|
|
|
A fv?k???g article to allow nationalists to communicate with normal people by Grimoire Recently, in correspondence with GW, Graham Lister and CaptainChaos, LJ Barnes demanded we drop the tedious, pseudo-intellectual wank, and ordered that we:
In compliance, I decided to write about the rules of Politics as I understand them. In paticular, the golden rule of Political communication. Politics is not merely running for a seat in government, Political action is whenever one needs to persuade another. Politics is by definition an exchange between people where one attempts to present an idea of authority to be accepted by all, or the majority. This is a most basic rule, but it’s underlying truth lends it self-operating wisdo. All Western politicians within the Democratic/Parliamentary system, whether you love or hate them, attained majority power with a variation of this rule. For explication, I will present the Rule in three parts: 1) People care about subjects which benefit them and are perceived to be just. A majorities primary concern is always material subsistence, followed by the need to be free of anxiety towards their livelihood. The successful nationalist frames all arguments in terms of positive benefits to the listener and his livelihood, no matter the subject, with positive outcomes and conclusions of economy and natural justice. Many nationalists are in the habit of the exact opposite, framing the arguments in terms of negative effects and the experience of injustice. As a result, people do not give a shit. Framing one’s policy goals on beneficial outcomes for the subject, means even if they disagree, they will always care very much. 2) For authority to be functional, it must serve those who submit to it. Anything of value is determined by function alone. Politicians frame the argument towards the audience. This is why they promise this, that and the opposite at different times of the day. But the promises they make are not the value in the equation, just the inducement…value is framed around the functions they require authority to develop. This is how successful politicians elicit devotion towards their authority, despite disdain for their policies. Example of this are Churchill, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc. Therefore, show the result intended, but the path that benefits the majority interests. Only present the degree of ways and means that allows one to acommodate the audiences interests without a great degree of inconsistency. How to manage this is via the third part: 3) Keep It Simple Stupid The secret weapon. The KISS principal causes friends to overestimate, and one’s enemies to underestimate the strength and wisdom of a speaker. Escalating a debate into science, philosophy or genetics is asking to disappear into a swamp of misconception. Couple this with rule 1, (keep it positive, beneficial,) and simple…and cause a dramatic impact. I recall a Professor who on first appearance seemed a oaf ... until he began to lecture. The contrast was such that he became everyone’s favorite and most loved lecturer - so much so that one’s first impression of other Professors who were well attired and fluent communicators turned from a good impression to suspicion that they were inwardly dull and shallow. Allow an audience to develop it’s own misconceptions and exploit those misconceptions. Finale: The purpose of this short article is to present a challenge to the reader to take their favorite social or economic policy; ie. deporting immigrants, public execution of immigration officials + Labour Party members, introducing hemisphere-wide right of personal combat, eugenics programs to diminish occurrence of the ‘faith gene’, etc, and reformulate it within the context of the rules of politics. It is advised one start by conceiving one’s policy goals in the simplest manner, then identify the functions required, and how to present these functions in a simple yet oblique manner that can be tailored towards the audience. Reframe your points towards positive outcomes for any audience. And, lastly, determine how to frame one’s policy goals to dovetail with the underlying anxiety of an audience concerning their livelihood. Insights are appreciated. Politics is not exact science, but art ... and relies on the skills developed by its members. “The less the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night.” Comments:2
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:49 | # Linked from the fb page of Harold Arthur McNeil. “Suitable campaign theme music for American regime change, from two party democra$y to the one party authentocracy of Third Camelot” - - H. 3
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:16 | # Wandrin & Dasein: For example Wandrin, your points;
The rule imposes difficulties and limits to dealing directly with these necessary steps. You want to always keep your political frame positive and always growing more positive, and allow the negative to fall naturally, or just logically ‘appear’ among the enemies camp. So a frontal attack on these problems will cost many liters of beer. (SubRule ‘ c or d, and e.’): A Peoples Default Natural State Is One Of Happiness. It is most often Politicians or Priests who offend this natural state without amends. Never make this mistake. Whether engaging in interpersonal debate or speaking to a rally consider yourself a ‘Host’ who undertakes always the responsibility for the happiness of his guests. In politics one needs to ‘frame’ debate within parameters useful to the needs or resources of his cause, at that time.
True Dasein, but because of competition for the attention of this self-interest, everyone promises expensive wine and chocolate in ever increasing amounts. This is ‘wine and chocolate’ arms race is easy to undermine. The elite overuse their strength in media and are over extended. Rely on evolutionary psychology. Reframe psychologically. all our enemies strengths as weaknesses, and all your weaknesses as strengths….and the path to follow will automatically appear. Do it before the enemy does, and be aware he will catch on soon enough and prefigure that in your plan. The Nationalist Politician wants the Majority - and serves no one but the Majority. He doesn’t care for his adversaries, only the Majority. If he is talking to three people, he frames his argument so he can unite two of them, the third will naturally fall into line if he uses the Rule. And of course, Jimmy Marr as Master Of Ceremonies. 4
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:27 | # Good to see you take my point on board. Its about fucking time. Whilst the pseudo-intellectuals nationalists bicker over the finer points of Heidigger, the people we need to communicate with - and whose votes we need to get into power - are being ignored. Lets debate Heidigger after we take power and our nationalist culture replaces liberal culture. Lets debate and discuss how we get nationalsts and nationalism into power - lets not waste time with any more pseudo-intellectual student wank regarding Heidigger. Time is far too short to waste on bourgeoise reactionary intellectualism. I have never heard a normal member of the public in a pub debating Heidigger. I have heard thousands moaning about immigration and foreigners. Drop Heidigger - read The Sun and lets debate how to get the votes of The Sun readers, not philosophy students who debate Heidigger. 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:27 | # Good to see you take my point on board. (LJB) It’s a point many of us have been making for a long time, and with good reason: as we debate fine issues, we continue to lose our homelands at accelerating rates. At some point, perhaps already passed, the problem moves from philosophy to military science. This is why for several years here at MR, and for a long time before that elsewhere, I have emphasized that the most relevant philosophical problem is ethics, not ontology. Most whites have been convinced that resisting our dispossession is unethical, and this inexplicably despite the huge explosion (or because of it?) of atheism in Europe. I emphasize bringing the racialist platform in line with traditional understandings of Christianity because, first, I think Christianity very likely true (in its core ‘ontology’); second, it is hugely dominant among American conservatives (and here we cannot win any power just with hardcore white nationalists, and in my experience, very, very few white leftists are even remotely amenable to WN); and third, I go far against the grain in predicting that Europe is at the low (or high depending on your perspective) point of secularism - that is, as the civilizational (political, economic, fertility, declinist) crisis heats up over there (and, with lulls, and false starts, over time it will), many Europeans are going to rediscover their ancient faith, as people often do in times of great stress. We must make sure that faith includes, as it once did, realistic and (truly) just analyses of the role of racial transformation in the crisis and decline of the West. 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:32 | # For example, we are racialists because we don’t want to import this into our nations and lives: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110601/wl_africa_afp/nigeriacrimechildtrafficking_20110601143218 7
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:34 | # At the risk of a virtual tongue-lashing perhaps all budding politicians should be reading “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear” by Dr. Frank Luntz (the slimy but highly successful American pollster/political consultant, that sometimes appears on ‘Newsnight’ in the UK). Another interesting little book I recently read was “Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation” which is a curious study of Plenty Coups, the last great Chief of the Crow Nation, who is recorded as stating “When the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground, and they could not lift them up again. After this nothing happened.” Human beings are profoundly cultural creatures and the author asks; how should one face the possibility that one’s culture might, profoundly and completely, collapse? It’s quite a philosophically sophisticated approach taking in both Aristotle and Heidegger on culture and cultural meaning (unfortunately also some Freud too). So the themes of the book piqued my interest, especially given that the distinct possibility upon the historical horizon that Europeans and our individual cultures and our collective high-culture might cease to exist (I hope not but in my darker moods I can contemplate such an eventuality). And even very 2nd rate figures like Nick Clegg or Tony Blair are but distant echos of the intellectual liberal discourse that profoundly shapes modernity. Leaving the field of ideas to liberalism is a fatal mistake – philistine anti-intellectualism is stupid. No political movement can form without some system of ideas and philosophy - of course it needs skilled political figures to transform it into an attractive package for Mr & Mrs Average. However, it is generally a small and determined group of people that lead societies into radical change (Russian revolution etc.) given the right circumstances (a profound crisis of legitimacy of the ruling regime) and not the mass of sheeple - they follow, if the putative alternative is attractive, but never themselves provide leadership/ideas/inspiration or the intellectual and political energy that drives change. Simply having a moan in a pub isn’t enough (and personally I find 99% of modern British pubs completely ghastly so I will not be in them discussing evolutionary biology, Heidegger, intertextuality in ‘Eastenders’, or anything else). As for reading ‘The Sun’ well personally I will not have it in my home. For our non-British readers ‘The Sun’ is a joke newspaper that is written in a style so that it conforms to the average reading ability of a 8-9 year old child. In additional, the subject matter of ‘The Sun’ normally consists of pictures of topless women along with mind-numbingly banal reports on the sexual misdemeanors of z-list ‘celebrities’. There is not a more spectacularly vulgar popular press anywhere in the Western world than that which operates in England. So if ‘The Sun’ represents what we wish to preserve perhaps we should give up now. 8
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:41 | # Before you can win the support of the masses, you need to know what the masses are thinking. The Sun should not read by nationalists for fun, but for what it tells about how to communicate to the masses. The Sun is now what we need to preserve, it is a tool to enable us to reach the masses. We are losing the politicalstruggle as we want to impose what we want on the masses, rather than giving them what they want. 10
Posted by Rusty on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:56 | # A real leader does not lead by committee. He comes up with his own ideas and implements them. And if one is not an Alexander, Caesar, or Napoleon, one’s most effective course of action is intensely local and, IMHO, social and cultural instead of political. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:57 | #
This is my understanding also. There are three circles arranged in a concentric pattern. At the centre is the intellectual well-spring. The next ring is that of the water-carriers - in liberalism, people like Zizek. In nationalism, people like O’Meara. The final ring is the political trough. If it is dry, the politics will be self-serving and productive only for the new elites. 12
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:16 | # C’mon guys, all this talk about The Sun and the “dry trough” has got me parched and it’s only 2pm. over here. 13
Posted by jimmy Marr on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 22:26 | # As much as I despise cirrhotic intellectualism, I sense the need for an outpouring of Johnny Walker wisdom. 14
Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:09 | # The Sun’ normally consists of pictures of topless women Only on page 3 no?! 15
Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:09 | # I sense the need for an outpouring of Johnny Walker wisdom Blue I hope? Life is taking a horrible turn… I might find the foundation of Mr. Walker’s wisdom. 16
Posted by Bill on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:15 | # One thing’s for sure, whatever direction British nationalism has been travelling this last ten years has been a bloody disaster. What had we got to lose by telling how it is? 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:24 | # Rusty, Would this on-line book qualify for a mention on your excellent resource-site: 18
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:32 | #
Sociobiology does it for me but everyone needs their own thing i guess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lSEovw5-bbU “whole damn world is gonna know i’ve been here” 19
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:11 | # You all make good points. But Barnes has the historically and culturally valid point. Put aside class misconceptions on the value of the ‘Pub’. The Pub, was once and still is, the counterbalances to the center of the wellspring of European Political and Cultural power. The other counterbalance was once the Church, and while less so today, it still must be conquered. 20
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:51 | # Grimoire speaks like a jew, thinks like a jew, and acts like a jew. He is a proven lier. Is that simple enough? Nobody is running for office here. If you wish to do something useful - tell the truth and do not lie. Is that simple enough? And the simple truth, discovered by Louis Pasteur, is that majority of human illnesses are caused by germs and bacteria. Same is true with human societies - the illnesses of the modern Western world is due to the actions of the parasites. Look for the parasites, stupid! Find them , name them, tell everybody the truth about them. It does not matter if people believe you or not, just keep telling the truth, and they will believe you when the time comes. And the time will come - there is no doubt about it. 21
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:10 | # ‘The Pub’ of both the modern middle-class ‘gastro’ type (apropos of nothing I despise Jamie Oliver), or the spit and sawdust, lumpenproletariat version is full of the of people, of both sexes, very much like ‘the last man’ (der letzte Mensch). Apathetic creatures, that in general possess no great passion or serious commitments, are content so long as their personal slice of ‘shopping & fucking’ is maintained. Mindless consumerism plus booze/and or illegal drugs and recreational sex becomes the ne plus ultra of human excellence…perhaps I’m a grumpy misanthrope but do I encounter many people on an everyday basis that raise those old philosophical questions about ‘human zombies’ in my mind. Anyways I seem to have been finding a number of ‘video nasties’ recently. This one is quite funny in that the people on it general come over as the most pathetic whiny bunch of fuckwits. It’s meant to be ‘ordinary’ whites talking about the evils of white privilege/racism…and guess what little Timmy Wise pops up as ‘Tim from Nashville’. He first appears at around 3.20ish. 23
Posted by Lew on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 04:39 | # I agree entirely with Mr. Barnes. The commentary here, while always stimulating and interesting, sometimes leaves me scratching my head. The main goal of the MR intellectual project just isn’t apparent to me. Where is all this discussion of Heidigger and ontology going? What is the problem you perceive, and how does constantly interpreting, analyzing and reinterpreting Heidigger’s ideas help solve that problem? 24
Posted by Gareth on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 07:12 | #
I used to be a member of the BNP, and left when i came down south, basically because the guy who was directly above me was an unpleasant wanker. But it didnt help that the BNP website’s articles are very low brow, which reinforced the worst of what i began to see around me in the organisation. You, LJB, had the best ‘official’ members blog, but only here at majority rights and specifically with GW have i found what i was looking for back then. 25
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:14 | # 1) Graham Lister - you need to get out more. You sound like a cross between Victor Meldrew and one of the Taliban. 2) Grimoire - excellent anaylsis - the point is simple, those who can communicate to the masses, will be the master of the masses. Those who can communicate only to intellectuals, will be regarded with contempt by the masses - and we need the masses to vote nationalism into power - not intellectuals. 3) Ivan - you sound like you have run out of your medication. Get some more. You need it. 4) GW - all conteporary political ideologies are intellectualy cohesive. That is not the point though - the point is that unless they are communicated to the masses, they remain as memes only alive in the minds of a tiny rump of intellectuals. The nationalists we need are not intellectuals - they are communicators. Communicators who can communicate nationalism to the masses and gain their support are worth a thousand intellectuals. 26
Posted by Robert Reis on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:16 | # http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/ 27
Posted by Bill on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:31 | # Lee John Barnes June 02, 2011, 07:14 AM
Nationalist or Intellectual, it matters not, it’s the message stupid! The people of these Isles are suffering from cognitive dissonce bigtime and have been for years. They have seen with their own eyes their living space being whipped from under their feet by mass alien immigration. They have heard their elites tell them in a dozen different tongues why immigration is good. Most (folk) have, overtime, come to realise that what has happened and is still happening is to them insane, but have also learnt that to question the wisdom of immigration only invites a swift kick in the nuts from our betters and denounced as racist. They cannot handle this and have retreated into the fuzzy warmth of pursuit of pleasure, which just happens to be on hand in abundance courtesy of the MSM. Meanwhile, the nationalist and the intellectual are pulling their collective hair out trying figure out why the good folk of Britain are refusing to wake up and start reacting to the threat of their very existence. And there’s the rub, what kind message has the nationalist movement been consistent putting out to the greater audience? Forget the intellectual because they are not even on folks radar. And so now to what I consider to be the crux of the communication vacuum - which I have expounded ad infinitum on this site. But first I must digress a little. When I first work up and started to have my say here (2006?) it soon became obvious (to me) that mass immigration into Britain was no accident and was being orchestrated at the highest level, not only in Britain, but was happening in all white Western nations. The only question remaining was why? I also could see this immigration programme, (plan, conspiracy, agenda, policy, whatever) must at some time, sooner rather than later become apparent to all, I likened it in my writing as the tide coming in at the seaside, it would become inexorable and to try and hide it would be impossible and then all would be revealed. I figured that if I could find out why Britain was being flooded with immigration then I summised the head honchos of the nationalist movement could also - and a whole lot more beside. So why wasn’t this information getting out to the wider audience, to the bewildered people of this country? At least ten years have now past and the tide is now up to our necks and yet the people are still none the wiser, what an indictment to the communicators. (One of which I consider myself to be) On a personal level, I have actually spelt it out to people I know well - and they simply laugh. Is it fair to blame the communicators for failing to get their message across? Political correctness, legislation, and the formidable MSM have proved insurmountable obstacles. The nationalist communicators have always been reduced to woeful leafleting and commenting on the Internet. For one fleeting moment I did think that when the British National Party gained two MEPs to the European parliament the door to MSM access would be prised ajar, alas, all we got was BBC’s Newsnight! Waking up the benighted British public was always going to be the biggest problem and still remains so, the overwhelming majority of the population, (90% plus) remain ignorant of the true motives of ‘why immigration?’ Where are the ‘tell it as it is’ communicators who will risk all - to come from? ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ becomes ever more significant. To conclude, this is a vast subject, (this is only scratching the surface) I could go on…. I could go… I could .... 28
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:47 | # 1) Graham Lister - you need to get out more. You sound like a cross between Victor Meldrew and one of the Taliban. 2) Grimoire - excellent anaylsis - the point is simple, those who can communicate to the masses, will be the master of the masses. Those who can communicate only to intellectuals, will be regarded with contempt by the masses - and we need the masses to vote nationalism into power - not intellectuals. 3) Ivan - you sound like you have run out of your medication. Get some more. You need it. 4) GW - all conteporary political ideologies are intellectualy cohesive. That is not the point though - the point is that unless they are communicated to the masses, they remain as memes only alive in the minds of a tiny rump of intellectuals. The nationalists we need are not intellectuals - they are communicators. Communicators who can communicate nationalism to the masses and gain their support are worth a thousand intellectuals. (LJB) ————————————————————— [I find Dr. Lister extremely level-headed, and welcome his contributions.] Communication/persuasion/outreach towards the masses is obviously crucial. But you (all) are assuming that nationalism would be obviously popular, if only “the word” could be gotten out to our people, instead of being bottled up by the alien-controlled MSM. I’m not so sure of this anymore. Earlier in my lifetime, perhaps as recently as the early 90s, the white nations, including even the US, despite its being further along the path to white minority status than most, had preponderant majorities of traditional national and cultural (possibly even racial) preservationists (aka, “patriots”). It was in the 60s, 70s and 80s, when brave men like Enoch Powell were speaking out, that we really needed large cadres of committed nationalists explaining to the masses the facts of race, and thus the kind of future they and their children would invariably experience if already existent trends in immigration as well as non-discrimination litigation were not halted. We would have had receptive audiences, filled with persons who were old enough to have remembered the (better) time before multiculturalism. Unfortunately, now we are faced with an obviously vastly more difficult situation, and not only because we have huge numbers of racial aliens resident and integrated within our lands. We also have a younger generation of whites (in the US, the Obama Youth, who by no means are all nonwhite) who have been both indoctrinated into multiculturalism and opposition to white traditions nearly from birth, as well as raised in multiracial environments. Many whites, raised around lots of nonwhites, come to reject multiracialism. But many others actively come to embrace it. Worst of all, even many whites not enamored of ‘diversity’ nevertheless have been conditioned to think that reversing such diversity, even if physically (again, militarily) possible, would be grossly unethical. Let me emphasize that point. There are enormous numbers of whites who would have opposed immigration in the 60s-80s, and might still vote to oppose further immigration today, but who would also oppose racial repatriation, which, let us not deceive ourselves, would require harsh measures to achieve, and likely lead to racial civil war in many places. So as I repeatedly have asserted, there is a desperate need for sophisticated philosophical analysis, though it should involve not abstruse “racial ontology”, but the provision of ethical justifications for what for the masses are clearly calls for verboten ‘racism’. Ethics, not ontology, is the key intellectual task, even as we concomitantly work in the political realm to legislate the WN Lowest Common Denominator, which is halting nonwhite immigration. 29
Posted by PM on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:16 | # It occurred to me the other day the irony that left-wing people claim that race and ethnicity are meaningless constructs, and the only real differences are socio-economic and class divisions—yet at the same time they introduce laws designed to protect the rights of races and cultures and declare them sacrosanct, whereas the same people would never accept that working-class groups have their own right to their own cultural values in areas such as marriage, sexual morality, ‘gender’ roles and family life. If, for example, Indians are allowed to pursue their own moral and cultural ethics based on the fact that they belong to a supposedly ‘meaningless’ ethnic/racial group, would a left-wing person accord the same respect to a working class person who demanded that marriage and traditional male/female roles were part of his working class culture and identity? Without actually making Race the issue, it is therefore possible to highlight contradictions in the way minorities are accorded respect, and point out the way race and ethnicity is made an issue by others, without making it one ourselves. This was the approach I took with my anti-racist friend the other day, and it worked very well. First of all I asked him to be honest about the effect that left-wing ideas of feminism and sexual morality has had on different groups in this country. I pointed out that in many ways it has suited the middle classes very well, whereas it has been a disaster for those lower down the scale he claimed to care about. And then I asked him how it could be right that wealthy middle-class Indians could escape Government interference, social engineering and media propaganda designed to change the nature of their morals and family life, whereas the values and morals of working class whites are deemed to be the absolute ward of the state, with no rights to question or influence their own morality. I asked my friend a question as a thought experiment: imagine there was a party made up of working class people. The main focus of the party was that it wished for a return to what it considered to be its own traditional working class values and culture. It demanded that the State show respect for their desire to have traditional families and gender roles, and to bring up their own children as they saw fit, and to regain control over the teaching of sexual morals to their children. The party would be entirely non-racist in that it would claim the same right for all ethnic groups in Britain to do the same, demanding only the right for the groups themselves to define their own group eligibility as they saw fit. The effect this had on my friend was quite revealing. He did not answer, his voice trembled and he rambled and changed the subject, refusing to return to our discussion. I think this is because the question forced him to confront the fact that not only was he not willing to accept the existence of such a party, but that neither would the Left generally, and that their claim to care about the interests of working class people is entirely false. They want control over poor whites, and will accept no ideological competition. But once they have that control, they do not care what happens to them, as long as what happens consolidates and increases that control. 30
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:23 | # No Bill, its not the message thats important, its the communicator who engages the masses. The perfect example is Marx and Communism. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. It remained a meme known only to a tiny number of people for decades, with no power, no presence and no following. No one read Marxl, no one knew Marx and no one cared about communism. Then in April 1917 Lenin returned to Russia and with him the meme of communism. Lenin was able to spread the meme to the Russian population by communicating the communist meme to the Russian masses and hence the communist meme grew until it took over Russia. The idea of communism was nothing until Lenin, the communicator, was able to spread it amongst the masses. No Bill - ideas mean nothing unless they are communicated. Communicators matter not intellectuals. 31
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:35 | # An addendum: What I wrote above should in no way be interpreted to mean that I actually think whites will save their homelands, at least in the absence of the most extreme threats of nonwhite violence and external military conquest, which I do not think will be forthcoming (or not in sufficient time to use them as springboards to a successful general racial awakening and alien cleansing). At best the purpose of a nationalist movement is to make life better for the whites living in increasingly multicultural societies - to defend their rights and material interests, keep pressing for an end to immigration, and inculcate a sense of national and racial tradition in the face of hostile governments, media and popular cultures. But such is not enough to save the West’s national cultures, nor collectively to save the race. Now that the demographic defenses have been breached in big ways, the trend is inexorable. Over time, increasing numbers of whites will miscegenate; whites will probably never reach replacement fertility, and even if they do, they will not over-reproduce so as to replace the huge fall in populations guaranteed by the sub-par fertility of the past couple of generations; and white majorities everywhere will almost certainly not want to risk civil/racial warfare, with all the loss of life and especially property and wealth destruction that would entail. Thus, even as WN movements grow ever stronger among whites - and they will - their natural base of support will continue to shrink, and their likelihood of attaining even a modicum of power will further recede under continuing waves of both immigration, and eventual naturalization (as well as, for a while at least, greater relative domestic nonwhite fertility). 32
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:38 | # Sorry, got timed out, and didn’t copy whole comment. Meant to say: An addendum: What I wrote above should in no way be interpreted to mean that I actually think whites will save their homelands, at least in the absence of the most extreme threats of nonwhite violence and external military conquest, which I do not think will be forthcoming (or not in sufficient time to use them as springboards to a successful general racial awakening and alien cleansing). At best the purpose of a nationalist movement is to make life better for the whites living in increasingly multicultural societies - to defend their rights and material interests, keep pressing for an end to immigration, and inculcate a sense of national and racial tradition in the face of hostile governments, media and popular cultures. But such is not enough to save the West’s national cultures, nor collectively to save the race. Now that the demographic defenses have been breached in big ways, the trend is inexorable. Over time, increasing numbers of whites will miscegenate; whites will probably never reach replacement fertility, and even if they do, they will not over-reproduce so as to replace the huge fall in populations guaranteed by the sub-par fertility of the past couple of generations; and white majorities everywhere will almost certainly not want to risk civil/racial warfare, with all the loss of life and especially property and wealth destruction that would entail. Thus, even as WN movements grow ever stronger among whites - and they will - their natural base of support will continue to shrink, and their likelihood of attaining even a modicum of power will further recede under continuing waves of both immigration, and eventual naturalization (as well as, for a while at least, greater relative domestic nonwhite fertility). WN (or any kind of nationalist) parties will probably not attain ruling power, and, even if they do, they may be able to end future immigration (there are many non-racial reasons for doing so), but will not reverse what has already arrived. And thus over time, as ever greater numbers of whites have nonwhite in-laws and friends, white resistance to racial euthanasia will weaken (at least without what I have repeatedly called for, a New Racial Ethics of Survival). Of course, there may occasionally be a stronger reaction triggered by a special moral outrage (eg, an attempt to impose some version of Islamic law on a European province or whole country). But that won’t translate into a general racial cleansing uprising. At most, the powers that be will (temporarily) back down, waiting until white numbers are still fewer to try their schemes again. And always, the river of civic integration and ultimate biological assimilation will keep flowing ... We’ve lost everything, everywhere. That eventuality is already ‘built’ into the present state of things, even if we’re still a long way from rock-bottom. The only hope to save the white race is through my proposal for the White Zion. WNs must gradually relocate themselves to a common country which is sovereign yet small enough that we could peacefully, demographically conquer it, exactly as Mexicans are in the process of doing to my home, California. I believe there either are, or, in a few decades, will be, enough WNs (not hardcore Nazis, nor “ontological nationalists”, nor neo-pagans, etc, but all of these combined with the much larger number of white conservatives who would simply prefer to live in a monoracial society) from around the world who could do this and will want to. The model for this is, ironically, Israel. Lots of Jews emigrated to Palestine, starting in the late 19th century, and then in huge numbers following WW2 and the formal establishment of Israel. The Zionists wanted a homeland for the Jews, and so they took one. There is no reason we cannot do so as well. I have offered Australia as the most all-round promising (not just in terms of its vulnerability to demographic conquest, but also its potential as a place of white refuge and ultimate Racial State). I’m open to hearing other suggestions (eg, CS suggested Malta). 33
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:46 | # A White Zion eh. Perhaps the slogan should be ’ Next Year In Serbia’. Okay then - Who will be the first to leave the US and go to live in Serbia ? Serbia would be a good choice as there are not many ethnics or Muslims left in the place after the Balkans Wars. Errr Hello ? Tumbleweed drifts past in the wind. The sound of a distant tolling bell can be heard in the distance. Silence,. Thought so. The White Zion plan fell on its arse before the first hurdle. 34
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:59 | # Leon, this is what we need to do ; 1) form legal and lebby groups to promote and protect white civil rights in society 2) form media groups to create our own alternative media outlets on the internet 3) form scholarships to send white activists to university / colleges etc 4) form community groups to work in communities to work with white families 5) form outreach groups for ex-prisoners to help them back into a WHITE society, not the degenerate one that caused them to go to prison in the first place 6) form political groups that aim to reach young white people and who can take them on holidays etc where they learn white culture 7) form our own shops and businesses Imagine if a white rights group went into the cities and offered white city families and kids free camping trips, educational scholarships, training and job training schemes in white companies, jobs in white businesses etc etc that would be real positive change. 35
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:16 | #
That’s what people thought of Louis Pasteur as well when he made his groundbreaking discovery of germs as the ultimate causes of diseases. 36
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:16 | # Gareth,
Different folks need different strokes. 37
Posted by Rusty on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:29 | # Hello, Mr. Barnes, All of these are great ideas and I’ve seen them on the interwebs for many years in various forms. Thank you for consolidating the best of them here. However, since none of these are being implemented even though the need is clear, some important ingredients must therefore be missing. What they are I do not know. I’d like to see some great leader lay a solid foundation for these projects and set the standards by example. Others could package the prototypes for duplication in various forms and then we’d see some real progress. But they are not being implemented, though millions are now awake and *could* be working on them. We’re all just hanging here, shooting the breeze. Thousands more of us are lost every day and we sit at the keyboards waiting for ... what? It’s crazy. We have zero political, governmental, or economic power. The culture however is disintegrating which allows for many opportunities at rebuilding. That is why I recommend and practice small, local family and community building, working through existing social and cultural entities. There just isn’t anything else possible right now, at least that I can see. You are right on target about communication. In order to reach the masses, marketing must be used skillfully to blast out the vision. 38
Posted by Rusty on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:33 | # GW, thank you for the book link, I’m reading it now. 39
Posted by Bill on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:52 | # Lee. Question - Communicator or Message? Marx. Intellectual? Communicator? Intellectual/Communicator? I get your point, (1.23 pm above) but are we talking apples and apples here. At the time, (1848) Marx had his idea/meme but he had no problem/cause to hitch it to. He had to wait for more than half a century for that. Surely it is different here in England today. The most baffling question we are confronted with today is, why British Nationalism has failed to galvanise the British people into recognising the threat which is about to engulf them? Or moreso, why haven’t the British people themselved rumbled to what is happening? Despite acres of column inches keystroked on our screens, we are no nearer answering the question. We will agree to differ as there is an absolute plethora of reason as to why this is so. Funnily enough, I heard only this morning Bob Chapman over at Alex Jones place, say that all it needs is one very brave well known soul to come out and tell it like it is. He (Bob Chapman) continued. Trouble is, that person could well end up dead. 40
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:03 | # Very interesting comments people. I actually agree that a legitimization of liberal ethics (I mean in the broadest intellectual sense – whoops there I go again with the ‘bad’ word) is vital, both deontological and utilitarian ‘ethics’ are radically wrong and incomplete accounts of the ethical. I mentioned that book “Radical Hope” not necessarily because I agree with its conclusions, but only because it’s a discussion of the relationship between virtue ethics and cultural meaning. Whilst I’m not a philosopher, I am very attracted to the basic concept of virtue ethics, precisely because it is so culturally situated that what precisely is or is not virtuous can be ‘up for grabs’ in an cultural-ideological struggle. Virtue ethics opens up a ‘potential space’ (to use an term from anatomy), to redefine the cultural nature of ‘the good’ far more than any liberally-derived discourse (which at a base level eschews any collective subject for the fantasy of atomised self-authored individuals). As for being ‘Victor Meldrew’ crossed with the Taliban well that’s quite funny. Maybe getting drunk on cheap booze, doing a like of coke, then finishing the night with a slattern (with the subsequent STD) is just what I need. I could even visit a Jamie Oliver ‘restaurant’ to be sold badly-cooked, overpriced, pseudo-Italian food, and don’t worry I could also visit MacDonalds and get down with the chav crowd too. Excellence. However two points spring to my mind. Narrative is war – including the narratives of popular culture. Islamic critiques of Western consumerism/popular culture are based on a nugget of truth (even if their overall worldview and conclusions are mostly insane). Anyone that thinks contemporary pop-culture/hedonistic consumerism is in its totality a jolly good thing, (for anyone other than those who profit from it both ideologically and economically), and as such should define the values of Western societies is frankly so deep inside the belly of the beast so as they cannot tell the woods from the trees. I’ll give one example – at all of the tertiary educational establishments where I have worked, there was always a massive spike in the demand for abortions in the female student population after the start of a new academic year. Very much in the spirit of “Hey people do it in the road if it feels good” etc., personally I might be somewhat ‘out-there’ but I find such behaviour and the cultural assumptions which facilitate the need for such post-hoc medical ‘treatments’ repulsive. One of the aims of a civilised society is precisely to control and shape such youthful exuberance in more positive ways – not to give 11 years old condoms and tell them to get on with it, or to have universities as little more than the debased centers of both passive and active nihilism which they are now. Sorry if the lifestyle of ultra-libertine homosexuals such as the degenerate Michel Foucault is not part of my conception of the ‘good’ society, but I’m not a San Francisco liberal. Isn’t ‘tolerance’ partially a notion for the intellectual lazy to justify their non-thought? Roger Scruton and Theodore Dalrymple are both very perceptive critics of both liberalism and indeed ‘pop-culture’ and its baleful harvest. Scruton more so as he is developing a very interesting account of the radical disprivileging of any notion or cultural expression of the sacred and the transcendent (of both religious and non-religious forms). And of course this hatred of the sacred/transcendent is also a key element of the liberal project as its very possibility strikes at the heart of the liberal conception of socio-cultural reality. 41
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:11 | # PM,
Yup. As Leon said the other side has made this an ethical issue. White ethics have to be universal with reasoned exceptions. There can’t be any double standards or you get the “does not compute” face as their frontal lobe short-circuits. We can knock down the other side’s ethical wall easily enough like this and in a completely work-safe way most of the time. In terms of practical activism i think LJB’s list is a good one, especially the parts that physically illustrate the ruling double standards. You can see in the way UAF type organisations hold back from events like the anti-grooming demos they know where their weaknesses are and don’t want publicity in those cases. That will be enough for most for now but some will have an ideology shaped hole in their head that needs filling too. KMac type stuff does that for me but horses for courses. (Also the way it works in mainstream parties is you have a bunch of geeky intellectuals sitting in a room dreaming up lines to take. Those ideas are then filtered through and approved (or not) by people with highly political brains. The approved ideas are then given to good communicators to communicate.) 42
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:18 | # Lee: Leon: You should go to Serbia and tell us of your findings. Otherwise, suggesting others do your groundwork, pack up because you think it’s a good idea, is idiocy. PM & Bill: Appealing to the intellect of people on matters that are ruled by the gut, is always a futile and thankless task. This is the art of Politics - understanding that people are not motivated by ideas, they are motivated by needs ...one must convince the gut first. Think of the gut as the wife. This is why starting to organize first in the Pubs is optimal. The Pub is a natural resource for support and money. Your audience is inebriated and looking for entertainment. A good political speaker can provide this. The best people for this type of speaking are ex military, who demand respect and have muscle to enforce it, while still respecting comity, fellowship and order between men, suitable to the pub. But you remain a middleclass averse rabblerouser no matter how many pubs commit support. This is where you need the Church, or anything that fills the role as guardian of the gut… this is the metaphor for winning the Wives. Ignore the needs of the women, who think only from the gut, and you ignore the part of the man which is responsible, frugal, and sensible in a material sense. 43
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:31 | # @Lee John Barns Your idea for ‘white civil rights’ etc., is already in its very conception accepting the legitimacy of ultra-liberal PC narrative. You just want Europeans to also be given ‘victim status’, pathetically pleading with the Jew and our hostile elites to treat you nicely. Wrongheaded in my view - far far better to disrupt this particular aspect of PC insanity by ruthlessly promoting the legal and moral offensiveness of such concepts as ‘hate crimes’ and special ‘victim groups’ using the older liberal trope of an individual’s right to equality before the law. Murder is already hateful enough without courts trying to second guess the ‘real’ feelings of the convicted, or indeed the grotesque moral implications that some ‘reasons’ for murder are worse than others. Is it less wrong to murder someone ugly compared to a beauty queen? If you want to be in the business of being a ‘reformist’ political formation/pressure group the basis of one’s rhetorical strategy must be as credible as possible with those in your potential audience. At this point in history most ‘normal’ people would think that asking for ‘white rights’ as an absurd proposition. Individual equality before the law much less so I would think, plus such a trope picks away at the notion that society must recoginse specific groups and in turn privilege them. 44
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:00 | # People need to read this book before you can understand the road ahead. This is the book nationalists really need to read ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucifer_Principle http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lucifer-Principle-Scientific-Expedition-History/dp/0871136643 http://howardbloom.net/lucifer/excerpt1.html Over a hundred years ago, Matthius Schleiden, the German botanist, was pondering the recently discovered fact that beings as simple as water fleas and as complex as human beings are made up of individual cells. Each of those cells has all the apparatus necessary to lead a life of its own. It is walled off in its own mini-world by the surrounding hedge of a membrane, carries its own metabolic power plants, and seems quite capable of going about its own business, ruggedly declaring its independence. Yet the individual cells, in pursuing their own goals, cooperate to create an entity much larger than themselves. Schleiden declared that each cell has an individual existence, and that the life of an organism comes from the way in which the cells work together. In 1858, pathologist Rudolph Virchow took Schleiden’s observation a step further. He declared that “the composition of the major organism, the so-called individual, must be likened to a kind of social arrangement or society, in which a number of separate existencies are dependent upon one another, in such a way, however, that each element possesses its own peculiar activity and carries out its own task by its own powers.” A creature like you and me, said Virchow, is actually a society of separate cells. The reasoning also works in reverse—a society acts like an organism. Half a century after Virchow, entomologist William Morton Wheeler was observing the lives of ants. No ant is an island. Wheeler saw the tiny beasts maintaining constant contact, greeting each other as they passed on their walkways, swapping bits of regurgitated food, adopting social roles that ranged from warrior or royal handmaiden to garbage handler and file clerk. (Yes, at the heart of many ant colonies is a room to which all incoming workers bring their discoveries. Seated at the chamber’s center is a staff of insect bureaucrats who examine the new find, determine where it is needed in the colony, and send it off to the queen’s chamber if it is a prized morsel, to the nursery if it is ordinary nourishment, to the construction crews if it would make good mortar, or to the garbage heap kept just outside the nest.) Viewed from the human perspective, the activities of the individual ants seemed to matter far less than the behavior of the colony as a whole. In fact, the colony acted as if it were an independent creature, feeding itself, expelling its wastes, defending itself, and looking out for its future. Wheeler was the man who dubbed a group of individuals collectively acting like one beast a superorganism. The term superorganism slid into obscurity until it was revived by Sloan-Kettering head Lewis Thomas in his influential 1974 book Lives Of A Cell. Superorganisms exist even on the very lowest rungs of the evolutionary ladder. Slime mold are seemingly independent amoeba, microscopic living blobs who race about on the moist surface of a decaying tree or rotting leaf cheerfully oblivious to each other when times are good. They feast gaily for days on bacteria and other delicacies, attending to nothing but their own selfish appetites. But when the food runs out, famine descends upon the slime mold world. Suddenly the formerly flippant amoeba lose their sense of boisterous individualism. They rush toward each other as if in a panic, sticking together for all they’re worth. Gradually, the clump of huddled microbeasts grows to something you can see quite clearly with the naked eye. It looks like a slimy plant. And that plant—a tightly-packed mass of former freedom-lovers—executes an emergency public works project. Like half-time marchers forming a pattern, some of the amoeba line up to form a stalk that pokes itself high into the passing currents of air. Then the creatures at the head cooperate to manufacture spores. And those seeds of life drift off into the breeze. If the spores land on a heap of rotting grass or slab of decomposing bark, they quickly multiply, filling the slippery refuge with a horde of newly-birthed amoeba. Like their parents, the little things race off to the far corners of their new home in a cheerful hunt for dinner. They never stop to think that they may be part of a community whose corporate life is as critical as their own. They are unaware that someday they, like their parents, will have to cluster with their fellows in a desperate cooperative measure on which the future of their children will depend.
Like the sponge cells and the slime mold amoeba, you and I are parts of a vast population whose pooled efforts move some larger creature on its path through life. Like the sponge cells, we cannot live in total separation from the human clump. We are components of a superorganism.
If anyone has a copy of RAVEN THOMPSON ( who was a member of the BUF ) on super organisms and politics as mentioned in Skidelskys biography of Mosley then post a link here please. 45
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:02 | #
Graham : This must be done. But it cannot be done without power and support. 46
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:02 | #
Imagine two men standing behind a screen arguing about economics where you can only see their heads. The man on the right seems to be winning hands down and the audience votes that way at the end of the debate. Then you repeat the same thing with a different audience except this time without the screen. The man on the right is dressed and labelled as a street sweeper and the man on the left is dressed and labelled as governor of the federal reserve. No-one in the audience takes any notice of what the street sweeper says and votes accordingly. If you try and contest ideas with an accepted authority who says your ideas are heresy then it doesn’t matter what your ideas are. They might be unpopular as well but there’s no way of knowing for sure yet. The initial task is to undermine the other side’s authority to designate you as heretics. The way to do that with white people is to agitate around the other side’s double standards as a kind of softening up exercise. You run the softening up program first until their ethical force shield crumbles then you contest your ideas. 47
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:15 | # This PDF is an excellent presentation of some of Thompsons ideas ; 48
Posted by Rusty on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:30 | # Wandrin, No disagreement but my point was that what needs doing is clear to plenty of us yet none gets done, even that which requires little money. There is a missing chemical X from every formula of “we need to do this.” 49
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:42 | #
I think PM was talking about undermining ethical foundations rather than intellectual ones. Apart from that though i’d generally agree except i think there’s a large-ish minority (15%?) that need to be reached through their intellect or at least need to have that that box ticked before they engage their gut. The people most suited to that will often be the least suited to pub work. Horses for courses. .
The majority of the people we need to reach reluctantly accept the legitimacy of the multicult. Activism along a white civil rights axis illustrates the anti-white double standards oozing out of every pore and thereby de-legitimizes the PC authority. Unless you think the PC authority will suddenly stop being anti-white? .
Yup. 50
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:46 | # If you wait long enough for the missing chemical, you get Hitler. I’m not disparaging Hitler, I am saying learn from history… take a stand, work with others and make sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated. 51
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:57 | # Wanderin:
From a book I was reading the other day “Hands off: A History of the Monroe Doctrine” (1955) explains how President Monroe got the audacity to challenge the European/Eurasian block at a time when the United States couldn’t actually assert any well-grounded power on the international chessboard. Monroe’s bold affirmation created US power in the world, simply because a pure will, expressed in plain words, can really anticipate actual power, and be the very first step towards it. And from Mao:
52
Posted by Rusty on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:58 | # Mr. Barnes, What is your overarching goal? Do you want to save this civilization? I’d love to but I do not think it is possible. Political/propaganda action seems to me to be way too little way too late to change anything in any big way. Look at all the consistent and monumental failures of traditionalists and conservatives over the last couple hundred years, especially the last 50. We are today a few tiny sailboats playing tugboat thumpers against a fleet of fully-laden, heavily-armed super-tankers, carriers, and destroyers. Like Spengler, I think our civilization is hopelessly kaput. Like Evola, I think we must accept it and weather the storm the best we can. But I also believe that we could build a cultural liferaft to the other side, if not for ourselves, for our posterity. That seems realistic for all of us and we could all get started, right here, right now. A united vision would be most helpful but until the next Caesar or Napoleon arrives and proclaims it, each of us must draw from his own imagination. But then again, maybe I need some more Jolt cola. 53
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:55 | # Rusty,
In terms of practical activism i think nationalists have argued over what they thought was the first step but what was in fact the second step. Whatever an individual thinks the second stage should be i think the first step for all of them is breaking down the ruling moral authority by attacking its double standards. I think it’s as simple as that. While they have the authority to designate opponents as heretics the bulk of the population won’t listen and while that’s so the minority who are already on-side won’t help either because they know they’ll lose. (The exception to that is where you have a PR system with a low threshold. Britain and America don’t have that system though so it’s adapt or die.) (Germany does have a PR system but given the psychological pressure i’d say they also need to focus just as much on puncturing the ruling moral authority.)
.
Yes. The natives are getting too restless for the media to cover up. 54
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:16 | # Grimoire,
That’s my kind of thing. 55
Posted by Rusty on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:21 | # Wandrin and JLBarnes, Thousands of men smarter, richer, and more experienced than you and me (well, me, anyway) have known what you say and much more. Millions of dedicated traditionalist and conservatives have taken direct, “successful” political action over the last few centuries. Yet, the decay continues; indeed, it is accelerating. Why is nothing done? Is it because the right ideas have not been posted at MR.com? I say it is because the conditions are all wrong and are not going to change for a very, very long time. During Rome’s long decline even the best of emperors, Marcus Aurelius, could not stop the empire’s slide into matriarchy, whoredom, fiscal insolvency, bread & circuses, and barbarism. 56
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:53 | # On the biology of social evolution I’d suggest The Foundations of Social Evolution by Steven Frank - but it is quite heavy going and full of equations. 57
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:04 | # Rusty,
I think nationalists have to either take the moral high ground or at a minimum drag the other side down off the moral high ground if we want to be able to gain majority or at least plurality support from the white population (barring a collapse scenario). Otherwise the bulk of people in the middle can be shamed into consent. .
I think that’s half true. I think the equation is, support = political effectiveness + conditions. The more effective we can be the least bad the conditions need to be to gain enough support to win. 58
Posted by Rusty on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:08 | # Wandrin, Let’s approach it this way: How will you succeed where all others before you have failed? 59
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:23 | # Rusty, all we can do is prepare for the imminent social collapse - read ” The widening gyre - the convergence of catastrophies ” by Guillerma De Faye for the way the collapse will happen. That means we build the foundations of the white community - and when the collapse occurs al la Rome / the Soviet Union - then the white community rebuilds on the rubble.
60
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:36 | # Graham,
True. The overwhelming moral, cultural and natural power of the existent opens the plug in the ankle of Talos, out of which his ichor shall flow. 61
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:37 | # “The Widening Gyre”: Book-Review of “La convergence des catastrophes” by Guillaume Corvus Michael O’Meara
La convergence des catastrophes by Guillaume Corvus, Paris: Diffusion International, 2004, 221 Pages
I Nearly three hundred years ago, the early scientistic stirrings of liberal modernity introduced the notion that life is like a clock: measurable, mechanical, and amenable to rationalist manipulation. This modernist notion sought to supplant the traditional one, which for millennia held that life is organic, cyclical, and subject to forces eluding mathematical or quantifiable expression. In this earlier view, human life was understood in terms of other life forms, being thus an endless succession of seasons, as birth, growth, decay, and death followed one another in an order conditioned by nature. That history is cyclical, that civilizations rise and fall, that the present system will be no exception to this rule—these notions too are of ancient lineage and, though recognized by none in power, their pertinence seems to grow with each new regression of the European biosphere. With Corvus’ Convergence des catastrophes, they assume again something of their former authority. “For the first time in its history,” Corvus writes, “humanity is threatened by a convergence of catastrophes.” This is his way of saying that the 18th-century myth of progress—in dismissing every tradition and value distinct to Europe—is about to be overtaken by more primordial truths, as it becomes irrefutable evident that continued economic development creates ecological havoc; that a world system premised on short-term speculation and financial manipulation is a recipe for disaster; that beliefs in equality, individualism, and universalism are fit only for a social jungle; that multiculturalism and Third World immigration vitiate rather than re-vitalize the European homelands; that the extension of so-called republican and democratic principles suppress rather than supplant the popular will, etc. In a word, Corvus argues that the West, led by the United States, is preparing its own irreversible demise. II Though Convergence des catastrophes takes its inspiration from the distant reaches of the European heritage, its actual theoretical formulation is of recent origin. With reference to the work of French mathematician René Thom, it first appeared in Guillaume Faye’s L’archéofuturisme (Paris: L’aencre, 1998), arguably the most important work of the “new European nationalism.” Indeed, those familiar his style and sentiments are likely to suspect that “Corvus” is Faye himself. Anticipating today’s “chaos theory,” Thom’s “catastrophe theory” endeavored to map those situations in which gradually changing circumstances culminate in abrupt systemic failure. Among its non-scientific uses, the theory aimed at explaining why relatively smooth changes in stock markets often lead to sudden crashes, why minor disturbances among quiescent populations unexpectedly explode into major social upheavals, or why the Soviet Union, which seemed to be surpassing the United States in the 1970s, fell apart in the 1980s. Implicit in Thom’s catastrophe theory is the assumption that all systems—biological, mechanical, human—are “fragile,” with the potential for collapse. Thus, while a system might prove capable of enormous expansion and growth, even when sustaining internal crises for extended periods, it can, as Thom explains, suddenly unravel if it fails to adapt to changing circumstances, loses its equilibrium, or develops “negative feedback loops” that compound existing strains. For Corvus—or Faye—the liberal collapse, “the tipping point,” looks as if it will occur sometime between 2010 and 2020, when the confluence of several gradually mounting internal failures culminate in something more apocalyptic. Though the actual details and date of the impending collapse are, of course, unpredictable, this, he argues, makes it no less certain. And though its effects will be terrible, resulting in perhaps billions of dead, the chaos and violence it promises will nevertheless prepare the way for a return to more enduring truths.
III What is this system threatening collapse and what are the forces provoking it? Simply put, it is the technoeconomic system born of 18th-century liberalism—whose principal exemplar has been the United States and Europe, but whose global impetus now holds most of the world in its grip. Faye’s work does not, however, focus on the system per se. There is already a large literature devoted to it and, in several earlier works, he has examined it at length. The emphasis in Convergence des catastrophes is on delineating the principal fault lines along which collapse is likely to occur. For the globalization of liberal socioeconomic forms, he argues, now locks all the world’s peoples into a single complex planetary system whose fragility increases as it becomes increasingly interdependent. Though it is difficult to isolate the catastrophes threatening it (for they overlap with and feed off one another), he believes they will take the following forms: - The cancerization of the social fabric that comes when an aging European population is deprived of its virile, self-confident traditions; when drug use, permissiveness, and family decline become the norm; when a dysfunctional education system no longer transmits the European heritage; when the Culture Industry fosters mass cretinization; when the Third World consolidates its invasion of the European homelands; and, finally, when the enfeebling effects of these tendencies take their toll on all the other realms of European life. - The worsening social conditions accompanying these tendencies, he predicts, will be exacerbated by an economic crisis (or crises) born of massive indebtedness, speculation, non-regulation, corruption, interdependence, and financial malpractices whose global ramifications promise a “correction” more extreme than that of the 1930s. - These social and economic upheavals are likely to be compounded by ecological devastation and radical climatic shifts that accelerate deforestation and desiccation, disrupt food supplies, spread famine and disease, deplete natural resources (oil, along with land and water), and highlight the unsustainability of the world’s present overpopulation. - The scarcity and disorders these man-made disasters bring will not only provoke violent conflicts, but cause the already discredited state to experience increased paralysis, enhancing thus the prospect of global chaos, especially as it takes the form of strife between a cosmopolitan North and an Islamic South. These catastrophes, Faye argues, are rooted in practices native to liberal modernity. For the globalization of Western civilizational forms, particularly American-style consumerism, has created a latently chaotic situation, given that its hyper-technological, interconnected world system, dependent on international trade, driven by speculators, and indifferent to virtually every non-economic consideration, is vulnerable to a diverse range of malfunctions. Its pathological effects have indeed already begun to reach their physical limit. For once the billion-plus populations of India and China, already well embarked on the industrializing process, start mass-producing cars, the system will simply become unfit for human habitation. The resource depletion and environmental degradation that will follow are, though, only one of the system’s tipping points. No less seriously, the globalizing process creates a situation in which minor, local disputes assume planetary significance, as conflicts in remote parts of the world are imposed on the more advanced parts, and vice versa. (“The 9/11 killers were over here,” Pat Buchanan writes, “because we were over there.”) In effect, America’s “Empire of Disorder” is no longer restricted to the periphery, but now threatens the metropolis. Indeed, each new advance in globalization tends to diminish the frontier between external and internal wars, just as American sponsored globalization provokes the terrorism it ostensively resists. The cascading implication of these developments have, in fact, become strikingly evident. For instance, if one of the hijacked Boeings of 9/11 had not been shot down over Pennsylvania and instead reached Three-Mile Island, the entire Washington-New York area would have been turned into a mega-Chernobyl—destroying the U.S. economy, as well as the global order dependent on it. A miniature nuke smuggled into an East Coast port by any of the ethnic gangs specializing in illegal shipments would have a similar effect. Revealingly, speculation on such doom-day scenarios is now seen as fully plausible. Part 1. 62
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:38 | # Part 2
IV Such irresponsible behaviors are, in fact, simply another symptom of the impending crisis, for the system’s thinkers and leaders are no longer able to distinguish between reality and their virtualist representation of it, let alone acknowledge the folly of their practices. Obsessed with promoting the power and privileges sustaining their crassly materialist way of life and the progressive, egalitarian, and multicultural principles undergirding the global market, they see the world only in ways they are programmed to see it. The ensuing “reality gap” deprives them, then, of the capacity both to adapt to changing circumstances or address the problems threatening the system’s operability. (The way the Bush White House gathers and interprets “intelligence,” accepting only that which accords with its ideological needs, is perhaps the best example of this). In this spirit, the system’s leaders tirelessly ensure us that everything is getting better, that new techniques will overcome the problems generated by technology, that unbridled materialism and self-gratification have no costs, that cultural nihilism is a form of liberation, that the problems caused by climatic changes, environmental degradation, overpopulation, and shrinking energy reserves will be solved by extending and augmenting the practices responsible for them. These dysfunctional practices are indeed pursued as if they are crucial to the system’s self-legitimacy. Thus, at the very moment when the system’s self-corrective mechanisms have been marginalized and the downhill slide has become increasingly immune to correction, the charlatans, schemers, and careerists in charge persist in propagating the belief that everything is “hunky-dory.” Karl Marx spilt a great deal of ink lambasting ideologues who thought capitalism arose from natural principles, that all hitherto existing societies had preordained the market’s triumph, or that a social order subordinate to economic imperatives represented the highest stage of human achievement. Today, the “new global bourgeoisie” gives its euronationalist critics even greater cause for ridicule. Paralyzed by an ideology that bathes itself in optimistic bromides, the system’s rulers “see nothing and understand nothing,” assuming that the existing order, in guaranteeing their careers, is a paragon of civilizational achievement, that the 20,000 automobiles firebombed every year in France by Muslim gangs is not sign of impending race war, that the non-white hordes ethnically cleansing European neighborhoods will eventually be turned into peaceful, productive citizens, that the Middle East will democratize, that the spread of human rights, free-markets, and new technologies will culminate in a consumer paradise, that limitless consumption is possible and desirable, that everyone, in effect, can have it all. Nothing, Faye argues, can halt the system’s advance toward the abyss. The point of no return has, indeed, already been passed. Fifteen years of above average temperatures, growing greenhouse gases, melting ice caps, conspicuous biological deterioration, and the imminent peaking of oil reserves, combined with an uncontrolled Third World demographic boom, massive First World indebtedness, social policies undermining the state’s monopoly on our loyalties, and a dangerous geopolitical realignment—each of these potentially catastrophic developments is preparing the basis of the impending collapse. Those who think a last minute international agreement will somehow save the day simply whistle pass the graveyard. Washington’s attitude (even more pig-headed than Beijing’s) to the modest Kyoto Accords—which would have slowed down, not halted greenhouse emissions—is just one of the many signs that the infernal machine cannot be halted. The existing states and international organizations are, in any case, powerless to do anything, especially the sclerotic “democracies” of Europe and United States, for their corrupt, short-sighted leaders have not the slightest understanding of what is happening under their very noses, let alone the will to take decisive action against it. Besides, they would rather subsidize bilingual education and Gay Pride parades (or, on the conservative side, ban Darwin) than carry out structural reforms that might address some of their more glaring failures. For such a system, the sole solution, Faye insists, is catastrophe. V The ecological, economic, demographic, social, civilizational, and geopolitical cataclysms now in the process of converging will bring about the collapse of liberalism’s technoeconomic civilization. In one of the most striking parts of his book, Faye juxtaposes two very different TV images to illustrate the nature of the present predicament: one is of a troubled President Bush, whose Forest Gump antics left him noticeably perplexed on 9/11; the other is of the traditionally-dressed, but Kalachinokov-bearing Bin Laden, posing as a new Mohammed, calmly and confidently proclaiming the inevitable victory of his rag-tag jihadists. These two images—symbolizing the archaic violence that promises to disturb the narcoticized sleep of a sickened modernity—sum up for Faye the kind of world in which we live, especially in suggesting that the future belongs to militant traditionalists rooted in their ancestral heritage, rather than high-tech, neo-liberal “whimps” like Bush, who are alienated from the most elementary expressions of Europe’s incomparable legacy. Though rejecting liberalism’s monstrous perversion of European life, Faye does so not as a New Age Luddite or a left-wing environmentalist. He argues that a technoeconomic civilization based on universalist and egalitarian principles is a loathsome abnormality—destructive of future generations and past accomplishments. But while rejecting its technological, bureaucratic, cosmopolitan, and anti-white practices, he fully accepts modern science. He simply states the obvious: that the great technological and economic accomplishments of Europe cannot be extended to the world’s six billion people—let alone tomorrow’s ten billion—without fatal consequence. For this reason, he predicts that science and industry in a post-catastrophe world will have no choice but to change, becoming the province of a small elite, not the liberal farce that attempts to transform all the world’s peoples into American-style consumers. Similarly, Faye does not propose a restoration of lost forms, but rather the revitalization of those ancient spirits which might enable our children to engage the future with the confidence and daring of their ancestors. Thus, as befits a work of prophecy, Faye’s survey of the impending tempests aims at preparing us for what is to come, when the high flood waters and hurricane winds clear away the system’s ethnocidal illusions and create the occasion for another resurgence of European being. It aims, in a word, at helping Europeans to resume the epic course of their history.
[Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in Sciences Sociales and modern European history at the University of California. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (2004)] 63
Posted by Foundation on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:39 | # What is needed is a radio or TV station - a few hours a day, pirate the damn thing if necessary. Whoever said ‘the medium is the message’ was right. Get the message out in an interesting enough way and who knows what might come of it. The English Civil War gave birth to the political flyer, pinned everywhere to get people involved in a war against a king they already hated. The majority don’t want to be race-replaced (naturally), so how do you get them to join together against the ‘king’. Show them they are not alone. The media today narrows thinking until it runs along tracks laid by the political elites. The internet ain’t enough, we need more width, we need our own bloody track. Urgently! 64
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:39 | # I think Leon has hit upon a very important point. The ethical/moral questionability of radical political action (such as physical removal of groups in society for example) in the minds of Mr & Mrs Average. I have to admit these is where I have been for a number of years (I don’t like the travel of direction on mass immigration etc., but can’t quite endorse the logical end point of that train of thought). Disrupting liberal ethical discourse (virtue ethics would be my starting point) is a vital task as is undermining the notion that violence is always an ethical failure (under normal circumstance it is but not in extreme circumstances of legitimate self-defence). Zizek is obviously a bit of a gadfly but he has written an interesting book on violence and on the justification of political violence. 65
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:40 | # Rusty,
You do exactly the same things except it’s slanted slightly differently to fit with (in my opinion) innate white psychology. Example The media act as a moral authority. Option 1. You talk to people about black crime. This triggers their media conditioning and most of them react negatively. Option 2. You talk to people about how the media have an anti-white double standard when it comes to black crime. So you mention the facts about black crime but you steer it so the target is the media. This doesn’t trigger people’s conditioning so much and more importantly it undermines the moral authority of the media with that person. Undermining the moral authority undermines their ability to maintain the taboos. A sci-fi analogy would be attacking the force-field generator rather than the force-field. Whatever an individual’s view is on the best way forward, whether NS or A3P or whatever else, if they spend some time first hitting white people in the frontal lobe with the other side’s anti-white ethical double standards then their target will be more receptive. Political activism that embodies the same principle - like the Knoxvill demo - will have the same effect. 66
Posted by Rusty on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:49 | # @JLBarnes, “all we can do is prepare for the imminent social collapse” My point exactly. All the talk about big political action, or about any mass movement or grandiose strategy for that matter, is a total waste of time and energy. 67
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:56 | # GW and others – the reason why 2nd rate simpletons like Richard Dawkins hates religion is nothing to do with the science of evolutionary biology but because he is a liberal and religion stands in for any form of the sacred/transcendent. The liberal worldview cannot stand any notion of the sacred/transcendent. Thomas Nagel has written about this fear and loathing of the liberal intelligentsia in his collection of essays “The Last Word”. 68
Posted by Rusty on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:34 | # Graham, Historically speaking, modern conservative Americans are radical liberals, our American forefathers being merely classical liberals. Seeing that American conservatives have always eventually adopted nearly all of the positions super-radical American liberals, and seeing the condition of the condition of the Church, I’d tend to agree with your assessment of liberalism being hostile to traditional religious ideas. However, all people must have religion, and modern liberals are no exception. They have liberalism without limit and a serve the totalitarian god of absolute and ultimate equality, Chaos. Total equality transcends all for them, it is the sacred reason for existence. They have all non-whites as their saints, all whites as their devil, and manmade global warming and anti-racism as their holy mission (at least until something cooler comes along). 69
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 02 Jun 2011 23:42 | # Gworker:
70
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:30 | # Rusty
This is the price of civilization….they do not die while they fight. 71
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:36 | # Rusty yes you make a good point and of course many ideologies are imbued with pseudo-religious significance for their ‘true-believers’ and there is quite an extensive literature on ‘political religions’ I believe. Certainly Kolakowski suggests in his intellectual history of Marxism that it contained and was shaped by certain quasi-theological impulses. Along similar lines Roger Scruton in “Modern Philosophy” had one chapter devoted to post-modernism as a manifestation of radical evil. I remember reading Scruton as a first year undergraduate and being astonished that anyone who was a ‘serious’ person discussed concepts such as ‘evil’. That was the naivety of youth at work. 72
Posted by Rusty on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:01 | # Grimoire, Fighting with slim odds is one thing, tilting at windmills is quite another. IMO it is pointless to expect grand political strategies from internet, or even imagine that we have any chance at the ballotbox whatever. The entire political, propaganda, and monetary systems are totally rigged against us in every way. Our civilization has gone down in flames—there is no institution which has not been fatally infected with mutant liberalism. It is past time to make other plans, outside the current system. I am quite ready to implement any plan that I think has a chance of success. But I have been surfing the WN web for a vey long and have not seen anything that would “save us.” Even the simplest plans for family and community regeneration seem beyond or beneath the best of us. 73
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:50 | # Leon, this is what we need to do ; 1) form legal and lebby groups to promote and protect white civil rights in society 2) form media groups to create our own alternative media outlets on the internet 3) form scholarships to send white activists to university / colleges etc 4) form community groups to work in communities to work with white families 5) form outreach groups for ex-prisoners to help them back into a WHITE society, not the degenerate one that caused them to go to prison in the first place 6) form political groups that aim to reach young white people and who can take them on holidays etc where they learn white culture 7) form our own shops and businesses Imagine if a white rights group went into the cities and offered white city families and kids free camping trips, educational scholarships, training and job training schemes in white companies, jobs in white businesses etc etc that would be real positive change. (LJB) ——————————————————————————————- I’m not opposed to any of these suggestions, and appreciate attempts at shifting WN discussion to issues of practical politicking (though you might find each of the above enumerated steps to be hugely difficult to implement, practically speaking) in preference to labored discussions of spirit-of-raceness, or soul-of-racelessness, or ‘presence’ and its absence, or onto-atheology, or any other discussion barely intelligible to this Ivy League grad, let alone to our heroic (or only hypothetical) Man in the Pub. But if you carefully read what I wrote above, it is I who am the truly pragmatic thinker in these parts. Even with all your white businesses (and how the firms of Goldfarb, Rabinowitz and Weisman, and Silverblatt, Azofsky and Cohen, and Hirschfeld, Liebskind and Feuerstein, and ... are licking their lips in anticipation of the non-discrimination lawsuits those promise!), white scholarships (with money from whom, exactly?), and white community groups (presumably formed out of our atomized/liberalized white masses), the essential racial problem I have outlined above remains. There are more and more of them, fewer and fewer of us - everywhere. It is possible that in a few decades there will be only a handful of sovereign states still possessing white majorities. And those will be accidental, Finlandized majorities, existing only at the sufferance of surrounding nonwhite or non-European or newly multiracialized states, unable to assert vigorous white traditional cultures, and possibly even still trending towards multiracialism themselves. In an age of instantaneous communications + easy travel + (white aid/trade/therapeutics-created) Third World population explosion + global capital flows + the past several decades’ worth of Western national adoption of ‘anti-racism’ as meta-political and pedagogical principle, ensuring that there will be whites on Earth forever requires present assertions of racial will. The trends independent of such will (or indeed its treasonous, anti-racist antithesis) are all running against us; that is, towards a nonwhite demographically, and thus politically and finally physically, dominated world (though as to whether the ultimate terminus is Planet Miscegenation, as the One-Worlders fantasize, or Planet Orient, I venture no opinion). This is hard, practical reality, albeit with the Far Future in mind. On the other hand, it is the rejectionists of White Zion who fail to see that, for the WN, present actions can only be assessed in light of ultimate objectives. What is our ultimate objective? Is it, as I wrote above, to make life better for the whites living in increasingly multicultural societies - to defend their rights and material interests, keep pressing for an end to immigration, and inculcate a sense of national and racial tradition in the face of hostile governments, media and popular cultures, or is it to secure our perpetual existence as a race (which for me is the most important precondition for the perpetuity of Western Civilization, which is my own political sumum bonum)? If the former, then by all means let us work locally, build up a consciousness of white victimization, create white legal aid and political lobby groups, teach our children our real histories, support patriotic businesses, et al. Indeed, we should do all these things anyway (though always with the understanding that talking about doing them is not the same as actually doing them, and that endless discussions of Small Schemes are no less “hot air” than discussions of Big Schemes). If it is an ensured future for white people we seek, however, then all such political and cultural outreach represents nothing more than Rusty’s management of the collapse scenario. Of course, we’d best get on with it as a public service, and WNs can find some satisfying camaraderie and even fun in the process. But let us be under no illusions that very many WN (or any type of ethnonationalist) governments will attain power, or that any of the few that do (outside of, perhaps, the Slavic world, though they are facing demographic miniaturization, too), will actually be able to reverse the internal trends towards miscegenation, below-population-restoration white family size, and resigned public acceptance of multiracialism, and its ineluctable descendant, multiculturalism. To secure our racial existence requires, at this bottleneck in our racial history, and absent unforeseen wars or plagues, a teleological Racial State: that is, a society of whites intentionally organized around the macropolitical goal of ensuring white survival. [I have outlined some features of such a state in the MR thread on genocide in South Africa.] Here on this thread I have offered Israel as an historical example where something like this was successfully realized. The unimaginative response was to scoff at my alleged impracticality, and to tell me to run off to Serbia (a fine people the Serbs, btw, and I wish them very well - but Serbia for geopolitical and truly pragmatic reasons, both political and personal, is inadequate as a proposed RS). But where exactly is the impracticality? Demographic/electoral conquest has occurred in the past, and is occurring as we debate. CA is in the advanced stage of being conquered demographically by Hispanics, as is Nevada, Arizona (though whites there are heroically, but probably futilely, resisting), and Texas. San Francisco was electorally conquered by homosexuals who deliberately migrated there in the 1950s-70s (and have continued doing so in replenishing trickles ever since) with the avowed intention of creating a Gay Mecca and place of refuge (on a smaller scale they also did this in places like Fire Island in the East and Northern CA’s Russian River area). Cubans more or less electorally conquered Miami, as Jews earlier did New York. WNs are and likely always will be minorities in all sovereign polities. Even if we somehow, somewhere attain to a majority, our scope of racially remedial action will be limited to slowing down the rate of decline legislatively (eg, stopping further immigration, itself extremely difficult to achieve, and thus a tremendous potential accomplishment), but not to reversing that decline. And given the global, extra-political trends (that is, trends having nothing to do with philosophical misunderstandings, or ideological hostility to nations as such, or alien racial hostility to white existence, but which simply are the collective sum of an infinity of individual, race-neutral or irrelevant decisions) pushing us towards white extinction, only a radical resetting of our options will suffice to save us (across the Far Future). The RS is not at all impractical, though of course its development will (but need not) take decades. By in-gathering many WNs it offers an end-run around the tedious (and in terms of modal, evolved white psychology, futile) development of hegemonic nationalist movements across Magna Europa. The focus will shift to more productive discussions about how to intensify racial consciousness among the new chosen, and transmit it down the generations, as well as very practical defense and trade issues, as opposed to patiently trying to explain to brain-deformed liberals and/or brainwashed idiots the virtues and ethics of white preservation. In even a semi-RS, WN activism will be so much more than ‘spitting in the wind’. And lastly, why the fear of being asked to be pioneers? Is such timidity the true and best and essential spirit of Western Man, the race which subdued the Earth, brought savage lands into civilization, traversed the poles, and conquered the moon? My ancestors came to this New World variously throughout the 18th century, and some in the 19th. America was hardly a settled place then. Life was not easy, and I suspect that the original immigrant pioneers among my forebears never got to return to their Old Countries. In light of their hardiness, and that of millions of other “swarming whites” (in Stoddard’s excellent phrase) who founded North America, Australia/NZ, Argentina, Brazil, Southern Africa, some of you are whining at the prospect of buying a fucking plane ticket to Australia?! White men must be men, first and foremost. 74
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:50 | # Rusty I’m not quite sure the game is totally up…for example England might seem like some stricken beast too stupid to know it is dying, ingloriously foundering in its own waste products, (the blow-back and bad karma of the Empire), but look at the collapse of the Eastern block - no-one but no-one had seen it coming or indeed the stirrings in the Middle East and the present Chinese regime might well be digging their own grave. Historical experience must be our lamp but our love for all Europeans and our desire to resist the existential risk must be the flame that illuminates the lamp. I do worry that people who seemingly reveal in the jouissance of vulgar racism may set the agenda/image of any pro-European movement and in doing so be totally counterproductive to its prospects (look at Griffin’s awful baggage for example). In political terms it would be a strategic error of the first order IMHO. Any new political formation requires a unifying frame of reference, the proper assessment of the importance for differing priorities in the struggle, and perhaps most of all an awareness of not only ruthlessly critiquing the failings of the liberal conception of man and society, but also developing a positive but realistic socio-political alternative to the present regime of liberal hegemony. So no camp uniforms or modern Spartans thanks all the same. 75
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 02:05 | # From another thread: A final point. The Racial State (TRS) as I am envisioning it most certainly will not simply be a “whites only” society - a modern, Western democracy minus muds. For attention must be paid to its projected viability over the long-term. TRS will have tremendous economic freedom, far more than any place today except maybe Hong Kong. Such freedom is necessary to maximize economic growth, which in turn will feed armaments production and acquisition. But otherwise it will be extremely militarized, both in terms of the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending, and the constant combat training (in the form not merely of lessons in killing techniques, but also of assigning pre-warfare “shadow” positions to all persons, so that upon the outbreak of war, each individual will already have a known place in the military hierarchy, supplementing the standing, professional soldiery) individuals of both sexes, from ages 16-60, will receive and participate in, as well as socially regulated and authoritarian. Specifically, it will be rigorously eugenic, as well as formally oriented around maximizing white fecundity. School curricula will be designed around a core patriotic consensus, teaching not only standard subjects like reading and math, but also explaining to the children the reality of racial differentiation, the horrors of multiracialism, and the necessity for harsh measures to ensure white survival. Of course, this is the briefest outline of TRS, but you are certainly correct that society will not be nearly as free as in the modern West. 76
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 02:15 | # Leon that was a very perceptive post - you’re right that advanced communications and modern technology also pose difficult problems. The 747 cannot be uninvented. (Heidegger discusses the philosophical problems of advanced technology in some depth I believe). You also raised a very good point about the ethical dimension of any struggle - people, that are not sociopaths, don’t like to think of themselves as evil or bad people. What’s your take on the possibilities that arise from virtue ethics to undermine liberal ethical models (both deontological and utilitarian)? 77
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:33 | # Leon: I apologize for my rudeness in a previous comment. I do think the idea questionable, but I do not disrespect your reasons for holding it. 78
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:29 | # hm… would be better ” I do respect your reasons for holding it” 79
Posted by Bill on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:03 | # ‘The culture war on toffs and chavs’* Spiked Magazine 2nd June 2011. Brendan O’neil
*Chav. Approx. Trailer trash. 80
Posted by Bill on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:17 | # Telegraph June 3rd 2011. Why Barack Obama may be heading for electoral disaster in 2012 1500+ comments - many from America. 81
Posted by CS on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:33 | # There are some problems with Scotland though. One, it isn’t a country yet. Two, there are way too many socialists there. Three, the population is at least ten times that of Malta. I’m not suggesting we take Malta and leave it at that. Once we get Malta under control we pick another country and try to demographically conquer that as well. 82
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:06 | # Listen, no country wants defeated, coward whites. A functional ship does not seek the rats who leave other sinking ships. America is quite possibly lost. because you will not stand and take positive action. Britain has a choice to make, and it seems her delusions of ‘make believe’ empire may be terminal, but there are still many on the continent who have not succumbed to psychological castration, and are making progress for complete revanchment. The choice to stand and take positive action is salvation, it is your duty and your country is all that you have and will ever have. You drop your standard and run - you are not European, and you are not white…you are just the dead walking. No country wants your defeated corpses . If you don’t pull yourself together and realize that you are perfectly fine and strong enough to make the difference…then your not worth saving. It’s a choice only you can make. 83
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 20:58 | # Right you old fuckers - you want to nationalise the kids. Here is how you do it !
If nationalists want to win over teenagers - then this is how you do it ;
Hard Bass is a nationalist techno-dance music form that originated in Holland a few years ago from the Gabba Techno genre and then moved on to Russia where it evolved into Hard Bass. Gabba was a dance genre formed by ex-skinheads who were still nationalists but who also loved hard core dance and rave music - and so they formed their own type of Techno. The followers of Hard Bass mix speeches of nationalists and nationalist slogans into the Techno dance tracks and then pump it out at flash mobs in the streets where the Hard Bass followers gather. Hard Bass events also allow nationalists to attend Hard Bass gigs in order to sell nationalist mechandise and propaganda to youngsters who would normally not ever bother attending any nationalist event. Nationalists in Britain are stuck in the days of Skrewdriver - which is about as appealing as listening to skiffle music to most youngsters. This is the sort of music which young far right nationalists listen too in clubs in Europe ;
In order to capture youth, you must offer them the opportunity to rebel against authority. Young people see nationalists as a movement for boring, reactionary old men. They dont see any life, excitement, fun, action or intensity in just attending nationalist meetings and hearing old men speak about politics. In order to capture youth, we must give them what they want. Hard Bass does that. The moment nationalists in the UK get on the mixing decks and start sampling some of the great nationalist speeches from history - such as from Oswald Mosley - and mix them to a hard core techno soundtrack, then you instantly have a muscial form that connects immediately with young people. The door is then opened. Nationalism will then be seen as fun and exciting, instead of old and boring - and hence we capture the youth and harness the energy, passion and committment of young people to the nationalist cause.
Nationalist Techno - give it some ! 84
Posted by CS on Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:01 | # “Listen, no country wants defeated, coward whites.” We’re not the defeated cowards. The defeated cowards are these white masses (asses) who won’t even vote in a private booth to preserve themselves. Those idiots aren’t even worth preserving truth be told but we are. As Rusty pointed out, the deck is too heavily stacked against therefore our only hope short of economic or natural disaster is to congegate in one country in such numbers that we are voting majority. Once we do that we can have the entire country and governmentt working in our interest and promoting our values and punishing our enemies who will hopefully get the hint and leave. Scotland, Australia, Malta. I guess we should have a vote among our people to decide. BTW, if we do pick a country, we should also pick a city in that country. Imagine the lure of an entire city populated by the likes of us. It will motivate others who share our views to move and join us even if we don’t yet have control over the whole country. 85
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:11 | #
Sorry…, I should have added delusional to defeated cowards. Listen CS, and the rest…your deluded dreams are just that, you are not going to go to any white Zion. It is just a pipedream of escape. Even in your dreams you are defeated cowards….and it’s only dreams…defeated and running scared even in your dreams. They own your dreams. Take back your dreams…, it is totally in your power. In your dreams never run, stand and fight to win. That’s what dreams are for. 86
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:22 | #
There is another option, which Drew Fraser advocates and it has worked well for European groups in the Anglo-Saxon diaspora.
http://www.ucc.ca/ukrainians-in-canada/community-profile/ Drew Fraser:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-myth-of-the-old-republic/ 87
Posted by CS on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:35 | #
Why don’t you take control of your dreams and save us all then? Or how about at least come with an idea better than standing my ground in a sea of niggers? 88
Posted by CS on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:42 | # Desmond Jones, While I do hope and promote white racial consciousness on non-WN boards I am pessimistic that anything but a “slow” slide into Brazil is in the cards for many white countries. Hopefully I’m wrong but time will tell. 89
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:13 | # I was not going to comment tonight but really a couple of things did rather annoy me. (1) Grimoire on ‘defeated whites’ please please don’t be so silly. Are you saying, for example white South Africans or white Zimbabweans should be left to their horrible fate? I would be happy to offer to a white South African or Zimbabwean a British passport (and for other Anglophone and European nations to also do so). Look if you have no empathy and benevolent feeling towards your fellow Europeans (no matter where they may be geographically) what precisely is the point of an ethnocentric worldview? Just a little aside – it’s funny how liberals decry and deny the of existence important phenotypic variations between different human populations, but do you all remember how everyone in America (blacks included) incredulously mocked Teresa Heinz-Kerry as she earnestly declared that, yes she was an ‘African-American’. Now reverse the example and suggest that Blacks in France are, and always will be, Africans that just happen to reside in France. Of course such a notion is verboten in polite society. Yet as the Heinz incident shows, at some level, everyone knows this is true. (2) Lee John Barnes Oh dear oh dear where does one even begin to start? I watched the first YouTube link. So we witness a bunch of children and teens dressed as wiggers and hoodies (the new international and multiracial uniform of common thuggery) moving around (I can’t call it dancing) like they are in a 10th rate rap video to some awful noise (again I can’t call it music). And you say this is ‘nationalist culture’ and will win over the yoofs? Is this type of thing what you imagine your youth clubs would get up to – is this ‘white culture’ you want to teach? Talk about a self-imposed cultural ghetto. Firstly the term ‘nationalist’ – it has so much toxic baggage. The term for ordinary people simply brings to mind hooligans and thugs. To be blunt it scream ‘LOSERS’. What is wrong with a term, for example, like ‘ethnocentric politics’ – far less open to all of that negative imagery. Secondly and far more importantly any culture or politics that begs for the approval of spotty 14year olds is in deep, deep trouble. On the cultural side please read this brilliant essay about the follies of the ‘cult of youth’ – in this context as examined by Anthony Burgess in his novel “A Clockwork Orange”. And as Robert Paxton discusses in his “Anatomy of Fascism” the key demographic in the rise of those movements was the lower middle-class. Indeed the history of, say the ‘working class’ Labour Party in Britain, also demonstrates the key role played by the ‘progressive’ middle classes in its rise to political power. Want political traction – try to engage with the C1/C2s – you know the parents that actually do have the vote and use it. Whatever next Lee? Maybe you will suggest we dump Plato for Garry Bushell (an individual so loathsome that almost makes the case for retrospective abortion) and say dump Mozart for Buster Bloodvessel? Are we being hoaxed by some form of Swiftian satire here I wonder? 90
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:56 | # “Why don’t you take control of your dreams and save us all then? Or how about at least come with an idea better than standing my ground in a sea of niggers?”
CS. If I gave you the perfect plan, guaranteed success. A plan that has worked and is working now…you would not take it. You would not take my word on it. Most plans have risks, require daring and dedication…plans are not the answer for someone who is resigned to defeat. Even if the plan required you only to wait for someone to save you… experience has shown that you would become impatient and die out of accumulated negative energy within a certain timeframe. In survival situations a majority die only because they lack the will to live. The survivors are not necessarily the fittest, healthiest, strongest…but the ones who do not give up. And of those who do not give up, but die anyway…they are the reason others live. Living meant something to them. CS, a breathing man is only a species of the dead, and a very rare one at that. The vast majority of humans who have existed are now in man’s normal state. You have only a short time to live, there is no escape from this. The only real meaning to life is how you live, who you live for and who you help live. The rest is pretense, subject to a rude shock. All I ask of you is to make your life mean something. Even your dreams mean something. Brilliance and genius often come from dreams. Don’t deny us that. 91
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 03:32 | # Graham_Lister (1) your example is not relevant. (2) Barnes is correct. Music, art, expression, doing something, anything is everything to youth. If you have not gleamed to the fact that youth could give a shit what you think is this or that, or what it screams to you, you are a senile fool. And yet their lives go on! Filled with meaning whether you like it or not! How is it your judgements mean nothing, your opinion less? The approval of spotty 14 year olds is 10 years or so away from being the rule. Better try to understand it now because you will be requiring them to haul your toxic baggage around….hint: respect given is respect earned. 92
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 03:58 | # CS, The admixture in Brazil is largely Portuguese. It was not really a slow slide but the outcome of a mass, mostly male, migration many centuries ago. It’s unclear that Brazil is really a precedent for other white countries. What is clear is that a number of European ethnies, in the lands of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora, effectively preserved their ethno-cultural well-being by advocating multiculturalism. By the time non-whites started arriving in numbers, multiculturalism was a well established European ethnic sanctuary with their interests well served by professional ethnic lobby groups. Why not join the parade? While Scotland is a good choice, it must be far easier to establish a lobby group to serve European ethnic interests rather than trying to organise a mass migration to bonnie Scotland. For instance the German Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress are allying with aboriginal groups in an effort to ensure the Canadian Jewish Congress does not hijack The Canadian Museum for Human Rights. http://www.germancanadiancongress.com/positionm.html
It’s an interesting alliance of German, Ukrainian, Aboriginal, Chinese, Japanese and others to blame the WASP and thus fend off Jewish dominance of the museum. 93
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 07:03 | # Yet again Graham, you are as out touch with the real world as an old man can be. The Hard Bass scene is for nationalist kids in places like Russia - they dance, they come together, they meet girls and they spread nationalist memes to other kids. Did you see any non-whites aongst them ? Nope. Not one. As for dressing like wiggers - the clothes they wear are simply that. Clothes. WHAT MATTERS YOU BORING OLD TWAT IS WHAT THEY THINK AND WHAT THEY DO - THEY THINK NATIONALIST AND ACT NATIONALIST. Yet at the same time they have fun. Remember fun Graham - its probably what you used to have in the late Neolithic when you hunted mammoth with your neanderthal pals. Nationalism has become a thing of death - of death camps, black and white film of dead nazis, of archaic and ancient ideologies and debates about dead philosophers by people as dead as the dead things they fetishise. These kids are alive. They are the future. You boring old fucks are the past. Get the fuck out of the way. 94
Posted by CS on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 09:21 | # Desmond Jones, I thought you were the guy who hated the Ukes and Italians for promoting multiculturalism in Canada and thus helping pave the way for the flood of non-whites coming in. The issue isn’t about building another holyhoax museum but the inevitable race mxing and mass non-white immigration that will turn Canada and many other white countries non-white and turns whites into an ever shrinking minority. The issue isn’t whether the Chinese and Abos are opposed to more holyhoax museums. The issue is the preservation of (functional) white people. And that will only happen in a country with few or perferably no non-whites and a population of whtie people who want to keep it that way. And since relatively few white people want to keep it that way, those who do need to congregate to the same place so they outnumber the huge majority of white people who for whatever reason are hostile or indifferent to the the future of the white race. 95
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:24 | # Good grief did you actually go and look at the essay on “A Clockwork Orange” and the cultural ‘cult of youth’. Not that it matters but I’m in my early 30’s and what’s all this nonsense about ‘respect given is respect gained’. The endless promotion of ‘Youth culture’ of our ‘post-modern’ societies is part of the problem (yoof culture is actually subcultural in the true sense of that term). I believe in promoting the genuine flourishing of human excellence which inevitably will mean stratification in any population. Democratic elitism means precisely the constant promotion of cultural excellence (and other forms of excellence) but with makes it clear this culture is open to Europeans all that can engage with it. I mean does anyone think the products of Western ‘high-culture’ are not objectively better than say the cultural productions of the Australian aboriginal people? Oh dear how terribly Eurocentric and elitist of me. As for the term ‘nationalist’ being a ‘toxic’ brand, Lee John Barnes agrees in that he states the image is one of reactionary old men (Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker types at best), skinhead thugs, and concentration camps. Yes yes yes - anyone sane would agree that is the public image, and so LJB’s ‘solution’ to this ‘bad image’ is to play samples of Oswald Mosley over ghastly techo to a bunch of kids that dress and act in a thug-like manner. Do you see the obvious contradiction there? As someone mentioned in another thread they left the BNP because it was so relentlessly ‘low brow’. Precisely - such formations are, just at a baseline sociological level, totally unwelcoming to the educated middle-classes, let alone ideologically ‘toxic’ for them. The task is to create a new form of ethnocentrically informed politics, which at the level of rhetoric, is at least plausible as being ‘normative’ to the middle classes. That requires serious people thinking seriously about the possibly solution to this issue. I offer what I think are somewhat coherent comments (aside from the odd typo), links, and sources of evidence and all I get are silly insults about being an old fart. Please try harder. I know it seems like I’m being snotty and ragging on you LBJ, but honestly if you are an example of a nationalist political ‘thinker/activist’ then no wonder it has been a complete failure (with all due respect bad techo music will be a rather marginal element/contribution towards European efforts to avert the potential demographic crisis we face). 96
Posted by Grimoire on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:07 | # Obviously Graham we don’t expect you to don a ripped Oswald Mosley t-shirt and go out all night slaving to the techno rhythm. But then I do think you somewhat ‘doth protest too much’
97
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:20 | # You just dont get it do you Graham. The kids are deciding for themselves what they like and they are creating a new nationalist sub culture for themselves. Aint no-one imposing it on them - they are creating it for themselves. You are what they call a boring old fart, and what you think means nothing to them at all. They dont care about what you want - they only care about what they want and what they like. ThATS WHAT KIDS HAVE ALWAYS DONE They are nationalists, they think nationalist, they act nationalist - and yet that aint good enough for you. Tough shit. Anyone who attacks these kids and says they are a nationalist is a fucking idiot. To alienate these kids, who are the next generation nationalists, because YOU dont like what THEY are doing, because you dont like what they listen too and because you dont like what they wear or how they dance or because they have a good time - are the actions of an idiot. They are nationalists. They are on our side. That is all that matters. The era of snobby, elitest, purism, intellectualism and the worship of the dead has failed totally - and so these kids have created a new nationalist culture that reflects what they want. Those that attack them - are the failed and the dead. 98
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:50 | #
You may be under-estimating the effect of an increasing number of white kids who have been through minority-white schools. But again, horses for courses. One individual might be suited to reaching one group of people and another for reaching another group. 99
Posted by PM on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 20:27 | # LJB—thank you for the posts and links on this thread. They have been a revelation to me. I had, in idle moments, thought about samples of racially-orientated speech over a dance track, but it had never really occurred to me that it could be a serious way of reaching people. I just thought it would sound good. People should not be so dismissive of the kids dancing around in those links. Anything which encourages a glimmer of racial awareness and solidarity amongst the young should surely be celebrated. By being part of a racially aware scene they are gaining precious qualities they would otherwise lack. They will now never have to feel isolated by their racist thoughts. They can never be told that white pride is something that all other young people have rejected. They will never have to feel that they have to integrate into a multi-racial mainstream culture for lack of alternatives. How many white young white people in this country are even able to imagine a deliberately and exclusively white scene? Breaking this mental barrier, making the unthinkable possible, is a huge mental breakthrough for young whites. And what’s more, they are having fun—their experience of white identity is something positive for them, rather than a despairing litany of the impossible odds we face and moaning about the unfairness of being white, which is all we could usually offer them. No-one would suggest that this music is the complete answer, but at least it is planting a seed in some of them that may give them the strength to reject the pressure to conform as they grow older. It is an improvement on the previous situation, and I for one would rejoice to see young white kids all over Europe embracing this scene. The one advantage we have over the left is that we know that reality and experience are on our side—if a white teenager is able to think for themselves and observe what is going on around them in the years to come, they will reject multi-racial dogma. What this scene gives young people is the strength to stand apart and to question, without the insecurity and hopelessness that comes from thinking that you are the only one and you would be rejected if others knew what you were thinking. Someone mentioned above about prison outreach programmes. Surely the experiences of whites in prison in America and Britain are the greatest source for racial awakening amongst whites in the Western world at this time? There are frequent documentaries about the California prison system on cable TV. The whole prison system there seems to be in a permanent and undeniable state of race war. I cannot think of a more obvious and blatant lesson in the perils of multi-racial society. Surely incarcarated whites are thoughful and intelligent enough to be able to draw lessons from their experiences inside, surely this is untapped potential? After all, wasn’t Malcolm X drawn to the Nations Of Islam whilst in prison? 100
Posted by Revolution Harry on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:34 | # Ha, I’ve just seen your other reply. Most of it is garbled nonsense but I’ll pick out a few highlights.
I’m aware of that. You suggested that nationalists should ‘organise a Hard Bass gig and have a laugh’. That’s what I responded to, albeit on the wrong thread.
I’m aware of that, when did I deny it?
Whose the ‘idiot’? Where did I suggest that Hard Bass was black?
Now you’re getting ridiculous. The Russian Hard Bass scene run by blacks. Where did I say that? The idea that the majority of club music is by whites is highly debatable at the least but let’s leave that aside.
Read what I said. You obviously didn’t understand it.
So you’re going to dictate our culture are you? Dream on.
Yawn. How predictable. It’s the reason I gave up on you a long time ago. That and your close association to the screamingly obvious state controlled plant and freemason Nick Griffin. The real controllers of this country and elsewhere run the left and the right, the reds and the blues. Surely you’ve worked that out Lee? 101
Posted by revolution Harry on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:38 | # Sorry wrong thread. I’ll repost on the other one. 102
Posted by Rusty on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:45 | # I’m always looking for interesting, timeless, positive and practically helpful links for my site. I try to be very selective, so please only email the very best. 103
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 08:22 | # Yawn. How predictable. It’s the reason I gave up on you a long time ago. That and your close association to the screamingly obvious state controlled plant and freemason Nick Griffin. The real controllers of this country and elsewhere run the left and the right, the reds and the blues. Surely you’ve worked that out Lee? So when Russian kids form a brand new form of nationalist music that comes from them, via than from the main stream music scene , and which allows them to spread nationalist ideas to other young kids, to subvert the dance music genre rom inside and to make nationalism mainstream outside the context of politics - then you attack it. You are either an idiot or a red - which is it. If you are a nationalist, then the fact you cannot see that what nationalism requires is for the kids who have so far rejected nationalist poltiics to be nationalised via a mechanism such as music eg such as in the 1970’s when Skrewdriver did exactly that - then you are idiot. If you are a red - then of course you will attack this new muscial form as it will terrify you, as the thought of a nationalist music genre going mainstream again, as the skinheads did in the 70’s, must be horrifying. 104
Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:55 | # Geert Wilders Final Remarks at The Amsterdam Trial - English Subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjZEZggkkA&feature=player_embedded Where is our Wilders? H/T via VfR 105
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:03 | # So when was this period of intellectualism in ‘nationalist culture’? Think I must have missed that. I watched some more videos of this scene. As far as I could tell it was generally gangs of teenage boys behaving as they sometimes do and in some of the videos they also seemingly attended soccer matches and liked jumping around. Fine and dandy but of any real significance? I have my doubts and let me explain way. Many teens like to ‘act out’ or ‘expressively’ rebel. You know do something to upset the grown ups - usually something trivial like listen to music that the young assume is ‘transgressive’. I did it myself - listening to gangster rap like “Public Enemy” or “N.W.A.” because it was ‘naughty’. Teens have a very low ‘psychological cost’ for superficially engaging with something the grown-ups don’t like, and in fact my willfully wish do to so BUT for the vast majority such ‘teenage kicks’ have no significance or lasting impact on their general worldview. They grow bored and move on to other things. The rather tinny tone of pre-packaged antinomianism rapidly loses its luster. Let’s use another example of a very large subculture - the Punks of the late 70s (and remember every the largest subculture is a tiny minority of the age demographic we are discussing). At the time it was full of teens and people in their early 20s - pretty rare to see a 40 year punk at the time. And today how many punks do we see on our streets? How many live by the ‘punk ethos’? And today if we did see a 40+ year still dressed and acting like a punk most peoples reaction would be - why hasn’t he grown up yet? Moreover has the very large teen subculture of Punk had any substantive effects upon the fundamental nature or course of British society? - no not really. The problem with ‘youth culture’ is precisely that it is deeply unserious (because most young people are for one thing). Youth culture is entirely indifferent to traditional boundaries, loyalties, and any form of learning and is profoundly trivial (in this it apes the general features of mass-consumerist culture but amplifies them). Something like being a punk or a goth or whatever well it’s just one post-modern consumerist identity amongst many which can be replaced and swapped with any other in the flash of an eye. So you have some youths ‘dancing’ to Nazi-techo. Great. I’m sure the ultra-liberal world quakes in its boots - not. 106
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:19 | # I mean honestly “Screwdriver” mainstream - in what fucking fantasy world do you think that shit is or was mainstream? Such a poverty of thought and/or delusional. I mean the entire history of the high Western tradition is largely and implicitly ethnocentric. But no for some knaves and fools ‘white’ culture is some awful punk band that, if we were being brutally honest, would be shot for appalling crimes against music (joking - or am I?). 107
Posted by Rick O'Shea on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:13 | # (continued) At the other end of the spectrum - as Lee rightly criticises - we are often assaulted by high faluting intellectualism that leaves many people (including myself) scratching our heads as we try and make sense of the points being made (and spend time looking through online dictionaries). With such stuff, we are a million miles away from connecting with the ordinary public - who have not invested any time at all to understanding what nationalism is or what it desires to achieve. You cannot even mention “critical theory” or “corporate fascism” to most of the public without leaving people with blank faces. We are thus left typing (and talking) to ourselves - as we find comfort in those who already understand some of the concepts at play. Yet as Lee rightly suggests, we do this as Rome burns down around us. I still think that once general people begin to see the problems that we are going to face, many will be hooked in to asking ‘why’ things are as they are and ‘why’ things are happening. When they do this, I think they will need answers and will need intellectual arguments and rationale to back up their own natural thoughts and emotions. They will also need answers in their search for alternative methods of building and managing a society, and will need reassurance that they are workable. Again, I do not think we are achieving this either. We all start somewhere…..I started in strict and determined opposition to the ‘far right’. Now, in some circles I am deemed a “hard liner”. There are multiple levels of awakening and there are multiple website/groups that provide for different levels. I think this multi-layered nature will always remain and is necessary for nationalist people to progress in insight and understanding. Some people are thinkers and political activists, some people are doers (“I don’t care about cultural marxist or whatever you’re on about! We’ve got to get out there and make a stand!”), some people are in between. What we may have to do is tailor our message in the best way to our target audiences at any given time and use strategy accordingly. If we need to achieve a particular thing that can be achieved by street activism then lets try and use it (and them) to achieve it. If we need to pose a more intellectual reason and justification for our beliefs and desires, then we need to have the capability to show it and win such a debate. Not many Sun readers or EDL followers will scroll through lengthy texts on websites like this one. Similarly, not many middle class people in leafy suburbs up and down Britain are likely to read Casuals United or go on EDL marches and encourage their aunties and uncles to do so too. I think they are more likely to read, support and act upon a good article (or video or campaign) that explains what is going on against the people of this country and why it needs to be opposed. We need to give them the tools, arguments and understanding in order to let them defend themselves. On sites dedicated to ourselves and aimed at ourselves, I think we can do whatever level we wish because it is hardly in the public eye. However, on sites which are purposefully established to reach the masses as a dedicated tool of building a movement and an understanding of where we are coming from, we need to find the sweet spot between. There are a lot of Nationalist sites for Nationalists - but hardly any sites which actively try and be a shop window for advertising and encouraging Nationalism and nationalist principles. Regarding the matter of politics and the young (as against youthful action in itself) I currently hold the view that we are not going to muster much interest in the youth arena if there is no “edge” to the political message that makes it revolutionary and different from the rest. Why would any white youth who has a sense of identity (or could be shown to grow one) wish to get interested in some party that seems as equally boring and equally ‘middle ground’ as the rest on offer? I think we have to have policies and positions that are edgy, are revolutionary, exciting, and present a real change. This does not have to be solely on matters of ethnicity (for example), but can reach to cutting edge technology and future aspirations that create a package desirable in opposition to globalism, destitution and uniformity. The big ideas seem to have gone from the table and have been replaced by different ‘safe’ flavours of the same brand. If we were going to pursue a “reverse march though the institutions”, I think it should have been started 20 to 30 years ago. I think it is too late to cultivate a large enough transformation in the time we have left. Up to 20% of Britain is now non-white (officially 16.7%), and well over 33% (perhaps up to 45%) of the under 6 year olds are now from non white backgrounds. By the time we have entered institutions, carefully toned our policies around “culture” (in the hope that eventually we can save ourselves by default as a consequence) - culture will have changed, society will have changed, issues will have changed, and we will be lost as a democratic force in our own country even if every single white person agreed with our positions. I do not know where to go from here. It is getting to be a case of “all or nothing” whilst working with a nation of people too ill equipped and ill informed to understand what the consequences are going to be later down the line. The two things do not make good bed-fellows and it seems almost impossible to reconcile the void. 108
Posted by Rick O'Shea on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:20 | # ***It seems that the first part did not arrive first. Apologies as I try and submit it again*** As usual it seems that contradictions and extremes are present in the debate. Before I get started I must add a qualifier: {}Lee, if you read this, I hope you don’t take too much offence in parts of what I am going to say. I am not hostile to yourself, but I can only be honest and put things over as I see them. I am not saying I am right or that what I say is the truth - it is just the impression I get - and as such, I mean it in a ‘say it as I see it’ way rather than a “lets all bash Lee Barnes” way. I am not looking for a confrontation or personal argument, even though some of the following is directly aimed your way as an individual{}. Okay, I will get right to it. As most of us are aware, Lee Barnes is notoriously known as quite a foul mouthed individual with a brash style that unfortunately turns off the very public he wishes to reach in order to further our collective ambitions. Anyone who doesn’t fit into his “wisdom” is of course, “a fucking twat”, “a fucking idiot” or “old fucking cunt” or whatever other pejorative expletive of the day. It seems that nobody really wants to work with Lee Barnes, it seems nobody really CAN work with Lee Barnes precisely because he is such a volatile character. Lee may have the best ideas in the world, but I get the impression that he is just as much an unreachable island as he paints others to be. In that way, I think Lee is unfortunately a kind of prisoner to his own limitations and flaws - as we all are to some degree or other. However, despite the often juvenile (“jog on losers!”) come backs and short tempered “your mamma” style put-downs, Lee is not an idiot - far from it. Whatever people may think of him as a character, he has clearly invested time and effort to think differently about Nationalist discourse and has given some challenges to the usual routes (or lack of them) that have been taken for the last three decades or more. In this regard Lee is shaking people out of their comfort zones and throwing some ideas out there (some of which are good, some of which are probably not all that good, but different all the same). Lee is somebody who (with perhaps a bit of professional coaching work on his demeanour!) could be a pivotal role in British Nationalism. He seems well read, articulate, and is capable of bringing a wide array of interconnected subjects to the table in one verbal flow that would leave many other speakers in the dust. It is therefore such a shame that it can be so abrasive and hard on the ears and that the general attitude he has leaves people not wanting to work with him or associate with him. There is indeed an irony here today too (sorry Lee), where on the one hand we are told that we should not engage in lofty intellectual screeds because it means nothing to most people - then inadvertently tries to prove this point by…well….putting up a rack of lofty intellectual screeds and discussing the theories given to us by the likes of ‘left wing’ intellectual revolutionaries. However, with this, I take Lee’s point that whilst we may need to have an understanding of technical matters on how society works in order to achieve some of our objectives, we cannot leave them gathering dust in lofty intellectualism zones if we are to engage the wider public. We have to take them and find ways of putting them into real-world practice. We may know what has been (and is still being) done to us - but are we formulating a counter attack based on this knowledge? Not really. This is what I think Lee is trying to put over. We have to understand the fight at these ‘lofty intellectual’ levels and then work out how to deliver that fight using people who are not so interested in knowing the theories or anything deeper than is necessary to bring change to public life. I hate to say it, but perhaps Lee is alluding to forming our own “useful idiots” to sustain a political/cultural hegemony of our own. I don’t want to put words in his mouth though because I might be wrong in my understanding. The idea of always having to reach to the lowest common denominator (the much touted and insulted Sun reader that is mentioned above, for example) though, is not something I would particularly welcome if it meant deviating from standing up for what we actually champion (and thus begin to slide into the pockets of other people’s agendas). However, Lee is right to say we need to get our message over and cultivate a following using terms and issues that people understand. I have taken a quick read through the general comments above and it seems that there is not much middle ground taking place. On the one hand we are told we need to ditch the ‘boring’ tracts and work from the bottom up to baby-sit the ‘idiots’ out there we need to get on side - and on the other hand that we need to work from the top down and win almost purely on intellectual merit alone that might possibly filter down to the wider masses…....but what about the middle-out? Of course I am stating the obvious, but society is multi-layered - as is Nationalist discourse levels. Everybody is different. Everybody has a start point and they ‘graduate’ through various stages of learning and understanding. Some people never graduate anywhere as some people are not investigative. Conversely, some people are too investigative and get sucked into all manners of deep theories and concepts and they never re-surface to be of use to the cause. Both extremities are pretty useless. The majority of ‘nationalist’ people are probably in the middle. The majority of the public are not even on the first rung of the ladder, even though recent YouGov polls indicate that around 73% of the population do not like the idea of ethnic minorities becoming the majority demographic of the nation. I do think that you have to have demonstrative “intellectual” reasoning and rationale for our positions and beliefs otherwise they will be seen as shallow when probed. It is no use creating clouds of rhetoric that are popular with the public but evaporate when closely scrutinised and challenged. Foundations of sand are no foundations at all. If there are deeper reasons, we will need to be able to argue their case and tap into giving those 73% of people something to back and feel good about rather than guilty and confused. Having a wider base at the lowest common denominator that is knee-jerk reactionary more than having any ability to defend their vitriol against modern society and “foreigners” (for example) will be easily slaughtered by the opposition because they often do not have the skills to argue themselves out of a wet paper bag. This is also true of abstract issues of defining “culture” as though it is static and uniform and perpetual. Whether that be national culture, societal culture, youth culture, pop culture. Culture is a weak basis when it is left in isolation from other things. It mutates, it transforms, and given the demographics it is not likely to mutate in a way that is going to “save” us. When it comes to the general public who are perhaps ‘reactionaries’ - it often only needs one push and they start to back peddle and concede to the arguments of the opposition (or are lulled back into the “fold” of the general ‘middle ground’ sheep consensus and bump along just as before). I think that if such a culture and ‘base argument’ level was pushed to the front of the movement and it started to encapsulate/define who we are and what we stand for - it may only serve to highlight and increase the existing perception that we are ‘ignorant’ and ‘unthinking’ and have no sophisticated basis or rationale for our movement. Although I admire the English Defence League for building up a following and taking control of the streets back from the “reds” - I would not particularly trust such a stereotype “Sun reader” (not my words) to be able to properly argue the case for anti-Islamisation, anti-immigration, job markets, fixing society’s ills, self sufficiency, self survival and generally undermine the current political hegemony. Perhaps it is fair to say I shouldn’t expect them to - and nor should I tar them all with the same brush. What I would expect though, from stereotype, is some half baked rag tag string of coined phrases from the newspapers and the often touted “they come over here taking our jobs, stealing our women” kind of argument that has been the staple diet of “annoyed from Manchester” types since the 1950’s and led us nowhere. It is like people who rant on and on about “Muslim extremists” when the vast majority of people who work alongside Muslims find them to be fairly nice people and not remotely like Anjem Choudary. It makes the ranters look silly and exaggerating - when the real threat to the survival of British civilisation is actually demographics of those “nice” Muslims and others which the EDL have “no problem with”. Those sorts of reactionary phrases may be popular, it may connect with the public, but it often only takes somebody from some leftwing thinktank like the IPPR to explain their ideas of why they aren’t taking their jobs and how their thinking “doesn’t meet the evidence” (even though it actually clearly does) - and they are left unsure, doubtful what to think, dangling in the wind. If they are made to look stupid and foolish and just ‘reactionary’ without foundation - then others will not want to be tarred with the same brush and will side with the thinktank because it fits the rest of society’s conformist “narrative” that now permeates all society and discourse. Similarly, shouting “Allah is a paedophile”, chanting slogans like “Muslim bombers off our streets” and badly singing the wrong words to “Rule Britannia” to a lone black man on Islamic book stall (for one recent EDL example) is hardly going to collect us wider respect and the moral authority we need to convince the masses that righteousness and answers are on our side. The Blackpool demonstration for Charlene Downes though is a more productive thing to be doing and I congratulate them for that. I admit I am critical of this type of street movement, but in light of recent calls to stick together and to not defame those who are generally on the same team - I have tried to moderate my criticisms, hell, even defending them against other nationalists who are pushing the “muslamic ray gun” video the opposition made. They are indeed a phenomena - I just wish they were actual nationalists that had their heads screwed on properly. 109
Posted by Rick O'Shea on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:32 | # (continued - re-post, please delete the first one) At the other end of the spectrum - as Lee rightly criticises - we are often assaulted by high faluting intellectualism that leaves many people (including myself) scratching our heads as we try and make sense of the points being made (and spend time looking through online dictionaries). With such stuff, we are a million miles away from connecting with the ordinary public - who have not invested any time at all to understanding what nationalism is or what it desires to achieve. You cannot even mention “critical theory” or “corporate fascism” to most of the public without leaving people with blank faces. We are thus left typing (and talking) to ourselves - as we find comfort in those who already understand some of the concepts at play. Yet as Lee rightly suggests, we do this as Rome burns down around us. I still think that once general people begin to see the problems that we are going to face, many will be hooked in to asking ‘why’ things are as they are and ‘why’ things are happening. When they do this, I think they will need answers and will need intellectual arguments and rationale to back up their own natural thoughts and emotions. They will also need answers in their search for alternative methods of building and managing a society, and will need reassurance that they are workable. Again, I do not think we are achieving this either. We all start somewhere…..I started in strict and determined opposition to the ‘far right’. Now, in some circles I am deemed a “hard liner”. There are multiple levels of awakening and there are multiple website/groups that provide for different levels. I think this multi-layered nature will always remain and is necessary for nationalist people to progress in insight and understanding. Some people are thinkers and political activists, some people are doers (“I don’t care about cultural marxist or whatever you’re on about! We’ve got to get out there and make a stand!”), some people are in between. What we may have to do is tailor our message in the best way to our target audiences at any given time and use strategy accordingly. If we need to achieve a particular thing that can be achieved by street activism then lets try and use it (and them) to achieve it. If we need to pose a more intellectual reason and justification for our beliefs and desires, then we need to have the capability to show it and win such a debate. Not many Sun readers or EDL followers will scroll through lengthy texts on websites like this one. Similarly, not many middle class people in leafy suburbs up and down Britain are likely to read Casuals United or go on EDL marches and encourage their aunties and uncles to do so too. I think they are more likely to read, support and act upon a good article (or video or campaign) that explains what is going on against the people of this country and why it needs to be opposed. We need to give them the tools, arguments and understanding in order to let them defend themselves. On sites dedicated to ourselves and aimed at ourselves, I think we can do whatever level we wish because it is hardly in the public eye. However, on sites which are purposefully established to reach the masses as a dedicated tool of building a movement and an understanding of where we are coming from, we need to find the sweet spot between. There are a lot of Nationalist sites for Nationalists - but hardly any sites which actively try and be a shop window for advertising and encouraging Nationalism and nationalist principles. Regarding the matter of politics and the young (as against youthful action in itself) I currently hold the view that we are not going to muster much interest in the youth arena if there is no “edge” to the political message that makes it revolutionary and different from the rest. Why would any white youth who has a sense of identity (or could be shown to grow one) wish to get interested in some party that seems as equally boring and equally ‘middle ground’ as the rest on offer? I think we have to have policies and positions that are edgy, are revolutionary, exciting, and present a real change. This does not have to be solely on matters of ethnicity (for example), but can reach to cutting edge technology and future aspirations that create a package desirable in opposition to globalism, destitution and uniformity. The big ideas seem to have gone from the table and have been replaced by different ‘safe’ flavours of the same brand. If we were going to pursue a “reverse march though the institutions”, I think it should have been started 20 to 30 years ago. I think it is too late to cultivate a large enough transformation in the time we have left. Up to 20% of Britain is now non-white (officially 16.7%), and well over 33% (perhaps up to 45%) of the under 6 year olds are reportedly from non white British backgrounds. By the time we have entered institutions, carefully toned our policies around “culture” (in the hope that eventually we can save ourselves by default as a consequence) - culture will have changed, society will have changed, issues will have changed, and we will be lost as a democratic force in our own country even if every single white person agreed with our positions. I do not know where to go from here. It is getting to be a case of “all or nothing” whilst working with a nation of people too ill equipped and ill informed to understand what the consequences are going to be later down the line (or simply don’t care). The two things do not make good bed-fellows and it seems almost impossible to reconcile the void. 110
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:11 | # If it wasnt for Skrewdriver and the skinhead scene in the 1970’s and 80’s there would be virtually no nationalists around today. The fact you dont know that - or the role that groups which organise nationalist gigs in the uk today are keeping nationalism alive - shows you know fuck all about the nationalist movement. 111
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:28 | # Rick, I am the type of guy that calls a spade a spade - and seeing as the nationalist scene unfortunately has many total twats amongst it, I call them twats. When you get involved in the nationalist movement, then you will meet them and then like me you will call them exactly what they are - fucking twats. Those with intelligence, who are capable of innovation and not necrophiliac nationalists fixated with the past at the expense of the future of the movement are the people I can and do work with. The rest of them are a waste of space. I am a working class bloke who prefers to be with my own kind - airs and graces are not my style. If need be I can be polite and reasonable and debate with the best of them - and I have debated with people melanie phillips, michael portillo, on CNN Live, on various BBC radio shows, independent radio stations etc etc I have the discipline to be able to adapt to my surroundings. But when it comes to nationalists on sites like this with a nationalist audience - then I do not censor myself. They talk bollocks, they get told they are talking bollocks. I hate the innate snobbery and class bias in nationalism where nationalists respect not ideas or talents but simply accents, money and their class background. That is the shame of nationalism - that the dickhead with a big mouth, posh voice and nice suit gets more respect than the dedicated working class nationalist who works tirelessly for the nationalist cause. I have seen this time after time where nationalists queue up to arse lick some idiot just because he went to Oxford, talks like he has a plum in his mouth and has money. Its pathetic and shameful. Nationalism should be about one thing only - the best rule - not the the poshest, richest or the one in the nicest suit. Nationalism is about meritocracy. As for what the people want - the people want a nationalist lion that roars their defiance, not a politically correct mouse that squeaks. The problem is that nationalists reject meritocracy for cults of personality. Hence the movement is going nowhere as anyone who doesnt fit the middle class, middle aged, posh school, nice suit, posh voice criteria is not taken seriously. Hence nationalism is run by dickheads rather than the most talented. 112
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:31 | # @ Rick you make some very valid points - it is the ‘middle’ that needs to be won over - as I pointed out nearly every modern movement for social/political change has, functionally, required a large middle-class element (one example see “Anatomy of Fascism” by Robert Paxton on the social background to those 20th century movements). Or look at the rise of the Greens/environmentalism, or the development of the Labour movement in the UK. Not exclusively middle-class but certainly they were very important in that history. OK and her is the rub ‘nationalism’ is in a total ghetto both socio-politically, rhetorically and intellectually. The brand is totally toxic. Whatever has been done previously has totally failed. Now it’s a form of insanity to keep doing something and expect a different outcome. OK a toxic brand what do you do with it - invest enormous energy into trying to change people’s perceptions of it or ditch it and try to invent a new brand. For example you right about the Sun reading yobbo mouthing off and just turning off the middle class person. Precisely! If you are trying to build a new brand you cannot have anything that associates you with the old brand at the level of symbolism or rhetorical tropes. If you want to communicate with an moderately educated middle-class person speaking in a civilised and articulate way probably helps. If they think your an Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker ignorant bigot (in their eyes) you massively raise the ‘psychological costs’ of listening so they will not. If you start form a very weak position in the discourse one has to maximally lower the ‘psychological costs’ for people to listen to you. NOT raise them as high as you possibly can. I’ll give you a concrete example. Griffin and his party had a policy position that global-warming isn’t real blah blah blah. Now I don’t give a flying fuck if it is or is not happening. But I tell you what for Mr & Mrs Average of middle-classville it ‘signals’ being a right-wing loon. Hence for the sake an ideological hobby horse (an subject which is irrelevant to the core issues) you immediately alienate anyone that is vaguely an environmentalist (that they think they should care about such issues if if they don’t really). Instead why not green-wash – yes persevering the environment is very important etc., and if you sound like you believe it you might build up enough moral/political capital such as Mr & Mrs Average start to think – why what a nice caring person – that’s not what I expected form ‘those’ people, perhaps they are not so bad after all, etc. Also through ‘mainstreaming’ trough trivial secondary issues again allows the possibility that the perception is one of – well they seem like normal sane people etc., (instead of a bunch of ignorant malcontents and losers). As for the term ‘nationalist’ drop it – completely you might as well use the word Nazi – that’s what associate it with. Sorry but perception is reality in political discourse. Try talking about ethnocentrism. Try a party name like ‘Progressive Democrats’. And as the discourse inevitably is starting with the assumption and tropes of liberalism use liberal ideas to argue against easy targets. For example against ‘hate laws’ use the trope of our liberal tradition of equality before the law. But also mix it up – use arguments form the left against the failures and hypocrisy of international law. Argue against foreign wars of aggression because they one are only for the benefit of the ruling elite and secondly because of the absolute need to respect that different societies have the right to organize themselves and there affairs in there own way. Talk about the evils of cultural imperialism or whatever. These are just ideas of the top of my head but if developed they COULD disrupt the easy stereotypes that have proved so difficult to deal with. (And implicitly suggests yes we to would wish to define our own society for ourselves and not to some utopian liberal fantasy). A marginal political movement, to become part of the discourse must be ruthless in dropping what prevents it gaining a hearing, it must also practice the art of intellectual jujitsu and try to turn the argument of opponents against themselves (good grief liberalism has plenty of holes it in!), but it must also know that mere arguments are not enough – tone, style, a concern for the subtle role that emotions play in how people view the world and make political decisions are all as important or more so that mere facts. Make as easy as possible for them to listen to you. I am thinking hard about what this might mean – at a functional/instrumental level an intelligent fusion of Machiavelli and Gramsci along with a sharp eye for any opportunity to subtly mock the premises of liberalism or it’s negative consequences in way that do not seem ‘crazy’ to Mr & Mrs Average. Perhaps calling this new political project/operating style that of the Post-modern Prince. 113
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:42 | # Revolutions occur when the middle class become so radicalised that they no longer oppose the radicals in the working class who are demanding radical social and political change. The middle class do not create revolutions, the working class do that, but the middle class are essential in order to legitimise the revolutionary struggle that is led by the working class. When the middle class are so impoverished, broken and frightened that they fear the future more than they fear the revolutionaries in the working class - then the national revolution will be underway. Until the middle class are smashed and broken, then all me must do is prepare for the moment when they are. When they are - then they will listen to anyone who offers them a way out of their poverty, unemployment and misery. And that will only be nationalists, as the middle class hate and fear marxists who will be the other main political group who will benefit from the coming social crash and they also will fear the Islamists who will also be agitiating for change in our country. They will want the working class to protect them from the Marxists and the Islamists. 114
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:43 | # @LBJ - yeah neo-Nazi techo raves are not really an ‘innovation’ unless you wish to be forever mired in a very small cultural-ghetto. Did you read what I wrote about teen ‘sub-cultures’? Do you agree or disagree? If you think I have misunderstood or there is something more to the debate then speak up - don’t just insult people. Let’s have an informed and civil debate. And I’m working class in my background but I’m not willfully stupid. 115
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:50 | # Well OK but you really should read Robert Paxton - I find empirical evidence is a wonderful guide to reality. Secondly instead of waiting for the big crash like some little SWP trot, (and assuming that something is historically inevitable is a very bad form of political thinking - human events/history are about possibilities not certainties), what precisely should a ‘reformist’ party look like? Certainly nothing like what has gone before I would suggest. 116
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:54 | # Graham, when you realise that nationalist dance music is for TEENAGERS not the masses, then you will see why such a scene is important. It allows nationalist youth to nationalise non-nationalist youth via the music drawing them into the nationalist music scene. If you have never been to a nationalist gig - then you will never know why they are so important and why they keep people in the nationalist movement. I agree with you on most of what you write, but you just do not understand how important it is for a nationalist music scene to develop to kep kids involved in nationalist politics and the nationalist movement. At the moment there is no nationalist music scene for kids to be involved in - and therefore those kids get involved in music scenes run by reds and ethnics. You have never been involved in any nationalist music scene, hence you do not know how important it is. Nor did I until I went - and then I realised the essential role it plays and will play in promoting nationalism to the youth of tomorrow. 117
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:00 | # The nationalist party of the future must embrace the methodology of Marxist Leninism re its organisation, the social activism model of Hamas and the populism of Cultural Nationalism to promote its ideology to the masses. It must appeal to the intellectual who reads The Times and the The Sun reader at the same time. It must be intellectually cohesive and organisationally efficient. Then it will win the struggle for power - and will grow in society even before the crash. Read the article I posted by Guillerme De Faye about the convergence of catastrophies - the crash is inevtiable - but out victory is not unless we adopt the Hamas model of Social activism, the marxist leninist discipline and organisational structure and the populist ideology and propaganda of cultural nationalism. 118
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:47 | # 120
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 19:10 | # You can thank me for introducing you to this band after you watch the video and listen to the track ;
121
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 19:41 | # And this ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LSU8LIjNbA and this ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p0Au6wTNz4 and this ; 122
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:11 | # Graham: Your wish is to appeal to the responsible, traditionally ‘cultured’ sector. You state how important this is. You are correct. I believe everyone agrees with you, even LJ Barnes. What he is saying, (as I take it) - don’t sever the tie with the lower classes and youth. Don’t become their opposition because you presume the middle classes are their superiors. Take them as they are, support them, you will be surprised at the common ground shared. Make the effort, you’ll be surprised when they support you. Make the effort - for the good of all. 123
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:17 | # Rick O’Shea: I read your comments and the only thing I can say is I agree. Your heart is in the right place. 124
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:26 | # Thanks LJB. I liked Drake best. These artists say much the same as we. 125
Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:56 | # The British public is the frog simmering in the pan. How do you explain to the frog he’d better get out outta there pretty damn quick if he knows what’s good for him. The British people are gently simmering in the pan and everthing is normal. Move along, nothing to see here. There was always going to be a time when ‘the plan’ (which up till now had remained concealed behind closed curtains) would have to go public, after all, even our elites couldn’t hide millions of people among us who didn’t look like us. If we had told it ‘like it is’ all those years ago, then I think things could have been different. Yes, they, (people) would still have laughed in our face, (like political correctness) but as the years rolled by and events started to unfold and look like what had been forewarned, then I think things would be different to what we have now. Sadly, the moment was lost forever. This lost time was used by the media to conduct an incremental programme of predicted propaganda aimed at a resigned British public to surrender to the acceptance of the multicultural. The message became clear, they’re already here, get used to it. Britain’s Camp of the Saints moment had come and gone. This is where we’re at. Where next? 126
Posted by Like The Roman on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:26 | # Bill, Enoch Powell warned us of the consequences of what he referred to as ‘communalism’ (multiculturalism) and mass-immigration. Whilst Powell received public support. However, he was sacked from the shadow cabinet and hounded by the press. This, essentially ruined his political career, and was a warning to others tempted to speak out.
It is true that the public had no mainstream political vehicle by which they could register their outrage at what was happening, however they could have turned to the National Front which was growing at the time. 127
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:49 | # Apropo of nothing I do wonder what has become of that strata of British society known as the respectable working-class? They may have been economically disadvantaged and perhaps not well-educated but they tried to live their lives with dignity and decorum. Theodore Dalrymple has written movingly about the quiet decency of some of his older patients from this background and contrasts it with his younger patients. Nihilistic hedonism with lashing of egocentric narcissism has spread through society like ink through blotting paper. I’ve travelled quite a bit and I can tell you that in my experience, at least in the Western world, on a Friday or Saturday night there are few worse places, for even moderately civilized people, to be than in an English city or town center at night.* Gin Lane redux! * OK excluding black ghettos in the USA as no-one sane would willingly and knowingly ever go near them at night (or indeed at all). And I have driven through Trenton NJ at night not knowing where I was going…and once I had taken the wrong corner I did fear for my life. I quite happily drove the wrong way down one-way streets and ran red lights to get the hell out of there. 128
Posted by Zx on Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:04 | #
It seems to me there have been a minority of our people telling it like it is for decades. 129
Posted by Zx on Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:11 | # I agree that Dalrymple writes some very useful and perceptive (if long-winded) articles. 131
Posted by Ambitious Outsider on Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:42 | # Re: Dalrymple Well at least he isn’t part of the ‘multi-cult’ crowd “Multiculturalism rests on the supposition—or better, the dishonest pretense—that all cultures are equal and that no fundamental conflict can arise between the customs, mores, and philosophical outlooks of two different cultures.” http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_oh_to_be.html I agree 100% 132
Posted by Rusty on Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:53 | # Ambitious Outsider, I think you may be giving him too much credit. From that same article which you linked: “Britishness has been a cultural, and not a racial or biological, concept with a tradition of tolerance, compromise, civility, gentlemanly reserve, respect for privacy, individuality (evident as far back as Chaucer’s time), a ready acceptance of and even affection for eccentricity, a belief in the rule of law, a profound sense of irony, and a desire for fair play: in short, the common decency that Orwell wrote of so eloquently.” Id est, the culture of Britain has nothing to do with the race(s) of people who built it. 133
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:54 | # Well something like Welsh identity is cultural - in so far as there is very little genetic difference between the average native Welsh person and the average native English person. But the very ability to have culture and generalized features of these secondary cultural norms/values and so on must be rooted in the biology of the human species generally and emerge from the subtly different selection pressures upon of say European phenotypes versus Australian aboriginal phenotypes, both at a biological level but also in terms of cultural evolution I would guess. But it is a little silly to claim something like ‘an affection for eccentricity’ or a ‘love of high tea’ etc., is a direct biological trait, yes? I mean is the love of bad plastic-tasting cheese a biological trait of Euro-Americans or just some cultural flotsam and jetsam? Certainly the human capacity to create and recognize in-groups/out-groups is very much part of our evolution as a species. The Welsh and English are not substantive in/out groupings based directly upon genetic differences, but are fairly mild in/out groups to each other based on some minor higher-level socio-cultural differentiation. However they are both have more in common with each other biologically and in cultural modalities than either of them do with sub-Saharan populations. 134
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 08 Jun 2011 03:08 | # * solidarity not solitary – another “typing way too fast on autopilot” typo on my part - sorry. 135
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:04 | # It is interesting to note that Wales is an Anglo-Saxon word for foreigner or outsider and that Cymry is Celtic for companion/friend. It appears then, at some point, the in group/out group designation was obvious to all. It’s probably also worth noting that the mass migration of West country English into South Wales, during the 19th century, fundamentally changed that area of Wales. Rugby and a love of sport is about as Welsh as Deepak Chopra. Possibly ‘high tea’ is not biological induced, (high tea is an event, bad plastic-tasting cheese is a product) however, “compromise, civility, gentlemanly reserve, respect for privacy, individuality” may have been evident in Chaucer’s time, but not necessarily predominant. The homicide rate in 13th century England was almost double that of present day South Africa. Thus you have a nation where these traits, as Greg Clark suggests in his ‘Farewell to Alms’, began to dominate because a reproductive differential accrued to the individuals who possessed them. It can be argued that culture derives from biology because evolution benefits the individual and any benefit the group derives, i.e. less violent, is incidental. Neither Welsh nor English culture is as it once was. In fact, it is plausible to argue that neither the Welsh nor English people are what they once were. The English and the Greeks have more in common than with sub-Saharan populations, however, that does not change the fact that the difference that does exist is substantial. 136
Posted by Anon2 on Thu, 09 Jun 2011 03:54 | #
The English and Greeks also have more in common than with Chinese populations, American Indian populations, Pakistani populations, etc. I’d guess only with a minority of Middle Easterner ethnicities would the statement “The English and Greeks also have more in common than with X populations” possibly not apply. 137
Posted by Anon2 on Thu, 09 Jun 2011 03:57 | # That last paragraph meant in terms of genetics. Civilizationally Greeks are of course more like the English than even they are to Turks, the Middle Eastern group they seem to be the most related to. 138
Posted by Unamused on Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:21 | # But… but I like tedious, pseudo-intellectual wank! 140
Posted by Paul on Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:35 | # Off topic - important information regarding the current BNP election contest here
Post a comment:
Next entry: Quasi-random thoughts from a concerned citizen
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) Commentsweremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:19. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) |
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:08 | #
1) People care about subjects which benefit them and are perceived to be just.
2) For authority to be functional, it must serve those who submit to it.
3) Keep It Simple Stupid
Very good rules. I’d only add that a precursor to doing this is to get people to listen in the first place. If the current authority says “those nationalists are evil heretics. don’t listen to them” then you have to get past that barrier first. One way to do this is to reverse your rules and use them to attack the current authority.
1) Point out policies that either have a high cost to them and/or are percieved to be unjust.
2) Show the authority doesn’t serve the interests of the majority population.
3) Keep It Simple Stupid.
The proportions of attacking the current authority and promoting the alternative will vary from country to country depending on the media balance, electoral system etc.