The only programme of the five in the BBC2 White season which has garnered any kind of praise from right-thinkers is “Rivers of Blood”, a surprisingly sympathetic and rounded portrayal of the great and courageous Enoch Powell.  Naturally, it has found its way onto YouTube.  My thanks to wintermute for sending me links to all six parts.

Part 1

Part 2

READ MORE...

The following review by Andreas Faust of Troy Southgate’s book of selected essays and poetry, Tradition & Revolution, provides a good introduction to that strand of thought which is National Anarchism.

NA might be seen as an ark in the worst-case scenario.  Some aspects of it leave me perplexed - the Wodenism, for instance, which appears gratuitous and artificial.  But NA is gathering adherents throughout the West, and Troy is certainly its leading spirit.  It is worth knowing about.
GW

This book contains a varied selection of essays, poems, and other short written pieces by Troy Southgate, one of the founders of the philosophy known as National-Anarchism. National-Anarchism is a cultural current rather than an organisation. It is a long-term strategy. N-A developed simultaneously in England, France and Germany, in just the same way that modern Odinism simultaneously sprang up in at least four different countries in the early 1970s.

N-A is a form of anarchism which has no roots in the political left, but neither is it right-wing. It differs from the ‘mainstream’ anarchist movement in its support for racial separatism (amongst other things), but at the same time has no problem with those who want to establish mixed-race communities also. As Southgate puts it: “We have no desire to rule over an administrative structure or disaffected population of any kind [...] Whilst they choose their own destinies, we shall choose ours.”

If N-A took off on a wide scale, this would theoretically lead to a series of independent communities, which “may or may not wish to form part of a confederated alliance”. Each community, of course, would be primed for self-defence. The regional alliance or federation would support any group of individuals wishing to found a separate community to preserve their own identity – regardless of what that identity might be.

So, has the book converted this reviewer to National-Anarchism? Well, hmmm, hmmm…I believe it might have. I still dislike the term. But on the other hand I can’t really think of a better one. On explaining the concept to a friend recently, he pointed out that as soon as you start throwing the word ‘anarchist’ about, it will automatically turn people away. The word has become linked with images of violence, chaos, disorder…sinister men in black balaclavas throwing bombs.

READ MORE...

“Can European Civilisation Survive?” the publicity asks.  Not without Europeans, one must reply.

But Identity Crisis, a two-day chatter starting this very day (Thursday) at the European University of Rome, does not concern itself with us.  This is Judeo-Christian country.  What happens to Europeans doesn’t matter, so long as Western Civ can be salvaged in an executable form for the godly and the

paragoniac.

The moving spirit of the conference appears to be Avi Davis, a man of many talents according to his bio, since he is an attorney, documentarian (?), senior fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, and a senior editorial columnist for Jewsweek, among other Israel-gripped rags.

What Avi and his friends are up to here should be pretty plain.  They are trying to shape the countours of future government opinion.  You can tell it’s government opinion-forming they are interested in because their method - the international conferences, the “scholarly studies”, the complex little knot of “Institutes” and “Forums” - is the same as that employed by the New Left when it culturalised discourse in the 1980s.  They have money, as the left surely had money - and no doubt from some rather similar sources.  They have some influence, at least, in places of power on both sides of the Atlantic.  And they have an enemy: not European Man this time but Islam in and beyond Europe.

They are cultural preservationists, I suppose.  They are not like us.  We set out to preserve the greatest of peoples while Jews see only anti-Semitism in that sacred goal, and Christians see the worship of a craven image.  To the question, “Should European peoples be free to live as they please, and with whom they please, in their own lands” these people would be constitutionally unable to answer in the positive.

So is Avi’s effort a help or hindrance to our goal.  Well, right now the discussion at high levels in European politics of Islam as a threat in itself is not unhelpful to nationalist parties like VB and the BNP.  And since the true political and philosophical nature of nationalism is too revolutionary to be entertained at any level of government, there is no material loss to us if Jews and Christians push the anti-Islamification agenda successfully.

But, of course, the point arrives when civilisation as a value in itself misses the mark.  It is to genetic survival what citizenism is to blut und boden.  It will contribute nothing to our cause, other than the educational experience of seeing the opinion-forming exercise professionally - and lavishly - undertaken.

JW Holliday has produced a revised version of his landmark essay on the work of Frank Salter, originally published in the February 2003 issue of American Renaissance magazine.  It is in PDF form so as to facilitate easy transmission by e-mail.  It has been written accordingly, and is perhaps the clearest, most accessible formulation of Salterism thusfar.

The essay extends over three and a bit pages, and can be downloaded here or by clicking on the EGI.pdf link in the index column, under Important Issues.  It will have a permanent home there.

As a (supposed) product of white working class trauma, the BBC’s White season may be no better than one would expect from the liberal mind.  At least, it seems not to have caught the untermenschen’s imagination.  But it is firing up the liberal media in some entertaining ways.

Tim Lott wrote a piece in the Indendent bravely titled White, working class – and threatened with extinction.  He identified a series of political decisions which have contributed to the present awfulness over the last thirty or forty years.  The destruction of grammar schools is top of his list.  But multiculturalism comes in second.  And third is:-

... the WLMC [white liberal middle class] determination to stamp out nationalism – at least if you were English. If you were Scottish, Welsh or Irish, of course, you could celebrate your flag and your culture as loudly and proudly as you liked. But if you were native WWC, to celebrate St George and the English flag was racist.

At the breakfast tables of Hampstead the muesli must have flown.  But Lott was not finished:-

The WLMC know that the WWC hate “The Other” – the blacks, the Asians, the Muslims. But it does not occur to them that they themselves are the greatest Other-haters of all, in their revulsion of the WWC who are too close to themselves for comfort, and whom they use to project upon their own sins, their own real and reverse racism.

This is truth-speaking of an order I have not seen before in the liberal media.  And it has only taken a few BBC interviews of working men in a club in the North of England and a few shots of Enoch Powell’s steel-cold blue eyes to trigger it.  There are those of us - which is the majority here - who have noted down the years that debating liberals employ much moral stigmatisation but little or no substantive argument.  But the White experience also suggests that the political ice is very thin.  Lott’s prompt adoption of an Anglo-centric, indeed almost racialist analysis shows just how thin that ice might be.

Elsewhere in the Indy our old Ugandan Asian mucker, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, has been trying to respond to “White” by playing the Nazi-Powell card.  This is almost as priceless as Lott’s piece.

A Jewish friend prompted this column. She said to me: “I condemn Israeli politics and some things British Jews are up to. But when anti-Semitism seeps through the land, unseen, unacknowledged, I must stand up for my people. You must too. It is your duty. Powell’s ghost is awake, Racism is everywhere. I can feel it. Can’t you?”

Why yes, dear hypocrite.  You are anti-English, and I am pro-English - which is the same thing as anti-Semitism to you.  Only England is my land, my home, and no right attaches to you, as an immigrant, to besmirch my ethnic interest here.

Yasmin and her Jewish friend are still the favoured group, of course.  But the lesson to draw from “White” and it’s reverberation among the said WLMC is surely that the advocacy of English rights and interest, frozen solid since Powell was silenced, is starting to thaw.  And it may prove very difficult to stop among people who bear much blame for the permafrost and possess a strong predeliction for guilt.

Some interesting questions flow from that:-

If we are, as seems quite likely, to have a Conservative government in 2009 under David Cameron, will he feel able to impart further momentum to the process by repealing some of the wholly unConservative anti-majority legislation?

Or will the present movement towards a total state - a panopticon monster grasping for a biometric database - carry him onward?

If there is a thaw in the ability of ordinary Englishman to speak, but no change in the attitudes of the ruling class, will the morally-flawed BNP be in any position to profit?  And if they are, will we then see Cameron attempting to triangulate them a la Sarkozy?

My answers today are:

a) Able certainly, but that isn’t the same willing.

b) One more Muslim bomb will do it.

c) MI5 will relieve Cameron of any need to triangulate.

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.