The large number of intelligent, well-informed activists of 8 and 10 years ago who were enthusiastically engaged in a variety of preferred forms of activism appear to have closed shop, as I did, when Kevin MacDonald - most honorable star whose writings I was the first to distribute all over the Internet in 1997- and his super-secret CMS group–imposed a “top-down” template that made “creating a new elite” the Goal ... and themselves the Chosen Elite. The need for this “elite” to self-segregate is due to its members’ “higher level of sophistication”, as a well-known Nordicist put it.

… I stopped posting when I learned of the existence of the group upstairs - they could see us, but we couldn’t see them - they were too important to interact with anyone but each other. Apparently our function was to provide fodder for our betters to use in their writings; other than that, we should go off and form groups on our own. MacDonald’s list still exists, but of its 178 subscribers, only half a dozen post; that’s been the case for years. In 2002, CMS had less than 50 members; today it has twice as many. I know from insiders that if a member divulges a word about what they speak of, how many or who they are, anything about them, they’ll be removed. That would, of course, be worse than death. Last year, in my second (and last) brief email exchange with Greg Johnson, I happened to comment, “I support Kevin MacDonald, but not CMS.”  Like a scalded cat, Greg replies, “How do you know about them; it’s supposed to be secret!” - the next day his first article was published there; God forbid that people should not realize he’s an insider.

Any group of people has the right to set themselves up as a secret group and declare itself “elite.” And a lot of people, maybe most, have no problem with hierarchy - across the ocean Jonathan B and Troy S seem to favor it, too. Tom Sunic now refers to “my colleagues” in his broadcast and his new website is invitation-only. A few years ago, Ted Sallis did the same - a great loss to those on the outside who had been learning so much from his writings.

These statements are drawn from two comments on the Hunter thread by the redoubtable and true-hearted lady who comments as MOB.  The charge of elitism for its own sake is a serious one because it implies the relegation of the bond of blood to something worryingly like ... elitism.  It cannot be over-stated that the authenticity and legitimacy of leadership in a nationalist movement rests solely on that leadership’s blood ties to the people, with all that that implies for loyalty and purpose.  Having the smarts to be interested in complex analyses of White America’s political and demographic crisis is not enough.

Five hours after MOB made her second comment another redoubtable figure, Yggdrasil, turned up – for the first time ever on any MR thread as far as I am aware.  CMS, he said, is not a secret organisation but a confidential one.  No elitism or snobbery is implied.  The confidentiality simply serves to protect those involved, or who would be asked to become involved, against persecution and loss of livelihood.  Additionally, Ygg explained, confidentiality protects against (a) government agent penetration, (b) the kook tendency, and (c) the ego factor.

Well, if there is a difference between secrecy and confidentiality, I don’t know what it is.  Obviously, it doesn’t protect against government snooping.  Nothing does.  The best policy, actually, is openness - and pseudonyms where people wish.  As far as not inviting kooks and egotists to participate, fine.  Just don’t invite them.  No need to hide from them.  The hiding makes CMS look, if not elitist, at least putatively masonic.  My guess is that some of those involved also think, if only privately, that they have joined the “elite”.  Why not?  They have joined something, that’s clear - Ygg used the word “membership”.  But membership of what, exactly?  It’s confidential.  And with whom?  Confidential.  For what purpose?  Confidential.

There is something not right here.  I can’t put my finger on it, but it’s there – despite the wide-eyed denials.

I am minded of the Atlanta conference in late-2008 or early 2009, I forget now.  That, too, was confidential.  But when non-invitees enquired as to who was there and what was discussed, the only response was a terse “nothing of substance was proposed at Atlanta”.  Difficult to believe that was true.  I mean, what would be the point of dozens of “elite” American nationalists convening in Atlanta to arrive at a null conclusion?  That would be a huge failure.  Was it a coincidence, then,  when the formation of A3P was announced in January 2010?  Because if not … if Atlanta wasn’t, in fact, a failure ... if a political party was discussed, even in outline with a call for further research or a decision later, when more facts are known ... if that was the case, CMS is guilty not only of “confidentiality” but of lying.

Why?  Did A3P risk a still birth if a little frankness had prevailed?  Are we to believe that “government agents”, “kooks” and “egotists” would have leapt upon the nascent creature and torn it limb from limb?

Well, let’s bust the game open and note now that there are, in fact, only a limited number of nascent creatures White Nationalism can generate to shift the movement from on-line activity to full spectrum political activism.  These are:

a) A political party – A3P looks to be a pretty reasonable beginning.

b) A funding agency seeking long-term relationships with significant doners.

c) A national cultural organisation to reach out and connect to existing “implicitly white” cultural bodies and events.

d) A think tank generating analysis and policy solutions, tasked with informing not only the politics of the movement but the wider political and media sphere (this is not the National Policy Institute, which, sadly, resembles a standard on-line propaganda site no different to Amren).

e) An anti-defamation body – a template exists in ResistingDefamation.org.

f) A media and PR arm tasked with facilitating relations with journalists and opinion formers.  Yes, difficult but necessary.

And perhaps ...

g) A networking arm drawn from all units and, possibly, significant figures without the movement, the aim of which is to measure the performance of the movement and manage it consonant with its historical objective.

That, more or less, is what the secretive folks of CMS can actually discuss.  The political party excepted, they’ve only got to look at how Jewry goes about the task.  The template for success is right there.  They could also borrow some of that Jewish solidarity with and respect for their own people.  Practise what you preach.

by Graham Lister

Of Mere Being

The palm at the end of the mind,
Beyond the last thought, rises
In the bronze distance.

A gold-feathered bird
Sings in the palm, without human meaning,
Without human feeling, a foreign song.

You know then that it is not the reason
That makes us happy or unhappy.
The bird sings. Its feathers shine.

The palm stands on the edge of space.
The wind moves slowly in the branches.
The bird’s fire-fangled feathers dangle down.

Wallace Stevens, 1954

Given that certain philosophical issues (idealism versus materialism) have recently been raised on the blog and are, in my view central to any political practice, I thought I might give my brief and initial views on these topics.

Serious issues are multi-factorial and multi-faceted. Intellectuals, particularly of a certain Enlightenment/liberal type in the so-called social sciences and humanities, tend to want to make a neat division between “facts” and ‘values’. However, values enter into what counts as a “fact”. A large leap is involved in moving from “raw data” to a judgement of fact (even in the hard sciences).

The more complex an historical-cultural event is, and the more important the issues it raises contemporaneously, the less it is possible to sustain a simplified fact-value division. This does not imply that all there is is a conflict of prejudices and biases as data are manipulated to one worldview or another, rather that questions and answers are shaped by experiences, contexts, norms, values, and pre-existing beliefs. All those factors are bound to be relevant in how we judge the issue at hand.

A great deal can, of course, be learnt from those who do not share our presuppositions about both the strength and weakness of our position on a particular philosophical or political subject. For example, there is a whole ecology of anti-liberal positions and arguments, from a wide set of perspectives. Any sophisticated accounting of the problems generated by hyper-liberalism as experienced in our “postmodern” societies requires an appropriate and mature synthesis of these perspectives. One example I have in mind is the excellent critique of the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of the liberally-derived international legal-order by Danillo Zolo (Victors’ Justice: From Nuremberg to Baghdad). It is indeed a vulgar intellectual error to dismiss penetrating and powerful anti-liberal analysis, ipso facto, because one does not share the ultimate values and/or suggested prescriptions of the author.

Yet the image of ecology suggests that plurality and difference do not say all that is required. There are also inter-relationships, coinherence, communication and life-giving forms of unity which need not deny or violate legitimate difference. The outcome of experiencing, understanding, and knowing should be about the wisdom which is concerned for shaping a rich and sustaining individual and collective life; trying to making sense of what these forms of life may look like against a depressing background of continuing inorganic diversity and cultural fragmentation.

It is no accident, as old Marxist hacks used to say, that so much of the post-modern liberal world is profoundly ugly, in both form and spirit, and indeed is proud to be so (for example, in the built environment think of the baleful legacy of the “highbrow” Le Corbusier or the example of the undeniably “lowbrow” contemporary American shopping mall). The fragility of beauty, truth, and goodness – indeed any form of virtue - is aptly demonstrated by both those monstrosities.

Three crucial elements that shape our judgements are the world, self, and language (and the interplay between them). Obviously, this is a very complex subject but I will try to outline a non-reductionist yet materially-grounded account with an everyday ordinary object and demonstrate the multi-faceted phenomenon it actually is.

READ MORE...

Brett Stevens

There are two types of politics in this country: mainstream, for saying things that are socially acceptable, and underground, for saying things that if said on television would bring a wave of condemnation from folks trying to prove they’re better than me or you.

In underground politics, people talk about diversity and political correctness as the destructive things they are. No one dares do that in mainstream politics, although they hint at it and will dance around it because it makes their audience momentarily hope.

Not one mainstream conservative has ever identified himself as racialist.

READ MORE...

Kay Burley is a long-serving news reporter with Sky News.  She has her own three-hour slot each afternoon, and has reported on many major news stories.  She is not a novice, not someone who would be unaware of what is required.  And what is required is very apparent here, in this video of a plainly spiked interview she conducted with a shopkeeper who experienced the London riots.

Kay Burley: What happened?

Big Jim: About ten o-clock I got texts saying that one of my other stores was being raided. I came down. By eleven o’clock there was at least a hundred ... two hundred black youths with hoodies and stuff just rampaging every shop.

Kay Burley: You’re not being stereotypical there?  You’re not sure ... are you sure ...

Big Jim: I was there with a hoodie.

Kay Burley: Are you sure that they were black?

Big Jim: I was ... I was there with my hood ...

Kay Burley: I’m sure they weren’t all black, were they? (inaudible)

Big Jim: OK, then. Let me then to say they weren’t all black. I was the white guy there.

Kay Burley:  Well, there were probably other white guys there as well.

Big Jim: I didn’t see any.

Kay Burley: When we’ve run the pictures they’ll be ...

Hat tip to Road Hog posting at the BNP section of British Democracy Forum

The gay hussar of BBC history, David Starkey, never a man to turn down the opportunity to provoke, has passed judgement on the white looters who so faithfully copied their black gangsta idols last week.  They have become black, he said.  At least, culturally (he had to say “culturally” because anything else would put a spectacular stop to all future BBC programme commissions).  But it was enough.  Cue the attempts by the Jewish presenter and Starkey’s two fellow talking heads, all three of them even more objectionable than he is, to stop the man approximating truth again.

Meanwhile at the Telegraph, Toby Young’s weak-tea support for Starkey has garnered over three thousand comments so far, many of them uncompromising in sentiment and language.  The mods haven’t been able to keep up!  Likewise with Peter Oborne’s piece on the Tottenham riot which has clocked up well over four thousand comments in two days.

It is starting to look like Humpty-Dumpty, the politically-correct bad egg, has been given a good push in the back.

by Graham Lister

It is my opinion that Michel Houellebecq should be on the reading list of any committed non-liberal - assuming, of course, this paragon of nationalist virtue is interested in culture. And I think people who are seriously interested in understanding the grotesque spectacle of post-modern, ultra-liberal, hyper-modernity should be so interested. Cultural values are at the core of self-conception and define the contours of the political imagination.

The malaise facing the West goes far deeper than PeeCee and multiculturalism, even if they can be regarded as the most egregious symptoms of our total embrace of liberalism (that is, liberalism as the foundational paradigm for politics, culture, economics et al, rather than a secondary “corrective” ideology which is how classical liberalism arose).

Unfortunately no-one has a positive agenda to rebalance the West upon a sustainable course. There are of course some excellent critiques of the problems but, as yet, no really credible, putative solution has coalesced into a substantive form.

A comments elsewhere on the blog mentioned the spurning of Houellebecq, and I want to return to that. It strikes me that American nationalists in particular have a very narrow range of “cultural resources” that they bring to their politics. This also is true of many ‘nationalists’ across the board. How many times have the virtues of institutional religion (typically in the ‘Jesusland’ style) been offered as the “solution”, or indeed some bizarre “new”  version of fascism offered up? Pardon the paradox but both are deeply trivial non-answers (for rather obvious reasons). The exhaustion of the already exiguous political and cultural imagination of nationalists is palpable (neo-Nazi techno anyone??? - Jesus wept). There is, sadly, a lack of genuine radicalism or innovative thought – in the true sense of thinking about these issues both deeply and widely, and in being ruthless in the analysis of old assumptions and outdated or discredited shibboleths.

Returning to Houellebecq, he is deeply anti-American in outlook, and this animosity is not without very good reason. It seems that, in general, Americans - nationalists often included - completely fail to understand that their own nation is the most profoundly liberal nation in history. America was conceived as an inorganic “social experiment” in terms of Enlightenment-derived individual liberty. Individualistic liberalism is the true American ideology/religion. To be sure, it is not the only theme in American life but the others have been peripheral to the cardinal (liberal) impetus animating American culture and society. I have encountered very few American non-liberals (a Hayekian liberal who thinks he is a conservative is still a sub-species of the liberal genus). The axiomatic and defining role of liberal philosophy in American society is something that the overwhelming mass of American people, even self-described conservatives and nationalists, have a very hard time understanding. Collectively, America has drunk from that particular (liberal) well more deeply, and for longer, than any European society.

Of course, all of the West has caught the liberal disease which is deeply corrosive to the collective well-being of ordinary Europeans – truly, we are Voltaire’s bastards. To be sustainable, any society must balance the collective interests - those unifying forces that build cohesion and social capital - and the legitimate individual impulses that invariably tend to differentiation and fragmentation. Equally, a balance must exist between the interests and desires of the present generation and those to whom we will bequeath our collective life and national community. That is why post-liberal politics is actually the “radical centre”. It is a fulcrum conceptualised, for me, in more Aristotelian terms. It is not simply the centre as conceived in the conventional political spectrum, which presently represents only relative variations of liberal political philosophy.

A final thought on American nationalist thinking. I note that the ideal of white Zion has been floated on the blog. Nothing ... nothing illustrates the difference being the inorganic, propositional societies of the New World and the organic ones of “old” Europeans. The idea that whites should move to one place is the ultimate in white-flight fantasies, and is a council of despair. No European patriot could possibly think that abandoning our ancestral homelands represents anything other than the nadir of complete and humiliating defeat. 

Why should the British tribes (the Anglos and the Celts) give up our homelands? When I am in the beautiful Highlands of Scotland I reflect on all those generations that lived in this land before me and bequeathed it to us, and I feel deeply connected to the past. What right do we have to surrender our inheritance? Do we really want to run off like cowards scared into self-destruction when faced by some uppity Africans and Pakistanis? Our American friends must try to solve their own problems in a way they judge is appropriate to their situation. However as a European patriot, I for one, will never surrender – anything else is little short of traitorous.

P.S. So we have Houellebecq as a dissector of liberal cultural values, and I would also suggest Ballard and Coetzee in this regard also. But who else might be on the “contemporary literature” reading list for the by no means narrow-minded non-liberal?

These appear to be locals, not the EDL (though they are certainly trying to get involved).

If this catches on, the Establishment will have a heart attack.  Watch for senior Met brass warning against vigilantism.

Hat-tip to PM.

01.35 Liverpool Echo reports 150 people are causing trouble in Toxteth. Around 100 arrests in Birmingham city centre.
01.20 Police urge all Londoners to remain indoors tonight. 1700 officers are on the streets. Residents in Clapham on Twitter are calling for locals to meet at 8am tomorrow to clear up their neighbourhood.
01.18 Witness David Francis reports rioting in Camberwell Green, South London. He says he was punched in the face by “what felt like very reals pearls wrapped around a masked rioters’ fist.”
00.45 Cars torched in Grove St, Toxteth, Liverpool, ITV news reporter Ben Schofield says. An unmanned police station in Holyhead Road, Handsworth, Birmingham has been torched. Looting reported in Crystal Palace, London. Police have told all London football clubs to cancel matches
00.41 Residents in Croydon have been evacuated due to the spreading fire, reports Guardian’s Matthew Taylor. An officer tells him: “We can’t cope. We have passed breaking point.”
00.29 Carphone Warehouse on fire in Clapham Junction. Fires reported in Camden.
00.28 BBC: Residents in Clapham Junction have been told to evacuate their homes by police.
00.27 Reports of gangs of youths smashing shop windows in Romford Market, Essex.
00.24 Telegraph sources: Riot units from police forces as far away from London as Cleveland are heading south. Clearly the Met is calling in all the support it can get.
00.20 Twitter reports: A Wetherspoons in Lee has been targetted in a “mass mugging.” Police were rung but did not pick up.
00.16 Birmingham - police have made 35 arrests. The city centre has been over-run by gangs ranging from the age of 10, up to 50-strong. The Armani store has been looted. A man has been shot and wounded in Croydon, Sky reports. Shops along the Camberwell Road from Elephant and Castle have been smashed.
00.09 Wimbledon Guardian reports looters in Colliers Wood had to be rescued by firecrews after becoming trapped under the grill of a sportswear shop. In Chalk Farm, North London, the Guardian’s Paul Lewis reports motorists are being attacked with bricks, with shouts of “Who’s next, man?” There are youths in balaclavas carrying scaffolding poles. One shouted: “Let’s go rob Hampstead.” Countless shops have been looted.
00.01 Police have called in air support from Sussex and Surrey. Shops are burning in Clapham and Notting Hill. Cars have been torched in Fulham Broadway. The Ledbury Michelin-star restaurant in Notting Hill was raided and the diners mugged. There are reports on Twitter of people carrying machetes in Notting Hill and Balham.

Negro male dominance behaviour.

White women as well.  It is anti-white race hatred.

So the news comes in, and it is news of a revolt by, for all intents and purposes, London’s young blacks, increasingly copied elsewhere.  But a revolt against what?

Certainly elements of the left are trying to make capital out of “government cuts”.  “Disaffection” and the misery of unemployment are also being dusted off and lovingly presented as cause just.  But it is already clear that the anti-white ramp that was constructed out of the black riots of a generation ago, and which resulted in the invention of “institutional racism”, will not be entertained this time round.  These riots are too plainly organised.  The motive of the rioters is too obviously to loot and burn.  No one is going to experience the exquisite agonies of liberal guilt on behalf of a mistreated looter or disaffected arsonist.  “Sorry, young man, there is such a thing as responsibility, and it isn’t as though government hasn’t made huge efforts over the last two and half-decades to help you succeed!”

So what, overall, can we expect when the Met’s report is in, the Home Office committee has investigated, the media vented, the mayor of London bloviated, the cabinet sat, and the Home Secretary stood up in the House to present “the answer”?  Here are my predictions.

1. The young black male is not going to be excused this time.  He has delivered himself of a direct and violent challenge to the social order - an insult which is authentically black and belongs to him, and has no provenance outside of the narrow and low space between his ears.  He has made a world of violence and chaos for himself, in which his male dominance strategies can be liberally exercised.  That is the sum total of his civilisational worth, and it is not going to be easy for any thoughtful government minister to continue to delude himself that but for a bit more educational expenditure, better role models, more mentoring, sport facilities and youth clubs, and fathers at home, there walks a white boy.  There doesn’t.

The truth of black sociobiology is knocking loudly on the door.  It might not be opened this time round.  But opening it is the only option in the longer run.

2. The race industry’s funding will be cut, its leadership changed, its role redefined.  It will die by neglect, being officially done away with, probably, by the end of the next parliament.

As it happens, today Civitas released a press release on its review of smooth Trevor Philips’ Equality and Human Rights Commission.  The review is titled Small Corroding Words, but the events in London and up and down the country will likely prove much more corrosive for Philips (and John Wadham, the legal persecutor of the BNP).  That said, the review is extremely timely, seemingly damning, and certain to be well read in Conservative Party circles.

3. The educational Establishment and the Marxian left generally will cop the official blame for its shameless failure to confront gang culture, and for having turned the police into social workers horrified by the possibility of being called racists.  How much this will translate into real change, I’m not certain.  But it marks the end of Marx in educational thinking.  Furthermore ...

4. That way the black “community” will be spared the most searching questions, at least today.  It will, however, be required to question its commitment to the social order in much the same way that Moslems have been required post-7/7 to “reject extremism” and become that mythical thing, a “moderate Moslem”.  Black politicians - all four of them - will learn the required new, reassuring words, and the media will afford them much opportunity to repeat them.  Nothing, of course, will change as a result.

5. The Labour Party will be forced to recognise the horribly non-Marxist drift in respect to the old blame culture, and shift itself towards the new centre.  This is probably the major, long-term political effect of what we are seeing.  Again, I don’t know how far it will go.  But it is very positive - if it happens.

6. Griffin’s BNP will continue to offer the white working-class what it has offered them in the past, entirely missing the sea-change in attitude to the black population that now obtains, as a result of these latest events.  Eventually, nationalism will find a way to rid itself of its dog in the manger, and then we might see what a political crow-bar wedged into the new fissure can achieve.