• About

John Londen

~ White Neo-Tribalist, radical self-critic, troublemaker: "…didactic, opinionated, pontifical…" But not philodoxically.

John Londen

Tag Archives: National Front

Is It Dead Yet?

08 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

dormancy, Electoral Commission, Frankenstein, Frankenstein's monster, homicidal nut, horror movies, Jewish film industry, Jewish influence, movie monsters, movie villains, National Front, Northern faction (NF), Official faction (NF), political Nationalism, Retro-Nationalism, serila killer, Southern faction (NF)

en4a2oh-imgur-1

Is It Dead Yet?

The never-ending saga of Retro-Nationalism is starting to resemble one of those Jewy horror movies.  It’s an appropriate analogy, I find, given the 70s/80s feel of what passes for political Nationalism nowadays.  You may recall that at the end of those films, there was always a character who asked after the health and welfare of the monster/serial killer/homicidal nut, knowing that this evil force of Nature couldn’t be easily put down.  He, she or it had to be shot, stabbed and burnt several times before finally succumbing.

I have to ask of the National Front: ‘Is it dead yet?’

Eddy Morrison said: “We will know by the 1st February.”

I just wish the Electoral Commission would get their act together and kill-off this Frankenstein’s monster for good, by either refusing registration to both factions (if possible) or by granting registration to the dormant Official (Southern) faction, which would have the same effect of killing it off.

I will lay my own cards on the table here and make no bones about this: I hope the NF – Northern, Southern, Official or whatever – is dead and buried. Not because I wish anyone involved in it ill, but because it’s time to turn a new page. For once, our enemies are actually right about something. It would be good if the National Front were confined to the dustbin – good for white people, that is.

What I Would Do

19 Friday Dec 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Antonio Gramsci, asylum-seekers, ballot box, Belgium, Britain, British identity, bunting, Child Sexual Exploitation, China, Conservantive Party, CSE, demonstrations, East Asia, Europe, fake white liberal paternalism, feel good politics, general public, generic national-socialism, Gramscian, Gramscianism, human beings, human nature, immigration, Japan, Jewish influence, Jewish interests, Jews, leftists, liberal narcissism, Lie Machine, M&S, mainstreaming, Marxism, Max Musson, maximisation, maximising, moral case for racial separation, narcissism, National Front, National Socialist Germany, Nationalism, neo-Marxists, non-white immigration, non-whites, North Korea, paedophiles, paedos, Pakistani Muslims, Pakistania community, Pakistania rape scandal, political mainstream, political relevancy, pound shops, pro-white activists, pro-white politics, racila separation, relevancy, socio-biological realities, socio-biology, Stormfront, street politics, stupefaction, terrorism, Third Reich, Third World, Third World immigrants, Third Worlders, UKIP, Union Flag, Union Jack, violence, Western Spring, white altruism, White Independent Nation, White Liberal Supremacy, White Nationalism, white pathological altruism, white people, White Race, White-Max, WIN

qwdewd

What I Would Do

I link here to an article by Max Musson of Western Spring on the importance of fund-raising: I’ll do anything…but I won’t do that! 

The tenor of the article seems to be that without effective fund-raising and a pool of capital, Nationalism is doomed to fail.  I will not nit-pick the arguments in detail, as that could be seen as churlish, but I can see a general flaw. The point about money is well-made, but money is a tool that is only effective in the right hands, with the right strategy, clear goals and aims and with some understanding of the tactics needed to get there.  In the wrong hands, money is poison and can actually be detrimental.

What is most lacking in Nationalism is not money but expertise. Money tends to follow the right people with the right plan and the will to put it into effect, but I would dispute its criticality as presented in the article.  For instance, let’s say you want to build a white conscious community. Having the capital to invest in houses and other facilities can help, yes, but what’s more important than even that is having an understanding of how to gain influence and control in a community. Given the choice, I would prefer the latter over the former. Having money, but not much upstairs in terms of how to achieve the objectives, is only going to get you so far. A lack of money, on the other hand, does not preclude you from building a white conscious community. Money can be found, and in any case, it is not needed if you have the necessary skills and ingenuity to operate with subtly.

What is not being acknowledged by any (or very few) pro-white activists (and, this includes Western Spring) is that Nationalism has already failed.  This is for a number of reasons too numerous to exhaust here, but the most striking reality facing us is that the traditional aim of re-capturing Britain is out-of-reach.

Tribalism has to replace Nationalism.  Frankly it should have done from the start.  The truth is that when National Socialist Germany was finally defeated in May 1945, that also signalled the defeat for national-socialist (i.e. white) Britain, as it did for every other European country.  It also represented an ominous sign for generic national-socialism everywhere, or at least everywhere that the Jews have interests to protect or advance.  The only hold-outs left are found in East Asia – China, Japan and North Korea – which are still thoroughly national-socialist, but even in those countries, Jews are visibly on the rise and miscegenation is being encouraged.  Jewish capitalism is, for now, victorious and the era of the ethno-nation state is coming to an end.  This reality necessitates not just new strategies, but new geopolitical goals – something that, unfortunately, a lot of nationalists, who are steeped in conservative mores and habits, cannot grasp, or if they do, cannot and will not accept.

The true battle is racial, and embraces psychological, economic, social, biological and technological fronts as well as political activity. In other words, this is total racial warfare: and really, always has been. It’s just that the pro-white side has not officially woken up to this and still believes in Jewish party games [Surrrprise…!!!] and other delusions.

The term ‘race war’ does not, and need not, embrace violence or terrorism (though unofficially, a high intensity street war of a pseudo-military kind is being waged against us already). The opportunity we have is to pursue peaceful methods, albeit of a highly-disruptive nature, however we should always be willing to adopt violence if this is thought to be tactically efficacious and appropriate. There is no room for moral and ethical quesiness.

The traditional reactionary thesis that the counter-culture can be rolled-back by a ‘counter-counter culture’ is, I believe, mistaken. The Gramscian tactics were invented for neo-Marxists and leftists. They don’t apply to our predicament, and won’t work for us. This is because of a simple socio-biological reality: non-whites (whether pure or mixed) won’t support us, for obvious reasons; nor do we want to be polluted by their support, and as their numbers grow (we are talking millions now), the country will become Balkanised and any political programme based on notions of forcible repatriation will start to look impractical even to the most obstinate conservative.

What needs to be remembered is that multi-racialism and multi-culturalism mean mixed-racialism: race-mixing. That’s the real objective of our enemies, which, once achieved, de-couples race from culture, subverts the once indigneous population and turns society into a rootless, compliant, consumerist mass. The conservatives and reactionaries are of no use to us. The flaws in their arguments can be easily identified by looking at the more naive utterances of their supporters: “Just one more push and we’re there!”, “The system will collapse, then people will rally to us”, “Vote UKIP”, “If UKIP don’t get anywhere this time round, then I’ll look at alternatives like Western Spring. I will, I promise!” and even (yes I’ve read words to the effect somewhere on Stormfront): “The Conservatives are doing something about immigration now. Voting for UKIP seems to be working.” Those who adopt such positions will either have to change and accept new realities, or mix with the herd and leave their white identity behind. That’s the brutal reality.

We must recognise we are not just a minority, but a ‘minority of a minority’, and, in this phase of the struggle, our numbers will contract still further as the mainstream population mixes genetically, spiritually and culturally with the Third Worlders.

Against this background, new parallel institutions and organisations need to be invented that will appeal to those among the herd who might support us. These should be designed to capitalise on new opportunities as the number of disaffected whites grows larger and these people start to react and look around for novel solutions.

Electoral politics and appealing for votes cannot be discounted entirely and should not be dismissed. It forms part of the overall equation, but the algebra needs to change: it’s now just one strategy among several, and it should be directed towards establishing a moral case for racial separation, rather than this deluded revanchism of trying to take back a country that is already lost. I am not saying Western Spring is the worst offender in this respect. In fact, I think their approach to things is sufficiently flexible that it could be adapted over time as the reality of our situation sinks in.

Instead, I will pick on the National Front. The current political strategy of groups like the National Front ignores reality, and worse, necessitates the flawed approach of appealing to the lowest common denominator among the populace, which is useless. In the case of the NF, this means screaming at asylum seekers or standing in town centres shouting about paedos, as well as distributing crude, amateurish and unappealing propaganda that (even without the spelling errors) leaves the stupefied herd feeling wised-up for once. They have been conditioned to ‘see through it’.

What should we do instead? I call the electoral strategy we need ‘maximisation’: maximising support among whites who might agree with us and making our message as appealing as possible to that small group, as opposed to mainstreaming the message, which involves jumping on populist bandwagons and trying to appeal to everbody. The former uses our resources wisely. The latter is based on the delusion that you can ‘convince’ people, when most people aren’t rational and in fact base their political choices on emotion. That’s why it just wastes everyone’s time and demotivates those involved.

The fundamental emotional, irrational nature of human beings needs to be recognised. This doesn’t apply to all evenly. I tend to be more rational than emotional, but I also note that at times I can fall for emotional narratives just like everybody else. This is a human quality that is almost universal.

That’s why you have to start with presentation and work backwards. A fresh image is needed. Take a stroll to the National Front website and see what the problem is. The impression given: angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant, thuggish, uppity, and worst of all, out-of-date. This may or may not reflect the reality. I’m talking here about the impression made on the ordinary herd mind, if they bother looking ‘us’ up at all.

If you want to raise an army and invade Belgium, then yes, you need an organisation that is, among other things, angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant (about politics), and preferably, thuggish. But if you want to appeal to ordinary folk in elections and convince them you are competent enough to run the local parish council, these qualities – or a widely-held perception that you possess them – might not be such an asset. Wrong? Unfair? It’s both those things and more. The public have been brainwashed by a lie machine designed for fools. Alas, I am not in a position to stuff the ballot boxes with votes for a White Nationalist party, so the public’s wildly wrong and unfair perceptions will have to do – especially if, unlike me, you aspire to somehow win over masses of people.

Let’s suppose enough of us had some understanding of conditioning (like New Labour did, and as most modern politicians and Westminster types do). We would then concentrate on removing or neutralising the negatives, or at least minimising them.

How? Instead of angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant, thuggish and uppity, we would create political parties, institutions and organisations that emphasise things like safety, community, family, loyalty, solidarity, and above all else, relevancy. We would also seek to live these values by undertaking a campaign of social and moral resistance in our local areas, while also planning and building a white stronghold in a specific target area, with the intention that this initiative would expand outwards and also be duplicated and copied elsewhere by others.

This is not about compromising our core beliefs. Quite the opposite. It’s actually about ‘going back to basics’.

Who are we? White people.

What are we doing? Preserving the white race.

Will we do this by waving Union Flags, giving off the British Bulldog image, like some kind of working class version of Dads’ Army, trying to persuade every passing idiot at the local shopping centre to ‘save Britain’? I think that’s doubtful. I’m not saying the traditional sort of patriotism doesn’t matter at all, just that there is a time and a place for it and a way of putting it across that doesn’t get people’s backs up or make us look irrelevant. Most white British people still value their British identity and are, in that sense, patriotic – I live in an area that hangs Union Jack bunting and flags in the streets – but they want their patriotism (which is a little bit guilty and dirty nowadays) to reflect back at them in a positive way. It’s a bit like shopping – you use the local pound shop if you’re cheap and don’t care who knows it. You go to M&S to keep up appearances.

That’s not to say I have a low opinion of the public. It’s just to accept that most people are herd-like in their mentality and, in the case of whites, also social. Asians have the concept of Face, which is a bit different but has similarities. One of the reasons the Pakistani community aided in the cover-up of the rape scandal was in an effort to maintain a front – a kind of collective projection of the Face concept. Whites want to be seen to support things that reflect back well on them, and even when they are doing things in secret – like voting – they want to feel good about it. Some link this attribute to that famous altruistic streak we whites are said to have, which (being a cynic) I think is really just a type of narcissism: wanting to make yourself look better/more important in the eyes of others.

That’s not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than those of us who are not so herd-like. It’s just the way people are. It’s why our society is as it is – both the good and the bad. People want to support things that reflect well on them. A bunch of angry, screaming men, blood up, protesting ‘paedos’ is all well and good, and it keeps the police in double-pay, but does it win us any credibility or support? When Joe and Jennifer Bloggs see the NF out on these demonstrations, do they imagine that they too would like to join in and shout at asylum seekers, or do they just clock at some sub-conscious level that this is just a bunch of idiots? I suspect the latter. Wrong? Unfair? Yes, but again, this is how people are. Do you want to ‘fight the ‘good fight’, which in reality is a fight against our own people, screaming and shouting like a bag lady?  Or do you want to understand people in an effort to get on side those who are emotionally inclined to support us?

What if, instead of the usual futility, we had a political party and a wider movement that showed its concern about Pakistani Muslim child rape by providing safe environments for white children, writing research papers on the problem, and generally doing constructive, practical things to tackle the root of it, while always pointing to the problem of non-white immigration as a catalysing factor that must be excised? What if this new movement presented itself not as a raving mob going after paedos and unsympathetic authority figures, but as promoting white families, with women at the forefront of its publicity and public image? What if we had ‘white nationalist mothers’ (not mother fuckers, actual mothers) on radio talk shows and giving interviews about the problem, explaining how we need ‘safe’ areas (code for white areas) and pointing to real projects and initiatives that put this into practice for working class whites?

How could this sort of thing be encapsulated visually? An example is found on the WIN website, and to an extent, on the Western Spring website as well. I suggest people spend time studying the WIN website in particular, not because I think it is perfect, but because it provides an exemplar and a starting point. It’s an example of how a ‘clean’ image can be put across to that small section of the ordinary public who will lean in our direction if we ‘say the right things in the right way’.

This is not about giving up our dearly-held principles. Rather, it is about relevancy. Issues such as asylum seekers and paedos, etc., are relevant to us and I cannot argue with the point of the demonstrations, but are they relevant to the ordinary public in the same way we think they are? Do the actions of nationalists speak to relevancy? You might hope so and wish so, but that does not make it so. What the public want is leadership, credbility and solutions. They want to support people that can be trusted. Has the National Front, or any other nationalist-like organisation, shown that it would stop another ‘Rotherham’? Sorry, but people see through this stuff. It’s unconvincing.

The web offers an incomparable experimental tool and is therefore useful as a starting point, both to create appealing political messages and also to create virtual resistance structures that our opponents will find difficult, if not impossible, to infiltrate and compromise.  I see no benefit at this stage in handing over my personal details to a nationalist organisation.  To do so makes me ‘glow in the dark’, leaves me vulnerable to the authorities.  I am far more dangerous to multi-racial Britain as an anonymous figure.  I could be anyone, and in a sense, I am anyone.  The trick, I believe, is to find a way to channel the efforts of millions of us so that we are all working toward the same goal, alone or in small cell-like groups, under the cover of legitimate front organisations pursuing goals that are, in some cases, explicitly pro-white, but in a way that is lawful, or if not lawful, difficult-to-trace.  In short, our tactics need to suit the battlefield, but also the other way round, in that we also need to select the right battleground for the tactics that are within our capabilities.

Lessons from the National Front

02 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

BNP, British National Front, British politics, Child Sexual Exploitation, community politics, CSE, demonstrations, demos, Deputy Prime Minister [UK], First Wave Nationalism, Humberside Police, immigration, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013), Jay Report, Labour Party, LBC [radio], mass immigration, National Action, National Front, Nationalist strategy, Nationalist tactics, Nationalist Unity, Nick Clegg, Nick Ferrari, northern England, northern English, Northern English towns, Northern English working class, official collusion, Pakistan, Pakistani paedophiles, police, police collusion with paedophiles, police corruption, policing, politics, race-motivated rape, Rotherham, Rotherham Borough Council, Rotherham paedophiles, Rotherham social services, sex education, South Yorkshire, South Yorkshire Police, the English working class, traditional politics

roth4

Lessons from the National Front

I have not added any posts to the blog over the last few days due to work commitments and other realities of life.  The outrageous revelations of the Jay Report, that paedophile gangs in Rotherham were able to operate for some 16 years with impunity, under the watch, and with the collusion, of Rotherham Borough Council, South Yorkshire Police, local social services and the Labour Party, demand a response, and I will be posting my thoughts on the matter in more considered form soon.  I have to admit that, such is my shock, I have descended into almost a state of mental paralysis about the matter.  One hardly knows where to begin.

The fact that there are organised networks of Pakistani paedophiles at work in northern English towns is not new to me – indeed, there have already been numerous prosecutions of Asian men over the last ten years, for this reason – but what is new is the sheer scale of the official collusion and indifference in the matter, as revealed in the Jay Report.

How should Nationalists respond to this?  I liked the spontaneity of the National Front demos in Rotherham and Wakefield and the speaker was very good.

What I like most is the authentic feel to it.  I regret not attending such demonstrations, as I would feel very much at home among these people. They are good working class folk, the Northern English, the salt of the earth – my people, part of my tribe.

Some people have criticised the way one or two National Front members spoke to the police, but I think the police deserve an earful, whether they are from South Yorkshire or not.  They have colluded in this abuse, and let’s not pretend it is confined to Rotherham.  We know it isn’t.  As many others have pointed out, the police seem able to draft in plenty of officers for Nationalist demonstrations, but they often seem to come up short when actual police work is needed.

The reality is that the National Front and the BNP have protested this problem for years – the rest of them don’t care because they rely on non-white support – and it is the National Front that have organised the most effective demonstration against it so far.

I was listening to an LBC interview of Nick Clegg the other day, and it became apparent that the elite don’t give a monkeys and the government are going to do nothing about this. They are leaving it to the officials in Rotherham to sort out, which is clearly an inadequate response given that this is not just a local issue, but a national problem resulting from national policy. if this was reversed and the victims were non-white, we’d never hear the last of it. Clegg’s response on the radio to pro-white callers (on Rotherham, immigration and sex education) was absolutely contemptuous.

I fear that these traitors are going to get away with this and the whole issue is going to sink beneath public notice again, just as it has in the past. So a strong and continued campaign is needed. We all need to think about what that campaign should be, so that we can keep this – and other issues – in the public eye, because it’s the strongest evidence available that non-white immigration does not work.

That might mean a combination of different approaches – including the traditional politics of the National Front and the direct approach of National Action – but what’s really missing here is any concept of community politics and civil resistance. We need to connect with people and get them working against the system so they can take back their lives. How can we do this? I have some ideas, but I don’t pretend I have any answers.

‘Nationalist Unity’ was a desirable goal 10-15 years ago, but I do not believe it is a desirable goal now. We have fragmentation because we have different personalities/styles and ideologies. Unifying would kill initiative. We need more of a ‘live and let live’ philosophy among Nationalists as that will encourage the agility and responsiveness that the National Front have so excellently demonstrated in Rotherham. Let people get on with it, I think is the lesson.

Uncle ‘Tommy’ and his Anti-English League

08 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-English, Anti-English League, BNP, British Treason State, Conservative Party, covert Zionism, demographic displacement, EDL, EDL Jewish Division, EDL marches, English Defence League, English Home Counties, Europe, Europeans, Everyman tendency, Faustian chalice, George Orwell, Home Counties accent, Islam, islamic extremism, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic literalism, Israel, Israeli lobby, Jewish influence, Jews, Labour Party, left-wing, liberal-left, lifestyle politics, Majorca, MI5, modish Left, Movement traitors, Muslims, National Front, Nigel Farage, Nineteen Eighty-Four [novel], North America, Orwellian, Pioneer Little Europe, PLE, Politburo, Potemkin Village, race, racial consciousness, racism, racists, radical Islam, radical Muslims, Room 101, Special Branch, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, tanning shop, telescreen, the Party [Nineteen Eighty-Four], the Sixties, the West, thought crimes, Thought Police, Tommy Robinson, Trojan Horse, UKIP, Western values, White Independent Nation, White National Community, White Race, WIN, Winston Smith, Zionism

images (1)

Uncle ‘Tommy’ and his Anti-English League

The latest espial machinations of the British treason state are proving a little obvious, even for the more obtuse or thick-headed. Even those treasured British qualities of subtlety and understatement have been cast aside for what might be indelicately called DDR tactics, in a desperate scramble to neuter a golem that has, frankly, spiralled out of control. Thus, that well-known and successful [MI5/Special Branch*] asset, Stephen Yaxely-Lennon, aka. ‘Tommy Robinson’, has now – finally – bowed to the inevitable and assumed his rightful place in that unfortunate Pantheon of high profile race traitors – in the process, confirming all that was suspected about him by anyone with multiple functioning brain cells.

Tommy’s confessional press conference, now well and truly down the memory hole, was positively Orwellian. Perhaps it was just my imagination, but it appeared to me that our ersatz ‘Winston Smith’ was sweating and shaking throughout proceedings. ‘Tommy’ seemed agitated and worried, and at times distracted, almost as if he had just undergone some kind of lengthy inquisition and torture at the hands of sinister, black-clad interrogators. But whatever had just happened in Room 101, what transpired at the hastily-arranged press conference was, in its own little way, quite extraordinary, and outrageous too. In the manner of an errant member of the Politburo who had just been caught selling tractors on the sly, ‘Winston’/’Tommy’ informed us frankly of his ‘thoughtcrimes’ against the ‘Party’ and how he would repent for these gross felonies by (inter alia) helping the ‘Thought Police’ rat out ‘racists’ in the organisation he had led.

Now, it’s easy to sneer, but this article will only do so a little bit – for entertainment purposes. ‘Tommy’ deserves it a little because of that disgusting pledge he made to betray his own followers. No doubt he has had his role to play for the State security services, and will continue to, just like (most probably) our ‘Nigel’ in UKIP, but one also suspects in Tommy’s case the devices of knaves inflicted on an earnest, well-meaning dupe rather than anything more sinister. There are, after all, degrees of treachery and not all traitors derive glee or satisfaction from their own duplicity, however egregious. It’s true that ‘Tommy’ did his best, and received all kinds of threats against both himself and his family for his trouble. Which of us would care to step into his shoes? It would be indulgent and hypocritical to overlook this. Having such a high profile, and furthermore, facing the prospect of yet another criminal trial this month on the usual trumped-up charges, with the looming possibility of a custodial sentence, it is inevitable that he would feel the strain and might be persuaded to accept a ‘respectable way out’. Who can blame him for this? I can’t. That is not to excuse his oblique treachery, nor the very obvious collusion in which he has partaken for his own benefit, but in his defence it is worth pausing to reflect that his motives might have been more personal than is widely appreciated.

So ‘Tommy’ joins his anti-English friends in a well-paid state sinecure, probably as a sort of ‘expert’ on ‘anti-racism’, or some such. He is no more nor less qualified than others found supping from that Faustian chalice. Despite this, I must confess to having a soft spot for dear ‘Tommy’, with his tanning shop (slightly amusing in the circumstances, but on a more serious note: also admirable in that he ran his own business); his strained vowels, which are unmistakably from the English Home Counties; his avuncular mannerisms; and his Everyman tendency to say “I’m just a bloke from Luton town, innit”, whenever he is asked to consider some imponderable. No doubt that was the idea: I was supposed to relate to ‘Uncle Tommy’. Alas, I and many others were not taken in, and there are a number of reasons why the true nature of the EDL was obvious from the start. Nevertheless, it’s important to assess the EDL phenomenon on its own merits and consider, objectively, what are the real lessons to be drawn.

The first problem with the EDL was its unfocused and confused message. It was never precisely clear what this amorphous organisation actually stood for, other than being vaguely against some of the more overtly nastier and militant elements of Islam. The controlled media often asked ‘Tommy’ whether the EDL was against Islamic infiltration of the West generally or just extremist Islam? Agonised studio discursions followed in which countless hairs were split and many hands were wrung. Islam is not the same as ‘Islamism’, we were informed. Most Muslims respect ‘British values’, we were assured. ‘Tommy’ was told it’s naughty to confuse ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’ Muslims with ‘moderates’ and he shouldn’t do it again, or presumably he’d be off to bed without any supper – or maybe off to prison. Lots of people clapped, whooped and cheered, but most of us watching at home were baffled, and none the wiser. In reality, all this was bumbling semantics, the purpose of which was to distract the more gullible and credulous from recognising the plain truth. ‘Islamism’ shares the same goal and objects as Islam, and the apparently ‘moderate’ mass of Muslims are nothing more than a Trojan Horse for ‘extremists’. What the ‘extremists’ desire is the same as what the ‘moderates’ desire – that is, total demographic displacement of Europeans in favour of Muslims. The difference is that the ‘extremists’ are honest about this, whereas the ‘moderates’ are dishonest about it and try to keep it to themselves. The problem the Muslims have is that it’s all rather obvious, and so a means is needed to distract people – hence ‘public debates’ between ‘reasonable’ Muslims and false opponents or state-run dupes, like Uncle Tommy.

Rather than sticking to a simple and truthful message, the EDL acquiesced in the media’s dissembling agenda which elides the, essentially, semantic distinctions between ‘extremist’ and ‘moderate’, ‘literalist’ and ‘reformist’. In so far as Islam matters, the real issue was and remains the demographic threat that Muslim populations represent for European civilisation, and the way in which Islam acts as an ideological front for racial interests that are opposed to ours. This did not seem to matter to the EDL, as it allowed Muslims to attend its marches; it grovelled before Muslims in fake debates on the telescreen; and, it openly courted support from influential individuals and organisations within the Muslim community, who were sympathetic to the goal of combating what the media like to call ‘extremism’.

The EDL was also wrong-footed by the pro-Israel/Zionist tendency. It is this lobby that are the true cheerleaders for the encroachment of Islam and general mixed-racialism in European societies. That is not to say there is no place for an anti-Islamic or anti-Jihadist organisation that focuses purely on the Islamic threat, but it is to say that such activities should be a way of introducing the masses to the real existential threat to whites – Israeli nationalism and Zionism – which use Islam as a means to undermine the racial integrity of European societies. Yet this point was completely missed or overlooked. Instead, the EDL did the precise opposite: going out of its way to court Zionist and Jewish support. EDL followers were to be found flying and displaying the Israeli national flag on official marches, completely unchallenged. The message seemed to be much the same as that touted by many ‘respectable conservatives’ – yawn – in both Europe and North America: i.e. that the Jews and Europeans are somehow natural allies against Muslims, rather than bitter enemies.

One could, perhaps, understand all this if the EDL were operating tactically and merely paying lip-service to Islamic and Zionist interests for pragmatic reasons. Given the political climate, this might even be seen as inevitable for such a high-profile group, but ‘Tommy’ went far beyond mere formalities. He accepted funding from Jewish backers; permitted a Jewish division of the EDL to be established (as well as a Hindu division); and, gradually – and absurdly – turned himself into a kind of unofficial conciliator with the Muslim community, publicly-declaring the EDL to be anti-racist and anti-fascist. The man was a muddle-head and a dupe, but when assessed coolly, his active connivance with the interests and personalities of those he putatively opposed can be seen as a harbinger. Uncle Tommy was running nothing more than an Anti-English League, the effect of which was to legitimise the arguments that the EDL should have been vigorously opposing.

I have not yet mentioned, but now will, the EDL’s comical embrace of the various fetishist messages of the liberal metropolitan Left. Supposedly, the EDL had a pro-homosexual division, among other ad hoc absurdities. To the greater part of the population, it may seem curious that I should be troubled by this. Isn’t this the 21st. century after all? Shouldn’t we all be tolerant and understanding now? The problem is not with tolerance, which is a positive feature in society – provided it is tolerance of things done privately and which only inflict the most marginal personal and social harm. The difficulty here is with the new modish anti-tolerance that corrodes the original virtue. The very defence of civilisation requires that our values should not only be conserved and maintained, but preserved and passed down to future generations. That, in essence, is what reasoned traditionalism is: a belief in the permanence of a civilizational code that each generation seizes, then fashions and refines to the distinct needs of its own time, but leaves coherent and undisturbed for the next generation. Homosexuality is a threat to all this. It is a threat to our survival, especially in present circumstances, in that Europeans are facing an unprecedented demographic assault. Thus, to defend the propagation of homosexuality reflects only surface coherence about ‘tolerance’. Looked at properly, the Anti-English League was working for our extinction, happily adding dry mote and wood to the pyre while busily fussing about Muslims.

Why do the EDL, and Western cultural dissidents in general, feel the need to backslide like this? The reasons are legion, but the key points can be summarised as follows. First, it is evident that there is no longer any significant support in the West for racial politics, whether conservative or radical. There is, among the Everyman, a seed of reactionary and reflexive race awareness that might well have been germinated before now and could have flowered under different circumstances, but its potential has been irradiated by a toxic political class. Even the most mild, reasoned opposition to immigration is characterised as ‘racism’. It certainly is racism – the accusation is true – but the disinhibiting power of the accusation is such that most are dissuaded from acting on their natural, latent tendencies. Other social and cultural issues that are tangentially racial are treated in the same way. For example, justified scepticism concerning equality for homosexuals, along with traditional support for the promotion of age-old conjugal relations is viewed as ‘gay-bashing’. This pressure from above, percolated through powerful media, has contributed to a climate in which a ‘street movement’ such as the EDL, regardless of the original sincerity or not of its founders, becomes a watered-down reactionary force, constantly having to make concessions to ‘popular’ modish sentiment. In fact, such sentiment is not really ‘popular’ at all, as the EDL’s successful record in organising demonstrates, but the EDL was never a conscious movement with a clear and focused message, and so the very real concerns of its marchers have been lost and, to outsider, look like clatter and din.

Thus the EDL neither contributes to, nor stems from, consciousness at the street and workplace level. Oddly, a ‘street movement’ that was apparently (and in some ways, actually) raised from ordinary people served to embody neither class consciousness nor race consciousness and, in time, just degenerated into a convoluted form of escapism – a kind of ‘lifestyle politics’ mixed-up in brawling, drinking and shouting. Those marchers who stood behind the EDL banner may as well have gone on holiday to Majorca and done their shouting and inane sloganeering there. They were as aimless as their parents, who, in their own formative years – the Sixties – marched for similarly escapist slogans of peace and free love.

That’s not to say it was a complete waste of time. Just as the Sixties provided an influential counterweight to a reactionary Establishment, the very physical reality of the EDL and its presence on the streets, has provided a visible symbol of resistance, but just as the Sixties generation later became practising neo-thatcherites, the EDL organisation has, in the fullness of time, become a creature of the people it was, in principle, meant to oppose; and, its own marchers will, in time, meld into the mixed-racial masses. The same thing, in different ways, has happened, and is happening, to other racially-attuned opposition movements. Take the BNP, which was extensively-liberalised, especially under Griffin. To an extent, the reforms of the Griffin era were actually quite sensible when viewed in the context of a party with serious electoral aspirations, but the BNP of today is no longer a Nationalist party. Whatever pretence it might make at being otherwise, the BNP is now part of the mixed-racial Establishment and serves its agenda, albeit as a rebel rather than a favoured son. The National Front, likewise, promotes an agenda that is right-wing rather than Nationalist and that serves to legitimise the very structures that have brought about a mixed-racial society in the first place. That is not to mount a slur on all the people involved – especially in the National Front, which consists of sincere people. What applies to Uncle Tommy applies also to others: not all betrayals are carried out consciously, or even willingly. Many so-called ‘traitors’ act out of genuine motives and are just misguided, but the point is that those who campaign for ‘democracy’ eventually become institutionalised and committed as democrats, a position that directly conflicts with the revolutionary nature of Nationalism.

Nationalism is fascist, not democratic. To be a Nationalist is to recognise the natural order of things and that the best must be at the forefront of society. Democracy, by contrast, is about recognising the lowest common denominator and allowing the weakest to dictate to the rest of us. This is what our society calls ‘moral’ and this is how our society really is. This implicitly requires a rejection of Nature and a celebration of mediocrity. The Uncle Tommys and the ‘democratic’ leaders of the BNP, etc., are quite at home in this democracy. They enjoy its perks and have borrowed the language of the modish Left, deploying it with glee and bleating like sheep about their ‘rights’ and the need for ‘integration’ of all and sundry.

Why does this happen? While it is not solely a British phenomenon, it is true that in Britain any genuine political racialism and fascism has long been drowned-out by the ‘voices of moderation’. That is not to say we never hear fascist or racialist arguments – in fact, there are plenty – but they normally take on the form of pale imitators of the real thing: mostly, right-wing demagogues and ultra-Tory civic nationalists posing as ‘men of the people’. In this respect, the anti-racists and anti-fascists are actually correct. Whether or not Nigel Farage, for instance, is a real and actual racialist is a little beside the point, since his arguments do point logically in that direction anyway. Alas, no amount of UKIP posturing, in or out of office, will ever lead us to a Nationalist position. To point in that direction is not the same as to lead us there, since the means being employed are democratic and thus redundant. More ‘moderate’ politicians, in both the Labour and Tory Party, will also deploy ‘national’ arguments and narratives when it suits them – an obvious example that springs to mind is the 2010 Labour slogan, ‘British Jobs For British Workers’, which was apparently originally used by the National Front some thirty years before. At a deeper level, most politics are still practised within a ‘national’ frame of reference. Yet these narratives are entirely false and counterfeit, as there is no longer any national (i.e. racial) consciousness behind them. Appeals to nationhood are not for the advancement of a progressive society in which identity is recognised and celebrated, but only for the encouragement of blind obedience to some profitable scheme or other. Mr. Farage, for instance, is a creature of capital. He will be told quietly to have a care, though, lest he go too far with his arguments and damage Britain’s relationship with one of the world’s largest trading blocs. In short, Nationalism in Britain, such as it is, remains a force for ruling class interests, not working class interests. To an extent, this is a problem around the world – Nationalism being a worldwide impulse – but it is also fair to say that the type of frustrating Potemkin Village politics we have in Britain is a peculiar Anglophone problem, and in our case, reflects a structural problem in the British political ferment.

Unlike on the Continent, there is no autonomous, trade unionist or syndicalist basis for broader pro-European nationalism in the United Kingdom. There is no Nationalist current on the Left, for instance. We seem to be entirely a Movement of the political Right. I wonder if this is either desirable or healthy? I, for one, certainly do not feel ‘right-wing’, and though I fully-appreciate the malleability of such terms, in most respects I have common cause with the Left and even with Marxists. To me, Nationalism is an indigenous impulse and belongs to the working people. The real dividing line ideologically is on the matter of Race. Yet it is on that sole issue that so much now hangs. It seems to be a Marxoid ploy to eradicate human identity, but this invidious scheme has little or nothing to do with real Marxism or indeed the genuine, indigenous working class movements that have characterised Britain – the Diggers, the Roundheads, the Chartists, the suffragettes, the Social Democratic Federation, and so on. I, too, belong to that seditious working class tradition known as ‘socialism’, yet I see nothing of that reflected in Nationalism today. Consequently, there is nothing of our ideas in the workplace among workers themselves, and so we cannot relate to the struggles of ordinary people. Instead, we have Union Flags and bulldogs and Daily Mail (i.e. Jewish and Zionist) opinions. The ‘Movement’, such as we are, is essentially elitist and lacks organic dynamism. Our strength in numbers on the web is clear and is much commented-on, with veiled hints of repression here and there, but just as with the EDL, our flaw is that we have been captured by the opposition and are being turned and used for the opposition’s purposes.

Beneath the surface, we have yet to realise our real mission, which is not about plastic flags and ‘Pomp and Circumstance’, but about the real Britain and the real Europe of working people who share a common heritage and civilisation. This requires that we link our racial protest to the material protests of ordinary people. I believe the only way to do this is through the strategy of building race conscious communities, from which a new Popular Nationalism can be raised-up that is preoccupied not with idealistic patriotism, cartoon ‘Nazis’ and other flights of fancy, but with the more mundane material needs of white people, including their survival.

The EDL, for years the only street protest movement going, has provided a depressing mirror on our current state, but we must learn from its ultimate failure. It was unanchored in any conscious community or workplace agitation. Thus it emerged in a bubble, fuelled by understandable media sensationalism about Muslims burning poppies rather than genuine grievances relating to people’s lives. It seemed to be a street movement, yet many of its marchers were from the ‘affluent’ end of the working class: middle-managers, technicians and professionals, a demographic we sorely need, but also a group that tends make up the hobbyists and holds to reactionary views. Consequently, the protests always had a hint of hyper-reality about them, with the ‘plastic’ civic nationalist emblems and the over-the-top rhetoric. They were easily contained because the EDL were nothing more than an elaborate and perspicacious stunt – a very successful prank, and very English in that respect – and thus eminently containable. In the end, it provided little more than an outlet for a type of reflexive or casual racism, which is widespread but easily tackled by the Establishment, capitalists and the Left through formal repressive measures and media suffocation strategies.

For his part, Uncle ‘Tommy’ may have started-out on his political journey as a dupe, and he may now be a traitor, but to his credit, he has wised-up massively. He now seems to realise the limitations of unanchored street protesting (and also its dangers to his own life, limb and finances, hence his ‘conversion’). Pursuing a ‘democratic’ strategy and begging the British treason state to make changes that it doesn’t want to make and which no longer have wide public support is akin to howling at the Moon. It’s not that the maintenance of a street movement would be misguided or is inappropriate. Rather, it’s that such tactics represent ‘putting the cart before the horse’. Unless undergirded by a strong community of ideologically- committed and race-conscious people, it’s little more than feathers blowing in the wind, and ripe for manipulation by state controllers.

For Uncle Tommy then, all that’s left is a ‘satisfying’ (and no doubt well-remunerated) ‘career’ as some kind of ‘race relations’ waffler. Think of it as akin to being ‘kicked upstairs’. Tommy has outlasted his usefulness to the Politburo now, and the choice is that he can either stick to his ‘principles’ (trumped-up charges, then prison, etc.) or just take the money and be pensioned-off. He predictably chose the latter, and to be fair, that’s what ordinary men like him are expected to do. His only hardship is that he must grin and bear it while being associated with the disingenuous utterings of his new colleagues, but that’s no more than what is expected of any employee with a modern employer in our wonderful, enriched society. The answer for those who care for the preservation of European civilisation is a massive and concerted effort to build race-conscious communities, with the more traditional avenues of electoral politics and street activity having complementarity rather than centrality. The PLE concept is the model and we are now already seeing derivations of it from skilled and talented emulators across the White National Community. It is my respectful contention that if we are to preserve anything of our Race, these efforts must be the focus of our collective physical, intellectual and psychical energies.

_________________________________________________________________

This was another article published last year on the website of White Independent Nation.  Although the events it refers to are no longer current, and if I were to write this again I would phrase some of it differently, I do think the general message of the article is nevertheless still ripe.  We must not allow ourselves to get sucked in by these populist movements again.  We must retain our focus.  The article ends with an appeal to the generic PLE concept, though I would favour the specific model offered by White Independent Nation.  I would, however, now suggest that whites should broaden out their strategy to building a new alternative sub-culture: what I call the White Alternative.

There is intelligent life out there, after all

03 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

BNP, Britain, democracy, far-Right, kosher nationalism, kosher Right, Lee John Barnes, National Front, Nationalism, the Left, White Nationalism

images

There is intelligent life out there, after all

A few days ago, in the middle of an online argument about the National Front, someone said to me [words to the effect]: “Your arguments are just like those of Lee Barnes.”  Being relatively new to Nationalism, I am only vaguely familiar with the name ‘Lee Barnes’, but this prompted me to look him up as I am keen to find other nationalists who might share my views.

The following is a re-post from a blog called “21st. Century British Nationalism“.  The article I found, titled: “My Thoughts On The British Democratic Party“, dates back to February 2013, but remains as relevant as ever.  The author, I believe, is the very same Lee Barnes.  I post it here in full because it more or less summarises my own position on the British far-Right and why they have failed – though, if anything, I would go further than Barnes: my analysis is more deeply revisionist in that I believe the far-Right was state-run from the beginning and remains so.

I should stress that I do not agree with all Barnes’ comments below – for example, I do not share his views on Hitler, simply because this is not an argument I have considered and so I have not familiarised myself with the evidence.  And, my background is having come from the Left and so my understanding of socialism is likely to differ from Barnes’ summary below.  Also, this re-posting should not be taken as an endorsement of the author generally – I note that for some reason, he is a controversial figure in the Nationalist community.  I do not know why exactly, and frankly, I do not care to know.  Suffice it to say, I have never met Barnes and this is the first time I have come across his blog – but whatever his other views and his whatever reputation within Nationalism, I do think good writing deserves credit and acknowledgement, and the following is worth sharing and should be digested by all.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY

So yet again another ‘Nationalist’ party arises out of the rubble of the BNP, this one known as The British Democratic Party.Led by Andrew Brons, and with some very capable people within its ranks, unfortunately it will be yet another stillborn party – one of the many that litter the history of the British nationalist movement.The reason why this party will fail is simple – it follows yet again the failed right wing reactionary path of all those that came before it.Nationalists are the Rainmen Of Politics, they are political autistics unable to ever break out of the reactionary right wing cul de sac within which nationalism has ghettoised itself for five decades.This is the tragedy of Nationalism, that whilst it has a distinct left wing ideological background and legacy, instead it has been hijacked for decades by stuffed shirts of the reactionary right.Nationalists never learn.Each time a new party is formed, it seeks to copy exactly the policies, image and ideology of every other reactionary right wing party that came before it.Whilst the British electorate have New Labour, the Lib Dems, Tories and UKIP to appeal to the middle class reactionary right – there is not one political party from the Nationalist movement that seeks to gain support from the largest, most radicalised, angry and important demographic in our nation = THE WHITE WORKING CLASS.The NF, BNP, BFP, BDP and all others of the nationalist right are all reactionary right wing ideological parties, each seeking to gain the support of the middle class and reactionary right wing voters.THERE IS NOT ONE NATIONALIST PARTY THAT IS BRITISH SOCIALIST AND BRITISH NATIONALIST – A SOCIAL NATIONALIST PARTY THAT OPPOSES BOTH MARXISM AND GLOBALISM.

What our nation needs is a SOCIAL NATIONALIST party with the same ideology as that of the Golden Dawn in Greece = one that is radical, aimed at recruiting the white working class, that seeks to support the small British business owner against the global corporations, that represents British workers, British small family owned farms against the agri-business interlopers and that represents the interests of the British nation and people as opposed to the banks and supra-national institutions like the EU, WTO, NATO, World Bank etc etcSOCIAL NATIONALISM IS NOT MARXISM.Social Nationalism represents the British worker, British society, British families and our national community against the forces of globalism, bankster capitalism, liberalism, Marxism and Corporate Socialism.British Socialism is a state and government that acts in the interests of the British people, workers, business and nation as opposed to the interests of the socialist / communist party – which is the basis of Marxism and Leftist Socialism.

SOCIAL NATIONALISM IS NOT HITLERISM.

Hitlerism was a dictatorship. Hitler was funded by the Wall street Bankers ( Link here for the evidence – http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf ) and was an Imperialist Capitalist project.The first victims of the Hitlerite dictatorship were not Jews, they were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS of the SA.

THE FIRST THING HITLER DID WHEN HE CAME TO POWER AFTER PASSING THE ENABLING ACT WAS TO MURDER THE GERMAN SOCIALIST WING OF THE NSDAP AT THE BEHEST OF THE CAPITALISTS AND INDUSTRIALISTS.

Here is the link that reveals the secret deal Hitler did with the industrialists and Capitalists who funded him into power – and who demanded that he murder the left wing of the NSDAP and start the mad war against the West that began with the invasion of Poland in 1939 – an invasion that of Poland that took place IN ALLIANCE with Stalin and the Communists – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Meeting_of_20_February_1933The greatest lie of the 20th century is that Hitler was a ‘nationalist’.Hitler was no ‘nationalist’- the primary victims of the Nazis were not Jews, they were the NATIONALISTS of all the nations the Germans invaded, those whose nationalism and patritosm ensured they would be the primary resistance to the Nazis.Both the Nazis and Communists slaughtered Nationalists – and even worked together in Poland to hunt down and murderPolish Nationalists – links here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Treaty_of_Friendship,_Cooperation_and_Demarcationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovskhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo-NKVD_Conferenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_AB_Action_operation_in_Poland

Social Nationalism is the antithesis of Hitlerism. Social Nationalism does not use the power of the state to enrich the bankers, arms companies and corporations as Hitlerism did.Social Nationalism uses the power of the state to act in the interests of British workers, British businesses and the British nation.

THE BRITISH NATIONALIST MOVEMENT MUST ENGAGE WITH AND GAIN THE SUPPORT OF THE WHITE WORKING CLASS, NOT THE REACTIONARY RIGHT MIDDLE CLASS.<blockquote>

The reactionary right middle class are in the main, apathetic, cowardly and stupid.  The only radicalised voting base is the white working class – those who have been abandoned by New Labour and shafted by the offshoring, pro-globalism, cheap foreign labour importing Tories.We need a new form of Nationalism to replace the reactionary rights obsolete ideological definition of nationalism.The reactionary right, the bastard heirs of Thatcher, support globalist free market economics and support the old Statist model of nationalisation.Both those models are dead.The Free Market does not exist – what we have today is the Globalist Corporate Socialism system where the state bails out the bankers and pays off their gambling debts with our taxes.Nor do we need more witless state nationalisation, thereby handing power over workers to the idiot socialists that run the trades unions and handing control over those industries to transient governments who would use those nationalised industries as political footballs for their own short term interests.

No, what we need is a new form of Nationalism = WORKERS NATIONALISM.  In this new form of nationalism the workers in newly created and nationalised industries OWN THE INDUSTRIES THEY WORK FOR.

The interests OF THE WORKERS come first and foremost at all times. This would be rather like the Co-Op or Debenhams worker ownership model, where instead of the industry being owned by the sharks of the stock market or controlled by the new clutch of idiots that re-infest the Houses of Parliament every four years – the industries are owned by the workers themselves.The longer you work for a company, the more shares you own in it. The more work you put in, the more profits you get to share.With this new model of worker ownership and plans to create a new Industrial Revolution in Britain based on energy, agriculture, heavy industry, coal mining, new railways, infrastructure renewal etc etc we can create a whole new class of workers whose affluence as a result of their work will allow us to wipe out much of the national debt that the bankers and politicians have hoisted onto the sholuders of our children.With this new class of workers making money from their work, communities will boom again.What we also need to do is engage with our people outside politics, at the level of the community.This means we need three new struggles ;

1) A social movement based on the model of Golden Dawn where they help the homeless, the creation of Hamas style social support networks in communities and the formation of a Sinnfein style model of engaging politically and personally at the community level with disenfranchised voters to create a whole new voting demographic.

2) A cultural movement like Casa Pound in Italy.

3) A new street movement like the Immortals in Germany, that engages with youth and that has festivals, gigs, clubs, youth centres etcBut none of the above form part of the ideas or ideology of any of the nationalist parties.All they want to do is give each other important sounding titles, stuff leaflets through letterboxes, hold half empty meetings in grotty pubs and lose elections.Nationalism has a cult like mentality.It cannot innovate or evolve.Its become imbued with a pathetic club life mentality, a little pond for people to swim in and pretend they are big fish.So it will fail, as it has failed so many times before.

The Mechanics of Virtual Resistance

28 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

1945, activity, BNP, British politics, civil resistance, demagogues, embryonic LRZs, esotericism, exotericism, Facebook, far-Right, First Wave Nationalism, FN, FN model, France, Front National, Frrench politics, Griffin-era BNP, hermeneutical dilemma, Information Society, Left, liberal society, liberal-left, liberalism, liberals, local resistance, Local Resistance Zones, LRZ groups, LRZs, Marine le Pen, micro-tactics, mixed-racialisation, mongrelisation, mongrelisation of France, multi-culturalisation, National Front, Nationalism, Nationalist community, neo-Nazism, news media, non-violent resistance, normalisation, online forums, passivity, PLE, political language, political parties, political party system, positivistic language, pseudo-positivism, pubs, resistance education, Right, Second Wave Nationalism, sequestration, simplification, strategy, talking shop, the Establishment, the leader syndrome, the mechanics of resistance, The Necessity of White Resistance, Viet Cong, Vietnam War, virtual Resistance, web, White Nationalism, White Race, White Resistance, White Resistance Movement, White Resistance Movement Facebook Group

Psychopolitical

The Mechanics of Virtual Resistance

I think it is in the nature of things for human beings to try and simplify a subtle and complicated idea in an attempt to understand it.  This stems in part from an innate pragmatism.  It’s not so much an exercise in understanding as a need for practical brevity, because true understanding is costly in terms of time and effort.  This is probably just the way our minds have evolved.  In any political debate or discussion, whether online or off-line, it is a signal achievement if the two sides have even understood each other, let alone progressed to the stage of ‘winning’ or ‘losing’.  In a genuine debate, ‘winning’ is a false objective anyway.  Unfortunately, too often discussion turns into an exchange of didactic rhetoric rather than a process of enlightenment in which one side learns from the other. We also have an innate tendency to relate what is being communicated exoterically to our own experience and the received knowledge available to us, and interpret it accordingly.  This is understandable, but the process too often becomes stale and exhibits a repetitive cycle of rejecting ideas because they have been ‘tried before’ or ‘won’t work’ for various reasons that appear to us cogent, but are in fact just excuses for inertia and non-action.  It is this fatalistic exotericism that encourages the process of simplification, in that a new idea, irrespective of its novelty or usefulness, is reduced to a series of objections based on a limited comprehension of the idea itself.  Any practical action that emerges at the other end is often a twisted or bastardised version of the original author’s intentions and is often designed in such a way as to kill the idea before it can be implemented in a way that might do it justice.  An example of the fatalistic simplification tendency is the reception in the Nationalist community of PLE.  When serious online discussion began a few years ago about the PLE concept, the idea was often framed in terms of objections that, more often than not, represented simplifications of the concept itself.  We still have some Nationalists who believe that PLEs are about white people running away and hiding somewhere and that the existence of significant PLE communities will just make it easier for state forces to sweep-up dissident whites.  These ‘objections’ are just misrepresentations.  They reflect what I would contend is a normal human tendency towards simplification and an aversion from understanding complexity.

Radical ideas are also a threat to a movement that is innately conservative and wedded to society’s social and economic precepts.  White Nationalists are perhaps the last people who would think of engaging in activity that threatens the existing society in any way.  Not that PLE is itself a radical idea.  It is in fact a deeply conservative and reactionary response specifically tailored to the context of the North American political scene, yet to many Nationalists the notion of re-engineering society as a race-conscious community seems radical.  It may not be obvious to the average onlooker, but in reality White Nationalism and its most prominent sub-culture, neo-Nazism, is essentially a style trip and a form of escapism for the alienated and disaffected: mostly young men, who will often ‘grow out’ of it after a few months or years.  It is not a serious political movement.  Older White Nationalists know party politics is pointless as the existing system does not even begin to address the need for a racial community, and they are also often the type of people who are not good at getting things done in the real world and fail to understand the complex personal dynamics involved in doing anything of practical value.  So they find refuge in online forums and social media – their own little isolated corner, away from reality – where, in classic reactionary style, they let off steam against the Establishment, thus assisting in the continuation of the very society they affect to despise.  In truth, their position is often bigoted or misanthropic more than racial, but it is the innate trait of conservatism – which is in fact liberalism by another name – that has been the central weak point in the First Wave Nationalism.  These Nationalists take exception at being labelled Zionists by default (see my previous essay: ‘The Far-Right: conning us since 1945′), yet their entire political lives have been spent propping up the system implicitly, obeying its rules and parroting its language, and in a paranoiac Cold War twist, denouncing all and sundry as spies, infiltrators and traitors.  It is a movement turned-in on itself.

The truth that they cannot face (and to be fair, what the public seems oblivious to as well) is that this struggle has never been about flags, elections and parliamentary seats.  This is about Race.  The conformist, slave-like rhetoric of the far-Right does not threaten the Establishment.  To the contrary, it is an expression of the Establishment’s own values, albeit in more radical form.  Had Nationalism as a movement paid greater attention to its origins on the Left and worked to become an expression of popular consciousness, rather than a mouthpiece for the Establishment, then things might have been different, and the West might still be white, or at least, less non-white.  But we are where we are.  Those of us who are part of the Second Wave, who reject parties, institutions, demagogues and leader cults, need to assess our situation pragmatically.  What would threaten the Establishment and this liberal society is the formation of a genuine racial community: a solid race-conscious bloc that stands against mixed-racialism.  That is what the Establishment fear.  For the National Front and Griffin’s BNP, their chosen method of building race-consciousness – parroting ‘friendly’ liberal jargon and standing in elections – did not work.  It can’t.  The Front Nationale of France demonstrates this.  The FN is the high watermark of the ‘normalisation’ strategy, having taken advantage of certain historical and geopolitical factors peculiar to France to gain local, regional and national prominence in that country – yet Le Pen’s Party remains powerless to halt non-white mass immigration and the relentless and ongoing mongrelisation of France.  Even if they took power, the eradication of white France would continue apace.  That said, there is also much to be said for the FN model.  Although it has failed in its real objectives, there are still some positive aspects to it which, if applied correctly, in a way that fits the local social and political environment, could form the basis of a white nationalist resurgence in Europe.  Ironically, it was Griffin himself who was closest to the truth when, on the night of the May 2010 general election, he talked about the development of the BNP into a cultural association.  What is needed is a Second Wave Nationalism that sets out to build a popular race-conscious opposition from the ground-up.

In that respect, I have written already about the Necessity of White Resistance.  The term ‘Resistance’ is, admittedly, problematic in that it carries with it connotations of violence and illegality.  This misunderstanding is part of a special hermeneutical problem that plagues any liberal society.  Political language is given a distorted, positivistic meaning that serves the interests of the liberal elite.  In this case, resistance is rightly identified for what it is: the overthrow of the present civil order – but its proposed methods are misrepresented so as to narrow the range of perceivable options available to those who might legitimately oppose the way things are and seek a revamp.  White Resistance need not be violent, and indeed should not be; it need not be confrontational either, and at least initially does not have to be; and there is no suggestion that White Resistance should be anything other than lawful.  Used in the broadest sense of resisting and repelling non-white invasion, using non-violent means, what we are referring to here is a form of civil resistance. Among white conscious individuals and groups, that means the creation of embryonic Local Resistance Zones (‘LRZs’) (the idea of Charlie Wax), which will over time repel and evacuate non-whites from local communities using lawful methods, and – it is hoped – will pave the way for white conscious communities or significant white migration to other suitable areas.  The inherent difficulty we face is establishing momentum, which in turns depends on trust and security among those involved.  The solution to that difficulty is, I hope, now slowly taking shape in the form of a White Resistance Movement, initially a discussion and planning group on Facebook.  The idea behind the Facebook group is to provide an online presence for a Central Resistance that will be a focal point for ‘resistance education’ and the exchange of ideas among LRZ groups.  Some people will have reservations about using Facebook for this purpose, but the way I see it is that we must use the tools at our disposal, and the reality is that Facebook – a free gift provided to us by the Establishment – is an ideal mechanism for bringing together a large number of people on an anonymous basis to discuss political action.  That said, we shouldn’t look the gift horse in the mouth: Facebook has its own risks and limitations, which is why the scope of the central White Resistance, in whatever web or social media format it takes, will be deliberately narrow.  It will not be an organisation or structure in its own right, it will not have leaders and, given that everyone who participates will be joining anonymously under an alias, it will not have a formal membership list.

Anyone who broadly shares our aims is welcome to join.  The Resistance will be lawful and non-violent.  The explicit aim will be to form Local Resistance Zones that are hostile to non-whites, so the actual activity of resistance will happen locally, under the initiative of local activists in each area.  This decentralised structure is designed to reduce risk, but obviously in any endeavour of this kind there will be infiltrators.  In my view, that in itself is not a valid objection to participation.  Infiltration can’t be prevented entirely.  The issue is managing the risk, not preventing it – any attempt to do the latter would kill all initiative.  It is also the case that some of us can expect to come to the attention of the authorities, and we may face arrest and detention.  It is a choice that each of us must make.  I believe the choice is between activity and passivity.  Sometimes passivity is the smart option, but Nationalism has dwelt in passivity for too long now, relying on leaders as our surrogates to take the risks that we dare not undertake ourselves.  The reality is that if we keep going down this road of worrying about what people might see online, or worrying about coming to the attention of the authorities, we are never going to organise anything and we may as well sit at home.  These are in any case exaggerated fears based on a kind of Walter Mittyism.  The risks are real, and the consequences are real, but these things need to be kept in proportion.  The Resistance, remember, will be explicitly lawful and non-violent.  The risks of activity also need to be weighed against the risks of continuing passivity.  Some people do firmly fall into the category of passivity in that they are happy to vent online or attend pointless marches or meetings, but when it comes to the complex process of thought, discussion, planning and collaboration necessary to get real things done, they back down, and in the process, implicitly bow down to authority.  This is not the road to change.  It’s the road to slavery.  We need individuals with the iron will and determination to stand up to authority, and with an understanding of how to get things done – which requires pragmatism, intelligence, tenacity and courage in equal measure.  The process begins with a meditative stage of thought, discussion and planning, and that is why we need this online ‘talking shop’, a space where we can work out a strategy.  I also hope the Facebook Group – or something like it elsewhere on the web – will become a permanent space online giving people the opportunity to share ideas.  The accent however must be on local organisation.  This will not be a traditional political activist group which expects its members to travel across the country to keynote events.  This will, rather, be a network of independent, decentralised resistance groups that work covertly to change their local communities, at first in small, seemingly insignificant ways, but with gradual effectiveness and prominence.  Admittedly, the organisational tensions are in contradiction: we cannot stay on the margins, meeting in front rooms and the backrooms of pubs, etc., but we also need to tread carefully and work covertly and quietly to organise against what is a hostile Establishment, but the overarching point is that we must leave behind our conformism and passivity and start to act, or we will be consigned to irrelevancy and racial death.

As the mechanics of virtual resistance for the White Race develop, whether in this form or others yet unanticipated and unseen, our strategies, means and methods must also evolve.  Facebook creates an environment in which disparate white people can come together and collaborate using the relative protection of online pseudo-anonymity.  This presages and forms a response and influences our strategy: the web is as much a terrain for geopolitical battle as the jungle was the terrain of the Viet Cong resisters.  The Viet Cong defeated the Americans by taking advantage of the tools available to them: chiefly, the native environment, which they knew intimately, and which they used to hide and made their base to mount a vicious resistance against the Americans.  In mounting our civil resistance, we must learn from this example and the successful and unsuccessful examples of other resistance groups, past and present.  The web is a ready tool, available for our use.  It’s part of our native environment.  It is not the be-all and end-all of the matter, because real resistance takes place on the ground, in the off-line world, and that is where we should our concentrate our efforts, but the web is the rallying point, for now, and our main communications tool and can be used to bring our message to a mass audience, in various guises: not just as a White Resistance, but also in the guise of alternative news media, and for the dissemination of new cultural and intellectual perspectives, and to promote pro-white propaganda.  The advantage of the virtual resistance – that is to say, a resistance without a structure, ‘space’ or organisation, in other words, a phantom – is that there is no need for a hierarchy or the other accoutrements that make any such endeavour vulnerable to the state.  Nationalists traditionally seem to be obsessed with hierarchy and often speak of it, but what we really need is ‘direction’.  We need a mass of race conscious whites, active under different civic and business fronts and brands, but with a definite mission.  The last thing we need is leaders and structures and bank accounts, which are vulnerable to official intervention (arrests, detention and sequestration, etc.) and media vilification, making the whole organisation vulnerable.  Hierarchy is, in any case, just a particular kind of structure that serves a purpose, and the important thing is the purpose and the eventual goal. We should not be averse to the idea of having a hierarchy and a ‘leader’ or a leadership of some kind if it serves the purpose well. The point is that in this instance, it won’t. What we do need is direction. That’s where the tools that social media offer can help us.  They are not ideal, and may need to be re-considered, and – I hope – as we gain physical control of ‘national spaces’, the strategy and the micro-tactics will change and we will reform and upgrade our means and methods according to circumstances and the changing social and political climate.  One thing is for certain: we need tools of activity, not passivity.  The virtual Resistance is a means to an end, not the end in itself: we cannot stand still and we cannot continue hiding in the corner.

The Far Right: conning us since 1945

25 Friday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

18th. century, 1950s, 1960s, 20th. century, affluent poor, agricultural society, anti-whites, autonomy, BDP, BNP, British, capitalism, capitalists, civic identity, commerce, Conservative Party, Craig Cobb, Dave Spart, democracy, dumb whites, Europe, far-Right, First World War, industrialisation, Jews, John Ball, John Bull, Johnny Foreigner, Labour Party, Leith North Dakota, LibertyGB, mass production, National Front, non-whites, North America, political Right, Pomp and Circumstance, pro-Zionist, racial identity, Richard Edmonds, right-wing, right-wing Dave Spart, rural society, Second World War, state-fascism, The Lessons of Leith, The Smiling Jew, the White Race, Tommy Atkins, UKIP, ultra-Zionist, Union Flag, Union Jack, urban society, urbanisation, Zionism, Zionist symbolism

edmunds

The Far Right: conning us since 1945

For seventy years, Nationalism in this country and the rest of Europe and North America has been dominated by the political Right, especially the far-Right.  These people have created a rather shallow political movement, borrowing the superficial aspects of a fictional national identity invented by satirists at the beginning of the 18th. century.  Their cause appeals to the unthinking, undeveloped mentality of the bigoted provincial who dislikes Johnny Foreigner: a kind of right-wing version of Dave Spart.  These people do not represent me.  They never have.  Their simplistic messages have never appealed to my deep sense of feeling for these islands, for its geography, its unique people and culture, but above all, my allegiance to the White Race.  I am a socialist, not a Zionist.  My symbol is John Ball, not John Bull.  The far-Right reflects no more my ‘nationalist’ tendency than a Catholic nun.  That said, I think John Bull has had a bit of an unfair press.  The original creation was the classic honest country yeoman: provincial, unpretentious and common-sensical, if a little blinkered.  It was only later, around the time of the First World War, that the image of John Bull morphed into an authority figure and was used, for instance, on Army recruitment posters to enlist white men into the mass slaughter of that senseless war – a contrast with ‘Tommy Atkins’, who replaced John Bull as the representative of the ordinary Englishman.  This transition in John Bull’s propagandistic function from common man to a personification of authority reflected fundamental changes in British society and the working class experience: the movement from a society that was rural and agricultural in character to urban and industrial, and the resultant need for social control in society; the transition in the social relations of production from autonomy and landed peasantry to commerce and mass production; the change from strong families and communities to the strong state.  The root of the far-Right’s reactionary, authoritarian propaganda – indeed, the root of the modern state-fascism of the 20th. century – is the liberalism of the mass industrial society.

As such, the far-Right is just the latest in a long line of ideological vehicles for mass social control, working in the interests of capitalists.  Its strategy seems to be to rely on an out-dated notion of Nationalism that was for all intents and purposes abolished by the Second World War.  (See my essay: ‘The Lessons of Leith‘).  The British have always had a more subdued attitude to patriotism than that found in other European countries.  The British far-Right’s pro-Zionist symbolism – the use of the Union Flag and John Bull imagery – does not connect with ordinary people and to a large extent plays into the hands of anti-whites and non-whites, who wish to co-opt the ‘British’ civic identity as their own.  The various party political brands of the far-Right, including the National Front and the BNP, together with its ‘normalised’ outlets such as UKIP, are about managing dissent among the system’s middle-managers and self-employed.  The typical demographic of their supporters is not ‘poor’, but middle-class and the affluent working class, i.e. the petit bourgeosie.  These tend to make up the majority of right-wing supporters and voters.  The delusions that such people carry through their lives (what I call ‘respectable deceits’ in my essay, ‘The Smiling Jew and other clever wiles‘) are similar to those among Labour and Conservative supporters and are based on the belief that they have a stake in the system.  Voting itself, and a lot of mainstream political activity, has now largely become the preserve of a modern parody of the Platonic citizenry, a sizeable minority who make up the system’s client base and are the easiest to control because they believe either that the system already works in their favour or can be made to do so.  As such, party politics – including the far-Right – has become just a way of diverting the frustrations of the ‘affluent poor’ into activity that is relatively harmless to the system.  Thus any real opposition is suffocated without the need for violence.  (See my essay, ‘Democracy Keeps Us Dumb‘).

When I encounter these ‘affluent poor’ who accept the system implicitly, either by supporting it or seeking to reform it, one of my questions to them is why they choose to be so munificent towards their rich masters: the Jews and the capitalists?  Why do they vote against their own racial and economic interests?  Why would someone who has nothing expend so much time and energy in propping-up capitalism and Jewish supremacy, using received propaganda?  Of course, these ‘affluent poor’ are in denial about their disenfranchisement.  They don’t accept that they have nothing.  They still live under the delusion that they have a stake in the system.  They own their own home and run their own business or hold down a well-paid job, or have some kind of plastic status, or whatever.  These props fuel the delusion of citizenship, as does the promise of proxy say and influence through the attainment of political power and influence by ‘their’ party, UKIP.  These are delusions, supported by lies that come from the mouths not of the elites, but of the ‘affluent poor’ themselves.  They repeat and reinforce the positivistic mantras that the media feed them: democracy, human rights, legality, dictatorship, liberty, etc. ad nauseum.  The question we should be asking these people is simple: Has lying worked?  It’s a simple enough question, maybe a little too simple, but sometimes the truth is straightforward.  The reality is that lying hasn’t worked. What these people want us to believe is that we should carry on lying nonetheless and vote for UKIP or the BNP or the BDP or LibertyGB or the National Front, or whatever.  I have some time for the idea of tactically voting for these outfits on local issues, but the awkward truth is that electoral politics hasn’t worked, largely because since the 1950s/60s, Nationalism has been controlled by the far-Right.  They have not found a narrative that relates their cause to the needs and interests of ordinary people. All they have to offer is Zionist symbolism. Why should I vote for that? Why should I bow down to Jews? Keep your pin badges and your Pomp and Circumstance. I would rather go down fighting, thank you.  The BNP, the National Front, Britain First, LibertyGB and UKIP are all the same: just the kosher Right under different names. They are all officially pro-Zionist or ultra-Zionist. They are all plugging the same line, using slightly different language and emphases.  Enough is enough!  We have to start voting for ourselves.

FORWARD THE WHITE RESISTANCE!

The Necessity of White Resistance

23 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Adam Walker, anti-Griffinites, BNP, Charlie Wax, civil resistance, Conservative Party, conventional party politics, kosher Right, Labour Party, lawful resistance, Local Resistance Zones, mosques, National Front, Nationalism, Nigel Farage, non-violent strategy, passivity versus activity, Second Wave Nationalism, Stormfront, UKIP, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Republic, White Resistance, White Resistance Movement, White Sovereigntism

white-resistance-in-sa1

The Necessity of White Resistance

The existing political system relies on the passivity of the masses.  People vote for leaders and parties largely based on populist scaremongering and personality considerations.  There is no credible racial nationalist alternative to speak of.  The two options on offer – the BNP and the National Front – are both dominated by the kosher Right, and despite the rhetoric of the anti-Griffinites, there is little to choose between them.  The answer is that we need to stop voting for these traitors and start voting for ourselves, and the first step is self-organisation. White Independent Nation (WIN) is an important development in that direction, and anyone reading this who is not already a member should put in an application to join WIN.

However, not everyone can transit to a white conscious community immediately, and there is also a need to mount a planned and concerted street-by-street resistance against what is, in reality, a foreign occupation.  A civil resistance strategy encourages whites to start thinking and acting as a racial bloc and to channel their frustration and anger in a positive and lawful direction.  Therefore, in addition to white conscious community-building, we also need to start organising Local Resistance Zones [credit to ‘Charlie Wax’ on Stormfront for this idea] in the areas where we already live.  This applies whether or not they have been intruded by large numbers of non-whites, because the alien anti-white invasion is cultural and intellectual as much as demographic.

In my view, what is required is a White Resistance Movement – which will be lawful and non-violent, and leaderless, and will provide a focal point and resource for people looking to organise on a cell basis in their local areas.  Resistance activities could certainly include infiltration of local politics – for instance, and to be fair to UKIP, it appears some of their councillors have campaigned against mosques; many Labour people are natural ‘nationalists’ and against immigration but dare not speak out; Conservatives tend to be anti-immigration but likewise have been silenced, but infiltration is only a small part of what we can do within the law.  The point as I see it is that Nationalism needs to enter a new phase.

We need a Second Wave that rejects conventional party politics, as such, and focuses on concrete work to challenge and undermine the system in different ways. I know it means a lot of work and there will be set-backs, humiliations and disappointments, but if we keep pinning our hopes on these leaders – be it Adam Walker or Nigel Farage – then we will keep being disappointed. All we are doing at the moment is suffering a slow, polonged racial death. Passivity needs to be replaced by activity.

The Lessons of Leith

18 Friday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-Zionist, Atlantic Ocean, Big Brother, BNP, Bolsheviks, Britain, British media, British Zionism, capitalism, Central Europe, communism, counter-narcissism, Craig Cobb, crime, democracy, Enoch Powell, EU, EU bureaucrats, Europe, European Union, Europem North America, far-Right, feminists, George Galloway, Greater Britain Movement, Guy Fawkes, gypsies, H. Michael Barrett, Holy Roman Empire, homelessness, homosexuals, inverted narcissism, Islam, Jewish, Jewish media, Jews, John Tyndall, Karl Marx, Kuhnism, Kuhnites, Leith, Leith Dilemma, Leithians, mad mullahs, masochism, mass immigration, narcissism, National Front, Nationalism, Nationalist psychology, neo-Kuhnism, neo-Kuhnite, neo-Leithians, neo-Nazis, New BNP, Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage, North Atlantic, North Dakota, North East Republic, Northwest Front, Northwest Republic, Peace of Westphalia, Pioneer Little Europe, PLE, Poles, political Nationalism, poverty, pre-War Nationalism, pre-War style Nationalism, psychology, race, racialism, RE:Brand, Reds, Russell Brand, Second World War, self-negation, socialism, state capitalism, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, the leader syndrome, the Left, The Nazi Party [documentary], The PLE Prospectus, the West, the White Race, UKIP, Western Europe, Westphalian Nationalism, Westphalian sovereignty, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Race, workers, World In Action, Young Nazi & Proud, Zion, Zionist

download (1)

The Lessons of Leith

Nationalism in the modern sense was invented in the 17th. century during the break-up of the Holy Roman Empire, a multi-ethnic construct that dominated Central Europe (and that in fact was only formally dissolved in 1806).  The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 established a new diplomatic system in the West based on the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign, nation-states.  The nation-states that emerged in Western and Central Europe out of the new concept of Westphalian sovereignty developed vital, discrete national identities in their own right, that were to a large extent fictitious, but which served an important ulterior purpose in the management of emergent mercantile and industrial economic systems that required mass social control of populations.  That is to say, Nationalism as both a concept and institutional reality divides the loyalties of working people internationally, so that a worker in France, let’s say, does not recognise his common cause with a worker in Britain.  When put like that, in bare terms, the ploy seems laughable, but it is obvious that it works: consider, for example, the aggressive rhetoric against Polish immigrants that permeates the British media.  Poles, it is believed, have different interests to Britons.  A moment’s thought ought to tell us this assumption is flawed.  In fact, the average Pole has much in common with the average Briton, not least the shared economic disenfranchisement that capitalism implies – and each has more in common with the other than with their own ethnic elite, in so far as these elites share the same ethnicity at all.   But the ploy works, and this is why, though much-maligned, Nationalism in the narrow ethnic sense remains a useful tool for democracy in keeping the public virally dumb.  (See my essay: Democracy Keeps Us Dumb).

Now and again, contradictions in the capitalist system emerge and become apparent (problems such as crime, poverty, homelessness, mad mullahs, and so on) and the usual pattern is for some populist party to emerge to assuage public discontent, normally via the use of scapegoats.  At the moment, it’s UKIP that fulfils this function, but it could be any set of con artists.  In fact, it does not specially matter whether the distraction vehicle is putatively ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ or ‘far-Right’, or whatever.  These designations are made-up anyway.  The only criterion for the scam is that it should work in keeping the public stupefied, the most effective method being to reveal part of the truth in language that reflects whatever are the current, frenzied bigotries and prejudices, but without actually explaining anything.  The aim is to co-opt the more critical but uncommitted in society to a harmless controlled opposition movement, while the real opposition is left with the ‘weirdos’ – i.e. the embittered, lonely, fanatical or hyper-critical, people who tend not to be very attractive or plausible anyway – even though they might be right – and so can be safely ignored.  Mr. & Mrs. Dumb White Briton are happy because they get their consumer lifestyle and their kicks bashing gypsies, ‘radical Muslims’, PC-obsessed primary school teachers wearing sandals, man-hating feminists, homosexuals, or EU bureaucrats – or whichever is this month’s Most Hated Group.  Meanwhile, the real problems continue: among which are the economic inequality that threatens our civilisation but is never talked about and that is becoming worse.  But our concern here is with the non-white demographic column in Britain, that continues to expand at a pace, doing the work of Jewish capitalists, safe in the knowledge that the tried and trusted scapegoats are on hand, like Guy Fawkes dummies, for burning as and when needed.  This has been going on now for at least 45 years, since the Birmingham speech of Enoch Powell.  Indeed, it was Powell who, in that epic self-immolation, inaugurated the ‘rinse and dry’ tendency that has become the hallmark of the British right-wing.  When Marx, borrowing from Hegel, postulated in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, he was, if anything, understating the tendency.  In fact, one explanation for the failure of the far-Right in Britain and elsewhere in Europe and North America, is that they represent ideas that are simply out-of-date, in no small part due to the single major event that defined Powell and his generation politically.

One thing that is often missed about the Second World War is that it sounded the real death knell for traditional Westphalian Nationalism.  Before 1945, Nationalism was a major and significant philosophy in the West, with the power to move armies.  Following the defeat of the German Third Reich, Nationalism in Britain, and other Western countries, slowly became a marginalised current that mainstream politicians would learn to pay lip-service to while pursuing a more internationalist outlook.  Nationalism, as framed by the concept of Westphalia sovereignty established in the 17th. century, had become less useful in explaining a world in which the interests of capital demanded co-operation and synergies between competing national interests.  But the space this left for what might have been a legitimate well-spring of popular working class consciousness against globalism became an unfilled void, which turned into a problem for the Establishment when mass non-white immigration began in the 1950s.  In time the void was filled, but not by the working class movement that could have stopped the globalist attack on Britain, but instead by the so-called far-Right.  This was in essence a reaction to the putative Cold War between Jewish neo-liberal state capitalism (the free market West) and Jewish Bolshevik state capitalism (the ‘communist’ East).  Each type of capitalism – each Jewish political tribe – needed the certainty of an identifiable enemy, even if fictitious.  To simplify: in Britain, as in the rest of the West, the Zionists captured power and influenced the direction of the country, while the far-Right, putatively anti-Zionist, filled the void left by the absence of anti-globalist opposition and in doing so borrowed and co-opted the symbols, token narratives and mythology of Westphalian Nationalism.  This might be an indicator of the times, or it might be indicative of intellectual weakness, or it might even suggest that the putatively anti-Zionist far-Right has in fact been a tool of Zionist interests all along.  We know that the Left, which might have provided the source for a genuine anti-globalist, White Racial Nationalist movement, was captured by Jewish interests.  This factor is often-overlooked by Nationalists and far-Right types, who affect an aversion towards the Left.  The aversion is misplaced and damaging, not to mention puzzling.  It is the Jewish Bolsheviks who corrupted Marxism and socialism and evacuated it of meaning, twisting it against the West and the White Race.

Parallel to the rise of a so-called far-Right, and to an extent convergent with it, was the emergence of an underground neo-Nazi sub-culture.  The far-Right rested its case to the British people on an appeal to the ‘Old’, pre-War Nationalism, attempting to link this with a case against mass immigration.  The far-Right was not necessarily racial as such.  Rather, it was, in the classic Tory sense, against immigration of any sort (or most sorts) and against any foreign intrusion on Britain, and in that sense, it could be said to have been indirectly racial – and it certainly often relied on racialist imagery and propaganda.  We can see that due to its reliance on the out-dated predicate of pre-War Nationalism, and its lack of connection with the economic interests of working people – or indeed, even their racial interests – the far-Right could not appeal significantly beyond a small base of committed supporters, the type of people who felt, and still feel, a nostalgic or emotional attachment to the pre-War Nationalism of Britain as an insular country.  The geopolitical, social, financial and economic realities of mass immigration, free markets and globalisation have rendered that viewpoint archaic and irrelevant.  Against that background, the gradual marginalisation and failure of the far-Right over several decades is explicable.  The result of this sad state of affairs was that the two groups of fellow travellers, the far-Right and neo-Nazis, became more closely associated with each other, identifying together as ‘Nationalists’ incestuously, finding solace in their shared exclusion from the mainstream politic, and each attracting the type of people who are themselves excluded in different ways, thus reinforcing this sense of exclusion.  This is what gave rise to the pathological secrecy and exclusivity of what has become known as political ‘Nationalism’, and it is that which I will now discuss.

We can see in hindsight that the political narrative of the far-Right during the 20th. century was really a narrative formulated by British Zionists – the enemies were ‘Reds’ and ‘socialist’, reflecting Cold War paranoia and second-hand ideas about socialism and Marxism; there were ‘spies’ and ‘infiltrators’ everywhere; and, the Jews controlled everything and were to blame.  The latter, of course, was to some extent true, but when used to turn the Jews into scapegoats, it was not helpful and only served the Jewish interest of appearing to be victimised by whites.  Rather than live up to their name and reach out across the political spectrum with the aim of becoming a genuinely National movement, these co-called ‘Nationalists’ turned in on themselves and developed into a cult, obsessed with secrecy and the dangers of infiltration, inward-looking, paranoid and suspicious of new faces.  These attributes have, time and again, been used against Nationalism and undermined its public presentation in the Jewish media.

When we look across the North Atlantic and recall the fiasco of Leith, we can see that the public and visible failure of the PLE concept in North Dakota was not just down to the mistakes of individuals.  It had deeper roots in pathologies among North American White Nationalists that are comparable to those that afflict British Nationalists.  The Leith activists were steeped in the neo-Nazi Kuhnite fanaticism that has been a feature of American White Nationalism since the Second World War – i.e. paramilitary uniforms,  Hitler-worship, neo-Nazi cultism, Teutonic symbolism, MidWest American feeling for Germanic ethnicity, etc..  But Leith was also the natural and inevitable reaction of a committed sub-culture to its targeted, organised suppression and marginalisation at the hands of a hostile (Jewish) media.  If people are silenced, ridiculed and poked like bears in a cage, then at some point, if they are strong, rather than cower they will turn on their oppressor in anger and defiance.  That was what Leith really was about.  These people weren’t tools of the media.  They were heroes in a useless Quixotic sense who, having been pushed too far, felt the need to declare their allegiance to a disruptive, revolutionary creed in defiance of their oppressors.  It was what the Left and Jews wanted, but it was also what Cobb and his followers wanted.  It was a mental release.  What happened next to Cobb is a disturbing example of how an authoritarian system can manipulate dissenters psychologically into turning and becoming unwilling tools of the system.  A kind of self-negation is a requirement for anyone who appears in the Jewish media and Cobb was required to appear at the confessional and cleanse himself of anti-liberal sinning.  Without this, he might have thought that he could not be given a fair hearing.

Something similar to Leith has also been seen in the UK, especially since the rise of the New (post-Tyndall) BNP.  Only, here due to the lack of a First Amendment, and due to the organised and institutionalised repression and suffocation of Nationalism and denial of access to the media, British Nationalist ‘Leithianism’ has taken on a much more twisted, and if anything, more invidious form.  The strange ubiquity of reality TV in British culture also accounts for some of the embarrassment.  We’ve had Collett (RE:Brand and Young, Nazi and Proud), I think there was also a documentary on BNP wives (I forget the name of it, not that it matters much), and various other media vehicles of different sorts, in which far-Right idiots posing as Nationalists draw attention to themselves in the manner of narcissistic Jews.  This all really started in the late 1970s, when the media began its campaign against anything remotely resembling Racial Nationalism, using documentaries as a political tool.  There was, for instance, the 1978 World In Action documentary, The Nazi Party, a hysterical piece that took advantage of the far-Right/neo-Nazi confluence to monsterise the National Front and discredit it as an electoral force at a time of genuine popularity, and also by implication, to warn off anyone else who dared to question or challenge mixed-racialism.  In the paranoid climate of the 1970s, the National Front was perfect copy for sinister scare stories about police informants, neo-Nazi plots and so on, and this fed the egos of those involved in what remained an archaic pre-War style of ‘Nationalism’.  But it wasn’t just ego.  That would be too simple and would not serve as a satisfactory explanation, especially when we consider how thoroughly ideological Nationalism became during the 1970s, with the involvement of figures like Tyndall, who had come out of the neo-Kuhnite Greater Britain Movement.  For Tyndall, his beliefs were akin to a religion, yet in order to popularise the National Front during the 1970s, he had to pursue a strategy that downplayed his own ideological commitment.  We should consider here the basic psychological features of such a person: the contradictory urges at work, especially when he is placed in the position that he is ‘against’ the society and is some kind of specter hiding threateningly in the shadows. There is perhaps a degree of frustration, a need for mental release, a need to lay bare, to expose oneself – a kind of implicit narcissism that develops over time and ultimately consumes the personality, so that what begins as a negation of liberal society and its financial prostitution, flattery, manipulation and control becomes an accommodation with it and thus a self-negation, a kind of confessional of anti-liberal sinning.  I would argue that Leith, and other neo-Leithian fiascos on both sides of the Atlantic, are simply the logical extension of a masochistic media culture in Nationalism that involves a need to parade one’s own negation.  It includes the BNP and its ridiculous, amateur media stunts that are still ongoing.  People who feel guilty about something often find a way to parade their guilt, often unconsciously.  Cobb, Collett, the BNP wives, lived in a society in which they were constantly attacked and made to feel guilt in all kinds of explicit and implicit ways.  To bend at the altar of the Jewish media is a kind of cleansing mea culpa.

There is also perhaps a more circumstantial explanation for Nationalist attachment to the Jewish media.  Among all politicians and indeed celebrity types, there is a reliance placed on media that is clearly materialist and opportunist and this extends into the mainstream.  It’s not that hard to imagine Nigel Farage or some other high-profile UKIP leader appearing on Big Brother or some other mindless TV distraction. These people are part of the media culture.  They have bought into it, and their problem is that they are dependent on it.  No doubt one of the reasons why George Galloway appeared on Big Brother was ‘political’, in that he wanted to attract attention to himself and his radical causes, but part of the reason for Galloway’s success is also that he has good basic business savvy and a keen sense for how politics can be turned into a commercial opportunity.  Or to put it bluntly: he did it for the money, capitalising on his profile as a radical politician.  If we are honest, and perhaps if Galloway were really honest about this, the reason for his media profile isn’t so much that people agree with him, or even understand him, but rather due to his personality and the fact that he can be entertaining.  Although he is not physically-attractive, he has nevertheless found a way to be telegenic: that is to say, he appeals to his audience through the sheer force of his personality.  Of course, what also helps is that his far Left views are given a free pass because they are seen as non-threatening by the Jewish media.  Another example of this kind of media phenomenon would be Russell Brand, who in a strange way manages to make unattractiveness attractive and appealing. However Brand’s approach is typical liberal self-negation, using a humorous persona that in fact implies childishness and immaturity – and is in a sense a parody of Brand himself – to attack a fictitious received reality.

Nationalists – i.e. what the far-Right like to call themselves – do not have a strong ‘Galloway’ figure among their number, and this does partly account for why the far-Right has been unable to generate serious appeal on the media’s terms outside its own narrow philosophical premise, with the consequence that what is seen as ‘Nationalism’ is – quite rightly – something vaguely connected in the public’s mind with Little Englanders. However, Nationalism does have its own ‘Russell Brands’ a plenty – people like Griffin or Cobb or Collett – clowns, in other words, who have tried to become sympathetic ‘personalities’ fawning at the Jewish media alter, confessing their anti-liberal sinning, but who have adopted approaches that betray the same style as Brand – outraged self-negation.  They have failed where Brand has ‘succeeded’ because whereas Brand understands the need to connect what he says to the lives of real people, the ‘Nationalist’ ferment that Griffin, Cobb et al have emerged from has no appeal beyond a very narrow section of the population.

That said, those who consider themselves ‘moderate’ and ‘sensible’ and sneer at Cobb and his Leith venture should ask why they might support Farage and his clown-like antics in the European Parliament.  When Farage makes his rare appearances in the chamber to fulminate against some unpopular bureaucrat, or when UKIP members turn up in colourful suits or fancy dress to make a mockery of the institution they were elected to, these juvenile antics are only one step from Leith (and indeed, not dissimilar from doing a Galloway and playing the pussy cat on Big Brother).  It’s a show, a circus, and it is made to appear like the only game in town.  That’s because it is all in the service of Jews.  But it isn’t the only alternative.  There is another way, that requires an end to this narcissism, and to an extent an end to the suits and ties and pseudo-respectability as well. The alternative I refer to is not for everyone.  It requires the application of patience and years, perhaps many decades, of quiet work and waiting.  It means that we adopt a community-building strategy based on the precepts of PLE.  Not Leith, which was a corruption of PLE, but real PLE and its UK application, White Independent Nation (WIN).  In order to be successful, PLEs/WIN will need to look outwards from Nationalism into the wider white community, and find ways of attracting the best of the whites around us.  This requires that we develop suitable constructs that reflect the wishful abstractions of ordinary whites back at them.  Whether it is the need for community in the post-industrial North or the wish for a restoration of pastoral civic life in rural areas of the south and west, or whatever.  Direct racial messaging will not work in winning whites into a singular tribal community, nor will the traditional Nationalist appeal to self-abnegation.  Rather, what works will be whatever it is outside the Jewish mainstream culture that holds appeal to ordinary people.

Due to the political environment we are working in and its hostility to Nationalism, any community-building group is vulnerable to infiltration, exposure and sabotage.  For that reason, there is a need for secrecy and discretion, and one question for PLE/WIN organisers is how to deal with the Leithian, narcissistic culture that has grown within Nationalism as a reflection of modern life and that seeks attention and self-negating worship at the alter of media victimhood.  I would argue that this is a culture that has infected a significant part of Nationalism – not just the recognisable names, but ordinary activists as well, some of whom have created blogs to launch personal attacks on fellow Nationalists and have engaged in similar disruptive activities that are essentially a projection of their own insecurity and narcissism.  The fear is that some of these people might compromise PLEs through their need to make public proclamations or draw attention to themselves in some way.  Many of these elements will display other character flaws – for instance, a tendency for violence – or be practising homosexuals, or whatever.  There are also the kosher nationalists to consider.  Such people can be useful in that they may present well publicly and will be useful, provided they can understand the need for discipline and to exercise care with anything that brings us into contact with the media, and preferably to avoid such avenues altogether.

One method of addressing the problem is accommodation, a suggestion made in H. Michael Barrett’s The PLE Prospectus.  The idea is that far from rejecting the ‘undesirables’, we should welcome them as they are, after all, race-conscious and carry the necessary white genes.  As such, they need not be part of the controlling group or even be located in the specific target area of the community, but can be part of the general ‘Uncontrolled White Nationalist Culture’ that emerges from the PLE or white conscious community, providing a ballast for the white community in whatever region of the country is selected.  Such people can also serve as a valuable ‘internal opposition’, giving the white community credibility as something diverse, and as such, they may be vital in presenting the new emerging white conscious culture as inclusive.  The alternative to inclusiveness is to reject altogether Nationalists as such, and involve only those who are fully committed to the racial cause per se and who do not display any of the dysfunctional personal characteristics that have plagued Nationalist efforts in the past.  This does have the advantage that any ensuing project will be more focused and without the risk of sabotage or exposure, and the group can always be widened at a later stage to embrace peripheral involvement, perhaps a few years down the line, once the necessary foundations are in place.  However, this approach does carry the risk that any such group will wind up as nothing more than an exclusivist sect that does nothing.

Another possible solution might be found in the example of the Northwest Front.  This is a National Socialist organisation, but as far as I can see, it is simply a website; however; there is some merit in the strategy adopted by its founder, the author Harold Covington.  The idea seems to be to push for a general white racial community in the north-west of the Continental United States, without any selectivity or exclusivity – provided that it is a white migration.  The ultimate aim is for the establishment of a Northwest Republic, which it is believed will come about organically as race-conscious whites concentrate in that region.  Something similar to this might be possible in the UK or Continental Europe, and a project of this kind could be pursued either in combination with or separately to projects like WIN.  The Northwest Front is perhaps marred by the domination of one personality – Covington – who, though brilliant, is also unpopular with many White Nationalists.  That’s just further illustration of the problem with the ‘leader principle’, in that it will always be the case that people will associate the cause with the personality, and muddle the two, and there will always be some that don’t like the leader, while others will worship or valorise the leader unmeritoriously or unjustly.  A preoccupation with selecting leaders is perhaps also an explanation for why the Nationalist movement has suffered so much fragmentation.  Nevertheless, I think there is some merit in the general concept of the Northwest Front in that a racial community could be formed by migration to a particular region of the UK, and this could be complementary to other efforts.  It would require general fronts to encourage migration to the selected region, in the hope that demographics would take care of the rest.  This is how I would separate WIN from the general concept of a racial community.  The latter is organic, while WIN is exclusive.  A racial community (a Northwest Republic) is to an extent unplanned and dependent purely on evolving demographics whereas WIN is a concerted, planned strategy for taking over a community and re-modelling it as a white conscious community.  The strength of the Northwest Front movement is its conceptual nature – no secrecy is necessary, as discovery does not stop it and there is no organisation or structure.  PLEs, on the other hand, are at present vulnerable to discovery and need secrecy.  It is not inconceivable that we could work for a ‘North East Republic’ in the UK, in conjunction with more disciplined PLE projects for white conscious communities.  The PLE would be more advanced and specific to a local community, whereas the North East Republic project would cover a wider geographic area and simply encourage general migration of whites to the selected region.  I mention all this because a North East Republic could be the answer to the ‘Leith Dilemma’, as it might bring the ‘undesirable’ Nationalists to the fold without compromising WIN or similar projects.  It’s a thought, but the idea needs more work no doubt.

These are not easy questions and our position right now is unenviable.  It feels as if we are stood at a cross-roads, one road towards the same old solutions, the old pre-War style of Nationalism and electoral failure, which sadly many Nationalists still cling to.  The other route towards a different strategy of building Nationalism from the ground-up, through the people, but with all the perils in the initial stages of popular involvement in a hostile and repressive political environment.  What we do know is that things have to change within Nationalism.  We do not have much time; the non-white column is growing in this country.  The narcissism of the pre-War style Nationalism and its media obsessions are not wanted or needed, but nor are its two opposites, one of which is hiding and becoming an unknown, invisible, sterile sect of ‘exclusive’ members who are ideologically and socially pure but ineffective; the other is the opposite of narcissism, or its counterpart to be more precise: the ‘inverted narcissism’ of dependency on guru-type leaders that is still a feature of the far-Right, even after 70 years.  Whether your preferred guru mystic Wise One is Nigel Farage or Craig Cobb, John Tyndall or indeed Enoch Powell, I would say to you that it is time to critically re-assess these predecessor and incumbent leaders and place them in their proper light: as ordinary human beings, with strengths and flaws.  And it is for each of us, individually, and combining collectively, to take back Nationalism.  If we continue to devote a large part of our psychic energy to voting and the electoral machine, escapist diversions such as the EDL and media stunts like Leith, we will continue to fail.  It’s one reason why we face two battles: taking back this country or inventing a new one is only half of it.  The first battle is to establish Nationalism as what it should have been all along – a revolutionary struggle against the Jewish owning class, rather than some vague bunch of little Englanders talking the received language of Zion.  That means we Racial Nationalists need to separate ourselves from the far-Right and make it clear that right-wingers no longer hold an exclusive ideological or philosophical franchise on Nationalist thought.  Nationalism does not belong to the Left or the Right.  It is its own ideology and philosophy, revolutionary in intent, and for all white people.  Most white people may not accept this, or us, at the moment, but whether they accept us or not, we accept them.

Uncritical nationalism versus critical Nationalism

05 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

absolute truth, AGW, Anthony Giddens, anthropogenic global warming thesis, auto-didacticism, Autonomous National Socialism, Big Bang theory, BNP, capitalism, certainty, Christopher Hitchens, climate scepticism, critical Nationalism, critical rationalism, Das Kapital, democracy, economic inequality, equality, evolutionary theory, false flag conservatives, falsifiability, falsificationism, fascism, Friedrich Engels, idealism, inequality, Jews, justificationism, Karl Marx, Karl Popper, Labour Party, leaders, leadership, liberalism, Marxism, Melanie Phillips, militant feminism, mixed-racialism, Moonie cult, National Front, Nationalism, Nazis, Peter Hitchens, political knowledge, Powellisation, pseudo-positivism, racial equality, racial inequality, Racial Nationalism, radical liberalism, res ipsa loquitur, science, scientific method, Singapore, singaporeanisation, socialism, the critical tradition, the double hermeneutic, the Hermeneutical Dilemma, the human race, the leader syndrome, the uncritical tradition, the West, the White Race, UKIP, Uncritical nationalism, uncritical rationalism, violent crime, White Nationalism, White Sovereigntism

 

nigelfarage-eye

Uncritical nationalism versus critical Nationalism

One thing that separates me from most Nationalists is that I do not believe in leaders.  That is not to say I reject the concept of leadership, which is necessary (or at least, useful) for any political movement (and any other practical human endeavour for that matter); but leadership is not contingent on the existence of leaders per se, and I firmly reject the notion that an effective political movement must always have a leader.  In that sense – and other senses – I am a democrat as much as a fascist.  Can two opposites exist in harmony?  I believe so.  My views are an idiosyncratic blend of the democratic and fascist, and the Nationalist and socialist.  I will explain more during the course of this blog’s existence, and as time goes on, you will – I hope – come to recognise a structural and ideological consistency: a system of belief that I will provisionally call Autonomous National Socialism.  But more on that some other time.

Today, I would like to talk about a distinction I make between what I call ‘critical Nationalism’ and ‘uncritical nationalism’.  The terminology is borrowed from Karl Popper, who distinguished ‘critical rationalism’ from ‘uncritical rationalism’.  I believe that Popper’s critique of justificatory methods in human knowledge can be extended into political theory and ideas, and is of particular relevance to ‘the leader syndrome’ (see my previous post: Escaping the Lotus: democracy and the ‘leader syndrome’).

A factor that distinguishes scientific knowledge from political knowledge is the reliance in science on knowledge (and the underpinning methodological doctrines of empiricism and falsificationism), while in political endeavour there is a reliance on truth (and its underpinning doctrine of authority).  It is important for us to understand how the democratic concept cuts across this distinction.  Science is fascist in nature, rather than democratic.  (See my earlier discussion of Giddens’ double hermeneutic in Nationalism and the Hermeneutical Dilemma: some brief thoughts).  To a scientist, what matters is not certainty or absolute truth, but the search for truth, and with that, the provision of evidence in the form of experiments and observations, that might provide an explanation or account of the truth.  This involves building, validating and destroying tentative conclusions – theses – with the aim that, at any one time, the body of scientific knowledge is closer to the truth.  Scientific knowledge is always provisional, and any sense of authority is in its methodology: science is derived from the testability and falsifiability of any one of its tentative conclusions, which always stand ready to be undermined, minimised or destroyed as empirical findings dictate.

Political knowledge is, by contrast, democratic in nature and focused on the presentation of the truth with an attribute of certainty, regardless of whether what is presented is in fact true in the observational sense or valid in the rational or scientific sense.  Regardless of the truth of a theory, statement or position, what matters is its social acceptability within the receiving group, or the likeability of the messenger, or some combination of the two.

I might observe that racial inequality is natural and inevitable and the very existence of races is a demonstration of this res ipsa loquitur.  In fact, that’s the scientific position.  I am not certain it is true, but I know that current scientific evidence supports it.  It’s a provisional truth, that is open to challenge and falsification.  It also happens to be a common sense observation, but that is not what matters.  Its authority is drawn from its [provisional] ‘truthfulness’, as it should be.  Numerous studies show average differences between races in different areas of human endeavour, as does basic day-to-day observation.  It may be an impolitic statement and deeply unpopular.  It may be seen as vile and disgraceful, etc., by ‘respectable people’.  It may also be vigorously, perhaps violently, denied by some (if not most) scientists who, for varying motives, wish to interpret their science through politics – nonetheless, it is the truth to the limited extent that current science can provide valid conclusions.  In that sense, science is ‘fascist’ by method, not due to its content (the racial example given here is incidental – we could be discussing any subject that science touches on), but because all scientific work must subsume to the overriding demands of its rigorous method. In a casual sense, we can say that findings that comply with its method and are repeated consistently are the ‘truth’, and for reasons of expediency, this practical short-cut is largely accepted.  For example, things such as evolutionary theory and Big Bang theory are presented largely as fact in schools and in the media.  Nothing can change the truth, except a modification or alteration of the theses that interpret it.

The converse of the scientific method is found in political knowledge, which deals with the reality of racial inequality quite differently.  Political knowledge is ‘democratic’ in two senses.  First, provisional knowledge, validated by scientific method and everyday observation, is denied in favour of ‘the Truth’, which is a fiction that is more socially acceptable and likeable.  The ‘fiction’ might contain a strong element of actual truth-telling – and rarely, may simply be the truth.  Indeed, as any professional politician will confirm, a really effective lie needs to contain a strong element of truth in order to convince people.  Nonetheless, some lies can work because they are ‘Big Lies’.  Putting aside philosophical niceties, we ‘know’ that 2 + 2 equals 4, but if it were more socially acceptable that 2 and 2 should make 5 – especially if this deduction worked in the interests of a powerful group in society – then it is not inconceivable that this conclusion would be promoted by serious people and anyone who denied it would be ridiculed and verbally savaged, if not imprisoned.  If you think this far-fetched, then consider how ‘equality’ is conceptualised in society.  Equality among humans is empirical nonsense, just as ‘equality’ among wolves or sheep is nonsense.  But the aim is not to make sense.  The aim is acceptance and likeability.

The second feature of political knowledge is a deliberate politicisation of language, in that the subject term develops a double meaning.  Much as we discussed the double meaning of ‘democracy’ in a previous post (democracy versus Democracy: or why the patient can’t be restored), a canonical understanding of ‘equality’ is promoted that bears no relationship to material reality or lived experience, but reflects perceptions that society wishes to encourage – a kind of wish-thinking – and which also reflects certain perceptions the elite wish to encourage among society.  We all wish for equality, democracy and other nice things because that’s what we have been encouraged to wish for and it also seems civilised.  The consequences of such views are not widely discussed.

All of us are susceptible to the fallacies of justificatory (political) knowledge – Popper’s uncritical rationalism – which prioritises ‘truth and ‘certainty’ over actual knowledge and observation.  Often the fallacy can work in service of good (or at least, good intentions).  An example is found in the global warming debate, and in particular the debate over whether, and to what extent, global trends in warming, if they exist, are caused by human activity.  I must confess that I am not sufficiently informed about the science to offer a meaningful view on whether global warming is happening or what contributes to it, but based on what knowledge I have, I would tend to favour the anthropogenic thesis (‘AGW’).  This is for entirely precautionary reasons.  The late Christopher Hitchens put it best: we can’t run the experiment twice.  We have only one chance to change our behaviour so as to mitigate our impact on the planet.  As I see it, this is the best justification for the precautionary principle, and even if it turns out that the AGW thesis has been exaggerated or is wholly mistaken, it is best to exercise caution and reduce any damaging impact on the environment generally.  This is one reason the so-called ‘climate sceptics’ annoy me a little in that, irrespective of the truthfulness of their position (something yet to be determined decisively, one way or the other), their scepticism does not take account of the need for us to end our supremacy over the Earth.  We have no right to use the Earth like a dustbin.  My position is what you might call ‘cautious scepticism’ or ‘weak scepticism’, but in adopting this view, it must be admitted that I am incorporating a disregard for the truth (in the sense of objective knowledge about the world) and prioritising my political view (a more subjective and unrealistic attitude to knowledge and truth).  A belief that we should be more in touch with, and respectful of, our surrounding environment may represent ‘good’, but when this view takes on the uncritical pretensions of ‘truth’ as an unassailable reality and disregards actual knowledge and the inherent unattainability of absolute truth, then my position becomes dishonest (albeit, in my case, well-meaning).

I have encountered this same well-meaning disregard for truth among mixed-racialists, who think they are promoting good – the unity of the human race – which, in turn, explains their violent and aggressive reaction to those who are either sceptical and would prefer that different human sub-races retain their distinctive identities, or who point out that current science does not accord with the politics of the mixed-racialists.  Some of these mixed-racialists have perhaps not considered fully the consequences of their views, which are now being played out in our society.  We might call these well-meaning mixed racialists the ‘idealists’.  Others promote mixed-racialism for ideological reasons, believing that the deconstruction of the West, or the White Race, is necessary to achieve some political objective: a version of socialism, Islamic rule, or whatever.  Both groups pursue the authoritarian approach that typifies political knowledge – i.e. lots of ‘democracy’ in which truth is overridden in favour of people’s feelings.  The White Nationalist slogan in response could almost be: “There are races.  Just deal with it.”  The liberals/mixed-racialists/false flag conservatives would reply: “Yes we know that, but we’d rather pretend there isn’t and call you Nazis.”  If there are races, then there is inequality.  If there are sexes, then there is inequality.  Difference means inequality, because that is Nature.  Science has yet to present knowledge that might contradict this, but we live in hope that the mixed-racialists might be vindicated by some actual knowledge or verifiable observation.

The term ‘equality’ was used originally by the Enlightenment thinkers (for example, in the American Declaration of Independence) in a wholly different social and historical context to contemporary society.  Theirs were white (or white-led) societies in which governments played only a minimal and distant part in people’s lives, and in which women had dominion over the private and family sphere of life, which was much more important than it is today.  Inequality was accepted as a fact of life, because that is what it was and still is.  It didn’t follow, and it still doesn’t follow, that men are ‘better’ than women or vice versa, or that whites are ‘better’ than blacks or vice versa, etc.  Rather, it meant there was a recognition of difference and society built itself around those differences, sometimes in frustrating and unjust ways, but mostly for the good of everyone.  That does not mean that I think society should remain static.  I am a socialist, not a conservative, but I believe that change should be progressive: i.e. it should be built on what is good about society, and so far as possible, facts about human beings should prevail. The denial of inequality and difference has led to a regression and devolution of the West: escalating violent crime, growing economic inequality (which, in my view, is the unjust type of inequality), and a loss of morals.  These problems are the result of a bankrupt social system, capitalism, but they are also a demonstration of how the canonical equality that capitalism relies on does not work in practice – at least, not without considerable propaganda and governmental oppression.

The only way out of this problem for the equality activists is to reject science (which is where all the unwelcome ‘truths’ emanate from) and return to political knowledge, where ‘equality’ can be refashioned into an abstraction.  Thus, although science (and everyday common sense) says there is inequality, no-one sees this because everything – including science itself – is interpreted through political knowledge.  Ignorance Is Strength; Inequality Is Equality; and Authoritarianism Is Democracy.  Of course, people do see inequality still – they must.  The problem is in how they interpret the reality they see.  They are persuaded either to ignore what they see and continue living in their own contented bubble as if it is not happening (and in the hope that some of the consequences won’t affect them), or to treat it as either a failure of a particular government or political party, or the work of evil racists, or perhaps, the deliberate work of psychopathic rich men (normally Jews and their scapegoated surrogates, rich whites, are identified as the culprits).  This is far preferable than the harsh alternative: which is confront reality and see society’s breakdown for what it is: the failure of a failed and broken social system and paradigm of thought: i.e. Jewish (mixed racialist) capitalism – or capitalism for short, for that is what capitalism is.

It’s in this context that I have long-believed that radical liberalism and mixed-racialism (and their attendant movements, such as militant feminism) are generally not revolutionary movements at all, but in fact are counter-revolutionary movements, for they belong to an uncritical tradition in which democracy becomes something that is vaguely nice – and thus an uncritical concept that, of course, ‘everybody’ believes in.  Meanwhile, fascism (and any other revolutionary idea, including classical Marxism) becomes something that is vile and nasty and that, of course, ‘everybody’ disapproves of.  Incidentally, this is why I am amused when I see Nationalists and right-wing types get into a frenzy about Cultural Marxism and ‘liberals’, terms that most of them only half-understand.  What such people are doing is betraying a profound ignorance about the history of working class struggle and the place of Nationalism in it, and they are also revealing that Nationalism as they conceive it is not a revolutionary idea, but just a propaganda front for shills and lackies of whoever happens to be in power, including Jews.  So Nationalism has regretfully fallen into the uncritical tradition.  Exhibit ‘A’ is the continuing success of the UK’s very own Moonie cult: UKIP, a media party who seem to represent a mixture of golf club bores, right-wingers with clichéd views, and random disaffected people.  Other exhibits in support for the uncritical tradition include: the Powellisation of the BNP (and to an extent, the National Front as well); the emerging popularity of ‘thoughtful’ social conservatives who are vaguely associated with civic nationalism, such as Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips, who are fact radical liberals of the uncritical tradition, though they like to pretend otherwise.

The truly revolutionary position is the Racial Nationalist one, for it asserts that a Nation cannot exist without racial homogeneity.  A vague sense of ethnicity and patriotism – flag-waving, sports allegiance, culture and ritual and so on – which the civic nationalists focus on, is not enough.  Without a racial under-girding, Nation means nothing.  Singapore is a nation-state, but it can never be a Nation, and if the British Nation is ‘singaporeanised’ – i.e. turned into a mixed-racial population – then the artificial structure of the nation-state becomes irrelevant to Nationalists, as it no longer serves any racial purpose and is in fact traitorous.  We have now arrived at that point: truly now, the Race is the Nation and the Nation is the Race. This signals a new opportunity, for a new White Nationalist/Sovereigntist Movement, but it also signals the sad end for British Nationalism as anything viable.  In order to save the Race, we will have to ditch the nation-state.  So it is a defeat, and it is as well to confront that fact.

There is one group of people, who deserve the blame and approbation for this: US – that is to say, you and me.  The way to victory, I believes, starts with radical self-criticism.  Blaming others, worshipping leaders, joining parties, putting an illiterate ‘X’ in a ballot every four years….all these non-activities are the hallmarks of the uncritical nationalists, and they are all proxies, projections even, in lieu of doing something useful. They are ways of deflecting the blame from where it really should be: ME AND YOU.

None of that is to say that I oppose voting or joining political parties.  I am not advocating an ‘all or nothing’ approach.  I realise that pluralism, even compromise, can be essential in politics if anything is to be achieved, but what I do oppose is people who do this uncritically (even non-strategically in some cases), out of a kind of Leninist loyalty or worship of a Great Leader or a made-up organisation such as a political party, or out of an understandable but misplaced loyalty to a nation-state (in this case the UK) that is in fact traitorous to whites.  Admittedly, such people do have qualities: they show considerable gumption, and are in many ways a cut-above the ‘dumb’ whites who stay silent and stunned on their way to the abattoir.  Nevertheless their pseudo-positivist mindsets (i.e. practising politics at face value) and their misplaced belief in the amulets of the uncritical tradition – ‘democracy’, voting, flag-waving, ‘fair play’ and so on – are just part of a circular and futile process that gives the existing fraudulent system an undeserved legitimacy, when in fact it should have been swept away long-ago.

Of course, I am not an innocent in this.  In the ‘YOU AND ME’, I include myself.  I was a ‘dumb’ white too.  I was stupefied.  In fact, my case was one of the worst.  I joined the Labour Party as a young teenager and had ambitions to become a politician.  I grew out of it quite early on, partly because my early active involvement in the mainstream, social democratic variety of left-wing politics immunised me against it.  What you might see as a ‘mistake’ and something I should be ashamed of, was in fact a crucial part of my political development and maturity.  Without that ‘left-wing’ phase, I would still be a plastic leader-worshipper, a Moonie cultist like some of you.  So I’m glad I made that mistake.  At some point I began to realise that it’s all a con, and more importantly, I worked out my own explanation of why.

Along the way, I went down some interesting avenues.  During my time in University as a law student, I joined a nearby coffee shop-style philosophy discussion group, consisting mainly of academics and what right-wing people might dismiss as ‘liberal types’.  Having been through a comprehensive school and survived the experience, albeit with considerable emotional and psychological damage, I had learned how to regurgitate the system’s junk knowledge faithfully as one of its straight A students – a kind of Western version of the Soviet Young Pioneer.  I did not know much philosophy (albeit, I was highly auto-didactic and well-read), so most of the discussion was beyond me, and I listened more than I spoke.  This was an important experience for me because I first became aware of how deeply the left-wing current of thought had permeated into academic institutions, and it also made me recognise some of the contradictions and limitations in the left/liberal position.

However, I now realise that the people I conversed with back then were not really ‘left-wing’ as such, and certainly not ‘socialist’.  In fact they were ‘metropolitan’ and held a mindset that I would now call pseudo-positivist: they accepted the canonical understanding of politics and the conventional use of political language, and in that sense, today, those people would be closer politically to the average member of UKIP or the BNP than they are to me.  The average UKIP and BNP member is liberal and part of the uncritical tradition, but doesn’t realise it.

In my 20s, I joined a small Marxist group in the north of England, which was mainly about theoretical discussion.  I had first read Das Kapital in my teens.  Now I re-read it more thoroughly, along with the other works of Marx and Engels, in an effort to understand it all properly.  Like most sincere Marxists, these people were gentle and kind, if a little too earnest and intellectually intolerant.  They understood socialism very well but because they were convinced of their own truths (and to be fair, most of what they said was, and remains the truth), they would not listen to alternative perspectives.  It was that unattractive intellectual attribute – commonly found among people who are in fact right and know they are right – that put me off them and forced me to re-assess and re-evaluate my views in the light of my growing experience.  They would be appalled by my views now, but I am grateful to them.  They opened my eyes to the truth and wisdom of Marxism and socialism – and also its limitations – and thus prevented me from sliding into the reactionary dead-end that most people find themselves in as they get older and more cynical about society.  That has not happened to me because, thanks to the Marxists – who are largely correct in their analysis of capitalism – I have retained my optimism and I remain a ‘young’ person politically.  I refuse to give in and I refuse to stop learning.  I am a Nationalist now, but I belong to the critical tradition.

Activism

  • 2033
  • Advance Scout
  • B.U.G.S.
  • British Movement
  • British Movement – Women's Division
  • British People's Party
  • Casa Pound Italia
  • Civil Liberty
  • English Community Group (Leicester)
  • English Green
  • Fédération des Québécois de Souche
  • Fighting Back – Todmorden
  • Free Speech For Nationalists
  • Golden Dawn
  • Golden Dawn America
  • Immigration Control Platform [Ireland]
  • Justice for Germans
  • Kleinfontein
  • League of the South
  • Legion Martial Arts Club
  • mosqueblock
  • NAAWP
  • National Action
  • National Action [Blog]
  • National Alliance Reform & Restoration Group
  • National Socialist Movement Britannia
  • Navigor
  • Nordfront
  • Northants English Welfare Society
  • Northwest Front
  • NS Outlook
  • Orania
  • Orania Movement
  • Pie and Mash Squad
  • Pioneer Little Europe
  • Project Nova Europa
  • Racial Volunteer Force
  • Redwatch
  • Salford Nationalist News
  • Second Vermont Republic
  • Shieldwall (Nationalist Welfare Association)
  • Shropshire Patriot
  • Sigurd
  • The Celtic People's Party of Ireland
  • The English Shieldwall
  • The Federation of South West Nationalists
  • The Immortals
  • The National Revolutionary Alternative
  • The New Tribe
  • The Springbok Club
  • The Steadfast Trust
  • United White
  • Western Renaissance
  • Western Spring
  • When The Internet Is Censored
  • White Genocide Project
  • White Independent Nation
  • White Pride World Wide
  • White Resistance Movement
  • White Rex
  • World Union of National Socialists
  • Young Wolf – BM Youth Section

AltWhite

  • Stuff White People Like
  • This Is Europa
  • Why I'm a White Nationalist

Anti-Antifa

  • Extract from 'No Retreat'
  • GableWatch
  • GableWatch [YouTube]
  • Gerry Gable
  • Nope, not Hope
  • Searchlies Magazine
  • Searchlight and Homosexuality
  • Searchlight for Beginners
  • The Nation Wreckers
  • UAF Bully Boys

Anti-Capitalism

  • Parasite Street

Anti-Labour Party

  • Labour Watch
  • Labour25

Anti-UKIP Sites

  • Because We All Bleed Red!
  • UKIP Uncovered

Archeofuturism

  • Archeofuturist
  • Feral Observations
  • Outside in

Articles

  • Alternative Right
  • American Renaissance
  • Black Gnosis
  • Candour Magazine
  • Counter-Currents Publishing
  • Culturalist Hub
  • Gothic Ripples
  • Krystallnacht
  • League Sentinel
  • Luke O'Farrell
  • Nation Revisited
  • National Vanguard
  • Nationalist Opinions
  • New English Review
  • Praxis Mag
  • Radix Journal
  • Renegade Tribune
  • Sobran's
  • Spearhead Online
  • Taki's Magazine
  • The Occidental Observer
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Quarterly Review
  • Theden
  • VDARE.com
  • White Aryan Resistance
  • Zuerst!

Blogs

  • 88FourteenWordPress
  • Achilles Blog
  • Albion My Way
  • Albion's People
  • Ana the Imp
  • Anti Oligarch
  • Anti-Semitic Nordicist
  • Ara Maxima
  • Behold the Hydra
  • Belfascist
  • Birmingham Nationalist
  • Caligula's Horse
  • Cambria Will Not Yield
  • Carlos the Casual
  • Carolyn Yeager
  • Cavatus
  • cigpapers
  • Citizenfitz
  • Commonwealth Contrarian
  • Critical Dissent
  • diggerfortruth
  • Diversity is Chaos
  • Diversity Macht Frei
  • Ehudwould's Blog
  • ElderofZyklon's Blog
  • Elm House Paedophiles
  • England calling
  • English Passport
  • European Outlook
  • European Resistance
  • Ezekiel 31 Army
  • Fallen Freedom
  • Fallout Shelter 7
  • Fascovereign
  • Fred On Everything
  • GalliaWatch
  • grizzom
  • Hail To You
  • Hammer & Anvil
  • Hardons Blog
  • Henry Makow
  • Independent British Nationalist
  • Ironlight
  • Jack Donovan
  • Living In A Madhouse
  • Local Rights
  • Majorityrights.com
  • Menticidal Medicine
  • Mindweapons in Ragnarok
  • More Right
  • Musing of a Durotrigan
  • Nanny Knows Best
  • National Socialist & Proud
  • Nationalist Sentinel
  • Nationalistfairmedia
  • Ne Ultra
  • News From Atlantis
  • Nicholas Stix, Uncensored
  • Niflson's Mind
  • Nilfson's Mind
  • Northern Voices
  • Northerntruthseeker
  • northstand66
  • NorthWestNationalists
  • Nottingham Patriot
  • NUFNS
  • Occident Invicta
  • Occidental Dissent
  • Once Upon A Time In America
  • Orwell's Picnic
  • Peter Quiggins "Killer Culture"
  • Qué nos ocultan
  • Radical Traditionalism
  • Raedwald
  • Rags Make Paper
  • Ravnagaldr
  • Richard Barnbrook
  • RotherhamPatriot
  • Sarah Maid of Albion
  • Sean Gabb
  • Signals From The Brink
  • Social Matter
  • Solicewatch 13's BOS
  • SolsticeWitch13's BOS
  • Songlight For Dawn
  • Songlight for Dawn
  • Southend Patriot
  • Stoke Patriot
  • Stop the Madness
  • Stuff Black People Don't Like
  • The Euro-Nationalist
  • The Flophouse
  • The Identity Forum
  • The Irish Savant
  • The Iron Legion
  • The Libertarian Alliance
  • The Lincolnshire Patriot
  • The Movement To Save Ireland
  • The Nationalist Correspondent
  • The Northland Forum
  • The Patriot
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Righteous Alliance
  • The Samuel Francis Letter
  • The Soul of the East
  • The Traitor Within
  • The Turner Diaries
  • The West's Darkest Hour
  • The White Way Home
  • Thomas Sheridan
  • Those Who Can See
  • Thought and Action
  • Thoughtcrime
  • Thulean Perspective
  • TribalismoBlanco.com
  • Truth For Germans
  • Truthseeker Archive
  • Ulster Dawn
  • Unrepentant British Nationalism
  • Victor Shannock
  • Viking Observer
  • We Must Be Mad!
  • West Midlands Nationalist
  • Western Destiny
  • What Do You Believe?
  • When I'm King
  • White Pride Online
  • Whitelaw Towers
  • Why I Left Sweden
  • Wonko's World
  • Your Freedom and Ours

Boycott

  • Halal Choices
  • The rogue restaurant guide

Christian Identity (CI)

  • Anglo-Saxon Israel
  • Fasxcovereign Welthanschauung
  • Jesus Was Not A Jew

Civil liberties

  • A Free Speech Primer
  • Fully Informed Jury Association
  • Getting the message?
  • Tackling Extremism In The UK
  • Twitter Joke Trial

Community

  • Leicestershire Community Voice
  • St. George's Committee

Conspiracy Web

  • Aangirfan
  • Common Purpose Exposed
  • Conspiracy Planet
  • Conspiracy Scope
  • Conspiracy Truths
  • David Icke
  • Fakeologist.com
  • Harry J
  • Ourenglanduk.com
  • Removing The Shackles
  • Stop Common Purpose
  • Take Our World Back!
  • the UK Column
  • The Vigilant Citizen
  • thecolemanexperience
  • UK Lockdown
  • WHALE

Constitutional Activism

  • Adask's Law
  • English Constitution Group
  • Fully Informed Jury Association
  • Our White Common Law

Creativity

  • Creativity Alliance
  • Creativity TV
  • RAHOWA!

CSE Scandal/Yewtree et al

  • 100 Paedophiles
  • Anorak on Cyril Smith
  • Clarissa Dickson-Wright on 'Miranda'
  • CSE Epidemic Map
  • Eric Hardcastle Investigates
  • Establishment paedophilia
  • Jimmy Savile & friends
  • Kengate
  • Leon Brittan
  • List of Child Sex Offenders
  • Paedophiles Run Britain
  • Paedophilia and Satanism
  • Rape in Pakistan
  • Royal Family & Paedophilia
  • spotlight on abuse
  • Tales From The Town Hall
  • The Death of the Life of Jimmy Savile
  • The Jay Report
  • The Miami Method
  • The Rape of Britain
  • The Rotherham Project
  • Thomas Sheridan on Savile
  • UK Paedos Exposed

Cultural Marxism

  • Australian Universities
  • Dr. Frank Ellis
  • European Knights Project
  • Far Left Watch
  • Multiculturalism and Marxism
  • Quadrant Online
  • Russian Church & Stalin
  • Sean Bryson
  • Sean Bryson Downloads Page
  • Smash Cultural Marxism

Dark Enlightenment

  • BAM! POW! OOF!
  • Characteristics of the Dark Enlightenment
  • Free Northerner
  • Moldbuggery
  • Neoreaction for dummies
  • Occam's Razor
  • Outside in
  • Outside in
  • The Dark Enlightenment
  • The Unpopular Truth
  • Unqualified Reservations
  • Urban Future (2.1)

Englisc

  • Englisc Gateway
  • Englisc Resistance
  • English Fellowship & Cultural Society
  • Regia Anglorum
  • Saxon Heathen
  • The English Companions
  • This England
  • This Is Our Land
  • We Are The English
  • White Dragon Flag of Anglo-Saxon England

Europhobia

  • Daily Nazi
  • False Nazi Quotations
  • Germany Must Perish!

Euroscepticism

  • EU Referendum
  • European Disunion
  • Practical Idealism
  • Praktische Idealismus
  • We Want Our Country Back

First Wave Nationalism

  • British National Front
  • Front National – France
  • New Zealand National Front
  • NPD – Germany
  • The National Party-uk

General Campaigns

  • Campaign for Freedom of Information
  • Coalition For Marriage
  • Discourse Institute
  • e-petitions
  • European Dignity Watch
  • Justice Denied
  • The European Citizens' Initiative
  • The Petition Site
  • The Really Open University

General Interest

  • Brilliant Maps
  • Frank Jacobs
  • Free Science Books
  • Fujiland
  • Letters of Note
  • MercatorNet
  • Steve Sailer: iSteve
  • The Algebra of Justice
  • Today I Found Out

Geopolitics

  • How The West Created ISIS
  • PNAC
  • SCG News
  • Shock Troops of Dystopia
  • World War III

Green

  • Blood and Soil
  • Ecofascism
  • Green Party anti-semitism
  • Independent Green Voice 2005 Manifesto
  • Sovereignty
  • The Green and the Brown
  • Tony Gosling

Info about Judaism

  • A History of Hebrew
  • Chabad.org
  • Guardian's Judaism section
  • Judaism on Stack Exchange
  • Study Talmud
  • Torah Institute

Investigative

  • Garbagegate
  • Rochdale's Alternative Website
  • Rotherham Politics
  • The Slog
  • uPSD

Islamoskepticism

  • 1389 Blog – Counterjihad!
  • Allah's Willing Executioners
  • Amil Imani
  • An Islamic Counter-Reformation
  • Answering Muslims
  • Arabic World and Science
  • Australian Islamist Monitor
  • Bare Naked Islam
  • Beer n Sandwiches
  • Bombing By Moonlight
  • Bulletin Of The Oppression Of Women
  • Centre for the Study of Political Islam
  • Citizen Warrior
  • Cranmer
  • Creeping Sharia
  • Defender of Faith, Guardian of Truth
  • EuropeNews
  • Gates of Vienna
  • Guardian Islam section
  • Index of Islamic Infamy
  • Infidels Are Cool
  • Info on Islam
  • Is Islam Good For Whites?
  • Islam in Europe
  • Islam versus Europe
  • Islam Watch
  • Islamo-Criticism
  • Jihad Watch
  • Jihad Works Both Ways
  • Jihad/Counter-Jihad & Politics: News & Comment
  • Kafir Crusaders
  • Militant Islam Monitor
  • MintPress News
  • Mosquewatch
  • muslamicrayguns
  • Muslim Rape Wave
  • Muslims in Britain
  • Political Islam
  • sharia unveiled
  • SIOE
  • SIOE [Facebook]
  • The Body of Truth
  • The Crusades v. Jihad
  • The Doctrine of Deceit
  • The Gathering Storm
  • The Jawa Report
  • The Muslim Issue
  • The Quran
  • The Religion of Peace
  • Tulisan Murtad
  • Vlad Tepes
  • Winds Of Jihad
  • Women Against Shariah

Jack London

  • Jack London Quotes
  • Jack London's Dark Side
  • The World of Jack London
  • To Build A Fire
  • Wikipedia

John Lash

  • Archon
  • Kalika War Party
  • Metahistory.org
  • White Genocide & The Archontic Infection

Judeoskepticism

  • 200 Years Together
  • A History of the Jews
  • A Letter To Amazon
  • A New History of the Jews
  • A World Without Jews
  • Age of Treason
  • Alex Jones is a Zionist Shill
  • Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.com
  • Anti-Zionist League
  • Ban Jews
  • Baron Bodissey and the Jew
  • Cardinal O'Connor's Yiddish Yarn
  • cj303addict
  • Colonial Jew
  • commandergoyim's Blog
  • Crush Zion!
  • Crush Zion!
  • DavidDuke.com
  • Destroy Zionism
  • Ducks and the Hens
  • Edict of Expulsion
  • Eight Homilies Against the Jews
  • Expel The Parasite!
  • Fake War
  • First Light Forum
  • Goon Squad
  • goybiscuits
  • Hereward The Wake
  • Hitler the Greatest Man
  • Irgun Hangs Two British Soldiers
  • Israel's support for ISIS
  • Jew Watch
  • Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany
  • Jewish influence on immigration policy
  • Jewish Intellectual Movements
  • Jewish over-representation
  • Jewish Rape Culture
  • Jewish Virtual Library
  • Jewish-Moslem collaboration
  • Jews & Immigration
  • Jews and Academic Freedom
  • Jews and the Black Holocaust
  • Jews and the British Empire
  • Jews as a protected group
  • Kevin MacDonald
  • Kill The Best Gentiles!
  • Krystallnacht Library
  • Laksin v MacDonald
  • Luke Ford
  • Maurice Pinay
  • Memes and Genes
  • Missing Circumcision
  • Molyneux Names The Jew
  • Morgoth's Review
  • Pedophilia and the Talmud
  • People Vs Banks
  • Prothink.org
  • Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
  • Review of Red Star Over Hollywood
  • Semitic Controversies
  • Semitism
  • Soiled Sinema
  • Stop Chasing Ghosts
  • The American Jew
  • The Anti-Semitism Scam
  • The Book of Ruth
  • The Culture of Critique
  • The End of Zion
  • The Fallen List
  • The Jewish Declaration of War
  • The Lie of Six Million
  • The Origins of the Jews
  • The Pseudo-Leader
  • The Realist Report
  • The Talmud and the Jew World Order
  • The Talmud Unmasked
  • The War on White Australia
  • The Wonder Rabbi and Other Stories
  • The Zionist Poodles
  • thechosenites
  • Timeline of Jewish genocide
  • Torah Stolen From Pagan Religions
  • Truths about Judaism
  • Vicar grovels to Jews
  • When Victims Rule
  • Who Controls America?
  • Who Controls America?
  • Why Jews Vote Leftist
  • Why Jews Vote Leftist
  • Zionism 101
  • Zionism Sucks

Light Relief

  • Billy the Heretic

Loxism

  • What is Loxism?

Mainstream

  • Financial Times
  • Forbes
  • Metropolis Magazine
  • News from the Kremlin
  • Pride's Purge
  • RT News
  • The Baffler
  • The Diplomat
  • The Salisbury Review
  • The Times

Manliness

  • Angry Harry
  • Guide To Feminist Nonsense
  • How to put a bitch in check
  • Manhood 101
  • MGTOW Manifesto
  • Sex-Crazed Justice System
  • The Art of Manliness
  • Women in the Military

Media Monitoring

  • Biased BBC
  • Crimes of The Times
  • Mediawatch-UK

Micropolitics

  • 21st. Century British Nationalism
  • Attempted Murder
  • BNP Problems
  • BNP Truth
  • Gangs and Counter-gangs
  • Matthew Goodwin
  • Memoirs of A Street Soldier
  • Spunk Antifascism
  • Spunk Library
  • Tim Hepple
  • We've Been Here Before!
  • White_Laces88

Music

  • Anglo Saxon
  • Combat Hellas
  • From the Ashes of an Empire
  • Saga
  • Saga
  • Thirty Day Notice

National-Autonomists

  • National-Revolutionary Alternative

Neo-Secessionism/Wehrbauer

  • Artaman: The Hyperborean Garden
  • Off Grid World
  • Urban Homestead

News Aggregators

  • DailyKenn.com
  • i On Global Trends
  • RedFlag
  • Silobreaker
  • The European Observer
  • The Madhouse Update

Pan-European

  • League of St. George
  • The Euro-Nationalist

Parapolitics

  • Lobster Magazine

Philosophical

  • dark ecologies
  • Hyperboreans
  • nihilism
  • The Journal of Nietzsche Studies
  • Urbanomic

Photo Sites

  • Demotix
  • Sigurd:Legion
  • Top Vacation Spots Ideas

Political Education

  • Beefcake's Bootcamp

Politics and Language

  • How To Write Plain English

Pro-White Businesses

  • Pro-White Market

Research

  • 2010 Census USA
  • 2011 Census
  • 2015 GE opinion polling
  • Academic Journals
  • Africa Do Business
  • America's Racial Segregation
  • Ashley Mote
  • Black Racism
  • BrainyQuote
  • Censorbugbear reports
  • Census Records
  • Citizens Report UK
  • Criminal Victimisation in the United States
  • Croydon Gang Strategy
  • Data Shine Census
  • DeadMalls.com
  • Defence of the Realm
  • Doing Business
  • England calling
  • Ethnic Crime Report (U.K.)
  • Ethology, Ecology & Evolution
  • Euro-Islam.info
  • EuroDocs
  • eurominority.eu
  • Europedia
  • Europol
  • Foreign NHS
  • Free Science Books
  • Gallup
  • Gallup Europe
  • Gang Violence
  • Global Research
  • Google Scholar
  • GOV.UK
  • Herpetology Notes
  • History Buff
  • Hogtown Front
  • Immigration Concern
  • Internet Archive
  • Interpol
  • Interracial Crime
  • Interracial Crime and Table 42
  • JayMan's Blog
  • JSTOR
  • JURN
  • Liars, Buggers and Thieves
  • Library of Congress
  • Marx & Friends in their own words
  • Migration Watch UK
  • Mintel
  • Modern Tribalist
  • Munich Personal RePEc Archive
  • Muslim Statistics
  • National Film Registry [US site]
  • New Century Foundation
  • Norfolk Insight
  • NumbersUSA
  • OCLC WorldCat
  • Office for National Statistics
  • Office for National Statistics
  • Police.UK
  • Questia
  • Race and Crime
  • Racial Violence in America
  • Racism globally
  • Rogues' Gallery
  • Scribd
  • Shadow Government Statistics
  • Space and Science Research Corporation
  • Statista
  • Statistics and Ethnicity
  • Taylor & Francis Online
  • The Decline of White America
  • The Fallen List
  • The Market Oracle
  • The National Archives
  • The UK Enrichment News
  • UK Census Online
  • UK Local Area
  • UKCrimeStats
  • Violence Against Whites
  • Weblens Scholar
  • WhatDoTheyKnow
  • Who Became A Nazi?
  • WikiIslam
  • Wikipedia
  • World Bank Group
  • WorldCat

Resistance

  • Arrested!
  • Aryan Vanguard
  • Battallion Azov
  • Campaign for Armed Self-Defence
  • Deep.Dot.Web
  • Fallout Shelter 7
  • Firearms UK
  • Home of the Psywarrior
  • Internet security & data protection
  • Modern Combat & Survival
  • MountainGuerrilla
  • Resist Cartoons
  • TV Licence Resistance
  • Underground Texts
  • White Aryan Resistance
  • White Resistance Manual
  • Zensurfrei

Revisionist web

  • Adelaide Institute
  • Big-Lies.org
  • CODOH
  • David Irving's Website
  • Der Morgenthau Plan
  • Dr Fredrick Töben
  • Exposing the Holocaust
  • Historical Review Press
  • Holocaust Denial videos
  • Holocaust Hoax Museum
  • How the "Holocaust" was faked
  • Inconvenient History
  • Institute For Historical Review
  • Jailing Opinions
  • Jan27
  • Lies Your Teacher Taught You
  • Metapedia
  • Ministry of Truth
  • Mourning the Ancient
  • Red Cross Exposes Hoax
  • Red Cross on the Holocaust
  • Scriptorium
  • The Heretical Press
  • The Leuchter Report
  • The Lie of Six Million
  • The Realist Report
  • The Treblinka Archaeology Hoax
  • TomatoBubble.com
  • Two Hundred"Six Million Jews" Allegations From 1900-1945
  • Veronica K. Clark
  • Weronika Kuźniar [YouTube]
  • whatreallyhappened.info

Science & Tech

  • Bioscience eLearning
  • CNET
  • ComputerWorld
  • Feral Observations
  • GigaOM
  • Improvisation Blog
  • Oxford Science Blog
  • Pando
  • Patrick McCray
  • Smithsonian.com
  • The Verge
  • ZDNet

Social media

  • John Londen on Facebook
  • LondenCallin [Twitter]

Swebola

  • Sweden and Multi-culturalism
  • The Sweden Report

Theoretical

  • 88 Precepts
  • A Theory of Civilisation
  • Alexander Baron
  • Arnold S. Leese, et al
  • Aryan Resistance
  • Aryan Unity
  • Aryanism
  • Basic Economics
  • Birdman Bryant
  • Black Sun Invictus
  • Books
  • César Tort's old blog
  • Colchester Collection
  • Colour, Communism and Common Sense
  • Coudenhove-Kalergi
  • David Hamilton
  • Don Colacho's Aphorisms
  • Erectus Walks Amongst Us
  • European Americans United
  • F.A.E.M.
  • Gnostic Liberation Front
  • Golden Dawn theory & praxis
  • Good Reads – White Nationalism
  • Hitler Historical Museum
  • Homosexuality: the facts
  • http://TheNationalPolicyInstitute
  • Infrastructure and Immigration
  • Introduction to Strasserism
  • JayMan's Race, Inheritance & IQ FAQ
  • John Londen's Book Reviews
  • JR's Rare Books and Commentary
  • Kai Murros
  • katana
  • La Griffe du Lion
  • Lawrence Dennis
  • Live The Dream
  • Mein Kampf
  • Mein Kampf [Easy Legibility Edition]
  • Michael Walsh
  • Might is Right
  • Might Is Right
  • Money for Nothing
  • Multi-culturalism as the White Holocaust
  • Multiculturalism & Culture
  • National Socialism: Vanguard of the Future
  • National Socialist Punk
  • National Socialist Studies
  • National-Socialism
  • National-Socialist Worldview
  • NS Bibliophile
  • OswaldMosley.com
  • Our Legacy Of Truth
  • Party Time Has Ended
  • Racial Nationalist Library
  • Regia Anglorum
  • Renaissance88
  • Revilo P. Oliver
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Save Your Heritage
  • Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology
  • StormWiki
  • Strasserism Online
  • Suprahumanism
  • The Absurdities of Multiculturalism
  • The Burden of Hitler
  • The Case for Germany
  • The Doctrine of Fascism
  • The Fascist Internet Archive
  • The Francis Parker Yockey Collection
  • The French Connection
  • The Hawthorne Effect
  • The Morality of Survival
  • The New Order
  • The New Tribe
  • The Prometheus Trust
  • The Prometheus Trust
  • The races of Britain
  • The Revilo P. Oliver Collection
  • The Revolt Against Civilisation
  • The Rise and Fall of the White Republic
  • The Rising Tide of Color
  • The Russian Revolution and the USSR
  • The Words of Adolf Hitler
  • The Young Hitler I Knew
  • Third Reich ebooks
  • Those Damned Nazis
  • Thule Seminar
  • Unity of Nobility
  • Ur-Fascist Analytics
  • Völkisch-Paganism
  • Wanted: Something to Dream
  • What The Founders Really Thought
  • White Autonomy
  • White Honor
  • Why Left and Right Should Unite and Fight
  • Yggdrasil's WN Library

Third Positionist

  • Final Conflict

Video & Audio

  • A Conversation about Race
  • ENResistNorthWest
  • Euro Folk Radio
  • I Am An Englishman
  • Ironwand
  • Kenn Daily
  • Michael Collins Piper
  • National Front Videos
  • Nazi Internet Videos
  • NewRightReloaded
  • Racist America
  • Radio Britain Online
  • Radio Free Northwest
  • Radio3Fourteen
  • ramzpaul
  • Red Ice Creations [TV/Radio]
  • Renegade Broadcasting
  • Sigurd Legion
  • Stefan Molyneux
  • Taliesen TV
  • The White Voice Network
  • TruTube.TV
  • White Rabbit Radio
  • WhiteRexOfficial
  • WP Radio
  • Zensurfrei Video Channel
  • Zionist Jews And The Evil Talmud
  • Zonne wende

Web Tools

  • 192.com
  • African BIB
  • Babel Translator
  • BabelFish
  • DigitalGlobe
  • dotsub
  • Keep Calm-O-Matic
  • MyBB
  • Online Alarm Clock
  • Pic2Fly
  • VisaHQ
  • wikia
  • wikia
  • Wix
  • XE Currency Converter

Welfare State

  • the void

White Charities

  • Kleinvallei
  • Mkadesh Farm Project
  • South Africa in Need

White Culture

  • A Pagan Place
  • Albion Magazine Online
  • Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic Studies
  • Brits at their Best
  • Brushpusher
  • English Heritage
  • Glyptoteket
  • Green Man Festival
  • Humanities360
  • In Our Time
  • Michael George Gibson
  • Mjolnir Magazine
  • myArmoury.com
  • Oxford Arts Blog
  • Rupert the Bear
  • The British Museum
  • The Hay Festival
  • The Revenge of Riff Raff
  • The Sealed Knot
  • Turner Classic Movies
  • Yggdrasil's Movie List

White Flight/White Migration

  • 'Geography of Hate'

White History

  • Forbidden History of Europe
  • History Extra
  • Map of Europe's Tribes
  • March of the Titans
  • Ten Thousand Years in Monkey Town

White Media

  • 14 Words Global Network
  • Balder.org
  • Daily Slave
  • Daily Stormer
  • Heritage and Destiny
  • Juno Newspaper
  • Lone Wolf News
  • Mad World News
  • Now The End Begins
  • The New Observer
  • The White Resister
  • The White Voice
  • Western Voices World News
  • White Information Network
  • White News Now

White Origins & History

  • Ancient Origins
  • Battle of Fulford 1066
  • Cotswold Archaeology
  • Germania – A Roman Province Too Far
  • How old is English?
  • Medieval Histories
  • Myths of British ancestry
  • The Fulford Tapestry

White Personalities

  • Lana Lokteff

White Products & Services

  • Doberman's Aggressive
  • EuropeanBrotherhood
  • Lana's Llama
  • Orania Business

White Publishing

  • Arktos
  • Black Front Press
  • Futhark
  • John Londen Books
  • Marshys Store
  • Noontide Press
  • Ostara Publications
  • Steven Books
  • The Barnes Review
  • Third Reich Books

White Scientists

  • Francis Galton

White Sovereigntism

  • Let's Have A Party

White-conscious authors

  • G. K. Chesterton
  • Ward Kendall

William Morris

  • A Dream of John Ball
  • William Morris Archive

Wotanism & Neopaganism

  • Creed of Iron
  • From the Talmud
  • Hávamál: Words of Odin
  • Odinia
  • Temple of Wotan
  • The Eddas
  • The Odin Brotherhood
  • The Odinic Rite
  • The Odinist
  • Thulean Perspective
  • Voice of Our Ancestors
  • Wyatt Kaldenberg

Archives

  • September 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014

Recent Posts

  • White Independent Nation (WIN): Genocide, Suicide, Treason & Hope
  • White Independent Nation: Liberal Psychosis (58)
  • White Independent Nation: The Truth (57)
  • White Independent Nation: The Post-Nationalist Vista (56)
  • White Independent Nation: Extinction & Hope (55)

Tags

BNP Britain British British politics capitalism child abuse Christianity Civilisation Conservative Party culture democracy equality EU Europe European Union Facebook far-Left far-Right fascism free trade Gaza George Orwell globalism human rights immigration internet Islam Israel Jewish influence Jews Judaism kosher nationalism Labour Party liberal-left liberalism liberals mass immigration Muslims National Action National Front Nationalism Nationalists National Socialism New Tribe Nick Griffin Nigel Farage political correctness political language politics pseudo-positivism race racial equality racialism Racial Nationalism racism Second World War socialism the Establishment the leader syndrome the Left the West the White Race Third World Tories UK UKIP web Western civilisation White Independent Nation White Nationalism White Neo-Tribalism white people White Race WIN Zionism

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy