by on

All people who have a vanguard and elitist mentality, like myself, are always regarded as partly mad even amongst their own groups because the vast majority of people do not want to know, the majority of people wish to live their own life in their own way, and they only look at these broader questions when life impinges upon them and the hand of life grasps them by the collar and they really cannot do any other thing but notice what is in front of them.

Said people, the majority of indigenous British people, would love if many of the problems of contemporary Britain, such as job shortages, youth unemployment, overpopulation, housing shortages and a loss of socio-religous identity just to name a few amongst many others which revolve around the process of immigration were to be solved but would love to have nothing to do with it themselves. They would love for someone, such as myself, to magically come forward without trouble and without fuss to deal with it on their behalf. They want no unpleasantness, and they want no nastiness particularly in their own name, but at the same time if somebody does things of any sort that could be ascribed to that they would run away and hide initially, be privately pleased, condemn the people that did it, support the people who were against them, and yet at the same time have a secret smirk and smile on their face about the whole thing, and they would do all of that simultaneously, because that’s what people are like, that’s what our own people are like, and that’s the funk and the state of internal confusion and bermusement that British people are in because every time they turn on the box in the corner it says that everything is marvelous and is all for the best and that there’s no need to worry and that we’re all sleepwalking towards victory.

The centre of Luton, England, which has been almost
almost entirely ethnically cleansed of indigenous
 Britons by Muslim “contributors”, 37.5% of which 
claim unemployment benefit from a nation
they simultaneously despise
Just because most of the politics of this era seems to be running well and truly against us does not mean that the situation is hopeless, because situations are never hopeless. Groups that have been dumbed down are have been perceived to have been dumbed down by history have undergone worse traumas than we are undergoing at the present time. The danger of the ideology of the victim, which I don’t really subscribe to except as a tactic on occasion, is that one begins to think like a victim and begins to act like a victim.

Many of our people now are almost asking for a whipping, asking for a collective beating and asking to be forgiven for the past, asking to be forgiven for sins and crimes of the past which they never committed, which they’re hardly aware of, which could be construed as acts of heroic cruelty or glorious vanguardism that don’t even need to be apologised for in the past or in the present.

(C.A.), author.

by on

This is a transcript of the “Never Apologise” speech by the late Jonathan Bowden, culture officer of the BNP; I decided to create this transcript considering I could not find one anywhere else.

A politician in our party once said “Wouldn’t it be better if we presented ourselves as the victims?”

The problem with doing that is that it’s what everyone else does. And it can be done, because there are many white victims in this society now, in the way that its going, but if you concentrate on pain and defeat you will breed resentment, and I believe that resentment and pity are the things to be avoided. Fire, energy, glory and thinking, thinking is the important thing.

Being white isn’t enough. Being English isn’t enough. Being British isn’t enough. Know what you are! To read about your own culture is a revolutionary act. Many Western people feel that because it is generally a given in the society and culture that they’re in that variants of our group have committed atrocities, that our civilization is therefore rendered worthless, almost in its entirety, except when it apologizes for its right to exist.

And if you have a decline and you have a desire to assert yourself to arrest the decline, and you have to apologize to yourself about even having the idea of assertion to arrest decline, you’re not going to get anywhere, are you?

And that’s what this weapon is. My view is the following: I am technically a pagan, and pagans believe that creation and destruction go together, that love is fury, that whatever occurred and whatever occurs, we don’t have to apologize. We step over what exists.

So, if somebody says to you that you’re descended from brigands, which is in a sense what that sort of contrary ideology is, you say “I’m not going to bother about figures and who did what to whom; I’ve overcome that!”

And they may say “Oh, well, I don’t like the sound of that! That’s a bit illiberal.”

And I’d say (or you just say) “Liberalism is moral syphilis, and I’m stepping over it!”

“I don’t like the sound of that! You sound like a bit of a fascist to me.”

And I’d say “There’s nothing wrong with fascism, nothing wrong with fascism at all.” I believe we’ve created a modern world that has been taken away from what it could have been. If people with our sorts of values ruled modernity, everything about this society would be at one level the same, and in every other respect completely different. People would still drive contemporary cars, There’d still be jets, and there’d still be supercomputers and so on, but the texture and the nature of life would be different in every respect.

How so?

Firstly, cultures would be mono-ethnic. Secondly, there would be a respect for the past glories of our civilisation. Thirdly, we would not preface every attempt to be strong by saying “I’m sorry…I’m sorry for what we have done…”

WE’RE NOT SORRY!

And we’ve stepped over the prospect of “Being sorry”.

We have to understand that belief is not a narrowness. Belief is an understanding that there are truths outside of nature and outside of the contingent universe that’s in front of us, that are absolute. The left wing view that it’s all relative and we make it up as we go along is false.

Heraclitus

There was a thinker who lived 2500 years ago called Heraclitus, and my type of thinking is his linear descendant. He was a pre-Socratic, a sophist. He lived right at the beginning of Western thought, when we actually wrote down what we think. He wrote a book on nature which Aristotle glossed over and which has survived in fragments. What did he believe? He believed that everything is a form of energy, a fire that exists in all forms of organic and inorganic matter, that thought and the sentience of nature is what we are; nature has become sentient in us, which means that we must incarnate natural law as a principle of being. Its called Becoming, in my philosophy.

Right wing ideas aren’t just a bit of flag waving and baiting a few Muslims. Right wing ideas are spiritually about inequality.

“Did you hear that? He says people are unequal!”

PEOPLE ARE UNEQUAL!

Intelligence is biological. Beauty is biological. Ferocity (or a predisposition to it) is biological. Intellect is biological. You can do a bit, but you’re born to be what you are. And we should celebrate what we were born to be. The left loves equality; it believes that we are all the same and we must be treated the same, and they believe that as a morality, as a moral good which will be imposed. The right, even if you don’t want to use that term, stands for nature, and for that which is given.

What does that mean? It means that conflict is natural and good. It means domination is natural and good. It means that what you have to do in order to survive is natural and good. It means that we should not begin every sentence by apologizing for our past or apologizing for who we are.

Never apologise.

by on

In order for there to be any way forward, in order for us to grow, we must know from whence and for what reasons the current predicaments of the world and more specifically those that bale Europe, emerged. The issues in question do not bear repeating and I don’t wish to patronise my readership in doing so, other than to summarise them briefly as leftism, centrism, the bourgeoisie conservativism of Jacob Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage (which ultimately only seeks to conserve and still a particular moment in time rather than to uphold any penial lperennial values), rabid consumerism, alt-rightism as characterised by Milo Jewannopolous and Jordan Peterzion, and the atheistic, Nietzschean Nazism and skinhead ideology which may be described as national socialism (often Christian nationalists) and is mostly prominently manifested in the United Kingdom by the EDL, Britain First and the National Front.
Jonathan Bowden, one of the only true intellectuals
of recent times within the British nationalist movement.
Bowden died in 2012 after a mental breakdown and resulting
cardiac arrest. 
It is important also to provide a foreword on the genesis also of Christian ethics and an absolute morality that is founded in religious scripture. In pre-Christian Europe, morals were considered separate in some ways from higher powers, and were rather reasoned to in a secular manner, usually through a utilitarian philosophy that is justified through the idea of reincarnation. Rather than a list of “thou shalt not” instructions, pagan morality was rooted in the concept of a “greater good” in which the action that would cause the most good or least harm for an individual and also for their descendants (who were seen as being one spiritual entity, only physically separated) was chosen. Ergo, pagan morality demanded a level of intellect and intuition which was done away with for the most part after Christianization, replaced with a rigid cut-and-paste set of rules. Immanuel Kant was one of the first philosophers in the pre-Christian era to add intuition to his Christian faith and to rationalise the commandments and provide them with a logical foundation.
Kant, in the way he rationalised his moral foundation, can be seen as a one of the first secularists in that he divorced his morality from his theism. However, when Christianity collapsed at the end of the 19th century, Christian morals began to be perceived as a lie along with the Old Testament teachings; this, however, was the fundamental and foundational mistake. People had not been adequately trained in rationalising their moral foundation, and when their system of morals which was built on their list of commandments was questioned, people were lost. 

“All our knowledge begins with the senses,
proceeds then to the understanding,
and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”
Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804

Liberalism in its present form originated as hedonism (along with an ill-fated attempt to formulate a form of secular morality) filled the vacuum left by the collapse of Christianity at the end of the 19th century which was inevitable, but accelerated by thinkers such as Charles Darwin. Scientific thinkers finally uncovered the lies that Middle Eastern religions were built on about the age of the Earth, evolution, creation and a worldwide flood, not to mention the linguistic evidence which demonstrated it was impossible that all languages diverged from the Tower of Babel 3000 years ago given the tremendous number of inscriptions which prove the contrary.

Liberalism, for a brief time, attempted to manifest itself alongside the guise of a secular morality as expressed by philosophers like Kant, which lasted in my view into the last 20th century (around the 1970s) before it was swiftly abandoned after the realisation of its irrationality; the mess that resulted from the collapse of secular morality and thus the final descent into nihilism (whose seed was planted by the modernist Nietzsche whom Julius Evola reviled) can be seen manifest in the Goth, emo, pseudosatanic, rave, hooligan and even skinhead subulture. The “Nazi skinhead” subculture which had its day in the 1970s and 80s, and the relics which still survive and I fear may begin to constitute a large proportion of my readers, is not inherently traditionalist, right wing or moralist at all, and only seeks (or sought) to use racial ideology as a vehicle for its own nihilism and racial violence and abuse as a narcissistic fetishism with which to glorify the self image rather than in the interest of preserving or upholding a form of perennial wisdom or the value of tradition. There may be exceptions, but I am yet to meet one. The garden variety black, white or otherwise racial supremacist is merely a narcissist.
Baron Julius Cesare Andrea Evola;
20th century traditionalist philosopher.

I will return to the concept of the “hooligan right” in a later article, as for progress to be made within nationalism the complete annihilation of this subculture is necessary. I will simply summarise the important next step in nationalist politics with the following quote by former BNP culture officer Jonathan Bowden: “Truthfully, in this age those with intellect have no courage and those with some modicum of physical courage have no intellect. If things are to alter during the next fifty years then we must re-embrace Byron’s ideal: the cultured thug.”

There was a gap of around half a century between the collapse of Christianity in its true form (if anything about Christianity can be described as true) and the legalisation of paganism in 1955; it was also several years before pagan ideology was reconstructed into a form in which it could be practiced with historical accuracy, for accurate resources to begin to be produced and for the prejudice associated with the adoption of one’s ancestral religion to have largely dissipated.

During this time, the seeds of the “Rock and Roll” movement, the suffragette movement which enslaved women in masculinity, and the advent of democracy were sown which released the floodgates to a hedonistic and narcissistic world view driven by Hebrew capitalism and opposed by an equally blind system of Marxism. which at its core is equally atheistic and hence can result in nothing more than unjustified “morality” (somewhat of an oxymoron) which can temporarily prop up a society, and will inevitably result in chaos.

There may have been an opportunity during this small dark age in order to stem the flow of nihilism and to reinstitute a pagan system of morality, which is as I have discussed rooted in utilitarianism but incorporates but is not reliant upon a sense of theism, but that opportunity was lost and is now long gone as far as any mainstream escape from the endless decadence is concerned.

Philosophers who adopted secular moralism (such as Immanuel Kant) did their best to rationalise and intellectualise morality, but failed to understand that a rationality of absolute morality needed one essential characteristic in order to function: Absolute submission. To what or to whom is a question for this individual, but this conformity either to the self, to a God or to an ideology is the only way to create a personal view of an absolute right and wrong, and for a general system of right and wrong an absolute submission from the general populace towards this ideology.

Of course, in the 21st century we are conditioned to resist the concept of submission to anything other than our desires and pleasures, and the concept of dedicating oneself solely to something higher, more detached and more divine than oneself is considered completely alien and unattractive.

Appealing to modernist, and thus hedonistic yet not purely nihilistic sensibilities, I can only do my best to motivate you the reader towards submission from the perspective of providing a materialistic or physical reward. This reward, on the face of it, can appeal to the natural human instinct for the provision of community values and thus utilitarianism that is inherent in all but the psychopathic. A system of submission to perceived divine ideals ultimately will result in a more fruitful and happy society (or societies), even if it means the sacrifice of the individual in order to achieve this, but it is important to understand that this ought not to be the highest of motivations and that a desire to fulfil one’s Dharma, higher ordained purpose within a system, and to do so consistently and unconditionally, ought to be the very highest of ideals.

“Liberalism” is the complete antithesis of the concept of Dharma, and Dharma can have no place in liberalism as a result. Whilst Dharma requires absolute submission to the self and to higher values, liberalism expects a complete separation from the self and a sense of morality. The very concept of morality in of itself is anti-liberal, and is perceived as a constraining factor prevention the degradation of the self, the self and all associated with it again being perceived as a constricting vehicle preventing true liberation. This is the idea pushed by communist nutcases like David Icke who push the idea that a sense of self is irrational and unhealthy and that until our consciousness “evaporates” we are in some manner enslaved.
Enoch Powell, conservative PM; a rare patriot.

However, this concept that to be anti-moral, and ergo against the will of the self is in some manner beneficial makes the assumption that to be held to these values is in some way painful or degenerative. I make the argument on the contrary that in actuality a separation from what we perceive as reality and from the morals which generate pleasure for ourselves and our descendants is in actuality degenerative and that a feeling of ultimate attachment, rather than a complete detachment, ought to be the divine ideal.

Whilst of course it is true that a sense of morality, of identity and of self does enslave, one has to ask the question of liberalism and anti-identitarianism: If one has to be enslaved to something either way, why not pick a kind master?

This may come across as no more than a mere ramble, but I hope it was useful for some and acted as educational material to some degree. I will be sure to expand on this topic in future. I will leave you, dear reader, with a few quotes of encouragement.

“Neither pleasure nor pain should enter as motives when one must do what must be done.” Baron Julius Cesare Andre Evola 

“Deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised.” John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

 “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill

“Independence, the freedom of a self-governing nation, is in my estimation the highest political good, for which any disadvantage, if need be, and any sacrifice are a cheap price.” Enoch Powell

Until next time, Heil Europa! Heil og saell!