Sean Surplus discusses a WIN podcast

Tags

Australia White Nationalists, Daily Slave, Nationalism, Nick Grifford, podcast, Sean Surplus, TCTA, Two's Company Three's Allowed, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, white nationalist radio, Why Nationalism Fails [WIN podcast], WIN

Sean Surplus discusses a WIN podcast

Sean Surplus, white nationalist radio host at TCTA, recently discussed a WIN podcast on his show: the relevant segment is 44 minutes onwards.

I think the podcast Sean is discussing is ‘Why Nationalism Fails’:

Why I am an Anti-Anti-Zionist and Pro Anti-Semitism, Or The Logic of Tribalism

Tags

Alaska, aliyah, Alt White, Andrew Anglin, Anti-Anti-Zionism, anti-fascisms, anti-fascists, anti-immigrant, anti-Jewish, Anti-Nationalism, Anti-Semite, anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Australasia, BNP, body politic, bravery, Britain First, British National Party, British people, British politics, British public life, Christianised politics, Christianity, Clapton Common, community-building, conservative, courage, critique, David Lane, diaspora Jews, EDL, English Defence League, Europe, European Gaza, exo-politics, fake Anti-Zionism, fake anti-Zionists, far-Left, far-Right, fascism, First Wave Nationalism, Fourteen Words, Garron Helm, Gaza, groupuscular movement, groupuscules, Haredi community, Haredi Jews, hate, Hitlerism, Hold Back This Day, ideological holding pens, ideology, Islamoskepticism, Israel, Jewish anti-fascist, Jewish influence, Jewish people, Jewry, Jews, John Londen, Joshua Bonehill, Joshua Bonehill-Paine, Judaism, Left, liberal, Liberate Stamford Hill, London, make aliyah, Middle Eastern Gaza, National Action, Nationalism, Nationalist Complementarity, Nationalist Unity, neo-Nazism, Neo-Tribalism, New Tribe philosophy, Nick Grifford, North America, North London, North West Infidels, NWI, online debates, Orthodox Jews, Pakistani Muslims, Political Judaism, political Nationalism, Popular Nationalism, Post-Nationalism, pro-immigrant, pro-Jewish, pro-white Nationalism, race, racial groups, Racial Intentional Community, racialism, racialist, racism, Rags Make Paper, Right, Right of Return, Second Wave Nationalism, Stamford Hill, the Cause, The Daily Stormer, the Nationalist Movement, There Is A White Alternative, TIWA, traditional Nationalism, tribal logic, Tribalism, ultra-Orthodox Jews, virtual activism, virtual Resistance, Ward Kendall, Western civilisation, Western Spring, Westphalia Treaty, Westphalian Nationalism, white British, white conscious communities, white ethno-states, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, white people, White Race, white racial exo-politics, WIN

Why I am an Anti-Anti-Zionist and Pro Anti-Semitism, Or The Logic of Tribalism

I am going to suggest in this piece that White Nationalism, as such, is over and must be replaced by a strategy of White Neo-tribalism. That’s a bold assertion to say the least, I know, but I believe I can back this up this with solid evidence.    What I am about to say has specificity to the UK, but I also believe this analysis has broader application to pro-white Nationalism elsewhere.  My starting point is a series of insightful articles and podcasts by my friend, Nick Grifford on the website of White Independent Nation and his excellent blog, Rags Make Paper.  I commend to readers the following articles and podcasts in particular:

Why Nationalism Fails [WIN podcast]

Unity and the NBU [article]

The Movement [WIN podcast]

None of which is to say that Nick Grifford or WIN endorse my views.  What follows consists of my own personal opinions and conclusions.

Exhibit A in the case against Nationalism is 70 years of traditional Westphalian (far-Right) reactionarianism in alliance with the odd, retrograde sub-cultures of neo-Nazism and Hitlerism.  Other than keeping the flame alive – which I will concede is something in its own right – we cannot claim any permanent achievements either at the ballot box or in claiming a significant proportion of the masses as our own, with the result that Popular Nationalism lacks any settled status in British political life: not a healthy situation for the body politic or for the British people themselves.

The political strategy has failed and the democratic machinery is now closed to us – at least, for the time being.  The failure of the democratic Nationalist parties has left a vacuum into which new groupuscules have stepped – in the UK they include National Action, Western Spring, and White Independent Nation, among others (what I have elsewhere called the Second Wave of Nationalism) – as well as the various street-based militant off-shoots of the EDL and the BNP, ranging from the moderate and Christianist Britain First to the hardline North West Infidels.  What distinguishes the first three mentioned, which I will focus on here, is their New (Post?)Nationalist character, in that their methods and ideology differ from traditional Nationalism.  National Action, Western Spring and WIN all believe that the democratic way has failed and share a determination to build an alternative strategy, which takes various discrete but complementary forms – counter-cultural warfare and alternative fundraising (Western Spring), street agitation (National Action) and community-building (White Independent Nation, ‘WIN’).  WIN and Western Spring in particular have adopted imagery that signals a departure from traditional Nationalism and that may form the basis for an entirely new and distinct approach to engagement with the masses regarding our ideas.

However ‘democratic’ Nationalism has not gone away entirely and, if anything, is undergoing its own resurgence in quite hardline form, albeit primarily online: the most prominent and successful example of this being the tabloidesque site, The Daily Stormer.  The success of that site reflects a revivalism among motivated, computer-literate, young white men interested in Nazi chic and German National Socialism-redux and what they think was its associated ideology and symbolism.  It is among this milieu that a sort of virtual resistance movement has emerged.  In contrast to what might be described as virtual activism, which is really reactivism, this pro-active resistance has taken on many and varied forms, all designed to achieve dents in the morale of the agents of the West’s Anti-White Establishment. These tactics range from organised Twitter attacks against prominent Jewish politicians, to using social media to plan and organise real world marches, protests and demonstrations.

Against that background, in the last few days a British National Socialist activist and leader of a group called the British National Resistance, Joshua Bonehill, has announced a demonstration on the 22nd. March in Stamford Hill, North London, against its local Haredi Jewish community and their use of a communal security force, Shomrim.  I have posted up two articles in response to Bonehill’s initiative: Jewish community-building: a vindication of WIN and ‘Leave Palestine’ or ‘Leave Europe’: some further (brief) thoughts on Liberate Stamford Hill.

Those articles outline my critique of Bonehill’s boldness (while also praising him for his courage and initiative).  Surely if our true aim is racial survival, then we want racial separation, not integration, and communal activities of this kind among ultra-Orthodox Jews are therefore to be welcomed.  I do acknowledge that activism such as this is bold, courageous and dynamic and moreover can be useful in that it galvanises the various factions and groupuscules that make up Nationalism today.  Perhaps activism such as this can also help by applying some political pressure on those who are at least partially-responsible for our plight.  However, ultimately I believe Liberate Stamford Hill is a futile exercise.  The following exerpt from the first of my two aforementioned articles summarises the point:

I am not sure I am willing to agree with Bonehill that the presence of a Jewish ethnic community at the heart of our capital is a bad thing. Indeed, I must confess that I am slightly puzzled as to why Bonehill, a racialist, and others like him, would see such a community as a threat. Surely national integration with non-white groups is wholly antithetical to our aims and objectives. If the White Race is to survive, we need to separate: preferably geographically, but more importantly, racially separate, which implies we live separate lives. If Orthodox Jews, with their Shomrim and panoply of ritual and custom and unique social life, feel sufficiently threatened that they wish to move towards separation, far be it from us to discourage them.

Far from protesting against Stamford Hill, we should probably be cheering them on, but in any event, the reality is that such communities exist and are accepted – not just for Jews but more obviously for Pakistani Muslims as well, and also for blacks. The presence of such communities surely only serves to illustrate the relevancy of WIN‘s strategy for those who are dedicated to white preservation.

As I see it, this debate illustrates the difference between a Tribalist and a Nationalist. Whereas we, the Tribalists, see these racial threats as welcome opportunities to strengthen our own kind racially, Nationalists see such threats as one more opportunity for plaintive protest: whinging, whining and pleading at the feet of our enemies, in the hope of concessions.

It’s time for Nationalists of all stripes to adopt effective tactics.

Liberate Stamford Hill is a tribute to the courage of Bonehill, and if his demonstration achieves something constructive for white interests (and it is my hope that it does), no-one will be more delighted and enthused than me.  But it is also a pluperfect illustration of why we as race-conscious whites continue to suffer.  We have overlooked our essence in favour of Jewish abstractions.  We have allowed ourselves to be corralled into bitter reactionary holding-pens of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, ‘pro-immigrant’ and ‘anti-immigrant’, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, ‘pro-Jewish’ and ‘anti-Jewish’.  We have allowed ourselves to be moulded by our enemies.

Recently I fell into an online exchange with a Jewish anti-fascist activist.   In the end, we parted cordially (I think) and I offered him my e-mail address so that he could contact me further in the hope that we could continue our discussion in more depth, as we seemed to be making progress in understanding each other.  One thing that struck me from what my opponent continually reiterated during our exchange was the way everything he said was underpinned by a keen sense of tribal identity and cultural replication.  I had to acknowledge to him that in this sense white people still have a great deal to learn from Jews, but at the same time I do think Jews also need to learn to listen more to the concerns of whites – for their own benefit as much as ours.  This Jew assumed that I favour racial segregation and expounded on the supposed ills of this institution.  I replied that it is not me who favours such segregation, but him, the multi-culturalist.  I explained that the only cure for racial segregation is racial separation, and that it is the enforced multi-culturalism of the mixed-racial kind that he supports that is the driving force of the segregation and its ills that he cites.  If Jews and other non-whites could be resettled out of European homelands, we would not ‘hate’ them.

He may or may not have understood the point, but I believe the only possible future is that we reach an accord with Jewry, that they recognise our usefulness and the white manifest imperative, and we in turn recognise the right of Jews to fight for their racial survival.  He had assumed I was an online genocidal lunatic and expressed surprise when I explained to him that, while I am an anti-Semite, it needn’t follow that I hate Jews individually or collectively.  My opposition to Jews and Jewry does not translate into visceral hate.  It is, rather, a wish to fight for my own race’s existence while acknowledging the right of Jews (and others) to fight for their existence.  In that sense, anti-Semitism (i.e. opposition to Jewish intrusion) is as much a natural result of white folk consciousness as Islamoskepticism might, for some Jews in some situations,  manifest as a natural result of Jewish ethno-consciousness.  Indeed, we see this Islamoskepticism (what Jews like to call ‘fear’ and ‘hate’ among whites) growing among the Jewish population as the reality of mass immigration dawns on them. To describe a person as ‘hateful’ simply for having these natural instincts is not only disingenuous, but dangerous, as it denies each of us the right to express and celebrate our genetic kinship with those who are racially and culturally closest to us, creating needless anger and frustration among individuals in society.

I explained to my Jewish interlocutor my view that multi-culturalism is the Jewish national survival strategy, while homogeneity is the white national survival strategy.  One naturally conflicts with the other.  This is why we are at ‘war’ with each other.  I believe the solution we whites should be proposing is peace rather than war.  Not Zionism.  Zionism belongs to Jewish nationals.  I am not a Zionist and no-one who is white should be.  What happens in Palestine is the business of the Arabs and the Jews and any other actors present.  It is the right of all sides to fight for their existence, and in recognising this, we should have the honesty to acknowledge that Jews have a legitimate right to fight and that we, as Europeans, having little or no understanding of the matter, should focus on our own racial survival and our own territorial imperatives.

On that latter point, it is true that diaspora Jews have played a significant role in undermining white cohesion and white interests, due to their proclivity for usury and degeneracy and their preference for multi-racial intrusion in Western societies.  This is not the only reason for the racial and cultural decline of Europe, but it is a factor, and in so far as organised and activist Jewry is and has been a factor, I believe that those who want to protest should tackle the problem head-on and exploit the pressure points.  This is why I do reserve some admiration for Joshua Bonehill, in that he has taken the initiative in organising a demonstration against Jews, not concerning the Middle Eastern Gaza, but the European Gaza – the emergent Third World future in our own backyard.  In doing so, Bonehill (and other brave activists who take on diaspora Jewry, like Garron Helm) are close to the truth of the solution to our racial plight, but they must still cross a difficult emotional and intellectual Rubicon: to reject Nationalism and embrace the essence of our cause: White Tribalism.  That means going back to basics and recognising who we are, where we have come from, where we are and where we are going.  It means returning to the roots and embracing the essentialism of the Fourteen Words – a non-ideological and non-confrontational creed – and not only propounding this, but living it as well by forming white conscious communities, business alliances and support networks that mimic mainstream society and that ultimately establish our own parallel authority.  Only when we start to act as a tribe can be begin to make progress towards eternal white survival.  In short: white survival means anarchism.

Our message to the Jews should be ‘Leave Europe’, not ‘Leave Palestine’.  We should be Anti-Anti-Zionists, leaving the fake narratives of Anti-Zionism to the left-wing tools and shills who will stand in opposition to Joshua Bonehill on March 22nd.  They want Jews to leave Palestine and come to Europe: which should confirm to all but the most purblind the true bankruptcy of Anti-Zionism.  We want Jews out of Europe, and if they want to go to Palestine, that’s their business.  As for Zionism, they’re welcome to it.  What ‘Europe’ is, or becomes, in the distant future in view of socio-demographic realities, I do not know.  The ‘Europe’ of the future may be geographically much as it is today, but very white, or it may be frontier communities in an Alaskan wilderness, or a small cluster of ethno-states on the brink of planetary racial oblivion, or even, a white society on a different planet altogether.  What I do know is that we whites want separation, not integration; we want sovereignty, not segregation.   That is what makes us tribalists.  That is what renders Nationalism per se redundant.  That is what makes ‘Europe’ our true nation, wherever Europe may be, and indeed, whatever Europe may be.  Yes, the ideal scenario would be that the approximate 8.2 million Jews currently in Europe, North America and Australasia make aliyah. I for one would be more than happy with such an outcome.  I am no friend of the Jews.  I’m sure I, and plenty of others, would contribute to a whip-round for Helga and Izzy’s plane fares.  But we may have to accept that, at least in our own lifetimes, the outcome we live to see will be less than ideal.

We, the race-conscious revolutionaries, are not the majority of whites, let alone the majority on the planet.  We are the ‘minority of the minority of the minority’.  Our role now is not to maintain a nation but to maintain a tribe, to maintain the racial and cultural membrane that will preserve our distinctiveness and genius as a race.  That requires active resistance, not passive politiking.  It means there is going to be a movement breach between those of us who accept a robust form of neo-tribalism as the way forward for racial survival, the sine qua non, and those who want to cling on to the Zionist wreckage of bankrupt geopolitical constructs.  The Jews are asking us to become more multi-cultural (in the mixed-racial sense), and thus, by definition, less white.  That is an attack on the essence of us, the White Race.  We in reply should ask the Jews to become more homogenous, and thus, by definition, more Jewish, and in the process, we become more white.  That is our defence: to indirectly help the Jews advance their own cause in the hope and expectation that we will maintain ours.  Such is tribal logic.

Jewish community-building: a vindication of WIN

Tags

Britain, community, geographical separation, integration vs separation, Jewification, Jewification of Britain, Jewish, Jewish community-building, Jewish influence, Jews, Joshua Bonehill, Judaism, Liberate Stamford Hill, National Action, national integration, Nationalists, Pakistani Muslims, Plaintive Nationalism, racial integration, Racial Intention Community, racial separation, Revanchism, Shomrim, Stamford Hill, territoriality, Tribalism vs. Nationalism, Tribalists, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, white preservation, WIN

Jewish community-building: a vindication of WIN

In the following video, Nationalist activist Joshua Bonehill explains the reasons for his Liberate Stamford Hill protest against the Jewification of Britain.

I am not sure I am willing to agree with Bonehill that the presence of a Jewish ethnic community at the heart of our capital is a bad thing. Indeed, I must confess that I am slightly puzzled as to why Bonehill, a racialist, and others like him, would see such a community as a threat. Surely national integration with non-white groups is wholly antithetical to our aims and objectives. If the White Race is to survive, we need to separate: preferably geographically, but more importantly, racially separate, which implies we live separate lives. If Orthodox Jews, with their Shomrim and panoply of ritual and custom and unique social life, feel sufficiently threatened that they wish to move towards separation, far be it from us to discourage them.

Far from protesting against Stamford Hill, we should probably be cheering them on, but in any event, the reality is that such communities exist and are accepted – not just for Jews but more obviously for Pakistani Muslims as well, and also for blacks. The presence of such communities surely only serves to illustrate the relevancy of WIN‘s strategy for those who are dedicated to white preservation.

As I see it, this debate illustrates the difference between a Tribalist and a Nationalist. Whereas we, the Tribalists, see these racial threats as welcome opportunities to strengthen our own kind racially, Nationalists see such threats as one more opportunity for plaintive protest: whinging, whining and pleading at the feet of our enemies, in the hope of concessions.

It’s time for Nationalists of all stripes to adopt effective tactics.

For more information, visit White Independent Nation.

Nationalist Unity vs. Complementarity: my response to the New British Union

Tags

Alt White, British Union, extremism, Facebook, factionalism, factions, fascism, Flash and Circle, fragmentation, Free Speech For Nationalists, Gary Raikes, groupuscular Nationalism, groupuscular theory, Max Musson, maximisation, Mosleyite, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nationalist Complementarity, Nationalist Unity, Nazism, NBU, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, New British Union, NS-redux symbolism, Oswald Mosley, political initiatives, political realism, radicalism, realism, virtual Resistance, Western Spring, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White-Max, WIN

 

Nationalist Unity vs. Complementarity: my response to the New British Union

Gary Raikes has recently issued an invite for a ‘Nationalist Unity’ meeting under the New British Union banner.

Here’s my response:

I have copied the following to other persons known to me, including (inter alia) Max Musson (Western Spring), who I know has an interest in Unity initiatives.

A vacuum has certainly arisen due to the failure of the National Front. ‘Free Speech For Nationalists’ is, at the moment, just a virtual group on Facebook, so although I appreciate the invite, I personally don’t speak for anybody and what follows is merely personal opinion.

In so far as I am qualified to give an opinion on this at all, I would say that I think the idea of a Unity Meeting is good, though I also think there are significant benefits to fragmentation and complementarity which need to be considered. I would like to think that such a meeting would consider this point a view and encourage open discussion rather than pre-fixed conclusions.

Let’s assume the meeting, in so far and to the extent its delegates are vested with any authority at all, decides on some kind of unified structure, this would then create its own problems. I would argue that the present groupuscular fragmentation has significant advantages: it lowers the risk of infiltration, aids secrecy, and there is nothing to stop different groups working on a complementary basis towards common or similar goals and objectives.

But let’s say some formal unified structure is better, then there is going to be a need for a directing body of some kind. I doubt the New British Union or the ‘Flash and Circle’ would be satisfactory or acceptable for this purpose. I would respectfully point to initiatives such as Western Spring and WIN, which present a family-friendly, non-confrontational image. It’s this type of subtle approach that if given sufficient financial backing might enable us to make significant in-roads into the mass mentality and, over the longer term, change people’s perceptions and encourage white identitarian solidarity.

Adopting NS-redux symbolism is tempting and it has the benefit of solidifying the faction, but it achieves little more than that in the present political climate. I repeat what I have stated tirelessly elsewhere: we have to adapt our tactics and methods to the battlefield. We have to live in and accept reality, rather than imagining we are all living through some dramatic heroic epic with costumes and soundtrack to boot. If there was some unity around these common-sense observations, then we might make some progress.

Brief thoughts on ‘physical force White Nationalism’

Tags

academia, biological racial war, biology, economics, fantasy, fantasy vs. reality, finance, Holy Racial War, internet message boards, media, Nationalism, physical force, physical force struggle, Physical force White Nationalism, political violence, politics, racial war, reality, society, technology, terrorism, total racial war, violence, web, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, White Tribalism, WIN, worldwide web

Brief thoughts on ‘physical force White Nationalism’

Often on message boards I see commenters arguing that the only solution for White Nationalists is political violence of some sort – a ‘race war’ or ‘holy racial war’.  I often wonder whether such people are serious or understand the implications of what is proposed.

My own active, real world involvement in White Nationalism is mainly with a group called White Independent Nation (‘WIN’).  As a group, WIN does not participate in political violence and does not endorse this as a strategy or tactic for White Nationalists/National Socialists.

Our methods are entirely peaceful and democratic.

If it’s helpful, one way of re-conceptualising ‘war’ is not just as a campaign of military or physical force, but as a wider struggle embracing political, social, economic, financial, technological and biological means. In this context, I call it total racial war in that the war of attrition is not just potentially waged physically on the streets, but also intellectually and biologically in academia, media and in the civic and social life of the community. Against that background, it is possible to see violence not as an inevitability, but as a tool that might be necessitous and efficacious under some circumstances, but not others.

That then raises the question of when violence should be considered. WIN’s position is that whatever the ethics and morals of a physical force struggle – something that can be debated academically one way or the other – we do not see this as the correct or appropriate primary means for pursuing a ‘racial war’, either at this time or possibly ever.

That might seem a bit dry and not very exciting. Bold talk of physical struggle raises the spirit and election campaigns appeal to the egos of nascent politicos. But we have to assess the battlefield as it is, not as we would wish it to be. The strategy of White Independent Nation will appeal to those who are willing to accept a realistic, unsentimental assessment of our prospects and who are capable of pursuing long-term goals and objectives quietly, away from the public eye, and without glamour or ego.

It’s time, I think, for White Nationalists (I would call us White Tribalists) to ‘get real’ and start pursuing tactics appropriate to Reality rather than the fantasy prevalent on internet message boards.

What I Would Do

Tags

Antonio Gramsci, asylum-seekers, ballot box, Belgium, Britain, British identity, bunting, Child Sexual Exploitation, China, Conservantive Party, CSE, demonstrations, East Asia, Europe, fake white liberal paternalism, feel good politics, general public, generic national-socialism, Gramscian, Gramscianism, human beings, human nature, immigration, Japan, Jewish influence, Jewish interests, Jews, leftists, liberal narcissism, Lie Machine, M&S, mainstreaming, Marxism, Max Musson, maximisation, maximising, moral case for racial separation, narcissism, National Front, National Socialist Germany, Nationalism, neo-Marxists, non-white immigration, non-whites, North Korea, paedophiles, paedos, Pakistani Muslims, Pakistania community, Pakistania rape scandal, political mainstream, political relevancy, pound shops, pro-white activists, pro-white politics, racila separation, relevancy, socio-biological realities, socio-biology, Stormfront, street politics, stupefaction, terrorism, Third Reich, Third World, Third World immigrants, Third Worlders, UKIP, Union Flag, Union Jack, violence, Western Spring, white altruism, White Independent Nation, White Liberal Supremacy, White Nationalism, white pathological altruism, white people, White Race, White-Max, WIN

What I Would Do

I link here to an article by Max Musson of Western Spring on the importance of fund-raising: I’ll do anything…but I won’t do that! 

The tenor of the article seems to be that without effective fund-raising and a pool of capital, Nationalism is doomed to fail.  I will not nit-pick the arguments in detail, as that could be seen as churlish, but I can see a general flaw. The point about money is well-made, but money is a tool that is only effective in the right hands, with the right strategy, clear goals and aims and with some understanding of the tactics needed to get there.  In the wrong hands, money is poison and can actually be detrimental.

What is most lacking in Nationalism is not money but expertise. Money tends to follow the right people with the right plan and the will to put it into effect, but I would dispute its criticality as presented in the article.  For instance, let’s say you want to build a white conscious community. Having the capital to invest in houses and other facilities can help, yes, but what’s more important than even that is having an understanding of how to gain influence and control in a community. Given the choice, I would prefer the latter over the former. Having money, but not much upstairs in terms of how to achieve the objectives, is only going to get you so far. A lack of money, on the other hand, does not preclude you from building a white conscious community. Money can be found, and in any case, it is not needed if you have the necessary skills and ingenuity to operate with subtly.

What is not being acknowledged by any (or very few) pro-white activists (and, this includes Western Spring) is that Nationalism has already failed.  This is for a number of reasons too numerous to exhaust here, but the most striking reality facing us is that the traditional aim of re-capturing Britain is out-of-reach.

Tribalism has to replace Nationalism.  Frankly it should have done from the start.  The truth is that when National Socialist Germany was finally defeated in May 1945, that also signalled the defeat for national-socialist (i.e. white) Britain, as it did for every other European country.  It also represented an ominous sign for generic national-socialism everywhere, or at least everywhere that the Jews have interests to protect or advance.  The only hold-outs left are found in East Asia – China, Japan and North Korea – which are still thoroughly national-socialist, but even in those countries, Jews are visibly on the rise and miscegenation is being encouraged.  Jewish capitalism is, for now, victorious and the era of the ethno-nation state is coming to an end.  This reality necessitates not just new strategies, but new geopolitical goals – something that, unfortunately, a lot of nationalists, who are steeped in conservative mores and habits, cannot grasp, or if they do, cannot and will not accept.

The true battle is racial, and embraces psychological, economic, social, biological and technological fronts as well as political activity. In other words, this is total racial warfare: and really, always has been. It’s just that the pro-white side has not officially woken up to this and still believes in Jewish party games [Surrrprise…!!!] and other delusions.

The term ‘race war’ does not, and need not, embrace violence or terrorism (though unofficially, a high intensity street war of a pseudo-military kind is being waged against us already). The opportunity we have is to pursue peaceful methods, albeit of a highly-disruptive nature, however we should always be willing to adopt violence if this is thought to be tactically efficacious and appropriate. There is no room for moral and ethical quesiness.

The traditional reactionary thesis that the counter-culture can be rolled-back by a ‘counter-counter culture’ is, I believe, mistaken. The Gramscian tactics were invented for neo-Marxists and leftists. They don’t apply to our predicament, and won’t work for us. This is because of a simple socio-biological reality: non-whites (whether pure or mixed) won’t support us, for obvious reasons; nor do we want to be polluted by their support, and as their numbers grow (we are talking millions now), the country will become Balkanised and any political programme based on notions of forcible repatriation will start to look impractical even to the most obstinate conservative.

What needs to be remembered is that multi-racialism and multi-culturalism mean mixed-racialism: race-mixing. That’s the real objective of our enemies, which, once achieved, de-couples race from culture, subverts the once indigneous population and turns society into a rootless, compliant, consumerist mass. The conservatives and reactionaries are of no use to us. The flaws in their arguments can be easily identified by looking at the more naive utterances of their supporters: “Just one more push and we’re there!”, “The system will collapse, then people will rally to us”, “Vote UKIP”, “If UKIP don’t get anywhere this time round, then I’ll look at alternatives like Western Spring. I will, I promise!” and even (yes I’ve read words to the effect somewhere on Stormfront): “The Conservatives are doing something about immigration now. Voting for UKIP seems to be working.” Those who adopt such positions will either have to change and accept new realities, or mix with the herd and leave their white identity behind. That’s the brutal reality.

We must recognise we are not just a minority, but a ‘minority of a minority’, and, in this phase of the struggle, our numbers will contract still further as the mainstream population mixes genetically, spiritually and culturally with the Third Worlders.

Against this background, new parallel institutions and organisations need to be invented that will appeal to those among the herd who might support us. These should be designed to capitalise on new opportunities as the number of disaffected whites grows larger and these people start to react and look around for novel solutions.

Electoral politics and appealing for votes cannot be discounted entirely and should not be dismissed. It forms part of the overall equation, but the algebra needs to change: it’s now just one strategy among several, and it should be directed towards establishing a moral case for racial separation, rather than this deluded revanchism of trying to take back a country that is already lost. I am not saying Western Spring is the worst offender in this respect. In fact, I think their approach to things is sufficiently flexible that it could be adapted over time as the reality of our situation sinks in.

Instead, I will pick on the National Front. The current political strategy of groups like the National Front ignores reality, and worse, necessitates the flawed approach of appealing to the lowest common denominator among the populace, which is useless. In the case of the NF, this means screaming at asylum seekers or standing in town centres shouting about paedos, as well as distributing crude, amateurish and unappealing propaganda that (even without the spelling errors) leaves the stupefied herd feeling wised-up for once. They have been conditioned to ‘see through it’.

What should we do instead? I call the electoral strategy we need ‘maximisation’: maximising support among whites who might agree with us and making our message as appealing as possible to that small group, as opposed to mainstreaming the message, which involves jumping on populist bandwagons and trying to appeal to everbody. The former uses our resources wisely. The latter is based on the delusion that you can ‘convince’ people, when most people aren’t rational and in fact base their political choices on emotion. That’s why it just wastes everyone’s time and demotivates those involved.

The fundamental emotional, irrational nature of human beings needs to be recognised. This doesn’t apply to all evenly. I tend to be more rational than emotional, but I also note that at times I can fall for emotional narratives just like everybody else. This is a human quality that is almost universal.

That’s why you have to start with presentation and work backwards. A fresh image is needed. Take a stroll to the National Front website and see what the problem is. The impression given: angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant, thuggish, uppity, and worst of all, out-of-date. This may or may not reflect the reality. I’m talking here about the impression made on the ordinary herd mind, if they bother looking ‘us’ up at all.

If you want to raise an army and invade Belgium, then yes, you need an organisation that is, among other things, angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant (about politics), and preferably, thuggish. But if you want to appeal to ordinary folk in elections and convince them you are competent enough to run the local parish council, these qualities – or a widely-held perception that you possess them – might not be such an asset. Wrong? Unfair? It’s both those things and more. The public have been brainwashed by a lie machine designed for fools. Alas, I am not in a position to stuff the ballot boxes with votes for a White Nationalist party, so the public’s wildly wrong and unfair perceptions will have to do – especially if, unlike me, you aspire to somehow win over masses of people.

Let’s suppose enough of us had some understanding of conditioning (like New Labour did, and as most modern politicians and Westminster types do). We would then concentrate on removing or neutralising the negatives, or at least minimising them.

How? Instead of angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant, thuggish and uppity, we would create political parties, institutions and organisations that emphasise things like safety, community, family, loyalty, solidarity, and above all else, relevancy. We would also seek to live these values by undertaking a campaign of social and moral resistance in our local areas, while also planning and building a white stronghold in a specific target area, with the intention that this initiative would expand outwards and also be duplicated and copied elsewhere by others.

This is not about compromising our core beliefs. Quite the opposite. It’s actually about ‘going back to basics’.

Who are we? White people.

What are we doing? Preserving the white race.

Will we do this by waving Union Flags, giving off the British Bulldog image, like some kind of working class version of Dads’ Army, trying to persuade every passing idiot at the local shopping centre to ‘save Britain’? I think that’s doubtful. I’m not saying the traditional sort of patriotism doesn’t matter at all, just that there is a time and a place for it and a way of putting it across that doesn’t get people’s backs up or make us look irrelevant. Most white British people still value their British identity and are, in that sense, patriotic – I live in an area that hangs Union Jack bunting and flags in the streets – but they want their patriotism (which is a little bit guilty and dirty nowadays) to reflect back at them in a positive way. It’s a bit like shopping – you use the local pound shop if you’re cheap and don’t care who knows it. You go to M&S to keep up appearances.

That’s not to say I have a low opinion of the public. It’s just to accept that most people are herd-like in their mentality and, in the case of whites, also social. Asians have the concept of Face, which is a bit different but has similarities. One of the reasons the Pakistani community aided in the cover-up of the rape scandal was in an effort to maintain a front – a kind of collective projection of the Face concept. Whites want to be seen to support things that reflect back well on them, and even when they are doing things in secret – like voting – they want to feel good about it. Some link this attribute to that famous altruistic streak we whites are said to have, which (being a cynic) I think is really just a type of narcissism: wanting to make yourself look better/more important in the eyes of others.

That’s not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than those of us who are not so herd-like. It’s just the way people are. It’s why our society is as it is – both the good and the bad. People want to support things that reflect well on them. A bunch of angry, screaming men, blood up, protesting ‘paedos’ is all well and good, and it keeps the police in double-pay, but does it win us any credibility or support? When Joe and Jennifer Bloggs see the NF out on these demonstrations, do they imagine that they too would like to join in and shout at asylum seekers, or do they just clock at some sub-conscious level that this is just a bunch of idiots? I suspect the latter. Wrong? Unfair? Yes, but again, this is how people are. Do you want to ‘fight the ‘good fight’, which in reality is a fight against our own people, screaming and shouting like a bag lady?  Or do you want to understand people in an effort to get on side those who are emotionally inclined to support us?

What if, instead of the usual futility, we had a political party and a wider movement that showed its concern about Pakistani Muslim child rape by providing safe environments for white children, writing research papers on the problem, and generally doing constructive, practical things to tackle the root of it, while always pointing to the problem of non-white immigration as a catalysing factor that must be excised? What if this new movement presented itself not as a raving mob going after paedos and unsympathetic authority figures, but as promoting white families, with women at the forefront of its publicity and public image? What if we had ‘white nationalist mothers’ (not mother fuckers, actual mothers) on radio talk shows and giving interviews about the problem, explaining how we need ‘safe’ areas (code for white areas) and pointing to real projects and initiatives that put this into practice for working class whites?

How could this sort of thing be encapsulated visually? An example is found on the WIN website, and to an extent, on the Western Spring website as well. I suggest people spend time studying the WIN website in particular, not because I think it is perfect, but because it provides an exemplar and a starting point. It’s an example of how a ‘clean’ image can be put across to that small section of the ordinary public who will lean in our direction if we ‘say the right things in the right way’.

This is not about giving up our dearly-held principles. Rather, it is about relevancy. Issues such as asylum seekers and paedos, etc., are relevant to us and I cannot argue with the point of the demonstrations, but are they relevant to the ordinary public in the same way we think they are? Do the actions of nationalists speak to relevancy? You might hope so and wish so, but that does not make it so. What the public want is leadership, credbility and solutions. They want to support people that can be trusted. Has the National Front, or any other nationalist-like organisation, shown that it would stop another ‘Rotherham’? Sorry, but people see through this stuff. It’s unconvincing.

The web offers an incomparable experimental tool and is therefore useful as a starting point, both to create appealing political messages and also to create virtual resistance structures that our opponents will find difficult, if not impossible, to infiltrate and compromise.  I see no benefit at this stage in handing over my personal details to a nationalist organisation.  To do so makes me ‘glow in the dark’, leaves me vulnerable to the authorities.  I am far more dangerous to multi-racial Britain as an anonymous figure.  I could be anyone, and in a sense, I am anyone.  The trick, I believe, is to find a way to channel the efforts of millions of us so that we are all working toward the same goal, alone or in small cell-like groups, under the cover of legitimate front organisations pursuing goals that are, in some cases, explicitly pro-white, but in a way that is lawful, or if not lawful, difficult-to-trace.  In short, our tactics need to suit the battlefield, but also the other way round, in that we also need to select the right battleground for the tactics that are within our capabilities.

“Green Painted Monkeys”

Tags

2 + 2 = 4, 2+ 2 = 5, British politics, Chris Raffles, conformism, cultural architects, cultural hegemony, democracy, Diffusion of Innovation Theory, dominant culture, electoral Nationalism, electoral system, Facebook, green painted monkeys, innovators, Nationalists, political Nationalism, political system, social animals, social pressure, the British public, the masses, the public, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, WIN

“Green Painted Monkeys” – another essay from Chris Raffles

If you genuinely care about securing the existence our people and a future for White children, I ask you to take a few minutes to consider what I say below…

The above meme contains what, I think, is the salient point about the near-impossibility of getting the great conformist mass of people to acknowledge that 2+2=4 even in the face of endless reams of undeniable and obvious fact.

They routinely perform torturous mental gymnastics to try and make reality fit the orthodoxy of the day because the fear of being labelled a ‘painted green monkey’ amongst their ‘non-painted peers’ makes using their reasoning powers a prospect that is more PERSONALLY UNCOMFORTABLE still.

It is this discomfort, born of humans being SOCIAL ANIMALS, that stops most people making the synaptic leaps required to accept and act on the plain truth of their threatened existence.

How else can it be, then, that otherwise highly educated folk, even those of professions that demand they daily use reasoning and scientific method will hate you for trying to get them to admit that they are wrong in their stated belief that 2+2=5?

Our executioners understand this reality only too well and have cemented their deadly nonsense as the DOMINANT CULTURE worldwide through the use of Cultural Marxism, Entryism and Political Correctness, yet as Pro-Whites we seem to struggle with taking this concept on board and instead rail against the conformist majority for being what Nature herself made of them.

In a HEALTHY SOCIETY, the Great Conformist Mass would, by their very natures and as they ever have, prove themselves to be The Salt of the Earth– a great force for stability and progress and also as brave as lions once handed a permission slip to be so.

The sorry truth is that for seventy years at least we have, as idealists and independent thinkers (what Diffusion Of Innovation Theory calls ‘innovators’), wasted our time trying to convince and convert the great mass of our people through showing them the truth. We have ignored a fundamental truth of human nature; namely that it is PALPABLE SOCIAL PRESSURE that modifies the behaviours of most people and not their powers of deduction and reasoning. Acknowledging THIS truth explains WHY we are living in an insanitary lunatic asylum and offers us the elusive answer (if we dare but amend our tactics accordingly) as to how to make real change to our race’s dire situation.

In short folks, if we still think we can “wake up the masses” by waving facts and figures under their disinterested noses then we are bigger fools than they are. The answer, I believe, lies here..

________________________________________________________________

For more information, visit White Independent Nation.

Conscious White Communities

Tags

Chris Raffles, Conscious White Communities, cyber-activism, democracy, electoral politics, Facebook, Pioneer Little Europe, PLE, racial sovereigntism, state oppression, White Independent Nation, White Sovereigntism, white sovereignty, WIN

Conscious White Communities – by Chris Raffles

When discussing building Conscious White Communities as a stepping stone towards securing living space, and one day an independent nation for Whites, I often hear the cry ‘they won’t let us have them’ or ‘we’d be sitting ducks for arrest or wiping out’..

In reply I am constantly forced to ask,how does that scenario work for Concious White Communities and eventually established political heartlands, but not for the elusive sovereign nation states we are normally promised willspring forth from fantasy landslide election victories or from fantasy (just add boiling water) uprisings?

The argument that goes ‘They won’t let us have enclaves, they’ll surround us and simply bomb/gas/nuke/arrest/chem-trail us all’ , though understandable in its daunting origin manages to be simultaneously fatuous and self-defeating.

If we accept this fatalism and defeatism as the bald and only possible truth, we might as well all run ourselves a nice warm bath tonight to open our arteries in as per the Roman custom.

Are we any safer or stronger as atomised, powerless grumblers endlessly making ourselves feel better through a perpetual cycle of pointless and ineffectual demonstrations, electioneering, ‘Mantra cyber-activism’ and petition-signing?

Again, are we any more able to resist state oppression and violence from behind our lonely computer monitors or as a part of living, breathing, working communities where ours has become the dominant local culture, where our values and aims have become first normalised and then becomes the orthodoxy locally?

As intelligent, conscious Whites we are all fully aware of what shape the future inside of these hostile host-societies will take. The stark choice on the table is whether to face it passively and alone or to start building infrastructure and support from the ground up,– winning hearts and minds in carefully selected locations where the locals are most receptive to our cause– as a functioning part of something growing, as part of something that will attract the sanest and healthiest elements as conditions worsen.

Here is a bald truth that we all already know well enough from ancestral memory:  Human survival has always, and always will, depend on banding together in communities.

I hear so much good sense and so many pressing initiatives proposed by bright young things of our cause, but the so-often missing element to getting all these things we want and need is found in a combination of community and geography.

Yes, carving out viable, sustainable and clean living space under the nose of a hostile host nation state has its risks, but no more so than remaining atomised outsiders helplessly feeding the Machine within a toxic society of someone else’s making. and design

If our enemies can do it, then so can we.

____________________________________________________________________

For more information, please visit: White Independent Nation

‘Plaintive’ Nationalism and the appeal to legality

Tags

'leader syndrome', 'liberal' national-socialism, Andrew Neather, anti-white, anti-white interests, Asian, Asian students, Atlee Ministry, Austria, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government - Proposals for Redress, Blair Ministry, Blue Capitalist Party, BNP, bourgeois legality, Britain, bullying, capitalism, centre-left, Cold War, collectivisation, communism, communist, Conservative Party, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Daily Express, democratic socialism, economic inequality, economics, EEC, English, English ethnicity, English labourism, ethnic English, EU, European countries, European Union, Frankfurt Jews, Gaza, Gaza in Palestine, Gaza n Europe, genocide, globalisation, globalism, Golden Dawn, Greece, Holocaust, Holodomor, Human Rights Act, Ian Paisley, indigeneity, international law, international legal order, IONA, Israel, Jewish genocide narrative, Jewish influence, Jews, Jose R. Martinez Cobo, journalism, King Canute, kosher nationalism, Labour Party, labourism, left-wing, left-wingers, legality, Let Us Face The Future, Liberal Democrats, linguistic correctness, London Jews, Marxism, Marxoid, National Front (Britain), Nationalism, Nationalist by default, Nationalists, NATO intervention, nazification, New World Order, NHS, North Atlantic, Nuremberg Trials, Plaintive Nationalism, political correctness, political Left, political Right, poverty, racial loyalty, Racial Nationalism, Racial Nationalists, Raphael Lemkin, Red Capitalist Party, Roman Catholicism, Second World War, Serbia, social liberalism, Soviet Union, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, statutory minimum wage, student politics, TIAWA, UK, UKIP, Ukraine, Ukrainians, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Genocide Convention, UN United Nations, university, Welfare State, West, Western values, White Alternative, white countries, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, WIN, working class, Yugoslav Wars, Yugoslavia

‘Plaintive’ Nationalism and the appeal to legality

A hundred years ago, English labourism lost its soul and began an ideological shift from a movement that existed to defend the interests of working people to becoming a movement that defended the interests of capitalists.  This ‘betrayal’ was inevitable, but to the outsider it is difficult to discern.  What Labour did after the War does not look like betrayal.  The Labour Party built the welfare state, including the NHS, and later on, under the Blair government, introduced a statutory minimum wage.  These have the appearance of pro-white accomplishments, in that they advanced the economic interests of the greater part of the indigenous population, but the reality is quite different: economic inequality in our society is greater than ever, and the indigenous peoples of these Islands and of Europe are under attack from mass non-white immigration.  We can see that in truth, the very policies that were said to be designed to promote the interests of the working classes – the NHS, the welfare state, social security, the minimum wage – have been turned and used to destroy the indigenous folk, so that any talk of ‘working class’ interests has become meaningless.  We now have the sense of a great, individuated mass of consumers of different races and ethnicities who share no common social interest other than to spend, spend, spend.

The Labour Party is simply nothing more than the Red Capitalist Party.  The Conservative Party – the Blue Capitalists – also played their part, bringing this country into the then-EEC, helping to destroy manufacturing industry (which Labour governments also had a hand in), and attacking everything from trade unions to marriage and the family, while helping to legalise buggery.  These Conservative policies were also presented as tacitly pro-white, though in a different sense in that they were meant to be in the interests of the country or represent some abstract liberal shibboleth rather than the working class or any other social class per se.  In reality, both parties were serving a different, invisible constituency that controls and owns the significant economic interests in the West.  Both parties, at different times, presented themselves as implicitly ‘white nationalist’, and then later as just civically ‘nationalist’, but they were no more nationalist than the Soviet Union was ‘communist’ and Britain is no more a nation than Ian Paisley is a Roman Catholic.

Behind all the liberal blather, what we can surmise is that the North Atlantic island territory off the coast of mainland Europe known as ‘Britain’ is simply an administrative unit of global capitalism, fundamentally technocratic in character, and largely controlled by Jewish interests. The ‘nationalism’ that is, varyingly, promoted, castigated and demonised, exists to promote the interests of Jews and rich whites. Somewhere else, out beyond the back of beyond, are the real flesh and blood interests of the European folk, at the moment unseen, but working for a real alternative. So-called ‘nationalist’ governments will rise and fall – Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, perhaps UKIP, perhaps even the BNP, and their equivalents around Europe – but they will never represent the indigenous peoples, and will never resemble authentic white politics.  Instead, they serve an alien racial and ethnic interest.

I came to this realisation gradually, for I was once a ‘plaintiff’ of the system, holding conventional Marxoid centre-left political views.  The irony of my life is that in some respects I am still probably one of the most ‘left-wing’ and instinctively metropolitan people you could find, but what turned me away from the political Left was the experience of discussing politics with actual left-wingers.  Over the course of the last 20 years, a movement that was supposed to represent the interests of ordinary people has become increasingly shrill and immoderate in its determination to serve instead the interests of Jews and other non-whites.  I realised this through a process of debate and discussion with these ‘socialists’ and ‘liberals’.  My awakening began at university, in the febrile anti-intellectual atmosphere of the Student Union, which would be one of my most formative political experiences.  I remember two incidents on my very first day – bullying, politically-correct notices around the Student Union building warning innocent students against what was known as racism, sexism, and about half-a-dozen other ‘isms’; and, an unpleasant encounter with an hysterical, screeching, left-wing (female) student.  Until then, to me, being ‘left-wing’ meant something more innocent – it was to do with things like standing up for the working class, strikes, ending poverty, democratic socialism, ‘Let Us Face The Future’ and so on.  I knew there were some ‘strange’ people in the Labour Party with socially liberal views that were somewhat out-of-kilter with the mainstream, but I had always regarded them as something of an harmless joke – they were eccentrics.  I had not appreciated the extent of their influence.

Over the ensuing years I built a career, family and a business and began to settle into a ‘normal’ life.  I took a vague, passing interest in politics, remaining left-wing by instinct and sometimes attending local Labour Party meetings while increasing disliking what I was seeing.  The left-wing eccentrics I had first encountered at university had taken power and used it to implement an extreme metropolitan agenda.  I worried for the future of my children, and so gradually I became a ‘Nationalist by default’ (or rather, awoke to that position).  (See my essay: ‘The Dumbest People Ever: the nazification of whiteness‘).  The first thing that the newly-awakened, naive Nationalist does, in many cases, is adopt the position of ‘reasonableness’. This is the starting point for what I call ‘Plaintive’ Nationalism, the outlook of “look let’s be reasonable” or in its more sophisticated form, appeals to law, and such like.  For me, it began at university, in political discussions with an Asian student that sometimes turned heated, but were always friendly. Being a nice person (which, alas, I am – I’m a big softie), I would say to people, online and in the real world: “Look, let’s be reasonable about this”, before setting out a balanced position that pointed to what I saw as the ‘inalienable’ right of the ethnic English to racial and cultural integrity. Of course, I was wrong about this, and in any case, in my experience that kind of approach to argument doesn’t really work.  My problem is that I thought I understood the Left – it was, after all, my spiritual home – but I didn’t (or not as well as I had assumed).  I just didn’t know these people.  They are authoritarian by instinct and they have crushed us because we have been plaintive and reasonable.

I realised this (or began to realise it) at 18, yet some people who have been in Nationalism all their lives still think they can persuade our opponents (enemies) to be ‘reasonable’.  Or they think we can appeal to law in much the same way that a murderer with blood on his hands might appeal to the ‘reasonableness’ of a judge on the basis that he ‘didn’t mean it’ and, besides, he’ll ‘never do it again’.  Our non-white opponents have been genetically primed for their task and will not shirk from it.  Our white opponents – liberals of both the Left and Right – serve a specific interest and, whether they realise it or not, they have been brainwashed and trained (the more highly-educated, the better) to react like snapping dogs to any deviation from the linguistically-correct narratives.  This is not about ‘making a case’.  The game is already stacked against us.  The only thing the law exists for is as a tool for enforcing the wishes of the ruling or dominant elements in society. Perhaps the reason I see this more clearly than most is because of my Marxist background, in that I can see the system for what it is and I am not weighted-down with the soppy liberal mental crutches that many others in the movement might struggle to shake off.

What I call ‘Plaintive’ Nationalism is an intellectual disease that afflicts all Nationalists from time-to-time – including the author.  Of course, some of the more prominent people in Nationalism have long been making a good living out of its close cousin: ‘liberal’ national-socialism.  (See my essay: ‘David Duke and ‘liberal’ national-socialism‘).  In this older, more common (and arguably more insidious) version of the disease, the politician or activist shows a variety of symptoms, which can include an alarming ideological regression and a tendency to spout liberal babble on command, especially concerning emotive subjects such as Gaza, of which the sufferer is largely ignorant.  Prospects for the patient are normally quite good, as there is a tendency to ‘snap out of it’ or to forget about it once the media move on to some other distraction, like celebrity paedophiles.

Plaintive Nationalism is a slightly different condition, though closely-related.  It involves the Nationalist using ‘human rights’ or some other legal fiction as a crutch for his arguments and there is also a propensity for sufferers to contract ‘leader syndrome‘ and think some demagogue or other will be our salvation and ‘close all the borders’.  Typically, reference will be made to things such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Genocide Convention, or maybe the domestic Human Rights Act, or whatever.  On the face of it, some of these legal fictions (known technically as treaties, international conventions and Acts of Parliament) do look promising.  For instance, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has this to say (among other things):-

Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Article 5
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

Article 7
1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.
2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.

Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

Article 9
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (commonly-known as the UN Genocide Convention) defines ‘genocide’ as follows:-

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is relatively recent,  dating back only a few years.  It’s main flaw is its complete absence of any fixed definition of what is an ‘indigenous people’, though readers of this blog can be left in no doubt that, in almost-all cases, white peoples and their various ethnies will not be considered to have indigeneity in the legal sense of this Declaration.  Confirmation of this can be found in the various UN policy papers that pre-date and underpin the Declaration and discussions on the nature and characteristics of indigeneity among academic and policy experts.  For instance, Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities [mouthful!], in his 1986 Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, had this to offer as a definition of “indigenous communities, peoples and nations”:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

“This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

• Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;
• Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
• Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
• Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
• Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;
• Other relevant factors.

On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).

This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference”.

Of course, this definition could potentially include some specific, limited categories of white people, and even possibly white people in the future, but it is clear that the international legal conceptualisation of ‘indigenous peoples’ does not include significant white populations that are under ‘peaceful’ and ‘democratic’ assault from mixed-racial ideology.  In fact, these international legal conventions are designed to aid the attack on whites in their own countries.

As for the Genocide Convention, this emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War.  The official story is that the Convention was intended to establish a legal basis for preventing any repeat of the genocide supposedly perpetrated by the ‘Nazis’.  The reality is a little more murky than this.  The term ‘genocide’ is a neologism invented by Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who combined the Greek genos (γένος), “race, people” and the Latin cīdere “to kill”.  Lemkin first coined the term in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation – Analysis of Government – Proposals for Redress.  At the time the book was written, there was no evidence of ‘genocide’ by the Axis powers, and certainly none from Lemkin, who devotes a whole chapter of the book to defining the term ‘genocide’ but makes no specific reference to ‘gas chambers’ (that would come in his later writing).

In a section of the book titled ‘Mass Killing’, Lemkin writes:

3. Mass Killing. The technique of mass killings is employed mainly against Poles, Russians, and Jews, as well as against leading personalities from among the non-collaborationist groups in all the occupied countries. In Poland, Bohemia-Moravia, and Slovenia, the intellectuals are being “liquidated” because they have always been considered as the main bearers of [p. 89] national ideals and at the time of occupation they were especially suspected of being the organizers of resistance. The Jews for the most part are liquidated within the ghettos, (45) or in special trains in which they are transported to a so-called “unknown” destination. The number of Jews who have been killed by organized murder in all the occupied countries, according to the Institute of Jewish Affairs of the American Jewish Congress in New York, amounts to 1,702,500.

Given that this was written in 1944, the figure of 1.7 million, while significant, would and could not be consistent with the claim that by 1945 the ‘Nazis’ would systematically kill a total of six million Jews, but whatever the truth of that, Lemkin had no proof for his claims.  If he wanted actual, concrete examples of genocidal acts, he might have more fruitfully called on Allied actions in the War.  Nevertheless, it was on the Holocaust premise and in the aftermath of the Nuremberg Tribunals, that Lemkin pressured the United Nations to adopt a Genocide Convention.

What is interesting about Lemkin is that although he was patently a politicised Jew, he was nonetheless a firm opponent of the Soviet Union, to the extent that he would also have wanted its leaders’ actions brought within the ambit of this ‘genocide’ concept.  During the 1950s, Lemkin was prominent in condemnation of the ‘genocide’ of Ukranians as a result of the Soviet forced programme of collectivisation during the 1930s.  Lemkin had settled in the United States after the Second World War, and we can surmise that much of his hostility to the Soviet Union was motivated by the Cold War tensions between the two so-called superpowers.  One might speculate that the real reason for the popularity of the ‘genocide’ concept was that it provided a propaganda weapon for the United States against the Soviet Union.

Lemkin’s definition of ‘genocide’ is quite broad, encompassing not just the type of violent acts that might conventionally be considered genocide, but also political, social, cultural, economic, biological, religious and moral attacks on a people.  The following is taken from Chapter IX of Axis Rule in Occupied Europe:

• Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.”

• “Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization by the oppressor’s own nationals.”

Lemkin’s expansive definition of ‘genocide’ could comfortably include a planned programme of ‘mass immigration’ and multi-culturalism should that be shown to pose a threat to the existence of the native ethnic populations of a territory.  In October 2009, a former Labour speechwriter, Andrew Neather, wrote an article entitled ‘Don’t listen to the whingers – London needs more immigrants‘, in which he is reputed to have revealed that the mass non-white immigration into Britain that took place under Labour was designed and planned for political and ideological reasons favouring Labour and the Left.  The article itself does contain these passages:

What’s missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from.

It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.

mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.

Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.

Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.

In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.

The difficulty is that these comments of Neather’s have been taken out of context.  My suspicion is that most people who have commented on this article have not actually read it, but it is worth reading, for Neather’s position is that of the typical metropolitan centre-left commentator.  He is not criticising mass immigration or highlighting its problems.  Quite the opposite.  Neather is a pro-genocide enthusiast.  His only apology, presumably, would be that there has not been more of it, while the only regret he expresses in this article is about the reticence of Labour ministers in making a ‘positive’ case for mass immigration and in communicating its supposed ‘benefits’.  Neather wants more immigration, not less:

The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It’s not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners – although frankly it’s hard to see how the capital could function without them.

Their place certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley – fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.

My family’s east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.

But this wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London’s attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.

It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it’s pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.

Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.

But in my children’s south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.

My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.

London’s role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it’s a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It’s one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.

Neather concludes the article with these comments:

I hope it’s not too late now, post-Question Time, for London to make the case for migration.

Of course we’re too small a country to afford an open door – but, by the same token, if the immigrants dry up, this city and this country will become a much poorer and less interesting place. Why is it so hard for Gordon Brown to say that?

Having now read the article in full and contextualised it, we can see clearly that Neather’s comments were meant to be pro-immigration.  He favours Lemkin-type genocide of the English (and by extension) the wider British peoples.  Indeed, what we see here in Neather’s infamous words is a summary of an official government policy to extinguish the English people.  We can also see that, far from being honest, Neather was seeking to rationalise the dishonesty of his political masters. It is understandable that the reader might feel outrage and anger at the complacency and sheer stupidity of people like Neather, but it is important to understand that Neather’s own thesis of what happened with immigration is largely inaccurate.

Although Neather is describing genocide and justifying it, this is ‘acceptable genocide’ and Neather’s words and Lemkin’s conceptualisation of ‘mass-killing’ simply serve as a cloak behind which to hide the truth.  Far from being enlightening, the ‘Jewish genocide narrative’ serves to obfuscate and hide some important facts.  Had Neather or some other liberal journalist been writing an article on ‘unacceptable genocide’ – say, what is happening in Gaza, for instance – this too would have represented a cloak of obfuscation, hiding the reality that (as in Gaza) one race will fight for its existence against another, the purpose of this obfuscation being to discourage the average white person from considering how their own racial existence might be under threat.  The ‘Holocaust’ is an important example in the genre: it is ‘unacceptable genocide’ and thus can be stated as such, and in so doing obfuscates and distracts whites from a consideration of their racial interests, instead encouraging a mental association between normal racial loyalty and notions of conscience, guilt and liberal moral responsibility.

The Jewish-influenced right-wing have, of course, made great play of Neather’s supposed ‘confessional’, but in reality his article is of little value.  Neather is as deluded about Labour’s actual responsibility for immigration and its causes as he is about the issue of immigration per se.  Like almost everyone else, Neather assumes that governments somehow cause immigration or can control it.  This is largely a fantasy, but a lot of people believe it – and some people even base their views on it.  This is where the Plaintive Nationalist errors in his thinking.  He thinks that the solution is ‘better people’ in power who will use ‘laws’ to ‘close the border’.  He ignores, or does not understand, that there are larger and wider forces at work which are causing this immigration and which no government can really control without fundamental change in society.  The reason he ignores this or does not understand is because he gets his information from a media that is controlled by the people (mostly Jews) who are responsible for this immigration in the first place.  As difficult as it may be for right-wingers to accept, the truth is that the wave of mass immigration brought about under Labour at the turn of the century would – most probably – also have happened under the Conservatives or UKIP or practically any other political party. Immigration is the result of globalisation and economics.  That is not to say that the political character of different governments is completely irrelevant.  Had the Conservatives won the 1997 election, the rate of immigration might have been slower simply because there is more of an inclination within the Conservative Party, and therefore more pressure, to maintain stringent immigration controls, etc. (or the appearance of such), but the point is that the general trend would have been in the same direction and we would have faced more or less the same problems.

Incidentally, some Nationalists might make the mistake of thinking that the ‘larger and wider’ forces that I refer to above include the European Union.  Our membership of the EU, and its existence, has certainly had an impact in that it makes it easier for people to come here due to the lack of border controls between member countries, but these people would come here anyway in much the same numbers, whether we were in or out of the EU.  Indeed, we began our first major wave of non-white immigration at a time before the EU’s predecessor organisation even existed.  But what really demolishes the anti-EU argument is the awkward fact that even those European countries that are outside the EU still suffer mass non-white immigration – including Iceland, Switzerland and Norway (especially Norway, which is suffering badly).  The reasons for this are not often discussed, but what they boil down to is that the pressures from lobbyists and international organisations, as well as normal economic and social forces, that are brought to bear on EU policy-makers are also brought down on the governments of countries outside the EU.  Leaving the EU is really a fake argument and a distraction.  That is not to say that I favour the UK staying in the EU – in fact, on this question, as on so many others, I am neutral.  That’s because whether my country is run by capitalist Jews in Frankfurt (the EU is a project of German capitalists) or capitalist Jews in London would seem to make little difference to me.  I do admire the altruism of whites who show such concern for the financial interests of Jews – it’s touching and I know the rabbis are grateful – but it doesn’t interest me frankly.  But I mention all this just so that the matter can be put in its proper perspective.

Now that we have concluded that detour on Europe, let us get back to the subject of Mr. Neather.  Let us – just for the sake of argument – accept and adopt the assumptions of the Plaintive Nationalist: that Andrew Neather is not just a kind of sad Walter Mitty character with a penchant for Chinese takeaways, but in fact a giant of public affairs whose speech-writing has achieved what King Canute could not and shifted the demographics of a nation.  Let us also assume (contrary to the observable facts) that governments control immigration, and let us assume furthermore that Labour* [*we could substitute any party here] could have had a significant impact on immigration either way.  This is magical realism, but let’s go along with it.  The reality is that even in that environment, no matter how much we might wish it, no Nationalist government worthy of that description could achieve power in the Britain of today.  At best, a fake nationalist party – like UKIP – might achieve some level of influence.

But let us take the assumption still further and imagine that a real Racial Nationalist party somehow manages to achieve power or important influence under social and political conditions similar to those at present: i.e. in a mixed-racial society.  I would suggest that such a party would be crippled from the start, and in fact if anything would serve the purposes of those who would have put it there and want it to fail. Plaintive Nationalists, who support the legal route to ‘power’ might argue that a Nationalist government would be able to re-shape the social, political and legal environment to favour Nationalism, but this ignores the way in which changes in society occur, over generations and due not just to political activity, but changes in technology, culture and social attitudes.  All these factors are ‘liberal’ at the moment, not ‘racial’.  An incongruous Racial Nationalist government would face popular opposition on all sides.  The Plaintive Nationalists might point to the legal fictions I mentioned at the outset – the Genocide Convention, the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the like, and argue that these could be invoked to defend the legitimacy of the new Racial Nationalist government.  I have already explained why these documents would not serve white interests and are not designed to, and in fact exist to serve anti-white interests and to be used against us in our own countries.

It is also worth reflecting that UN treaties and conventions are of no legal effect in and of themselves, but are a touchstone for the interests and priorities of the nation-states that sign up to them.  That being the case, in a mixed-racial environment, the weight of international opinion would be brought down on any government that attempted to re-assert white indigenous interests in their countries.  Such a country, if alone (Serbia in the 1990s, and in our time Greece, Austria, the Ukraine are as close as we have to examples of this) would be designated a bandit state and face sanctions and threats of international military intervention.  The reason for this is not because of some sinister ‘New World Order’ plot, but due to the interests that the international legal order serves.  It is a Jewish invention for the purpose of breaking down the old legacy nation-states after the War, largely because they were centred around discrete ethnic identities.

A number of years ago, when I was first starting to express doubts about this multiculturalism concept (I’d long had private misgivings about it), I naively put the plaintive ‘legalistic’ arguments to the lefties and their response was one of:-

(i). RHETORIC – are you a race hater/racist, etc.?
(ii). EVASION – blank me and ignore the point, or obfuscate in some other way;
(iii). SOCIOLOGY – argue that whites are not an oppressed group and so don’t qualify for these protections, or even if we are oppressed (or being targeted in some way), we don’t deserve to be protected;
(iv). REALITY DENIAL – there is no threat to the white race;
(v). RACE DENIAL – race doesn’t exist as a valid concept anyway, we’re all from Africa, etc. blah, blah.

What all these blind alleys serve to demonstrate is that the real purpose of international law isn’t the positivistic ideal presented of ‘human rights’, ‘liberty’, ‘equality’ and ‘democracy’, and so on and so forth. Just like any other man-made construct, the canon of international law exists to serve an interest or group of interests. The reason this is not appreciated is that most people do not want to think about how ideas and institutions have one or more racial and economic interests behind them. These interests are not always allied or aligned, and are sometimes in conflict, and it is also important to understand that the people who do this, including the Jews, are not ‘evil’ and are not necessarily acting maliciously. But an overall logic can be identified by looking at the impact of the executive institutions involved. International law exists to destroy national sovereignty and replace it with ‘international sovereignty’ for Jews and other capitalists. That’s not the same as the NWO thesis, which in my view is nutty, and I am not personally a subscriber to the idea of a ‘Jewish cabal’. The global elite are not unified and are not working consciously, their motivations are varied, and their interests mainly centre around narrow commercial and economic concerns. However in the process (intentionally or not) they also serve the ethnic interests of Jews, who remain (largely) a distinct ethno-religious group with a powerful political and business lobby and a distinct culture which encourages its own replication through the recognition and assertion of group interests.

To my mind, it follows that to engage in this ‘rights-based’ narrative so liked by the Plaintive Nationalists – be it attacking Israeli actions in Gaza or going cap in hand to Jews for our ‘white rights’ – ultimately just serves to legitimise the very people who, by accident or design (I tend to think it is a combination of the two, and not necessarily malicious), have sown the seeds for our probable racial destruction. The real answer is for whites to build a White Alternative, which will include initiatives like White Independent Nation (WIN), that – broadly-speaking – emulate the Jews’ successful ‘cultural replication strategy’. Our formal institutions have let us down and no longer serve ‘cultural replication’, or never did – the UN is just one of many prominent examples of this . So we have to re-invent our own society, and build our own institutions.

Perhaps further down the line, our descendants – say, a hundred years from now – might be petitioning the UN for international recognition of a white republic and maybe the basis of their argument will be a version of Plaintive Nationalism, which at that point might be appropriate. I hope something along these lines will happen one day, but we have to do the spadework first.  Shortcuts don’t work – whether it’s violence/terrorism or electoral politics or some combination of these.  The existing order (call it the Jewish Cabal or the New World Order if you like, whatever) will not entertain rights-based arguments from whites – at least, not to any significant extent. That’s because the existing system is founded on vested interests and socio-legal doctrines that are fundamentally anti-white.  I say – instead of going cap in hand to our enemies, let’s build our own future.

How The Law Protects The Invader

Tags

agricultural revolution, agricultural society, Anglican Communion, Anglicanism, Anglo-Norman legal structures, Anglo-Saxons, Anglo=Norman legal structures, Anti-Traditionalism, Archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine, authoritarianism, égalité, Baroness Warsi, Beth Din, Bible, Black Act, Britain, British law, British politics, Byzantine Empire, Church of England, common law, communauté, consciousness, constructive accommodation, criticism, cultural DNA, Cultural Marxism, Cultural Marxism: object of frenzy, culture, democracy, democrayc, Dr. Rowan Williams, Early Middle Ages, England, English Civil War, English courts, English law, Enlightenment, Epemetheus, equality, Esoteric Marxism, ethno-masochism, Europe, European, faith, far-Left, far-Right, fascism, feudal system, Frankfurt School, fraternité, Friedrich Engels, Frisians, Germania, human rights, identité, ideology, indigenous Europeans, Industrial Revolution, industrial society, Islam, Jewish influence, Jewish law, Jews, Judaic philosophy, Judaism, Judeo-Capitalist White Man, Karl Marx, Karl Popper, King Æthelberht, Law, liberalism, liberals, liberté, Magna Carta, media, medieval law, membranous legal structures, meme, memes, Middle Ages, Mosaic Laws, Muslims, National Socialism, Nationalism, nationalité, Nazism, neo-Nazism, Neo-Tribalism, New Europeans, New Testament, New Tribe, newspapers, Nietzscheanism, non-whites, Norman, Norman Conquest, North Sea cultures, Old Testament, Orthodox Jews, post-Talmudic common law, Prometheanism, Prometheus, Psalms, pseudo-positivism, Racial Intentional Community, Radio Four, Rechtsstaat Homo Superior, Reckoning, revolution, RIC, Roman Empire, Roman law, Rouen, Rubicon, Rule of Law, Saxons, Scandanavians, Sharia law, Siegmund Freud, social animals, supplementary jurisdictions, Talmud, technocracy, Torah, totalitarianism, traditionalism, UKIP, United Kingdom, White Independent Nation, White Man, White Marxism, White National Community, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, White Race, whites, Wiliam Morris, William The Conqueror, WIN

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.

Introduction

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.

Parable Revisited

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.

END