At the beginning of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine called on his fellow colonists to forge a new society where power was dispersed among the citizens. “Let the crown … be demolished,” he urged, “and scattered among the people whose right it is.”

This sentence is taken from a speech on Saturday to the Fabian Society conference ‘Change the World’ by David Milliband, Britain’s Jewish Foreign Secretary.  Paines’ words resonate strangely in the nationalist mind.  For who, exactly, are “the people whose right” sovereignty is?

But, of course, the Fabian Society is the senior left-liberal and one-time socialist political movement in Britain, and none of its company think as we do.  Its company thinks in ways that would alarm not only us, but any normal Briton were these thoughts not coated in electoral blandness and the appearance of the bien pensant before they are uttered.

This is how Miliband continues his speech:-

Today Paine’s world is coming into view. Around the world there is what I call a ‘civilian surge’. Born of the death of deference in the North and West, the collapse of communism in the East, the spread of democracy in the South. Everywhere it is the rise of the better educated and if not better educated better informed citizen who knows, in real time, about how other people, often far away, live their lives; who is more distrustful of traditional sources of authority; who is yearning for greater freedom and power; who is more able through technology to produce and distribute information, more able to hold power to account.

... This civilian surge embodies the ideal of progressive politics, for what is progressive politics if not the desire to see more people as actors rather than spectators in life’s dramas?

But alongside the rising tide of human rights and democratic values there is the reality of growing insecurity. There are the local problems of crime and anti-social behaviour, personal angst caused by more fragile families and less permanent relationships, but the global threats of climate change, financial instability, and transnational terrorism are potent and invasive.

Freedom and security have always been the twin aims of progressive politics. The unique fact about the present time is that people feel more free but less secure.

What a humbling statement for a High Priest of progressivism to make to a Progressive Church.  And yet to the nationalist mind nothing could have been more predictable than the destructiveness of the politics of anti-nation, anti-family, anti-Nature.

Miliband draws attention to the two “not incompatible” but never quite “reconciled” left-traditions of radical liberalism and social democracy.  But it is as if “the local problems of crime and anti-social behaviour, personal angst caused by more fragile families and less permanent relationships” have punched huge holes in radical-liberal confidence.  Nowhere in his speech does he raise his eyes to the distant horizon of new and inspiring individual freedoms.  There are none.  So the level of it is “more power to neighbourhoods to shape local services and own assets, with more power for citizens through direct payment and personal budgets in health and social care.”  The freedom train rattles and lurches on, blindly, shamelessly, but quite purposelessness now, and for the most part translated onto a stage that is too mundanely depersonalised to carry meaning for the personal life as, indeed, the great, freeing cult of the individual was meant to carry meaning.

As a political movement social democracy is unquestionably more intact, though that, too, has been assailed by doubt.  Dench and Gavron, David Goodhart and Robert Putnam have all quietly, inconveniently pointed to the confounding of social justice in and by the MultiCult.

So all that will remain, after homosexual adoption, transsexual equality, religious hate speech legislation ... after the anti-majoritarianism, the racial dispossession, the dissolution of nationhood ... all that will remain is the burgeoning size and power of the state.  And out of that, with the force of inevitability, will flow a matching appetite for legislation and for control.  How but through these things will a state machine that sows chaos for freedom, and has no further democratic raison d’etre, hold on to its monopoly of power?  Leviathan will rise in a last desperate, totalitarian attempt to maintain the unmaintainable status quo.

If we care to look we can see it rising already.

For example, a domestic application of naked power, however honeyed by political skills, will necessarily excuse itself with a foreign fig-leaf or two - what Miliband calls “values”, but is simply a coercive internationalism.  And he duly addresses UK foreign policy issues further on in his speech:-

... We are required to ask big questions about what we are willing to do to extend individual rights around the world

... Universal values are real and popular. They raise really hard questions about how they are spread, but let’s not be ashamed to talk about them. They are part of our tradition, not a neocon invention.

... In the 19th and 20th centuries foreign policy and progressive values were often uncomfortable partners. Interests predominated over values. The new context holds out huge opportunities for progressive politics.

... In the 21st century, we need to apply both the social democratic and liberal traditions to maximise the opportunities from globalisation and manage the risks.

Tom Paine the English radical, Tom Paine the American revolutionary, Tome Paine the member of the French National Convention might, I suppose, have admired such apparently humanistic objectives.  But they mean nothing whatsoever to the true peoples of Britain.  They would garner scarcely a vote at election time.  They quite wonderfully depict the detachment into domestic policy blandness and irrelevance, and the shift to action abroad, that doubtless must afflict a destroyer of nationhood.  This Leviathan’s public allegiance will be to peoples far away who have absolutely no allegiance to it.  If that sounds laughable, even crazy, it’s because that’s what a politics of spreading the Western social democratic and economic model is.

The only question is whether we the people can survive long enough to strike the blow that brings Leviathan down.  Pray that we can, and that for our children’s sake it is a political one

The Lega Nord mayor of Cittadella, Masimo Bitonci, has found a way to fight the immigrant tide in his ancient walled town.  He has enacted a local law to discriminate for productive immigrants.  But it seems that more than just the obvious illegals and undesirables find themselves caught by it.

Here’s Al Jezeera (albeit reporting squarely within the usual terms - we get to hear about the nice folks from poor, backward Moldavia denied the chance of a new life, and the fabulous boon their cheap labour would bring to native Italians):-

The Al Jezeera reporter further informs us that, “The idea has now spread to two hundred towns in the (Veneto) region, and dozens more across Italy are interested in adopting the new rules.”  All perfectly legal, and there’s nothing central government can do about it.

Fox News is at it again:

Note lower right of screen where Ron Paul is virtually tied with McCain for second place, not Huckabee. 

Ron Paul went on to take second place in Nevada.

Here’s the video:

UPDATE 1/20/07 10:34AM PST:  There is more…

READ MORE...

It should be no surprise that the more you must genuflect to the theocracy of Holocaustianity, the less intellectual horsepower you can bring to bear on critical issues and, indeed, we see just that situation present itself in the most recent clash of the—well let’s be honest—brain damaged Wall Street Journal vs the oxygen-deprived LewRockwell.Com over the meaning of Ron Paul’s libertarianism as it applies to militarism.  First the Wall Street Journal drools out yet another sophomoric essay on the virtues of neoconservative foreign policy compared to their portrayal of Ron Paul’s proposed policy of nonintervention and then Lew Rockwell fails miserably to address the article’s so-called “arguments”. 

Well, here it is in a nutshell:

The author of the WSJ’s editorial, Bret Stephens, is a former editor of the Jerusalem Post, and almost certainly a Jew.  Lew Rockwell can’t say that because he must genuflect to the theocracy of Holocaustianity. 

As to the “meat” of Stephens’ argument—there is none.  He pretends that Ron Paul would deny the US a Navy—relying solely on mercenary privateers—and then argues for how ridiculous this is.  Stephens has forgotten a slight detail:  Ron Paul does support a Federal military response to attacks by sovereign nations.  It is mainly in the case of nongovernmental forces that he supports mercenaries via Letters Marque and Reprisal as an alternative to declaring war, authorized in the Constitution.  Lew Rockwell doesn’t mention this key point.

Mentioning the Barbary Pirates (who the WSJ neocon Jew uses as an example of the futility of attempting to “trade with everyone” as an alternative to interventionism) is, of course, avoiding the fact that the Barbary Pirates were not just pirates, but also privateers operating under a grant of authority of Islamic states.  Hence they became a legitimate target of a Federal military force making war against those states.  Contrary to the claims repeatedly made by neocons, Jefferson did obtain a declaration of war from the House of Representatives in the legislative language:

to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.

No such language, language required by the Constitution, has appeared in any “authorization to use force” by the US House of representatives since WWII.

PS: There is a reasonable argument for a “no standing army” policy upon any medium that can support settlement of self-defending Yeoman.  While at present this is limited to land, best exemplified by the Swiss style military defense, there is good reason to believe that a well conceived basis for government funding would drive technologically supported settlement of new frontiers beyond the land.

by Welf Herfurth

This article concerns something that receives little attention from nationalists: celebrities and popular culture, and their influence on both our liberal democratic system and our consumerist society. More specifically, it concerns the role of women in our liberal democracy and popular culture. This subject matter is very much part of our lives: one cannot avoid the celebrity trash gossip magazines, American TV shows, and the role prominent women in our liberal democracy (such as Hilary Clinton). Moreover, our economy relies, to a great extent, on both consumerism – especially a consumerist lifestyle promoted heavily to women, through advertisements and celebrity culture – and female labour.

From a political view, does any of this matter? Do the antics of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan matter? Did Princess Diana matter? A person with an old-school, left-wing point of view would say, ‘No’. The fetishisation of celebrity women in our culture is a symptom of the fetishisation of capitalist consumer commodities. Once capitalism is abolished, the only women who will appear in advertisements, films and the like will be female communist role models – factory workers, rice paddy farmers, mothers bearing socialist babies and the like.

After the advent of the New Left, the analyses – of images of women in a capitalist society, as expressed through popular culture – became a little more sophisticated. The stern Soviet and Maoist bromides became somewhat old-fashioned, and the neo-Marxists argued that there was something deeper going on.

Here I will be taking an approach similar to that of the New Left – but will drawing upon Evola instead of Marcuse. Bill White, before his Nutzi phase, used to write some intelligent articles. One of them was on the subject of women in American popular culture, and used some Evolian concepts. (Unfortunately, it is no longer available on the Internet). Evola, I think, is a thinker who is the most suitable for this sort of thing. After all, many of his ‘spiritual types’, or ‘races’ (as he defines them) possess masculine and feminine characteristics. In essays like ‘Do we live in a gynaecocratic society?’ (1936), he said nearly all there is to be said on the subject. The present article will add little to the discussion – much of what Evola has written has yet to be surpassed – but the articles from the 1930s and 1940s are lacking in that they are out of date. They appear dated because Evola did not live in our age – the age of Angelina Jolie, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and the Hilary Clinton presidential campaign bid.

READ MORE...

In his novella, Dawn, Elie Wiesel wrote:

God is a member of the Resistance movement, a terrorist.

Elie said a mouthful there!

Consider this:  Terrorism is a tactic useful to those who do not, for whatever reason, intervene directly—micromanage—affairs of great importance to them.  Terrorism is usually the tactic of choice of those who are deprived of sufficient resources to pursue their aims in more nuanced ways but who have the intelligence to understand how large systems are put together so they can take them apart with great economy.  Now, you may argue that God has no such limitations—that He uses precisely the degree of force required to achieve His goals—but this seems manifestly at odds with the gross nature of Acts of God.  Is God’s power in His understanding of Creation—exercised in the flap of a single butterfly’s wing more than His ability to directly intervene in our detailed affairs?  Certainly, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. would seem to tell us “Yes!”.  Likewise the terrorist who unleashes his “systempunkt” has little control over the details of the consequences he unleashes as part of his judgment.

So, now that we have established that Fear of God is a direct result of God being a Terrorist (admittedly a loving a compassionate terrorist—as are most terrorists if you get on their good side) how might this manifest in these—The Last Days when God’s Judgment will purge the world by fire?  Certainly there are more than enough people who have put everything on the line for this destruction of the world by fire, as is prophesied in the Bible.  Indeed, it could be argued that the entire expense of the Iraq War has been due to just such beliefs in The End Time.  It is currently up to, what? 

Nearly $1 Trillion.

What if someone were to get a little—shall we say—impatient (so we’ll call him God’s Impatient Terrorist or GIT for short) for the unleashing of God’s Wrath?  What is the minimum amount of money GIT would have to come up with to unleash something sufficiently Biblical to qualify as God’s destruction of the world by fire?

It looks to me like it may cost no more than producing a relatively upscale indy movie...

READ MORE...

One of the two great mysteries synonymous with the Mona Lisa, Leonardo’s revolutionary contribution to portraiture, is claimed to be resolved. 

... experts at the Heidelberg University library say dated notes scribbled in the margins of a book by its owner in October 1503 confirm once and for all that Lisa del Giocondo was indeed the model for one of the most famous portraits in the world.

READ MORE...

Richard D. Fuerle

The Flynn Effect, discovered by Richard Lynn (Lynn, 1977) and documented and named for James R. Flynn (Flynn, 1984, 1987), is a world-wide increase in IQ scores of about 3 IQ points per decade.  That is, people today score higher on an old IQ test than people the same age did who took the same test decades earlier.

By suggesting the malleability of intelligence and the possibility that tweaking the environment might increase it, the Flynn Effect has raised the hopes of egalitarians, who believe that “all the races are equal in intelligence” (United Nations, 1950;  also Flynn, 1999) and fervently want to erase the black-white IQ gap.  Unfortunately, the cause of the Flynn Effect has not yet been pinpointed and, until it is, a program cannot be designed that will put the cause of the Flynn Effect to work increasing black intelligence.  Moreover, as many experts suspect, the Flynn Effect may be only an increase in IQ scores, not an increase in real intelligence (i.e., the genetic potential for high intelligence), which may actually be declining (Lynn, 1996).

A possible explanation for the increase in IQ scores is that children today mature sooner, both physically and mentally, than children did decades ago (Sarich, 1999).  Today’s children score higher, not because their real intelligence has increased, but because their brains are more mature.  A 10 year old today has a brain that has grown faster and has more neural connections than the brain of a 10 year old who lived, say, 50 years ago.  Because today’s 10 year olds have brains that, perhaps, 12 year olds had 50 years ago, they do better on an IQ test taken by 10 year olds 50 years ago.  Psychologists think they are comparing identical groups of children – 10 year olds to 10 year olds, but they are actually comparing apples and oranges – 10 year old brains to 12 year old brains.  Real intelligence has not increased, children just acquire it sooner, and fully mature people today may actually be less intelligent than fully mature people were decades ago.

READ MORE...