Kai Murros on the BANA video

Posted by Desmond jones on February 24, 2009, 04:19 PM | #

If the fundamental message is about love why then should it be degenerated into a display of
fetishes?

Obviously it’s not about love, it’s about deviance. The ‘rights’ acquired by this community were not ‘given’ by the majority but coerced by the state. The use of the state as a ‘protective’ shield is the fulmination of a strategy of a particular group to further their EGI. Remember, all discrimination is indivisible. These are simply shock troops working on the front line. It’s origin is at least as old as Hirschfeld, who promoted homosexual normality within the framework of ‘racism’, an attempt to demonise Nordic particularism.

Posted by Thunder on February 24, 2009, 09:16 PM | #

To understand the deeply atavistic nature of the european revolution is the key to victory—- and needless to say, the kids will love it. Thanks Kai, very inspirational.  I reread that last paragraph several times.  Those thoughts bounce around my head daily, and more frequently when around my young nephews and nieces as I see them pairing off and forming families.

I want nothing more for us than that which is naturally ours for the taking.

Posted by Joe on February 24, 2009, 10:20 PM | #

I want nothing more for us than that which is naturally ours for the taking.

Kai, I ask you to reconsider the following quote from the perspective of our foes:

In my book the second revolution, however, is when the revolutionary movement finally delegates its powers to local level. This is because history has proven again and again that power corrupts. This is hardest of all revolutions – to give up the power once you have done your task – just like the Roman Cincinnatus, who gave up his dictatorial powers and returned to his farm after having saved Rome.

Posted by Thunder on February 25, 2009, 01:46 AM | #

Joe, I want nothing more for us than that which is naturally ours for the taking. was me not Kai.

What is the book you refer to?

Posted by Valerian on February 25, 2009, 02:02 AM | #

Finns are not very good anarchists: our whole political tradition has always been oriented toward a strong state: A national/welfare state. Lutheranism and especially the Hegelian philosophy have shaped our minds deeply. I think that finns would like the idea of restoring the authority of the national welfare state after the ravages of capitalism. I am aware that this unique Finnish tradition (or maybe Scandinavian) cannot be applied to the rest of the white world. The National Revolution will be conducted according to the specific needs and traditions of each white nation.

What he described in this paragraph is one of the reasons why I turned to the New Right and subsequently changed my whole intellectual direction. Being an ex-Libertarian leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I look back on how I thought about the world at a younger age; I came to realize how naive it was to postulate man to be foremost an “economic actor”. I would like to see Libertarians go to some remote part of Brazil and try to tell the natives about their theoretical axioms; the natives will be bewildered at Libertarian ideas. Why would that be if man has a basic universal nature? Because man has no absolute universal nature! The character of an individual and the group that they are formed out of are a result of thousands of years of particular traditions that formed the minds of those peoples. Trade and a city-state merchant culture were the traditions that occupied Venice and Genoa. Political uniformity and despotism are the rule of Chinese culture throughout the ages. All of these instances point to the weaknesses posited in any universalist dogma.

There was a time that I would have scoffed at a person like Kai for saying that, now I’m just enlightened and more humble with my own inclinations and understandings. It’s people like him, Alain De Benoist, Tomislav Sunic and the other posters on here that helped me to understand myself and the world around me. It makes me more excited to see how far I go with my own world-view and how much I can influence others as others have influenced me. Cheers!

Posted by Jupiter on February 25, 2009, 04:45 PM | #

Opposing the Legalization of homosexual marriage,keeping homosexauls out of the boyscouts and the military is a weird obsession? Tell me why? I think it is quite normal. Western Eruropean White Nationalist are obviously degenerates. Fuck Western Europe. Cast our lot with the socially conservative, russians,Poles and Serbians.

Posted by a Finn on February 26, 2009, 03:24 AM | #

Murros: “In my book the second revolution, however, is when the revolutionary movement finally delegates its powers to local level. This is because history has proven again and again that power corrupts. This is hardest of all revolutions – to give up the power once you have done your task – just like the Roman Cincinnatus, who gave up his dictatorial powers and returned to his farm after having saved Rome.”

- Marx also waved giving up communist power in front of his followers faces. In the final (utopian) stage there would be no domination (everybody is equal and the state and other domination structures have dissolved), no assigned work (everybody can do what they like) and no regular timetables (everybody can choose between free time or doing interesting work, automated machines produce most of the necessary things in life). Not surprisingly it never happened in any of the communist countries and it would have never happened in case they would have continued their existence.

Utopian ideologies always create utopian final stages that can’t be attained (“ideal”). This means that it’s followers always have more things to do, more energy and time to be spend to get “closer” to the “ideal”. This ensures that it’s followers always will fall short compared to the “ideal” and thus it is meant to ensure ideology’s everlasting existence and influence. Those who rule can use the ideology forever as a tool and as an explanation and legitimization of their power.

The question never is about giving up power, but how the power is arranged in the first place.

Posted by mordred on February 26, 2009, 01:08 PM | #

I always advocate people taking their life into their own hands

you can either take your life into your own hands or you can take power - you can not do both because they are mutually contradictory.

if you wish to take your life into your own hands you must automatically reject that others can take your life into their hands.

if you want to make taking ones life into ones own hands a general principle you must automatically reject taking others lives into your hands.

Power is sexy

What is sexy about putting your boot in someone’s face?

after the ravages of capitalism

“capitalism” in Finland, the U.S. or anywhere else in the West is like the U.S. constitutioin: something which is honored mostly in the breach.

since the late 19th - early 20th centuries capitalism in any of the Western states has been state capitalism - national socialism -

do you think a national central bank is part of capitalism? wrong!
agricultural subsidies? wrong!
restriction of foreign trade through regulations and tariffs? no!
“free trade agreeements”? wrong!
licensing of nurses and medicos? no!
regulation of banks and financial instituions? no!
regulation of manufacturers? no!
state-provided police? no!
restrictions on hours and wages? wrong!
price controls? wrong!
state control of the em spectrum? no!
regulation of medicines and medical prodecures and drugs? all wrong!

all these are state capitalism - that is, national socialism.

that is what has ravaged us!

capitalism is nothing but the catallactic aspect of the absence of force in society.

our whole political tradition has always been oriented toward a strong state: A national/welfare state

a national/welfare state
1) makes people political - they seek to use force - the state- to get what they want,
2) makes people lazy and stupid - they think the state will provide for them, so why should they seek to provide for themselves?
3) makes people vicious, greedy and corrupt - everybody’s property is up for grabs - since it all belongs to the state - so why not get yours?
4) makes people superstitious - they no longer need to think, work or cooperate to survive and prosper, instead they pray to their deity the state to deliver the goods,
5) tears apart social bonds - the state is the provider and protector - other social forms weaken and disappear because none of them can compete.

how can it not be crystal clear that a primary cause of the demoralization of the northern proples in all the Western states - as evidenced by their unwillingness to resist their ongoing destruction - is the national welfare state which all Western states have?

people have state-enforced “social insurance” - which means that their family- and kin-ties are broken down.

people send their children to state-conducted “schools” in which the childrens’ character is rotted and their intellect is damaged.

people give up their weapons with the result that the only ones left with weapons are under state control.

if there is a problem - poverty, sickness, natural disaster, crime - people no longer seek social, voluntary ways to solve it, they run to the state and expect to be taken care of.

when the state - as now in all the West - becomes dominated by parties who work for the destruction of the native people, the latter have no defense - nay, even worse - they have no understanding of the problem.

and Murros wants to continue this scenario?

This is hardest of all revolutions – to give up the power once you have done your task

it is not just hard, it is nearly impossible.

but there is an even harder problem - how do you get the ruled to give up the desire to be ruled?

all power is agreement - you has power only if others agree to take your orders.

but people willing to take orders have thereby already given up control over themselves - they have shown that they would rather be taken care of than take care of themselves.

thus the institution of power becomes more or less permanent.

Posted by mordred on February 26, 2009, 01:22 PM | #

“you has power”: a gross error! my apologies.

Posted by Søren Renner on February 26, 2009, 01:57 PM | #

http://fhwang.net/img/hitler_cat.jpg

I can haz power?

Posted by Armor on February 26, 2009, 03:02 PM | #

What is sexy about putting your boot in someone’s face? (—Mordred)

It is not about putting your boot in someone’s face. The idea is to muster the energy to get things done and to change things.

you can either take your life into your own hands or you can take power - you can not do both because they are mutually contradictory.

If there is a huge gap between government and people, people should try collectively to take power back.

since the late 19th - early 20th centuries capitalism in any of the Western states has been state capitalism

Private capitalism is not dead, even if it is combined with state capitalism. Society can still be hurt by decisions that are based on private short-term narrow economic interests. Governments are supposed to put restrictions on capitalism, but they do not always do their job. For example, when political parties accept contributions from firms like Goldman-Sachs, I think they are expected to return the favor later (is that an example of “state capitalism” ?). Western governments are no longer accountable because public opinion and civil conscience have been replaced by media propaganda. Seeing how the media owners have been supporting our race-remplacement, I don’t expect them to protect our collective interests against private investors.

- give up the power once you have done your task
- it is not just hard, it is nearly impossible.

I don’t know if the Whites will finally react or be wiped out, but how can we survive if we do not take power and expel third-world immigrants?

Posted by a Finn on February 28, 2009, 05:58 AM | #

Mordred, you make intelligent points, but I would meagerly digress from your view.

“Tears apart social bonds - the state is the provider and protector - other social forms weaken and disappear because none of them can compete.”

- The same goes for uncontrolled capitalism. E.g. securities, which are bought and sold in a moment, and their owner does not know or care about the people, whose livelihood depends on the securitized companies, doesn’t generate bonds and loyalty to own people. Globalized capitalism does the same with money that communism does with words; monopolize power. Money is another name for power, i.e. with money you can dominate/ control people’s actions. The “freedom” that is claimed to be in capitalism or communism is merely an intrigue illusion.

“Capitalism is nothing but the catallactic aspect of the absence of force in society.”

- If capitalism is not a force, why our politicians fall to their knees when global companies growl barely audibly. If capitalism is not a force, why global companies’ cosmopolitan egalitarian commercial propaganda is rottening our peoples.

Distributism has promising aspects in it.

Posted by a Finn on February 28, 2009, 06:08 AM | #

Armor: “but how can we survive if we do not take power…”

- Armor, power exists in many surprising forms. Power can be moulded to fit different tasks.

Posted by a Finn on February 28, 2009, 06:18 AM | #

I wrote: Power can be moulded to fit different tasks.

I add; that does not refer to any specific task, just that it is malleable.

Posted by Bay Area National Anarchist on March 02, 2009, 09:32 PM | #

Kai Murros,

Thanks for taking the time to write this response.  As I’m sure you are aware the spectacles we have to contend with in San Francisco is often the least beneficial for the integrity of our people.  As we have stated on the BANA blog our protest was not against homosexuality but the reckless admission of children into such an event.  The media, politicians, and the government are completely silent that goes on in these events and we are obligated to speak for on the behalf of our Tribe which is opposed to such actions.

Philosophically there is nothing wrong with sexuality but lifestyles that do not foster a safe and organic cycle of our people should be discouraged by a healthy society, not encouraged. 

Recently I gave a talk describing the personal power of an individual like a finger on a persons hand, as a tribe united in common person the solitary finger can be transformed into a fist of power to make change in the world.  I want our people to be the fist for good in the world and the current despots in the halls of power are the enemy of the cultural values our people live.  This talk is entitled “National Anarchism and Tribalism” will be on our youtube channel in the near future. 

Anarchism for us means a group of people who decide to take an action without mandate from government or capitalism- but as comrades.  This is something all humans no how to do inherently but in some cases may need to “relearn.” 

If your countrymen can learn from our example (or from others) on how to take the initiative for themselves, the revolution we hope to achieve will be a success through a campaign of actions whose increase in frequency and velocity will reach such frenzy that no government, no law, and no party shall ever vanquish.  By the gods, make it happen!

Yours in Victory,
Andrew Yeoman