The scale of the change to British politics effected by the ejection from office of the Labour Party is now unfolding.  I am not just talking about the dawn of the pragmatic centre or the imminent demise of “the database state”, or any of the policy outcomes and accommodations that so preoccupy the media, welcome though some of these are.  We are nationalists and we have a higher purpose to which we are faithful, and it is in relation to this that the historical moment has meaning for us.

What is that meaning?  Well, there are plainly two emergent factors that pose challenges to the development of nationalist politics.  The first of those is the decline of cutting-edge race politics which has been such a feature of discourse over the last thirteen years.  Is it too early to conclude that such a decline is in train?  I don’t think so.  As a dedicated follower of political fashions on the liberal-left, and a CiF junkie, I am already suffering withdrawal systems from the paucity of anti-English racism on display at the aforementioned temple of correctness.  Amid the after-shocks of rejection and executive powerlessness, I can feel an inchoate horror among the politically fashionable that fashion no longer affords them the opportunity to visit their hate on the white of skin.  They know they have to recoup and re-invent themselves to survive, and the instinct for both will, among leftists, unfailingly involve an internalisation of the kind of Pacman activity that these creatures ordinarily project upon us. They are going to devour the old, fearful egalitarian aggressivity and regurgitate it as something else.  It is too early to say what.  A solidifying of ground gained, perhaps, in preparation for an anticipated new assault.  But nothing along those lines can be accomplished now, when all the talk is inevitably of “reconnecting” and “learning from the mistakes of the past.”

The Labour Party will likely be out of power for at least eight years.  Its critics repeatedly observed that the rise of the BNP was an inevitable consequence of government policy.  A symbiotic relationship existed, and now the balance has been disturbed in a major way.  Race politics is going to have to do a lot of adjusting to the new centrist reality.  The question is, will nationalism adjust also.  Or will it continue to lazily rely on the disaffection of the traditionally Labour-voting white working-class … a disaffection which Labour will certainly now endeavour to correct?

If the uncertainties in this scenario are too numerous for us to make any firm conclusions at this early stage, uncertainty is no less a factor in and around the BNP following the disappointments of election night.  There have been the regulation happy noises about increasing vote share and saving deposits, and the usual sage advice about setbacks along the road.  But none of that can soften the impact of the setbacks in Barking and Stoke at both national and local level.  They have punctured the illusion that, under Nick Griffin, the party is on an irresistible upward swing.  The PR debacles in the run-up to the election and the rumours about the role of Jim Dowson have “last straw” written all over them.  A future no more certain than that of the party’s symbiotic twin is beckoning, with the exception that the Labour Party has an efficient mechanism for replacing its leader.

These are not the good times nationalists expected at this point in the struggle to save the English people.  The change in the political game has caught them out.  The nature of the party is being tested and if it turns out, under Griffin and Dowson, to be something other than what the members always thought it was, it will die.

Ever since this blog launched I seem to have become a serial conversationist.  At present, one of my on-going conversations is with a writer and friend in New Zealand, Rod Cameron.  Rod is talking to me about his ideas and I am talking back, a little unfairly, about mine.  I suppose we shall eventually discover all our areas of agreement and difference.  I know these latter include Jungianism, of which Rod is an advocate.  But they seem also to include the question of an ontological nationalism.  This post is actually a reply to a long email from Rod which arrived yesterday morning, and which was itself a response to a much longer exchange over Skype Chat.

I apologise to everyone who is already tiring fast of angels and pinheads.  But I think this stuff is quite important.

Rod,

Obviously, there are scores of very fine commentaries on Heidegger on the net. They will tell you much more than I can about the man and his thought, and I urge you to search them out if you are seriously intending to incorporate even a passing reference to “the existential” in Chapter Five.  What I will do here is to reply to two issues you raised about my own very callow observations on same in the (possibly forlorn) hope that we can move towards a shared understanding.

You quoted my observation that “Everything begins with being. There is nothing prior, and only diffusion of thought after.”  You ask, “Can I take this as an Absolute statement?”

Yes, if you recognise that being is a practical experience, a state in Nature we are capable of achieving - indeed, equipped by Nature to achieve.  It is not simple this thing called Life, or some particular way of looking at our general experience of living.  Being is not general.  It is particular.  It is the existential exclusive.  It is a state that is difficult to reach and hard to hold on to, and like all things that take hard human endeavour, it has a high psychological value.

Nevertheless, everything really solid that we can talk about as students of the human begins with it, yes.  All the rest, all that we generally know and understand, and think, feel and do, and all that we are, suffers by comparison to the extent that it might be called unreal or a form of absence or exile.  Or, in the context of our collective European life, it might be called the postmodern life or simply our collective estrangement from ourselves and from one another.

The individual experience in being differs from the collective qualitatively only because of the scale on which the individual life differs from that of the collective.  The alcohol has a higher proof, for sure.  But they are not different in the moment that they reveal.  Being is unity in temporality.

Then you write:

READ MORE...

Jonathan has responded positively to my request for an interview, notwithstanding the warning “racism and hate - please see your librarian” that greeted his attempt to load MR on the monitored monitor he happened to be using at the time.  He tells me that, coincidentally, he has just recorded a VoR programme with Tom Sunic.  I will find out when that is going to air, but I am not overly bothered about the clash because, of course, VoR does not have the superbly inquisitive commentariat that we have.

So, you asked for him.  You have got him.  Now what do you want to hear from him?

According to a Telegraph article today there is a suicide cluster at the vast Shenzhen plant of electronics sub-contractor, Foxconn:

There was another death at Foxconn yesterday. A 21-year-old man with “several” knife cuts fell out of the seventh-floor window of one of Foxconn’s dormitories in Shenzhen.

Foxconn is the Taiwanese company, also known as Honhai, which manufactures Apple’s iPhone and iPod, as well as goods for just about every major technology company, including Sony, Nintendo, HP and so on.

However, the company has been plagued by a series of suicides at its plants, particularly at the enormous Longhua plant where over 400,000 people work.

... the company says it has prevented a further 30 people from trying to kill themselves in the past three weeks alone. Clearly, something out of the ordinary is going on.

What is happening in Shenzhen has the hallmarks of a “suicide cluster”, when the notion of suicide spreads rapidly through a group of people, often teenagers or young adults. Foxconn says it is at its wits’ end as to how to tackle the problem, and has even drafted in a Buddhist monk to try to purge its factories of evil spirits.

Others have said the current generation of migrant workers, who have opted to move from other parts of China to seek their fortunes in the country’s coastal factories, are not as tough as their forbears.

Usually better educated than their parents, they are prone to existential angst when confronted with seven-day weeks and 15-hour days of repetitive manufacturing. The nine Foxconn workers involved in suicide leaps this year were all aged under 25 and had worked for the company for less than six months.

The journalist goes to the trouble of quoting Marx on alienation.  But the existence of a cluster suggests memetic activity, not the individually-driven rationalisations of the depressed and damaged.

There are three ways the will to suicide, as a group-confined memetic, can be internalised by susceptible individuals, one for each general type of human mind.  The mind in which physicality and sensation predominate requires some pretty blunt instruction.  “Go jump, loser!” would do it, providing the psychological state was one of sufficiently profound absence of the subject.  That is quite conceivable, given a fifteen hour day of the narrow-range, physically repetitive motions of station activity in Far East electronics production.

In quoting an intern who went undercover at Foxconn, the Telegraph journalist describes an employee of just this type:-

“One worker impressed me a great deal,” he wrote. “His name was Wang Kezhu and he often climbed to the highest places to check the storage, or ran the fastest to get the new cargo. He would yell or shout or sing to release the pressure building up in him. He told me that people got promoted if they had skills, and that he was hoping to learn useful skills. He once applied for a job at an education institute, but when they called he could not understand what they were saying.”

READ MORE...

Talking to people for the radio project isn’t exactly difficult.  A bit of research and some thought beforehand, and the rest is, well, normal really.  But finding the right people to talk to - people who not only have some salience in our world and something interesting and important to say, but will also attract listeners - is not quite so easy.  So I thought it would be useful to throw the floor open to suggestions.  Who do you think we should ask to be interviewed?

The candidate must be someone likely to accept, and must speak clear English.  Other than that, the field is open.

A game of skill to prepare you for your new career

by I. Bismuth

Introduction

Are you wondering how much longer you can hog that job that someone else could be doing, someone with better-qualified skin? Are you uncomfortably aware of being less vibrant than your colleagues? Are you feeling increasingly pale as you look around you? In short, are you guilty of working while White?

If you are, there is merely a delay in finding your innocent successor. I am sorry about nothing in this process except the delay. And yet here I am worrying about your future.

Not quite.

I confess that I struggled with my conscience for some time over how to justify lifting a finger to help you and your kind. As members of the guilty race*, you deserve everything you get and nothing you have. But driving me all my life has been a passionate rejection of prejudice of all kinds, and I have concluded that if I wilfully miss a chance to make a little money which I can use in the fight against prejudice merely on the grounds of avoiding doing what is unconscionable, that can only be because conscience itself has become a kind of prejudice and must ,therefore, be passionately rejected.

So I offer this employment advice to you who fully merit your coming termination, on condition that when you have used it to good effect and you start earning again, you send me my fee**, or better still, you send me your address and I’ll come and collect it myself.

The Game

My help comes in the form of the game Nazi Link, a training and development tool.

READ MORE...

At the weekend Lee John Barnes and I finally recorded an hour’s worth of sometimes fairly frank discussion, and the result is on the Radio page.  Lee, it must be said, has no official remit to speak for the party leadership.  But he is as close and as loyal to it as anyone I am likely to interview for the foreseeable future, and puts up a spirited defence - alongside an interesting focus on non-political activism to address the fractured and atomised condition of the white working class under multiculturalism.