Wednesday, 20 March 2019

Saturday, 9 March 2019

I recently found this interesting article (below) whilst researching online. The garden city in the UK Schubert talks about is Letchworth, in Hertfordshire UK. It just so happens I've some good volkisch friends who live there! Many of the streets are named after Howard, as are the green and cream painted Howard cottages. Still, I think I'd prefer to live in Fritsch's Gartenstadt. 

Theodor Fritsch and the German (völkische) version of the Garden City: the Garden City invented two years before Ebenezer Howard - DIRK SCHUBERT

The garden city is generally credited as being the brainchild of the English reformer and visionary, Ebenezer Howard, first published in 1898 in his book To‐morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. However a German contemporary, Theodor Fritsch (1852–1933), also claimed authorship of the idea in 1896 in his book Die Stadt der Zukunft. The second edition of this book, published in 1912, actually bears the subtitle Gartenstadt. Unlike Howard's progressive and humane reformism, Fritsch's vision reflected an extreme‐racist perspective that later contributed to National Socialist ideology and caused him to be revered as a prophet of Nazism. Unlike Howard, Fritsch was a prolific author whose other work included rabidly anti‐Semitic propaganda, often expressed in his journal, Hammer. His ideas were almost completely ignored by the German garden city association, founded in 1902, which embodied Howard's more liberal and humanistic perspectives. This article examines Fritsch's claims to authorship and considers the nature of his vision of the garden city, using his other writings to give a fuller picture of his thinking. It also details two settlements with which Fritsch was actively associated, Eden (1893–) and Heimland (1908–). Finally it compares the nature of Howard's and Fritsch's garden city visions and offers some reasons as to why the former became so completely dominant.

Sunday, 3 March 2019

Jorian Jenks: Farmer & Fascist
by Alex Graham

The connections between the organic movement and the radical Right are often overlooked. To the chagrin of liberal environmentalists, the early organic movement had close links to both fascism and National Socialism. Among the leading pioneers of organic farming was Jorian Jenks, a high-ranking member of the British Union of Fascists who served as the party’s agricultural advisor. Farming, Fascism and Ecology is the first biography of Jenks to appear in print. It is an amply researched and surprisingly even-handed study that details Jenks’s oft-neglected influence on the organic movement and sheds light on the long-standing ties between environmentalism and the far-Right.[1]

Born in Oxford to upwardly mobile, Left-leaning parents, his father a prominent academic and his mother the daughter of a merchant, Jenks was an unlikely candidate to become either a farmer or a fascist. Having wanted to be a farmer from early childhood, he enrolled at Harper Adams Agricultural College in 1916. He spent his early career working on land restoration projects and serving as a government farming instructor in New Zealand. He later studied at Oxford and received a B.Litt. for his thesis on land settlement policy in Australia and New Zealand.

Jenks subsequently moved to Ecclesden Farm in Angmering, West Sussex, where he worked the land along with a handful of other men. The six years he spent as a farmer at Ecclesden effected a significant change in his worldview. In his earlier years, Jenks had advocated factory farming and the use of artificial fertilizers; at Ecclesden, he came to champion family-owned, medium-sized farms over large factory farms, mixed farming over monoculture, and animal labor over machinery.

Jenks often returned to the theme that monoculture, despite its superficial advantages, depletes the soil of its nutrients and fertility in the long run, causing soil erosion and necessitating the use of chemical fertilizers that in turn bring about further ecological destruction. He also defended animal labor on the practical grounds that it was cheaper, in some cases more efficient, and caused less soil compaction (though he did endorse cars, grass-drying machines, and even, in some cases, the tractor).

Ultimately, however, his primary objections to factory farms and the widespread use of machinery were more philosophical than practical: “Farming is one of the few industries in which Man is not yet dominated by the Machine, in which the small producer still has a chance to preserve his independence. It is in the national interest that it should remain so” (p. 74). He did not wholeheartedly condemn the use of farm machinery but believed that it ought to be subordinate to physical labor and not vice versa. Coupland comments that, in this regard, Jenks may have been influenced by Arthur Penty, a writer on guild socialism and distributism who advocated for a return to handicraft as the basis of production.

Indeed, Jenks’s interest in Social Credit and related movements was what eventually led him to fascism. Jenks likely joined the BUF in early 1934. Coupland proposes that Jenks was the author of an article published anonymously in The Blackshirt in 1935 entitled “Why I, A Farmer, Have Turned Fascist” in which the author describes his reasons for joining the BUF: “Their aims and objects were to me the very thing the country needed: a straightforward constructive policy of national regeneration, with ‘Britain First’ as its watch-word. . . . I have become more and more convinced that the Fascist agricultural policy is the only one which will put us on our feet again” (p. 87).

Written under the pseudonym “Vergilius” (a tribute to the celebrated farmer-poet), his articles in the fascist newspaper Action were his most notable contribution to British fascism. He later also published a collection of his poetry, most of which deals with agricultural themes, under this pseudonym.

In 1936, Jenks left his anonymity behind and ran as the BUF candidate for Horsham and Worthing as a prospective MP. As a close friend of Oswald Mosley, whom he likened to William Cobbett, he was appointed the temporary leader of the BUF after Mosley was detained under Defence Regulation 18B in 1939. But Jenks was also detained and withdrew from political life following his release in 1941.

Jenks criticized interwar British agricultural policy on the grounds that agriculture had become a mere speculative commodity whose production had fallen into the hands of financiers who prized cheap food and low wages over the health of the soil and the people. He pushed for Britain to minimize foreign food imports and overseas investment in order to raise the per-capita home production of food and achieve agricultural autarky and national self-sufficiency.

He also wrote on food and nutrition, arguing that the decline in food standards was a symptom of the decline of Western civilization in general and that returning to a diet of homegrown, unprocessed food would boost both individual health and national morale.

Jenks’s policy proposals included the establishment of institutions such as an Agricultural Land Bank that would provide an alternative to debt incurred by farmers who had previously purchased land on mortgage, an Agricultural Corporation that would set prices of commodities in order to ensure economic stability in the agricultural sector, a Central Land Commission that would stabilize land values and rents, and a Voluntary Land Army that would confiscate and restore land from any landowner shown to have misused it. The state would supervise agricultural production overall, but these institutions would be organized on a county basis with leaders elected at the local level. The objective of these large-scale national directives would not be the “centralised micro-management of farming, but the creation of ‘conditions under which the industry can adequately fulfil its function as the main source of food for the people'” (p. 98). These proposals never came to fruition, though his ideas did have some impact on post-war British agricultural policy.

In 1937, ill health and financial difficulties forced Jenks to abandon farming, and he devoted the rest of his life to writing and lecturing. He had become a successful agricultural journalist by this point, writing for The Manchester Guardian, The Observer, and The Yorkshire Post, as well as for fascist journals, and had written books outlining his proposals for monetary reform (Farming and Money) and the agricultural policy of the BUF (The Land and the People).

His best-known work, Spring Comes Again, was published in 1939 and details his political worldview. His most notable argument here is that what he termed the “Plutocratic State,” wherein money and finance reign supreme, represents the inevitable culmination of modern liberalism. He reiterates this theme in From the Ground Up: An Outline of Real Economy, published in 1950, in which he attacks modern materialism and liberal capitalism and contrasts them with the ideal of the organic society.

Jenks was critical of both international capitalism and Communism, which he described as “attempts to subordinate the peoples to the dictates of a super-State, to break down the natural claims of patriotism and racial brotherhood, and to substitute for them the rule of some soulless materialistic deity” (102). He associated both with Jews, whom he amusingly likened to rabbits. Despite appearing soft and defenseless, rabbits wreak havoc on crops in Australia and New Zealand, where they are an invasive species. He was a bit more charitable to Jews than to rabbits, though, and believed that they could gain dignity as a race through “contact with the soil.”

After the war, Jenks became the editor of the journals of both the Soil Association (an organization that later became known for developing the first organic certification system) and the Rural Reconstruction Association. He moved away from active political involvement and did not join Mosley’s Union Movement, but nonetheless retained his fascist sympathies. In order to address the food shortages brought on by the war, he authored a pamphlet along with the two founders of the agricultural branch of the Union Movement entitled None Need Starve, which laid out a plan for increased agricultural production. He was also a member of Kinship in Husbandry, a group somewhat akin to the Soil Association founded by Rolf Gardiner, Viscount Lymington (Gerald Wallop), and H. J. Massingham. There was some overlap between the organic movement and the post-war fascist movement. Gardiner and Lymington were both sympathetic to fascism. It is also worth noting that the two journals edited by Jenks counted Walther Darré (Minister of Food and Agriculture under Hitler) and his aide Hermann Reischle among their subscribers. After the war, Jenks also became involved with the Council for the Church and Countryside, as he believed that the Church could play a role in agricultural revival by emphasizing the spiritual bond between man and soil. (The word “cultivation,” as he pointed out, derives from the Latin colere, meaning both “to till” and “to worship.”) His final book, The Stuff Man’s Made Of: The Positive Approach to Health through Nutrition, was published in 1959.

This biography makes it clear that Jenks’s fascist convictions were a natural extension of his commitment to the organic movement. Any serious and honest environmentalist will be left wondering whether it is really the Right, and not the Left, that offers the most pertinent solutions to the ecological quandaries posed by liberal modernity.


1. The term “organic farming” itself was coined by Lord Northbourne in his 1940 book, Look to the Land, and comes from his concept of the “farm as organism,” or what he described as “the farm as a living whole.” Northbourne happens to have been a translator of René Guénon’s works and might have also been a member of the BUF.

With the rise of a new Aryan conscience, a new and profound love of nature has developed within the minds of the youth today. Nationalism and environmental concerns have always overlapped. For years the left has argued that they are the true 'greens'. Lies! How can anyone express love for the land whilst welcoming the world to come and live here! We constantly hear (especially here in England) that we need more teachers...more doctors...and most of all more houses to cope with the numbers. No -we just need fewer immigrants (ideally none). Thus the true environmentalists are those on the 'right' - the tribalist, nationalist and the racially awake -those with a spiritual connection with the land. Abrahamic faiths divorce the soul from the soil - hence 99% of the hordes that cross into Europe are from an Abrahamic faith. 

When I was in my early twenties (..half a lifetime ago) I started researching the idea of buying some land. It's an idea that soon turned into just a dream as land prices today are out of reach for the common folk of England. But the research wasn't a waste of time. I learnt of a National Socialist community in Wales, though I was never able to find a way to contact them. I also learnt that one of England's most famous eco-villages 'Tinkers Bubble', a woodland community of low impact roundhouses was also founded by Robert Baehr, who stood as a candidate for the nationalist BNP. The English Heathen Front developed an ideology which was also based upon ecology, nationalism and heathenism. I will post some of their writings in a new page sometime soon.

For those with a deep love of nature, I'm sure you will have heard of Anna Bramwell's books on Darré and ecology. There are a few copies online and the original book now costs many hundreds of pounds. Darré, often labelled 'the Father of the Greens', and along with Himmler, represented the pagan side of National Socialism. Himmler and Darré were both members of the Artamanen-Gesellschaft which was fiercely anti-Slavic - something which is often overlooked. It was Darré who sent German farmers calendars with important Germanic pagan dates. My Wehrbauer blog (now expired) was dedicated to him.

It was Ilse Darré (his sister) who designed the Runic binding and heraldic emblem for him. I would love to know if the colours blue/red/gold meant anything to him or his family? I'll certainly be researching the emblem and colour look out for more posts soon! An old post of interest here


I found this interesting article online. I've posted it here (there are some spelling mistakes as this is a direct copy and paste) as I know many of you will find it interesting. I've certainly used the same source material in the past for posts on this blog regarding cognition between the word 'Aryan' and 'to use a plough'.

Aryan = Ancient Racial Term

Although the traditional usage by academics of the term 'Aryan' went out of fashion for
political reasons after 1945 mainly due to its association with the Racial Science of the
Third Reich the term has been in use by a number of writers since then and used in its
traditional sense.

One of the reasons why it is rejected by the 'liberal" elite[the 1968 anarchist middle class
student generation] is because it is a value loaded term with great significance.
Let us examine the possible meanings now.

J.B. Mallory and D.Q. Adams in The Oxford Introduction To Proto-Indo-European and
the Proto-Indo-European World state that the term 'Aryan' or ' Arya' derives from the
reconstructed Proto-Indo-European[PIE] term h4eros or h4eryos which has the general
meaning of "member of one's own group" which in itself is almost an admission that it is
an ethnic term.

The Hittite ara- means "member of one's own group, peer, friend". The Lycian arus
means "citizens", Old Irish aire "freeman", the Avestan airya and the Sanskrit arya

Mallory and Adams state quite clearly "The evidence suggests that the word was, at least
initially, one that denoted one who belongs to the community in contrast to an outsider; a
derivative of the word is found in the Hittite ara' [what is] fitting' and natta ara 'not right'.

Quite deceptively they then try to almost apologise for the above statements and attempt
a u-turn by saying "Although in Indo-Iranian the word takes on an ethnic meaning, there
are no grounds for ascribing this semantic use to Proto-Indo-European, ie there is no
evidence that the speakers of the proto-language referred to themselves explicitly as

Yet one has to ask that if the Hittites and not just the Indo-Iranians used this term to
define themselves and as this term has cognates in all Indo-European languages and can
be traced back to a reconstructed PIE term, ie h4eros or h4eryos and as the Proto-Indo-
Europeans left no manuscripts behind how can these two academics so glibly argue that
they did not use this term in a self-defining sense? How can Mallory and Adams possibly
make this argument? How can they possibly know? Lack of evidence in itself can never
be used as evidence for a counter argument.

We also have to consider that the original Aryans in their Urheimat would have been
more than likely self-contained and seperated from all other races and so had no need to
define themselves as a race or ethnic group until they encountered other races and ethnic

groups and this probably did not start to happen until their long and far reaching dispersal
began and they started to encounter alien peoples. The term 'Aryan' was however already
there in their original lexicon and they began to apply new meanings to the word in the
courses of their migrations.

The fact that the term has been used by speakers of Indo-European languages as far apart
as India and Ireland is surely a strong indication that the dispersed Aryans took this term
with them and it began to take on new shades of meaning within their own language
groups and ethnicities.

In his A Sumer Aryan Dictionary Professor L. Austine Waddell states that 'Aryan',
' Arya' or the Ar prefix and its cognates have the following meanings: lofty, exalted ones,
loftiness, majesty fame, chiefs, governors, mistress, goddess, one who goes up, mankind,
man, noble, master, lord, one of the exalted ruling race, better, stronger, braver, hero,
freeman, famous, warrior, gentleman, leader, honourable, man of rank or valour, etc.
Interstingly the sign of the plough is also considered to be a sign of the Aryan and
Waddell in most of his books builds a case for the Aryan as the originator of civilisation
and agriculture.

Is it any wonder then that the 'powers that be' do not want us to use this ancient term to
define ourselves by?

And since when did the Aryans ever define themselves as Indo-Europeans' or Indo-
Germanics'? Never! Yet these very same academics would have us use the term 'Indo-
European' [Indo-Germanic has likewise gone out of fashion for pc reasons!] as a self-
defining term. It beggars belief!

The 'liberal' elite know very well that if we reclaim this word we would as a race regain
our racial pride and start to overturn their genocidal policies which are aimed at our
extinction as a distinct people.

It has become fashionable among most scholars of the post war generation to avoid the
use of the term 'Aryan' unless it is used in a purely linguistic sense as in describing the
Indo-European languages of Iran and India or the peoples who speak them.

No doubt the use of this term by racialists in National Socialist Germany has had an
impact upon this shift of usage despite the fact that the term was in common use as both
a linguistic and a racial/ethnic term in all countries before then and indeed is still
occasionaly used by some authors in its original sense.

These scholars ignore the body of evidence which makes it abundantly clear that the term
Aryan and its derivatives can be found throughout the spectrum of Indo-European
languages and has been used as a noun in some of those languages to describe the people

who belonged to the ethnic group who spoke that particular Indo-European language.
Indeed it is quite amazing how Indo-European languages spoken so far apart from each
other from India to Ireland make use of the term.

The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European tongue has the term *Ar-yo, *Heryos or *Herios
from which the word Aryan is descended from in various Indo-European languages. It
has the meaning of 'member of one's own group' so quite clearly from the very
beginning it had an ethnic or racial sense. It was an exclusive term used by the speakers
of Proto-Indo-European, the original Aryans in other words.

Here are some examples of how the term and its derivatives have been used amongst a
wide range of Indo-European languages.

Sanskrit-Arya, the exalted, or noble, master, lord, an Aryan, one of the 'exalted' ruling

Arya-man, a companion[Aryan].

Old Persian-Ariya. See above definition!

Iranian- Airya-a racial title used by Darius on his tomb. Has the same general sense as in
the Sanskrit.

Hittite-Ara, member of one's own group, peer, friend.

Lycian[Anatolian language from South- West Anatolia]-Arus, citizens.

Greek- Areion, better, stronger, braver, usually derived from Ares, war, but probably
cognate with Airo, exalt. Ar-istos, best. Heros, a hero, a freeman. Arios or Herios a title
of the Medes and Persians. Aeria or Herie, a Greek name for Egypt. Harma-chariot.

Gothic-Harri, lord or king. Her, a noble man. Her-sir, a chief, a lord.

Norwegian-Herre, lord, master, gentleman.

German-Herr, lord, master, gentleman.

Dutch-heer, lord, master, gentleman.

Cornish and Celtic-Arhu, command.

Old English-Hearra, lord, master. Eorl, Erl-cognate with Jarl, a chief, leader, hero, man of

Modern English- Aryan, as a racial ruling title. Aristo-cracy, a government of the 'best or
strongest' men, the nobility, from the Greek: Aristo-crat, Aristo-cratic.

Old and Modern Irish-aire, freeman. Erin, Eire, Ireland-same sense as Aryavarta-land of
the Aryans.

In the following languages the prefix ar has the connotation of to plough or till in certain





Old English-erien


Closely related to this sense of the term the following languages extend the use of the
prefix to terms for the earth:

Modern English-earth





The German word Ehre closely related to the Dutch eer which means honour also is a
derivative of Aryan and generally conveys the notion of honourable conduct which is
regarded as atypical of the Arya.

Why has the Name Aryan been Adopted as the Distinctive Appellation of this Group

or Family of Races?

The name comes to us through the Sanskrit, the oldest of the written tongues of the Aryan
peoples. In the Vedas the Brahmins speak of their ancestors as the Arya, and of the older
homeland as Arya Avarta, that is, the homeland of the Arya. In the Zend, the Iranic
branch of that older Aryan speech, the word is Airya. Yet the word in both the Sanskrit
and the Zend is only a derivative. The root form goes back to an older
speech even than that of the Brahminic Vedas or the Iranic Avestas, and in root form is
found in other Aryan speech than the two just instanced. In Latin it is found in arare ; in

Greek, aroun ; in Slavonic, orati ; Gothic, arjan; Welsh, arad; Old English, erien. In all,
the meaning is to plow or till. Yet back of the verbal form can be traced a substantive
form meaning earth. It is to be found in our modern English word earth; in German,
erde ; Danish, aarde ; Latin, arvum ; Greek, era. In all these tongues the root ar enters into
many secondary forms and combinations; but back of all, sometimes difficult to trace, yet
there, is that older idea of the earth.

It all points back to one common speech which was mother alike to Sanskrit, Zend,
Greek, Latin, and the Slavic, Celtic, and Teutonic tongues. To that primitive mother
tongue the name Proto- Aryan has been given, a tongue long since unspoken, known only
through its children. When the Aryans who spoke Sanskrit called themselves Arya, the
thought back of it was probably the same which we find among so many of the primitive
peoples of the world; that they were autochthonous (auro9- X A ttF, children of the soil),
the primitive, earth-borm folk The fact that the Sanskrit and the Zend, the oldest of
die written Aryan tongues, made use of this name as designative of the people and their
ancestry, coupled with that other fact that the root of the name is so wide-spread
among the Aryan peoples, and joined with this the additional fact that nowhere else
among the primitive kin do we find even two branches of the family uniting upon a
common race designation makes this the fittest of all names to represent the whole kin.

And it has the additional recommendation of being free from all entanglements with
conflicting theories as to race origin and race migrations, while it is so general in
character as to embrace all possible branches of the family. The term Indo A Germanic, as
used by the German ethnologists, is inadmissible in that not only is it pre-committed to a
theory and a bias, but is also too narrow at each end. The Brahmin of India was only one
of the eastern Aryans; while the German upon the west is only one of the subdivisions
of one branch of the western Aryans, The term Indo- European is somewhat broader, yet
this also is defective, as already shown, upon the eastern end, while the world qnead (?) of
the Aryan westward makes the term European no longer appropriate. The term Aryan as
the family name is justly supplanting all others.

Wednesday, 6 February 2019

Pagans are all those who say Yes to life, 
for whom god is the word for the great Yes to all things.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Tuesday, 5 February 2019

All good wishes
For our people
For your clan
For your parents
For you!

Alle guten Wünsche
Für unser volk
Für Deine Sippe
Für Deine Eltern
Für Dich!

Above is an example of an SS Allach (the SS porcelain producers) Lebensleuchter. They came in various forms, silver candle holders, wooden life runes or the ornate porcelain ones like above. They were a gift from Himmler to the infants of SS families. On the birth of their first new child, SS parents also received a ribbon and bib made of blue silk, which symbolised the unity of birth, marriage, life and death. Himmler was also the godfather to any child born to an SS family on his own birthday, the 7th October. 

All of the Lebensleuchters carried one important rune - the Lebensrune or Life rune.

Sunday, 3 February 2019

Every now and then I take a look through the statistics pages for this blog and have a look at the traffic sources and most read articles. It seems for a while now folk have been directed to this blog looking for information on the 'Wolf Aged Swastika'.  So I thought I'd see if there was any more I could add to the blog on this. A quick google search bought up all my previous posts plus the image above.

I recognised the Swastika motif on the flag so thought I'd share what I know about it as the subject for this post.

The Swastika in the picture is a very stylised one and is the symbol of the Tajik people - who, back in 2005 declared themselves an Aryan Nation and promoted the swastika as a sign of their Aryan heritage. Tajikistan got its independence (from the collapse of the USSR in 1991).

Tajik swastika

It's quite clear the people who live in the region that they are now mixed. Photos show a range of ethnic groups including Mongoloid and Arab, however its clear from the pictures below some still carry the Aryan genes. The Tajik are closely related to the Persians and speak a form of the Persian language. What is fascinating about their culture is that many holidays are banned. If I recall this is because the country, whilst having a muslim majority is very secular. Some celebrations are permitted only in private, such as birthday celebrations. Other holidays were promoted by the USSR so are shunned today but the one holiday which is openly celebrated is a pagan one - Nowruz, which is the Persian new year and falls on the spring equinox.

 blue eyed Tajik women