by Potential Frolic

I want to explain my struggle with the idea of Palingenesis and what it has taught me about nationalism and myself.  The desire to do this flows from frequent encounters here and elsewhere with “the Palingenetic Necessity”, which I define as the conviction that no other model of political action can support white survival in our times.

Understanding the problem

Seeing the destructive forces working upon our peoples presently, and fearing very much for his own survival and that of his people, the (folkish) nationalist turns his eye to Palingenesis, which presents itself as the opposite to today’s politics of ethnic suicide. The goal of Palingenesis is to renew the values of a supposed heroic and glorious past, these values being assumed to be real and contingent even if the past in question is only a myth, and to venture towards heroism and glory in the present. 

GW has argued that advocates of Palingenesis are not necessarily good psychologists. They do not take account of the fact that the man is of the time in which he is born, decadent or otherwise, and carries only two possibilities within himself:

(i) to belong to that time and have no truck with, or even knowledge of, the truth of his Self, or

(ii) to seek out truth even at the cost of turning away - if someone tells him how - from time and place and artifice.

There is no special third option for the rebirth of the spirit as heroism and glory, according to GW.  Heroism and glory are not characteristics of the true Self but of immersion in violence.  They can only appear in time and place, therefore, and cannot be different to or better than the rest of the artifice.  They are a beautiful deception - in fact, a bastardization for the purpose of reifying political violence.

As psychology, then, Palingenesis as it appears in fascism and revolutionary conservatism is a sham, albeit an alluring one.  It answers the following two wholly utilitarian questions in the positive:

READ MORE...

My reply on the liberal mind thread to our Guardianista OZKT29B - henceforth called Ozy courtesy of Captainchaos - grew rather long.  There is a 5,000 character limit on comments, so I thought I would make a new post of it instead.  Ozy’s last comment, to which I was responding, is here.

OZKT29B,

I was happy to follow Lord Arlen’s example and allow you to strike the very first blow.  The meat of the conversation, though, will now be on the worth of the beliefs you hold.

You write:

You are perpetuating the narrative that any thought that isn’t extremely marginal is, in fact, sheep-like and unconscious.

Our racial thoughts and instincts are the racial thoughts and instincts of the people.  They are no more marginal than is human nature itself.  But there is a powerful conflict between human nature and liberalism in the West.  Liberalism, in the broadest sense, is the controlling idea of our age.  Every person of European descent is enculturated in it, and enculturated thereby in conflict with their own racial thoughts and instincts.

Nationalist philosophy is not at all a formative factor on the psychological landscape.  To come to nationalism, then, you must, at some level, realise that your entire understanding of not just politics or even ideas, but life in general, including the acquired part of the Self, has been unconsciously absorbed, and all life long you have defended the result quite unconsciously too - just as you are defending it today.

We are not born with the power to choose the influences we absorb.  We walk out in the rain, that is all.  Freedom - the real thing, not the liberal confection - consists in recognising this unconsciousness, this power of the acquired, and turning instead towards that which is true in us.  Many of us here know this.  I think it highly unlikely that you know it.

So ... I am not “perpetuating” any narratives.  I am trying to bring you, as quickly as possible, to the beginnings of the understanding that, so far in your life, you have not owned the formative processes of your own mind.  Not only, then, are you not free but you cannot be free, regardless of the “liberty” in the liberalism you espouse.

We can discuss in detail what passes for freedom in the liberal canon later.

READ MORE...

Peak oil curves are largely based on a model called Hubbert Linearization.  Some critics claim that this model is incorrect.  The fix may be as simple as assuming a slight positive skew on the production curve.

READ MORE...

By Martin Hutchinson

Paul Volcker’s proposal that proprietary trading should be spun off from deposit taking banks is a worthwhile step in the direction of stabilizing the financial services business. However when you consider that business in detail, it becomes clear that further breakups are necessary in order to remove the excessive risks from the US economic system.

Volcker became something of a hero to the left for his sponsorship of President Obama’s bank-bashing announcement.  Indeed I was very much hoping that he could ride this new-found enthusiasm through a defeat of Ben Bernanke in his Senate confirmation vote, followed by a more or less unanimous Senate approval of a Volcker nomination to replace him as Fed Chairman. Assuming Volcker hadn’t suffered a Damsacene conversion to sloppy monetary policy while I wasn’t looking, Obama and the left would be suffering buyer’s remorse within about an hour of Volcker’s arrival at the Fed, but by that stage the deed would be done. I was practicing my Dr. Evil laugh for this eventuality, but alas it was not to be.

There are three problems with the current set-up on Wall Street: systemic risk, rent seeking and conflicts of interest. The Volcker proposal addresses the systemic risk problem to a great extent, but does not do much about the other two. For a complete solution we thus need to go further.

READ MORE...

I received a circular mail from the Australian National Anarchism activist Welf Herfurth a couple of days ago.  Essentially, he was making an appeal for funds for Andrew Yeoman’s outfit in the Bay Area.  The basis of the appeal was that Andrew’s prodigious energy has been richly rewarded.  But welcome as it is, success and political advancement needs to be funded:

Since he started to get active, Andy’s Bay Area National Anarchists group grew from a few people to the biggest alternative metapolitical group in San Francisco. Here are some of their major achievements in the past few years:

* 44,000+ website hits (http://www.bayareanationalanarchists.com/blog/)
* 22,000+ YouTube video views (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bay+area+national+anarchists&search_type=&aq=0&oq=Bay+area+national+)
* Regularly hosted meetings and recurring events (Monthly Meetings, White Cross Patrols, Folsom Street Fair Protest)
* Speaking events including Emeryville, Orange County, and Sydney Australia
* A large increase in support from groups across the nation and abroad
* Hosting foreign visitors for events and speeches
* The first unofficial BANA housing collective
* Media coverage by a local newspaper and the SPLC
* Flyering runs in Berkeley, San Francisco, and Petaluma
* A continuous presence at street protests
* The formation of sister networks in Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Inland Empire, and Orange County
* Our first online radio interview
* 22 videos produced and 3 more in production
* At least 4 blog posts a month
* A business plan
* An active Facebook presence
* PayPal subscribers (currently numbering at 5)
* A custom graphic banner on the website made by allies in the UK
* A private mail box

I think you agree with me that this is a very impressive list of achievements.

Our ‘friends’ from the SPLC wrote a very interesting article about the BANA that you can find here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=1058

And Spencer Sunshine wrote this for the Public Eye website:
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html

Last, but not least, here is an interview with Andy with the well respected and valued ‘The Occidental Quarterly’:
http://www.toqonline.com/2009/08/interview-with-andrew-yeoman-part-i/

So you can see that he is not only promising political activism, but also he is delivering it too. The BANA are a group of dedicated and committed people. I know for sure that Andy not only spends every spare minute in organising events, making videos, networking with likeminded people, etc, but he also puts thousands of dollars of his own money into the cause ...

And what followed was the appeal for funds.  I shan’t copy that out.  But if you know Andrew’s work and want to offer him some support, here’s the link:

http://bayareanationalanarchists.com/blog/2009/09/bana-monthly-donations.html

The judge also accepted ‘powerful submissions’ from the Commission that the BNP’s proposed new constitution is likely to remain unlawful. We will be back in court in March where we hope to conclude this matter by ensuring that whatever constitution the BNP adopts does not break discrimination laws.

John Wadham, EHRC, quoted in a Commission press release following the BNP’s return to the county court today.

The two parts of this statement contain the entire purpose of the EHRC in its action against the BNP.  The first part is to make the party non-racial in its politics.  The second is to render it financially incapable of campaigning in the (May 6th) General Election.

It is part one - the exclusion of all reference to the native British in the party constitution - that is of significance, and more for what it reveals about the historical moment than any political or legal aspects.  In fact, I would go further and say that unless the EHRC pushes its luck to the point of taking out a prosecution against one of the BNP’s leaders for publicly speaking of Britain’s native peoples, none of the legal or political consequences of today’s ruling will do any real, lasting damage.  Instead, the party will simply hold the two AGMs required of it and the voting membership will come to the view that, to quote Lee Barnes:

The sole aim of us participating in the political process is to take power.

Amen to that.  Everything is now clarified.  We have reached a defining moment in the long process of racial destruction which began with the Atlee government turning its back on the people’s rights and instincts in 1948.  The BNP has stripped away everything but the one essential principle that it must fight, and fight, and fight.  The Establishment has, in attempting to force the discourse of the BNP to match its own, stripped away everything but the one essential principle that the native British must die as native Britons.  This is no longer about “fascism” or “the hard right” or even “hate”.  It is existential, and well enough put by a commenter to the BNP’s website named Rijker:

This is no longer your country.
You cannot have a culture of your own.
You can not represent yourselves in Parliament.
You are to be persecuted until you no longer exist.

Out of this moment will quickly emerge a new clarity and urgency in racialist discourse, and not the death of racialist discourse the EHRC would wish.  What would have been seen by the public as the most extreme and contentious interpretation of “immigration” - that of a designed genocide by population transfer - will slowly but surely become the accepted version of events.  And when that happens, a general awakening is close.

Inevitablism has just been given a huge shot in the arm.

by The Narrator

The ongoing debate/discussion about the pertinent steps to be taken to secure the sanctity and survival of the White race in America into the future continues its (seemingly) irrelevant pace.

Do we work within the system or try to reform it to our side?

Honestly, I’d say the answer is neither.

For one thing, the writing is on the proverbial wall, as this NYT article illustrates.  There is a clickable map at that site showing the percentage of minority students by state.

For another thing, it is entirely possible that, for a percentage of our ideological adversaries, the establishment of an official White Community (complete with social, economic and political advocacy) would be seen as the final victory over Western Civilization and Western Man.

After all, the pursuit of a “party” at this point is the pursuit of a chair at the table of what was once our own house. It is to psychologically and philosophically acquiesce ownership of our own civilization.

In that, I sincerely doubt the Left fears to see the rise of White Nationalism as a political option for White Americans who are, circa 2010, probably around 53% of the population of America. Once we become a White American Party we have accepted the terms and conditions of our enemies. We are, then, mere players in the new Gnostic world order of global community.

Put another way, when we accept the role as being yet another ethnic/cultural group WITHIN OUR OWN CIVILIZATION we have acknowledged defeat.

What then is our course of action?

READ MORE...

These days my relationship with the moderators of Comment is Free - Matt Seaton’s censorious defenders of the Guardian faithful - is in a bad way.  They know someone who means to cause their poor lambs ideological pain is out there.  They don’t like it, and they have their knives out.

Of course they are right.  I don’t log-on to engage with their flock in the spirit of fraternal Semitism and peace to all men and man-hating dykes that they intend.  Originally, CiF provided an opportunity to test our arguments against the little clutch of undeniably good minds that frequented it.  And one or two profitable and educational exchanges were had, for sure.  But the good minds grew weary and the moderators wary.  The immoderation began with a noticeable narrowing of the discourse perhaps a year ago.  References to the meaning for the English of miscegenation were excised more swiftly.  The meaning of minoritisation followed.  Lately the notion of ultimate and proximate values has gone too.  That and the terms “race-replacement” and “left-racism” are no more than invitations to the trigger-happy guardians of ideological purity.  The notion that the English have the same natural right as any other people to pass their ancestral land onto their own children seems to be too unimpeachable to delete.  For now.  But just this afternoon the perfectly respectable idea that violence in society enters at the most formative level of the common conception of the human, if that conception is partial, was deemed too offensive for the ba-bas.  Fifteen minutes of my writer’s life was wasted for nothing.

Give them their due, Matt’s boys have become ever more creative in interpreting the house rules to fit their agenda.  There are threads on which they memory-hole comments by the dozen, as often as not where the lead article has been ghosted for a government minister.  From my experience, the great majority of deletions also result in the ultimate sanction in red just about the comment box: “oh yea, further offence shall ne’er stain this temple of false middle-class virtues.  Thou art modded.”

READ MORE...