Sunday, September 23, 2007

Burnt Offerings

Predictably and disappointingly, the deluded Marxist multiculturalists of Act-Up Paris have been demonstrating against France's latest attempts to secure her borders. I am by no means a supporter of French President Sarkozy's NeoCon regime, but any effort, however belated, that gives France a fighting chance of still being France fifty years from now is worth commending. Not for Act-Up, however.

In his dubious polemic WITCHCRAFT AND THE GAY COUNTERCULTURE (1978), Arthur Evans states in Chapter 1: Joan of Arc: Transvestite and Heretic:

The history of the word “faggot” reveals the intimate connection between Gay [sic] men, heresy and witchcraft. Both witches and heretics were regularly burned on bundles of sticks called “faggots”. In the popular speech of the time expressions popped up like “fire and faggot” or “to fry a faggot”, suggesting that the victims themselves were called “faggots”.

The homosexuals in Act-Up cannot understand that by encouraging Third World immigration into Europe, they are exacerbating an already volatile situation. They are concurring with the combustible policy of race-and-culture replacement in Europe. They are adding more fuel, and faggots, to the fire. They are doing their best to ensure that the foundations of our civilization, and their own existence, will be incinerated. From being the victims of a medieval holocaust, homosexuals in Act-up have become gleeful participants in a future inflammation and conflagration.

During the Middle Ages it was murderous monotheists who thrust homosexuals into the heart of the inferno. Today its is Act-Up homosexuals who are busy building a new bonfire; a bonfire that will become their pyre as surely as a fairy sits atop a Christmas Tree.

By their actions, Act-Up powerfully demonstrate that they are the enemies of European peoples and cultures in general, and European homosexuals in particular.
Washington Times 20.09.07

Labels: ,

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Euro New Right & Sexual Morality

The ENR’s “paganism” entails a naturalism towards mores and sexuality. Unlike still traditionalists, ENR members have a relatively liberated attitude towards sexuality. Thus [Alain de] Benoist had no qualms about giving an interview to Gaie France, which features homoerotic images as well as cultural commentary. ENR members have no desire to impose what they consider the patently unnatural moralism of Judeo-Christianity on sexual relations. However, while relatively more tolerant in principle, they still value strong family life, fecundity, and marriage or relations within one’s own ethnic group. (Their objection to intra-ethnic liaisons would be that the mixture of ethnic groups diminishes a sense of identity. In a world where every marriage was mixed, cultural identity would disappear). They also criticize Anglo-American moralism and its apparent hypocrisy: “ . . . a video depicting a man and woman having sexual intercourse . . . is liable to confiscation by the [British] state. One graphically depicting teenage girls being disembowelled by razor blades affixed to the fingers of a repulsive ghoul, by contrast, tops the rental figures quite lawfully across the land, goes into tour editions, each more disgusting and genuinely obscene than the last, and is not indeed the most unpleasant revelling in blood and gore to sit lawfully on the video shops’ shelves.”[The Scorpion, No. 13: Winter 1989-90, p. 52.] In this, they are closer to a worldly Europe than to a puritanical America obsessed with violence. According to the ENR: “Our ancestral Indo-European culture . . . seems to have enjoyed a healthy natural attitude to processes and parts of the body concerned with the bringing forth of new life, the celebration of pair-bonding love, and the perpetuation of the race.”[The Scorpion, No. 13: Winter 1989-90, p. 51.]

In its desire to create a balanced psychology of sexual relations, the ENR seeks to overcome the liabilities of conventional conservative thought: the perception of conservatives as joyless prudes, and the seemingly ridiculous psychology implied in conventional Christianity. It seeks to address “flesh-and-blood men and women,” not saints. Since some of the Left’s greatest gains in the last few decades have been made as a result of their championing sexual freedom and liberation, the ENR seeks to offer its own counter-ethic of sexual joy. The hope is presumably to nourish persons of the type who can, in Nietzsche’s phrase, “make love alter reading Hegel.” This is also related to the desire for the reconciliation of the intellectual and warrior in one person: the reconciliation of vita contemplative and vita activa.

This naturalism leads the ENR to re-evaluate “the feminine” and reject what it sees as Christianity’s denigration of women. The ENR has begun developing a counter-ethic of feminism which, while respecting women and “the feminine,” rejects the US ideologization of gender by politically-correct feminism. These ideas promise to overcome the poisoned atmosphere of sexual relations and the neopuritanism of radical feminism. “In pre-Christian Europe, amongst the Celts and the Norse for example, women, without in any way renouncing their femininity or seeking to be ersatz men, enjoyed essentially equal rights.”[The Scorpion, No. 13: Winter 1989-90, p. 51.]
Mark Wegiersky

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 10, 2007

Report: New Right 11th London Meeting

First up was Mr Christopher Chibnall with a fascinating anecdotal talk on the artist and magician Austin Osman Spare, billed as the first postmodern occultist. When I worked at Watkin's occult bookshop off the Charing Cross Road, we kept our Osman Spare in a lock-up glass bookshelf in the basement. Mainly because of their value, but partly also for their content (not that we'd get many kids in the basement, which was devoted mainly to books about Advaita Vedanta Hinduism; kids naturally preferred gawking at the crystals, jewellery, statues and other New Age trinkets on sale upstairs). I'd like to thank Mr Chibnall for elucidating the ideas of this singular individual, who was a fellow south Londoner and instigator of his own Chaos Magic. Mr Chibnall is working on a book about Austin Osman Spare, although I'm surprised that he hasn't already been beaten to it by Peter Ackroyd; this mixture of London, the occult, raw sexuality and consciousness is quintessential Ackroyd territory.

Next up came Norman Lowell from the highly successful IMPERIUM EUROPA movement in Malta. At his last talk at a London New Right meeting a couple of years ago Mr Lowell outlined the spiritual and practical delineations of the coming Imperium; this time he introduced a new element to his thinking, namely Dominion. Just as, like Evola, Lowell associates the ideas of a Solar/Polar Imperium with Masculinity, so Dominion (from Latin “domus” - “home”) is associated with the regional and local, that is, the Feminine, nurturing principle. This concept adds a whole new dimension to the idea of Imperium. As I listened to Mr Lowell I was struck by the thought that I could be hearing for the first time an idea as profound, significant and influential as that proposed by Nietzsche in THE BIRTH OF TRAGEDY. Mr Lowell has a new book out, aptly titled IMPERIUM EUROPA, this Winter 2007. It's worth putting an order in now because his last book, CREDO, is now a sought-after item, with people emailing to ask me where they can get a copy. Mr Lowell also expanded on his exciting idea of reserving a special space in Russia for eugenic progress, and stressed the importance of Aryan solidarity and the avoidance of fratricidal wars.

Following Mr Lowell came Mr Jonathan Bowden. I always strongly look forward to Mr Bowden's talks; he outlines often complex ideas with astounding lucidity and precision, introducing new facts and new ideas from sometimes obscure thinkers with great flourish. Mr. Bowden surveyed a wide panorama, from the power of intellect, to the commercial elite ruling over us and the insidious culture of victimology. Gay activists in particular have much to learn from his arguments against special pleading. Since I am not a member of the BNP, I am hardly in a position to comment on Mr Bowden's recent run-in with the BNP leadership, save to say that in my opinion the party has lost an immensely accomplished and invigorating speaker.

Finally, from Croatia, Mr Tomislav Sunic, to elaborate on some of his ideas presented in his excellent new book HOMO AMERICANUS: Child of the Postmodern Age. I finished reading this important book about America's foundational myths and their reverberations into the present just last week, and hope to do it some justice by giving it a proper review on this (Aryan Futurism) blog in the near future. As well as discussing the heroic Prince Eugene, the self-censoring society and martyrology, Mr Sunic urged his listeners to look behind the human rights rhetoric of our democratic leaders, and suggested that a read of a country's penal codes could be far more revealing.

As ever, the meeting was at a superb location in central London with a lively, positive, friendly audience – the largest I've seen at a New Right meeting to date. Between speakers, the crowd was abuzz with subjects ranging from the ongoing credit-crunch financial crisis (hardly surprising, given our location in the heart of the Leviathan) to Michael Wood's current colourful documentary series on BBC2 TV about the history of India, which certainly seems to be a hit with European Identitarians. Troy Southgate, Jonathan Bowden, Jonothon Boulter and all the other organizers and helpers at the London New Right meetings deserve praise for opening up this immensely important new intellectual space, the suitably impressive London salon and ante-chamber for the IMPERIUM, and congratulations for enabling this new space to expand, all the while winning fresh support and acclaim. It is a tremendous undertaking triumphantly fulfilled.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Moscow Conference: Kai Murros' Speech

Below is the speech that Finnish visionary and European nationalist Kai Murros gave at the conference “Europe and Russia: New Perspectives” ( in Moscow on June 11, 2007. Kai Murros is one of the most important thinkers of the New Right in Europe. His ideas are some of the most radical and original in the movement. His creation, the nationalist sage Aquilon, deserves special attention. We should all familiarize ourselves with the quotations by Aquilon:
These quotations are truly an inspiration for the ages.
HAIL Murros! HAIL the New Dawn of a truly socialist and racialist European empire!
Constantin von Hoffmeister

by Kai Murros

Military Cooperation between Western Europe and Russia

It is easy to talk about cooperation but what would be concrete measures we should take?
What is the most URGENT danger Europe is facing ??

- The massive pressure against Russia’s borders !!!
- The forgotten ethnic war in the east !!!!!

Russia needs help:
- Russia’s border is the longest in the world.
- Russia’s border is a land border infiltration is easier.
- Border areas are already populated by non-Russians, which is why it is easier for infiltrators to get over and and blend in.
- Larger and larger areas are in danger of becoming base areas for further infiltration. These areas can very soon be DE FACTO beyond the control of the Russian state. The presence of the state in these areas can sooner than we think be only a facade while the actual power is in the hands of ethnic mafia and family/clan networks.

At first the mushrooming infiltrator communities will be considered as “part of the system” since they do not openly declare that they want to break away - until the day comes when there is no system left.

Russia’s unique problems: Vast land, difficult terrain, no natural barriers, reliable population only a thin cover - especially in the periphery > guerrilla like infiltration is easy.

The most successful invasions to Europe have always come from the east!!!

Our/Russia’s worst problem:
1) Dwindling demographics
2) Biggest population explosion in human history taking place in the muslim world and China.
3) Economical and environmental pressure forces people to abandon their homes
> Pull and push effect against our borders.
The situation is very much as the same as in the ancient Rome when the borders experienced a prolonged demographic pressure from the periphery.
A psychological problem:
To fight back the infiltrating masses is a war of wills.

Two factors struggle:
1) Our will to ward off the avalanche of the infiltrators and our preparedness to use what ever means necessary to achieve this goal.
2) The desperate determination of the poor masses to find a new home and a better life at any cost.

Bottom line is this:
The poor masses are coming anyway no matter how we turn them away at the border, they will always find a crack in the fence - therefore we must be emotionally and morally prepared to physically deal with the infiltrator communities and the infiltrating population.
Our greatest enemy is our humane benevolence and compassion since they render us defenceless at the face of rapacious desperate masses.
Special problem: Expulsion or even harsher methods of dealing with the infiltrating populations will undoubtedly lead in to reprisals by the governments whose citizens we are facing at our borders. We may assume that the harder the struggle becomes and the harder our measures get the harder the reprisals will get as well. We have to accept that defending our/Russia’s border will undoubtedly make us very unpopular.

Western Europe’s advantage
Densely populated > immigrants cannot hide behind great distances and difficult terrain.
Densely populated > overcrowding becomes acute more quickly.
The decline of Europe’s indigenous population is not quite as steep as Russia’s - yet.
Europe’s sea borders are easier to defend - once there is the will to do so.

What does Russia need then in her struggle, what can Europe give her?
As I already pointed out our and Russia’s greatest problem is the declining demographics.

European population was expanding ever since the black death. Since late century European population grew the same rate as the masses in the developing world today. European surplus population colonized the large parts of the planet and provided the labour for the industrial revolution.

But above all else the ever growing population was the raw material that was needed for the endless wars in Europe. Without population growth the large scale wars would have been impossible.

Just imagine how quickly after the WWI Europe was demographically ready for the WWII and how quickly the massive population losses of the WWII disappeared as the birth rate sored right after the war.

But now everything has changed - we are in decline and those over whom Europe used to rule are expanding.

The biggest problem at the moment is not yet that we don’t have enough young men - we could still raise huge armies if we wanted to. The biggest problem is emotional: If we don’t have big enough surplus of restless young men ready for adventures and to risk their lives we are in danger of turning emotionally in to societies of old women. Emotionally our societies are in danger of losing the inner pressure that is needed for outward expansion or just to keep borders where they are now. Our enemies on the other hand have plenty of these reckless lads who are right now looking for new territory to conquer, battles to win and women to impress.

The great question is - can we over come the disadvantage of declining demographics through our superior military technology and organizational skills.

The answer in my opinion is YES - provided that we make a use of this one advantage as soon as possible because one day even that won’t be enough.

We must break the vicious cycle of declining demographics but demographic changes come very slowly at first and we can’t wait for decades so we must attack as long as we still have strength to do it.

In my opinion due to the dire demographic crisis in Russia, Europe must provide Russia with troops to help her defend her and our borders.

Does Russia need steel then?
The answer is no. Russia has a vast and highly developed arms industry that can easily provide Russia with all the necessary weapons. The war against the infiltrators will be also be a low tech war rather than a high tech war. To crush the infiltrator masses and their base areas within Russia requires more will and brutality than sophisticated technology.

Does Russia need fortifications?
The answer is no. The war against the infiltrators will be a highly mobile war, a war where we must be the aggressor, constantly on the offensive. If we start hiding behind fortifications we admit that we can’t control the situation, by showing fear we would then be admitting defeat.

In my opinion what Russia needs the most right now is will. Will to defend her borders at any cost by any means. Pan-European forces standing side by side with their Russian brothers would undoubtedly boost the morale in Russia to do what must be done so that Europe can live.

Protecting the actual border is not enough though. Active defense means that the first measures take place already beyond the border. Euro-Russia has vital interests to protect in Central Asia and Caucasus - oil and gas reserves.
USA has understood this as well which is why it tries desperately to spread its influence in this region.

Is USA then a credible competitor to Euro-Russia? The answer is NO. The pitiful forces USA manages to send to this area will not be able to control it if the US led system is challenged.

USA is plagued by its geographical position, how can it maintain a believable military force in this area from the other side of the world. For us both Caucasus and Central-Asia are right next door, logistically it would be easy to maintain considerable military forces in this region but for USA it could turn into a night mare.

Controlling Caucasus and Central Asia poses a psychological problem for USA as well. Since USA has only military and economic interests to protect in this region it could be very difficult for the American public to accept casualties in case protecting these interests leads into a conflict with local insurgent groups.
For us the case is very much different since Euro-Russia has much larger issues at stake in Caucasus and Central Asia - we will be defending the very existence of our civilization. - Never mind the oil, Europe’s first line of defense is in Samarkand.
Meddling in the complex affairs of Caucasus region and Central Asia could very well turn into one of those cases where Americans burn their fingers as they over extend their military strength and due to bad planning start to act like a bull in a china shop.

So when the going gets tough the Americans usually get going - but we don’t have that option. And there lies our strength, our strategic advantage.

A word of caution:
Central-Asia will most likely turn into a hotbed of violent conflicts in the future and the reason for this negative development is once again over population. The massive growth of the Central-Asian population and the resulting environmental crisis will create tremendous social pressures, which probably will lead into civil wars, religious fundamentalism and chaos. Due to oil and gas resources the economies of the Central-Asian have undoubtedly grown - unfortunately the population growth strips the results of the economic growth and leaves many people actually poorer than they originally were.

Secondly as the economic situation becomes more dire the legitimacy of the local governments will be challenged. Unfortunately for us most of the current governments in the region that are willing to cooperate with Russia (Euro/Russia some day) are thoroughly corrupted and undemocratic which means that it will be fairly easy for Muslim fundamentalists to challenge them as the social pressures mount.

Since Europe’s first line of defense is in Samarkand and due to the oil and gas resources it is absolutely vital that we manage to maintain a system of loyal political allies in this region. However we may be walking into a trap, which will be like Afghanistan, only ten times bigger this time. We may start off by supporting in an increasing scale friendly governments plagued by civil war and terrorism but end up being stuck into an impossible complex situation. The situation in Central-Asia may one day tie us into a gridlock and to open it we may have to consider a massive invasion.

This is a problem we must deal with since we cannot accept that “Afghanistan” would one day reach the northern border of Kazakhstan because that would threaten Euro/Russian life line to Eastern Siberia.