Central London early this morning.  Clear skies, cold air.  No crowds of the aimless and the atomised.  Not all that many cars.  Most of the city is still observing the leisurely ritual of awakening to the weekend.  But a few people are out running or just wandering in Hyde Park, all whites bar the only two blacks that seem to have got themselves out of bed without being paid to do so.  The rest of central London, meanwhile, is strangely bereft of Africa’s giftless gifts to civilisation.

Asia has stirred, however, and is shuffling along the pavements, coldly gazing ahead, nothing to do with me.  But if it could just stay like this, one finds oneself thinking, it wouldn’t be too bad.  One could almost mistake my old city for being really quite white.  Almost.  The illusion won’t survive too long in to the day, of course.

First the Marylebone Road, then Kensington.  An hour’s meeting with an Italian client finishes at 11.00am and I am done.  I take my leave by the huge glass revolving door of the hotel and step out into the still cold air to find a cab.  It is now mid-morning.  But the city is quiet and two cabs, black and maroon, wait to my right.  The driver of the first one, the black one, sees me approach and lowers his side window.  First impression, Nick Griffin’s bad-boy bouncer.  Shaved head, strong features, but a bright and intelligent eye.  Good man to have on your side if trouble comes calling.

“Victoria,” I say, and we are on our way.

READ MORE...

by K R Bolton
Academy of Social and Political Research

Multicultural politics, including that concerned with immigration, is a method of social engineering. Whoever raises a voice in public in opposition or even merely of caution is pilloried as a “racist” and a “reactionary”. Conversely, those who champion multiculturalism are upheld as the paragons of ‘progress’ and humanitarianism. Yet behind the moral façade multiculturalism is a cynical stratagem, an important part of the process of globalisation in the interests of a small, self-appointed plutocratic elite. This essay examines how multiculturalism is an aspect of globalisation.

“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist - just because it’s anti-human. And race is, in fact, a human characteristic - there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced - that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”
Noam Chomsky

It is ironic that an intellectual championed in particular by the anarchist-Left has given such a cogent definition of the motivating force behind multiculturalism. Among the numerous references to Chomsky made by the Left his diagnosis of capitalism as being “anti-racist” because it aims to create a society of humans as nothing more than “interchangeable cogs”, does not receive the same attention as his other views. As Chomsky states, individuals cannot function at an optimum level as producers and consumers if there are racial or what we might further categorise as cultural and national, divisions.

Chomsky is outside the mainstream of Leftist ideology, which sees humanity and the individual in precisely the same terms as capitalism sees humanity as defined by Chomsky in the above passage. Both capitalism and Marxism are globalist, and both are reductionist in seeing economic factors as the primary determinants of human behaviour and history.  Marx himself was not adverse to Free Trade capitalism. He supported Free Trade insofar as he saw it as a dialectical catalyst for the destruction of national boundaries, which would internationalise “the proletariat” and eventually lead to a global system. Global capitalists maintain the same outlook today. Marx’s analysis in regard to Free Trade was correct, although his alternative is nothing more than to change the ownership of production and distribution. Marx said of Free Trade:

“National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the modern of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.”

Today’s global corporate executives and planners concur with Marx. Marx further identified “protectionism” as the conservative position, Free Trade as subversive and revolutionary. Those – mainly political scientists and journalists, especially in the English-speaking world – who insist on defining “conservatism” (sic) as Free Trade liberalism, should return to an actual source; in this instance Marx, to re-evaluate their definitions:

READ MORE...

The 2010 election cycle is rapidly approaching. It’s extremely important that each of us ‘register’ (Rep or Dem) and attend our local precinct caucus.  Register as the party not currently in office with the US House of Representatives from your District.  Contact your county recorder for a precinct map of your county.  Find at least one person in each precinct in your county who supports the Laboratory of the States Platform and who is willing to lead that precinct.

Laboratory of the States Platform:

1) Bring all troops home and make the top priority of the Federal government to protect US territory from trespass.

2) Only one Federal tax:  5%/year on land value.  No filing.  Individuals own first $80,000 of land value tax-free.

3) Turn over all Federal programs to the States, with funds apportioned by number of adult citizens.

The objective is to control the US House of Representatives in the next election cycle.

Send this to everyone you know.

I am preparing an MR Radio interview - exact time still to be established - with the brave and steadfast South African journalist and activist, Dr Dan Roodt.  Many of you will be aware of his name, some of his work.  I will be asking him about South Africa and South Africans, black and white, and about his hopes and fears for the future.  If there are specific questions you would like me to put to him, I shall certainly try to do so.

by PF

1. Foreign texts don’t point us to our essence. Our spiritual birth as a nation is built on imitation of foreigners.

2. Texts have to be ‘translated’ mentally by those reading them into European thought forms, making “our” sacred texts essentially a form of Orientalist scholarship from the beginning. However, scholarship is often critical of its sources, whereas our sacred traditions view these oriental texts as completely authoritative and really the last word on spirituality.

3. The text alienates the common reader because the unique mindset for culturally co-opting this oriental religion is only shared by a few, who become priests. There is little or no resonance for the common man in the stories of the Bible. Unlike the Homeric stories, which we know to be widely disseminated and enjoyed in ancient Hellas, the sources of our religious tradition have belonged from the beginning to the few Orientalists who would submit to their foreignness and teach it authoritatively to the rest of us. Those who viewed the adoption of oriental thought forms as the purest access to spirituality became the fathers of our traditions.

4. The alien nature of our Jewish religious texts means that they cannot be added to in a similar style; there was necessarily a complete stylistic break when they were imported. This means that we cannot add to them or treat them as living documents, but rather as relics to defer to as over and above ourselves. This kills the possibility of building a pre-rational, living tradition within our own lands. The most a British man can hope for, spiritually, is to become an obedient antiquarian for the inspired Jews of the Hellenist Levant.

READ MORE...

There are few sites active on the international White Nationalist/Revolutionary Nationalist scene that have provoked me to thought more than this one. None did more to open my eyes to the necessity of building a new philosophical worldview if we wanted to succeed in our struggle. This idea that we must first present a moral and philosophical alternative to the ills of modernity is not new.  It is a reiteration of an argument that the French New Right, for example, has been trying to make since the ‘70’s with questionable success and while being the victim of periodic witch-hunts.

Now, there’s also an element of narcissism at play as I’m in agreement with Guessedworker, in particular, on all important issues and I feel an uncanny kinship of spirit. But, that being said, since I’ve done a 180 degree turn on the J.Q. some people who’ve known me have suffered a “whiplash” (to quote Hunter Wallace). I’ve been called a Jew lover, a race traitor, and accused of being romantically involved with a Jewish woman.

There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that anti-Semitism is a political loser and no longer a potent organizing force in the western world. I’ve come to the conclusion that only a Right friendly to the Jewish community and Israel can succeed in the western political arena; a Right that admits Jews and places them in positions of authority; a Right that welcomes Jews in a tangible effort to show them that they must not fear the Right. I don’t believe that the Right will gain any traction without first abandoning anti-Semitism, Holocaust-denial, anti-Zionism, or National Socialist nostalgia. All these points are not only completely irrelevant but an insurmountable stumbling block to success.

READ MORE...