In considering this comment by ukn_leo  

“I have learned so much from reading Leon’s posts, Dan. As someone with natural conservative leanings”…

As someone who has natural conservative leanings as well, I thought a discussion might be useful to move toward a better understanding of what we mean by “conservatism”, and to help European peoples better discern the fraudulent “neo-conservatism” being put across to the public: taking the example of David Mamet’s fraud awakening.

Notice in the clip provided below, the slick, Jewish deception that Mamet, via Hayek, makes with the idea of constraint - to focus on limiting government.

To limit and constrain government is Not a big problem for we true conservatives, but it is not the fundamental point.

The fundamental point of true conservatism is constraint on demographics.

READ MORE...

It seems that four bombs had been planted.  Two exploded at the finishing line, killing two and injuring one hundred.  A third bomb at the finishing line did not explode.  A fourth exploded in a library that was closed, causing a fire.  Why bomb a library (if the report of a bombing is correct, of course)?  Doesn’t seem a very bright thing to do.  Did they think it was an IRS office?

As for the marathon, Patriot’s Day does celebrate the freedom of the nation - a pretty hollow idea for a lot of people.  So ... a “far-right” attack on a “melting pot event”?  Not really.  Three hours after the first of the elite athletes cross the line, most big city marathons are “implicitly white” events.  Anyway, why bomb marathon runners instead of the government?  A target for Islamicists, then?

Looks like a lone psycho job to me.  Of course, he will have “links” to far-right groups, probably a copy of Breivik’s manifesto on his hard-drive ...

I thought I should replace Graham’s somewhat florid reflections upon the passing today of Baroness Thatcher with something more considered.  There will, of course, be hundreds of thousands of words written and spoken about her in the media over the next few days.  Much of it will reflect the divisive impact upon British and international politics that this extraordinary woman had.  I am not going to tell the story of her life, but I will offer some personal reflections upon the person and period - she was Prime Minister for eleven tumultuous years from 1979 to 1990.

She had four characteristics that set her apart from the politicians about her.  She was restlessly energetic, dominant, courageous, and ideological (which she called principled).  All the really important moments of her career in Downing Street were expressions of one or more of these.  She galvanized millions of us to admire or to hate her for it.

Personally, I couldn’t bear her public mannerisms and speech because it was all so plainly produced and inauthentic.  But I found her enemies to be deeply repellant, and therefore took her side in most of the battles she fought - and there were many, for she was nothing if not an agent of change.  Few people had no opinion of her, and those who hated her the most, by and large, were the revolutionary socialist left and the Europhile right who expected their agendas to be followed by government without serious challenge.  In her, however, they found an implacable foe, and this tendency to stand up and fight for a different, non-authorised vision in a world as cravenly pragmatic as British politics is what most ordinary folk will probably remember her for.

There are several moments of her career that, while not particularly important in themselves, have stayed with me.  In particular, I remember her visit to Poland in 1988 as “the Iron Lady” and an icon of the freedom of the West.  She was invited to the church of St.Stanislaw Kostka in the north of Warsaw.  It had been the church of a priest who inveighed against state repression from his pulpit until, in 1984, the Security Services abducted and murdered him.  Hundreds of people, including the parents of the murdered priest, packed the church and the street outside to thank her for coming.  When they broke into a spontaneous rendition of a Polish hymn she was unable to hold back the tears.

This image of a leader moved by the sincerity and heart of the people is a near perfect figure for a true nationalist politician.  Margaret Thatcher came to the door of No.10 in 1979 wittering away about harmony and St Francis of Assisi.  But she was too much the courageous warrior leader and the ideologue caught up in the battle with the Labour Party, with union power, with the machinery of European integration, with the Soviets, with the Argentines, with the miners and, finally, with her own scheming ministers to understand that such unity and faith is even possible.  She was no intellectual and no visionary.  She used ideas that roughly fitted into her political rubric, the foremost of them the Friedmanite and Hayekian nostrums that were introduced to her by Keith Joseph in the years immediately after her accession to the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1975.  She never understood that the petty freedoms she gave people were insufficient for a truly rich lived life, for she never saw people in their social context, only as putative “individuals” awaiting release from an overbearing, over-socialist state.

There was a moment I recall when, early in her premiership, she used the word “flood” in relation to immigration.  I thought she might actually be listening to the sentiments of her own party supporters.  She did, for example, stand up for the white South African government against the diatribes of governments and international agencies everywhere.  But no, the immigration issue was scarcely broached again throughout her remaining years in power, except in the context of protecting national sovereignty from the dictates of the European Commission.  The battle above all others that I wanted Margaret Thatcher to fight she assiduously avoided.  It is a battle which, as things stand, must be fought on the streets one day.  The inevitable, existential conflict of race was something else she did not understand.

Of the battles she did fight, she only lost two: to the Europe integrationists and, eventually, to the grey-suited assassins around her.  We are now witnessing the slow, ineluctable coming apart of the European process and also the arising of an anti-politics which disdains the careerists of the political class.  Margaret Thatcher will be shown to have been on the right side of history on most matters.  She will not, I think, be remembered as the great national heroine or as the vile hate object which she succeeded, by her relentless and divisive political energy, in fashioning herself as.

Some men may like a nice, tight, 9 year-old girl now and then. What’s your problem?

Summary

Part 3, takes as a point of departure the idea of “authentic range” as established at the bottom of part 2. Here is a 411-word summary of part 3, from that point:

It is important to understand that Jewish academics take, abuse and pervert otherwise good, functional, socially organizing ideas:

In this part, 3, I focus on the abuse of the concept of marginals and how the correct application of it and hermeneutic means to foster marginal participation is necessary not only to establish the authentic boarders of our system of people but also toward its maintenance.

That is particularly important as we are an open system, therefore subject to corruption and dissolution. White males, naively and disingenuously brought to bear against other groups in universal maturity, have their optimal rate, its normal, protracted, authentic unfolding and nature seized upon opportunistically by non-Europeans.

As our system is open and not merely self corrective, is subject to additional changes as we are reflexive, adaptive creatures, its management requires the use of hermeneutic method - its positive use is made possible by the very open endedness but also internal relation of the system; that to designate and reconstruct the pattern by establishing and maintaining rules through the method’s affordance of socially established as opposed to scientistic (inauthentic) rules.

Given our open system and availing ourselves of its opportunities, I discuss: how incentives and disincentives for participation are necessary and may be established through these rules; how rites of European manhood ought to be revised to suit our authentic nature under the circumstances; how our moral order ought to provide for a sacralization of routine but also of sex, in order to act as a homeostatic corrective to hyper competitive models of the west; how symbiosis might be achieved within our group and between out-groups.

Please beware that I am still correcting the style, refining details, that the ordering might deviate a little as well from this summary. This may represent a revisable draft even of this summary. However, this is the basic form and content. Also beware that I take a reader though a sometimes meandering and digressing tale of the benefits of adopting the proposed suggestions and the consequences of not doing so. Finally, at times I may torture the reader with bad English sentences and paragraphs, particularly as I make my way through these ideas in the first place. However, I will be working to make the English style less painful to the reader; along with installing more organizational cues in the essay. That will be my next chore – be warned that organizational cues/rubrics may not be done to the reader’s satisfaction yet.

Key word:
Hermeneutics is a response to the failure of the Vienna school to create a positivist language and other failed Cartesian efforts as revealed particularly by Gödel and Heisenberg. Hermeneutics is a method opting instead for a socially engaged, ongoing process of applying broader historical and temporal orientation and then closer “readings” of data as need be. There is a recognized connection between knower and known.

With hermeneutics epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into practical, interactive, social concern)

Concern is a better term to use than utility. We would not want people to think that it would be a good idea to use up say, the national parks and rain forests, etc. That is, non-use has its practicality - that is a large and important difference from Dewey’s instrumentalist emphasis.

Epistemology taken into praxis, into social concern then, is not mere Deweyan instrumentalism.

It respects the ecological flexibility of unused potentiality for change.

READ MORE...

A colleague of mine passed away yesterday.  My relationship with him began while he was at Interval Research circa 1996.  This link is to a paper of his written shortly after we met on the basis of my interest in relational over functional description.

So the political threads of the Daily Telegraph are to be available on a restricted basis to non-subscribers to the print or on-line edition.  Whether that basis will be generous enough to preserve the site’s utility for us (that is, as a site where we can offer nationalist analyses without the deadening influence of pre-moderation) remains to be seen.  Regular readers of the DT on-line will be well aware that the journalistic output suffers from Red Bus Syndrome.  Whenever some event of interest occurs, half-a-dozen articles appear about it within an hour.  A restriction to twenty articles a month will considerably hamper selection, and have a scattering effect on our collective presence.

A schwerpunkt is as virtuous in a war of discourse as it is in a war with guns and grenades.  The huge progress that has been made over the last couple of years in liberalising speech on the DT threads is largely a product of the weight of nationalist sentiment, not of individual argumentation - excellent though much of that has been.  Individuals are easily dealt with moderation-wise.  It is when everybody is freed to speak inconvenient truths that the moderators’ battle is lost, and this has been the story at the DT.

One can always subscribe, of course, and then there are no restrictions to access.  But what would be the point if the general readership plummets as it did at The Times:

Since July 2010, News International has required readers who do not subscribe to the print edition to pay £2 per week to read The Times and The Sunday Times online.

Visits to the websites have decreased by 87% since the paywall was introduced, from 21 million unique users per month to 2.7 million. In April 2009, the timesonline site had a readership of 750,000 readers per day. As of October 2011, there were around 111,000 subscribers to the Times’ digital products.

Whether we can remain at the DT or we look for new journalistic soil to till, it is surely worthwhile maintaining the collective presence we have built up.  I think that is possible.  It may need a site secure from prying eyes as an organisational base.  MR is a public medium.  But at least we can have a discussion here and now about that and the other options that we have in our war for the freedom to state unambiguously that our people must live.

The Runnymede Trials are possible. The state is not an island above the law.
It is important to hold the architects of the unrestrained approach towards immigration in the Labour government to account for the sake of posterity, in the same way it was important to hold the leaders of the Nazi party responsible to account for war crimes at Nuremberg. The law is open to all not just the state.

This comment appeared today on the thread to a Daily Telegraph leader pushing the usual Tory line on immigration.  It was posted by theft_act1968.  It is one of three comments this poster has fashioned touching on the same subject.  He appears to be posting these comments serially.

I have no idea if he is alone in using the terms “The Runnymede Trials” and “The Runnymede Tribunal”, but I like them.  They are good word-tools full of stout optimism and moral certainty.  I think they could prove useful in roping in anti-Blair types to racial thinking.  One of the other two comments is this, incidentally:

The Runnymede Trials

The architects of the unrestrained approach towards immigration in the Labour government:

Tony Blair - Prime Minister May 1997-June 2007
Gordon Brown - Prime Minister June 2007-May 2010
Jack Straw - Home Secretary May 1997-June 2001
David Blunkett - Home Secretary June 2001-December 2004
Charles Clarke - Home Secretary December 2004-May 2006
John Reid - Home Secretary May 2006-June 2007
Jacqui Smith - Home Secretary June 2007-June 2009
Alan Johnson - Home Secretary June 2009-May 2010
Barbara Roche - Minister for Immigration July 1999-June 2001
Jeff Rooker - Minister for Immigration June 2001-May 2002
Beverley Hughes - Minister for Immigration May 2002- April 2004
Des Browne - Minister for Immigration April 2004-May 2005
Tony McNulty - Minister for Immigration May 2005-May 2006
Liam Byrne - Minister for Immigration May 2006-October 2008
Phil Woolas - Minister for Immigration October 2008-May 2010

“Theft_act1968” is averaging ten recommends a comment, which is pretty good.  I am going to start using the Runnymede references too.  We’ll see how far this meme can be spread.

As the victims of the very successful Jewish/leftist seizure of the terms of racial debate all across the West, it behoves us to have some respect for this form of warfare.  Rhetorical tools come in two forms: those that condition the moral tenor (“racist”, “anti-Semite”, etc) and those that stipulate how to understand the world (“diversity is our strength”, “British-Asians”).  Nullifying this toxic language requires more than a selective dismissal of the most commonly used terms.  We have to put something in their place that speaks of our worldview, and we have to keep hammering it home.  Speaking of which ... Bob Whittaker’s mantra, “Anti-racism is anti-white racism”, has been around long-enough for us to assess its effectiveness.  The term “anti-white racist” was used prior to it, of course.  But the left on both sides of the pond has heard it.  As one would expect, it is dismissive.  But its capacity to apply the “racist” term does seem to have been restricted.  There has been a blow struck.

The left has also caught on that we are speaking increasingly of a white genocide, and again it is dismissive (for reasons we all understand).  The term “race-replacement”, however, is more difficult to reject because of the clear statistical evidence in the public domain.  As far as I am concerned, the author of this rhetorical tool was our friend Fred Scrooby.  I am only aware of Frank Salter using the term before Fred did, and then not in a rhetorical sense.  If MR achieves nothing else, at least we have, through Fred, launched into the world one valuable word-tool.

I think we are missing several tricks in fashioning such word-tools, principally through our intellectually incoherent and casual approach.  We need to think much more systematically about how we were out-manoeuvred in the past and about the positives of our worldview.  We need to return to the two forms of moral and perceptual tools and work out more precisely what we need to effect a mechanical shift in the way our people think - if we possibly can, given the very tenuous hold we have on public discourse.

Of course, tenuous hold notwithstanding, we are working with the grain.  It is easier for us to achieve results than it was for our foes.

A recurring subject within nationalism is the possibility of bringing a case for the genocide of peoples of European descent by coercive replacement before the International Criminal Court.  The attractions of doing so are very great.  If it were to be successful even in relation to one of our peoples, governments in the West would be forced to develop demographic policies incorporating protective measures for all, or face legal challenge themselves.  Not only would new immigration without thought for the security of our existence have to come to an end, but the population mechanics of generational replacement would have to be addressed.  And for that, large-scale programmes of repatriation would have to be instituted.

Further, the post-colonial economic model of the West, built on debt payable out of growth in GDP consequent upon population increase, would have to be substantially amended.  The debt model itself would be open to question in a new way, and the lineaments of a new and free life for European men and women might be glimpsed.

Even if European governments contrived to win the judgement, the demographic crisis of the West will have been aired in the most public and intellectually respectable way, challenging the great embargo on speaking racially.  Political correctness, anti-racism, and the legal war on discrimination will, for the first time, have been accurately cast as strategies of coercion.  The nationalist worldview will have slipped its bonds.  The gateway to free speech and participation in public discourse will stand open.

That is the theory, anyway.

READ MORE...