It’s just the beginning for the good men and women who will vote for the BNP for the first time in the upcoming European elections.  After that, they have a lot to think about.  What will make up their minds for nationalism?

by David Hamilton

There is a relentless and deadly war being conducted against the people of Britain.  That realisation is what distinguishes the mere protest voter from the committed BNP supporter.

So ... where did it begin, this war on our blood?

The ruling-class changed after the Second World War.  They became obsessed with an ideology that calls for sensitivity towards the Third World.  The previous posture of “white man on top” was discarded. The humiliation over Suez put the lid on it.  It was not the loss of the canal but the sheer incompetent debacle of it all that showed us up as being weak and no longer one of the top nations.

The ruling-class had introduced minorities into several countries for commercial reasons.  They introduced Tamils into Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) for rubber. This has saddled the Singalese with a vicious minority.  They spoke a different language and had a different religion from the natives.  It was similar in Malaya were the ruling-class introduced Chinese, then Tamils.  In Guyana they introduced Indians.  There had to be laws introduced to protect the Malays.  That happened, too, in Fiji where the ruling-class imported Indians to cut sugar cane.

In the Malaya of 50 years ago little more than half of the population was Malay.  The ethnic differences showed themselves in the Malays’ lack of commercial mindedness while the Chinese flourished commercially and pushed the Malays out.  The symptoms of discord were already evident in the early part of last century as the Chinese gravitated to the cities, while the Malays lived in the country. 

As early as 1940 the famous politician of the old elite class, the diarist Henry “Chips” Channon, had remarked on the moral failings of the rulers.  There was appeasement of the Nazis in the 30s and appeasement of immigrants since the 50s.  There was a perceived need for a larger body to shelter behind.  The League of Nations was seen as a vehicle for morality and this replaced the quest for power and self-interest.  The dainty British rulers renounced the balance of power for the moral superiority of the League.  The plan to disarm as much as possible when we were the most powerful nation was enshrined in the Covenant of the League.  Since the Second War it was the Commonwealth, then the EU, and ultimately it will be World Government to look after the interests of these poor tender things.

Of our interests they care nothing.

There was racial conflict from the beginning of mass immigration in the UK.  But the elites have avoided having to face it by making us the scapegoats.  If they blame someone else like ordinary British people they don’t have to face their own inadequacy.  In 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff Lord Milner wrote in a Memorandum of June 23rd, On the Repatriation of Coloured Men:  ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…”  Milner’s comments on Britain in Egypt are telling: “It is a force making for the triumph of the simplest ideas of honesty, humanity, and justice… If Egyptian prosperity is a British interest so is Egyptian independence.”

READ MORE...

When you listen to this harrassment of Elizabeth Warren by her National Public Radio “interviewer”, one Adam Davidson you may get an idea of why I think Elizabeth Warren is important.  Mr. Davidson certainly does or he wouldn’t have been so unprofessional with her—literally risking his career on behalf of “the masters of the universe” to try and discredit her. 

The really important point to understand here is that the key to controlling the white population in the US has been pumping white women up to the point that their weaknesses can be turned against their people.  Ultimately that’s what control of the media, academia and money are all about: Grabbing control of women.  I call them “The Church Ladies of Holocaustianity”.  They sacrifice their youthful fertility for the urban centers as corporate concubines and then, when discarded during middle age without so much as alimony, are sent packing with their bitterness, hysteria, debt, chlamydia, HPV and HSV if not HIV, back to the rubes who have no resources to deal with them.  There they might find some government program for “continuing education” supplemented with a lot of medication, to prop them up so they can continue to preach Holocaustianity at the rubes—who might be getting out of hand.  Truly a horrifying scenario but one that seems to function for the “masters of the universe” back in the cities.

Until now….

See, what is starting to happen with folks like Elizabeth Warren is that, instead of sitting in the front pew of the church and saying “Amen!” to their “Preacher”, they’re starting to realize he’s not only spreading VD among her fellow church ladies, but that he can’t really support them even after conning the rest of the congregation out of their tithes! 

Hell hath no fury like a Church Lady scorned and it is a measure of the utter incompetence, indeed the genetic inferiority of the harem masters of the corporate concubines, that they send a weasel like Adam Davidson in to try to put her down.

We’ve been off-line with a server issue which our hosting company now seems to have put right.  There have been short outages caused by similar technical issues in the past, but this one was unusual since it produced a completely blank page - a “no show” - and lasted for something like eleven hours.  Anyhow, I can assure you that there was nothing suspicious about it, and I hope we can return to normal uninterrupted service.

My apologies for the break.

The fact is, I am not noticeably impoverished.  I have a house and a bit of land, a business, cars, a few sticks of old furniture, young wine in the cellar, no debt and money in the bank.  I don’t know why, because I haven’t done what you would call a decent day’s work since I was sorting bedsheets and theatre gowns in East Dulwich Hospital Laundry, aged 18.  Maybe life’s unfair like that.  Maybe it’s a mistake to go off and do the uni thing, I don’t know.

But is it wrong?  Is it morally wrong and spiritually - even racially - debilitating to graze the sweet meadows of middle-class life?  Are the bourgoies, as people who juice oranges and read French novels like to call us, to be despised for wringing some solace out of liberal capitalism?

Well, I hope not.  But this afternoon Tom Sunic circularised me with his his latest piece for Occidental Observer, and I’m beginning to wonder.  Specifically, I’m wondering how we creatures of modernity are supposed to be other than what we are.  I’m wondering what demands can realistically be placed upon mere men.

Tom’s article sways between a high-critique of the banking equivalent of “money in furs” and perfectly ordinary white people who “live on credit in their petty little niche with their petty little pleasures and without incurring any risks”.  Well, Tom has been in my home and knows the shameful truth!

Here are some extracts from his article:-

READ MORE...

HC,

In my own mind I’ve been turning over this problem of European survival for three decades or thereabouts.  Fred has talked of his emergence into the light beginning with an encounter with Steve Sailer’s writings.  I can’t really say for sure how or when I began.  I know how I proceed.  It is a journey that is osmotic in method, like a salmon smelling one molecule from the stream of its birth amid the billions of tonnes of seawater around it, one then another then another.

The molecules, however, are not the stream.  I have never found any source of knowledge that wholly satisfies me or about which I could say, yes, that is the solution that we must all place our shoulder behind.  I have only found signposts.  And, of course, that’s the point.  That’s the tragedy of the European situation.  Even at this perillous moment, there are still only signposts.

The ground is thick with them, in fact.  There’s Alain de Benoist, but he despises analytic materialism and so, naturally enough, finds himself mounting only a cultural defence.  Which is no bloody use.

There’s Alex Linder who visited us one time to press the case for the Single Jewish Cause, castigated me for being “in philosophy” not politics, and then let it be known that he is a libertarian.  More or less.

There’s the popular nationalist movements on the edges of European politics.  Actually, most, like the BNP, are broad churches of nativism - not really nationalist at all.  But image is everything, and you can’t blame them for thinking they are nationalists.  How many, though, could really define the word?

And then there’s Kevin MacDonald.  Let’s look at his prescription in greater detail.

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

One thing that I really regret about the philosophical discussions on this website is that they are never distilled into bullet-point form that can be appropriated by the masses. The highest level discussions in any arena always looks like a mess: scattered manuscripts, little ‘chits’ with scribblings on them, and red marker. Yet, at the end of the day, you are supposed to always hand the simple-minded man an index card with the main points underlined. Except we never seem to get around to doing that around here.

Imagine MR were to end tonight. What has the average Englishman profited from its existence? What new memes have we brought him, what aides in his ideological struggle? That is the question you must always be asking yourself if you want to avoid being lead astray by corrupting influences.

Its not philosophical endeavor itself that frustrates me - its the fact that we can’t even really explain what we are talking about to each other. I have contributed many articles to this website, yet when the main writer GW addresses me, I understand only vaguely what he is actually talking about. This makes me quite mad, because it looks as though all this has been in vain. I am supposedly a part of the inner circle and I don’t even get what is being discussed.

READ MORE...

by Happy Cracker

I was pondering what memetic support we can provide which might concretely help in the establishment of a government that adheres to our philosophy. At some point I came to the consideration of founding documents, and asked myself: what sort of a founding document would we produce to articulate our political philosophy?

What I came up with will be easy to criticize on the grounds that it is obvious, and that it is ultimately just another statement.  But I hope you’ll give the following example a fair hearing.

“Charter of the Existence of the English Nation”.

This would be a document which establishes, in a persuasive and accessible style:

1. The existence of the English nation,

2. What constitutes membership of that nation,

3. The value that the English nation has for its members,

4. The fact that the nation can die, and thus needs to be preserved,

5. The existential threat posed by loss of territory, esp. via mass immigration

6. Calls for the death of the English nation (cite: Steyn, Darby, Derbyshire, others),

7. The right of the English nation to exist into futurity,

8. The right of members of this nation to puts its preservation as foremost priority.

9. Further reading: reference MacDonald’s works and others.

I can imagine a very embellished version, possibly even giving specific genetic data to delineate the boundaries of the nation.

At the very least, a stripped-down and simplified version could be written for distribution to schoolchildren; it might take the form of a pamphlet.

Its my opinion that nationalists and those raised in right-leaning households will view many of these memes as being self-obvious and barely worthy of being stated. I disagree, which is why I wrote this and will proceed to write the document. I think that there is a benefit to be had from stating these things explicitly and on paper.

My reasoning is that, despite the obviousness of this to some, the left has been able to insert so much relativizing logic and uncertainty into discourse, that even while within one’s own four walls nationalism may reign, in the public space, all of these things are regarded as “up in the air”. Basically the left maintains an air of permanent skepticism about all assertions of nationhood. It is perhaps shocking to some that people believe enough in this to actually state it. Put simply: there is value in being explicit.

Suggestions welcome.