Today the quality British papers have carried articles uniformly decrying the Austrian election result.  As one would expect, it’s all “far right” this and “extremist” that.  But I’ve been struck by how many readers commenting on the threads take issue with these sentiments.  Ten or fifteen years ago, any sympathy for Germanic nationalism would have been completely beyond the pale.  Eight years ago, when Haider’s Freedom Party entered government with Wolfgang Schüssel’s People’s Party, the mandarins of the EU felt bold enough to issue sanctions against Austria for voting “wrongly”.  Today that is beyond the pail.

Now, I’m no Inevitablist, and should a wave of mass revulsion of the MultiCult actually sweep Europe’s nationalists into office over the next decade, my immediate concern would be that their intellectual roots are too shallow to give the required coup de grace to liberalism and all its works (and its workers).  But it is impossible to explain to a man who has been confined for so very long that the first openings of the door aren’t the beginnings of his freedom.  He is going to will it to be anyway.

Here are some thread comments to illustrate the point that there is a crack in the door.  They are taken from the thread to a confused and rambling but PeeCee piece in the Telegraph titled “Far-Right’s showing in Austria’s election is worrying”.

To wring hands about this is just so hypocritical and, frankly, missed-the-boat journalism.

For years, the so-called Political ‘Elite(what a misnomer!)AND the MSM have combined in a cosy and sinister cartel to keep the issues of Immigration and Integration of Europe OFF the discussion list of voters ; anyone with half a brain(many of the electorate, sad to say)could see that in the event of an economic downturn, this would come back viciously to rebound, especially on the corrupt and smug political parties who can hardly be separated by a cigarette paper in their policies on BOTH of these subjects.

The vote in Austria may be tut-tutted by both media and Politicians of the centre left, but it won’t go away - neither will the increasing anger in other parts of Europe about these issues. The day of the Soft-left is coming to an end, caused in no small way by their stupid and unsustainable policies of Lending to those who cannot afford to repay loans but who can be relied on to vote for them ; Clinton began this policy by repealing the Glass-Steaghal Act in 99, and the financial melt-down currently rocking the world is a direct result of this - Doubtless, Democrat-leaning media in both the USA & UK will try to whitewash this, but the fact remains.

As times become harder and jobs scarcer, the simmering resentment over unchecked Immigration will turn and devour the Left ; the future looks increasingly frightening and it is ALL the fault of Liberal woolly thinking.

Posted by King Canute on September 30, 2008 3:25 AM

Why should it be sinister that people want an end to uncontrolled economic migration to their corner of the globe?

It seems to be a point that eludes the vast majority of politicians and the MSM.
Posted by Jabba the Cat on September 30, 2008 7:25 AM

Nationalism is a perfectly logical reaction to counter the EU liberal Lib/Lab/Con communism.

It’s coming to a place near you, but you still don’t get it!
Posted by Rocket Scientist on September 30, 2008 7:29 AM

austrians will always tell you -hitler -was a german and beethoven an austrian, from what i hear from friends in austria the would welcome the nazi party under a different name. this is because of immigration but like the elephant in the room as in u.k. no one dare mention it,i was told by friends the fear is losing their national character as a people and high taxes to pay for benefits for the immigrants.sounds familiar?.
Posted by londoner432 on September 30, 2008 8:20 AM

READ MORE...

The first national elections since the bank collapse really went critical have taken place in Austria today.  The news is: significant gains for the two nationalist parties.  Heinz-Christian Strache’s Freedom Party (FPOe) and Jorg Haider’s Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZOe), have taken 29% of the vote between them.  Of that, the Freedom Party took 18 per cent of the vote - up from 11% in 2006 despite suffering accusations of xenophobia during the election campaign.  The Alliance for the Future of Austria won 11 per cent of the vote - up from 4%.  So it’s an even split of 7 percentage points gained apiece.

The official result will only be announced on October 6th.

It is possible but, of course, unlikely that nationalist parties will be invited into government, as they were in 2000.  On the other hand, the Austrian public will not smile upon a repeat of the centrist double act of the People’s Party and the Social Democrats.  Most likely to emerge from the inevitable period of political horse-trading is a “grand coalition” of the Social Democrats, who won the largest share of the votes with 28%, the Greens and one of small parties.

Following on the Northern League’s coup of joining the governing coalition in Italy last April, achieved with only an 8% vote share, this is a heartening result.  One should always remember, though, that it has come about for negative reasons: electoral disenchantment with the governing duo and with aspects of Austria’s membership of the EU, and discontent with immigration.  This negativity is a weakness of European nationalism.  Of course, nationalists have to believe in the “certainty” that voter dissatisfaction with the Establishment parties will escalate and keep on escalating, delivering power to them as an inevitable product of the postmodern hell.  Thusfar, however, it has proved impossible for nationalists to sustain the gains they have made, and all too easy for the default mainstream to adapt à la Sarkozy.

The lesson would appear to be that a positive, communicable vision has to run alongside the standard mix of critical rhetoric and vote-buying managerial politics.

For a fleeting moment this morning I was stopped in my tracks by a single sentence from a Guardian interview given by Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve MP QC:-

“We’ve actually done something terrible to ourselves in Britain.”

But then came this intellectually flabby, depressingly predictable explanation:-

“In the name of trying to prepare people for some new multicultural society we’ve told people, particularly long-term inhabitants, ‘Well your cultural background isn’t really very important, or it’s flawed, or you shouldn’t be worrying about it’. And then we’ve been shocked that far from producing the new model citizen who easily adapts to multiculturalism, people are very resistant, very fearful and very lacking in self-confidence.”

So, the English are “long-term inhabitants” (the Third World invaders are “second- and third-generation immigrant communities”).  I’ve been called a few things in my time, but never a “long-term inhabitant”.  What kind of idiot thinks like that?  Apparently, one that, if the polls are to be believed, has a very good chance of becoming Home Secretary in the next year or so!

To compound matters, he doesn’t even appear to have noticed the culture war that was fought by the Birmingham Schooled left from the 1980s onward.  It was only preparing people for “some new multicultural society”. So that’s alright, then.

It’s enough to want to grab him by his expensive lapels and bellow, “Look, you clueless prat, what has been done to us is a crime against humanity ... an effing genocide!”

But he would only think that I lack self-confidence.  Obviously.

He says:-

“In this vacuum, both the BNP and Hizb ut-Tahrir rise. They are two very similar phenomena experiencing a form of cultural despair about themselves and their identities. And it’s terribly easy to latch on to confrontational and aggressive variants of their cultural background as being the only way to reassure themselves that they can survive.”

So the BNP is the moral equivalent of a radical Moslem organisation that, only last year, David Cameron asked Brown to hurry up and ban.  And, of course, it’s all about despair.  We are just in need of a bit of good old reassurance.  Something like: “You long-term inhabitants have absolutely nothing to complain about as your precious homeland passes slowly and irrevocable into the hands of much shorter-term inhabitants.”  No, nothing at all.  Dominic has it all worked out.  All we have to do is to be tolerant since, as everyone knows:-

“Our country has adapted because people have been tolerant, which has often required a lot of forbearance and acceptance of things they didn’t like. That is how Britain has evolved.

You see.  Government-organised race-replacement by negroes and Moslems isn’t genocide at all.  It’s evolution.

Politics is … the shaping of the future through power over the present.  That’s it, really.  But already in that simply formulation there is an inherent contradiction.  If we survive into the future, it will necessarily contain us.  But who is shaping it?  In whose interests?  And exactly what future are they shaping?

The realisation that the “we” in this are the people, our own people, and that not only is the hand on the lever of power not ours, but our allotted future is not one we would ever wish upon ourselves … that realisation is the wellspring of all nationalist dissidence in the modern age.  It’s the reason why political nationalism throughout Europe today is centred on a principled defence against mass immigration.

But obviously, the impulse itself predates all political “isms” by tens of thousands of years, predates the nation state, predates the sovereign king.  In its evolutionary essence it is as pure an affirmation of life as was ever made.

It is also an affirmation of the sacred tie between the people and the land.  But we are not talking about mere patriotism here.  Patriotic pride is fully acceptable to the enemies of Europe’s people.  There is not enough such pride in the whole world to fill the heart of one man or woman who rediscovers the love of and sense of belonging to his or her own people.  To borrow from a rather well-known if propagandistic Hollywood call to arms:-

READ MORE...

The Electoral Corruption Killer (TECK) is a publicly verifiable proxy voting system designed to stop the on-going betrayals of the public by Congress such as occurred with the 1998 expansion of H-1b visas when Congress overwhelmingly opposed the will of 82% of the public, at the behest of hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions from industry lobbies.

This is a an article I published in 2004 but it is becoming more relevant with the increasing instability of the political zeitgeist.  My recommendation in the present instance is that those interested in promoting the populace’s interests prevail upon existing candidates to adopt the campaign promise to vote according to the proxy votes of their constituents.

READ MORE...

by Dr K R Bolton

Sociobiology was the ‘new’ scientific synthesis that emerged to challenge decades of liberal and Marxist control of the social and anthological sciences with the publication of Harvard biologist E O Wilson’s The New Synthesis: Sociobiology in 1975.[1]

Sociobiology did not emerge from a vacuum. While the biological sciences that had spawned eugenics and the genetic basis of IQ for e.g.. had been largely supplanted and driven to the catacombs by the onslaught of a cabal of social anthologists with Left-wing political motivation, headed up in the USA by Franz Boas, with counterparts in the USSR headed by Lysenko, a significant number of geneticists remained to put up a rearguard action in the interests of science rather than dogma.[2]

When Sociobiology mounted its challenge to what is popularly called Political Correctness it had a number of eminent partisans apart from E O Wilson, and one of the primary and most vocal of these has remained Richard Dawkins[3]. Prior to both, Robert Ardrey popularised sociobiological concepts in books such as The Territorial Imperative and The Hunting Hypothesis.[4] The sociobiologists were met not with reasoned argument or a dialectic that engaged all sides in a debate with the desire to reach the truth regardless, but with a barrage of hate, including mobs of Leftist students trying to silence the Sociobiologists by force.[5]

While Political Correctness remains the dominant force in academe, and academics are often still forced from their positions or pilloried because of what amounts to a new heresy; the influence of Sociobiology as a general movement among scholars is such as to manifest across a variety of disciplines.

Sociobiology, as the term succinctly implies, explains human social behaviour from the viewpoint of biological imperatives, more specifically of the imperative of an organism to ensure the best chances for the survival and perpetuation of its own genes.

While Darwin is a starting point, Sociobiology states that genetic survival is one of group or social dynamics rather than hyper-individualism, or at least the imperative of the individual organism to perpetuate its genes or genes most akin to it, manifests in a social manner. Wilson called it “group survival.” Therefore, the individual’s genetic inheritance is best passed on through future generations not by means of the survival of the individual organism, but by the survival of the individual organism’s genes, which might – and often does – amount to the self-sacrifice of that organism. The survival of the individual organism is therefore not paramount, but subjected to a higher instinct. An organism will sacrifice its own life to ensure the survival of other organism’s whose genetic inheritance is most akin to it own.

READ MORE...

JWH has responded to a comment of mine here at MR which revisited the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigeneous Peoples (pdf).

My comment included a quote from the Declaration:-

Article 8

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

JWH then noted that:-

For some reason, majority groups who have evolved for long time periods in specific lands - which would seem to the honest and the rational to be the very definition of “indigenous” - are not included in this definition and are so not meant to be included in the protections that the UN document offers. Of all (currently) majoritarian groups, only Europeans of the major populations are truly endangered. So, although, for example, the Chinese have a case to argue that the UN unfairly deprives them of indigenous status, there’s no real world implications of that. For Europeans being race replaced in their ancient homelands, the issue is of the greatest real world importance imaginable.

Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that this issue not be forgotten and be followed up on. I realize I am just yelling into the wind here and that, as usual, all such urgent pronouncements will be utterly ignored (after a few possible comments of, “he’s right, but now, let’s talk about ‘council housing”).

What should be done if this issue were not ignored? One cannot expect the UN, in the current context, to seriously consider anything that would support the interests of European-derived peoples. After all, it seems like one major objective of the UN (possibly, the major objective) is the destruction of those peoples.

However, that minority of intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable stakeholders in European preservationism need to have this UN document, and the implications of it for European-derived peoples, made clear to them - and they need to be given the intellectual tools to be able to speak out and confront the globalists with demands for change with respect to definitions of “indigenous” and the rights of protection that go along with it (*).

READ MORE...

Depression is caused by concentration of wealth to the point that family formation becomes unaffordable.

Concentration of wealth is reflected in the skyrocketing credit market debt to GDP ratio.

We have been in a managed depression for decades but we are now entering an unmanaged depression:

The only way to stabilize the system is unacceptable to our rulers:

Replace taxes on economic activity and virtually all government expenditures with a citizens’ dividend funded from a use fee for the net, in-place liquidation value of property rights beyond those that an individual would successfully defend in the absence of government (home and tools/weapons) —a use-fee equal to the risk free interest rate on said in-place liquidation value.

This stops depression by stopping centralization—centralization via private sector rent-seeking and centralization via public sector rent-seeking.  The closest we are likely to come to stability is if Obama is elected and imposes a net asset tax.  But this will merely trade private sector rent-seeking for public sector rent-seeking as there is no way Obama will let working whites have any of their patrimony back without walking hat-in-hand into their local government offices and/or precinct political meetings to genuflect appropriately.  Even then it will be very grudging and selectively doled out only to the most obsequious and “non threatening” of whites—which immediately disqualifies almost all working whites who don’t have biracial children.

As I wrote in 1992, prior to either this refinement of my net asset tax proposal or to becoming aware of the nature of Jewish virulence:

When the incentives for productivity become negative due to capital welfare in excess of the economic growth rate, wealth is structurally centralized at the expense of others in the economy. The absolute level of net assets owned by the general population actually decreases so as to increase the net assets of the wealthy.  This not only removes all incentives for production and entrepreneurial investment from the economy, but consumer demand collapses as credit is liquidated to pay for necessities.  Depression ensues.  It is under these circumstances that demands for socialist intervention in the economy via “public investment” take on an air of urgent legitimacy.

In such a desperate environment, Marx’s arguments in “Das Kapital” appear as rational and appealing as any made by Schumpeter, Laffer or even Adam Smith.  It is therefore critical to understand to what extent socialist criticisms of capitalism are valid so we can credibly argue against their fallacies—particularly when they are promoted during obvious manifestations of capitalism’s flaws.

The real reason the sole route to stability is unacceptable to our rulers is explained by a simple analogy:

Such pathological concentration of wealth is to civilization as opiate addiction is to neurophysiology.  Jewish virulence is to such concentration of wealth as pushers are to opiate addiction:  Such susceptibilities will occasionally manifest in the absence of their promoters but much more often with said promotion.  However, the last time in Western Civilization that Jews arguably did not play an important role was when Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon to “correct” the tensions between Patricians and Plebeians.  Even in this instance their importance in the slave trade may have acted as their current importance in immigration—contributing decisively to wage depression hence wealth centralization.

READ MORE...