I’m not finished with James Burke, and I’d like to add to what I said about him in the comments section on Tuesday.
I have just watched episode 20 of the second season of Connections. I draw the viewer’s attention to what Burke says about the German concept of Lebensraum from this point until the end of the episode.
What impresses me about Burke, as what impresses me about two other Britons of whom in previous years I have spoken much on this site—Kenneth Clark and Tom Holland—is that, while I admire their intelligence and penetration in their observations—artistic and western history (Clark), religious, axiological and historical (Holland) and scientific, technological and historical (Burke)—, all three are prisoners of Christian morality.
If it were possible (obviously no BBC or similar TV service would fund my project) I would make a series of thirteen programmes explaining what Holland says: how the morality of the contemporary atheist, even the radical one, is still dominated by Christian ethics. But I would film that series from an opposite scale of values to that of the neochristian Holland.
In the segment linked above, for example, Burke reproves the doctrine of Lebensraum, which some Germans planned to implement in Africa or Latin America. Because of that scale of values that seems so natural to Burke and virtually all contemporary Britons, I live in a horrid world, and in a Latin American city at that.
What good is brilliance in explaining technological inventions that have revolutionised mankind if Burke remains a slave to Christian morality? Obviously, he has never asked himself this question because there are no transvalued men on his island.
Or are there?
9 replies on “Slave”
All the major countries that condemned Germany for their living space policy had already done the same thing themselves, particularly the Britain and the United States.
It is poetic justice that all those who declared war on Germany are now dying ethnically. Only transvaluation would save them (but not even white nationalists want to do that).
There are revisionist men in Britain; there were such men throughout the post-war period, on both the Left and the Right, who re-assessed Britain’s involvement in the War and decided that it was misconceived or wrong. But I know of no more than a tiny handful of men in this country who are transvalued. We have more of the other sort of trans than actual transvalued men.
I exclude those prominent figures on the British dissident Right, such as the late Richard Edmonds, who are transvalued in the British sense. Even he was in a minority within his own category – Nick Griffin, for instance, is not transvalued.
D-Day is a religion in Britain. You do have to look at it from a British perspective, though. Even Richard Edmonds honoured Britain’s servicemen by marching on Remembrance Sunday, but he did this as a mark of patriotic respect and was still ready to condemn Allied atrocities against the Germans. To me, that seems the correct approach for a British person: respect for martial courage and service, combined with a cold, honest acknowledgement of what really happened.
I recently asked local political candidates if they think the D-Day former servicemen should regret their actions. The reason I asked this question is because, to me, Hitler/the Axis was the “good” side and D-Day and Operation Overlord were an invasion by an enemy force. The British men who fought on D-Day and thereafter were certainly brave and, from a strictly patriotic viewpoint, it is understandable for a British person today to wish to honour his forefathers, but equally one has to be honest and objective about it and concede that the Allies were the ‘enemy’ of white Nordic civilisation and brought it to an end in a great act of suicide and betrayal.
The universal answer from the political candidates I questioned was No, the men who landed in northern France should be proud of having fought to overturn an evil regime, etc. Not simply we should be proud that they did their civic duty and fought for their country, even though their country was wrong, but that we should be proud of them because of the cause they were fighting.
What do you mean, that you completely disagree with what I recently wrote in the ‘Prolefeed’ post?:
And by the way, ten years ago I met and spoke directly to Richard Edmonds on the street during a BNP demonstration in London. He and another BNP member stopped talking to me when I asked them what was wrong with fascism. I was left with the impression that the pair believed in democracy—in other words, that their movement was founded on the wrong premises.
As I see it, ethno-nationalism is a precondition of becoming transvalued, not antithetical to it. That does not mean I am opposed to the statement you make. It is possible for Nordics to unite while also retaining important ethnic divisions. White identity completes national identity, but for me, everything starts with ethnic or tribal identity. I view cross-ethnic white nationalism as an oxymoron. The British nation, and its divisions, are not an artificial construct; it has an organic historical basis, and today, for an Englishman even merely to state he is British or English is viewed in certain contexts as a radically heterodox political statement in Britain.
From this stance, it is possible to acknowledge, co-operate with, aid and assist other white ethno-nationalists. The ultimate expression of white dominion would be a global Imperium, but there need not be just one of them. At one point, Hitler envisaged a German tellurocracy alongside a British thalassocracy.
I may be wrong about Richard Edmonds, but we must remember that he would have been wary of speaking to anybody, even political friends, on the terms you suggest for fear of being recorded and misrepresented in the media. The climate in Britain is that nationalists are a public enemy and Edmonds was used to having his private thoughts broadcast and twisted and misrepresented. Maybe if he was truly transvalued, he shouldn’t have cared, but he was also a politician trying to win votes. I suppose, like most of us, he was multi-faceted.
I am not convinced any of us who lead ordinary lives can be truly transvalued or reach one of Mauricio’s upper levels because, realistically, we live in this society and have to respond to its demands and social influences. One can be virtually transvalued as an online avatar, but the real world is another matter.
I’ve said enough.
Regarding your last paragraph, perhaps you missed my May post ‘Internal jihad’? And by the way, your country is a piece of shit. See what I just posted about your fellow countryman Benjamin Power (real name).
Of the people I met on my last trip to the UK, three others were jailed for thoughtcrime: Jez Turner, Tyrone-Joseph Walsh and Chris Gibbons. The latter two are serving sentences of seven and eight years respectively! I think Turner has already been released from prison. He was the head person of the London Forum, and never incited violence.
As I said, your country is a piece of shit. And the right thing to do is to hate it as much as I hate the fucking country where I was born.
You are right, César, but I am relying here on a distinction between country, state and nation (I think when you use the word ‘country’, you mean what we would call ‘state’).
The country, I do love, because it is my homeland and that of my ancestors, with the landscape, literature, art and so on. You can’t expect me to just turn my back on my own country. I think the point of transvalued is simply to be awakened to it and understand it fully and truthfully, rather than be wrapped up in some sort of hopeless patriotic romanticism. You can be patriotic in the sense of acknowledging that this is your place, while also seeing things for what they are.
The state, I hate (which I think is what you are referring to).
The nation, I accept as my own, even though I dislike my kinsmen. You can pick your friends, but you can’t pick your relatives – as they say. The point of nationalism isn’t really a liking or disliking of alien or foreign peoples, or even a liking of your own, it is more for me a belief in the fundaments of civilisation and an acknowledgement that it is racial in nature, and that it always must be that way. Nationalism (tribalism) is a human imperative.
When you speak of hating others, I acknowledge this is necessary and that global white dominion is axiomatic to white survival. There probably isn’t a word in the English language for the nuance needed to capture what ‘hate’ means in this sense. It is a type of hatred that is not based on liking or disliking, but more intellectual, yet still visceral. It is just nature, I suppose. The transvaluation is an acknowledgement that natural interests govern things and everything else is abstracted nonsense.
Maybe I failed in my previous comment when I said that your country is shit because I forgot to say that I was referring to the current English culture, which was created gradually after 1945 (anti-white hatred and the eventual extinction of your kind as their new religion).
Obviously, that should be hated, and by hating it, one also hates all those infected with that suicidal ideology, be they siblings, relatives or distant countrymen.
Where I live, for example, I don’t love anyone, except for a female friend who read my autobiography and felt sorry for the teenager I was. Except for her and my late sister, the rest is rubbish.
Ethno-nationalism must come first is a mantra.
The West believes firmly in the falsehood of civic-nationalism, which is an inherently Christian idea.
Isn’t it a proof that the more Judeo-Christian a nation is the faster it collapses!
The televised destruction by untermensch of nations like France, England and USA, who still bombard their populations with heroic anti-nazi celebrations of last century is delicious.