The nobly inclined, missteps, the ill-advised and the misnamed.

MR’s commentariat survey European/White Nationalist exponents.

_________________________________________________________________

JamesUK has raised the topic for discussion - heretofore leading exponents of White/European Nationalism, those we know to have taken an active lead in advocating European peoples and their discreet nations/kinds.

It’d “be good (to have) a post critiquing far right nationalist movements and leaders:”

“or any other high profile organisations or individuals you can think of.”

I would be quick to add William Pierce among others.

Rather than relying on extant articles surveying these peoples and platforms, we may look at these matters afresh with the interest of MR commentariat.

Taking as a point of departure the terminology that JamesUK’s adopted upon broaching the topic, what jumped-out as salient and perhaps in need of re-naming or re-framing was The Order designated as “Right-Wing Extremist.”

            ...“right wing extremists like The Order”

           
                                      Bob Mathews, leader of “The Order”

                     
                          …...Józef Piłsudski, leader of The “Bojówki”

What The Order was attempting, in a far more elaborate plan than most people realize, was fairly analogous to what Józef Piłsudski and his “Bojówki group” did with the Bezdany train robbery and other operations in order to fund the reinstating of Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezdany_raid

There are also parallels with “The Sons of The Revolution” who fought for independence from Britain; we might go on to discuss them among other guerrilla campaigns which fought for independence. That is, naturally, revolution and the taking or re-taking of a nation can entail “extreme” activities according to the status-quo and powers that be.

But to begin discussion, a comparison of Bob Mathews and Józef Piłsudski is relevant to normalization as the parallels are clear, yet Piłsudski is not stigmatized, he is widely accepted a nationalist hero.

READ MORE...

18 September 2014

READ MORE...

by Neil Vodavzny

“I like to watch” is the key phrase to this ostensibly ludicrous cult sci-fi thriller from 1975, with Katherine Ross as the hippy-ish heroine.

READ MORE...

                       
                            A flat chest is infinitely better than implants…

A big nose far better than a character-depriving nose job..

READ MORE...

                                                    - By William Hanna
On 17 July 1998, the international community reached an historic milestone — that has so far proved of little useful purpose — when 120 States adopted the Rome Statute (http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm), the legal basis for establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). The Court’s mandate was “to try individuals rather than States, and to hold such persons accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, when the conditions for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the latter are fulfilled.” Therefore on that basis and in view of the fact that Israel has for over 60 years painstakingly ensured qualification for all four of the aforementioned criminal categories, then why has the ICC failed to initiate proceedings against those Israelis who with impunity were and still are instrumental in the barbaric ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people?

READ MORE...

“Attorney of the damned”, author of “Defensive Racism” dies imprisoned by ZOG

“Get the story out folks” - Stan Hess

From: Cyndi Steele, Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 8:35 PM
Subject: News about Ed that I prayed I would never have to deliver!

                               
                                                    Cyndi Steele

“The past 4 years Ed and my family have been living in a nightmare. Today, my greatest fear has come to life or maybe I should say death. Please read the message below that is being posted on the Free Edgar Steele website and sent to all of his supporters as I type this. It is with great heartbreak and devastation that I send you this news.”
______________________________________________

READ MORE...

This essay, which is long (sorry about that) and quite detailed, picks up certain themes that were first introduced at MR five years ago.  It is, more or less, a summation of my present understanding, as someone pondering the crisis of identity, power, and existence which we Europeans are facing everywhere in the West today.  But it is also a contribution to MR’s Ontology Project.  As such, it is a modest step towards a firm proposal for a politics for the true European life.

One of the beautiful characteristics of existentialist thought is that an investigation of specific phenomena in the mind or in the lived life can begin with anything, and profitably so.  This is because relatedness is inherent to it.  All things, even opposites, are related, whereas fracture is the natural estate of non-existential thought.  This is a particular theme of this post, in which I am trying to cohere the freedom, unity and Life which should, in my opinion, be the very meaning of nationalism in its 21st century struggle.  Let us, then, take as our beginning this idea of struggle, and work from there.

In what struggle are nationalists truly engaged?  Well, yes, the struggle for the future of our people: a struggle for survival, a struggle for autonomy, a struggle for homeland, a struggle to live unburdened by the racial Other.  That is clear.  A process of deliverance, of salvation, then.  But also deliverance and salvation from the entire political, social, and economic form of the modern world, meaning from its economism, its egalitarianism, its “liberty” and “progress”, its “tolerance” and universalism … even, for some, its democratism because that, too, is a modernist massifying ideology.

READ MORE...

                                   
                “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them”

  D: Don’t be silly. I can’t draw a conversation. I mean things.

  F: Yes—I was trying to find out just what you meant. Do you mean “Why do we give things outlines when we draw them?” or do you mean that the things have out-lines whether we draw them or not?

  D: I don’t know, Daddy. You tell me. Which do I mean?

  F: I don’t know, my dear. There was a very angry artist once who scribbled all sorts of things down, and after he was dead they looked in his books and in one place they found he’d written “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them” but in another place he’d written “Mad men see outlines and therefore they draw them.”

  D: But which does he mean? I don’t understand.

  F: Well, William Blake—that was his name—was a great artist and a very angry man. And sometimes he rolled up his ideas into little spitballs so that he could throw them at people.

  D: But what was he mad about, Daddy?

  F: But what was he mad about? Oh, I see—you mean “angry.” We have to keep those two meanings of “mad” clear if we are going to talk about Blake. Because a lot of people thought he was mad—really mad—crazy. And that was one of the things he was mad-angry about. And then he was mad-angry, too, about some artists who painted pictures as though things didn’t have out-lines. He called them “the slobbering school.”

  D: He wasn’t very tolerant, was he, Daddy?

  F: Tolerant? Oh, God. Yes, I know—that’s what they drum into you at school. No, Blake was not very tolerant. He didn’t even think tolerance was a good thing. It was just more slobbering. He thought it blurred all the outlines and muddled everything—that it made all cats gray. So that nobody would be able to see anything clearly and sharply.

  D: Yes, Daddy.

  F: No, that’s not the answer. I mean “Yes, Daddy” is not the answer. All that says is that you don’t know what your opinion is—and you don’t give a damn what I say or what Blake says and that the school has so befuddled you with talk about tolerance that you can-not tell the difference between anything and anything else.

READ MORE...