The Right Attitude to Race and Culture

Race and culture are among the hottest topics of the moment. From the migration-invasion of Europe to the American wave of the alt-right, to the elections in European states, there is a ferment which will not calm. As social-nationalists, standing first and foremost on the racial-cultural front line, we must be clear where we stand in terms of attitude.

It disturbs me when I see unpleasant and too-general remarks made even about the basest of race-types. We must never forget that, as Adolf Hitler himself said in another context, “there is the individual, but beyond the individual is the race.” The individual comes out of a race; he is made by it, formed by it, is in most cases brought up and educated by it and by the nation which is part of the race. However, the individual can transcend the race-group (equally, can descend from it). German National Socialism itself recognized this reality when it granted a relatively small number of persons, who were not Aryan, the status of “honorary Aryan” or Ehrenarier

We today, even those of us who are social-national in political orientation, are yet not  National Socialists in the same sense as those who fought for European humanity in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. We today have our own path forward. At the same time, to put it in Biblical language, we “honour our father and our mother” and that means that we honour National Socialism as the ground from which we sprang.

Leon Degrelle, the political leader, front-line fighter and thinker, had this to say on the subject after National Socialism in its original phase had passed into history:


There is no need for social nationalists to utter insults at blacks, Jews or members of other groups, except where that is justified and/or where it makes a political or social point. I do not want to concentrate on the American socio-political situation. I am not American, have not lived or worked there for many years and am focussed on Europe and Russia. However, we have to recognize that American society is very different from our European society. American society has had a relatively recent history of slavery, of genocide (the American Indians, aka Native Americans), of a civil war in which 3% of the population died, of the resistance to the social consequences of that war in the South, that resistance being, in part, the Ku Klux Klan, and so on.

American politics has become far more bitter, far more polarized, particularly in language, than is generally the case in Europe. There is also the point that there is a far wider spectrum of education and culture in the USA than pertains in most parts of Europe, or even Russia.

For me, it is natural to regard the non-European races as distinct and as having their own paths to the future, while equally recognizing the necessity (for all races) for the leading role of European humanity. For some Americans, this is perhaps less obvious and those other races seen as purely enemy contingents.

Social nationalists must take every opportunity to refute the lie (often though not always made by Jewish Zionists) that we base our political philosophy on “hate”. We ourselves know that that is not so, but often the public is bamboozled by the Jewish Zionists into believing the lie. For example, we wish not to be ruled or owned or influenced by the Jewish Zionist element, but that is, if you like, “defensive” in nature.

Our attitude to race and culture is one of recognition of evolution and involution. Our European race is generally still evolving, as is the “Russian”, “Slavonic” or “Slavic” race which (important point) will not come into its plenitude for another 1,500 years. Other races in this world are stagnant or are degenerating. The prime motive force behind social nationalism is to evolve the race and nation to higher levels and to destroy any threats to that evolution. This is a positive, not a negative, political world-view.

In the future, European and Euro-Slavic humanity will have powers of soul, of mind, which today would be regarded as magical. This is the point to which we as a people have been striving.

When we see the sacred Swastika, we must understand it to be a symbol of evolution, of our evolution.



Stray Thoughts about Transport in the UK

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a country house in a heavily wooded part of Southern England. Even using a map, I nearly failed to find the way. A modern version of Parzival, –in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s great work–, who gets lost in the trackless forests around the Castle of the Grail. The “B”-road was left behind as I took a quite narrow lane at an acute angle. A few miles further on and an easily-missed small sign almost at ground-level told me to turn off onto a lane so narrow that it was more like a track, tarmacked long ago (probably in the 1960s) and never repaired. Uneven, with large potholes. The forest pressed in on all sides. A stag with magnificent antlers ran across  and into the dense wood as the car approached at a slow 5-10 mph. Squirrels were there aplenty, as were many birds. After what seemed miles, the destination was suddenly there.

That experience made me wonder what roads would be like in a future of automated cars, buses, passenger drones controlled by computers, lighter than air craft akin to Zeppelins, automated trains etc.

One could imagine a future where the roads are scarcely used and so not funded or perhaps only the motorways or major highways funded. A network of automated rail, light rail, branch lines, narrow gauge, ultralight trains, Thames river services etc. Commuters (if they still exist) travelling easily by those means, such as airships docking on top of high towers or buildings, ultralight trains going to almost every street or road. Conventional roads might become a thing of the past, especially if commuting and travelling regularly by car become uncommon.

It is not necessary to travel far back in time (say, 1800) to find a Britain in which roads were in most cases almost unusable most of the time. It may happen again. Society moves on. Until the Beeching cuts of the 1960s (and the others in the 1950s and even prior to that), there were many railway lines in existence which, today, are all but forgotten.

The alternative vision is that roads will still be necessary even if vehicles become computer-controlled. We wait to see. In the meantime, we speculate.

Priorities in State Funding


We have, in the UK, been subjected to a so-called “austerity” spending regime for about 7 years now, the burden (in reality) of which has fallen on the poorer citizens, if only because there is an almost irreducible minimum which anyone requires in order to survive in a basic civilized way in our society. It matters not that a statistician may say that the wealthiest have seen their incomes fall more than the poorest, because if a rich man has a discretionary income of, say, a half-million a year (and many have 10x that) and if that is reduced by, say, 20%, he still has hundreds of thousands of pounds beyond what is necessary even on an opulent level of expenditure. The poor man on a net income of, say, £10,000, suffers directly (meaning in terms of food, shelter, transport) if his income is reduced by only 10% or even 1%. The figures for income do not in any case take account of the huge rise in the capital of the UK’s wealthier citizens in the past decade or two.

It can probably be agreed generally that the State has and must have spending priorities, even in less “austere” times. While money is not the fixed or finite amount kept (as the simpler people seem to believe) in a large chest at the Treasury or in the Bank of England, there is, over time, a limit to State expenditure no matter what system of government exists.

The above being so, we should examine what should be the spending priorities of the proposed ethnostate. We already know the priorities of the present “Conservative” government: a reduced social security “welfare” roll, tax breaks for the wealthier citizens, expenditure on Trident submarines, HS2 high-speed train line etc.

The Expenditure Priorities of the Ethnostate

Firstly, the proper defence of the realm. That means defence services under British control (unlike Trident). In the absence of multilateral disarmament, that has to include nuclear weapons, though there are cheaper alternatives to Trident. A Navy which has the capacity to guard the British coasts (rather than those of supposed allies halfway around the world). An Army of suitable size for defence but not one to be used in support of American or Israeli geopolitical aims. The same for the Air Force. Defence in the wider sense too: internal security, meaning a police force which has as its aim the preservation of public peaceful order, rather than enforcement of some decadent pseudo-liberal agenda; also, security agencies focussed on protecting the public.

Secondly, a healthy population (that that population should be fundamentally white European is a given). The health of the population requires clean air and water first. That requires State regulation and supervision. After that, healthy food: State support in various ways for organic and biodynamic agriculture and horticulture; discouragement of unhealthy foodstuffs (eg via taxes, imposts etc). Then there is the question of encouraging the population to take moderate exercise: State funding of, not Olympic athletes and other careerists, but facilities for the generality of the population, meaning health clubs, sport clubs, swimming pools, properly-policed and well-kept parks (for walking exercise as well as general public amenity); National and regional parks, for the same reason. Information services to the public, ranging from general health education through to suitably-healthy food recipes etc.

Thirdly, funding for a health service. The overriding necessity for a healthy population, as well as the impulse to compassion, indicates the necessity for a free-at-point-of-use health service akin to the N.H.S. This blog post is concerned with spending, so here is not the right place to address the great changes that should take place in the N.H.S., both attitudinally and otherwise. Suffice to say that the health service must be properly funded, so that where the preventive health measures are insufficient, medication and surgery are available.

Fourthly, education. Education should be a matter for personal or family choice in terms of curriculum, type of educational philosophy or particular school or university, but the State should only subsidize what is useful for the State as instrument of the people, the nation, the race. Thus private/independent schools must be allowed to exist and (subject only to the welfare of the pupils) free from “national curriculum” and the like, but the State need not subsidize them beyond allowing them tax-free status, which they already enjoy. Likewise, students must be allowed to attend university freely in terms of choice of institution and course taken, but the State can choose which students, which courses, which institutions to subsidize. For example, it may be that the State gives the top 10% of students (however assessed) full tuition and maintenance grants, others less generous provision, still others nothing at all. These others would have to find loans or other funding. Another example: the State might decide to give financial subsidy to certain courses and not others: perhaps to Engineering and Chemistry rather than to American Literature or Gender Studies.

Fifthly, transport. It should not be the business –and certainly not a priority– of the State to fund luxury travel for the few. Concorde was an error, albeit that it was a tremendous technical achievement: State subsidy so that a relatively small number of extremely wealthy persons could save time crossing the Atlantic to New York or Barbados. Subsidy in development, in manufacture and in terms of ticket pricing. Wrongheaded all the way through. HS2 is a less-egregious but similar error. Transport must be improved in the UK, not by “high-speed” rail, but by a web of more ordinary or standard rail lines. These can be supplemented by a further network of branch lines, probably light rail and ultralight or narrow-gauge rail. Technology is moving to the point where these can be unmanned trains, especially on branch lines where safety is not a major issue.

There should be dug a network of very wide canals for freight transport. These will also have environmental benefits and might also be used for passenger transportation.

The possibilities of lighter-than-air travel (Zeppelins) have not been fully explored. This form of transport might have great use for commuter and other passenger transportation. Government may need to help.

Bus travel should be maintained, at least at a basic level, throughout the country. It knits together rural and urban areas and may need subsidy.

There is an argument for local or even regional travel to be free up to a certain radius. Modern technology in terms of ID cards, pay cards etc makes this administratively possible.

Sixthly, though its place in the list might be disputed, Basic Income. The level at which this can be paid depends on the overall economy, but it is now becoming clear that, with advances in robotics and computerization, the nexus between work and pay is loosening. Citizens, whether old, sick, disabled, unemployed or otherwise, all need a basic amount of money in order to exist. A “floor”. The regressive “welfare” “reforms” of recent years are absurd and unreal as well as being unjust. It is time for the State dismantle the huge (and hugely expensive) DWP bureaucracy and to keep only that which pays out money (as well as a core of investigators to deter real large-scale fraud).

The above list should enable the State to promote a healthy, sheltered, fed, clothed and protected population capable of advancing toward a higher level in terms of evolution.

The Future of Work and Pay

It was, I think, that great genius Rudolf Steiner who first made the point that work in ancient times (meaning here the 4th Post-Atlantean Age which finished in the early 15th Century AD) was a matter, fundamentally, of slavery, or, to put it another way, of bond. The typical worker was a slave or serf, who worked because he or she was forced to work. There was no pay as such, but some form of food, shelter and clothing was provided. Any monetary reward was in the form of discretionary gratuity, not a matter of right. The worker belonged to the owner or master.

Not everyone was a slave, obviously. Apart from the slave-owning classes, there were those who were free citizens or subjects, who worked in various fields and were paid for doing so, but these were a minority.

Over the centuries and particularly since the Renaissance, in our 5th Post-Atlantean Age, the typical form of labour is that of paid work. The worker works and, in return, (i.e. transactionally) is paid money. This did not suddenly change in 1415 (supposedly the notional year of change from 4th to 5th Post-Atlantean Age), but was gradual and in some respects even today is not complete. For example, it was until very recently common in the UK for farm workers to be paid small wages, but to receive free accomodation, tied to the job. The “tied cottage”. Likewise, there have been retrograde movements alongside the general movement forward. The various Communist-inspired societies of the 20th Century were in that sense backward, but found that people would not work or work effectively as slaves. Thus, in the Soviet Union, “War Communism” did not last long and was replaced by the New Economic Policy in the 1920s. Stalinism tried to turn the clock back by collectivizing most agriculture and by having millions literally slaving in the so-called “GULAG Archipelago” of labour camps, but at the same time had to pay most workers at least some form of salary. In the Soviet joke, “we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” In some parts of the world (some Caribbean island etc, parts of Russia too) the slave or serf of the 19th Century was only forced to work for the master’s benefit for part of the week, the rest of the time being free to farm or forage for himself.

The Soviet labour system was of course partly an outcome of previous Russian history. Few now know that serfdom in Russia was actually brought in, in its harshest forms, after 1400; indeed, the strictest forms were introduced after 1600:

In Russia, as in the United States, the problem with slavery, serfdom and similar forms of servitude, was their economic inefficiency and social demerit. In North America, which had had, from its beginnings in British colonial rule, slavery applicable only to blacks, there was, nonetheless, a lesser form of “slavery” or “serfdom” known as “indentured servitude”, which applied to white people (usually English): This form of forced labour lasted until the end of the 18th Century but had largely died out by the time the USA declared itself independent of Britain. At one time, over half of the white population of Virginia (where the system was probably at its most common), was forced labour. Indentured servitude was finally outlawed by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; it continued elsewhere (notably in the Caribbean) until the mid-19th Century.

Even in the late 20th Century, there were attempts here and there to introduce forced labour as an economic model for the whole of a society. The Khmer Rouge “Year Zero” society in “Kampuchea” (Cambodia); North Korea (in part); rebel-held parts of South America. The generality of the world, however, had, by 1989, moved on. Russia and China moved to a typically “Western” pay-for-labour system. Europe had been evolving such a system for many hundreds of years.

The 6th Post-Atlantean Age will bring in, as a general way of life, the system of “work as free gift”. This seems Utopian today, of course. The Greeks and Romans (even their greatest thinkers) could hardly if at all conceive of a society without slavery; neither, it seems, could some of the landowners in the Americas or the Caribbean as late as the early 19th Century. Thomas Jefferson himself struggled with the practicalities of a society without slaves:

Now, when we speak of the 6th Post-Atlantean Age, that will not start until about 3500 AD, long in the future. However, just as paid work existed even in Roman times (even in the Roman Republic, some 1500 years before the start of the 5th Post-Atlantean Age), work as free gift can exist in places even today. When people volunteer for work in charity shops, on environmental projects etc, we see small flashes of that future world.

Consciousness is vital: to volunteer for a charity is something of the future; however, to be forced to work in a charity or elsewhere, in order not to have State benefits cut off, as in the policies implemented by Iain Duncan Smith and the Jew “Lord” Freud, is something from the previous Age and can properly be described as evil (being, in the “theological” sense, in error).

“Man cannot live by bread alone”. Profound words which, however, leave out the necessary addendum, “Man needs bread in order to live on Earth”. In the earlier Age, “bread” (i.e. the means of earthly subsistence) was supplied (in principle) by the owner of the work force. In the present Age, “bread” is bought by the work force for money and in return for work. In the future Age, work will be given freely. In return, the society will give freely to supply the necessities of life. Karl Marx had an intimation of this in his famous axiom, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”:,_to_each_according_to_his_need.

We in the more advanced countries stand in 2017 at a point where computers, robotics and the organization of society generally is leading to a situation where many forms of human labour may very soon not be at all required and will be taken over by inorganic or hybrid machines. What then happens to the huge numbers of people displaced from the labour market? The conventional answer, the “Iain Dunce Duncan Smith” answer is that such people (possibly half the population of the UK by 2050 or even 2030) will be forced to “seek [non-existent] work” or be more or less starved and made homeless.

Not only is the conventional approach unjust, but it will inevitably lead to social and political upheaval on a scale not seen for decades, if ever (at least in the UK). There has to be a social mechanism by which people are supported economically whether they have paid work or not. Here we have, at present, “tax credits” and other forms of social security or “welfare” benefits, including the “unconditional” or “non-judgmental” forms such as Child Benefit and State Pension.

Basic Income must come and eventually will come. It will enable people to exist, at least on –indeed– a basic level without needing to sell their labour in order to survive. Not all will offer work somewhere where it is needed, as a “free gift”. Some, however, will. It is a question, in the individual as in society at large, of the evolution of consciousness. The key point is that Basic Income is a societal and an economic necessity.

“Thank You For Your Service!…Have A Nice Day!”

One of the many minor but telling irritations of the present day is the extent to which American phrases and linguistic usage has infiltrated everyday English English. I say that despite having lived and worked in the United States and (in the USA and elsewhere) alongside American people. In fact, I am still (despite the best efforts of parts of the Jewish Zionist lobby, including the crazed scribbler Louise Mensch) still a member of the New York Bar, at least on paper (I never practised there).

It was back in the early 1990s when I first heard someone (a West Indian woman) use the term “train station” to designate what everyone I knew until then had called a “railway station” or sometimes “rail station”. When I questioned the term, she replied that she had never heard such places called anything but “train stations”. My theory was that that was the influence of latter-day American films, particularly those shown on Sky. Maybe. Since then, “train station” has become ubiquitous, even on the BBC.

One might say, “what does it matter?” whether railway stations are called “railway stations” or “train stations”. However, language does matter. Whole treatises have been written on the power of transformative vocabulary. The American military machine and its political masters used to be expert at that (far more so than the British). “Operation Desert Shield” conveyed a message; “Operation Desert Storm” a different one, a changed one. Sometimes it became awkward if pushed too far, as in the phrases used in the Vietnam War: “bodycount”, “free fire zone”, “friendly fire” and many others became notorious; some are still in use today.

Such manipulative use of language is common elsewhere. The linked worlds of special operations and espionage have given us “plausible deniability” etc, and that is before we even look at the sleazy swamp of the political milieu. I do not want to go off-track too far and lose my point in the morass of “hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “helping people back to work” (indeed the ghastly “world of work” itself) etc.

Words create a mental landscape, they shape a society as surely as the architecture of our cities and, to be rather topical, public statuary.

It matters whether the influx of millions of non-Europeans into Europe and other European-inhabited lands is described as a “desperate” “movement” of “refugees” or as a “flood” of “migrant-invaders”, indeed as a “migration-invasion” (my favourite) or simply as an “invasion”.

It matters if “social security” (in the British use of the term), meaning a “safety net” or system available to those who need it (and, importantly, into which most if not all of those using it have paid, one way or another) is then changed to “welfare”, a term which gives the impression of money or food thrown at (probably undeserving and probably useless) eaters, who are, again, “probably” taking money from “the taxpayer” (not even “the State”).

It matters if “free speech” is in many cases re-designated as “hate speech” and/or “hate crime”.

So we return to “thank you for your service”…one of the least meaningful phrases around. An American affectation, which seems to say, “this person served in ‘the military’ in some capacity and so we regard him –or her– as heroic.” It of course bears little relationship to reality. Most service personnel, even in a war, are not anywhere near the “front-line” or active fighting areas. Indeed, many American service personnel never even leave the shores of the USA. In Britain, that idea crept in during the Falklands campaign, when anyone who had been to the Falklands in uniform became, ipso facto, a “Falklands hero”, courtesy of the Sun “newspaper”.

No-one disputes that a modern military system requires large numbers of accountants, lawyers, dentists, administrative people, pension experts etc, as well as cooks, drivers and the more obviously martial occupations of fighter pilot, tank commander, infantry soldier and commando. They all “do their bit”, in the English phrase of yesteryear. However, it seems strained to say “thank you for your service” to people who spent their entire service researching legal cases in Washington D.C., or fixing the plumbing on an Air Force base in Texas.

One notices that some scribblers who are very adherent to the Atlanticist or “New World Order” viewpoint are among the worst offenders (people such as Louise Mensch). In fact, it could be said that “thank you for your service” goes beyond affectation and constitutes an attempt to further Americanize the mentality of the British.

So it is that I plead for people to avoid the use of “thank you for your service”, even when addressing those who should be in that sense respected.