|
|
|
Those BNP results There have been two posts on the BNP website covering last week’s election results. One of these is a very brief region-by-region round-up. The other is a Nick Griffin essay dealing with causal factors and forward-strategies. Griffin is good value and worth a read, particularly this:-
As one would would expect, Griffin was not alone in giving his opinions to fellow nationalists. Various nationalist websites have been offering interesting interpretations of the results. There is some optimism, some stubborn pride. But the overall tenor is undeniable disappointment. After all, the omens had been so good. The candidates in their canvassing and the leafletters on their rounds were providing plenty of positive feedback. The customary barriers to the Party - a blackened reputation and the power of the main parties on the ground - seemed less formidable. Nationally, the Labour Party was weaker than at any time since the Foot era. But it all went ever so slightly sour. An uneasy feeling stalks the nationalist right that something systemic, something not ameliorable is at work in all this. Sure, practical explanations like Griffin’s - all those Labour activists “manning telephone banks” - are comforting. They offer a way forward in an “anything you can do ...” sense. But they reduce everything to the level of engine room politics. Are electoral mechanics really where success for the Party resides? Is that, as a world-weary Peggy Lee once sung, all there is? Well, Griffin’s post-election judgement certainly leans in that direction:-
It is revealing - and slightly depressing - that even Griffin’s interpretation of a “passion for politics and political argument” is activist in focus. “Political argument” here stands for a long-run process of voter education, accelerated by the occasional “event” like 7/7 or his and Mark Collett’s double trial. It’s the traditional nationalist view that the electorate can be converted man-by-man, until time and tide and the protest vote sweeps the Party into power. The conclusion Griffin draws from the bruising realities of last week is that the main parties, especially Labour, have learned how to outflank the BNP as it travels that long road of persuasion. Staying on the road will only invite Labour to repeat the lesson. It will not win back the initiative. Now, that is a perfectly defensible point of view. High-pressure activism may well blunt Labour’s efforts, and anyway what choice does the Party have? But this is still nationalist politics, and while such dedicated activism has about it the demeanour of a man who can make love to his wife with, shall we say, impressive technical ability, perhaps he cannot actually love her. Love, in politics, is a philosophical thing. So I wonder whether the new concentration on technical ability requires the underpinning of a more holistic ideological corpus than the “passion for politics and political argument” that prevails among the BNP lads of Rotherham and Rochdale. I think it probably does - indeed, I have always thought it does. Political statement needs a “why”, an extrapolation from value. For that is the basis on which people’s hopes and aspirations are founded. Instinctive racialism operating through the medium of disaffection or anger at the ethnic spoils system is too spiritually thin to be adequate to the task. The question, of course, is: where are the men of intellect to fashion such a complex and priceless political asset? There is Jonathan Bowden, who joined the party not too long ago in the capacity of Cultural Officer. Bowden is by any standards a brilliant and knowledgeable man. But he is only one. Are others of that calibre available? Certainly, if the search extends beyond Britain’s shores, and there is no reason why it should not. One other thought on the philosophical angle. It is stating the blind obvious to say that in national politics a third-place party has a near-impossible task to break the electoral grip of the two parties ahead of it. In Europe, no nationalist party has succeeded in coming through the pack in this way since ... well, for over seventy years. The third party barrier appears to be around the 25% mark. The BNP averaged 14.7% in the wards in which it put up a candidate last week. I strongly suspect that the petite campaigning footprint of the BNP, like any third party, will not be solely responsible should the next ten percentage points, and the ten after that, prove elusive. Third parties generally have a philosophical footprint to match the campaigning one. They cannot generate enough aspiration among the voters. They lack that defining idea. Activism plus an over-arching philosophy might not be a simple way forward for Griffin and his people. But it is much better that the one he is contemplating. Comments:3
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 May 2007 07:37 | # Daniel, No, the BNP’s nationalism is of the “my big idea is I am against other big ideas” type. They are against immigration, against global capitalism, against Islamicisation. It is implicit that they are for the myriad interests of native British peoples. That is what racialist nationalism “does”, after all. But the contrarianism is reactive. It takes its energy from negative effects, and channels it straight through street-level activism and a rather general set of policy ideas. OK, in local election terms that could certainly get them close to 25% average in favoured white urban wards. But if these comprise more than a fifth of all constituencies I would be surprised. Since local elections generally produce a turnout under 50% these days, and since the Party might average no more than 5 to 7% across the lesser favoured wards, the best it gets is still a rather small percentage of all voters. The Tory Party is currently polling at 39% across the country (ie, including Scotland and Wales where it is relatively weak), and even at that level is borderline in terms of a general election victory. Life is very tough on small parties. That is why it so important to be a philosophical beacon shining forth a positive, communicable idea even into corners where activism cannot penetrate. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 May 2007 07:40 | # Friedrich, don’t be so coy. You and I both have ideas about ideas. 5
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 11 May 2007 14:07 | # How does the BNP differ from Haider’s Freedom Party who ,as a third party, took 27% of the vote in 1999, running on a nationalist anti-immigration platform? 6
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:03 | # And yet, Fred, Austria maintains a heavy-handed holocaust denial law that they enforce vigorously, i.e. David Irving. 7
Posted by gongstar on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:47 | # Desmond— The sacredness of the Holocaust is something Austrians have to uphold in public, where beady Jewish eyes are always upon them; a vote for Haider, OTOH, could be delivered in secret. For various reasons, do not put your trust in Griffin and the BNP. Griffin is a politician and out for number one. See him and them as valuable in promoting the cause, but not as the ones who will fulfil it. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 May 2007 23:15 | # Here’s another Labour threat to a purely activism-based BNP in its nascent working-class strongholds:-
9
Posted by NEC watch on Fri, 11 May 2007 23:59 | # GW, are you at all surprised about the “sour” and “disappointing” outcome for the BNP, or Griffin’s lack of an over-arching and strategic response to it? Surprised at Le Pen’s pathetic showing? Of course, academic Salterism is for the elites. There needs to be a way of translating the basics in a form that the average drooling idiot in the street can understand. I am confident that can be done, with various familial analogies. The aim is to drive a permanent wedge between these populations and make the multicultural regime ungovernable. The ultimate aim - which should be stated - is to preserve the ethnic interests of the natives and &@*! the newcomers. What? - “speech laws” inhibit that? Then, see point #2!!! How many times must the obvious be stated? Free speech can be a wedge issue and a means of attacking the liberals using their own “liberalism” against them. It is a perfect “moral high ground” issue and perfect for ridicule against the censors. 10
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 12 May 2007 00:19 | # “Friedrich, don’t be so coy. You and I both have ideas about ideas.” Ah yes…Revolutionary Conservatism will save us. 11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 12 May 2007 06:02 | # There appears to be a significant correlation between Polish immigration and BNP turnout. Wrexham, in North Wales, voiced concern over Poles taking Welsh jobs. Similarly resentment to the cheap Polish labour was found in South Wales, in locales like Aberavon, the home of British Steel. 23.5% of the vote was garned in Arun (Bognor Regis) on a first time showing.
Yorkshire and Humberside showed growth for the BNP, again an area with significant levels of cheap Polish labour.
Mr. Linden’s response is interesting. He says,
Yet, Haider and the Freedom Party took exactly the opposite approach. They demonised the Eastern European immigrants…
and got elected. 12
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 12 May 2007 07:59 | # A couple of suggestions to BNP. Due to time limitations I write condensely: - Advice people to not use swearwords in their blogs when writing in support of BNP or our cause in general. Use matter of fact language. Because in our countries there has been so little ethnic competition, people’s talk have been conformed to mild levels. If somebody uses anything above that, people easily interpret it to mean he is threathening societal peace and order, and preparing or advocating violence. It is a somewhat automatic reaction, dictated partly by genes and made worse by PC culture. The reaction have very little to do with saying negative things about other ethnic groups in itself. The result is often condemnation and turning away. Unfortunately the same reaction results, but in attenuated levels, when writing matter of factly negative facts about other ethnic groups, but the reaction can be in better way controlled. - About how to combine ethnic genetic interests and the democratic process. If you don’t want greens, labour etc. to vote about your ethnic genetic interests, don’t make it a election issue. Ethnic genetic interests are in the air and within a party, but should not be too clearly in the party program. The party just makes the environment and conditions better for our ethnic genetic interests. Ethnic genetic groups must be created, managed and grown separately from political process, but connections and relations between them and party should be good and mutually enhancing. If foreigners want to do work for the BNP, they are proven reliable and accept your culture, let them. Just don’t let them in large numbers, so that they can’t change your programs or start to make inapproptriate demands. They should always be in the sidelines, because the party is there for your interests. If a foreigner does not accept your ethnic genetic interest, or works against them, don’t let him in. The most important things of the party should not be divulged to other ethnicieties. Don’t let people in from too different and/or aggressive cultures, even if they themselves are milder. Also the candidates could have slightly differing election programs depending on the local situation, as long as the most important parts of the party program are the same (If this is not done already). - Elections are not merely elections. They are the end result of many things. Start to use influence everywhere you are. In the workplace and in your free time. Form your own labor unions, if and when possible. Create all kinds of help and activity organizations, some of them charities, some of them businessess, some of them in between. Create your own sportclubs, restaurants, old age homes, shops, medical clinics etc., a parallel society, that takes care of people’s all needs. Tap into society’s money where possible, but not in a way that makes you too much dependant on their arbitrary decisions. Don’t tell labour etc. that you are using tax money in BNP related operations. Create networks between party members and population. Start from small things and move on to bigger things. - Educate and acquire intellectuals to your ranks. Reorientate some of them. We need people in soft social sciences. Now a typical nationalists intellectuals’ interests lies in hard sciences in general, physics, engineering, conservative politics, economics, medicine, guns, wars, militaries, immigration, history, ethnic groups and competition etc. People in social sciences create many of the policies that raise, educate and take care of individuals health etc. Because leftists are interested disproportianately in these fields and search their way into them, they rule them and create policies in them. A little bit general exaggeration: When a person is through their education in kindergarten, schools and his needs are taken care of by leftists and the policies they created, and he goes to the military service, where nationalist officer waits him, he is already PC tolerant, human, minority and gay rights activist, pacifist, utopian, socialist and totally dependant on the leftist policies. - You need your own general interest medias (newspapers, radio stations etc.), where are all the things that are in normal medias. News, comedy, entertainment, science, culture, sports, economics etc. When your party supporters order newspaper, recommend that they renounce their competing orders. Gather as many orders beforehand as possible. The line of the medias should be value conservatism, not necessarily economically / immigration restriction. They should not be party medias, but striving to be for general public. They write about BNP neutrally or positively. The emphasis is not on BNP, but on general information. Other parties policies are told about negatively, neutrally or positively depending on how their policies fit with value conservatism/immigration restriction. BNP gets a little bit more coverage than other parties. The medias strives to make BNP normal party among others without people even noticing it. The medias should strive for profit and entice normal advertisers. Largest part of e.g newspapers income comes from advertising. - Use entertainment in your election campaigns. Nice melodic music, traditional themes decoration mixed in with modern and futuristic. Dancing, playful competitions, and free and charged lotteries. Good free food and possibility to buy restaurant food. Celebration mentality. Fun for children. No alcohol. Here and there a little bit of politics. Don’t always go to the people, let people come to you also. 13
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 12 May 2007 09:34 | # Addition: I wrote; Advice people to not use swearwords in their blogs when writing in support of BNP or our cause in general.—->Advice people to not use swearwords or call other ethnicities and people in general with derogatory names when writing in support of BNP and our cause. 14
Posted by A Pole on Sat, 12 May 2007 15:57 | # As a Pole I very much regret that Poles have to leave their country in such high numbers in search of jobs, often much below their education level. As it is, I hope they won’t cause much disturbance in the lives of the native people of England and I sincerely hope that the vast majority of them will return to their country once its economy improves. Meanwhile, this is a worthwhile book: http://www.amazon.com/Question-Honor-Kosciuszko-Squadron-Forgotten/dp/0375411976 15
Posted by second class citizen on Sat, 12 May 2007 16:40 | # A Finn: Absolutely. Using such terms will gains us nothing. Except to instantly bring carefully crafted Zionist created images of “White Supremacy”* to mind. Or to be used as a juicy sound-bite to bring that image home to a multitude. *White Supremacy, that term is so funny to me. The idea of a fringe group of White people plotting to gain “Supremacy”... means that White people are by definition not holding supremacy. So if we aren’t supreme, who exactly IS supreme? Who holds power? Someone always has power, and if they aren’t White then… hmmm… 16
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 13 May 2007 04:17 | # “As a Pole I very much regret that Poles have to leave their country in such high numbers in search of jobs, often much below their education level.” Why do they “have to leave their country…in search of jobs”? Poles have been masters of their own house for close to two decades now. Maybe all those “educated” Poles should stay home and try to improve the situation there, instead of migrating to Britain. 17
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 13 May 2007 06:10 | # To a Pole, referring to the linked book: Whites seem to too often underestimate opponents. Legacy of minimal ethnic competition in everyday life. To a Second class citizen: I never in my own initiative even think about supremacism. I don’t want our people to waste our energies ruling, monitoring, controlling and financing other peoples. We have much better things to do. I give you a link to a Finnish ministry of labor unemployment statistics. Some additions to it. The number of foreign born and their children in Finland, with citizenship or without it, is close to 200 000. The unemployment rate you read in the file is not the actual unemployment rate. E.g. the somalis are employed with artificial and useless jobs by counties and government to drop their unemployment rate. Some are employed in jobs that would not exist without them like interpreters and special helpers of somali’s in their daily life. Some are in useless educations, as described by seen-it-all instructor, they are clubs for somalis, where they can play few hours a day mobile phone games, paid by social security and eat lunch. Their real free market employment rate is 9%, so unemployment rate is 91%. Same principles are true for afghans, iraqis, iranians, africans etc. This is a part of the real life enjoyment of supremacy, if somebody wants to rule these peoples. The politically correct language is so schitzophrenic compared to reality, that many bloggers in Finland, when foreign criminals do their crimes, refer to them: “Cultural enricher raped….”, “Top knowledge professional robbed….” etc. http://www.mol.fi/mol/fi/99_pdf/fi/04_maahanmuutto/08_maahanmuuttotilastot/wulktyoll.pdf Second addition to my article above, concerning the election celebration: I know that BNP is smeared constantly in media and other places. Because of that, if you declare in advertisements, come to this and that place at this and that time, people are probably hesitant to come. So you have to arrange them at some central places, where constant streams of people pass by. When they see the fun with their own eyes and many friendly organizers ask them to join, eat some free food, participate in free lottery, dance etc., people are more inclined to join the celebration. 18
Posted by A Pole on Sun, 13 May 2007 08:59 | # To ‘friedrich braun’: Barely did I start writing the note above, when the thought visited me that surely the Internet hiccup of the beloved son of Braunau am Inn http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/c/c3/Hitler_giving_a_speech_National_Film_Board_(v.2).JPG wouldn’t miss this opportunity to screech his Wotan out-of-tune. And so promptly he did. friedrich’. I’ve been watching you bouncing like a rubber Mein Kampf all around the Internet for several years now. I remember when the Christian boys over at the Original Dissent kicked you and your foamy “nietzchean” intellect out of any reasonable discussion about the things American/European there, and for a moment it did look like America had a chance. I see now you’re “taking part” in a sophisticated members-only evo-psych forum lately, who were you invited by, Rushton or Murray, you one-note-adolf? You are no German, ‘friedrich’. You are a German ANOMALY. Like the Polish skins in awe of the Nazi march tunes are an anomaly within the Polish geene pool, so are you within the contemporary German gene pool. It’s just the law of probability, the matter of statistics that such weirdos pop up from time to time. Out of 60 mln Poles or 80 mln Germans, or German-Americans, you’ve got to get 2-3 thousand anomalos of that sort. 2-3 thousand here, 2-3 thousand there, and there, and there - and the mind boggling worldwide phenomenon of Stormfront has suddenly gotten explained. No danger there, ADL, SPLC, you smug fools. It’s not there where the punch will come from. 19
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 13 May 2007 20:37 | # No, I’m fairly typical in my very low opinion of Poles. Even the brainwashed, indoctrinated lemmings of the anti-German BRD dislike Poles. And that feeling runs throughout the political spectrum (what does that tell you?), hence you can’t blame “rightists” for such attitudes. Poles are regarded as 1) lazy 2) dirty 3) drunkard 4) criminal—as fundametally dishonest people who constanly scheme to make an easy buck through shady means, instead of honestly working for it. The image of the Polish car thief has become a staple in Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe. First and foremost, the Poles is viewed as a thief. In Germany one can see in stores such banners as: “Poles, do not steal!” One t.v. commercial advertizing Poland as a vacation destination said: “Go to Poland, your car is already there!” The French have an adage: “Saoul comme un polonais.” “Drunk like a Pole.” Here’s a recent German t.v. commercial that portrays Poles as congenital, inveterate thieves: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dFLiVXHgDN0 You people are the Gypsies of Europe. Migrating from country to country in search of loot. 20
Posted by L Stewart on Sun, 13 May 2007 21:01 | # Mr Griffin is simply making the point that the British National Party cannot hope to combat the power of the LabLibCon propaganda machine by political argument alone, now that the latter have awoken to the real potential it possesses. In an ideal world people would think for themselves, and have noted the dreadful consequences for Britain of electing any of the mainstream parties. They would see through the mixture of censorship, distortion, lies and pure invective which takes the place of reasoned argument when faced with the unanswerable case put forward by the BNP. But we are not in an ideal world. On the contrary, such a large portion of people’s life today is mass-produced for them, that the relentless propagation of one-sided opinion is relatively easy. Having seen Mr Griffin transform the Party from a small fringe group to a serious political contender in the above-mentioned negative environment - without compromising its core values - and while simultaneously being criticised from both ‘wings’ of the Nationalist community, I am happy to accept his analysis. Think of the massive financial resources of the BNP’s opponents, consisting of Unions with their captive membership, wealthy businessmen seeking to improve their fortunes by ‘keeping in’ with the powerful, and taxpayers’ money used by the government to bolster their agencies, compared to the tiny amounts the Party receives from membership fees, and very limited donations. Think of their total control of the media, exercised in complete disregard of the principles of democracy, truthfulness, or fair-play; and the condoned, totally illegal activities of ‘Third Party’ organisations during elections. Think of the reality facing anyone contemplating open, active support for the BNP, which ranges from slanderous attacks, to loss of employment, to trumped-up criminal charges, to outright physically assaulted by Ultra-Left thugs masquerading as ‘Anti-Fascists’. With all the obstacles to face, the BNP has to try to ‘get through’ to a nation whose moral fibre has been eroded by more than half a century of increasingly dominant, intrusive and intolerant marxist-liberalism. British society, once typified by its traditional values is now symbolised by immorality, greed & selfishness, weakness, laziness, sloppiness, and general chaos. It must do so, too, in an atmosphere where politics has become synonymous with corruption, dishonesty, and cynicism, so that in most elections only a minority even bother to vote - and then do so more often than not habitually, or for some other reason having nothing to do with an intelligent assessment of the relative policies. Increasingly, Labour in particular is organising the Asian bloc-vote, or that of EU immigrants who do not even speak English, to replace its waning White working-class support; and the Lib-Dems and so-called Conservatives are not far behind. Mr Griffin has not suggested that the British National Party should abandon its political programme, but that it needs to move into “grass-roots community” activities which will have the benefit of facilitating direct contact with people in areas where there is no automatic resistance (as there is to political campaigning); where the normalcy & decency of BNP members can be seen at first hand; and which give LabLibCon little or no opportunity for misrepresentation. 21
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 13 May 2007 21:12 | # friedrich, I opened Occidental Dissent back up this afternoon. Just letting you know. 22
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 14 May 2007 08:16 | # Some more suggestions to BNP (if these are not used already). - Text message campaigns could be used in elections. Ready large collection of text messages could be made to BNP’s internet site where people and coordinated BNP campaingners can choose the messages they like, copy them and send them to relatives, friends and strangers. Also prepare many beautiful pictures and frames for messages that people can load freely to accompany the messages. - Regular net radio broadcasts. People like to hear people talking when they are e.g. cleaning, preparing food, just relaxing etc. Listening requires less effort and concentration than reading. People talking in the radio creates a feeling of human contact. Women especially react more positively to nice and friendly voice than to texts. - Intellectuals in your ranks could write intelligent books. These are often needed to convert intellectuals. They create an aura of intelligence, capability and education to the writers and their organization and thus increases their political weight. This psychological effect is created also in the minds of those, who don’t read the books, and the more so, when the books are shown with stylish covers and pictures in the websites, and introduced with learned and academic texts. Some number of ordinary people also read and are effected by these books. Books introductions must be planned in a way, that compels as many of our opponents in media etc. as possible to read them. Books give some financial support to the writers and our organizations. - Make polls among the british population how people think about different parties. This could be done with BNP volunteers who don’t say they are from BNP, just that they are making a poll for such and such neutral organization, that you have created for the purpose. Interview as large samples as possible. The expenses of the polls are remunerated to the volunteers. Then use the information to counter the mental picture of your opponents as effectively as possible, strenghten the negative aspects of their image and weaken the good aspects of their image. Strengthen the good aspects in your image and weaken the negative aspects of your image. It does not matter if these images in the people’s minds are according to the reality or not. They are in any way the reality of thinking inside the peoples minds. Use small prizes, like good and fairly good cell phones as incentives to entice people to participate in the polls. - Start to sell fashionable and inventive products. Somewhere in the product, mostly not visible (so that non-BNP supporters can buy them, if they like them) are the internet address of your web site and logo and friendly slogan. Use the logo and internet address in everything related to BNP, from papers to envelopes to personal cards to e-mail messages to books etc. - In general, study marketing and use those methods creatively to your advancement. 23
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 14 May 2007 08:37 | # Additions to suggestions to BNP. - You need more clearly positive goals and visions alongside all the things that you oppose. A vision of the better world towards which your members strive and defense it against the negative things. A vision of a people and loved ones, the reason for which you are ready to sacrifice everything. A whole worldview. Reality, visions and dreams combined. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 14 May 2007 10:31 | # Finn, That last statement is the key one for me. That and the calmly determined assurance that England will be pulled out of the morass of the MultiCult, whatever difficulties present themselves now or later. I am honestly unsure how many BNP members will read your suggestions, never mind those with influence at the top of the Party. Some of their local activists’ personal blogs link to us. But very, very few BNP members contribute comments to our debates. You are an interesting and creative contributor, Finn, and I am glad to see you here. Any time you want to post a main article on developments in your homeland just mail me. Don’t worry about the language issue. You do fine. 25
Posted by NEC Watch on Mon, 14 May 2007 17:26 | # Forgive me if I deviate from the congratulatory back-slapping praise for some of the commentators here, but I object to the blithe dismissal of an overt, explicit focus on ethnic genetic interests in nationalist politics. I read: “If you don’t want greens, labour etc. to vote about your ethnic genetic interests, don’t make it a election issue.” What absolute, illogical nonsense is this? By supporting immigration and race replacement, “greens” and “labour, etc.” are already voting against white ethnic genetic interests. And that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Make the “masses” aware that these issues are really about their genetic interests, so the attack on these interests by the left and by the coloreds is brought into perfectly clear focus. Campaigning on ethnic genetic interests is not going to make the “greens” and “labour” support immigration any more than they are already doing; however, it will concentrate the minds of the voters much better on the real issues than the “clever” and “oblique” proximate methods used today by nationalist “leaders.” “Ethnic genetic interests are in the air and within a party, but should not be too clearly in the party program.” “In the air?” Where? And why shouldn’t it be made perfectly clear in a “party program?” Why the stubborn refusal to try something different, to cut through all the indirect, implicit claptrap and get to the heart of the matter? Doing otherwise will not work in the long run, and nationalists have a long track record of failure, long enough that the refusal to try things differently is troubling. Bothered by “illegal” immigration? Just change the rules to legally match “willing workers with jobs” and give out an amnesty. Problem solved! Guys like Taylor complain that Blacks and Hispanics have low IQs, commit crime, and have high rates of illegitimacy and high school dropout? Then just import large numbers of law-abiding, high-IQ, disciplined Asian “cognitive elitists”, that’ll solve the problem. Immigrants taking jobs away from Americans? Let’s have more “economic growth”, which will solve that. Too little assimilation, too much Ghettoization? Tell the “immigrant youth” that they belong “just as much” as the natives, teach them the culture, and promote intermarriage. Problem solved! Upset about affirmative action and that even colored immigrants get affirmative action? Well, just adopt the “strategies” of Negress Carol Swain, designed to counter the “growing threat” of “white nationalism”: outlaw affirmative action and reduce immigration. That’s the ticket! After that, we can all hold hands in racial amity, and your daughter can marry a Negro! Griffin thinks that Islam is a threat to Britain?: well, import more Hindu Indians and Christian West Indians, that’s the solution! All the proximate issues endlessly discussed by Taylor, VDARE, or Griffin can always find some sort of aracial solution. Even Sailer, the “race realist,” peddles the aracial “solution” of “citizenism.” Why not? If we avoid questions of ultimate interests, and adopt “too clever by half” “tactics” – what’s the problem? No. Ultimately, the way out of the logjam is for some “leader” to become a real leader and state: because of who and what we are, we have innate inherent interests in ourselves and our group, and that’s even independent of affirmative action, crime, IQ, illegals, religion, terrorism, or whatever. We have interests in our own group continuity, in the existence and well being of whites as whites, and, by god, we will defend those interests! Yes, this could be put in a more “palatable” form, and adjusted to different audiences, but the fundamental principle must remain the same: ethnic genetic interests as an integral, overt, direct and open fundamental part of what the “party” stands for. Better to put it all openly up front, from the beginning, than to play “games” to attract “voters” – “supporters” who will later flee (usually at the most inopportune moment) once they understand that what the deal is really about is racial survival, and not Hispanic illegitimacy rates or crime statistics. Better it is known from the start, and that support is built up deeply as well as widely. A person who understands what it is really about is not going to abandon a Le Pen for a Sakorzy. A leader who really understands what it is about, and has an understanding with his followers about all of that, is not going to simper to the center like Le Pen, or make pitiful attempts to “remake my image” with campaign posters of mulattresses showing their underwear. Enough is enough, endless failure and doubletalk is enough. Of course, I realize that this advice will not be taken. Nationalist leaders must be “hip”, must “remake their image”, must “connect to the immigrants”, must “attract from the center”…and who really wants to know about, or understand ethnic genetic interests? Nah. After all, things are going so well, and the public supports nationalism so fervently, why should anything be done differently at all? 26
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 14 May 2007 21:07 | # Thank you for your comments Guessedworker and Fred Scrooby. When I was child, I sometimes dug up stones from the ground to see what kind of stones they are and what is under them. Often, above the ground the stones looked small, but when I started digging, they turned out to be huge. Same thing here on a bigger scale. We may have started by e.g. resisting immigration, but everything is connected to everything and dependent on everything, and we end up changing the whole society. What we create, must not and cannot be just a temporary project to e.g. stop immigration. If it is, it will fail in the end. We must create a permanent ideology, structures and methods, transferred from generation to generation forever, powerful, irresistible force inside people’s minds, capable of profoundly transforming the current inveterate realities, whose basic quality is to produce self defeat. To do this we must start with doing mostly many small things, doing them mostly in the human grassroots level and understanding how everything works there and everywhere in the society. We are sowing the seeds for future generations, our people, our children, who will reap the crops of plenty. ———————————————- Be tenacious, so much so that your opponents think it is unhuman. If things are desperate and brutal conditions or superior enemies are all around you, well, then things are normal and the way they have always been. Fight harder and invent new methods. This is one of the lessons that history impressed on us Finns. More important than the BNP election results is that BNP supporters souls will persevere. ——————————————— Some BNP member or other nationalist orgazation’s member may want to copy my suggestions, transform them into more eloquent form, pobably add his own inventions and throw them for all the members and supporters to see. Also, it is not necessary for leaders to see them now. If some grassroots members or affiliated group stores them and uses at least some of them, they might in the future spread to higher places. ———————————————- I’ll write something in the future, but not in the near future. It is wise that somebody checks my spelling carefully then. Finnish writing and other things divide my time, so I will be at best occasional rare spectacle. I set the bar higher than in these comment -sections. ———————————————— Puumalainen is currently hot topic in nationalist circles in Finland. He is employed technically by the parliament, for them he is responsible through an official who controls other officials. He has a history of being bullied in school as a child. He is a lawyer, who is pushing vivid sixties and seventies values. He, for example, has told how punishments should be mild and according to the humanist traditions of the sixties and seventies, except for racists, who should be given much harder punishments. Racist should be smothered using the same methods that are used against those who spread child pornography. He would like to make punishable everything that creates a climate of opposition to immigrants. He would like to be the one who decides what is punishable. He has tried before to get precedents from courts about these matters, but has failed. We have members who are in touch with officials in his department, the labour ministry. As lousy as many of our politicians and officials are, Puumalainen is detested and cordoned off by other officials in his department. Several members of our groups have made official complaints to Puumalainen’s superior, some with the help of lawyers. He is breaching the Finnish law of freedom of speech. Many people, I included, have written against him and mobilized our members. We will not accept anything but a drop of the case. One member told that he will report himself to Puumalainen. He has phoned once, but Puumalainen has left already. He will say, that he is thought criminal, who blatantly spreads immigrant opposing information and will continue to do so in the future. If Puumalainen would get a precedent, it would mean many possibilities to smother normal political discussions. We will not accept it and will breach the thought crime law in great numbers, will use legal methods and will use other methods of resistance. The possible precedent will not stay. Sidenote, have you seen these: What kind of ideas are moving to Britain from Pakistan: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28290 Numbers are not the only important thing, and there is more important thing than numbers, but here are many useful thoughts: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=numbersusa&hl=en About half of the film Obsession. Quality film, whose methods could be studied. Akward neocon balancing between tolerance and opposition to islam: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8662467646661149069&q=obsession&hl=en 27
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 14 May 2007 21:33 | # To NEC: I agree with you. I meant ethnic genetic groups as a functional, clearly defined and coordinated ideologic -genetical groups (smaller than the whole main ethnic people of the nation). You obviously meant the whole main ethnic people. We can certainly say that we are for us. We can say we are for others. Democracy is in practice almost exclusively compromises. Immigrants have weakened the democracy and worsened the compromises. Whole ethnic British people don’t care about ethnic genetic interests. Democratic politics are the art of the possible. 28
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 14 May 2007 21:37 | # Addition to NEC: Think about labour and other liberal parties together with ethnic genetic interests. 29
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 14 May 2007 21:50 | # Second addition to NEC: One day we can use the methods you described precisely, but that time is not yet. I understand why you are upset, and you are right in that too. If this thing would depend on me, I would have used the methods you described already a thousand years ago. 30
Posted by a Finn on Thu, 17 May 2007 12:41 | # Why not democracy and ethnic genetic interests together in the present situation: - The most of the parties don’t care about and/or actively oppose our ethnic genetic interests. To be able to govern in democracy at least 51% majority is needed. For us to be able to form coalitions with other parties, we need to advocate immigration restriction mainly from other than ethnic genetic point of view. To be able to hold the balance with medium support, the other parties must not resist us so much that they prefer each other always over us. - The basic quality of voted things in democracy is that they can change. Basic quality of ethnic genetic interests is that they must not be changed (The foundations of them). - Before we can influence others’ opinions and form coalitions, we must be able to discuss with them. To many present parties ethnic genetic interests are talk and listening stopping topic. - Taking part in democracy increases visibility to public. Public is presently ignorant. It is better to start with milder approach and inform them increasingly little by little. It is a slow process. - We can resist immigration with numerous other in present environment more neutral and efficient arguments, like effects on job markets, crimes, cheap labor making disadvantageously development of technology and science less necessary, environmental reasons, pressures on social and health services, taxes increase, dispossession of the original population, imcompatible cultures, terrorism, dangerous and reactionary cultures, costs and pressures in building extra infrastucture, unemployment among foreigners, majority’s worsening living conditions and decreasing owned apartment prices, more disparities in society, worsening schools and teaching, dumbing down of society etc. - Our genetic interests don’t care, why they are protected from immigration, as long they are protected. So if immigration is stopped because foreigners have stinking feet ( - I don’t want labour, grees etc. parties knowingly vote about our ethnic genetic interests because of their hostility to our genes. From top BNP officials downwards BNP members should be teached about ethnic genetic interests and that we are resisting immigration because of ethnic genetic interests in their totality. It should be arranged in a way that top officials can always dissociate from it if need be. This teaching must include resistance to mixed marriages of ethnicities. These same things should be teached to the general public in an organized way with organizations that are not directly associated with BNP. - If ethnic genetic interests by those who understand them in their totality, are left to democracy, it is a lazy and negligent approach. It is based on a hope that it would be possible to vote once in e.g. four years and that would be enough. Ethnic genetic interests are impossible to protect and manage in such manner. If they are wanted to uphold, they must be part of an ethnic genetic group’s members daily life. - Whole ethnic group can’t be made to support ethnic genetic interests. Some people are prone too much to liberalism. It is good that they drop out of an ethnic genetic group. - If situation change to more propitious, more of ethnic genetic interests can be shown in democracy, but never all. If situation turns for worse, less ethnic genetic interests are shown. Some of my thoughts of this issue. —————————————- I wrote about Puumalainen’s thought (Additions inside these):Racist should be smothered using the same methods that are used against those who spread child pornography (He has said this). He would like to make punishable everything that creates a climate of opposition to immigrants (And this too). He would like to be the one who decides what is punishable (He has implied this). 31
Posted by NEC Watch on Thu, 17 May 2007 14:11 | # So, basically, Finn tells us we must continue the FAILED tactics of the past, instead of trying something different, because the never-tried tactic will “fail”, while the tactics that have endlessly failed will suceed. And, of course, every comment made about the real utility of participation in the democratic process is ignored. It’s about balkanization and chaos, not “governing.” I can assure you, unless they are willing to sieze dictatorial power in a coup, the absurdly unlikely scenario of Griffin or Le Pen elected to “govern” is NOT going to change a damn thing, especially (!) if they are elected on a moderate platform meant to “appeal to the masses.” They will have NO mandate to do anything substantial whatsoever, after which they can be voted out in favor of the establishment. And, yes, if you make immigrants’ “stinking feet” the focal point (i.e., any proximate issue), an aracial solution can _always_ be found. Make the immigrants “wash their feet.” Goverment grants for “odor eaters” shoe inserts. Switching to a different kind of immigrant without the “stinking feet.” “Stinking feet can also buy us time, before more efficient and durable reasons can be implemented.” No “time” can be “bought” because these implicit tactics - which have been used for decades - have ALWAYS failed. What about “failure” cannot be understood? If nationalist leaders were held to the standard of business owners, they would have been deposed and replaced long ago, because their outcome is the political equivalent of bankruptcy. “The basic quality of voted things in democracy is that they can change.” Why “governing” through the establishment will solve nothing. Increasing entropy is the normal process - it is far easier to destroy than to create, or even just preserve. The left can always afford a moderate right victory, because moderation cannot reverse the tide of racial entropy, and a subsequent leftist victory can always put things back on track. In summary, I have not yet heard any logical or coherent reason why an appeal to EGI should not be tried. 32
Posted by NEC Watch on Thu, 17 May 2007 14:16 | # “We can resist immigration with numerous other in present environment more neutral and efficient arguments…” Let’s see. The anti-immigration right has been making these arguments for years. Results: amnesty a near reality in America, “sour” results for Griffin and Le Pen; Europe and America being flooded with illegal and legal immigrants by the millions. If immigration can be “resisted” by these methods, the empirical evidence has heretofore been severely lacking. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 17 May 2007 14:29 | # NEC Watch: moderation cannot reverse the tide of racial entropy, and a subsequent leftist victory can always put things back on track. That is a beautiful formulation of my oft-repeated assertion that the leftward-migrating liberal zeitgeist has pulled mainstream Conservativism behind it, to a place far distant from its natural antecedents. NEC Watch also introduces the notion of intrinsic decay, a second drum I beat about advanced liberalism. My complements, sir, on this formulation. Only wish I had thought of it myself. 34
Posted by NEC Watch on Thu, 17 May 2007 14:47 | # GW, that’s the point. In any case, the left has time on its side. All they need, in essence, is for things to continue as they have been. Another point to reinforce my skepticism about “business as usual”: let’s look at _actual results._ Le Pen moved to the center, repudiated a biological basis for Frenchness, embraced the “immigrant youth”, and based his campaign on implicit issues. The result - despite France’s enormous racial turmoil of the last few years - Le Pen’s support was cut in half. Griffin has attempted to moderate himself, his dances on the JQ has met with Auster’s approval, and he essentially is focusing on the “Islamic threat” - results - “sour” and “disappointing.” GW tells us that Labor plans to build housing for working class whites can cut into BNP support. Wonderful - base your support on “the effects of immigrants on housing availability and pricing” and the opposition can undercut that. The “Islamic threat?” - forcibly integrate the Islamic schools with the white ones, and hey, maybe import some more Indian Hindus. In America, the more folks talk about Hispanic crime and low IQ, the greater the clamor for “high-IQ Asian immigrants” and “increasing the H1B visa quotas.” Meanwhile, of course, the Hispanics will be given amnesty anyway; all the talk about proximate issues do not yet resonate with the suburban soccer moms isolated from the problem. At some point the slow decay will be irriversible, if it is not already. Then what? 35
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 16:30 | #
Don’t forget the segregationists of the fifties and sixties. They were convinced that racialism could be defended better on “state’s rights” and “freedom of association” grounds. After that strategy failed, they resorted to conservative politics; complaining about “welfare queens” and invoking “law and order.” Forty years later American conservatism has been completely deracialized. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19 | # I’ve been playing around on liberal sites with the notion of the primacy of English ethnic interests for a while now. I’ve started to use more direct reference to ethnic genetic interests where the intellectual tenor allows. The problem is that EGI can easily turn in one’s hands into something narrow and detached, and comprehensible only to a minority. That’s not helpful if one is discussing outreach strategies. There needs to be some kind of sliding standard of fidelity to Salter’s formulation, from the absolute in intellectual surroundings appropriate to it to the gung-ho if not exactly precise in the company of “Daily Tits” readers. However, past lapses from high if not perhaps absolute fidelity on our threads have met with a certain amount of resistance from some quarters. What’s the formula, then? 37
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 17:37 | # IMO you answered your own question. EGI is simply incomprehensible to people who have been indoctrinated in liberalism. We have to tear down before we can build. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 17 May 2007 17:54 | # Daedalus: EGI is simply incomprehensible to people who have been indoctrinated in liberalism. We have to tear down before we can build. But what’s going to tear down liberalism? The wrecking hammer of racial consciousness isn’t working, is it? The question is, would ethnic genetic interests? Really? By itself? Well, it’s explanatory in a sense that consciousness of and preference for one’s own race is not. Kinship is hard to knock over from a humanist or Jewish perspective. There may be no such as thing as race, by golly, but everyone has kinship, even Abe and Mo. Especially Abe and Mo. The next question, then, is whether it can be turned into more than a debating point. Can it be placed at the centre of some new or adaptable philosophy? Because really, it’s philosophies that replace philosophies, not Darwinian formulations. If so, who’s got one single little clue how to set about doing that? Anybody? 39
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:28 | # The communitarian critique of liberalism is a good place to start, although it is not radical enough, and most communitarians are willing to bend over backwards to maintain their “respectability” in our liberal political culture. Insights from neuroscience, psychology, and genetics can be used to undermine liberal dogmas like the blank slate theory of the mind and individual freedom as the highest good. Concepts like racial consciousness and ethnic genetic interests are simply too alien to individuals indoctrinated in liberalism to make sense of them. They cannot be successfully introduced immediately, especially by those perceived to lack “respectibility.” I would focus on the purely negative task of attacking and undermining liberalism instead. Don’t even bring up racialism or EGI on liberal forums. This will simply get you dismissed off the bat as a “racist.” Focus your energies upon pointing out the incoherence of liberal political theory and the absurdities that result from the application of the harm principle in practice. Force them to justify their beliefs by asking questions like “why?” Confuse them about their own beliefs and some may begin to question dogmas they have absorbed uncritically. 40
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:50 | # If so, who’s got one single little clue how to set about doing that? Anybody? Islam. Christianity is no longer a force. As repulsive as it might seem, the only philosophy doing battle with liberalism right now is Islam. Or set the whole race realism, liberalism thing aside and listen to the voters. The BNP got their biggest responses in constituencies where jobs and wages were threatened. The 1924 restriction was based largley on the threat of jobless. Perot made his run by focusing on job losses.
41
Posted by Might makes Right on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:54 | # Because really, it’s philosophies that replace philosophies, not Darwinian formulations. I believe Friedrich Braun’s favorite Fuhrer and Reichsfuhrer-SS did some good initial work in this area, probably worth examining. 42
Posted by FranK McGuckin on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:34 | # NEC You are right on the money. I do not trust either Brimleow or Sailer on the legal asian immigration isue, In fact, I expect that at some point in time they will call for a political alliance of asians and Whites. Bell curve? IQ stuff is tactically foolish. Raise it in a debate and the finer points of dull regression analysis will be dscussed sidetracking the whole discussion away from the damage legal asian is doing to White Americans. Jared Taylor has always been less effective in debates he was dominating when he raises the race and IQ issue. 43
Posted by NEC Watch on Thu, 17 May 2007 22:10 | # Here’s the end result of all the “agoninzing”, “philosophizing”, and “business as usual”: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_go_co/immigration_congress The resistance to considering something new is staggering. No one is suggesting that Griffin or Taylor do power point demonstrations about population genetics, or “Darwinian formulations.” But, with a little bit of effort, from so-called “leaders” and “professional activists”, who have the time, and, allegedly, the brains, to do so, the fundamentals can be thrust upon those who need to hear it. “I’ve been playing around on liberal sites…” That’s not the audience I had in mind. There’s people out there who have an intuitive understanding that there is more to the immigration question than “the rule of law” and “crime” and “IQ” and illegitimacy rates” - or, “stinking feet” - but who do not have the tools to articulate this intuitive understanding in a concrete fashion. EGI, translated into its fundamentals, can do this. There must have been a reason why Salter chose “child equivalents” to bring home the point about the negative effects of immigration. It seems obvious that he wished to use a term that was as graphic, and comprehensible - and powerful in invoking the familial analogy - as possible. The man, however, is an academic, not a politician or an activist. The tools are there; if guys like Griffin and Taylor are worthy of the term “leader” then they should be able to use the tools effectively without having to be held by the hand every step of the way. By the way, note all the checkoffs for proximate concerns in the proposed immigration bill: “rule of law”, “emphasis on skiils”, etc. All the high-IQ, law-and-order guys must be thrilled. Problem solved! Instead of genocide via 10,000,000 Hispanics, it will be 5,000,000 Hispanics and 5,000,000 “skilled” Asians. Feel better, now? 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 17 May 2007 22:16 | # Daedalus, I know you know that I think that a full-on, communitarian de-emphasis of individualism is against our particular evolved European nature, and that the proper grounding for our individualist impulse is social stability. In other words, I like to approach the “problem” of the will by making it not a problem at all, since in my half-baked dreams it properly emerges from stability and does not counter it or, as now, always seek to command the field in opposition. In all things I am seeking to find that point of perfect political balance which ensues from our sociobiology, and which, if it is not wilfully corrupted by a powerful and hostile otherness or by our own moral decay, has the best chance of standing the test of time. Kinship, it seems to me, is a useful glue in that regard. It not only invites our people to think soberly about their most precious interest, it also provides a seating or moral tether for individualism. Pursuits that decrease genetic interests would be stigmatised or worse, as they were in past times. But individualism itself must have its place. In the most general terms, it is my contention that a lightly worn philosophical model most akin to the familiarities we know today, but corrective of them, is the most easy to introduce in the period of perhaps two to three decades until the window for such peaceful measures is lost. After that, something heavier will be inevitably required, since the pathologies to be addressed will have piled up as high as any mountain, and in extremis extreme measures are inevitable. Nothing here is contrary to what I have said many times in different ways over the last two or three years. I think you may understand it better than most, with the exception of Karlmagnus and one or two other Englishmen. 45
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Thu, 17 May 2007 23:10 | # NEC Pinheads scream “illegal don’t pay taxes, they jump to the front of the line, they didn’t come in legally” Bush/Rove says:“I understand your concern….we will make them legal so they can start pay taxes and all will be right” If we don’t properly define the terms of the debate..we are dead. Proper framing of the debate:the racial transformation of America through legal and illegal immigration is unacceptable. This is better be our starting point. At the present time most immigration websites have mentally retarded discussions about illegals not paying taxes. The real enemy:pinhheads among our own kind. 46
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 18 May 2007 00:36 | # GW, As you know, I am not convinced that Europeans are genetically predisposed to individualism. The rise of expressive individualism over the past fifty years is simply too recent of a phenomena to be explained biologically. The libertarian harm principle makes no evolutionary sense. Hunter gatherers are egalitarian, communal, xenophobic, authoritarian, and violent - the opposite of contemporary libertarians. Thus, I fail to see how the rotten permissiveness that characterizes social attitudes across the West today is somehow intrinsic to our nature. Issues like “gay marriage” in our own times would have appalled our great-grandparents. What were fringe causes in the nineteenth century now pass as the linchpin of contemporary morality. Look at how much Germany has changed since the demise of the Third Reich. It is not the same country. It seems much more likely to me that centuries of Christianity and liberalism along with changes in the underlying economic structure are to blame for this. Contemporary individualism is qualitatively different from the version of individualism that prevailed in early twentieth century America which in turn differed from the individualism of seventeenth century English settlers. The level and intensity of individualism also varies significantly across different European nations. Americans and Australians are much more individualistic and liberal than Russians and Serbs are. The British are more individualistic than the French. Virtually all Europeans today are more individualistic and liberal than their ancestors were. In my view, what stands out here is the legacy of Protestantism. Protestantism exaggerated and inflated the importance of individual judgement out of proportion to what it had been historically. As Europe modernized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the old Protestant emphasis upon individualism was secularized by early liberal theorists like John Locke. Eventually, liberalism evolved into the culture erasing monster that it is today; the most destructive effects of which can be seen historically Protestant countries like the United States, Canada, Britain, and the Netherlands. Fortunately, we find ourselves in a time of transition similar to the Reformation. Throughout Northern and Western Europe, Christianity is dying. Atheism is growing by leaps and bounds even here in the United States. About 25% of young Americans now claim to be atheists. The old values are giving way while liberalism is increasingly proving unable to respond to the crisis of confidence our civilization is now facing. I think a new, more socially oriented philosophy like communitarianism could step into that gap in much the same way that Europeans adopted liberalism as they shook off thrones and altars. As for EGI, I find it hard to believe philosophical liberals could understand and appreciate such a concept. If you have had some considerable success in this regard, that’s great. My own experience in six years of arguing on internet forums is that debates about racialism reduce ultimately to conflicting value systems; which is why in hostile environments I prefer to tackle these issues instead. Amongst those who I have seen change their minds about racialism, I have noticed this usually follows after a rejection of liberalism first. 47
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 18 May 2007 12:03 | # To NEC watch: You simplified it too much. Your time perspective is too narrow and many methods have not been used. If governments “fix” problems with added housing to working class, importing more hindus instead of muslims, counterarguments can be made. It can be proved that these only postpone the doomsday. It should be said in politics that British ethny and their culture have the right to be majority in Britain, they must not be dispossed in their country and importing hindus is working against the British. This part of EGI can be said in todays politics. Pouring money to endless fixes is draining the monies and resources of natives and giving them to the endless pit of foreigners. Etc. The organized and well planned resistance to immigration started efficiently not until the nineties and in some places later. It takes long time to change people’s thinking. I have watched people’s thinking change slowly bit by bit over the years and this phenomenon can be seen in history too, e.g. in long decade after decade efforts to overturn the Europeans only immigration policy in the Usa, which culminated in 1965. No organized effort has been made to teach people about EGI, which would be preparing them to the inevitable and crucial future. Nationalist successes have at this stage too often been based too much on protest votes and too little to long term stable support. Numerous methods have not been used, like detailed polling on thinking, creating parallel society and support networks among our ethny, creative influencing and marketing methods, etc. The way occurring situations have been used by BNP have not always been thought properly. E.g. old man was kicked out of old age day care center because he said that he supports BNP. BNP arranged help and support for him. This in itself is very good. But it tells people, that Labour etc. have the power and BNP just cleans the mess after them in the best way it can. We need to combine these kinds of messages with our clear successes in helping our ethny. There could be good value and succesful private schools organized by BNP, where are children saved from horrible public schools. There could be BNP sport clubs where children are thought good values and their skills and abilities are enhanced. Nightly large watchgroups of BNP could reduce crime on bad areas. Families with many children could be helped with charity. Etc. Diluting the message too much is a constant threat. It doesn’t help to acquire power if in the process the message is turned into another labour. I don’t advocate diluting the message any more from what I described. Why do you quit so early in the process. Be tenacious. Has our culture become so instant, that the minute progress is not made, people want to forsake all previous. If you try EGI as a political message, at the moment there is the first inevitable failure (And there will be many. Nothing major can be done without many failures), do you abandon it also and sink into permanent apathy? Yes, do compare this process to businesses, where the range of view to the future spans not much more than quarter of a year, while we are creating a permanent group. Having said that, yes EGI can be used in politics now, but it changes the politics in several ways. You have to be ready for them. If it is started properly, it becomes self-generating. - Goals of accessing democratic power should be abandoned for a long time. - Society should be actively divided along ethnic and EGI - liberal lines. Creating a parallel society, ethnic community and it’s networks supplants some of the democratic process. - The networks should be used forcefully to resist all the decisions of the state, that are harmful to ethny. If there is forced busing of the pupils, there should be large groups refusing to send their children to the school, until the decision is rescinded. They should start their own schools. The opposing group should be so large, that state can’t do anything effective against it. All the state apparatus that controls, monitors and governs the ethny, should be weakened, prevented and supplanted with own governing and own societal structures. - Ethnic areas should be created, where other ethnies can’t enter and can’t marry the members of ethny. - Ethny should join all the political parties, labour unions, religious organizations, lobby groups and medias invisibly and start to change them from within. Ethny should attach itself to every important economic enterprise and information crossroads. - Loyalty and importance order: Ethny far above everything else, power and money. Not much anything else. Britain (as it is now) does not exist, except as the homeland of ethny. - Communications should be separated from others and obfuscated to outsiders. New elements to language and other communication. To outsiders invisible methods to recognize one’s own, sign language, small marks etc. These can be changed if they become compromised. - Permanent sanctions by the whole community to those, who betray or compromise their own. - Members of ethny help each other over others in everything and support each other in all decisions, like employment, offices, recommendations, loans, charity, voluntary work etc. - Teaching and directing our own intellectuals, who are then send to influence the society. - Organized influencing of society’s structures with campaigns, writing, money, boycotts, protests etc. - Ideology, visions and dreams of the group created and combined with a religiosity. Religion should be used to hide many aspects of ethnicity and it’s methods, e.g.: “We don’t marry outsiders or accept them into our group because of our religion. The conversion process is so difficult, that rarely people can go through it.” (In reality nobody can go through it. Members are members because of their genetics and culture. Some outsider fools are accepted to the sidelines, but never married or taken to inside circles. They serve to obfuscate outsiders view) Also religion should be used to produce more automatic reactions and actions supporting ethny. The prizes and punishments of religion should be tied to helping ethny. Etc. This is the only way to use EGI efficiently and with permanent results. Everything else is wishful thinking and leads to slow or fast decay. EGI leads to separate living, or it does not exist. I would prefer that people in general are prepared beforehand to it. Committed people can start these groups right now. Think about children watching always some exciting TV series. When he goes to a toystore, he has a powerful story inside his mind and he incorporates to it the toys, that are related to it. Objectively, some other toys in themselves are more interesting and better, but the child has only eyes for a toy that fulfils the story, and the story and toy becomes one. Objectively, when the toy and story are combined, they are better and more interesting than any other toy. I want the story of EGI told to people with words and actions, with care and love, until it becomes more powerful than the story of other ideologies and parties. Then saying EGI in the politics fulfils the story. 48
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 18 May 2007 16:42 | # I wrote: We need to combine these kinds of messages with our clear successes in helping our ethny.——> We need to combine these kinds of messages with successes, which tell people we have the power to help large groups of our ethny profoundly in their everyday lives. 49
Posted by Anon on Sat, 19 May 2007 09:07 | # Last nights BBC Newsnight visited Basildon in Essex to test the waters of Brownism - The issues there are housing and immigration. As the presenter rode off into the sunset, he left the viewer in no doubt that the next election in Basildon will be all about these two issues - Housing and Immigration. Personally, I alternate between utter despair and quite confidence, as I write here I am upbeat, tomorrow who knows? It does not seem possible to me, how a clash between people and the managerial elites can be avoided, it’s just a question of time-scale. I suspect things have got to get much worse (as they will) my guess is, we ain’t seen nuttin’ yet, we’re in uncharted territory. 50
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 19 May 2007 12:20 | # I wrote: “Ethny should join all the political parties, labour unions, religious organizations, lobby groups and medias invisibly and start to change them from within. Ethny should attach itself to every important economic enterprise and information crossroads.” I elaborate this a little further. We have been raised by fairly individualist and liberal societies and on average don’t understand ethnic competition very well. I remember actor Danny de Vito’s movie Other peoples’ money, where de Vito makes a speech in a convention. He described a situation in smaller scale, when monumental change happens in society. He told how before the cars came, the whip industry (used to whip the horses) advanced to it’s peak. Right before cars there were the finest and the best whips ever produced, but suddenly when the cars came, they turned fastly to obsolete items. The same is happening to our former methods. When people’s old methods suddenly becomes obsolete, and new apparently alien methods become the most efficient and the best methods, it causes sometimes disorientation, inability to use logic in what is happening and clinging to the old methods in vain hope. So, it becomes necessary to indicate, that there is clear continuum in these methods from the old methods. (I use the British as an example) Beauty of this is that we can use our former instincts and concepts. If people from our ranks join the different parties to change them from within, they don’t have any deep secrets or secrets in their minds. Their deepest goals are these: “We want to change this party’s politics to more propitious to our ethny, like it is towards non-British ethny and increase the resistance to immigration.” They are normal British people and normal citizens, who have normal concerns and goals. They join the parties, work there and influence the politics in normal manner. They are not criminals. They do not try to kill liberals or other ethnies. They do not try to explode them with bombs. They do not try to exploit or subjugate liberals and other ethnies. They do not try to have supremacy over them. We learned the lessons from the mistakes of the jews and muslims, the best ethnic competitors. Jews are always in the end resisted because of their exploitation, working against the best interests of majorities and striving towards “unnoticed” supremacy. Muslims end up in conflict with everyone, they subjugate and exploit people if they can and strive towards supremacy. On the other we are easy to work with. We can form alliances and cooperation with friendly peoples. We produce what we need, we don’t have to exploit other peoples, nor we want to. We don’t want to waste our energies subjugating other peoples. We have much better uses to our work than trying to gain supremacy over other peoples. We protect ourselves if we have to. If other people respect our crucial interests, then we respect their crucial interests. So when these new methods are adopted by our people, there is only a little change. 51
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 19 May 2007 12:34 | # I wrote: “Loyalty and importance order: Ethny far above everything else, power and money. Not much anything else. Britain (as it is now) does not exist, except as the homeland of ethny.” - Addition to continuum explanation: Ethny will always be the most important thing. Power and money we need to rule ourselves, not others. British elites are working against their own people. The country and the present reality they have created is not ours. Situation is threatening, so there is only a few most important goals. 52
Posted by MR Joke on Sat, 19 May 2007 15:07 | # Yes, Fred, another “creative genius” at MR. How about getting him on the radio program to discuss what a genius he, and all else here, are? Let’s see. Advocating endlessly failed concepts, coupled with oxymoronic statements that we can “expand” a concept by doing its exact antithesis - that’s “genius.” It’s not only race realism that has “predictive power.” Movement stupidity has predictive power as well. I predict constant future failure. Think that wrong? 54
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 19 May 2007 18:42 | # Personally, I think liberalism has to go before anything will change. 55
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 20 May 2007 12:37 | # MR Joke: “Advocating endlessly failed concepts, coupled with oxymoronic statements that we can “expand” a concept by doing its exact antithesis….” - Well, that is wrong. These people understand EGI only narrowly to include only that (1) our ethnies must have our own lands, where we are permanent majority. I include to EGI (2) preserving our ethny by not mixing and (3) every ethnic competition method there is. I support using in democratic policies the same thing these few people say I am opposing, namely (1). (1) is the part they support to be used in democratic policies. Part (2) and part (3) should not be too clearly part of the current democratic policies. They are our ethnies’ inside matters, decided, governed and used by us, not public matters, decided by everybody. At the most only part of them can be in the democratic process. If situation becomes better or good, they can to some extent more be part of the democratic policies. In addition to that I stated, that there should be organized effort to teach large version of EGI (1,2,3) to our people, outside of what should be teached by the democratic communication (1). These people’s failure to understand creates a funny schitzophrenic situation, where they criticize me supporting the same policies they support. If somebody advocates using 1 and 2, and maybe even 3 in democratic politics, especially in the current situation, that is not realistic. If somebody doesn’t understand that, it is maybe better that I don’t explain. I have seen impatient people abandoning nationalism when there is adversities and not immediate success. They take up surfing, fishing etc., or even join the greens. It is good. It is evolution. Persistence prevails. EGI is for those who understand it is a permanent phenomenon, from generation to generation, whatever the outside circumstances or current situation. I don’t see Sarkozy’s victory or BNP results defeat. Sarkozy’s victory is clear movement of the masses towards more nationalistic thinking. It should not be ignored. Lot of things have to happen, before such a socialist and immigrant country like France elects a candidate like Sarkozy. In addition, many people voted Sarkozy over Le Pen because they wanted to be sure that socialist does not get elected. Sensitive people may have voted Sarkozy over Le Pen, because he is more accepted by the mainstream media. Sarkozy has deficiences, in immigration too, but from here is good to continue. In England political elite is starting to feel pressure. One minister admitted before elections that immigration is causing real problems. Busing, stifling of political speech and other extreme measures are signs of rising anxiety and should be psychologically welcomed signs to nationalists. British public have started to express their opinions more strongly in mainstream internet discussions. There is a lot of discontent searching for it’s political expression. We should not blindly stare at the election results. There should be precise observations about the underlying currents and contemplation how to use them to our advantage. One of the many problems is that media have succeeded to stamp many nationalist parties with one cause (immigration) sign. We should more clearly tell people, that we can manage all the necessary policies and we have good policies in all the areas. People vote mostly for good overall policies. Also, for me it is indifferent who stops and reverses the flow of immigrants, as long as it is done permanently. If some conventional party somewhere does it, it is as good as when nationalist party does it. It is of course likely, that conventional parties don’t do it. Fred Scrooby answering to Daedalus: ““liberalism has to go before anything will change.” (—Daedalus) The thing Finn’s saying, and I agree completely, is this thing is going to be rolled back on all fronts at once, not just on one. That’s how it came to be imposed on us in the first place, and that’s how it’s going to be overthrown.” - I couldn’t have said it better. Fred Scrooby wrote: “And yes, Finn’s a genius, damn right!” - I may not be in the suitable position to estimate that myself. I just humbly do my best with whatever talents God have given me. 56
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34 | # Addition: Too many people can too long protect themselves from the ravages of immigration. If we wait that enough people experience/see the problems themselves, it is too late when that has happened. Nationalist policies must appeal to and influence also those that live in safe all white or nearly all white areas. 57
Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 20 May 2007 20:35 | # Guessedworker wrote,
This pro-minority extortion coalition is primarily composed of five groups: paranoid Jews, racial minorities, militant lesbians (the so-called “feminists”) and militant gays plus an army of daydreaming dupes seduced from the majority. Aside from the dupes, members of these minority groups are perfectly conscious of their pariticipation in the coalition and of its objectives; to advance everybody’s group-specific interests against those of the majority. Their cohesiveness, as groups and as a coalition, owes to extensive propaganda aimed at characterizing whites as their common “oppressor” and as their universal scapegoat for all grievances. That’s what the left is as opposed to what it says it is. Of course, the right is hardly better. The pro-minority bigots operate at the metapolitical level within both the left and the right. The left is dominated to the point it serves them exclusively while the right to the extent it accepts that asserting group interests while white is illegitimate. I say that’s hardly better because, personally, I prefer being attacked from the front to being stabbed in the back. Bear in mind that by “left” I’m talking about the “new left”, whose evolution is complete in the US and almost done in the UK. I’m not sure how far it’s progressed in continental Europe, e.g. Finland. The measuring stick is the importance of old fashioned worker’s concerns. If private workers and labor unions count for nothing, as in the US, then that country’s left has completed its gramscian long march to become a pure pro-minority extortion coalition that is focalized exclusively on bashing the “white hetero male oppressor”. Strategy In any case, white identity politics need not engage this fraudulent left-right charade since the real battleground is metapolitical. This calls for a perspective that revolves around group interests and specifically the white majority vs. minority coalition axis. After all, this is the framework used by our opponents, the pro-minority bigots. And quite self-consciously so, I assure you. Whereas politics is driven by political parties and powered by ideology, metapolitics is driven by interest groups and powered by grievances. To observe metapolitics in action just watch the gay groups. These are the latest addition to the pro-minority extortion coalition and their march through the institutions is currently in progress. They’ll end up where the other coalition members already are: militant lesbianism (“feminism”), affirmative racism and pro-semitic bigotry have conquered both left and right and their opposition has been blackballed off the political stage. Eventually, charges of “homophobia” will aquire the same weight as “sexism”, “racism” and “anti-semitism” and the gay agenda will achieve the same 360 degree dominance. Note there is no “gay ideology” or “gay political party” doing this. It’s the end product created by thousands of semi-coordinated interest groups clamoring away at gay grievances across all ideologies and parties. That’s why it’s important to understand leftism for what it is: a home base for the coalition of pro-minority interest groups. No more, no less. If you continue to view it as an ideology, you will continue to reach for an ideological solution that involves destroying their cover mass of bla bla or building new ideological bla bla to counter it. All the while missing the boat on their real agenda and on what is really needed: a counter-formation of pro-white interest groups. Point A From a strategic perspective, point A, where you are, comes from this clear understanding of our enemies as a coalition of pro-minority bigots operating at the metapolitical level within both the left and right. Their modus operandi basically consists of slicing us up with their sharpened grievances while one particular fun joker among them holds us down. This fun joker is organized Jewry which operates neo-McCarthyite persecution networks that actively police and suppress any sign of whites asserting group interests. These persecutions involve organized blacklists, intimidation and economic strangulation of dissidents. See the Walt and Mearsheimer report on the Israel Lobby for details. Example:
Although this organized Jewish tomfoolery may appear optional to the point A analysis, it isn’t and we’re going nowhere until we solve this problem. This doesn’t mean you wave the swastika or go a single nanometer beyond this specific issue, which, as it happens, is the ONLY issue that truly matters vis-a-vis organized Jewry. If we can dislodge their fun boot off our necks long enough to aquire equal rights to assert group interests while white, we’ll raise anchor and cast off. And if we don’t? Well, we’re simply not moving this ship as long as whites live in fear of organized Jewry and their privatized policing of whites. I’ll add a pet peeve of mine: Mindlessly berating whites for “letting” minorities do this and “letting” them do that, is no substitute for facing and resolving this problem. People have children, bills, mortgages, commitments and a whole host of other reasons why they NEED their jobs. The issue is never their apathy or cowardice. They are simply unwilling to risk their livelihood. Period. The real issue is why do they feel their jobs are at risk in the first place. In short, we’re dead in the water until the persecution networks are faced head on. Point B Point B, where you want to be, comes from the clear understanding of the need for counter-formations to oppose the pro-minority bigots and their persecution networks directly. And, as NEC Watch makes clear, this has to be directly as in D-I-R-E-C-T-L-Y. All politicians love to boast about their concern for minority interests, do they not? Aren’t they absolutely explicit about that? Well, who is going to be explicit about white interests? That’s the point B question - how do we assert and legitimise our grievances? I’d say there are absolutely no shortcuts to countering them with mirror image organizational structures that blatantly assert our group interests the way they assert theirs. We hammer away until we break past the legitimacy barrier and become big enough to beat them at their own game. We do this by doing exactly what they do all the time: We list our grievances, the remedies we seek and we stridently insist on our right to be heard until our grievances and demands are listened to. Grievances 1. Adverse demographic engineering (race replacement) The first two are easy for your target demographic (Daily Mail readers) to work with; the third deals with Jews; the last two have their roles but these are limited. Each of the five grievances listed can serve as the base seed from which position statements emerge organically to provide pro-white articulation across the board: For example, grievance 1 (race replacement): Q. This is racism Q. I have non-white friends Q. We’re all equal Q. Who is white Q. I believe in tolerance Q. So what’s the issue with immigration, miscegenation, foreign adoptions etc etc? Pro-white articulation stemming from grievance 2 (anti-white discrimination) is different. Different seed, different flowers: Q. This is racism Q. I have non-white friends Q. We’re all equal Q. Who is white Q. I believe in tolerance Q. So what’s the issue with immigration, miscegenation, foreign adoptions etc etc? Grievance 3 (competitive necessity). Again, different seed, different flowers: Q. This is racism. Q. I have non-white friends Q. We’re all equal Q. Who is white Q. I believe in tolerance Q. So what’s the issue with immigration, miscegenation, foreign adoptions etc etc? Grievance 4 and 5 I’ll leave to you because I rarely work with them. I prefer arguments with legs. An argument has legs if it’s simple enough that you can ask your grandma to talk to her geriatric friends about it. Anyway, you get the point: Grievances are the essential catalysing agent for pro-white metapolitics; they are what you use to define your position and to collect human and financial resources around dedicated interest groups. These groups are the media, professional, labor, political, lobbying, etc formations that emerge from this process. These will then use their grievance based pro-white perspective to interpret individual economic, public order, healthcare, free trade, military, environmental, and all other political bla bla issues. Their natural output of elaborate position statements will organically construct an aggregate pro-white perspective you might then call “ideology”. This patched up “ideology” will leak hypocrisy all over just like its mirror “liberalism”, but it would still be useful. It might be harnessed by some pro-white political party, for example. The political party may fall for the “maintreaming” scam as they so often do, or it may not. In any case, the overlying metapolitical entities, be they media, lobbies, societies, pseudo-masonic lodges, whatever they are, remain anchored in their white grievance and not easily led astray from their core blood and rights mandate. And they’ll keep going regardless; endlessly chipping away at any anti-white element found within any political party or ideology. The line Anyway, once you have the British versions of point A and point B nailed down, i.e. you know exactly where you are and where you want to be, that’s when you get to the fun part. Strategy involves drawing a line between A and B. 58
Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 20 May 2007 20:41 | # MR Joke wrote,
I don’t see how MR is “failing” or a “joke”. MR is a metopolitical entity, i.e. an interest group. It operates as a media outlet and is doing exactly what it’s supposed to be doing: articulating a white grievance and catalysing human and financial resources around itself. If it cannot generate broader “Daily Mail” appeal it’s because the grievance in question is Salterian “loss of child equivalents”. Owing to its complexity, pro-white articulation stemming from this seed cannot be expected to appeal beyond a limited target demographic. The thread’s subject matter is the BNP failure. It’s the BNP that’s a joke. We all know they’ll sell out as soon as they matter enough for enemy interests groups to buy them off. What’s needed is not one heroic ring bearer to carry the day but thousands of metapolitical entities like MR agitating our grievances so that all parties - not just the BNP - learn that you can’t sell out white interests and get away with it anymore. 59
Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 20 May 2007 20:44 | # Fred Scrooby wrote,
Exactly, there are simply no shortcuts to our own long march to reclaim the institutions. They didn’t get where they are by relying on a single political party to hoist their banner. Instead, they fought - and won - thousands of small metapolitical battles across the institutions. There’s simply no alternative to our own army of strident interest groups pushing our grievances and countering them directly in close quarter corridor fights at every institutional level. 60
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 20 May 2007 22:44 | # Excellent post by Steven Palese. I support these kinds of ethnic interest groups. In Finland the situation is not so unfavourable advanced. Greens here are almost like you described, but main opposition to Finns comes from mainstream parties’ social/liberal ideologies, although greens have bigger ideological effect on the mainstream than their political support would indicate (under ten %). It is because of same kinds of reasons Palese described. These pro-ethny groups have also the advantage, that they support the ideological strenght of the party (no sell out) at the same time they are doing their main job. Each of these interest groups have to be single mindedly promoting their particular issues, (Only a few most important goals and tasks) so that they concentrate their political punch. As Palese here does, these tasks and grievances must be directly related to their people’s lives/work/families/ideologies etc. Any means of influencing goes, whatever is efficient in a given issue. It can be sending e-mails, writing a book to a target group intellectuals, who are then given the book free, phoning, arranging any kinds of campaigns or boycotts (voting, buying, protesting etc.), producing ideologic culture, fighting in courts, converting people on the streets, acquiring money by donations in a celebration etc. Palese’s argument/question -response is useful when defining the framework of action. These interest groups must form fastly reacting networks between them, enabling coordination when necessary. Palese: “Grievance 4 and 5 I’ll leave to you because I rarely work with them. I prefer arguments with legs. An argument has legs if it’s simple enough that you can ask your grandma to talk to her geriatric friends about it.” - I agree. 4 and 5 (ethnic preservation) are mainly for committed groups. They are crucial. I had to store that post. That could have been published among the main posts also. 61
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 21 May 2007 00:03 | # I wrote: I agree. 4 and 5 (ethnic preservation) are mainly for committed groups. They are crucial. Addition: In the long run, with teaching, political influence and spreading of the ideas and groups, optimally they include large voluntarily joined masses. 62
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 21 May 2007 00:46 | # I understand Friedrich Braun’s obvious concern regarding the influx of criminally-intentioned Poles into Germany. The EU citizens’ ‘freedom-of-movement’ right should have been restricted to those people who have no criminal record and any crime committed in the arrival’s new country should have warranted repatriation and cancellation of said right. The EU needs an identity card system. I suggest a blue card for citizens of EU countries, a red card for legal permanent residents, a green card for temporary legal residents (expats) and black and brown cards for citizens and PR’s,respectively, with criminal records. 63
Posted by Steven Palese on Mon, 21 May 2007 02:45 | # Thanks Fred and Finn. Anyone is free to repost my stuff anywhere anytime. Not sure about this one - it’s a reply to GW that builds on premises laid in by NEC Watch. The post may be too embedded in the thread to make a good standalone. In any case I’ll be emailing something else to GW soon. 64
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 21 May 2007 17:35 | # While I agreed in general with Palese, I agree in particular with NEC watch and, well, my own statement that everything important flows from EGI/preserving the ethny. If these are not done, we might as well lobby for open borders and race/ethnic mixing to get it over with fast. So I make some distinctions. I don’t take anything important away from what Palese said, I just add to it. - These ethnic interest lobbying/activist groups influence politicians, media, public, schools, universities, government agencies, corporations etc. These can be divided. When dealing with politicians, media, government agencies and certain corporations, the message contains less ethnic preservation. When dealing with public, organizations, universities and certain corporations, it contains more ethnic preservation. Schools could be somewhere in between. - Salter might be too difficult to average public, but easier version can be made. We can learn among others from the old public race morals of the people in Usa and Australia. Almost all the people used them and understood them. We can develop a modern version, which is at the same time polite, but efficient. - Increasing pathways can be designed to lobbying/activist groups’ programs. E.g. let’s think about gay rights pathways. It could go something like this: Slightly more general tolerance to religion and public life - legal protection from the worst conditions concerning gays - rights to organize discretely officially - more all kinds of tolerance - rights to have some public places (Like some clubs and restaurants in the most liberal part of the country) - precedents in courts to secure more rights to gays - discrete political lobbying - the first public parades and demonstrations - more tolerance in churches and society in genaral - gay propaganda to the general public - fullblown visibility and activity in all areas of public life - open borders and unrestricted liberalism - gay marriages - gay priests - gay adoption - legal pedophilia (Many gay rights organizations want to legalize pedophilia and in Holland there is party, which tries to do the same). Our groups could advance along some technically similar political pathway from the present situation, and the end result is of course positive, White ethnic groups full acceptance everywhere in society and ethnic preservation. Other ethnic groups can have these already. - Right environment supporting. Lobbying/interest groups can advance indirectly ethnic preservation. They can protect free speech, freedom of association, oppose any interference to our ethnic groups functioning, demand that they are treated equally among other ethnic groups, decrease legal obstacles, create legal possibilities, affect officials’ policies and interpretation of laws, spread information supporting our groups, etc. These are mostly overlapping to what is mentioned in Palese’s article, so they are easy to incorporate to those methods. - Differing agendas for the lobbying/interest groups. Let’s say we have 1000 of these groups. 200 - 300 of them could discretely or openly support our ethnic preservation in general and groups that actively preserve our ethnicity. When environment becomes more propitious, the ethnic preservation message comes more open and strong, and more lobbying/activist groups espouse it. If environment becomes more difficult, they don’t back down from their agendas. Remember that the actual ethnic preservation is done by ethnic genetic groups and the individual or mass decisions of the general public that are in principle separate from these activist/lobbying groups, although connections are good. Lobbyist/activists don’t have to explain other groups. In the long run, only ethnic genetic groups can preserve our ethny. These activist/lobbying groups agendas and programs can be more strong than a party’s, because they don’t have to make democratic compromises or appeal to too wide and varied range of people. Because they are so many, they can be individually created so that their agendas’ influence variation is tailored to cover the whole range of political thought from liberalism to paleoconservatism. Alternatively they can also conform to all situations without changing the strong basic agendas (E.g ethnic preservationist can make a speech designed to effect maximally a liberal gathering). Ethnic preservation, like other ethnic interests must be tied directly to people’s work/politics/family/thinking/entertainment etc., and they must increase people’s success. And they will. People investing in ethnic preservation/ethnic genetic interests will gain from them. - Manufactured unintended consequences. Agendas can be designed to produce them. E.g. apparently neutral lobbying/activist group can support some to us non-harmful minority cause and appeal to tolerance, minority rights etc. When this is accepted or made to law, White ethnic groups start immeadiately quietly use that new right to their advantage. Second method is to create so complex and/or large requirements or propositions to officials and lawmakers, that they don’t have time to go through them properly or don’t understand them. Inside the requirements or propositions are hidden lot’s of good things to Whites. I suggest a method for ethnic genetic groups to acquire members: I call it harvesting. Good quality intelligent, local and interconnected internet sites and groups are created to many places. Majority Rights could be used as a paradigm. Some of the internet sites’ contents are common, the rest are produced by local people. The leading members are from ethnic genetic groups, the rest are from among the locals. The contents of the sites filters already e.g. those whose life purpose is to percolate as much as possible alcohol through their liver and brawl noisily. It also gathers those who are interested in the subject. When people have been in the site for a fairly long, they have been met several times and they are known, they can be suggested that they could join a better group. Several things are told, but not all. If they are interested, in the next stage they could visit the area where members of EGI group live and join a dinner with families. Discussions are informal and friendly. Some more information is told, but not all. If the person is still interested, he can later pledge that he follows the rules of the group and moves to the area, near the members. He is there on a probation. If everything goes well, he is offered the possibility to become a full member. If he accepts, he moves permanently to the area and joins the group. Gradually he becomes a full member insider. This includes: More person does to become a member of a group, the more committed he is to that group, and the more he appreciates his membership and the group. (Cultural law) Same kind of harvesting could be used in workplaces, other good quality nationalist groups’ gatherings or any other places or situations, where people are known and noticed to be suitable trustworthy persons. 65
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 21 May 2007 17:47 | # I wrote: “This includes: More person does to become a member of a group, the more committed he is to that group, and the more he appreciates his membership and the group. (Cultural law)” Addition, according to cultural law: What the person does could be anything from work to bravery. 66
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 23 May 2007 03:02 | # Second addition: Second similar complementary and somewhat overlapping pathway of development should be created to specifically mitigate the anti-European actions. 67
Posted by calyen on Tue, 29 May 2007 05:00 | # “EGI is simply incomprehensible to people who have been indoctrinated in liberalism.” This is not quite true. Many people think they are liberal but are not. That’s why it’s great when Guessedworker or others (who are astute, polite and practised - but not timid) post online at mainstream sites, because it exposes great argument and ideas to people, and also helps break down the self-censorship that dogs political discourse. Don’t make too many assumptions, there is a wealth of support out there if you can get to it. Post a comment:
Next entry: What Prompted the WSJ to Report Some Real News?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
), it is as good reason as specifically said genetic interests reasons, assuming they produce similarly durable and efficient results. Stinking feet can also buy us time, before more efficient and durable reasons can be implemented.
Posted by Voice on Fri, 11 May 2007 03:17 | #
At second glance 15% across the board is pretty impressive..
The BNP are viewed as a white briton party which means 15% are awakened to our plight and our BLOCK voting.
More people are awakening each day and the biggest issue Briton has is too many areas are still isolated from the real racial transformation that is taking place in London.
One area which was fascinating , was South East, where BNP stood some candidates for the first time with little canvassing .
From BNP site
—-
While the number of seats won and lost suggests that the Party is standing still we have made considerable progress in areas where we are already established plus some new areas which saw some of the biggest surprises of the elections.
South East region
17% in Windsor (Clewer North Ward) for a first time.
23.5% in Arun (Bognor Regis) again on a first time showing.
————————-
This makes sense as these people are working in London and seeing the carnage first hand.
If I were the big three, I would be very nervous that the BNP are gaining respectibility and becoming part of the conversation instead of being branded “racists”.
I do think, however, that Nick Griffin needs to stand down as leader of the party and have another role in party. He has done a great job but I think they need a new National spokesman, but the replacement has to be up to the job.