So ... I seriously over-estimated the white American electorate when, twenty-two months ago, I declared that Barrack Hussein’s boy had made his move for the VP.  Who’d have thought that a vacuus appeal to empty minds could rout the governing right?  Again.

But I did at least predict that Obama will:-

... divide America like no other, which I presume to be a good.  Should the nationalist American, then, hope that Hillary so scares the cattle he actually wins the nomination?  Should the hope even be that he strides to victory on November 4th next year over a prostrate John McCain (or Rudi Giuliani)?

The Giuliani thing wasn’t such a great call, that’s for sure.  But, anyway, now we’ve got this black - a probable empty suit - and his blacker, angry wife on their way to the White House we can ask ourselves what the result could be for WN.

For all of those twenty-two months the general assumption has certainly been that a black in the White House will create a tidal wave of new support for “the movement”.  It seems inevitable.  The Obamessiah is bound to experience a little difficulty in blessing his errant people with “change”.  Human nature does not change.  Radical leftist objectives are never gratefully seized upon by a subject people.  They are imposed by force.

But, it seems to me now that a great deal depends on how successfully Obama’s team and the “liberal” media can play on the violent redneck factor, while at the same time confounding white fears of KFC parties on the White House lawn and fresh Affirmative Action legislation before Congress.  That could keep the fence-sitters a-sitting and those who become disillussioned with the trope of “change” still convinced of the electoral claim that only white racism is holding America back from a golden new dawn.

Obviously, the media power exists to do this.  Indeed, the image of the redneck with a noose in one hand and a sniper’s rifle in the other is already getting the full SPLC treatment:-

READ MORE...

Jonathan Bowden speaking to the New Right in London

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

READ MORE...

A little over 2 years since I started warning about impending hyperinflationary depression ala the Weimar Republic, the mainstream is now talking about it openly.  Always among the bleeding edge of mainstream (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury) pundits, Paul Craig Roberts has now written of the current situation:

Shades of the Weimar Republic.
...
Cutting the budget deficit by halting pointless wars and unnecessary military spending and reducing the trade deficit by bringing jobs back to America are simple tasks compared to confronting inflationary depression.

Others, such as John Thain, chairman and CEO of Merrill Lynch, 86 year old former Goldman Sachs chairman John Whitehead are starting to use the “D”(epression) word but they aren’t yet using the “H”(yperinflation) word or its concomitant “W”(eimar) word.  Give them time…

I do have to admit to making an error in not predicting the current deflationary trend—an error caused by my underestimating Jewish Virulence—the hypercentralization of net assets prior to the migration phase of the Jewish organism’s life-cycle:

I thought that the Jewish group organism would use the crisis brought on by the centralization of wealth to just grab the money and run/diaspawn, as it usually does.  I expected someone like Obama to step in with huge government programs funded by printed money filtered out to prop up consumer debt—causing hyperinflation—sooner than they have.  Instead, what has happened is the remedial action has been delayed until literally trillions of new money is pumped in at the top of the financial system to help bankers take control of vast tracts of houses while emptying their former residents into tent cities around the nation—further centralizing wealth prior to the hyperinflation.  The motive for this is simple enough—unbounded greed—but to actually pull it off was something I didn’t explicitly anticipate 2 years ago when I first made my prediction of a Weirmar-like hyperinflationary depression.

So, we’re now seeing the bailout money being used to further centralize hard asset ownership while insulating Jewish elites from the effects of hyperinflation as they prepare to migrate to greener pastures in the Jewish organism’s life-cycle of horizontal transmission.

Here is the scarcely punctuated and poorly expressed blurb to a book titled What Shall We Tell the Children, written by Dr Stuart J. Foster.  It was published in 2006.

The pages of this book illustrate that as instruments of socialization and sites of ideological discourse textbooks are powerful artefacts in introducing young people to a specific historical, cultural and socioeconomic order. Crucially, exploring the social construction of school textbooks and the messages they impart provides an important context from within which to critically investigate the dynamics underlying the cultural politics of education and the social movements that form it and which are formed by it. The school curriculum is essentially the knowledge system of a society incorporating its values and its dominant ideology. The curriculum is not “our knowledge” born of a broad hegemonic consensus, rather it is a battleground in which cultural authority and the right to define what is labelled legitimate knowledge is fought over. As each chapter in this book illustrates curriculum as theory and practice has never been, and can never be, divorced from the ethical, economic, political, and cultural conflicts of society which impact so deeply upon it. We cannot escape the clear implication that questions about what knowledge is of most worth and about how it should be organized and taught are problematic, contentious and very serious.

There is something deeply offensive about the knowledge of the workings of the mind claimed by these educationalist creatures.  Everything is somebody’s myth, they say.  It’s all relative.  It’s all about power ... all about politics.  The only question is whether we are serious about building a better, more tolerant, more equal world.  Etc, etc.

I’m glad I’m not a “senior lecturer in History in Education” like Dr Foster.  I can cling to the fond belief that the point of educating children is to equip them with the capacity to think for themselves all life long.  But Dr Foster very specifically does NOT share that belief.  In his mean little world, students are no more than human blotting-paper - except, of course, those like his own student self who possess the powers to freely discriminate for the marxian concept of Man.  Gods in a postmodern system that makes the rest of us less than human, they are the final word in hypocrisy.

Now I’ve got that off my chest, I will explain.

READ MORE...

Due to all the nonsense regarding political economy and real estate nowadays, I figured I’d start posting some of my thoughts as they occur to me on the relationship between political economy and asset value, particularly liquidation value in-place, since people are finally starting to at least pretend to be interested in the fundamentals of political economy.

READ MORE...

The erratic behavior early in the graph may be due to early errors in sampling when Google Labs was trying to get this tool up and running.

The lads in their hundreds to Ludlow come in for the fair,
There’s men from the barn and the forge and the mill and the fold,
The lads for the girls and the lads for the liquor are there,
And there with the rest are the lads that will never be old.

There’s chaps from the town and the field and the till and the cart,
And many to count are the stalwart, and many the brave,
And many the handsome of face and the handsome of heart,
And few that will carry their looks or their truth to the grave.

I wish one could know them, I wish there were tokens to tell
The fortunate fellows that now you can never discern;
And then one could talk with them friendly and wish them farewell
And watch them depart on the way that they will not return.

But now you may stare as you like and there’s nothing to scan;
And brushing your elbow unguessed-at and not to be told
They carry back bright to the coiner the mintage of man,
The lads that will die in their glory and never be old.

AE Housman’s remarkably prophetic “The Lads in their hundreds to Ludlow come in for the fair”, from his collection “A Shropshire Lad” of 1896, later set to music by George Butterworth.

Last Sunday afternoon BBC Radio 3 broadcast a highly interesting contribution to its Discovering Music series titled Vaughan Williams and the Lost Generation.  The highly interesting aspect of it was its concentration on early 20th century English music thematically drawn from some deeply recondite folk sources - what presenter Stephen Johnson terms “music of the people”.

This reaching towards the life of the rural people by artists and intellectuals was a political fashion on the left at the time, but a rather honourable one given that Marx was already entering the working class movements of the industrial centres.  The leading musical spirit of the time was Ralph Vaughan Williams, who died fifty years ago this year.  He, along with other young composers, broke with the High Victorian conventions and sought out ancient English folk songs at their source.  Vaughan Williams spent his entire professional life in the act of reaching musically for a spirit of landscape and of people, and he is probably known and loved for it by English music-lovers more today than at any time in the past.

On the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the signing of the Armistice (as I post this it is already the 11th day of the 11th month in England), it is mete to remember the meaning of this search for an English essence.  The search for self, and a putting away of falsehood, is always a valid exercise.  When the French speak of La France Profonde, this self, ageless and unchanging, is what they mean.  For those lingering romantics at the turn of the 20th century who looked at urban life and saw nothing but falsehood and artifice there was only one, now all-changed place to search out a cure.

But as an intellectual fashion, the search itself died in the trenches of Northern France.  When peace finally returned it was gone.  One can argue, I think, that with the witness died the thing itself.  The connection to the land, the character of place were greeted thereafter with a general disinterest.  The national focus was on the city and on the struggle of the industrial poor, which meant that the spirit of a deeper and more inchoate English reality ceased to be any kind of professionally useful metric.

READ MORE...

Evidently, there is a millenarian mood in the air at this point in time.  So it is appropriate that John “Birdman” Bryant circularised his contact list earlier in the week to draw attention to a re-write of his, let it be said, never inflammatory or seditious article, Final Solution to the Washington Question.  The original was circularised on 19th Aug , 2008.  The re-write is reproduced here under the fold.

John belongs in that fine tradition of flinty and indomitable, free-born and proud American citizens for whom that phrase from V for Vendetta was surely written: “The people should not fear their government, their government should fear the people.”  And it is on the theory of governmental fear that John wrote - and rewrote - this essay.

I must say, it brings to mind Geoff Beck’s time at MR, and his heady exhortations to the “Men of the West” to take up their arms and march up the steps of the Capitol Building.  But Geoff’s romanticism was a cry in the dark, and I don’t think he gave it very much thought beyond the pleasures of its utterance.  John, on the other hand, is theorising cooly and logically about change.  His question is: If the point arrives - or has arrived - when lethal violence is the only path left by which white Americans can secure a future for themselves and their children, what is the minimum degree of violence that will lead to that happy end?

Now, I have three criticisms to make of the scenario that John sketches very skilfully.  The first is that, in his eagerness to arrive at a minimal cost in life, he has underestimated the enormity and profundity of the task.  He has not allowed for the resilience of the Establishment, nor its strong preference for giving not an inch, and for a security solution.

Establishments do not go weak at the knees in the face of terror attacks.  They pursue a dual strategy of endeavouring to snuff out the physical threat while buying off popular support.  They pose constant questions for the resistance movement at every possible level via visible security, surveillance and interdiction, arms stings and false flags, infiltration, fund tracking, hearts and minds propaganda, political initiatives, etc.  Their objective is always and in everything to win.  A war with a government is always a long war.

The second criticism is in that old and very moral cliché, one man’s freedom-fighter is another’s terrorist.  If the people whom a freedom-fighter seeks to release from bondage view him only as a terrorist there is an immediate problem of legitimacy.  Without legitimacy, without a recognised shared cause, there will be no support from the people, and a resistance movement cannot prosper in a fight against a government without considerable tacit and active support.  Compare the political impact of the Provisional IRA with that of Brigate Rosse, or the political impact of ETA with that of Baader Meinhof.

This brings us straight back to the abiding issue of why American WN is so splintered and ghettoised.  A movement that cannot be heard at all beyond the badlands of the internet obviously has quite a job to do if it expects terroristic attacks on government officials to be understood in the wider community as the people’s own struggle.  Realistically, the movement should be in a position to lead popular opinion ... to tell a moral story to the hearts of the people while they absorb news over breakfast of the latest “act” done in their name.

The third criticism is an ideological one.  Like many race-loyal Americans, John is a believer in the theory - which is what it is - of isostatic recovery.  If the causes of the malaise are removed, the theory goes, everything will slowly and inevitably return to a point of societal balance and health.  Resolve Jewish power, kick the race-traitors out of their positions of influence, and the process of recovery will commence automatically and proceed unguided.

This theory is predicated on faith in the foundational instruments of the Republic, and on the enduring, indeed, eternal goodness and conservatism of White America.  It denies agency to the America of the past in the creation of the America of the present - since, of course, everything creatively bad rests with Jews and the race-traitors.  It eschews complications like the hyper-moralism and consumerism of modern America, which have their antecedents in Puritanism and the myth of progress, and which tend to far from balanced and healthy outcomes.  If one refuses to acknowledge the extrusions of the past into the present, one is almost certainly inviting what is euphemistically known as “unforeseen events”.  One must know oneself, I think.

Anyway ... here, for you to judge for yourself, is John’s provocative essay:-

READ MORE...