I want to use this brief post to express my thanks to MR reader Gina.  Here’s why.

She mailed me a few days ago to let me know that she had discovered during a visit to Manchester that MR is blocked by the web-filtering software used on one or other local authority network.  Internet filtering is something we’ve known about for quite a while.  It’s three and a half years since Johan Van Vlaams warned us about its coming.  At the time, the software was still being explored by the purchasing bodies (who are mostly central and local government bodies).  It was immediately apparent that this blog might be bracketed with the more stereotypical nationalist and dissident sites.  And, indeed, it was not very long before the first case of MR-blocking reached our ears through the auspices of erstwhile commenter Effra (WJ Phillips) who reported that we were blocked from the PCs in his local library.

Frankly, blocking the public’s access to any political site that doesn’t encourage law-breaking or otherwise break the law itself is a vexing issue - and not just for the website operators.  The censors, too, are exposed to the possibility of making errors of judgement.  Inevitably, it is not straightforward to identify a consistent and defensible basis on which sites can be blocked.  Official dislike is obviously not enough, though it’s the danger, of course.  An opportunity always exists for the ban to be challenged and overturned, and I am pleased to report that, in one Manchester local authority’s area at least, that is what has happened with us.

When Gina mailed me on 11th July, I asked her where the PC was located.  She did not immediately respond, but set about contacting the person in Manchester responsible for the decision to list MR among the sites deemed unsuitable for public viewing.  Today I received another mail from her with a message appended from the relevant Systems & Technology Manager.  It read:

Thank you for your enquiry about the web site majorityrights.com

After looking at the site we have agreed that the site should be unblocked. This should happen within 5 working days.

This is a very small victory.  But it is also gratifying and instructive.  We should not accept the dispensations of a hostile bureaucracy.  We do not merit the labels our opponents apply to us.  Ask why “antiracist/nonracist” thought so ill of us, or why Robert Lindsay considers Prozium and every White Nationalist “a maggot”, and you will receive no coherent reply.  Defending prejudice, as the social constructionists so love to tell us, is an impossible task.

Thanks Gina for doing a little bit to defeat the prejudice under which we labour.  You’ve set a good example for the rest of us.

by David Hamilton               

The one thing former Conservative MP K Harvey Proctor constantly warned of was a white backlash.  To keep the indigenous people under control the Caste has devised various underhand and undemocratic methods. The idea was to manage the population into a sort of utopian state. But ideologies need an enemy, and that was “whites”.  We were all held responsible for the slave trade, which meant only a heavily-censored version of slavery with the main dealers – the Arabs - left out of the account.  We are, after all, only allowed to think “correct” thoughts.

What Alan Clarke, the former Conservative government minister and famous diarist, lauded as “the British military spirit” and a matter of honour and pride is scorned as yobbery by the Establishment.

The people who were the backbone of our traditional military prowess are slandered and misused. They are misused because they are not wanted in the armed forces, where they should be cherished as heroes ready to defend our country and control our borders to repel the current invasion. Our troops are held in contempt and not even provided with adequate equipment to save their lives.

People who have committed youthful misadventures but who naturally belong in the forces are barred. At one time young men who were at risk of being sent to young offenders institutions were given the opportunity of joining the military. To the traditional aristocratic-ruling warrior class, they would have been ideal recruits possessed of potential noble virtues.  Now those virtues are now left unexplored, and the young are left in their criminality.

A classic example of how these virtues are presented as wrong or even low-class was in the Daily Mail of 5th July. In this deceitful piece of fiction – a real hatchet piece - the scribbler Niall Firth linked several disconnected phenomena.

Neo-Nazis are plotting a ‘spectacular’ terrorist attack on Britain to fuel racial tension, Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism officers fear.

Senior officers have increased their surveillance of suspects to monitor their ability to carry out a deadly attack aimed at causing a ‘breakdown in community cohesion’.

The chilling warning comes after last month’s startling gains by the BNP in the local and European elections which many fear may ‘embolden’ violent Far-Right extremists.

READ MORE...

Attractive female sees foreign male walking down the street eyeing her.  Female sees native male observing this and doing nothing.  Female evolutionary brain circuits tell her: “Native male either does not want me or is fearful of this foreign male – either way, I test the waters with the foreign male.”  Female eyes foreign male back.  Foreign male’s evolutionary brain circuits sees the female’s reaction and now checks the native male’s reaction.  Native male’s evolutionary brain circuits observe all of this and triggers instinctive fight or flight response.  First instinct:  Challenge foreign male to fight.  The native male’s higher brain functions capture and play out the scenario:  He beats foreign male and although his evolutionary brain circuits tell him, and the female, he passes the test, he himself has participated in building a civilization with the rule of law – law that now protects the foreign male from such fights.  Gangs of police, dishonor and ultimately rape at the hands of gangs of foreign males in prison are to be his fate.  Foreign male sees native male’s fight or flight response short circuit.  Female see’s native male’s fight or flight response short circuit.  Evolutionary brain circuits in both decree:  Native male is a coward.  Make him watch this...

And, so ends civilization: Not with a bang, but a fuck.

On its website Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom, the Movement for a Better Hungary, is displaying a ten-minute video of police violence against its apparently legal and peaceful demonstrations held in 2006.  The video was made for handing out as a DVD to members of the European Parliament at the debate on Iran in which one of Jobbik’s three MEPs, Dr Krisztina Morvai, was making her maiden speech.  It has appeared in various places across the nationalist internet.

We cannot know whether provocations have been edited out.  But based on the evidence of the video it is quite shocking to see what these repulsive creatures in police uniform are willing to do in broad daylight to fellow Hungarians.

The “better Hungary” the party is striving for is one in which government serves the interests of the mass of Hungarians, rather than the elites, foreign interests and ethnic minorities.  Economically, it offers an anti-elitist, anti-neoliberal vision.  The minorities issue seems to come down to the problem of the Roma.

But there is, for Dr Morvai, also a Jewish Question.  She is, as it happens, married to a Jew and has three daughters by him.  The marriage itself appears to be over, though the couple remain together for the children’s sakes. In any event, Morvai famously created a stir when she remarked on a conservative Hungarian internet discussion group:

“I would be glad if those who call themselves proud Hungarian Jews in their spare time would play with their tiny little circumcised tails instead of abusing me. Your kind expect that if you fart our kind stands at attention and caters to all your wishes. It’s time to learn: we no longer oblige! We hold our heads high and no longer tolerate the terror your kind imposes on us. We are taking our country back!”

What a woman!

With thanks to Anarcho Anglo:

READ MORE...

It would be interesting to build up as detailed a picture as possible of selected behavioural traits by race, and even within-race.  We have, I think, a pretty good idea of the sociobiology of Europeans.  We talk a lot about issues of individualism and altruism, intelligence, civilisational capacity, faith, sexual mores, and so on.  The tendency is, though, to see other racial and ethnic groups through the prism of their competition with us - some more than others, of course.  When we contemplate their evolutionarily-selected behavioural traits, which would likely not be adaptive for us, we may be tempted to express the strong emotional signals that necessarily accompany maladaptiveness.

I would like to avoid that kind of “noise” and, if possible, collate through the comments thread as many ideas as we can muster about the traits of Ashkenazics and other Jews, Eurasians, East Asians, South Asians, Mexicans, Arabs, North Africans, Sub-Saharans, and so on.

For example, one can see that Han Chinese place a very high value on conformism which appears to include a strong desire for approval from authority, and on honour which in the negative form of face-saving may be linked to the same desire.  Japanese, which might in large measure mean Yamato, are perhaps weaker than Han on conformism but stronger still on honour.  Even so, Japanese parents will allow school teachers to beat any sign of rebellious individualism out of children who are scarcely more than infants (damn, you see what I mean about moral interpolation).

These are both populations which exhibit the adaptiveness in a northern hemisphere, cold-climate environment of high-K strategies for intelligence.  But how different the outcome is from the European experience, and how fascinating that difference.

How fully can we explicate that difference on its own terms?  And what of other group differences?

From GalliaWatch, quoting Le Parisien:-

Violent incidents erupted Tuesday evening (July 7) between police and about sixty young persons in a neighborhood of Firminy, near Saint-Etienne. These clashes follow the hospitalization of Mohammed Benmoura, 21, a resident of the Grand H neighborhood, who attempted suicide while he was in police custody.

According to a spokesman for the neighborhood, “it all began around nine o’clock. The youths revolted. It was a big riot that lasted four or five hours.” They threw rocks at the police, who, with the assistance of reinforcements from the CRS (riot police), used tear gas and rubber bullets. Calm was not restored until four-thirty in the morning.

Nine persons were arrested. Firemen recorded thirty-two cars torched in Firminy and the surrounding towns of Chambon-Feugerolles and La Ricamarie. Fire trucks and police cars were also damaged by rocks, as was a shop in a business district, a branch of Restos du Coeur (a type of meals on wheels establishment) and an employment agency, according to the prefect.

Mohammed Benmoura tried to hang himself while in custody, Monday night, at police headquarters. Hospitalized in a coma, his prognosis for recovery is very uncertain. According to his family, he suffered severe brain damage.

The rioting ran into a third night.  Given that the young man who died in police custody was probably beaten into unconsciousness and then had a simulated hanging carried out on him, one can’t entirely sympathise with the policemen who had to face the rioters.  Still it is another reminder of how tinder-dry multicultural France is these days.

READ MORE...

Intellectual honesty requires that one address the strongest, not weakest, arguments of one’s opponent. It is called “Devil’s Advocacy” or “Giving the Devil his Due” but it is not really advocacy, nor really even viewing one’s opponent as “the Devil”.  It is simple intellectual honesty.  Now, admittedly, we live in a very intellectually dishonest world—a world in which we are routinely demonized by a theocratic supremacy utterly uninterested in the truth or freedom—so there is very little reciprocation earned from us.  That is the strongest position of those who would not give the Devil his Due:  Why bother with intellectual honesty?

The answer is simply, that we seek the truth.

With that preliminary out of the way, let me address something that has been bothering me for some time about those who continually go on about the Federal Reserve “creating money out of thin air” as though they are counterfieting.  First, the money they create is backed by the threat of punishment—if you don’t obtain their money for payment of taxes, the government will throw you in prisons to experience “sexual awakening”—hence not “out of thin air”.  Now, everyone who uses the phrase “out of thin air” will more or less agree that this “backing” by a promise not to punish you if you present the Federal Reserve tokens is real but, they will object, there is no point in discussing such fine distinctions.

Yes there is.

There is a relatively strong argument from the supporters of fiat money and fractional reserve banking that gets trotted out for the favored few journalists, economics majors and politicians who are trained to ignore the rest of us.  We, the “Paranoid”—We, the “Kooks”—We, the “Extremists”—We, the People, are not exposed to it—until now.

Imagine a world in which people have taken a step up from barter to issuing IOUs for their goods or services—IOUs which can circulate.  Farmer John issues IOUs that say: “I, Farmer John, owe the bearer of this note 1 dozen eggs.”  Tailor James issues IOUs that say:  “I, Tailor James, owe the bearer of this note 1 fitted suit.”  These IOUs are traded around the community and a monetary system is established where the currencies have backing that is as real as the credibility of their issuers.  They are “debt money” in the sense that the issuer has made a promise to the bearer but they do not bear interest to anyone in particular.

Now comes the Banker:

The typical argument you hear from the opponents of Fractional Reserve Banking is that the Banker will have a store of gold that he represents with gold certificates that circulate in the community, and that he issues more certificates than he has gold in a blatant act of fraud.  But let’s go back to Farmer John and his eggs for a moment:  Farmer John doesn’t have the eggs.  He has chickens who lay eggs on a regular basis.  If Farmer John has a “run on the henhouse” by the holders of his IOUs, he’ll be accused of having “created IOUs out of thin air” because he won’t be able to service all the demands for his eggs in a timely manner.

Now is it true that the Banker’s main monetary service is the storage of gold for people, hence issuing tokens for more gold than he has in storage is fraud?

No.  That is not the Banker’s main monetary service.

The Banker’s main monetary service is to simplify the monetary system by accepting the IOUs from others and performing 3 services:

1) Evaluate the credibility of the barter tokens issued by Farmer John and Tailor James, etc.
2) Evaluate the liquid value of the goods and/or services offered by Farmer John and Tailor James, etc.
3) Issuing the bank’s IOUs in exchange for IOUs from Farmer John and Tailor James, etc. so that the community has a single currency.

It’s that simple.

Now, one may ask, where does the banker legitimately charge interest here?

Simply:  Sometimes Farmer John fails to provide eggs.  Sometimes Tailor James fails to fit suits.  The banker needs to charge what amounts to an insurance premium based on the credibility of Farmer John’s promises and another premium based on the credibility of Tailor James’s promises, etc.  Hence, the Banker is merely attempting to do what any honest insurance man does:  Cover his, and your, risks in participating in the monetary system under his responsibility.  No Gold need be involved at all.

Now that we better understand the legitimacy of a “central bank”, let us focus on the real problem:

When the bank links up with the tax collecting agencies, as happened in 1913 with the simultaneous passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, it has acquired the government as collection thugs—thugs who will “break your kneecaps” if you don’t pay up.  At some point—and it isn’t well defined exactly when this occurs—the promises for delivery of goods and services cease to be the primary backing for the banker’s notes and the threat of punishment becomes the primary backing.

That’s the real problem with the Federal Reserve.