Soren talks about his intellectual journey and one or two of the ideas and people he has encountered along the way. The interviewer is a total novice. Running time 45min 36sec. File size 41.7MB.

So Major Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, a Middle-Eastern Moslem born and raised in Virginia, trained as an army psychologist, but “devout” and deeply opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, goes on a shooting rampage at America’s biggest military basis.  Thirteen people are dead, thirty wounded.  And what do we get to hear?  Why, that Maj Hasan (i) had been battling racial harassment because of his “Middle Eastern ethnicity”, (ii) had been “affected” by the stories of soldiers returning from theatre with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and (iii) was “concerned” about his own forthcoming deployment to Afghanistan.

Here’s the real story:

a) America is/was the aggressor in both wars.  The Iraq War was an illegal war that has claimed the lives of maybe a million Iraqis.  All told, four thousand Americans have died in these two adventures for no purpose beyond the security of Israel, the politics and profits of oil, and tax-theft by the military-industrial complex.  Yesterday another thirteen died.

b) Multiracialism doesn’t work anywhere in the West, even in an authoritarian structure like the US Army, and amounts to no more than a vast crime against Europeans.  Or whites if you prefer.

c) The mainstream media is always ready to (i) blame “racist whites”, (ii) offer “explanations” for mass murder if the perp is non-white.  Do you think that either of these poisonous little memes would be dripped into the public’s ear if Nidal Malik Hasan had been born Nigel Malcolm Hayes?

Continuing on from Wednesday’s Part 1 post …

Social Policy

The first duty and highest goal of the Federal government will be:

To match the conditions of life of the British people to the attributes of their nature, the interests of their blood and the wishes of their hearts.

In social policy, that implies a far-reaching, even total revolution of the mind so that the people may, after so many decades of officially engendered self-censorship, self-degradation and self-estrangement, approach themselves once again with clear eyes and clear conscience, and begin to live the life they deserve.

This revolution of the mind will not be accomplished solely by the undoing of past crimes against them or by the heavy push in the direction of the good which government can give.  The ideas that commend the good - ideas which, though they have been known by some thinking nationalists for a long time, are not known by the common man - must fill all the voids left by the driving out of the destructive and criminal ideas of the past.  That is the true foundation on which the political future will rest.  Accordingly, government has a role in promoting not only those ideas through its own machinery but the new intellectual class that has generated them, and can carry them and the politics of the new age forward.

That said, here is an outline of how the nationalist “heavy push” will be structured:

READ MORE...

Nation-building and the Constitution

The first task of a nationalist government in these islands, assuming that government comes into being through democratic elections and not through other means, is to declare this coming into government an act of revolution with all the destructive and creative legal and political powers of change that are predisposed by such events.  Since by this declaration the government will lose its mandate, having disavowed the process which brought it to power, it shall rely upon a priori revolutionary status for the legitimacy to rule.  Further, it will attach provisionality to this status, it being necessary that a provisional government shall enact the transition from the old national settlement to the new.

First and foremost in the process of change, then, will be a Declaration of the Impending Dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, along with the voiding of the current Constitution serving the Union.  A new state, based on the principle of federation, shall be brought into being.  England, Scotland and Wales shall equally be member states within it, while Northern Ireland shall have the status of a self-governing territory, along with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.  The division of powers between the Federal government in London and the subsidiary governments shall be established in a Constitutional Conference to be held within 50 days of the Declaration. 

The Conference will settle all issues pertaining to the new national settlement, including the Articles of Federation and the adaption of certain elements of the existing British Constitution to the new founding Constitution.  These latter will include the role of Monarchy, membership and powers of the House of Lords, the Rule of Law, Habeas Corpus, judicial independence and trial by jury, the supremacy of Parliament, free democratic elections, separation of power, etc.

READ MORE...

I was fourteen years old at the end of July in 1966 when, with my parents, I took my seat at Wembley Stadium to watch England win the World Cup for the one and only time.  I’ve seen the match and, especially, the goal replays on TV so many times since, most of my memories of the actual game have been blotted out.  But one memory that survives is driving away from the ground afterwards with the team page from the Daily Express’s World Cup Final Special pressed against a rear window of the car, so the residents of north London would get the message, if they had not already done so.

Without ever considering the fact, of course, I had just witnessed twenty-two white men playing football in front of 94,000 white spectators, and now we were edging through the traffic in a Wembley populated by, as far as I recall, white people, my people.  To the south-west, in Greenford and in Southall, there was an enclave of Indian immigrants, to be sure.  But Wembley was still ours, and there seemed no reason to think it would ever be otherwise.

That was four decades ago.  Here is the situation today as explained, partially anyway, by Andrew Neather and recorded for us by the South Wales BNP activist Roger Phillips:

The video is on the BNP’s website.  A long thread is already appended, with comments like: “Slough is exactly the same, Reading and Maidenhead are due to follow” ... “And its exactly the same in South London, e.g Balham, Tooting, Lewisham, right through to Bow, Leyton and Walthamstow in East London” ... “Bradford Dewsbury large parts of Leeds…the list goes on” ... “We have two areas, here in Glasgow, called Govanhill and Pollokshields, both predominately Muslim, so much so, that it is unsafe to be there after a certain time of night.”

About Wembley and, more generally, London, one BNP member notes:

In actual fact Wembley is part of the London Borough of Brent, a borough with a population in excess of 200,000 people. An interesting fact about the London Borough of Brent is that it consists of around 20 wards - with not a single ward having a native British majority. In that respect it is like the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham - both having populations above 200,000, with not a single ward between them in which native Brits can be claimed to be in the majority! Add to to that other London boroughs, such as Westminster, Soutwark, Haringey, Ealing, Redbridge, Camden and Harrow - in which native Brits are now in the minority - then it will not surprise you to learn that Greater London (population 7.5 million) will become the first major city in Europe within five years whose native population form an ever diminishing minority!

And what should be the proper response to this political crime?  Well, possibly not the BNP’s realpolitik.  First, for me, mourning for what has been done to our people and our land.  Second, a deep, cold anger that nothing can placate.  Third, an unbending determination to undo it all - absolutely all of it, so that nothing, no detail however small, will speak treachery to posterity.  Not the people who did this to us, not any part of the political structure they created, not the human tools they employed ... none of it must remain in place.  This isn’t simply about our genetic continuity.  This is about the completeness of our political victory, too.

UPDATE - 4th November 2009

A new school of cinéma vérité appears to be emerging among BNP activists.  This time it’s Peckham in South London going on Joburg, and the thread promises further visions of the MultiCult.

READ MORE...

If the following video’s message catches on, it may obviate or even facilitate the Actuarial Militia Reform.  My addendum to Sheriff Macks’ message is simply this:  Before going into your sheriff to demand that he uphold his oath, gather signatures from the men of your county pledging your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor to support your county sheriff when he resists unlawful authority.

James mailed me a link to Dienekes Pontikos’s copy and paste of this study by researchers in the psychology department at Northwestern university.

The study is interesting for two reasons.  First, it is pleasing to see the emergence of gene studies into the racial phenotypes of individualism and collectivism.  This, of course, is a live issue for us but as always much depends on its handling - which brings us to the second reason.  The two lady researchers have linked causal pathogens to the pressures producing collectivism, which has the effect of rather neatly pathologising the individualism of Europeans as anxiety-ridden and presenting Asiatic indifference as calm!

The ladies concerned are:

Dr Joan Chiao, an assistant Professor of Psychology working in the Brain, Behaviour, Cognition and Social Psychology programmes.  She is also affiliated with the Asian American Studies programme, among others;

Kate Blizinsky, a grad student interested in - wouldn’t you know it - the neurology of stress and well-being.

Speaking purely as a know-nothing racist white man, I find the dynamic opposites used in this study misleading from the European perspective.  To my cavalier mind, the individualism of Europeans is not polarised in that evolutionary human way against the collectivism of East Asians, but against the Europeans’ own weak cooperative nature.  We Europeans cannot and do not seek to collectivise, and lose ourselves therein.  That is an affront to our nature.  I strongly contend that if Europeans ever “slough off their anxiety” and so evolve away from individualism, it would not be towards indifference.

I am reminded from long ago of a couple of television programmes on military confrontations with East Asians, one being Slim’s campaign in Burma and the other the forced retreat from Gloucester Hill in Korea.  What those two programmes left me with was the negligible (not to say pathological) value which, respectively, the Japanese and Chinese soldiers attached to life.  In both programmes, the British ex-soldiers described them as vermin throwing themselves into the fire of the enemy.  These were not men, for they did not behave in any way the Brits knew men to behave, and killing them was not difficult or a cause for regret.

We Europeans can cooperate on the basis of our natural values, but it takes a certain effort.  It is not our default position.  We definitely cannot “do” blind collectivism like the East Asians, and I don’t accept that the polar opposite to East Asian collectivism is our innate individualism.  It might be something closer to the chaotic assertiveness endemic among Sub-Saharan Africans.  Perhaps a third leg to Africa - ending no doubt in West Africa - would make the research more complete and enlightening.  It certainly seems to me that more racial space and a greater degree of subtle thinking is required of anyone seeking to split this psychological log.  But what we have in this study is a Chinese woman who probably doesn’t comprehend very much about us, and a Jew whose “interest” would, in some hands, lend itself well to the tribal delights of pathologisation.

So with that (perhaps unfair) caveat, here are the money quotes:

READ MORE...

Today, Tom Sunic circulated the following article about a conference that took place on Tuesday in Zagreb.  The article appeared at Javno.com, which describes itself as a multi-media news portal.  The day on-line news media in the English-speaking world print material like this the revolution will have been won, and the former media-owners will be kicking their heels in a condo in Eilat.

The conference nods toward the same neo-Gramscian path that de Benoist’s GRECE promulgated during its vigorous, early phase.  It is taken for granted by all three speakers that the problem of intellectual radicalism on the European revolutionary right remains one of numbers rather than talent, and organisation rather than output.  That’s not at all how it is in the Anglo-American world, though.

GW

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“POLITICAL HEGEMONY OR CULTURAL HEGEMONY?”
The Center of Cultural Information

Speakers:
Zlatko Hasanbegovic (author, publisher)
Jure Vujic (author, expert on geopolitics)
Tom Sunic (author, political theorist)

On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 7pm, in the packed hall of the Center of Cultural Information (KIC), Zagreb, Croatia, a conference was held with the title “Cultural Hegemony or Political Hegemony.”?

The three speakers were a writer and publisher Zlatko Hasanbegovic, a writer and expert on geopolitics Jure Vujic, and Dr. Tomislav Sunic, author of the book “The European New Right”  (Europska Nova Desnica), which has recently been published in the Croatian translation by the publishing house Hasanbegovic. The three speakers presented a synopsis of the phenomenon known as “cultural hegemony,” which originated and was developed by the former Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci.

Every political system, including the democratic one, is based on a given cultural hegemony, which presupposes the dominance of political ideas of some social elite, or elites, but also implying the consent of social groups at lower strata of the society. In order to win or maintain cultural hegemony, control of the media, education, and public communications, as well as use and abuse of various mechanisms of “soft power”- as is the case today with “fun-making society”-  must be constantly upheld and updated.  All of these conditions shape public opinion.

READ MORE...