How The Law Protects The Invader
DISCLAIMER: This is a draft, as-yet unreferenced article that I prepared last year for submission to the White Independent Nation (WIN) website. The subject is the way that the law is used to further a racial survival strategy for the Jews. My reason for writing it in the first place was that I think there is a need for a close, revisionist examination of deeper Jewish influence in our society and the way that ancient Jewish culture and ritual metastasised into our institutional life. At almost 13,000 words, the article is very lengthy, an important warning for anyone who might be thinking of reading it. The article does require considerable revision and improvement, and does not necessarily represent my complete views on any topic. For example, there is a discussion below on Cultural Marxism which I think needs improvement, including more on the involvement of Jews (of all political and social stripes). I would also change a lot of the terminology used. The article was included on the WIN site in edited form (thanks to Nick Grifford of WIN for reading and editing the piece) and I re-post it here to give the patient reader a more thorough understanding of my philosophical position. It’s an admittedly eclectic mix of contradictory perspectives: Nietzscheanism and ‘White [Esoteric] Marxism’, Traditionalism and Anti-Traditionalism. Given the chance and opportunity in the future, I will be re-visiting some of the themes in this lengthy article in a more digestible form: particularly the problem of how conservatives and the Right have, as I see it, misinterpreted Cultural Marxism.
This essay looks at our society, our purported future and the deliberate engineering of who we are as ‘social animals’ through the lens of the Law, with a particular focus on attempts to innovate the Law away from collectivist indigenous traditions towards individuated rights that are more suitable for a deracinated, transactional social environment. The case is made for an alternative vision, that of a New European who will be forged in a ‘Racial Intentional Community’ and herald a return to the more authentic European ethos of fraternité, communauté, nationalité, identité – and mission, grounded in the natural laws that bind all of Man and which express our imperative for racial and genetic perpetuation. This new, life-affirming coda will be articulated ultimately in our own Rechtsstaat Homo Superior.
We will begin with a discussion of an important and, at the time, much-remarked on speech of February 2008, by the then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who indicated that he would not object to the intrusion of Sharia law into the United Kingdom. I have selected Dr. Williams purposefully, for at the time he made this speech he was head of the Church of England, that is to say, the most senior clerical personality in the Anglican Communion, and thus his thoughts and ideas might be considered emblematic in some ways of the spiritual health of Western society. What he (and his successor) says and does not say is a rough, but accurate, barometer of the moralistic ideals in the society. It is suggested here that the meaning derivable from Dr. Williams’, and other obscure technically-laden speeches by key decision-makers, goes far beyond what is consciously intended and betrays the true intent of the ruling elites towards the indigenous Europeans. We will go on to discuss how this can be the case, with reference to the Law itself as both the source and consequence of memetic influences in society.
Archaeology of the Now
If you want to find out the truth about our society, then the quickest and most effective route is to read the more obscure written contributions of those with power or influence. The business pages of the Establishment newspapers, for instance, are a reliable mine of revelatory information for amateur archaeologists of veracity. In amongst the dry analysis will be found the true thoughts of those who run the country. With brutal honesty, and without the rhetorical contortions found in commentary on political and cultural matters, business journalists and columnists reveal whose interests they serve. They do so unconsciously, and unapologetically, but plainly enough for anyone with eyes to see. And for those with ears to hear, just occasionally, but perhaps more frequently in recent years than in the past, a prominent public figure will let slip in some speech or other the true agenda of the multi-racialists. One of the most revealing speeches of the last decade can be attributed to an unexpected source, Dr. Rowan Williams, who in February 2008, when Archbishop of Canterbury, shared his thoughts on Sharia law in a considered, erudite address at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The Parable of the Archbishop
The speech itself was the epitome of liberal-minded intellectual genuflection. In dense, tortured soliloquy, informed by the masochistic character of his Faith, the Archbishop attempted to justify the unjustifiable: that is to say, justify the co-existence of European civilisation with Islam through a visage of legal development in Britain, specifically the construct of “supplementary jurisdictions” that would exist to “compete” with the established legal order in society. When this risible address met with the public outrage and evisceration it deserved, Dr. Williams moved from justifying the unjustifiable to defending the indefensible. I call in aid here the quote from a Radio Four interview given by Dr. Williams at the height of the controversy caused by the speech:
Dr. Williams: An approach to law which simply says there’s one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts, I think that is a bit of a danger.
Interviewer: And that is why Sharia should have its place?
Dr. Williams: That is why there is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law.
The “constructive accommodation” that Dr. Williams tacitly seeks is that the indigenous white Europeans should hand their society over to non-whites, including Islam, and that white people should live under the racially-chauvinist rule of Islam and other alien creeds. That is not what Dr. Williams said (at least, not in so many words), and that may even not be the proximate meaning of what he says, or even his intention (who knows?), but that is the true message and purpose of Dr. Williams’ speech, whatever his conscious thoughts, and most specially this arrant peroration:
“…if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of ‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment.”
The ‘deconstruction’ sought is that of the Western rationalist mind, lest it be resistant to the Islamic mentality and that of other alien racial colonisers. As usual, and as expected, this truth was lost among the distracting clatter and din of the state-controlled opposition, i.e. the solicitous choir of social and moral conservatives, British stato-‘nationalists’ and anti-Islamists, who in unison condemned Dr. Williams for his call that Sharia law be brought to the UK, on the shallow grounds that Sharia brings with it various ‘extreme’, ‘barbaric’ or ‘inhuman’ punishments. This canard, recycled and regurgitated on demand across the news cycle whenever a vaguely-relevant incident arises, serves the interests of the Islamists, for it masks the true, conscious agenda of their religion. Presumably, if the good bishop had called upon the authorities to grant parallel legal consideration for an essentially harmless, but racially alien, creed, then there would be no objection? Some would have maintained their objection, it is true, but they would have been flummoxed unless they could finally summon the courage to voice the one true, valid objection to Islamic incursion in Europe: that it is a racial meme destined ineluctably to subvert and destroy white civilisation itself, and that racial and social liberalism are the inhibitors designed to prevent the host from reacting in the appropriate way to ensure its own survival. That is why the true significance of Dr. Williams’ comments was racial, a point underscored by Dr. Williams’ other radio comment that the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law “seems unavoidable”. Why might it be ‘unavoidable’? On the face of it, this is a strange choice of words: until, that is, the racial realities are appreciated.
The obscurantist storm of criticism that gave a misleading impression of Dr. Williams’ views is a symptom of a congenital inability among people across the political spectrum – Right and Left, and far-Right as well, to face inconvenient truths. As usual, it is our racial enemies who are left to state or infer the truth for us, provided one is accustomed to reading between the lines. For instance, this from Baroness Warsi:
“The Archbishop’s comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.
“All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts. He said people should be able to opt in or out of the system. I have very great concern about that.”
We can conclude that Dr. Williams’ comments were “unhelpful” because the good bishop had, in his earnest erudition, revealed more than he had intended, and this alarmed Baroness Warsi and other non-whites who fear – with good reason – the arousal of white racial consciousness.
None of this is to say that Dr. Williams consciously or intentionally wishes for the end of white European civilisation (though he might). His problem is that he is blinded by a psychological complex afflicting much of the Western intellectual classes. To Dr. Williams – the very archetype of philobarbarist condescension – Muslims are jolly nice people with some rather strange customs: a kind of anthropological oddity rescuable by amalgamation into superior Western culture. In the process, he tacitly acknowledges Western moral superiority – an inconsistency on his part – but rather like a cell welcoming a viral organelle, he sees no barrier to the intrusion of an alien belief system into England, that would carry with it the coda for the destruction of the host’s cultural DNA, and ultimately its actual DNA, in modest incremental steps initially, but no less sure for it. The racial implications, inescapable though they are, are lost on him. Admittedly, and to his significant credit, Dr. Williams demonstrates much the superior understanding of Law and its role in society compared to his dim critics, but that does not alter his purblind nature. That his comments also had the merit of honesty is also beyond question, though whether he himself was (or is) conscious of this attribute in his own remarks is anyone’s guess.
Dr. Williams at least did us a spiritual service, by obliging with his own living, breathing example of the perils of the forked tongue disguised in fancy talk. Perhaps at this point a biblical quotation would be apt. Psalm 12:2 states pessimistically:
“They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.”
However, not to fear, as Psalm 12:6 assures us:
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”
No doubt Dr. Williams would arrogantly call on such words: a justification for his own perverted ‘truths’ in the permanency of his ‘God’. As an atheist steeped in the Anglican tradition, I prefer to treat those words as a reminder of human treachery and the constancy of truth.
What the Law ‘is’: the civilisational poverty of pseudo-positivism
Dr. Williams’ speech reflected his visage of British society: a multi-racial and muti-cultural space in which the Law might adapt and evolve to address the challenge of different sorts of people living together. This brings into focus certain fundamental questions. The unspoken, commonsensical, assumption that the Law exists to regulate the affairs of a given territory, and relations between the people in it, usually satisfies when ordinary political issues are discussed. When faced with an unsatisfactory turn of events that can be blamed on some governmental authority or legislative decision, the man on the street will, understandably, tend to blame the putative legislators or decision-makers in terms that assume there is a problem to be fixed or a remediable decision to be made, rather like fixing a car. In short, we tend to assume that the Law is technocratic in character, a function of evidence-laden policy-making, and when something ‘bad’ happens, we surely only need better decision-making. When confronted with facts that suggest a deviation from this logic, we either instinctively suppress such thoughts, or we lash out irrationally (though sometimes also accurately) and denounce all-and-sundry as “corrupt”, “dishonest”, “self-serving”, or whatever. The former tendency reflects a mental timidity, which we all exhibit from time-to-time, and which is part of our evolutionary inheritance. Human beings are social animals and there is a very powerful instinct in each of us against ‘rocking the boat’ and becoming a ‘troublemaker’. We really want to conform, but more importantly, there are also strong interests in society that need our conformity. It’s why those who do ‘rock the boat’, whether Left or Right politically, are subjected to organised campaigns of name-calling: “racist”, “Nazi”, “weirdo”, “misogynist”, “commie”, “anarchist”, etc. The latter tendency reflects an inability to address matters in our lives soberly and rationally. This, in turn, is borne out of powerlessness. We live under a social system – democratic capitalism – that, contrary to its own propaganda, discourages any attempt toward self-government and self-reliance.
These behaviours have their genesis in a philosophical school of thought that has broad currency not just in academe, but as a casual reflex in ordinary society: legal positivism, which is to say, the view that the Law is entirely man-made and not necessarily reflective of any underlying objective moral or ethical principle. If the legal positivist viewpoint is tacitly accepted, then certain conclusions naturally follow from it. For instance, the notion that the Law might be a means for one group in society to oppress another is discomforting to the positivist mindset, though not inconsistent with it. Positivists do not always reject the idea of ideological influence in Law, but they do not like to acknowledge it either. This is because, in the positivist frame of reference, the Law itself is meant to emerge from practices in society, not out of any grand ideological schema. It should be no surprise, then, that legal positivism is particularly attractive to the traditionally liberal mindset. By ‘traditionally liberal’, I refer not to liberalism’s more recent social and racial bastardisation, but rather to the emptier. I am not sure we should imply that modern liberals are somehow brimming with cogent ideas and feasible solutions, Victorian notion of liberalism, in the sense of society as the crucible of progress and enlightenment. People who accept such traditionalist notions tend to be somewhat vacant, often socially-privileged, and their interest in politics tends to be practical more than intellectual. In Britain, they populate mainly the Conservative Party, including its leadership, and to a lesser extent the mainstream of the Labour Party. They are predominantly interested in gossip and what happens at Westminster. They tend to go along with prevailing social and political currents, and on some issues this can be in either direction – so they will either support multi-culturalism because that’s what ‘respectable’ people do, or evince scepticism about it because lots of people appear to be opposed to it. They tend to see social issues in transactional and materialist terms – for instance, if ‘against’ immigration, it will be for primarily economic reasons, and if ‘for’ immigration, again that will be for economic reasons. They tend to weigh-up most social policy matters according to an economic or financial algebra, and see themselves as living in the ‘real world’ as they prioritise budgetary acumen over other considerations. They tend to hold a romanticised view of British legal development – emphasising the English juridical and political contribution to liberty, Magna Carta, etc., but have little detailed knowledge or understanding of these historical achievements and, if and when expedient, will support policies that subvert the principles that under-girded them and of which they are truly ignorant. Their overarching view is one of a society moving relentlessly towards some vague abstract notion of progress. This ‘progress’ is empty and the policies it justifies are not always progressive. In fact, they can be quite regressive and cruel. In the liberal mind, a vicious and savage war might be justified by the need for ‘democracy’, or ‘progress’ and ‘enlightenment’.
This liberal, pseudo-positivist mindset could easily be mistaken for philosophical pragmatism, and is often labelled non-technically as pragmatism, or even ‘common sense’, but in truth, the liberal position is itself ideological, and as with any ideology, it has permeated through society in the form of various pseudo-positivistic common-sense notions that govern the thoughts of most ordinary people about politics and a range of other social matters. Often the nature and manner of our interaction with Law reflects this type of mindset. We recognise easily the legislative and political aspects of Law, the matters of policy in the hands of our benighted law-makers, though we often perceive the issues in purely technocratic terms. Our own involvement with the legal system – with professional lawyers, perhaps with the courts and maybe the police – is ideologically-sterile, and it would hardly ever occur to us that the Law itself, and its machinery, including the police, judges, lawyers and courts, might also be political in nature. It is tempting to see Dr. Williams’ speech, and others like it, through that lazy mindset, and indeed, that is the way it was seen by very many at the time the speech was made. The notion was of a naïve liberal intellectual venturing to share his metropolitan opinions about ‘what should be done’ on an issue to do with multi-racialism that was – and is – ripe for discussion.
This, I would suggest, is a mistaken view. The language and direction of Dr. Williams’ speech was purposeful, even if he may not have been conscious of the consequences of the ideas and assumptions he is repeating. What is missing from the pseudo-positivist perspective at its barest is an acknowledgement of this, the essential ideological and purposive nature of Law itself and discussions of Law. Any concept of Law must accept the civilisational values that underpin it, and which provide the context for any sane process of law-making. Consciously or otherwise, Dr. Williams, and others like him, are promoting values that are at odds with the juridical settlement that undergirds our civilisation. Yet we should also take note that Dr. Williams himself is far from positivistic, and so a positivistic political or critical response both to him and his ideological and cultural allies will be inadequate. It is necessary to fight culture with culture. While it is acceptable that the legal positivist should leave open questions about the practice and interpretation of Law, it cannot be accepted that legal positivism is to be excused as a mere philosophy of Law or credo for jurists and scholars. In its pseud, more reflexive form, it is also a mindset. If we fail to recognise this, and if we fail to reject the morally-impoverished pseudo-positivist perspective and re-assert our civilisational values with a muscular response to this multi-cultural desertification, then we are in effect admitting defeat on the ideological field of battle.
Law as ideology
A more sophisticated – some would say, ‘realist’ – view than legal positivism recognises that ideology (belief systems) and Law are inseparable. Of course, we must here recognise what ideology is and its limited relevance to understanding. Ideology is neither a cause nor an explanation. It can be seen merely as the motivating system of ideas for any particular group. For all that, it is still very important, but it is a mistake to ascribe to the ideological construct itself any determinative or causative influence. A historical example that will illustrate the point is the Black Act. This was a criminal statute enacted by Parliament in 1723 to deal with groups of forest poachers, mostly in Hampshire, who would blacken their faces when undertaking poaching raids: hence the term for them, ‘Blacks’. It is probable that a degree of social and political resentment prefigured in the poachers’ actions, but in any event, the Black Act is an example of law designed to support the economic interests of a ruling elite. The Act prescribed the death penalty for more than fifty criminal offences, a savage ‘legal’ means to enforce what were basically merely property rights, so the Law here was used as a means to uphold private property ideology, but the ideology itself does not tell us exactly why the Law was enacted. What might assist us is an examination of who benefited from its passage. In this case, the landowners derived immediate benefit from the Black Act due to its formal deterrence effect, however this too does not take us to the root of the matter.
The Law itself is an intrinsic part of a belief system. It is the same belief system that compels you to wake-up at a particular time in the morning and go to work. It is the belief system that compels you to do (within reason) what your boss tells you to do. It is likely you are under a contractual obligation to arrive at work by a certain time, not leave before a certain time, and follow reasonable instructions from your superiors. These contractual, legally-enforceable obligations are manifestations of employment ideology. You, as the non-owner (the employee) must do as the owner (employer) says in return for a payment (your wage or salary). The ideological justifications for this – various types of propaganda that you have been brainwashed with since school and that encourage your compliance at work – ensure that you most likely do not think too much about the economic sense of your situation, other than very narrow questions such as whether the wage or salary is sufficient for your needs. This narrowing of the thought process, or concision, is a symptom of a heavily-ideological environment. The ideology does not exist for its own sake or just for fun. It exists to protect the economic interest of the owner, the employer, and is necessary in order to distract your attention and ensure that you do not think too much about the justice of your position as a non-owner in economic activity, i.e. as an employee.
Much of our Law is explicitly in place to advance the interests of an owning class in society, and to support ideological justifications for their advantageous position. The Black Act was supported ideologically by notions of the sanctity of private property, i.e. poaching is ‘stealing’, etc.. Whatever their moral basis, these ideological precepts serve a materialist purpose in encouraging compliance with laws that may work against the economic interest of the greater part of the population[emphasis added – Ed]. It can easily be seen, however, that the agents of society’s ideological base – be they employers or Archbishops – do not necessarily work consciously to uphold a governing ideology in the interests of a ruling group. It would probably not have occurred to Dr. Williams, for instance, that by adopting the precepts of conventional wisdom on multi-racialism in Western societies, he is aiding in the weakening and division of the ordinary working populations of those societies, something that is manifestly in the interests of the ruling capitalist elite. To the unconscious Dr. Williams, the issues are purely legal and cultural, and to his zero-conscious audience, the issues are purely technocratic and concern whether amorphous “extremists” and “barbarians” should be permitted into British society. The notion of history as a process of underlying, unseen, causes and consequences, is lost on them.
One of the intellectual failings evident in our society is this inability or unwillingness to perceive the influence of the economic base and the social relations of capital on what goes on, and an unwillingness to identify the ideological – indeed, intellectual – justifications for it as no more than justifications. It is the case that most public discussion is ideologically-arid. We see professional intellectuals – academics and journalists – of both the Left and Right political persuasion, deploy arguments of an essentially liberal/positivistic or philosophically pragmatic nature to explain history, politics or current events in a way that is sterile of any motivating insight, except the practicalities of whatever is the present issue. Thus, most of the public remain ignorant of their true place in society, and more important, their real power. The real power to overthrow the present hierarchical social system is in the gift of its subjects, for the working population forms an overwhelming numerical majority. Capitalism could be overthrown tomorrow if the people would will it.
Real Power Is With The People
We must ask ourselves why people are not, on the whole, conscious of their true economic position in society and the power they have collectively? The immediate answer is that the capitalist system has various means to shape the thoughts of ordinary people through daily propaganda, and means of state can be used to subdue and discredit dissenters and divert subversive activity into dead-ends. The real war is a war of the mind: it is an intellectual battle of which street agitation, guer[r]illaism and war are an extension.
To borrow Marxist terminology, most people suffer to some degree from ‘false consciousness’, which in simplistic terms describes a compliant state of mind in which a person is not conscious of his true economic position and the class nature of society, i.e. the division between a ruling class and a working class. It follows somewhat that the system that we know as ‘Democracy’ (though not necessary democracy, as such) is essentially a confidence trick. Most ordinary people might think this is rather to state the obvious, yet it would not occur to them that there is both a reason and a cause for this, and that the ‘reason’ and ’cause’ are eminently rational. What underpins the deception that is Democracy is our social relationship to society’s economic base. A practical state of political equality might exist from time-to-time, but it cannot cure economic inequality unless democratic principles are applied to the economy as well. Regardless, most people are content to wallow in a state of entheogenesis, wishing for some real democracy to come their way out of nowhere – a consequence of the liberal/positivistic mind. Populist political parties such as, say, UKIP, that are thrown-up by the Establishment from time-to-time to distract the masses, play-up to these misconceptions. UKIP will wax lyrical about the “out-of-touch political classes”, “corrupt politicians”, “Cultural Marxists”, “left-wingers” or whatever it is, and occasionally some of this might be accurate, rather like a drunk darts player who accidentally hits the bullseye, but none of it gets to the root of the matter. It’s just a clever way to occupy the public and thus maintain the system essentially as it is.
However, there is a more fundamental problem with democracy in society more broadly. Democracy as presented in the West is an abstract, an ideation of Enlightenment thought, and in itself a rather empty notion. A moment’s thought should emphasise the practical difficulty that if everyone has a say, then no-one has a say. As a system, in the mass sense, it appeals very much to the lowest common denominator. The Athenians had a much better grasp of democracy as a real, living practical principle, and, notably, their scope for civic participation was limited to those who would serve the state body in the martial sense, which is how the notion of ‘citizenship’ originated. Many of the Loyalists of the American Revolution were motivated by a dislike of the prospect of ‘mob rule’, which they believed would be the natural outcome of republican government at that time. In much the same way, the minarchists of the early 19th. century American West sought to replace capitalist democracy, an oxymoron and which they saw as a damaging, disenfranchising system, with a type of self-government based on private property principles. Fascism, as both an ideology and a governmental philosophy, can be seen as an refined iteration of the Enlightenment notions of democracy. The fascists in the 20th. century sought to militate against the damaging social and national effects of mass democracy by creating a society in which important interests would be mobilised to co-operate in government for the interests of the people. To a fascist mind, a ‘democratic’ society that permits the perversion of the ethno-national interest is not worthy of the name. If you live in a society infested with pornography, drug addiction and other vices and debasements, in which you are surrounded by people who do not share your race or culture, or even language, then the fact that you might have a vote every four years starts to look rather beside the point, and any fancy talk about ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’ begins to look worthless.
The point is that what is idealised as Democracy in our society has not been idealised by all societies, and there are rational and intelligent people who reject notions of citizenship and enfranchisement for all. Fortunes are spent on keeping the ordinary public from thinking too much about these matters. The mental world of the average ‘citizen’ can be likened to a zero-conscious state in which the mind is hypnotised by a rapid kaleidoscope of soundbites, sentimental pop music and imagery designed to induce compliance. This is done to maintain certain illusions: most specially, a broad, lazy assumption that society works in the interests of all. Any thoughtful person must recognise that it cannot, and any society that purports to do so must tell lies to its people, the biggest lie of all being ‘democracy’. Democracy is a means of control for a dysgenic society that seeks to treat its people as mindless consumers, shorn of meaning and identity. The response of Nationalists to this during the 20th. century has, understandably, largely been of a revanchist nature, concentrating on the need to maintain the nation-state as a source of sovereignty and spiritual meaning, but as the nation-states of Europe reveal themselves to be racially- and nationally-treasonous and stato-nationalism becomes less politically-relevant, there is a need for a New Nationalism that rejects the reactive prescriptions of the Right. We will explore what that will be here, but first let us consider the reaction to the Marxist critique among the political Right and Western cultural conservatives more broadly: the thesis of ‘Cultural Marxism’ – in the view of this author, a jaundiced, semi-accurate critique of Marxism.
‘Cultural Marxism’: object of frenzy
It is common for cultural commissars and commentators to sneeringly disparage the ordinary public for its tendency to engage in spirals of emotional frenzy, but what is not recognised is the extent to which daily public concerns reflect the preoccupations of intellectuals. We have discussed the liberal, pseudo-positivist mentality and how the intellectual mind can be preoccupied by second-order ideas that merely reflect the practical concerns of society. Now we will consider how the intellectual class and their pseudo-intellectual imitators will engage in their own frenzies and amplify mistaken and distorted interpretations of ideas.
It has grown fashionable among commentators on the political Right and in Nationalism to speak of ‘Cultural Marxism’ (and less commonly, but arguably more accurately, ‘neo-Bolshevism’). The term as a label has become an auto-response to a perception that there is a damaging moral and cultural liberalism in society. In a more specific sense, ‘Cultural Marxism’ is a reference to an academic school of neo-Marxists of 1920s Europe, the Frankfurt School, who developed a critique of what they saw as the morally-repressive society around them. The connection of the Frankfurt School to actual Marxist thinking was weak, at best, but these thinkers concluded that there was a need to subvert society with critical, counter-cultural values that reflected neo-Marxist ideas in the social and cultural sense. The term Cultural Marxist itself is of questionable validity, but it is used here for convenience.
There is no evidence that the Frankfurt School actually favoured multi-racial, multi-culturalism in the West. The main focus of the School was on attitudes to sex and power structures in existing Western society (though later critical theorists who claimed a broad intellectual inheritance from the Frankfurt School did examine Western ideas about race subversively). If we seek an ideological motivation for multi-racialism, we are more likely to find it in the propaganda of capitalism, for divisive multi-racial societies fulfil the needs of market economies much more efficiently than racially-cohesive societies in which the working class is socially- and politically-cohesive. Nevertheless, the notion that multi-racialism is attributable to the Frankfurt School or some other sinister left-wing academic movement has common currency on the political Right. It does contain some truth, but it is – at best – only a partial explanation. Its adoption as an almost-complete and automatic response to liberal ideas generally, not just multi-racial culture, is akin to vapid conspiracism. What it illustrates is the danger of ideological thinking that is not anchored in rational explanations. Critical thinkers, i.e. those who examine ideological motivations in society, are just as susceptible to modish thinking and irrational frenzies as the general population. The ‘Cultural Marxist’ frenzy permeates into society, so that the pseudo-intellectual begins to talk in terms that tacitly disparage rational (i.e. economic) explanations, thus a further psychological or mental barrier is erected to prevent ordinary people perceiving and recognising the influence of the economic base on society.
To put this in real terms: on Tuesday, the ordinary man will say that “socialists” are “scum”, because he heard it from some erudite shock-jock raving about ‘Cultural Marxists’ and the Frankfurt School. Then on Wednesday the following week, the same ordinary man will announce that “Nazis” are “scum”, because he heard it from a news presenter. These are not accidental or isolated examples of borrowed sloppy thinking, rather they are a consequence of the misdirection of intellectual work. The object of frenzy needn’t be “socialists” or “Nazis”, it could be something else. The point is that the ordinary man understands neither socialism nor National Socialism, still less Nazism, but ignorance is bliss and a desire for an explanation is compelling, in the face of which an easy explanation cannot be resisted, and so he will happily repeat what the “informed” people on the news have told him, who in turn accept their direction from the cultural architects in politics and academe. These intellectuals, just like any number of ordinary work-a-day folk, need a bauble to distract them, but it needs to be something of intellectual character that will engage sufficient interest. It needs to have a sense of verisimilitude about it. When the distraction ploy works, it can almost be likened to a synecdoche of the truth. Those with an interest in perpetuating these distraction do not sit and plan matters and are not even necessarily conscious about politics or cultural matters. In fact, the forces in society that self-perpetuate and hide the true nature of social relations issue these divertissements organically and unconsciously.
Consciousness is the real battlefield
It is my contention that the issue of political economy in society has been decided theoretically in favour of the co-operativism (or what could be very broadly called ‘socialism’). The Earth enjoys abundant resources, largely due to the economic success of capitalism, but capitalism cannot accommodate the insatiable drive for human freedom, and so a co-operative society is now needed. That is not to say such a society is inevitable. Capitalism will not collapse. It will be brought to an end by the conscious will of a majority of people. The issue is how to get there, and what exact form this co-operative society should take.
The problem with Marxism is that it confines itself to the materialist questions. Again, in rather simplistic terms, this is what can be called ‘economic determinism’ (a clumsy, but necessary shorthand phrase in summative discussions like this)– i.e., a belief that the social relations of capital determine what happens in society. This is the orthodox or classical Marxist view, and indeed represents the key to understanding a critical perspective on capitalist society, but while it unquestionably has considerable validity and utility in explaining society, it does not and cannot explain everything. The great failure of the Marxists has not been due to some technical error. Their analysis of capitalism, especially Marx’s original critique, is essentially correct in its technical aspects. The problem has been a failure of consciousness – in plain and brutal terms, an inability to convince sufficient numbers of people of their case to mount the necessary democratic assault on capitalist institutions. I believe the major reason for this is the tin ear of Marx to issues of the Self, which palpably reverberates among neo-Marxists.
Marx himself did not even have a conception of human beings, as such, a concept he dismissed as wholly ahistorical and idealistic. He saw men and women not as wholly autonomous beings defined by their rights arising out of our inherent natures, but as specie beings defined by our ability to satisfy our needs and make use of our abilities. The difficulty with this is the focus on external causes and the reliance on historical conditions that denies to Man an essential nature. In the early 20th. century, an attempt was made among some neo-Marxist scholars to synthesise Marxist thinking with Freudian analysis, to unite the macro (i.e. the external and historical analysis of Marx) with the micro (i.e. the internal and psychoanalytical insights of Freud). This interesting synthesis meets its most potent expression in some of the ideas of Cultural Marxism, and ultimately has met with some influence in the growing rejection by the mainstream centre-Left in politics of racial and national boundaries, but ultimately neo-Marxists have failed to mobile themselves as a genuine revolutionary social force. Instead, even their most revolutionary social and cultural ideas have become absorbed within the cultural bloodstream of capitalism, which has adapted to them.
More significantly perhaps, it is also evident that the culturally and racially-liberal thinking that has emerged out of what, broadly-speaking, might be called (admittedly, not entirely accurately) the ‘Cultural Marxist’ attack on society is alienating to the vast majority of people. The difficulty for neo-Marxists is that, while their structural and economic arguments are impeccable, they are seeking and demanding the fall of racial and national boundaries, and thus inadvertently seeking to deny an essentialist component of human identity and human biodiversity, a facet of ourselves that is inextricably tied to our consciousness, our sense of ourselves. Or, to put it plainly – family, kith and kin will tend to trump common economic interest. The arguments that can be (clumsily) summarised as ‘economic determinism’ are not enough for a full understanding, and to pretend that they are dangerous in that it leads us down the road to compulsion and authoritarianism, whether in an overtly democratic guise, or in a Stalinist . We can, conceivably, create the libertarian society that orthodox Marxists want, but there would be grave problems if that is the only aim, as kin relations cannot be terraformed. What can be created and maintained are the structures in society that encourage kin relations, and that is what Nationalism essentially is.
What has often been seen as the ghoul of William Morris that hangs around at the edge of Nationalism might better be seen as a ghost, a spirit with the unfinished business of syncrecity. The other tradition can be embraced. The Right thesis of Cultural Marxism represents, I believe, a misplaced reaction against this and needs to be seen for what it is, a dead-end, and discarded. The true ideological battlefield is not over politico-economic structures – something that is already theoretically decided – or ad hoc questions about societal behaviour, which can be decided by people , but over the consciousness of Man. It is not a battle between Marxism and Nationalism, as such. The warring parties are more amorphous than those pedestrian 19th. century definitions suggest, and not easily definable. It is really an argument over the Enlightenment legacy, between those who wish to advance the rational socio-political settlement toward a hollowing-out of our racial and spiritual nature and those who embrace Man as Man and wish to re-emphasise and retain our National Community in whatever politico-economic terrain might exist in the future.
Law as racial expression
What of race and identity? This brings us to back four-square to a discussion of Law, for it is the Law – and rules – of a culture that hold a national community together as a reflection of its values. We might say it is a Law of Nature, consistent throughout recorded history, that we as human beings, in common with the rest of the animal kingdom, live and act for the purpose of reproduction of our genes. The basis of our survival is our fecundity, and thus sex and the behavioural relations around sex is of vital importance to human society. It follows, in my view, that a sane human society has as its priority the racial and genetic perpetuation of its own kind, and those who ignore this natural law die out. Any system of Law in society should be elaborated only from these axiomatic principles.
To speak of a Law of Nature is not in any way to reject existing legal orders. While there is a tradition among lawyers and jurists to refer to ‘reason’ rather than ‘nature’ in the context of Law, it might be observed that most positive law – organised systems of law – are an extension of a kind of natural law grounded in virtue, English common law most specially so. However, when I use the term Law in relation to a National Community, I am advancing a different, more immanent, concept of Law as a memetic coda, a racial or tribal expression, a means of communicating and enforcing in society the racial and genetic interests of one group against another. I believe that is the truth of what Law is, and I think the former Archbishop, Dr. Williams, provided us with a glimpse of this truth in his considered speech on Sharia law. A couple of further, specific, historical examples are offered here as a means of further elucidation.
The Mosaic Laws are a set of religious laws, rules and customs in various normative modes that remain of fundamental moral and ceremonial importance to Jews today, and which also influence heavily civil and criminal law in the West. Much of that Western influence came merely in the form of concerted scholarly efforts at intertextuality during the Medieval period, and most of the Mosaic Laws might now be considered archaic on a literal reading and tend to be supported only among Orthodox Jews. Furthermore, to an extent any influence that might have been exerted by the moral and ethical content of the Mosaic Laws is now being overshadowed in the West by the more secular and multi-racial influences of the contemporary universalist legal and moral order. Nevertheless, the Mosaic Laws retain a social and cultural significance, both to Jews themselves, and also to mainstream society beyond, in the sense of what observers like to call the ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’, in which we can surmise a heavy influence of Jewish legal and ethical principles in English case law. For those who identify as Jews, the Mosaic Laws part of a coherent ethnic identity that is passed down the generations. Furthermore, English law does permit (or, to be more precise, does not preclude or outlaw) limited jurisdiction of Jewish law between Jews, particularly in marriage disputes and commercial litigation, with adjudication in rabbinical courts, known as Beth Din, however Beth Din remain under the supremacy and coercion of English law.
The Anglo-Saxon laws and customs that existed in England until the Norman Conquest were a continuation of the traditions and customs of their Germanic progenitors. Before the Byzantium incursion in the Early Middle Ages, the Anglo-Saxons of Britain had little influence from the institutionalised civilisations of southern Europe and relied on the oral transmission of laws and customs such as folk-right, which amounted to an expression of the judicial consciousness of the ethnic sub-group. We know from what records that were compiled (after some of the Anglo-Saxon legal traditions became written) that there was a significant ethnic transference from other North Sea cultures – the Saxons, Frisians and Scandinavians in particular – with reference not just to law-making and enforcement, but also broader social customs, administrative organisation and political ideas, as well as a faithful maintenance of judicial principles within each discrete sub-group, as a distinct ethnic expression of that sub-group.
Law as a meme of cultural and racial expansion
Notwithstanding the historical evidence, perhaps a reason the notion of Law as a racial expression is not discussed is that it would seem anti-intellectual to relegate Law to the status of some kind of a primaeval or cultural force, as opposed to having a purely rational basis, but if we examine the validity of the assertion in light of accepted legal developments in our own, supposedly ‘rational’, society, we can surmise that Law is not just essential to the cohesiveness of a racial group, but also a means of cultural expansiveness. For instance, the first Anglo-Saxon written legal code, King Æthelberht’s law code, set out fines for molesting the property of the Christian Church. This was enacted shortly after the arrival of an evangelical mission to Britain by Augustine. The Norman conquerors imposed a superstructure of law and justice that, in time, altered the nature of English society, and which survives to this day. Whereas in the Anglo-Saxon era, the legal culture was steeped in collectivist tribal traditions, with rights and privileges interpretable in relation to blood and social ties, the Norman influences in contrast brought individualistic notions into English law, with regard to property-ownership, rights, and so on. It is was also after the Norman Conquest that a new alien racial group was brought into English society, the Jews. William the Conqueror brought Jews to England from Rouen, in Normandy, to take advantage of their commercial skills, believing that they would assist in bringing greater prosperity to the country. The individualistic legal traditions and feudal and hierarchical emphasis of Norman society supplanted into England suited these commercially-astute racial interlopers who lacked any roots in the society and had less of an interest or stake in the permanency of culture and kin relations. The Jews in turn began to exert significant influence on the English legal tradition, particularly common law. Much of this influence reflected the philosophic influence of the Torah-Talmud, including the post-Talmudic common law tradition of responsa, which had a direct influence on the evolution of English common law. Also, the jury trial method, and much of our other due process, arose from Talmudic guidelines. Over the centuries, the Jews became significant pillars of the business community, with a vital influence on the direction of the country and were able to establish themselves as an autonomous niche set apart from the rest of society and outside the English feudal system, protected as servi camera (servants of the King), as they were recognised to be of crucial importance to the country’s treasury.
The tumultuous history of the Jews in England will not be laboured here, but suffice it to say that over time, and between edicts and expulsions and other turmoil and resentment from the native English, the Jews have managed to establish themselves as a prosperous, distinctly racial community in England, and other Western societies as well, that inevitably puts them in antagonism with the indigenous populations. Due to their prominent commercial role in society, Jews also played a causative and contributory role in the great European Civil Wars of 1914 to 1945 (the First and Second World Wars). In hindsight, these Wars can be seen analogously in much the same way that classical scholars view, say, Caesar’s Civil War as signalling the fall of the Roman Republic and heralding an imperial era, the Roman Empire. A Rubicon was crossed that saw the defeat of White Racial Nationalism – ersatz Roman ‘republican’ government – at the hands of the brutal proxy forces of International Jewry, the ersatz imperialists. The subsequent Nuremberg Hearings (known as the Nuremberg Trial(s)), in which various personalities of National Socialism were subjected to kangaroo trials for crimes both real and imagined, signalled a new juridical and moral settlement in which the cultural notion, until then only pregnant and incipient, that the white man is evil, could at last be codified and allowed to permeate the bloodstream of European societies, which in turn lost their ‘republican’ civic integrity as Third World invaders swamped their lands. For the Jews, the black and Muslim invaders of more recent times represent an important opportunity to divide the population and weaken the grip of the indigenous white British on their own society. Dr. Williams’ speech on Sharia law has to be seen in this context.
How the Law protects the invader
t is the author’s contention that the [Sephardic and Ashkenazic – Ed] Jews are a discrete racial group within Western societies pursuing a long-term racial survival strategy based on financial and cultural parasitism. It is critical in maintaining their successful long-term status that the Jewish identity in mainstream society is deliberately kept somewhat nebulous as to the white racial majority. Hence most Jews resemble white people physiognomically, with the result that only a tiny group of racially-conscious whites will perceive the truth, that Jews are racially different and antagonistic to the interests of whites. It will be noted in contrast that more recent racial invaders to Europe are marked in appearance and easily separable and usable as racial scapegoats. This includes Blacks, Muslims – and Orthodox Jews. The Jew’s strategy is staganographic, hiding among the white population while using Orthodox Jews, Muslims and blacks as cover, with the unconscious help of useful idiots, including liberal whites, conservatives and various types of stato-nationalists. This Jewish racial survival strategy leads to division in society, which is worsened by mass revolutionary immigration. As the atomisation accelerates, encouraged by other anti-social economic policies, those with a pre-disposition toward dissident thinking will gravitate towards one or several state-controlled opposition parties. UKIP is the current state-controlled safety valve for pseudo-nationalist opposition, distracting and diverting valuable time and energy from building a real Nationalist opposition and counter-culture.
A long-term legal strategy is also needed by the Jews, and in this regard we can liken the Law to a process of engineering. Under heavy philosophic influence from Jewish religious coda, the Torah and the Talmud, the Law has been shaped according to Judaic racial interests, to facilitate commerce and investment, and to create a Judaic legal culture based on individualism rather than collectivism, which is the essential basis of Judeo-capitalism. As a result, white people have over the course of time faced legal and ethical possibilities that are, essentially, alien to them, something that is congruent with the notion of Law as a means of racial expression. As the Jew has shown his hand more overtly in the 20th. century, the tables have been soundly turned, and the Law itself is now, more fully and overtly than ever, a means for our most prominent racial competitor to oppress and bully us into silence, compliance and submission. The membranous defences have broken-down under the diabolical assault of a killer virus. Apparently benign concepts such as ‘liberal democracy’, ‘equality’, ‘human rights’, ‘feminism’ are in fact the means to destroy the White Race. Politicians and others who indulge in such terms are repeating the coda of our racial-genetic enemies. This includes those who claim to defend white people. For instance, the BNP – the British stato-nationalists – themselves have co-opted into this language and started to believe in the democratic system and place it ideology and interests above any type of ‘nationalism’ it might have stood for, using the language of the system: democracy, equality, human rights, etc. That is how any ideological system arrogates and co-opts its opponents and enemies. It is a supreme, and cruel, irony that this ‘democracy’ rewards the BNP with a civil action, by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, that forces this putatively ”nationalist” political party to change its constitution to admit non-whites into membership, under threat of imprisonment. In contesting this legal claim, the BNP used the same ‘enlightened’ language of ‘democracy’, ‘equality’, ‘human rights’, and so on that was used by their opponents. The outcome was predictable, in that all these terms are codewords for an anti-white agenda.
The appeal of these ‘enlightened’ ideas of ‘democracy’, ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’ is their apparent ‘moralism’. It would not be difficult for me, if I were so minded, to convince even the most obdurate person of the value of human rights as an abstract, and furthermore, it would not be much of a challenge for me to convince the average person that a strong belief in human rights, again in the abstract, is ‘right’. This position is apparently moralistic, but morals can only find imperfect expression in Law. Mother Nature is thoroughly amoral and unconcerned with the individuation of luck and chance or the assertion of pretend ‘rights’, and so any attempt to advance ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’ must always fail if pursued at face value. In reality, of course, the concepts are not advanced sincerely, but as part of a genetic campaign against the pre-eminent racial group, an anti-white agenda. The Jews, and the Muslims, of course know how the natural laws operate, and they already have a strong, membranous coda which inculcates each and every single member of their tribes in the predicates of racial survival and perpetuation. In reality, the strange liberal praxis of ‘democracy’, ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’ is a coda to be learnt by whites only, for its purpose is thoroughly dysgenic – for the white race.
In legal practice, arguably the most significant discipline is the seemingly hum-drum field of employment law, because this – above all others – affects social relations in day-to-day business and in the workplace. It is here that the alien virus has been most penetrative and successful against its host body, Western societies, particularly in the EU Member States. In the UK, Kafkaesque laws and regulations have been enacted that institutionalise division and conflict in the workplace and allow for entirely subjective tests of harassment and discrimination, with the result that ordinary employers live in constant fear of a financially-devastating legal claim. These perverse laws are supported by the weird sub-culture of Employment Tribunals, which adjudicate on disputes in an inquisitorial fashion. One of the major misconceptions in the UK is that its employment laws and Employment Tribunals are institutionally biased against employers. In fact, these laws and regulations generally serve an agenda that helps employers by emphasising individual rights over collective rights and thus keeping workplaces divided. The crux is the advancement of identity politics, in the workplace and elsewhere, which focuses on the differences amongst employees and so discourages the emergence of a sense of collective rights and privileges. This in turn improves the economic power of employers. Employees are generally no longer conscious of their collective interests or their real power as a numerically-superior body. Any racial group in society, such as the Jews, that harboured an interest in undermining white domination might wish to encourage these warped and masochistic perceptions among ordinary white working people, helped along by mass revolutionary levels of immigration of Third World people of disparate racial and cultural origins. After all, a national work force of atomised individuals with individual ‘human rights’ and with starkly different racial and cultural backgrounds is unlikely to form any sense of cohesive identity, and unlikely to challenge the social and economic order or damaging anti-social policies, such as those implemented in the UK by successive neo-liberal governments. [emphasis added – Ed].
An essential requisite of this legal order is a racial-cultural attack on the dominant, national majority, group. An important component of employment law, for instance, is discrimination law, an entirely specialist sub-discipline that emerged in the UK from the late 1970s onwards. There was significant theoretical influence in this legal development from U.S. Supreme Court authorities and appellate decisions and statutory law in the United States as well as the Continental Roman law concepts of the then-E.E.C. Discrimination law, conceptually and practically, is an archetypal liberal meme, designed to subvert and undermine the social and economic dominance of white men in society in two ways. First, via an overt attack on white male control of the workplace, through the means of legal claims and the threat of legal claims. Second, through the inculcation of neurosis and conflict in the workplace by means of an individuated concept of rights. If white men, whether in a managerial capacity or on the shop-floor, are made to see themselves socially and economically as individuals, rather than as a cohesive bloc, then it becomes harder for them to act as a group and to retain group loyalties. This in turn means that, gradually, over the course of years, the informal bonds that tie people together in society begin to break. Whereas white people in Europe historically evolved socially out of community cultures, the modern White Man is expected to be some kind of a bold Randian individualist, a condition that cannot be sustained given our fundamentally social nature, thus the neurosis of the white male proliferates and manifests in yobbery, crime, drug and alcohol abuse and other dysfunctions. Yet in a different legal field in which we note a racial attack on the national majority racial group, international law, notions of Man as an interdependent animal are maintained, even celebrated. A panoply of treaties, international committees and aid organisations are in place to give legal and practical protection and assistance to indigenous peoples, whose collective rights are readily-acknowledged and afforded legal recognition by modern industrial nation-states. Only, here the accepted legal definition of ‘indigenous’ in the international law sense specifically excludes white peoples by reference to groups in society that are numerically non-dominant.
Changes such as these that are dysgenic in society require a spiritual weakening in the dominant group whose genes are under attack. The White European Civil Wars of 1914 to 1945 certainly weakened the genetic strength of the white populations by removing entire strata of fit, healthy, young men who would otherwise have provided the strong core of our society’s progeny. Not to disregard or disrespect the brave contribution of men and women who did fight and survived, nor to doubt the worth and intelligence of those few – on both the Left and Right politically – who saw the true nature of those terrible events and for that reason refused to participate, but what is left of the White Race in Europe are largely those who are descended from the lucky, cowardly, puny and weak, many of whom (though by no means all) found some way to avoid or minimise dangerous service. That said, if the matter is looked-at on a genomic level, the poor quality of our base human material can be considered irrelevant. Those of us who live in this sick, depraved society are, at times, weak, dishonourable, dishonest, criminal, yobbish, promiscuous and licentious, but even the worst of us white men have good genes. We each carry the spark that created most recognisable culture on planet Earth: most worthwhile art, science, mathematics, philosophy, literature and civic and juridical understanding is within us. As individuals, we may not reckon much in the ruminations of the unfathomable, but as carriers of these valuable genes, our worth is inestimable. What we have to confront is that our racial competitors have worked, and are continuing to work, diligently to deny us this essential self-knowledge, to deny us our heritage and thus deny us a future. They cannot be blamed for this. They must play their own genetic game and follow their nature, but they would mould a different kind of white Man: a mindless, zero-conscious ‘democratic’ consumer, and until now they have succeeded handsomely. This is a war of consciousness, and the task before us is in conditioning the Self.
The rise of Judeo-Capitalist Man
We have discussed the dangers of the liberal, pseudo-positivist mind, which is fermented in the Western intellectual classes and ubiquitously reflexed in our society. It is not an accidental mindset, but the deliberative basis of the Judeo-Capitalist White Man, a New Man engineered with devilish torments, including financial and sexual liberalism, shorn of heritage and any sense of history, living in a transactional climate in which what matters is an ideated existentialism that prioritises the cares and practicalities of the present, not the past or the future. All of this is designed to weaken the racial and genetic basis of Western society. It is ignorance of history that is most crucially important in shaping the mind of this diabolical Epimetheus. If you do not know or understand the past, then you have no future, nor care for one.
In politics, the Judeo-Capitalist White Man plays a two-handed game with regard to most issues. Take, just as one example, the question of European political integration. On the one hand, the European institutions are said to be an authoritarian construct, related in some way to ‘communism’ (applying the term in a clumsy and illiterate fashion). “Communism”, then, is meant to be a “bad” thing, though few people who use the word ‘communism’ – including most of our professional intellectuals – actually have any idea what it is or entails, or why it has anything to do with people in Brussels and Strasbourg. Thus ‘Europe’ itself becomes a dirty word in a discursive climate in which the only legitimate narrative is one that divides whites, and even maligns other white stato-nationalities. Others, in contrast, feel the need to support some kind of European integration on one of several, mostly economic, grounds. The confusion and double-talk on both sides of the debate is a symptom of the liberal mind that refuses to see matters in racial terms, but instead prioritises, one way or the other, material questions.
Take another, related, example: the question of human rights. The debate among the pseudo-positivists and sundry other useful idiots tends to centre around whether this or that judicial ruling has gone too far. Such debates are essentially redundant, since you cannot operate legal and juridical principles of a universal nature without an acceptance that the rules must be interpreted in such a way that they apply in all relevant cases. This rudimentary legal positivism is fairly self-evident to any thinking person, but still some people believe that exceptions should be made so this or that individual either is granted or denied ‘human rights’, or some other legal privilege, normally according to the relative sympathy or popularity of the individual involved. The extreme, and thoroughly confused, form of the Useful Idiot tendency argues that we should withdraw altogether from entreated courts that declare human rights because they are “foreign” or “go too far” or represent “political correctness gone mad”. [emphasis added – Ed].
What no-one seems ask is why we should have or need a human rights culture at all. Partly this is because to discuss this question would require a proper understanding of history, a subject that has been eviscerated at most scholastic levels. In a community that is cohesive and worthy of the name, it is unlikely that notions of human rights would even have need to be conceptualised. We discussed earlier how, with Byzantium incursion in the Early Middle Ages, then the Norman Conquest and the Jewish influence of the Talmud and other Judaic philosophy on the engineering of Anglo-Norman legal structures, including English common law, rights in England’s legal and commercial culture became individuated and shifted away from notions of collective and ethnic unity. An idea of human rights was not, and could not be, conceived by the Anglo-Saxon culture alone. That is not to say there were no ‘rights’ that could be attached to individuals. In fact, there were individual rights (for instance, there was a considerable body of legal rights for women), but there was never any need for a coherent body of ‘human rights’ that could be interpreted, defended and upheld in its own right. The progenitors of the ‘human rights’ idea were found in Rome not Germania, and only emerged in earnest as part of the English legal tradition after the Norman Conquest.
When discussing the relative dangers and benefits of a ‘human rights’ culture, the debate among pseudo-positivist minds tends to divide into two separate camps. There is usually an artificial common ground along the lines of: most right-thinking people would accept that in a civilised society, there must be a recognition of rights. It is normally observed among pseudo-positivists that any tendency to dismiss human rights arguments conceptually or practically, especially if the challenge or objection is knee-jerk or reactionary in nature, is not a serious or substantial argument given that, it is said, the philosophical and juridical tradition of human rights is ages-old, with its roots in Medieval law and custom, and Roman law before it. In the first camp, the ‘right-wing’ pseudo-positivists, i.e. the Tory protagonists, will try to advance the notion that the judiciary are promoting an attitude to human rights that decouples Law from the interests of the society it is meant to serve. In the other camp, the ‘left-wing’ pseudo-positivists, i.e., the more noticeably liberal types, tend in response to this to be reduced to a more purely or classically positivistic argument in their defence of the human rights concept, along the lines of ‘rules are rules’. Both camps are giving inadequate, unsophisticated responses to what is, fundamentally, a question of what sort of society we wish to live in. The reality is that human rights innovations are part of an ancient challenge to indigenous, communitarian legal traditions, and are pursued for racial and ideological purposes, even if the relevant judicial actors are not themselves conscious of this. The memetic coda, that might be summatively expressed in the mantra, liberté, égalité, fraternité, or similar, invites an individuation of rights that leads to dysgenic social and racial trends and general cultural degeneracy, so that we soon have féminité and even altérité. The Judeo-Capitalist White Man that has been moulded and engineered out of all this is a thorough-going materialist. He is of the present and of the eros, having abandoned his storge and thus his long-term vitality. He has no sense of the past, still less of his heritage, and places no value in his identity or in its preservation.
Prometheanism and the New European
The challenge facing us, then, is not so much political as a sociological and psychological struggle, though at times the endeavour may find political expression. The legacy nation-states of the tired Westphalian system to which Nationalists have given their implicit political loyalty are now showing themselves to be racially treasonous, particularly since after the White European Civil Wars of the early 20th. century. Thus, one of the hardest steps for Nationalists will be to mentally transition from an intellectual condition of raison d’État toward a raison d’être, from asking ‘What is good for the nation-state?’ to ‘What is good for our race?’. To borrow a form from Popper, we must be ‘critical nationalists’ (c.f. ‘critical rationalists’). We must become more fully soldiers in an intellectual war. This will in turn require a kind of sociological and psychological engineering: the Law will become a necessary tool in the social and cultural terraforming of our society, but we must recognise that any such campaign, no matter how patient or sophisticated, must ultimately fail if the essential requisites of physical and demographic advantage are not also addressed. This is in the hands of Nationalists themselves, but part of the answer also is adopting the correct legal and organisational strategies. Any gains made territorially, culturally and demographically can only be preserved and assured with intentional communities that recapture territory for whites and build strong legal and ideological defensive membranes against attack.
These new intentional communities, which I call ‘Racial Intentional Community’, will initially exist in many separate geographic locations simultaneously. They will be held together, both internally and federatively, by the political, legal and managerial acuity of their planners and by the ideological commitment of participants, but simple racial consciousness will not be enough. For the new nomos that will lift the Racial Intentional Community into a White Independent Nation, we must be our own Prometheus and with our humble clay and worn-out potter’s tools mould the New European who will be infused with the values of the natio. The Epimetheus, meanwhile, who lacked foresight of his common human destiny, will – must – be left to wilt and die, his genetic inheritance defiled and his future forgotten, but if we, the would-be Prometheus, are not to follow our wretched, diabolical cousins into spiritual obsolescence and, ultimately, genetic oblivion, then the Racial Intentional Community must be the first step on the road to the new Nation. We must reflect for a moment on how the natio concept was first regarded and understood by Roman thinkers, particularly Cicero. Only a community, civitas, can be guarded and insured against slavery, for it is in the community – in communitarian bonding – that a common identity, our best insurance, is forged. Only then can a true nation will arise, but only out the most honest recognition of our nature and the eternal laws.
Man is a social AND biological animal
Man is not merely a social animal, but a thorough-going socio-biological animal. Notions of liberty, equality and fraternity can be worthy goals in abstract, but only if caveated by the reality of identity, which is the building block for psychological health and integrity in that it is our sense of ourselves. If pursued outwith the context of identity, individuated goals are liable to slide into official compulsion, and ultimately, the actual totalitarianism of ‘Democracy’. To put it plainly: you cannot equalise diversity or liberate human beings from their differences, and any attempt to do so will crush any semblance of fraternity among Man. That human beings the world over cannot yet perceive their common economic (class) enemy may be ascribable to this compulsive and suicidal mission of forcing different peoples to live together cheek-by-jowl, so denying and crushing their essential identities. Man is a viscerally racial animal, ergo social and biological.
Those who wish for us to co-opt the anti-white internationalist coda and seek the comfort of protest within it will ultimately meet with disappointment, for talk of ‘human rights’, ‘equality’ and ‘democracy’ in relation to a rights for indigenous whites can be no more than a further mechanism for distraction. What is needed is nothing less than a new social and legal order, a White Independent Nation whose philosophic banner shall be not liberté, égalité, fraternité but fraternité, communauté, nationalité, identité – and mission. Our mission shall be no less than the imperative of natural law, that binds all Nature, and upon which Mother Nature looks with weary reassurance.
Towards a ‘Rechtsstaat Homo Superior’
If we recognise the role and value of Law in assuring the necessary, requisite, communitarian bond described above and inhibiting the infiltration of alien and counter-cultural racial influences, then in building our White Independent Nation we must settle on a corpus that will represent our survivalist coda, i.e. ‘what is good for our race is good for us’. In short, a Rechtsstaat Homo Superior, a body of laws and morals of a New Tribe, the New Europeans, but in the spirit of the Urvolkes from whom we claim our legitimacy. As the New Europeans will be without an expressive political state or volk, the Rechtsstaat Homo Superior will be a corpus of a Nation, not of a state, and will evolve ‘in exile’, in the shadow of the supremacy and coercion of the increasingly alien values of the universalist Law in multi-cultural, multi-racial, societies. Unlike with the development of Mosaic Law and practical Judaic jurisprudence, the Rechtsstaat Homo Superior will be at odds with the societies that surround it, rather than seeking to adapt, accommodate and invade them. Racial Intentional Community must, I believe, be a society organised on co-operative and community principles, restoring European laws and folkways to the White National Community and re-visiting appropriate aspects of the more communitarian legal culture of the Anglo-Saxons and comparable indigenous European cultures. A crucial formative aspect is that European whites cast-aside ethnic differences and unite in shared living space, hence Racial Intentional Community.
Strategically, Racial Intentional Community can be likened to an intermezzo, linking the conscious participants to the immaculate final act: the White Independent Nation that will one day arise. During this transitional phase, racially-conscious, intentionalist whites will, unavoidably, be confederated to some extent or other with the treasonous, anti-white nation-states and so will have to comply, for better or ill, with those laws that exist, however inimical they may be (or find some accepted means of avoidance, which itself imputes compliance). However, the Community concept will provide some means of dealing with this and will form the basis of a liveable Nationalist alternative in which materialist endeavours are minimised and skills and talents are exchanged freely in the interests of all. That is not to say that Racial Intentional Community will be detached from society or autonomous of society in any way, and that is certainly not what is meant or intended. Racial Intentional Community is, rather, a iteration of the Pioneer Little Europe concept, adjusted for European civic and social conditions. Like PLE, it will be street-based, and can be used as a tactical method for checking non-white urban incursion as much as for suburban or semi-rural living.
That said, Racial Intentional Community differs from the PLE model in that I believe any dissident community-building activity in Europe will, if successful, need to take account of the centralised political structures, heavy state intervention and institutionalised anti-white values which are prevalent here, even in nominally federal states like Germany. In that civic and political environment, the first priority will be to ensure that there are strong, membranous legal structures which provide for a defence against legal attack. This will in turn inculcate and encourage a communitarian ethos. Ultimately, the New Europeans will forge their own White Independent Nation, and codify their own Rechtsstaat Homo Superior, but for now there has to be a recognition of a humbler objective, which is that systems, plans and structures must be in place that protect a white intentional situation and assure its preservation and long-term existence. To simply establish a white intentional presence in a community without discrete formal structures, as PLE appears to envisage, will not work well in Europe. A more considered approach is needed.
I began this essay with a story about the drippy bishop, Dr. Rowan Williams. I did so purposefully. Dr. Williams is a spiritual man and a spiritual figure in society, and we are here embarked on a spiritual battle, a war over the soul and consciousness of Man. It is therefore both apt and fitting that the words of this forked-tongued fool, lettered as he is in theology, should form the proscenium of our debate. What is missed by the mainstream commentators of Left and Right is that Dr. Williams’ apparent backsliding is part of a systematic campaign of dysgenics, the biggest in human history: the eradication of the White Race, via cultural – and moral – assault and miscegenation. Dr. Williams’ speech was an attempt to provide a spiritual and religious gloss on what in reality is a materialist argument. His role as a commissar is to help provide the intellectual apologia, the ideological justification, for ethnic cleansing. His implicit message, that as we are all human we should tolerate living together, notwithstanding our differences, and we should be accommodating to those whose cultures jar with ours, is spiritually bankrupt and anti-human – and besides, cannot work in practice.
While the non-whites, especially Jews, are certainly our opponents, it is white people like Dr. Williams who represent our most worthy and dangerous adversaries. In the vision of the future conjured by the likes of Dr. Williams, the White Children will bow timidly to ‘intellectuals’ such as him, and will be enslaved to the sneering, simpering, masochistic idiot class he represents, with their prestigious degrees and empty, cattle-prod language of liberté, égalité, fraternité, ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’ and ‘equality’: the demented prattle of the Western intellectual and the pseudo-positivist.
However, we are in the era of Reckoning. That future cannot happen. We, the carriers of the flame, may be sickened, infected and dishonoured, but the genes still exist within us and so the beauty of White Women will endure and our children’s children will one day tell the ‘Parable of the Archbishop’ to their own children: the story of the foolish but important man who spoke with a forked tongue, as he placed slimy ingratiation to a coloniser above the principled defence of his own people. The lesson they will tell, and retell, will be our coda, a new ethos built not on the empty promises of liberal idealism, but on the iron predicates of racial survival. No longer will the Law be a means for subversion or a tool for corrupt and empty-headed men to betray their own kind. The Law will become, again, part of the membranous defence of our folk.