Tuesday, 26 June 2012

The Spiritual and Cultural Desert of Modern Day Britain


Just the other day I got reading the blog of right-wing journalist Peter Hitchens and I found out that he had been a Question Time panelist on the 14th of this month. As I do not watch television very often and because I haven't checked out the iPlayer page for this program in a while, I had missed out on viewing it. So I went up to the BBC website and watched the episode in question.

One of the questions asked by an audience member was words to the effect of, 'Do any of the panelists know any poetry by heart and if so, have any of you ever been able to use this poetry in a practical situation?' 

Instantly the audience burst out into a rowdy, mocking laughter. Apparently the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, recently suggested that school children should learn poetry by heart as part of their education. David Dimbleby then, just for a giggle, set the panel the challenge of reciting a poem. 

The first person to be challenged was a Tory politician, the 'chosen' Minister for Housing and Local Government, Grant Shapps. This is a fellow who was once a youth leader for the B'nai B'rith Youth Organisation. He chose to recite 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star', much to the amusement of the audience. I am pretty sure he could have recited a couple of those anthems from the youth organisation. 

Most of the other panelists were quite dismissive of the whole idea also, saying that politicians shouldn't be getting involved with education. We should leave it to the teachers and children should be taught things that are of more practical use, they said. 

The Labour politician on the panel, Emily Thornberry, suggested that the only good reason why we should study history is in order to help prevent us from making the same mistakes as our forebears. That is a typical Marxist attitude I think and we know where it leads. These people only want to focus on the negative side of our history, to undermine our heritage. To portray our ancestors as uncouth, underhanded and barbarous. The thought of focusing on the happier chapters of our history that tell us about our racial character, fill us with racial and national pride and which we can use as a positive guide for the future is unthinkable to these people. 

They would rather our children were taught about the 'terrible Tudors', focusing on Henry VIII's wives and how he 'enjoyed' beheading many of them. Of Shakespeare's history plays, they would sooner have students study Richard III so that they can demonise our (former) nobility as little more than murdering gangsters. That anybody would suggest the children study such national heroes as Henry V - perish the thought. 

And so it goes, that if you were to ask the average English youth if they know or have even heard of Henry V, for example, or if they they could recite a line from Shakespeare's great play about his exploits in France, he or she would most likely give you the deer in the headlights look and then mock you for even bringing up the name of such personalities as the Bard. 

And heaven forbid you dare to recite from any of Shakespeare's great works. Most of the befuddled, ignorant and illiterate youth of our country would think you are an escapee from a lunatic asylum. They would most likely point and laugh you out of the room before you could finish a single verse, then invite their friends over to laugh you down the street. That is the unfortunate mentality of the average student that have been subjected to an 'education' at these brain pollution centres they call schools. And these social-marxists are happy to keep it that way.

Anyway, back to Question Time, after most of the panel had derided the idea of learning about the more beautiful aspects of our cultural heritage, the audience decided to wade in, with one Marxist looking young school teacher mockingly declaring that the learning of poetry in schools would be a pointless endeavour, a waste of time for the schoolchildren. To quote the silly cow: 'Making them sit down and recite poems would just be a waste of my time and a waste of their time.' This mindless drivel was met with a round of applause from the audience and mumbles of agreement from many on the panel. 

At this point I sat there at my computer feeling ever so slightly embarrassed and deflated about my passion for English literature and culture in general. I reflected to myself for a moment, 'Perhaps I really am just one of these out-of-date oddballs that appreciate our heritage - our poetry, our literature, music, traditional art and architecture?' One has to reassure ones self in these degenerate times.  

However, the one person that Dimbleby seemingly ignored asked if it was his turn to recite a poem, or 'pass this test' as he put it. This one individual was none other than Peter Hitchens. He then proceeded to give a moving recital of 'Into my heart an air that kills' from Alfred Edward Housman's 'A Shropshire Lad'. I was so touched by it that I instantly vowed to learn this poem for myself. 

Shockingly, this recital was met with a (albeit lukewarm) round of applause and Hitchens proceeded to give an impassioned monologue about the importance of having our minds 'furnished with beauty' and that having knowledge of our cultural heritage (our *real* cultural heritage, not this multicultural rubbish that has been slopped onto us) is a fundamental - 'profound' - part of being British. 

I am not a huge fan of Hitchens, as he is a typical right-wing reactionary 'conservative' type who incredibly - unbelievably - has got it into his head that Jewish Christianity is the only salvation for our country and thus he is useless. His racial heritage (and thus true allegiance) is very questionable also. But I must give him due credit, this speech of his was absolutely fantastic. I felt compelled to post a comment on his blog congratulating his performance:

'I just watched Question Time on iPlayer and thought your recital and speech about the importance of being familiar with our national literature was absolutely magnificent. I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I listened to these other panelists and teachers in the audience mocking our heritage. I think that somebody should upload a video exposing each of these sneering degenerates and then finish it with your fantastic monologue.'

The moment I posted the above comment, I went and did a search on YouTube to see if I could find an excerpt from this episode of Question Time so that I could share it with other like-minded people. Much to my surprise, I found more or less exactly what I had asked for in the above comment. The video was most appropriately titled 'Peter Hitchens vs. Educational Philistines'. Another could have been 'The Spiritual Desert of Modern Day Britain'. However, my only problem with this upload is that it did not contain the idiotic 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star' remark from that 'chosen' guest on the panel. Never mind, it is an excellent clip nonetheless that I would recommend to anyone. This is the state of degenerate, 'modern' day Britain. 


'England, bound in with the triumphant sea, Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots, and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself. Ah! would the scandal vanish with my life, How happy then were my ensuing death.' 


One has to ask, was the Bard a prophet? :-/


James Mac.





Tuesday, 12 June 2012

A Choice of Terms

Aryan, White Race, or White Volk?

http://soundcloud.com/mrjamesmacaudio/aryan-white-race-or-white-volk


No matter what nomenclature is selected, none of the above accurately describes the group of people for whose survival, expansion and advancement Creativity is waging an all-out battle. Since there is no one and only, it is therefore more a matter of choosing the most appropriate term to describe that select group of humanity that is Nature's Finest. Should we refer to them as Aryans, or as the White Race, or perhaps as the White Volk?

In all my writings I have rejected from the very beginning of Creativity the "Aryan" terminology as being completely inadequate. And the reason I have done so is because the term is so vague, so nondescript as to be meaningless. Like the much bandied about word "spirit", when critically examined, nobody knows what it is, or what they are talking about. Like the "spirit" idea, why make such a big to-do about something when you don't even know what that something is? (See 'What is a Spirit?" Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 29.) So it is with the term Aryan. What does it mean? Nobody knows. If so, why use it?

The word Aryan, is a technical term, derived from the Sanskrit arya, or the Zend airya. In later Sanskrit arya means "of a good family." In modern usage the word has become a fictitious concept, a meaningless word, that has done more to confuse our racial identity and biological heritage than it has to clarify or enhance it.

The word Aryan has been brought into prominence in the latter part of the nineteenth century, by such writers as Arthur Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and in the twentieth century, by Hitler's ideological mentor, Alfred Rosenberg, and others. However, it was the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany that really made it a household word, a word that had become extremely emotionally charged and highly controversial. It has remained such ever since, and has the connotation of somehow being part of the Nazi idea, if not their sole invention. Yet, nobody really defined it specifically, not even Rosenberg or Adolf Hitler.

What then, if anything, does it mean?

Does it encompass all of the "White Race"? No, emphatically, it does not if it has any meaning at all. It excludes large segments of it. It would by and large exclude the Slavs, most of the Italians, the Spaniards, the Rumanians, large segments of the French, and even of the Germans and the Austrians, to name a few. It is doubtful that even the exemplary British would qualify as being Aryan, since English is not considered to be an Aryan language. A stinking, black Hindu or Pakistani could technically be considered as being more Aryan than a solid White Anglo-Saxon.

Does Aryan mean the same thing as the Nordic? When we talk of Nordics, we recall an image of blonde haired and blue eyed peoples, a dying species, such as are still found in northern Germany, in Holland, the Scandinavian countries, and to a diminishing degree, even in the United States. But are the words Nordic and Aryan synonymous? By no means. By such definition, even Hitler would not be an Aryan, since although he had blue eyes, he certainly was not blonde. Nor would that foremost propagandist of the Nazi idea, Joseph Goebbels, qualify. He was a dark, physically diminutive and poorly constituted individual, certainly a far cry from the Nordic ideal. Nor were many other luminaries of the Nazi hierarchy, such as Heinrich Himmler and a host of others. Nor were such notable Fascist leaders as Mussolini of Italy, nor Francisco Franco of Spain, blonde haired and blue eyed. So it would be idiotic to use the two terms, Aryan and Nordic, interchangeably.

Again, when we examine the term Aryan, we get pushed further and further into the negative position of what it is not. Like the term "spirit", every time I ask a preacher what it is, he keeps postulating and expounding in an endless harangue of what it is not, never what it is.

Let us go back to as neutral a ground as we can possibly find, a source that carries some weight of authority, and one that goes back to the time prior to when Hitler and the Nazi movement made the word Aryan an emotional, a partisan and a controversial word. Let us go back to Volume II of the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA, New American Supplement, 20th Century Edition, 1904. This is probably the most intellectual, factual and unbiased set of books available, compiled at a time before the Jew got his slimy hands on the company and managed to corrupt and render worthless the succeeding editions. Here is some of the information it provides.

ARYAN, a technical term, applied to one of the great families of language, which extends from India to Europe, and which, for that reason, is called INDO-EUROPEAN. Friedrich Schlegel, who first recognized the family relationship of these languages (Die Sprache and Weisheft der Indier, 1808) assigned to them the name INDO-GERMANIC, a name still used by preference by many scholars in Germany.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA then goes on to criticize both of these terms as being inaccurate and completely inadequate. It recalls other attempts to define this group of languages, such as Indo-Celtic, and Indo-Classic, since there are many languages in Europe that do not belong to this family. Other alternatives have also been offered, such as Sanskrit and Japhetic. However Encyclopedia Brittanica rejects both of these as also being inaccurate. Sanskrit would imply that all members of this family would be derived from Sanskrit, which is not true. Japhetic would seem to revive the Jewish conception of the three ancestors of the human race Shem, Ham and Japhet. This, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is based on an idiotic Jewish fairytale and must be rejected out of hand by any thinking, intelligent individual (See "The Story of Noah" Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 38.) Another term in an attempt to classify these languages is INDO-IRANIAN, as comprehending the language of India and Persia, which constitute the south-eastern as distinct from the north-western (Greek, Latin, Celtic, Teutonic, Slavonic) branch of the family. (We again quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica.)

Encyclopedia Brittanica goes on to say that the word Aryan became popular because it was short, it was of foreign origin (therefore had an exotic ring, presumably) and it covered a whole range of unexplained misconceptions. Nowhere in its long dissertation does Encyclopedia Brittanica ever even imply that it describes any race of people, or any biological group. It merely attempts to group a family of languages, and even in this it fails badly.

Are we therefore any closer in defining the word Aryan as a racial term? No, far from it. It is at best a confusing and misleading term for language groups and even in this category it fails miserably.

We now come to the present day scene in America and find such groups as the Nazis and Identity people and the Aryan Nations, trying to capitalize on this word. But they, too, have never attempted to tell us what it means. The Nazis take for granted that since Hitler, Rosenberg, and the Nazi movement used it extensively, we all should know what it means. But as I have already pointed out, they too left it in a vacuum and left the world as confused about its meaning as have the Christian preachers about the word "spirit".

With both, the preachers and the Nazis, it is a case of trying to hang a whole battleship on a flimsy coathook.

Strangely, the Aryan Nations and the Identity people take a completely different tack from that of the Nazis. They claim we the Aryans, are descendants of the ten "lost" tribes of Israel, who somehow, about 1000 B.C.E., barged into Europe and settled a vacant continent, and now we White peoples are the true Israelites, the chosen of God. This idea is so preposterous, so contrary to the real facts of history, that it hardly needs further refutation. (See Racial Loyalty, Issue No. 32 "White Men Wandering in the Wilderness".) It could only appeal to those poor individuals whose minds have been deranged by an overly massive dose of Jewish-Christian mind manipulation to the point where they themselves would like to become Jews.

So much for the term Aryan. In my writings since the inception of Creativity (and even before) I have consistently used the term the White Race, because I consider it vastly superior to the term Aryan. However at the same time. I have repeatedly admitted that it is far from perfect in describing Nature's Finest. It is, at best, an approximate term, not an accurate definition, but it does have real meaning in that it differentiates us from the mud races - the niggers, the Semites, the Hindus, the Indians and the Orientals. Like the Atlantic Ocean, its boundaries in some areas are vague and undefined, but nevertheless, everybody knows what and where the Atlantic Ocean is. So it is with the White Race, which although technically does not have enough cohesiveness in its genes to even be defined as a race at all, nevertheless, everybody knows what the White Race is, especially so its multitude of enemies, the mud races.

So we have chosen to run with this term, the White Race, because we believe it is the best there is. You will notice that on the cover of this book I use the term The White Volk. The word Volk is a German word that has a meaning similar to the word people, yet it has more of an ethnic connotation than the English word. Hitler used it repeatedly in his speeches and writings (Das Deutsche Volk) and whereas it also is not the perfect word, it is more accurate in the meaning we wish to convey than the word race. I point out this distinction in answer to those critics who will critique us that technically the White Race is not a race at all. In this they are correct, and for them I have substituted the world Volk as an alternative.

Nevertheless, accurate or not, I still believe the term White Race is the best there is, that it is most widely accepted and understood, and we Creators will continue to use it as our standard terminology. When we succeed in persuading the White Race that it has a wonderful legacy in its genes to pass on to future generations; that it has every right to claim this Planet Earth for its very own; that when it embraces Creativity as its own natural religion and practices Eugenics as inherent in such religion, then the time will come when the White Race will truly be a race in its finest biological sense and the undisputed master of this Planet.