a sonnet by Alexander Baron

Tear down a forest, pulp its wood to print,
And spend your paper money while you may,
Dig up the Earth, and smelt its ores to mint,
Then stash your precious Krugerrands away.
Drain marsh and swamp: rich reservoirs of life,
Build your apartments where trees used to stand,
Give the lynx to the taxidermist’s knife,
And turn meadow and glade to dust and sand.
Let profit be your aim, and your excuse
Be progress, write that on your balance sheet,
Convince yourself such treasures are no use,
And, when the desolation is complete,
Sit back contentedly to count the cost
Of worthless booty for what’s ever lost.

by Alexander Baron

There was much controversy last week over comments at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Liverpool by UK Business Secretary Vince Cable.  They included an attack on City spivs and gamblers, on the wealthy, and on capitalism and its strangling of competition:

In uncompromising mood, he told the delegates:

“Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition when it can.

The right-wing press reacted predictably. But, as is often the case in politics, the controversy is unwarranted. Cable earned a PhD in Economics, so it is to be hoped he is not entirely ignorant of his subject matter, but reading a little (unorthodox) history might help to shed light on what he really means.

In his magnum opus “Tragedy And Hope”, which was first published in 1968, Professor Carroll Quigley makes essentially the same observations; page 452:

Business hates competition. Such competition might appear in various forms ... [making] planning difficult, and [jeopardising] profits. Businessmen prefer to get together with competitors so that they can cooperate to exploit consumers to the benefit of profits instead of competing with each other to the injury of profits.

But it is not only business that hates competition, earlier, on pages 380-1, the good Professor points out that:

... the picture which Marx had drawn of more and more numerous workers reduced to lower and lower standards of living by fewer and fewer exploitative capitalists proved to be completely erroneous in the more advanced industrial countries in the twentieth century. Instead, what occurred could be pictured as a cooperative effort by unionized workers and monopolized industry to exploit unorganized consumers by raising prices higher and higher to provide both higher wages and higher profits

READ MORE...

by I. Bismuth

September 24: We spent this evening side by side on the sofa doing what we are underpaid to do. While I was busy marking the work of my undergraduates, Rose was tapping away at a re-telling for pre-school tolerance workshops of the traditional African tale of the entire Yoruban kingdom that yearns to be re-located to a nice part of Oxfordshire.

She had reached the point in the narrative just after the Brits-to-be have finalized their plan to apply for a grant to open a Yorubas-This-Is-Your-Lucky-Day Dating Agency, the first ever in rural England, only to receive the devastating news that there will be a delay of a fortnight in issuing their new passports. She was uncertain about the most appropriate characterization of this chilling hitch. Was a delay of two weeks best described as fascist, racist, or Nazi?

With my wide experience of the struggle against evil I was able to offer her an authoritative guide to correct usage. Fascist would be a delay of three weeks. Racist would be a delay of four weeks. And Nazi would be a request to consider the consequences of the re-location of an entire Yoruban kingdom to a nice part of Oxfordshire on the inhabitants of that nice part of Oxfordshire. Le mot juste for a delay of two weeks in issuing the passports is extremist.

She nodded and agreed that this captured the exact nuance of hate involved, and I reapplied myself to the essays of the next generation of the professionally sensitive.

READ MORE...

by sirrealpolitik

This story in the Daily Mail - reputedly the paper of choice for middle-brow British bigots - is a fascinating object lesson in what we are up against at MR.  It is evident both in the visuals and in the not-so-subtle propagandistic spin of the “journalist” David Gardner (who appears to be a creature of the zeitgeist rather then a Jew - Ed).

A picture of the apparent racial mixing in San Antonio is given the caption:

The Texan city blurs the [racial] lines better than most.

Ah, that word “better”.  It turns this article into an instrument of social engineering, intended to assign a positive value to this supposed goal of “blurring.”

Gardner continues in this vein:

Another Texan city, Houston, also shows a richer diversity of races spreading out from the centre.

I wonder if Gardner has ever been to Texas.  If he had, he would know that once you get into the rural areas blacks become a rarity.

In Gardner’s mind, the racial separation in cities like Detroit and New York is evidence of white racism (of course!), where Euro-bigots form “rich white enclaves”.

Yet it must be noted that the author’s “blame whitey” mentality gets struck down in the comments section by the reader who has by far the most public support, with a 1545 rating at last count. “karl the Yank”, from upstate New York, says:

Rather than a symptom of “racial divisions” or social problems I think it is very telling that most humans prefer to live with their own. People who share their same history and culture. I dont see anything wrong with that. It is just human nature. Why some people see this fact as an awful thing that needs to be “corrected” is beyond me?

And there’s the question: why do educated whites interpret behaviour understood as normal in other races as “xenophobia” and “racism” in whites?

“My fate is to live among varied and confusing storms. But for you, perhaps, if as I hope and wish you will live long after me, there will follow a better age. This sleep of forgetfulness will not last for ever. When the darkness has been dispersed, our descendants can come again in the former pure radiance.”

Petrarch, from Africa, written in 1343.

The European mind is, in my view, better viewed from the very Anglo-American standpoint of its natural endowment than as a culturally and historically revealed phenomenon, though it is certainly our habit to favour the latter.  I confess that I don’t like the light that culture and history throw on the mind.  I instinctively want to withdraw out of that light, and withhold my agreement to the descriptions and images that appear in it.  What, after all, should we say about the European mind now, in the light of its debilitations in our postmodern age?  Perhaps no more than Petrarch said at the close of his epic poem about the great Roman general Scipio Africanus.

I don’t expect anyone else reading this to be burdened by this argument with temporality.  I don’t expect anyone else to seek a revelation of mind in its consistencies at all times rather than its saliencies in some - its great cathedrals, its epic poetry, its symphonies, its devotion to freedom and charity, and so forth.  I quite expect that my search for consistency went unsuspected by anyone who read this question, addressed to Notus Wind on his latest Ontology of Mind thread:

Notus,

A serious if perhaps leading ontological question, well, three ontological questions, really:

If our own faith had never been replaced by Christianity ...

1) Would an Enlightenment have been necessary and ...

2) if necessary, would it have come, and ...

3) if it would have come, how would it have differed from what we got?

This was an attempt to turn the historical narrative inside out in a few words, and find the mind humming away smoothly inside.  Here is Notus’s reply which I thought too good to be left to gather dust on a mature thread that perhaps not everyone will trouble to keep up with.

READ MORE...

Below the fold is a first-draft of a political platform for racialist mayoral candidates.

Ethnic neighborhoods of New York City.  Red: Caucasian, Blue: Negroid, Green: Mongoloid, Orange: Mesoamerican, Grey: Other.

READ MORE...

by Adelheim

We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot, and so on.  What do they mean by this?  And what is their long-term goal?

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”

So says former Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, whose magazine is called Race Traitor.

Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev does.  Anti-racists generally will not call themselves “race traitors” or “anti-white,” nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they call themselves “anti-racist” and then argue for “a melting pot” where all will be mixed and become brown.

This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided into four basic stages:

(1) The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as “white guilt”;

(2) Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries;

(3) Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. Assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being “racist”;

(4) In addition, anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of white genocide will be denounced as a “racist”, or as a “white supremacist”, or as a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

The demonization of whites, i.e. the white guilt complex, makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation, leading to a melting pot where all formerly white countries turn brown, thus eventually eliminating the white race.

Consider the arguments that the so-called anti-racists use:

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

We must understand the difference between a patriotic way of thinking and that of “Progressives” and “Internationalists.” Their ideological view is often based on a book and people are expected to refer to it and divergence from orthodoxy leads to being denounced or given correctional training. This happened in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cambodia under Pol Pot and in the West now under Political Correctness. This is a Marxist strain but it came in with the New Left under the guise of a new Liberalism. Even now well-meaning liberals promote PC without understanding its totalitarian nature.

This debate is contemporary Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. It includes the relationship between mind and matter, essence and attribute and fact and value. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing. What is real, what is illusion; what is actually happening and what are political myths.

Progressivism encompasses Liberalism through to Marxism: the “isms” that grew out of the French Enlightenment. They believe in abstract universals, we believe in concrete “particulars.” These type of Universals are abstract terms like humanity whereas a specific people is a particular. Abstract universalist thinking leads to intervention in the internal policies of other sovereign states. We concrete particularists are concerned with our own nation. We do believe in substantial universals which I will come to later.

Progressives erect a set of idealisations – what we are becoming, what we should think and how we should behave. Our human nature is fixed in the sense that we inherit genes, which give us our essence, but how we act it out or think is given form by our cultures and communities which themselves grew out of our collective psyches. We can not step outside what we are and where we belong. We are part of it and it is what makes us social beings.

READ MORE...