For several days now the BBC has been lauding its White season of five programmes.  It begins tomorrow night at 9pm on BB2 with “Last Orders”, a documentary about some supposedly plain-speaking nothern lads in an ailing Bradford working men’s club.

I must say at the outset that I watch so little TV, I can scarcely raise the enthusiasm to wade through all this - though I know I probably should, if only to better understand the internet commentary which will flow from it.  But I am less interested in the programmes themselves than in trying to understand the Labour Party’s new-minted consciousness of its old client-group, the jilted “white underclass”.

For two years now, since the arrival of the well-aired Dench-Gavron book on the East End, there have been more and more expressions of urban liberal concern.  Here’s the BBC executive producer of White:-

‘The white working class feels alienated, threatened and voiceless,’ says BBC boss

The white working classes feel “politically alienated” and frightened to speak out, a senior BBC executive has claimed.

Richard Klein said poorer whites believe they are “threatened economically and stifled socially” and that they no longer have a voice.His latest comments come ahead of a season of BBC2 programmes under the banner White, which he is overseeing and which he believes can play a part in easing the anxieties of that section of the community.

He said: “You don’t hear white, working-class opinions often enough on TV.

“There’s a large group of people who feel politically alienated, threatened economically and stifled socially. They feel they haven’t got a voice.”

He said many people interviewed for the programmes felt they could not say what they really thought for fear of being criticised.

“I wanted to change that. And I think it was important for the BBC to try and have a go at it.”

And here’s a gnashing of teeth from the Guardian in 2006:-

Who has failed the white working-class?

Given the general frenzied tone of most articles covering race or faith related issues, one emerging trend seems to have escaped attention. Last week the Economist carried an article on Britain’s “forgotten underclass”, with a tagline stating: “Muslims and blacks get more attention. But poor whites are in a worse state”.

This is a bold statement to make but not without merit. The article briefly examines three issues in turn: education, unemployment and crime; citing statistics to show that while poorer ethnic minority kids are doing their best to get ahead in society, white working-class kids are languishing behind.

And just this week, also in the Guardian:-

How Britain turned its back on the white working class

What do you think of when you hear the phrase ‘white working class’? Tattoos? Dangerous dogs? Shellsuits? Scratch cards? Chips? Binge drinking? The BNP? It would be no surprise if the images conjured are negative; in the past four decades, the image of the white working class has gone from hero to less than zero.

In these tolerant days, the one underprivileged group that it’s OK to find intolerable is the white working class. In our multicultural society, they’re the unlucky ones deemed to be without a culture. Last year, for example, the editor of Eastern Eye went on television to condemn Channel 4 for allowing ‘illiterate chavs’ on to Celebrity Big Brother. Eyelids remained unbatted. Trevor Phillips was not called upon to issue a statement. The Sky News presenter to whom this comment was made simply nodded his head in silent agreement.

It’s the same story on the right of the governing party.  This from the Telegraph, again in 2006:-

Why is the white working class so roundly despised?

Our politicians are so obsessed by race that they have forgotten the importance of class. They agonise about racial segregation, while generally ignoring the exclusion of the white working class from our politics.

Lord Bruce-Lockhart, the head of the Local Government Association, this week recommended ethnic quotas for state schools, to end the division of neighbouring schools along ethnic lines. But, while ethnic divisions are certainly deep in some areas, they are nothing like as widespread – and in many respects nothing like as pernicious – as the scornful treatment by our overwhelmingly bourgeois political establishment of the white working class. While a brilliant campaign has been waged against racial prejudice, prejudice against the white working class has flourished as never before.

And this from the Daily Mail just a few days ago:-

White and working class ... the one ethnic group the BBC has ignored

Over the past two decades, Britain has been through a revolution.

The extent of the change, in both scale and speed, has probably been unique in the peacetime history of our country.

Globalisation, mass immigration and economic upheaval have helped to transform the fabric of our nation. Today, we are one of the most culturally and racially diverse places in Europe.

These changes have been the subject of noisy debate within the media, politics and academia, yet it is a curious irony that, in all the heated discussion about the consequences of this revolution, one voice has been largely absent: that of the white working class.

Politicians pontificate and academics argue, yet the voices of the British working-class public have been all but ignored.

Given that they are the people most affected by all this upheaval, this is a bizarre omission.

In case you think this is all just a Fourth Estate issue, take a look at this video, which is the first and, from our point of view, most interesting of a three-part programme on the educational failure of the white working-class.  The star of the show is Philip Beadle, a rather extraordinary teacher who has taken it upon himself to enlighten school heads and their staff about the issue.  Here he is speaking at the HQ of the National Union of Teachers (it gets interesting from 1 min 46 sec in):-

READ MORE...

A translation by Fred Scrooby of an article by Prof Robert Steuckers which places the the Serbs’ struggle against national fragmentation in its wider European historical context.

Reflections on Kosovo’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence

The question arises as to whether or not to recognize Kosovo’s independence.  To put it differently:  Can one recognize the right of a population represented by a provincial parliament to declare its independence if most of its representatives are in favor of such a step?

Two principles are involved in this inquiry:

1) The right of peoples to arrange their own affairs, the full right of identity, based on objective criteria and concrete foundations (ethnic, linguistic, historical, etc.), the right of peoples to furnish themselves with their own system of political representation within a given spatio-temporal framework, whether within the framework of a multi-ethnic state (as in the Swiss model) or within a state which envisions a more or less extensive federalism based on alternative models, such as German federalism or the country of autonomous communities that is present-day Spain.  Does this right to autonomy confer the right to independence?  As regards the European context, this question can be debated.

2) The right of European peoples to refuse any Balkanization which weakens the continent as a whole, creating in its midst conflicts which can be exploited by third-party powers foreign to the European continent (in the terminology of Carl Schmitt, “territorially-alien powers” – raumfremde Mächte). 

The first of these principles is a principle of rights; the second, of geopolitics.  Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence presents a contradiction:  because it is unilateral it pits rights against geopolitics, whereas in Europe rights and geopolitics aren’t supposed to be at odds but are supposed to form, together, an indissoluble unit.  Rights should help consolidate the territorial whole, barring the door to all efforts at disruption, and not acquiesce in actions having weakening and fragmentation as their effects.

READ MORE...

Welf Herfurth’s New Right Australia New Zealand blog is hosting it’s first offering from Troy Southgate.  His subject is the meaning of Putin’s Russia, and its function in the emergence of a new geopolitical dispensation.  Obviously, this is a weighty subject, and Troy has only danced lightly across the surface of it.  He offers no closing prediction, except to note that in the modern context expediency will restrain geopolitical ambition.  That’s true, but one might equally assert that stability is not independent of the second law of thermodoynamics, and things change all the time.

GW

RUSSIA IN 2008: THOUGHTS ON HEGELIAN GEOPOLITICS

by Troy Southgate

Despite the negative image of Russia that is currently being portrayed in the media, it seems pretty feasible that Putin - possibly since his last meeting with Bush in 2007 - was eventually persuaded, albeit covertly, to capitulate to Western demands.

That he’s a loyal friend of Russia’s capitalist ruling class is not even up for debate, even if some people in Right-wing circles do seem to respect him for ousting the Jewish oligarchs several years ago. In reality, however, Russian capitalism is no better than its Jewish-dominated counterpart and Putin’s so-called ‘successor’, Dmitry Medvedev, is little more than a puppet of the same socio-economic regime.

But when you stop to think about the vilification of Russia over the last few months, especially with the well-publicised Litvinenko affair, the systematic construction of what many people are interpreting as a ‘new Cold War’ is, in a sense, rather Hegelian. The reason being, that contradiction, of course, eventually leads to reconciliation and some commentators believe that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis formula is better expressed in the dictum: ‘problem-alternative-solution’.

Perhaps this potential return to a bi-polar world is a shift beyond Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ strategy in which there is merely one superpower (United States) fighting against an imagined or manufactured opponent (Islam)? Let’s think seriously for a moment about the relationship between the West and Russia in both a Hegelian (after Fichte) and a geopolitical context:

* thesis or intellectual proposition (Western capitalism)
* antithesis or negation of the proposition (Soviet communism)
* synthesis or reconciliation (a gradual alliance, through perestroika, between the two)
* presentation of a new antithesis (Cold War 2, Russia as the ‘new’ bogeyman)

... and so it goes on ...

Russia has not exactly presented a new antithesis in an ideological sense as Soviet Communism claimed to do, of course, and it was Hegel’s view that no new antithesis can ever arise due to the eventual disappearance of extreme ideological and philosophical positions, but this rather idealistic perspective does not seem to take into consideration the fact that convenience will often outweigh genuine revolutionary fervour. It remains to be seen where Islam will fit into all this.

Food for thought.

The following is an essay that was originally submitted to the journal American Renaissance for publication. They declined to run it; the reason given that it was too similar to other race-genetic essays published there in the past. Nevertheless, I believe the findings discussed here to be of extreme importance. Thus, I am reproducing the proposed essay here, with minor revisions to remove it from its previous “Amren” context.

JWH

Racial Genetic Similarity and Difference: A New Study

One scientific topic that I have previously discussed is the biological validity of the race concept. This, unfortunately, has become necessary, because some people, perhaps with political motivations, assert, contrary to the evidence, that “race does not exist” and that race is a “social construct” with “no biological foundation.” These views have been effectively refuted in various forums, and more objective researchers support the race concept as well, if for no other reason the important medical implications of racial differences.

One popular and misinterpreted finding that has been eagerly grasped at by those who preach that “race is not real” is derived from the work of Richard Lewontin, which demonstrated that more genetic variation exits within rather than between groups. I have previously explained how Lewontin’s finding in no way discredits the race concept. However, there are “anti-racist” activists who still claim, based on their misinterpretations of population genetics, that individual Europeans (“whites”) can be more genetically similar to sub-Saharan Africans (“blacks”) than to other Europeans. Until now, there has been no formal proof that this assertion is incorrect. I am now pleased to say that a recent scientific paper has delved into this very topic and that the findings of this paper clearly demonstrate that the race deniers are wrong. First, let me give a brief introduction for the sake of clarity.

READ MORE...

MR readers will be aware that JW has been promising for some time to start a dedicated site for his extanct body of work on EGI (the bulk of which is here), and to house his further thinking on that and related subjects.  Western Biopolitics is the result, and is now on-line.

I hope you will bookmark Western Biopolitics, and gain some new and useful knowledge from the work JW will be doing.
GW

CATON ON SALTER’S “ON GENETIC INTERESTS”

Hiram Caton reviews “On Genetic Interests”

I recently came across a generally favorable review of Frank Salter’s “On Genetic Interests” by Hiram Caton (Twin Research, 7: 306-307, 2004). I would like to examine some quotes from this review.

Caton begins the review by giving a relatively brief historical background to the development of “biopolitics” by the “Politics and Life Sciences Association” with their journal Politics and the Life Sciences. After stating the importance of Salter’s work with respect to the ostensible interests of this group, Caton notes that this journal’s “new management” eschews dealing with the controversial, including an in-depth examination of Salter’s book. Caton writes:

Thus, it transpires that the one academic journal dedicated to the promotion of biopolitical science is unlikely to take serious notice of the first offering with a credible claim to have achieved that goal.

Caton is correct. However, what does it say about the racialist nationalist “movement” – obviously not constrained by such considerations of “political correctness” – that it has heretofore, with minimal exceptions, also refrained from taking “serious notice” of Salter’s groundbreaking analysis? What does it say about European nationalist parties that they have also heretofore essentially ignored a highly significant biopolitical analysis that gets to the fundamental core of these parties’ concerns about alien immigration and demographic change?

One aim of this blog [WB - Ed] is to bring Salter’s work to the attention of those who would most profit from an understanding of it.

Later, Caton writes:

…political identity may be sustainable only on the basis of a dominant ethny. That this is indeed the case is a key premise of Salter’s biopolitics.

That is correct. And, this certainly doesn’t bode well for an America headed for a situation in which no single major ethny will constitute a majority of the population.

READ MORE...

On his New Right Forum this evening Troy Southgate announced the death from pneumonia of Alisdair Clarke, 46, blogger, traditionalist, paganist, emerging NR intellectual and, just occasionally, a commenter on MR threads.

His final post at Ayran Futurism, dated January 10th, contained these words:-

Our race, culture and vision of limitless expansion in space and time has no future under the current global materialist status quo.  Indeed, with inertia and the continuance of business-as-usual, the survival of the whole human race and other species is moot.  If one day our descendants are reaching into inter-galactic space – then it is US that they will remember, and thank for our perseverance and loyalty to a higher order.  It is US who are living at the critical junction in history, with unparalleled consequences for the Aryan race and the planet more generally.  It is within our lifetimes that the fate of the planet for possibly millions of years will be decided.

We must view our destiny clearly.  Whether we face a future amongst the stars, or final annihilation and extinction, the end of the experiment of advancing intellect and spirituality across the cosmos, is a decision for our current generation.

As a practising homosexual, Alisdair was proof, if proof were needed, that homosexuals have ethnic genetic interests.  Disavowing the posturing contrarianism of gay politics,  Alisdair demonstrated that homosexuals are not bound to be careless of the rights and the traditions of the majority.  He could write of the European New Right’s wish for “strong family life, fecundity, and marriage or relations within one’s own ethnic group”.  The “or” in that sentence might have resonated rather loudly with him, of course.  Certainly, he sought a martial place at the table for homosexuality in the “Aryan Future”, for which he was spectacularly defenestrated by the long-emerged and leading intellectual of the ENR, Jonathan Bowden, writing in Troy’s New Imperium magazine:-

READ MORE...

Over the last few days I have conducted an e-mail exchange with “Rocket”, whom readers will know for his firm universalist Christian stand.  Rocket asked to post here on the juxtaposing of ethnocentric and universalist Christian aims and values.  What we’ve ended up with is this, which parentage is very much more Rocket’s than mine.  So it is his handle which appears beneath the post.
GW

In the sociological substratum of ethnocentrism versus authentic Christian universalism there are a number of interesting ways to compare and contrast these two value systems.  One significant qualitative difference lies in the dual concepts of honor and shame, which are the tribal equivalents of redemption and retribution in Christianity.

Historically, tribes with an iron clad bloodline-identification placed a high premium on honor and shame.  Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Germania and its conflict with Pax Romana, and how the German tribes refused to be subdued.  Hence they remained free men in the sense of retaining control over their tribe’s fate.

Meantime, through the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, the Christian is embraced by divine forgiveness.  Hence he lives as a free men, even though his life-circumstances may dictate otherwise.

There can be no honor for the followers of Jesus of Nazareth because His followers do not seek honor from men, including each other.  They do seek redemption, though, and an act of altruism towards the poor and sick is redeeming.  Hard-heartedness or greed, on the other hand, will meet with retribution.  The parallel in the old Germanic world was that hard-hearted fighting was in-group altruism, and there was honor if you fought as an Ostrogoth and great shame if you did not.

READ MORE...

As readers of Majority Rights will know by now, the European Union has endorsed and plans to act in support of the illegal  and completely immoral Kosovan ‘independence’ action. With senior Western officials claiming that the butchering of the nation of Serbia is worth clashing with Russia over, the UN and NATO sending reinforcements to the new ‘border’, and many EU member states joining the US in ‘recognising’ Kosovo as a nation state, it would seem that the whole Western world stands unified in support of the legal atrocity. Or, rather, much of its government. The populace of the West, those within it who know the score on Kosovo, Serbia, and the Albanian demographic invasion, are not happy with this, and I hope many readers will join me in cheering on the Serbians who refuse to tolerate and actively demonstrate against this evil.

While the saga unfolds, it is worth taking a moment to look at the reasons behind the actions of Western governments in all of this. The strangely un-named Western official mentioned above is reported by the Telegraph as saying that “Europe has stood up and been counted” in backing Kosovan “independence”, and as far as that goes he’s absolutely right. When diplomats like that talk about “Europe”, the last thing on their minds is the real Europe of historical and cultural and ethnic history. What they mean is the EU (sometimes jokingly and more accurately described as the EUSSR) and, certainly, that has been counted, measured and found wanting time and again.

READ MORE...