|
|
|
The Diary of an Anti-Racist (Part 6) by I. Bismuth October 10: Rose and I were at my uncle’s house today. His cantankerousness is as great as his antiquity, so we space our visits to him as widely as my nephewly sense of obligation will allow. In fact, it was war that was the source of the trouble during the second cup of tea. Somehow the topic of the distant death daily in the news came up, and Uncle O felt we needed a slice of his opinions to supplement the chocolate sponge. “What are all these wars for?” he said. “Our being in them makes no sense. The disputes of alien races may be interesting to us, but they ought not to be important to us. If they are, something is wrong. That something is either that we are intervening in their affairs or they are intervening in ours. A third and equally unhygienic possibility is that each has a finger in the other’s pie.” “I’m sorry, that is a complete—” I began, only to be kicked in the shin by my ever-peacekeeping wife. “You certainly knew what you were fighting for in the Second World War,” she said, fancying she was putting us back on safe ground. “We thought we did,” said Uncle O, looking grimmer than ever. “War is a gamble. But not a normal gamble. In a normal gamble, you know what you will win if you win and what you will lose if you lose.” “Have you done any more paintings recently?” said Rose, getting a little shrill, I thought. “I’m giving painting a rest,” he said. “I’ve taken up playwriting.” “That’s a change of direction,” she said. “I didn’t know you were interested in the theatre.” “I’m not interested in the politically-correct garbage they put on nowadays.” “Political correctness is a highly tendentious expression.” I said, pulling my shin away from Rose’s censoring foot. “It’s one we try to avoid at the university.” “Is it? Well, this is my own home and I’ll be as tendentious as I damn well please.” Rose was shaking her head at me and mouthing, “No, don’t.” But it was too late anyway. The old boy had developed a momentum of his own. “Political correctness is good manners in bad contexts,” he went on. “What do you mean by that?” I said. Why should he have all the momentum? “I mean it turns our niceness into a noose for our necks.” “How far have you got with your first play?” said Rose, high-pitched and subject-changing. “I’ve finished it. Not that it matters. It’ll go into production the day my paintings are sold at Sotheby’s.” “What’s it about?” “Murder.” “Who gets murdered?” “We do.” Rose, seeing where this was going, desperately started to talk about chrysanthemums. “I’d like to read it,” I said, undeterred by the horticulture. “It’s in the desk drawer behind you.” While Rose resorted to comfort-eating, and my uncle dozed off, I forced myself to look at the first scene of the first act of this product of his twisted mind. Now, I must tell you that I have agonized long and hard while composing this diary entry over whether you should read what I read. I concluded that you should not. However, my diary is intended to be used by serious historians in the days when Anti-Racism has achieved its final victory. The withholding of relevant material would be unscholarly. So I have hit upon the following compromise. I reproduce it below for the future. And I mean the future. The content of my uncle’s script, even the little of it that I saw, is too disturbing for today. What I recommend is that you skip it and go straight to my reaction to it at the end. We all read far too much anyway, and in this diary it is my words that count, not my uncle’s. So I’ll see you again way down at the end of the entry. Be careful, though. It requires swift scrolling and socially-responsible gaze-aversion.
The script fell from my trembling hands. The room was spinning. I tensed my abdominal muscles and took a few deep breaths. “What are you going to do, Bizzy?” whispered Rose, as I basculed myself upright like Nosferatu. “Nazi scum! Nazi scum! Nazi scum! Nazi scum! Nazi scum!” I intoned, seizing my uncle’s wheelchair and pushing him out of the front door. The nearest police station was not a quarter a mile away, but Rose sprinted to the garden gate ahead of me and barred my progress. “Think about this,” she said. “Do you really want it to get about that you have a Nazi for an uncle? How would it go down in the Department of Sensitivity Studies?” “It’s so frustrating, Rose. I can’t do anything about Walter. I can’t do anything about Lucy. And now I can’t do anything about Uncle O. What’s the point in being an Anti-Racist if I can’t get people into trouble?” “Darling, you get people into trouble all the time. Don’t be greedy. Now, calm down. Here, take one of your pills.” So that was the end of that. I had to push the wheeled extremist back inside and carry on eating his cake. He had been asleep all the time. And when he woke up, I heard myself telling him that his play showed promise. Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:13 | # You have real talent, Bismuth, in the manner of Waugh or Roald Dahl. But you need to tighten matters up a bit, and develop ideas worthy of your literary skills. 3
Posted by PF on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:40 | # Amazing Bismuth, your prose is crazily transparent and easy to read. You must have really worked to achieve that style. hats off. 4
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:44 | # On a literary note, I submit for your refined English disapproval a venture into Kraut feminization and inauthenticity. A 1934 poem by Fritz Sotke addressing Adolf Hitler:
Quite touching in my estimation. Although one man’s garbage is another man’s gold, as is said. 5
Posted by PF on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:43 | # CC Have you ever read the ‘diary of a woman in Berlin?’ Its a famous anonymous diary that cataloges the ravages of the Soviets in 1945 Berlin. Its pretty gruesome as far as cataloging the rapes that occurred, perpetrated by the Soviets on German women. Its a sobering counterpoint to the above piece, which in 1934 must have been easy to write. I’m reminded of it because the women - huddling together in various burnt out buildings, scraping around for food and trying to deflect Russian rapists - constantly satirize the idealistic language that accompanied the Fuhrers rise. Its pretty harsh to write this here, but I think there is even a scene where as a woman is being ‘picked out’ for usage by a Russian soldier, she says the line “Und das alles haben wir dem Führer zu verdanken” - “Just think, all this is thanks to the Fuehrer!”. 7
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:42 | # (yawn) The Soviets were planning to invade Europe, as I’m sure you are aware. For all the times you use the word “interface” you conspicuously fail to do as such with the aforementioned fact. Why? Because that would collapse the moral narrative you depend upon to triangulate against National Socialism and to prop up English nationalism and the implicitly proposed “Anglosphere” extended phenotype of same, aka “ontological nationalism”. 8
Posted by tc on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:42 | # Yeah, yeah, splendid, yet the premise is still politically kosher. WTF is Mein Führer doing in hell? He should have a some sort of a status of a visiting dignitary from the opposing side checking the proper treatment of the residents… 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:04 | # tc, Possibly because he did a lot of bad, bad things. Can’t you remember what they are? 10
Posted by tc on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:02 | # Remind me, please. You know, the obvious path, that You are trying to use between the points, from where You stand and where You wanna end up, leads right back to where You are, and possibly to worse places. Let us be honest here for a second: What You are doing here is fine and dandy, but at the end of the day it is not much more, than minutes of entertainment for those of us, who can not stand another second of the background noise. I, personally have come to realize, that in my case, it is a definite distraction from more pressing and useful daily chores, thus I rarely indulge in it anymore. Of course, that doesn’t only pertain to MR, but all the different segments of the resistance. What needed to be said has been said already, many times over, for hundreds of years, in many languages. The line is drawn for some of us. Of course, propaganda is a useful tool, but - obviously - that is not where my talents lie. Sure, I understand the need for crutches , points of reference in parody, it’s just that something needed to be said about it. That said, I liked it. But let me point it out, as the piece so properly stated: They kill me every day in their headlines, their speeches, their blockbusters, their docudramas, their slowly shaken heads. But I am no good to them dead. So, having ritually killed me and solemnly abjured me and all my works, they have to resurrect me, fully mustached, ready to be killed again tomorrow. They live on my death. ...and apparently, not only “they”, but so do “we”...no wonder we are on a fast track to extinction. Let us put that behind us. Now, I am not a fanboy. I am not a germanofile, as a matter of fact, I cannot stand the majority of present population of that former Nation. As far as I am concerned, Hitler’s faults lie in the fact, that he didn’t succeed in his lifetime… This is, where I stand. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:00 | # So you don’t think the people who died because of his actions count for anything, then? 12
Posted by tc on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:38 | # I don’t see how You got to that conclusion, from what I said, but be as it may: That war is rolling on, as we speak. There are daily sacrifices being made on the altar of politikal kosherness and it is time, we stopped talking. Either we recognize this fact and start the heavy lifting required, or we will be bled dry by the thousands of pinpricks inflicted on us every day. Before the situation normalizes, there will be many, many more deaths. Very likely in the tens of millions, but let me just remind You: none of us is getting outta here alive anyway… Listen man, I don’t question the usefulness of this site as a propaganda tool, I am just saying, that for me, personally, school is out. It is just not useful anymore(for me). There was a time, when it was immensely so. But placing The Führer in the same quarters with that poltroon is distasteful. If it helps some newbies start out on the long march, well, so be it, I just had to voice my disagreement, since I happened to drop in so timely…No hard feelings. Carry on Mr Biz! 13
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:09 | # So let me get this straight, Hitler is responsible for the mass Russian rapes of German women in that he personally ordered them to do it? LOL! Well, at least if you take PF’s “moral” reasoning seriously. 14
Posted by PF on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:28 | # CC wrote:
Responsibility and agency are the big puzzle that leads to metaphysics. Because when we look closely its actually hard to separate cause and effect. Do you think those German women would have been raped regardless of whether Hitler had started war against the Russians and then persisted until the Russians were outside Berlin? Do you think the women of east germany might have escaped mass rape if an earlier surrender had been tendered? Was it in Hitler’s power to surrender at the end of ‘43? Would those women have been raped then? 15
Posted by uh on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:44 | # He should have a some sort of a status of a visiting dignitary from the opposing side checking the proper treatment of the residents… The criteria for acceptance into Heaven are rather less sanguine than the deeds of AH. And you know, all the interesting people are in Hell. I’m surprised Winnie made it down. 16
Posted by uh on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:48 | # But placing The Führer in the same quarters with that poltroon is distasteful. You did note that the Führer comes away with something like the upper hand? This is actually Gue ... I mean Bismuth ... being uncommonly kind to him. Whatever, makes me want to crack open his speeches. 17
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:53 | # GW, Responsibility and agency are the big puzzle that leads to metaphysics. Because when we look closely its actually hard to separate cause and effect. Particularly when you confuse hindsight with foreknowledge, as below: Do you think those German women would have been raped regardless of whether Hitler had started war against the Russians and then persisted until the Russians were outside Berlin? Do you think the women of east germany might have escaped mass rape if an earlier surrender had been tendered? Was it in Hitler’s power to surrender at the end of ‘43? Would those women have been raped then? Need I explain? 18
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 02:54 | # ‘Scuse me. Previous message should be addressed to PF - not GW. 19
Posted by Will. on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 06:52 | # Responsibility and agency are the big puzzle that leads to metaphysics. Because when we look closely its actually hard to separate cause and effect Very nice. Brings to mind Heidegger’s .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). (Toward that capital Being.) 21
Posted by tc on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:21 | # Let me enlist David Irving to make my point: now, I don’t accuse anyone of being ignorant around here, but we all forget. Knowledge is drowned out in time by the constant background noise. There is a ten part lecture on YT about this person you worship. It is damning. It is hair raising and probably the most effective pill to take to on the crash course to recovery. I’m sure You are aware of it, yet, it would do everyone here, to refresh his affiliation to the relativism they practice. The first part is here, the rest will pop up as You watch. 22
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:15 | #
Kike Commissar and propagandist Ilya Ehrenberg explicitly exhorted Russian soldiers to ravish German women to break their racial pride. Non-German women were raped along with German all along the Red Army’s advance. This was a matter of indifference to Stalin, him saying things to the effect of a soldier needs some pussy, however he happens to come by it. And not incidentally, the “four million” figure allegedly killed at Auschwitz was quite likely originally furnished by Ehrenberg. So what the fuck do you think? Your attempt to construct a narrative of moral superiority as contrasted with the Krauts founded on a pile of dung. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:33 | # Will, I would like to get at your meaning but cannot readily find in my copy of Introduction ti Metaphysics the reference to “burdening”. Can you please give me the principal Chapter and section in which H addresses it? Thanks. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:34 | # CC, You consistently miss the point. Morality isn’t a competition. Adolf’s immorality is still immorality even if there is someone more immoral than him. 25
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:24 | # You consistently miss the point. Morality isn’t a competition. Adolf’s immorality is still immorality even if there is someone more immoral than him. By implication of this allegation, morality/immorality is a matter of degree and, apparently, of censure. So - what are the measure, qualitative basis, and non-arbitrary valuation standard involved? And who, in a comparable position, was more “moral” than AH? Stalin? FDR? Churchilll? It is to laugh. But let me quote myself, to the point, toward instruction of the innocent: The irony of the human dilemma in regard to politico-economic culture, and comprehension thereof, is that the heights of moral conscientiousness involve recognition of the severe limits upon the proper application of moral precepts. Moral universalism, for example, is fatuous - when the possibilities for its consistent, complete, and definitive formulation and application are examined. And I do not have to prove this - for it is the burden, of anyone who disputes this, to produce that complete and coherent body of law (which exists only in pretense, at the present, in regard to any polity of consequence). Not to understand this basic aspect of the human dilemma is to remain an obnoxious and impertinent juvenile, at best, and a threat to the maintenance of any ordered existence on the planet, in the extremity. As I have said elsewhere, this is not a world of sin-and-salvation, it is a world of actions-have-consequences. It is not a theater wherein good-and-evil are played out, it is a mundane arena of the merely good-and-bad. Much of what is declared “evil” is a dealing with the world as it is known to the intellectually adult - the “virtue” of the morally pretentious, rather, is that of the woman, the child, and the fanatic. 26
Posted by Will. on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:43 | # Can you please give me the principal Chapter and section in which H addresses it? GW:
IB: 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:22 | # Will, Thank you. Neo, You let it be known very clearly on the West Texas thread that you were unaware what morality is and from whence it arises. Well, know that it is not the product of emotion (ie, religion) or thought (ie, philosophy), but something prior, albeit the filters of religion and philosophy can and do stretch it and bias it away from its natural bearing. In other words, colours are never true, models never accurate. 28
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:51 | # You let it be known very clearly on the West Texas thread that you were unaware what morality is and from whence it arises. Well - now I finally know whence it arises, praise the gods. You, GW, are the keeper of “morality” - you are its arbiter - you define it for us. However - we unfortunates must busy ourselves, rather, with morality as we find it in evidence in the world, in general, rather than in your singular person/concept/intuition/connection to the transcendent, thanks. 29
Posted by PF on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:06 | # CC wrote:
I am skeptical of the claims that Hitler was blameless and had no responsibility for anything that happened in WWII. Its clear to me that this is your basic position based on the fact that you never entertain a critical perspective of Nazism, German Third Reich imperialism, or the man himself. You must realize that, in order for us to have any intellectual discussion at all - when you slavishly adopt a non-critical stance on something, I, if I wish to participate in discussion with you, am practically forced to adopt a critical stance towards that thing that you refuse to criticize. Intellectual endeavor precedes through thesis + anti-thesis -> synthesis, yet you stand here all day offering your thesis and act amazed when someone brings in a contrary viewpoint. We dont come here to commune in religious worship of your idols, lets face it. You apparently have such a siege mentality, from the knowledge that 99.99% of people disagree with you, that you can’t help but always lump me in with people whose professional role and raison d’etre is to demonize Hitler and the Nazis. You act like to concede one foot of ground is to give up the whole cake. (?) Here is your predicament framed with some lucidity: there are two elements to the great glyph “HITLER”. One is a racial policy that unified and nationalized Deutschland, freed them from judaic influence and put genetics at the focal point of public policy. Many white nationalists cannot help but love this - it speaks deeply to them. That was the “HITLER” as it hitlered from 1933 to 1937. There is another part, which is gruesome, gruesome white-on-white imperialism. Rolling into other people’s countries, attempting to strong-arm the whole European continent. Word to mother: the nations of Europe already existed at this point as an established ecosystem - to role into them and overtake them is anti-white. To invalidate the claims of 15+ different white ethnies to self-determination, is inexcusable. It is genocide against whites, at least it is the preliminary act of such a genocide - and you are saying, with your complex thinking, that it would have all been OK in the end, because H. was well-meaning and Nazi policy was so good. What does that matter to a Polish person, what you think of this or that policy? You are a foreigner twice removed, and the Nazis were foreigners, and domination by a foreigner is still domination regardless of if they are beautifully white and upright. As an American you have no immune system for white-on-white conflicts, because anything in a white skin and Germanic face is alright to you. You imagine that the racial troubles we have now are the only troubles we have ever faced or the biggest troubles we could ever face. Well, the truth is that the people of Europe have their own ethnies that are thousands of years old, and having a Germanic face and an advocacy of whiteness isn’t enough to allow you to play conqueror. Polishness or Englishness actually has meaning deeper than your physiological recognition system and policy preferences. YOU would dance to the drum of any blue-eyed warrior who railed against semitic influence, that doesn’t mean Europeans are not more discriminating. Especially since in those days we were coming out of an age where Europeans were the biggest threat to other Europeans, which is something you know nothing about. In the old days, blue eyes doesnt equal good - you could stiill get a spear through you even though ‘it was all cool up in the fam’. Those are the dimensions of the glyph. The nature of your attachment to it is such that you feel primarily driven by the “moral” vilification of Jewish media to want to vindicate Hitler. Well, it turns out, you have to vindicate white-on-white imperialism if you want to do that. A person free from the internalized moral entanglements that bind you could clearly see the difference between these two parts of the glyph, and could like one and dislike the other. Since you are strapped into this belief system, and you cannot differentiate between yourself and the Nazis, nor between your people and theirs, nor between yourself and them/him, your final verdict has to be an all-or-none decision. You dont yet have a mature sense of who you are, nor who your people are, which is why you are so hypnotized by the existence of a historical ‘precedent’ that you confusedly are using it as a proxy for self. The equivalent in me would be if I thought I had to vindicate the existence of the British Empire in order to allow for Anglo-saxon self-assertion in the new world. I dont, and given that the Empire wasnt flawless and blameless, vindicating it in that way would be a difficult business. Its enough to be free from blood libel, you cannot ask for your history to be perceived as flawlessly immaculate in the eyes of others. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:13 | # Neo, You, like everyone within your ethnic/racial group, are the keeper of morality. You have no choice in that, and in so much as your local moral system faithfully expresses collective genetic interests, the choices you do have will be adaptive or maladaptive - moral or immoral - in effect. 31
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:55 | # You, like everyone within your ethnic/racial group, are the keeper of morality. And even therewithin are significantly differing moralities - contrary to what you seem to maintain. I can prove this simply with reference to my own in-laws. You have no choice in that, and in so much as your local moral system faithfully expresses collective genetic interests, the choices you do have will be adaptive or maladaptive - moral or immoral - in effect. Local? I was under the impression that your “morality” was singular and universal. And you seem to be identifying “morality,” now, with adaptivity. So - if I wish to adapt myself to my newly-discovered land by exterminating the present inhabitants and/or enslaving them and/or preaching to and converting them - which, if any of these measures, is the “moral” thing to do. Or does the question even arise in your “morality”? If it does not, how is one to be guided in such significant matters? (I trust that you understand that these are the ethical/moral considerations with which I am concerned - not with, for example, whether pre-marital sex is contra-indicated in terms of “morality”.) And let us turn to domestic affairs and have you define for us a complete and consistent formulation of anti-trust law - since we do not have one and desperately need one in order to adapt our political economy to a regime that will avoid ultimate catastrophe otherwise due within the century. So - grant us your guidance, GW. What is the word - From the Bench? 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:36 | # Neo,
Morality is subject, basically, to personality bias - as I just said. But it is only a bias. Large within-group differentials indicate personality conflicts up to and including psychopathy. A bias-free system would equate morality precisely to evolutionary adaptivity.
By local I mean group-centric, and the group is defined by common (ethnic) genetic interests.
Yes.
Well, I hope you appreciate the laboratory cool of the reply. Moral systems do preference one’s ethnic genetic interests above one’s genetic interests held in humanity at large, but the calculation still has to be made: at what point does the sum of lost general interests exceed the gain to ethnic interests? Let’s take it to extremes and assume that you, Neo, decided to wipe out all other males in your quest for mastery of the universe. The total loss to you in genetic interests would quickly outweigh any possible gain you could enjoy - but perhaps not the enjoyment therein - through enhancing your own breeding potential. Mass murder does not increase one’s genetic interests. This is a deeply silly example, of course. But the rule is good. Please click on the EGI.pdf top left for a better presentation of this.
What an interesting thought. One for Mr Sallis, perhaps. But you too, if you will read the PDF file and take ownership of the principles. 33
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:56 | # PF, I do not pretend that National Socialism as historically incarnated can be morally justified in a world I would ideally like to see. It cannot according to me, according to that standard. But that world never has and never will exist.
If I am to take the thrust of your writing on the matter at face value, that is to assume you are making serious and not merely rhetorical statements, I am forced to conclude that you assign sole, or nearly so, blame to Hitler for the war and its consequences.
It is clear to me that you assign sole war guilt to Germany and Adolf Hitler as you never entertain a critical perspective of any of the other antagonists - certainly not the English. Even going so far as to insinuate Hitler’s ultimate responsibility for the mass rape of Russian women. (No, not really, but that is the rhetoric commensurate with this exchange, isn’t it?)
I could easily say the same thing, and in fact do operate under that assumption.
That is pretty well the case. Those are the people I put first, and if necessary, last and only.
Present trends persisting, the entire race will experience genetic eclipse. In my humble and benighted opinion, that damn well is “the biggest trouble we could ever face” when viewed from the meta-perspective of EGI.
And a short while ago you were complaining of my essentialist modeling of “the English” and my implicit contention that said will dispose them towards a, however slight, different form of nationalism as opposed to other European ethnys. A position, to take your words now, again, at face value, that is hardly different from your own. But that is not what you were then or are now really after. No. What you want is that I wipe the slate clean of any views I have on the matter at all and rebuild from the ground up so that I see the matter as you do because, well, your view, and the personage which is the holder of that view, yourself, are of such intrinsic merit as to justify my total capitulation. LOL!
Uh huh. I never mentioned anything about the Soviet plan to invade Europe which was only stopped by the Krauts. Downright “hallucinatory”, it is.
Cants Prince Frolic as he spins himself into a “glyph”-tizzy all his own. (yawn)
I do recall you doing just that in argument against my assertion at the time that British imperialism was conducted under a spirit of racial supremacy. 34
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:59 | #
That should read: “Hitler’s ultimate responsibility for the mass rape of German women by Russians.” 35
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:10 | #
No , you didn’t say - and “bias” suggests a mere matter of degree, where, in fact, fundamental qualitative differences are involved.
Which may well entail irreconcilable morality conflicts.
If you so define it according to the essentialist tactic regarding which Grimoire warned you. And “evolutionary adaptivity” to a given environment may involve various measures regarding which different persons have strongly differing moral sentiments, as previously illustrated. “Local? I was under the impression that your “morality” was singular and universal.”
But must you not maintain, contra the evidence, that all groups are essentially morally equivalent and identical in morals for sharing in your “bias-free” “natural” human morality? “So - if I wish to adapt myself to my newly-discovered land by exterminating the present inhabitants and/or enslaving them and/or preaching to and converting them - which, if any of these measures, is the “moral” thing to do.”
If, again, you so auto-define and arbitrarily limit “moral systems”.
You previously gave the impression that your version of morality arises naturally, instinctively - “calculation” implies casuistry rather than morality.
In mastery of the universe it does not [“hard cases make bad law”] - but in the mundane example, it does. “And let us turn to domestic affairs and have you define for us a complete and consistent formulation of anti-trust law - since we do not have one and desperately need one in order to adapt our political economy to a regime that will avoid ultimate catastrophe otherwise due within the century.”
I have already considered the matter, thanks. You have not, as is the point and the implication for your principles. 36
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:38 | # LAW, ETHICS, MORALITY: PRETENSE AND ILLUSION Take ownership of the principles. 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:03 | # Neo,
You are correct regarding the variation applicable to bias. Larger variations evince pathology, including the social pathologies of imagined disconnection that attend the prideful aristicracy.
They do. We see it in the madness of many leaders, leadership being a station in life frequently attained by psychopaths.
I don’t recall. Grim’s antipathy is an irritant at worst, not a source of knowledge.
You have not illustrated anything. Why do you make false claims? Do you think they are not noticed? Read the the links top-left. I’m sure that a bright person like you will soon realise that the comity of moral values approximates to the genetic similarity. That includes the aristos, btw.
No. They are identical in interests, not morals since the latter follow what is adaptive in a given evolutionary environment.
Forgive me, but the example - Neo killing every other male - was somewhat extreme. However, I do hold that the calculation would both exist and would be pre-conscious. Before Salter did the arithmetic nobody had quantified genetic interest in terms of genetic similarity/distance.
But have you considered the nature of your own unconsciousness?
The day, Neo, I can’t put a muppet like you in his place I will give up and retire to a sunshine home. 38
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 02:31 | # “And “evolutionary adaptivity” to a given environment may involve various measures regarding which different persons have strongly differing moral sentiments, as previously illustrated.”
I would have thought that the alternative measures listed that colonialists and imperialists typically take with regard to conquered populations was more than sufficient illustration of the possibilities for fundamentally differing moral perspectives.
But peoples are genetically different, are they not? Hence no singular, universal morality. “But must you not maintain, contra the evidence, that all groups are essentially morally equivalent and identical in morals for sharing in your “bias-free” “natural” human morality?”
You seem to be saying that environments and morals correspondingly differ, thus there are multiple moralities - as is my position - with which position you initially took strong issue. “You previously gave the impression that your version of morality arises naturally, instinctively - “calculation” implies casuistry rather than morality.”
And this is the extent of your “morality”? It would seem that *you*, rather, are the immoralist - for your lack of attention to vital (to survival) politico-economic issues in law, ethics, and morality. You here again illustrate your essentialist mis-appropriation of the discussion by arbitrarily defining and limiting the terms to suit your preoccupations. Morality is not simply the means by which genetic interest are pursued - for persons other than fanatics, of course. “I have already considered the matter, thanks. You have not, as is the point and the implication for your principles”
I will, when that becomes a relevant consideration - as presently it is not. “Take ownership of the principles.”
Given your propensity for spitting-up your formula, I think the high-chair is the place for you, young man. 39
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 04:37 | # NN
40
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 05:28 | #
This statement is nuts. The offspring of every female will be 50% related to Neo. This is why there is competition between males, because each wishes to replicate as many of their genes as possible. If the sole interest was ethnic nepotism, group adaptivity, one male would easily suffice.
No it does not. It expresses the moral values of the reproductive differential. In other words it expresses the values of the individuals who produce more offspring who reproduce. Wow! 41
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 05:44 | # As Sallis/Holliday/Rienzi has consistently re-iterated EGI is not a description. it is a prescription. There is no evidence for selection on the group (outside of kin) level. Salter is not suggesting group selection exists. His is a prescription for change.
42
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 07:02 | # The place of the artist is finding harmonies between the esoteric with the exoteric. This is how memes are created and find their place among the other mind viruses—perhaps as a vaccine. This kind of art may salvage a few 125 IQ coeds and if so it would be worth it if for no other reason than that they may salvage a few 150 IQ young men from the sexual torture that is now the virtual essence of Western civilization. 43
Posted by PF on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:39 | # CC
So in other words, this world is so dog-eat-dog that imperialism and conquest of whites is morally justified?
Something similar to this happened at a previous point in our discussion where you had denigrated my worth as a person repeatedly and yet claimed not to use heroism/palingenesis as the sole evaluation of a man. You are essentially doing two different things here. You are arguing from a point of view that demonstrates one belief - but does so implicitly. Then, when that belief is formulated into a statement including the word ‘all’ or ‘sole’, you say “Of course I dont believe that *all* of the blame accrues to the non-Nazi forces.” Its easy to backtrack from those sorts of statements but lets look at your actual behavior. If you have anything critical to say of Hitler or Nazism, it sure hasn’t shown up here. Your praise of these people never showed any self-restraint, literally none. The only time you ever did this was when you were forced to backtrack from a previous position which was made to look ridiculous by my highlighting it. Just a day ago you were telling us how touching the poetical effusions of a 1934 fanboy were, the author apparently falling over himself to be sacrificed to the Man-God that was A. And I’m to believe now that you have some critical appreciation for Hitler’s shortcomings? You have it precisely in the moment when you need to show it to me for a split second, then it disappears again. Forget about whether you can slip out of my generalization on a technicality - thats using literalism to evade the heart of the matter. Even if you thought Hitler once made a single mistake, once - you would escape my generalization and yet still be holding a ludicrous view. I wrote:
CC replied:
Look, the question of Nazi responsibility occurs in one of two atmospheres: a gasping, grasping, must-vindicate-my-historical-proxy German American hardcore-wannabe atmosphere, or a non-aligned atmosphere. The one context contains religious/moral devotion, the other does not. My thesis is very threadbare and parsimonious, please dont pretend its the monstrosity of complex casuist apologetics that yours is. I say that the Nazis bear most of the responsibility for the imperialist wars of aggression that they initiated against other European countries. I would assert the same of any nation, at any time in history. England bears responsibility for those wars of aggression that she initiated against other powers. Your thesis can’t get around the fact that for it to hold, wars of aggression have to somehow be forced on the aggressor, in your case by third-party nations. In other words, until the heavens open and it becomes clear how the Soviets or England forced Germany to invade Denmark, the Netherlands, Sudetenland, Poland and Austria, your thesis will only hold water with people who are daft/passionate enough to engage in massive perspectival shielding.
In other words, in the previous post I made the point that European ethnies have a nature that goes deeper than physiognomic recognition and racial policy preferences, and you are saying this contradicts my otherwhere emphasis that you cannot know anything about “The English.” I was making two separate points there. One is that nations (Völker) do have a silent internal nature known only to those belonging, and this is mostly an emotional thing that we won’t succeed in describing. The second is how seriously I take anything you say about “The English” given that you probably have known about 20 English people max, and maybe 1 of them well. I can’t take you seriously as having knowledge of these things. Your attempt to model in this way isn’t wrong, and some of what you say in this vein has substance. But you tend to blood libel of the English (dont make me drudge up examples, you know what you’ve said) and you tend to overstep the bounds of what little knowledge you have. So while there is a Polish “essence”, you wont hear me talking about it anytime soon. I probably know as much about Poles as you do about English, but you wont hear me speak on matters like that. I was trying to advise you of the merits of such a lack of presumption.
Yes, but we both know what kind of context is behind all of your statements about the British, don’t we? 1) blood libel of the English Notice how I don’t spend my time vindicating the British Empire until a context like this arises. I defend it defensively against other people who want to use one of these arguments to field another one such as the three listed above. In day-to-day discussion I could give less than a fuck about the British Empire, lets see you say the same of Nazism…. oh wait.. whats that sound? ..... I’m hearing a poem recited in the distance…
Damn it, I’m tearing up here guys! 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:43 | # Desmond,
I do not accept this dance with the fear of consequentialism. Salter opens his Chapter 9, in which he addresses morality, with these words:
There is the divide. The interest is “discovered”. It is an artifact. It is solid. Let us be specific and say that a particular “discovered” interest is genetic distinctiveness. Did that distinctiveness evolve? Yes. Can we build defence strategies for its defence? Yes. The propositionalism of the second case does not disqualify the facticity of the first. This does not imply that all interests are evolved. Most are not. But our principal concern as nationalists today is precisely for the defence of what we are. Desmond, we are trying to utilise ideas in our intellectual domain, not make them into hallowed objects incapable of application. Try to be positive. You have it in you to be an asset to this effort, and not a hindrance.
Do you really not understand that, in the event of the destruction of the male half of humanity, which means, in effect, all humanity with whom Neo could not reproduce, the sum of the loss of copies of Neo’s genes would outweigh the gain of the 50% of Neo’s genes in the baby-Neos? Read the book.
I am not satisfied with this idea, which is too pat. For one thing, I see moral values as issuing broadly from evolved reproductive strategies, and where they differ or conflict with those strategies it will be for a limited period until Nature re-asserts itself. For example, control methods in the form of exhortations to Christian morality placed on African slaves during the 18th and 19th centuries surely did not greatly depress African sexualisation once those controls had diminished. Where are those Christian values now? I think consistency is always the guide, not the reproductive differential which seems to presuppose that moral values can be codified generationally. The fact that Christians may out-breed liberals does not imply that Christian universalism will replace liberal-left universalism. The next generation may be National Socialists. It’s all a question of zeitgeist and suggestibility. What is consistent from generation to generation, if it can be discovered, is what is true. 45
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:44 | # Neo, Let us continue your immersion in evolutionary thought. You write:
Well, let us consider our elder brothers in faith. Are there any meaningful moral differences in the struggles of diaspore Jewry and those of Jews in Israel? I would certainly contend that differences are superficial and that, in reality, both sets of prescriptions proceed from the same genetic disposition towards the same millenarian goal. To be Jewish is to press towards tribal supremacy. I understand that your concern is to establish moral veracity for a New Prussia. But you are stuck with the free-rider problem of an artificially delineated and self-proclaimed class that declares itself, in essence, the new-Jews, with all the parasitical delights that that entails. It is an insupportable thesis morally and practically. Better to let the cognitive elite float upward to its rightful place, but not to ascribe to it distinctions that it does not possess and, in all likelihood, would not desire. I will go further, and say that the attentiveness of the elite to the genetic (rather than merely economic or social) interests of the broad mass of the people is the true character of leadership among Europeans. It is what lies beneath the universalisms that have caused us so much strife, and what urgently requires, therefore, to be unburdened of these latter-day moral misnomers.
Proposition 1: true. Proposition 2: without foundation because ...
I am saying that morality broadly and over time serves the genetic interests of the people, and that conflicting moral codes within a single people indicates the presence of a social pathology.
Oh, it’s worse than that. I am not a social moralist at all, beyond the morality that is consistent with my existentialism - what leads to consciousness is good, what leads to mechanicity is bad - and that which serves the genetic interests of my people. A moral philosophy I might like to author would to tie together these two seemingly disunited prescriptions, mostly but not exclusively via social conservatism.
In other words, your version of self-justified aristocratic arrogance can’t get a look in. Well, sans faire rien. Perhaps you should learn the art of duelling, surely an aristocratic recourse and not something suited at all to Bolsheviki like me. Not that you aren’t a class act, you understand. It just happens to be second class. 46
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:58 | # Grimoire,
I take your remark under advisement - for I am yet to be, as perhaps you have become, of the opinion that GW is other than misguided and/or fanatical. 47
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:26 | # GW,
Ah, once again the hard case making bad law - the exception proving the rule. And yes, there are meaningful moral differences therein, because even amongst the Jews there is not a uniformity of moral perspective. Your own position, as just exposed, maintains that *interest* is uniform, but that “morality,” as the variably adaptive means to the attainment of said ends in correspondingly variable environments, is not. Thus you have here attempted to invalidate your own generalization with a putative exception - in the service of squirming out of your failure to take the obvious point of the illustration, above.
Same interest - different moralities:
It is the repetitive history of the world - born of necessity. You require much instruction such as you refuse.
The essence of humankind’s moral dilemma is not one of cognition. You require much instruction such as you refuse.
And *I* will go further and make the obvious point that your genetic legacy is a nullity if you’ve been exterminated for prior failure to engage the elements of morality that are paramount in the apprehension of politico-economic reality.
If you so tautologically define “a people”. But empirical observation is to the contrary, as to the circumstance of what ostensibly are “peoples” presently extant. And, as above, your own thesis is that there are various moralities for varying environments, into which variations you even placed the Jews.
If you are self-admittedly “not a social moralist at all” then you are not equipped to discuss the vital preliminaries to a concern with “genetic interests”.
But I have no need of a duel, my dear GW. Rather I expect to enjoy a demonstration of the Art of the Dance - now that your dangling feet have been liberated from the earth by your own petard. 48
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:43 | # Neo,
To repeat, the underlying interest is uniform, and tends to be uniformly expressed as “what is good for Jews”. Even the Naturei Karta, who oppose the state of Israel, do so in obedience to that interest, as they see it. They do not press for the destruction of Israelis, but cleave to the sanctity of Jewish life, only seeking the take-up of their ideas as a more faithful expression of G-d’s love for that life. Among Jews, even opposing viewpoints agree if you delve down far enough beyond the moral superstructure, however it is biased or pathologised, and into Nature’s foundations. Jews are, in fact, unusually transparent in that regard. But ultimate agreement is not only a characteristic of Jews. Every person has genetic interests. No man is an island in this respect, not even a homosexual. And all peoples are ethnocentric. This does not change. It is only the bias of the superstructure, and sometimes the pathologies in it, which take a people away into atomisation, say, or self-criticism or self-estrangement, and so on. So I attach less significance to moralisation than you do. What comes out of the genes has permanence. What flies in through the window has not. But then you are proposing - are you not? - a dictatorship of an aristocracy morally freed to pursue it own “higher” interests in “high European civilisation” even at the cost of the masses being despised ... even at the cost of them being negrified. After all, have you not declared your antipathy to “racist fanaticism”? All of this has to fly in through the window. It is damned by its own artificiality. The offence occasioned by our nascent existentialism to your Weltanshauung is precisely that. It calls you out not as an exemplar of a higher vision, or as a high intellect of radical anti-modernism, but as a too-too clever buffoon who has invested his life’s very purpose in a vanity. What is it for, we say, if it does not do “good for Europeans”? For, the absolute freedom of a (doubtless, self-corrupting) elite is not such a good. And if you cannot propose good for us, Neo, it would be much better all round if you proposed nothing at all.
The fascist conceit! We do not have a moral dilemma. We have an existential crisis. We have moved beyond the idealist’s pursuit of promised lands as our salvation. Our own lands are that, and the path to taking back our lands is the path of our self-possession. You are living in the 19th century.
Wrong. Tiresomely, completely wrong. Google “gene map Europe”, and do not repeat your error again.
I wrote: “I am not a social moralist at all, beyond the morality that is consistent with my existentialism - what leads to consciousness is good, what leads to mechanicity is bad - and that which serves the genetic interests of my people.” I know you don’t understand the whole of that. You are not alone, it’s clear. But to misunderstand the distinction between social influences and genetic influences, when we have concerned ourselves greatly with them here, evinces a certain failure to engage, does it not? 49
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 18:13 | # GW,
What you are “repeating” is your confusing and perhaps disingenuous conflation of “interest” with “morality” such that you can alternately distinguish between, and otherwise establish a identity of, the two elements. To “repeat,” as above, the agreed-upon assertion of uniformity of interest is not, as ostensibly you intend it to be taken, to contradict my statement as quoted above.
“What comes out of the genes has permanence.” Really?! I would say not - if your genes are permanently extinct.
I propose survival. Is that “good for Europeans” on their way to negritude? Presumably you, as a racist fanatic, would say not - rather, to hell with them would be your attitude. But the history of peoples on the brink of dark ages is the inclination to survival at the price of slavery and serfdom. I am dealing with the circumstance as it is, if only in forthrightly examining and understanding it as it presents itself. You neither understand nor can accept the intrinsically troublesome aspects of organic existence and so take refuge in the modern equivalent of traditional underclass fatuities, palliatives, and psychotropically-induced pseudo-convictions. This is the time in the High Cultural cycle of the emergence of Christians and Buddhists and Anarchists of various stripe - and you are merely one of these latter-day fanatical and fatuous innocents.
You have an existential crisis in consequence, in large part, of the failure to knowledgeably engage moral dilemma. Again, your priorities are not in order.
Consulting a map is pointless when you are obviously prepared, after your familiar essentialist technique, to impute moral qualities and equivalence to peoples as it suits your argument. And, if you were epistemologically sophisticated, you would not have given away your anticipated tactic by using the phrase, “completely wrong”. One is automatically alerted to an oncoming tautology, thereby.
Your own “understanding” is that of the psychotropically-convicted and is thus nonsense with which we can dispense. Again, I make a vital point by now remarking that “understanding the distinction” must involve derivation of a sense of priority - which you lack for the absence of a grasp of principles evidently beyond your acquaintance and comprehension. 50
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:25 | # Neo,
I don’t find any confusion in the idea that the bias for adaptive life-choices among social animals should extend into behavioural forms more complex than mere appetites, for example, and these forms should extend to group interests such as the defence of territory. I am a bit puzzled why you should be confused by it. You don’t believe in God, so where do you think moral sensibility originates?
Well, genetic information transmits while the genes are selected, which can be for millions of years. But that wasn’t my point, as I am sure you know. I know you are not claiming that putting a bowler hat on an African changes him into an Englishman. But what are you trying to say because this ...
... doesn’t mean a lot in the context of what went before.
Actually, you don’t. You propose to take away the power to choose survival and grant it to an inevitably corrupting elite. Apparently, you find the whiff of overman violence irresistible. If you aren’t a poof you are certainly a very pathetic specimen. A loner, a failure, from what I can tell, who is entirely useless to himself and his people genetically and even politically, and whose one intellectual contribution is to tell them to fuck off, frankly. You might as well be a Jewish Marxist for all the good you do. Like the Jewish Marxist you don’t believe in good for us. You don’t believe in us. Survival my arse.
No, wait, not a tautology, surely. Well, what is “organic existence”, anyway? And what are these “troublesome aspects”?
Otherwise known as evolutionary biology, I suppose. My dear fellow, the Bishop of Oxford lost the debate. Haven’t you heard. Did you not raise your head from your copy of The Prince long enough to notice? The world has moved on, Neo. Specifically, if you are proposing a scheme for Man which does not accord with the last century and a half of scientific consensus - like Joseph Stalin’s charming avowal of Lamarckism, for instance - then you are in trouble. You could describe it as religion, I suppose. But ...
... that, too, may present a challenge for you. Come now, what was that “organic existence” you were talking about again? Surely you can filter out the noise of all these Christians, Buddhists and Anarchists long enough to get a fix on it. And if you can, when you don’t know the first thing about it, I am damned sure I can.
Look, rascal, you wrote that peoples cannot be empirically observed. You were wrong. Admit it, please, and admit too that it is dangerous to make statement about matters of which you clearly have no experience whatsoever. Don’t just plough on regardless.
Oh. You are ploughing on. Essentialism is a straw man. Sociobiology is the word, or evolutionary psychology if you prefer.
What a game little chap you are. You are standing there with your pants pulled down around your ankles and a tin of tar and a hundredweight of feathers all over you, and you still want to put your dooks up!
Look, you may not have noticed, but I gave you something important about morality and being in that response, and did it twice in the hope that you would discover it and enquire. You skated straight over it as though it did not exist, and made a rather mechanical claim instead about the supremacy of your principles (which, of course, are so refined they are hidden from my sight). You make yourself look and smell like a fake, Neo. Perhaps if you were honest before the bathroom mirror, honest about your life, honest about the fanaticism of your intellectual attachments, and so forth, you might seem more honest to us. But you are not young, and I doubt whether you can change. At any rate, you have your dreams of a viciously uncaring aristocracy to nurture as the physical decay sets in. Enjoi. Tomorrow the tumbrils. 51
Posted by uh on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:47 | # What a game little chap you are. You are standing there with your pants pulled down around your ankles and a tin of tar and a hundredweight of feathers all over you, and you still want to put your dooks up! Holy shit that is funny. 52
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 01:37 | # Well, GW, I’m not sure what to do with the vast, unresponsive nonsense, but I can immediately serve you with a list of the substantial falsehoods in your little tantrum: * Actually, you don’t [propose survival]. You propose to take away the power to choose survival and grant it to an inevitably corrupting elite. [This represents such survival as might be possible.] * Apparently, you find the whiff of overman violence irresistible. [Rather, my initial ideological commitments were Libertarian, and I have followed the logic and evidence from scholarly investigation to arrive at my present position.] * If you aren’t a poof you are certainly a very pathetic specimen. [And this is the measure of your judgment, and the measures to which you have been reduced, since quite the opposite is the case.] * A loner, a failure, from what I can tell,... [Not by conventional standards (though we know that you can make any point you please by defining terms to suit your own argument). By conventional standards I am a “success” - I am variously envied for my intellect, my looks, my possessions, my conduct, my business, and other aspects of my person that have attracted comment. (I was once employed by Ted Turner as a TV newscaster and voice talent, for what that’s worth in terms of the judgment of others as to my presentability).] * Look, rascal, you wrote that peoples cannot be empirically observed. [I did not - I wrote that they could.] 53
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:00 | #
Law, Ethics, Morality: Pretense and Illusion
No - otherwise known as slave morality and fanaticism.
Ah, I see that you have attracted a festive onlooker, whom you’ve shamelessly aroused as you dangle invitingly from your own instrument.
Behold: 54
Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:16 | #
It’s historically revealed. The ontic status of these sensibilities (or values) is not meant to be questioned. 55
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:48 | # Neo, Can I make one point quite clear. If, in some future-time, you ever visited upon me or mine your prediction for masterful dominance I would avail myself of James’ principle of Just Challenge and strike you dead on the spot. The same for your haughty friends. You do not know what slavery is, by the way. You are ignorant of your own inner life. I will endeavour to enlighten you, though I fear that you are a stranger to humility, and the noise of your own steepling pride and vanity will surely block all attempts. 56
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:54 | # GW,
Bold words. A Drama in prospect. Justice has its Invincible Champion - and a Vista opens before our eyes wherein the Villains are brought down, at His hands, to their rightfully miserable ends. Yes, I see it now, GW. You are, indeed, the hero of your own story - as ought to be the case. I do try to bring this out in people, you know. As we see here and rejoice therein, even the lower orders are not beyond redemption.
Apparently, the irony of your presumption escapes you. So you must guard against these amusing blunders, GW, lest you irremediably reinforce my pride and vanity at the expense of yours. 57
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:08 | #
As we see, above, you’ve made *two* points quite clear, GW. The second of which is the implication of your resort to imaginatively “taking it outside”. But let us allow you the consolation of believing that you would prevail in personal combat with someone by whom you would be hopelessly over-matched. That is, after all, all you have left. Post a comment:
Next entry: History, freedom and the British
|
|
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 Ken on Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:30 | #
Ha ha ha! Hilarious! Truly Orwellian satire..you should look for a publisher really you should. And the consistently ironic tone is masterly. ” Call me Adolf” ! I’m sitting here chortling away which is something I don’t often do when reading MR believe me. Ive enjoyed all your pieces and I look forward to the next. It’s easy to mock the ludicrous Left but to do it in such style! I look forward to your next. Thanks! *toddles off chuckling*