Alex Kurtagic

July being a popular month for weddings, a local magazine distributed in my area published this month a column bringing us children’s perspectives on marriage. Below you will find a rather instructive selection of quotes. The sample comes from one of the most desirable areas in the country.

General

“You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. You know, football, she really should like football and she should keep the crisps and dips coming.” Alan, aged 10.

“No person really decides before they grow up who they are going to marry. God decides it all way before and you get to find out later who you are stuck with.” Kristen, aged 10.

“It gives me a headache to think about that stuff. I’m just a kid. I don’t need that kind of trouble.” Will, aged 7.

When the Labour Party lost the May 2010 election, I did not exactly share their sadness. This was not because I saw the incoming government as representing fundamental change; rather, this was because the Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had already proven so fantastically destructive that it was difficult to imagine anything topping five more years of Labour inferno.

The electoral repulsion of Gordon Brown triggered a leadership contest within this wretched party, an event about which Derek Turner has already written very amusingly for Taki’s Magazine. Absent evidence of complete disarray, crisis, depression, despair, tiffs, quarrels, clashes, faction, division, schism, disunity, schizophrenia, paranoia, catatonia, paralysis, and radical soul-searching, a Labour leadership election is a potent soporific. Who wants to listen to a freak show of fossilized Marxists pontificating about fairness and equality? Life is too short.

But when the electorate holds back from crushing them into oblivion, when the government ends up being a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, the prospect of a Labour comeback cannot be dismissed: their next leader might well end up being our future Prime Minister.

Many of the Muslims who come to live in the West must daily shake their heads in amazement, unable to believe how stupid Westerners are to not only give away their wealth and paradise, but actually persecute the few who dare object. Said Muslims come here as conquerors, and our political leaders, instead of defending the interests of the people they were elected to represent, provide them with every conceivable aid to expedite the conquest. True, even the traitorous Labour government of Tony Blair found it within itself to jail or deport some of the most notorious cases; but such action, when it has been taken at all, always came late, was limited in scope, and struck one as cosmetic and expedient in character: the deeper problem – government sponsorship of foolish immigration policies, political correctness, and multiculturalism, which began and encouraged the progressive Islamisation of our society – remained untreated, and is still in fact consciously and willfully compounded through its promotion, financing, legalisation, and court enforcement, year after year after year. It is no wonder these would-be Muslim conquerors hold us in contempt.

One of the less helpful features of the radical Right is its propensity to spend a great deal of time and effort analysing and complaining abou is wrong with modern culture, and a lot less time actually producing an alternative to this culture. For the most part, the nearest it ever gets to producing said alternative is generating endless suggestions of what needs to be done, without actually doing any of it. Worse still, most of the suggestions are not even actionable in the short to medium term because they involve the creation of vast operations, necessitating large and sustained investment, abundant personnel, established networks, and extensive infrastructure - all this within a community that struggles to raise even measly sums of a few tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes I wonder if the people making these suggestions are serious about achieving change and do not just seek emotional relief.

Perhaps the tendency to make impractical suggestions stems from the tendency among elitists to think on a macro scale, a trait which I believe results from an inborn desire for order. This would explain the abundance of conspiracy theory buffs within the radical Right: what is a conspiracy theory if not a narrative, an ordered exposition, that efficiently explains a mass of otherwise confusing data and events?

The Times Online reported  yesterday that

Police officers have been given the right to take days off to dance naked on the solstices, celebrate fertility rituals and burn Yule logs if they profess pagan beliefs.

The Pagan Police Association claimed yesterday that it had been recognised by the Home Office as a "diversity staff support association" - a status also enjoyed by groups representing female, black, gay, Muslim and disabled officers.

Endorsement would mean that chief constables could not refuse a pagan officer's request to take feast days as part of his or her annual leave. The eight pagan festivals include Imbolc (the feast of lactating sheep), Lammas (the harvest festival) and the Summer Solstice (when mead drinking and naked dancing are the order of the day).

This is, of course, a welcome development for very many reasons. One of them, certainly, is that it tells us that the ethnically-conscious European descended peoples can also enjoy the rights and benefits the diversity state apparatus accords every other group in the West. Another of them is that it begins, for the first time and as evident by the reaction elicited by the Home Office decision, to stretch that apparatus beyond the limits of sustainability:

...there is unease in policing circles that the widening definition of diversity is creating a morass of organisations based on religion, gender and sexual orientation that appear to emphasise division.

Indeed.

I have written elsewhere about the need for pro-White campaigners to provide their target audience with better incentives than the apocalyptic warnings about economic collapse, race wars, and extinction that have constituted the traditional fare of the White Nationalist movement. I have argued that the reason campaigners have failed to make real political progress, in spite of having logical arguments, a moral case, and massive supporting data, is that, in the effort to persuade and inspire action, key aspects of human psychology have been ignored. Even though he is typically steeped in sociobiology, the White advocate has generally relied on rational persuasion to advance the pro-White agenda, neglecting well-known pre-rational motivators, such as the need for status and self-esteem (which he knows well enough), and the role of emotion (which he often deplores). We often hear about confronting the boobs with "the facts," even though it has been amply demonstrated that, on their own, facts make no political difference.

In response to this, I have stressed the importance of style and status as pre-rational campaigning tools. And in my most recent article, I have also stressed the need to move away from the negativity, the pessimism, the paranoia, the emotional masochism, and the obsessive conspiratology that permeates much of the White advocate's discourse, in favor of a friendlier, more positive presentation. Overall, my message over the past year has been that White advocates need to become pleasant and sought-after company, look attractive, and create a parallel economy and status system so that they can both impress and have, here and now, something to offer the White folk whose attention are seeking to gain.

I deem these essential ingredients to a successful strategy, because the evidence shows that ordinary White folk, no matter what the state of the economy or the politically correct indignities they are asked to endure, continue to see White advocates as scary, angry, boring, stupid, impoverished, and old, full of complaints but without solutions, full of analysis but unable to tell them exactly how signing up to the White advocates' program would improve their lives. Ordinary White folk continue to entertain the misconception -- perhaps partly justified, and in any event gleefully perpetuated by the Left -- that were a pro-White faction to achieve political victory, it would inevitably create a fascist dystopia like the ones commonly seen in Hollywood films. This deterrent is further reinforced by the fact that White advocacy's "perks" often consist of ostracism, lost livelihood, prison sentences, and even death. Ignorance of "what is really going on" might be, for most, a small price to pay when there is no immediate threat and when pretending that everything will be fine means retaining one's social status, peace and quiet, and affluent lifestyle.

How to change?

On March 3, the BBC reported that the millions raised by Bob Geldof's BandAid campaign and LiveAid concerts to relieve victims of famine in Ethiopia in 1984-1985 went straight to paramilitary rebels, who then used the money to buy weapons and overthrow the government of the time. The corporation informed us that '[f]ormer rebel leaders told the BBC that they posed as merchants in meetings with charity workers to get aid money.'

Here is how it worked:

Max Peberdy, an aid worker from Christian Aid, carried nearly $500,000 in Ethiopian currency across the border in 1984.

He used it to buy grain from merchants and believes that none of the aid was diverted. ...He insists that to the best of his knowledge, the food went to feed the starving.

The only problem was that

... the merchant Mr Peberdy dealt with in that transaction claims he was, in fact, a senior member of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF).

"I was given clothes to make me look like a Muslim merchant. This was a trick for the NGOs," says Gebremedhin Araya.

Underneath the sacks of grain he sold, he says, were sacks filled with sand. He says he handed over the money he received to TPLF leaders, including Meles Zenawi --the man who went on to become Ethiopia's prime minister in 1991.

Mr Meles, who is still in office, has declined to comment on the allegations. But Mr Gebremedhin's version of events is supported by the TPLF's former commander, Aregawi Berhe.

Now living in exile in the Netherlands, he says the rebels put on what he describes as a "drama" to get the money.

"The aid workers were fooled," he says.

In a satirical blog  about pop culture, I recently presented two sets of photographs: one of ageing mainstream musicians, whom I described as the past, and another of young underground musicians, whom I described as the future. Using a standard tabloid technique, I mischievously chose unflattering images for the first set of musicians, and proceeded to dismiss the latter as a freak show as well as a negative cultural influence. Unfortunately, some interpreted this (rather superficially) as simply a derogation of Elton John, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Bono, and Bob Geldof's looks and musical talent, ignoring the fact that the title of the blog referred explicitly to culture, and the blog itself made no mention of music.

My original aim had been to do a series, where I juxtaposed representatives of the egalitarian against representatives of the inegalitarian camp, taken from the fields of philosophy, politics, journalism, art, literature, psychology, anthropology, and more, always accompanied by a few satirical comments at the enemy's expense. There is no doubt that there was an element of playground malice in this exercise. Yet, the latter had a serious purpose: the enemy routinely engages in self-serving, derogatory, and cartoonish misrepresentations of the intellectuals, artists, and scientists whom they do not like, whom they would like to keep beyond the pale, and whom they would like the apolitical and the miseducated to avoid and dismiss in advance. The message I wanted to convey was that we know how to do it too, and are quite prepared to give them a taste of their own medicine (in fact, in December last year I wrote an article  for The Occidental Observer where I did some post-imperial deconstructing, in response to the White-bashing discourse that permeates the field of postcolonial studies). I think this is important because one of the reasons European descended peoples have come to find themselves in retreat, on the losing side of every significant battle in the cultural war for the better part of a century now, is that the Left has not been met with an effective response - in fact, even so-called "conservatives", who were supposed to have been on the side of European man, have proven - at best - craven, weak, flaccid, myopic, selfishly motivated, and far too willing to compromise, pull back, surrender, and apologise in order to avoid trouble.

Defenders of multiracialism never cease to amaze me, despite their having a long and well-established record of wilful ignorance, dishonesty, hypocrisy, disingenuousness, muddled thinking, and outright inanity. After reading Cleo Brown's yapping in the Hip Hop Republicans' website, I have to wonder whether even the most powerful electron microscopes would be able to detect a brain inside some of these multiracialists' prognathous skulls.

Brown's "rebuttal" to Alternative Right magazine is yet another - and, as usual, spectacularly incompetent - iteration of the old, tired, lazy, clichéd, fallacious, always tedious, and never convincing argumentum ad Hitlerum, riddled with errors and laden with the usual dysphemisms and non sequiturs. After a protracted whine about being denied a doctorate twenty-six years ago and about her subsequent (failed) complaint about her having been victim of "discrimination", she proceeds to characterize the present website as a venue for "White Supremacy" and the website's contributors as being "obsessed with Arian [sic] Superiority".

As you would expect from someone who cannot tell the difference between Arian (to do with the theological teachings of Arius) and Aryan (to do with the Aryan race), Brown has not read the website very carefully. Had she done so, she would have found the argumentum ad Hitlerum already rebutted in my blog of 15 March, where I wrote:

I have read with some amusement the attacks on Richard Spencer and his present project, which over the past few days have multiplied on the internet like microbes in a culture. I note that Spencer’s enemies share two salient characteristics: a religious belief in human equality and a Borg-like collective consciousness: they have all articulated identical criticisms (e.g., Spencer and other Alternative Right writers do not mind discussing the existence and consequences of human biodiversity) and two of these critics, exasperated by the absence of tattoos on Spencer’s visage, have faithfully reproduced what strikes me as an obviously apocryphal story. As is often the case with attacks from mainstream quarters, they reveal more about the nature of the attacker than about the target. In evidence are obtuse, conformist minds that take pride in their willful ignorance; slow, dull brains of negligible cubicage and low neural density; mean-spirited souls whose likely response times in IQ tests would need to be measured in geological eras.

What is ironic whenever these politically correct ninnies scream about ‘racism’ is that in doing so they lay bare the illogical and contradictory nature of their position. If one is a champion of diversity, one celebrates the evidence of its existence. Yet, these anti-racist nupsons who so vehemently and ridiculously object to our analyses declare themselves champions of diversity only to then wail in horror and undo themselves in invective, whining, and vituperation each time evidence of diversity is acknowledged in oral or written communication. To my mind, this is indicative of hypocrisy: the aforementioned anti-racists claim to be one thing, but are, in fact, quite another. Beneath their fine, universalist rhetoric and celebrations of multicuturalism lurks a totalitarian heart, yearning for total homogeneity: their ideal world is a grim ball of mud, where all humans look the same, think the same, speak the same, and earn the same, in conformity to the Left’s delirious visions of universal equality – a brave new world of gray cities and cement office blocks, filled with polyester carpets, neon lights, Formica surfaces, and rows upon rows of identical cubicles. Does not equality necessitate homogeneity? Does not diversity necessitate heterogeneity? Is not the former predicated of sameness and the latter on difference? If so, then, why is human biodiversity such a problem?