long considered myself a pagan, fully pagan, allied to traditional Catholicism, and a friend of Hinduism, but a fierce adversary of the desert’s totalitarian monotheisms. 

A similar prudence is needed in respect to Catholic charismatic spirituality, with its enervating mysticism, and particularly its destructively pacifist dismissal of ethnicity and the will to power.

We need, in a word, to be alert to demobilising mysticisms, to a pretentious but hollow intellectualism, to easy refuge in a 'spirtuality' or 'philosophy' whose attitudes, postures, and loopholes are ultimately tangential to the resistance.

[pg. 37] "Contrary to the prevailing belief, it's not economic or military power, nor its social constitution or political independence, that in the last instance determines the longevity of a people or civilisation. These elements are extremely important, but they are part of the superstructure. The base of everything is biocultural identity and demographic renewal."

[pg. 38] "Today, as night descends on them, European peoples need to consciously see themselves as a people, for they have less than a century to save their germen and their civilisation. The Twenty-first century will be the decisive century, specifically its early decades. More than ever, the old military adage - 'vanquish or die!' - assumes its pertinence. If the generation of native Europeans which turns 20 between 2000 and 2010 doesn't act, everything will be lost - forever - as the spirit of those who built the great cathedrals is finally extinguished. East Europeans won't even be able to aid their brothers in the West, for they too are sick."

pg. 38] "The key issues facing the future won't be about financing start-ups, finding a place in the political system for women, or looking out for the 'gay community', but rather about determining the outcome of the coming clash between Europe and the Islamic world colonising her: will Europeans remain the majority of the European population; will they be able to check the dramatic degradation of the Earth's environment, etc?"

[pg. 39] "Why do we fight? We don't fight for 'the cause of peoples', because the identity of every people is its own concern, not ours, and because history is a cemetery of peoples and civilisation. We fight only for the cause of our own people's destiny. Our political activities - the most quotidian cultural or metapolitical, the most down-to-earth, the most humble activities, even in the formulation of our practical programs - are guided by the imperative of all Grand Politics: that is, by the struggle for the heritage of our ancestors and the future of our children."

We need to reorient people to the big picture and leave out less important squabbles. "What matters most at this point is a unifying ideological platform. When the house is on fire, domestic disputes are put on hold."

[pg.39] "European civilisation is gangrened with the cosmopolitanism that comes with the Western system, which it helped create, as Nietzsche saw in an earlier phase of its decay. Europe’s destiny in this sense is tragic. 

The main cause of her decline is the maturation of those Eighteenth century ideas of equality and individualism that came at the expense of our communal, national, and ethnic consciousness. Another cause is the secularisation of Judaeo-Christian universalistic and egalitarian - values. A third is the materialistic frenzy constitutive of the bourgeois spirit.

Europeans as such are themselves responsible for the ills afflicting them: the ills of the declining birth rate, Third World and Islamic colonisation, deculturation, American domination, strategic feeblemindedness, etc. They have, in effect, allowed their enemies to pollute their spirit and corrupt their body."

pg. 41] "Far from becoming a ‘planetary civilisation: a global village, the planet is today being organised into competing ethnic/identitarian blocs. The mixing of cultures and the abolition of identities are not part of the Twenty-first-century’s project. India, China, Black Africa, the Arab-Muslim or Turkish-Muslim world, etc., are affirming their identities, tolerating neither a colonising immigration nor a cultural mélange on their soil. Only our pseudo-European elites defend the dogma of a ‘mixed planet’, which is pure illusion."

[pg. 52] "Islam strives for revenge and conquest. The United States - logically from its geostrategic perspective - endeavours to neutralise Europe, whose unification threatens American hegemony and Economic interests on the Continent. To divide Europeans in order to better rule them, the U.S. endeavours to foster war and discord, it favours Islamic immigration, it seeks to prevent a European alliance with Russia and the Slavs, it keeps us under its military tutelage, and it forces us to open our markets without reciprocating, all the while pro-claiming that it’s our protector: this is the logic of America’s perverse hegemony in Europe, which the Europe of nation-states, no less than the Europe of Maastricht and Amsterdam, is unable to defend herself against, because she lacks the will to do so."

[pg. 53] "The disaster of the oil tanker Erika in 1992 reminds us that petroleum energy is the most polluting in the world. The pseudo-ecologists, however, reserve their thunder for nuclear energy, the least polluting form of energy! The reason: oil is a pillar of American hegemony and the financial basis of the Muslim states. Nuclear power, moreover, would make Europe energy independent, which is seen with a jaundiced eye. There exists, as such, an objective alliance between Trotskyist Greens, American interests, and the Muslim states."

[pg. 54]  "Fossil fuels (petroleum, coal, and gas) emit millions of tons of carbon and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, which cause cancer (more than the mythical radiation) and diminish the ozone layer, responsible for the greenhouse effect, which raises temperatures and causes climatic disturbances. In France alone, nuclear energy avoids emitting 78,000 tons of dust, 1.1 million tons of nitrogen dioxide, 2 million tons of sulphur dioxide, and 337 million tons of carbon dioxide, the gases that are the most polluting and the most destructive to health. Thanks to her nuclear capacity, France has reduced 70 percent of the polluting gases that come from electrical production, while the other 30 percent are emitted by gas-based motors and cars, which is more than all the waste produced by her industry! Thanks to nuclear energy, France (whose electrical production is the most advanced in the world) pollutes the atmosphere less than any of her EU partners: 6.9 tons of carbon dioxide per inhabitant, against the European average of 8.15 tons and the German average of 11 tons."

[pg. 56] "What disturbs our neo-Leftist ecologists is the objective power (military and economic) and independence that nuclear power offers Europe, as well as its technological implications. There’s a distinct logic to the Left’s struggle: weaken the European devil, censure her traditions and ancestral memories, defuse her technological and military power, smother her independence, corrupt her mores, and destroy her ethnic germen through immigration. Its anti-nuclear and propetroleum stances are but part of a concerted, multifaceted strategy to destroy the identity and continuity of European civilisation. The Left’s environmental concerns and defence of public health are simply crude, oily pretexts."

Main point is to get away from Saudi influences through energy independence. Fossil fuels cause a lot of damage, asthma, cancer, etc. Nuclear is clean until is destroys an area for thousands of years. Fusion, on the other hand, would be ideal when we figure it out.

If I remember correctly, an EMP attack could shut down electric for months, but nuclear reactors only have back up for weeks. Can they shut down in time? What if they are unattended?

Who would say 'yes'? The same gov that inspected the platforms in the gulf?

[pg. 59] "Everyone talks about the ‘new economy’ that is, the economy based on multimedia telecommunications and information services provided by the Internet, which have supposedly ushered in a second Golden Age. This magical talk, with its euphoric sensibility, simply reiterates the old progressive, scientistic illusions. In fact, it’s just another neo-liberal imposture, whose modernist hegemony is presently coming to an end. For the ‘new economy’ may well culminate in disaster.

The internet and the 'new technologies' are no ‘revolution’, but a simple evolution and, undoubtedly, one of great fragility. Founded on the globalisation of trade, techno-science, and the instantaneity of informatron, the ‘new economy’ is actually more than a century old.

Online sales, for instance, are only an improvement of the older forms of mail order sales introduced around 1850, and correspond to no structural change. Similarly, not the Internet, nor multimedia cell phones, TV networks, smart cards, the general ‘informationisation‘ of society, or genetic engineering represent a fundamental structural change, but are, rather, the ‘elaboration’ of already existing things. For none of these so-called new technologies are comparable to the real upheavals, the real techno-economic metamorphoses, that occurred between 1860 and 1960 - and completely revolutionised life and society - with internal combustion engines, electricity, the telephone, the telegraph, the radio (far more revolutionary than television), the railroad, the airplane, penicillin, antibiotics, etc. The new technologies are behind us! There has been no fundamental innovation since 1960: computers have only been reconceived, and made faster and cheaper than what already existed. In contrast, the automobile, antibiotics, telecommunication, and air travel were authentic revolutions making possible things that had previously been impossible."

@Algrin "Bailey" Bagley - PA Can nuclear reactors shut down? Yeah, you need a guy sitting in the seat pushing the buttons and changing the rods.

@John O - Fukishima was a disaster. It seems that it can't be that easy. I wish nuclear power could save us. But I don't trust the gov if they say its safe.

Gotya. Yeah, it's complicated, but you have very competent people running them (usually)

I gotta get out of here. Good talk, guys

@John O - thanks for joining us man!

20% growth forever! All else be damned! .... what could go wrong?

Thank you everyone! Goodnight.

thanks for joining us, @DCViking

The short sighted people who are making quick money now will still make money in the collapse. They make money in peace and war, ... good times and bad.

Y'all have a good night!

Thanks for joining us, @Marseille

I'm out as well. Will be here next time.

Thanks for the discussion

Nice talking to you man, thanks for contributing!

The level of discussion speaks volumes of the people we have in the movement. I very much enjoyed listening to the contributors and how they applied their digestion of the material to practical matters. Thank you to those who orchestrated today's voice chat and a huge kudos to @CarletonJ for bringing the discussion points to establish a flowing structure.

Looking forward to next weekend!

Sorry I missed the general chat gents. I was at a wake this eve.

No worries, man. We'll have another next Sunday.

AESTHETICS - According to its Greek etymology, ’that which evokes a strong sensation'. Aesthetics is linked to notions of beauty, harmony, achievement of form.

Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly demonises aesthetics. It associates (rightly) the will to power with discipline, which it considers morally unacceptable, ‘fascist’ in effect. This ideology opposes aesthetics to ‘ethics’ and situates itself in ethics’ iconoclastic tradition.

With the plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, the ugly, the unachieved, the unformed, the most far-fetched nonsense, the shady and the watered down are now preferred to the aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’.

Since the mid-Twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by the dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, the power of forms, the exaltation and elevation of sensation and beauty - notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which becomes a pretext for degeneracy, wilful ugliness, and subsidised incompetence. Abstraction accordingly reigns, just as a jargonising meaninglessness and obscurity enthrals the intellectuals. The genuine aesthete, the authentic artist, is ostracised or marginalised -as if he were politically incorrect. Hence, the paradox of a society that strives to be ‘moral’ and humanistic, but ends up privileging barbarism, the inversion of values, and new forms of primitivism. We’re witnessing the simultaneous cohabitation of (1) abstruse ‘contemporary’ art subsidised by the system, (2) a cult which turns the ‘past’ into museum pieces, and (3) a commercial and consumerist subculture. Contemporary art has become the very opposite of avant-garde art. Its sad impostures haven’t budged for a century. It combines a dull academism, imposture, an absence of talent, and financial speculation. Instead of aesthetics, the system prefers pessimistic or suicidal values of representation, those that come from chaos and deformity, nonsense, pathological abstraction, regression, infantilism, scatology, a psychotic pornography: the exaltation of primitive forms (what the visionary Céline called ‘the tom-tom cult’ or what Chirac calls ‘primitive art”). Accompanying this wretchedness, this impotence of old men, there’s the vulgar, artificial boom of costume culture, which is to culture what costume jewellery is to jewellery.

The rejection of aesthetics is crucial to the dominant ideology. For aesthetics, at root, is aristocratic, opposed to massification and fake elites.

ALIEN - Within a given population, those who are culturally and biologically of non-indigenous origin.

AMERICANISM - Americanism is the ideological affirmation of the general domination exercised by the United States and its social-cultural model - which are seen as the apotheosis of modernity and Western civilisation.