Based Book Excerpts

This looks like a promising project. He’s been at it for about a year and has translated 59 texts so far. They range in length from articles to full books. https://archive.org/details/@bookreview_archive I’m concerned that Internet Archive may take down the files now that he’s publicizing it, so I’ve mirrored his work to Telegram here: NS Literature Archive Mirror (Update: Florian is now the channel owner. I remain on as co-admin.) https://x.com/nslitarchive/status/2075301868398325924 (Update 2: Florian’s Twitter account has been suspended for now. Alternate thread here.)

Woman’s Trifling Needs by Mercy Otis Warren AN inventory clear of all she needs Lamira offers here; Nor does she fear a rigid Cato's frown When she lays by the rich embroidered gown, And modestly compounds for just enough- Perhaps, some dozens of more flighty stuff; With lawns and lustrings, blond, and Mechlin laces, Fringes and jewels, fans and tweezer-cases; memory Gay cloaks, and hats of every shape and size, Scarfs, cardinals, and ribbons of all dyes; With ruffles stamped, and aprons of tambour, Tippets and handkerchiefs, at least three score; With finest muslins that fair India boasts, And the choice herbage from Chinesan coasts; (But while the fragrant hyson leaf regales, Who'll wear the homespun produce of the vales? For if 'twould save the nation from the curse Of standing troops; or-name a plague still worse- Few can this choice, delicious draught give up, Though all Medea's poisons fill the cup.) Add feathers, furs, rich satins, and ducapes, And bead-dresses in pyramidial shapes; Sideboards of plate and porcelain profuse, With fifty dittos that the ladies use; If my poor treach'rous has missed, Ingenious T_l shall complete the list. So weak Lamira, and her wants so few, Who can refuse?-they're but the sex's due. In youth, indeed, an antiquated page Taught us the threatenings of an Hebrew sage 'Gainst wimples, mantles, curls, and crisping-pins; But rank not these among our modern sins; For when our manners are well understood, What in the scale is stomacher or hood? 'Tis true, we love the courtly mien and air, The pride of dress and all the debonair; Yet Clara quits the more dressed negligee, And substitutes the careless Polanee; Until some fair one from Britannia's court, Some jaunty dress or newer taste import; This sweet temptation could not be withstood, Though for the purchase paid her father's blood. Can the stern patriot Clara's suit deny? 'Tis Beauty asks, and Reason must comply.

An early critic of consumer culture in America was Mercy Otis Warren. A woman known as the conscience of the American Revolution. I’m currently going through her writing and came across and interesting satirical poem she wrote. The reference to Medea’s poisons underscores the perceived danger of luxury, suggesting consumption as a moral vulnerability. Interesting to reflect on how material inconvenience is often an anti-revolutionary force as people willingly accept betrayal by the political class and even genocide because fighting it might create some inconvenience in the short term. She might as well have been writing directly to the boomers who sold out the nations demographics to keep GDP up at the expense of the future of the nation.

On the other hand, where woman is stronger than he is in her feeling for the individual person, and her use of love rather than of law, neither the masculine nor the feminine gift is better, the one than the other, but the two work together as necessary parts of one whole. As Ida Tarbell puts it: "Human society may be likened [Pg 126] to two great circles, one revolving within the other. In the inner circle rules the woman. Here she breeds and trains the material for the outer circle, which exists only by and for her. That accident may throw her into this outer circle is, of course, true, but it is not her natural habitat. Nor is she fitted by Nature to live and circulate freely there. What it all amounts to is that the labor of the world is naturally divided between the two different beings that people the world. It is unfair to the woman that she be asked to do the work of the outer circle. The man can do that satisfactorily if she does her part, that is, if she prepares him the material. Certainly, he can never come into the inner circle and do her work." So, in claiming for women the right to take a part in the man's half of life, the suffragists, I think, lose sight of what the woman's half is. In urging that they must have a hand in law-making and government and public life generally, they do not see that woman's peculiar work is pretty independent of laws and of government, is rather in private life. For it is just where the law cannot reach that woman is supreme. It is just in the finer, more personal and intimate relationships of life, which government cannot include, that woman finds her work waiting for her, which she alone can do—what Octavia Hill calls "the out-of-sight, silent work." That woman is today neglecting this, her own part of the world's work, I think is everywhere apparent. Surely we do not need more laws; what we do need is [Pg 127] more of the spirit which shall make people want to obey the laws which we have. What else does it mean when we say we cannot enforce the laws? The suffragists are clamoring for more laws, for more of the man-element in society; the anti-suffragists feel that it is the inner life and character, the mother's work, which everywhere needs strengthening. Settlement workers, doctors, ministers, and police commissioners, are beginning to feel this, too. They are telling us that in their work they find that no laws and no institutions can take the place of home teaching and influence with young people. The outer restraint and penalty are little effective unless they are met by the inner desire to do right. On points like these I believe the accent should be laid today. The pendulum is swinging too far away from the things which our mothers and grandmothers made their chief concern. What is called "the rise of woman," her new feeling of influence and power, are blessings only as they help her to do better and of freer choice the things which are in tune with Nature and with the need of the world.

THE TRUE FUNCTION OF THE NORMAL WOMAN MRS. HORACE A. DAVIS Anna Hallowell Davis, wife of Horace Davis; was educated in Boston private schools and is a graduate of Radcliffe College; was a member of Local School Board No. 46, New York City, for eight years; is a member of Brookline Civic Society, the North Bennett Street Industrial School Association, and of the Massachusetts Peace Association. J. A. H.   The whole question of suffrage and anti-suffrage is significant chiefly as it affects the married woman with children and a home; for if there is any elemental fact on which to plant our feet, it is that the normal woman is a wife and mother and home-maker. But is not the contention of the suffragists fundamentally based upon the circumstances of the woman who is not leading this normal life,—who is unmarried, who has no children, or who is not making a home and bringing up her children herself? It is in planning for these exceptional women, as I think they do, that the suffragist leaders tend to ignore the truly representative women—the majority. Do we not suspect, indeed, [Pg 124] that they are turning to new ideals, because they have never tried the old? As Chesterton says: "The ideal house, the happy family, is now chiefly assailed by those who have never known it, or by those who have failed to fulfil it. Numberless modern women have rebelled against domesticity in theory, because they have never known it in practice." "But," the suffragists ask, "granting that your woman of 'normal' life is in the majority, and doesn't want the vote, oughtn't she to want it? Casting a ballot takes next to no time, and that is all she needs to do. Most men do no more than that." But men ought to do more. That is just the point. That is just why corrupt government has been fastened on our cities. The Tammany leaders do more. They give all their time to politics; but the "reform" vote cannot, except occasionally, be got to the polls in sufficient numbers; and too few of the best men will run for office. If women are simply going to aggravate these conditions, if the "normal," representative woman isn't going to vote and hold office, and the non-representative, exceptional woman is, where is the advantage to the state of adding women to the electorate? Probably, however, rather than have this happen, the representative woman would feel that she must enter the lists. In competition with "abnormal" or unscrupulous women, she would be forced to vote and to hold office. More than just going to the polls, she would have to think, read, and talk politics, as men do, or ought to do. The whole question here is: Is it better [Pg 125] for her to do this, or to do the things which men don't do? For one person can't do it all well. A good mother of three or four children already has more than she can do well. If she takes up this whole new department of life and thought, I am convinced she will have to let something else go, and already under the influence of the feminist movement, that "something else" seems to be her home. So, this is what the anti-suffragists feel most keenly—that once the franchise is imposed as a duty, they would have to do the things which men already are doing (and doing as well as the women could do them); that they would no longer be free to do what they think is the higher work for them, as women. Therefore, when a suffragist tells me she has a "right" to vote, I say that, in the name of the best interests of the community, I have the right not to vote. Another thing which the anti-suffragists feel is not recognized sufficiently by their opponents, is the essential and valuable difference between men and women in their manner of approach to any given human problem. "Law" to the antis seems a man's word. Man thinks of people in masses. He makes laws for the whole. He generalizes better than women.

A neglected but very relevant topic to nationalist politics is the study of what the smart women had to say during their fight for suffrage. Many of the good arguments we hear today have their roots in the forgotten words of those women who tried to fight and speak out against the destruction of the natural order. We will publishing some essays and writings from anti suffrage women and possibly recording them into audio. These essays make great reading for nationalist wives, girlfriends, and single women who have begun to wake up to the fact that all jewish social movements have been a detriment to the well being of the whole nation and even to those for whom they claim it is the movements purpose to benefit.

An excerpt about the first Indians Father Andrew White met on his journey to Maryland A Brief Relation of the Voyage Unto Maryland By Father Andrew White 1634 “2 Canoes, of starknaked Indians came paddling aboard us, with paruats, pumpkins, muskmellons watermellons and the like to exchange with us; they much feared at first the greatnesse of our ship, ; we put out a white flag of peace, yet they desired we would put forth our nations proper colours, which done, they perceived whence we were, and then boldly came aboard: this people is bigger then ours, and fat and tawney coloured with ointments and oils; they are a fierce nation, feeding on mans flesh wthout all knowledge of God,”

A still small voice spake unto me, ‘Thou art so full of misery, Were it not better not to be?’ Then to the still small voice I said; ‘Let me not cast in endless shade What is so wonderfully made.’ To search thro’ all I felt or saw, The springs of life, the depths of awe, And reach the law within the law: ‘At least, not rotting like a weed, But, having sown some generous seed, Fruitful of further thought and deed, ‘To pass, when Life her light withdraws, Not void of righteous self-applause, Nor in a merely selfish cause– ‘In some good cause, not in mine own, To perish, wept for, honour’d, known, And like a warrior overthrown; ‘Whose eyes are dim with glorious tears, When, soil’d with noble dust, he hears His country’s war-song thrill his ears: Excerpt from Alfred Lord Tennyson’s “Two Voices” 1842

At Jewish social welfare agencies—an important site of Jewish employment and culture—workers lost their 82,000-member,social justice oriented union when the CIO expelled communists from its ranks. The National Jewish Welfare Board instructed local community organizations not to invite Communist speakers. The purges were broadly successful at separating Jewishness from leftism: By 1960, when young Jews flocked to Students for a Democratic Society and other New Left movements, most didn’t identify as Jewish leftists at all.” The purges didn’t get rid of leftism, it merely caused jews not to self identify. In their writings we see that they still knew that they were jews and still cared about jewish identity but learned what the wealthier smarter jews already knew, that they needed to blend in to be effective. https://jewishcurrents.org/the-anti-democratic-origins-of-the-jewish-establishment

Came across a very good article written by far left jews and their infighting with AJC jews. I will post the link as well as some excerpts and commentary but my takeaway is that Jewish elites have done much work to stifle poorer and dumber jews who would be more obvious and less effective. The “more progressive jews” accuse them of diplomatic backroom deals rather than direct pressure. They accuse them of retreating into Whiteness, they do not understand that these are the most effective tactics and that without them jews would have drowned in their hubris and been crushed under the boot of Americans a long time ago. If they behaved the way radical jews are behaving today and saying what radical jews are saying today the jewish problem would have been solved in America generations ago and jewish social movements would have been strangled in their crib. “Alongside the Jewish Federations, the ADL and AJC were established by a wealthy German Jewish capitalist class intent on suppressing the political power of poor, often radicalized Eastern European immigrants. Over the next century, those leaders and their successors courted wealthy donors who reflected their own political leanings, and closed ranks around an insular directorate. In accordance with the conservatism of their leaderships, the institutions allied themselves only selectively with civil rights organizing, even as they labored to undermine more radical movements—such as Black Power and Third World anti-colonialism—and embraced an increasingly right-wing Zionist politics in Israel/Palestine. “ The most powerful jewish groups are hierarchical not democratic and they went as far to withdraw from the Jewish Congress to protect their hierarchy. “In the eyes of German Jews who had arrived decades earlier—many of whom had started out upper class or had risen there—this new ethnic, politically-dissenting Jewishness threatened the genteel white identity they enjoyed. In response, wealthy German Jewish philanthropists founded the AJC, the ADL,and the American Jewish Congress, together called the “Jewish defense organizations.” The Jewish Federations, the umbrella structure for raising and distributing funds in Jewish communities, came together at roughly the same time. These high-society founders were civic-minded men who created libraries and museums, and funded charities that undoubtedly saved immigrants’ lives. But they also set out to ensure that Jewish politics stayed the domain of “backstairs diplomacy” (a term the groups used to describe their preference for quiet intercession rather than public pressure)” They worked really hard to make backstairs diplomacy the main tactic because in America the sort of brazen communist agitation jews did in Europe would have been smashed. “When Nazis rounded up Jewish communists, the ADL denied them rather than defend them. In 1938, it issued a 30-page pamphlet declaring, “Communism never was Jewish! Communism can never be Jewish!” The ADL’s mission of anti-defamation was, from the outset, also a mission to reshape US Jewry as distinctly white and capitalist in orientation.” Since the article is written for Jewish progressives and isn’t meant to be ready by anticommunists they don’t mind debunking the claim that communism isn’t jewish and condemns the ADL for not defending jewish communism and instead lying about communism being jewish. “Finally, in the mid-1950s, the Jewish defense organizations and many other Jewish groups officially purged their ranks of leftists. (By then, the left, despite being a substantial force in US politics, had been made vulnerable by postwar changes: Eastern European Jews had begun to suburbanize and espouse a middle-class American nationalism, leftist organizations were riven by ideological division, and anti-communist fervor had surged.) In the purges, members of the Jewish People’s Fraternal Order were fired from their jobs in Jewish organizations.

“There wouldn't be very much sense in having the 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant—all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war-voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms--to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war. There is ample precedent for restricting voting.; Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.” -Smedley Butler “War is a Racket” 1934

“So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people-those who do the suffering and still pay the price-make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.” - Smedley Butler ”War is a Racket” 1934

“Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason. No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one “ -Smedley Butler “War is a Racket” 1934

“In the world war we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn’t join the army. So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill,kill,kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side…it is His will that the Germans be killed” Smedley Butler “War is a Racket” 1934

"The procedures, drills, and techniques outlined in this book are intended for official military and law enforcement use only. It is not the intent of the author, publisher, or distributors of this book to encourage readers to perform any of the techniques or drills in this book without proper professional training and supervision. Attempting to do so can result in severe injury or death to the reader or bystanders. This book is for academic study only."

"Fieldcraft is often limited to camouflage only. The Fieldcraft Book widens the aperture of ‘fieldcraft’ to encompass tips, tricks, and techniques that allow Infantry Marines to better live in the field and efficiently complete tasks"

Then the poor, deprived of their land, were no longer eager for military service and had few children, so that soon all Italy was bereft of freemen and filled with gangs of foreign slaves, through whom the rich cultivated their estates, having driven away the free citizens. Plutarch, The Life of Tiberius Gracchus

Sonnet 64 by William Shakespeare When I have seen by Time's fell hand defac'd The rich proud cost of outworn buried age; When sometime lofty towers I see down-ras'd And brass eternal slave to mortal rage; When I have seen the hungry ocean gain Advantage on the kingdom of the shore, And the firm soil win of the wat'ry main, Increasing store with loss and loss with store; When I have seen such interchange of state, Or state itself confounded to decay; Ruin hath taught me thus to ruminate, That Time will come and take my love away. This thought is as a death, which cannot choose But weep to have that which it fears to lose.

Camp of the Saints back in print and affordable. For years it was only available second-hand for upwards of $100 a copy. Worth the read: I can still visualize the stinking, horrifying flotilla. https://a.co/d/9Agcqow

Hamilton on immigration