Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Revolution-3-259x300

TIAWA: There Is A White Alternative

Talk of a need for consensus is fashionable among mainstream politicians and the broader social and cultural elites, who, in order to effectively pursue their interests against the rest of society, need to think and act as a more or less coherent class with a broadly shared understanding of the world.  In the 1980s, the Tory party under Margaret Thatcher, borrowing from a classical liberal thinker of the 19th. century, Herbert Spencer, used the term: There Is No Alternative – ‘TINA’ – to encapsulate the determination of the elite that there should be no serious consideration of policy alternatives outside of economic neo-liberalism.  In 1992, a book by political scientist Francis Fukuyama, ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ (expanding on a 1989 essay, ‘The End of History?’) argued that with the collapse of what was erroneously known as ‘communism’, liberal democracy had become the dominant and final system of political and social organisation for humanity.

The actuality of this consensus is a little more complicated.  Even the elites are sometimes undermined by rebels and dissenters who stand for variations of the existing order.  Meanwhile, those involved in marginal and fringe politics and who, ostensibly, stand for a New Order, seem to thrive on the opposite of consensus: what passes for Nationalism is riven by splits, sectarianism and internecine ideological and philosophical conflict.  If the opposition cannot unite and get its act together, and if all that the people have by way of political ‘choices’ are the non-choices of a liberal consensus, with its mindless, decadent celebration of the ‘Last Man’ and zero-conscious culture, then apathy will begin to permeate through society and there will be a feeling of hopelessness about the political process.  Many putatively anti-Establishment politicians and modern oppositional commentators have found ways to articulate this sense of apathy and lack of hope in a kind of ‘knowing cynicism’ that acknowledges the political system is morally and functionally bankrupt but seems to offer no genuine alternatives or solutions other than petulant outrage and name-calling.  The dots are frequently joined, but the solutions, while sometimes hinted at, are never presented coherently or in a way that might encourage an activationist response that gives meaning to people’s lives.  Thus, instead of an environment of criticism and enlightenment, we have a climate of alienation in which ordinary people can only find expression and meaning in dead-end pursuits: TV-watching, football clubs, Sky Gods, self-gratification and sadism.  Sometimes the apathy masquerades as action: the type of action that is actually just escapism, such as the futile and endless marching of the EDL or the pointless, circular party games of the far-Right and UKIP.  We live in the era of passivity, whose slogan is the pounding, demoralising, drum-like mantra of every Leviathan and that reverberates down through history – TINA: There Is No Alternative.  We are discouraged from looking outside TINA, and the forces at work for TINA-compliance are powerful in society, stretching from the halls of academia to local newspaper offices and into the workplace and the home, but if we are to have hope, then we must escape from the Lotus of repression and controlled opposition and begin to recognise our true role, not as the figurative Last Man, but as the Superman, at whose feet are the great open plains of both history and future, stretching out infinitesimally and rendering utterly significant the TINA ‘reality’ and its restrictive demarcations of knowledge and consciousness.

A radical step-change is needed, and ironically, white-conscious people have to begin by emulating the masses around us.  We have to leave Nationalism behind: lock, stock and barrel. Except in the very generic sense of white nationhood and racial unity, Nationalism as a movement is redundant, largely because of underlying social and technological changes that have created a global interdependency among nations and peoples and weakened the relevancy of the nation-state.  The decline and fall of Nationalism was really marked by one single historical event, the end of the Second World War – the victory of internationalists over national-socialists – the rights and wrongs of which can be debated, but the impact of which was and remains undeniable.  Nationalism as a political concept was already dead in 1945. In the mono-racial societies that existed prior to the War, the motive force of Nationalism was simple patriotism: that is to say, loyalty to Queen, flag and country.  There was no particular need to emphasise the racial aspects – real Nationalism – since society was racially-homogeneous.  Indeed, it was once the case that an appeal to simplistic patriotism – fake nationalism – could move armies, but after the War a more internationalist climate began to emerge that undermined the diplomatic, economic, and financial systems on which nation-states had rested for their legitimacy.  Thus, the old John Bull-style patriotism began to lose its effectiveness in defending racial integrity.  At the same time, any efforts to promote actual Nationalism – i.e. Racialism – which was and remains the real opposition to globalism and mixed-racialism, was successfully marginalised by the diabolical, dishonest propaganda of the Establishment and a complicit media.

As I have explained in previous essays (see, for instance, ‘The Lessons of Leith’), Nationalism in the ossified sense of patriotic Revanchism has no social or political potency, and is in fact decades out-of-date.  What ought to have happened, and what remains lamentable, is the absence of a ‘far-Left Racial Nationalism’, which should have emerged in the post-War period.  The Left mysteriously turned to globalism instead.  This opened the way for the dominance of the far-Right in Nationalism, in conjunction with the rather odd post-War reactionary sub-cultures of neo-Nazism and Hitlerism.  The damning legacy of the Right is a failure to connect their watered-down type of Racial Nationalism, such as it was, to the everyday concerns of the white working class.  Now the brand is toxic, not just due to its media-inspired demonised status and its intellectual and practical putrefaction, but also because the very essence of being a Nationalist (at least in the racial and nativist contexts) has become a by-word for inaction, passivity and leader worship, punctuated by sporadic escapism and the occasional reactionary diversion.

All whites – not just the race conscious but also the unconscious in wider society – need to re-discover self-directed political practices: that is, self-organisation and community activism.  We have to develop an entirely new political identity with its own alternative language and sub-culture.  In short, we must re-invent ourselves and build a genuine White Alternative.  This Second Wave needs to return to the roots of what it means to be a nationalist, and in that sense, paradoxically, it must represent a kind of Anti-Nationalism or Post-Nationalism: a refutation of what has gone on before while embracing the authentic historical roots of Nationalism as an expression of the shared political consciousness of our people.  In embarking on this difficult mission, right from the start we should acknowledge the need for an academic phase of thinking and ideas. An intellectual exercise should always precede planning, and thoughtful planning should always precede action.  Some far-seeing ‘Post-Nationalists’ have already reached the action stage: White Independent Nation (WIN) and its concept of the New Tribe is an important, pioneering example of the type of new thinking and practices that we need in the Second Wave, in this case applied to community-building.  These laudable initiatives need to form part of a larger attempt among white conscious activists to build an alternative sub-culture, consisting of new structures for discussion, belief, activism and opposition, and other aspects of everyday life, with its own political language.  We must reject TINA and embrace TIAWA: There Is A White Alternative: which needs to be created by us, not handed-down to us by demagogues and the state.

In a previous article, ‘The New Four Words‘, I talked about how the revisionist Griffin leadership of the BNP had set out at the cusp of the 21st. century with the correct basic idea: in order to appeal to the British public, both the message and its delivery and style need to be couched in attractive terms.  However, the strategy selected by the BNP was misconceived.  The BNP sought to co-opt the language and conceptualisations of the enemy, borrowing the enemy’s tools to advance Nationalist iconoclasm.  While this approach to things was entirely appropriate for what is known as ‘far-Right Nationalism’, with its objective of winning elections, it was wholly inappropriate for achieving the objective of a racially-homogeneous society.  What in reality has happened is that the far-Right has itself been slowly deracinated and multi-culturalised on liberal terms – to the extent that we even now have the spectacle of BNP activists on the web going round accusing other Nationalists of ‘racism’ and questioning what race has to do with Nationalist activity.  This is what happens when means become the ends and when power is sought as an objective in its own right.  This is based on the flawed belief that the problem is politicians and that power can be won by ‘convincing the masses’ who, given the opportunity, will one day turf out the corrupt elite.  What people who think this fail to understand is that power is, and always has been, with the masses themselves.  Any attempt to ‘convince’ the masses leads to intellectual cowardice and expediency, qualities that the Right has in abundance.  It prioritises ‘not causing offence’ and being semitically-correct in order to win over thoughtless idiots, when in fact what we should be doing is telling the truth in order to win over that minority of the population who are actually valuable to us.

Of course, there is room for discussion about presentation and making our message attractive – these concerns should not be ignored or sidelined – but we should always remember that democratic means are merely a tool to be used when it suits us, not an end in themselves.  We must resist the temptation of ‘respectability’ and we must not fall into the trap of adopting the liberal mindset, which restricts the scope for resistance and useful activity.  In some respects, we will have to mirror the Left’s tactics, which were to work quietly to spread an alternative cultural message through society, both politically and non-politically, but always with political goals in mind.  Only, ours is a very different objective, so we must evaluate our tactics and methods with the uniqueness of our goals in mind and consider a different linearity.  It is a mistake to believe that we can roll-back the mixed-racial society and the deracination of Britain and the West.  What we need to do instead is create an alternative society.

Building a White Alternative does not mean opting-out of the mainstream or becoming a drop-out.  It just means that as white people we should start to think as a racial community and build a nascent alternative sub-culture that supports whites and repels non-whites.  That’s the only way we will see change.  If we keep relying on others to change things for us, we will get nowhere.  So we must ditch the traditional, party-centred, hierarchical approach of the Right and embrace more anarchical, community-based solutions that emphasise activity rather than passivity, community rather than democracy, and self-help and self-organisation rather than leaders and parties.  In other words, a return to authenticity and the very roots of the movement.  As mentioned already, this White Alternative is already being put into practice with a community-building group, White Independent Nation (WIN).  We also need a civil resistance movement, which will work at a local level to create Local Resistance Zones.  A group has been formed to plan and discuss this, and efforts are under a way to turn lawful, non-violent white resistance into a reality, including an exploration of the potential in the cutting-edge possibilities of the web and its Creative Commons.  We will build a new kind of resistance movement that the Establishment cannot stop.  (For further discussion on this, see also my essay: ‘The Mechanics of Virtual Resistance‘).

We also need a new political party that rejects the right-wing model and works without leaders, without a membership list and without formal structures and acts as a unifying banner that any white person anywhere in the world can align themselves with.  This new party will provide crowd-funding mechanisms so that white-conscious people can stand for elections as Independents (and even under the new party’s banner, when and where appropriate).  We need an alternative media, a legal support network, an intelligence and rebuttal organisation, the list could go on.  All of this should be done in a way that is next-to impossible for the authorities to attack, with no identifiable leaders, structure or membership lists.

It is important to understand that none of these initiatives will be the finished product or the final destination.  They are a means to an end.  Some of the more frivolous and ill-thought-out efforts will fail and lessons will have to be learned; some of what we do will peter out for natural reasons; and, objectives and goals will be missed due to ill-starred chance and circumstance.  The point is that we must try.  We must go on fighting.  That is the only right, it is our right, and it is why we are here.

The White Alternative is not a retreat.  It is a new beginning, an intelligent re-alignment of human resources towards tactics and methods that are more suitable to the operating environment.  The White Race will only survive through this kind of intelligent adaptation.  Unfortunately the Right will not understand this message, and its sterile, devolutionary politics will go on for some time yet.  The far-Right, in particular, has so far managed to trick Nationalists by presenting itself as an ‘opposition’ when it is nothing of the kind, and even by presenting ‘false alternatives’ – for instance, the Alternative Right/Alt Right, which is just a bunch of academic ‘racist’ conservatives.  I have already discussed at length in other essays the problem of UKIP as a controlled opposition: see, for instance, ‘UKIP and the Enoch Powell Cult‘.  We need a White Alternative – a completely different way of thinking and organising in which ordinary white people reject leaders and demagogues and instead build trust and confidence among themselves to self-organise and act as a racial community outside the sphere of mainstream politics.

You can help start the White Alternative right now.  Stop using the word ‘Nationalist’ to describe your political beliefs.  Start referring to yourself by your proper moniker – you are a White Neo-Tribalist.  You are one of the New Tribe.  Welcome!  We are, if anything, Anti-Nationalists.  We reject the old ways and the hierarchies; the pride and the hate; the endless party games; the Hitler worship and so on.  Instead, we look positively to the future and seek to fashion a creative synergy online, and off-line, in which we as the New Tribe work to build a movement, resist oppression, learn and propagandise, and above all, educate those of our fellow whites who still have the potential to see the truth and reach for the stars.

End Note: TOWARDS A CREDO FOR THE WHITE ALTERNATIVE

Here I set out, roughly, a possible starting point in developing a Credo for The White Alternative:

Our ideology/position is White Neo-Tribalism.  Our aim is the fashioning of a New Tribe and true white racial sovereignty, embracing social and economic liberation for all white people.

We adopt The New Four Words as our political message: Race, Solidarity, Community, Safety.

Our allegiance is only to New Tribe-aligned groups –

White Independent Nation (WIN) – for community-building.

The White Resistance Movement – for lawful, non-violent civil resistance by whites in their existing communities on the LRZ model.  Depending on local circumstances, this is as either a precursor to, or part of an evolving attempt to form, a PLE community in the resistance zone, or as a stop-gap for individuals and families before moving to the WIN region.

A new political party is needed based on an ‘alternative politics’ model.  We’ll hypothetically call it the ‘White Homeland Party’ – a leaderless political party that any race-conscious white person can join.  The party’s purpose would be to help whites mount a political/electoral attack on mixed-racialism by providing information and guidance on the political system and by supporting white-conscious individuals who wish to stand as Independent candidates (or under the party banner if the individual is already publicly-known as a ‘racist’).  The party could provide a crowd-sourcing platform to help fund the election expenses of candidates.

We need some kind of ‘White Opposition’, to counter the work of anti-racists and anti-fascists like Searchlight, the UAF and Hope Not Hate and to provide us with an operational and tactical intelligence capacity.  This is, after all, a war.

We need a legal assistance network modelled on Amnesty International to campaign against and raise awareness of civil liberties abuses against race-aware whites.

We need to look into the possibility of building white business networks and the feasibility of local community trusts of white people which will guard local, socially-important assets such as community centres and churches from development by non-whites and traitorous whites alike.

These are just rough ideas.  The accent needs to be on us, as whites, organising things for ourselves and working together locally rather than relying on leaders and structures.  That’s the approach that best suits the environment we face at the moment.