A fissure appears to be opening between the views of some national governments in Europe struggling with recession and those of the more detached and strategically-inclined EU Commission.  Among others, Greece, France, Spain and now Italy have adopted some strict measures to discourage immigration.  But Italy’s populist center-right coalition, which includes the Northern Leagues, has gone a good deal further than the others, even criminalising those who house illegals.  On Thursday the senate, Italy’s upper parliamentary chamber, endorsed a vote in May by the lower house.  Unmoved by the left’s inevitable comparison with Mussolini’s racial purity laws, and by criticism from human rights groups and the Vatican, the senate voted 157 in favour and 124 against to bring the package of measures into force.

They include:

1. Illegal immigration becomes a criminal offence punishable by a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros and immediate expulsion.

2. Anyone caught housing an illegal immigrant could face jail.

3. Unarmed citizens patrols will assist the police by mounting patrols on the lookout for public order offences.

4. Parents will have to prove their legal status by presenting their passport or residency permit when they declare the birth of a child.

The European Commission, meanwhile, is looking for ways to strike at least some of these provisions down.  It has announced that it will examine the new law to determine whether it complies with EU norms.  “Automatic expulsion rules for entire categories are not acceptable,” it says.  The Commission is probably miffed because it has only recently opened the first of several African migration offices, this one in Bamoko, the capital of Mali.  The plan is to bring in 50,000,000 + Africans over the next few decades to counter the ageing European demographic.

If national governments will only now address the ageing issue, the Commission’s race-replacement scheme could be in terminal difficulty.

This is an outgrowth of the Luton anti-Islamist protest from two months back - itself a result of the al Muhajiroun protest in Luton during the homecoming parade of the Royal Anglian Regiment in March.

More details of the Birmingham protest here.

By way of some background on the general immigrant situation in Birmingham, the Ken Livingstone supporter and pudgy-faced Guardian blogger Simon Fletcher put up an anti-BNP piece today about the party’s claims of anti-white bias in the provision of council (or social) housing.  One commenter named zacsmith had the drop on him, however.  This was his comment:

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has written that “ an ideology needs an enemy”.  In the West that is us - “whites”.  The chosen method is to dehumanise the enemy so that it can be persecuted or even assassinated without conscience.  They think it will fool the public when they try to outlaw the BNP’s racial admission rules, despite leaving the various black and Asian groups to operate their own racial membership policies.

These comments show the Ideological Caste’s dehumanisation of its enemies in language they would otherwise eagerly attribute to Nazis:

Trevor Phillips: “The BNP should be treated as less than human”.
Nick Bourne - Welsh Tory MP: “The BNP are subhuman”

The voice of whites in Britain is the BNP and the whole establishment is conspiring to de-humanise them with a level of incitement that is unprecedented.  If this type of hate campaign was against another ethnic group they would be facing a seven year jail sentence.  The whole Establishment has shown itself to be the same type of hate-filled ideologues that dehumanised Jews in Nazi Germany.  It is an ideology of hate like those in Soviet Russia, Mao’s China and Cambodia against a particular group.

READ MORE...

A few thoughts about an imaginary problem

“Identity” is not a word that need ever pass our lips - not if we have zero respect for the liberal analysis, and wish to be free of its formative power.  For this is a word of the left, and like all words of the left it pressages on us a modern conception of Man which is fatally light and relativistic.

How so?  Well, shouldn’t it be a grave and weighty responsibility for a man to define who and what he is?  After all, modernity places the highest possible value on the individual, denying all bonds, all blood their primacy.  To use the Schmittian formulation, “None but the individual shall dispose of the life of the individual.”  Surely, then, that life should be sufficiently valued by its owner to imbue the exercise with a high seriousness and a desire for some specificity.  Yet in practice the reverse is the case.  We live in the Age of the Left.  It is an age when realization of the Self, once the preserve of the religious and Chivalric orders, has been democratized and, in democratization, has been relativised.  When the measure of a life is mere personal taste all claims are equal.  There is salience but there is no depth.  There is “progress” but there is no movement.  Something vital, something authentic and original has fallen out of the equation.

In the sociological sense what remains is the modern us and the meaning of us.  For well over a century nationalist and traditionalist thinkers have judged that meaning in historical terms and found it wanting.  The ineluctable conclusion is that we are moving away from our truth as men, and putting on the cloth of an increasingly artificial self.  And we are doing this, most of us, because we are ignorant of politics and of ourselves, and we are weak and suggestible.

Artificiality in the modern conception of Man (modern in the context of an industrialised and, later, consumerised society) is precisely a sign of lost being.  It seems improbable, somehow, that the men and women of pre-industrial European societies, filled as those societies were with brothers to the ox, with men listed in the Orange and the Blue, and their widows in the pews, and the widows of the sea, would have had any reference point at all to the narcissism of a self-ascribed “identity”.  Geoffrey Chaucer’s pilgrims assuredly did not define themselves according to their fascinations with the Self.  They were fixed by their relation to kin, to the soil and the seasons or the tides and the wind, to the economy as manor, town or village, to Nature and to God.  These were givers of riches aplenty for all but the high elites of the Court and Barony, of the Church, and of learning.

READ MORE...

by DanielJ

From the Preface to this work, Rieff quoting two historians’ summary of his work:

“If the dominant character type of the twentieth century is really what Rieff calls ‘psychological man,’ the consequences for western society are quite incalculable.”

This is certainly true. If man is a psychological creature than we must use the weapons of psychology to turn him to toward the defensive weaponry of Christianity, ethnic solidarity, epistemology, etc. Simply concentrating on Van Tillian presuppositionalism will do no good when men are no longer motivated by philosophies, but by psychologies.

From the Introduction:

Literature and sociology have long supplied eloquent and knowing professional mourners at the wake for Christian culture. After Matthew Arnold, much of modern poetry [he quotes Yeats in the very beginning of the Intoduction] constitutes an elegiac farewell ... to the religious culture of the West. After Auguste Comte, much of modern sociology has struggled for diagnostic ideas refined and yet wide enough to encompass the spectacle of a death so great in magnitude and subtlety. Now the dissolution of a unitary system of common belief, accompanied, as it must be, by a certain disorganization of personality, may have run its course.

Rieff seems to be stating in this passage that the central crisis of our time - this dissolution of personhood and entropy of personality - is a culture war where the combatants are fighting to “organize” (this has the faint smell of technocratic and bureaucratic totalitarianism parading itself as scientific management with disinterested and rationalized dispassionate concern only for the psychological well being of mankind) the human psyche.

He goes on to state that the:

...long period of deconversion, which first broke the surface of political history at the time of the French Revolution, appears all but ended.

and that:

several systems of belief (are) competing for primacy in the task of organizing personality in the West.

Hence, the “culture war.” The “cult” is the cult of personality.

READ MORE...

by The Narrator

There are various ways of describing and understanding the unfortunate turn many in Western Civilization have taken over the past century. Comparing events to “revolutions” and the course of specific nations to the Titanic striking the iceberg are common (engaged in by this writer as well). But every now and then a new perspective may help better see the possible causations as well as the potential remedies/outcomes to our plight.

“History repeats itself” we are told and sure enough that seems to most often be the case. More than that, specific historical incidents seem to foreshadow events on a greater scale and era.

Such an event is the Mutiny On The Bounty.  (I should state that I’m no expert on the subject and that my casual interest in it was sparked by viewing the 1984 film ’The Bounty’.)

That mutiny, wherein a group of men from a civilized Western nation, having temporarily grown accustomed to a leisurely life of hedonistic nihilism on a tropic Island, rebel against their commander when faced with returning to a orderly and disciplined, (Western) way of life, has a general theme which can be applied to our current situation.

Though it is common today to lay part of the blame for our slide into ruin on the influence of outside groups who, through media and finance, encourage activities that harm us, it is not quite telling the whole story, nor is it reflective of the less glamorous parts of Western history.  That that influence is there is undeniable. However when we look at the way Western Men, born and raised in a strong and potent Western nation at the height of its power, behaved on their own, far away from outside influence, over two hundred years ago, in an era that openly recognized racial and class differences, we see men who acted not much different than some men do today.

READ MORE...

The Telegraph has reported on the demise of a popular and interesting blog, brought about without much principle by its competitor, The Times:

In April, an anonymous police blog written by a detective calling himself “NightJack” won the Orwell Prize for online political writing. And it deserved to, wrote one newspaper, “because it took you inside real life in a way you couldn’t go by yourself”.

But now you can’t go inside real life with NightJack. Visit the site, and you read: “The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.” This has been taken down in its entirety because the Lancashire detective lost a court case to stop his identity being revealed by The Times - the very paper that praised him to the skies when he won the Orwell Prize.

NightJack is Richard Horton, a detective of Lancashire Constabulary. Yesterday, he revealed how the paper had planned to end his anonymity. “One morning I heard a rumour that they had sent a photographer to my home. Later in the afternoon came the inevitable phone calls, first to me and then to Lancashire Constabulary asking for confirmation that I was the author of the NightJack blog.

Horton went to Court this week to try to preserve his right to anonymity.  The judge disagreed, citing the supremacy of public interest.  Precedence has been set, and no blogger in England and Wales is safe in his anonymity.

Horton’s blog is lost, but one of his more practical posts has been preserved in various corners of the web.  It is titled “A Survival Guide For Decent Folk”, the survival in question being that of the due process.  Here it is:-

READ MORE...