by Alexander Baron

Earlier this month, the British National Party voted to accept non-white members. This was done, ostensibly, under pressure from the grandly styled Equality And Human Rights Commission, a body that has in the past sought and obtained prosecutions for the publication of racist cartoons and poked its proboscis into every aspect of traditional British life attempting to mould it to the race-mixers’ agenda. The far right has of course been the target of the liberal self-styled ruling élite for decades, and in spite of the left’s vacuous and increasingly tiresome charges of the establishment’s racism, there has been a de facto conspiracy to suppress all (white) racial-nationalist movements and parties in both the media and other circles. The contrived prosecutions and convictions of John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, the gullible but sorely misguided Lady Birdwood, and many others, is proof positive of that. Now though that one albeit fringe party has enjoyed a modicum of success, a new tactic has been devised. Suddenly, it has been discovered that the BNP’s constitution is illegal because it discriminates against non-whites, and the BNP has thrown in the towel without so much as a whimper. But does it matter?

There have been racial-nationalist movements in Britain for a century or more; an organisation called the British National Party was formed by a wholesale fish merchant named Edward Godfrey of Hayes, Middlesex (where I grew up incidentally) during the Second World War, but the BNP as it exists today is a child of the National Front. The Front was founded in 1967 by that greatest of British patriots A.K. Chesterton, who had previously founded the League Of Empire Loyalists. Three years later, he was forced out, the Party soon falling under the control of John Tyndall and Martin Webster. In 1980, Tyndall made a bold decision, resigning from the organisation and forming the New National Front. The basis for this was – he claimed – a homosexual network that was operating inside the organisation. In fact, this “network” consisted principally if not entirely of Martin Webster, whose homosexuality could not have been unknown to Tyndall but had been tolerated by him and other senior members because of his undoubted abilities.

The real reason for the split was that the authoritarian Tyndall wanted more or less total control over what had always been a thoroughly democratic organisation – notwithstanding the oft’ repeated and tiresome “Nazi” epithet. Tyndall’s new party was the most successful of the various NF splinter groups, and shortly changed its name to the British National Party, which it remains today under the leadership of Nick Griffin.

READ MORE...

by Potential Frolic

There is this silly german song that conveys in its lyrics something which I think is interesting to think about.  In listening to it I’m reminded of attempts by both sides to trap our people, or our Folk, into various boxes they have set up for the purpose.

There’s the left which condemns us to be the passive principle in our own lands, beholden to whatever groups allowed to “act” as such should choose to do with or to us, and holding onto “us” as a kind of historical memory from which one takes unwilling leave as one goes into the future.  There could hardly be a more consistently conveyed message of 90s media, as I recall it, than the idea that we belonged to some sort of inescapable passing away, that our dwindling was inevitably foreseen but impossible to disagree with.  We were relics, waiting to be retired to our final resting spot.  Having pure ancestry was forecast as being something “quaint” in future times.

And in reaction to that, in rejection of that, there is the furious attempt at rediscovery in forms sometimes militarist - the insistence upon our heroism, our glory, our grandeur - sometimes cultural: Shakespeare, Milton, and whatnot.  Sometimes the literary pantheon is brought in as being a source of glory, other times it is left out, as it is in the most hardcore redoubts of germanocentric militarist religion because people clearly perceive that the soul-hardening which occurs in this pursuit of weaponization is antithetical to the demands of flowering literary culture.  One is reminded here of the difficulties felt by Frederick the Great and Heinrich von Kleist in reconciling their “higher faculties” with the subordination and borishness endemic to their culture.

There is a pious belief in military glory which will argue that this circle can be squared, that after enough soul-hardening “glory”, one also achieves heights of poetic splendor unknowable to others. Yet my reading of poetry and literature dissuades me of this personally.  I think Prussian literature is at its best when its tortured philosophers are wracking their brains to understand how best to fulfill their “duty”, as with Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and for anything touching inwardness of another quality one is left with an empty roster.

Anyway, the words are as follows:

Come to the window, come here to me
Do you see over there behind the iron fence
Over there in front of the store
They graved our image into stone.

Come out in the street, come here to me
Everywhere flowers and garlands, half rumpelled up
It appears that they took our monument tonight
and unveiled it without us.

Go fetch the sledge-hammer!

They raised a monument to us
and every sane person knows
how that destroys real love.

I’ll call the worst graffitti artists of this town together
At night we’ll spray slogans on the rubble that remains.

After another refrain, there is a haunting part which reminds me always of the enforced obsolescence which Anglo-Saxons accept as their role in American society, and apparently also in Britain; the slow waiting game, waiting on our own death, which is the only action which is supposedly morally allowable to us:

Do you see the inscription down there, by the shoes?
It says in golden letters, that we should rest in eternal peace.

Go fetch the sledge-hammer!

The band is called, pertinently enough, “We are heroes”!

This essay is a wee bit outside of my usual stamping ground, but it is in the nature of lighting the blue touch-paper - just in case anyone wants to address this subject properly!  I’m going to begin with a quote from Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time, division 2, section 75 (Blackwell translation), published in 1927:

Everyday Dasein has been dispersed into many kinds of things which daily “come to pass”.  The opportunities and circumstances which concern keeps “tactically” awaiting in advance, have “fate” as their out-come.  In terms of that with which inauthentically existing Dasien concerns itself, it first computes its history.  In so doing, it is driven about by its “affairs”.  So if it wants to come to itself, it must first pull itself together from the dispersion and disconnectedness of the very things that have “come to pass”, and because of this, it is only that there at last arises from the horizon of the understanding which belongs to inauthentic historicality, the question of how one is to establish a connectedness of Dasein if one does so in the “Experience” of a subject - Experiences which are “also” present-at-hand.

To my mind, this short passage describes, in Heidegger’s difficult and relentlessly particular terminology, the fractured and scattered state of our ordinary inner life, a scattering effected through the tendency of ordinary waking consciousness to elide into and attach itself to externalities, psychologically speaking.  The nett result is a profound absence which many reading this will recognise in their own experience.  We still ascribe qualities of self-hood to it, of course.  We can never cease doing that.  But it is a self-hood with a history rather than a presence in the moment (though that takes us further towards the metaphysical than Heidegger intended - all Dasein is historical in his formulation).

READ MORE...

... Or, “Burkha me, it’s got a beard”

DUBAI (AFP) – An Arab ambassador called off his wedding after discovering his wife-to-be, who had worn a face-covering veil whenever they met, was bearded and cross-eyed, the Gulf News reported Wednesday.

The envoy had only met the woman a few times, during which she had hidden her face behind a niqab, or facecovering veil, the paper said.

After the marriage contract was signed, the ambassador attempted to kiss his bride-to-be, upon which he discovered she had facial hair and was cross-eyed, it said.

The ambassador told an Islamic Sharia court in the United Arab Emirates that he was tricked into the marriage as the woman’s mother had shown his own mother pictures of her sister instead of her, the report said.

He sued for the contract to be annulled and also demanded the woman pay him 500,000 dirhams ($136,000) for clothes, jewelry, and other gifts he had bought for her.

The court annulled the contract but rejected the ambassador’s demand for compensation.

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/242925/out-of-this-world-arab-envoy-finds-wifetobe-bearded-crosseyed-behind-veil

I recovered the attached illustrative tale from my personal backups after discovering it had been deleted from the internet archives.  Think of it as my musings for a screen play that could use some impressive computer generated graphics to offer an alternative mythology to the normal Arthurian tales.

READ MORE...

by Potential Frolic

I want to explain my struggle with the idea of Palingenesis and what it has taught me about nationalism and myself.  The desire to do this flows from frequent encounters here and elsewhere with “the Palingenetic Necessity”, which I define as the conviction that no other model of political action can support white survival in our times.

Understanding the problem

Seeing the destructive forces working upon our peoples presently, and fearing very much for his own survival and that of his people, the (folkish) nationalist turns his eye to Palingenesis, which presents itself as the opposite to today’s politics of ethnic suicide. The goal of Palingenesis is to renew the values of a supposed heroic and glorious past, these values being assumed to be real and contingent even if the past in question is only a myth, and to venture towards heroism and glory in the present. 

GW has argued that advocates of Palingenesis are not necessarily good psychologists. They do not take account of the fact that the man is of the time in which he is born, decadent or otherwise, and carries only two possibilities within himself:

(i) to belong to that time and have no truck with, or even knowledge of, the truth of his Self, or

(ii) to seek out truth even at the cost of turning away - if someone tells him how - from time and place and artifice.

There is no special third option for the rebirth of the spirit as heroism and glory, according to GW.  Heroism and glory are not characteristics of the true Self but of immersion in violence.  They can only appear in time and place, therefore, and cannot be different to or better than the rest of the artifice.  They are a beautiful deception - in fact, a bastardization for the purpose of reifying political violence.

As psychology, then, Palingenesis as it appears in fascism and revolutionary conservatism is a sham, albeit an alluring one.  It answers the following two wholly utilitarian questions in the positive:

READ MORE...

My reply on the liberal mind thread to our Guardianista OZKT29B - henceforth called Ozy courtesy of Captainchaos - grew rather long.  There is a 5,000 character limit on comments, so I thought I would make a new post of it instead.  Ozy’s last comment, to which I was responding, is here.

OZKT29B,

I was happy to follow Lord Arlen’s example and allow you to strike the very first blow.  The meat of the conversation, though, will now be on the worth of the beliefs you hold.

You write:

You are perpetuating the narrative that any thought that isn’t extremely marginal is, in fact, sheep-like and unconscious.

Our racial thoughts and instincts are the racial thoughts and instincts of the people.  They are no more marginal than is human nature itself.  But there is a powerful conflict between human nature and liberalism in the West.  Liberalism, in the broadest sense, is the controlling idea of our age.  Every person of European descent is enculturated in it, and enculturated thereby in conflict with their own racial thoughts and instincts.

Nationalist philosophy is not at all a formative factor on the psychological landscape.  To come to nationalism, then, you must, at some level, realise that your entire understanding of not just politics or even ideas, but life in general, including the acquired part of the Self, has been unconsciously absorbed, and all life long you have defended the result quite unconsciously too - just as you are defending it today.

We are not born with the power to choose the influences we absorb.  We walk out in the rain, that is all.  Freedom - the real thing, not the liberal confection - consists in recognising this unconsciousness, this power of the acquired, and turning instead towards that which is true in us.  Many of us here know this.  I think it highly unlikely that you know it.

So ... I am not “perpetuating” any narratives.  I am trying to bring you, as quickly as possible, to the beginnings of the understanding that, so far in your life, you have not owned the formative processes of your own mind.  Not only, then, are you not free but you cannot be free, regardless of the “liberty” in the liberalism you espouse.

We can discuss in detail what passes for freedom in the liberal canon later.

READ MORE...

Peak oil curves are largely based on a model called Hubbert Linearization.  Some critics claim that this model is incorrect.  The fix may be as simple as assuming a slight positive skew on the production curve.

READ MORE...