by PF

1. Foreign texts don’t point us to our essence. Our spiritual birth as a nation is built on imitation of foreigners.

2. Texts have to be ‘translated’ mentally by those reading them into European thought forms, making “our” sacred texts essentially a form of Orientalist scholarship from the beginning. However, scholarship is often critical of its sources, whereas our sacred traditions view these oriental texts as completely authoritative and really the last word on spirituality.

3. The text alienates the common reader because the unique mindset for culturally co-opting this oriental religion is only shared by a few, who become priests. There is little or no resonance for the common man in the stories of the Bible. Unlike the Homeric stories, which we know to be widely disseminated and enjoyed in ancient Hellas, the sources of our religious tradition have belonged from the beginning to the few Orientalists who would submit to their foreignness and teach it authoritatively to the rest of us. Those who viewed the adoption of oriental thought forms as the purest access to spirituality became the fathers of our traditions.

4. The alien nature of our Jewish religious texts means that they cannot be added to in a similar style; there was necessarily a complete stylistic break when they were imported. This means that we cannot add to them or treat them as living documents, but rather as relics to defer to as over and above ourselves. This kills the possibility of building a pre-rational, living tradition within our own lands. The most a British man can hope for, spiritually, is to become an obedient antiquarian for the inspired Jews of the Hellenist Levant.

READ MORE...

There are few sites active on the international White Nationalist/Revolutionary Nationalist scene that have provoked me to thought more than this one. None did more to open my eyes to the necessity of building a new philosophical worldview if we wanted to succeed in our struggle. This idea that we must first present a moral and philosophical alternative to the ills of modernity is not new.  It is a reiteration of an argument that the French New Right, for example, has been trying to make since the ‘70’s with questionable success and while being the victim of periodic witch-hunts.

Now, there’s also an element of narcissism at play as I’m in agreement with Guessedworker, in particular, on all important issues and I feel an uncanny kinship of spirit. But, that being said, since I’ve done a 180 degree turn on the J.Q. some people who’ve known me have suffered a “whiplash” (to quote Hunter Wallace). I’ve been called a Jew lover, a race traitor, and accused of being romantically involved with a Jewish woman.

There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that anti-Semitism is a political loser and no longer a potent organizing force in the western world. I’ve come to the conclusion that only a Right friendly to the Jewish community and Israel can succeed in the western political arena; a Right that admits Jews and places them in positions of authority; a Right that welcomes Jews in a tangible effort to show them that they must not fear the Right. I don’t believe that the Right will gain any traction without first abandoning anti-Semitism, Holocaust-denial, anti-Zionism, or National Socialist nostalgia. All these points are not only completely irrelevant but an insurmountable stumbling block to success.

READ MORE...

Jim Giles interviewed James Bowery a couple of days ago on Radio Free Mississippi. The primary territory is the conflict between Jewish interests and the Enlightenment values of truth and freedom—conflict as exemplified by the hostility of Jews toward the laboratory of the states to found discourse on experimentation rather than argumentation. It is 1 hour 48 minutes.

Jim Giles interviewed me a couple of days ago on Radio Free Mississippi.  The primary territory is the conflict between Jewish interests and the Enlightenment values of truth and freedom—conflict as exemplified by the hostility of Jews toward the laboratory of the states to found discourse on experimentation rather than argumentation.  It is 1 hour 48 minutes.

It is available in Majority Radio as well as Radio Free Mississippi.

The Linder interview, which took place on Tuesday afternoon, is now on the Radio Page.  It is long, having been closely edited as such so it would make a single podcast, and I hope quite stimulating.

I’m pleased to see that Alex has answered a couple of questions on the earlier thread, which I did not raise with him in our conversation.

A long and winding conversation, as much as an interview, with Alex Linder. One hour seventeen minutes long, in fact. File size 35.2MB.

I’ve written enough about political economy here in the past to provide those interested with some background for what is to follow:  A political platform alternative to the citizen’s dividend that rides the current discontent by State governments in the US to directly devolve Federal programs to the States via a populist takeover of the House of Representatives.

READ MORE...

Tomorrow morning Central Time I’ll be interviewing Alex Linder.  The shape of the discussion is pretty well set, but I would be interested to know if readers have their own questions they would like to see asked.

If such questions differ from what I already have planned, and providing they are productive, of course, I’ll find some time to ask them.