By Martin Hutchinson

Paul Volcker’s proposal that proprietary trading should be spun off from deposit taking banks is a worthwhile step in the direction of stabilizing the financial services business. However when you consider that business in detail, it becomes clear that further breakups are necessary in order to remove the excessive risks from the US economic system.

Volcker became something of a hero to the left for his sponsorship of President Obama’s bank-bashing announcement.  Indeed I was very much hoping that he could ride this new-found enthusiasm through a defeat of Ben Bernanke in his Senate confirmation vote, followed by a more or less unanimous Senate approval of a Volcker nomination to replace him as Fed Chairman. Assuming Volcker hadn’t suffered a Damsacene conversion to sloppy monetary policy while I wasn’t looking, Obama and the left would be suffering buyer’s remorse within about an hour of Volcker’s arrival at the Fed, but by that stage the deed would be done. I was practicing my Dr. Evil laugh for this eventuality, but alas it was not to be.

There are three problems with the current set-up on Wall Street: systemic risk, rent seeking and conflicts of interest. The Volcker proposal addresses the systemic risk problem to a great extent, but does not do much about the other two. For a complete solution we thus need to go further.

READ MORE...

I received a circular mail from the Australian National Anarchism activist Welf Herfurth a couple of days ago.  Essentially, he was making an appeal for funds for Andrew Yeoman’s outfit in the Bay Area.  The basis of the appeal was that Andrew’s prodigious energy has been richly rewarded.  But welcome as it is, success and political advancement needs to be funded:

Since he started to get active, Andy’s Bay Area National Anarchists group grew from a few people to the biggest alternative metapolitical group in San Francisco. Here are some of their major achievements in the past few years:

* 44,000+ website hits (http://www.bayareanationalanarchists.com/blog/)
* 22,000+ YouTube video views (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bay+area+national+anarchists&search_type=&aq=0&oq=Bay+area+national+)
* Regularly hosted meetings and recurring events (Monthly Meetings, White Cross Patrols, Folsom Street Fair Protest)
* Speaking events including Emeryville, Orange County, and Sydney Australia
* A large increase in support from groups across the nation and abroad
* Hosting foreign visitors for events and speeches
* The first unofficial BANA housing collective
* Media coverage by a local newspaper and the SPLC
* Flyering runs in Berkeley, San Francisco, and Petaluma
* A continuous presence at street protests
* The formation of sister networks in Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Inland Empire, and Orange County
* Our first online radio interview
* 22 videos produced and 3 more in production
* At least 4 blog posts a month
* A business plan
* An active Facebook presence
* PayPal subscribers (currently numbering at 5)
* A custom graphic banner on the website made by allies in the UK
* A private mail box

I think you agree with me that this is a very impressive list of achievements.

Our ‘friends’ from the SPLC wrote a very interesting article about the BANA that you can find here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1058

And Spencer Sunshine wrote this for the Public Eye website:
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html

Last, but not least, here is an interview with Andy with the well respected and valued ‘The Occidental Quarterly’:
http://www.toqonline.com/2009/08/interview-with-andrew-yeoman-part-i/

So you can see that he is not only promising political activism, but also he is delivering it too. The BANA are a group of dedicated and committed people. I know for sure that Andy not only spends every spare minute in organising events, making videos, networking with likeminded people, etc, but he also puts thousands of dollars of his own money into the cause ...

And what followed was the appeal for funds.  I shan’t copy that out.  But if you know Andrew’s work and want to offer him some support, here’s the link:

http://bayareanationalanarchists.com/blog/2009/09/bana-monthly-donations.html

The judge also accepted ‘powerful submissions’ from the Commission that the BNP’s proposed new constitution is likely to remain unlawful. We will be back in court in March where we hope to conclude this matter by ensuring that whatever constitution the BNP adopts does not break discrimination laws.

John Wadham, EHRC, quoted in a Commission press release following the BNP’s return to the county court today.

The two parts of this statement contain the entire purpose of the EHRC in its action against the BNP.  The first part is to make the party non-racial in its politics.  The second is to render it financially incapable of campaigning in the (May 6th) General Election.

It is part one - the exclusion of all reference to the native British in the party constitution - that is of significance, and more for what it reveals about the historical moment than any political or legal aspects.  In fact, I would go further and say that unless the EHRC pushes its luck to the point of taking out a prosecution against one of the BNP’s leaders for publicly speaking of Britain’s native peoples, none of the legal or political consequences of today’s ruling will do any real, lasting damage.  Instead, the party will simply hold the two AGMs required of it and the voting membership will come to the view that, to quote Lee Barnes:

The sole aim of us participating in the political process is to take power.

Amen to that.  Everything is now clarified.  We have reached a defining moment in the long process of racial destruction which began with the Atlee government turning its back on the people’s rights and instincts in 1948.  The BNP has stripped away everything but the one essential principle that it must fight, and fight, and fight.  The Establishment has, in attempting to force the discourse of the BNP to match its own, stripped away everything but the one essential principle that the native British must die as native Britons.  This is no longer about “fascism” or “the hard right” or even “hate”.  It is existential, and well enough put by a commenter to the BNP’s website named Rijker:

This is no longer your country.
You cannot have a culture of your own.
You can not represent yourselves in Parliament.
You are to be persecuted until you no longer exist.

Out of this moment will quickly emerge a new clarity and urgency in racialist discourse, and not the death of racialist discourse the EHRC would wish.  What would have been seen by the public as the most extreme and contentious interpretation of “immigration” - that of a designed genocide by population transfer - will slowly but surely become the accepted version of events.  And when that happens, a general awakening is close.

Inevitablism has just been given a huge shot in the arm.

by The Narrator

The ongoing debate/discussion about the pertinent steps to be taken to secure the sanctity and survival of the White race in America into the future continues its (seemingly) irrelevant pace.

Do we work within the system or try to reform it to our side?

Honestly, I’d say the answer is neither.

For one thing, the writing is on the proverbial wall, as this NYT article illustrates.  There is a clickable map at that site showing the percentage of minority students by state.

For another thing, it is entirely possible that, for a percentage of our ideological adversaries, the establishment of an official White Community (complete with social, economic and political advocacy) would be seen as the final victory over Western Civilization and Western Man.

After all, the pursuit of a “party” at this point is the pursuit of a chair at the table of what was once our own house. It is to psychologically and philosophically acquiesce ownership of our own civilization.

In that, I sincerely doubt the Left fears to see the rise of White Nationalism as a political option for White Americans who are, circa 2010, probably around 53% of the population of America. Once we become a White American Party we have accepted the terms and conditions of our enemies. We are, then, mere players in the new Gnostic world order of global community.

Put another way, when we accept the role as being yet another ethnic/cultural group WITHIN OUR OWN CIVILIZATION we have acknowledged defeat.

What then is our course of action?

READ MORE...

These days my relationship with the moderators of Comment is Free - Matt Seaton’s censorious defenders of the Guardian faithful - is in a bad way.  They know someone who means to cause their poor lambs ideological pain is out there.  They don’t like it, and they have their knives out.

Of course they are right.  I don’t log-on to engage with their flock in the spirit of fraternal Semitism and peace to all men and man-hating dykes that they intend.  Originally, CiF provided an opportunity to test our arguments against the little clutch of undeniably good minds that frequented it.  And one or two profitable and educational exchanges were had, for sure.  But the good minds grew weary and the moderators wary.  The immoderation began with a noticeable narrowing of the discourse perhaps a year ago.  References to the meaning for the English of miscegenation were excised more swiftly.  The meaning of minoritisation followed.  Lately the notion of ultimate and proximate values has gone too.  That and the terms “race-replacement” and “left-racism” are no more than invitations to the trigger-happy guardians of ideological purity.  The notion that the English have the same natural right as any other people to pass their ancestral land onto their own children seems to be too unimpeachable to delete.  For now.  But just this afternoon the perfectly respectable idea that violence in society enters at the most formative level of the common conception of the human, if that conception is partial, was deemed too offensive for the ba-bas.  Fifteen minutes of my writer’s life was wasted for nothing.

Give them their due, Matt’s boys have become ever more creative in interpreting the house rules to fit their agenda.  There are threads on which they memory-hole comments by the dozen, as often as not where the lead article has been ghosted for a government minister.  From my experience, the great majority of deletions also result in the ultimate sanction in red just about the comment box: “oh yea, further offence shall ne’er stain this temple of false middle-class virtues.  Thou art modded.”

READ MORE...

Five years ago the distinctly loose journalistic cannon that is Rod Liddle opined on things he shouldn’t say about black people.  It was one of those moments when the thought crosses one’s mind, “what does this person think privately?”  Now we know:

Former Today editor Rod Liddle under fire over ‘racist’ posts on football supporters’ website

Former Today programme editor Rod Liddle has been accused of racism after writing a series of inflammatory messages on a football supporters’ website.

Mr Liddle, who now works for The Spectator magazine and is tipped to become the next editor of The Independent, used crude language to argue for the axeing of all black-only organisations.
He also contributed to a debate in which supporters demanded violent attacks on a black footballer.

The 49-year-old left the messages on Millwall Online - an independent website unconnected to the club - under the username ‘monkeymfc’.

The first message was written in October, when he contributed to a debate about whether the BNP should admit non-white members.

He wrote: ‘There’s thousands of organisations catering exclusively to black and asian minorities. **** ‘em, close them down. Why do blacks need a forum of their own? As a power base and cash cow for ****s and in order to perpetuate the myth of widespread discrimination.’

The next day he joined in a thread about a row between Millwall’s Neil Harris and the Ghanaian-English player Kevin Amankwaah, who had accused Harris of racially abusing him - an allegation Harris denies.

After abusive comments about Amankwaah by other users, Liddle writes he has heard Harris’s alleged comment was: ‘**** off you spearchucking African ****.’

Later that month, another comment written by monkeymfc appears in a thread called ‘Channel 4 claiming blacks are thick’, about a documentary alleging racial differences in intelligence.

In comments Liddle strongly denies writing, the contributor says: ‘On average a little under 10 per cent thicker than whites; 15 per cent thicker than east Asians. I thought everyone knew, too. Some argument about cultural bias of tests, but same results come up in US.’

READ MORE...

Magic words are speech acts that do without meaning.

But what do they do?

Here’s an example:

We get bogged down in arguing the meaning of magic words when their meaning is hardly relevant.  Moreover, understanding that these are acts of magic may help us understand why magic has carried a death sentence in many cultures.

The key game to the Unelightenment is to claim that if you can’t prove you are being damaged by thus and so, then you have no right to isolate yourself from it even though that would be the one way of proving whether it was damaging you or not.

Its the basic way in which the West has fallen short of the Enlightenment—the achilles heel of the West.

No one else is required to justify their beliefs and territorial control with empirical evidence because the Enlightenment wasn’t their idea.  Only we are so required, but then we are prohibited from doing what it takes to get that empirical evidence in the social sciences: exclude and expel.

To put the game in stark terms:  It is more acceptable to impose treatments on people without their consent when they can’t prove harm, than it is to relocate people when some others think they are harming them but can’t prove it.

I’ve never seen that tradeoff even explicated in public discourse.

When (not if) the Laboratory of the States campaigns take off that explication in public discourse will ensue.