“We must turn the country around to face its citizens. The scale of the repair will be so great that Poland will become a new republic.”

Any president of a populous European nation who can utter these words, at once loyal and revolutionary, is a rare and valuable bird likely to be much loved by his people.  Such, we now know, was Lech Aleksander Kaczy?ski who died in an air accident at a fog-bound Smolensk-North airport today, aged sixty.

With him died all ninety-five aboard the Polish Air Force Tupolev Tu-154, including Kaczy?ski’s wife Maria and many members of the Polish ruling elite.

The mainstream media coverage of this tragedy will keep rolling for days, no doubt.  Kaczy?ski’s career will be closely analysed, his successes and failures picked over, his patriotism and social conservatism described perhaps more charitably in some quarters than ever they were while he was alive.  But where here, besides the simple, respectful marking of yet another sadness in Poland’s national life, is the legitimate angle for a nationalist to explore?

It seems to me that Kaczy?ski represents something we should understand well, and that is how liberal democracy limits the action of any patriotic national figure outside of, and hostile to, the neo-Marxist/neoliberal dispensation.  Kaczy?ski enjoyed little freedom of action.  During his presidency he was unable to avoid putting his presidential signature to the Lisbon Treaty.  He saw his Law and Justice (PiS) party ejected from office by Donald Tusk’s neoliberal and europhile Civic Platform.  Earlier he was, as mayor of Warsaw, even dragged before the European Court of Human Rights for refusing homosexuals an opportunity to parade - no doubt, as grotesquely and offensively as possible - through the capital in the name of a non-existent equality.

He had come to the presidential office promising:

the purging of various pathologies from our life, most prominently including crime (...), particularly criminal corruption – that entire, great rush to obtain unjust enrichment, a rush that is poisoning society, [and preventing the state from ensuring] elementary social security, health security, basic conditions for the development of the family [and] the security of commerce and the basic conditions for economic development

How much of this he achieved I leave it to someone more informed about Polish politics to say.  But the definite sense I have is that he was continually frustrated by the democratic process, which is to say, by the ubiquity and resilience of liberal presumptions and by the power of the liberal dynamic - things that must have seemed so desirable to Poles in 1989.  All conservative political careers end in failure.  Lech Kaczy?ski’s ended in the shocking and sudden violence of a national tragedy too.

by The Narrator

Everyone I know is fuming over the “unconstitutional” health-care bill that was “un-democratically” shoved down our throats. I have to keep explaining to such people that compared to legislation passed in the 1960’s Obamacare is a minor triviality.

It’s amazing (yet sadly not unexpected) that so many seem to gloss over the rather draconian and spirit-crushing bits of legislation commonly refereed to as “civil rights”. Many seem to prefer to ignore or forget that among the “civil rights” accomplishments have been: legalizing abortion, promoting homosexuality, exalting feminism, attacking and attempting to destroy the family, de-constructing communities, rewriting history, and other equally civilization-crushing acts.

And these were done under the notion of “equality”. And to bring about “equality” our society had to destroy, in theory and in fact, freedom of association.

Since the “civil rights” legislation went into effect, Americans have been told (under threat of government force) who they must live among, who they can do business with, who they can vacation with, who their children must attend school with, and in what company they can congregate. All done to criminalize discrimination. Yet the most fundamental freedom that can be had (either collectively or individually) is the right to discriminate. Take away that right and freedom is instantly dead.

And the critical aspect of this is that prejudices and the discriminations they encourage are generally based on collective historical experience. They are an expression of a society’s hard fought for wisdom, enduring and solidifying down through countless ages of toil and struggle. They are not mere attitudes, but rather moral and social guidelines that define and defend a people.

READ MORE...

Or a British nationalist, anyway.  Well, perhaps you are.  But you can now test the thesis courtesy of the Daily Telegraph.  As part of its coverage of the General Election the paper has installed an online engine called Vote Match - presumably a development from dating software.  Anyway, there’s nothing to interest lonelyhearts in the match of voter attitudes to party positions which it calculates.

I tried Vote Match twice this morning so I could get a reading for all six parties (it only allows three at a time) and obtained the following result:

77% British National Party
62% UK Independence Party
26% Conservative Party
23% Green Party
18% Labour Party
12% Liberal Party

The degree of match, as indicated by the percentages, seems a little high for UKIP and Greens, and I am not sure quite why the Labour Party stands above the Liberals - I am equally disinterested in them both.  But in other respects it seems very fair - not least in that, unlike the voter poll in The Sun for example, it actually included the BNP in the exercise.  It’s a given that the party’s policies are far more popular than the party itself - something quite a few innocents will doubtless discover when they hit the last button.

The questions about health, education, pensions and so forth are probably too domestic for non-Brits.  But let’s see some results for MR readers who will be voting in the Westminster election next month.

From the BBC News online:

Eugene Terreblanche killed in South Africa

South African white supremacist leader Eugene Terreblanche has been killed on his farm in the country’s north-west.

Mr Terreblanche, 69, was beaten to death after a dispute over unpaid wages, local media reports said. Two people are said to have been arrested.

Mr Terreblanche, who campaigned for a separate white homeland, came to prominence in the early 1980s.

He became the champion of a tiny minority determined to stop the process that was bringing apartheid to an end.

“Mr Terreblanche’s body was found on the bed with facial and head injuries,” AFP news agency quoted a police spokesman as saying.

The report said he had been killed after a payment dispute with two workers, who have since been charged with his murder.

“He was hacked to death while he was taking a nap,” a family friend in the town of Ventersdorp was quoted as telling Reuters news agency.

The murder comes amid growing anxiety about crime in South Africa and what opposition politicians say are irresponsible and racially inflammatory sentiments from a minority of the ruling ANC party, says the BBC’s Karen Allen in Johannesburg.

By way of a tribute to an indomitable fighter for his people, here is a short extract from an interview he gave one year ago:

READ MORE...

Everyone knows the history of the US is obscenely distorted by racist spin on the contributions of disadvantaged minorities such as George Washington Carver.  But no one, till now, has revealed the truth behind the real founders of Silicon Valley and why all those Spoiled American Boomer Engineers who are flying their planes into IRS buildings and the like have only themselves to blame for the great need for more immigration to save the US economy. 

Read on for the revised history of Silicon Valley…

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

On March 29, 2010, Channel 4 TV screened a so-called debate between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Shadow Chancellor, and Vincent Cable of the Liberal Democrats.

Although it would be true to say that at times they all made intelligent comments, observations and suggestions, especially Vince Cable, it is also true to say, sadly, that none of them really knew what they were talking about, so it was not a case of them failing to grasp the nettle, they simply had no idea there was anything to grasp.

All three acknowledged that Britain is up to its ears in debt.

On March 25, the “Daily Telegraph” reported that next year the interest on the National Debt will be £73.8 billion. That is just the interest. Where does the Government get the money to pay this interest? From tax revenues, basically, and, we are now told, from cuts in public services. To whom does the Government pay this interest? To the banks. And where do the banks get the money which they lend to the Government? They create it out of nothing, that’s where!

Up until recently this strange fact was denied by mainstream politicians, or even unknown to them, and you would have found no discussion of it outside of specialist economics textbooks or the more popular – and at times whacky – conspiracy literature.

Let’s forget about the conspiriologists for the moment, and let’s forget about economics textbooks.

READ MORE...

by DanielJ

I was reading Alex Kurtagic’s latest over at the Occidental Observer (Are Leftists Clever?) and came across this:

[A]nother anti-racist activist, writing in 2007, shows this is a stock phrase [the phrase “a vast majority” when it is used as a bludgeon against those opposed to public opinion on any given subject]:

“There should be a two-pronged attack on the fascists: dealing with their lies on the ground, and dealing with the social problems that lead to resentment and move people to vote for the BNP in a protest vote. We know the vast majority of people in this country abhor the racist, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic ideas of the party.”

I was struck suddenly by the strangeness of the term “protest vote.” Does anybody else find sinister and Orwellian the idea that a vote for the interests of one’s own people is assigned to “protest”? Isn’t all voting a form of assent or dissent? Well OK, voting intentions always have been substantially manufactured. We generally vote the way we are supposed to.  Now, it seems that when we don’t, we merely demonstrate our unorthodoxy, and reveal our impenitence to our smiling - or not-so-smiling - khaki-clad, latte-drinking, platitude-spouting, conformity-enforcing, wannabe Torquemadas of the modern age.

Kurtagic’s anti-fa believes not just that there should be an attack carried out by the overwhelming or vast majority on “the fascists”, but that there could be such an attack. These “fascists”, who are already marginalized by virtue of their political eccentricity, could realistically be attacked by the numerical majority!  After all, manufactured political violence is only a notch or two up on manufactured voting intentions, and we all know they’re real enough.

So that phrase “a vast majority” concerns me, as it concernes Kurtagic. It should rightfully concern any person espousing a minority viewpoint. Generally, when a small band of people assembles for the express purpose of attacking others or engaging in criminal activity we attach to the group a label: gang, bandits, syndicate, mafia, etc. However, in circumstances where the gang is comprised of an overwhelming majority of the populace, we attach to the conspirators the very dignified sounding appellation, the public, and their crimes are sanctioned, their opinions received as wisdom, and the blood they shed and tread on redeems.  Where’s the crime there?

Historically, the multitude has proven itself to be the greatest and most harsh tyrant of all. It exercises near total control in its wildly arbitrary and indiscriminately vast decrees that encompass nearly every human activity, subjecting even the minutia of the lives of the people to its dominion, ever expanding its empire by the pressure of peerage, it rules us through a network of informants from whom we can never secure even the smallest sanctuary or modicum of peace.

Who watches the watcher’s watchers?

The public can be a petty and capricious bitch of a custodian. Woe to the man who casts his vote against the multitude! Who, after all, would protest the people save a lunatic?

Like many, I’m sure, I was much taken with Hervé Ryssen’s piece titled The psychopathology of Judaism, translated by John de Nugent and published this month at the reinvigorated TOQ.  It contained the clearest identification I have ever seen of what it is to be Jewish with the dissolution of the world’s distinct peoples.  But it also contained some killer quotes, one of which was this, from Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv, writing in Israel magazine:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

Quotes of this kind are valuable debating tools, and there are hundreds of them lying around - mostly on our respective hard drives.  So I thought I would create a thread which would enable anyone interested to share similarly precious finds and perhaps build up a useful resource.

Be my guest.