and if we think deeply about the actual vocabulary of contemporary PC, only the most retarded political thinker can fail to note how we can seize the vocabulary and use it to our advantage. Remember, until you can speak out, you cannot fight back. ========== Well, let’s look at the word diversity. Actually nothing wrong with the term, the most ancient crone has experienced diversity of a variety of sorts throughout her life. It’s not a new idea. But it’s interesting because Jewry is consistently interested in telling us that European Americans are not diverse. If you live in your head, you may find yourself agreeing with that and enjoy calling yourself a gentile or a goy; but if you live on the ground, you know that New Zealanders and Finns are diverse, one from the other. And moving to North America, notwithstanding Jewish propaganda, does not muffle those differences for many, many years. I don’t know why there is such a short-sighted allergy to the word diversity, but in our activities, we have found it remarkably useful to lead any counter-attack by denouncing it as an effort to smother our diversity. Having made diversity into such a magic word, the left-wing racialists just can’t deal with our adoption of their big gun. ========== Let’s look at supremacy. We constantly accuse those who smear us of acting out a claim to supremacy because only a supremacist would feel empowered to name the Other. A lot of guys on our side don’t like this concept because not-so-secretly they would like a return to the day when we could go around naming the Other without any cost. But that past is over except for obsessed nut cases. ========== If we cannot learn how to speak out in public, instead of inside hidden byways, such that we push back effectively, then how on earth are we ever going to fight back against anyone? 11
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:44 | # Bill, Bill, Bill…so many wrong conclusions. Political correctness is a Marxist term for an ideology. In Sparta, Shame and Honor were used to discipline the society at large. It has existed since time immemorial. Plato and Aristotle talk a lot on Shame and Honor. In the Ancien Regime, under the Old Order, Shame and Honor is based on Virtue and Religious teaching. If you ran off the battle field if you were a Spartan, the men and women would both Shame the coward because the man showed Cowardice, A Vice. Plato noticed that it was Shame and Honor that motivated men to do the right thing and avoid what was bad behavior. Now, all this is based on Transcendent Moral values of Right and Wrong that is the basis of the Natural Law. Marxist political correctness is about enforcing Marxist ideology! It has nothing to do with the natural organic inspiration of a culture. Political correctness is about transforming culture in an opposite direction. Shame and Honor is to the benefit of the whole society as it attempts to get along with each other. See, everything has a Telos. Shame and Honor has the Telos of bringing about the good, protecting the good of the community. Marxist political correctness is about “evolution” of man and the globalization of humanity. What Marxist political correctness does is ape the Classical sense of “Shame and Honor” and appropriates this social conditioning for Marxist ideas. 12
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:02 | # Furthermore, Bill wants us to engage in the same thing as the Marxists! i.e. only the most retarded political thinker can fail to note how we can seize the vocabulary and use it to our advantage. Who was the first conservative? It was Socrates who lived in a Democracy. Both Herodotus and Thucydides remarked in their times about the bastardization of language. What was Socrates response? He always asked for clear and precise definitions of words! Most of his time was spent clarifying and questioning the use of words! This is what Socrates said in the Republic: “False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil”. We are not to play games! The great ethic is “Speak Truth at all times”. If we are righteous moral men living in Virtue, our words must ring true and straight. Honest Words for Honest Men. We have a standard—The European mentality of Truth and Right, of Beauty and Honor. This is the Warrior Code. We don’t play games. Our yes is yes and our no is no. A Spade is a Spade. No more, ....No less. This is Duty and Honor required of all Europeans. We are not to use progressive words or meanings but use true and straight and the oldest and bestest of meanings. True and Straight. For more, http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Principles_of_definition . 13
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:16 | # “Conservatism exists in dichotomy with enlightenmentarian liberalism, which the British Empire ironically shielded French Canada from.” Catholic corporatism in Quebec did exist in a dichotomy, with the enlightened liberalism of the British empire. For Trudeau, liberalism and democracy were simply techniques to assist the English domination of French Canadians. What you call anti-semitism arose in defence of group; an in group altruism that was a mirror of the racialism practised by Jews. It was, and still is, Jewish groups in Quebec who attempted to break down the group dynamic, by allying with other ethnic groups to promote human rights legislation. It was Quebec that spoke against the intervention against Boer nationalists in aid of Rhodes and his Jewish investors. It was the Catholic Church in Quebec that felt the subjegation of France by Wilhemine Germany was a punishment from God, for the liberalism of the revolution. And it was Quebec that stood against Canada’s intervention against Germany and Italy in 1939 and recognized the threat to Catholics from Judeo-Bolshevism. 14
Posted by Bill on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:44 | # Political correctness as a process or social control mechanism did not magically appear on the stage of world history recently. It is a feature of all societies at all times. It just so happens that the political correctness that sustained us as a people in North America for over 300 years got flipped. My first awareness of the flipping was the seizure of the history organizing principle called “the closing of the frontier” in US history books. Suddenly around 1973, it ceased being politically correct to have a triumphal attitude toward the complete subjugation of American Indians, and became politically correct to disdain the historical events leading up to that idea. But it is absurd to claim that political correctness is a new or Marxist phenomenon. Every cult and culture has had its own unwritten rules, speech codes, and conventional wisdom. One of the things I always look for when reading learned and high-flown comments is to see how it can lead to change for the better of European Americans, and I can tell you that accepting the notion that “We are not to use progressive words or meanings but use true and straight and the oldest and bestest of meanings” will result in our enslavement within 100 years. God gave us brains to use and tongues to talk. He didn’t give us butts just to sit on, however, while all around us our way of life is destroyed. In fact, gabbering on about “Transcendent Moral values of Right and Wrong that is the basis of the Natural Law” is just another way to disengage from the fight on the ground and to objectively surrender to the ideas, concepts, and words being forcibly fed to us.
15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:47 | # I’m no big fan of commentary that misses the main point (forced race-replacement) even when it hits the bullseye in other regards. Reading a long piece waiting for the writer to get to race can be agony, especially when he never does, as in the long piece from which the following is excerpted but these few paragraphs were OK:
Speaking of which, Fjordman must’ve drawn lots of heat from his Jewish and Eurolib friends for his foray into race those last couple of times he stuck his toe in that water, because he’s not dared to since. We’ll see what stuff he’s made of by whether he caves or not. If he does we’ll call the kind of race-avoidance seen in the above excerpt “Fjordmanism.” Why single him out when there are so many others? I dunno. I feel like it. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:50 | # Same problem with John O’Sullivan who’s a very good man but has never to my knowledge shown awareness of race (correct me if I’m wrong). In the excerpt linked he waxes enthusiastic over the notion of Britain’s integration into the (mostly non-white and getting more so by the hour) former British Empire as a better choice for that nation than integration into the (aggressively self-unwhiteifying) E.U. (soon to join the former British Empire as majority non-white if all goes according to plan). What he ought to be doing is questioning the self-unwhiteifying policies of both, but he breathes not a word of that (which should make Amalek happy, as to do so, Enoch-like, would be acting like those dreadful Americans instead of upholding the standards of behavior passed down from Olde England: remember, if you strive to be a gentleman of the olde school and just ignore race it’ll go away and there’ll be no problem! The horrid Americans brought race upon themselves by talking about it, louts that they are and always will be).
“Bennett in The Anglosphere Challenge makes unmistakably clear that it is English cultural traits – individualism, rule of law, honouring contracts, and the elevation of freedom – rather than English genes that explain this success.” So, what has befallen Rhodesia and South Africa since power has changed hands has naught to do with the R-word ... What an asshole this Bennett person is. Why do I use language like that? Exasperation. I mean after forty-odd years of this stuff it’s time for grown men to wake up, it really and truly is, no? ... If it were hard I might use nicer language but you’re not exactly talking rocket science here guys .... 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:28 | # Look at the editorial this piece of garbage Rod Dreher wrote. Reading it, I said to myself this guy has to be Jewish. I looked him up: for the record, he’s an Eastern Orthodox convert from Catholicism who was originally raised Methodist. What a piece of excrement. The Wiki piece says he’s contributed to The American Conservative. I would certainly hope he no longer does, although — hasn’t that mag been accused of flirtation with anti-racism? (It’s been quite a while since I’ve read it.) Scott McConnell is an anti-racist or something? I don’t remember the details. Next thing you know Morris Disease will be writing their editorials. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:15 | # Justin Raimondo’s extremely negative reaction to Ron Paul’s very mild ad on the illegals problem (see both RP’s mild ad and Raimondo’s over-the-top response at the link) is another black mark against The American Conservative magazine (with which Raimondo is associated). (Hat tip to Matra, commenting here.) If Scott McConnell intends that magazine to espouse radical anti-racism Taki needs to take a look at firing him. Post a comment:
Next entry: Merry Mithras!
|
|
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) |
Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:36 | #
Conservatism was an attempt to preserve traditional ways and differed from Liberalism but became Liberal, Classical then Social Democratic - abstract rights, capitalism, economics, laissez faire and self interest- now Cultural Marxism.
Aye! At least there was once a true and proper “Conservatism” to speak of at one time in England. We in the New World started off from the gate from the second step of your evolutionary chain.
If any is interested in the old right, how interesting its biggest defenders are jews. Libertarians, in fact.
This is true and Mr. Hamilton does a fantastic job explaining why.
Conservatism is not an ideology. It is not even an idea. And perhaps it is best to restate something from the blog entry that bears repeating:
This is why when it is convenient for a Conservative he can be a violent man or a peaceful man, a lover or a fighter, a revolutionary or an officer of the peace. This is also why we will lose the war of ideas every time.
Like the other parties they offer the electorate incentives to get into power and at election time pretend they will introduce popular policies like controlling immigration but once in office pursue their own agenda.
A relevant quote:
Wisdom is passed down by tradition, especially the family and develops from naivety through learning the lessons of life, how people behave and what they are capable of doing to each other, to practical wisdom which we pass it on to our children to prepare them for life. Received ideology is arrested development.
How true! Even simple things like walking down the sidewalk, after the abolishment of chivalry and ‘Victorianism’ become exercises in a struggle for dominance. We lose cohesion and create an easier oppurtunity for muggers, thieves and destroyers of social mores. Conservatism gives us one liberty; the liberty to act within a positive framework. It gives us a point of reference. It rescues us from the Nausea of Sartre.
Our “ideology” adapts as we adapt as a people in stark contrast to the static theologies of the social scientists, planners and human engineers. They do their damndest to explain with their all-encompassing theory of human knowledge, but reality doesn’t jibe. People are filled with dissonance and the only outlet they have is violence, sexual perversion and material gratification.
We have become a nation of Psychopaths because of ideology.
This developed from the French Enlightenment: one of the most significant events in human history that changed the human focus from looking back to the past for wisdom, the Bible, Aristotle and Plato, say, to working towards a vague, future utopia. It requires an idea of the person as abstract and malleable, with substance removed conceptually to fit them into a mental blueprint for utopia - Marxism’s classless society, the feminists’ androgynous society, the liberal brotherhood of man and the Nazis’ thousand year Reich of pure Aryans.
Let us not forget the English that contributed to this violent slide into Marxism, none of which would have been possible without Hegel.
The Chartist, Robert Owen, London as a base of operations for exiled revolutionaries. Let us remember that Engels wrote an entire volume on the plight of the English working man and died in London. All of us Europeans are responsible for the cup of madness we now drink from. My Italian ancestors (in addition to the French) are not entirely to blame. [Italy gave us Buonarroti and the Carbonari. See: Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith for a lengthy treatise on this very subject.]
One Europe.