It must be five years ago that there was a rash of interest at MR about creating a political compass to process nationalist political affiliation.  It arose because the standard model, based as it is on conventional social and economic measures and, needless to say, the charming and by no means goy-hostile thoughts of Theodore Adorno and Wilhelm Reich, cannot process ethnocentric political attitudes and values.  So nationalists who take the test find most of the questions irrelevant, and the results puzzling.

For example, I’ve just taken it again and find that:

... I’m a centrist, damn it!  And that’s despite slamming in a string of strongly agree/disagree answers that should have shaken things up.  They didn’t.  My politics just don’t compute.

When we looked at the issue before there was some debate about whether we should be trying to develop a bi-axial compass like this model, a triaxial one that allowed for degrees of awakening, so conventionalists could take the test and get a relevant result, or a simple binning system.  I recall that there was already a test around that could bin nationalist sentiments, but it did not impress.

However, we never progressed beyond the first stumbling block, which was the axiality.  If authoritarian ? libertarian and social ? economic measures describe the liberal paradigm, what describes nationalism?  At least one of the measures has to accord with the reality of the human psyche (the standard compass’s authoritarian ? libertarian axis is recognised by psychologists as doing so).  I’ve argued here that the primary axis of nationalism is being ? becoming, and this seems too fundamental to human life to be anything other than correct.  It’s in metaphysics.  It’s in religion.  It’s good enough.  But that second axis!  That’s the tough one.

In the standard model it’s also the one that relates to purely political concerns: the social left ? the economic right.  Nationalist political concerns do not accord with the liberal value of endless progress.  There is, though, some valuational overlap with the social element, based on the care which flows from kinship.  But that would seem to dictate an opposite in elitism, and indeed the elitism of the aristocracy and of the imperium is an object of regular genuflection among some nationalists.  Norman Lowell, the Eurasianists and our friend Neo-Nietzsche would be pleased, I don’t doubt.  But it doesn’t sit quite right with me.

I confess, I haven’t grasped the whole picture to my own satisfaction.  I know I’m not thinking clearly enough.  Any ideas?

A founder of The Pirate Bay has proposed establishing a new root Domain Name Service.  His proposal has met with something of an uproar of support.

Since there seems to be quite an overlap between pseudo-libertarianism and netizens this may represent an opportunity to provide the pseudo-libertarians a gentle introduction to the fundamental flaw of their charismatic rabbi’s dogma.

It focuses on a problem that every netizen recognizes in the allocation of domain names and proposes a solution that, while it does not quite rub the noses of this rabbi’s disciples in their own economic excrement—it does introduce a “dangerous idea” which leads them down the slippery slope to truth.

Continued below the fold…

READ MORE...

So John Wadham’s attempt to have Nick Griffin, Simon Darby and Tanya Lumby found in contempt of court for failing to comply with the county court judgement against the BNP has failed.  Well over a year of legal battle - in the event, entirely unnecessary legal battle - is over.  The BNP under Griffin emerges as a cultural nationalist party with a mountainous debt and ravaged activist base, the better part of which quit to join the now rudderless Reform Group and Lee Barnes’ probably still-born British Freedom Party (Lee?).  The blood-letting in the movement won’t be ended by this judgement.  On the contrary, the reformers won’t expect Griffin to accept them back in the fold - how many would go?  They won’t give up, so they must now play the long game.

It’s all quite astonishing only eighteen months after the heady days of the European Parliament Elections in early June 2009.  May’s general election and the humilation in Barking has been followed by some miserable local election results.  And that’s where candidates could be found to stand.  Amid the ruins Griffin speaks of rebuilding.  But there has to be a strong likelihood that party prospects will not improve until he finally steps aside, supposedly in 2013, though nobody really believes that.

Looking ahead, now that racial or ethno-nationalism has been placed outside the law, the party seems likely to move further in the direction of culturism.  Politicians, even those whose hearts are with their people, want to be relevant.  They will look at the success of Geert Wilders today.  Well, what’s the point of loyalty to racial nationalism, they will say, if the voter won’t buy it?

The radical thinker will respond that metapolitics, not accomodationism, makes possible revolutionary parties and political careers.  The lack of a metapolitical reservoir is the most fundamental of all the reasons the BNP cannot progress.  Yes, Wilders makes electoral progress.  But he draws from liberalism.  He has no interest in real systemic change.  What, then, is the historical purpose of the BNP?  Where is its soul?  In winning elections.  In operating within the law.  In culturism, will increasingly be the reply.  History will look after itself.

The cultural answer will leave the movement having to create other, non-political vehicles for espousal of racial nationalist values and ideas.  The argument for English survival will fall to new players.  It won’t take long, believe me.

I thought I might draw your attention to a BBC News 24 interview in which the interviewer Ben Brown did an exceptional job of accusing a man with cerebral palsy of bringing upon himself the violence he suffered from riot police at last weekend’s anarcho-student rumpus in London.

These are the choice cuts:

Brown: There’s a suggestion that you were rolling towards the police in your wheelchair. Is that true?

McIntyre: I think justifying a police officer pulling a disabled person out of a wheelchair and dragging them across a concrete road is quite ridiculous and I’m surprised that you just tried to do so.

Brown: So that’s not true - you were not wheeling yourself towards the police?

McIntire: Well, I can’t physically use my wheelchair myself.  My brother was pushing me.

Brown: Were you throwing anything at the police at all during that day?

McIntire: I was not throwing anything at the police that day.

Brown: Shout anything provocative, or throw anything that would have induced the police to do that to you?

McIntire: Do you really think a person with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair can pose a threat to a police officer who is armed with weapons?

As an encapsulation of the moral superiority of the victim, this small event takes some beating.  Not that the Metropolitan Police are shy about beating anything once they savour the Big-Me moment in the helmet, the riot shield and the stab-proof, fire-proof, thought-proof uniform.  Nonetheless, it is the little man in the wheelchair who is going to be the nation’s hero.  The government, the Establishment really, has already lost this battle ... not for the chance to confiscate a greater and greater share of our dwindling cash and throw it at the banks and the bond market, but for the consent of the people.

Nationalists need to sit up and pay attention right now.  The moment to develop a critique of debt and fractional reserve banking - something missing from political nationalism in Britain for many years - is here.  The electoral reward for getting it right will be vast.  But as yet there is no sign of Griffin realising this screamingly obvious fact.

You may be aware of the forward-looking campaign in SA to raise the subject of the future of South African whites among governments and influential bodies in Europe, and lay the foundation for an alternative to a life of mortal danger and demographic and economic decline under black rule.  If not, you can bring yourself up to speed with the briefing document that is now being sent out with a letter of petition to the selected recipients.

The right of return is being claimed by thirty-three founding petitioners who can trace their descent from five European nations: Netherlands, France Germany, UK, Switzerland.  These are the primary target-countries, but the other EU members will also be included.

A website, jussanguinis.com, has been set up to aid the effort.  MR is one of the endorsers of the campaign, btw, and naturally we wish it success on what will certainly be a long road.  The internationalists who manufactured the rainbow nation as a symbol of the world’s future of “tolerance” and “diversity” do not want to hear the white South African voice.  One is bound to wonder whether they possess the moral constitution to admit the sound of dissent into their utopian thinking.

Hat-tip to Simon Darby for this one.  It’s a short review of Laura Fairrie’s The Battle for Barking by an Independent journalist named Rhiannon Harries who, I must say, I don’t know but Darby fingers as a “self-proclaimed anti-racist”.

The review itself is worthless, containing nothing more elevated than a few cheap, boorish jibes at the BNP.  Until we get to this arresting thought in the closing paragraph:

Everybody was at pains to stress that they weren’t racist and, on a fundamental level, I believed them. Immigration had simply become the prism through which local and national ills – namely unemployment and a chronic shortage of social housing – were being refracted. Add to that a pervasive sense that those at the top simply didn’t care and the crude appeal of the BNP as a party “of the people” became clearer.

Given that we knew only too well that the programme would conclude in the satisfying trouncing of the BNP, I wondered why I felt a growing knot of anxiety in my stomach as I watched. Perhaps it was the realisation that, even if the BNP has been temporarily cauterised, we still have a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation of which they took advantage.

Now, no doubt Miss Harries will claim that having “a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation of which they took advantage” simply means solving the problems of “unemployment and a chronic shortage of social housing”.  But that doesn’t quite follow.  A professional journalist, which Miss Harries is, would just have written “we still have a long way to go before the economy lifts people out of unemployment and the local housebuilding programme provides them with decent homes, and in the process deprives the BNP of its most potent political arguments.”  That isn’t at all difficult to come up with.  Why, then, choose such an imprecise formula as “a long way to go before we’re safely beyond the situation”?  Well, it isn’t imprecise if Miss Harries is actually referring to the “situation” of a still obtaining English majority, going “beyond” which is its demographic replacement.

The BNP has claimed consistently that large numbers of Africans were moved into the constituency, added to the electoral register, and got out to vote on election day.  In his blog Darby claims that “I have the electoral register to prove it.”  It must be said, there is much dispute about this even among nationalists.  But, plainly, a rapid process of demographic replacement in the borough is in train.  Labour knows its electoral value, knows how important Barking was and is to the BNP, and would do literally anything to defeat them.  Anti-racists are on record discussing white minoritisation in terms of the final defeat of “racism” and “fascism”.  Miss Harries’s meaning seems clear to me.  Even if she does not state that meaning publicly, she would appear to have got as close to it as she can, given that pushing us towards our grave is the hate that dare not speak its name.  For now.

All in favor indicate by responding “Aye”, opposed “No”.

Latest tally:

Aye 9
No 4

Described by the film company Dartmouth Films as “this unique observational documentary”, Laura Fairrie’s “True Lives - The Battle for Barking”, which aired on More 4 on Tuesday night, has been written about at some length elsewhere.  The Telegraph, The Independent and, particularly noxiously, The Guardian (twice) have all devoted space to it, along with several nationalist blogs.  In fact, as is usual with the BNP, the amount of political and journalistic attention the programme has received most probably contrasts with the viewing potential for a late-evening broadcast on a digital TV station.

I watched the programme yesterday on-line here.  Already aware that it was fairer and more politically neutral than other mainstream media coverage of and investigation into the party, I was nevertheless surprised by the tenderness of some of the portrayals - not of Nick Griffin and his (then) coterie but of the local party members and the ordinary people of the borough (the English ones).  Its title aside, which bowdlerised the BNP’s own much-derided genuflection to the Churchillian, the film treated of the sincerity and sentiment of these people with something very like compassion turning all the time to a wry recognition that their campaign was, like the people they love and try to aid, doomed.  Even the music score plucked these strings, and the whole, I felt, captured the perhaps inevitable unfulfillment and failure that is the lot of folk nationalism in the hard, shiny, Blue State Digital world of modern electoral politics.

But that’s all I want to say myself.  True to the spirit of the observational film-maker, I thought I would confine the rest of this post to the voices of some of those BNP supporters and sympathisers who have commented on the various “Battle For Barking” threads.  But I will begin with the words of Laura Fairrie herself:

READ MORE...