by musonius

I wanted to write this article because I’ve been thinking about this particular subject for a long time, especially since I opted for a world-view that I currently hold. This is not scholarship, a thesis, or a standard theory that I am trying to create; rather, this is just a commentary that I hope to shed light on since it relates to the Modern World as a whole but also because it’s highly reflective of the area I live in. Writing in the form of a commentary allows more freedom of expression and intellectual activity but at the same time it lacks any objective credibility in the eyes of 3rd parties because it doesn’t appeal or point to outside reference points or 1st person sources.  Though I don’t use any sort of references like this in the article I will say that my personal influences are Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Nouvelle Droite, Julius Evola, and other intellectual forces and those influences will manifest themselves in particular ways in this article.

THE BEGINNINGS OF HOSTILITY

Hostility, in a general sense, can be a position, emotion, idea, and view that sets itself in opposition to another position, emotion, idea, and view. The opposition doesn’t necessarily have to be embodied in any entity (human, cat, horse, spider, etc.) but can be inherent within the oppositional view itself; for example:

View A: Abortion is wrong because you’re murdering a fetus that has a soul and has inherent worth.

Opposition to View A: Abortion is not wrong because a fetus is still a part of the woman and the woman should have a right to get rid of a “thing” in her body she doesn’t want. The soul is also “non-existent” and therefore does not have inherent worth.

This is just one of many examples of oppositional views that are inherent in the Cosmos and especially more narrowly in society itself. Every view that is upheld always has an oppositional view that is directly opposite of it. Hostility is the manifestation of that opposition at various levels of intensity and degree. For this example, I am going to use a measurement of this hostility in 3 levels that in a sense corresponds to real world degrees of manifestation but it not necessarily an absolute measurement but just a way to systematize it.

READ MORE...

Garrison Keillor admonishes “Nonbelievers, please leave Christmas alone”:

‘Such as the brilliant economist Lawrence Summers, whose presidency brought Harvard to the verge of disaster. He, against the advice of his lessers, invested Harvard’s operating funds in the stock market and lost the bet. In the cold light of day, this was dumber than dirt, like putting the kids’ lunch money on Valiant’s Fancy to win in the 5th. And now the genius is in the White House, two short flights of stairs above the Oval Office.’

[...]

‘And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write “Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we’ll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah”? No, we didn’t.’

Maybe Mr. Keillor has realized that freedom from is as important as freedom to.

At his blog Simon Darby has uploaded the first of two videos of Nick Griffin speaking to camera after the Copenhagen failure.  I can’t embed it here yet, but this is the link.

I will add the link to the second video when it is available.

Here it is.

A commenter by the philosophically respectable if possible unsuitable name of Zarathustra asked a question on my Black Cab II thread which, whilst it is undoubtedly tawdry and boring, does deserve some elucidation.  And not only from me.  It seems to be addressed to everyone who reads this and is not already really, really convinced that negrifying the European genepool and filling up our living spaces with total aliens is not a Wholly Good Thing.

Here it is:

Could you enlighten me on whether or not you are racist? And what is your definition of racist?

READ MORE...

If it is possible for the European Union to do something other than continue on its current mission of destroying Europe—if it is indeed thinkable that (now, I know this is fantastic but please bear with me) the European Union is captured by pro-Europeans, what would they do with all those immigrants?

Interestingly, most of the hard work may be done by the current European Union, in preparation for the sea level rise (imagined or real) resulting from global warming:

Dam the Strait of Gibraltar.

Once the Strait of Gibraltar is blocked, the obvious next step is to pump out the Mediterranean Sea.

There have been proposals of this kind before, of course, the most famous being Herman Sörgel’s “Atlantropa” which, instead of completely draining the Mediterranean, would attempt to maintain all the current shipping routes and allow a continual flow of sea water through the dam to generate electricity—resulting in a smaller and ever saltier Mediterranean Sea.  Moreover, Sörgel’s proposal was for a more integrated Euro-African continent, facilitated by a rail system from Italy to North Africa—it being inconceivable to the 1920s European mind, such as Sörgel’s, that mass immigration from Africa would ever be allowed. 

Simply dispensing with the Mediterranean altogether (all 255km^3/year fresh water inflow could be solar deionized for irrigation) would not only create vast areas of habitable land on the North African coast to which the non-Europeans could be moved, there is an equally vast solar energy resource available from solar collectors placed in the Mediterranean equivalent of an impassable Death Valley.

Yes, there are profound ecological consequences.  Yes, it would raise the sea level around the world.  But consider the mind-set of the current leadership of the European Union:  Global warming will result in a rise in the sea levels world wide anyway and such macro-engineering projects to protect coastal lands will already be a matter of course with the likely result that the technology will be extended to create more coastal lands around the world.  Everyone will be competing to create land for themselves at the expense of the height of everyone else’s sea barriers.  The Strait of Gibraltar provides the European Union with a strategic advantage in that war.

I don’t know how much it would cost but it is trivial compared to the loss of Euroman.

PS: What could possibly compensate the Mediterranean nations for the loss of their sea ports?  How about more than doubling their territorial areas with vast solar energy and deionized water resources?  They could certainly use the economic boost!

Majority Radio now has audio of Bill White’s letter of November 16, 2009 to Alex Linder describing his imprisonment for accusations of speech crimes.

Jim Giles of Radio Free Mississippi reads and comments on a longer such letter.

One day last week I received a mail from GT which contained a criticism of his which we know well.  “There is no merit,” he said, “in bringing the “life” approach to narcissistic, urban Internet “warriors” of paleoconservative/libertarian bent.”  Now, I have a lot of respect for GT, combative as he is, so I’ve replied in a considered form and in the context of the week’s big news in the long war for the Globality and against European Man ...

There it stands, the Big Lie of the moment: global warming is caused by our carbon emissions.  Sworn by the high priests of a new “science”, received by an owned political class, brought into the public consciousness as an article of faith insulated as far as possible from rational examination ... it is everything that interested parties need to deliver Europe’s benighted children from comfort and prosperity unto a life of need and, through need, subordination.

Interested parties?  Well, I will leave you to google “Lord Monckton” for a spotlight on the UN.  But here (pdf) is an essay titled ” Trading Emissions – Full Global Potential” and written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild, calling for a new legislative system to regulate emissions trading (aka “cap and trade”) and a global body, the World Environment Agency, to oversee it.  It was published by the Social Market Foundation in January 2008.

Governments must establish this legislative system, it says:

... on a “Triple L” programme – “Long, Loud and Legal”:

• Long: it is going to be around for a long time;

• Loud: it will be the dominant mechanism for sponsoring changes in behaviour and we are going to make this perfectly clear to the world’s people; and

• Legal: we will enforce it through law.

... As emissions trading expands so will its message. It could be envisaged that, across the world, each individual will come to know, when the bill comes in, exactly what the cost of turning on the gas or a light was to the environment. Perhaps individuals will gain a new appreciation of their burden on the broader world.

As mentioned in 4.1, this system whose size of allocations are based on population could act as a serious restraint on population growth, although a “release valve” might be required to allow targets to be adjusted to take account of population migration. More significant however, is the prospect that these allowances become the reserve currency of the world, taking over that role held for most of the 20th century by gold.

So emissions trading could establish a new world order for a sustainable planet.

Those three little words, which one would think people like Linnett, who move in Rothschild circles, would know better than to use in public, first appear in the Introduction to the essay:

it might be regarded to as having wider benefits than merely “saving the planet” – perhaps it might be the basis for a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution – and, even:

Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal, through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.

And they appear for the third and final time at the end of the section “How to get there”:

READ MORE...