For racial nationalists who think that Anders Behring Breivik’s political beliefs are meaningful and, therefore, a profound problem, a rewarding study of his internet activity has been undertaken by Mark Humphrys, an Irish right-liberal and fellow traveller of the GoV brigade.  Said brigade is, of course, much more disaccommodated by Brievik’s slaughter of innocents than we are.

Humphrys asks the question, “Should the counter-jihad feel guilt about this monster?”

Well, when he took part in public counter-jihad discussions up to Oct 2010, he seemed fairly mainstream. There is nothing that would make one call the police. He was right-wing and anti-jihad, yes, but he was not a neo-Nazi (he was pro-Israel) or a white supremacist (he opposed the BNP because they are racist). He was Christian, but not a fanatic (he was pro-gay). In fact he was apparently like me - liberal right. He was anti-racist, pro-gay and pro-Israel. So how on earth did someone like that become a terrorist against the West?

OK, so he can’t tell the difference between racial separatism and racial supremacism.  How many times have we seen liberals fail on that one?  Dymphna at GoV answered Humphrys’ last question with the words, “it.will.not.compute.”  But what Humphrys concludes is that Breivik went over to the dark side in October 2010, and darkness is identified not with racial nationalism or even with racial supremacism but with “the jihadists”:

The story of Breivik is ultimately the same story as that of jihadist revolutionaries. It is the story of the temptation of utopian totalitarianism and the cleansing power of violence. For all his protests, Breivik is no different to the jihadists, and should be treated the same as them.

This is a loop which leaves us out.  As a new poster to British Democracy Forum explains:

The bombings and shootings in Norway over the weekend have brought into sharp relief the differences in the broad spectrum of nationalism between those who follow the Geert Wilders type pro-Israel and anti Muslim liberal civic nationalism and those who strongly detest everything that this stands for.

Up until these attacks the usual approach was that the Geert Wilders civic nationalists would call the other nationalists extremist and suggest they stood for unpalatable and unpleasant views. They would say they are Nazi and they cannot be popular or electable.

What we are seeing now is that it is really those who are most influenced by the kind of brainwashing coming from the mainstream media on the “right” such as the Daily Mail who are more likely to be a terror threat. And they are entirely divorced from many of those who claim, as do the socialists in Norway who were so cruelly shot down, that the real problem lies with Israel/Zionism and far less so with Muslims/Islam.

The shooter is of a similar mind to John Cain type republicans but with confusing liking of homosexuals added - so this confuses American conservatives.

The civic nationalists who post on this forum, who wish to emulate the politics of Geert Wilders, presumably find nothing in the manifesto or philosophy of the Norwegian killer that they disagree with - other than any advocation of violence perhaps.

This morning I received an email from our Danish friend Balder.  He had been doing a little digging and found the on-line trail of the psychopath Breivik.  His subsequent post was reproduced whole in the body of the email - and I put a link to it on the earlier Breivik thread today.

The Balder blog, which many of you will have visited down the years and know well, and which I know was on-line at 9.00am GMT this morning because I visited it, has gone missing.  All that appears on screen now is a 403 “Forbidden” message.  Meanwhile, the line is going out from the media that Breivik is “far right” and “describes himself as a nationalist”.  A good deal of effort is going in to focus on violent neo-Nazis.  I reproduce the text of Balder’s post below the fold.  You may judge for yourself whether Breivik fits the profile for a nationalist, or whether someone has decided to put the fix in.

READ MORE...

In the immediate aftermath of the January 8th 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in which a dozen others were injured and six killed, the liberal media immediately assigned “right-wing” status to the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. A big effort was mounted to pin responsibility onto the “cross-hair” image used by Sarah Palin and the “extreme language” generally of the Tea Party Movement. Loughner, it was eventually admitted, was registered as an independent voter. But more than that he was a psychopath. His hatred of Congresswoman Giffords was real but not rooted in reality. The liberal media did not apologise to Mrs Palin for its kneejerk display of hatred.

Now there is the Oslo bombing and the shootings at Utoya Island. The death toll stands currently at 84. The media has denounced the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, as “6ft tall and blond” with links to “neo-Nazis” - the links being a Stormfront account (obviously, the media thinks, or likes to think, that White Nationalism is National Socialism). It seems Breivik is actually a Christian fundamentalist who has posted “ravings” on SF against Islam.

But he did not bomb an Islamic building or shoot Moslems. He bombed a Norwegian government buildings and shot people associated with the governing party.

There is a major difference between an organised terror attack and the killing spree of a lone psychopath. Had the attacks in Norway been group-planned and executed by Islamic extemists the search for a political logic, however terrible and alien to our ears, would have had some validity. What political logic there may be, however, to the actions of the lone psychopath is strained through the filter of his insanity, and has no reference whatever to the world outside his head.

Breivik, of course, will be associated with “neo-Nazis” for evermore. There will be some deeply flawed people on the left who prostitute his name and the innocents he has killed to make a point about nationalism. Better than having to debate honestly. But ... no political meaning attaches to the actions of the classic lone psychopath.

Except perhaps this.

Psychopathy is always with us. The school bully, the overbearing boss, the neighbour from hell, the pub brawler ... the emotionally stunted and violently inclined exist everywhere, and always have. But why are there so many instances of psychopaths rampaging through schools or villages - or holiday islands - with a gun? Does the modern media create not their psychopathy but its expression in this form? Does the sundering of our connectedness and the loss of social capital - the fruits of liberalism - somehow increase the amount of harm a psychopath must cause to encounter his own coldness?

No, too difficult. Forget it. They’re all neo-Nazis, right?

A post I put up earlier today on the BNP Section of British Democracy Forum.

Peter Oborne redeemed his reputation somewhat in his piece in the Telegraph today on yesterday’s fateful step towards fiscal union in the eurozone. (By redeemed, I mean one might perhaps now look past what he thinks about the soon-to-be-fired Baroness Warsi and Islamophobia.)

Because his take on the future for the EU is very clear-sighted indeed and undoubtedly accurate:

The faith of leading European politicians and bankers in monetary union, a system of financial government whose origins can be traced back to the set of temporary political circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and which was brought to bear without serious economic analysis, is essentially irrational. Indeed, in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard. ... European politicians have developed the same superstitious attachment to the single currency. They are determined to persist with it, no matter what suffering it causes, or however brutal its economic and social consequences.

... it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the decision which European leaders seemed last night to be reaching. By authorising a huge expansion in the bail-out fund that is propping up the EU’s peripheral members (largely in order to stop the contagion spreading to Italy and Spain), the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union. So long as the settlement is accepted by national parliaments, yesterday will come to be seen as the witching hour after which Europe will cease to be, except vestigially, a collection of nation states. It will have one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states.

This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. The markets have rallied strongly, hailing what is being seen as the best chance of a resolution to the gruelling and drawn-out crisis.

It is conceivable that yesterday’s negotiations may indeed save the eurozone – but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated; they face a future as vassal states, their role reduced to the one enjoyed by the European colonies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They will provide cheap labour, raw materials, agricultural produce and a ready market for the manufactured goods and services provided by the far more productive and efficient northern Europeans. Their political leaders will, like the hapless George Papandreou of Greece, lose all political legitimacy, becoming local representatives of distant powers who are forced to implement economic programmes from elsewhere in return for massive financial subventions.

READ MORE...

As enquiries go, “why we fight” is a popular one.  Frank Capra gave it to his propaganda films made between 1942 and 1945.  Stephen Spielberg took it for the Band of Brothers episode given over to Holocaust propaganda, and Eugene Jarecki took it for his 2005 documentary on the evil conjunction of war, business and American geopolitical hegemony.  More apposite to us, Guillaume Faye wrote a book with that title.  And then David Lane, while he never posed that precise question, wrote a precise answer in just fourteen words.

Well, what is our cause?  It is simply preservationist?  Or is it distant, glorious and aspirational?  Something else?  Why do we struggle?

Today I started a thread with the same title at British Democracy Forum.  The usual suspects rushed in with buckets of cold water to douse any expressions of real nationalist feeling.  They need not have worried.  The BNP leadership election, which Griffin will win, has the full and undivided attention of the forum members.  There is less thinking going on than ever.  It would be a pleasure to encounter a few considered opinions here.

On 6th April this year Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou released their documentary Debtocracy into the gathering popular protest in Greece.  Public viewings were organised in the central square of most Greek cities, and the film has played its part in educating Greeks to the nature of the neoliberal project and its system of credit, debt, and endless payment.  It contains some damning commentary.  But it is shot through with the hypocrisies of the socialist left.  It does not visit the destruction of personal freedom and the end of self-improvement which debt-slavery implies, these not being issues of interest to radical left intellectuals.  In the same vein it does not venture an opinion upon neoliberalism’s sister project of the Third Worldization of European peoplehood.  Even with a partial political analysis, though, it is plainly the left which will gain when the demos withdraws political legitimacy from the current political class.  Nationalism is not competing at this heavyweight level.

The film is 1 hour 14 mins, but it bowls along at a good pace and will repay your time.  Its message, in the end, is simple: don’t pay.

by Grimoire

Recently, in the thread to Mr Rod Cameron’s Idealist Critique, Mr Leon Haller asks:

I see that my suggestion that it would be a useful exercise for someone to attempt (at the understood risk of oversimplification) a 3 paragraph summary of the lead post has not been pursued. Neither has any rebuttal been offered to my implied assertion that ethics is a more fruitful philosophical discipline for nationalists than ontology.

I repeat: why, in simple and straightforward language, is it thought that nationalists should seek to reformulate ontology, instead of ethics?

And I agree with these questions.  The summation I leave as self-evident and up to Mr. Cameron, but the ethics question I thought important.  Also, in discussion with Mr. Cameron this idea came up as a point of disagreement also with GW et al, the result being general disagreement ... I expect no less.

Normally, I wait to make any positive statements except critique, since I am usually in complete disagreement with the general temper.  But Mr Haller has asked an honest and direct question that I feel I should answer regarding the role of Ethics in Nationalism, which I believe are paramount, and an “absolute idea” of our race [viz-a-vis Leon’s own insistence that European Man is Ethical Man - Ed].

The root of my disagreement is deep, and branches into many facets of the problem of the psychology of modern man - particularly that emanating from the problem of predicate thinking, of which I will write later.  But now i want to write briefly as possible, per Mr. Hallers request, on the the role of Ethics in Race.

I have protested to many here that they do not understand the implications of the rhetoric of Darwinist theory in practice on Mankind - or the theories of “Natural Selection” and “Survival Of The Fittest” - and its predicate assumptions regarding evolution, that there is a vast difference between evolutionary psychology and true evolution, and that these are in direct conflict with that which created our Race.  For it is ethics and morals which create race and human evolution, as most of you will vehemently deny.  I will tell you why I think you are wrong.  I already understand most of you will resist this with vigour.  So I will be brief.

“Evolutionary Adaptation”, “Survival of the Fittest” and “Natural Selection” are theories derived from zoology, not anthropology.  In anthropology they are associated only through predication, as these loose catch-all syllogisms are at best folk-wisdom with the imprimateur of science.  Only the most rabid Darwinists support the idea, and most educated people feel, in the words of a historian of culture and ideas:

A modern imagination predisposed to a belief in science ... will generally find that neither creation nor evolution overcomes its profound conviction of ignorance.
- Jacques Barzun

The reason is intuitive sense; theories that apply to animals do not apply to Man.  Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest apply to animals because they live in their natural environment.  Man does not.  In man’s environment, “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” kills the courageous, the noble, those who resist injustice and deselects and disadvantages through progeny those who are of advanced intelligence.  Natural Selections favours bestiality and stupidity … and continually selects in a manner devised to return Mankind to animality and a state of nature in coherence with the great apes.

Ethics and Morality are the counter of this, and serve as a method of un-natural selection and adaptation.  Ethics and Morality place un-natural environmental burdens over and above the natural environment ... such as monogamy and enduring, extended family and values that support cohesion and endurance as a social unit.  These accrue to Race.  These create Race.  Race is a result of limits imposed by ethics and morality.  All Race, culture and language arise out of these limits, and distinguishes between the ultimate values of ethics and morality and through this distinguish between peoples.  The result leads to our un-natural civilization.  For Mankind is not natural, as it is understood regarding all other life-forms on this planet.

The Aryan concept of history is of the constant de-evolution of mankind, and is shared with all great classic cultures, and all eastern Aryan derived cultures.  It is the central tenet concerning history.  This tenet also contains the warning that when the values of a Race are discarded, you get Africa to put it succinctly. The Modern idea of the evolution of mankind is in direct contradiction to what you see around you if you walk the streets of any western metropolis.

So in summation:

Ethics and morality are a foundation of Western culture.  And those who propose “evolutionary” or “Darwinist” values are in discord with the values that have preserved the branches of the Aryan race from the dawn of its history.

by Graham Lister

The latest phase of the liberal world-order is best described as neo-liberalism. However as recent events have suggested the neo-liberal order appears to be rather unstable. One key issue is the burgeoning disparity between the declared self-conception and aims of neo-liberalism and its real-world consequences. With Greece in mind, I have jotted down some thoughts.

1 – The neo-liberal state is expected to allow markets to operate without interference yet pro-actively create a good climate for business and behave as a competitive entity in global affairs. In its latter role it has to work as a collective corporation, and solve the problem of how to maintain citizen loyalty. Nationalism is an obvious answer, but in all forms, is profoundly antagonistic to the neo-liberal agenda (Globalization etc.). The serious forms of nationalism required for states to remain as functional entities gets in the way of global ‘universal’ market freedoms more generally.

2 – Coercive and authoritarian enforcement of market discipline sits very uneasily with ideas of individual freedoms. The more neo-liberalism veers to the former the more it undermines its legitimacy and reveals its profoundly anti-democratic character. This contradiction is paralleled by the ever greater asymmetries in the power relations between corporations and ordinary individuals in both the workplace and our living space (or life-world). It is one thing to maintain that my health-care is my personal responsibility but quite another in practice if the only way I can satisfy my needs in a rigged market is by paying exorbitant premiums to inefficient, gargantuan, highly bureaucratized but also highly profitable corporations. When these companies have the power to decide what illnesses they will and will not cover and can even define new categories of illness to match new drugs on the market, something is very wrong indeed. If things start to go badly this balancing act is highly likely to topple.

READ MORE...