Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:41 | #

Sixteen words.

We English (Scots, Welsh, Irish, French, Dutch, Danes, Germans, Poles, et al) must preserve the existence of our people and an English (Scottish, Welsh, Irish, French, Dutch, Danish, German, Polish, et al) future for our children.

Why is this still so hard for nationalists to grasp?

We are ethnic nationalists - devotees of the native principle.  Not ethno-nationalists (a different nationalist animal), and certainly not devotees of the misreading of Nietzsche which inhabits the Bowdenesque/Evolian Weltanschauung that still grips large part of British nationalism.

Philosophically, the native principle grounds itself in the twin fundamental principles of ethnic nationalism, which are:

(a) Nature’s sole imperative of survival and continuity, which imbues and animates every living being, every human being, every tribe, and in that latter regard imparts to all the creative instinct to love and serve that which abides closest to us, and ...

(b) the natural identity, which is the unalterable and abiding truth … the “I am” (but also the “we are”) that abides in us though we are beings of exile to the cares and vissitudes of the day, and which unconceals itself in that state of witness ontologists call affirmation, and in which the religious find the signature of their deity, and which we nationalists of European descent, in our worldliness, call awakening.  The parallels here are not at all accidental, or even only parallels.  They are the same human movement.  It is the ground of all awakening.  All acts of affirmational self-possession map on it.  It is all there is.

The awakening bears examination.  Its causal commonality ... this root in the very struggle to know and be …  gives ethnic nationalism the whole of its naturalness and purity.  It has no historiography.  It is not the product of mere intellectuals.  It is not derived from Europe’s history of crime.  Its political life emerges not only from the existential way of thinking but, obviously, also of feeling and, too, of physically sensing; but in all circumstances discriminating for what is.  Its moment of sudden clarity is a liberation from the engrossing, diverting, appropriating white noise of accidental influences, events, actions, voices, and so forth which otherwise steal our time and attention, and engineer a life of complacency, indifference and impotence under the impress of Time.  It is a moment of homecoming, therefore, in which resides the natural love and empathy and fierce preference for one’s kin.  That may express through an unshakeable belief in their free life or a desire for their good.  It may express through reverence for the ancestral line in which the nationalist stands, or affirmation of his or her belonging and boundedness. It may express through a particular understanding of land and home and history, which intimacies are got from our forefathers as certainly as the land itself.  Each and every one of these goods undergird and energise the politics of ethnic nationalism, from which the awakened nationalist will never now resile.

In the power and beauty of this moment, as in any transformative turn to the existential, our nationalist knows a kind of rebirth – not the heroic one of the fascisms but one of knowing who he or she is and what he or she must now do.  This is what it means to be awake.

Descriptively, ethnic nationalism is holistic, existential, universal (in the sense of true of all peoples), defensive, conservative, and authenticising.  It is the politics of genetic interests, of the kin relation.  It is the politics of the native principle, the politics of ethnic genesis on the soil and so of right on the soil.  It is the politics of consciousness of being.  It is the politics of the authentic in us individually and, therefore, collectively, because consciousness in a people, like wisdom in a crowd, is accreting.

In times of peace ethnic nationalism is pacific: a gentle and constant referant in the life of all the people, a shield much more than a sword.  It turns neighbour toward neighbour, and binds ruler to ruled - imbuing the machinery of politics and government, the army, and other public goods with patriotic value, and bestowing a subtle political character to the collective identity and common love of the land, traditions, and folk memories.  It lights the path and sets common values and common reliance.  Everyone instinctively knows the common good, so everyone knows what must be done with existential choices for the group.

However, ethnic nationalism is by no means pacifist.  In times of threat to life and land its quietism falls away and it may, of necessity, become not a shield but a call to arms.  Men will be primed by its simple and powerful imperatives to take the appropriate action and women to give their support, and the whole body of the people can move together.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 15:20 | #

Speaking for myself, I won’t be using the term “ethnic nationalism.”

Why?

Because ethno-nationalism always has the sound, scientific connotation of the race (genus) and the species of Europeans; as such, it is a term ready to hand in defense of native (ethno) nations and a way of organizing diaspora.

Whereas “ethnic”, at least to American ears has the quaint sound of “cultural” trappings, innocuous to the powers that be, of restaurants, perhaps a residual accent and neighborhoods that don’t register a profound difference and threat to challenge them.

For another matter, I appreciate that you focus on the profound a-historicity of the struggle for our survival as distinct European peoples, and that angle is real, valid, and you do it with brilliant eloquence - there are profound aspects of our struggle which are imbued and emergent; which do not call for great reflection, discussion and erudition; but nevertheless, call for the warding off of misdirection.

However thus, where you say, this struggle “has no historiography”, I see unnecessary antagonism to one important aspect of what I am doing in order to ward off the very misdirection that is necessary for a clearer path of emergence, dasein and midt-dasein.

Thus, if you were to make the remark less absolute, and say that historical influences are not always the proper focus, I could agree.

Through all of your recent posts, I have detected no good reason why your concerns cannot be seen as consonant with my posts.

And one more remark in defense of the 14 Words.

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”

When pressed as to why I stick to this cause, despite the lack of palpable reward, one reason that comes to mind: I can’t let little White kids come into a situation like this, like I did, without the sociological/philosophical structuring to know that these things aren’t happening by mere, natural fact, there are antagonists working against them; but now there are also people on their side; explanations provided for their defense and to explain the defrauding language games of those who don’t really care for them, even hate them.

While the 16 words can work fine in tandem, there has to be an option for those who don’t fit easily into one particular category of European but identify as/are identified as European (White) nevertheless.

So, I could go along with 14/16

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 20:19 | #

I agree that “ethnic” has echoes of foreign cuisine and knitwear, or whatever.  Nevertheless ...

Both terms refer to the people.  The difference is that an ethnic nationalist political system is pluralist, serving the peoples of the land, if there is more than one, and giving each representation.  An ethno-nationalist system is one in which only the dominant or sole people on the land is served.  So for example, if the British state became an ethnic nationalist polity the English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish would all be catered for.  If the British state became ethno-nationalist, the dominant English would rule in their own name and interests and whatever their leaders decided for the others would be writ.

Israel is an example of an ethno-nationalist state.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 20:54 | #

Well, ok. It makes sense. Go ahead and use the term ethnic nationalist, but I don’t think it has a ring to it that will catch on. I still don’t think I can find it in myself to overcome my apprehension to the term, “ethnic”, as fairly trivial.

And how I am using the term ethnonationalist has always had in mind the land of the native nations - talk to most anybody involved with the term, except Richard Spencer, and they would agree, England’s land for the English and so on….nor would they/I think it unreasonable to wish to accommodate the non-English ethnicities, Welsh, Scots, North Irish, except that I would not call them “ethnic nationalists” but ethnonationals (again, invoking a species of the genus). This does not mean that they could not, and should not function under the broader union, The U.K., to find the best of both words, each ethnicity accountable, insulating from immigration that might occur in the broad, while availing itself of the power that they cannot project and rely upon by themselves.

Still, I do not think its a problem for you to use the term ethnic nationalist, as we understand it to sharpen the focus on these important concerns of yours when you are speaking. Similarly, I understand that when WN use the term “left”, even though I think they are falling into a dangerous trap, it is correctable in that they can be understood as speaking of the international, and anti-national, anti-White (ethno/ethnic) nationalist left.

I do not consider Israel ethnonationalist. I believe that it was John Lee Barnes who called my attention to its imperialism. Which now seems obvious (the best ideas usually do seem obvious in retrospect).

It’s religious, messianic core has it a ethno-Imperialist nation, disrespecting the discreet otherness of non-Jewish nations, as you have brilliantly diagnosed, into undifferentiated gentile others.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 20:56 | #

If I had to define “historiography” (a word I like and use a lot) I might settle for: the chain of interplay, through time, of philosophies and events.  Many people would probably prefer to put the emphasis on the written word, and speak more of a scholarly reading of the development of thought.  But it seems to me that thoughts are too often proven wrong by practical applications for us to lose the effect of real-world events from consideration of how best to understand the term.

In the context of my remark above I am suggesting that no intellectual conceived ethnic nationalism as happened, for example, with National Socialism or liberalism or Marxism.  In the same way, no doctor conceived of good health, but plenty of people have offered an opinion about how to live healthily.

So I’m not saying that no intellectual anywhere ever worked theoretically on ethnic nationalism, expressing or explicating or expanding aspects of it or solving problems concerning, say, its relationship to the liberal system.  That would be wrong and ridiculous.  Many did and do, no doubt; but as ethnic nationalists (or ethno-nationalists, if you insist) we do not profit greatly from any pure philosophy.  What we do have is a wealth of analysis.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 20:58 | #

...K

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 21:15 | #

Far be it from me to disagree with Lee, but he wasn’t distinguishing between the religious nationalism of the Jewish tribes in diaspora (which is imperialist) and the system of politics within the state of Israel (which is ethno-nationalist).  Of course, it’s true that Israel has a religious component to its constitution and laws, and religious parties are more or less a permanent fixture in Israeli governments.  But the system itself is secular, and is very good for serving Israeli Jews.

Lithuania is another candidate for an ethno-nationalist state, given that Lithuanians exclude ethnic Russians as much as they are able from the comport of the state (their ability is probably declining now).

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 22:07 | #

Through all of your recent posts, I have detected no good reason why your concerns cannot be seen as consonant with my posts.

How many times have I tried to explain that!  We will get there eventually.

Posted by Response to Alex Ryan on Sat, 08 Aug 2020 09:47 | #

Response to Alex Ryan

Posted by mancinblack on Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:14 | #

Brutus thinks the 14 words is a terrorist slogan…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6FokecSo8o

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:14 | #

That’d be the ADL/SPLC line that Brutus is going with:

14 Words = David Lane = The Order = Terrorist plans and acts, including the armed robbery of brinks trucks, banks and the murder of radio shock jock Alan Berg.

Brutus is also going along the ADL/SPLC line that 14 Words is necessarily neo-Nazi:

14 Words = 14/88

..

And finally, his crew is taking an ultra-English nationalist line

Saying that David Lane was Irish, therefore it is an Irish slogan that doesn’t bother to distinguish the native English people, but serves to sloppily or disingenuously blur the lines between English and other European peoples.

[They go so far as to suggest that if I recognize the Irish as a people, that I am disregarding the distinction of the Northern Irish, which isn’t true.]

....

I sympathize and commend their desire to wrest the important Species distinction of English nationalism from the Genus moniker 14 Words / White people.

....

They’re doing our enemies work, however, by insisting that the 14 Words are necessarily a Nazi slogan. It is not necessarily even taken that way by those who’d be clearly anti-Nazi. Witness the beaming smiles that I got from beautiful Polish girls, the hugs and robust swats on the shoulder that I got from strange Polish guys when wearing my 14 Jacket.
....

Only adversaries of Whites, like the ADL and SPLC, would want to maintain the association, 14 + 88 .... or literal neo-Nazi sympathizers.

Here, Collett doesn’t help inasmuch as he promotes the 14 Words - even explicitly stand alone - as the implicit association with 88 comes along with him and his favorite books.

.....

Even so, it’s good that Brutus and co are keen to distinguish Native English Nationalism, and I accept their chauvinism - even ridicule of the 14 Words - as a necessary, slight over corrective as such.

He’s got some of the usual problems of a talented Johnny come lately to the ethnonationalist cause, however, of not appreciating a lot of hard work that has gone on in previous decades to wrest certain distinctions.

Coming into this in recent years, he goes along with the Jewish framework that 14 must go along with 88, that nationalism must be associated with the right and its corollary associations and that “the left” is grand adversary.

Jews know that this will appeal to reactionaries, Christians among them, whom Brutus maintains in his camp as “they are not the problem, the foreigners are”, not quite appreciating how Christianity has been part of the right wing, back door to let crypo-converts in and open the gates to liberal universalism.

It is perhaps possible to forge on in this way - populist nationalism vs internationalism; maybe it won’t lead to utter disaster in the short or long term with the knowledge that people have now. But it has lead to disaster in the past whereas our Left Ethnonationalist Platform shuts the door on entryism, subversion and misdirection of our peoples.

Finally, David Lane did maintain the securing of our people’s existence as the ultimate aim - sacred, even - and he believed that whatever measures necessary to achieve that end should be taken.

The desperation of our circumstance and the malevolence of our adversaries, which has only gotten worse since David Lane’s death in 2007, should curtail the puritanical disregard for ANY ambiguity regarding desperate measures having been taken - there is an argument to be made that this is what happens when people are being destroyed and their voice of defense is denied. This perspective is an especial luxury of retrospection, while we can agree with what most Order members would say now, that they should have played a long game rather than resorting to violence.

It remains nevertheless true that desperately oppressive circumstances do tend to hoist the slogan, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

Like others who were functioning in the time before the internet gave us some voice on our concerns, where there was no opportunity for broad conversation to correct and perfect our program, Nazi larping and even some terrorism became like a shout above the din of media black-out on the White voice.

However, even with the Youtube and other platform “cancel culture”, these extreme measures are no longer the next step nor the necessary means to get the word out and rally our people. There are enough ways to get our voice out there without terrorism and the shock of Nazi larping (e.g., Rockwell’s idea of using Nazi imagery as a promotional tour de fource for attention getting for the White cause and overcoming timidity on the J.Q.)

Rather, unionization would be a priority.

BLM, Islam and anti-Whites generally, are promoting the White voice by proxy, through their terrorism, without us having to resort to such drastic measures ourselves.

Posted by The English are... on Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:26 | #

Posted by Way of the World: Beyond Our History of Conflict on Sun, 13 Sep 2020 11:50 | #

Moving Beyond Our History of Conflict

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:46 | #

From wiki, on the Wuppertal suspension rail system, as discussed by WotW:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn

The Wuppertaler Schwebebahn had a forerunner: in 1824, Henry Robinson Palmer of Britain presented a railway system which differed from all previous constructions. It was a low single-rail suspension railway on which the carriages were drawn by horses. Friedrich Harkort, a Prussian industrial entrepreneur and politician, loved the idea. He saw big advantages for the transportation of coal to the early industrialised region in and around the Wupper valley. Harkort had his own steel mill in Elberfeld; he built a demonstration segment of the Palmer system and set it up in 1826 on the grounds of what is today the Wuppertal tax office. He tried to attract public attention to his railway plans.

On 9 September 1826, the town councillors of Elberfeld met to discuss the use of a “Palmer’s Railway” from the Ruhr region, Hinsbeck or Langenberg, to the Wupper valley, Elberfeld, connecting Harkort’s factories. Friedrich Harkort inspected the projected route with a surveyor and a member of the town council. The plans never went ahead because of protests from the transport branch[clarification needed] and owners of mills that were not on the routes.

In 1887 the cities of Elberfeld and Barmen formed a commission for the construction of an elevated railway or Hochbahn. In 1894 they chose the system of the engineer Eugen Langen of Cologne, and in 1896 the order was licensed by the City of Düsseldorf.[5][6] In 2003, the Rhine Heritage Office (Rheinisches Amt für Denkmalpflege des Landschaftsverbandes Rheinland or LVR) announced the discovery of an original section of the test route of the Schwebebahn.

Construction on the actual Schwebebahn began in 1898, overseen by the government’s master builder, Wilhelm Feldmann. On 24 October 1900, Emperor Wilhelm II participated in a monorail trial run.[5]

In 1901 the railway came into operation. It opened in sections: the line from Kluse to Zoo/Stadion opened on 1 March, the line to the western terminus at Vohwinkel opened on 24 May, while the line to the eastern terminus at Oberbarmen did not open until 27 June 1903.[4] Around 19,200 tonnes (18,900 long tons; 21,200 short tons) of steel were used to produce the supporting frame and the stations.[5] The construction cost 16 million gold marks. The railway was closed owing to severe damage during World War II, but reopened as early as 1946.[4]