Notes on a programme for a national reconstruction: Part 2

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 06 November 2009 01:01.

Continuing on from Wednesday’s Part 1 post …

Social Policy

The first duty and highest goal of the Federal government will be:

To match the conditions of life of the British people to the attributes of their nature, the interests of their blood and the wishes of their hearts.

In social policy, that implies a far-reaching, even total revolution of the mind so that the people may, after so many decades of officially engendered self-censorship, self-degradation and self-estrangement, approach themselves once again with clear eyes and clear conscience, and begin to live the life they deserve.

This revolution of the mind will not be accomplished solely by the undoing of past crimes against them or by the heavy push in the direction of the good which government can give. The ideas that commend the good - ideas which, though they have been known by some thinking nationalists for a long time, are not known by the common man - must fill all the voids left by the driving out of the destructive and criminal ideas of the past. That is the true foundation on which the political future will rest. Accordingly, government has a role in promoting not only those ideas through its own machinery but the new intellectual class that has generated them, and can carry them and the politics of the new age forward.

That said, here is an outline of how the nationalist “heavy push” will be structured:

1. A Primary Principle Bill will be brought before Parliament to establish as a permanent point of governmental reference the ultimate value of the ethnic interest of the people. Thereby, government’s loyalty and duty to the people will replace the people’s loyalty and duty to the Crown.

2. Those persons who have contributed to the British state’s warfare, psychological and demographic, against its own people will be identified and brought before the Courts.

Since the treason laws of the former British State do not provide a sufficiently sound basis for adoption and, then, for the bringing of prosecutions (the most likely charge under current law being to “move” or “stir” any foreigner to invade the United Kingdom) a Bill will be brought before Parliament to criminalise, respectively (and retrospectively):

a) The “moving” or “stirring” by agents of the British State of the foreigners who invaded between 1948 and the present day.

b) The waging of psychological (culture) war by agents of the British State against the British people. Examples of such psychological warfare which could attract prosecution include the following activities:

# Attaching the charge of racism, prejudice, xenophobia or hate to any form of ethnic British self-advocacy or rejection of foreigners.
# Attaching the soubriquets “far right”, “extreme”, “racist”, “Nazi”, “fascist” and all other terms of abuse to British political dissidents and nationalists.
# Denying the rights of said dissidents and nationalists to free speech,
# Promulgation of hate speech laws and laws predicated on “anti-Semitism”.
# Promulgation of anti-racism.
# Enforcement of speech codes through “political correctness”.
# Presenting racial diversity as a moral value (for example, “vibrant”) and/or presenting British culture and British people as somehow deficient to other cultures and people.
# Promulgation of identity politics, including casting white people in general and white heterosexual males in particular as oppressors.
# Attacking the institution of marriage and the traditional relationship between man and woman.
# Attacking the role of men as fathers.
# Encouraging the break-down of the family.
# Attacking masculinity, particularly with regard to white heterosexual men.
# Promoting moral relativity in the teaching of sex to children.
# Promoting the teaching of homosexuality to children and young people, and the moral equivalence of homosexual buggery and heterosexual intercourse.
# Promoting the teaching to children of the official narratives of the “Holocaust” and “Slavery”.
# Denying British children education in their own history and culture.

NB: An agent of the British state is defined as any person who has received income from the State in return for the performance of a service of any kind.

3. A Freedom of Speech Bill and a Freedom of Association Bill will be brought before Parliament to guarantee these freedoms in all spheres of private and commercial life, and to guarantee the State’s disinterest therein.

4. An Ownership and Control of Print, On-Line and Broadcast Media Bill will be brought before Parliament to ensure that the running of the media in Britain is the hands of ethnic Britons.

5. A Royal Commission will inquire into the Roots and Causes of the Demographic Crisis and, where it deems appropriate, make recommendations for legislation beyond the scope of that planned.

Foreign Policy

In matters of foreign policy a nationalist government’s point of reference is not merely national interest but the interests of the people. It will be the enduring conviction of this government that a strong defence capability and a commitment to good neighbourliness are the way to best serve that interest.

The Federal government will require a new approach to existing allies and to the international community generally. The elitism, neoliberalism, social Marxism, internationalism and anti-nationalism which characterise the drift to global governance, and which are unquestioned assumptions in all the states of the West, are completely unacceptable and cannot be re-admitted in any degree to the Britain newly freed of these things. Likewise the suzereignty of global corporatism and international finance.

Since the old British State will be gone its signature on treaties and on international laws and agreements (including those that underpin the siting of thirty-one US military installations here) is not binding on the Federal government. The Federal government need not, therefore, abrogate anything, but can make overtures to join those treaties, such as EFTA, on terms which serve its people’s interests. It will have to forge new alliances. It will have to construct a new framework of bi-lateral treaties but avoid multi-lateralism. It will have to tread with extreme care among the hawks and globalists, and evade stratagems to draw it into an opposition that invites attack.

This will be the reality of the world in which European nationalism is both a great rarity and a profound threat, and will remain so until other Western states break with the politics of European genocide. Nonetheless, it is a reality that must be welcomed, for it means that the British people are the most free in all the world.

Tags: No particular place to go

Comments:

Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:43 | #

Your call to match the conditions of the life of the British people to the “wishes” of their hearts reminds me of this:

Let us start with the idea of liking. What we do as artists, in the realm of building, really depends on what we like. What society builds depends on ideas that are shared about what people like. But contemporary ideas of what is likable are extremely confused. It is a current dogma that you may like what you wish, and that it is an essential part of democratic freedom to like whatever you decide to like. This occurs at a time when the mass media have taken over our ideas of what is likable to an extent unknown in human history. Thus if one were pessimistic, one might even say that there is very little authentic liking in our time. What people like can often not be trusted, because it does not come from the heart.

Christopher Alexander was talking about the “built environment” in that passage, but it should not be difficult for a nationalist to discern that what applies to physical construction applies analogically (and dialectically) to societal construction too.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:19 | #

Interesting food for thought.

I’m not sure if the legal retribution needs any more than:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

as most of your list, in fact cultural marxism as a whole, is pretty much designed as a program for white genocide by stealth.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:13 | #

Something I posted over at Chronicles, perhaps of interest here (Hey GW:you could even post this as an outside column, if you wanted; basic restatement of a position that can never be reiterated too often):

47 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 8 November 2009:
#47 – Well said, Mr. Peters, and that last line is particularly to the point. That is why living a virtuous life is the most important resistance, without which any resistance at the political level is pointless.

48 Comment by Lone Racer on 8 November 2009:

@48: No, living a virtuous life is a good in itself. Absolutely nothing more. The occupationist regime simply laughs at such sentimentalist drivel, which is why you may lead as Christian a life as you want. Try leading an old school WHITE MAN’S life, however, and see what happens to you, at least if you are successful and attract notice.

And no, resistance at the political level is not only not pointless, if Sam Francis were here to reprimand your nonsense, he would say it has barely even been tried. Oh sure, occasionally the grassroots rises up a bit and gets a relevant initiative passed under or around the regime, such as CA Prop 187 in 1994, only to see the regime immediately crack down in the form of a Third World federal judge ruling it unconstitutional, said ruling then in effect being upheld through inaction by the Supreme Court.

But overall, we the Real American people have barely done a damn thing to resist what the great racial nationalist, Wilmot Roberston, in his seminal work, THE DISPOSSESSED MAJORITY (pub. 1972), recognized as the key fact of postwar America; namely, the comprehensive (political, cultural, economic, legal, etc) dispossession of America’s true racial/cultural (Anglo-Nordic) founding majority. Imagine that! In 1972, the US was about 87% white, but Robertson could already see which way the wind was blowing.

And why was it so clear by that time? Because in the 60s (in a big way; from the 40s in smaller fashion) we first abandoned, and, in quick succession, began a never-ending campaign of heaping scorn upon, the Racial Principle, which is the single most important principle of human collective and political affairs (overwhelmingly so wrt modern America). This principle is complicated and multi-layered, but its simplified essence, for present purposes, is of general and specific relevance to the American situation (as well as episodes like this latest multicultural massacre) as follows:

1) Racial homogeneity is essential to national cohesion. Or, mixed race societies do not ultimately make real collective nations.

2) America was founded, settled and built by whites, and thus is OUR country. Non-whites do not belong here (including that ‘troublesome presence’, the descendants of the African slaves).

3) Whites are objectively civilizationally superior to other races, especially (this will sound tautological, but it is crucial) in producing the kind of societies which we whites find most attractive.

4) There is no logical, sociobiological, or historical reason to assume that traditional America will be perpetuated by non-whites should they attain to a demographic majority.

Obviously, there is much more to the Principle, but I believe that the above roughly captures its essence. For the past half-century we white Americans (and to show that this is a biological, or at least biocultural, problem, and not a political let alone economic or historical, that is to say, structural, one, it must be acknowledged whites everywhere, quite apart from their very different national histories, political and economic systems, historic faiths, etc ) have totally rejected the Principle – have, indeed, been in the most astonishing headlong flight from it (from reality, you might say).

This total reversal of racial outlook, from normal white racism, to fanatical (psycho-religious) anti-racism, occurred as a result of actions taken by three groups: self-hating secular white leftists, foolish Christians, and minority activists (mainly Jews and blacks pre-1960s, today Jews and blacks still, along with all manner of rapidly numerically expanding non-white groups, including Muslim-”Americans”, of course).

The disempowerment of whites, and the empowerment of non-whites, is the story of postwar America. Obama is its culmination, as well as the avatar of our unfortunate American future.

White supremacism, by far the most Traditional American Value, has given way to white dispossession. As we enter the Next America, in which white dispossession will give way to white oppression and active persecution, both by the government as well as the inner-city “street”, resistance will become not only possible, but imperative. Whites were morally disarmed before they were politically dispossessed. More and more of us now, however, are waking up to the realities of race, that, as my favorite, and as yet still imaginary, bumper sticker has it, Diversity Sucks.

The real issue now is whether we can formulate A New Racial Ethics For Survival in time to save at least something of the culture of the old America, as well as to ensure that our people on US soil will be able to live tolerable lives free of both governmental oppression, and non-white criminal persecution. The core of that new ethics (really, just the old ethics properly applied in defense of white perpetuity) will be the recognition that whites have the right to communal survival, and that that survival depends upon collective action.

In a word, the first part of the answer to all of our problems is the advocacy and then political realization of White Nationalism. The US is afflicted by many problems outside of racial ones, but there is no hope for solving any of them unless the racial problem (awakening and mobilizing whites under conditions of diversity) is overcome.