David Lane’s famous formulation of the nationalist purpose is, though a very adequate imperative, not actually political.  Our people should have a secure existence.  Our children should have a secure future.  In the sense that these are necessities of racial life they do not constitute more than a statement of the obvious and a claim on Nature, though, of course, in a European age as grotesquely internationalist and anti-Natural as ours, they are also a bit of a shock to the liberal moral sensibility.

Still, the question is left hanging: what final politics, what system of ideas, what permanent political purpose do you, dear reader, want?  I mean, beyond the securing of our people’s existence and our children’s future.  Are you truly political in that sense?  Do you, for example, want a return to the Christian life?  That would qualify as an answer of sorts.  Do you want something along the lines of Bowden’s “life of glory”?  Or something else entirely?

If your political ambition does not end with the fourteen words - in essence, if you are not a Western liberal albeit with normal, non-Judaised racial instincts - I’d be interested to know what life you want our people to lead in the sunlit future.

by Karl LaForce

Laundry, Intimidation, and Divine Retribution. Wednesday 28 March 2012

My extensive travelling experience has taught me that when it comes to hotel laundry service there are only two types of hotels; those that let you do your laundry yourself, and those which charge too much for laundry service. Our hotel was the latter. As my travelling partner and I are both working-class people, we stuffed our clothes into a laundry bag, got the address of a few laundry mats off the Internet, and took off in search of clean clothes.

Our car had a GPS with an English-accent female voice (“whom” we had taken to calling Penny).  Penny led us to a packed street market with no car traffic and many vendors selling vegetables, fish, small grocery items and flowers. We parked our car at the closest spot we could find, about 500 meters from our destination. As we walked through the crowded street market, our education continued.

Here we found an immigrant stronghold. Immigrant-run tables were two to one for every Greek-run table. The press of the crowd led us to cross the street, walking on the sidewalk or the street as required. My travelling partner had often come to this market as a child. Walking on the pavement, we squeezed between a small refrigerated truck and what looked like an Indian run barber shop, my travelling partner had no more breathed the thought “how did these people get here”, when one explanation, at least, presented itself.

READ MORE...

by Guessedworker

There have been few, if any, figures in the recent history of patriotic and nationalist politics in Britain of the intellectual calibre, depth of knowledge, and sheer talent, particularly for oratory, of the much-mourned and missed Jonathan Bowden, who was buried this week.  He was a creative force, and he leaves behind him a body of work in the form of his speeches, philosophical musings, and critical writings that testify to his place in the history of the dissident right.

I heard Bowden speak in person only once.  The place was a function room above a none too salubrious but suitably anonymous pub “somewhere in Central London”.  The occasion was one of the early meetings of the London New Right, affording him an audience of about three dozen earnest believers, almost all of them garbed in funereal or, perhaps, far-right black, as requested by the organisers for the purpose of recognition.  They said.  His subject was Nieztsche (and that really was his subject).  I saw then what we have all seen since on YouTube.  He was, it must be said, not at all a physically impressive specimen.  He had an open and engaging but strangely broken face, and a quite short and stubby build.  To my eyes, he looked like he might have suffered a childhood injury to the spine but, by his indomitable spirit and burning intelligence, had risen above all the doubts and vicissitudes that would have bested lesser men to critique and challenge the very nature of the world about him.

As a speaker, he certainly dominated the room both physically and vocally, not unlike some tragedian giving a Shakespearian monologue.  But there was a dichotomy in it somewhere.  While his expansive, emphatic hand movements and charged delivery testified to his command of subject matter and his appetite for the performance itself,  there was also a tension, an uneasyness that made him restless on his feet.  He rocked to and fro constantly as if he didn’t entirely want to be there and might, at any moment, turn on his heels and escape.  But in the voice there was no hint of brittleness.  His rather nasal, stentorian tones - thrilling but not easy on the ear - now rose in ringing mockery of some philosophical concept to which he took exception, now fell away in some personal recollection, anecdote, or aside.  He had a great line in off-the-cuff political humour.

Almost everyone in that room, including me, was carried along with him.  The exceptions were sitting just to my left.  A lumpen, tattoed man and, presumeably, his dear lumpen lady had attended for the purpose of distributing some monocausal literature.  The male lump turned to stone in his seat when Bowden’s peroration arrived at point of naming the final cause of all our woes.  Arms spread as if in supplication (though to which god I could not say) he told us simply, “It’s liberalism, really.”

During “questions from the audience” the male lump jumped in to exercise his vexation that Bowden had failed to identify the true source of all evil.  No doubt suspecting that he was in the presence of a coward, and calculating that every good nationalist in the room must be thinking the same, he demanded Bowden’s avowal of the proposition that, never mind all this fancy stuff, actually it’s the Jews.  For a second Bowden was thrown off-guard, as if he had just been asked to jump of a cliff for the cameras.  Probably the security cameras.  But in reply he revealed a (senior) politician’s tact.  The New Right, he explained evenly but quite firmly, is a movement dedicated not to the Jewish Question, which is pored over in exhaustive detail in just about every other nationalist forum, but to the exploration of dissident intellectual and cultural responses to modernity.  That last word was pronounced, indeed, brayed with a theatrical harshness to connote its special status.  Never mind the JQ.  It’s modernity, the unique negative.

The lumps were nonplussed by this display of creative resistance from a superior mind.  The hassfest was derailed.  A gift to our enemies, if any were present, was denied.  The couple walked out with their precious cargo at the interval, probably more in disgust than disappointment.

The Lumpen Tendency would return to plague Bowden and force him to curtail his generously given and highly valued speaking services to BNP branch meetings, perhaps the most inglorious of all the disgraces of the Griffin era. (so far).  It was as much an attack on the members, who loved hearing Bowden speak, as it was on Bowden himself.  But it is safe to assume that Bowden’s popularity was also the reason for the attack.  After all, we can’t have the most talented threat man in British nationalism piling up all that high opinion among voting members, can we?

As a result of his travels to BNP branch meetings there must be many hundreds of nationalists who have a first-hand account of Bowden the speaker.  Bowden the man, however, remains elusive.  Who he really was is something he guarded closely for reasons he likewise never explained.  The most we distant onlookers can say is that we know something of the publicly presented face, but we never knew him.  I can make no claim even to have had a worthwhile conversation with him.  My two attempts to do so came to nothing, sadly.

The first was during that interval in the New Right meeting.  I took the opportunity to introduce myself and compliment him on his speech.  In the course of it he had invited his audience to agree with him that “a life of glory” was the ultimate life, and the renaissance of our race is contingent upon our striving towards it with the appropriate Nieztschean regard.  Seeing such a life as confected and a pretence - a fake never more shamelessly exhibited than in National Socialist Germany - and striving towards it via action as the one sure way to guarantee not a rebirth but total disaster, I couldn’t (and still can’t) go along with him.  I asked him a couple of questions about honesty in life.  But it is difficult-to-impossible to discuss the godless universe with an essentially religious thinker, and Bowden the man was such.  I plainly didn’t do a good enough job, anyway, and the conversation failed to develop.

My only other contact with him was even less productive.  He topped our readers poll of nationalist figures whom we should seek to interview for the radio project.  So I began the research into his published work, and contacted him.  At first he was wholly onboard.  But, as was his wont, he eschewed such modern contrivances as Skype.  While I was figuring out how best to digitally process his rather thin, nasal telephony signal alongside my fuzzy Skype burr he lost interest and stopped answering my mails.  So there is no MR interview today to hear again, to ponder, and to quote.

Nothwithstanding that small loss, how and for what will Bowden be remembered by nationalists?  Short of the outbreak of a civil or race war, there is surely no question that his appeal to the Nieztschean solution to modernity (which, broadly speaking, has been the default ideology of nationalism since the 1930s) will pass our people by.  It is too early to say whether a new idea will fill the philosophical void and present a viable challenge to liberalism and globalism.  But history is leaving the old-school British nationalist and his thinking behind, just as his most eloquent spokesman has left him.

I suspect it will be for his political rather than philosophical labours that Bowden will be best remembered, and remembered with far more love and respect than the martinet who forced him to end them.  It is the ordinary British nationalist - the good, patriotic men and women who packed the branch meetings to hear Bowden speak and were enthused and inspired by him - who will decide that.  How ironic, then, that in this small way Jonathan Bowden achieved what all nationalism seeks to achieve: to be loved by its people and feared by authority.

by Leon Haller

A purpose of sites like MR is, or ought to be, the sharing of practical strategies to advance white EGI. Methods of dispute resolution in a White Republic, the ‘unencumbered self’ and its relation to race-liberalism or postmodernity, the existence of God, etc, are all interesting matters. But discussing them hardly directly aids our cause.

Our primary task remains, as ever over the last half-century, mass racial awakening. Too few of our racial kinsmen are even aware that an intellectually respectable (or indeed any respectable) movement in opposition to white extinction exists and is growing. We must let them know we are out there - and each of us must do so again and again and again ...

Repetition of one’s core message is the heart of mass ideological change.

Rather than having to bother with thinking up a new comment for each article we might read online, wouldn’t it be smarter to have something pro-white already prepared, and then simply paste it into the comments sections of literally as many race-relevant (or even just political) articles as we encounter? Copy/paste, login, hit ‘Post’ - et voila! It is certainly easier than laboriously writing or spraying pro-white graffiti (not that that isn’t important, too).

I started writing a comment on a Yahoo board earlier today (I have posted thousands of pro-white comments in mainstream places over the past dozen years), and ended up producing something longer than I had anticipated. My comment, which responded to an article on current political divisiveness, is hardly ideal (esp insofar as it was written quickly and ‘straight’, with no reflection), but re-reading it it seemed adequate for Americans to use to further the awakening process. Of course, I welcome the suggestions of others (perhaps MR could eventually have a file of repeatable comments for mass distribution depending on the article types at issue - American, UK, continental Europe, crime, general race, race science, immigration, etc). The point is for people to be ‘proselytizing’ to the very maximum extent. I don’t wish to belittle the discussions at MR or similar sites, but isn’t the ultimate purpose of those discussions to change the real world?

Herewith a comment from me:

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

There is confusion about what art is. The qualities that make something art are intrinsic, not external. It is the artifice, the organising of elements, perspective, choice of colour etc, that make it art. The result is obtained by transforming reality and thus nature through human imagination and emotion and is realised by skill and technique.

The word Beauty (or beautiful) is descriptive if used as an adjective to express the response of the beholder to an object, or if used within a clear context; if used as an abstract noun it is universal, and therefore meaningless.

A significant difference between contemporary art and traditional art is the split between form and meaning. This Cartesian duality is the split between mind and body, subject and form. The split is in all the various forms and styles and substance and meaning, of the respective art forms. In architecture contemporary buildings look like objects they are not which is why they are given comic nicknames - The Gerkhin, The Cheese Grater, or Liverpool’s Catholic Cathedral, The Mersey Funnel (aka Liverpool Metropolitcan Cathedral). The form is not related to function - the interior of a modern cathedral could be anywhere.

Traditional art develops within traditional forms and it develops the forms. In his Christian paintings of the fifties Dali adapted forms to his individual vision but they are recognisably traditional forms. Dali was a genius - contemporary artists are not. They need to shock to get recognition. Real Art grows out of tradition and provides sustenance, spiritual or worldly, for people rather than negative emotions like shock or offence that are harmful.

READ MORE...

I’m not entirely sure what to make of Marine Le Pen’s healthy third place in today’s first round of the French presidential election.  It was good enough for the Telegraph website to run the main page headline One in five vote for Marine Le Pen.  The exact percentage was a little less, in fact:

Hollande: 9,172,959 votes (28.4%)
Sarkozy:  8,658,811 votes (26.8%)
—————————————————————————
Le Pen:  6,041,235 votes (18.7%)
Melenchon: 3,590,359 votes (11.1%)
Bayrou:  2,932,274 votes (9.1%%)
Joly:      709,644 votes (2.2%)
Dupont-Aignan: 594,364 votes (1.8%)
Poutou:  383,635 votes (1/2%)

... but it is clear that the economic difficulties that France faces within the Euro - weak growth, vast debts, and unemployment at over 10% - chiefly benefited the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande.  Marine had a clear anti-EU, anti-globalist policy.  But it was not what the majority of voters wanted to hear.  They are still willing to give the usual suspects the benefit of a no-doubt growing doubt.  And this despite the racial disaster that nobody now can dismiss with an insouciant, Gallic shrug.

The “worse is better” school of nationalist optimism is being tested to destruction in France, as in the southern Eurozone, and while Marine’s vote was better than some predicted, it does demonstrate that national crises alone are insufficient to impel nationalist parties very far electorally.  Not even the redoubtable Marine, a class act by any political standard, could break the mould with one blow (not that she ever said she would, of course).

There is always a “where next” in electoral politics.  FN activists will likely split their support more or less evenly in the second round vote between Hollande and Sarkozy.  Not that there is any love for the socialist, but there is a powerful desire to smash Sarkozy’s UMP.  Expect Hollande to triumph, and Sarkozy’s failure to present an inviting opportunity for a re-alignment of right-of-centre politics in France.

Beyond the presidential election FN will look for a spring-board effect from Marine’s six million votes in the legislative elections to be held on 10th and 17th June.  They are probably more important to the FN’s prospects of real, sustainable growth than the presidential election is.

by Karl LaForce

25th March 2012, Greek Independence Day.

The activities for day having been canceled, we met George at our hotel and walked to the base of the Acropolis for coffees and conversation. The neighborhood between the hotel and the Acropolis is noticeably rundown. George told us, “In this neighborhood there are only immigrants, homosexuals, and junkies”. No sooner was that said and two hand-holding homosexuals exited the door of a building directly in front of us and turn toward the Acropolis, like some unholy and cursed prophecy had just come true right before our eyes.

The name of that area of Athens is called Thesion, and was formerly an upscale area of the city, before the government’s refusal to protect the borders of Greece and Europe from the flood of “human refuse of the Third World kind”.

We came to a street that is blocked with concrete barriers at each end.  George said, “This is a synagogue and an Israeli consulate. No Greek institution in Athens is allowed to block a street like this, only Jews are permitted to do it.”

“It will make a good public restroom after GD takes control of parliament”, I replied.

As we walked, the number of non-white faces (we encountered) was disturbingly high. Afghans, Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Turks, Arabs, Gypsies and more, all the Third World seemed to have washed up here. The favoured immigrant status was the “asylum seeker”.  But it would be far more appropriate to call them invaders.  As far as we could see, they were involved in all manner of low-grade economic activity, including begging and selling second hand-clothing, some of which was quite probably acquired from home invasions and street robberies.  They were standing around arguing, shouting, and generally degrading the area by their presence.

READ MORE...

E. O. Wilson’s much anticipated new book, “The Social Conquest of Earth”, focuses on the human dimension of his highly controversial 2010 paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” which begins with the sentence:

Eusociality, in which some individuals reduce their own lifetime reproductive potential to raise the offspring of others,
underlies the most advanced forms of social organization and the ecologically dominant role of social insects and humans.

Since E. O. Wilson has recently stated that preserving Earth’s biodiversity against human encroachment is his “religion”, the juxtaposition of the first sentence of his paper on human eusociality’s “ecological dominance”, with his claimed “religion” of protecting biodiversity from that same “ecological dominance”, indicates that his new book on human eusociality would be an epic clash of thesis and antithesis.  One would have every reason to expect an equally epic synthesis and consilience as a fitting magnum opus to E. O. Wilson’s illustrious career.

I had particular reason to be interested in his book, since I am convinced that eusociality is not an essential, nor even desirable aspect of the human condition, and share Wilson’s strong “biophilia”.  This commitment is the product of a lifelong character development, as the study of eusociality and biodiversity has been to E. O. Wilson.  This development is worth recounting, as it bears directly on the exceptionally relevant context I bring to my reading of “The Social Conquest of Earth”:

Growing out of my youthful membership in Zero Population Growth in 1969, I wrote the world’s first massively multiplayer virtual world game—which is significant here only because it was also the first attempt to simulate application of nonterrestrial resources to terrestrial limits to growth.  A little over a decade later, as a member of the San Diego Sierra Club, I hosted annual conferences in the Laguna Mountains lodge on the topic, “What Good Are Humans?” and, as a result, was quoted by OMNI magazine as an advocate of space development because of my unusual commitment to protecting terrestrial biodiversity.  During this period a book titled “Bringing Life to the Stars” by cognitive psychologist David Duemler was dedicated to me despite the fact that, as described in that book, I differed with his promotion of utilitarianism over biodiversity.  Following on that, I embarked on a series of public policy initiatives with the aim of expanding the resources available to civilization.  This included leading a grassroots coalition to pass legislation at the Federal level requiring NASA to procure launch services from the private sector.  This, in turn led to the sincerest flattery by a rival space activist who is about to announce the first asteroid mining company backed by prominent adventure capitalists.

One might expect, given my background, that my primary interest would be in Wilson’s expansion of his often-stated objection to space development as a supposed panacea for protection of biodiversity from the encroachment by human eusociality.

That is not the case.

My primary interest was in how, given his “religious” commitment to protect biodiversity, Wilson could reconcile limiting humanity to the biosphere with his own prominent statement about human eusociality’s ecological dominance of other species.  There is absolutely no evidence that the presence of human eusociality in the biosphere is compatible with biodiversity.  Indeed, all indications point the opposite direction as we are in the midst of one of the largest extinction events in the geologic record and it is directly caused by human eusociality.  With this in mind, my own struggle has been with the practicalities of excluding technological civilization from the biosphere—most probably as part of the transition to a heliocentric resource base.  These practicalities are formidable since any residual human presence on Earth would present a clear and present danger that, simply by force of habit, a resurgent biospheric civilization would again threaten biodiversity. 

How would E. O. Wilson, this towering genius of eusociality and leading light for biodivesity preservation address the practicalities of excluding technological civilization from the biosphere—given his opinion that a transition to a heliocentric resource base is not possible?

I received “The Social Conquest of Earth” in the mail and turned immediately to the table of contents.

Nothing.

I turned to the index.

No entry for “biodiversity”, “extinction” nor anything of the sort.

I paged through the chapters scanning for anything that might indicate a great mind was taking on the profound practical difficulties of reconciling human eusociality with biodiversity preservation.

Here, from chapter “A New Enlightenment”—the last chapter of the book—is the totality of what E. O. Wilson has to say about his “religion” and its fundamental conflict with the subject of the book in conclusion:

Also evident upon even casual inspection is the rapid disappearance of tropical forests and grasslands and other habitats where most of the diversity of life exists.  If global changes caused by HIPPO (Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Pollution, Overpopulation, and Overharvesting, in that order of importance) are not abated, half the species of plants and animals could be extinct or at least among the “living dead”—about to become extinct—by the end of the century.  We are needlessly turning the gold we inherited from our forebears into straw, and for that we will be despised by our descendants.

The obliteration of biodiversity in the living world has received much less attention than climate changes, depletion of irreplaceable resources, and other transformations of the physical environment.  It would be wise to observe the following principle:  if we save the living world, we will also automatically save the physical world, because in order to achieve the first we must also achieve the second.  But if we save only the physical world, which appears our present inclination, we will ultimately lose them both.  Until recently there existed many kinds of birds we will never again see fly.  Gone are frogs we will never again hear calling on warm rainy nights.  Gone are fish flashing silver in our impoverished lakes and streams.

This content-free gesture of moralizing rhetoric is what E. O. Wilson provides us on what should have been the central topic of his magnum opus.

Clearly, E. O. Wilson has another “religion” than the one he touts.  This sort of abject neurological failure might be chalked up to age-related cognitive decline if it weren’t for the fact that it is clear that, in other areas of the book where he elaborately argues that eusociality is the epitome of virtue, he is far from brain-dead.  His religion is Civilization, not biodiversity, and the elaborate presentation of his case for human eusociality’s virtue paints a rosey picture of human mass organisms, the antedote for which may be the mirror image bias of the viscerally revolting (consider yourself warned) horror movie “The Human Centipede”.

Civilization über alles.