by Graham Lister

For the philosophical communitarian, the Sartrean cogito, spontaneously reinventing itself ex nihilo, permanently free to choose and revise its definition of the good, is a fiction that pervades all modern liberalism. From Hobbes, Locke and Kant, through to Mill and Rawls, the rootless, solitary and “unencumbered self”, as Michael Sandel describes it, prior to and independent of its ends and rationally deliberating on the value of its voluntary attachments, is adopted as the starting point of social analysis.

This conception of the subject, it is argued, precludes from the start the possibility of genuinely communal forms of association, of “constitutive” communities “bound by moral ties antecedent to choice”. This is why communitarians stress the cultural constitution of the subject, the way the individual forms his or her identity, sense of self, and intuitive system of values by inheriting and passing on an unchosen legacy of collective orientations, shared meanings and standards, networks of kinship and pre-contractual forms of solidarity which are a prerequisite for, rather than the outcome of, the subject’s capacity for moral commitment.

READ MORE...

It’s really one question that hangs over political nationalism, though it has many forms.  How do we make politics amid all this hostility?  How do we get this movement moving?  How do we make our people wake up?  How do we get them to turn away from near concerns and act at last in their own ethnic interest?  Is it better to be accommodationist, civicist, expedient and dishonest?  Or principled?  Isn’t “principle” the problem?

And so forth.

For weeks the BNPIdeas website, which is centred on Andrew Brons, has been filled with inventive ways to ask this question.  Inevitable I suppose, given last October’s failure to launch a new party and the non-appearance of the “parallel party structure” that was promised in its stead.  It is apparent now that action of any profitable kind is beyond the power of nationalism in Britain.  Fear of moving forward, disdain at staying put, the impossibility of going back, spill out all over the page, and over it all hangs the big red sign declaring triumphantly, “You lost!”

Which is all too possible as things stand.  No surprise then, to see yet another agonised article, this time penned by a William Shakespeare (of no evident poetic leaning), deploring the division in nationalist ranks, and proposing “the way forward” thus:

I also appeal TO YOU – YOU who are reading this article – because, like any proposal, it requires a display of support and the posting here of as many messages of general support and agreement as possible.

The plan I put to you is this. In order to advance the prospect of Nationalist Unity, without which nothing on a national political front can ever be accomplished, I propose that a simple petition, or plebiscite to use an old term, of ALL Nationalists and supporters of Nationalism is undertaken.

Every individual would submit their name and some address detail to distinguish them (if not a home address, an email perhaps) and – this is the really important bit – each person would include a brief summary of what THEY consider to be the most vital pieces of policy and constitutional requirements that a single, united, nationwide major Nationalist Party ought to have.

That is the ineluctable product of an absence of leadership and clear principle.  But, then, nationalism in Britain has ever been a cut flower ideologically, and no leader could compensate for that, as I tried to explain in a comment to the bard’s article:

READ MORE...

Earlier today I came across this video at BDF posted by Chuffer, a good, reliable nationalist and ex-BNP member, and a regular participant in the BDF bear-pit.  The theme of injustice and betrayal is not new to us, of course, though it is certainly a pleasure to see it so well structured.  But the street interview section is important, and especially refreshing to see.  There are the authentic voices of the English working-class who have been been subjected to eighteen years of relentless Lawrence propaganda.  And they know it.

Still, one wonders why they exhibit such a resigned attitude, and not more fight.  Then one remembers how deserted these people are.  Not the politicians, not the press, not the Church, not the schools, not the law ... no part of civil society spares them a word of acknowledgement.  It truly is the most complete betrayal imaginable.  And yet, as this video shows, the Lawrence propaganda almost certainly now exercises more influence over the minds of the traitors than it does the betrayed.

Tom Sunic interviews Soren here.  Run-time 35min 28sec.

Tom gets Soren to expand, somewhat, on his adoption of the Gramscian dictum “pessimism of the intellect - optimism of the will”, on religion in our present woes, on the concept of the enemy, and on civilisational collapse.  Probably the best interview Soren has given.  Still some dark areas for me, but much to think about.

Kievsky as guest blogger:

I’ve been waiting for a reason to use this as a blog post title, and this alternet article gave me a priceless quote illustrating exactly this truism.

READ MORE...

Below the fold I am reproducing Tony Lecomber’s interesting and exhaustive overview of British nationalism’s past and clouded future, with a rather confused recommendation for a new party at the end.  It makes a number of good points.  English, not British, nationalism, Tony says, is the wave of the future.  That’s true, and certain, of course, if Alex Salmond wins his referendum on Scottish independence in three years time.  Tony then speculates that as such a victory would deprive the Labour Party of seventy Scottish MPs at Westminster and deliver power to the Tories in perpetuity in the remains of the UK, indiscipline on the right must, in time, set in.  Such indiscipline he sees as a precondition for the rise of nationalism in England.  Perhaps, but nationalism has to make its own future, and can’t rely on charity from its political foes.

Overall, Tony’s message is bleak.  The sense of embattlement on every front is very palpable, culminating in the despairing admission that “the multiracial state is here to stay”.  Well, if that is the case, what’s the point of nationalism?  To slow down our genetic dissolution and demographic replacement to a speed white people won’t find quite so unsettling?  To delay our minoritisation by one generation?  In such an admission is the false assumption that:

(a) the English people think it moral and right for Africans and Asians to continue living in England and to continue displacing, replacing and deracinating them, and will vote for that if ever the issue is forced to the front of electoral debate,

(b) anything and everything must be thrown overboard by nationalists to escape being labelled as “racist”.

This mindset is surely the product of a lifetime of political failure allied to a paucity of creative thinking - not least on the wider political issues, particularly economics, but also on the great, undergirding question of the war of discourse.

Obviously, Tony is right that, short of the state jailing Nick Griffin (and why would it do that), political nationalism must find itself a new vehicle.  He is right about the risks.  I don’t think he is right to be so focussed on the party question.  No nationalist party can effect the vast change in the English public’s values and attitudes necessary for the embrace of such a revolutionary politics.  But perhaps that is work for other kinds of political animal.

READ MORE...

Readers who have followed or been involved in the recent travails of British nationalism will know that, while the “parallel party structure” appears to be moving forward within the BNP, there are indications that the jump to a new party is not far away:

A meeting was held on the 22nd. October, 2011 and attended by over 200 delegates. Please see picture below. The meeting voted to form a New Party by orgainising groups throughout the UK, such as The Brent Group, to recruit members and build a strong membership with which to launch the New Party.

Andrew Moffat together with Arthur Kemp, have been working behind the scenes preparing the foundations for the New Party. The bank account has been completed, a highly complicated and paperwork intensive operation. The Party Name, drawn from members suggestions, have been investigated. Many suggestions, including my own, have previously been registered. We could not launch the Party of course and have a legal problem on our hands over the name. A final shortlist of names will be published and the members will decide the name by democratic simple majority vote.

Such a move, of course, is high in risk.  Here’s someone for whom I have a lot of time explaining why to readers of British Democracy Forum:

It is pointless launching a new political party at this time, although I can see why supporters of Andrew Brons would want to have a replacement to campaign for his re-election when the European elections come round again.

It is pointless for the following reasons;

1. Getting either Andrew Brons and/or Nick Griffin re-elected to the European Parliament will provide no appreciable benefit for British Nationalism as a whole, unless of course the MEPs when re-elected, eschew the work they currently undertake within the European Parliament and instead use the large salaries and funding that they have to finance campaigning and electioneering here in the UK.

The European Parliament is a vast talking shop, largely composed of people who care not one jot what the two BNP MEPs have to say and those two MEPs have been completely ineffectual during their current tenure and will almost certainly continue to be completely ineffectual if re-elected.

2. Thanks to the mis-management of the BNP it it now greatly reduced in terms of membership numbers and more crucially, in terms of capable activists. It is now menaced by a number of new and newly revived rival nationalist parties, all of which have been swelled in terms of their strength by the exodus of disillusioned activists from the BNP. British Nationalism is now composed of several micro-parties (including the BNP, which has now been reduced to micro-party status) and when further elections come along, we will see them fighting against each other and splitting the nationalist vote in every ward or constituency where there is any sizeable amount of nationalist support. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, no British Nationalist party will get any candidates elected and it is therefore futile to launch another new political party at this time.

3. While nationalist policies remain popular with the public, this popularity rarely translates into votes at election time, and this is because, as a movement, we have no resources and no infrastructure of any significance. Therefore, even with a clear run and no nationalist infighting, in the best wards and constituencies in this country, we have only ever managed to get an insignificantly small number of candidates elected, and now under a sustained barrage of attacks from the establishment, virtually everything we formerly gained under the BNP banner is being lost.

READ MORE...

A few weeks ago Luis Suarez, a Uruguayan footballer currently overpaid by Liverpool Football Club, thoughtfully provided anti-white activists everywhere with a golden opportunity to jump up and down about “racism”.  He said the word “black” in his own language to Patrice Evra, an African footballer currently over-paid by Manchester United.  Evra is known for playing the race card from time to time, and he duly obliged.

The result for Suarez, perhaps inevitable given the Football Association’s keen desire to demonstrate its anti-racist credentials to the world, was an 8-game suspension and £40,000 fine.

This was not expected for so slight an incursion of orthodox speech requirements.  There is dissent, particularly from the direction of Liverpool. 

In a hard-hitting statement released in the wake of the ruling by a three-man commission, Liverpool made a set of claims that they believed showed that the judgement of the three-man commission, and conduct of the FA, was flawed. It amounted to one of the most strident attacks on the governing body by a member club in recent years and puts the two organisations at loggerheads.

In a series of criticisms – some aimed at the three-man commission of Paul Goulding QC, Denis Smith and Brian Jones – the club claimed that Suarez’s fate had effectively been decided before he was even first interviewed about the events of the home game against Manchester United on 15 October.

The club said: “The FA was determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November.”

The Telegraph has run a reader poll today.  The current vote total stands at 13,278 of whom 48.72% declare the FA’s verdict “completely wrong” and a further 18.65% “too harsh”.

That’s a good enough sample size to suggest that such sentiment must extend well beyond the “right-wing” Telegraph readers.

Meanwhile, the paper’s editors were forced to close the Suarez-related comment threads as the anti-anti-racist commentary flowed.  They completely disappeared the thread to one new article with just a dozen comments posted, suggesting a certain desperation.  We are at a point where anti-racism holds sway as never before across the Establishment.  But it is also now losing its intimidatory power over the white masses.

The dissonance ought to grow quite naturally.  But, unfortunately, another footballer - the England captain, no less - has transgressed against orthodoxy much more spectacularly than Suarez.  That will certainly set back the prospects for undermining anti-racism in England.  It is difficult, though, to see how the English public - not a stranger to contempt for authority - can be held in check by anti-racism forever.