A post I put up earlier today on the BNP Section of British Democracy Forum.

Peter Oborne redeemed his reputation somewhat in his piece in the Telegraph today on yesterday’s fateful step towards fiscal union in the eurozone. (By redeemed, I mean one might perhaps now look past what he thinks about the soon-to-be-fired Baroness Warsi and Islamophobia.)

Because his take on the future for the EU is very clear-sighted indeed and undoubtedly accurate:

The faith of leading European politicians and bankers in monetary union, a system of financial government whose origins can be traced back to the set of temporary political circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and which was brought to bear without serious economic analysis, is essentially irrational. Indeed, in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard. ... European politicians have developed the same superstitious attachment to the single currency. They are determined to persist with it, no matter what suffering it causes, or however brutal its economic and social consequences.

... it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the decision which European leaders seemed last night to be reaching. By authorising a huge expansion in the bail-out fund that is propping up the EU’s peripheral members (largely in order to stop the contagion spreading to Italy and Spain), the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union. So long as the settlement is accepted by national parliaments, yesterday will come to be seen as the witching hour after which Europe will cease to be, except vestigially, a collection of nation states. It will have one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states.

This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. The markets have rallied strongly, hailing what is being seen as the best chance of a resolution to the gruelling and drawn-out crisis.

It is conceivable that yesterday’s negotiations may indeed save the eurozone – but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated; they face a future as vassal states, their role reduced to the one enjoyed by the European colonies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They will provide cheap labour, raw materials, agricultural produce and a ready market for the manufactured goods and services provided by the far more productive and efficient northern Europeans. Their political leaders will, like the hapless George Papandreou of Greece, lose all political legitimacy, becoming local representatives of distant powers who are forced to implement economic programmes from elsewhere in return for massive financial subventions.

READ MORE...

As enquiries go, “why we fight” is a popular one.  Frank Capra gave it to his propaganda films made between 1942 and 1945.  Stephen Spielberg took it for the Band of Brothers episode given over to Holocaust propaganda, and Eugene Jarecki took it for his 2005 documentary on the evil conjunction of war, business and American geopolitical hegemony.  More apposite to us, Guillaume Faye wrote a book with that title.  And then David Lane, while he never posed that precise question, wrote a precise answer in just fourteen words.

Well, what is our cause?  It is simply preservationist?  Or is it distant, glorious and aspirational?  Something else?  Why do we struggle?

Today I started a thread with the same title at British Democracy Forum.  The usual suspects rushed in with buckets of cold water to douse any expressions of real nationalist feeling.  They need not have worried.  The BNP leadership election, which Griffin will win, has the full and undivided attention of the forum members.  There is less thinking going on than ever.  It would be a pleasure to encounter a few considered opinions here.

On 6th April this year Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou released their documentary Debtocracy into the gathering popular protest in Greece.  Public viewings were organised in the central square of most Greek cities, and the film has played its part in educating Greeks to the nature of the neoliberal project and its system of credit, debt, and endless payment.  It contains some damning commentary.  But it is shot through with the hypocrisies of the socialist left.  It does not visit the destruction of personal freedom and the end of self-improvement which debt-slavery implies, these not being issues of interest to radical left intellectuals.  In the same vein it does not venture an opinion upon neoliberalism’s sister project of the Third Worldization of European peoplehood.  Even with a partial political analysis, though, it is plainly the left which will gain when the demos withdraws political legitimacy from the current political class.  Nationalism is not competing at this heavyweight level.

The film is 1 hour 14 mins, but it bowls along at a good pace and will repay your time.  Its message, in the end, is simple: don’t pay.

by Grimoire

Recently, in the thread to Mr Rod Cameron’s Idealist Critique, Mr Leon Haller asks:

I see that my suggestion that it would be a useful exercise for someone to attempt (at the understood risk of oversimplification) a 3 paragraph summary of the lead post has not been pursued. Neither has any rebuttal been offered to my implied assertion that ethics is a more fruitful philosophical discipline for nationalists than ontology.

I repeat: why, in simple and straightforward language, is it thought that nationalists should seek to reformulate ontology, instead of ethics?

And I agree with these questions.  The summation I leave as self-evident and up to Mr. Cameron, but the ethics question I thought important.  Also, in discussion with Mr. Cameron this idea came up as a point of disagreement also with GW et al, the result being general disagreement ... I expect no less.

Normally, I wait to make any positive statements except critique, since I am usually in complete disagreement with the general temper.  But Mr Haller has asked an honest and direct question that I feel I should answer regarding the role of Ethics in Nationalism, which I believe are paramount, and an “absolute idea” of our race [viz-a-vis Leon’s own insistence that European Man is Ethical Man - Ed].

The root of my disagreement is deep, and branches into many facets of the problem of the psychology of modern man - particularly that emanating from the problem of predicate thinking, of which I will write later.  But now i want to write briefly as possible, per Mr. Hallers request, on the the role of Ethics in Race.

I have protested to many here that they do not understand the implications of the rhetoric of Darwinist theory in practice on Mankind - or the theories of “Natural Selection” and “Survival Of The Fittest” - and its predicate assumptions regarding evolution, that there is a vast difference between evolutionary psychology and true evolution, and that these are in direct conflict with that which created our Race.  For it is ethics and morals which create race and human evolution, as most of you will vehemently deny.  I will tell you why I think you are wrong.  I already understand most of you will resist this with vigour.  So I will be brief.

“Evolutionary Adaptation”, “Survival of the Fittest” and “Natural Selection” are theories derived from zoology, not anthropology.  In anthropology they are associated only through predication, as these loose catch-all syllogisms are at best folk-wisdom with the imprimateur of science.  Only the most rabid Darwinists support the idea, and most educated people feel, in the words of a historian of culture and ideas:

A modern imagination predisposed to a belief in science ... will generally find that neither creation nor evolution overcomes its profound conviction of ignorance.
- Jacques Barzun

The reason is intuitive sense; theories that apply to animals do not apply to Man.  Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest apply to animals because they live in their natural environment.  Man does not.  In man’s environment, “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” kills the courageous, the noble, those who resist injustice and deselects and disadvantages through progeny those who are of advanced intelligence.  Natural Selections favours bestiality and stupidity … and continually selects in a manner devised to return Mankind to animality and a state of nature in coherence with the great apes.

Ethics and Morality are the counter of this, and serve as a method of un-natural selection and adaptation.  Ethics and Morality place un-natural environmental burdens over and above the natural environment ... such as monogamy and enduring, extended family and values that support cohesion and endurance as a social unit.  These accrue to Race.  These create Race.  Race is a result of limits imposed by ethics and morality.  All Race, culture and language arise out of these limits, and distinguishes between the ultimate values of ethics and morality and through this distinguish between peoples.  The result leads to our un-natural civilization.  For Mankind is not natural, as it is understood regarding all other life-forms on this planet.

The Aryan concept of history is of the constant de-evolution of mankind, and is shared with all great classic cultures, and all eastern Aryan derived cultures.  It is the central tenet concerning history.  This tenet also contains the warning that when the values of a Race are discarded, you get Africa to put it succinctly. The Modern idea of the evolution of mankind is in direct contradiction to what you see around you if you walk the streets of any western metropolis.

So in summation:

Ethics and morality are a foundation of Western culture.  And those who propose “evolutionary” or “Darwinist” values are in discord with the values that have preserved the branches of the Aryan race from the dawn of its history.

by Graham Lister

The latest phase of the liberal world-order is best described as neo-liberalism. However as recent events have suggested the neo-liberal order appears to be rather unstable. One key issue is the burgeoning disparity between the declared self-conception and aims of neo-liberalism and its real-world consequences. With Greece in mind, I have jotted down some thoughts.

1 – The neo-liberal state is expected to allow markets to operate without interference yet pro-actively create a good climate for business and behave as a competitive entity in global affairs. In its latter role it has to work as a collective corporation, and solve the problem of how to maintain citizen loyalty. Nationalism is an obvious answer, but in all forms, is profoundly antagonistic to the neo-liberal agenda (Globalization etc.). The serious forms of nationalism required for states to remain as functional entities gets in the way of global ‘universal’ market freedoms more generally.

2 – Coercive and authoritarian enforcement of market discipline sits very uneasily with ideas of individual freedoms. The more neo-liberalism veers to the former the more it undermines its legitimacy and reveals its profoundly anti-democratic character. This contradiction is paralleled by the ever greater asymmetries in the power relations between corporations and ordinary individuals in both the workplace and our living space (or life-world). It is one thing to maintain that my health-care is my personal responsibility but quite another in practice if the only way I can satisfy my needs in a rigged market is by paying exorbitant premiums to inefficient, gargantuan, highly bureaucratized but also highly profitable corporations. When these companies have the power to decide what illnesses they will and will not cover and can even define new categories of illness to match new drugs on the market, something is very wrong indeed. If things start to go badly this balancing act is highly likely to topple.

READ MORE...

by Rod Cameron

An Idealist critiques GW’s [emergent] existentialism

Now that GW has made the second instalment of his planned three-part ontology I must urge him to abandon existentialism. His interest in ontology is correct but his ideas are not on the money. GW sees ontology as providing European identity and racial consciousness through his reworking of Heidegger. It is not happening, his prose is hard going, I would not be surprised if he gets into tight lederhosen to write his obscurantism and I suspect he knows the wheels are falling off. Hang-on GW, I’m coming. – Too bad Mr Wolf sees your plight.

PART 1: A STROLL OVER THE TERRITORY

It is noted that GW gets little sympathy from the commentariat for ontology. He should be respected but he has made a poor job of explaining his commitment to ontology because ontology is his main argument and it is shallow as I will explain. I am an absolute Idealist and though on the metaphysical side of the line, that standpoint does not make me GW’s ally. There is a remote chance this article could blow-up into a war, which would be a good thing, but I’m planning to shut down that prospect by either deterring GW from existentialism or converting him to Idealism.

GW’s philosophy is an example of the subjectivity wrapped in a technical code [multiplicity, final value] that passes for existentialism. GW had a ‘being’ epiphany. It is the well-spring behind his interest in ontology and Heidegger. It is probably the inspiration for MR and it gives him the energy and conviction to maintain MR. It is not surprising that he finds meaning for the experience in Heidegger. Heidegger is the “go-to man” for a non-religious interpretation of being. However, the ability to empathise with and interpret Heidegger is not a milestone towards any significant success because existentialism is shallow. Take for a start GW’s title, “The ontology of the material”. This means he is doing relativist metaphysics; materialism is immersed in phenomena and phenomena are relative. Relativist metaphysics is a joke because metaphysics is about absolutes.

To quickly determine whether GW’s metaphysics have any validity a professional philosopher might ask whether he had replies for D. Hume and I. Kant. They set metaphysics big challenges to test whether metaphysics deserves to remain within philosophy. Those challenges are beyond the scope of dialectic reasoning and will only be tackled with absolute answers. If answers are not forth-coming then GW will be suspected of having yet another subjective metaphysics. GW has a specific mission and I have made a global criticism. Is that fair? Metaphysics is a vast, syncretic project and something as vital to metaphysics as ontology has ramifications, which must include answers for these two critics. Their challenges are connected and was there ever a more ill-prepared metaphysician than GW? It was too-turgid-to-tell, but did you join something GW? Do GW’s articles on ontology differ from opinion? If you can see the material bit that rank and file Nationalists can get hold of then point it out.

Idealism and Existentialism
Existentialism is a reaction against G. W. F. Hegel’s Idealist abstractions. Instead of getting into abstractions, existentialists have sought to be concrete and in touch with what it means to be human. They claim to be in touch with life, but the result invariably is subjectivity. Individual existence is about awareness of hopes, fears, beliefs, desires, the question of purpose, will power and living authentically. These are aspects of concrete existence for the individual in his space and time, but it will not suffice for Nationalism. Individual existence is opposite to where Nationalists need to go. We need political statements that express identity. Idealist ontology concerns man as a political animal. That is where Nationalists need to be and unavoidably it involves abstractions to make statements about European man as a political animal.

The inference that Idealism is not concrete, hence Idealists are elites “playing silly-buggers”, needs to be challenged. Idealists are prepared to immerse themselves in abstractions in an attempt to arriving at new concepts to facilitate their argument. In other words, from the abstractions hopefully there will emerge ideation. Idealists respect the difficulty of breaking out of dualistic consciousness into absolute consciousness: the consciousness that will be of service to existential concerns.

READ MORE...

The publisher Arktos Media has circularised details of Prof Andrew Fraser’s new book, The Wasp Question.  Andrew, whose travails in 2005 at Macquairrie University were followed closely at MR, and who was twice interviewed for MR Radio, is an expert in legal history and constitutional law.  His book, however, also treats of the ethnogenesis of the Anglo Saxon people and of their religious expression.

Frank Salter has written the customary blurb, describing The Wasp Question as:

... a groundbreaking contribution to the project of synthesizing Anglo-American constitutional and legal history with the evolutionary biology of ethnicity and a Christian ethno-theology. Fraser adds a new aspect to the modern ethno-pathology that now infects the Anglo-Saxon bioculture: “Civic patriotism cannot be sustained in multi-racial societies.” His radical critique of American constitutionalism exposes a major threat to the ethnic interests of America’s founding race—the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who have since degenerated into an “invisible race” of deracinated WASPs.

Anglo-Saxon constitutionalism and its modern deconstruction are intertwined with excursions into history and genetics. Fraser explores the religious dimension of ethnic group strategies in a plausible historical and evolutionary frame. Evolutionary biology lends this book a magisterial view looking back to ethnogenesis in the England of Alfred the Great, and looking forward to a world made human by postmodern tribal solidarity, including that of the scattered Anglo-Saxon nation. The result is a fresh analysis of the ethno-religious foundations of the English people.

The WASP Question is valuable for focusing attention on the plight of Anglo-Saxon societies assailed by runaway materialism and imposed diversity. The book articulates a role for national religions in defending populations of ethnic kin. For Anglo-Saxons, that role is fulfilled by the orthodox Christian doctrine of nations. Fraser’s appeal to a patriot king who can restore Anglo-Saxons’ biocultural identity and ethno-religious autonomy is a provocative alternative.

Agree or disagree with Andrew Fraser’s prescriptions, his combination of originality and scholarship deserves to find a place in literature dealing with ethnicity, nationalism, constitutional history, biosocial science, and advocacy for Anglo-Saxon ethnic identity and biocultural continuity. Be prepared to read, reread and ponder.

Structure and chapter titles:

Introduction: The Anglo-Saxon as Pariah

I. Ethnogenesis: Toward a Biocultural History of English Constitutionalism
1. Comitatus: Kingship and Covenant in the Evolution of Anglo-Saxon Bioculture
2. Republica Anglorum: Religion and Rulership in Old England
3. Metamorphosis: The Peculiar Character of the Early Modern Englishman

II. Pathogenesis: Anglo-Saxon Identity in the Novus Ordo Seclorum
4. Homo Americanus: A Post-Mortem on the First “White Man’s Country”
5. Divine Economy: The Modern Business Corporation and the Lost Soul of WASP America
6. Political Theology: How America’s Civil Religion Fosters Anglo-Saxon Ethnomasochism

III. Prognosis: The Return of the Repressed
7. Archeofuturism: Of Patriot Kings and Anglo-Saxon Tribalism in the Twenty-First Century
8. Palingenesis: The Postmodern Rebirth of Anglo-Saxon Christendom

The BBC News website features a graphic article posted yesterday (Wednesday) from the streets of Athens by Paul Mason titled Greece: What’s burning is consent.  It doesn’t leave a lot for me to say.  The press is generally doing a pretty good job of revealing motive on the part of the Greek political class, the German and French political leadership, the European Central Bank and the IMF.  The bottom line motive-wise appears to be the serpentine, high-risk derivative products to which Wall Street is known to be horribly exposed, and I’ve even seen attempts on the financial pages to explicate these.

Mason, although he is an economics journalist, eschews all that.  He is with the forces of light.

They came on, still, in the same old way: rigid, determined, clutching heavy sticks and crash helmets. They passed the riot police, the parliament, the indignados and their squatter camp - and marched away.

Now Syntagma Square filled with other protesters: the middle class, the salariat, the youth, people with tattoos up their legs, bare midriffs; a man in a tight Armani shirt and a white gas mask on his elbow.

Earth mothers, grandmothers - if the image of Glastonbury keeps occurring to me it’s for a reason - by now this protest is no longer the preserve of one segment of the demographic, or of politics. It is a cross section: right and left, young and old.

The nationalists, who’ve claimed the ledge above the square as their territory, are the toughest bunch.

The “indignados” - anarchist youth and just generally youth who’ve camped out there in the square for 35 days, their territory is below. The black bloc anarchists? Where do they come from - it is never clear but they always somehow do.

READ MORE...