|
|
|
Political lies, lived lies, all that is not real One day last week I received a mail from GT which contained a criticism of his which we know well. “There is no merit,” he said, “in bringing the “life” approach to narcissistic, urban Internet “warriors” of paleoconservative/libertarian bent.” Now, I have a lot of respect for GT, combative as he is, so I’ve replied in a considered form and in the context of the week’s big news in the long war for the Globality and against European Man ... There it stands, the Big Lie of the moment: global warming is caused by our carbon emissions. Sworn by the high priests of a new “science”, received by an owned political class, brought into the public consciousness as an article of faith insulated as far as possible from rational examination ... it is everything that interested parties need to deliver Europe’s benighted children from comfort and prosperity unto a life of need and, through need, subordination. Interested parties? Well, I will leave you to google “Lord Monckton” for a spotlight on the UN. But here (pdf) is an essay titled ” Trading Emissions – Full Global Potential” and written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, calling for a new legislative system to regulate emissions trading (aka “cap and trade”) and a global body, the World Environment Agency, to oversee it. It was published by the Social Market Foundation in January 2008. Governments must establish this legislative system, it says:
Those three little words, which one would think people like Linnett, who move in Rothschild circles, would know better than to use in public, first appear in the Introduction to the essay:
And they appear for the third and final time at the end of the section “How to get there”:
Since I could not possibly buy the notion, popular on the infowars fringe, that some vast and hermetic astrotheology accounts for this curious attachment to re-ordering everyone everywhere into a master-slave configuration, but Judaism and the lust for (and adaptiveness of) power might, I am bound to mark the lie about carbon emissions as an unexceptional political lie ... just one in the long list of lies, large and small, that we are told. Much like: a) There is no such thing as race. c) The Jewish Holocaust of the film and print media really happened. d) Israel is America’s best friend. e) Al Qaeda hates our freedom. f) Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is concealing weapons of mass destruction. g) Racial diversity is our strength. h) Black crime is caused by poverty. i) Low black educational outcomes are caused by institutionalised white racism. j) Islam is a religion of peace. k) Banks are too big to be allowed to fail. l) Democracy exists. In relation to the last of those, incidentally, while proposing London as the location for his World Environment body Simon Linnett notes that:
This is the Rothschild way of speaking. Ours is that, since it intentionally robs the people of a voice in the existential questions that they actually care about, the descent of British politics - and politics throughout the West - into an anaemic, faux-conflicted managerialism is, at the very least, an actus reus of conspiracy. What other judgement can we pass upon the wallowing in secondary issues, and the web of shameless lies and the liars who feed them to us every day? Those who have eyes are left to wonder whether the worse we in the West will see will be, as Tomislav Sunic observed of the Soviet Union, “a make-believe system in which nobody truly believed and which everybody, including former communist party dignitaries, made fun of in private.” Frankly, even that would be better than a system designed to atomise and destroy our people and turn what remains into politically and psychologically castrated slaves to debt and consumption. For this, in the end, is where all the lies lead. But that isn’t to say that the bankers’ New Mestizo would, himself, be living a life of lies. Quite the contrary, without the European’s restless creativity and his exaltation in freedom there would be no lie in a life of static economic and political serfdom. And, as we can all see quite clearly even today, without some sense of, and connectivity to, one’s own historical self there is no lie to the five-minute packet-soup of consumerism ... or to a life lived vicariously through the images on the TV screen or the exploits of some negro wide receiver ... or to a life so conveniently consoled by a salvation deferred until death. All would be exactly as it appears, with nothing kept back, nothing belied or mitigated by the interior reality of extended kinship, collective memory and belonging. To a substantial degree, the crime in progress is a crime against European peoplehood alone. The serf and the saved and the soap addict and the sports fan would not mourn their loss of history and human dignity. Their ineffable lightness of being would be ineffable not only because of the silence of their tongues. It is the void within that kills. Our struggle as dissidents in this process, then, is a struggle for human dignity, completeness, depth and selfhood, for peoplehood, for freedom, for history, for survival, for love. These are not worthless things, paste baubles beside the jewels offered by the political mainstream or by Hollywood’s caustic Jews. Actually, ours is the only song worth singing. We have yet to find our true voice, that is all. Or, put another way, we have yet to find how to speak truth to our brothers still enmeshed in and enfeebled by the lies and confusion about them. Truth and lie cannot co-exist together for long in the same man or in the same people. Where truth is spoken, lies are soon driven out. In theory, anyway, it seems to me that all intelligent and creative Europeans, the free-spirited and individualistic ones, and those still drawing from the deep well of their national traditions and culture - even paleos - have the capacity to distinguish truth from lie, and are amenable to our truth. These are the best of us, and the young among them must be the bearers of our struggle into the future. They are who we exist to locate and educate, however falteringly at present. They are why we speak, or should be if our motives are pure. For only through them can we, in the long term, influence for good the fate of our wider people. Will we succeed? Today I don’t know the answer to that. Is it pointless to try? Well, even if it is in reality, that won’t stop me since, like any normal man, I seek for us political truth, a lived truth, and all that is true. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:34 | # Oh Harry, only emotional incompetents give themselves up to cultish nonsense like that. Why would the global power elites all be secret sun-worshippers? And I don’t mean they like stripping off with a nubile friend on the second sun-deck of the Mediterranean yacht. Neither did I mean that the architects of the Globality are all Jewish or that it is a scheme to benefit Jews - unless, of course, the aim is to usher in the messanic age. But that leaves the problem of the non-Jewish elites. No, these people are if not above ethnocentrism, exactly, then only too aware that ethnocentrism, even Jewish ethnocentrism, does not further their aim. But that said, the financial potentates among them do seem to be pretty well all Jewish. 3
Posted by Serfs, Soldiers, and Silenced Taxpayers on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:55 | # Guessedworker’s analysis is excellent. Here is Resisting Defamation’s take on the ideological super-structure of this phenomenon as outlined in its Attacking Back section: << The global monoculture that universalists have in mind is one that will treat most of the diverse white Americans much like (a) the way that the minority slave-taking Turkish peoples in their Ottoman empire treated the majority white European Slavic peoples for 500 years, and (b) the way that the minority slave-taking Arab and Berber peoples in their Iberian peninsular empire treated the majority white European Spanish and Portuguese peoples for 700 years, that is, as serfs, soldiers, and silenced taxpayers. We are already serfs condemned to pay outrageous taxes in support of empire and royal style for the few. We are already soldiers in great wars of imperialism. And we’re already pretty well silenced on most topics branded by the global monoculture as taboo. >> **************************** However, we have to disagree with this portion of his remarks: “We have yet to find our true voice, that is all. Or, put another way, we have yet to find how to speak truth to our brothers still enmeshed in and enfeebled by the lies and confusion about them.” We simply need to speak the truth to our neighbor, using the thin edge of the wedge, without a lot of contested theory, about the loose ends of the web that seeks to encapsulate us all. One person at a time, one loose end of the web yanked on at a time. Show the easy truths about the lazy lies, and let your friend think it through for himself. Global in its evil, the system will be undone locally. 4
Posted by Revolution Harry on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:50 | # GW, believe me I was as doubtful as you before I looked into all this in more detail. Do you think the Egyptian obelisks in Rome (the Vatican), London, Washington, Paris etc are just decorative (they represent the sun god Ra). Do you think the symbolism on the back of the dollar bill was just a bit of fancy artwork? Next time you see 10 Downing Street on the news look for the rising sun symbol above the door. Statue of Liberty? Try Queen Semiramis holding the torch of Tammuz, donated by French Freemasons. Do you think the Lotto logo is a stylised 666 by accident? Their symbolism is everywhere, these people are serious occultists. You either realise that this dimension of the agenda exists or leave yourself ignorant of the full scope of what we face. It’s not just a matter of ‘worshipping the sun’ it’s the occult knowledge they keep for themselves and use against us. Bill Cooper wrote a pretty good introduction to the If you think Is-Ra-El is for ordinary Jews, then think again. 5
Posted by Revolution Harry on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:24 | # I’m sure you all know that the swastika was an early sun symbol. Well guess what Ken Livingstone’s UAF ‘Hope Not Hate’ symbol is? Obama’s campaign logo? The recent G20 summit logo? I mentioned the Eye of Horus on the back of the dollar bill before. Another sun symbol of course but what’s the eye in the triangle doing as the previous logo of MI5? I could go on but you get the picture. 6
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:31 | # What of evolutionary truth? Here lies an enormous contradiction; a circle than has yet to be squared. The pursuit of wealth is adaptive.
Per Greg Clark’s study, because wealth confers a fitness benefit, the wealthy in England replaced the poor and, if you will, enhanced the capability of that race of people, arguably being the foundation of the success of the vast Anglo-Saxon diaspora. How does this political truth you seek square with evolutionary truth? 7
Posted by PF on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:31 | # Guessedworker wrote:
I think a great deal about this lightness of being, as it seems to be manifest in so many friends and family members. GW, do you really think it was different in any other historical period? This possibility exists: perhaps the 98% were always imitators anyway. Instead of imitating grave and solemn forms, while struggling with difficulties (as they presumably did in the past), they now have their needs met and they imitate fun, surprising forms. In this case, “middle class respectability” which was a solemn form popular around the 40’s and 50’s - is simply now swopped for “wildly partying suburban-gangsterism” a la my sister’s MySpace profile. They are just imitating - thats why I don’t see their lightness of being as connotating anything meaningful whatsoever. Give them a religious atmosphere and they will ape religion. What do you think? They are apes and they do whatever the external world tells them. I wonder very much, as a lapsing, wanna-be traditionalist - where the world of genuine tradition divides from that of fantasy. And to what extent traditionalism isn’t merely a loyal man’s truncheon to beat social manifestations he finds unappealing, or to grasp for an assurance of continuity in a world splaying out in a thousand directions. What do you think of Evola’s Jeremiads against modernity? They strike me as being very fragile. Clearly, “the usurper” is with us, when we talk about this stuff. 8
Posted by Matra on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:40 | # GW, IIRC a few years ago you said global warming might be more important than race. What has changed? 9
Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:25 | # Frightening stuff. We are ruled by madmen. There will come a time when bitching and moaning on the Interwebs will be insufficient. (Hell, even now it’s not enough). There will come a time when we must strike back at Climate Laws and Race Laws, strike back at our over-lords and their representatives and advocates amongst us, make our protest heard, and risk all. 10
Posted by Q on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:57 | #
I’m not quite sure what he means by “bringing the “life” approach” to… I googled “life approach” and no definition I found is relevant to WN. Hopefully he will explain what he means. Too, instead of whining about “easy online racialists” (that only serves to reveal his resentfulness), GT should develop his practical alternatives/solutions, then present his ideas in a more positive fashion here at MR and elsewhere. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:35 | # Beer, skittles, global warming and the redemption of the West 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:41 | # Harry, Mysticisms that are psychologically valid are not at all concerned with the material in the real-time, this-world, millenarian sense you mean. You are asking us to believe that some rubbishy, boring Babylonian pseudery has been assiduously preserved across the millenia by a peculiar strain of intellectually-limited spiritual peasants for the purpose, apparently, of bilking all those of us they do not genocide. If that’s all these female-brained owl-clowns believe in, they are, as father Bush once exclaimed, in deep doo-doo. Personally, I think Desmond is nearer to the inner significance of these people’s very arch fascination with the supposed ancient. That, I suggest, is used to ornament their monopoly of power, not equip it with any other purpose than the one we already understand perfectly well. Of course, by “these people” I refer only to the heterosexuals among them. The pooftahs who populate Bohemian Grove just love the theatre of it all and the frisson of excitement that precedes the disappoint of sexual rejection by various big-time CEOs and Washington power groupies. Desmond, I only used the term “adaptive” once in that post. But I agree with your suggestion, and would very much like to have a better understanding of the mechanism myself. I would like to suggest that now you must do the hard work and theorise it for us in full. No cop-outs, no shortcuts. The whole thing. How about it? Bo the Silenced, What I mean in talking about “our true voice” is something different from speaking “the truth to our neighbor, using the thin edge of the wedge”. I am looking for a systemic solution that has a revolutionary effect, mandating truth-speaking and disaccommodating the deceitful and all their proxies. “Our true voice” would be that ideological system. Bear in mind that revolutions are intellectual before they are ideological, and ideological before they are historical. Matra, What’s changed is I have paid more attention to it, and to the counter arguments. I don’t know enough about the science behind both side’s claims, but I allow for the fact that Jewish mega-bankers are not our friends and their presence kind of poisons the “emissions” well. Meanwhile, I continue to allow for the possibility that, like Peak Oil and depending on how far it goes, (naturally occurring) global warming could have effects sufficiently far-reaching to make it “more important than race”, yes. How about you? PF, do you really think it was different in any other historical period? Certainly I do. The further away from the soil, from family, from a wider organic society we travel, the more impoverished becomes the stuff out of which we are made. perhaps the 98% were always imitators anyway. Instead of imitating grave and solemn forms, while struggling with difficulties (as they presumably did in the past), they now have their needs met and they imitate fun, surprising forms. Yes, but this is not in conflict with your prior statement. Man is suggestible, but men are not equally suggestible. And while even the rooted imitate, the more rooted and solid a man is, the better he is equipped to exercise discriminatory judgement in what he imitates. So, given that Man disappears into his imitation, the question is: what is the quality of the thing which is imitated? where (does) the world of genuine tradition divide from that of fantasy Genuine tradition is a proxy for adaptive behaviour. Fantasy is all surface, and if it has any benign effects at all, they are purely accidental. What do you think of Evola’s Jeremiads against modernity? I have or had RATMW as an e-book but have only skimmed through it, having been put off somewhat by the relentless idealism. I haven’t read any other Evola. 13
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:33 | # “Life approach” is not my terminology, Q. It is GW’s, who used the term to describe what I’ve tried to do at MR. I merely quoted him in the message he is referring to, which was used to lead the article above. No, I am not going to promote practical solutions further, nor spend too much time with philosophy, on the goddamn Internet with a bunch of smug, egoistic hobbyists looking for laughs, a good read, unwilling to help, and/or threatened by ideas that might reduce contributions from aged pensioners or the ADL/SPLC/FBI. Laughable, too, is the Rush Limbaugh tactic of suggesting that my criticism of easy money is founded in envy. To the contrary, I have money of my own - labored for and saved. I have lost genuinely earned savings accumulated through hard physical labor in business, have started over again, and am in the process of accumulating an adequate sum for retirement should I survive the next 10-15 years. Furthermore, I am married to “wealth.” I could avail myself of it, if desired. Fool that I am, I choose not to. The source is dirty - easy, easy money “earned” through speculation in a thirty-five year housing bubble on the west coast, overseas investments in China, Mexican manufacturing, promoting the distribution and sales of garbage goods at Walmart and Target, promoting the importation of non-white labor to these “united states,” placing the money of foolish little white guys - urban “I wannabe rich too!” lower middle-class Republicans, mostly - at risk, etc., etc. So there it is. Enjoy yourselves openly or with smug, private twitter! 14
Posted by Henry VII on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:35 | # “The further away from the soil, from family, from a wider organic society we travel, the more impoverished becomes the stuff out of which we are made.” You’re telling me, GW. After just a few generations away from the soil people begin using the word “peasant” pejoratively. We must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom. 15
Posted by Selous Scout on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:04 | # What are you going to do, in ways large and small, to subvert Global Governance? 16
Posted by Bill on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:02 | # The Devil and Mr. Obama: Barack promised change - and sure enough, things changed for the worse Now this is what I call a rant - Joe Bageant is the author. As usual it’s the comments that ice the cake. Disclaimer. I’ve heard of and read Joe Bageant before on odd occasions, but I can’t say I know where he’s coming from. 17
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:16 | # Good piece GW. I suppose the genius of pushing so many obvious lies is that it wears down peoples willingness to care. Disillusionment fulfilled. The ironic part is that, despite the mountains of evidence, the White race-denying lefty cannot see that he has no non-White counterpart. ... 18
Posted by Revolution Harry on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:35 | # GW, you may think it’s Babylonian pseudery but they certainly don’t. Just take a look at this poster for the EU. They’re telling you they’re rebuilding the Tower of Babel. Quite literally. There’s far more to it all than just theatre even if it remains at that level for some. In the link I gave you Bill Cooper describes one aspect of a Masonic ritual where the aspirant is asked to split on the Bible. If he refuses he passes and is congratulated, as nobody would ever do such a terrible thing as spit on God’s Bible. The initiate will find that, in the future, he never progresses much further. Those that do spit on the Bible are also told they’ve passed and are also congratulated. It’s explained that they correctly understood that religion is nothing more than a mechanism for control of the masses. This Mason will continue to advance up the degrees. The real point of that exercise and others is to discover whether the adept has the right psychological make up (power hungry psychopaths) for advancement. If nothing else the secret society networks are sophisticated mind control and manipulation techniques that play an important role in the control structure of the World Government agenda. Their New World Order has always been much more than just the monopoly of, temporal, power. They really do want to rebuild the Temple of Sol-O-Mon (sun and moon) and have no qualms about whatever devastation is caused in order to bring that about. The Freemasons call it the ‘Great Work’. These people (at the higher levels) are supremely evil. Again I suggest that you shouldn’t dismiss such organisations as the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the Knights of Malta and Skull and Bones. They are central to the drama we see being played out. It is those that are the driving force for this New World Order that are responsible for the attempted destruction of our nation. Destroy the New World Order, World Government, agenda and you severely weaken if not remove entirely the hidden driving force for national and cultural decimation we’ve suffered. All I ask is that you keep one eye on those that are trying to resist this World Government in the making. Whether it be currency reform, the return to our constitution or leaving the EU anything that weakens the New World Order project is to be helped and assisted. 19
Posted by Bo the Silenced, not the Guilted on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:39 | # Guessedworker: << Bo the Silenced, What I mean in talking about “our true voice” is something different from speaking “the truth to our neighbor, using the thin edge of the wedge”. I am looking for a systemic solution that has a revolutionary effect, mandating truth-speaking and disaccommodating the deceitful and all their proxies. “Our true voice” would be that ideological system. >>
Is that the kind of thing you are talking about, or are there better historical examples? 20
Posted by PF on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:01 | # GW wrote:
Good answer, sheesh! So let me piece out the logic in what you’ve said (or attempt to). If we have these imitators, the 98%, imitating something crafted for/by them, and something which can accumulate over time, and something incorporating to whatever extent possible the wisdom of enlightened past greats - in contradistinction to what we have now (Hollywood, newspapers, and popular music) - then in the act of imitation, they are raised above themselves, or shown a path to collective being? Or is it simply more advantageous in terms of group survival? You bring to mind a comparison with some young Canadian intellectuals I know. Since I learned Roman, Greek, English history and folklore, as well as physics and some other stuff, while on my fathers knee as child, I have a sense of ownership over these things that makes me difficult to co-opt. This perhaps is rootedness, in one respect. The Canadian intellectuals I know did not receive any tradition, one prominent one did not have any father whatsoever. They have been totally co-opted into the Frankfurt School/New York Intellectuals tradition, and are basically the academic water carriers for the 1930s Jewish emigres. One perceives that on many levels they did not inherit any sort of model. 21
Posted by Gudmund Haraldsen on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:04 | #
That is a good article from an analytical standpoint, the guy knows his facts and his exposition of what’s wrong with this country was epic. There was hardly a stone he left unturned in his critique. Like others have said in the past, America is headed for disaster. But, it was also clearly a piece of pro-socialist propaganda from a wild-eyed ideologue. Notice how sober most of the writing is, but when he talks about socialism and all of its supposed benefits he drifts off into fantasy land. Liberalism really is a religion. 22
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:19 | #
It’s called a meme. Apparently, “brilliantly argued” for in the “redoubtable” Susan Blackmore’s The Meme Machine. Consciousness, is it Darwinian (incidental), Lamarckian (imitative) or godly (Auster and many, many others). Thus the need to create a Faith gene. 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:20 | # In the American context there are either of two approaches which must be taken to secure the existence of our race on the North American continent: 1.) Take control of the Federal government. 2.) Dissolve the Federal government. The first option seems to have hardly any inertia behind it at all, the second option already has nascent movements afoot (e.g., “Ron Paul Revolution” and “Oath Keepers”) which more or less seek to make it manifest, and they are very probably examples of implicit Whiteness. Bowery’s approach consistent with #2 is the best I am aware of. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:00 | # PF, For the sake of general accessibility let’s move closer to the political, and attack the issue from there. The great mistake that we all make is that there is this thing called liberalism or maybe postmodernity which exists, somehow, separate from us and which we can defeat by opposing it. We know it is separate from us because it is “Jewish” or, perhaps leftist or politically correct or whatever, and we are none of those things. And we know it is very hard to oppose because we are marginalised and morally assassinated, and in America we are without the capacity to organise, it seems. Yet we believe that we can “awaken” enough of our brothers as we were awakened, and roll onward like an irresistible, ever-gathering wave of righteous political thought, feeling and action. Accordingly, we welcome disasters with assurances that “Worse is Better” or we calm ourselves with a quick re-assessment of the “inevitable” outcome of all the moves in play. Then we return to doing what we have been doing all along. Sometimes, members of the awkward squad like Desmond remind us how MacDonald’s horribly inconvenient evo-psyche warnings about individualism or the adaptiveness of our elite’s trespasses against us show that Darwinism is against us as well as with us. This is confusing, but only because it never occurs to us that “liberalism” or “postmodernity” is not something separate from us. It never occurs to us that we have been looking at it in the wrong way - as a political or philosophical artifact when, in fact, it is part, and a large part, of the cultural charge to the atmosphere which births us as personalities in time. In this sense I think Dawkins has a point, in that our personality - the sum of the acquired, the non-essential - is an informational ecology. We are liberalism. We are everything ... all ideas, all information that exists in the “atmosphere”, for that is nowhere but in our collective self. That’s why a paltry few of us cannot possibly excise any part of that just by not believing in it. But even though we are few, we can change the atmosphere in a revolutionary sense. This, in fact, is the only thing we can do. Of course it is counter-intuitive, but great change to the collective self is more realistic and achievable than narrowly targeted change to certain key ideas or institutions, and is the only basis on which a stable new life can proceed. So the revolutionary question revolves around what great change is (a) true, and (b) will work. I take it as read that the answer is nationalism in some form, which is always revolutionary in the liberal context. But which form? Really, we come back to that key question: what is the quality of the thing which is imitated? (Note that we do not ask an esoteric question like: how do we oppose Man’s tendency to disappear into his imitation?) Some qualities are listed in the post to this thread. But the real answer to that question is: we want our people to not merely imitate but to discover the natural European life ... their own being ... that which is real or essential, unfettered by all the lies that work themselves out in us today. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:08 | #
That’s me. It’s as if GW read my mind — that’s me exactly, every sentence, each and every word: that paragraph sums me up.
No, not me. I don’t like “worse is better”; that has never been my thinking.
Yeah that’s me. Back on track now.
Yes, Desmond does that and he has that effect. I get that. That’s not over my head.
No, I deny that. “Liberalism” is a lid forced down onto a pot, a pot that doesn’t want that particular lid but has no say in the matter. “Liberalism” as something that supposedly characterizes the pot is not real; doesn’t exist. It’s imaginary, it’s propaganda, a paper-thin veneer, it’s attempted brainwashing, an attempt whose success is judged and reported by the hand doing the forcing so naturally it gets reported as if it’s a success when it’s a dismal failure but nobody’s allowed to report that it’s a failure. “Liberalism” as such doesn’t exist. What exists are tribes who know there’s a tribal war going on and tribes or rather a tribe who doesn’t.
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
You’ve lost me there and not a little. It’s like, “What did he just say?????????????????” And that’s after going back and re-reading it fourteen times. It’s like reading Hegel in German (for anyone interested, you can find that at Project Guttenberg).
Revolves around what will work. We already know what’s true.
Lost me again, sorry!
Forgive me, but see just above. I’m glad we had Rudolph Carnap in my elective philosophy classes in college and not this stuff — I would have gotten straight Fs. I’ll stick with that first paragraph. That’s way more my speed. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:15 | #
Just remembered, we did have Wittgenstein — he’s like Hegel and this stuff only worse. 27
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:23 | # I really don’t intend to visit here much more, as apparently anything believers say is to be regfarded as a “behaviour” (with the implication that anything an opponent says is MUCH more firmly based - but how? - in some superior reality) but those who don’t buy the Global Establishment’s Doomsday scenario or who are unhappy about MR’s own version of it, the Racial Doomsday Scenario, might like to read this: http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2006/features_oct06.html Unfortunately MR won’t really be able to take up a full frontal opposition to the forces of Globalism, as it is apparently driven by two of the the same motors that power the ‘enemy’, Darwinism and Dawkinsianity, and is in sympathy with at least one of the enemy’s aims, the eradication of Christianity, or the erection of a secularised and politically useful parody of it. 28
Posted by PF on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:47 | # Thanks GW, for taking the time to compose that reply. It does clarify things. We are liberalism. That is interesting. It sure was difficult to find a footing in whatever ideological niche one ventured into,
I’m sorry to ask a question that you’ve probably answered elsewhere, but what would you define as the core of liberalism/postmodernism? Can you sum it up for me?
Where did you develop your ideas/viewpoint on revolution and its progress? They seem to ring immediately true, I just wonder how much is personal observation and on what basis you say these things. 29
Posted by Michael on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:06 | # http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/09/switzerland-minarets-ban-culture-war Incredible. Even at CIF, the readers’ comments are going about 8:2 in favour of the Swiss minaret ban. The idiot Timothy Garton-Ash is being tarred and feathered by his readers on this issue. 30
Posted by Sursum Corda on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:13 | # PF wrote:
I have seen a similar point being made by post-Lacanians such as Slavoj Zizek, and also by Todd McGowan in his clearly articulated book ‘The End of Dissatisfaction? Jacques Lacan and the Emerging Society of Enjoyment’. Where once there was a ‘Society of Prohibition’ in which there was the temptation to transgress in pursuit of imaginary enjoyment, now there is a ‘Society of Commanded Enjoyment’ the pleasures of which, being imaginary, fail to satisfy, despite being plentiful, available and imperative. It is claimed that those that attempt to reanimate tradition are pursuing the same basic motive-to-enjoyment as those against whom they react. Take, for example, American Christian fundamentalists with their emphasis on feel-good religion, commodification, personality, salesmanship, the pleasure to be enjoyed in ‘worship’, in the ownership of a community, in the expression of identity and success and in the pleasure of self-righteousness as against the ‘other’. In Britain, charismatic efforts like ‘Alpha Course’ attempt to appeal to the young with messages focused on enjoyment. ‘Alpha’ offers the selling point of an enjoyment that is more enjoyable than the other forms of enjoyment - just like a thousand other popular fetishes. Even traditional Catholicism begins to look like merely the pleasurable ‘image’ of Catholicism and one might begin to suspect that the traditionalist group ‘SSPX’ is but a holding operation to contain the dissent. As with religion, so with nationalism. One need only take a look at the posters on ‘Stormfront’, enjoying their traumas of self-pity, resentment and gullible Hitler fetishism served up by the very forces they imagine they are opposing, in all of the minute detail their imaginations could possibly want and with all the depth and insight of the back of corn-flakes packet. Is the failure of American WN to produce practical political organization related to the culture of liberty-to-enjoyment, which is arguably more developed and more fundamental in America than anywhere else? I quote McGowan:
Todd McGowan, “The End of Dissatisfaction? Jacques Lacan and the Emerging Society of Enjoyment” (State University of New York Press, 2004) , 90-91. 31
Posted by PF on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:43 | # Thanks for the food for thought, Sursum. Quoting McGowan:
This paragraph is a tangle for me conceptually because it doesn’t discriminate between levels or kinds of enjoyment. Guessedworker emphasized the enjoyment of natural community - something I also think is important. McGowan appears to think he has delegitimized nationalism by finding it to be an example of the pleasure principle - i.e. something done in pursuit of pleasure (or enjoyment). But isn’t that applicable to all human effort - all of it is done in pursuit of pleasure, or avoidance of pain, is it not? What actors can one point to who are operating on a level beyond pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain? If none, then how does that constitute a criticism? Even the ‘Prohibition Society’ seemed to me to be based on pleasure - even if it was merely the pleasure of self-righteousness in their religious concept, that too is pleasure. There is pleasure in self-conscious forebearance and outward ‘virtue’. Does McGowan see a difference between the ‘enjoyment’ of weekend binge drinking versus the enjoyment of being on a football team with your friends, or participating meaningfully (for you) in an organization of some kind? Is there a difference between spending time with your grandparents, for example, and shopping for clothes? I ask the question as it portends to man’s development or higher existence. Ultimately, reading Beowulf and looking at porn are both pleasurable experiences (if you have the viewpoint that enjoys these things). Yet a society inundated with porn seems like it would be fundamentally oriented around a different polarity than a society inundated with Beowulf. I wonder what a society would be like that took Beowulf seriously. (obviously, I take the book seriously). 32
Posted by PF on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:54 | # (edit: “take” should read “took” in the final line of that post) 33
Posted by PF on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:19 | # Sursum wrote:
Don’t you think any compassion is in order for these people? Post-modernity is such a crushing juggernaut, that running afoul of it in one way brings with it all sorts of nasty social and egoic complications. The matrix is well sown up nowadays around each young person’s head, and falling out of it is brutal, since things are so informationalized, rationalized. The modern apostate finds himself denied the one remaining basis for social communion and belonging - which is the bleary-eyed affirmation of the lies of our system. If you can’t affirm enjoyment(!), consumerism(!), universalism(!) and what other group mores exist, you often become socially outcast for not believing in that stuff. You lose the basis for social interfacing and have to reconstruct your own in the aftermath of that. So there is therapy and the need for therapy/forgiveness/healing masquerading as WN/racialism, everywhere. No doubt about that. Its our reactions to these, our brothers in need, that interests me here. I think that someone who has come far enough to actually be a Hitler fetishist, did indeed legitimately come to the moral antipodes of the present Western world order. Its a reaction, and just an antipode - as GW points out, it is not a higher synthesis. To say that their fetishism stems from the forces they imagine themselves to be opposing, is not the truth: they are opposing ‘historico-political’ forces, the articulation of liberalism, but their outcry itself is of a spiritual nature. They have felt the need for something more. In other words, the tumult and noise around WN and racialism and all the rest, contains a spiritual element that is really grasping for something more. It is not pure contrariness, nastiness and shock-jockery, and symbol-worship. 34
Posted by Matra on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:43 | # Meanwhile, I continue to allow for the possibility that, like Peak Oil and depending on how far it goes, (naturally occurring) global warming could have effects sufficiently far-reaching to make it “more important than race”, yes. How about you? Even if the world ran out of oil and AGR were true I don’t see how that can possibly be anywhere near as important as the end of our people. Other than the white man’s (virtually unique) concern for the animal kingdom our extinction renders most everything else irrelevant. As long as I’ve been alive there has always been fearmongering about the condition of the planet - usually by government’s wishing to establish more control of the population, businessmen and scientists trying to make money, and possibly some now secularised religious guilt impulse that came from Christianity. (Like non-white countries, non-Christians don’t seem too bothered by man’s alleged sins against the planet). Today it is AGW, when I was in my first years of school in the late 1970s we were told London would be soon be covered in ice. Before I was born there was Paul Ehrlich and his apocalyptic predictions. Even recycling, which has its uses, is less about the environment than it is about making money. Ever since 2001 when Bush’s refusal to sign up to Kyoto caused an uproar I’ve been predicting that global warming (now more conveniently known as ‘climate change’) would some day be used as an excuse for a Camp of the Saints scenario. If we in the West do not allow all these Bangladeshis and Africans to come to the safe West tens of millions will die due to the impact of climate change! This would be very convenient just around the time when no one believes any longer that immigrants are needed to prop up the welfare state and maintain our standard of living. It may happen even sooner than I expected. From the Grauniad on November 30 this year: UK should open borders to climate refugees, says Bangladeshi minister Up to 20 million Bangladeshis may be forced to leave the country in the next 40 years because of climate change, one of the country’s most senior politicians has said. Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, Bangladesh’s finance minister, called on Britain and other wealthy countries to accept millions of displaced people. Bangladesh may be just trying to get more money from the West but don’t be surprised if it becomes a future cause for all our do-gooders and Third World states looking to get rid of excess population. 35
Posted by PF on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:14 | # GW writes:
...the historical self…. has this been elaborated on elsewhere? What is the historical self? what act of recognition takes place when one ‘sees’ oneself in some past expression? Would a Janissary reading Turkish history mistakenly feel his heartstrings reverberate at a shared frequency when reading Dede Korkut, though he himself were by birth a Serb? If so, this communion across time is malleable by propaganda. Or is it? Does it contain an element that is beyond propaganda? My theory: just like odd little preferences have been shown to be genetically heritable, one can see certain structures in the personality or in the texture of experience - and recognizing these in a long distant relative, one feels reverberation, as the presentation of things will make a finer, inimitable sort of sense that couldn’t be articulated or contrived for effect. Yet I cannot pull apart how much of this is self-deception and willingness-to-identify and how much is real. 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39 | #
No. Not quality in the sense you desire, but quality in the ability to compete with the other that also craves its survival through imitation. Just because it is “true” or “good” does not mean it will win that battle at least if you subscribe to the Dawkins/Blackmore theme.
Why even consider that position, when that big, beautiful brain, expensive to keep and difficult to birth, grew to its current size because, according to Blackmore, its a lean, mean, copying machine?
This, in a nutshell is the weakness of it. How does a people evolved, according to D&B;, to be highly efficient copiers move to novel discoverers? “True imitation means copying a novel behaviour or skill from another animal.” Of course Blackmore appears not to explain how a novel idea arises in an animal built to copy but those are minor annoyances left to the awkward squad to ponder.
37
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:36 | # Desmond, Don’t be in such a rush to oppose. It leads you into your present error of forcing Blackmore/Dawkins on me because you have seen me quote them in a certain narrow sense. In another narrow sense I quoted you on this thread, in a manner of speaking! Will you then seize upon snippets from your own substantial body of original thought to punish me for relying on you? Your strict Darwinian interpretation of “imitation” is different to the sense in which PF used it, there being a whole swathe of useful connections which he is making and you are not. That rather undercuts your commentary, already damaged by your animus as it is. For the record, I am not relying on Blackmore/Dawkins in any general sense. I am, little by little and with lots of hope but no guarantee of success, drawing certain conclusions about Being, Mind and Nature and abstracting from them fragments of a politics of European survival. Obviously, since I am not doing this in a comprehensive, sequential way, the readers, should there be any, will very likely be inconvenienced. But my object is not to try to do this thing myself - I have no philosophical training, as O’Meara once delighted in telling me - but to engage others in thinking about it. That’s blogging, you know. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:12 | # PF, What is the historical self? It is a flawed term, perhaps. But I think you have the measure of it. what act of recognition takes place when one ‘sees’ oneself in some past expression? In societies and among peoples with a strong ancestral regard, the direction of travel is not from the present into the past - which, as you rightly infer, would necessitate intellectual constructions, inventions and claims. It is from the past into the present. So, rather than a search for meaning in a life that has gone forever, it is an attitude of openness, of seeing in the present the presence of our forefathers. The historical self would be this presence throughout our people’s life - the polar opposite to the clamour and brilliancy and never-ending change of the acquired, which is always a passing presence, mere costume. (I am not usuing “presence” here in any other than its customary meaning). If ... this communion across time is malleable by propaganda. Not without ceasing to contain truth. That would not stop the propagandists, of course. 39
Posted by PF on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:33 | # GW wrote:
Can you give an example of an experience like this, even if it be very subjective? 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:07 | # PF, what would you define as the core of liberalism/postmodernism? Soren has a very serviceable definition in “the struggle against the struggle for existence.” Pull apart the struggles here and we come up against “Nature/Nurture” all over again. Liberalism really means that Nurture has to terminate Nature because it (Nurture) is without essence, false. Our struggle is an existential one, and therefore our politics have to be predicated on what is real in us. Where did you develop your ideas/viewpoint on revolution and its progress? Like everything else, from understanding a very little of what happens in the human mind, how weak and fractured is the will, how suggestible we are and, in a certain sense, how absent. I’ve thought about these isues for over three decades. You imagine, PF, what intellectual mountains a man of your intelligence could scale over such a period if he remains committed. how much is personal observation and on what basis you say these things. It is a mix of direct observation and thought. The revolution idea I had before I started MR, and it was, in fact, the only original idea I brought to the blog for a long time. 41
Posted by PF on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:20 | # GW wrote:
Here’s an alternative: the religion of the relief of suffering. According to which, relief of suffering is the highest moral good achievable, and therefore the necessary end of all statecraft, politics, social movements, etc. This idea, which I may subconsciously have stolen from Nietzsche, popped into my head while at a meeting of anarchists (not national), it occurred to me that anything that could be reasonably demonstrated as causing suffering, could become a legitimate target of these peoples critique. At the same time, there is no higher good which justifies suffering, unless it is the relief of more suffering. Furthermore, they don’t have any idea what to do with man once they relieve the suffering. that definition is tentative.
Putting (metaphorical) dynamite beneath the lines of Prog Rail, is how you worded it. A delightful mental image. I imagine T.E. Lawrence and his Arabs blowing up turkish trains in Akaba and then skurrying away. Thats how they kicked the Turks out of Arabia… 42
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:34 | # PF, Can you give an example of an experience like this Now? In a European society? Not really. There is a basis from which to work in some European societies. The Irish, Welsh, Bretons, Basques have retained some sense of continuity from and respect for the past. The French have La France Profonde. The English don’t do modernity terribly well. But outside the liberal West it is a different story. The Japanese, for example, seem to offer a pretty valid example with Shinto. Really, what I’m reaching for with this idea is a form for the permanent and essential. This is a pretty obvious one, I think. 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:47 | # PF, Beside being true as a definition, how does “the religion of the relief of suffering” translate into intellectual movement on our side? Putting (metaphorical) dynamite beneath the lines of Prog Rail It’s that damned train again. The rest of the book I got it from has entirely disappeared from my memory. Only the loco-motive survives 44
Posted by PF on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:27 | #
I don’t understand the phrasing of the question as anything but a cue to elaborate. I therefore will elaborate and if I’ve missed your meaning, let me know. Where do *fairness*, a consideration of all perspectives, and desire to mitigate suffering out of sympathy originate from? According to Hamilton’s rule, they spring from the family/kinship network and genetic relatedness. That is the origin of strategically sensible cooperation, and extends in concentric circles to extended family, clan, tribe, nation, etc. Liberalism is essentially a demand that the mitigation of suffering, which one extends as a benefaction to non-family members, be made compulsory using group shaming tactics. The hand that opened previously out of love, affection, or spontaneous generosity, is compelled to remain forever open, or open so wide that it splits down the middle. Bending this broken hand yet further apart is the work of many academic theoreticians nowadays, finding new perspectives from which ‘oppression’ can be detected and thus, eventually, eliminated or abated. What mechanism forces and keeps the hand open? Emphasis on suffering, deification of suffering and victimhood. There are ‘manly’ memes still present in some societies which make the extension of empathy difficult because they are designed to inure one to suffering. These memes might be: “suffering is part of existence”, “suffering hardens one”, “each man must bear his own part of suffering”, “do not look to the hurt man, look to the thriving man”. With these cleared from european culture, enter the possibility of making suffering glamorous and uniquely qualifying. In a world absent belief and passion, those who are hard pressed upon at least have some visceral motivating factor which stuns and shames the numbed, overfed many. In this sense a surfeit of ‘happiness’ (physical safety and saiety of appetites) leaves our white drones open to be entertained, entranced, and inveigled into empathy with the hurting Other, whose tongue is enlivened by not having had anything to eat that day, or by experiencing all the epic experience (10 points: self reference!) which is open to those living dangerously. (Nietzsche emphasized the importance of suffering to self-development in his works, which is part of the meaning of his emphasis on “the tragic”. The idea is circulated that if one doesn’t suffer, one cannot have a full experience of life, and that suffering always has something to teach the sufferer. In other words, a positive and not immediately apparent value is posited in suffering. ) Today, people aren’t allowed to regulate the extension of empathy according to their own nature (c<rB). “Love” to all is a prerequisite, enforced through shaming. So of course one must sympathize with the plight of African refugees - which is the same as saying, one should help them out. Which is the same as saying, one should let them stay in one’s country. We get to rediscover the strategic value of helping only relatives by experiencing fresh the fact of how much needy persons can impose and exploit the giver. Liberalism sees the suffering, and it sees that it cannot be allayed by any quick fix, but rather by an endless stream of fixes. This requires emotional commitment. Liberalism achieves emotional commitment across natural Hamiltonian boundaries by collapsing the identity-conceptual space which separates people and groups - its a large scale cuckolding operation in real-time, where whites become everyone’s family, all of a sudden. All of a sudden, we are bound in bonds of sympathy and affection with people we don’t even know - our nest is full of eggs, in fact everyone’s eggs are in our nest! My British relatives for example support charities in India, giving money to people they’ve never seen. Essentially being blackmailed by the fact of the world’s humanity. By creating the illusion of universal relation, not of course in any esoteric/spiritual sense but in this very divided very earthly sphere, they think to guarantee eternal redistribution and thus, at least, some small measure of progress in their sisyphean task of ending suffering. Liberalism isn’t about *your* suffering, as a Westerner, and there are lots of reasons why it cannot be. It isn’t honest enough for that. Its about *your* wish to be apotheosized for your own big-heartedness, or at least avoid the shaming rendered to those who are stalwarts in this effort, which is so obviously a prerequisite of being human. Basically, its a huge status dog-piling of whites - after we have ceased to believe in anything, and after our basic needs have been met and our struggle with others and with the elements has ended; passion in us has abated and so has character. Its like a big Estate Sale or Garage Sale, where what is up for sale is the whole of our old, surplus-burdened civilization. Those selling don’t ask permission because for them the act of selling is righteous, for they receive nothing in return. Except the feeling of righteousness. When you’re an empty shell of a person, being told you’re a good boy is pretty thrilling. Have to stop now or I’ll wax rhetorical. 45
Posted by PF on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:55 | # Liberalism also achieves the collapse of identity space by creating critiques of the tools we formerly used to establish distance - a distance which was experienced conceptually but in the end had to do with relatedness, and at least mirrored essentialism. It became impossible to use the term “we” in writing, referring to any presumed group. Basically leftist academics found they were able to problematize *any* concept denoting group belonging, membership or legitimacy. Funny that this is just an epistemological critique of our ability to label and define complex phenomena with words. The same critique applies to all other aspects of life, only “The Other” requires perfect knowledge since anything less would oppress him. And since we are not all one big, enormous walking Englishman, the English identity can be problematized. Problematization is usually not sufficient to completely discard the old problematized categories, which usually dont exist unless they reflect some truth, but in this case that is justified. I’m sure everyone remembers all the discussion in the 90s and early 2000s, where people, either lone commentators or newspaper writers, would basically insinuate the complete nullity of british identity. It could be anything, they’d say. Everything was up in the air! A parrot could be more British than Enoch Powell, everything and anything goes. If we had to define “Pastrami sandwhich” with the rigorousness which our critics would have us define “Brit”, it would be impossible to order one at a restaurant. One imagines all the questions: “Well, if I add mayonaise, is it still going to be a Pastrami sandwhich?” “In what sense is this ham sandwhich, not also a pastrami sandwhich, since it also contains a slice of pastrami, and also contains bread?” “How can a single term refer to this, as it consists of two elements, namely, pastrami and bread?” “How can you deny the fact that this cheeseburger has the ability to become a pastrami sandwhich?” Anyway, I doubt there’s anything new in there. 46
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:58 | # Liberalism’s teleology drives toward the maximization of freedom and security of the individual. Liberalism is universal in the sense that all individuals have the “right” to be both free and secure; any traditions, institutions, systems and constructs which arrest an individual’s “rights” are considered oppressive. Contentions that Western man and Western culture are uniquely oppressive are I think properly classed as cultural Marxism - though there is significant overlap with liberalism. Perhaps it could be said that post-modernism is the bastard offspring of liberalism and cultural Marxism in that any firm description of reality itself is deemed oppressive to the individual’s “right” to self directed, self defined actualization. 47
Posted by PF on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:44 | # CC wrote:
I think your definition of liberalism’s teleology is very similar to my definition of liberalism. One could say, the liberals want to relieve suffering. One could say they want to maximize freedom and security of the individual. I personally find that there is too much wiggle room in the words ‘freedom’ and ‘security of the individual’ - these being defined every which way as circumstances require. Suffering is concrete, though it be borne immediately into fantasy as soon as its conceptualized. Freedom and security begin as fantasy, and are habitually misused as political buzzwords, so including concepts within a definition whose very existence is dubious, seems dubious. Probably a very minor point. 48
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:22 | # PF, Freedom tracks very closely to power. The more power one has, the greater ability one has to affect things one wishes in the way that one wishes - thus the more free one is. Obviously too a correspondingly greater ability to mitigate if not eliminate personal as well as extra-personal suffering. There is a reason Nietzsche has a following on the Left, not only do they as individuals wish to have less of what they don’t like (suffering), but more of what they do like (freedom/power). 49
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 05:37 | # I see your point about using language in a way that reifies what is not real. Yet, I seek to describe liberalism consistent with the way in which sincere liberal devotees understand it themselves. Having done that, then critique, or strain what is real from what is not. For instance, there is of course no absolute freedom, nor security, nor insulation from suffering - not in the material realm and for all we know that is all there is. But, to say that there is no relative freedom, security, and insulation from suffering is I think also unreal; and of course to the degree we can have those they are fine things, all else being equal. The problem comes when we are led to pursue them, and idealize them, in such a way that they could actually be attained, and not too lose the ability to enjoy them at all. That is, in a way which eschews the duties necessary to maintain the necessary conditions to enjoy some semblance of them (i.e., the duties required of us to maintain our racial body). The serpent must be fed, but not feed on its own tail. Post a comment:
Next entry: Majority Radio: Bill White’s 2009/11/16 Letter to Alex Linder
|
|
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 Revolution Harry on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:01 | #
As you indicate the global warming scam is one of many ‘problems’ the solutions to which will be ‘global governance’. The euphemism the PTB use for this world government in the making is, of course, the New World Order.
Regarding ‘cap and trade’ I read a brief summary of how it works yesterday. It was a piece taken from Rolling Stone that was posted on this blog. It can actually be summed up in a single sentence, taken from the article, which is:
“...but cap and trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues.”
Yes, there are many ‘Jews’ involved in the agenda but there are even more who are not. If you think this is a conspiracy by and for ordinary ‘Torah’ Jews then I think you’re wrong. Look more to the Talmud and Kabbalah and trace their roots back to Babylon. Then look and see where other strains of Babylonian mysticism ended up. Even if not all roads lead to Rome, then many of them do. For ‘hermetic astrotheology’ read Lucifer worship.