by DanielJ

I was reading Alex Kurtagic’s latest over at the Occidental Observer (Are Leftists Clever?) and came across this:

[A]nother anti-racist activist, writing in 2007, shows this is a stock phrase [the phrase “a vast majority” when it is used as a bludgeon against those opposed to public opinion on any given subject]:

“There should be a two-pronged attack on the fascists: dealing with their lies on the ground, and dealing with the social problems that lead to resentment and move people to vote for the BNP in a protest vote. We know the vast majority of people in this country abhor the racist, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic ideas of the party.”

I was struck suddenly by the strangeness of the term “protest vote.” Does anybody else find sinister and Orwellian the idea that a vote for the interests of one’s own people is assigned to “protest”? Isn’t all voting a form of assent or dissent? Well OK, voting intentions always have been substantially manufactured. We generally vote the way we are supposed to.  Now, it seems that when we don’t, we merely demonstrate our unorthodoxy, and reveal our impenitence to our smiling - or not-so-smiling - khaki-clad, latte-drinking, platitude-spouting, conformity-enforcing, wannabe Torquemadas of the modern age.

Kurtagic’s anti-fa believes not just that there should be an attack carried out by the overwhelming or vast majority on “the fascists”, but that there could be such an attack. These “fascists”, who are already marginalized by virtue of their political eccentricity, could realistically be attacked by the numerical majority!  After all, manufactured political violence is only a notch or two up on manufactured voting intentions, and we all know they’re real enough.

So that phrase “a vast majority” concerns me, as it concernes Kurtagic. It should rightfully concern any person espousing a minority viewpoint. Generally, when a small band of people assembles for the express purpose of attacking others or engaging in criminal activity we attach to the group a label: gang, bandits, syndicate, mafia, etc. However, in circumstances where the gang is comprised of an overwhelming majority of the populace, we attach to the conspirators the very dignified sounding appellation, the public, and their crimes are sanctioned, their opinions received as wisdom, and the blood they shed and tread on redeems.  Where’s the crime there?

Historically, the multitude has proven itself to be the greatest and most harsh tyrant of all. It exercises near total control in its wildly arbitrary and indiscriminately vast decrees that encompass nearly every human activity, subjecting even the minutia of the lives of the people to its dominion, ever expanding its empire by the pressure of peerage, it rules us through a network of informants from whom we can never secure even the smallest sanctuary or modicum of peace.

Who watches the watcher’s watchers?

The public can be a petty and capricious bitch of a custodian. Woe to the man who casts his vote against the multitude! Who, after all, would protest the people save a lunatic?

Like many, I’m sure, I was much taken with Hervé Ryssen’s piece titled The psychopathology of Judaism, translated by John de Nugent and published this month at the reinvigorated TOQ.  It contained the clearest identification I have ever seen of what it is to be Jewish with the dissolution of the world’s distinct peoples.  But it also contained some killer quotes, one of which was this, from Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv, writing in Israel magazine:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

Quotes of this kind are valuable debating tools, and there are hundreds of them lying around - mostly on our respective hard drives.  So I thought I would create a thread which would enable anyone interested to share similarly precious finds and perhaps build up a useful resource.

Be my guest.

Let’s say there is a Big Green Button that you, and only you, can press.

If you don’t press it, things continue as they are.

If you press your Big Green Button, the following things take place in the United States, all privately financed:

1) Coal fired power plants cease emitting anything but water and nitrogen without increasing the price of electricity from them.

2) 7 billion kilograms of protein per day are produced (if distributed that would be 1kg of protein daily per person in the world).

3) Full employment in construction and engineering at wages sufficient to pay down credit card and mortgage debts.

4) Land use by agriculture worldwide plunges by 90%, including in the US and the Amazon basin.

Would you press your Big Green Button?

You may already know that Tom Sunic’s new book Postmortem Report: cultural examinations from postmodernity has been published.  Tom is a fine essayist - among the best we have - and Postmortem Report brings together the best of his work in this format.  He asked me to produce some blurb to announce the book here, but I thought a few short passages might be more to your taste.  These are what he selected.

From the (suitably straightening) foreword by Kevin MacDonald:

Europeans who have any allegiance to their people and culture cannot stand by and accept this state of affairs. We are approaching an endgame situation in the West. In the United States, people of non-European descent will be the majority in just a few short decades, and the same will happen throughout Europe and other societies established by Europeans since the dawn of the Age of Discovery. At that point, the centuries-old hostilities and resent-ments of non-White peoples toward Whites that Sunic discusses will come to the fore, and the culture and Europe will be irretrievably lost.

We must confront this impending disaster with a sense of psychological intensity and desperation. Reading Tom Sunic’s essays will certainly provide the background for understanding how we got here and perhaps also for finding our way toward the future.

And from the text, a subject which just occasionally gets an airing here:

In conclusion, one could say that, in the very beginning of its development, Judeo-Christian monotheism set out to demystify and desacralize the pagan world by slowly supplanting ancient pagan beliefs with the reign of the Judaic Law. During this century-long process, Christianity gradually removed all pagan vestiges that coexisted with it. The ongoing process of desacralization and the “Entzauberung” of life and politics appear to have resulted not from Europeans’ chance departure from Christianity, but rather from the gradual disappearance of the pagan notion of the sacred that coexisted for a long time with Christianity. The paradox of our century is that the Western world is saturated with Judeo-Christian mentality at the moment when churches and synagogues are virtually empty.

And more:

And yet, we should not forget that the Western world did not begin with the birth of Christ. Neither did the religions of ancient Europeans see the first light of the day with Moses—in the desert. Nor did our much-vaunted democracy begin with the period of Enlightenment or with the proclamation of American independence. Democracy and independence—all of this existed in ancient Greece, albeit in its own unique social and religious context. Our Greco-Roman ancestors, our predecessors who roamed the woods of central and northern Europe, also believed in honor, justice, and virtue, although they attached to these notions a radically different meaning.

READ MORE...

MR was knocked off-line all day yesterday.  All I can say in our defence is that the crash was not pilot error.  The rippling effects of a new security regime put in place by our hoster were the cause.  But here we are again, and I hope we’ve seen the back of the problem.  My thanks to James for devoting so much time to it, and my apologies to all our readers for presenting them with twenty-four hours of fayre no more interesting than an error message.

by Alexander Baron

Although he is unquestionably one of the most irksome presenters on British television, Dominic Littlewood has one major saving grace; here and there he presents a programme which has real educational value. On March 9, 2010, he presented the second of five episodes of Fake Britain, which among other things showed a police raid on an illegal factory where bank cards were being cloned, literally by the hundred.

Littlewood also visited the Yorkshire town of Ilkley where shopkeepers and publicans had been on the receiving end of a blitz of forged £20 notes, which had left many of them out of pocket, but the most interesting cameo was where he brought in a counterfeit coin specialist – a former employee of the Royal Mint – who in a near two hour shopping session in the capital managed to find seven fake one pound coins. There was probably nothing too surprising about that, nor with the claim that the police would not be the slightest bit interested if you, dear reader, were to take a fake pound coin to your local cop shop. Such a course of action may leave you out of pocket, but a dud coin passed here and there will not prompt any sort of investigation while the police have terrorists to chase and motorists to harass.

But the really surprising revelation was the reaction, or rather the non-reaction, of the Royal Mint to fake coins. Though it is estimated that some two and a half percent of one pound coins in circulation have been produced illegally, the Mint does not bother to take them out of circulation. While a forged twenty pound note will most definitely leave you out of pocket and may see you questioned by the police if not actually arrested, it is quite likely that you will continue to spend your quota of fake pound coins in your local shops, and as long as neither the shopkeeper nor the bank notices (or cares) your fake money will be every bit as good as the real thing.

READ MORE...

The BBC is reporting on its ticker service that Judge Paul Collins, sitting in the Central London County Court, has ruled that the BNP’s new membership rules are “likely to discriminate”.  The basis for this ruling appears to be that prospective members sign up to principles including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of “integration or assimilation” that impacted on the “indigenous British”, and to support the “maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British”.

If this is the case, we have indeed arrived at the existential moment I described in my last blog on the party‘s legal travails:

We have reached a defining moment in the long process of racial destruction which began with the Atlee government turning its back on the people’s rights and instincts in 1948. The BNP has stripped away everything but the one essential principle that it must fight, and fight, and fight. The Establishment has, in attempting to force the discourse of the BNP to match its own, stripped away everything but the one essential principle that the native British must die as native Britons. This is no longer about “fascism” or “the hard right” or even “hate”. It is existential …

We need more information to come out before a proper assessment of the scale of the damage can be made.  But it looks like the BNP will now have to lodge an appeal against the ruling in order to be able to contest the forthcoming General Election.

Downstream from this ruling is the prospect that anti-discrimination law will be clarified and, possible then, hate speech law will be extended to make the expression of nationalist sentiment illegal too.  This, in my view, is the logical end-game.  The British government has already “affirmed” at the UN and in the EU that there is no such thing as an indigenous Briton.  These people really do mean to destroy us.

The consequences of such a legal trajectory would be that thousands of good men and women will be imprisoned and have their lives destroyed because they love their people and they love justice and freedom too much to remain silent, and unknown numbers of others will quickly come to see violence as the only path to our survival still open.

by Rod Cameron

I see one of the brothers has recently been writing about the end of teleology. I am a fan of teleology and whatever the brother was on about, it was not teleology. I wish he had found another word for his angst. Speculation about the future is what keeps us on the political margins going, so I thought I would show what it is about. Teleology is about joining a few dots to predict a glorious future. We all do it: take a few premises and cantilever an extrapolation till it crashes and burns. The critics of teleology say it is not within a million miles of being a pseudo-science, and they are right, but it is a lot of fun and I am actually serious, especially since the answer to the first question, “Where are we?” is damn obvious.

We are in a post-ideological age; we are beyond the debates based on political economy – Easy. Next dot, “What does that mean?” It means we are beyond trying to understand the world in terms of good and evil; we are beyond ethics. Dot 3, “Enlarge on that”. Basically ethics was behind ideology and in the end ethics had nothing to do with predicting the eventual answer which is known as liberal democracy or democratic capitalism. Dot 4, “So?” Well, look at our particular situation. Instead of a debate on immigration we get an ethical invective, “Racist!” And do we buy that as a comprehensive response? Does any-[intelligent]-one continue to think politics is applied ethics? Dot 5, “So?” Liberalism and its mate ethics are shagged-out. With their inane reply to the anti-immigrant protest they are begging us to say something really intelligent that will bury their faith in ethics. They are destined to be replaced and we have to get in early with some new Absolutes to replace the worn-out, simplistic one commonly associated with shagged-out Christianity. Dot 6, “You are sure history is against ethics?” All ethical absolutes finish up in the same place – the philosophy dump. Dot 7, “And you no doubt have a few Absolutes handy to fill the vacuum after ethics and thereby predict future developments in the world of ideas?” Yeah. And that is enough dots to get me started. I will have to make a few points before the teleology is launched.

READ MORE...