A few thoughts about an imaginary problem

“Identity” is not a word that need ever pass our lips - not if we have zero respect for the liberal analysis, and wish to be free of its formative power.  For this is a word of the left, and like all words of the left it pressages on us a modern conception of Man which is fatally light and relativistic.

How so?  Well, shouldn’t it be a grave and weighty responsibility for a man to define who and what he is?  After all, modernity places the highest possible value on the individual, denying all bonds, all blood their primacy.  To use the Schmittian formulation, “None but the individual shall dispose of the life of the individual.”  Surely, then, that life should be sufficiently valued by its owner to imbue the exercise with a high seriousness and a desire for some specificity.  Yet in practice the reverse is the case.  We live in the Age of the Left.  It is an age when realization of the Self, once the preserve of the religious and Chivalric orders, has been democratized and, in democratization, has been relativised.  When the measure of a life is mere personal taste all claims are equal.  There is salience but there is no depth.  There is “progress” but there is no movement.  Something vital, something authentic and original has fallen out of the equation.

In the sociological sense what remains is the modern us and the meaning of us.  For well over a century nationalist and traditionalist thinkers have judged that meaning in historical terms and found it wanting.  The ineluctable conclusion is that we are moving away from our truth as men, and putting on the cloth of an increasingly artificial self.  And we are doing this, most of us, because we are ignorant of politics and of ourselves, and we are weak and suggestible.

Artificiality in the modern conception of Man (modern in the context of an industrialised and, later, consumerised society) is precisely a sign of lost being.  It seems improbable, somehow, that the men and women of pre-industrial European societies, filled as those societies were with brothers to the ox, with men listed in the Orange and the Blue, and their widows in the pews, and the widows of the sea, would have had any reference point at all to the narcissism of a self-ascribed “identity”.  Geoffrey Chaucer’s pilgrims assuredly did not define themselves according to their fascinations with the Self.  They were fixed by their relation to kin, to the soil and the seasons or the tides and the wind, to the economy as manor, town or village, to Nature and to God.  These were givers of riches aplenty for all but the high elites of the Court and Barony, of the Church, and of learning.

READ MORE...

by DanielJ

From the Preface to this work, Rieff quoting two historians’ summary of his work:

“If the dominant character type of the twentieth century is really what Rieff calls ‘psychological man,’ the consequences for western society are quite incalculable.”

This is certainly true. If man is a psychological creature than we must use the weapons of psychology to turn him to toward the defensive weaponry of Christianity, ethnic solidarity, epistemology, etc. Simply concentrating on Van Tillian presuppositionalism will do no good when men are no longer motivated by philosophies, but by psychologies.

From the Introduction:

Literature and sociology have long supplied eloquent and knowing professional mourners at the wake for Christian culture. After Matthew Arnold, much of modern poetry [he quotes Yeats in the very beginning of the Intoduction] constitutes an elegiac farewell ... to the religious culture of the West. After Auguste Comte, much of modern sociology has struggled for diagnostic ideas refined and yet wide enough to encompass the spectacle of a death so great in magnitude and subtlety. Now the dissolution of a unitary system of common belief, accompanied, as it must be, by a certain disorganization of personality, may have run its course.

Rieff seems to be stating in this passage that the central crisis of our time - this dissolution of personhood and entropy of personality - is a culture war where the combatants are fighting to “organize” (this has the faint smell of technocratic and bureaucratic totalitarianism parading itself as scientific management with disinterested and rationalized dispassionate concern only for the psychological well being of mankind) the human psyche.

He goes on to state that the:

...long period of deconversion, which first broke the surface of political history at the time of the French Revolution, appears all but ended.

and that:

several systems of belief (are) competing for primacy in the task of organizing personality in the West.

Hence, the “culture war.” The “cult” is the cult of personality.

READ MORE...

by The Narrator

There are various ways of describing and understanding the unfortunate turn many in Western Civilization have taken over the past century. Comparing events to “revolutions” and the course of specific nations to the Titanic striking the iceberg are common (engaged in by this writer as well). But every now and then a new perspective may help better see the possible causations as well as the potential remedies/outcomes to our plight.

“History repeats itself” we are told and sure enough that seems to most often be the case. More than that, specific historical incidents seem to foreshadow events on a greater scale and era.

Such an event is the Mutiny On The Bounty.  (I should state that I’m no expert on the subject and that my casual interest in it was sparked by viewing the 1984 film ’The Bounty’.)

That mutiny, wherein a group of men from a civilized Western nation, having temporarily grown accustomed to a leisurely life of hedonistic nihilism on a tropic Island, rebel against their commander when faced with returning to a orderly and disciplined, (Western) way of life, has a general theme which can be applied to our current situation.

Though it is common today to lay part of the blame for our slide into ruin on the influence of outside groups who, through media and finance, encourage activities that harm us, it is not quite telling the whole story, nor is it reflective of the less glamorous parts of Western history.  That that influence is there is undeniable. However when we look at the way Western Men, born and raised in a strong and potent Western nation at the height of its power, behaved on their own, far away from outside influence, over two hundred years ago, in an era that openly recognized racial and class differences, we see men who acted not much different than some men do today.

READ MORE...

The Telegraph has reported on the demise of a popular and interesting blog, brought about without much principle by its competitor, The Times:

In April, an anonymous police blog written by a detective calling himself “NightJack” won the Orwell Prize for online political writing. And it deserved to, wrote one newspaper, “because it took you inside real life in a way you couldn’t go by yourself”.

But now you can’t go inside real life with NightJack. Visit the site, and you read: “The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.” This has been taken down in its entirety because the Lancashire detective lost a court case to stop his identity being revealed by The Times - the very paper that praised him to the skies when he won the Orwell Prize.

NightJack is Richard Horton, a detective of Lancashire Constabulary. Yesterday, he revealed how the paper had planned to end his anonymity. “One morning I heard a rumour that they had sent a photographer to my home. Later in the afternoon came the inevitable phone calls, first to me and then to Lancashire Constabulary asking for confirmation that I was the author of the NightJack blog.

Horton went to Court this week to try to preserve his right to anonymity.  The judge disagreed, citing the supremacy of public interest.  Precedence has been set, and no blogger in England and Wales is safe in his anonymity.

Horton’s blog is lost, but one of his more practical posts has been preserved in various corners of the web.  It is titled “A Survival Guide For Decent Folk”, the survival in question being that of the due process.  Here it is:-

READ MORE...

The Establishment’s tale:-

The men, women and children - the youngest of whom was a five-day old baby girl - were evacuated from their homes in the Lisburn Road area of Belfast on Tuesday. They spent the night in the City Church, near Queen’s University, before being moved to a council leisure centre. Last night [WED] around 20 families were in temporary student lodgings arranged by the local authorities.

Racial attacks had been intensifying in the area for several weeks, and came to a head on Monday when youths targeted an anti-racism rally by hurling bottles and making Nazi salutes.

As Romanian families arrived at the leisure centre clutching their belongings, they told of the terrifying spate of attacks. One man said a 10-strong gang broke into his house and made threats to kill. “They made signs like they wanted to cut my brother’s baby’s throat. They said they wanted to kill us,” he said.

The blogger’s tale:-

And you will read that these immigrants are required to do the work that the lazy people of Belfast will not do and that again is a lie. Their women are ferried on mass into the City Centre every day, where they spend their time begging. And God only knows what their men do. But it is not work because there is hardly any work and daily there are reports of job losses throughout Northern Ireland.

No, these people are brought in to dilute and undermine the unity of the people of Northern Ireland, the same way that the colonisers are being used throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. To deny us the right to be ourselves.

The commenter’s tale:-

READ MORE...

getback.majorityrights.com is now live with the Official Majority Rights Get Back Verse Contest!

This is in response to the need to reclaim British gift for song and verse, for the British, starting with a key point in British history when it diverged: The Rivers of Blood Speech and the reaction by the Beatles to it. Paul McCartney penned this demo-recorded verse to their #1 hit, “Get Back”:

Meanwhile back at home too many Pakistanis Living in a council flat Candidate Macmillan, tell us what your plan is Won’t you tell us where you’re at? Get back. Get back. Get back to where you once belonged. Get back. Get back. Get back to where you once belonged.

You never know when a new verse may appear!

If you have twenty-five minutes to spare over the next couple of days, please take a look at this BBC i-player replay of yesterday morning’s The Big Questions.  I don’t watch much TV, and the Sunday religious hour is not required viewing.  But when I read Simon Darby’s blog this morning I had to take a look at the cause of his ire.

The Big Questions is a pretty poor quality studio-audience product.  It sits in the BBC’s Ethics and Religion genre, meaning “difficult issues” are supposed to be debated.  The debating point this time was: does the BNP have the right to be heard?  Apparently, by no means a no-brainer for the democratic and freedom-loving people of Birmingham.

We are all very used to the media nose-holding that goes on when the BNP is debated.  But the behaviour on display here, particularly from the three panellists and the host Nicky Campbell, goes far beyond that.  In fact, beyond anything I have seen before and into the realms of Salem.  Here is what Simon Darby had to say about it:-

Before I review today’s The Big Questions, which you can see by clicking on the image below, I want to tell you something that you will not know. Originally this debate had been set up behind my back with two local BNP councillors. Knowing that this was just going to be an ambush orchestrated by the wise-cracking wannabe left-wing comedian and TV presenter Nicky Campbell, I immediately pulled the plug on it.

Not that our two guys they had lined up would have been a push over, it simply wasn’t fair to put them through what was tantamount to a criminal trial. Talking to the two girls from the show, who I will not name, even at a late stage they were begging me to go ahead with the original plan trying to convince me that the programme would need local politicians in order to work. However, I was adamant that if it was going ahead at all it would not be loaded against us and as a consequence Andrew [Brons] and Rev West found themselves in the hot seats.

Fittingly, on a day when the Sunday papers were quite literally dripping with hate, lies and hysteria towards the BNP, this programme, at least initially, typified the mood. I found myself at first angry, frustrated and towards the end enormously proud of our representatives. Throughout their childish, emotive and almost ritual baiting they kept their dignity and made their points concisely and articulately.

Hate, lies and, now, hysteria sums it up.  It all has the ring of a morbid psychological condition about it.  It is plain that for all who speak the BNP has been built up as some spectre of immanent evil.  Even with war psychosis at its height I doubt if my parents’ generation experienced such feelings about genuine National Socialists.  But these folks have lost all touch with reality.  One wonders in the case of the whites whether it is a consequence of sublimated anger, as David Hamilton maintains.  Are they merely striking out to ward off their own exposure?

The panellists, by the way, are Benjamin Zephaniah, a Rastafarian dub poet and, apparently, a great man, Louise Bagshawe, an author and Conservative Party candidate at the next election, and Jonathan Bartley, who runs the Ekklesia think tank and who is a pacifist and advocate for “the full participation of gay and lesbian people in the church as an outworking of the Christian gospel”.

One is bound to ask who, in 2009, still doesn’t know that “diversity” “enriches” no one?  Who doesn’t know that blacks fail educationally a little too often, or that the danger of violence is always heightened amid black populations?  Who doesn’t know that Jews are powerful and extremely self-interested?

Well, officially everybody.  And after all, the official version is the only version that counts.

Officially, we live, all of us, in the land of the blind.  The great prepronderance of those around us accept that they are supposed to be blind, and fight off awkward enquiries with a mortified urgency.  But such willingness to put out one’s own eyes is based in fear, of course.  The most fearful are also the most sincerely convinced.  There are those who take as their own the descriptions of the world given them by others.  They believe truth to be lies, and the blindingly obvious to be immoral.  They are not free to think, for they do not begin thinking from the right, but from anything but the right.

Today, The Independent produced a hate-scribble titled “Racist rants of elected BNP man, Andrew Brons, revealed”.

In 1983, when he was in his late twenties, Andrew Brons edited the National Front’s general election manifesto that called for a global apartheid to prevent the “extinction” of whites everywhere.

The Let Britain Live! manifesto was prepared by the party’s policy department, chaired by Brons. It outlined a series of hugely controversial positions ...

These are the “hugely controversial positions” that Mr Brons and the NF advocated.

1. The NF rejects the whole concept of multiracialism.  The NF believes the gradual dismantlement of the apartheid system since the passing of the Race Relations Act in 1976 to be retrograde.  The alternative to apartheid, multiracialism, envisages an extinction of the White man.

2. The NF recognises inherent racial differences in Man.  The races of Man are profoundly unequal in their characteristics, potential and abilities.  Europeans have a greater cognitive ability than non-whites.

3. The UK has been swamped by racially incompatible Afro-Asians.

4. Black muggings of White people, especially elderly ladies, occurs regularly.

5. The eruptions in Bristol in 1980 and Brixton in 1981 were just two examples of the “cultural enrichment” promised to us by the multiracialists.

6. One ethnic, national and religious group whose power and influence has undoubtedly increased has been the Jews.

7. A number of predominantly Zionist organisations control government.

8. It can be no mere coincidence that the number of people of Jewish ethnic origin to be found in internationalist and multiracialist schools of thought and organisations of action is out of all proportion to their numbers in the population.

Shock horror, it’s all here.  The drastic effects of immigration on the native British, the issues of black violence and criminality, black IQ, the Israel lobby and the wider Jewish Question ... these are the holy of holies of thought police everywhere.  In a free land of free-speakers they should be the litmus test for the health of the polity.  But this ain’t a free land, and by finding Brons’ list “hugely controversial” in 1983 when it wasn’t, and when academic political correctness had not yet crossed the pond eastward from America, The Independent demonstrates the completeness of its slavery to the Lie Machine.

Yet despite all this, there is that feeling of fragility to the whole enterprise.  The moment when the image of a Marxised life arose in radical opposition to life itself was a long time ago now.  No one loves thought control.  Nothing so man-made and so damned offensive can last forever.  Official discourse is already vitiated and devalued.  It has become too embarrassing and too cognitively dissonant for politicians to “celebrate diversity”.  It is inevitable that, united in their inability to swallow the customary forms of lying and living in lying, people will rediscover their fearlessness and their freedom.

The only question is when.