There is also the well-documented impact of the mass media, another factor which has served to heighten many of the trends already noted. The entertainment media have encouraged the privatization of society and the decline of face-to-face interaction through which communal narratives are reaffirmed and passed on. The proliferation of sophisticated images has blurred the boundaries between the real and the imaginary and saturated social life with ubiquitous representations of novelty and difference, representations which typically incorporate easily identifiable elements of ordinary life and recycle them in impossibly exotic, erotic, and alluringly faultless images. Moral and cultural relativism reflects the success with which the media has, by providing simulated substitutes for human interaction, made us wide-eyed strangers to those lives and cultures whose basic elements - from the mundane aspects of work and play, to the feelings and puzzles which human existence gives rise to - we all share in common.

At the same time, our insatiable appetite for remote and alien experience has attenuated our capacity to recover something of the child’s original wonder at the everyday world, to yield to a curiosity for the most familiar aspects of our surroundings, to find joy in the simple passage of the seasons, to marvel at the growth of children, to renew our affections and attachments without the aid of imported novelty and change.

Today’s “imaginative hedonism”, this limitless and self-gratifying appetite for rootless novelty and conquest which seems so hostile to our need to re-establish an ethic of self-limitation, is not a “postmodern” phenomenon, as is largely assumed, but is better described as a characteristic of “hyper-modernity”, in which society has failed to steer the emancipatory dynamic of modernity towards a political end. Daniel Bell saw it as a radical extension of the trends in modernist culture itself, reinforced by the hedonistic compensatory mechanisms of organized capitalism. Christopher Lasch believed its origins lie in our failure to achieve psychological individuation, a process demanding that we repudiate our memories of pre-natal bliss and find connections with a world that is independent of our wishes yet responsive to our needs. Robert Bellah and his colleagues identified the clear emergence of this “expressive individualism” in nineteenth-century America, contrasting it with a scientific culture of utilitarian calculation to which it was both a reaction and a complement. And with greater precision, Colin Campbell has located the religious source of the consumerist outlook in the Pietist strand of the same Protestant ethic that helped generate the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism.

For the philosophical communitarians, then, it is the cultural and historical heritage of individuals, their identities as “bearers of a tradition”, which provides the moral particularity essential for an authentic life. In MacIntyre’s account, it is the roles and attachments of one’s family, one’s profession, one’s city or nation, which incur “a variety of debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations” that “constitute the given of my life, my moral starting point”.

This theme is taken up by Sandel, who rejects what he refers to as liberalism’s depiction of a “deontological” self whose identity is never tied to its aims or attachments. He writes:

“We cannot regard ourselves as independent in this way without great cost to those loyalties and convictions whose moral force consists partly in the fact that living by them is inseparable from understanding ourselves as the particular persons we are.

... Allegiances such as these … go beyond the obligations I voluntarily incur and the ‘natural duties’ I owe to human beings as such. They allow that to some I owe more than justice requires or even permits, not by reason of agreements I have made but instead in virtue of those more or less enduring attachments and commitments which taken together partly define the person I am”.

A person without such constitutive attachments, Sandel continues, would be lacking in moral character and depth:

“For to have character is to know that I move in a history I neither summon nor command, which carries consequences none the less for my choices and conduct. It draws me closer to some and more distant from others; it makes some aims more appropriate, others less so”.

The “deontological self” which is the starting point to liberal contract theory is, by contrast, a self so bereft of character that it is incapable of self-knowledge, and therefore self-direction. Being “unencumbered” by its conception of the good, having no attributes and aims other than those it has voluntarily chosen, its enquiry into its own motives and ends “can only be an exercise in arbitrariness”. Sandel’s belief that “some relative fixity of character appears essential to prevent the lapse into arbitrariness which the deontological self is unable to avoid”, is shared by MacIntyre, who sees the work of Sartre as the epitome of this liberal individualism. Should we follow MacIntyre and dispense with Sartre’s existentialism for depicting “a self that can have no history”, that is “entirely distinct from any particular social role which it may happen to assume”, and that creates a human life “composed of discrete actions which lead nowhere, which have no order”?

Comments, thoughts, reactions?

However, anti-biotics lose their efficacy with overuse.  In particular, in Confined Animal Feeding Operations, where all the animals take some antibiotics every day in their food just to keep them all from keeling over because of the unhealthy conditions, they are incubating supergerms.

Anti-white ideology is very much like the anti-biotics given to livestock, and multiracialist society is like a CAFO.  If Whites were allowed to express racial solidarity, the whole operation would fall apart in a moment, just as the cattle in a CAFO would quickly die of disease if not for daily anti-biotics.

As you’ll see in the video below, there’s nothing like a daily dose of antibiotics to create a virulent strain, a supergerm.

And that is exactly what the daily drip, drip, drip of anti-white antibiotics is doing to the White herd—supergerms (mindweapons) are being created among us.  If you look at the pro-white comments, such as the godlike productions thread posted below, you will see how much energy we have, and compare with how little energy the people supporting multi-racialism have.  For them, it’s all about the money; for us, it’s life or death.

You are dead on. The progressives turned me from being racially apathetic to being an active white supremecist. I suppose I really snapped when I transferred to a college in California and my new school had no classics department but latin american studies, black studies africa studies and asian studies all as majors. That happen simultaneously with the obama frenzy, it lit a powderkeg in me that can never be undone. and trust me, I’m not the only one. We’re everywhere: and its all thanks to progressives!

Whoever wrote that, has become a mindweapon.  He is MRSA:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBPQL6NcsiM]

William Shakespeare,

I want to explain a fundamental of all metapolitical struggle - and we are engaged in a metapolitical struggle.  It is this: such struggle does not begin with electoral politics.

Let there be no doubt, we are still at the beginning.  We are not, nor have we ever been, in the electoral phase of our struggle.  The only reason we appeared to be so in the period that produced the election of Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin to the European Parliament is because the desperation of the hour has run ahead of us, creating the illusion that a path to power through electoral success was open to us.  It wasn’t and it will never be while we grasp at it so thoughtlessly.

Let me say this another way.  The great work of saving our people from submersion in the bottomless seas of the Third World cannot be done by street-level activism.  No amount of unity (sorry Andrew), no amount of artful positioning, no amount of dedicated activism can do what must be done.  Why?  Because the values and goals of nationalism do not exist within the intellectual and ideological confines of the ruling liberal paradigm.  Nationalism as the politics of the blood community is denied wholesale by liberalism as the politics of the unfettered will.  Our people today live in toto by the latter, and to change that from within the liberal electoral system is impossible.  Change of a nationalist character comes from without - it is essentially revolutionary.

In other words, we do not begin by fighting the Conservative and Labour parties but by creating an intellectual space defined by the justice, morality, and truth of the struggle for our people’s existence.  That is the revolutionary cause, the unifying cause, and it is that cause which must be carried down into the wider movement, into political activism and out to the electorate.  But I venture to suggest that if I ask you, Mr Shakespeare, in what the justice, morality, and truth of the struggle for our existence consists, you could not offer more than the vaguest thumbnail sketch in return.  We are an anti-intellectual movement.  We think we know it all already.  But we really don’t.

In the normal course of events, a pre-revolutionary process of intellectualisation might take ten, even twenty years before it gives way to activism.  We have three or four years to spare at most because of the waste of so much valuable time.  But we do have some limited foundation in the anti-liberal analysis of the European New Right and in Anglo-American empiricism.  In any case, we still have to proceed via this path, because nationalism cannot meet its appointment with history any other way.

That doesn’t mean that the movement as it is today has to stop in its tracks.  There is much it can do outside party politics - culturally, for example - to turn itself into a revolutionary movement of the people.  And it certainly should develop a political party, but that movement and that party can only ever be vessels for real political thought.  Without that, we will do in the future all that we have done in the past, and no more.

They will not listen, of course.