|
|
|
So you think you are a nationalist? Or a British nationalist, anyway. Well, perhaps you are. But you can now test the thesis courtesy of the Daily Telegraph. As part of its coverage of the General Election the paper has installed an online engine called Vote Match - presumably a development from dating software. Anyway, there’s nothing to interest lonelyhearts in the match of voter attitudes to party positions which it calculates. I tried Vote Match twice this morning so I could get a reading for all six parties (it only allows three at a time) and obtained the following result:
The degree of match, as indicated by the percentages, seems a little high for UKIP and Greens, and I am not sure quite why the Labour Party stands above the Liberals - I am equally disinterested in them both. But in other respects it seems very fair - not least in that, unlike the voter poll in The Sun for example, it actually included the BNP in the exercise. It’s a given that the party’s policies are far more popular than the party itself - something quite a few innocents will doubtless discover when they hit the last button. The questions about health, education, pensions and so forth are probably too domestic for non-Brits. But let’s see some results for MR readers who will be voting in the Westminster election next month. Comments:2
Posted by Frank on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:06 | # Surely some nonBNP candidates are tolerable? In the US we have some decent Republicans. At the least some UKIP members ought to get votes. 3
Posted by Frank on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:16 | # In the US we have numbersUSA Congressional report cards. Voters ought to always vote for the individual candidate, at least in the US system. Institutions such as political parties can and are routinely taken over by an enemy faction - Nick Griffin won’t live forever for example. You want voters to vote for values (e.g. immigration moratorium and independence from the EU) not blind partisanship. I know the British system is different though, that the party plays a larger role, but regardless it seems y’all should be ready to move should a takeover occur. In the US we have blind loyalty to Republicans / Democrats Game Cocks / Tigers (college football) etc. No matter who’s in charge, the same fans come out in support. What’s needed are principled men who fight for their people, regardless of the institution’s current name. 4
Posted by BGD on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:33 | # Have sent it onto to a few and social-networked it. Hopefully a few waverers will be surprised and end up putting their crosses for the BNP. Be interested if the DT summed up the averages of all the responses at a later date.. British National Party: 5
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:52 | # I was 86%, 60-something% and 40-something%. Personally i’d vote Ukip as a second preference as it adds slightly to the anti-EU pressure. 6
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:29 | # 79% here. I probably got demerits for Europhilia. I agree Wandrin, it would be truly excellent if the Telegraph could print a summary, can’t see them having the balls though somehow. 7
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:22 | # Frank, you just MIGHT be right about UKIP:
This is from: Will Farage let him go on to stand? Is there a BNP candidate in the same constituency? Oh, and there’s this, which should make you grin when you see the lefty, but will make you grimace when you see what’s out on our streets: 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:31 | # Fred, Nationalism is, or should be, a political and philosophical thought-world, in its totality comparable to and competitive with liberalism. It is not simply an instinctual, reflexive feeling for an ethnic or racial cause - which, of course, is what nativism is. Nativism is sufficient for the purposes of peoples who do not create high civilisations ... people who do not inhabit a complex ideational world. Europeans are, in my judgement, bound to require ideas and not just instincts by which to live. This has pretty much been the core of my input at MR. We have to replace the liberal ideas which formulate our sociality, and contain all its possibilities - including the possibility of interference, in fact massive interference, from a well-known hostile source. Right now the only systemic nationalist alternative to liberalism is fascism. It is clear to (almost but not quite) everybody that fascism cannot work for us. But neither can the flight from fascism into nativism. This is why MR is interested in a new global idea, Fred, and why, as far as I can see, it is unique in English-speaking nationalism. 9
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:43 | # Looking at Fred’s list the only significant area of disagreement would be on climate change, on which I was open-minded. The BNP is making the climate change ‘hoax’ one of its three main campaign platforms which I feel is a mistake, first because it won’t really resonate with the electorate and second because there is still no real scientific consensus. Griffin states the objection that carbon taxes would be levied to support the development of Chinese and Indian industry and this is obviously deplorable, but it would be better in my view to attack the fiscal arrangements than to dabble in the science. Another minor area of disagreement is the number of MPs which I thought should be reduced. There are more MPs at Westminster than Members of Congress, which seems to me to be nonsensical given the relative sizes of the populations. More quality and less quantity would seem to be a better way forward, especially when we are presented with daftness like Cameron’s Cuties. 10
Posted by Matra on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:08 | # British National Party: 74% Ukip: 70% Conservative Party: 39% Labour Party: 28% LibDems: 19% Green Party: 16% Labour may be ahead of the Lib Dems with me (and others) because of parliamentary reform questions, as those are important to the latter but not the former. 11
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:56 | # My results: BNP 83% UKIP 67% GREEN 42% LAB 25% LIB DEM 23% CON 15% Other players here so far have all got CON at #3. We all so far have UKIP at #2: but UKIP wouldn’t like Imperium Europa, surely? A Green Party candidate I interviewed just before the last election said he accepted everything David Icke had to say about history and politics, “bar the lizards.” 12
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:56 | # 62% British National Party 13
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:30 | # Why are the Tories doing so well here? The dissident UKIP member I quoted above sems to have been right. Still, can’t see what the fuss is about, as this problem has been around for years. There’s a Labour es-candidate who seems similarly to be thinking on the same lines as some MR-ers, especially about subject races: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/09/stuart-maclennan-twitter-banana 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:37 | # Gorb: Why are the Tories doing so well here? It is a product of the pulling apart of individualism and kin-preference under the action of liberalism. It forces us into a false polarity, some “conservative”, some “socialist”. Uniting (or, at least, reconciling) these wholly human characteristics is what a real philosophy of folk and nation, and not a fantasy-philosophy like fascism, should do. 15
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:22 | #
I keep asking myself what that would look like. What you and PF have produced in that vein does not answer that question, it only addresses the alleged injuries that fascism does to us as fascism is, as you contend, discordant with our nature. The nascent philosophy is so far only, well, anti-fascist. Or, to put it another way, it desires the social unity and felt purpose fascism imbues the people with except without the authoritarian and mythical methods used to produce it. So the question boils down to, as far as I can see, how to produce those desired ends without those undesired means. In what way do people have to think, and different types of people of the same people have to think, to render their behavior such that social unity and a commonly felt purpose are achieved. 16
Posted by Gorboduc on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:12 | # @CC: spot on. All philosophies exist in the mind, and therefore any philosophy that’s disliked can be easily presented as “fantasy-philosophy” when you can’t refute it. If c) is going to involve you in ontology, teleology and all the rset of ‘em, clarify your approach by reading Frank Sheed’s Society and Sanity 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:17 | # CC, We have only gestured in the direction of a metaphysical ontology. Others may have different ideas. We are open to them. Wait for the real debate to begin. It will not be long now, only days.
That would be very superficial of us, if that were the case.
Well, the mechanics are straightforward. A separation from all that which is not of the self begins with a habitation of the self. This is the truth, CC. This is how life actually works. By contrast, fascism generates a violent ascension towards a misty, essentially religious image of the kingship of the martial virtues. The first image that took hold this way, in 1922, was that of a new and glorious Imperial Rome. Italians who, it turned out, could not tie down even a little patch of North Africa, were told to march on it, heads held high, eyes fixed on the horizon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNF3ZwXoaCU&feature=related It’s not that there is no inspiration for people here, or that it is not extremely intoxicating while the music plays and the camera rolls. It’s that such inspiration is narrowing and anti-human and, in the end, destructive to self and to others. The new Imperial Rome never existed as a real possibility. The Thousand Year Reich likewise. We need to learn this, cease relying on myth and fantasy, and move on.
Yes, but the social unity is enough. Felt purpose is something alien to peoplehood, and needs to be handled with greatest care and always with scepticism.
They do not have to think in any specified way. They have to be freed of all specification in this respect, so they may actually think for and of themselves. This is the inevitable, natural outcome of a global ontological discourse, and it is profound. It is what people long for. It is a freeing, a release from authority and from error, a coming home, an opening of the way. They, the people, will be, which for the mass of them may mean no more than to cognise one another, understand more about and value one another, to live together, to decide for one another. This is enough, CC, and it is also vast. And the gentleness of the words is deceptive. They describe the destruction of postmodernity and its ills, of neoliberalism and the American way of life, of the system of power, of everything, and in place of it all the establishing of a collective life on the one essential foundation of collective being. Why would you not find such a real and natural possibility inspiring? 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:45 | # Gorb,
As a general guide, the human is real while the more than human is fantasy. Put this way, we Europeans have not had a human philosophy since the coming of Christianity. But I’m not wanting to get bogged down in the religious debate again. I accept that the Christian faith cannot be simply changed. However, the more than human characteristics of it which have fed down through its secularisation into liberalism became very harmful indeed as hardened political forms. We all know that. And these forms are perfectly hard enough for us to refute, no? Fascism operated at that same level of hardness, and is susceptible to the same refutation.
Be still and you may find something solid.
I think it has sufficient ideational roots to be philosophical in nature.
Because its foundation does not lie in human nature, but in a particular set of ideals.
Our nature is everything that is permanent within us.
Presumeably you mean Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Sanity-F-J-Sheed/dp/0898704707 Here is the first review on the Amazon page:
Really, Gorb! 19
Posted by Dasein on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:01 | # I, for one, find it inpiring, GW. A stable philosophy that enables us to remain who we are, after the last shots have been fired, or votes cast, in anger. Further to Fred’s question, maybe this ‘third philosophy’ could do with a name. Ontological nationalism? I also see it appealing to intellectuals who reject materialism (particularly of the expressed, consumer, kind) or religious supernaturalism, and end up gravitating towards Eastern religions. 20
Posted by Dasein on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:16 | # I was going to include those who gravitate towards strident atheism, but, at least in my experience, the intellectual types in this set are the least likely to get behind any form of nationalism. I’m thinking of the kind of person who posts at PZ Myer’s Science Blog (not those who post here, for whom I have respect). 21
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:51 | # GW,
Looking forward to it.
Do I detect a hint of Nordicism?
I’m sceptical that it can indeed delivery what you suggest, if I were convinced that it could, I suppose it would inspire me. Why doesn’t the thought of enjoying eternal life singing hymns with Jebus up on cloud nine inspire you? 22
Posted by Guest Lurker on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:07 | # Guessedworker said:
Aren’t we transitory creatures in ceaseless flux? What about us is fixed, and how would we extrapolate this to the racial collective? 23
Posted by FB on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:54 | # British National Party: 24
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:41 | # A theoretical question I have is can the acquired personality be put to the side sufficiently so that an individual may be and/or sense Self? Or is the personality so rooted and permanent after a certain point that it would forever obscure any attempts at conscious access to what is essential of the phenotype, or Self? If not, for what percentage of the population is capable of being/sensing Self? To what degree does one need to be/sense Self, if indeed it makes sense to speak of that event as a spectrum of lesser or greater being/sensing of Self, to boost one’s inclusive fitness - and by extension one’s EGI? Is it assumed that when one is Self one specifically cognizes one’s then inclination to boost one’s inclusive fitness as the desire to boost said inclusive fitness; and if not, should one optimally be taught to conceive of Self’s natural inclination to boost Self’s inclusive fitness as just that, or would that cognition itself be a bit of the acquired and therefore interfere with the self perception of Self? Hope none of that seems circular, if that is at all avoidable; or maybe that or infinite regress, pick your poison. 25
Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:00 | # Really, GW! Ahem, and ah, harrumph. Your presumption has tripped you up badly. Although I am doubtless the unsurpassed master of the careless and overlooked typo, I took some pains to get this reference correct. I have Sheed’s Theology and Sanity (1947) in my collection, certainly: but I wasn’t referring to it. It is quite obvious that you DO have a copy of Sheed’s T&S;, for the hypothesis that a scientific chap like yourself could implicitly condemn it by the administration of a tut-tutting rebuke “Really, Gorb!” without having mastered the book in detail is obviously untenable. Here’s a little bit from the opening pages S&S;to show that you and he are, at least, interested in the same question: you will not have encountered this passage in your detailed examination of T&S;.
You may find your favourite subject, teleology, touched on here. 26
Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:04 | # Actually, I think that if Sheed were still alive he’d have put in a corrective footnote to the effect that the State is now trying - and very successfully - to make man UNhappier. 27
Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:20 | # Also, GW, I find NOTHING in Sheed’s T&S; that should cause you to distrust Gregorio‘s Amazon-posted review of the book that you reproduce. That little chunk may well turn out to be one of the most truthful passages in the whole MR archive. It’s like the man says: that’s what the book does. Why shouldn’t it? How come you know so much better? “Come down, fair maid, from yonder mountain-top!” Cheers, Dasein! 28
Posted by Guest Lurker on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:30 | # Captainchaos,
I don’t know if we’re talking about the same thing here, but according to eastern philosophy, the acquired personality can definitely be put aside. It is contingent and has accumulated through our senses interfacing with the external stimuli of the world, and so is impermanent. You today are not the same person and personality you were when you were 12. Even what we think is our minds is mostly a memory loop being played over and over. The east even conceives of this “monkey mind” as just another sense, a 6th one after the other five. The goal through meditation is to decondition, detach, and dis-identity oneself from this phenomenal personality and to yoke oneself to that which is truly permanent, the transcendent self. Theoretically, this experience is accessible to anyone. But this leads to the eastern supernaturalism as someone noted above- the Atman is Brahman equation, which some perceive as annihilationism. 29
Posted by PM on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:25 | # I was canvassing with the BNP in the target seat of Barking, East London, on Saturday. If anyone is considering coming down to the next ‘day of action’ I can highly recommend it. Given all the abuse we get in the media, you would think that everyone in Britain hates us. This makes the support we got from locals (the real locals) all the more energising and encouraging. Young lads greeting us, cars beeping their horns in support, people coming up to us telling us how much they hated Margaret Hodge and the Labour Party—you got the impression that they really valued us and appreciated our presence there, and the chance to vent their anger. It was a chance to feel part of something, something that had strength, numbers, purpose, momentum—in short, to feel the power (albeit fettered) of the English as a political and a social force. It was great. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 03:47 | # Remember when Abraham Lincoln met with Negro leaders and used the occasion to tell them point-blank some very unflattering things about their race? You cringed reading it, imagining how it must have made them feel, while wondering what political pressures of the moment forced Lincoln to lambaste them like that. It’s not necessarily easy to formally address with complete frankness the subject of biological race differences before an audience of attentive Negroes. I wouldn’t want to do it, but if called upon I know the approach I would take: humbly summarize the simplest truths of the matter in the most straightforward style possible with perfect honesty. Here are a few brief, intelligently-put, dignified remarks delivered recently by the Derb not as a speaker giving a full speech but as a participant in a panel discussion. The panel was hosted by the Black Law Students’ Association at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. The subject under discussion was “Revisiting Race and Remedies: Should the Government Play a Role in Eliminating Racial Disparities in Education and Employment?”
31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 03:51 | # Good, heartening comment by “PM” a couple above, by the way. Thanks for posting that! Made me feel really good to read it! 32
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:10 | # Frew: Agree about the PM post. Remember the Seven-Point Questionnaire? About the Khoisan et al., and Human Rights? Appeared here about Nov. 6 -7 2009, as I think, but haven’t time to find it. Now’s the time for UK folks to get it out. 33
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:38 | # Changed my mind and found time, as it’s important.
Thanks, GW! 34
Posted by Eddie Booth on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:28 | # One problem Fred. 35
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:38 | # On the importance of not feeling alone on racial matters, imagine the painful final hours of this good man, a White Briton: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265065/Man-kills-row-work-non-PC-joke.html
The system we oppose is pure evil. 36
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:42 | # A BBC interviewer who is obviously unused to honesty (obvious given the crowd she hangs out with at work) is left utterly speechless by Nick Griffin’s unmatched sheer truth-telling (she’s never seen such a thing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZS9VF0Mz5E . In closing I would like to leave Britons with the following thought for Election Day (or do you guys call it Polling Day?): VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP VOTE BNP Thank you. 37
Posted by PM on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:07 | # Fred—the article in Occidental very much reflects the feeling I got in Barking. Incidentally, we were followed for over an hour by a hack from the leftie New Statesman magazine. It will be interesting to see if he reports honestly the reaction we were getting from residents. There were some really touching moments, such as the father out in his garden with his children, his face like thunder telling us to get lost (he saw we were canvassing for a politcal party), before his neighbour in the next garden with his children told him we were BNP. The change on his face, from hostility to broad grin and handshakes, was worth the journey alone. The conclusion of the article, that there is a permanent realignment taking place within British politics, is surely true. How could it be any other way? The politicians never tire of telling us how multiculturalism has utterly changed Britain, yet we stagger on with our two pre-Windrush political parties from a time when the deepest divide in our society was economic and class-based. To anyone who has been in a black or Asian area, this now seems completely anachronistic. The idea that every other facet of our nation can be changed beyond recognition and yet our politics somehow remains aloof is absurd. Ethnic, racial and cultural divisions have clearly superceded class interests. The BNP, or parties like us, are the future. I noticed in the comments of the Occidental article the old canard that BNP supporters are just idle working class benefit-junkies who only care that they are being forced to share their unearned dole with immigrants. In fact very few people will put their grievancies in these terms, and even when they do, it is sometimes important to understand that what some people are able to articulate is not always what they are actually feeling. There are rootless, lost young people in England today who have been deliberately denied any knowledge of their culture, heritage or history. They nevertheless have an instinctive unease about the changes they see around them. Without the vocabulary to describe this unease in terms of culture or tribe, they naturally turn to the language of housing waiting-lists and benefits, because this is what they know. Perhaps the person who made these comments was not English. I would hope that any ethnic-nationalist would include in his political armoury a feeling for the peculiarities, idiom and thought processes of his people (the other parties view the English with a mixture of incomprehension and fear). 38
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:48 | #
Very true and an important point - people need a defining vocabulary. 39
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:12 | # Fred - we can’t write in a name. Any ballot paper like that would be discarded at the count. If enough people wrote in the same name that might create a bit of a stir but would have no legal standing that I’m aware of. 40
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:30 | # @GW: up above I paid you a little compliment for your devising the Questionnaire, which we should all commit to memory for use in the office, down the pub, or on the doorstep. However, on a small matter of detail (a bit higher above) I felt it was necessary to administer a slight rebuke, the result of your pointing out to me, in an unpalatably “superior” way, that I’d made a mistake, and needed a little bit of help to express myself and sort things out. It was you that was in error, wasn’t it? Is it your unthinking assumption that Christiians are always automatically in the wrong, and the points raised by them needn’t be answered? 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:36 | # My apologies, Gorb. I am not ignoring you at all - just behind with quite a few responses at the moment, both here and to mail. I didn’t know Frank Sheed had published two books with such similar titles. Was “Society” more of a pamphlet than a book because I note that Sheed’s wiki entry does not list it. I am puzzled by Sheed’s apparent emphasis on happiness as an end in itself. He can’t really suppose that is what politics is about, even if a majority of the Founding Fathers thought so. 42
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:06 | # @GW: Thankyou, squire, you’ve done tha handsome thing. You are a WHITE MAN: but you needn’t trust Wikipedia. Sheed’s book has 225 pages; hardly a pamphlet. Sheed was an Australian, not an American. I know someone’s been posting here about Washington killing Indians before graduating to the pesky British, but I can’t really see how the Founding Fathers come into the matter, any more than the Mayflower bunch or trhe Diet of Worms. Why can’t he have held his particular views on happiness? Why do you make politics, then? is it to make us umhappy? Let the State doi that for you. I suppose people who believe in the fall of man and who see teleology as a method of interpreting the whole of Creation and its history will of necessity ascribe to commonplace words like “happiness” very different meanings from the definitions attached to them by Godless evolutionist materialists. *) Please, I’ve asked you before - you may tell people what you believe they ought to think, but you may NOT keep telling people about what you believe they DO think and why they need a little fatherly hint from you to clarify things for them! Sheed honed his expository skills on the soap-box. He met a LOT more determined, noisy and sometimes organised in-yer-face opposition than you will meet here from any of us paper tigers. *) You might already be aware of the possibility of this disconnectedness: in your recent posting (Mar. 24) about the writings of Sunic you (or he, or the translator) included this amazing bit of sleight-of-hand: talking of pagans he says:
It’s interesting that the “Nordic” pagans used these Latinate terms. Isn’t there a more “volkish” translation? I suppose it could always be argued that “justice” and “honor” ARE virtues and so don’t belong in the same category as “virtue” itself… GKC somewhere has a passage which treats of the notable Pagan virtues, which are Prudence, Justice, Fortitude etc., and which contrasts them with the Christian ones Faith, Hope and Charity, which come from somewhere else…but I suppose they may all turn out to be genetically-determined “behaviours” and therefore ultimately as useless to Sunic as to me… Oh, and VOTE BNP, warts and all! 43
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:13 | #
Wow - Griffin really did well in that exchange. 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:59 | # Gorb, I did not mean that Sheed was American, but that the pursuit of happiness as the purpose of all had always seemed a Foundationally American idea, and I was puzzled as to why Sheed should raise it.
The emotional answer is that I love my people. That, perhaps is enough. But the technical answer is that I am working to increase my ethnic genetic interests. And the other answer - the thinky-type one - is that, as someone who is “aware”, I have a duty to increase the quantity of knowledge and thus freedom and thus meaning, by my understanding of that word, in the life and lives of our people. And before you ask why again, because it is good, it is light, it gestures to the right way, and the alternative open to me, which is to retire into my own affairs, would leave unexplored one avenue, at least, by which the forces acting upon us to our collective detriment may be overcome.
Yes, father. But would you mind awfully if I sometimes tell people why they think what they think?
Was he opposed by insane Marxists, finance-capitalists and their streetwalkers, Jewish ethnocentrists and the entire liberal-Christian mainstream, then?
That is a quote from Tom’s new book of old essays. Tom is a southern Slav, not a Nordic, btw. 45
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:33 | # @GW: quoted by itself, the question “Why do you make politics [?]” does look a bit bald. But I asked it in the context of your apparent rejection of the pursuit of happiness as the true end of politics. I don’t think Sheed gave a cuss what the Founding Fathers thought, although all sorts of scholarly coves in America have recently been examining the survival of early philosophy in America at that time. Your puzzlement would evaporate if you took the trouble (OK, I know you’re busy) to examine the history of Christianity instead of happily papering over this gaping crevasse in your general knowledge with a handful of ready-printed labels proclaiming “Breed out the Faith Gene” or “Christers Out!” and and other examples of indiscriminate sloganizing. Yes, I would mind if you told people why they think what they think. The first reason for my annoyance would be, that you yourself almost certainly don’t know. The second reason would be, that by claiming that knowledge, you attempt, on unfair grounds, to discredit what’s alleged. Yes, you may find all sorts of reasons, emotional, genetic or whatever, for WHY someone is maintaining a point: but that affects not one whit the accuracy or truth of what’s therein alleged. As a result of what I’ve just said, it’s a fairly safe bet that you’ll tell me I’m suffering from the Faith Gene, and that my “behaviour”, which is what my beliefs and statements are thus simply reduced to by you, is an irrelevance, a momentary distraction, or something that requires corrective therapy. YOUR behaviour, of course, inhabits a higher area of reality, and is filed under the Cosmic Verities. Sheed honed his skills on the soap-box: and I mean that quite literally. He and the Catholic Evidence Guild took the message out on the streets, and you can be sure that all the vermin you mention, with the addition of Orangeman and Kensitites, gave it them hot and strong. They had no body-guard of tough skinsheads. I suppose it’s a bit unfair to bring up Sunic at this late date and in this context. But I was struck by the spectacle of a rationalist materialist atheist (yourself) who recently assured me that there was no “magick” in the world, sponsoring Sunic’s lament for that world originally pagan and holy, but now “desacralized” by Christians. Another time, perhaps. 46
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:22 | #
It’s not the job of the sheep to keep the wolves away. The sheepdogs allowed this to happen. Post a comment:
Next entry: Death Panels: gateway to freedom and equality
|
|
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 Eddie Booth on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:55 | #
There is no BNP candidate in my constituency ( Tooting, south London).
Therefore I will not vote.
I hope thousands similarly bereft of BNP candidates do likewise - I strongly recommend everyone without a BNP candidate to do the same.
Here the power of negation could possibly be stronger than the power of positivity.I hope there is a record low turn-out in this election - reflecting public disgust at the poo-poo platter thrust under their noses.Liblabcon are simply unworthy of consideration let alone votes.
A record low turn-out will severely undermine the self-confidence of the foetid political class.