by Grimoire

I moved to Canada six or seven months ago for the mountains and the ocean. It’s a nice place, free of the racial and social tensions prevalent below the 49th parallel. The people are good-natured in their way. Yet I cannot stomach them and much prefer the company of Americans.

The other day I bought a locally made bicycle - a real work of Canadian craftsmanship, the construction and materials are superb. As good or better really than anything in this class in Europe or the States. Super light and fast, yet still tough. A semi street/trail bike, no shocks or extras ... hyper-lightweight as I wanted it.

I saw on a map a large wetlands bird sanctuary about 35 km away. So I threw a collapsible fishing pole and a few things in the panniers and ripped the 35 km in about an hour or so. The majority of the trip was off road on trails, and I passed 4 or 5 beautiful waterfalls. The largest waterfall was multi-level, each step with beautiful pools filled with shopping-carts and stolen bicycles. It was inhabited by homeless hippies smoking dope and crackheads throwing around garbage, all white. At another waterfall I saw otters fishing for salmon fry, and a large Barred Owl sat on the ground in the middle of the trail, I stopped for it and it seemed to smile . You have to be very careful with Owls, they have no fear whatsoever and will attack a human if they consider them fools.

When I got to the sanctuary a sign said “no pets, riding bicycles, etc, etc”. So I got off and walked my bike. The wetlands sanctuary was an Eden, I have seen little like it. Birds of every description; Bald Eagles, Ospreys, Hawks, Owls, Herons, Cardinals, Redwing Blackbirds, Bluejays, Northern Flickers, Woodpeckers, Geese, ducks of all types, hundreds of varieties of songbird. Beavers swam by and slapped their tails as you walked along. Turtles sat on logs, Deer everywhere. Along one 2 hectare line a stand of mature English Oaks had died many years before from flooding. The bark had completely fallen off, and the trees still stood intact, white and smooth as ivory sculpture, an incredible vision.

READ MORE...

by Graham Lister

Firstly sorry once again I seem to have been somewhat ranting impolitely in the comments section. And I don’t mean to be snotty to other commentators but sometimes I’m typing before thinking ‘how might this come across’. However, I thought it might be interesting to give a brief outline of the genesis of my views on some pressing issues.

Basic assumptions

I definitely think that both ontological and normative issues are very important. Any ethical framework that results in voluntary self-destruction cannot be right.  My own baseline view is this – I don’t want to live in a society in which my ethnic group is in a minority or anything approaching that status. Even if those replacing my group were ‘better’ I would not care. At the most basic functional level of analysis the worry is that a formally dominate group will be at a permanent structural disadvantage with regard to political power in shaping their ‘former’ society, which would have new and very deep sources of sociological cleavages/conflict/resentment (and a likely undermining in any notions of the common-good). It could be little green men from Mars, the issue is being systematically disadvantaged by another group which is likely to display intra-group loyalty and inter-group rivalry/animosity. Of course it seems a reasonably good working hypothesis, in my view, that generally the more ethnically distal and undeniably ‘different’ competing groups are, then more intense the cleavages are and the worst any inter-group rivalry would be.

Ethnocentric communitarianism

I’d call my baseline position something like ‘ethnocentric communitarianism’.

Why that? Well in ethnically homogenous societies one major source of potentially destructive and very negative socio-political cleavage is removed. There is only an ‘in-group’ viz ethnicity as a major axis of socio-political variation/friction doesn’t arise. If high levels of linguistic, religious, cultural homogeneity also exist as well then the likely outcome is a more coherent, communitarian society with high social-capital such as Norway. However, the flip side is that if ‘diversity’ is pushed too far along ethnic lines – especially involving groups that are obviously perceived as different from each other and have little cultural/historical commonality - then a major socio-poltical cleavage is opened up with all the negative consequences in terms of intra-group loyalty versus inter-group rivalry.

See, for example, South Africa and its societal trajectory now that different groups have functionally inverted much of the the previous power arrangements and are proactively engaged in battles over economic resources/politics and so on. The result is a dramatic decline of social-capital with the release of those pent-up inter-group antagonisms (crime off the scale – with a particular quasi-systematic and extraordinarily viscous aggression directed towards Boer farmers) and even declining white solidarity (private security etc., for the with enough money but with increasing number of white have-nots thrown to the wolves) also to be matched by a steady ratcheting up of intra-black tribal antagonisms. And that does not even factor in the open question as to Black competency in managing a modern successful society.

READ MORE...

by Grimoire

Recently, in correspondence with GW, Graham Lister and CaptainChaos, LJ Barnes demanded we drop the tedious, pseudo-intellectual wank, and ordered that we:

Write some fucking articles that allow nationalists to communicate nationalists ideas to normal people - not more of this student wanker drivel that appeals only to about six fucking people on the whole fucking planet.”

In compliance, I decided to write about the rules of Politics as I understand them. In paticular, the golden rule of Political communication. Politics is not merely running for a seat in government, Political action is whenever one needs to persuade another. Politics is by definition an exchange between people where one attempts to present an idea of authority to be accepted by all, or the majority. This is a most basic rule, but it’s underlying truth lends it self-operating wisdo. All Western politicians within the Democratic/Parliamentary system, whether you love or hate them, attained majority power with a variation of this rule.

For explication, I will present the Rule in three parts:

1) People care about subjects which benefit them and are perceived to be just.

A majorities primary concern is always material subsistence, followed by the need to be free of anxiety towards their livelihood. The successful nationalist frames all arguments in terms of positive benefits to the listener and his livelihood, no matter the subject, with positive outcomes and conclusions of economy and natural justice. Many nationalists are in the habit of the exact opposite, framing the arguments in terms of negative effects and the experience of injustice. As a result, people do not give a shit. Framing one’s policy goals on beneficial outcomes for the subject, means even if they disagree, they will always care very much.

2)  For authority to be functional, it must serve those who submit to it. Anything of value is determined by function alone.

Politicians frame the argument towards the audience. This is why they promise this, that and the opposite at different times of the day. But the promises they make are not the value in the equation, just the inducement…value is framed around the functions they require authority to develop. This is how successful politicians elicit devotion towards their authority, despite disdain for their policies.  Example of this are Churchill, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Therefore, show the result intended, but the path that benefits the majority interests. Only present the degree of ways and means that allows one to acommodate the audiences interests without a great degree of inconsistency. How to manage this is via the third part:

3) Keep It Simple Stupid

The secret weapon. The KISS principal causes friends to overestimate, and one’s enemies to underestimate the strength and wisdom of a speaker. Escalating a debate into science, philosophy or genetics is asking to disappear into a swamp of misconception. Couple this with rule 1, (keep it positive, beneficial,) and simple…and cause a dramatic impact.

I recall a Professor who on first appearance seemed a oaf ... until he began to lecture. The contrast was such that he became everyone’s favorite and most loved lecturer - so much so that one’s first impression of other Professors who were well attired and fluent communicators turned from a good impression to suspicion that they were inwardly dull and shallow.  Allow an audience to develop it’s own misconceptions and exploit those misconceptions.

Finale: The purpose of this short article is to present a challenge to the reader to take their favorite social or economic policy; ie. deporting immigrants, public execution of immigration officials + Labour Party members, introducing hemisphere-wide right of personal combat, eugenics programs to diminish occurrence of the ‘faith gene’, etc, and reformulate it within the context of the rules of politics. It is advised one start by conceiving one’s policy goals in the simplest manner, then identify the functions required, and how to present these functions in a simple yet oblique manner that can be tailored towards the audience. Reframe your points towards positive outcomes for any audience. And, lastly, determine how to frame one’s policy goals to dovetail with the underlying anxiety of an audience concerning their livelihood.

Insights are appreciated. Politics is not exact science, but art ... and relies on the skills developed by its members.

“The less the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night.”
- Bismark

The essence of the German Volk—or any of Europe’s nations—is ... not the DNA constituent of its genotype, but the spirit animating it, making it a people with a history, an origin, and a destiny.  In compelling it to experience the world in a way all its own, this spirit is not the cultural superstructure familiar to the anthropologist or sociologist, but “the power that comes from preserving at the most profound level the forces that are rooted in the soil and blood of a Volk, the power to arouse most inwardly and to shake most extensively the Volk’s existence.”  It is this spirit that nourishes the soul of a people and infuses its blood with a will to destiny.

Very probably, the metaphysical thinking of Martin Heidegger has been claimed in some form or other for every significant line of philosophical enquiry in the later decades of the 20th century.  In his essay Freedom’s Racial Imperative, published in autumn 2006, and from which this quote is drawn, Michael O’Meara followed suit, reclaiming the great man for nationalism.  And, of course, not just nationalism but O’Meara’s preferred continental European genuflection to spirit-of-race-ism (SoRism, for short).

SoRism is religion.  It is to be expected that those who have expressed faith genes, who appear to be the majority, will interpret everything with the tripping point into faith prominently displayed.  It does not matter in the slightest that they may be good readers of the Western philosophical canon, or that they may be noisy agnostics or atheists or just completely, systematically logical in their approach to the rest of life.  When this one subject pops up – this one question of our European type or Northern European type or Irish or German or whatever sub-set of our Northern European type – the foot falls with mechanical accuracy, the wire is tripped, the earnest devotion flows, and the decision for fantasy is taken.

There is no spirit of race.  It is an imaginary concept.  It is alluring.  It is persistent - the default assumption.  But nowhere in Nature or in human nature is there this misty, destined, purposive, elemental entity.  I am not saying that one cannot refer to existent qualities of the human psyche essential to our type, but if it is those aspects one wishes to reference why not simply do so?  Why wrap everything up in a cloak of silver and gold, woven from the threads of a religious conviction?  What is the worth of a philosophical treatise that is not founded in and does not refer to what actually exists?

READ MORE...

I received an email yesterday informing me that Michael Whitehouse, author of a fast-paced new novel about a prolonged and deadly-violent attack on the British Establishment by a terrorist cell of nationalist persuasion, has placed the opening three chapters on-line for your perusal.  You can view them here.

By way of a taster, this is the style of the writing:

READ MORE...

A review of a recent publication by a senior researcher for the House of Commons which suggests murdering Colonel Gaddafi would be lawful.

by Alexander Baron

The extra-judicial execution of Osama Bin Laden was met with a mixed reaction; on the one hand there was jubilation that the fanatic who had taunted the world for a decade had at last been made to pay for his crimes. On the other hand, there was concern in some quarters that Bin Laden had not been arrested and brought to trial, and there was also the very minor objection that the United States had violated the sovereignty of a friendly nation.

Now, a House of Parliament senior researcher has published an official paper in which she uses the execution of Bin Laden as a justification for the proposed murder of Colonel Gadaffi, who presumably has succeeded Bin Laden as the baddest man on the planet. In her own words, House of Commons researcher Arabella Thorp “arrived in the Home Affairs Section of the Library in 1997, fresh out of music college” and was “very pleased to have found a job that I actually did want to do” because “there is a wide variety of people working here, they are all friendly and open and extremely helpful.”

Obviously though some are more friendly than others because according to Thorp in Killing Osama bin Laden: has justice been done?, “Some of the arguments used to present bin Laden’s killing as lawful could also be applied if coalition forces kill Colonel Gaddafi. General Sir David Richards, the UK’s Chief of Defence Staff, has reportedly said that the killing of Osama bin Laden should serve as a warning to Gaddafi”, and “a wider implication is that the killing may be seen as a precedent for targeted killings of individuals by any state, across international boundaries, at least where terrorism is involved.”

Great, so the United States, no, any state, can kill people it designates as terrorists, including across international borders, but according to the Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism in the UK is defined in the following text as:

READ MORE...

Since the political world is agog with the DSK affair, it’s only right to give MR readers the chance to chew over it.  F Desouche is aggregating the breaking French news - so effectively, in fact, that the Daily Telegraph took its feed for the Banon story from there.

F Desouche reports that the plaintiff is a naturalised American from Guinea who has lived with her child in the Bronx for fifteen years.  However, a reported conversation with a hotel employee named the lady as “Ophelia”.  Either way, this (allegedly) was that rare thing, a white-on-black rape.

DSK, meanwhile, has scratches on his body, and a stack of evidence the size of a Portugeuse bail out loan against him.  A Big Jew, a seriously moneyed Jew, a globalist Jew, and many people’s favourite to become the next President of France, is staring at a 70 year sentence for doing what, apparently, he has done many times before, including at the New York Sofitel.  Do people this important and this Jewish really pay such a price for a peccadillo or two?  The IMF thinks so.  It has started to look for DSK’s successor.  The French want a Frenchman.  The Third Worlders want a Third Worlder.  The accused is already a forgotten man.

You see.  There is justice in this world.

by Ivan

The true logic for this world is the calculus of probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability which is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man’s mind.

James Clerk Maxwell (1850)

This short essay would not have come to pass if not for one of the best Grimoire comments ever, on one hand, where he pondered over the question (very intelligently, by the way, with lots of very useful and very truthful observations; I encourage everyone to reread it while paying close attention to everything he had to say in that comment:

How likely is it that Ivan is not a jew and not a liar?

... and, on the other hand, if Guessedworker hadn’t agreed to publish it. These two individuals have very different personalities, each with his own character traits, type of intelligence, mentality, temperament, perhaps agenda, etc.  But they have at least one thing in common, or so it seems: they both agree that Ivan is batshit crazy. So, in order to show my appreciation to both of them for their roles in the birth of this essay, I picked a title that would sound positively batshit crazy: Probability Theory and Survival of White Race.

Where is Probability Theory and where is Survival of White Race? How could a person, who is not batshit crazy, put these two topics next to each other to form a sentence? Put him in the mental institution, or better yet, show compassion - get him up against the wall to relieve him from his misery and suffering.

Let me point out from the outset: this is not a mathematical treatise; it does not assume the reader to be knowledgeable in any branch of mathematics.  The only assumption is that Survival of White Race is a topic of genuine interest to the reader, one way or the other.

READ MORE...