www.integralistparty.

org

Issue No~4 16th July 2010

The cultural Journal of the Integralist movement brought to you by the staff of the New Britain Foundation
2
3
 Board of political theory
4
Part two
Codex Fascismo By Uncle Garibaldi
To my dear brothers and sisters there in beloved England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland,
greetings from the land of the (once free)! Here I will continue with the edicts of the
'Codex Fascismo".

46. Fascists proclaim a new era; a Fascist century; a

new civilization; a revolution of man, a 'total' revolution;
a spiritual revolution; a revolution of morals; a
revolution of souls. Fascism is a fundamental conception
of life, a total conception of national, political, economic,
and social life.

47. Fascism calls itself "totalitarian" because it

encompasses the whole range of human activity. It is
totalitarian because it represents a way of life that
penetrates every sector of social and intellectual activity;
because it means to create at once a new type of society
and a new hope of man.

48. Fascism is a movement of revolt which draws its

dynamism from its disruptive power, its total rejection of
bourgeois society with its political social structures and
morals.

49. Fascism is a reaction against the materialistic

positivism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
which it seeks to replace with a 'religious' and idealistic
manner of looking at life. It refuses to accept the
materialistic interpretation of history. Fascism denies
the equation: 'well being’ = ‘happiness’, which sees in
man mere animals content when they can feed and fatten,
reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple.

50. We stand for a new principle in the world; we stand

for sheer categorical definitive antithesis to the world of
'democracy'. We would rather "blow everything up"
than to start out on life on 'filthy paths'.

51. Fascism is a revolt against decadence; against a system whose morals are in decay, whose faith is debased, which is sick to the
teeth of individualism, fanaticism and arrogance.

52. The true revolution is the one that overhauls not the engine of the state, but the secret life of each soul.

53. Within Fascism is the ethic of duty, sacrifice, and the heroic virtues; life means duty, elevation, conquest; it is serious, austere,
and religious; we represent fearlessness, initiative, self sacrifice, and discipline; life for us is a continuous ceaseless fight.

54. Our creed is a doctrine which is not merely political; it is evidence of a fighting spirit which accepts all risks.

55. Fascism means strength, willingness to serve, obedience, authority, self denial; living dangerously a great and hazardous
adventure: adventure for adventure's sake. We go for all or nothing.

56. Fascism is meant for changing man; is against the enormous cities and the great centres of industry; to reconcile man with
nature. We want to alter man's environment and create for him a setting where he can lead a new life. We are a kink of counter-
revolution against the industrial revolution which has uprooted man from the open country and cooped him up in the city, the
urban hovel and the taverns (public houses). To safeguard mans virtues and his natural environment.

57. Fascism was the first environmentalist movement of the 20th Century. This being currently so, combining the pursuit of
technical progress and industrial growth with the protection of nature as the environment in which a civilization of leisure and sport
may flourish.

58. We are the party of speed; power, speed, vigour, toughness, solidity, and effectiveness which are the essential Fascist qualities.

59. We are the bearers of a special mission, to refashion society as a fighting unit giving it a spirit of brotherhood, comradery, and
action.
 5

60. Fascist ideology is born of a political tradition that considers the individual as a function of group life.

61. The human individual is not an atom; immanent in the concept of an individual is the concept of society; man is, in an absolute
sense, a political animal: the individual does not exist in the 'pure state'. Man is an integral part of an organic 'whole', this being the
basis of Fascism's political philosophy.

62. Fascism has the conception of society which accords moral privilege to the collectivity, its traditions, and particularly, its
juridical embodiment in the Fascist State. Insofar as man is outside of the organization of society, with its system of reciprocal rules
and obligations, he has no significant freedom. Outside of society man would be the subject of nature and not its master. He would
be enemy of all, friend to none; man as a spiritual agent is essentially a "social animal" who finds freedom only in a rule governed
association with other men; man has existence only insofar as he is sustained and determined by the community.

63. Fascism is opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on 18th. Century materialism; man commences his rational and
moral life as the denizen of a specific historical community.

64. The Fascist life stresses the importance of the state and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of
the state which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as an historic entity; Fascism reasserts he rights of the state
as expressing the real essence of the individual.

65. Identification of the individual with the collective will is the cornerstone of Fascist social and political thought.

66. Fascism is a people acting organically on both the social and political planes; nations and societies are living totalities which are
an end in themselves having distinct hierarchy and articulation.

67. These 'totalities' came before and also transcended their parts, these "parts" being the individual and secondary groups.

68. "Individuals for society!" For Fascism, society is the end; to be really free is to be part of a strong and independent society.

69. Fascism extols the virtues of the group, of the collectivity, of

the national community producing a new conception of a living
community, where abstract 'brotherhood' is replaced by a
relationship of the blood. Fascism creates the 'total' man in a total
society, with no clashes, no prostration, and no anarchy.

70. Fascism is a vision for a coherent and reunited people.

"Fascism is an adventure, an adventure one lives with all their
being." R. B.

71. Fascism rejects industrial society along with bourgeois values.

72. Fascist ideology takes on the form of an anti-intellectual pro-

action pitting emotion and the power of feeling, and irrational
forces of every kind, against the strength of democracy. It is
rediscovery of instinct, physical strength, vitality, brutality.

73. Fascism is as much a moral and aesthetic system as it is a

political philosophy; it constitutes a complete vision of man and the
community. Its aims are to create a world free from doubt and
purged of all foreign accretions; to give back to man authenticity
and the community, and to establish unity of the nation.

72. Fascist ideology takes on the form of an

anti-intellectual pro-action pitting emotion and
the power of feeling, and irrational forces of
every kind, against the strength of democracy. It
is rediscovery of instinct, physical strength,
vitality, brutality.

73. Fascism is as much a moral and aesthetic

system as it is a political philosophy; it
constitutes a complete vision of man and the
community. Its aims are to create a world free
from doubt and purged of all foreign accretions;
to give back to man authenticity and the
community, and to establish unity of the nation.
 6

74. A member of the national community, being of one body with it and existing through it alone, man then react as one man
responding identically to any and all projects.

75. Fascism represents a desire to transcend the banality of the bourgeois world, the materialism of industrial society, and the
platitude of liberal democracy.

76. A systematic corporative organization of society will allow for the peaceful resolution of conflict; will monopolize the appeal of
corporativism i.e. Autonomous grouping and virtue of interests coming from practice of trades or professions.

77. We do no believe in a blind fate which leads men on their life's work. We believe, however, in a heavenly will which has given
the spirit to every life which is born; not just any ordinary spirit, but to each life its own special purpose and soul.

78. We perceive if our actions are right or wrong through what is called 'conscience'; we ask, then a voice within us answers and
speaks of the heavenly will which knows the way in which we should go.

79. Every other way leading away from the spirit and the goal of life is death and sin. If we seek only pleasurable paths life becomes
loaded with shame with each passing moment,

80. All things are compressed into the vast world plan in which we take part; in everyone lives the joy of creation because this
belongs to the constructive peoples in their work.

81. So, every being works and creates in body and spirit within the great world plan. In creation we overcome death; your "fate" is
the way that is shown to you, your "free will" decides whether you go with it and whether you complete your task.

82. Birth and death are one.

83. A man shall be valued for what he is and not what his father was.
7
 Department of politics
8

Crush the weakness

By Benjamin Noyles
I am going to talk about something important,
and again as in previous essays, it will concern
the disastrous state of could be called the
contemporary far right and what is wrong with it.
This is also in part a response to the confusion
regarding some of the content of these journals
and the way they have been misinterpreted. This
time, I want to get to the root of the problem and
that I believe it lies with a mentality of cultural
pessimism characterised by an ego driven sense
of seriousness and intellectual narrowness that
dominates our politics. This mental deficiency in
our leadership has become endemic in our
movement and in time I will expand on this to
explain what I mean, I will also offer my own
views on how we may go about purging this
insidious retardation from our ranks.

This problem has historically been with us since

the end of the war, due to the immediate hostility
to our ideas in the aftermath of that conflict the
prevailing thought was we had to become
pragmatists, start taking ourselves seriously,
become professional, clean up, and sincerely
attempt at reasoning with our opponents. Sir
Oswald Mosley, always a man who was in touch
with his time, attempted this in the post war
period and performed admirably, but what
happened to him? He was silenced, shut up,
barred, blackballed, blacklisted and in debate was
met with hostility hatred and prejudice, and that
was then! Today however even those
conversations would be impossible and Sir
Oswald would not even be given a platform on
which to be attacked.

Just examine the ‘far-right’ as a movement today
and we can see that it is as lifeless as its
opposition. We have lost our vitality, just ask
yourself how many young people are in involved
in the movement? There are some, but there is
nothing identifiable about them, there is no ‘youth
movement’ as such. How many such youths have
come to incarnate the movement as ideologues
who are of at least some renown? I can think of
one, maybe two names, which proves my point,
we are out of touch, we have lost, no, Forsaken
our revolutionary appeal. For any revolutionary
movement this is bad. We have become so
obsessed with taking ourselves so seriously and
being so correct that we are becoming isolated.
Our revolution is dead because the far right has
become dull, boring, stuffy, uptight, out of touch,
and lacking in vision. We have an image problem.
People will do their best to hide an association
with our movement in public; People minimise
our ugly looking web pages, cover up our cheap
looking books, do not feel comfortable speaking
under our banners or marching together with us in
the streets, all if they think that somebody might
be watching them. The reason for all that nonsense
is this negative association, it is not cowardice it is
biological. Nobody wants to be part of a group in
a society that has a low social status, it creates
feelings of depression and despair which is
actually primed to make one physically ill.
The lost youth are not to blame, it is this
movement that have lost its stomach. We have
lost touch with our people, I am surprised we
even have people at all! Their motivation is
always entirely their own in a selfless relationship
of all give and no take. The emphasis in our
messages always on duty ‘you have to do this!
you have to do that! clean up! get fit! give us
money! save western civilization! ect’, without
providing anything at all resembling motivation
or reminding us what we are actually supposed to
be fighting for. Besides, who wants to be around
people who are always moaning and
complaining? Nobody. This is not how to win
support.
An increasing trend I have noticed is that we are
becoming ever increasingly a movement of
depression and despair, almost to the point of
masochism; so called ‘realistic thinking’ dictates
the more one thinks objectively, the more one
arrives at the conclusion ‘what hope is there?’
‘our enemies are so powerful, they have
everything, they control everything and we have
noting. We are hated, hunted, despised, without
hope’. All the plans I am hearing nowadays from
everybody start where they hypothetically end; at
the point of an imagined world economic crisis,
social collapse and balkanisation, a militarist
coup, or a spontaneous out of the blue march on
Rome, in other words, bullshit and pipedreams.
These people don’t have a plan, they have a
fantasy (and a reason to sit on their hands until
the ‘apocalypse’).
I will tell you what I think, and I am going to
come right out and say it. Not only does this
attitude perpetuate a self fulfilling prophecy by
morally legitimising inaction, it is a negation of
our duty. Regardless of what the truth is we
have first and foremost, a duty to exist, to stand
for something better, no matter what the odds
are against us. How can you ever hope to have a
remit for change when you cannot even stand
for the possibility of it? We can debate the
specifics of what is realistic and possible, but it
is no co-incidence that such people with
pretentions of being part of the movement
choose the path of least work.
It is the application of seriousness and effort in
the service of pure egoism as a way of making
themselves look busy when they are in fact
achieving nothing.
This is one of the major contributing reasons
why we have become obsessed with superficial
labels these days, a narrowness I might add that
has crippled the movement with division.
Because we are nowhere everyone thinks they
have the answer, and because politics is such
‘serious business’ these days and we are dealing

With the egos of middle aged men and keyboard
commandos who style themselves as stalwart
ambassadors of a creed, we are faced with a
situation where people who believe in the same
thing fight ferociously with each other over the
smallest of issues. Affix ‘national’, ‘revolutionary’,
‘fascist’, ‘christian’, ‘pagan’ with ‘anarchist’,
‘socialist’, ‘conservative’, ‘syndicalist’,
‘monarchist’, ‘libertarian’ and so on ,and so on. Put
all of these in any combination. In reality these
linguistic terms are meaningless because they live
in a world without context to define them which is
the other contributing cause, we cannot agree on
anything because we lack a basis of authority on
any matter; words attain significance through
practice (And nobody these days seems to practice
what they preach) so they all exist in their own little
universe.
Ultimately the linguistics do not matter outside
aesthetics, the important thing is the worldview,
one which all national dispensations share. I will
say it again; we all believe in the same thing, the
things that matter. Are we not fighting for the same
fundamentals? Structure within a society, Social
ethics based on what is natural, preservation of
history and heritage, hierarchy and identity within a
nationhood, A vitalist and revivalist national
revolution to save our peoples and nations? We all
share the same ideological forefathers, are moved
by the same things, want the same thing? Again we
are faced with a situation where this approach of
seriousness has clouded our judgment, and
prevented one seeing the forest thought the trees so
to speak, they argue and bicker with each other
because on this question they are all wrong, none of
them have the answer. What we must recognise is
we are all part of one movement, one idea, one
purpose, that is the first thing, it is a question of
how we all move together, and here is where we
cannot afford to screw up any more. The petty
politics are tiny political issues of a purely
superficial and regime phase significance, until then
we are all part of the national revolution
This pessimistic thinking and uptight masochism
that continues to dominate our approach to politics
must stop. The prevailing thought in the leadership
of far right today is that if we are to enter public
discourse in any serious way we must start living
up to the conventions and standards of what is
considered acceptable, conventions which I might
add are dictated by liberal society. We are led by so
called ‘soft nationalists’ who operate the
assumption that we are seen as irredeemably evil
and so must engage in deception, arguing our points
by reproach. The reproach tactic means they argue
through liberal reasoning, use liberal terms of
reference, and are plastered so thickly behind coats
of anonymity, self reassuring party points, and
conservative imagery that they hide what they are,
to the extent it becomes something else, a confused
mess.
This means that in the context of a debate,
whenever the opposition puts an emotionally and
politically loaded question to our defendant, they
raise the white flag and plead their innocence of all
charges against them and denounce them in an
attempt to ‘out liberal’ the liberals. Increasingly
often this comes in the form of seeking punishment
and therefore claiming status through their
victimhood. This is supposed to be the sensible
approach we are all supposed to follow. When I
watch contemporary so called ‘nationalists’ enter a
debate, it is always a painful and embarrassing sight
in which there is allot of hot under the collar
squirming on behalf of the potato sack that has been
dragged out, and much indignation and rage from
the hungry enemy.
“Inactivity is death”
- Benito
Mussolini
It is clear that this is not a sensible approach, this is
an incredibly uninspiring and indicative of a wider
problem. It is this Inability to perform politically
because we have allowed ourselves to be so
controlled by our fear and negative thinking which
is the reason we are in a cultural desert. It is a
vicious circle and it has to end! It is a failed,
damaging, and ultimately counterproductive tactic.
You cannot hide what you are from a liberal, they
know damn well that you are not one of them.
They are academically trained in the art of
deconstruction and seeing bigotry everywhere,
they spot every tendency they think leads to the
gates of you know what, they will pin you down
like hawks. They also know what buttons to push
to make one squirm, and without really doing
anything reveal the deceiver for what he is. A liar.
Any squirming, which is inevitable when the
enemy makes you run great acrobatic rings to
maintain a facade, amounts to an admission of
guilt. Always if one has something to hide the
worst is always assumed (for one the view of the
liberal is proved case and point) and one has
nothing to defend oneself against because you have
demonstrated that you are dishonest and
uncomfortable with your own ideas.
The reverse of this is that very McCarthyism has
filtered down into our own ranks in a form of
internal self criticism and ideological suppression.
This is what the liberals want us to do, to break
ourselves down to be ashamed of ourselves, to
police our own; it proves they are right and we are
wrong. They are wrong! The greatest weaponry in
the arsenal of the liberals is ultimately not the
conventions of modern society that are so poised
against us but our own blind acceptance of them.
We are working against a system that rests on a
moral dualism whereby the thinking of the current
clericy is aligned with a moral good, while our
trajectory of thought is considered to be moral evil.
In my view the way to deal with it is to attack the
legitimacy of those moral foundations and
invalidate them. What do I mean by that? I mean if
somebody puts a pejorative word to us, we do the
exact opposite of what we are ‘expected’ to do and
take them up on it, turn it, use it as a weapon
against them. If you mock or attack this moral
dualism the propagandistic effect is lost and the
playing field it put back on equal terms. This is an
offensive struggle! After all what do we have
really have to defend? We are nowhere, we are
starting from scratch, the only thing being
defended are these delusions of integrity which is
the very thing that has been holding us back.
Indeed if we were really fighting a defensive war,
then it was lost a long time ago, there is not really
much left in this society to defend, it is rotten,
broken, diseased. We are revolutionaries
celebrating for the birth of a new golden age! We
need to and stop apologising and making excuses
for ourselves. We are men of action, we are not
afraid, we must be honest and true to ourselves as
well as to the cause, and we must have no regrets.
We should not fear being marginalised, we will
always be marginalised, and it is part of our appeal.
9
We cannot ask to be accepted, so we will make
ourselves accepted. By taking a relaxed attitude
towards our politics we can start to normalise it.
I am providing a positive role model by
deliberately setting out to crush this culture of
wetness that pervades our society. When for
instance in last issue I produced a poster who
whose punch line was “we will swing you by the
neck” I was promoting a way of thinking. It is
open season on the system and we will treat it
with as much respect as it deserves (and would
give us). Our social engineering programmes do
not start when we get to office they start here
and now. The cultural Marxists fear us so
because deep down they know that we can attack
them with a far greater ferociously (morally and
culturally speaking) than they can attack us
which is why they have done everything to
suppress it. In retrospect the gestures of their
cultural revolution which ruined a world seem
rather pathetic, and if not now, will do in
comparison to what we will achieve. The
offensive is a lost art that must be re-learnt.
It is a travesty that the great legacy of our
movement which was once so feared and
respected is being disgraced daily by a
contemporary leadership which does it no
justice. We must make ourselves worthy of our
past by having our own great movement, it is
time.
We need to start working on our aestheticism, to
build a culture of our own that actually has
something to offer. If we want to be a successful,
vibrant, and popular movement then we need to
start offering more than negativity, masochism,
social ostracization, and prison terms, we can do
much better than that: What we offer is an
identity from which can be derived a sense of
pride, belonging, and moral certainty, to have
both a revived national identity and to be part of
a political movement with its own culture that is
vital, with comradeship in struggle, and a
coherent vision of the future to fight for. That is
something to start with. If you don’t like me or
what I am doing, that’s just fine, you can do your
own thing, but heed these warnings, don’t be a
hypocrite. The more we carry on the way we are,
the more useless becomes the movement, and the
time will soon come when we will not stand for
useless people. So the rest of you need to get
your act together otherwise you will be walking,
walking the fucking plank.
An agenda which is purely political is to miss the
point of what is happening and to ultimately fail.
In politics alone we are limited, incredibly so,
we must be rooted in something. If you are going
to engage in any type of politics there must exist
a precedent in society, and we must create it. We
seek to appeal to man’s carnal nature, to our
emotional needs, to awaken the European soul
we say don’t hold back! The insanity, the rage,
the will, the fury, let loose the beast! Europe, and
what it fundamentally means to be European is a
spiritual foundation, not a racial reality; Europe
will cease to exist not when Indo-Europeans
disappear, but when our European cultural
achievements and geographical beauty can no
longer inspire sentimentality or connect to
feelings of identity. The soul of Europe is
endlessly fascistic, and must be awakened.
 Department of politics
10

Cutting the knotted cords By Daniel Fisher

In the modern world, identity is everything.

Who you are, what you are, determines how
you act, how you think and how you buy. We
are slaves to our own self-image, and the past
50 years worth of socialist and capitalist
thought has lead us here.

Capitalism has always loved diversity.

Through it's very nature, it promotes, thrives
on division and difference. Before the 60s,
though, it was faced with a seemingly
impassable barrier; conservatism. Good old
traditional values promoted community and
enforced a rigid concept of culture.
Xenophobia prevented any significant
deviations from the norm. The capitalist is
often forced to sit with the conservatives and
negotiate a moderate market system, for fear
of a socialist movement gaining ground and
ruining their profits.

The 1960s, though, marked a change in the

nature of socialist thought. In reaction to the
rigid, hierarchical views of the increasingly
discredited Soviets, and (as ironically as we
will find out) the racial segregation and
continued stratification of conservative
western society, a new concept of
egalitarianism began to emerge; the
embracing of difference. Among the left of
the 20th century it gradually became
established that variety really was the spice of
life. Today it seems absurd and contradictory
almost that the left could have held 'intolerant'
views, but we should recall even in the 70s
the Cuban government had no problem
imprisoning homosexuals.
As far as the free-marketeers were concerned,
this was great news. The only problem was
the still-lurking threat of Communism that
cast a dark shadow over the hippy movement.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and
Russia's descent into crime and oligopoly, the
threat largely dissipated and consumerism
was finally free to sink its hands into
ideological glove-puppets of
multiculturalism, environmentalism, gender
politics, anti-racism, pacifism, anti-
imperialism, anarchism and every other brand
of non-conformism out there.
Through identity politics, companies and the
individuals behind them are able to separate
out entire new markets to sell products to.
Price discrimination allows a producer to sell
the same product to different people for
different prices. Every new division in society
creates another sales opportunity.
Multiculturalism is a godsend for the
capitalists! For each new holiday, each new
ritual, each new item of clothing, more profit!
Even ideas which are anti-consumerist
become tools of the consumerist machine.
Animal rights activist? Buy synthetic fur!
Vegetarian? Buy synthetic meat! Socialist?
Buy fair trade products! But don't you dare
try and tell anyone else what they should
spend their money on. In the post-modern
world, opinions are sacrosanct and holy. It is
no longer a case of rationality; emotional
responses are the primary determinant of your
world view.
The feel-good factor becomes the reasoning
behind any belief. Why? Because emotions
are much easier to influence through
commercial advertising than intellectual
viewpoints. Any serious discussion or
questioning of ideas would dangerously
threaten profits. And so it seems that the 21st
century is one in which the left and right
have joined forces in a sick charade of
collective self-indulgence. Protest
movements, political parties, charitable
causes exist for no other purpose than to
perpetuate themselves in order to sustain the
egos and consciences of their members.
Action becomes a fantasy and advancement
an impossibility. Unless we break out of our
manufactured mindsets, we will all soak in
the dirty bathwater of our stagnant society
until we leave behind nothing but a rotten
bloated lump of a corpse, a stain on the side
of the planet marking the spot where
civilisation once stood.

“The modern world is thus perceived first and foremost as distraction:

literally, it diverts man away from the essential and keeps him in a state of
a perpetual estrangement that prevents him from returning to and
regrounding himself authentically. We must search for sense in a world
which no longer seems to make sense. We have almost become incapable
of understanding even the meaning of the word, "sense." Guenon writes:
"If all men understood what the modern world truly is, it would cease to
exist." Nihilism is also put to the test.”
– Alain de Benoist
 Board of economics and industry
11

Some advanced thoughts on corporatism

By Knut Berg
During the last couple of
years, I have been thinking a
lot about the issues of
corporatism, and how
corporatism should be
organized. In Italy the full
corporative system was
implemented in the mid
1930s, after almost ten years
of a single-man dictatorship
under Benito Mussolini.
Mussolini ruled the country
okay, but I think that the
system of corporatism and
corporations should be
established as soon as a
fascist regime takes power.
Unlike the Italian fascists, the
British Union of Fascists
made a full corporative plan,
written down by Raven
Thompson in 1938. A
elaborate plan such as
Thompson's should in my
view by made by all fascist
parties, that way making
them ready to grab power and
put the expertise and
knowledge of the people to
good use as soon as possible.

A corporation is by definition put together by
four different groups of people, all working
within a industry. These are experts in the field,
workers, employers, and consumers. The
corporation will have 50-50 workers and
employers representation, one of each for every
profession within the corporation, and also one
of each for the really big companies in the field.
The expert-group will have sufficient people to
cover all the fields of knowledge needed within
the field of production, and the consumer-group
will have one for each main product bought. All
in all, this becomes a rather large group of
people, between 80 and 120 for each of the
twenty-two corporations as they were organized
in fascist Italy. Each of the corporations had a
two-week session in the house of corporations,
and during these weeks they fixed wages, some
prizes, as well as guided the planning of some
new construction-work.
Proposals could be made by majority veto, but
the ministers where ordered by Il Duce to
negotiate until consensus was made as often as
possible. Creating a consensus with such a huge
amount of people is not easy, but majority-veto
is problematic as well, keeping in mind such
problems as permanent-minorities and the fact
that all four groups are equally important. Also,
the time-limit created by making all the
corporations share the same meeting-hall is
problematic. Therefore, Thompson's idea of
spreading them out in the country is a good idea.
Not only will each corporation have its own
meeting-hall, but they can be placed within the
area where most of the industry is clustered, that
way drastically reducing traveling-time for the
majority of the representatives.
My suggestion is to make a rule where each
group within the corporation (consumers,
workers, employers, experts) must have a
majority-approval within their block, that way
making sure all four groups are happy with the
final bill proposed, even if the numbers of experts
and consumer-representation is way lower than
the numbers of workers and employers. The
minister in charge can choose to speak with some
of the groups separately during the development
of a proposal, and then gather everyone together
for final approval or rejection.
A typical policy-proposal will start as a general
idea of political direction made by the head of
state and the inner circle of ministers, and this
idea will then be channeled down to the
corporation involved for further adjustment. Such
an idea can be something like a gradual end of
subsidies to a industry, adjustments within the
field of wages or working-conditions, where to
place a new factory or other big installation
planned by one in the employers-group, or how
to make the country self-sufficient on certain
products to counter threats of trade-embargoes, or
high international prices. The minister in charge
can make no policy on his own without the
approval of the corporation, but on the other hand
the corporation cannot force through something
without the approval of the minister.
In Italy a new minister would have to be
approved by the corporation(s) he was in charge
of before being allowed to enter the position and
this is something that I think other corporative
systems should copy, probably by majority-vote
within each group of representation rather than a
just simple majority-vote of the whole body.
In order to coordinate the policies made up by
each corporation, the minister in charge should
bring the approved proposal back to the council
of ministers for final approval before the plan
can be implemented. If the plan is refused, then
the minister needs to go back to the corporation
to re-adjust it in compliance with the directions
given by the other ministers and the head of
state. It goes without saying that each member
of the corporation is elected in by the union or
organization he or she represents. The workers
come from the labor-unions or syndicates, one
for each profession, and the same goes for the
employers - one for each employer-
organization.
The experts are elected in by the other people
within that field of expertise ; for example
during an annual conference - and the
consumers come from consumer-organizations.
In order to make the system work, some
completely new organizations might have to be
created for the sole purpose of corporative
representation, and the big union-blocs both
within the field of workers and capital must be
split up, as they don't fit in. The new system
will mean that strikes and lock-out can be
banned, since the majority of the workers have
agreed on the policy, income-levels and
working-conditions within the corporation.
In Italy all representatives within the
corporations had to be approved by the ministry
of corporations before being allowed to
represent the others in the corporation, and this
ministry often blocked representatives that
where suspected of involvement in illegal
political groups.

If a representative was blocked, then the union or
organization that had elected him had to choose
another representative. This system could be
adopted if the country is endangered by
communism or socialism, but if not it would be
better to let the system work without such
obstacles.
One thing that I think corporatism can be
especially good at is directing polluting
industries in a more environmentally sound
direction. Among the expert-group within
corporations that guide heavy industry,
environmentalists should also be present. An
environmentalist organization capable of
supplying all the industrial corporations with the
correct expertise should be formed.
Such expertise should also have seats within the
corporation of infrastructure, where it can help
guide the planning and implementation of
gradually improved public transport. Through
corporatism, capitalism can be planned and
guided towards a society that is both energy-
efficient and ecologically sustainable. The fascist
state should move towards the gradual
abolishment of personal cars, as they are energy-
inefficient as well as being a major contributor to
CO2-emissions.
Experts on our ecological systems are also crucial
to corporations dealing with the extraction of
natural resources such as mining, fishing, or
farming. Setting up fishing-quotas is impossible
without such expert, as is limiting the usage of
pesticides or artificial fertilizers within the
farming industry. Since the fish, plant life, wild
animals and farm-animals are incapable of
representing themselves, experts and special
interest-groups must defend their interests within
the corporative system.
Both the Mussolinian 22-corporation system and
the BUF proposal of 25 corporations, as well as
the slowly evolved system of 11 corporations
developed during the Salazar-government was
limited to fields of production. My proposal is to
also expand corporatism to things like foreign
policy and taxation.
A tax-corporation should be headed by the
minister of finance, and be equipped with experts
in macro and micro-economics, as well as one
representative for each level of income – let’s say
you classify the population into five income-
levels. A corporation for foreign policy should be
made up by each chief-general for the three major
weapons-branches, as well as a representative for
the ambassadors on the employers-side.
12
The worker- representatives will come from the
unions of soldiers and embassy-workers,
accompanied by one expert for each continent.
Consumer-interest in the field of foreign policy
might for example be interest-groups within
trade and tourism, but these details will work
themselves out as various interest-groups apply
for entry into a corporation through the ministry
of corporations. I believe that a corporative
system will start out with a relatively small
number of organizations represented, and then
gradually expand as more interest-groups apply
for a seat.
The ministry of corporations must have in mind
that all professions within a field, all important
forms of expertise needed, and companies so
big that they are a important cornerstone in the
national economy must be represented. Here,
specific standards can be set for the number of
people it needs to employ before it is allowed
special representation. The corporations should
have a limit to the number of people it can have
aboard, perhaps something like 120. When not
gathered for sessions, the representatives of the
corporations will work within the field they
represent.
13
14
 Department of Social and Biological research
Eugenics
and Race
Part 3
By
Michael B
Maclean
“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool.” - The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defences, p. 60
In the United States experimentation with
genetics as a tool for social change is not new.
In the 1920s the United States became the
world centre of eugenic activity and social
policy. From 1907-1960 more than 100,000
Americans were involved in various eugenics
programs in more than 30 states. In the 1930s
and 1940s German scientists took eugenics to
new heights with large-scale sterilisation and
euthanasia programs for the mentally and
physically disabled.
Both the American and German eugenics
movements of the 1920s and 30s identified
human beings as either hereditarily valuable or
inferior. They established programs for what
they thought would help society by purify the
"nation" of "lower grade" and "degenerate"
groups, these groups also including members
of there own race, male and female nobody
was exempt, eugenics was not only targeting
minorities and women as some would have
you believe.
After Hitler’s defeat, the American eugenics
movement fell into disrepute, appealing
primarily to the KKK, neo-National Socialists
and small groups of old-line scientists steeped
in the older theories of the pre-war period. In
the 1960s their key spokesman was Stanford
physicist William Shockley, who was the first
to suggest offering cash incentives to people
with low IQ scores (which was not a bad idea)
who would agree to sterilisation. He called his
proposal the "voluntary sterilisation bonus
plan." Despite his status as a Noble laureate,
Professor Shockley was widely regarded as a
racialist and a kook within the academic
community. Nevertheless, he laid the
foundation upon which the new eugenics
movement would eventually be resurrected. In
1974, Federal District Court Judge Gerhard
Gesell estimated that "over the last few years"
between 100,000 and 150,000 low-income
persons were sterilised under federally funded
programs. Ruling on behalf of plaintiffs in a
class action suit, Judge Gesell stated that "an
indefinite number" of those sterilised were
"improperly coerced" into accepting
sterilisation. Judge Gesell observed that "the
dividing line between family planning and
eugenics was sometimes a grey area" (Relf v.
Weinberger et. al. U.S. District Court of D.C.,
March 15, 1974).
Today those who advocate eugenics have
access to far more sophisticated technologies
than those of their pre-war predecessors. For
example, Norplant, a drug approved by the
FDA in 1990, provides an alternative to
permanent sterilisation for women by
preventing pregnancy for up to five years. A
popular proposal to reduce the birth rate
among welfare recipients and unwed teens is to
induce them, through monetary incentives of
the threat of a loss of benefits, to have
Norplant surgically implanted in their upper
arm. In 1991, Kansas representative Kerry
Patrick defended a proposal to offer $500 to
any welfare mother who accepted Norplant,
saying the program "has the potential to save
the taxpayers millions of their hard-earned
dollars. Something must be done to reduce the
number of unwanted pregnancies..." (The New
York Times, Feb. 9, 1991).
15
In 1994, legislators in Connecticut and
Florida introduced bills that would provide
cash bonuses for welfare recipients who
accepted Norplant. Florida and Colorado
have introduced incentive programs for men
to accept sterilisation. The Florida bill would
offer $400 to men living below the poverty
line for undergoing a vasectomy; the
Colorado bill would allow criminals early
release. While none of these bills has yet
become law, the momentum for eugenic
solutions is growing. If current trends
continue, we can expect to see such
sterilisation programs gain legal sanction
across America.
Eugenics is unfortunately today commonly
associated with the National Socialist racial
hygiene program that began in 1933 and
ended in May 1945, with Germany's defeat
near the end of World War II. Although the
German eugenics movement existed long
before the National Socialists came to
power, scholars have shown that National
Socialist eugenicists were inspired by
American eugenic studies and sterilisation,
as well as their anti-miscegenation and
immigration restriction laws.
Goddard's Kallikak study was well respected
among German eugenicists who like
American eugenicists, emphasised genetics
as the basis of human differences. German
racial hygienists also praised the American
eugenicist Madison Grant's book, The
Passing of the Great Race, which Adolf
Hitler referred to as his "Bible," and even
wrote a fan letter.

The 1933 National Socialist "Law for the
Prevention of Genetically Diseased Progeny,"
relied on American examples, especially the
model law drafted by American eugenicist
Harry Hamilton Laughlin. In 1936 the
University of Heidelberg awarded Laughlin an
honorary degree for his contributions to
"genetic hygiene." Laughlin's degree was
ordered and signed by Hitler.
The National Socialists instituted state-
supported positive eugenics programs that
encouraged physically and mentally fit
women to reproduce, which is not a negative
thing if you ask me, however if you choose to
see it as a negative you need to state a case
based on more than the bible for backing.
Ultimately, the National Socialists sterilised
about 400,000 people and euthanised another
70,000 individuals that were feebleminded,
hazardous to the general public or otherwise
unfit to be among good hard working normal
upstanding citizens.
To research the records of reproductive
medicine throughout the National Socialist era
of Hitler’s Germany is still a black area a
prominent German professor said during a
resent conference hosted by the European
Society of Human Reproduction and
Embryology said, it is imperative that this
kind of research is conducted, so that the
Germans learn and understand what
encouraged this kind of behaviour from its
doctors in the past, without this study he fears
that they German doctors and scientists today
will struggle to make ethical decisions that
they may be presented with while working in
the gynaecology, embryology and
reproduction area of medical science.
Mr Winau, who is a medical historian also
went on to say: "This kind of research is not
or should not be about casting blame or
accusations, or accusing persons long since
dead, but we should hope to shed light on why
and how some professionals in this area of
medicine behaved like they did.
Awareness and understanding regarding that
kind of medical conduct is equally as
important as the information concerning the
achievements of scientific medicine.
Hopefully opening up this can of worms will
make it feasible to reflect on our present
circumstance." Germany has probably the
strictest laws on Eugenics and human
reproduction in Europe to date because of the
relationship it shared with National Socialist
Germany, but coming more to the point,
"The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding
for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running
speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for
mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional
abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.I wonder
whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral
difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or
why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of
some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't
the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" - Richard Dawkins
16
"Galton’s eccentric, sceptical, observing,
flashing, cavalry-leader type of mind led him
eventually to become the founder of the most
important, significant and, I would add,
genuine branch of sociology which exists,
namely eugenics." - John Maynard Keynes
of late German policy has forbidden medical These doctors and scientists were not just a
procedures and research that actually could bunch of sick, lunatics who only used this
and would benefitted its citizens, for example opportunity for unscrupulous, racist motives;
preimplantation genetic diagnosis, this is a nonetheless, for the vast majority of German
procedure that can detect genetic diseases in scientists, the scientific drive triumphed over
an embryo before it is placed in a female; and ethical principles.
the procedure of embryo freezing for usage at
a later date, which in reality means that
To research the medical practices of Hitler’s
Germany has one of the largest rates of
Germany was a big taboo in both of the
multiple births in all of Europe, since German
German states until recent times. It is now
doctors have to transfer all of the embryos
time to talk about these issues in universities
they manage to produce, without regard for
and on courses and in society. German and
the quality of the embryo´s roughly 40% of
international gynaecologists and medical
all ART births in Germany in 2006 were
professionals need to confront this topic with a
multiple births, this also carries a rather
clear conscience so that we can move forward
substantial risk for mother and baby.
in the field of positive eugenics.
Surrogacy, cloning and the donation of eggs
are also illegal in Germany.
The positive dream of improving human life
through genetic intervention remains with us
For almost four decades after WW2 there was
today. While genetic knowledge and
no research done at all into the finding, results
technology have changed since the War, the
or methods discovered during the Third Reich
cultural and political context surrounding the
era of medicine. For example today, there are
pursuit of genetic improvement has undergone
many German and international doctors who
even greater transformations. The goal of
do not wish to become medical outcasts
present genetic intervention is not group
simply for looking into the darker side of
improvement, but individual therapy. Modern
German medical history. To date only a
conceptions of individual, patient, and human
number of hospitals and medical institutes
rights reduce the risk of abuses committed in
have faced up to their darker past history. The
the name of eugenics. While negative eugenics
law on preventing genetic diseases in children
has been largely eliminated as neither possible
is a prime example of the conformity of most
nor socially acceptable, positive eugenics are
Germany gynaecologists to the racial ideas of
still considered desirable among most right
Hitler´s Germany. Resistance to this law
thinking people including me, who propose
basically never existed. There was no debate
genetic engineering for the development of
or discussion in the medical journals of the
children with superior traits and to ensure our
time about whether the law was ethically
future people inherit the best possible start in
justified or what have you, but only about
life and benefits of eugenics. The ethical
how the sterilisation could be undertaken the
issues surrounding genetic engineering and
most effective way.
cloning are still negatively debated in light of
the history of the eugenics movement, which
Most of the scientists jumped onto these new has been demonised by the post war liberal
opportunities offered by the state to advance crowd and the religious right.
their research.
17
 18

JOSE ORTEGA Y GASSET

The Revolt of the Masses

 Featured article
La Rebelion de las Masas
The Revolt of the Masses, 1930, by Jose Ortega Y Gasset
There is one fact which, whether for good or ill,
is of utmost importance in the public life of
Europe at the present moment. This fact is the
accession of the masses to complete social
power....
In order to understand this formidable fact, it is
important from the start to avoid bringing to the
words "rebellion," "masses," and "social power"
a meaning exclusively or primarily political.
Public life is not solely political, but equally, and
even primarily, intellectual, moral, economic,
religious; it comprises all our collective habits,
including our fashions both of dress and of
amusement....
The select man is not the petulant person who
thinks himself superior to the rest, but the man
who demands more of himself than the rest, even
though he may not fulfil in his person those
higher exigencies. For there is no doubt that the
most radical division that is possible to make of
humanity is that which splits it into two classes
of creatures: those who make great demands on
themselves, piling up difficulties and duties; and
those who demand nothing special of
themselves, but for whom to live is to be every
moment what they already are, without imposing
on themselves any effort towards perfection...
I believe that the political innovations of recent
times signify nothing less than the political
domination of the masses. The old democracy
was tempered by a generous dose of liberalism
and enthusiasm for law.... Today we are
witnessing the triumphs of a hyperdemocracy in
which the mass acts directly, outside the law,
imposing its aspirations and its desires by means
of material pressure....
The present-day writer... has to bear in mind that
the average reader, if he reads does so with the
view not of learning something from the writer,
but rather of pronouncing judgment on him....
The characteristic of the hour is that the
commonplace mind, knowing itself to be
commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the
rights of the commonplace and to impose them
wherever it will.
It is precisely because man's vital time is limited,
precisely because he is mortal, that he needs to
triumph over distance and delay. For an
immortal being, the motor-car would have no
meaning.
We live at a time when man believes himself
fabulously capable of creation, but he does not
know what to create. Lord of all things, he is not
lord of himself.... Hence the strange combination
of a sense of power and a sense of insecurity....
The mass-man is he whose life lacks any
purpose, and simply goes drifting along.
Consequently, though his possibilities and his
powers be enormous, he constructs nothing. And
it is this type of man who decides in our time....
In the schools, which were such a source of pride
to the last century, it has been impossible to do
more than instruct the masses in the technique of
modern life; it has been found impossible to
educate them.....
The whole of history stands out as a gigantic
laboratory in which all possible experiments have
been made to obtain a formula of public life most
favorable to the plant "man." And beyond all
possible explaining away, we find ourselves face
to face with the fact that, by submitting the seed
of humanity to the treatment of two principles,
liberal democracy and technical knowledge, in a
single century the species in Europe has been
triplicated. Such an overwhelming fact forces us,
unless we prefer not to use our reason, to draw
these conclusions: first, that liberal democracy
based on technical knowledge is the highest type
of public life hitherto known; secondly, that that
type may not be the best imaginable, but the one
we imagine as superior to it must preserve the
essence of those two principles; and thirdly, that
to return to any forms of existence inferior to that
of the 19th century is suicidal.
Now it turns out--and this is most important--that
this world of the 19th and early 20th centuries not
only has the perfections and the completeness
which it actually possesses, but furthermore
suggests to those who dwell in it the radical
assurance that tomorrow it will be still richer,
ampler, more perfect, as if it enjoyed a
spontaneous, inexhaustible power of increase....
This leads us to note down in our psychological
chart of the mass-man of today two fundamental
traits: the free expansion of his vital desires, and
therefore, of his personality; and his radical
ingratitude towards all that has made possible the
ease of his existence. These traits together make
up the well-known psychology of the spoilt
child....
They are only concerned with their well-being,
and at the same time the remain alien to the cause
of that well-being. As they do not see, behind the
benefits of civilization, marvels of invention and
construction which can only be maintained by
great effort and foresight, they imagine that their
role is limited to demanding these benefits
peremptorily, as if they were natural rights.
Contrary to what is usually thought, it is the man
of excellence, and not the common man who lives
in essential servitude.
19
Life has no savour for him unless he makes it
consist in service to something transcendental.
Hence he does not look upon the necessity of
serving as an oppression. When, by chance,
such necessity is lacking, he grows restless and
invents some new standard, more difficult,
more exigent, with which to coerce himself.
This is life lived as a discipline--the noble life.
Nobility is defined by the demands it makes on
us--by obligations, not by rights. Noblesse
oblige. "To live as one likes is plebeian; the
noble man aspires to order and law."
(Goethe)...
The world as organized by the 19th century,
when automatically producing a new man, has
infused into him formidable appetites and
powerful means of every kind for satisfying
them.... After having supplied him with all
these powers, the 19th century has abandoned
him to himself, and the average man, following
his natural disposition, has withdrawn into
himself.... The masses are incapable of
submitting to direction of any kind.... It is
illusory to imagine that the mass-man of today,
however superior his vital level may be
compared with that of other times, will be able
to control, by himself, the process of
civilization. I say process, and not progress.
The simple process of preserving our present
civilization is supremely complex, and
demands incalculably subtle powers.
It is not a question of the mass-man being a
fool. On the contrary, today he is more clever,
has more capacity of understanding than his
fellow of any previous period.... This is what in
my first chapter i laid down as the
characteristic of our time; not that the vulgar
believes itself super-excellent and not vulgar,
but that the vulgar proclaims and imposes the
rights of vulgarity, or vulgarity as a right.
The type of man dominant today is a primitive
one... he does not see the civilization of the
world around him, but he uses it as if it were a
natural force. The new man wants his motor-
car, and enjoys it, but he believes that it is the
spontaneous fruit of an Edenic tree. In the
depths of his soul he is unaware of the
artificial, almost incredible, character of
civilization, and does not extend his
enthusiasm for the instruments to the principles
which make them possible.
 Review and Reflections
20

Daniel Fisher
The 1920s is comparable to modern times in several ways; a culture of mass consumption unbounded by caution, an anti-elitist embracing of the lowest
common denominator and an embracing of freedoms without concern for obligations. Early 20th century writings can therefore offer us interesting
perspectives from which to analyse society. Jose identifies an important concept which has a ring of truth to it; the difference between the worthwhile and
the pointless existence is that the former devotes itself to a purpose, a goal, whilst the latter seeks, like an animal, only to perpetuate itself. Through this, we
can come to the conclusion that life is not inherently valuable. He realises that all the progress of civilization is built on science and rationality. What he
calls 'liberal democracy and technical knowledge' is not referring to modern liberalism, but a society in which people ascend in the political sphere based on
their ability to solve problems through knowledge and reason.

Unfortunately, Jose neglects to even suggest how one would go about solving the problems he highlights, nor how to push forward the improvements he
suggests, and indeed in his own lifetime he achieved very little towards those ends. What we are faced with today is a society built on the principles of
unchecked consumption and total surrender to emotion. Jose's message radiates like a warning from the past, reminding us that this happened once before...
and perhaps we are on course for history to repeat itself. The difficulties we are faced with, in striving towards a better future, may seem insurmountable, as
indeed they were to Jose, and our dedication to the struggle may provide some comfort in itself, but we must remember that our thoughts should always
return to the practical issue of actually achieving the changes we desire.

Benjamin Noyles
The first thing I would like to make clear to our readers who may think this essay reactionary, (especially for those in our movement who would be content to
‘return’ to how things were just a few of decades ago). I chose this essay because Gasset recognises in his own time the emergence of a new type of social
man created by a new type of system. While I would agree with Daniel that it is unfortunate Gasset does not propose or recommend a solution or even
explicitly say what the mass man is not, but there is an essential truth to it in and of itself. This very much reminded me of another work I would point our
readers to a work called ‘The culture industry’ by a more contemporary theorist Theodore Adorno. Although a Frankfurt school Marxist who is famous for
saying there can be no poetry after Auschwitz, there is an essential truth to his critique of the capitalist system and how mass culture strips entire peoples of
their indigenous folk and high cultures, that transcends the message of the author.

I think that this text is in many ways very relevant because the characteristics of the mass man which were then, the bourgeoisie, are now the characteristics
of the masses. the mass man has come to take the entire state apparatus and the means of production and so have succeeded in imposing the mass man on
everyone. This is perhaps what Tony Blair really meant by when he said ‘we are all middle class now’, economical inequalities still exist, but everyone is the
same, grow up influenced by the same things, television, media, social policing, getting the same message from the same schools, the same education higher
and lower, all so they end up with the same hopes, same goals, same aspirations, the same standards, the same political views, in a mass age; mass
consumerism, mass democracy, mass communication, everything is driven from the bottom up and so is stupefied from the top down in a vicious circle.

We must come to terms with the fact we in this movements are elitists. Although we hope to lead a national peoples movement, being ‘European’ and
‘British’ in the modern sense isn’t enough. As I tell the many of my true and so called comrades in our political dispensation, the greatest alien threat to our
culture is not the 15% of our country who are British only in their passport, but the other 85% who are becoming lost in increasing numbers, some forever.
The moist insidious aspect of the mass man is its complete deconstruction of national identity and the human condition. Identity is cardinal to any people, if
somebody asks you, ‘who are you’ and you don’t have an answer then your existence has no meaning. To us a majority of these people are dead, walking
corpses, who can hopefully be brought back into the ranks of the living.

Even our upper class, our aristocracy, they have fallen, fallen the hardest of the lot in many respects, an entire class whose existence has no purpose, thrown
on the scrapheap like the coal miners. A figure like David Cameron would sum the decline up quite well, an Eton boy turned yuppie marketing scumbag who
went on to become our current neo- liberal prime minister who is as much like the tendencies he claims to oppose as one can possibly get. One thinks also of
the decline of the Mosleys, A man like Sir Oswald Mosley a natural elite with a degree of character that allowed him to lead great social movements,
produces a son Max who became a racing tycoon who has been since been filmed dressed as a woman beaten by hookers, put on YouTube for all the world to
see who in turn had a son who died of a drug overdose. What we often forget is that many of these people are still around and still running vast sections of the
state apparatus and also happen to be exceptionally intelligent, but they are with the enemy, Where the upper class has not failed us it has betrayed us. No,
we don’t need them.

Our credo is an aristocratic one in the proper sense of the word, and when there exists no aristocracy for a new aristocracy to come from a new class, a corps
of political officers, we will be the new masters. We must become the new leaders of this society, this is what ‘political officer’ means, it is not just some
empty formulation. I predict that times are going to become hard and the sustainability of the power structure of the mass man will end. The time has come
for a new elite form of politics to come and to take over. I loathe, no, Hate, the bourgeoisie, I always have since my earliest days, and that hatred has led me
here to where I am now. It is the hatred of the bourgeoisie that has led the radical element s of the fascist movement, and it is here as a movement that will
rise against the mass men and end it all here.

We focus our attention on impending catastrophes, while the true catastrophes are
already here, under our noses, with the degeneration of social practices, with the mass
media's numbing effect, with a collective will blinded by the ideology of the 'market', in
other words, succumbing to the law of the masses, to entropy, to the loss of singularity,
to a general and collective infantilization. The old types of social relations, the old
relations with sex, with time, with the cosmos, with human finitude have been rattled, not
to say devastated, by the 'progress' generated by industrial firms. -Felix Guatarri
 Board of Womens Issues
Women where is your place?
We truly patriotic British women have done,
and are doing our best to play our part in
helping our nation and people to truly find
itself, themselves again, while trying at the
same time to involve and educate all our
British women and girls of whatever age to our
cause. The objectives we still have not yet
accomplished in past year or two, we hope
with only your support British women! Will be
achieved in the months and years to come. I
can assure you this we believe very dearly,
more than ever before, because of the
problems we are faced with at present and in
the past few years from feminists and liberals
alike it has been a difficult history that has
particularly tested our strength, which has only
gone from strength to strength due to this
struggle.
The true patriotic women of this nationalist
revival, knows that these strengths that are so
desperately needed in the United Kingdom can
grow within them because the true British
nationalist woman believes in the goodness
and strength within themselves, while knowing
true right is on her side. Therefore, as
followers of this nationalistic revival it is
her/our duty to awaken and strengthen this
devotion in British pride, civic nationalism
while preserving what is ours as a people, and
for those we are responsible for, and to
transform this energy into positive action.
Nonetheless this attitude is equally required
from amongst our men as it is from amongst
our woman. Most of the new British nationalist
movements, from my perspective Integralism
see`s men and woman as equal bearers of
Britain's possible golden future. It asks,
however, for you to look into your souls and
nature, free from pre-programmed thoughts
and ideas and go back to basics, void of
modern political correctness tainted with
aggressive feminism, it asks that we each
accept the tasks that have been given to us by
nature and not those unnatural tasks handed
down to us by modern and fanciful distorted
whims.
The proud, strong woman, while caring for her
own offspring, should also care for those who
may need her help as mothers and teachers of
the future nation. This principally entails
studying and thinking about family law and
social law while supporting families, youth
legislation, social programs and protecting the
youth. It also call for the thinking of what
direction job wise our young ladies will follow
in the coming years, because today some
women are employed in areas that are
traditionally considered men’s territory, and
told by feminists you go girl there is no
difference between men and women therefore
some gradual changes in women's mentality
will therefore be needed, to educate our young
ladies we each have our worth. Given our
relations with each other as male and female,
21
By Patsy Kirby
we nationalists condone these social changes
because we have a firm belief that we have the
vigour to triumph over the many present
difficulties placed upon us by the politically
correct, Marxists and the feminists that govern
our nation at present.
People always ask me if I think there is
anything that has to be done in the area of
female employment and the place of females in
our society. I will only say every British
female has the right and should take the
opportunity to work with us, so her voice is
heard truly, and to follow a righteous, noble
path leading to the resurrection and grandeur
of our nation. Nevertheless, we Integralists all
feel sickened and concern when we see our
nation slipping into a coma, we all see that this
Integralism comes to us because of a need, a
political void must be filled and only
Integralism can fill that vacuum and bring us
back to grandeur, vacant weak intellectual
ideas, thinking or a bogus superiority complex
have never saved a nation or it´s people.
The nationalistic feeling of true Britishness
should teach us all to take note of life around
us and want to make it better, while doing our
duties in our chosen fields in a way and
understanding that makes it clear in it´s
deepest meaning: to become totally obedient to
our calling as British!

British women, strong women, I briefly would
like to make clear what the deepest and
natural calling we women have is in nature:
motherhood, no don’t just roll your eyes and
sigh. In the last 60 years or so especially from
the 70´s on, motherhood has been robbed of
its deepest fundamental meaning and reduced
to something unimportant, superficial,
something that was and is to this day even
held in contempt by you know who, you
know those with short hair and tend to wear
suit pants. Instead of a child being seen as the
deepest declaration of the woman and of life,
it is now seen as a burden, as a sacrifice on
the part of the woman. Today a child is often
seen not as a connection to natural fulfilment
of life and womanhood, but rather as the
consequence of a weak feeble mind and as an
escape from the great events of life and
nature.
I know and truly believe that all British
women, not just British actually but all
western women can and will accept this
calling over time if we start to clear the rubble
left by a mistaken Red age, our age. More and
more faithful British women shall and will
join our ranks in the days and years to come,
working readily and strongly. Not only those
women with children will become mothers of
the nation, but rather each British woman and
each girl will become one of the nation's
rebuilders wherever she is, be it in the home, in
the work force, whether she is at university or
in the military, on land, in the air or on the
high seas.
We will establish a strong, long chain of firm
hands that can only grow ever stronger,
because that is what our nation and people
requires! Because without that chain of hands
all pitching in we shall all be doomed as a
people and nation.
We have women who have served their nation
in exceptional ways in our history for example
during the Great Wars and at present the wives
of those brave men being killed in Afghanistan
as we speak may they rest in peace, these kinds
of women have proved that they have placed
their nation and loved ones above themselves.
It is this character that we hope to bring into
our fold. These special women mentioned
before in our past and present did not ask what
would happen, instead, they were there where
they were needed most.For us British, true
patriotic women, to be British has always
meant, and still means, to always be strong.
22
Only a nation that has knows sorrow and
deprivation can become strong. By
overcoming our fears, and the safety of what
we know of life, can we be lead to strength and
glory, which also leads to clarity. Since so
many of our people must still be shown the
truth to fully understand this, all of our work
and pains will also entail much struggle and
great effort with each other. In all this,
however, we must be a strong and positive
people only a strong and positive attitude can
be of assistance in these troubled times.
We are now in 2010 and as a movement that
means we want to be attentive and tireless,
because we want to provide support and prop
up each other in everything our cause faces.
We do not want to compromise or fail because
of weakness, but be kinsmen to each other so
we can demand the utmost of each other,
because we are willing to give it all fully
ourselves. Then the work of the nation’s men
and women will together shape the enlightened
and proud new citizens that we need, since our
nation is dying and must live!
With this in mind people, I and you should
now return to our work rebuilding our beloved
nation!
 Department of social and biological research
23

Multiculturalism, assimilation or integration ?

Assimilation: the gradual incorporation of one By
ethnicity and its culture into another culture in such a Michael B
way that the signs of the original culture are lost and
replaced by the signs of the dominant accepting
Maclean
culture. (c.f. Brouček et al., 1991, page 240)

I was recently asked what’s my personal

thoughts on immigration; I said laughingly
we´re full I have seen of late and unofficial
figure that we are up to 88,000,000 at the same
time we can’t blame them for coming, if I lived
in a third world shithole I would come here too.
They only come because we let them and we
accommodate them, these people are not stupid
even out in the wilds they have heard of
political correctness and that once in Britain
Life’s Good, they learn fast God does not
provide the state does on our expense. Then I
continued to say seriously well, I suppose an
absolute minimum amount of genuine well
intentioned immigrants might be allowed under
special circumstances, careful not to give a
number, but I did add that any potential
immigrant should be ready for full assimilation
not integration and those who are already here
should also well assimilate or leave. To be blunt
there are too many people in our country who
should simply not be here, allowed here or
should have been deported a long time ago. To
make it simple, for any immigrant living here
now or coming, assimilation is the only and last
way besides not having any new immigrants at
all and removing the ones already here which is
a non-starter. Multiculturalism is a dead concept
which failed miserably when given the chance.
Assimilation simply put means a perfect merger of multiculturalism on society the pressure is
with the majority and the unconditional building and its going to go bang. We are
Assimilation for me is about a limited amount acceptance of its values. Assimilation takes told we must have respect for other cultures
of good intentioned immigrants from wherever place either naturally on the basis of the free and their associated beliefs. This may appear
they might be from, adopting our way of life, will of the members of the assimilated group, or an admirable gesture of mutual
while giving up their original cultural identity “unwillingly”, put upon the minority by the understanding, but in fact it is self-defeating.
no ifs, ands, or buts, and not using political conduct of majority society or its power How may a host culture be expected to
correctness to milk the system or force a foreign apparatus. But again if it needs to be forced understand and respect that part of a foreign
culture onto the host nation, provided to them why is he here, that person or group has shown culture which is regarded by members of the
so willingly by the liberals in Britain these days. they are not willing to assimilate or make the host culture as being inappropriate, offensive
I suppose in theory so thus becoming “equals” necessary changes. A huge motivation to or illegal? Acceptable forms of cruelty to
gradually to the natives in work, housing, assimilate is enshrined within the phenomenon animals in one society may well be illegal
language, traditions and customs. Their children known as ‘colonised consciousness’. For me it conduct in another. There are boundaries in
should speak perfect English as should there does not matter which option or method is used the “embracing” of new cultures, a fact that
parents, forty years living in England and only because I am a firm believer in that all the proponents of multiculturalism
speaking a few words of our language is just minorities should adopt the customs and steadfastly avoid
unacceptable. Assimilation means in practice mannerisms of the host nation, integration is mentioning. Multiculturalism is both divisive
that minority groups fit into the majority culture not a realistic option for a country to truly and dishonest. The system is brutally
which in this case would be a British one. And I function and 100%. Integration, the repressive against those who speak against it
truly believe if any immigrant living in the UK incorporation of an individual or group into and the policy has produced net results to
today or potential immigrant cannot agree to majority society without the loss of there own Britain that are astonishingly negative.
these demands then they should pack there culture and identity, just does not work for me
belongings including there kids and leave their another name for this is multiculturalism. How stupid are these Liberals? I don’t know
passports at the checkout and leave, or just Multiculturalism has never succeeded in the but I do know the definition of an idiot is
don’t come here at all which is better in most real world. Empires and nations that were someone who will do the same thing over
part because most are coming to integrate at multicultural always shattered and have been and over again and be hoping for a different
best, or to take advantage of our politically racked by civil war and bloodshed. Examples result! Multiculturalism and political
correct society (and that’s putting it nicely) not stretch from the Roman Empire, Austria- correctness are destroying us, when there is a
to assimilate and become full contributing Hungary, Iraq , Yugoslavia, and Lebanon even sickness we seek cures for our country that is
citizens. in the UK we are seeing the stresses and strains sick.
 Department of politics
Why Should
I Give Aid?
By Michael B Maclean
For the last 60 years or so Africa has received a
vast amount of aid and what good has it done
anyone? I don’t even know what that figure must
have totalled, but when you look at the TV or all
the charities and governments today still collecting
for Africa, the question arises ‘What have they
done with all the aid?’ This is not to say that the
aid (or the other way of putting it would pay for all
the new spending cuts the Government has made)
has not had any positive impact of development
and growth on the African continent. Nonetheless,
even the ordinary man can see aid has not helped
Africa achieve the necessary economic growth,
development and sustainability capacity, if it did
we would not have mass immigration from there or
help a starving child commercial on every five
minutes. Why do African nations even have
governments, sometimes you wonder, was
independence the best thing for them? slightly off
the topic, African independence was driven by the
demagoguery of their upper class liberal
politicians, I bet many Africans wish they could
turn back the clock. The only way I can be in
support of aid, is when a country is in a crisis that
is not of their own making. Besides that I propose
aid must be reduced to next to nothing or
completely stopped. Most people in Africa and
Asia have managed not because of their
government aid or lack of, but rather their ability to
provide for themselves with whatever resources
they can produce minus government help. Aid
really is not the most progressive way forward.
The Facts:
If African nations are waiting for western
governments to give economic development in
Africa, I believe that it won't happen, so they
should just remove the images of the cripples
holding there begging bowls and spend that
money on maybe something else, sorry, ‘our’
money on something else more productive. We
should look at why foreign aid is so often futile
and in many cases detrimental - I think we need
to consider supporting the best ideas that are
coming out of Africa, for the solutions to Africa
by Africans with advice and technical support
only, as opposed to supporting the worst liberal
western ideas with our cash for Africa. African's,
not the industrial west will end African poverty.
I also am opposed to the fact that the Africans
always blame us for their dilemma and blame it
on the fact that we colonised them not to mention
having to come up with financial solutions for
Africa, something like the hand-outs the Jews
still receive from Germany. I think it is time for
Africans to start supporting their best businesses;
artists, community leaders and local aid projects
that are already in Africa, yes it might be a slow
and hard project but nothing will change unless
one helps themselves, also Africa should stop
trying to solve Africa's problems from abroad,
with hand-outs. On the flip side, what makes it
difficult to implement is the fact that African
businesses and governments often are very
corrupt and backward or self serving; African
governments like Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia are
24
immensely riddled with corruption because
they serve the interests of external interest,
oil, war on terrorism, corporate profits etc.
Why can’t Africans show they are good at
something with the exception of taking really
great pictures of hungry looking kids and
preparing really good power point
presentations asking for money from donors.
The younger generations in Africa, some of
which who are already involved in politics,
have not seen anything else besides a
political, business and economic policy
organised around and based on money from
donors from the west. Some Africa leaders
and noted figures have said Africa does not
have the skills and the level of education to
achieve its goals, well I have an idea that
might help all those blacks/or who-evers who
live in the west and complain about equal
opportunities racism and they are not getting
the same opportunities as whites bla-bla-bla,
those who choose not to assimilate due to
religion or cultural differences should move
to Africa with there higher western education
and help rebuild that continent and I do not
mean that in a nasty racial bigoted way, but
would that not be better that living under the
yoke as so many seem to complain about?
Otherwise if we cannot spot injecting their
economies with useless wasteful efforts, at
least we should ask them to prepare better
power point presentations.

Since aid came into being the capacity of most
Africans to look after and nurture Africans has
fallen by the wayside. It is a fact that a large
proportion of aid, charity and funding has been
stolen, mismanaged and salted away in many
“devious” schemes – for the most part reaching
the deep pockets of the privileged few in many
cases through political associations and crony
clubs, and backhands.
The only real way forward for Africa is to
improve, and facilitate trade instead of aid, plus
provide and engineer a low-cost African
infrastructure which the African nations can pay
for themselves so as to develop economies
through depth of outreach and capacity.
We all know Africa has vast resources to fuel
much of its needs and the world markets in
minerals and other commodities; there is no
shortage of wealth in Africa just look at Mobutu
bank account or Mugabe´s, Africa's last absolute
monarch, Swaziland's King Mswati III is worth
an estimated f $100-200m so why is aid needed?
It only highlights the fact that wealth doesn’t
reach the smallest village.
Fighting of corruption in Africa will be the
solution to many problems in that continent.
African leaders should look inwards for the
solutions to her problems and focus less on
solutions to her problems from the western
world. The problems of Africa were created by
Africans and it will take right actions in the right
direction to solve these problems.
Africa you have the huge resources to develop
your continent, just be sincere to yourself and
fight your enemy called corruption.
Africa does not need aid, there is no reason
why a nation like Nigeria, for instance should
be given any form of aid. They have virtually
everything you need to be a strong productive
nation it is only because of rampant corruption,
she suffers. Corruption is an in- house issue in
Africa. By granting the continent aid is the best
way of giving free money to an official in
government.
The problem is this problem must be tackled
internally. There is nothing much we
westerners can do to help. Whatever changes
within Africa must come from within. I
suppose it is good to know that not everybody
in Africa is fraudulent and this gives hope for
change in theory.
I have been told the cleansing process has
already started in Nigeria (I find that hard to
believe Nigeria of all places) as the judiciary
there is now becoming bold enough to jail
influential politicians who are corrupt.
Governments do not have an obligation to give
money to less fortunate countries. Britain, for
example, gives loads of money to many
African and Asian nations, like the truck loads
which will head for India after the Copenhagen
summit.
25
For me this is a sore point, when my own
country needs more hospitals, roads,
infrastructure, schools etc. Should charity
begin at home? Of course it should perhaps
if each farmer, (as you know, farmers
capitalise their profits, and socialise their
losses), were to give a bull and a few cows,
or a ram and a few sheep, to these nations, I
believe it would be far better than money. If
anything it’s the countless volunteers
workers and doctors in Africa and other
third world nations caring for the sick etc,
which should be getting the money we send
down there not the corrupt politicians.
We have way too many homeless and poor
people here in our own country that needs
our help to get back on their feet and try and
make a normal life for themselves. All the
money that we give away overseas doesn’t
make sense, given the problem we face here
every day.
We have thousands here who need our help
first and foremost our administration should
think more about that and when making a
public speech try remembering to use words
like United Kingdom, Great Britain ours etc
over words like Global Family,
Globalisation, charity starts at home and
don’t think for a minute those leaders in
Africa and Asia and thinking of setting up a
charity for you.
26