Category: White Nationalism
The diverting tale of the English Defence League has, in all probability, come to its end. Tommy Robinson (or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, or perhaps Paul Harris) and his lieutenant Kevin Carroll have resigned and taken up positions at the Moslem-led, government-approved Quilliam Foundation. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the Robinson/Carroll departures are the fruit of SO15/MI5 pressure brought to bear, most probably, from the time of Robinson’s last prison sentence. Tommy Robinson is also reported to be planning to establish a political group of some kind. QF exists to fight “extremism” of all kinds, so it is likely that we will see Tommy Robinson denouncing “Nazis” and “fascists” alongside the usual mentally-ill suspects of UAF, Hope not Hate, etc.
Nick Griffin’s reaction to the news is here.
The EDL had begun in great hope in Luton four years ago and provided some interesting spectacle along the way. At its height the membership was claimed by the leadership to number 100,000, although it was assessed by some “researchers” (ie, anti-racists) at a third of that. It very likely lost a good deal of impetus as the Jewish roots of Counter-Jihadism became better known in the wake of the Breivik event. The organisation had been waning over the year or so prior to the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, whereupon it experienced an upturn. There are some splinter organisations which will attempt to carry forward its street activism, most notably The Casuals and, in the north, The Infidels. But be under no illusion that disintegration is the highly likely result of this latest development.
Anti-Jihadism was never, in any case, an honest or intelligent response to the crisis which the English working-class is facing. It was heartening to see white men taking to the streets. But the cause was not their cause, and we still await an organisation of any kind which will effectively articulate that.
As has happened with every such event in the past, I experienced a deep disquiet when the news of the Washington Navy Yard shootings hit the wires on September 16th. Yes, a large military base close to the seat of American government seemed just as likely a target for the usual Moslem suspects as the Boston Marathon, and in the event it was a politically irrelevant black psycho. But what if it had been a white man with a private arsenal and the regulation “links to white supremacist groups”? What if some disturbed half-wit had hit out for the cause at the cost of a dozen completely innocent lives?
Obviously, the implications for WN would have been serious and harmful. Yet more moral obstacles to its appointment with history would have been piled up. Yet more scrutiny from the security state would be brought to bear. Yet more certain would be the path of dispossession and marginalisation which our people are treading.
But what if we turn the “what if” question around? What if strikes against the Establishment were systematic and serial. What if they were embedded in the context of a violent revolutionary or “urban guerilla” struggle, and did not generate the same revulsion and alienation in the popular mind, or a least a significant part of it?
In essence, what are the conditions under which extra-legal action in the people’s cause engenders enough popular moral, financial, and logistical support to maintain the prosecution of military objectives over a period of decades, if necessary?
Putting aside the problem of how such action could be organised and executed in the modern security state when nationalism is so controlled and weak, which others have addressed, I think it is interesting to look at some of the structural constraints which operate in European and North American societies.
Leon Haller has asked a question on Graham’s latest thread which perfectly expresses the plaint of the mournful right-liberal white American. He asks: why can’t we have again what we once had: political orders which secure individual rights to life, liberty and property, but recognize that the liberal order must be racially bounded?
Meanwhile, James has posed the question of America’s historical meaning - or, at least, Iowa’s. But I thought I would venture elsewhere to throw a light on Leon’s question, and raise the possibility (going on probability) of differentials in the populations of North America and Europe, both in the sense of deep, formative cultural influence and trait selection. For it seems to me that it might not be so easy to speak of America and Americans in terms of Europe and Europeans. It is akin to a question which, as a descendent of groups who, almost in their entirety, left their own soil along the north German sea coast and sailed for the east coast of Britain, I have often pondered: what does a mass migration mean for the ones who undertake and survive it, and how does such an absolute human statement colour the generations which follow? In the English and lowland Scottish case, of course, the question is unanswerable. Almost all the parent Germanic populations of the north German coast migrated as their lands became uninhabitable, and once in Britain interbred with the native British. But in the case of white America we can get closer to some sort of conclusion.
The first peopling of the New World drew the full measure of the personal and collective resources of the English Dissenters who gave themselves to it. As an act of religious nonconformism it was staggering in its commitment. As an act of the human spirit it was one of luminous beauty and courage. By my reading - a psychological reading - the heart of white American exceptionalism in the European context, usually considered to be the political goods of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, still lies there, inviolate in its purity.
Four years ago Barack Hussein Obama II was elected to the office of President of the United States of America. It was something new, and while everybody in White Nationalism saw the “hope” nonsense and the “change” nonsense for what it was, by no means every White Nationalist was unhappy about Obama’s victory. Some even voted for him.
There was, of course, another, darker, grittier hope of change, born in the belief that, inevitably, white Americans would be pushed closer to, and perhaps even beyond, what they can bear. The hand of federal government control would grow heavy. The economy would slump. The taxes would increase. The racial injustice would mount. Everything in the white American life would become worse, and not by a little but a lot. Anger, frustration and cynicism would take hold. A search for alternatives beyond the GOP, beyond the prescribed news of the media, would take hold too, and WN’s long hoped-for change in the somnolence of white America would come closer.
Well, we got the Tea Party and Arizona SB 1070, I suppose. But tomorrow the incumbent is expected by most onlookers to secure his second term. So what do WNs expect “worse-wise” from that, and how do they assess the viability of the “worse is better” scenario? Are we seeing any movement at all in the white American thrall to the mainstream? What, after all, would it look like? How long would it take to become obvious? And what, if anything, can be expected to develop in the next four years?
There cannot be many of us who do not owe a debt of gratitude to Phil Rushton, both for his theoretical brilliance, allied to an unswerving devotion in most difficult professional circumstances to the cause of unpopular scientific truths, and for his steadfast, loyal European heart. How much poorer would we all have been had Rushton not possessed these qualities ... had he merely shied away from the race question and lived an ordinary academic’s life, a quiet life, the life of an unquestioning product of his political times.
I did not discover Rushton until early in 2003. It was at that time when I had decided to contribute something to the cause of white survival. There was a particular question which troubled me, and which I saw as holding a key to changing the fortunes of white advocacy. To answer it I needed a crucible, and to get that ... to construct something people would feel worthwhile writing for and reading ... I had to generate some kind of internet presence.
Cue Race, Evolution, and Behaviour. When I came across it at Rushton’s own Darwin site, it had already been published eight years, and Rushton himself had said that he had run out of opponents to debate. I certainly hadn’t, though. I had found what I needed, and promptly devoured it in one sitting, reading in bed until the small hours. For the next fourteen or fifteen months I blasted around the political blogosphere provoking every liberal, every racial egalitarian, every race-denier, every anti-racist I could into a hopeless battle about human differences and hereditarianism (hopeless courtesy of Rushton’s superb analysis), psychometrics, and gene issues generally.
A surprising number of my opponents knew of Rushton, and had a ready put-down - second- or third-hand of course. I do not believe that a single one of them escaped the shredder. REB’s central theory of r/K and child development was just too perfect in its internal fit. Most of the liberal rif-raff, of course, didn’t know about this “controversial” (meaning courageous) Anglo-Canadian psychology professor, born on the Dorset-Hampshire border a couple of miles from my own birthplace and eight years distant in time. They would, in any case, have considered their political truths inviolable to attack by one supposed racist using the theories of another. They never had a chance. There was metaphorical blood everywhere.
Thanks to the carnage I had something to gesture towards when the moment came, in the summer of 2004, to put together a slate of writers for a website to be titled majorityrights.com. I never knew Rushton, and only corresponded with him very briefly. I wish now I had had the opportunity to explain how much I extracted from his thesis and to what purpose I had put it. He would probably have wanted to know, like most scientists, if I had correctly and faithfully represented his thought. The answer was that REB was so beautifully and clearly written, that was an easy task.
There is not another Phil Rushton in this world. White Nationalism has lost a true champion. He did not live nearly long enough - gone at just 68. But for his life and his talents and his work we equally loyal-hearted sons and daughters of old Europe can be extraordinarily grateful. I know I am.
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
David Lane’s famous formulation of the nationalist purpose is, though a very adequate imperative, not actually political. Our people should have a secure existence. Our children should have a secure future. In the sense that these are necessities of racial life they do not constitute more than a statement of the obvious and a claim on Nature, though, of course, in a European age as grotesquely internationalist and anti-Natural as ours, they are also a bit of a shock to the liberal moral sensibility.
Still, the question is left hanging: what final politics, what system of ideas, what permanent political purpose do you, dear reader, want? I mean, beyond the securing of our people’s existence and our children’s future. Are you truly political in that sense? Do you, for example, want a return to the Christian life? That would qualify as an answer of sorts. Do you want something along the lines of Bowden’s “life of glory”? Or something else entirely?
If your political ambition does not end with the fourteen words - in essence, if you are not a Western liberal albeit with normal, non-Judaised racial instincts - I’d be interested to know what life you want our people to lead in the sunlit future.
by Leon Haller
A purpose of sites like MR is, or ought to be, the sharing of practical strategies to advance white EGI. Methods of dispute resolution in a White Republic, the ‘unencumbered self’ and its relation to race-liberalism or postmodernity, the existence of God, etc, are all interesting matters. But discussing them hardly directly aids our cause.
Our primary task remains, as ever over the last half-century, mass racial awakening. Too few of our racial kinsmen are even aware that an intellectually respectable (or indeed any respectable) movement in opposition to white extinction exists and is growing. We must let them know we are out there - and each of us must do so again and again and again ...
Repetition of one’s core message is the heart of mass ideological change.
I started writing a comment on a Yahoo board earlier today (I have posted thousands of pro-white comments in mainstream places over the past dozen years), and ended up producing something longer than I had anticipated. My comment, which responded to an article on current political divisiveness, is hardly ideal (esp insofar as it was written quickly and ‘straight’, with no reflection), but re-reading it it seemed adequate for Americans to use to further the awakening process. Of course, I welcome the suggestions of others (perhaps MR could eventually have a file of repeatable comments for mass distribution depending on the article types at issue - American, UK, continental Europe, crime, general race, race science, immigration, etc). The point is for people to be ‘proselytizing’ to the very maximum extent. I don’t wish to belittle the discussions at MR or similar sites, but isn’t the ultimate purpose of those discussions to change the real world?
I am informed by Drew Fraser that Tom Sunic has interviewed him for VoR. The link to the first part of the interview is here. This should be an interesting encounter. There is some similarity in their backgrounds, but Drew is a much more legalistic and establishmentarian thinker than Tom, and a committed Christian. He gives a good interview, too.
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.
Tom Sunic interviews Soren here. Run-time 35min 28sec.
Tom gets Soren to expand, somewhat, on his adoption of the Gramscian dictum “pessimism of the intellect - optimism of the will”, on religion in our present woes, on the concept of the enemy, and on civilisational collapse. Probably the best interview Soren has given. Still some dark areas for me, but much to think about.
It was claimed that the devastation of the Third World by bankers creates plenty of would-be economic immigrants. The retort was that this is a Judeo-Marxist canard used to induce ‘white guilt’ and justify various ‘aid’ and ‘refugee’ programs. The retort added that parts of Africa in 1812 had yet to see the wheel, the implication being that Third world nations have been built or economically enhanced by the West. The retort also blames slaughters and devastation in the Third World on their natives alone.
Let’s see. Civilization shouldn’t be confused with economic security. An isolated hunter-gatherer tribe living in a jungle typically has sufficient food to eat, clothing and living structures; they are willing and able to provide for themselves. Whereas in a modern civilization such as the U.S., tens of millions are unable to provide food for themselves, in spite of being willing and able to work, and must depend on government handouts such as food stamps, and there are millions of homeless people.
The reason for the economic problems of Western nations is that malicious bankers issue and control money, which is also the case for nearly all Third World nations. So how does the Third world fare under banker control?
For a while now, this is how the international bankers have dealt with the Third World [some things apply to some Western nations also]:
Naturally, Third World nations will experience significant emigration pressures. Residents of some European nations will better understand what the Third World experiences when austerirty measures in their nations become more severe to pay the interests on loans they need from banks.
As of now, people are rioting over gas prices in Nigeria, but before one brings in the violence proneness of blacks, take a guess at what’s caused the rise and toward which purpose. One has to wonder how many other instances of rioting in Third World nations have their root cause in what the international bankers do, not in violence that would occur no matter what. These international bankers are behind numerous wars in the Western hemisphere, and they surely haven’t left the Third world in peace.
Notice that some black African nations are resource-rich but the masses live in poverty. Is this due to the corruption of their elite? They have corrupt elite, but if this were the reason, there would be lots of black billionaires [U.S. dollars] in some African nations, whereas the natural resource-related wealth is siphoned out by the international bankers, in the manner detailed above, and scraps, in comparison, are given to the corrupt elite.
People complain about me focusing on money and the community disproportionately controlling it when there are serious immigration issues to be discussed, but what’s causing the immigration issues? It takes more than merely opening Western borders to immigrants; Third Worlders need an incentive to emigrate en masse, too.
Will the masses be willing to go to a land far, far away where people speak a different language and have a very different culture if the masses have a reasonable income/sustenance where they live, and live in a relatively peaceful society? Will the masses be willing to give up the security of their existence for discordance, learning and re-learning skills in a foreign nation and the uncertainty of having a similar level of economic security there? These are important questions to reflect on. A desire to emigrate will be true of some individuals, but not the masses if there’s basic economic security [food, shelter, clothing, base medical facilities] and no warfare or civil strife.
But economic devastation provides a strong incentive for mass emigration pressure in the Third World. And thus we have the demand and supply of contemporary mass immigration into Western nations:
So is it wise to complain about immigration levels and focus on blacks, Hispanics, Muslims----like Amren, Vdare, the masses of the “alternative right” or “Third position” crowds----or is it wise to aim for the root cause, which lies in malicious bankers controlling the money supply? And is it wise to just focus on the money issue or also expose some of the other major crimes of these people, such as 9/11? They bring in all these immigrants to undermine ethnic cohesion in the West. Complaining about immigration doesn’t help and exacerbates division. But the money issue and 9/11 are of universal significance and unite the divided against the bankers. And some people complain of conspiracy and detraction from the important issues, such as immigration and multiculturalism, when 9/11 is brought up!
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
The number of whites stands at 500 million. White women on average give birth to 1.4 children each. Not all of these children are white, and the number of white children born per white woman on average is 1.2. Very pessimistic assumptions, aren’t they?
Under the following assumptions, how long will it take to reduce the white population to 50 million, 10 million, 5 million and 1 million? If the extinction point is reached at 500 white people, how many years will this take? What can be inferred from this exercise?
At start, the age distributions are as follows, the birth and death rates remain constant throughout, only women between the ages of 20-40 give birth, and men and women are matched in numbers.
Age-Range | Percent | Death rate per 100k 0-20 | 20 | 300 20-40 | 40 | 150 40-60 | 25 | 500 60-plus | 15 | 5000
Most answers in this excel sheet (if you can’t open it, install the free and open source open office or libre office suite).
Does anyone know if a concerted effort is being mounted to plant Bob’s mantra across the MSM? I happened to encounter a lot of it on this Telegraph thread about the short-lived racial segregation at Bjerke Upper Secondary School in Oslo. Then at BDF I came across this quite powerful video, which is the work of a mantra-phile.
Anyone know anything about this?
And here’s another one:
Quite a few references to “the professional” Bob Whittaker, which I found superfluous but a target audience might not, I suppose.
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
CC asked an interesting question on the elitism thread:
To some extent I answered this in the post to that thread when I listed the kinds of bodies which White Nationalism is capable of bringing forward, and which would have a direct impact on public discourse and white political awareness. But let’s play the game and select the first of these goodies out of the bag, because there is a logical sequence to them and the first ought, if it’s done right, to lead to the second. And so on.
A cool August night in black-blitzed, boarded-up Tottenham. I lay myself down to doze in my louse-infested, single room garret. A twice-used tea bag and a cracked shaving mirror await me in the morning, followed by a day up west searching for an open handbag, a jacket carelessly thrown over the shoulder. The loan shark has my benefit book. The electricity company’s piggy-bank is already empty. These are thin times for an investment banker, you see. The crack whore in the room above is hard at work. Down in the street a white paramedic is tending to the loser in another misunderstanding about “respect”. Sleep comes slowly. But it comes because no one can bear indefinite witness to this dystopia.
Morning. Light streams in, softened and made golden by the fabulous gauze of the silk curtains and sent out again by the brilliant white of the bedsheets to sparkle in the white and gold of a wall-covering also of silk, also fabulous, and several pieces of preposterous 18th century French furniture. Oh, this isn’t right. Still dreaming. I chase away the sleep. The lousiness of a low London life does not re-materialise. That moment of dizzy self-doubt. What is happening ... is this reality or something else? The bed is as big and soft-sprung as a Cadillac, and the bedroom could house half a tennis court. It might be real. It seems real. But it can’t be.
I am on my feet. They disappear deep into a sea of wool. Some fancy lettering floats in the middle of it. “WR II”, four-feet across. Tottenham is definitely not beyond the casements. I am lost. A door three yards high and framed with carvings beckons me into a dressing room. More carved wood, more French furniture ... a vast mirror. Shit, this poor London boy thinks, peering in. I’ve seen that face before. That’s Bill fucking Regnery.
These statements are drawn from two comments on the Hunter thread by the redoubtable and true-hearted lady who comments as MOB. The charge of elitism for its own sake is a serious one because it implies the relegation of the bond of blood to something worryingly like ... elitism. It cannot be over-stated that the authenticity and legitimacy of leadership in a nationalist movement rests solely on that leadership’s blood ties to the people, with all that that implies for loyalty and purpose. Having the smarts to be interested in complex analyses of White America’s political and demographic crisis is not enough.
Five hours after MOB made her second comment another redoubtable figure, Yggdrasil, turned up – for the first time ever on any MR thread as far as I am aware. CMS, he said, is not a secret organisation but a confidential one. No elitism or snobbery is implied. The confidentiality simply serves to protect those involved, or who would be asked to become involved, against persecution and loss of livelihood. Additionally, Ygg explained, confidentiality protects against (a) government agent penetration, (b) the kook tendency, and (c) the ego factor.
Well, if there is a difference between secrecy and confidentiality, I don’t know what it is. Obviously, it doesn’t protect against government snooping. Nothing does. The best policy, actually, is openness - and pseudonyms where people wish. As far as not inviting kooks and egotists to participate, fine. Just don’t invite them. No need to hide from them. The hiding makes CMS look, if not elitist, at least putatively masonic. My guess is that some of those involved also think, if only privately, that they have joined the “elite”. Why not? They have joined something, that’s clear - Ygg used the word “membership”. But membership of what, exactly? It’s confidential. And with whom? Confidential. For what purpose? Confidential.
There is something not right here. I can’t put my finger on it, but it’s there – despite the wide-eyed denials.
I am minded of the Atlanta conference in late-2008 or early 2009, I forget now. That, too, was confidential. But when non-invitees enquired as to who was there and what was discussed, the only response was a terse “nothing of substance was proposed at Atlanta”. Difficult to believe that was true. I mean, what would be the point of dozens of “elite” American nationalists convening in Atlanta to arrive at a null conclusion? That would be a huge failure. Was it a coincidence, then, when the formation of A3P was announced in January 2010? Because if not … if Atlanta wasn’t, in fact, a failure ... if a political party was discussed, even in outline with a call for further research or a decision later, when more facts are known ... if that was the case, CMS is guilty not only of “confidentiality” but of lying.
Why? Did A3P risk a still birth if a little frankness had prevailed? Are we to believe that “government agents”, “kooks” and “egotists” would have leapt upon the nascent creature and torn it limb from limb?
Well, let’s bust the game open and note now that there are, in fact, only a limited number of nascent creatures White Nationalism can generate to shift the movement from on-line activity to full spectrum political activism. These are:
a) A political party – A3P looks to be a pretty reasonable beginning.
b) A funding agency seeking long-term relationships with significant doners.
c) A national cultural organisation to reach out and connect to existing “implicitly white” cultural bodies and events.
d) A think tank generating analysis and policy solutions, tasked with informing not only the politics of the movement but the wider political and media sphere (this is not the National Policy Institute, which, sadly, resembles a standard on-line propaganda site no different to Amren).
e) An anti-defamation body – a template exists in ResistingDefamation.org.
f) A media and PR arm tasked with facilitating relations with journalists and opinion formers. Yes, difficult but necessary.
And perhaps ...
g) A networking arm drawn from all units and, possibly, significant figures without the movement, the aim of which is to measure the performance of the movement and manage it consonant with its historical objective.
That, more or less, is what the secretive folks of CMS can actually discuss. The political party excepted, they’ve only got to look at how Jewry goes about the task. The template for success is right there. They could also borrow some of that Jewish solidarity with and respect for their own people. Practise what you preach.
Some comments on an essay by Susie Green at VDARE.com.
As enquiries go, “why we fight” is a popular one. Frank Capra gave it to his propaganda films made between 1942 and 1945. Stephen Spielberg took it for the Band of Brothers episode given over to Holocaust propaganda, and Eugene Jarecki took it for his 2005 documentary on the evil conjunction of war, business and American geopolitical hegemony. More apposite to us, Guillaume Faye wrote a book with that title. And then David Lane, while he never posed that precise question, wrote a precise answer in just fourteen words.
Well, what is our cause? It is simply preservationist? Or is it distant, glorious and aspirational? Something else? Why do we struggle?
Today I started a thread with the same title at British Democracy Forum. The usual suspects rushed in with buckets of cold water to douse any expressions of real nationalist feeling. They need not have worried. The BNP leadership election, which Griffin will win, has the full and undivided attention of the forum members. There is less thinking going on than ever. It would be a pleasure to encounter a few considered opinions here.
This short essay would not have come to pass if not for one of the best Grimoire comments ever, on one hand, where he pondered over the question (very intelligently, by the way, with lots of very useful and very truthful observations; I encourage everyone to reread it while paying close attention to everything he had to say in that comment:
... and, on the other hand, if Guessedworker hadn’t agreed to publish it. These two individuals have very different personalities, each with his own character traits, type of intelligence, mentality, temperament, perhaps agenda, etc. But they have at least one thing in common, or so it seems: they both agree that Ivan is batshit crazy. So, in order to show my appreciation to both of them for their roles in the birth of this essay, I picked a title that would sound positively batshit crazy: Probability Theory and Survival of White Race.
Where is Probability Theory and where is Survival of White Race? How could a person, who is not batshit crazy, put these two topics next to each other to form a sentence? Put him in the mental institution, or better yet, show compassion - get him up against the wall to relieve him from his misery and suffering.
Let me point out from the outset: this is not a mathematical treatise; it does not assume the reader to be knowledgeable in any branch of mathematics. The only assumption is that Survival of White Race is a topic of genuine interest to the reader, one way or the other.
I was impressed by the art and simplicity of this anti-miscegenation video published on YouTube by Divine Fellowship. It was brought to the attention of BDF readers today by someone I respect.
The imagery, the writing, the voicing by Julian Lee, and the message are all beautifully-crafted. It was uploaded on May Day this year, and is the second of thirty-three parts under the title White People Are Cool, all devoted to the preservation of our people.
by Alexander Baron
This minority has no desire either to integrate or to assimmilate; from academic studies it is clear that crime amongst them is extremely low, and such 21st Century niceties as AIDS, other sexual diseases, juvenile deliquency and the range of mental afflictions most of us seem to suffer at some time – from anorexia to depression, from bulimia to schizophrenia – are all but absent from them.
Most curiously, this exclusively white minority is never accused of that most heinous of crimes – “racism” – at least not by the mainstream liberal establishment. Their insularity is not only taken for granted but accommodated, although unlike other far more prosperous minorities, they are extremely averse to taking any sort of state handout.
Oh, to be an Orthodox Jew!
White identity politics is a form of heresy, and heresy has grave consequences. Advocating White nationalism or merely defending White interests often results in a loss of social standing. Moral cowards, amoral sycophants, and racial traitors are rewarded while heroes and righteous guardians are demonized. Pretending that Whites are social constructs or have no legitimate interests to defend is accepted, even celebrated, in a society infested with anti-White multiculturalism. White racialists realize that the cornucopia of cultures is designed to exclude any White culture, and the future rainbow of races is actually a muddled mess of miscegenation. It is therefore a tremendous challenge to remain in steadfast support of the White extended genotype. The anti-White opposition is well-funded, well-organized, malicious, and persistent.
White advocacy is beset on all sides. Campaigning against White genocide attracts derision and scorn from anti-Whites. Lamenting the decline of the White population into minority status is attacked as intolerance. Merely calling attention to, let alone denouncing, the maliciously disproportionate amounts of violent interracial crime committed against White people is paradoxically described as hate. Protecting the continuity of family lineage by expecting exclusively White marriages and White procreation is seen as backwards, provincial, or outdated. Suggesting that many trends or ideas that harm White interests have been disproportionately created, organized, disseminated, or financed by Jewish interests can lead to accusations of insanity or mental instability.
This derision, scorn, and accusations of intolerance, hate, and insanity are reactions that require White nationalists to have a thick skin in order to maintain their viewpoints. It is hard to be a heretic. But the requisite resilience to carry forward is about more than insensitivity to insults or threats. It is inspired by the love of truth. White racialists know that race is real and that it has important consequences for civilization and ethnic genetic interests. White nationalists realize they are being systematically dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from their homelands. Defenders of White identity understand that there is nothing hateful or unhealthy about wanting to continue their heritage by having White babies in White societies.
The steely resolution that guides a White nationalist is a personality trait or perhaps a spiritual constitution that values eternal truth more than ephemeral social standing. A patriotic White man understands that truth can be directly opposed to popular opinion, and that such a situation is not without historical precedent. An exemplary White man is willing to act in accordance with that wisdom. A heroic White man can marshal these convictions into effective action and change the dynamics of society. The White race is in desperate need of more heroes.
White people are known to be more individualistic than other races. In a White-dominant society, free from ethnic or racial competition from non-White groups, this individualism helped propel White people beyond the established limits of science, technology, philosophy, and religion. The individualist refusal to conform to the “popular consensus”—which always opposes scientific breakthroughs or heretical ideas—is precisely why so many White historical figures persist within the collective memory as titans of Western civilization. Nobody remembers a conformist, but everybody remembers a successful catalyst of righteous revolution. The reward for success in such a struggle is immortal fame. How could it be any other way?
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