Bo Sears sent me the link to an Antiwar.com post with a Fox News interview of Tony Blankley, an Englishman turned American turned lawyer turned journalist turned Jewish extended phenotype who denies he is a neocon.  But Blankley has a new book out titled American Grit in which he pans Obama’s ideas about national service and calls for “a full-on military draft”.

Now, it happens that Bo and the RD guys have already predicted the return of the draft:-

My colleagues and I have considered all kinds of situations in which a new president might need local community leaders to follow him blindly in some new foreign adventure.  The only one we can see that would be nation-shaking … the only one that would fit in the model of a black president and a dangerous military entanglement abroad, and which would give rise to the circumstance where lots of local support had to be brought behind him, would be the re-introduction of the draft.

So Blankley’s timely arrival with the self-same idea is not entirely unexpected.  The intriguing question is: Does a connected guy like Blankley think it up all by himself, or does he get fed it by a Nameless Other or two?

Hat-tip to Andy on Troy’s New Right Forum for this re-run of a 2003 article on Johann Herder at Robert Steuckers’ Euro-Synergies website.

Johann Gottfried von Herder (August 25, 1744 – December 18, 1803) was a philosopher considered, with Johann Gottlieb Fichte, to be one of the fathers of German nationalism and romanticism.  He was a figure of sufficient substance to have approved of the French Revolution - and upset German royalty thereby.  He rejected Kant and also Hamann’s Sturm und Drang, and was an early inspiration to Goethe.

The article, which is by M. Raphael Johnson and which I will reproduce in full below the fold, interests me for two reasons.  First, I think the history of the ideas of European nationalism, which flow from the reservoir of continental Idealist philosophy, is something of which all those who call themselves nationalists should have an understanding.  And while it’s true that historical circumstances change enormously, there is still much in Herder’s analysis which chimes for us today.

Of the Volk, of whom he was a champion and, in the ideational sense, the inventor, he said:-

“What of us lies in the hearts of others is our truest and deepest self.”

And of the inner motivations of those who proclaimed the universalist cause he said:-

“Those that embrace the entire universe with love for the most part love nothing but their narrow selves.”

Second, it is obviously impossible to contemplate the meaning of, and the towering need for, synthesis without the poles of nationalist thought, and of Western philosophy generally, being well fixed in the mind.  Ideas matter, and the history of ideas matters.

M. Raphael Johnson quite vividly and insistently explicates the bad faith and intellectual snobbery which exists, and has always existed, among continental European thinkers for their analytical Anglo-Saxon counterparts.  Science, they say, is the epistomology of the lab sample.  All higher organic meaning is lost or distorted through the empirical prism.  The Idealists, you see, are unique in knowing the meaning - and, therefore, appreciating the beauty - of things.

You may disagree, but you had better have some damned good arguments why.

READ MORE...

By The Narrator

There is an old, outdated saying that goes, “Charity begins at home”. I say outdated because, obviously, today charity begins at least a thousand miles from home. Whether it is flying half-way around the world to bring their self-righteous selves to the savages or just simply bringing the savages back home, the missionaries and charitable types love to seek out those who are least like themselves and take the opportunity to bask in their own benevolence.

And to note, I use the word “savage” in the true spirit of these people who travel about the globe and dazzle various primitives with their presence.  After all, charity automatically requires one person to be in a superior position and another to be in an inferior position.

No wonder then that the most charitable people often strike us as the most arrogant and pompous.  So referring to the beneficiaries of such self-aggrandizing types as savages or primitives is only done in deference to the social vantage point the aggrandizers enjoy.

Actually, this kind of super-charity (as opposed to the kind that flows naturally back and forth between peoples of similar racial, social and cultural standings) finds its greatest acts of giving through indirect compulsory sacrifice on the part of others.  For example, if you and your church/charity arrange to bring a savage into America, you are, through force and cohesion, compelling other members of your community into giving as well.  Their taxes and resources will be automatically re-distributed to the savage through healthcare, education, housing and so on.  This also happens when tax dollars are sent abroad for charitable purposes.

This, then, is not the community giving but rather the charitable taking.  Thus charity has now become an act of aggression which ultimately leads to the despoiling and plundering of communities and (eventually) nations.

READ MORE...

Typically, whenever anyone advocates any policy that remotely favors whites, he will be assailed with the usual cacophony of ‘racist,’ ‘white supremacist,’ ‘hater,’ ‘neo-nazi,’ etc. Many people insist they are not white supremacists, not racists, not haters, they just want ‘x.’ As the argument goes, “x” isn’t racist, it’s just common sense. Or “X” isn’t hateful, it’s just benevolent towards our own. Or “X” isn’t white supremacy, it’s just nationalism, separatism, realism, etc, etc.

Various groups are giving strange dichotomies like ‘it’s okay to be proud of your race, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist.’ ‘it’s okay to oppose immigration, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist.’ Etc. Most of the right wing groups, in a desperate wish for respectability, play by the liberals’ rules and truckle under their demands. We’ll be ‘only so far to the right and no further.’ And in order to prove their true PC credentials, they will sharply vilify and attack anyone to the right of them, to show the leftie liberals that they’re really good people, that they’re basically on the same side, and they hate the evil white supremacist nazis too. This moral cowardice infects even the ‘hardest core’ which turns out to be quite spinelessly soft in the end.

Let’s call a spade a spade. There are two definitions of white supremacy that make any sense, the objective and the subjective. I’ll explain each of them, and if you don’t fall under either category, if you are not a white supremacist in either sense, you should have no interest in being anything else either. Instead of disavowing white supremacism while clinging to white separatist, white nationalist, survivalist, etc, you should just give it up and go back to being a good communist left-winger. Nothing is more pathetic than people who refuse to maintain a principled and orderly moral system but contort themselves into loops and pretzels of contradictory views. Basically, you’re just a chink in our moral armor, a weak point liberals can chisel away at, dividing us amongst ourselves, causing friction and ultimately dissension and surrender in the ranks. Once you’ve admitted it’s immoral to be a white supremacist, everything else is immoral too, and it’s time to file for extinction. That’s the only other path that lays before us. People must choose.

READ MORE...

Fr. John sent me this WorldNetDaily link to an article on the Obama birth certificate embroglio.  WoldNetDaily is one of the small handful of slightly off-colour organisations that is campaigning to up-end Obama’s inauguration.

Eligibility issue to follow Obama into Oval Office
Supreme Court sets ‘natural born’ conference to follow inauguration

A legal challenge that alleges Barack Obama isn’t a “natural born” citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States will follow the Democrat into the Oval Office, with a U.S. Supreme Court conference on the dispute set after the Jan. 20 inauguration.

The court’s website today announced that a fourth case on the issue will be reviewed by justices Jan. 23.

The court previously heard two cases in conference – private meetings at which justices consider which cases to accept – and denied both Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio full hearings.

The court now has a conference scheduled Friday on a case raised by attorney Philip Berg, with another conference on a matter related to the same Berg case on Jan. 16. Then today the court website revealed the case Gail Lightfoot et al v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, will be heard in conference Jan. 23.

The case initially appeared at the Supreme Court Dec. 12 but was rejected. It then was submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts, and today’s notice confirmed it was distributed for the Jan. 23 conference.

Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling the case, said, “The timing of this decision by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: ‘Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it.’”

I really can’t see this or any similar effort disaccomodating the executive too much.  The latter will more than tough it out, quashing each legal challenge with utter disdain - a response licenced by the curious and studied indifference of the GOP as to whether the man elected to serve as America’s 44th president is eligible by birth for office.  At any other time we would see the defeated candidate’s party crawling all over something like this.  Heck, look how they pursued slick Willy for his paltry little indiscretion with “that woman”.  By comparison, Obama may be engaged in a staggeringly cynical electoral charade.  And it gets worse once he is sworn in:-

On Friday the justices will consider Philip J. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

“This is a historic occasion that will impact the office of the president of the United States as never before. No one has ever brought an action against a president-elect candidate challenging his eligibility to serve based on the ‘natural born’ citizen requirement provided in the United States Constitution, Article II Section 1,” said a statement on Berg’s ObamaCrimes.com website.

Berg suggested if Obama “is allowed to be sworn in as president of the United States, there will be substantial and irrevocable harm to the stability of the United States of America and to its citizens.”

“Because Barack Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen as required by the United States Constitution, then all of his actions as president would be null and void,” Berg said.

Wrotnowski and Donofrio would very likely have triggered the “avoid” mechanism that serious politicians reserve for conspiracy theorists.  Lightfoot, a CA libertarian, seems more substantial, but still unlikely in the extreme to break the presidential mould.  But the Berg petition is said to be not at all frivolous, and is the one that requires the president elect’s elusive long form birth certificate to be produced.

So why are the Republicans to a man looking the other way?  Not wanting to appear ungracious losers?  Not wanting to show disloyalty to the Washington insiders and the wider political class?  Not wanting to associate with a bunch of oddball fringe activists?  Not wanting to gamble on bringing the house down on the Obama victory, only to find that the long form certificate does, in fact, contain the word “Hawaii”?  Not wanting to re-fight the presidential election?

I received a mail today from MR reader Bruce Graeme.  Here it is.
GW

Lawrence Auster defines “the unprincipled exception” as:-

The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that liberals use to escape the suicidal consequences of their own liberalism without questioning liberalism itself.

Alternatively, the unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that conservatives use to slow the advance of liberalism or to challenge some aspect of liberalism without challenging liberalism itself.

However, recently, in his post On the difficult issue of how to talk about race, Auster himself applied the liberal “unprincipled exception” in full force to challenge some aspect of racism without challenging racism itself.

He claims that “in order to defend the white race and Western civilization, we don’t need to make it sound as though race in itself is the highest value.” ... “we simply need to recognize that whiteness is an indispensable facet of what white people and Western society are and have been.”

Then he continues saying that “through all of American history until the mid 20th century, the leaders of our society frankly believed in the white race, they took it for granted that America was a white man’s country and should remain so.”

Further applying this principle he concludes: “To make the case for the preservation of the white race and white civilization plausible, it must be justified within a moral framework. When race is treated as a value in itself, it inevitably declines into cruder forms of racialism that are wrong and that will be automatically rejected.”

The problem, however, is that due to this liberal “unprincipled exception” the very definition of ‘whiteness’, has changed so much over time, that the racial quality it stands for has declined.

In the early 20th century most immigrants were not considered white (Italians, Irish, Greeks, Jews, and many others). The Immigration Act of 1924 was aimed at limiting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who were immigrating in large numbers (setting quotas on immigrants from certain European countries), as well as prohibiting the immigration of East Asia.

Whiteness implicated that one was of Northern European descent! But by applying the “unprincipled exception”, ‘whiteness’ nowadays can almost be won legally and may well result in the absorption of the “white” race by “colored” races which would actually mean a corruption of society.

By applying the “unprincipled exception”, the concept “white race” has extended so much and has become so empty of content, that - following Auster’s footsteps - it has no value any longer as a guiding factor of civilization and even implies that, ultimately, the world can be seen as only being composed of simply black and white races.

Bruce Graeme

And here is my reply:-

READ MORE...

You’ve heard of political science, sociobiology, political economy, etc.  You may even have heard of “biopolitics”.  But what you probably haven’t heard of is “political biology” as an academic discipline unifying political science with biology.  This would be strange indeed—given that the origin of political science was in the theoretic implications of human nature as explored by Hobbes, Locke and Hume, among many others—were it not for our familiarity with The Culture of Critique.  There are, after all, only about 1300 web search hits for “political biology” of which nearly 400 are references to the Third Reich.

So, here we are, centuries after the foundation of political science, searching for grounding in something other than sophistry due to the forces of political biology.  Imagine a pathogen that managed to preferentially infect the brains of medical researchers such as Lister or Pasteur.  Such is our misfortune.

Even the few furtive attempts to recover some sapience such as sociobiology have been cursed by the advent of political substitutes such as evolutionary psychology which place even social interactions at arms length and political movements further yet from well-founded thought.

So it comes as some relief when political scientists such as Frank Salter foray into the enormous gaping hole in our thoughts to fill in a tiny conceptual outline or two.

Could it be that a recent (2005) paper, BIOLOGY & POLITICAL SCIENCE.  FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF POLITICAL BIOLOGY by Mircea BOARI Department of Political Science, University of Bucharest will ..provide more healing of our intelligence, so wounded by the Jewish intellectual movements of the 20th century?

A few excerpts follow…

READ MORE...

By Diamed

There is a minor sub-set of people I talk to who know all the facts about racial IQ gaps,  differential fertility rates, criminal propensities, immigration levels, the whole shebang – and yet, because they do not think racially, they are not in the least concerned about the future.

Could it actually be that they are right? Here are a few arguments that seem to support them.

A) The economy can only support so many unskilled workers. Once business- and economy-fixated people notice their quality of life going down and make the connection to unskilled immigrants ... once they start going unemployed, facing sky-rocketing taxes or property values, over-crowded roads, etc, then, regardless of their own race, they’ll decide that immigration must stop.

Even assuming businesses will continue to import Third Worlders so long as it makes them a profit (albeit at the expense of the country at large) that is still a finite number. At some point every possible job dumb people can do will be filled, and it would not profit the business to hire any more. This still leaves a large segment of the population that can live off the 100 IQ and up niche jobs. The economy can’t replace all whites, so whites will still do just fine under this new population mix.

B) By failing to deliver the very progress it touts, liberalism - the age of pity and excuses and handouts for minorities - is losing sway. Home-schooling and private schooling is up, people are skeptical about global warming, practically every state in the US has concealed carry laws now, a “three strikes and you’re out”, get-tough approach on crime, and state after state is banning affirmative action. With good laws, whites can live around bad races because the latter are kept under control.

READ MORE...