Category: European Nationalism
Something is stirring in France, and its name is Génération Identitaire:
From the moment the bereaved families challenged the psychological diagnosis of Anders Breivik as a paranoid schizophrenic with active psychosis, there was never really any doubt that he would be found criminally accountable (ie, sane in our parlance) for his deeds in Oslo and on the island of Utøya on 22nd July 2011.
The court’s order to re-assess Breivik, with the result that he was diagnosed as suffering “only” from narcissistic anti-social personality disorder, satisfied the Establishment, the families, the Norwegian public, and Breivik himself. The latter’s greatest fear was to be committed to a mental institution and have his actions put down to psychosis and his stated causes and goals written off as the logic of a madman.
But the court’s declaration of Breivik’s sanity put an end to that and re-focussed proceedings on his politics, and that, of course, does a grave disservice to the cause of the Norwegian life. The judge herself said, “Breivik’s views are not a sign of madness but consistent with extreme political views,” as if the natural, normal, healthy, moral desire that Norway’s people must not be colonised and replaced by racial aliens is “extreme”.
It seems likely, however, that, far from making a shock wave that will loose an avalanche of “nationalist” violence, Breivik will simply disappear into his secure prison cell, and be lost to view. The memory of his sad, stubborn little salutes and his blushes at the mention of “Knights Templar” and “justiciar knights” will occasion only contempt and loathing, and Norway will move on. That is certainly what Norwegians hope, nationalists among them.
Meanwhile, membership of the Labour Party youth wing, which was the organiser of the Utøya summer camp attacked by Breivik, increased during the last year from 9,600 to 14,000.
Most of that increase was likely driven by the Rose Marches that followed the attacks, and the feeling of national unity that was generated by them. But that has ebbed away and the realities of division and discontent that were there before 22nd July 2011 are exposed once again. Norway’s population increased by 1.3% in 2011, one of the highest rates in Europe. Net immigration accounted for 71% of growth, but this figure is deceptive because Norway’s oil-rich economy has sucked in as many European-descended professionals and skilled workers as it has racial aliens. The proportion of the population that is racially alien is very likely not less than 7.5%. Grønland, east of the Akerselva river which runs through Oslo, is already as good as lost.
Politically, Norway has the small-c conservative Progress Party, to which Breivik belonged before his radicalisation. It is sceptical about multiculturalism but not opposed to immigration. It is a dog in the nationalist manger, like all such respectably culturist and assimilationist mainstream parties. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks even a party with such a weak-tea platform suffered a loss of membership. But it has clawed it back since, and appears to be advancing further.
An authentic Norwegian nationalism is impossible to advance, of course, crushed as it is between the Progress Party and Breivik’s murderousness.
As for the rest of us, well, nationalism found some respite from association with Breivik in his original diagnosis, as well as in the scarcely nationalist Christian Zionist anti-jihadism he espoused. As someone who spends a fair amount of time on newspaper threads arguing the case for the European life, I encountered few references to the Utøya massacre beyond the immediate aftermath. Now the court has tied Breivik to the motives of every nationalist, there will likely be a longer tail to the damage he has done.
But that, too, will pass. The horror of Breivik is receding, and just as Norwegians cannot hide from the realities of the world their politicians are creating, neither can any of us. Nationalists remain the only political actors with a true heart and a true analysis.
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
by Karl LaForce
Laundry, Intimidation, and Divine Retribution. Wednesday 28 March 2012
My extensive travelling experience has taught me that when it comes to hotel laundry service there are only two types of hotels; those that let you do your laundry yourself, and those which charge too much for laundry service. Our hotel was the latter. As my travelling partner and I are both working-class people, we stuffed our clothes into a laundry bag, got the address of a few laundry mats off the Internet, and took off in search of clean clothes.
Our car had a GPS with an English-accent female voice (“whom” we had taken to calling Penny). Penny led us to a packed street market with no car traffic and many vendors selling vegetables, fish, small grocery items and flowers. We parked our car at the closest spot we could find, about 500 meters from our destination. As we walked through the crowded street market, our education continued.
Here we found an immigrant stronghold. Immigrant-run tables were two to one for every Greek-run table. The press of the crowd led us to cross the street, walking on the sidewalk or the street as required. My travelling partner had often come to this market as a child. Walking on the pavement, we squeezed between a small refrigerated truck and what looked like an Indian run barber shop, my travelling partner had no more breathed the thought “how did these people get here”, when one explanation, at least, presented itself.
I’m not entirely sure what to make of Marine Le Pen’s healthy third place in today’s first round of the French presidential election. It was good enough for the Telegraph website to run the main page headline One in five vote for Marine Le Pen. The exact percentage was a little less, in fact:
Hollande: 9,172,959 votes (28.4%)
... but it is clear that the economic difficulties that France faces within the Euro - weak growth, vast debts, and unemployment at over 10% - chiefly benefited the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande. Marine had a clear anti-EU, anti-globalist policy. But it was not what the majority of voters wanted to hear. They are still willing to give the usual suspects the benefit of a no-doubt growing doubt. And this despite the racial disaster that nobody now can dismiss with an insouciant, Gallic shrug.
The “worse is better” school of nationalist optimism is being tested to destruction in France, as in the southern Eurozone, and while Marine’s vote was better than some predicted, it does demonstrate that national crises alone are insufficient to impel nationalist parties very far electorally. Not even the redoubtable Marine, a class act by any political standard, could break the mould with one blow (not that she ever said she would, of course).
There is always a “where next” in electoral politics. FN activists will likely split their support more or less evenly in the second round vote between Hollande and Sarkozy. Not that there is any love for the socialist, but there is a powerful desire to smash Sarkozy’s UMP. Expect Hollande to triumph, and Sarkozy’s failure to present an inviting opportunity for a re-alignment of right-of-centre politics in France.
Beyond the presidential election FN will look for a spring-board effect from Marine’s six million votes in the legislative elections to be held on 10th and 17th June. They are probably more important to the FN’s prospects of real, sustainable growth than the presidential election is.
by Karl LaForce
25th March 2012, Greek Independence Day.
The activities for day having been canceled, we met George at our hotel and walked to the base of the Acropolis for coffees and conversation. The neighborhood between the hotel and the Acropolis is noticeably rundown. George told us, “In this neighborhood there are only immigrants, homosexuals, and junkies”. No sooner was that said and two hand-holding homosexuals exited the door of a building directly in front of us and turn toward the Acropolis, like some unholy and cursed prophecy had just come true right before our eyes.
The name of that area of Athens is called Thesion, and was formerly an upscale area of the city, before the government’s refusal to protect the borders of Greece and Europe from the flood of “human refuse of the Third World kind”.
We came to a street that is blocked with concrete barriers at each end. George said, “This is a synagogue and an Israeli consulate. No Greek institution in Athens is allowed to block a street like this, only Jews are permitted to do it.”
“It will make a good public restroom after GD takes control of parliament”, I replied.
As we walked, the number of non-white faces (we encountered) was disturbingly high. Afghans, Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Turks, Arabs, Gypsies and more, all the Third World seemed to have washed up here. The favoured immigrant status was the “asylum seeker”. But it would be far more appropriate to call them invaders. As far as we could see, they were involved in all manner of low-grade economic activity, including begging and selling second hand-clothing, some of which was quite probably acquired from home invasions and street robberies. They were standing around arguing, shouting, and generally degrading the area by their presence.
by Karl LaForce
My intrepid traveling companion and I touched down at Eleftherios Venizelos airport in Athens on the day before the Independence Day holiday, which is March 25th of every year. It was a bright warm day, typical of the entire week we were there, but change is in the air, like a cleansing storm on the horizon that will bring a new day.
At this location GD occupies two floors of a mixed residential and commercial building. It is one of many around the country. Some of GD’s Women’s Front members, about six in all, were busily cleaning the offices in anticipation of the weekly Saturday meeting. I later learned that some of the women cleaning had college degrees and were employed in professional positions, and that they demanded that the GD Women’s Front be responsible for the work of cleaning the offices.
The 2nd floor has a type of coffee bar/hang-out lounge, so we got ourselves two iced Greek style frappes and sat down to speak in greater detail with George. He told us of the protests in January 2012 in Athens in which as many as 20,000 Athenians had marched in opposition to the government monetary and immigration policy. He told us that Greece currently consisted of 10 million Greeks and 3 million immigrants. He told us of poverty levels that had not been seen since WWII. Yet, as he spoke, I detected an underlining optimism. He felt that the enemies of Greece and Hellenism had pushed too far, and that Greece was on the verge of an epic change.
“The public is ready to embrace nationalism by electing GD parliament candidates”, he told us. GD will have 118 candidates on the ballot in May. “The immigrants, the crime, the Euro, the never-ending austerity measures, the inability of the current government to protect the treasures of Greek antiquities either from immigrant vandals [referring to the February 2012 looting of the museum treasures in ancient Olympia] or from German banks ... all have played a part”.
As the time for the regular Saturday meeting neared, the number of people swelled to over a hundred. The energy was palpable, even over-flowing. Because of very real safety threats the security was heavy; in 2010 the GD Athens offices were bombed and, in a separate incident, there was also an attack against the Chairman at his home.
We met an organization lawyer, the official spokesman, and several of the brothers who were running for parliament. The chairman arrived about an hour before the meeting, preceded by bodyguards. One of them announced his arrival with a command that everyone stand. Nikolaos G. Michaloliakos entered the room to a volley of Roman salutes; it was a thrilling moment! Though he had never met my traveling companion or me, he walked straight up to us and offered us a warm welcome. He said that after he had attended some pressing business we would be invited into his office for an informal chat. After a few minutes, as promised, his bodyguards came for us. I offered to leave my large folding pocket knife with them, but they allowed me to carry it in. They understood that I had not come to harm their chairman, and they understood that their chairman was well protected by several big guys stationed inside the office.
After the few minutes in the Chairman’s office the regular meeting was ready to start. The party official spokesman gave a quick talk, and introduced the other speakers. One of the speakers was a historian, dressed in 1821 period military garb. He gave a speech on one of the fiercest battles during the war for independence from the Ottoman Empire.
At the end of the meeting a GD party official announced that contrary to previous plans, GD would not participate in any Independence Day parades the following day, due to the expectation of excessive police misconduct toward members. The government had brought about 5000 riot policemen from around the country to guard the politicians, and there were even sharp shooters positioned on top of government buildings, for fear of insurrection. This was somewhat of a disappointment for my traveling companion and I, as we had chosen our travel dates to coincide with the now canceled parade, however we were confident that the GD leadership had good reason to cancel the parade.
After the meeting there was a gathering at a local bar owned by a GD member. We were impressed by the closeness and camaraderie. We saw tables at the bar where young love was at bloom, and we saw tables where young lions were plotting their next victories. We would have stayed longer, but the travel weariness and jet lag dictated otherwise. For a first day in a country new to me, the number and quality of new experiences had been overwhelming! The good fortune of meeting Nationalist brothers and sisters, combined with being in the presence of the most impressive of all the ancient monuments built by our race - the majestic Acropolis – and to be walking the streets that had been walked by so many great men, had all made for something of a life changing experience. It was one that would be deepened and expanded in the following days.
by Graham Lister
Nationalism has a rancid stench. It has been thought pivotal to some of the worse horrors of recent human history, yet it will not go away. If, as a character from Joyce’s Ulysses suggests, “History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake” then one of the most persistent phantoms haunting our nightly terrors is nationalism, particularly in the conditions of our freshly constructed ‘global’ village, built primarily through the medium of neoliberalism (the most successful ideology in history).
In the UK thinkers as wildly different as the ‘deep-blue’ conservative Roger Scruton and the Marxian theorist of nationalism (and Scottish nationalist) Tom Nairn both write with perceptive insights into the phenomena of nations and nationalism. Like any other ism, nationalism has its own internal spectrum. And due to its overall plasticity nationalism is hard to place within any conventional political axiality. It can take almost any political form and find support from anywhere in the ideological firmament – witness the radical-chic associated with various decolonization struggles – or indeed the burbling of the blessed Saint Michel (of Foucault) over the exciting new ‘political spirituality’ unleashed by the Iranian revolutionaries. However, some forms of nationalism are generally considered to have been radio-actively toxic.
Approximately eighty years ago, events occurred, which were obscure at the time, from whose dire consequences the world has not yet totally recovered. The location was Munich, capital of the historic Kingdom of Bavaria and second city of the recently formed all-German Reich. The time was five years after the end of World War I, when this new would-be imperial state had been defeated, and then both punished harshly and utterly humbled by the victors. What was to become the most extreme currency inflation in history had begun. By that autumn the Reichsbank would be issuing 100-trillion-mark notes; it took a pocketful of them to buy a US dollar.
Robert Steuckers circulated me today with his Euro-Synergies URL to a short interview for Alternative Right with Gianluca Iannone of the Italian culturist organisation CasaPound. The interviewer is the Tokyo-based Colin Liddell. The two longest and most interesting answers given by Iannone are repeated here.
Founded in 2003, CasaPound is doing successfully what some in British nationalism consider to be essential at this time of nationalist disintegration. Iannone explains:
Obviously, Casapound Italia is a formula specific to the current evolution of race-loyal, anti-liberal politics in Italy. It demonstrates, however, that in principle there are viable alternatives to party politics. For his part, Iannone evidently regards politics as a wrong turn.
All that said, there is a caveat. At best, Culturism is utilitarian. It is not a revolutionary programme but a smoothing of the way for serious anti-liberal, anti-globalist activism. It necessarily operates within the existing terms of public discourse. It has no spine of its own. It has to reach out. It has to look and sound like its constituency. Therefore, those who make their contribution through it must guard assiduously against accommodationism and the resultant loss of racial focus.
In a massively propagandised macro-environment like ours, Culturism only makes sense if there is a separate but complementary effort to redefine - and racialise - the terms of debate. Then it has something to feed off, something to propagandise in return.
Previously it was shown that intelligence was of practically no relevance to explaining spectacular Jewish success (control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.). An alternative proposed was ethnocentrism. This can be examined, too.
The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), at the University of Chicago, has conducted an annual General Social Survey (GSS) of a random, representative sample of Americans from 1972 onward.
In 1996 and 2004, it asked respondents to answer how close they felt to their racial or ethnic group [variable coded as ETHCLOSE]. The 4 possible responses were: very close, close, not very close, not close at all. Assigning these responses values of 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively, Ron Guhname provided the following averages:
Table 1. ETHCLOSE values
ETHCLOSE captures the core of ethnocentrism and will have to do in the absence of better data on representative samples. Jews, on average, are more ethnocentric than whites. Now let’s look at the proportions among whites, by year:
Table 2. ETHCLOSE answers for
In the data, Jews are coded as white. Assume that all Jews who say they’re not very close to Jews are lying, in reality very close to their group. This gives a population having a size of about 3.3% of the white population that is very close to its ethnic/racial group, whereas at least 30% of whites are very close to their ethnic/racial grouping. In other words, the number of ethnocentric whites considerably exceeds the number of ethnocentric Jews. We’re dealing with some crudeness, but in spite of making some assumptions that favor those who explain spectacular Jewish success in terms of ethnocentrism, we have to conclude that this couldn’t possibly be an explanation.
A recent proposal has argued that nationalists should try to seek reproduction with higher IQ whites so that:
“They will naturally rise to the highest levels of society and victory will be inevitable. This is how the white race will be saved.”
The prospects can be empirically evaluated. Richard Lynn has extensively summarized IQ studies on Jews. Most studies are non-representative. A representative American study reported a Jewish (Ashkenazi) verbal IQ of 107.5. Two representative British studies have reported Jewish (Ashkenazi) IQs as 108.5 and 107.7 (verbal = 107.3, non-verbal = 108.0). The best reading of American and British Ashkenazi IQ is 110. The average white IQ in these regions is 100.
In the U.S., there are about 200 million whites and 6.5 million Jews. Assuming a standard deviation of 15 in both populations, we get the following.
As anyone can see, Jews haven’t achieved their spectacular success (e.g., control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.) as a result of IQ; they achieved it by acquiring control of the money supply. Nationalists are advised to target getting back control of the money supply instead of trying to increase IQ. I’m not against increasing IQ, but IQ just isn’t relevant to the matter.
Posted by R-news on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM in Anthropology, European Nationalism, Global Elitism, IQ and Heredity, Jewish Diaspora, That Question Again, White Nationalism
9-11 is 10 years past. Liars and useful idiots still insist that 19 Arabs belonging to a terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, did it, which has to be one of the most absurd conspiracies ever mass marketed to the public.
For MANY YEARS now we’ve had tons of evidence, including names and pictures, pointing to the Jews who planned, orchestrated, assisted with, benefited from, blocked a scientific investigation of and covered up their involvement in 9/11.
When the Muslim conspiracy started to unravel, Jews created a 9/11 truth movement, promoting, in the alternative media, the inside job conspiracy.
But 9/11 is clearly an outside job or an outside conspiracy, and I’ve just posted a review of the evidence to observe the tenth anniversary of 9/11.
This evidence can be found all over the internet and there’s nothing original in my compilation. All credits go to the original researchers.
I’d say the increasing chorus for a renewed investigation is misplaced as the chorus should be about hanging the Jews involved and dispatching them to Hell forthwith, but the useful idiots promoting the 19 Arabs conspiracy take the cake... now please get a clue.
My intent in reviewing the 9/11 evidence isn’t merely to reproduce it at MR, but to use it to address the treatment of 9/11 in nationalist circles. Here I’ll focus on the treatment of 911 on the occasion of its tenth anniversary.
Teasers aside, here’s my review of 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, and more. I’m not posting it below because I intend to revise it.
NO OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS, please, and stick to the facts and fact-based inference.
Posted by J Richards on Monday, September 5, 2011 at 08:18 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Islam & Islamification, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Political analysis, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
The Marine effect was in evidence in the first round of voting in France’s 2011 local elections, in which some 2,000 seats are being contested. Historically, Front National, has performed poorly at this level and currently has no councillors. But around 400 Front National candidates will go forward to the second-round run-offs, following a 15% vote share in the first.
Marine does not offer herself as the explanation for this success. Speaking to the Guardian she says that there is an intimacy in her relationship with the French public, who recognise her as separate and distinct from “the self-proclaimed elite running France today”.
I like this line, not least because it has truth to it. I would like it more if she developed globalisation and its elite interests as the source of the only true racism and intolerance in the West today, which is the racism against and intolerance of Europe’s native peoples. But like the other broadly right-wing success stories around Europe, she seems focussed in this respect solely on the need to avoid the usual hard questions. She insists that neither she nor her party is racist, xenophobic or, of course, anti-Semitic. None of the Semites believe her. As an appeal for votes in a polity where the discourse on racism and anti-Semitism is so profoundly hostile to nationalism this might be necessary. But as a policy of a nationalist party in government it would lead absolutely nowhere. Nonetheless, it seems to be the way forward for now for the right-wing in all the European polities where Moslem demographic dominance is a genuine threat - which it’s not in Britain, in my view.
Le Parisien described it as a “thunderclap”.
“The beginning of the awakening of the French,” Marine called it. “The French desire a different policy. They want to be given a real choice for the second round: the choice between a national and a global project that can be represented either by Nicolas Sarkozy or Dominique Strauss-Kahn or by Martine Aubry,” she said.
As expected, Sarkozy has been toying with the little tough guy act over the last week or so, in response to the revolutions in Tunisia and Libya. But now he knows that the French public might see not him but Marine and FN as the answer to any new large-scale North African migrations into France. She certainly has star quality. Here she is a week ago at the implicitly white Le Salon International de l’Agriculture. The visit was described by Le Parisien as “opération séduction.”
Does that look like a class political act to you? It certainly does to me.
This, the opening speech of Geert Wilders to the Dutch court trying him right now, is three days old now. But it is interesting:
Of course, the Dutch problem with immigration of Moslems is on a different scale to our experience in England, and the focus upon it is bound to be greater. But it is difficult to see from Wilders’ plaints against Islam then against the Dutch and EU elites whether he knows who he is really fighting in that courtroom. What is the point of attacking Islam except as part of the attack on the elites? Rather strange.
Thanks to Bill for the link.
The vote for the presidency of Front National was run yesterday, and the news is that Marine Le Pen has won with two-thirds of the vote. The party is convening this weekend in Tours to place her father’s mantle on her shoulders. A new chapter in the increasingly urgent struggle for a free and nationally-conscious France is beginning.
Marine’s election does two things. Most obviously, it is a generational change. It arrests the party’s post-2002 decline under her father, moving it on from the divisiveness of the French past, from all allusions to Vichy and Algiers, and from the sniping at the outrageous official genuflection before Jewry and the Holocaust narrative. Marine’s unsuccessful opponent, Bruno Gollnisch, represented all that. Marine is much more presentable and, as a lawyer and a working mother, a woman of modern-day France. She will never find herself asked in the Cour de cassation whether she agreed:
... and have to reply, like Gollnisch, “Absolutely.”
More importantly, perhaps, Marine’s election aligns FN with the anti-Islamicisation strategy which has born electoral fruit elsewhere in Europe. That, and not merely a desire to modernise, has dictated a break with the pro-Catholic policies of her father on women’s right, particularly with regard to divorce and abortion, and a new tolerance towards homosexuality.
In turn, this new moderation opens up the possibility of a role in a governing coalition with Sarkozy’s UMP, which is looking increasingly likely:
In response, the Elysée and the UMP are seeking to engineer an anti-FN task-force for the 2012 election. But, tellingly, it is to be comprised not of rightists, as per the little tough guy’s aggressive strategy of drawing-off FN support in 2007, but of centrists. He can’t pull that trick twice. Attack has given way to defence.
The great unknown with Marine’s strategy, of course, is whether nationalism as a revolutionary politics can weather such proximity to, and even participation in, power without losing itself. It was noisily claimed by the Austrian centre-right that bringing Jorg Haider’s Freedom Party into government between 2000 and 2005 was the fastest way to destroy it. Having lacked the bargaining power from the outset to obtain worthwhile concessions, the party duly split between populist and nationalist factions. Both the resultant parties did quite well in the 2008 election, but it’s not a particularly encouraging example for FN.
But Marine has had time to position herself and the party, and may emerge from the 2012 election with a big enough bargaining chip to keep the party united and engaged. At the very least it would be a fine thing to force the little Hungarian Jew into coalition with the hate object he thought he had destroyed by deception in 2007.
Geert Wilders, having emerged fresh from his triumphs at last month’s Dutch general election, in which the people appear to have succeeded in replacing this mainstream politician:
... with this one:
... so, er yes, Geert is going global:
It is interesting that he chose Britain, USA and Canada to launch Brand Wilders. None of them suffer from the same concentrations of Moslem immigration as his continental European neighbours. But what can he say in Flanders, Denmark or Sweden that he can’t in France or Germany?
He is an attention-seeker. But he is obviously very good at it. He creates waves and I suppose he might be a nett positive for the nationalist movement on that basis alone. What do you think? (Apart from the fact that he doesn’t look like the other two gentlemen.)
From the Telegraph:
The N-VA vote will have more than doubled since the 2007 election. Vlaams Belang, on the other hand, won 11.99% of the Flemish vote in 2007, a performance which dipped to 9.87% in the 2009 European Parliament election. I cannot find their figure for today’s poll, but it must have been hit by the N-VA’s success. If so, that would be clear evidence that where an electorate like the Flemish (or the Scots or the Welsh) defines itself through grievances against an ancient neighbour the racial issues which exercise ethno-nationalism cannot come to the fore. That would beg the perennial question, of course, whether those issues can ever come to the fore.
Perhaps the best that ethno-nationalists in Flanders can hope for is that civicism will deliver separation and facilitate a redefining of the national conversation. Out of that an opportunity to raise the larger questions may arise.
In any event, tonight the Belgian marriage looks more certain to end in divorce than ever.
The Telegraph reports on the outcome of yesterday’s Dutch general election:
Wilder’s party has been a beneficiary of the Dutch committment to proportionality (for the delivery of which the list system is employed). We are about to see whether the resultant coalition-driven politics are kind or unkind to Wilders. That there is any possibility of kindness at all is testimony to Wilders’ ability to avoid at least some of the wages of dissidence. But there is a challenge to conventional nationalism contained in that. Wilder’s Judeophilia, whether it is sincere or simply a stratagem, has worked to his advantage thusfar. The same can be said for his Islamophobia, which shifts the focus to cultural rather than racial preservation. It’s about “the Judeo-Christian heritage” and “Western civilisation”. The focus has shifted from a revolutionary nationalism that sees the challenging of the system in toto, and the deliverance of European Man into his own hands, as the ultimate political good to a civicism that is customised to an electorally proportional representative system and that sees electoral progress as the ultimate good.
Whether anything of actual value can be achieved by this means we may now learn.
Today, Tom Sunic circulated the following article about a conference that took place on Tuesday in Zagreb. The article appeared at Javno.com, which describes itself as a multi-media news portal. The day on-line news media in the English-speaking world print material like this the revolution will have been won, and the former media-owners will be kicking their heels in a condo in Eilat.
The conference nods toward the same neo-Gramscian path that de Benoist’s GRECE promulgated during its vigorous, early phase. It is taken for granted by all three speakers that the problem of intellectual radicalism on the European revolutionary right remains one of numbers rather than talent, and organisation rather than output. That’s not at all how it is in the Anglo-American world, though.
“POLITICAL HEGEMONY OR CULTURAL HEGEMONY?”
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 7pm, in the packed hall of the Center of Cultural Information (KIC), Zagreb, Croatia, a conference was held with the title “Cultural Hegemony or Political Hegemony.”?
The three speakers were a writer and publisher Zlatko Hasanbegovic, a writer and expert on geopolitics Jure Vujic, and Dr. Tomislav Sunic, author of the book “The European New Right” (Europska Nova Desnica), which has recently been published in the Croatian translation by the publishing house Hasanbegovic. The three speakers presented a synopsis of the phenomenon known as “cultural hegemony,” which originated and was developed by the former Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci.
You can get Norman’s book here.
One day last month I drove up to a Heathrow hotel to take Tom Sunic off the hands of two gentlemen from the National Front, the cinderella nationalists of British politics. The previous day Tom had delivered a speech to the NF Party Conference in Bradford (you can find it here), and these gentlemen had driven Tom and another speaker all the way down from the Islamic Republic.
After the pair had taken their leave of us Tom made sure that I knew what good, solid people he had been among in Bradford. I’ve not paid much attention to the NF for quite some time. So I made a mental note to check out their website and see what they are up to.
My eye was caught by a statement written by veteran nationalist and poet Eddy Morrison. It is titled The eight principles of White Nationalism – the foundation stones of NF ideology. I wondered what you would make of it, and how you might compare it with the culturalist vision that Lee Barnes brought to MR a few days back.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa