|
|
|
History, freedom and the British This article is cross-posted from the British Democracy Forum, and is my response to the setting up of a new nationalist political party, the British Freedom Party, to challenge the BNP. It’s my usual plaint - politics follows philosophical thinking, and the failure to recognise this, while understandable given our dire situation, is part of the small circle in which political nationalism travels in Europe.
Strategically, I think the new development is premature. The next European Parliament election will be in June 2014, and quite probably the Westminster poll will be held on the same day. An electoral horizon of four years bar a few months would allow for a couple of years over which the racial-preservationist struggle could be redefined and programmatised as a national movement - we have an example before us in the EDL trying to do something similar (and doing it rather badly) - and then a bare minimum of two years could be devoted to developing the politics. I do not say such a two-tier approach would be easy to execute. But it would be advisable to try, and the reason is obvious - the BNP is a monopoly business and it will certainly defend that monopoly by placing an electoral block on the new party, standing against it wherever it retains the human capital to do so. But the BNP has a great weakness. It is ghettoised morally and politically because it is defined not by itself but by its opponents. The objective of a non-BNP nationalist caucus should have been to define itself, not to chase after a negatively-defined political inheritance. The first two years of its existence should have been devoted to that necessary goal. By way of the sort of thinking that might lead to a self-defined broad movement of restoration I direct your attention to this: Are minor parties a waste of time? … which is BGD’s suggestion for a pressure group. I think we should incorporate that but also aim higher, and I did, in fact, suggest on another BDF thread a self-descriptive name that circumvents legal difficulties without sacrificing exclusivity: “Our Land”. But it doesn’t matter now because the decision has been taken to launch the BFP, and all the concentration remains on stealing away the BNP’s brand and trying to detoxify it. I want to close with a few words about the real size and nature of this task, and about the limitations that attend all political developments which are essentially nearsighted, reactive and utilitarian. Freedom is a fine goal, even the particular freedom which is meant in the terms of the BFP. But it is not the goal. Our objective is to save our people from the immediate danger of race-replacement, and to restore to them in perpetuity all the rights that attend sovereign peoples in their own lands. Now, this is a substantial endeavour - just how substantial bears some consideration. For example, it’s not like saying Man will return to the moon. That’s easy. It’s been done already, and with the appropriate resources could be planned in a few months and executed in a very few years. It’s not even like saying Man will journey to Mars … or the stars. It is harder than these things. It stretches beyond what the ordinary political eye can see. It is about changing history for an entire people and, to be realistic, an entire race of men. It involves the replacement of three hundred years of liberal and, latterly, neo-Marxist thinking with new and fundamental nationalist thinking - and I am not talking about utilitarian panaceas, to quote Arthur Harris, like Lee’s culturism. It involves reversing everything that has been done to us these last sixty years. It involves changing economics, changing the global zeitgeist, changing how people live, what they think, what they value, what they love. It involves our people becoming truer to themselves and living life accordingly, so that their politics will be as organic as every other aspect of their lives. There is genuine freedom in that. No petty political movement can generate this. But this can generate a very great political movement. In an email a few days ago a co-blogger wrote to me:
It isn’t that easy. That is the lesson that awaits all political nationalists in modern Europe. I don’t say that piecemeal thinking, partial solutions, accomodationism can achieve nothing. But they can’t achieve everything, and it’s everything that we need. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:09 | # 74 reads and 0 responses as of this moment. If someone put up a post claiming Eddy Butler is a Venusian transvestite it would get more response. There are simply too few serious minds among serious activists. Overwhelmingly, they are dedicatees to the theory of one more push. They have to be doing something ... anything ... now. 3
Posted by Angry Beard on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:45 | # But the point is that BNP-like parties HAVE succeeded in continental Europe - and are now effecting substantial changes in policy, which is on the cusp of becoming ‘anti-immigration’ (eg Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria). 4
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:53 | # How have the English upper-crust always dealt with their underclass of assorted stiff-necks, rascals, and dim-bulbs? With a firm hand and firmly convinced of their own moral superiority. The way to get E-F Barnesy and crew to listen is with relentless browbeating and mockery grounded in concrete examples of how their way is fucked from jump street. Crude and simple. I mean, that’s the language Barnesy speaks, that’s the kind of talk he understands. 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:22 | # Hey Barnesy, you’ll continue to labor in the fields dimwittery and the wheels will fall off your shit political party before it even clears the lot unless you get with some intelleshual sophistication. And don’t pretend that your ulterior end-goals are not lifted wholly from The Turner Diaries (“The Great Ones”!). LOL! 6
Posted by Rudyard Kipling on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:02 | #
You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all: Indeed. 7
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:38 | # This new party would stand a better chance of successful gestation if it were the English Freedom Party. The Scots, about whom I possess some first hand knowledge due to the fact that Scotland is the land of my birth, infant nurture and education, do not possess the will to nationalism, even in the degraded, Marxoid form peddled by the SNP. The English are a more likely prospect for genuine ethno - nationalism and I wish them well. 8
Posted by BGD on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:56 | # Al, not so sure. Being the majority partner in the relationship I don’t believe that ‘the English’ have the desire for independence. I think their ears are attuned to arguments for equity (tax, spend and voting rights) but not for full blown independence. If you look at the smaller parties section on the BDF there’s a myriad of both civic and ethno EngNat groupings who are finding it very tough going and consequently forming and reforming to try to get the recipe right so that their offering will be gleefully fallen upon by a ravenous English public. 9
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:32 | #
Does a cornered animal need a ‘philosophy’? Women and children are being killed by non-whites while the philosopher kings at MR discuss Heidegger. I hope your philosophy includes self-criticism. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:19 | # I’m going to re-post something of mine which feels somewhat apposite to this piece (apologies if We need to draw ethical distinctions between the Old and New Worlds. We are in a civilizational crisis of epic proportions. The existing ‘liberal mainstream’ in the West is philosophically untenable (because its practical ramifications have proven socially and politically disastrous). Rejecting ‘affirmative racism’ as well as the various types of multiculturalism is easy: such are either hypocritical and/or plainly incorrect in their tenets - and in no sense morally imperative. But our task, if we are serious about saving the European race, and its civilization, is to reject ‘colorblindness’ - and that is going to require an enormous reconceptualizing of Western ethics (which, several MR regulars might argue, will further require new concepts in metaphysics and ontology - I’m just not learned enough to form an opinion on that extension, however). That said, I still think we are all being overly intellectual (not in this piece, but as a general matter) - more especially British and Europeans, than “New Worlders”. The situation here seems far more ethically complex. After all, we have had non-white presences here since the beginning. While we whites built this country, and undeniably did everything of real value here, it cannot be denied that we are still, deontologically, a frontier/immigrant people. We go back 400 years. But you Europeans?! You’re losing what has been yours from time immemorial!! No serious case can be made that non-Europeans have any sort of moral right to be there. At best there are some complications from those actually born there (the second or third generation), though nothing insurmountable: the French established their colony in Algeria long before the Algerians established themselves in France, yet the former were effectively ethnically cleansed. Life is unfair, but I cannot see any moral reason why Europeans shouldn’t tell their “guests” that it’s time to start packing. So it seems to me that Europeans need to worry about intellectualizing their nationalism much less than Australians or Americans. Rather than contributing to the patriot cause by developing ever more esoteric racial philosophies, I, if European, would put more effort into the practical organizational and media work of explaining the dangers (and costs) of continued immigration. The Continent-wide ‘nationalist minimum’ would seem to be stopping immigration. Without accomplishing that, rarefied ontologies will prove physically, practically useless. As I said at one point on MR, I continue to see no reason why the British parliamentary system cannot support a single-issue, anti-immigration party - one stripped of the usual nationalist agendas and baggage. Why bring in WW2 revisionism, support for Palestine, national economics, foreign affairs, housing issues, the financial system, evolutionary theory, or anything that a normal political party (or ideological movement) concerns itself with? Why not simply have a successor to the BNP which solely focuses on stopping immigration? Could the EDL evolve into something like this? To what extent will BFP follow this approach? 11
Posted by uh on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:30 | # Sam, It is the unique failing of man that when he is cornered, he alone among animals takes refuge in philosophy (cf. Boethius) and religion. No other animal can tell itself comforting stories to distract itself from the terror of cornering and imminent demise. Perhaps this is why we respect a man who walks onto the gallows in control of his emotions. We call that bravery. It may be that the philosophic shuffle reduces to cowardice in face of the grand Tyburn gallows constructed for our kind by phuein. So don’t look for self-criticism aboard vessels plying the turbulent waters of da Nile. 12
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:34 | # Hi chaps, Yet again we see the split between the pragmatists and the purists. The purists like Captain Chaos, a man who will not be happy again until the chimneys of a thousand new Auschwitz’s are puffing out Jews all across Europe are on one side - and the pragmatists are on the other side, living in this time, engaging with real people and seeking to discern a way forward into a possible nationalist future for our people instead of the imminent nightmarish dystopia that we face. The real revolutionary nationalists are not the purists like Captain Chaos, a man whose ‘principles’ ensure he will never have to put in effect any political programme that will get him elected, allow him to exercise real political power and seek that thing he holds in most contempt of all = votes.
Every nationalist group in power acroos Europe or knocking at the doors of power are CULTURAL NATIONALISTS, that accept integrated fellow citizens of all races into their ranks - not a single ethno-nationalist or racial nationalist political party has taken power anywhere in Europe since the 1930’s. A few seats in Parliament or in Europe for a few ethno-nationalists - eg Jobbik and the BNP - are not enough to change the power structure and change the nature of the state and re-design society and the nation itself. They merely empower the enemy, as the enemy now has a real enemy to organise itself around. The vote for the BNP was not a vote of support, it was a vote of protest. That is why the BNP have now begun to die, as their brand of nationalism is regarded as toxic by a public who have no memory or loyalty to the memes of the 1930’s. That dead horse has been flogged to death. One would hope that nationalists would ask why the horse is dead - and the answer is because of the power of media conditioning. Instead of reading Hitler try reading Marcuse. You cannot sell what the public will not buy. Uh said ” It is the unique failing of man that when he is cornered, he alone among animals takes refuge in philosophy (cf. Boethius) and religion ” and he is right - though to that list must be added nostalgia, which for certain nationalists is the nostalgia for a world long dead and an ideology which is now just a thing of death and ashes. There is no life in such nationalists, just the tragic repetition of perpetual political failure. The only nationalism that it populist is cultural nationalism, which is exactly the only antidote to the poison which is Cultural Marxism. The cultural struggle is what the left won even though they lost the Cold War - whilst nationalists still refused to even consider the power and dynamic of culture in favour of the delirium of race. The EDL are not a ‘racial preservationist movement’ - that is pure rubbish, what the EDL is are an anti-Islamic movement - they are the reaction to Islamic terrorism they are not linked to the issue of race in any way. What is important about the EDL is that they are a new movement which will form the basis of a cultural counter revolutionary movement that transcends race just as Islamism transcends race and offers a threat to all race and religions - when they finally get themselves organised properly that is. The cultural nationalist movement is the future of nationalists politcs, as nationalism grows out of the ghetto of racial nationalism ( which was itself a total oxymoron as there is no ‘white race’ but only white ethnic groups and there never has been any nation based on the ideal of ‘race’ in history - even the Third Reich had its Jewish soldiers, its Savic soldiers, its Italian mediterannean soldiers and its Celts and Saxons and basques and Finns - all of which were / are not a race ). The idea of race itself was rejected even by the racists like Hitler, even Emil Maurice - NUMBER 2 in the SS after Himmler was of Jewish ancestry and allowed by Hitler to remain in the SS, so if even the epitome of the racial state and the racial human ideal, the ss, were not race based - then why base any politics on such illusions. The idea of racial nationalism was always a myth created by one man, Hitler based on the flawed theories of others from Chamberlain, Rosenberg, List and others - all of whom were talking rubbish as proved by the science of genetics. You cannot build a political movement on the pseudo-science of 20th century racial ideology and hence such political movements always fail.
So therefore nationalism must evolve out of the racial ghetto, realise its cultural roots and create a cultural nationalist struggle that is populist and which can be voted into power. Those who crave anything else are simply nostalgia junkies. 13
Posted by MarkMuses on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:35 | # Lee John Barnes, your post suggests to me that you effectively consider the RACE FAQ on this website to be pseudo science. 14
Posted by pug on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:08 | # Lee, British culture and social mores are there for the purposes of ensuring the indefinite survival and expansion of their British bearers’ distinctive genetic information, regardless of whether they currently fulfil what they are supposed to, and not the other way around. Why would I want to preserve the increasingly garbled extended phenotype and not the genotype? Should you take control, you would be inheriting (White, sort of redundant) British demographic decline and a growing non-British population. It needs stopping and reversing and excluding, lest the British people die. You sound as though you would be maintaining it to the detriment of your people. You would be—again, should you (unlikely) take control—winning for the sake of winning, not for the sake of the British, just like the other parties. I’d like to believe that you are hiding your true intent for political purposes, but it might be that you never understood nationalism. 15
Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:17 | #
Blah blah blah. How about a party that will set up chimneys (one or two would probably suffice) to puff out anyone, jew or not, who lent a hand to aiding and abetting genocidal levels of immigration? I’m no purist. Gallows, guillotine, or red buttons would be an acceptable substitute. No pressure. 16
Posted by john on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:50 | # There were no chimneys at that tourist place in Poland. More practical suggestions would be useful. And involvement with the new party. And money. 17
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:27 | # Hi Barnesy,
Not in the way you think because…you don’t think.
I do not believe that ever happened, nor do I lament the fact that it didn’t. So why would I wish it to be the case in a future instance?
Your way is no way forward. If indigenous British voters wish to cast a ballot for empty cant about “a return to traditional moral values” they have the option of the Tories.
Do you mean everything will go to shit once all those muds are stacked so high you can no longer see the overcast English skyline? Of course you do. How racist!
I wouldn’t be inclined to suggest you do anything but triangulate against the unparalleled wickedness of the filthy Krauts whilst touting English moral superiority at this time. Which is what English “ontological” nationalists do here.
You will not manage even to siphon off a third of the BNP’s voters, if only for the reason that Griffin and crew are more competent political operatives than you have at your disposal. Mark my words.
You are jerking yourself into a frenzy over your fantasy of achieving power with your manifest pablum of a “programme”. Won’t happen, Barnesy, Mein English-Fuhrer. Wake up.
Horseshit. The BNP until recently did not allow non-White members, prior to a legal injunction which disallowed that, yet has enjoyed moderate success considering the current political climate. What are you smoking, Barnesy; can I get some?
If you will not say you at least wish to keep Western nations majority White, which is an explicitly ethno-nationalist position, there is ultimately no rationale you can trot out which will convince to stem immigration. The population is aging. Youthful workers are needed to keep society running and your generous pension and welfare benefits funded. To say that these prospective Third World immigrant workers suffer from a cognitive deficit would be racist. To exhort the increase of White births would be ethno-nationalist. Any message that does not stick to the line of the absolute fungibility, assuming cultural assimilation, would likewise be racist as you define such yourself. Wake the fuck up, Barnsey, you shithead. 18
Posted by cladrastis on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:27 | # I like the name “One Nation” for its irony and ambiguity. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56 | #
I like the slogan “Muds Clear Out!” for its lack of irony and ambiguity. Oh, and “Barnesy Is a Dumbass and Should Be Digging Ditches For a Living” (that or selling used cars) is a close second. 20
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 08:51 | # 1) Lee John Barnes, your post suggests to me that you effectively consider the RACE FAQ on this website to be pseudo science. Race existed, but it doesnt now. Race evolved into ethnicity. Ethnicity exists today, race doesnt.
4) Captain chaos = a nutter 5) Griffin and crew are more competent political operatives than you have at your disposal = ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha I sat at the top table of the BNP, they are idiots - much like Chaos. As for the idea that the Freedom Party, FN, etc etc are racial nationalists with their black, asian, jewish and other racial members = delusional. 6) Heres a motto for Captain Chaos ’ I talk big - do nothing ‘. Nothing to say about Emil Maurice eh Chaos and his status as an ’ Honorary Aryan’ and how such a concept of ‘honorary aryans’ reveals the entire bogus nature of the nazi racial ideology you espouse - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan
21
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:06 | #
Cutting edge ‘ethno-darwinism’ via LJB. Turn and face the strange. Ethnicity exists today….tomorrow something else again. Thankfully, we have LJB with a finger on the pulse….
Everyone should and must hand over their sperm to LJB. He’s the right man to handle the job.
Note exactly ten ‘ha’s. Willing to laugh, yet with decimating precision. Bodes well…. indeed.
Note the implied declension on the 9th ‘ha’. This hints at limits to the noted exacting humour.and patience. A man not to trifle with…..
Stern, yet encouraging his inferiors in renewed and improved efforts….yet so very droll…...One is left with an impression that one is dealing with a man who has some serious soup swirling around the cerebellum. Truly a man of the moment. 22
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:34 | # Ooh Grimbo, you aren’t half a card. I’d comment further but I’m in the Fatherland at the moment and v. busy, amongst other things brushing up on the old Kraut, the Cap’n will be pleased to note. Covering all bases, as it were, just in case. Interesting that Barnesy should still be peddling the culturalist line, when the Euro-tide appears to be running in just the opposite direction. The integrationists are now the back foot especially here in Germany. We’re even hearing mainstream pols like the leader of the CSU claim that Germany isn’t really a land of immigration. Thilo Sarrazin’s book - the title loosely translates to ‘Germany is doing itself in’ - is No.1 on the Spiegel bestseller list, a position it has occupied since its publication in late August. One of the papers this week suggested it will have been read by 12 million people by Christmas, getting up there with ‘Mein Kampf’. All great fun and I’ll further, more detailed commentary when I get back in a couple of weeks. In general though, the BFP seems like another cul-de-sac. 23
Posted by MarkMuses on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:09 | # @Lee John Barnes: If you are correct then the RACE FAQ on this Web site is false - shut up shop and vote UKIP or whatever… Personally, I consider the biological argument as central to the whole issue. As subspecies do not have to be pure to be valid, I suspect you are dangerously wrong now, and will be undoubtedly right within just a few generations as a consequence of what you propose. 24
Posted by BOMBkangaroo on Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:21 | # The idea that we are doing it to ourselves is mistaken at best. Immigration is the one thing that makes this otherwise [more or less] natural fluctuation a problem. We’re not doing it to ourselves, we’re having it done to us, and we’re being told to shut up and smile about it by those who profit from causing our loss. I agree though that ethno-nationalism is off the table for the moment. The people won’t buy it, not today at any rate. Although it must be our ultimate goal to preserve who and what we are (for we cannot be who we are without also being what we are), we must at first preserve who we are, and when the dialogue has changed and people’s minds are opened to possibilities outside of popular media race fairy tales and denial, then we can put forth the case for our racial survival [hopefully] without fear of religious zealots and their mindless refrain “NARTSEE SCUM OFF ARE STREATS”. 25
Posted by fellist on Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:42 | #
I am training myself in the habit of saying ‘ourself’, after ben tillman’s example. CC can pull LJB’s ‘cultural nationalism’ apart so easily, in part because it’s easier to defend ethnic nationalism than cultural nationalism assuming the same premises. If England doesn’t belong to the English then Barnes is a dastardly cultural imperialist for demanding that Pakistanis et al conform to English norms. It’s only because he assumes our priority of interest that he even dares make the demand, and it’s all that can justify it. But if our claim to England is admitted, there’s nothing, NOTHING, that can justify Pakistanis et al remaining here contrary to our known wishes. Yet there’s Barnes again, telling us that we must accept these colonies: now he’s the real deal imperialist. But either way he’s joined the ranks of those doing it to ourself. 26
Posted by Bill on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:30 | # Cruddas: ‘England is Labour’s fiercest fight’ Tonight, (19.10.2010) Labour MP Jon Cruddas will be giving the annual Aneurin Bevan speech. The speech will focus on the ‘English Question’ and maps out where the Labour party faces its toughest challenge. It’s rather long, at nearly 5000 words, but we exclusively re-produce it here in full.
Read speech in full…. 27
Posted by Bill on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:36 | # Merkel and multi-culturalism seen from Notting Hill, London. Peyvand Khorsandi, 19 October 2010
As usual it’s the comments that are interesting. I didn’t read them all, but it is interesting that not one (that I read) displayed any knowledge or suspicion that the the purpose of of multiculturalism is to consign white civilisation to history. Maybe any such comments would be promptly airbrushed out. Mass immigration apparently, is all about pizzas and burghers, lentils and peas. 28
Posted by Bill on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:42 | # Just above @ 3.36pm. Oops! another senior moment. see…. 29
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:11 | # 1) Interesting that Barnesy should still be peddling the culturalist line, when the Euro-tide appears to be running in just the opposite direction. The integrationists are now the back foot especially here in Germany. Only on this site can someone post the EXACT opposite of what the politicians are saying, that multi-culturalism has failed and that greater integration is required, and it be accepted as a fact. Sigh. 2) The idea that we are doing it to ourselves is mistaken at best. Oh so the issue is CULTURE and not race - well thanks for confirming that culture is the issue that we need to address in order to address the issue of plummeting birth rates in the West.
Well, I am still waiting for that to happen. Tumbleweed drifts past. Bells ring. Nothing Happens. Yawn. 4) Yet there’s Barnes again, telling us that we must accept these colonies Here we see yet again the idiots reversing reality in their warped minds. So when we say we reject colonisation, we actually support it. You couldnt make it up. Its like trying to debate with jellyfish.
If you are correct then the RACE FAQ on this Web site is false - shut up shop and vote UKIP or whatever…
6) and my personal favourite is Grimoires comments above - here is a man who could write an entire book the size of the Bible and say simply nothing. Is that it - is that truly all you have to come back at me with - lies, distortions and personal abuse. I take it then the argument has been won by me and that in the absence of any logical response, you jellyfish can just float about a bit in your tank. 30
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:13 | # GW, send me an e mail and I will give you my new mobile number. Now that we have moved onto a new ideological stance, perhaps you fancy another skype interview on the issues of cultural nationalism and the new party. Regards, Lee 31
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:41 | # I went to that opendemocracy site - what a bunch of race traitors! What can patriots really do, when at this very late date, when the failures of anti-racism and racial integration are so obvious, there are still so, so many whites who cannot face reality? Clearly, the white race is biologically defective. We have reached our evolutionary endpoint. The only hope, as I’ve written here, is Aryan in-gathering - emigration/conquest/ethnostate. 32
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:04 | #
I think we’re on the same page, Leon. What do you think about Northwest Front? 33
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:15 | #
You have to fight cultural hegemony with a counter-culture of your own. You could call it a philosophy if you so wished. That is what Wilders is doing. In his case he is using Dutch Liberalism. He is restating those values as his philosophy and challenging the hegemony on that basis. The hegemony says diversity is good. He says in some cases diversity is bad because it conflicts with some aspect of Dutch Liberalism. The actual policies of his party are for the most part irrelevant except in how they illustrate the competing cultural foundation / philosophy. It is the challenge that matters. The battle is then over which philosophy the nation should follow. This partially neutralizes the ability of the current hegemony to demonize until after the battle is over. Whatever the eventual policies are will follow naturally from whoever wins the cultural argument. The BNP’s mistake was in positing policies e.g “Britain is full” against a philosophy “diversity is morally good”. If you are politicking inside a cultural hegemony you agree with then you can focus on policies. If you are politicking inside a hegemony you disagree with then your counter philosophy must be the core message. Having a set of polices and calling it cultural nationalism because it is non-racial will be no different. The BBC can demonize anyone it likes because it has the hegemony and it will. The only way out is to challenge the hegemony with a consistent philosophy of your own. The power of the BBC to demonize is thereby partially neutralized until the battle is decided. It’s why the Tories are always retreating even if they occasionally win power. They never challenge the underlying foundations of the hegemony. So, cultural nationalist or ethno-nationalist the critical factor is the same. The spearhead needs to be a philosophy that directly contradicts and challenges the hegemony. What that might be with the BFP i don’t know. An ethno-nationalist party has to do the same however with an ethno-nationalist party the philosophy is supremely simple: The English people have a right to exist. The End. That’s it. It needs nothing more. That reformulation of Bob Worcester’s iron question is enough to check mate the hegemony. Cultural Marxist: diversity is good Cultural Marxist: immigration is needed for the economy Cultural Marxist: you’re racist etc And it has to be the English (or the Welsh, the Scottish, Ulster British, Irish etc). It has to be the unique peoples. Nothing composite as a composite can be redefined to include other elements. People will only listen to the policies if the cultural / philosophical battle is won first. The BNP was trying to be a normal party with different policies but it can’t be a normal party if any of its policies conflict with the hegemony. Therefore the philosophical assault on the hegemony has to be the spear head. 34
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:24 | # I think we’re on the same page, Leon. What do you think about Northwest Front? (Jimmy Marr) Jimmy, Never heard of it, until you pointed it out. I read some of the website. Could be promising, but: 1. Weren’t people already hashing this about as far back as the 70s (then it was to be called The White America Bastion, or something)? Various neo-Nazi and Identity people, who, incidentally, are far more ideologically extremist than I am, went up to Idaho, and nothing much happened, except ultimate US Federal Govt harassment, the killing of Randy Weaver’s wife, etc. 2. My notion of the ethnostate comes about through WN emigration and peaceful demographic conquest of an already existent sovereign polity (eg, Australia or Uruguay have seemed the most promising to me). [I’ve discussed this at some greater length here at MR; maybe a search will find my comments.] The NWF idea seems to be talking about internal immigration/conquest, followed perhaps by racial cleansing and then secession. That is infinitely more difficult to achieve, especially as whites continue our slow-motion descent into slavery - or at least the status of a conquered people. 3. I strongly support racially conscious whites intentionally coalescing (“sending out the call”) in a given area, forming political and social networks, and unannounced militias for common racial defense, and organizing politically, albeit in subterranean fashion, to perhaps take over local GOP party orgs, school boards, etc. I’m sceptical if this will actually lead to the real ethnostate (it would certainly help to make the lives of the area’s whites more pleasant). 4. As for myself, I would probably pass on this initially, though I might be a “second-wave” emigrant (once tougher, more committed men like you or Covington, etc, actually did the hard initial settler work). I’m neither a pioneer, nor a hero, nor any kind of martyr. I have a very clearly defined set of objectives for myself to aid the movement for race preservation, most of which involve intellectual projects, the initial ones aimed at possibly gaining me a place within the broader conservative media (Haller is not my real name). I’m able to succeed within the commercial mainstream; as I transition to a different career, I think I can eventually be a kind of bridge between Hard Right conservatism, and WN. That is my goal, anyway, or one of them. Relatedly, I’m also in the process of trying to get up an American (not white) nationalist organization, one which will utterly eschew any racism (and thus, if we grow, will be condemned by VNN, Covington, etc), but which will be an activist organization many of whose goals will be congruent with WN. We’ve got to wake up our countrymen to their dispossession, but we lose them if we go in too hard on race (just a fact of life, as I see it). Many of our fellow whites want to support an implicitly white agenda (eg, stop immigration, abolish affirmative action, resist multiculturalism, oppose welfare, shoot criminals, etc), as long as “race” is never mentioned. Hence, American nationalism. [I’ve discussed all this in private correspondence with GW.] 5. Although I would have wanted the US to have stayed out of WW2, I totally reject Nazism, both morally and strategically. Nazism needs to be buried. We don’t need new racial symbols, or flags, or ideologies. We just need to assert traditional values, as long as they aid white preservation, and are understood to be racial values, too. 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:32 | # A quick addendum: I’m not only a WN, or interested only in WN political issues. I am also a Catholic, and a serious conservative, and I have many intellectual interests to explore stemming from those identities, as well. 36
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:24 | #
Enough with lies, Leon. They are strangling us to death. You cannot hope to do better than the Tea Party, which is and will amount to nothing but a pathetic diversion. 37
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:22 | #
Having an organisation which ignores race as a way of avoiding attention but which under that cover relentlessly attacks the multicult could still be of some value. However i can’t see how an organisation that goes out of its way to reinforce the values of the multicult can be of any use. == As an addendum to the above point regarding a philosophy. I think one of the reasons the BNP has a hole where Wilder’s Dutch Liberalism sits is a lot of the people involved come from parties where the philosophy was racial superiority and because that couldn’t (not very easily at least) be the core philosophy there was an empty space where the philosophy needed to be. However filling that hole with “The English people have a right to exist” or “The German people have a right to exist” or whatever, not only would that be pretty painless in terms of internal arguing, those words are the implicit foundation of the law of genocide which the jews are currently breaking all over the western world. 38
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:01 | # Enough with lies, Leon. They are strangling us to death. You cannot hope to do better than the Tea Party, which is and will amount to nothing but a pathetic diversion. (Captainchaos)
Having an organisation which ignores race as a way of avoiding attention but which under that cover relentlessly attacks the multicult could still be of some value. However i can’t see how an organisation that goes out of its way to reinforce the values of the multicult can be of any use. (Wandrin) __________________________ I have no intention of telling lies. Nor would any organization of mine ever reinforce multiculturalism in any way. I simply don’t have to rub people’s faces in the whole truth. Take immigration (to the US). I think we can all agree on two facts. At present it is 98-99% non-white, and unless stopped, it will reduce whites to less than 50% of the population by about 2030. By 2050, even without wholesale resettlement of alien peoples/refugees, whites could easily comprise a mere 25% of the US population; by 2100, we could be less than 10%. The paramount issue is that immigration be stopped. So what is more important: loudly declaiming all racial truths, no matter how many anti-immigrationists are thereby alienated, or actually stopping (or even just substantially reducing) immigration - even if accomplishing the latter requires the deliberate suppression of ‘divisive’ truths? I favor actual political accomplishments over maintaining ideological purity. We can always “up the racial ante” down the road. But we must stop the bleeding by whatever means first. You gentlemen need to develop a frankly more sophisticated sense of what is politically possible at this time, absent ‘game-changing’ (and improbable) social or physical cataclysms. I have always lived, intellectually and ideologically as well as socially and economically, in the real world. That world is not ours. If we are going to transform it as we would like, we are going to have to be patient and subtle, exactly as, to be honest, Jewry has been in multiculturalizing us. Hence the organization I am working on, which I believe represents the next step in white American racial/ideological evolution; which is to say, American nationalism. Under that ideology, we can oppose immigration, affirmative action, multiculti, and many other outrages without ever harkening directly to race. By doing so, we will appeal to a far larger number of whites, than by doing anything directly racist. And yet, our agendas can substantially overlap. Eventually, after American nationalism has had its run, and actually accomplished the development of implicit white awakening among large numbers of whites, as well as the cessation of immigration, then the next generation can start pushing for the ethnostate. Push for it in today’s deracinated climate, and you will be either totally marginalized, or persecuted by the occupationist regime. 39
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:45 | # @Leon Haller Fair enough. I may have misinterpreted “utterly eschew.” 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 00:24 | # A sliver of a debate at the British Democracy Forum: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/bnp/82902-history-freedom-british.html#post974727 41
Posted by Bill on Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:12 | # I tried posting this in cat. European Union without success. Nigel Farage salvo aimed at EU elite. 24.10.2010 http://www.casttv.com/video/thxu07a/ukip-nigel-farage-mep-on-the-irish-crisis-november-2010-video 42
Posted by FB on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:51 | # Nigel Farage says that immigration has been a good thing on the whole for the U.K. According to what balance sheet? Is this what passes for “Right-wing” politics in Britain? Post a comment:
Next entry: Adventures in Sympathy pt 1
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View) |
Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 16 Oct 2010 05:15 | #
Very well put, it’ll be interesting to see what response it gets at the British Democracy Forum.