I have added a few new links, one’s I’ve had bookmarked for a while, there are a few everyone should read, the first is an interesting site called ‘The Modern Fascist’, it is a new blog and is apparently written by an 18-year-old American. I’m amazed that anyone is brave enough and smart enough to have the gall to call themselves a ‘fascist’, especially in America. Another very interesting read is ‘In This Age of Plenty’, a work by a Catholic Quebecer on the theory of Social Credit, I would be interested if anyone has an opinion on it, as I’m still working my way through the theory and trying to grasp how it could work.

Another interesting read is a book which I’ve entitled ‘White Australia Policy’ which is actually a long chapter from a book called ‘Connected Worlds’ written by an opponent of white self-rule, but he does do a good job of explaining the various experiments of white societies, trying to stay white in the face of a ‘rising tide of colour’, there are also chapters on South Africa, Rhodesia and the American South, which are just as interesting.

It is, I suppose a depressing read in some ways, to think of all the defeats and no victories we have had in the last century, but, it needs to be done!

If you have not yet had a peek at ‘The Fall of the Russian Empire’, it is also worth reading, the writer makes an interesting point that it was a spiritual failing in Russia that led to the conditions in which the Russian people stood by whilst their Emperor was deposed, imprisoned and then murdered, and that the Imperial family, were a symbol of the future that lay in store for the Russian people.

In the Art, Design and Architecture section, you may want to check out ‘Utopia’, people like Vanishing American would probably appreciate it, lots of beautiful old paintings and pictures of lost times. ‘Paris 1900’ is along a similar vein.

A blog I have enjoyed, despite not wanting to, is ‘Eternal Bachelor’, it is written by a fellow in London, from what I can surmise, he does not have much of a warm spot for women, and would not be what you would call a feminist! He uses some strong language, and I must actually admit it can sometimes be quite sad to see a man so jaded with feminism that he hates all women. But that is another of the curses of our times, our women turn on us as well as our enemies!

I also have an older link, ‘Magna Grece’, which is mainly concerned with Southern Italy before the Risorgimento which overthrew the ancient kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, it is written by a scholarly fellow and I have learned much from him, so please take a look.

Also, just for your edification, in the language section, there are a few good and free language sites, I have spent the summer brushing up on my French, German and Russian and it is actually very effective, especially with my French and German, I find Russian very difficult, and have only been studying it for the last two years, so it has not been as useful with that! So if you know a little French, German or another language, try it out, you can take it as fast or as slow as you wish, and it is definitely worth having another language.

Also, just for fun, I included ‘Thor Steinar’, a clothes company that apparently antifas don’t like because they accuse it of being a NAZI shop! It does seem that it was set up by a nationalist and that nationalists do shop there, but in reality it is not really that blatant, I just want a few people to buy some stuff to annoy the lefties!

Establishment of the Left

‘What were fifty years ago the three most prominent non-leftist institutions in the world—the Roman Catholic Church, the United States of America, and the British monarchy—are now explicitly in the service of the left. And the conservative movement itself is now explicitly in the service of the left.’


The only thing I would haggle with is the idea that the United States was ever a ‘conservative’ institution. America has been a revolutionary state for most of its existence, being held back only by the Christian faith of the South, and after 1865, until Bolshevik Russia appeared, America was the trend setter in progressive thought and action, perhaps the only other radical state would have been republican France. It’s odd that America is in hindsight regarded as ‘conservative’! That is only a modern idea, I think, I wouldn’t think British, Russian, German or Austrian aristocrats would have considered America conservative in 1910.

But the main argument made by Lawrence Auster is correct, Every surviving institution from the ‘old days’ is an instrument of the left, and for conservatives that is a problem. Being conservatives, we naturally wish to see the continuance of that which is tried and tested, but, the values that these institutions now push, are the values of our enemies, so do we reject these institutions?

The universities, which used to send reliable Tory MPs to parliament, were pillars of the old order, and are now a part of the new order. Do we reject the universities? Do we set up our own? I do like the thought of setting up an online university, as is already happening, this could be used to begin new universities, or could be kept online.

The Army in Britain and now the US seem to be completely co-opted into the new order as well, I’m sure individuals can be conservative, but if you wish to climb the ladder of promotion, you need to brown nose and proclaim one’s fealty to the negro and paki. It is the same in the police forces, they are no longer on our side, they are the instruments of the enemy.

Is there any institution that has not been co-opted?

The churches have been taken over, the schools, the media is obviously in their hands, the Monarchy is a puppet, that regularly parrots the multi cult line, all of our institutions and constitutions have failed us and have been and will continue to be used against us.

I fear the only way to fight these things, will result in the abolition of everything we are familiar with. But I suppose that is exactly what a few long-term thinkers amongst our enemies were thinking.

Smallness Works

Well, it seems to help.

I believe that a part of our problems, whether they be economic, social or cultural stem from the prison that is the modern-day nation-state, where once we had a small and distant government rule over a small and lightly populated(by todays standards) polity, we now have a large and increasingly belligerent state, attempting to rule over millions, tens of millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of people, resulting in misrule, tyranny and increasing impoverishment.

It is a simplistic argument, I know, but hear me out. Is it at all possible that a ‘democracy’ like the United States can actually represent the will of 310 million people, in an area the size of Europe? Each representative in the Congress represents on average about half a million people, I’m not sure about you, but I don’t think it is even possible to meet half a million people in one lifetime, and even if it were, could anyone remember very many of them? Can an elected representative in the American Congress actually represent 500,000, as they would wish to be represented?

The senators, represent the states, so, the Alaskan senators, will represent about 600,000, a large number, the Californian senators will represent 35 million people. Now even if you think that there may be a possibility, however unlikely, that a representative can actually represent half a million people, can anyone, in their right mind say that someone can accurately represent 35 millions?

What about a world government? Some people seem keen on that, how many representatives would we have to a world Congress or Parliament or Assembly or whatever it might be called? One thousand? That would mean each representative would represent about seven million people, so we could increase the representatives to ten thousand, then what? Well we could all be represented, but how efficient would such an assembly be? Could there be a possibility of companies, pressure groups and others buying votes? Could it mean an ineffectual, pointless debating chamber that would quickly be overtaken in importance by the bureaucracy?

The European Union is an attempt to make things big, about 400 million people jammed together to form one state, well they are trying. The European Parliament is famous for its irrelevance, there are 736 MEPs(Members of the European Parliament) and there will be 750 MEPs at the next European elections, due to the expanding EU. Britain has 73 MEPs, Germany 99, Malta 5, France 74, Ireland 13.

Now, if for some reason, every MEP from Ireland, Malta and Britain voted against something which they believed would be harmful to them, say, banning English, they would be outvoted and their votes would mean nothing. In a world parliament, if every white nation joined together to prevent, lets say, compulsory compensation to third world states for colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, slavery and racism, what do you think the result would be?

Even democrats should be able to see this, democracy can’t, and won’t work as the state or nation becomes too large, the only form of government which works in a large nation or state is dictatorship, or at least authoritarian government. China is run by one party, Russia is a managed democracy, India is a corrupt democracy, Brazil is another corrupt democracy.

These places work, after a fashion, but they are not in any sense ‘democratic’ and nor should they be, democracy would cause chaos and lead to wholesale looting of one group or region, to placate the violent anger of another.

America is the odd one out, it resembles a managed democracy at the federal level, but at the local level can actually be very free, towns, townships and counties which are rural and white tend to be ably governed, even small states like Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota and other mid western and Rocky Mountain states seem to get along fine. It is when we look at the large states where problems arise, California, New York, Florida and Texas. Texas seems well run(I’m an outsider) but the diversity being allowed will kill that place too.

Small polities on the other hand seem more likely to be wealthier, healthier, happier and freer than the teeming empires of diversity and crime.

The first examples are the ones above, the small American states, they are reputedly some of the best places to live in the world. And then we have some small places in Europe;

The bailiwick of Sark, is about two square miles, it has its own government, and is very lightly taxed, no diversity(I’m sure someone will try to cure that soon), a pleasant landscape, and plenty of sea views. No poverty, no crime and no cars! only 600 people live here and their parliament, the Chief Pleas, has thirty members, meaning each person, not voter, each man woman and child has one member for every twenty of them. Now, is it possible to get to know your twenty electors? I think there is, and if three or four tell you how strongly they feel about something, do you think the representative will take notice?


The other Channel Islands are also small, rich, happy and free, Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney all have their own assemblies, elected by a few thousand people, who know each other and so can actually have an effect on their votes, and who can call them afterwards to have a cross word if necessary. None of them are in the EU, all have low taxes and good public services.

The Isle of Man is another good example of a successful small country, although it has a somewhat larger population then Sark, at 85,000 and is about 500 square miles. But it is small enough to be run well, for its own people. It has, the Manx say, the oldest parliament in the world, the Tynwald, which has 24 members, meaning that they represent about 3,500 people apiece. A massive electorate when compared to their Sark counterparts, but still a wee bit less than the half million that each American representative has. It still seems likely that each member of the House of Keys(the lower house in the Tynwald) will know a good part of his electorate, or at least be available to all of them, if they so wish. Man is rich, lightly taxed and again not in the EU. They also have a wonderful custom, where each year on Tynwald Day, they read aloud all the laws passed by their assembly over the last twelve months, in English and Manx. I imagine this may give the members pause for thought when a long and boring piece of legislation is passed, knowing they will have to stand at Tynwald hill and listen to it being read out out twice!

A Part of Man












Another interesting place is the Principality of Liechtenstein, it is a small place, that makes Switzerland look big. It is about 60 square miles and has 35,000 people. It is ruled by a prince whose family have held this fief for over 400 years, the people are rich and lightly taxed, the public services work, the streets are clean and it is not in the EU! Surprise surprise! This little place has had no experience of war since Napoleon and was the only place in Europe to give asylum to 500 Russian nationalists who fought against the Soviet Union in the Second World War, whilst larger more powerful states like the US and Britain happily handed over hundreds of thousands of poor souls who disappeared in Siberia.












San Marino, the worlds oldest republic, is a tiny little place in Italy with only 24,000 people, it is independent, and has been since St Marius established his monastery on Mont Titano in 301AD, it is not part of the EU, is rich, happy and free. It has no national debt, unlike neighbouring Italy, and has no ‘diversity’ to talk of. It is lightly taxed and has a constitution that can be traced back over 400 years.

San Marino

We have all heard of Monaco, another rich, free place ruled by a prince, and Andorra? A Co-Principality between Spain and France, which is also rich and free.

Gibraltar, a British colony on the south Spanish coast. Iceland a large country, but with a small population, only about 300,000. Luxembourg, the Faeroes and the Swiss Cantons, some of which are not much bigger than Liechtenstein.


All of these places have something in common, they are all small, all have small homogenous populations, all are wealthy, all have contented populations, all of them are well-governed and lightly taxed, all of them are free. Even the principalities, even here the people are freer then many of us who live in big ‘democratic’ states, which exposes the lie about monarchies being old-fashioned totalitarian states. Iceland was able to reject enslavement to the IMF due to its small size. A few thousand people converged on their parliament, which is about as big as a normal house, and threatened to burn it down if the parliament passed the act which would have enslaved them. This forced the government to put the issue to referendum which resulted in its rejection. Man, Sark, Alderney, Jersey and Guernsey are not completely independent, but this means very little in any real sense, they rule themselves for the most part, foreign policy and coinage being the only things they don’t have, and for small places like this, foreign policy doesn’t really mean all that much anyway. Politics in these places is extremely local, people don’t go into politics to make their fortune, or to lord it over anyone else, as who would be impressed that you are a member of the Chief Pleas or Colonial Assembly of Gibraltar?(Well I would, I would be fascinated) People don’t go into these assemblies to conquer the world, or change the world, only to have a say in how the local school is run, or to oppose licence changes for pubs, or to campaign for a road to be repaved. these are boring, irrelevant things to the entire world, except for the tiny corner where it does matter. In short, those who lust after power, leave these places for pastures new, leaving these little pieces of well-governed earth, to remain the same. Perhaps the most tory of places?

So what am I saying? Well, small government is good government. And perhaps if we are to focus on politics, we should focus on the small? Although I despise ‘democracy’ as a sham, as it is in large states like Britain and America, on a small, local scale, representative government, as opposed to democracy is a good thing. If you could go and get yourself elected to a parish council, or a town council, you could have an effect. You could oppose foolish spending, you could oppose some silly declaration or propose a good and worthwhile thing. Immigration can’t be stopped at the national level yet, perhaps we could make illegal immigrants uncomfortable at the local level by denying a business licence, you don’t have to say why, or you could oppose it on environmental grounds!

I have read that the future will be one of small states, city states and the like, I don’t know if it is true, but I do think it would be a good thing. The large, centralised, bureaucratic states of the last century are failing. They have lost their legitimacy and are about to go bust, they no longer look out for their people, they only look out for their own financial futures. Too many in government, such as that worm Tony Blair and Nickolas Sarkozy, used the power of their states to wage cowardly wars against third world nations, partly, I’m sure because it massaged their egos. A Tony Blair as a member of the Chief Pleas or House of Keys would be of no danger to the world, or even to a country, even if he managed to convince the assembly to import millions of immigrants, the other parts of the country would be ok.

So let us get elected to our small local councils, lets start positioning ourselves to be the leaders of  the remnants of these failed nation-states, I predict that this is where and how we begin to take back what has been so unjustly taken from us and ours.

The Queens Visit

Last week Queen Elizabeth II made a state visit to the Republic or Ireland, a nation that her father was crowned king of in 1936 and one which has been claimed by all her predecessors since Henry VIII, and before that her predecessors were the ‘Lords of Ireland’ from the Norman times to the reformation.

Much has been said of the trip, about the history and the rights and wrongs, the thing I want to point out is that Ireland doing this is beginning to look grown up. From my childhood on, I remember the things said about England or Britain, people refused to use the geographic name Great, in the mistaken idea that it refered to cool or good instead of size. I recall the bare hatred, the nastiness, the small mindedness shown toward England and the English, it became embarrassing as I got older and started reading for myself, finding much of the claims made against the dastardly ‘English’ were just that claims, not facts.

Throughout most of Irish history, our fellow Irish have been our worst enemies, it was an Irishman who first invited the Normans to Ireland, offered his daughter in marriage and his kingdom to a Norman earl, all because he wanted to beat some rival king in some petty war. It was Irishmen who fought on each side in each conflict betraying one another at pivotal points in history or running away to France or Rome to retire to the good life instead of sticking it out in Ireland with their people, and we wonder why Ireland did not produce an independent king?

Yes the English ‘fecked up’ as we say out here, but the truth is the Irish are an exasperating people, one that drive sane men mad and merciful men to massacre.

And please don’t believe every sordid tale written by frothing at the mouth ‘Irish-Americans’, they have some serious problems.

But I digress, the whole state visit was quite amazing, it was as if Ireland suddenly decided to act like a grown up, it became an ongoing national event, blanket TV coverage, state banquets, tens of thousands lining the routes taken and then after it was done we suddenly realise the Queen has been and gone and except for a few predictable protests, nothing went wrong.


The Royal Wedding

I must admit I wasnt terribly interested in the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, it seemed overdone, overhyped and from what people had told me, no one was interested. One acquaintance told me she would rather watch paint dry!

Well, on the day I was up and so I thought I would give it a watch, to see how excruciating it would be, I didn’t really have much hope for Kate or William to have any taste, I assumed they would go for a ‘hip’ and ‘modern’ wedding! Well thank God they didn’t!

As it happens, the wedding was actually quite tastefully done, except for that dreadful modern hymn that the Dean of Westminster Abbey wrote for the occasion, but we can’t really blame the couple for that. Overall the ceremony was beautiful, it was good to hear references to ‘Christian marriage’, ‘Christian upbringing’ and ‘in fear of the Lord’, with no apologies. One hopes that the sodomite in chief, Elton John and his catamite felt a but uncomfortable at these words!

After watching the wedding I was doing my rounds of websites and blogs for the day and ended up reading some post of Fistful of Euros, the writer was scathing of the wedding and the very concept of monarchy, I could have read his post on the Guardian’s Comment is Free! Another anti-Europe blogger at EU Referendum was equally scathing, every sentence dripping in hate and loathing of the Windsors and monarchism.

I don’t really get them, I can understand not being too fond of the present Queen, she has stood by whilst the country was trashed and sold, but the idea that some president would be better, or that a series of presidents over the last sixty years would have opposed the trashing of the country seems fanciful, we don’t need to overthrow the monarchy, but Parliament. A king or queen could be a great unifying figure in any future British resistance, a monarch could lead the way to a renewed Britain, something no politician could do.

Well, after reading the above blogs, I decided to go out and have a look myself, I walked up toward Hyde Park and when there was in the midst of a great crowd, there were families having pick nicks, there were couples ridding bikes, there were people sunbathing in the warm evening, there were folk bands strumming ukuleles, fiddles and guitars. It was a scene I have rarely come across in London, it looked like England, granted there were Americans, Canadians, Australians, but most people were white, most people were British and everyone was beaming with happiness.

I then went on to the other side of Hyde Park toward Buckingham Palace, the crowds got thicker, more bands playing, more pick nicks on Green Park, young fellows playing rugby or football, children running about with balloons and flags, people drinking and having a very merry time of it, almost no blacks, no Somalians at all, which I thought strange, they usually love crowds like this where they can pickpocket and rob to their heart’s content, but no, no Somalians. There were a few Arabs, some Europeans, French and German, but contrary to the Fistful of Euros guy statement regarding the crowds being all tourists, well that just wasnt the case.

I ended up really enjoying yesterday, it shows the enduring power of monarchy, it is not necessarily rational, one can’t codify it or come up with a central unifying creed, but there is something that can affect people, for good, as in this case, or bad, as in the case if the death of Diana. It is something closer to magic, and it is something I prefer to all the self-righteous philosophical poseurs who insist they know better.

Yesterday was good, but I suppose it was also in some ways a denial of where we are now at, the England I saw yesterday was how England should look, it should be filled with references to Christ, it should be about respectful ritual, of love of country and its past, of joyful families wondering central London without fear, of communities coming together to share food and drink.

In reality England is not the England of yesterday, it is the England of riots, of Pakis grooming and raping young white girls, it is about depravity of the worst kind, it is about contempt for Christ and our past, it is about overturning everything old and good and noble.

But for one day people could dream, for one day they could make belive that England is the England of period costume dramas, the England of their dreams.

Pointless Monarchy?

This is something I have been meditating on for quite a while,what is the point of a consitutional monarch?

If they are a ‘consitutional monarch’, what good can they do?

I know the arguments in favour, they deny the symbolic pinnacle of power and patronage to a politician, yes, but the reality is that the Prime Minister holds all that power and wields it eagerly.

There is the connection with the past, the sense of timelessness, yes, but, it looks more pathetic and tenuous to me all the time.

If by consitutional one means there are laws, traditions and balances to the power of a monarch, then I would agree that all Christian monarchs have been ‘consitiutional monarchs’, if on the other hand one means a powerless symbol, then I would have to say I would rather not be involved.

A monarch is a symbol, but they must always be more than that, if that is all they are, then we may as well have a president. Not that I’m saying we should get rid of monarchies, only that our monarchs need to rule as well as reign!

The idea that it is wrong to have a hereditary head of state because they are hereditary, is a shallow argument! I could say it is wrong to have lots of stupid and uninformed people chosing the head of state, I could say it is wrong that an assembly of 27 men can decide who is the new European Emperor! Hereditary leaders are not that uncommon in the history of men, and they are far from ‘wrong’ or ‘stupid’ as many meritorcrats would have us believe.

The fact that they tell us, teach us and brainwash us through the media every day of our lives, should tell us that they are probably wrong. Why do business men and politicians constantly go on about ‘equality’, ‘meriticracy’ and ‘democracy’? Because they control the system, they control who stands in elections, they control who chooses those who stand in the elections, they control the voting systems and who counts the votes and how they count the votes, they control which parties are allowed to exist, they control the media which portrays the contest as something other than irrelevant and they control the money.

A hereditary king who had the power to rule could be a liability to their power, a hereditary king would not have to owe anyone anything for getting into his position, he could decide to oppose certain money-making schemes, he could upset the way things were and if his people backed him, he could be more powerful then all the money men together. A real king, with real power is something they will not tolerate, that is why I want a real king with real power, not some powerless ‘consitutional monarch’!

The comment bellow was left on a Telegraph story about the Duke of Windsor’s apparent desire to return to his position after the war.

‘The present ‘monarch’ has singularly failed to protect the sovereignty of the British people against corrupt government. Some observers would conclude it has been by her deliberate choice.

She has done this since at least 1973, treaty-by-treaty. We are actually part of an end-game now, not some radical transformation.

There is no other single individual who has had better advice, nor greater responsibility. It has been her signature, and hers alone, which has ultimately denied us our nation. She knew, when she gave assent to the Treaty of Rome, what the ultimate outcome would be, because she was advised on the constitutional consequences. Now we have the ridiculous position that she is presently sovereign of thirty-odd nations, but not the one she lives in.

Given there have been so many European treaties since our accession to Rome, one must conclude that her culpability goes way beyond mere accident. In fact she is the only common factor in all of them, and ought by now to be a world expert on constitutional law, especially with respect to the EU!

It is deeply ironic, therefore, to read ‘royalists’ banging-on thoughtlessly about what great service she has done for the country in her reign. In reality, she has protected her family from the worst ravages of republicanism, in a Faustian contract that cannot last, and little else. The dynasty remains fabulously wealthy though, and even were her descendants to be exiled or deposed (as is likely, for the EU brooks no competition!), they will be well provided for.

For us, however, her once-loyal subjects, there is subsumation into a Fascist and totalitarian state, that will demonstrably stop at nothing to control all aspects of our lives. Our queen had OUR sovereignty in her protection, for her lifetime, for that was the contract between monarch and people, to which she agreed at the Abbey.

She gave it away so readily, to our certain enemies, as if it was a thing of no worth at all. It might have been a mistake, but, in all the years since, we have no hint she believes that, nor cares a whit.

Some would say it was the action of a ‘constitutional’ monarch, but to others, myself included, the right word begins with “T”, and has strong associations with Tyburn.

I no longer care who lives in Buck House. I do care however that my children are growing up in a police state, where their own country is no longer theirs and their ancient freedoms are taken from them.’

Although I am not a ‘republican’ in the Irish nationalist meaning of the word, I can still understand the commenters frustration with his Queen, for all the talking, she has not stood up for her country, and perhaps she can’t, but as some other commenters put it, what is the point if she is only window dressing? Why not go the whole hog and have some drab appointed politician or an elected politician? Why does the Queen not decide, no, I will not go along with this, I would rather lose my throne, which has now become something behind which the most repulsive radicals hide their evil deeds and expose them for what they are?

Is it not better to go out in a blaze of glory, rather than being stained with the same treason that is being committed against her people, by her politicians? Is it not better to be remebered for taking a stand and perhaps in the long term ensuring the survival of her house?

It is strange, but if there is upheaval in the years to come, Britain may end up a republic, not because they hate the idea of a monarch, but because the present queen was too good at being a ‘constitutional monarch’.

Sometimes one needs to take a risk, sometimes it is good to remain quiet, This is not the time to be quiet, if Queen Elizabeth II wants her house to continue, now may be the time to abdicate and allow someone who is not affraid to make his oppinions known, to succeed her to the crown, The Prince Charles!

A King for Georgia?

Gerald Warner in the Telegraph suggests that a restoration of their ancient monarchy may be the way to definitively show their separateness from Russia, seems not a bad idea to me, especially if it means the ousting of that oaf Saakashvilli!

Mr Warner seems to be thinking of a King Juan Carlos situation, myself, I would hope any restoration of monarchy would be a genuine restoration of political power and influence to a king, not some excuse for glorified tourist tat!

The Catholicos of the Georgian Church, Ilia II has suggested a restoration of the monarchy, causing debate among the various parties in the Georgian Parliament.

The problem with most ‘Constitutional Monarchs’, is that they are in fact, not very ‘constitutional’ at all, they are absent monarchs or plastic monarchs. Kings and queens without power sidelined by bitter republicans who resent the symbolism they represent. Too many monarchs are imprisoned, imprisoned at the politicians pleasure, with the Sword of Damocles hanging over them, the slime ball politicos ready and waiting for an excuse to abolish that monarchy.

What I would like to see, is a King of Georgia with powers similar to those the Princes of Monaco and Lichtenstein wield, that to me is a proper constitutional monarchy, one where the monarch works as part of the constitution, not as a fancy decoration.

I hope that Georgia can use this defeat to right itself, to restore it’s rightful king and depose that American stooge Saakashvilli, then perhaps it can seek friendship with Holy Mother Russia and the wounds opened over the past few decades and the war fought over the last fortnight can be consigned to memory.

Europe News

Jamestown Foundation