The peremptory dismissal of Konstantin Poltoranin last week from his post of Spokesman for Russia’s Federal Migration Service presents an interesting intellectual problem.  In an interview with the BBC, Poltoranin said what all good men would say:

“What is now at stake is the survival of the white race. We feel this in Russia,” he told the BBC.

“We want to make sure the mixing of blood happens in the right way here, and not the way it has happened in Western Europe where the results have not been good.” Russia needed immigrants “of the Slavic group” more than any others, he added.

Here is the BBC video:

So, how did the ethno-masochism of the liberal mind and the desire to be “correct” settle itself on the Russian political and cultural elites in a matter of little more than twenty years?  It has done it without liberalism as a thought world having any history in the country, and without liberals actually wielding political power. It suggests that, among the elites in Russia at least, not political or philosophical ideals but the desire to make money by serving “business” and “investment” via labour-cost competitiveness is sufficient to take away all meaning of Slavic blood.

As nationalism is rising across continental Europe it is in meltdown in Britain thanks to a long litany of disastrous management errors and political and legal misjudgements by Nick Griffin.  Below the fold is a news piece that appeared on the Guardian site this morning. It is written by Matthew Taylor, who has form, and quotes the usual hostile sources.  But it has no need of mischaracterisation.  It can and does fairly and accurately describe the crisis in political nationalism in Britain.  There is no doubt about where our only viable political brand is heading.

And there is no silver lining to this political tragedy.  The Reform 2011 initiative is in limbo.  Eddy Butler, among others, is now a civic nationalist at the English Democrats. Lee’s British Freedom Party appears not to have made it to the start line.

Only the National Front has stuck to the racial nationalist faith, even while that faith has been declared illegal as a result of Griffin’s defiance of the EHRC last year.  In fact, so keen on racial nationalism is the present generation of NF folk, they call themselves a White Nationalist party.

The gainer in all this has been UKIP, a party which takes anti-nationalism to the extreme of anti-racism. It is very likely to score a significant victory in next month’s local authority elections, and may now have the kind of momentum and financial backing that will facilitate a serious General Election campaign two years from now.

Where the BNP will be in two years’ time doesn’t bear thinking about.  Griffin said at one point that he will stand down in 2013.  He may not get the chance if the current legal actions against the party and its officers for recovery of commercial debt succeed.

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

Imagine the following scenario; your nineteen year old daughter, the apple of your eye, announces with great fanfare that she has met the man of her dreams, and she’d like to bring him home to meet you and your good lady wife. You’re a bit surprised, because she has been a slow starter, but at the same time you are pleased. Yes, of course, you say, when? You arrange for her to bring home her first real boyfriend that weekend, and resist the temptation to ask her anything about him, like how old is he, what does he do for a living, etc. You trust in your daughter, she’s been raised correctly rather than politically correctly, and you know she doesn’t hang around with glue sniffers, junkies, binge drinkers or other undesirables.

The day comes, and you are sitting in the living room, laptop on knee, catching up with some paperwork, when the door opens, and your wife walks in. She is deathly pale. “John”, she says, “Susan is here with…him”.

You hadn’t heard the doorbell, but she has a key, and you were so engrossed in what you were doing that probably you wouldn’t have heard it ring in any case. Now though you are suddenly alert; there is something in your wife’s demeanour that warns you all is not well in the State of Denmark, and that very soon you are going to find out what.

You put aside the laptop, and as you stand up your daughter enters the room holding hands with…him.

You are confused, what day is it? June 1st, not April 1st.

“Daddy,” she beams, “this is Angus, and guess what, we’re engaged.”

This cannot be, you look at the guy, he’s white, but so is his hair. In fact he is not a day under eighty years old. You look at your wife, and smile uneasily. She shakes her head indicating that this is indeed not some sort of joke; your pride and joy really has brought home this old codger, and that what she says is true, they are indeed engaged.

How would you react? How would any parent react? You can’t be serious, my sweet. But she is. But he’s ... old. So are you, Daddy. But he’s older than me. Jesus Christ, he’s older than my father.
Can this be age-ism? Are you really so narrow-minded and bigotted? No.

What has age-ism to do with this sad state of affairs? Do you hate old people? Do you hate you own father? Do people usually hate their own grandparents, or anyone’s grandparents just because they are old?

READ MORE...

I’ve been working for the most part on Telegraph threads over the last several days, taking advantage of the recent flood of articles following David Cameron’s perfectly uninteresting utterences last week.  One of the conversations I got myself involved in led to an explanation of ethnic genetic interests of the non-gene variety, as they are arranged in order of significance.

Whether I got the ordering right I don’t know.  But I thought I would repeat the idea here and take my punishment if not.

So ... we know that the highest or ultimate interest for a people is a gene interest ... the gene interest, literally the number of copies of its shared distinctive genes in the world.  Given our parlous situation and the strength of force aligned against us as European peoples, this really netts down to a single word: continuity.  Just to secure our existence and a future for our children would be enough, and a mighty step forward from where we are now.

I am not concerned here with genetic similarity and the concentricities of interest which exist in the wider human family and beyond.  It is the material and sociobiological and cultural artifacts that appear in our life that I’m trying to order.

Beneath continuity, in the layer of secondary interests, are surely the things which materially guarantee that continuity - territory and water, food and fuel resources for example.  And guarantee is the word.  At this level an interest is an essential of life without which survival as such is cast under the law of hazard.  A people which finds itself living in hazard, without guarantee, must fashion guarantees from other interests or die.  The pre-eminent fashioners, of course, are the Ashkenazim which has made its host its environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, and developed guarantees in hyper-ethnocentricity, hyper-competitiveness and intelligence, among others.

In the next layer, beneath the guarantee interests, I would place the bio-cultural promptings to adaptive life choices such as morality, custom and tradition, memory, religion.  While these are not essential in the same immediate way that land and food and water are, their product of adaptive life choices certainly is.  If the people become demoralised and forget their customs and traditions, or if the religion falls into disrepair and disuse, then the resultant maladaptiveness will adversely affect survival chances.

Beneath this layer I can just about envisage a fourth consisting of the cultural goods such as education, law, technology and skill levels, art, a stable and effective power structure, wise leadership, a strong protective arm, and so on.

And that’s about it.  Can’t see anything that merits the name “interest” beyond that.

by Alexander Baron

A recent issue of the Telegraph Magazine contained a lengthy article about a race conscious and extremely insular minority who are thriving in London. This community is not exactly prosperous, far from it; their large families and unwillingness to move with the times – that double entendre we call progress - condemns many of them to a life of what most of us would call relative poverty. Us maybe, not them, for as the song goes:

“...money have I none,
But I’ve got silver in the stars,
And gold in the morning sun.”

This minority has no desire either to integrate or to assimmilate; from academic studies it is clear that crime amongst them is extremely low, and such 21st Century niceties as AIDS, other sexual diseases, juvenile deliquency and the range of mental afflictions most of us seem to suffer at some time – from anorexia to depression, from bulimia to schizophrenia – are all but absent from them.

Most curiously, this exclusively white minority is never accused of that most heinous of crimes – “racism” – at least not by the mainstream liberal establishment. Their insularity is not only taken for granted but accommodated, although unlike other far more prosperous minorities, they are extremely averse to taking any sort of state handout.

Oh, to be an Orthodox Jew!

READ MORE...

I recall visiting Joe Sobran’s site some years ago and coming across a remark to the effect that the very existence of ethnic Europe is an unbearable reminder to the races flooding our lands of their existential inferiority, and our destruction is the only means by which they can look at their reflection in the mirror.  It’s a sentiment I’ve seen since many times on the nationalist internet.  It certainly explains why, when one finds oneself in conversation with a non-white, the will to racial supremacy is always presumed to hide behind all our words.  It does no good to explain that the racial separation we seek cannot, by definition, afford us opportunities to oppress anybody.  Those nationalists who have concluded that the animus is felt too deeply for the foreign to ever release its grip willingly are doubtless correct.

That leaves us with two options.  Persuasion or more persuasion.  More persuasion would be messy.  We must hope that just persuasion, allied to political power, is enough.

So I wonder whether there isn’t some advantage to be got from a discourse of global freedom to accompany the gesture towards the door.  After all, the fear of European racial supremacism is fifty years out of date and counting.  It is the totality of the Money Power, with its favoured political, business and “ethnic” actuators and clients, which is the coming oppressor.

And if this idea doesn’t chime too much with the Third World colonisers - and it probably won’t - it must offer something to that emotional constituency among our own kind described by Desmond Jones on the Pastor Manning thread thus:

The Anglo-Saxon, being the highest trust society, is able to extend his sympathy not just to his own, but men of foreign nations, men of all races and finally, all sentient beings.

OK, don’t get stuck on the Anglo-Saxon thing.  A beautiful but costly empathy is common to all Europeans, and my interest here lies only in the utility of the notion that ethnic Europe is the last bastion of freedom for the world as well as for ourselves.  After the Olam Ha-ba of a European panmixia there will be nothing.  Liberals who cannot comprehend why our race matters to themselves might perhaps comprehend why it matters to the rest of the world, and thereby find a reason to allow the justice and morality of its survival.

So we would say to them: you must try to understand what is at stake, and what Nationalists are really trying to do. You just can’t get past the racism thing now. But you must. Whether you like it or not, we have to separate from our replacers so that ethnic Europe survives and can take down the interest groups which seek to enslave us all.

Just a thought.

In this recently posted video Pastor Manning speaks about the nature of the African as no one outside of WN will.  At times his frankness and his frustration are almost unbearable.  One cannot help but feel sympathy for the man.  His solution to the serial destructiveness of his own people, unsurprisingly, is to class it as an Original Sin from which only faith in the Almighty can deliver them.  But sociobiology is not Original Sin.  The conjunction of male assertiveness, impulsivity, poor moral apprehension, and a poor capacity to calculate the consequences of personal choices must have been producers of fitness in the Sub-Saharan evolutionary context.  They were producers of human suffering too, of course.  But Nature contains no aversion to suffering, human or otherwise.  So in diaspore, in the context of other peoples existence, these characteristics remain producers of human suffering, and that suffering is not exclusively African.

One or two of the commenters in the thread to the video have picked up on the fact that:

... the 1% he leaves out is vital. It isn’t the “police” or “military” that keeps the negro from tearing this country apart; it’s White society as a whole.

As Europeans it isn’t our responsibility to exemplify the civilised for Africans to imitate or to suppress African nature in perpetuity and minimise thereby the costs to us in lost lives, lost genetic interests, and in hard cash.  It is our responsibility to protect our own.

Thanks to Hugh for mailing me the link.