Note: The following collection contains some of my more recent writings. As with previous collections, the majority are concerned with the National-Socialist way of life.

December 111yf
 
 

The Aryan Way:
 

Justice depends on, and exists in, individuals who are noble by nature and who thus uphold and strive to live by a Code of Honour, with disputes being private affairs between individuals.

The Aryan way is for individuals to be free, and independent, and to not allow anyone to restrain them, or lord it over them, or exercise any authority whatsoever over them unless they have accepted such restriction or such authority of their own free will. The Aryan way is for an individual to accept only the authority of someone that Aryan knows personally and respects, and to whom that Aryan has given a personal pledge of loyalty.

Otherwise, their honour demands that they fight for their freedom and physically defend themselves if someone tries to restrain them or lord it over them or exercise authority over them. Furthermore, honour gives them the right to injure and if necessary kill anyone who tries to restrain them, who tries to subdue them in any way such as trying to exercise authority over them, or who tries to take away the freedom of an Aryan to act in such an honourable way.

The Aryan way is to respect the right of other people to act and behave in such a way.

The Aryan way is for any disputes, for any complaints, to be settled personally between the two people involved who meet face to face. If honour demands it, the dispute can and in some cases must be settled through a duel or via a personal combat between those involved. The Aryan way is for such disputes and such complaints to be a personal matter, with the Aryan not accepting the word of anyone else in such matters.

Thus, the whole basis of the Aryan way of Justice - and thus the basis for the Aryan way of life itself - is this fierce independence, this upholding of personal freedom and honour, this giving of personal oaths of allegiance, and this respect for the right of others to do the same.
 

Personal honour and the free giving of allegiance are the basis of true freedom, just as a free society is a society which accepts personal honour and which not only allows people to freely choose their allegiance but also gives and freely allows them an opportunity to leave that society, and the lands ruled by the government of that society, and so be exiled or outlawed, should they choose not to give their personal pledge of allegiance to those in authority in that society.

Anything else is tyranny: a negation of freedom.
 
 

A Personal Example:

Recently, I was arrested by the Police after a complaint from a so-called "member of the public" about something which I was alleged to have written. This complaint was in fact made not by an ordinary "member of the public" but by a political enemy:  someone who held an official position in an organization opposed to my own political views. Following this complaint, the Police set up a team to investigate the matter and gather "evidence". They obtained a search warrant, came to my home, arrested me, searched the house for seven hours, and took away some of my possessions.
 

Once the Police investigation began, I was powerless, and completely at the mercy of the State and its Police. The Aryan way would have been for the person who made the complaint to ask me, in person, about the matter, and for us to try and settle things, or come to some agreement. If this person did not like what I had written, or said, he should have asked me to change it, or maybe even ask me to issue a public apology. Failing this, he could personally challenge me to duel.

But of course, this person hides behind "the law" - behind the "authority" of the State. He does not know me, as I do not know him, in person. And he does not have the honour, the decency, to get to know me: to ask me about the allegations he is going to make to the Police. This is unfair; it is cowardly; it is tyrannical.
 

The complaint having been made, and the Police having arrived at my home, the Aryan way for me to deal with such an affront against my personal honour when confronted by seven Police officers early one morning, would have been for me to defend myself, and my honour and freedom, by physical force: if necessary using deadly force. For I had not accepted their "authority" to arrest and detain me, as I had not accepted their "authority" to enter my home, search it, take away my property, and later on lock me in a cell in a Police Station. No one had asked me, in an honourable and civilized way, if I accepted such "authority"; if I had given my allegiance, on oath, to the State.

I had given no such allegiance, as I had not personally accepted such "authority". Therefore by everything that is honourable, by everything that is Aryan, these officials - and the State - had no right to do what they did, as they have no right to do what they are doing and will do in pursuing this case against me.
 

To defend myself in an honourable way was, is and always has been, my desire: my natural instinct. I had given these Police officers no right to do what they did. They did not know me personally, as I did not know them. My natural instinct is to defend my honour, and freedom, my home, my family, by force: but I am not allowed to do this, for were I to do this, I would (as I know from past experience) be subdued by as many Police officers as it would take just as I would be committing a "criminal offence": so-called resisting arrest. In addition, I cannot carry a weapon in order to defend my honour, and cannot even in this country legally obtain a gun to defend my home and my family. And were I to carry a weapon and use it, in my defence, I would be committing yet another so-called "criminal offence".

This is unfair; it is dishonourable; it is un-Aryan. It is tyrannical.

These officials were given their "authority" by the Crown: in reality, by the Government of the day. Thus, they were given the "authority" to arrest me, to enter my home against my wishes, to detain me (using whatever force was necessary), to lock me in a cell, to charge me with some "criminal offence".

Furthermore, this Government gave others to "authority" to prosecute me for some "crime" and yet others the "authority" to judge me and send me to Prison for whatever number of years they decide.

And I am granted, by this Government, only certain specific and very limited "rights". I have a right to remain silent (although this may be held against me). I have a right to legal representation. I have a right to what they call a "fair trial". I even have a right to appeal against their guilty verdict. And that is about all.

Once the process of Police investigation is begun, I am totally and completely at the mercy of the authority of the State, for the State, being tyrannical, makes a presumption that I am subservient: that they have the right to do what they do. The assumption is that since I reside in this country, since I am "British" by nationality, that I have accepted the authority of the State and its Government. But no one has asked me: no one has given me the chance to to affirm or deny allegiance to the State. Am I legally bound to obey this State just because I reside in this country?

This presumption of acceptance of authority is itself dishonourable; it is un-Aryan: it is tyrannical. Even in medieval times in this country when a Monarch ruled absolutely, there were still outlaws: people who of their own free will put themselves beyond the law, the order, of the State.

Legally, the person to whom I should swear allegiance is the Monarch, for in theory and in this country the State and its officials derive their "authority" from the Monarch. But I have not done this, and no has asked me if I have.
 

The Aryan way is for those in authority to ask me, in person, if I give my allegiance to the Crown, to those in authority; and if I, of my own free will, choose not to so give my allegiance, then I become an "outlaw" and have the right to live as an "outlaw" in areas where there the Crown has no authority.

In effect, I exile myself, or am exiled. But I still have the freedom to choose exile. Today, I and others do not have this option. We are not allowed this option. This is unfair; it is dishonourable; it is un-Aryan: it is tyrannical.

Our society became un-Aryan when the Monarchs, in medieval times, decided to establish their authority, by force, over the whole land, leaving no area where people could go if they did not accept their authority. Later on, the dishonourable presumption about a person's allegiance was made, with the Monarch, then the State, taking away our freedom: our right to freely give our allegiance. Thus people were treated as servile subjects of the State, with the State treating its subjects in a dishonourable way.
 
 

A Return To Justice and Freedom:

We must return to justice; we must regain the freedom we have lost. We must establish an Aryan way of life, an Aryan society. The society of today is totally un-Aryan; it is tyrannical.

I loathe and detest this society and its governments. I am instinctively in rebellion against this State with its ignoble way of life. I have not and never will give my allegiance to this State and its appointed officials, as I do and will regard any charge made against me, any trial, any imprisonment, as a personal affront to my honour, my dignity, and so will strive with all my heart to regain my honour, my dignity, my freedom.

We who are Aryan by nature, by instinct - we who uphold honour and the principle of loyalty -  must either rebel against the tyranny we are forced to live under, and so strive to establish a free, a just, an honourable, an Aryan, society in this land, or we must leave this land and establish a new community, new homes, for ourselves where we can live as free men and women according to the way of honour.
 
 
 

One of the things which marks a tyrant - or a tyrannical government - is fear: fear of individuals saying and writing things which the tyrant or the government do not want the people to hear or read.

Thus it is that such tyrants and such tyrannical governments make it illegal - a criminal offence - for individuals to say or write certain things. That is, they introduce laws which curtail and restrict free speech.
 

This is exactly what has happened in Britain: over the past thirty years, the various governments have introduced laws which take away our right of free speech,  which restrict what can be said or written. And more than that, they have made mere possession of certain literature, certain writings, a criminal offence. That is, a person can now be sent to prison for several years if it an be proved that they merely possessed literature which the government finds offensive.

This is tyrannical; this is a denial of freedom.

Of course, tyrants and tyrannical governments use clever propaganda to try and persuade the people they rule over that these tyrannical laws are "necessary"; some go further, and even claim that such denial and suppression of free speech is "morally justified" because the views they have outlawed, they have made illegal, are "abhorrent" or "evil" or whatever.

This is exactly what successive British governments have done. They have introduced tyrannical laws to suppress free speech on the grounds that any and all views those governments do not like - any and all political views which the government does not want the people to hear or read about- have been and are said to be "abhorrent" and "evil" and so are banned because they might "upset" or "hurt" or "offend" someone. That is, these governments have taken away the power of the people to make their own judgement about, their own decisions concerning, certain political matters, because the governments has decided that such views, such political opinions, might or will or could "upset" or "hurt"  or "offend" someone.

In effect, the governments have said, and are saying, to the people: "We regard you, the people, as children who must be protected from words or literature that we consider might upset you. We want you to hear and read only the nice things we have permitted."
 

These governments go on to say: "We are determined to keep treating you, the people, like children. So we have banned - and will continue to ban - all those political words or political literature or political writings we consider might offend you, and we will lock away in Prison all those nasty grown-ups who say or write such nasty political things that we consider might offend someone. We certainly will never allow you to listen to these nasty grown-ups or read their writings and literature because we never want you to make you own mind up about politics. We have taken care of all that for you. Now, children, isn't that nice of us?"
 
 

Dawn-Raids and Why Truth Does Not Matter in a Court of Law:

Our tyrannical governments have gone much, much further than the tyrants of history - so far, in fact, that what they have created is very similar to the repressive Stalinist government which existed in Russia not many decades ago. People are kept under surveillance; their mail is opened; their telephone calls monitored; and if the government suspects (note: suspects) a person may have done something, or said something or written something which that government does not like or has made illegal, then that person will be subject to a "dawn-raid" by the Police, their home searched, the person arrested and any dissident literature seized.

There then follows a "show trial" where the accused has to rely on - because of the legal jargon and the legal complexities of the case and the very nature of the Courts themselves - some Barrister to represent them, and where the truth of any statement made by the accused in the illegal literature is ruled to be "irrelevant". That is, the truth of what has been said, or written, or published is no defence: if what has been said or written is deemed illegal, then the person will be sent to Prison whether or not what was said or written is true. And the government calls such trials "fair" and such guilty verdicts "just"!
 
 

Suppressing Dissident Political Views:

The way which our  modern governments have suppressed opposing political views - the means whereby they have outlawed political views and opinions they do not like and do not want the people to hear - was and is by using the claim that such views, whether spoken or written about, involved "incitement" to "hatred".

Originally, these tyrannical laws which suppress free speech stated there has to be an "intent" by the person or persons. But when several Court cases showed that such "intent" was difficult to prove, the governments calmly introduced new laws which did away with the need to prove such "intent".  Thus, mere possession of dissident literature became illegal.

To incite is to "urge; to stir to action" while hatred, properly defined, is "dislike; ill-will; strong aversion towards".
 

What is particularly tyrannical in such laws as these is that to be found guilty, nothing actually has to happen "in the real world"; no people have to be physically hurt, or physically harmed in any way. That is, the person is found guilty on the basis that what was said or written might or could lead to such things. The so-called "intent" of the person is all that matters.  And the person does not actually have to have intended such things: that is, the word of the person as to whether or not they intended such things is regarded as irrelevant. What matters in a modern Court of Law is whether it is believed, according to the opinions of "experts" or the Police, or according to precedents set by previous criminal trials, that it was possible or likely that such a person did intend to cause such hatred.

This is unjust; it is unfair; it is dishonourable; it is tyrannical. It is against the whole tradition of Western justice.

What has happened is the tyrannical governments have introduced a new category of so-called crime: mental crime. That is, there does not have to be an actual physical crime, in the real world. There does not have to be actual verbal abuse directed at a specific person or persons who can be called as witnesses to say that such abuse occurred, or even that they themselves felt "threatened".

There does not even have to anyone, anywhere, who is actually offended; all there has to be is a belief, by some expert, some Police officer (who thus convince a Judge and Jury) that was was said or written showed a "dislike of; some ill-will toward; some strong aversion towards" some group or groups.

The argument is all about what might be caused; what might have been intended; and whether what was written or said does show a dislike of; some ill-will toward; some strong aversion towards some group or groups, even though no one, no person in the real world, was actually abused, offended, hurt, injured.

And even if a person or persons do claim they are offended or upset or hurt by some words, written or spoken, so what? That is, and always has been part of life, of being an adult. What kind of person can claim they have been so offended or so hurt or so upset by some words, written or spoken, that they want to see the person who said those words or who wrote those words put in Prison? Perhaps a churlish, surly, unruly, vindictive child?

This introduction of a new kind of mental crime is appalling; it is grossly unfair; it is grossly tyrannical. It is means of mental control, of creating a society where people are treated like children.
 

What Kind of World?
 

What kind of world is it where it is illegal, a criminal offence, to use words, written or spoken, which might cause someone "offence" and which might, just might, cause other people to do something?

What kind of world is it where someone can claim they have been so offended or so hurt or so upset by some words, written or spoken, that they demand that the person who said those words or who wrote those words be put in Prison?

What kind of world is it where the majority of people do not care about such things: when they allow people to be imprisoned for thought crimes, for merely having written or said something which the government of the day does not want the people to read or hear?

What kind of world is it where the majority of people do not care that their own government is treating them like children?
 
 
 

Creating Empire: A National-Socialist Society

Correctly defined and understood, National-Socialism is an ethnic philosophy which affirms that the different races, the different peoples, which exist are expressions of our human condition, and that these differences, this human diversity, should be treasured in the same way we treasure the diversity of Nature. National-Socialists believe our world would be poorer were these human differences to be destroyed through abstract ideas - through the creation of a socially-engineered Marxist society.

National-Socialists respect other cultures, and people of other races, because National-Socialists uphold honour. Honour means being civilized; it means having manners: being polite; restrained in public and so on. Honour means treating people with courtesy and respect - unless, that is, those people act in a dishonourable way

National-Socialism expresses the view that a person should be proud of their own culture and heritage, respectful of their ancestors and their ancestral way of life, and accept that other peoples have a right to be proud of their own culture and heritage as well. The ideal is a working toward mutual understanding and respect.
 

This is the truth about National-Socialism, a truth covered up by decade upon decade of ignoble Zionist propaganda.

National-Socialism says  that different races have different Destinies, different abilities, and different ways of living, and that these different ways should be respected.

What this means in practice is that different races have different roles to fulfil determined by their natural abilities and gifts. For instance, the primary role of Aryan peoples is to create, maintain and expand civilization. This does not mean a patronizing of other peoples and other cultures, but a respect of others and a pride in one's own people and own own culture. The more other peoples, other races, have a pride in themselves and their own culture, the more they express their own Destiny, then the more genuine and respectful co-operation there can be between different peoples and cultures. For such genuine respect derives from a natural sense of belonging to one's own culture. To consider other peoples and cultures as inferior does the exact opposite because it leads to a denigration of those considered inferior and to hubris: to the excessive pride and arrogance which people such as Aeschylus and Sophocles warned us about.
 

National-Socialism expresses the natural truth that each folk, each race, should live in such a way that its natural abilities and talents can find their highest expression, just as it expresses that within an ethnic, folkish, State - a Reich - individuals should have occupations and a life-style suited to their natural talents and abilities.
 

National-Socialism is of the future - an expression of what is needed to create a noble, honourable society and a new Empire - and while it understands and values heritage and folk traditions and our ancestral ways of living, it values only that which is in accord with what is honourable, civilized, Aryan and which can be used to further our evolution. A lot of what occurred in the past - a lot of traditions, and certain ways of thinking - were actually wrong; contrary to what is reasonable and honourable, as some did not express our Aryan ethos. What is honourable, Aryan and necessary in our past must be found, understood and valued. What is not, must be rejected.

This is really what Adolf Hitler wished to do: create first a new Germany, and then a new Europe based upon the noble ideals and warrior ethos of National-Socialism, particularly evident in the pan-European Waffen SS. This new Europe would have been the foundation for a new Empire.

One of the fundamental truths about National-Socialism is that it was and is a modern re-birth of the ideal of Aryan Empire: a modern re-birth of the ethos of Ancient Greece and Rome, expressing as that ethos did the civilizing warrior spirit of the Aryan.
 
 
 

The New Empire

In the distant past, Empires were created based upon military conquest and the exploitation of peoples. There really was no conscious understanding of honour; no desire to create order and harmony and create the way of living we now understand as civilization where things like reason are valued and where civic and private corruption are not tolerated. This changed with the Roman Empire, which strove to put into practice the noble ideals of ancient Greece, and which created a civilized way of life for the peoples of that Empire. Of course, this civilization was not perfect, but compared to what existed before - and compared to what existed after it for many centuries - it was a remarkable achievement, a great step forward in our evolution.

Another great step forward was the original British Empire, which was an even greater achievement than the Roman Empire. It brought reason, justice, order and education to millions upon millions of people world-wide, greatly improving their way of life through building the infrastructure a civilization needs: an uncorrupt administration; roads; bridges; safe trade routes. For instance, the British Navy managed to control the piracy which was rampant in certain areas of the world (in South East Asia for example), as in India the British administrators ended the bribery and corruption of officials which was endemic. For a long time, and from about the middle of the 1700's, the British Navy was the most enlightened and civilized institution in the world: a fine example of our Aryan ethos. Throughout the whole British Empire, the civilized ideal was followed, and literally hundreds of thousands of British people struggle and died in the lands of the Empire over the centuries in their quest to do what was right, noble and just. Millions upon millions of people could live in relative safety and peace, in an ordered and just way, thanks to this Empire.

Note that I said the original British Empire, for the truth is that from very early on in the Victorian Era the ethos began to change - the true, respectful, civilizing mission of Empire gave way to a brute Imperialism based upon financial gain. To quote Thomas More: "Everywhere do I perceive a certain conspiracy of rich men seeking their own advantage under the name and pretext of commonwealth."  There had always been an element of this present, of course, but the financial cabal gradually became the dominant force behind the expansion of the Empire, often unscrupulously using missionary Christianity to achieve their capitalist purpose.

Aspects of the old, civilized, Roman-type, Imperial attitude remained, and inspired individuals and some Institutions but they were largely without power and influence, often mere show, and more often than not manipulated by the financial cabal and their capitalist lackeys.  By the time of the Boer War, British Foreign Policy had became purely a means of maintaining and extending capitalist markets, of obtaining raw materials with little or no regard for the native people.  This was particularly evident in, for example, Iran, where until just after the First Zionist War (50-56yf) the British Government supported a despotic, unpopular and repressive ruling minority, while capitalist companies leeched away the natural resources of the country, with little respect shown for either Iranian culture or the way of life of Islam. The decadent life-style of wealthy often immoral Europeans was held up as some sort of "ideal" for the "natives" to follow.

With the collapse of the original British Empire, and the defeat of National-Socialist Germany in the First Zionist war, the ideal of civilization had been replaced by the ignoble idea of a global capitalism where multi-national capitalist companies became rich by plundering the world, by committing hubris, with American military might used to maintain this plunder of the world by capitalism and its uncivilized consumer ethos. There was because of this, as there still is, an arrogance toward other people and the Earth itself: the arrogance of Marxism and capitalism, which really are just two sides of the same uncivilized way of life.
 

The next stage - the next development of civilization, built upon the achievements, the understanding, of the Roman and British Empires and imbued with the ethos of the Waffen SS- is to create a new type of Empire, based upon free, ethnic nations co-operating together, all bound together by a strong National-Socialist country whose people consciously understand their Destiny: their duty to their own folk, and the world itself. The honourable, the civilized, thing to do is to trade on the basis of equal partners; to respect other peoples and their ways of life, their culture, and to respect the Earth itself. Capitalist and personal greed are uncivilized, irrational. We should be striving to create free, noble, societies and looking out toward the cosmos - toward exploring our galaxy - not turning inward and indulging in ignoble, squabbling among ourselves like children who have yet to learn self-discipline and so who are often moody, quarrelsome, petulant, petty, selfish, and vain. We must grow up, and learn to act, think and live as adults - as mature, civilized, human beings. For people to grow up, and so change the world for the better - to make the world truely civilized - we need another Empire, created and maintained by honourable, idealistic people, who look to the examples of the Roman and British Empires for inspiration, and who regard such an Earth-bound Empire as but the beginning: a base for a Galactic Empire.

Only National-Socialism can create the new world Empire we need and so begin to build the Galactic Empire which will be the next great leap forward in our evolution because only National-Socialism is a conscious expression of the values, the ideals, the Destiny, of civilization itself: the values of honour, loyalty, duty to the folk; the ideal of a cultured, civilizing, honourable Empire, and the desire to continue our human evolution based upon the truths, the reality, the Destiny of Nature, evident in race and individual character.

The first step toward such a world Empire is the creation of a new National-Socialist State.
 

Creating a National-Socialist State

All modern States are lifeless, for they are no longer organic: no longer a living entity bound by ethos, and identity, and where there is an acceptance of duty - of us as individuals being not only a nexus between the past and the future of our folk, but also dependant upon Nature and the Cosmos. There is no modern nation, no modern State, which can be brought back to life by ordinary political means - which can be changed into a thriving, vital, evolving culture bound by identity, tradition, ethos and Destiny. Thus, politics, and political action, are pointless in themselves, that is, if pursued as the only option - unless we have a new leader: another Adolf Hitler. For only if we are gifted by Providence with such a leader - with such a Vindex figure - can we hope to obtain direct political power in an existing nation through democratic means.

Lacking such a leader, we have only two viable ways of action, for we cannot just sit around doing nothing, merely hoping that a new leader will emerge. The first is to slowly build a mass political and social movement by converting our people. Then and only then can we hope to overthrow an existing government, so seizing or obtaining political power.
 

The other way is to create a new community, a new culture, and from that evolve a new nation, a new State. To do this, we must migrate to a new area, found new communities, and begin to live the revolutionary Way of Life which is National-Socialism: in harmony with Nature, with respect for Nature and the creations of Nature, and with us as individuals upholding reason, honour, loyalty and duty, and striving to change ourselves for the better by using our will.

For myself, I believe we should pursue both alternatives, both of which will take us many years. We must be prepared for a long and hard struggle. But we can and will succeed: it just requires the right people, the right organizations, and the determination and means to fight a long campaign, lasting fifteen to twenty years or even longer.

A sickness has overcome the people of this once Aryan, this once beautiful, land. The Britain of today - year 2000 on the Christian calendar - is a very different place than the one I wandered through, on foot, only thirty years ago. I used to love this land, its people, as I used to feel at home here. But now, I feel I am a stranger in the land of my ancestors.

I remember walking along a dusty road in Yorkshire one warm and sunny day in Spring, stopping briefly to rest on a village green before partaking of a pint of ale in the village pub. I remember the friendly conversations with the people, there, and the feeling of though being a wandering, young, stranger, of still belonging to their world, their way of life. I remember a hot evening one Summer while near the Essex coast and on my way to Suffolk, falling asleep in a field not far from the sea having drunk rather a lot of cider, and being found in the morning - unable for a moment to remember where I was - by farmworkers one of whom gave me some tea made from water boiled in a Kelly kettle.

I remember walking one windy, rain-swept Autumn day along a lane among the hills of Northumberland where a dog was chained on a long chain by the side of the road, miles from any human habitation, with only a kennel for shelter, and, miles of walking later, meeting a farmer, and spending a pleasant hour or so talking as the clouds fastly skudded past to break and reveal a brief but still warm sun.

I remember the beauty of a woman's face - her smile, her scent - as she opened the door I had knocked upon one cold and snowy winter's evening to ask for water. I remember the warmth of the house that seeped out to me standing there in my father's old but still perfectly warm Greatcoat. I remember her kindness, the noise of her young children, playing inside, and how the woman's face, her scent, haunted me for hours afterwards until I fell asleep, huddled up against the cold.

I remember the many people of many ages, many occupations - men and women, old and young - who gave me lifts in their cars, vans and lorries as I hitched along the roads and lanes of my land. I remember listening to their views, their stories, their dreams - and sometimes their problems.

I remember many things... Mostly good. But most of all I remember feeling a common, unspoken, bond with the people, the very land itself. Not a romantic, unreal, type of thing: but something tangible and true, as if most of the people I met were distant cousins, or relatives, or forgotten school-boy friends; as if I myself was grown from the very land, from the hills of Northumberland, from the fertile fields of Essex, from the oak trees that bordered a high stream in Derbyshire, from the very rocks of a crag in Yorkshire. Often, with people, there was no need for words; or for too many words. I, we, understood with a look, a gesture, a smile.

But now, fast forward three decades, things are very different. And it is not me which has changed: not fundamentally; not inside. It is the world outside; and even the people themselves.

The Problem of Our People:

There has been a change of pace, and a change in people's attitude, in their perspective, in their very way of life; and in many, many places, the people dwelling in this land have dramatically changed: now, I can walk through many areas of many towns and cities and never see an Aryan face, as I can walk through villages and see many a non-Aryan face. And there is a general rudeness, a general manic feel to life, with people pursuing their lives fastly and often with arrogance, concerned as they are with "getting on", with an abstract world of commerce, of business, of enterprise, of consumerism, of "entertainment", that did not exist, even three decades ago.

Decades ago, I remember travelling on trains with compartments and corridors, with many an hour spent in pleasant conversation. People going on holiday; to and from work; visiting relative and friends. I remember one cold Winter's night, spending many hours in front of a real coal fire in a railway Station Waiting Room listening to the dreams and hopes of a young woman who was travelling to begin a new job, her first time away from her home in the country. I remember the sadness I felt, the desire to warn her of the dangers of rapacious, dream-destroying, capitalist-city life, home as such places were, even then, to men, young and old, who possessed no honour, having had no experience of combat and war.

I remember one bleak and dreary day standing on a lonely railway platform in Scotland almost lost among the rising hills, talking with a tall, giant-like, fair-haired young man whose bulging canvas rucksack I myself could barely lift. I remember his smile, his laugh, as we talked of the walks, the climbs we had done, and of adventure, of perchance a good war.

And I remember several journeys recently, with the front of the trains stuffed full of people mostly arrogantly travelling "First Class" (paid for by their companies) with many of them - like many others in what was in all but name Second Class - hunched over "lap-top" computers or shuffling and reading "important" papers to do with their work: work having nothing to do with the land around them, with the true heritage, the true warrior culture, of their ancestors, but instead to do with commercial or financial or industrial concerns which maintain the consumer-capitalist system. And at the weekend, many of these people would rush out into the country to pursue some chosen pursuit, as many of them lived in the country without belonging to it, without feeling a part of it. Their concerns were European, or global, or personal or based upon some culture-destroying abstract social and political dogma, and you could see from their faces, their eyes, their speech and manner, that they did not feel rooted to the land and its people, that they had not experienced that deep wordless love of land and people which for centuries made the English, the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, care for and fight to the death for their land, their people, their freedom.

There has been a drastic, a disturbing and sad, change in the land itself, with more and more traffic, and more and more intensive farming; more and more destruction of Nature in the name of profit, or convenience, or entertainment. Everywhere our people now speed around in cars or other vehicles, chasing pleasure or more work to purchase more material possessions and a better, more material, way of life. Everywhere, Nature is displaced as everywhere is invaded by the noise, the pollution, of vehicles carrying people pursuing their own pleasure, or conveying more and more consumer goods produced by the consumer-capitalist industries to feed the never-ending, insatiable demand for possessions, for luxuries, for comfort, for ease, for entertainment. Every year, year after year, there is more economic growth, more change, more destruction of the quiet, slow, rural way of thinking, of being; every year more new and unnecessary commodities and goods produced, more dependence upon international finance and foreign investment and foreign imports, more desire to compete in "foreign markets". The whole System - fed by greed, by change, by profit, by the desire for unnecessary luxuries and goods, by the desire for more and more, by the view of each person as only a consumer in some world market or as some worker-drone in some world-based factory or business - is wrong, contrary to the way of Blood and Soil., to the way of the warrior, to our ancestral and natural way of life.

Recently, I overheard a conversation in a pub. A young, local, farmer (whom I vaguely knew through a friend) had not long ago taken over the farm from his father. There was a large pond near the house - almost a lake - which for over an hundred years had provided sanctuary to wildlife, and enhanced the land, partly through its silent natural beauty. But with a young baby, and a small child, the decision was made to fill-in this pond, in case one of these children "had an accident". His wife was very worried about this, as he was although not quite in the same way, and it was a bit of a bother to care for the pond anyway. Interrupting, I suggested a fence, appalled at both the imminent destruction of a beautiful part of Nature, and something else. I even offered to help in the construction and erection of the fence. He agreed it was worth considering, since he felt it would be a shame to lose the large pond which his grandfather had helped to build. I did try and steer the conversation toward my other concern, but gave up after a while, feeling as I began to feel almost a stranger in a strange land. Quite a while later I heard, third-hand, that this pond was no more.

The interest here in this story is not the destruction of more of the natural beauty of our land, sad as that is, but the thinking, the feeling, which led to this: the desire to somehow "tame", to "pacify", the world - and in particular the natural world - and make it safe because some part of it was considered a "danger" to children. And this not from some urban dweller but from a family who lived and worked on a farm, and who had grown up in the country. It was as if the rough, tough, dangerous masculine side of life had been feminized - and today must be feminized. It was as if the wildness of Nature, the very danger of life itself, had to be done away with: that children must be cosseted, first by their family, and then by the State itself.

I had tried to talk to the young farmer of the necessity of accepting Nature - and her dangers - for what they are; of how we need to feel the perspective that Nature, raw, alive, dangerous, can bring; about building character through acceptance of risk; of accepting Fate itself. And then perchance to lead on to the necessity of war... But it was no use for I had begun to feel just an elderly man going on about a past the young did not know nor understand. Who today among the young would - or would be allowed to - climb a sheer rock face as I with my father did, and my father with his father before did, without any ropes, without a helmet, without any "safety gear" at all? Who today among the young would set off, as I once did a few years short of the age of ten, with only one tin of food and a little bottle of war, along a road into the East African bush just because I wanted to find out where the road went? And whose father - and which "officials" - would today understand such a youthful act and simply laugh and see it as part of the life of a boy growing up? But both my father, and all the officials, were veterans of the Second World War: rooted, grown from, the warrior, war-loving, society we have lost.

There has been a gradual and significant change in the attitude of people, away from an acceptance of adventure and combat - and indeed a love and desire for combat - and toward security, and safety; toward the way of life of the pacifist, the coward who is afraid to "get involved" and who knows nothing of honour; nothing of standing up for what is right, regardless of the personal risk and regardless of the consequences.

Is it any wonder then that more and more youngsters, feeling the upwelling of their ancient warrior blood, get into trouble, recklessly drive cars at great speed, and do other unsocial things? Is it any wonder that there is so much cowardly bullying, so much loutish drunken behaviour, so much disrespect among the young when there is no discipline of the Army kind, no facing of real danger through deadly combat, no deeds of real valour and heroism to be done in a war, and no understanding of comradeship, of sacrifice, of land and people, which a war, and only a bloody war, breeds? Is it any wonder that we have the the nation we do when there is no war to breed character: no bloody combat to teach respect and bring an understanding of Fate?

The Problem of Immigration:

The figures are startling. There are over 7,000 applications by "asylum seekers" each month. That is, 84,000 people per year who have officially requested to stay in this country, having arrived without permission or documents. Add to this those who do have permission, and add to this a reasonable (probably greatly underestimated) figure for the illegal immigration that already has reached alarming proportions, and there are at least 100,000 non-Aryans arriving every year. This is well over one million in ten years, due to the number of children born to these new immigrants. Given that there are already many millions of non-Aryans living in this country, then if present trends continue, native Britons - people of North European racial descent - will be a minority in about sixty or seventy years.

The truth of this matter is that, given the conditions which exist in many other countries in Africa, Asia and even parts of Eastern Europe, this country is seen as an opportunity for a new life as well as a "soft option": people can enter illegally, claim asylum, and be given accommodation, food and money to spend. And if they do not want to take the small risk involved in claiming asylum, they can disappear into the cities, and more often than not find work and so live better than they could in their own nations. We cannot blame these immigrants - both legal and illegal - for this, because it is natural: their last best hope as the Americans might say. Furthermore, our own ancestors did the same, venturing forth to the colonies, the New World, in search of a better life.

As long as this nation has little or no border controls, as they long as they allow people in, as long as there are people eager for money who will smuggle immigrants in, as long as the Government of the day houses and feeds such immigrants and is concerned with their "rights", and so long as the immigrants see this nation as a land of opportunity, or at least a better place to live than their own land, then the problem will not only continue, but get worse.

The Problem of the Future:

If things continue as they are now, then the Britain, the England, that I and my ancestors knew - and which they fought and died and struggled for - will no longer exist. Given the continued immigration, given the urban and rural development which will take place - new houses, roads, factories, industries - and given the continued destruction of the land by chemicals and agri-business, this country will be a vastly overpopulated, over-developed waste land, with the few areas of countryside left teeming with people enjoying "leisure pursuits" or just escaping from the metropolitan hells. And this countryside will be just as noisy, just as polluted, as the cities and towns. Furthermore, the majority of people who live in this country will be non-Aryan.

In less than sixty years, England and Wales will be unrecognizable. There will be nothing to love and be proud of; and certainly nothing in the nation - not even the land itself - worth dying for.

There will then either be a catastrophic political, economic and social collapse, or the continuation of the tyrannical consumer-capitalist society of the present where people are merely consumers and worker-drones.

The Prisons will be teeming; crime will be rife; proper family life almost non-existent; and the countryside will be used either for "leisure pursuits" or by giant commercial farms using giant machines to produce food for the giant supermarkets. Every single person will be controlled and watched by the invisible tentacles of the State: surveillance will be everywhere, some obvious; some not so obvious. The Police will have become just like an Army: but it will be an Army of Occupation, designed to keep the order, and the "law", of the tyrannical State. And the State will have the power to prevent anyone from leaving the country: confiscating the Passports of anyone they even suspect may be a dissident, or have any attitude or belief the State does not like. Yet always there will be more than enough people who believe that such State control, such surveillance, such Prisons, such a Police force and such laws and restrictions as are introduced, are " necessary" and desirable and even "just".

The nation will be - in all but name - a Marxist Police-State. For its social and political policies will be - in all but name - Marxist, just as there will a rich, privileged, elite of politicians, bureaucrats, "entertainers" and "celebrities" who will aid these social and political policies, who will vie for position and wealth and influence, and who will seek, knowingly or unknowingly, to keep the people mis-informed, and "entertained" and basically docile. And a few of this pampered elite may even in their ignorance sincerely believe that the social and political policies of the State are right.

And there will be little or no resistance to the tyranny of the State, for the spirit of the people will have been broken. They have food; they have shelter; they have their "entertainment", their "sport", as the more young and adventurous can still "have a good time". The Aryan people still left will have no true identity; no true culture; no feeling of Destiny; no warrior spirit; not even any true sense of belonging. Britain will have become a gigantic island Prison with its people participating in one gigantic piece of social engineering: mere politically-correct consumers and worker-drones for the rich, nation-hopping, fat international capitalist cabal, with all individuals deemed to have "politically-incorrect" attitudes or social behaviour, and all those who transgress one of the thousands of State laws passed every year, pounced on by the Police and locked away in the every-growing multitude of Prisons and "reform centres".

The Solutions:

There are only three ways to change what is happening: to prevent the complete destruction of this land and its Aryan people. Our way of life, mostly rural and slow, and breeding a love for and understanding of the land, of the people - the way of Blood and Soil - has almost been replaced by the way of consumer-capitalism and its multi-racial urban-dominated society. Can we bring this ancient, this ancestral, this wise way of Blood and Soil back? How can the terrible future which awaits be prevented?

The first way is for an Aryan political party - a movement for Aryan racial nationalism - to win political power and so introduce direct political measures. Such a movement would aim for a complete, a radical, change in attitude by the people and so enable them to understand what is going on and so demand change: an end to immigration, a refusal to any longer to pay taxes to support hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers in terms of benefits and free housing, with people appalled at the destruction of their land, their soil, by business and people who put profit first. This will either force the Government of the day to introduce strong measures and proper border controls, or shift the power to such an Aryan movement.

The second way is if the country declines and suffers severe economic and social problems so that it is no longer seems an attractive place for immigration, and with urban and other industry and commerce gradually breaking down, forcing people to once again turn to the land for basic food.

Is it possible that an Aryan political movement to win political power? Will the British people change - will they shake themselves out of their lethargic, material, inward-looking existence - and so demand radical reform, a restoration of their former, less materialistic, way of life where war and outward expansion, of Empire, was seen and understood as good? Or will things just carry on as they are now, with no sudden and catastrophic economic crises?

The Revolutionary Option:

I love this land as I love my people. I have no desire to see my people suffer and die, as I have a respect for the people of other cultures, other races. But I do know that if nothing is done - if we continue to drift as we are drifting - if my own people are not awakened, then my land and my people will simply not exist in the future.

And I wish for my people - and my land - to continue to exist, for I know that each race, each distinct people with its unique culture and traditions, is a valuable and precious gift from Nature, as I know that the health, the well-being, the very future, of such a people depends on the health, the well-being, of the land where they dwell.

My most ardent dream is for a noble, honourable, just society where my people can live among their own kind, with the land itself respected and treasured, and where there is a happiness: a stable, peaceful family orientated society where people live free and without fear, and certainly without the dishonourable blight of crime, drugs and homosexuality, with the people of this society understanding how they can contribute to their culture, and evolution itself: how the perspective of the people of this society is that of their folk, of the future of their folk, and of the future of Nature and the very cosmos itself.

The hard and difficult truth we must face and accept is that to create a better future - to save our people, our very land - we must sacrifice our present, we must act; we must make difficult decisions, and take and suffer the consequences of those decisions. I personally have no desire to harm, injure, or kill, any living thing; in fact, I nurture the desire to do the exact opposite. For over thirty years I have watched and studied the changes that have taken place and which are taking place in this and other Aryan lands, and our time has run out, with no leader emerging to guide us to victory and so save our people, our land.

The reality is that our people need a revolution or a war or the breakdown of the System to shake them out of the lethargy, the stupor, they are in: to bring alive once again their ancestral warrior culture; to change their way of thinking, their perspective. They need to once again have great challenges to overcome, for that breeds charcater, and brings forth the best of men, and the best in both men and women.

If our people are not awakened to action - if they are not forced to act by such a revolution, such a war or such a breakdown - then they and their land will slowly but surely die. In a hundred years time, Aryans will be a minority in this land, ruled over by a corrupt Government made up of mostly non-Aryans. This land itself will be covered in urban developments, and derelict, dead or despoiled. Society will be rotten, diseased, broken, crime-ridden and almost completely corrupt. The Police will be corrupt, as will the Courts and the vast majority of other Public servants. For over a hundred years our own people will have suffered terribly; what Aryans exist then in this land will be sad, proudless, people, accepting of their lot as a persecuted minority who toil away doing soul-destroying work or who are forced into ignoble crime in order to try and survive.

This is the fact, the truth, the reality, we must deal with. The future of this land is evident even today in certain areas of London, Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow ...

But there is unlikely to be a sudden collapse of the System, as there is unlikely to be a war which involves most of the people of this nation. Therefore, a revolution is needed. And there is going to be no radical, revolutionary change - no awakening of our people - unless we ourselves, we who know, who feel, who understand what is going on, act and strive to change things for the better. And the only feasible, practical, realistic way we can act is to strive, through a political and social organization, to tell our people of the truth, the danger: to arose in them an awareness of their true identity, of the true purpose of their lives; to motivate them to change society and create a new Aryan society.

Such a change - such a revolutionary social and political organization fighting for Aryan identity, Aryan culture and Aryan freedom - will involve strife, suffering, conflict, and possibly injuries and deaths, not because we wish these things but because those who oppose us, those who desire to keep our people as merely consumers and worker-drones in a multi-racial society, will not give up their power, their own aims, easily. So it is that they will use the resources they have - the Police, their hired thugs and their hordes of irrational "anti-nazis" protesters, the anti-Aryans laws they have introduced - to save the socially engineered, anti-Aryan and multi-racial society they have built. Thus we can expect political and social conflict and unrest, as we can expect our ignoble, tyrannical enemies to Prosecute and imprison some of us for being dissidents: for saying and writing what our anti-Aryan enemies have forbidden us to say and write, and for striving to do our noble duty to and on behalf of our people.

We have fifteen to twenty years to bring abut the social and political changes needed: to change the thinking, the opinions, the views, the perspective, the way of life, of our people; to return them to their Aryan identity, their Aryan culture, their Aryan way of life.

So it is that we must begin to act now to save our people and our land and enable us sometime in the future to live in freedom and as we must live: among our own kind according to the laws and traditions of our noble warrior culture.
 
 

There has been some recent criticism of what has been called the "pagan" revival within the revolutionary Right - and thus criticism of the pagan criticism of Christianity.

The critics of this pagan revival make mention of what they describe as the cultural legacy and importance of Christianity for the West. Some of these critics have also called for some sort of synthesis between Christianity and what they call "heathenism" to bring about a European revival or renaissance.

The Important Distinction:

The fundamental reason why Christianity is opposed to the ethos of the Thorian ("Western") culture and civilization is that Christianity - like Islam, Judaism and even Buddhism - is based upon what may be termed an homocentric morality whereas the Thorian ethos, derived from Aryan morality, is based upon a different ethics.

In essence, Aryan morality - the natural, instinctive, and healthy morality of those of Aryan descent - derives from folk idealism: that is, from placing the interests of the folk, the community, the race, before the individual. Thus, the individual is not seen or understood or comprehended in isolation, but as an integral, necessary and important part of the folk, of an organic community which dwells in a homeland with a particular way of living.

Aryan ethics derive from the understanding that we, as individuals, are a living nexus, a living link, between the past of our folk and its future, with what we do, or do not do, affecting our folk which is understood as a manifestation of Nature herself. According to our Aryan way of thinking and living, we affect our folk, and Nature, in a good way when we are honourable and when we do our duty to our folk; that is, personal honour and duty to the folk are the foundation of the personal ethics of the Aryan way. Thus, what is good is what is honourable and what aids the folk; what is bad is what is dishonourable and is harmful to our folk.

There is thus a real understanding, a real feeling, of belonging: of being part of a folk, and part of Nature.

This understanding - mostly instinctive in the past but more rationally comprehended now - of the living matrix which is Nature, with us as individuals, as a folk, depending upon Nature, and being Nature made manifest, is the true essence of the pagan view of the world: the very basis of the pagan way of life.

Often, in the past when this understanding was instinctive, the aspects of this organic matrix were personified, as gods and goddesses, and as "nature spirits". There was a real sense of how inter-connected all living things were: how they all were beings, possessed of a life-force, a "soul", and how important and necessary it was to strive to maintain a balance between all living things. To overstep the mark, to commit what the Greeks called hubris, was regarded as wrong, as unwise. Thus there was a real respect for Nature, for the manifestations of Nature, and even a feeling, an understanding, of aspects of Nature, of some manifestations of Nature, being sacred. In brief, the individual was understood in the context of the folk, the ancestors, of Nature herself.

The persecutive was supra-personal: of the folk, the ancestors, the world of Nature, and the cosmos beyond even Nature.

Such a perspective was, and is, the essence of true paganism.

In contrast, Christian morality, and living, emphasised human beings, and in particular the individual in isolation, and posited a God-given hierarchy of living beings, with many so-called "lesser beings" being regarded as put on Earth, or created, for our benefit, for our use.

This is very different from true paganism, and derives from monotheism: from the belief that what is most important is the after-life with this after-life being attainable if the individual behaves, and lives, in a certain way, in accordance with the teachings, the revelations, the laws, of prophets and religious leaders. This, in bare terms, is moral blackmail: do what our laws, our holy books, our revelations, say or you (note "you" ) will be cast into hell-fire and forever forfeit blissful eternal life. The perspective here is not of the folk, or of Nature, but of an "after-life".

In some ways, this kind of personal morality has served the world well: for such moral blackmail has indeed made millions of people over thousands of years into better people, and caused them to do noble things. But the vast majority have done what they have done because they expected some kind of personal reward.

This is selfish, and indeed primitive. The persecptive is still that of the individual, in isolation, and while there have been some, mostly recent, attempts to see the individual as part of Nature, and even as part of some "national culture" these themselves still belong to that way of living, that way of being, which looks toward an "after-life" and not toward the evolution, the enhancement, of our life, of Nature, and of the cosmos itself.

The Prophetic Way of Thinking:

Furthermore, in the Christian way of life there is still a dependence upon divine revelation, upon some holy book, upon some prophet or prophets who are said to be, or who are believed to have been, chosen by God to reveal the word/way of God to human beings. Moreover these always ambiguous revelations can be interpreted in various ways, which leads to schism, and different "churches" and eventually to quite different ways of living within the confines of the Christian way of thinking, of being.

Thus, we have the situation today where some people quote the Christian holy book to support racial separation, while others quote it to support the exact opposite. Even worse, this holy book is used by Zionists to support their claim to be chosen, while its sequel (the New Testament) has been used to claim these Zionists have earned and deserve the wrath of God.

There thus has developed a whole ethos, a whole way of life, a way of thinking, deriving from looking to those holy books for inspiration, for truth, for guidance, and the ultimately meaningless (in terms of Nature and the cosmos) squabbles about doctrine and God-sanctioned "authority".

This way of thinking pagans believe to be wrong. Some go even further and believe it to be un-natural and indeed repugnant. It is most certainly contrary to the ethos of the Aryan: to rational, free, enquiry; to that Hellenic and Thorian quest for knowledge, understanding and insight. To that free pagan warrior spirit which marked most if not all of the pagan societies of our Viking, our Anglo-Saxon, our Celtic, our Germanic, ancestors.

And it is not a question of some religious Institution, or some religious teacher, propounding irrational, intolerant, views. Rather, it is question of this prophetic way of thinking being intrinsic to Christianity: part of its ethos, its essence.

Christianity, In Summation:

If we consider just one realm - the realm of Justice - we shall easily understand the fundamental difference between the Aryan way, and the way of Christianity.

For any way of life - religion or philosophy - the notion, the concept, of Justice depends upon the morality of that way of life. That is, its derives from the ethics of that way.

For the Aryan, Justice derives from, and depends upon, personal honour. That is, Justice is living, dependent upon honourable, noble, individuals and existing in those honourable, noble, individuals. Hence the great importance which the way of the Aryan places upon individual character: upon building and maintaining individual character; with accepting and allowing for individual difference and respecting the honour, the rights, of other individuals. Hence the importance of allowing individuals to defend their own honour in a practical way, through such things as duels, and trial by combat.

And this respect for the honour, the character, of the individual is the basis, the beginning, of true freedom, as evident for example in the folk-communities of Ancient Greece.

In essence, this way of personal honour, this respect for individual character, this desire to create noble, honourable, character through practical tests such as combat and war, is the way of the noble warrior.

For Christianity, Justice is abstract, ultimately deriving from God. This led to the concept of Justice which still underlies all Western nations: the idea that Justice can exist in some law, some statute, in some judgement given by some individual (a "Judge") or some "Court of Law", for all these impersonal, Institutional things, derive their ultimate authority either from God, some appointed representative of God, such as a monarch, or some Institution which relies and has relied upon Christian ethics.

Thus, one had the disastrous monarchies of Europe imposing their ruthless dictatorships upon the people for century after century due to the Christian notion of divine right: that is, justifying their rule (which was often assumed by force of arms) through Christian ethics. This gave them an absolute power so that Justice was said to be the Justice of the monarch, with officials appointed by the monarch to enforce this "justice". Thus the individual became more and more powerless and had to rely on the King, or his appointees, for "Justice". Justice was transfered from the people, from individuals, to the Crown.

In later times in Europe, these abstract concepts were merely transferred to the State, with Governments, and elected officials (such as the Police) appropriating to themselves the right to decide what is lawful and what is unlawful.

That is, the power of Justice is taken away from the individual, and resided and resides in some abstract law, or some "Court of Law". Thus we have Governments, and their appointees such as the Police, saying un-Aryan things like "No one can take the law into their own hands" whereas according to the Aryan way a noble, honourable, individual is Justice, is the law. That is, according to Aryan ethics, a man who lives by honour, who is known by the folk to be honourable, whose honour has been proved through his deeds, his life, is an example of Justice: and is Justice. There is thus no need for legislation, for a multitude of laws and for "Courts of Law" where so-called "experts" are needed to argue for and against the accused. Justice, for the Aryan, is a question of honour.

In the Aryan way, Justice is human, and flexible. In the Christian way, Justice is abstract, and unbending, and in fact inhuman.

In summation, Christianity has been an unmitigated disaster. As Nietzsche and others understood, it robbed us for centuries of our true identity, our true Aryan, Hellenic, ethos: of the "harvest, the fruits, of Hellenic culture".

Even the Renaissance - that great re-discovery of part of our heritage - became stifled because of the counter-attacks by Christianity: what renaissance there was, occurred within the confines of the Christian way of thinking, of living, so that instead of a liberation from the abstract way of Christianity with its abstract "justice" and its lack of understanding of the folk, of Nature, its abject arrogance toward the nexus, there was only a slight awakening of our Aryan spirit, our Aryan ethos.

Indeed, we had to wait until this present century - until the glorious advent of Fascism and National-Socialism - for our Aryan ethos to begin to manifest itself again on a large scale.

Even the Renaissance might not have occurred were it not for Islam. For most of the fruits of Hellenic culture were saved by Muslims, and thence re-introduced into Europe. For centuries, Christianity saught to destroy our Hellenic heritage, our pagan understanding, and thus the fruits of ancient Greece and Rome, and in many ways it was only the Muslim conquest of Spain, and the coming together in places like Andalusia of Muslim and Christian scholars, that enabled Europe to rediscover Greek and Roman literature, history, science and mathematics.

We must have or develope, the insight, the courage, to understand Christianity and act upon that understanding.

What many so-called Christian nationalist movements and martyrs achieved, they achieved not because of Christianity, but in spite of Christianity, and while they are many things of beauty and nobility which Christianity inspired in our people (one thinks here of the music of JS Bach) how much more could have been achieved, how much greater could the true numen be represented through some cultural or artistic form, if there had been an Aryan ethos inspiring our people!

Of course, Christianity, like Islam, can be said to have in some ways made this world a better place. But that does not alter the fact that as a way of living, of thinking, of being, it is anti-Aryan and indeed anti-evolutionary, and that, on balance, it has probably done far more harm than good.

The two ways of viewing the world, of understanding our relation to other human beings, to Nature, to the cosmos - the Christian and the Aryan - are not only different, but irreconcilable.

Christianity is a prophetic way of thinking, based upon a primitive homocentric (and thus anti-racial) view of the world, whereas the Aryan way is the way of reason, of experiment, of discovery, based as this Aryan way is upon a natural, a cosmic, a folk, view of the world.

We now have the ability, the opportunity, of consciously understanding our unique Aryan way of life, and of deciding whether we wish to follow this way.

To return to Christianity - in whatever form - is quite simply wrong: the negation of thousands of years of conscious understanding; the negation of thousands of years of culture and civilization.

To choose Christianity, in whatever form and for whatever reason, is to choose the old, primitive, homocentric ethics with its inhuman, abstract "justice".

To choose the Aryan way of life is to choose the new ethics of the cosmos, of the folk, of the nexus, with its human and civilizing concept of honour, and with its evolutionary idealism of duty to the folk, duty to Nature, and duty to the cosmos itself.