“My fate is to live among varied and confusing storms. But for you, perhaps, if as I hope and wish you will live long after me, there will follow a better age. This sleep of forgetfulness will not last for ever. When the darkness has been dispersed, our descendants can come again in the former pure radiance.”

Petrarch, from Africa, written in 1343.

The European mind is, in my view, better viewed from the very Anglo-American standpoint of its natural endowment than as a culturally and historically revealed phenomenon, though it is certainly our habit to favour the latter.  I confess that I don’t like the light that culture and history throw on the mind.  I instinctively want to withdraw out of that light, and withhold my agreement to the descriptions and images that appear in it.  What, after all, should we say about the European mind now, in the light of its debilitations in our postmodern age?  Perhaps no more than Petrarch said at the close of his epic poem about the great Roman general Scipio Africanus.

I don’t expect anyone else reading this to be burdened by this argument with temporality.  I don’t expect anyone else to seek a revelation of mind in its consistencies at all times rather than its saliencies in some - its great cathedrals, its epic poetry, its symphonies, its devotion to freedom and charity, and so forth.  I quite expect that my search for consistency went unsuspected by anyone who read this question, addressed to Notus Wind on his latest Ontology of Mind thread:

Notus,

A serious if perhaps leading ontological question, well, three ontological questions, really:

If our own faith had never been replaced by Christianity ...

1) Would an Enlightenment have been necessary and ...

2) if necessary, would it have come, and ...

3) if it would have come, how would it have differed from what we got?

This was an attempt to turn the historical narrative inside out in a few words, and find the mind humming away smoothly inside.  Here is Notus’s reply which I thought too good to be left to gather dust on a mature thread that perhaps not everyone will trouble to keep up with.

READ MORE...

Below the fold is a first-draft of a political platform for racialist mayoral candidates.

Ethnic neighborhoods of New York City.  Red: Caucasian, Blue: Negroid, Green: Mongoloid, Orange: Mesoamerican, Grey: Other.

READ MORE...

by Adelheim

We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot, and so on.  What do they mean by this?  And what is their long-term goal?

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”

So says former Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, whose magazine is called Race Traitor.

Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev does.  Anti-racists generally will not call themselves “race traitors” or “anti-white,” nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they call themselves “anti-racist” and then argue for “a melting pot” where all will be mixed and become brown.

This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided into four basic stages:

(1) The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as “white guilt”;

(2) Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries;

(3) Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. Assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being “racist”;

(4) In addition, anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of white genocide will be denounced as a “racist”, or as a “white supremacist”, or as a “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

The demonization of whites, i.e. the white guilt complex, makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation, leading to a melting pot where all formerly white countries turn brown, thus eventually eliminating the white race.

Consider the arguments that the so-called anti-racists use:

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

We must understand the difference between a patriotic way of thinking and that of “Progressives” and “Internationalists.” Their ideological view is often based on a book and people are expected to refer to it and divergence from orthodoxy leads to being denounced or given correctional training. This happened in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cambodia under Pol Pot and in the West now under Political Correctness. This is a Marxist strain but it came in with the New Left under the guise of a new Liberalism. Even now well-meaning liberals promote PC without understanding its totalitarian nature.

This debate is contemporary Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. It includes the relationship between mind and matter, essence and attribute and fact and value. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing. What is real, what is illusion; what is actually happening and what are political myths.

Progressivism encompasses Liberalism through to Marxism: the “isms” that grew out of the French Enlightenment. They believe in abstract universals, we believe in concrete “particulars.” These type of Universals are abstract terms like humanity whereas a specific people is a particular. Abstract universalist thinking leads to intervention in the internal policies of other sovereign states. We concrete particularists are concerned with our own nation. We do believe in substantial universals which I will come to later.

Progressives erect a set of idealisations – what we are becoming, what we should think and how we should behave. Our human nature is fixed in the sense that we inherit genes, which give us our essence, but how we act it out or think is given form by our cultures and communities which themselves grew out of our collective psyches. We can not step outside what we are and where we belong. We are part of it and it is what makes us social beings.

READ MORE...

by PF

Inspired by Soren’s radio show with Kievsky and Parrott.

What is the purpose of anger?

Anger is an emotion which is triggered in the human being when an important boundary is crossed in word or deed.

Anger is vital for human beings because anger, unlike the various reasoning processes which are spun out as a response to it, honestly and indubitably allows both parties in an interaction to understand where a boundary is. Human reasoning processes paper over the emotional processes that drive them and are thus deceptive. Reasonings are usually corrupted by imitation, status-signaling, dissimulation, general confusion and self-deception, and thus cannot be trusted to reliably signal the exact position of boundaries. Anger can be relied upon, because it is difficult to properly fake,  and so is an evolutionarily stable signal for establishing where boundaries are.

In the recent evolution of white culture a method of discourse has been invented which suppressed expressions of anger in favor of a cold, detached, logical style. This is ideal for arguing objective relationships about facts, but at the same time is fundamentally dishonest, insofar as the most essential component of human interaction is elided over. This method of discourse still holds a high status as both a method of signalling aloofness, and an aspired to argumentative style which puts one beyond the vagaries of emotion (ostensibly).

Now rational argument was founded in order to facilitate the discussion of abstract thinking, which is the necessary precursor to univeralism. Emotional discussions are by their nature non-universalist because only genetic proximity will motivate people to care enough about the emotional proclivities of another person to actually study what their ‘triggers’ are. (absent white social experimentation). In other words, few people outside your family care what you are feeling. Those people who do care what you are feeling are people sufficiently similar to you to either want to be your friend, or enter a romantic relationship with you, and as empirical studies have shown, both of these things typically signal a degree of higher relatedness anyway. The point is that one’s personal feelings become less interesting as one moves outside the concentric rings of one’s established family. At each EGI fault line there is a degradation in the ‘clarity of signal’ being broadcast emotionally, so it is very hard to get honest emotional communication with foreigners for a variety of reasons (I have cited only one: lack of motivation).

READ MORE...

“Let’s not forget that the bankers are the next-door neighbours of the politicians. Most people can see the picture: the bankers grease the politicians’ palms, the politicians bail out the bankers with public funds, the bankers pay themselves fat bonuses and loan the money back to the public with interest. It’s essentially a crime spree that benefits a social elite at the expense of many millions of victims.”

A spokesman for the renegade and criminal Real IRA, in an interview with the Guardian headlined “Real IRA says it will target UK bankers.”

The BNP Reform Group held a conference today.  No doubt video will be released in due course.  The conference was announced on the Reform Group’s blog just yesterday.  The second comment in the thread to the announcement bewailed the undoubted fact that:

Time is running out [and] we nationalists are in desperate need of an inspirational leader and vision for our country.

This evening I posted a direct reply which may or may not find its way onto the thread.  Independent thinking is not necessarily encouraged.  The Reform Group appears to have been won over by Lee Barnes’ culturist notions, and at least one traditionalist contributor there who is well known to us, and who disagrees with Lee, has been frozen out.  Surely not an inspiring decision.

This was my reply, and sets out where I think nationalism in Britain must start from.

First, if you want an inspirational leader to materialise you, the political foot-soldiers, must accept certain (very large) premises.  One of those - very important - is that there is currently no one in the movement who displays the intellectual grasp or the personal qualities needed for nationalism to keep its appointment with history.  To draw such extraordinary talent to the cause you must give it an inspirational form.  This is not the same thing as “political realism” or “accepting that change is irreversible”.  Culturism (or civicism) in any form will fail the test.  Inspiration does not attach itself to defeatism, and no defeatist can call a threatened people to his standard.

To give the cause an inspirational form you must adhere to the following:

1. The Nationalist cause is, at heart, existentialist.  It is about the genetic continuity of the true British people - most particularly today, the English people.  It is not about the survival of culture or civilisation or any form of accommodationism.  There can be no accommodation with a severe and certain threat to our existence.

2. It is the Money Power that is truly waging an existential war against our people, and it is the Money Power that must be destroyed.  That means taking to ourselves the power to issue our own currency, and abolishing usuary by abolishing existing debt at every level.

3. Even when the hard things have been done and the future for our people appears to be secure, yet the greatest task lies ahead.  This is to replace liberalism as the general system of philosophical belief by which our thoughts and values reach us.  It will be doubly hard because there is no extant philosophy of a European life that is ready to hand.  It must be created, and it will be.

The demand for survival ... the abolition of debt ... a philosophy of life befitting the European character ... if nationalism is made intellectually expansive in this way it will attract to itself the men and women it needs to address the modern political age.  The petty policies, the rough and tumble, the whole exordia of political life in Britain will follow.  But that is not where we need to begin.

Last point.  It’s probably best to decide when to cut adrift emotionally from the BNP, and leave it to Griffin and Dowson.  An inspiring new movement with an inspiring new name (ideally, a name for a mass movement, not merely another - yet another - petty party of the nationalist right) is going to have to happen eventually, I believe, and will surely be our last chance to do what we must to remain who we are.

by Alexander Baron

The recent announcement by William Hague, David Cameron’s Foreign Secretary, that he had shared a hotel bedroom with his researcher but that he was most definitely not homosexual came as no surprise to the most scurrilous gossip I know – my solicitor. Indeed, he told me before Hague married that he was “gay” – not my word. But he also said the same thing about Gordon Brown.  I was particularly intrigued by this, and asked him on what evidence he made this defamatory claim. The main evidence was that Brown was over forty and unmarried, to which I replied that I was over forty and unmarried, and told him that if he were ever to cast such aspersions on me, I’d hit him with my handbag.

Subsequently, Gordon Brown married, but that didn’t satisfy him; it had to be a lavender marriage.

Rumours and scurrilous gossip of this nature abound, not just about politicians but about anyone who is famous – deserving or not – rich, influential, you name it, there are no real criteria anymore, not in the age of the Internet.

There was a similar rumour about Tony Blair many years ago, that he had been arrested for importuning in a public toilet, was charged, appeared at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court,  fined £500, and walked away. Nobody realised who he was because somehow he managed to use the name Charles Lynton. This story was so durable that even one of Britain’s leading Libertarians – whom I will not name – fell for it.

In the United States, even those holding high office – including the highest office – are nor immune from this sort of nonsense. Although Slick Willy was well and truly caught with his trousers down by virtue of the sordid tale of the semen stained dress, there is really no evidence that he was a serial rapist, as has been touted by some.

The current inhabitant of the White House has been subjected to similarly scandalous charges. In 2008, a white homosexual named Larry Sinclair came forward and claimed to have performed oral sex on then Senator Obama in the back of a limousine, and also that Obama had supplied him with cocaine. Sinclair was very precise about the date and location, and even made these allegations in a press conference at the National Press Club, Washington.

Videos of this conference and others of Sinclair can be found all over the Internet. The fact that neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain alluded to Sinclair during the Presidential race is, I think, the only comment that needs to be made on their veracity.

READ MORE...