Posted by melba peachtoaste on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:48 | #

    /\  /\                         
  //\\_//\\      ____                  
  \_   _/    /    /  what guessedworker writes                
  /  *  *  \    / ^^^ ]    is quite true            
  \_\O/_/    [  ]    as a typical english fox                
    /    \_   [  /    i make it my business
    \      \_ /  /    to know these sorts of things
    [ [    /  \/ _/                   
    _[ [  \  /_/

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:02 | #

I don’t think change can or will be instigated by “us”, but rather by geopolitical events well outside our control.

About the best we can hope to do is engage in a discussion and analysis of these events and be prepared to maximize whatever leverage we may gain in their wake.

And whenever possible, do so in style.

Posted by dc on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:36 | #

I believe the biggest danger is compromise and “sugar-coating”. If you’re marked as dishonest, the whole programme is compromised.

I haven’t seen any one talk about the need for clear, honest, repetitive propaganda—display one problem at a time repeatedly until the taboo of talking about race is broken. Could enough volunteers be found?

Posted by Bill on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:33 | #

Liberalism takes one look at the world and recoils from what it sees, shock horror, we can’t have this, and promptly decides that they themselves do something about it.

Liberals have the hubris to attempt this and have done so and right now are succeeding, they have provided the welfare state, endless entertainment, mind numbing drugs aplenty, a full belly and endless sex, Huxley was right, people have become to learn to love their servitude.  The baleful eyes fail to see the whole liberal unfettered freedom thing is electronically ring fenced with something called political correctness and backed up by anti white hate legislation dressed up as war on terror.

Liberalism has declared the white race is a roadblock to human progress and therefore must go, be got rid of.

Mass third world non white immigration into white lands is the chosen manifestation to accomplish this task, the details of which are to me very sketchy indeed, as several years of investigation have failed to provide any meaningful answer, other than billions will die.

The hapless people stare with baleful eyes as their reason for being is pulled from beneath them.

How can we fight this?

When starting out I was confident that by telling it as it is we would overcome.  Our politicians policy of overwhelming our living space with aliens would surely be sussed by the baleful eyes and anger resistance would erupt.  We all now know that’s not going to happen and I was wrong in my assumptions.  The liberals had succeeded in altering the white people into indifference to their plight.

Whether twenty years of not telling it as it is has led us to where we are now we shall never know.

I personally do not think the majority of our people will ever fathom what is taking place and why, the answer is far too complex, I myself am dumbfounded at how deep the rabbit hole has turned out to be,  to expect Kev’n Sally to grasp what’s going down is a no brainer.

So what remains?  What hope is there?  For me the answer has come slowly over time, the people are not going react in any meaningful way because of the reasons just given, the only thing one could do now is watch it all unravel and collapse.  Once collapse has taken place it’s highly probable the PTB cannot put Humpty together again and apparently there is no plan B.

What arises from the rubble?  Your guess is good as mine.

PS. This is how I view England’s present plight, in America it is different, they have guns.  Europe is depending on you.  Again. 

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:41 | #

a pre-revolutionary process of intellectualisation

I understood that GW was busy in his workshop on this task, accompanied by some older posters here who have since absented themselves. What happened to the Ontological Project? I assume, that the news from the embryological front is not positive. If the thread’s argument was the whole of the truth, then I am surprised that GW is on the first rung of the political ladder, rabble rousing on newspaper comment boards :D

Do not the raw materials of the meta-politics lie all around us? Impending near extinction, democratic usurpation, low trust societies, political centralisation, economic implosion and so on. Perhaps though, not accompanied by a precise philosophical theory of natural rights (and biological beings) to sweep asunder all challengers. 

As Hitler’s fellow pupil was recently mentioned here, we could create our own Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, proceeding step by step to assert the natural rights of all people, the perilous position of our people and a solution. As I mentioned here the other day, using the outlines of the theory of Just War might give some moral justification acceptable to the unconvinced for actions that otherwise seem either impractical or extreme to ‘civilians’.

Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:44 | #

That would be a dingo, Melba.

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:46 | #

I haven’t seen any one talk about the need for clear, honest, repetitive propaganda

Unfair, but amusing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBjtDoJEOlw

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:47 | #

GW - you are a true nationalist, that we all know, but yet again you vanish up your own arsehole with your perennial quest for our liberation via a clique of intellectuals.

Hoping that a clique of nationalist intellectuals will bring down the liberal system via their intelligence is the self delusion of an intellectual in love with their own intellectualism.

You say street activism wont save us - you are 100 % wrong.

There is only one path to our victory - to go into communities, to organise them, radicalise them and recruit them.

Then once we have done so we wait until the system collapses from its own internal contradictions.

Your Leninist-Marxist ‘intellectual vanguard’ theory never worked - Lenin only took power as the state collapsed due to WW1 and in the vaccum the Bolsheviks, WHO WERE THE BEST ORGANISED REVOLUTIONARY GROUP,  TOOK POWER.

IT IS ORGANISATION THAT WINS REVOLUTIONS - NOT INTELLECTUALISM.

The problem with the nationalist movement is that it is in love with intellectualism and posh blokes in nice suits with posh voices who went to posh universities.

What Nationalism needs is normal bloes with normal voices who wear normal clothes who drink in normal pubs with normal people who can communicate nationalist ideas to them in a way that will win them over.

The era of pseudo-intellectualism in the nationalist movement and its ‘cult of personality’ obsession with posh blokes in posh suits has led us to where we are now - A GHETTO.

WE NEED PEOPLE WHO CAN WIN OVER THE SUN READERS - NOT THE ICONS OF THE NEW RIGHT.

The role of the intellectuals in the movement is not to lead it - it is to develop ideas that the normal activists can use to win over local people in their local communities.

Nor do we need a political party - that is the final stage of the process of creating community movements - it has nothing to do with where we are now.

This site is a prime example of the problem of nationalism - it peddles endless intellectual articles that appeal only to a tiny handful of intellectual nationalists.

What we need are COMMUNICATORS AND AGITATORS, not intellectuals.

FFS get a grip and get in the real world.

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:20 | #

@Lee - you have been pushing cultural nationalism for some time. If the Pakistani Muslim puts on a tweed suit and drinks an occasional pint of brown ale he’s British. That is not the belief of 99% of posters on this site, so agitation to what end?

What we need people to study and get qualifcations in are

Lee, there are thousands of people being turned out of pseudo unis with these qualifications all the time. It takes up to three years to get a degree and you leave on the bottom rung of the ladder.

Firstly, a convincing political argument widely distributed can achieve this without having to individually send recruits through a modern social modification process and potentially lose them.

Secondly, think of the myriad of rebel and dissenting groups that already exist in this and every nation; they just aren’t explicitly ethno-nationalist, generally implicitly. I think there are many realistic ways to form these groups into an an alliance making an overarching movement - then you would get access to many of the skills than are unavailable or not sufficient in the individual units.

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:04 | #

What we need people to study and get qualifcations in are

Additionally, as I have suggested here, some form of social networking vehicle might be of benefit. A Linked-In type site that doesn’t hook people up for dating or sharing trivia.

First name, general location, interests, skills, education. Aimed at a wider, higher, more traditional audience than WN and ideally pre-supported by a number of groups before launch who will make their members or followers aware of it.

Online databases are susceptible to hacking so care would be required, skills that I do not possess but could buy in later this year when I have thought about it some more. All members would be required to use a non-revealing email address.

Then you would have a global network of skills and advice to leverage, invite people into a permissioned chat room or thread to consider ideas. It could be encouraged to either work through some form of mass micro-donations or perhaps better by virtual good-egg credits (such as are given on sites like Yahoo Answers). The idea here being the expectation of many seems to be online encounters are free plus fund transfer sites would mean some loss of confidentiality for the inherently nervous, which would include those with most to lose who also quite possibly have much to give.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:48 | #

Well I’ve been ‘exposed’ as a pseudo-intellectual by some of the cognoscenti here so I’m the wrong person to comment.

However, an the development of intellectually rigorous, non-liberal, evidence-driven, ethnocentrically orientated, communitarian political paradigm is not for the purpose of activists to go out and then discuss social-capital or Aristotelian political mereology in the pub.

LJB I think you misunderstand the difference between strategy and tactics. How to organise politically etc., is essentially in the realm of political tactics but the question is for what vision and what purpose? The answer to what the good society looks like has to be better than simply ‘wogs out’. And that cardinal question has to be answered as deeply, fully and coherently as possible or all of the secondary, tertiary etc., activity easily gets blown of course by low-brow ideological hobby-horses ridden by the hard of thinking. In politics a vacuum at the centre will be always filled by something. Better that something be as high quality as possible rather than warmed-over fascism and ludicrous conspiracy theory.

Liberal theory (both left and right versions of it) has full spectrum dominance – it dominates the ideological space. It is hegemonic. Sure one can be a reformist against the worst of its excesses, but it’s obviously a very inflationary set of ideas. People are extreme liberals now by any historical standard – we are all Voltaire’s bastards. This is not the result of a conspiracy.

Now despite its sophistication liberal theory has been constructed upon rather shaky foundations. But not completely stupid premises that can be dismissed in a sentence or two. Seriously critiquing liberal theory (and its Mephistophelian like temptations of radical individual ‘freedom’, its sanctioning of inflationary appetites) is a substantial undertaking.

Put it this way if liberal modernity was simply an illusion it would be very easy to correct. Illusions are temporary effects that generally one is aware of as they occur. Instead it’s more like a delusion. Delusions are long-term and persistent and can be so all-encompassing that someone within one does not even recognise that fact, indeed they generally cannot.

Attempting to outline why liberalism, as foundational to a social order is unsustainable, using the most rigorous means possible is very important. Otherwise one is left with very superficial ‘secondary’ critiques that may even appear to be ‘radical’ but do not ever approach the fundamentals, hence liberalism as foundational to our way of life remains very firmly in place (and all the attendant social-pathologies will, like weeds, very quickly re-establish themselves).

Seriously, I know members of all political parties and even activists and they are generally not familiar with any serious political philosophy (and many seem quite ignorant about politics per se). This isn’t about giving activists ‘good lines’ to take onto the streets. And even politically, in terms of getting some of the educated middle-class on board (a vital task), that too requires a language and tone that is utterly beyond any of the characters presently involved. They really should read up on branding and market positioning at the very least.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:37 | #

Thanks, Graham, for stating the obvious.  Equally obviously, liberalism is a highly intellectualised philosophy not just because it has received attention as the default in the West, but because it is wholly prospective and artificial in its core nostrums.  Conservatism is famously not a philosophy, but then Conservatism in England has been in hopeless retreat since the Reform Act, and there have, in fact, been no true conservatives since Salisbury (who died in 1910).  Today’s conservatives claim Disraeli and Burke as their heroes, which proves my point.

So, if Conservatism is a politics of the instinct how much truer is that of nationalism (notwithstanding its fascist period).  But if nationalism is not to follow Conservatism into feeble and fruitless accommodationism, it has to develop the theoretical muscle to compete.  Instinct, sincerity and truth are not enough.

Meanwhile, here are some good lines for activists to take out onto the streets:

http://majorityrights.com/search/results/fa72bffa15bf95dc7c8a1f808868f82a/

Here are some more compound arguments that prove the justice of nationalism, taken from a recent on-line debate with a thinking liberal-leftist:

The English, you say, have a right to exist as English people.  This is an ethical statement.  If a people has the right to life, it has that right in full because between life and death there is no stable middle-ground.  Existing as an English people in an endlessly globalising England, for example, is not life for the English, but a dying-process.  One must be clear about that, or the life of which we speak will have no meaning, and one will be saying the opposite to that one thinks one is saying.

Further, the rights which support the right to life must, in turn, obtain.  A right to life cannot be upheld without recourse to the rights of consent and of self-defence.

Then, the rights to those things which directly support life itself must be granted.  For example, let us suppose that you granted a people the right to life but not living space, water or food resources.  You would be acting disingenuously (and genocidally).  You must grant everything together or the right to life is not extant.

And another, from an evolutionary perspective:

The right to life is the right to struggle for genetic continuity - the only right given in Nature, and an inalienable one.  Obviously, genetic continuity for Homo sapiens implies the transmission of genes distinctive to us as a species, in addition to the genetic material we share with other primates, mammals, vertibrates and living organisms.  But distinctive genes (and distinctive genetic structure) also exist at the intra-human level, and these, too, are important to genetic continuity since they are the carriers of fitness to environment (without which there could be no evolution and no life beyond the simplest cell).

Distinctive genes (and structure) are the cutting edge of evolution and the key to Nature’s subsistent function.  They do not belong to us individually, but ethnically.  It is the ethnic group, therefore, which possesses - in full - this Nature-given right to (struggle for) life.  That struggle is conducted both at the level of selection and as the struggle for the land and resources which guarantee survival.  But, of course, there is no right to succeed.  An ethnic group which loses its territory loses control over its own security of existence.

You addressed my question by saying that the ethnic group of the English (or indigenous Britons, if you prefer) have the right to life, but not the right to the land which is perquisite to life.  This represents an improvement on the absolute denial which inhabits the “immigrants and mongrels” theme you had lapsed into.  But it is still incoherent and, essentially, subservient to the anti-ethic and anti-Nature of anti-racism and the post-Christian liberal fondness for moral gestures.

The heart of the problem is that liberalism has become the struggle against the struggle for existence.

Now, this stuff is OK, but it’s pure argument.  None of it is, of itself, nationalist theory.  It is an abstract of, or pointer to, a theory that, sans Salter, does not much exist.  I genuinely believe we will be greatly enriched if it can be brought to some kind of life.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:06 | #

@Lee - you have been pushing cultural nationalism for some time. If the Pakistani Muslim puts on a tweed suit and drinks an occasional pint of brown ale he’s British. That is not the belief of 99% of posters on this site, so agitation to what end?

When one is a member of a political organisation, then one promotes the politics of that political organisation. If you dont have the discipline to adhere to the party line when you are an official of a political party - then dont be an official of that party.

I am no longer in a political organisation - hence I no longer have to push the political views of that party.

As for my OWN views on politics - I would classify myself as an Eco-Nationalist who adheres by a philosophy of Organic Communalism eg that the land and the people are one and that in order to protect both we need a folk religion ( Odinism , Druidism) that acts to connect us spiritually to our land and ancestral cultures.

I see the Zulu, Native American and Innuit for example as connected to their lands as much as I am connected to mine.

I see politics as an abstraction and distraction that no longer allows us to connect organically as a community as it divides us into classes, political factions and sectarian groups - we need to organise outside politics to get us where we need to be and go.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:10 | #

I agree with you Graham Lister 100 % - but the reality is that a five year old can destroy 99 % of the liberal myths that are promulgated by the liberals.

It doesnt matter if we can win debates with liberals - as liberals deny us the ability to debate.

They also deny us the ability to propagandise our views in the media and academia.

A meme that cannot be spread and pssed on, is a dead meme.

Hence why nationalist memes wither and die - as we cannot pass them on except to already existing nationalists who suscribe to websites like this that carry nationalist memes.

We need to get the memes out to real people in the wider community - not perpertuate them in the tiny pond that is nationalism or the clique of intellectuals.

We need community activists to spread nationalist memes into communities - so that they may infect new minds with those memes.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:19 | #

Liberal Heresy - the problem with the ‘nationalist unity myth’ is that it will never happen, simply as nationalists hate each other more than they hate the enemy.

Not only that - on a strategic level - a single organisation that includes all groups is exactly what the state wants - as it can infiltrate, subvert and bring down the whole movement in one go.

We need what I call The Spider Web Strategy where many groups are formed but linked via formal and informal alliances / members/ contacts / webs of connections who can then all co-ordinate with each othwr for mutua benefit when required lvia a UNITY OF PURPOSE - which defeats any attempt at infiltration.

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:53 | #

When one is a member of a political organisation, then one promotes the politics of that political organisation. If you dont have the discipline to adhere to the party line when you are an official of a political party - then dont be an official of that party. I am no longer in a political organisation - hence I no longer have to push the political views of that party. As for my OWN views on politics - I would classify myself as an Eco-Nationalist who adheres by a philosophy of Organic Communalism eg that the land and the people are one and that in order to protect both we need a folk religion ( Odinism , Druidism) that acts to connect us spiritually to our land and ancestral cultures.

Lee, firstly anyone who has seen your huffing and puffing, brutally berating those who believe something different to the ‘cultural’ perspective as well as your claiming it as your own innovation, can only be amazed at those comments.

the problem with the ‘nationalist unity myth’

Secondly, I am not promoting a ‘nationalist unity myth’. I do not suggest a tightly centralised entity. I mean at best a wattle fence not a fasces.

I was therefore suggesting a loose network of multiple groups who agree on a small number of key principles coming together as a wide ranging resource to try rupturing the two party political consensus at local level. That is to say a broad based, fuzzy edged cultural movement whose members retain membership of their own groups but also see themselves as part of a wider consensus and where viable aid that movement’s growth and interact outside of their own political hamlet. I am also talking about a wider sphere than nationalism proper, on one side to reduce the social costs of participation initially but more importantly to reinvigorate a movement in stasis and provide it with some new hymns to sign.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:07 | #

” Lee, firstly anyone who has seen your huffing and puffing, brutally berating those who believe something different to the ‘cultural’ perspective as well as your claiming it as your own innovation, can only be amazed at those comments. “

- Why ?

I am disciplined enough to abide by the interests of the party I join and promote ITS POLICIES as opposed to thinking I could be an officer of a party and promote my own policies.

I created the Cultural Nationalist ideology for the British Freedom Party and to promote the party - I also promoted it as an officer of the party.

When I was an officer of the BNP I did the same with the policies I wrote for the party manifesto.

Thats what you do when you are an officer of a party.

You restrict your public pronouncements to what the party ideology is and what the political niche in the market for the party is and the audience you need to capture to get that party into power - as an officer you have to have the discipline to be able to do that.

I know that may come as a shock to the undisciplined rabble that infest nationalist parties who think being in a party means pissing all over the parties shoes in public each time they are not happy about something - but if you accept a role as an officer, just as if you are in the army, then you do as you are told, promote the interests of the party ideology and only promote the interests of your army / party.

If you cant do that then resign as an officer.

The rabble in the ranks are not expected to have that level of discipline.

The officers are.

I am no longer in a political party, hence I can say what the fuck I like about what I think.

On the issue of a de-centralised, autonomous nationalist network connected by a unity of purpose I am in complete agreement with what you say.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:10 | #

Emma East, or Willis in drag?

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:12 | #

Why ?

Because in this most important of issues, our genetic future seems the critical principle, not our allegiance to team Pepsi or Team Irn Bru. To admit to waving pom poms for something in which one does not fully believe, suggests a flexibility of principle. I understand and yet I understand not.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:28 | #

When one becomes an officer in a political party one must serve the interest of the party.

If you find that hard to understand you have never held a position of authority in any political party.

Why else do they have the whips in Parliament unless to ensure MP’s put the interests of the party first before their own interests.

As for principles and politics - if you think principles come before power when you are an officer of a party then you are a fool.

A political party cannot function if everyone puts their ‘principles’ before the interests of the party.

Its like trying to steer a boat with everyone rowing in different directions.

If you want to truly understand the nature of principles in politics then read Nechayev - he understood it better than anyone ;

http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm

Posted by anon on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:41 | #

it is essentially revolutionary…They will not listen, of course.

I think you have the nub of it but one of the reasons most won’t listen is they know they can’t do the philosophizing and they want something to do in the meantime.

So most activists should be focused on our own version of the culture of critique e.g. the very good video on this post

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/betrayal_lawrence_and_the_english_working_class

getting people to verbalize what’s being done to them, as pushing back the dominant culture creates the space for a nationalist alternative if and when it arrives (or even develops organically to fill the vaccuum).

In particular attack
- bankster-controlled political system
- philosophical underpinnings of the multicult
- anti-white media bias
and not just internally obviously, it has to be done (and can be done in a worksafe way) at work, among family etc.

Posted by Papa Luigi on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:03 | #

The great work of saving our people from submersion in the bottomless seas of the Third World cannot be done by street-level activism.  No amount of unity (sorry Andrew), no amount of artful positioning, no amount of dedicated activism can do what must be done.  Why?  Because the values and goals of nationalism do not exist within the intellectual and ideological confines of the ruling liberal paradigm.

This is absolutely correct, and not only is it the “ruling liberal paradigm” it is the ‘prevailing’ and ‘all-pervading’ liberal paradigm in which our young are steeped and inculcated from birth.

In other words, we do not begin by fighting the Conservative and Labour parties but by creating an intellectual space defined by the justice, morality, and truth of the struggle for our people’s existence.

Correct again.

The ugly sisters of cultural Marxism and liberalism are no longer the counter-culture opposing Western civilisation, they have now effectively supplanted Western civilisation by eating it from the inside out. This process began with Antonio Gramsci and the Franfurt School and their ‘long march through the institutions’ and it has taken them almost a century to get to where they are today.

Before we nationalists can hope to win political power we must formulate our own counter-culture and do to liberal-Marxism what liberal Marxism did to Western civilisation. Only by undermining the public faith in liberal-Marxist values will our political message begin to take a hold once more in the minds of the masses of our people. We must apply the principles of critical theory to liberal-Marxist assertions for example, that ‘all people are born equal’, that ’ all peoples are fundamentally the same’, and that ‘there can only be one universal human destiny’.

Lee Barnes is correct in that we will need ‘street’ activism if we are to win. I prefer to use the term ‘community’ activism; as while ‘the street’ can be a place where uncouth people spit, delinquent youths spray paint, and dogs foul the footpath; the ‘community’ - a real community - is something of intrinsic value for us to nurture and cherish.

The ironic thing about the BNP Ideas crowd is that the name they have adopted is somewhat oxymoronic - they are a well meaning group of people who sadly, as time has shown, are devoid of any really worthwhile new ideas and simply remain fixated on the desire for all nationalists to re-assemble under one roof and repeat the tactics and strategies that have failed so miserably in the past.

It is certainly true that we nationalists need to pool our resources and work together in our common cause, but it is also screamingly obvious that new thinking is required and this is why Andrew Brons and his supporters are dithering, and why others around them are dithering - because most people on a subconscious level at least recognise this self-evident truth, but no-one can as yet see the new thinking that is required in a viable form. This is all set to change and certain key individuals will shortly receive invitations to an exclusive promotional event at which a new strategy and the various instruments of our salvation will be presented.

Rest assured that the success we all wish for will require more than one strategy and I can see both Guessedworker and Lee Barnes playing a valuable role. When liberals ask “What is so important about the survival of the White race?”, we must have an answer to that question and we must have prepared the way for our answer by undermining the liberal and cultural Marxist paradigm and through a prolonged campaign of cultural conditioning of the minds of our people, have made them more receptive to our answers. Similarly, another strategy that will serve to prepare the masses for our message will be diligent community activism, providing advocacy and representation for our people, and most importantly pastoral care. There is an old saying, that ‘people won’t care how much we know, until they know how much we care’ and through pastoral care and spiritual enlightenment we can win the undying support of our people.

Guessedworker describes the article by William Shakespear as “another agonised article” and so it is. It is typical of the mindset that is all too common nowadays in which nationalists desperately implore our people to rally to our side, decribing our plight as one that is all but lost, but this is not so. Such defeatism is repellant and has the effect of driving away potential supporters and of demoralising our own people. The time has come for us to acknowledge that parlous though our position is within the world, we are still a long way from irreversible defeat. As long as five hundred or more White people remain as a breeding colony, then all is not lost and our race can still come back from the brink of extinction.

Truly, we are a long way from defeat, just as we are a long way from final extinction. Now is the time for us to keep our heads, and to focus our minds on what we need by way of resources for the long, long, struggle that lies ahead.

We have no chance of getting a nationalist government elected within the short to medium-term and so we must accept that we could find ourselves a minority in our own land before it is delivered back to us. But if we plan for a long and bitter struggle and put in the difficult ground work now, we will have the resources and the ability to win through in the end.

Like the field marshalls of old planning an extensive and prolonged military campaign, we must before the first ‘shot’ is even fired, devote years to acquiring and amassing the assets and resources necessary for ultimate victory. Then when we have the wherewithal necessary to overwhelm the enemy, we can as the final culmination of all of our preparatory work, unleash an orchestrated media and political campaign, augmented by street demonstrations and popular uprisings of righteous indignation that will come as a progressively gathering whirlwind, driving our enemies from power, once and for all!

Thus, if it is to succeed, the political campaign must come as the final phase of our struggle, after years of preparation.

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:19 | #

Lee

There is a difference between a political party in government who have been elected to carry out a political programme using the whip system to make the team cohere and vote appropriately and a political party programme that you take to the country to try to get there. Of course the whip system has also been used to force through some of the worst legislation we have on the books too and overlaid an older, more venerable tradition of MPs representing their constituents, not their party.

In this case we have (IMO) a badly conceived policy developed by you that ran contrary to almost all previous nationalist sentiment, was divisive, seemed insincere to many outside of nationalism and was aggressively although unconvincingly promoted - which you also now suggest you did not believe in.

When the team agree on a policy then there is a mutual interest in keeping to the policy, yes, especially if you are the author of it. My issue is why the policy, particularly if it was not believed in.

I have always found your argument odd that: it doesn’t matter so much what the political programme is, it’s what happens after you arrive that matters. That sounds like a recipe for disaster that could only be sustained by some form of enabling Act in the teeth of violent opposition, partly home-grown and much of it externally funded.

Anyway, I am glad that you have now moved away from promoting this national defeatism.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:22 | #

Totally agree on every point with Papa re the above comment.

Lets start the process now, create the community activism models and get to work building the revolutionary infra-structure to create and sustain the revolutionary impetus the moment the system starts to implode - that way when the system collapses ( as it will at some point ) then we are ready to seize the moment.

Remember that Liberalism is itself an ideological artefact of the 20th century which will fall as soon as the society that spawned it collapses - it is in inevitablility it will collapse just as all ideologies collapse.

The only questions is - will be ready to seize the moment when the collapse comes.

The fall of the soviet union, split of Yugoslavia, collapse of the British Empire etc all show us the incredible speed in which an exisying order can fall.

Lets be ready for the moment when it happens.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:34 | #

” In this case we have (IMO) a badly conceived policy developed by you that ran contrary to almost all previous nationalist sentiment, was divisive, seemed insincere to many outside of nationalism and was aggressively although unconvincingly promoted - which you also now suggest you did not believe in. “

You are viewing what I was doing through the wrong lens - you were seeing the issue through a NATIONALIST lens not a non-nationalist lens.

Politics is the art of the possible - what mattered when I created the cultural nationalism ideology was not what I wanted or what the nationalists wanted - it was simply what the public could vote for.

That is pragmatic politics.

The fact is that no one, except racial nationalists and liberals, opposed it.

The public - who we needed their votes - supported it and most important of all it was SELLABLE IDEOLOGY TO THE MASSES.

That is politics.

As I was involved in a political party, and we were after VOTES from ordinary people - and not a tiny number of racial nationalists whose votes collectively couldnt elect a single MP across the whole country after four decades of trying - then what mattered was what the public could tolerate after decades of media conditioning and which they are prepared to vote for.

Cultural Nationalism is the most populist nationalist ideology yet invented.

Its aim was to allow ordinary people to begin the transformation process from anti-nationalists, to cultural nationalists and then to progress eventually to one of the other forms of nationalism.

Its called boiling the frog.

Its how you create cognitive dissonance in conditioned people to allow them to start to escape the conditioning process.

It was designed for nationalists - it was designed for the masses.

When you understand the ideology in relation to the wider psychological context of a society and people conditioned by media propaganda to resist and reject nationalism - then you will understand what its role was in the process of re-nationalising our people.

Its a simple psychological fact that virtually no-one goes from a LIBERAL MINDSET TO A NATIONALIST MINDSET.

There has to be a process of ;

1) cognitive dissonance

2) de-liberalisation

3) re-nationalisation

Cultural Nationalism was designed to facilitate this process.

The problem with nationalists who attacked it as that they have not studied psychology, had no idea of what the psychological processes involved were and how the process had to be undertaken.

     
They saw it solely from a nationalist perspective - not in relation to a psychological process. 

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:06 | #

Lee,

Unless you have access to information that I do not, I find it curious that you suggest cult-nat is “the most populist nationalist ideology yet invented” I have seen little sign of the BFP ascent for whom it was originally designed. Perhaps I am too far removed.

I do fully agree with you that gradualism or Fabianism is required (not least per our conversation above about a network of differently focused organisations). I am less convinced of the need though for a false veneer that will have to be laboriously scraped off later once it has adhered to the surface, which I see cult-nat as being.

At some stage those who wish to preserve blood rights over that of culture and civicism will have to do battle with each other. Their growing presence will not willingly wither on the vine once the time for Lenin to take over from Kerensky arises. If you get my drift, tiredness overtakes.

Anyway, can I say that your methods of argumentation seem to have undergone some welcome changes. Have you been to a Swiss Finishing School?

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:07 | #

*popular * not populist

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:36 | #

The BFP had no money.

Hence its impact politically in a national context was lways going to be negligible as unless you can buy publicity = you get nowhere.

The aim was to win the debates we would have been able to have with the public in local communities and to use community activism to spread the message in communities direct to the people with door to door community activism outside the media.

I no longer have any involvement with the party anyway as once they got involved with the edl and its zionist backers I backed out.

The party is now being used as the political wing of the edl and its zionist backers - which is nothing to do with the interests of British Nationalism hence I walked .

Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:05 | #

political wing of the edl and its zionist backers

Yes, I watched an interview by Mr Weston with Mr Coren of Sun TV (?) some Canadian neo-con propaganda programme from what I could tell. I did think then that he wasn’t hitting those underarm balls he was being thrown into the stands. The contrast between the face of the interviewer and interviewee was pretty striking too.

Posted by kenday on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:53 | #

The persecution of opponents of the NWO eradication of Whites is being ramped up.  Spwecial Brancch are trying to “fit up” right-wing Conservative David Hamilton by inventing a story that he had links with Brevik.  He is not part of the extreme Zionist movement and certain;y was not connected to any of its leaders.

http://www.amerika.org/politics/under-the-microscope/

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:50 | #

Conservatism is an interesting socio-political phenomenon. Of course much of it is simply a dull and unthinking conformity. Asked “why are we doing X?” the answer is “because that’s what we do!”, but obviously that’s not all there is to conservatism.

There are at least two interdependent reasons why conservative thought has been in retreat for a very long time indeed in the West. In one sense all politics is about special pleading and vested interests; all mass societies have stratification and differentiation along any number of axes. Politics is not often about genuine altruism.

In part conservatism is, functionally, the special pleading of the ‘haves’ against the ‘have nots’. That is a self-serving rationalisation for why all hierarchies in power, wealth, and status are natural, normal and entirely justified and unchangeable.

Take for example the ‘divine right of Kings’ – well it may be functionally true that in a mass society there has to a mechanism or process to make important collective decisions along with the means to enforce them (a Hobbesian Leviathan) - but why monarchy as that mechanism and why that specific person and their specific family? So an elaborate justification about it all being God’s will is dreamed up as to explain that particular state of affairs. Isn’t that oh so convenient for those that have most to gain from that state of affairs being continued? I doubt many conservatives today would like to offer a defence of the doctrine of the divine right of Kings, mainly because the contemporary status quo is has shifted considerably (yet at the time it was apparently an eternal truth). No doubt it today’s equivalent will be nonsense about how sacrosanct the particulars of the US constitution or Presidency are (or whatever).

So if conservatism is structurally organised in large part around the exercise of defending the contemporary socio-political status quo (no matter what that happens to be) then it is by definition, at its worst, a reactionary mode of thought. And isn’t this feature considered its best quality by many – its pragmatic, allegedly non-ideological nature. But if it has no real insights to give us other than to serve up ‘reasons’ why things are ‘naturally’ way they are and that as such that state of affairs just always happens to be the ‘best of all possible worlds’ then it is a nugatory scavenger-like ideology.

Accommodating itself to task of the rationalisation of any particular social order (there were conservative members of the Soviet politburo) using whatever is at hand to formulate its positioning on the given socio-political spectrum, it represents more a lesson in sophistry or inconsequential political bricolage than anything else. Rather like any good legal advocate will always try to make the best case possible for his client using every trick and rhetorical device at his disposal.

Given the rise of modern capitalism and the bourgeois strata, the shift in social-form from an organic and stable Gemeinschaft to the open and dynamic Gesellschaft (the ideological foundations of which are in radically individualistic, liberal political and economic theory), then conservative ideology slowly accommodated itself to these new realities (as it generally does) in order to do its ‘job’. That is to serve the self-interest of those that are doing well out of whatever those contemporary circumstances are. Thus much of what passes for conservatism is self-interest masquerading as ‘eternal’ insights.

We have a modern conservatism which has obviously become, in short-hand, Hayekian liberalism in drag. Why? Well Hayekian-style liberal thought gives precisely what an lot of superficial ‘conservatives’ want – cover for why they as individuals should be free to acquire as much wealth, status etc., as possible and why any interference in that process is totally illegitimate and ultimately to vindicate the status quo on the precise distribution of wealth and power, as being both just and natural.

Sure there are the accretions (or detritus for the unkind) of various conservative tropes on secondary issues such as abortion. In the USA conservatives make a lot of noise about it; in England its a total non-issue for mainstream conservatives (the average Tory MP doesn’t give damn about that topic or feel the need to pretend so in public). Many rhetorical conservative tropes have a very long half-life. Witness, for example, the old duffers wheeled out by the BBC for any major event involving the Royal family to echo, very faintly, the divine-right theory of kingship. They offer, in full lachrymose mode, various sentimental banalities and non-sequiturs as to why the Royal family are so ‘essential’ to British life – honestly are the French less French for not having a monarch? Such ostentatious displays of non-thinking does rather make ‘bog-standard’ conservatives look contemptible to people with IQs above room temperature.

Returning to my main point however, what is genuinely sacrosanct in contemporary conservatism is the primary commitment to freedom for the individual operating in the ‘free-market’ with ideally as few constraints upon their activities as possible (this also represents a species of utopian thinking as if only the market could be ‘free-enough’ all social and political problems would dissipate and virtually disappear). Right-wing liberals care about individual liberality and freedom in relation primarily to wealth, left-wing liberals primarily care about liberty and freedoms with regard to values and life-styles and the two join up in libertarianism that wants the maximal scope for individual agency and autonomy in both realms. 

What then remains of value in the conservative tradition? Well intellectually serious conservatives such as Roger Scruton suggest that at its best it represents the politics of collective and accumulated wisdom. The politics of the continuity and sustainability of a collective community – a form of intra-generational and inter-generational ‘moral economy’. That is a sense of gratitude for all the collective efforts and past sacrifices required to allow your community to exist now; gratitude to your own individual family and all of their efforts on your behalf and a recognition that in turn you too will have to make sacrifices for the next generation to thrive both personally and collectively. Society represents a form of common inheritance (social and cultural capital; ethno-linguistic etc.) that most be nurtured and passed on, not squandered or destroyed for short-term gain or fashion within the calculus of hedonism. And even if you do make a great deal of your gifts – intellectual, sporting, entrepreneurial etc., - they are gifts - as indeed is the common inheritance of your society that constitutes the very necessary ‘background conditions’ that facilitate the possibility to develop those talents. No-one is a radically autonomous, self-authored individual. If Mozart had been born in the 1st century, under a radically different set of socio-cultural conditions, he would not have become ‘Mozart’.

The key insight is the acceptance that the intra- and inter-generational moral economy must be protected from those that would ‘free-ride’ upon it (culturally, environmentally, economically) for their own short-term selfish gains, thus undermining a communities long-term sustainability and continuity. It is a form of communitarian politics – that is ultimately the health and well-being of the community trumps individuals rights. Thus it is radically different from all liberal theories which make individuals and their rights primary and other considerations secondary (at best). To be successful however such a politics must also know how to separate the wheat from the chafe – what really is worth conserving and what is peripheral and ephemeral trivia. Knowing what is of primary importance and value is central – and that is not the ‘right’ to buy and sell iPhones, or to snort cocaine, or to enjoy an extremely low rate of capital gains tax, or to have the state award you children if you are a homosexual male couple. Such ‘rights’ or entitlements, or in fact wants, are very much secondary in any civilised hierarchy of values; if such wants risk the sustainability or well-being of the collective community then they must be curtailed.

Just as liberal politics has it own internal spectrum from left to right so does communitarianism – please note denizens of middle-America it is not a general synonym for communism. Obviously, at its most extreme communitarian inspired politics can be brutally authoritarian; at its most right-wing it can be transformed into fascism and at its extreme left-wing end does becomes communist tyranny, both of which attempt an ‘ontological fusion’ between the parts and the whole (individuals and their collective community) such as there is little or no genuinely possibility for the interests of the individual and the collective to legitimately differ. There must be a type of quasi-Aristotelian middle-way – the ‘radical centre’ - but developing it in a creditable way is not an easy task. This is in part because our political vocabularies have become so hollowed out and attenuated, and due also to the total exhaustion of our collective political imaginations, devoid of any sources of genuinely serious yet different thinking.

Posted by kenday on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:36 | #

Graham,

those are many of the problems we have to overcome.  Conservative is not a helpful term but it is all we have at the moment.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_basis_for_a_conservative_challenge_to_progressive_thinking/

Posted by Bill on Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:40 | #

Conservatism to me is a natural process.  When, over thousands of years, living arrangements had scarcely altered, conservatism becomes a natural order of things.

The pace of life is in sync with the seasons of nature, technical change is slow, the politics is faith and remained so for centuries.  The overseeing of the tribe was in the hands of a few who and had for millennia, honed their skills at ruling the herd.

This is how it was since records began.  Along comes a game changer, modernity. Human society is swept along on a mania of technology expansion.

In the blink of an eye man had transformed from hunter gatherer to man in a space suit and had outpaced the tempo of nature’s change, man’s progress had outstripped the ability of nature to keep up.

Man became disorientated without compass.  The pace of life too much, his former living arrangements no longer fit for purpose or guidance.

Ensuing desperate attempts to negotiate a path to a saner, less dysfunctional world have failed to the point of disaster and extinction.  Conservatism was no longer an option, being mocked out of true by modernity, but there’s more than a chance that man is caste back to the Middle Ages, where conditions for conservatism may present themselves once more.

But in the meantime….