Category: Andrew Hamilton

Admission of Plagiarism

Surprise, surprise.
Emphasis added:
Proofreader
Posted August 2, 2014 at 12:07 am | Permalink
I’m quite sure that the first three paragraphs are from William L. Pierce’s essay, “Why National Vanguard Books?,” which was in the old National Vanguard Books catalogue. Perhaps this should be made more clear.

 

Reply
Andrew Hamilton
Posted August 2, 2014 at 1:26 am | Permalink
Proofreader,

You are correct…[excuses commence]

Advertisements

Invading Their Own Country

Hood essay.
I would like to congratulate Gregory Hood for this fine essay, which sums up the truth about WWII and the “greatest generation.”  It also puts the spotlight on the execrable scum Churchill, who has to rank among history’s biggest fools.  Imagine that: sacrificing your nation’s empire, shedding your people’s best blood, so that in coming decades quoting your own words will be grounds for arrest in your own nation.  Good going there, Winnie.
More Hood and less Hamilton, please.

Franklin and Hemphill

No excuse for plagiarism.

A certain plagiarist discussed at this blog recommends the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.  No doubt one reason is Franklin’s defense of the plagiarism of the preacher Hemphill, discussed here.

The question is whether it is better to have an excellent plagiarized speech or essay, or mediocre originality.  Franklin (and, presumably, Hamilton) sides with the former view.  But this is a false choice.  If a person, like Hemphill or Hamilton, recognizes their lack of originality, and wants to use the work of others, fine, but why can’t they cite these others? The issue is not with a lack of originality – not everyone can be original.  The issue is a lack of character.  Yes, if you must, use others’ work, but have the decency and integrity to cite that fact. Thus, for example, I’ve based much of my own ideas on the work of Salter and Yockey, but I’ve always cited them and given credit where credit is due.  I’ve been one of the leading defenders and extenders of Salter’s work, but have always made clear that EGI is Salter’s idea, not mine. Further, even when I’ve added original permutations to the EGI concept, such as the importance of genetic structure, I’ve also frequently mentioned that others – such as James Bowery and Ben Tillman – also independently came up with similar ideas at around the same time.

That’s why Franklin was wrong.  Hemphill could have used the sermons of others to his heart’s content, but he could have avoided the completely justified criticism of his character by admitting that the work was from those others.  

The “movement” has a character problem.  This issue is one manifestation of that problem. Defective characters should be eschewed from the “movement.”  Of course, I realize that would result in the loss of, say, 99% of “movement activists,” but quality is more important that quantity, no?

One more thing.  The plagiarist makes a point of addressing his reading suggestion to people who comment anonymously on the Internet”  – note that the inclusion of “anonymously” seems to imply something negative in contrast to those who, like, say, Taylor or Duke or MacDonald, etc., comment openly.  The comment indirectly and slyly leaves the impression to the reader that the author of that comment is himself not an anonymous or pseudononymous commentator. Of course, he can’t directly come out and say that, since it’s not true, as we can see from the TOQ website (emphasis added):


Andrew Hamilton is the pen name of a widely-published author on the science and politics of race.


Yet another anonymous/pseudononymous Internet commentator.  Here is some more recommended reading for Internet commentators.


Those who have heretofore hosted the writing of this plagiarist need to carefully consider whether they want to be associated with these ethical lapses and this obvious lack of integrity.


More Plagiarism

The Aryan ideal?
An individual bereft of character writes:

Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South West Africa (Namibia), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Siberia (Russia-in-Asia) should all be fully reclaimed by, and reserved exclusively for, whites as part of a Greater Europe or White Imperium, with the exception of set-asides for native inhabitants such as Amerindians in North America and Aborigines in Australia.

That’s great.  You know, if I wrote something like that I would, out of decency, mention that Norman Lowell has been proposing a virtually identical White Imperium for years and, of course, then there’s Yockey.
But that’s me.  Others apparently take a different view of questions of decency.

By the Way….

A suggestion.
While I believe ideas are more important than personalities, it’s also true that the moral and ethical thing to do – the Aryan ideal! – is to give credit to the originator of ideas, and to those who first broach a subject later copied by others.
Thus, folks writing about “racial dominance” and using terms like “virulent” to refer to the behavior of certain groups need to cite the prior work of James Bowery on those topics.  Bowery had been writing about racial genetic dominance and Jewish virulence long before current plagiarists (the same who refer to the “Pareto Principle” and discuss racially charged Cheerios commercials without acknowledging my prior writing on those subjects at the Occidental Observer) submitted their own rambling interpretation on racial dominance.
Didn’t Martin Luther King plagiarize?  Is that something a White Man would do?

Of Pragmatism and Principles

This post is specifically addressed to Greg Johnson and all the participants in the blog Counter Currents.  Rather than fill up the comments thread there with an enormous post, I will collect my thoughts here, and then link to this post over there.  They can then discuss/debate it, as they see fit, at that venue.
The topic of this post is the issue of Andrew Hamilton’s sly ad hominem insinuation that we all must, at his command, debate the “who is White?” question, or else be considered akin to Jewish censors, “aping” the behavior of inferiors. The suggestion is that free speech is an important characteristic of Whites; therefore, specific obsessions must be the focus of constant discussion, all in the name of free speech and its place in the White character.
I will address this in two ways.
First, we can ask: are we a debating society or are we political soldiers fighting a battle to achieve particular goals?  If we are a debating society, then, yes, free speech is paramount, and, we have an obligation to discuss and debate whatever issue is put before us.  Here, the discussion itself is the end, it is the objective.  
Very well.
But, if we are political soldiers, then any approach, including free speech/debate, needs to be judged with respect to achieving our aims.  At times, discussion and debate are useful.  At other times, it is not.  When fighting a war, does one constantly question the friend/enemy disjunction?  It would seem that this should be done before the hostilities commence.  When one is in the foxhole with what one believes are comrades-in-arms, one hopes that they are “shooting” with you, not at you.
In warfare, there definitely is a time for discussion and debate of the friend/enemy axis.  That time is before the war begins. Once it begins, and the objective is to fight for a particular objective, then the discussion/debate should be, at that point, how best to achieve that objective.  If you are constantly going to be questioning the parameters of inclusion of your own forces in the middle of the battle, the probability of victory is nil.  Of course, certainly, issues come up.  A Benedict Arnold may be discovered as a traitor.  Things happen.  But that’s somewhat different than the Continental Congress suddenly debating in 1777 whether or not New York or Massachusetts should or should not be included in the endeavor.  A bit late perhaps? A bit late after New Yorkers and New Englanders have already fought in the battle (see the discussion on honor/integrity, below)?
Of course, we have concern trolls who insist we need to discuss these issues, endlessly (and the discussions will be endless if the end result of the debate is not to their liking), because if we don’t, our opponents will. That is a ludicrous argument. Of course opponents will bring up issues designed to cause fissures in any dissident movement (think of the implications of that for a moment). The fact is – ANY group, ANY ideology, and ANY set of principles can ALWAYS be questioned by opponents at ANY time.  What does this mean?  It means that we should DEFEND the group and its principles – and if the definition of the group was carefully considered from the outset (a minimum requirement for any sound group and its leadership), then there is a definition based on principles that can and should be defended.  And you defend the group by actually defending it, not by publicly attacking it, and not by joining the opponents in a fervent effort to deconstruct the group you allegedly belong to.
If Counter Currents is a debating society, then everything and anything should be open to debate (not just those issues that obsess particular individuals).  We can debate whether or not the White race should be preserved, and whether or not Counter Currents should exist or not. Why not?  Question everything!  On the other hand, if Counter Currents is a community of individuals, based on certain criteria, aiming to achieve specific goals, then we can ask why members of that community are required to constantly defend their inclusion in that community when that inclusion is continuously questioned by other members of that same community?  Something is not quite right there.
Second, is the matter of principle.  I can imagine some people stating that principle trumps pragmatism, and that certain aspects of the White character are inviolate and cannot be compromised in the pursuit of victory.  Very well.  Are there White principles of importance other than free speech?  I believe there are, and will discuss two of these.
We can start with the principle of integrity/loyalty: honoring the social contract.  A group is formed following a set of criteria.  Individuals join the group based on those criteria (and here I mean those who join in good faith and not the traitors and trolls), and they then contribute to the group’s collective goods, helping to build up that community’s social capital.
At that point, it is dishonorable in the extreme for the group criteria to be changed mid-stream, to exclude members after the fact, after the expenditure of effort and the construction of the group social capital.  That is disloyalty to members of the group so targeted. If we value principle, and assert a primacy of principle over pragmatism, then the character flaw of disloyalty is unforgivable, and any leader or group that exhibits such a grave defect of character can never be trusted.  These are things essential to the White character: loyalty, honor, the bond of the social contract, integrity and trustworthiness, and the interconnected rights and obligations between a community and its members.  It is unWhite, unAryan, and aping the behavior of inferior groups, to cavalierly break the social contract once it is established. 
Then there is the principle of freedom of association.  While members of a community have the right to question the community’s direction, the community has rights as well.  Fundamental to community rights is the minimum of defining who or what the community is and what it represents, and that members of the community, also at minimum, respect the basic foundational basis for the community’s existence.  Those who cannot in good conscience agree to that definition of community should have the right to go elsewhere, to join another community or found one of their own. They should do so before complicating the issue of their contributions to the group social capital.  It’s essential therefore for the group to explicitly define itself from the outset (a recurring theme of this post), and for group members to understand this definition, before joining the group and investing in it.  If one has a change of heart afterwards, then that person can voluntarily relinquish their connection to the group, forfeit their social capital, and start elsewhere.  That should be their free choice; as discussed above it is dishonorable (and destructive to pragmatic group cohesion) for the community to redefine itself mid-stream.  However, it is reasonable for individuals or subgroups in the community to decide to invoke freedom of association if they so choose. 
Freedom of association cuts both ways – the fact that someone is dissatisfied with a group they freely chose to join does not give them the right to break the social contract the group has with its other members.  The onus is on the dissatisfied individual to make their free choice.  This is what Jim Bowery terms “sortocracy,” and while I have disagreed with Bowery on a number of things over the years, I do agree with him on the importance of freedom of association, on the importance of groups being able to define themselves as they see fit, and for those who disagree to vote with their feet and move elsewhere.  I myself have done so.  When it has become clear that I was not welcome at certain blogs, websites, or print journals, I left and took my business elsewhere.  However, I do note that in each case, it was an example of the community dishonorably altering its definition mid-stream, and therefore, I was not obligated to move; i.e., it was not fully “free choice.”  Nevertheless, I did so, and allowed the communities to (dishonorably) follow their new direction.  Therefore, those who, in contrast, decide for themselves that a consistently run community is not to their taste have a more pressing obligation to invoke freedom of association – in their case, a pure free choice decision.

These are all issues relevant to the case at hand.