A recent conversation with what might be thought of as an American Brahmin, (which seem to be coming back into vogue) included the following exchange (paraphrased):

Me: The problem with central planning is the problem with all the social sciences—the failure to respect experimentation over argumentation.  That’s why I support greater State autonomy. 

Me: No, I’m saying that the philosophy of science is the proper basis for Polity…

And so forth…

The thing that struck me about this conversation is the attitude of the American Brahmin toward experimentation—as though Polity—or to cast another light on it, Politeness—rendered experimentation somehow less than Civil.

That’s when it struck me that true science is in fact Barbaric and will always be treated thus by ruling elites of any Polity because Polity depends on faith in a set of—usually unstated—hypotheses in human ecology adopted by religious faith as pragmatic enforcement of elite powers.

David Cameron gave a speech sans notes to his party’s Spring Conference today (ie, it was more sincere than usual).  It included a jaw-dropping three-minute passage that makes very satisfying listening for every BNP member.  His theme was “winning it for Britain”.  I won’t write anymore.  Just listen for yourself - in particular for the loudest cheer.

Hat tip to Simon Darby

by The Narrator

“Own a flat screen television? If not you’re missing out. In high definition everything is so clear and real looking …”

A trendy comment today on movies or TV shows is “realistic”. Over and over I hear this adjective applied to various bits of entertainment as an endorsement of it. The special effects are “realistic” or the fight scenes are “realistic” and so on.

I have to wonder, what exactly does it mean to say a movie is realistic? If there are writers, actors, directors, editors, pre-production, post production, sound and visual effects companies involved over the course of generally a year and half, what exactly does “real” mean in regards to packaged entertainment?

One example I’ve heard pointed out is the ubiquitous ‘blue screen’ or back-projections employed in films since the 1920’s, if not before. These were most commonly used in scenes where an actor or actress appears to be driving. Now they are quite obviously in a mock-up of a car in front of a projection of scenery going by. But does this matter?

I’ve read that the reason special effects have improved is that audiences today are more sophisticated than those in past times. However, is the need to be convinced that a space-ship is realistically rendered in CGI as it dog fights with aliens from Beta reticuli on the planet Zorbom really demonstrative of a sophisticated mindset?

It may seem an insignificant question but it gets to the heart of the current mentality of many a citizen of The West and their relationship with media.

And it isn’t just in the realm of goofy sci-fi films. A few years back I was encouraged to see a new James Bond film because, and I quote, “it’s not like the old ones. This one is more grounded and realistic.” I’ve never been much of a James Bond fan but I gave it a shot. And within the first twenty minutes I witnessed a superhuman comic book character running mile after mile without breaking a sweat, men free-climbing buildings like Spiderman, people jumping to the ground from two stories up (from atop cranes) –tuck-roll- then hop up and start running some more. This was capped off by the hero single-handedly defeating an army of heavily armed soldiers and slipping away during a massive explosion that, though wreaking tremendous damage and knocking everyone to the ground (save the hero), did not appear to harm a hair on anyone’s head. Apparently this was “realistic”.

READ MORE...

by Rod Cameron

New Labour’s decision to put the EHRC dog onto the BNP has cost New Labour dearly. Not only has New Labour disowned its Working Class roots, but also it has handed over on a silver plate the most precious part of its history, its formative years, to the BNP. History of a century and more ago has repeated. The danger inherent to becoming part of the Establishment is to forget your forebears and their struggles, and then you surrender your political soul. I offer you this analogy.

THE BRITISH LABOUR MOVEMENT AND THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

The decision by Nick Griffin to change the constitution of the BNP to allow blacks and Asians to join, following pressure from the EHRC, should be received by the BNP with a certain sanguinity. Knowledge of the rise of the British Labour Movement will result in a wry acceptance that this is “par for the course”. Not for the first time social realities are being ignored and Establishmentarian forces are arrayed against the political newcomer.

The Social Reality

Trade unionism and opposition to immigration were preservationist/survivalist reactions to social realities. The Labour Movement was motivated by the need for working-class preservation. The BNP arises from the desire for ethnic self-preservation.

Establishmentarian Reactions

READ MORE...

by Potential Frolic

Teleology is the attempt to become an image of greatness, or perfection, or fruition.

Previously, we looked at reasons why Palingenesis has negative aspects attaching to its political program, and how these negative aspects mar its positive aspect, which is unification of a people.

In moving from a discussion of Palingenesis to a discussion of Teleology, we’re moving from the social level to the individual level. Palingenesis regulates how social entities relate to each other, using politics and philosophy as means. Teleology regulates the relation of men to themselves, within the confines of their own minds, using images and rationalization as means. It is thus more intimate, and much more interesting.

Teleology precedes palingenesis. This is because the ideological underpinnings of palingenesis were conceived for the purpose of realizing teleological striving. For example, it was the struggle of individuals to reconnect to historical precedents, a connection to which is only possible in imagination, which begot the political manifestation of same. It was the intelligent individual’s realization of his smallness on the historical stage, and his desire to draw to himself more weight and meaning, that forged the rhetorical connections to ancient Germania and Hellas in germans of the 19th century. This can be seen, for example, in the philological posturing of Friedrich Nietzsche, alledging a special connection to ancient Hellas, discovered uniquely by him in his readings. The actual accuracy of his assertions in The Birth of Tragedy - assertions not less sweeping than those he would make in later books - were demolished in a point-by-point critique by Wilamowitz. Not that this detracts from the philosophical content of his writings. It can be seen however, that the appeal to ancient greek authority is important in 19th century literary personality combat. One finds similar idea content in Evola.

READ MORE...

From yesterday’s The Jerusalem Post:

Hungary passes Holocaust denial bill

BUDAPEST— Hungary’s parliament on Monday approved a bill making Holocaust denial punishable by up to three years in prison, but the measure may be unconstitutional.

Lawmakers passed the bill submitted by Attila Mesterhazy, the prime ministerial candidate of the governing Socialist Party, by 197-1, with 142 abstentions.

Earlier attempts to ban Holocaust denial have been rejected by the courts for infringing on freedom of speech. Efforts to modify the Constitution to ensure the bill’s legality have also failed.

Mesterhazy’s proposal was backed by the Socialists and most of the Alliance of Free Democrats, a former coalition partner. Most members of Fidesz, the main center-right opposition party, and their allies, the Christian Democrats, abstained after Fidesz’s wish to also include the denial of Nazi and Communist crimes in the bill was rejected.

Free Democrat Gabor Horn, who voted in favor of the bill, questioned the timing of the Socialists’ proposal and wondered why a similar effort by his own party a few months ago was not accepted.

“The difference is that six months ago there was no campaign,” Horn said.

... Hate speech and incitement to violence against minorities is already a crime in Hungary, but Monday’s bill adds “denying, questioning or making light of the Holocaust” to the penal code.

In mentioning the forthcoming general election in Hungary the report at least acknowledges that Jobbik is “expected to easily clear the five percent threshold needed to enter parliament.”  So something not to the Jewish taste is afoot there, at least.

Just something I noticed about yesterday’s news out of Austin, Texas.  It may be nothing, of course…

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

Earlier this month, the British National Party voted to accept non-white members. This was done, ostensibly, under pressure from the grandly styled Equality And Human Rights Commission, a body that has in the past sought and obtained prosecutions for the publication of racist cartoons and poked its proboscis into every aspect of traditional British life attempting to mould it to the race-mixers’ agenda. The far right has of course been the target of the liberal self-styled ruling élite for decades, and in spite of the left’s vacuous and increasingly tiresome charges of the establishment’s racism, there has been a de facto conspiracy to suppress all (white) racial-nationalist movements and parties in both the media and other circles. The contrived prosecutions and convictions of John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, the gullible but sorely misguided Lady Birdwood, and many others, is proof positive of that. Now though that one albeit fringe party has enjoyed a modicum of success, a new tactic has been devised. Suddenly, it has been discovered that the BNP’s constitution is illegal because it discriminates against non-whites, and the BNP has thrown in the towel without so much as a whimper. But does it matter?

There have been racial-nationalist movements in Britain for a century or more; an organisation called the British National Party was formed by a wholesale fish merchant named Edward Godfrey of Hayes, Middlesex (where I grew up incidentally) during the Second World War, but the BNP as it exists today is a child of the National Front. The Front was founded in 1967 by that greatest of British patriots A.K. Chesterton, who had previously founded the League Of Empire Loyalists. Three years later, he was forced out, the Party soon falling under the control of John Tyndall and Martin Webster. In 1980, Tyndall made a bold decision, resigning from the organisation and forming the New National Front. The basis for this was – he claimed – a homosexual network that was operating inside the organisation. In fact, this “network” consisted principally if not entirely of Martin Webster, whose homosexuality could not have been unknown to Tyndall but had been tolerated by him and other senior members because of his undoubted abilities.

The real reason for the split was that the authoritarian Tyndall wanted more or less total control over what had always been a thoroughly democratic organisation – notwithstanding the oft’ repeated and tiresome “Nazi” epithet. Tyndall’s new party was the most successful of the various NF splinter groups, and shortly changed its name to the British National Party, which it remains today under the leadership of Nick Griffin.

READ MORE...