No Longer Naive
“When I joined I was naive, when I got suspended I was naive, and I think I grew up just a few days ago.”
There are people in ‘Nationalism’ who need to pay heed to Mr. Sen.
No Longer Naive
“When I joined I was naive, when I got suspended I was naive, and I think I grew up just a few days ago.”
There are people in ‘Nationalism’ who need to pay heed to Mr. Sen.
admixtures, Africa, ancient white civilisation, anthropology, Aryan, Aryanism, Asia, Basque, black, British, Britons, brown-skinned peoples, Celts, central Asia, cosmopolitan race, English language, Europe, European civilisation, genes, German, German National Socialists, Germanic, Germanic languages, human migration, indigenous British, indigenous Britons, indigenous Europeans, Indo-European, Latin languages, Latin-German hybrid, linguistics, Mesolithic, Mesolithic era, Nationalism, Nationalists, Neolithic era, Nordic, Nordics, northern Africa, northern Europe, Planet Earth, politicised anthropology, race, science, scientific method, skin colour, southern Europe, Spanish Vikings, suppositions, we're all black, White Civilisation, White Nationalism, White Nationalists, White Race, white skin, whitening
White or Aryan? Some thoughts from a Spanish Viking
The whole matter of white origins is a very complex subject and not something I have ever had the time to sit down and really study properly. Which is not for lack of interest on my part – it is a subject that fascinates me, and I am particularly intrigued by the idea that ancient white civilisations might have existed outside of Europe.
One thing I have noticed from cursory reading of the material is that this whole area is built on shifting sands. No-one with any actual expertise in the various disciplines involved really seems sure of what they are saying. By contrast, those who lack expertise but hold strong views invariably put across their opinions with unwarranted certainty.
Anthropology, for instance, is not a science, whatever its pretenses otherwise, and most of its methods are not truly scientific. That is why I am wary of accepting affirmative pronouncements in these matters, even from experts. Most of the work of anthropology over the last 100 years or so has been heavily coloured by politics. It would not surprise me if what I alluded to a moment ago turns out to be true: that ancient white peoples occupied the whole of this planet, but anyone relying on the academic material would never alight on that supposition. We whites certainly have the capability and inclination to have been the world’s first cosmopolitan race.
I’ve seen here and there on white nationalist websites use of this word ‘Aryan’, which I know is typically associated in the public mind with the German National Socialists of the 1920s to 1940s. I don’t particularly object to it, but I prefer ‘white’, more out of habit than anything else. Some white nationalists reject use of the term ‘Aryan’ altogether, while others use it imprecisely in what I can only assume is a sort of whimsy or fancy. Is it accurate? I think a lot depends on what is meant by the term ‘Aryan’. It seems to be malleable and can be used in a purely linguistic sense or in more of a racial sense. Different people have different theories and ideas on who was (or is) Aryan. The suppositions are sharply conflicting, which doesn’t bode well for those who seek certainty. Some people think that the Aryans are of ancient indigenous European origin. Others believe that the Aryans were a cultural and language group of central Asian origin that expanded across southern Europe and perhaps northern Africa as well, mixing with the Mesolithics (the Basques, etc.), then moving northwards, initially as a brown-skinned race. Over time due to evolutionary pressures, this whole group then lightened in skin colour. My intuitive judgement on the matter, based on what little I know, is something along the lines of the latter theory, and being of a naturally ‘intellectual’ bent, I am suspicious of those who would reject it purely for political reasons. But I just don’t know – and I strongly suspect no-one ‘knows’.
Interestingly, I read somewhere (sorry, can’t source this right now) that indigenous Britons are predominantly of Basque and Celtic origin with only very minor Nordic and Germanic admixture. If true, that means (in pseud modern parlance) we’re basically Spanish Vikings speaking hybrid Latin-German. That would certainly explain my short temper. Next time an ignorant lefty tells you we’re all black, that should be your answer – if, like me, you’re of indigenous British origin.
Australia White Nationalists, Daily Slave, Nationalism, Nick Grifford, podcast, Sean Surplus, TCTA, Two's Company Three's Allowed, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, white nationalist radio, Why Nationalism Fails [WIN podcast], WIN
Sean Surplus discusses a WIN podcast
Sean Surplus, white nationalist radio host at TCTA, recently discussed a WIN podcast on his show: the relevant segment is 44 minutes onwards.
I think the podcast Sean is discussing is ‘Why Nationalism Fails’:
Alaska, aliyah, Alt White, Andrew Anglin, Anti-Anti-Zionism, anti-fascisms, anti-fascists, anti-immigrant, anti-Jewish, Anti-Nationalism, Anti-Semite, anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Australasia, BNP, body politic, bravery, Britain First, British National Party, British people, British politics, British public life, Christianised politics, Christianity, Clapton Common, community-building, conservative, courage, critique, David Lane, diaspora Jews, EDL, English Defence League, Europe, European Gaza, exo-politics, fake Anti-Zionism, fake anti-Zionists, far-Left, far-Right, fascism, First Wave Nationalism, Fourteen Words, Garron Helm, Gaza, groupuscular movement, groupuscules, Haredi community, Haredi Jews, hate, Hitlerism, Hold Back This Day, ideological holding pens, ideology, Islamoskepticism, Israel, Jewish anti-fascist, Jewish influence, Jewish people, Jewry, Jews, John Londen, Joshua Bonehill, Joshua Bonehill-Paine, Judaism, Left, liberal, Liberate Stamford Hill, London, make aliyah, Middle Eastern Gaza, National Action, Nationalism, Nationalist Complementarity, Nationalist Unity, neo-Nazism, Neo-Tribalism, New Tribe philosophy, Nick Grifford, North America, North London, North West Infidels, NWI, online debates, Orthodox Jews, Pakistani Muslims, Political Judaism, political Nationalism, Popular Nationalism, Post-Nationalism, pro-immigrant, pro-Jewish, pro-white Nationalism, race, racial groups, Racial Intentional Community, racialism, racialist, racism, Rags Make Paper, Right, Right of Return, Second Wave Nationalism, Stamford Hill, the Cause, The Daily Stormer, the Nationalist Movement, There Is A White Alternative, TIWA, traditional Nationalism, tribal logic, Tribalism, ultra-Orthodox Jews, virtual activism, virtual Resistance, Ward Kendall, Western civilisation, Western Spring, Westphalia Treaty, Westphalian Nationalism, white British, white conscious communities, white ethno-states, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, white people, White Race, white racial exo-politics, WIN
Why I am an Anti-Anti-Zionist and Pro Anti-Semitism, Or The Logic of Tribalism
I am going to suggest in this piece that White Nationalism, as such, is over and must be replaced by a strategy of White Neo-tribalism. That’s a bold assertion to say the least, I know, but I believe I can back this up this with solid evidence. What I am about to say has specificity to the UK, but I also believe this analysis has broader application to pro-white Nationalism elsewhere. My starting point is a series of insightful articles and podcasts by my friend, Nick Grifford on the website of White Independent Nation and his excellent blog, Rags Make Paper. I commend to readers the following articles and podcasts in particular:
None of which is to say that Nick Grifford or WIN endorse my views. What follows consists of my own personal opinions and conclusions.
Exhibit A in the case against Nationalism is 70 years of traditional Westphalian (far-Right) reactionarianism in alliance with the odd, retrograde sub-cultures of neo-Nazism and Hitlerism. Other than keeping the flame alive – which I will concede is something in its own right – we cannot claim any permanent achievements either at the ballot box or in claiming a significant proportion of the masses as our own, with the result that Popular Nationalism lacks any settled status in British political life: not a healthy situation for the body politic or for the British people themselves.
The political strategy has failed and the democratic machinery is now closed to us – at least, for the time being. The failure of the democratic Nationalist parties has left a vacuum into which new groupuscules have stepped – in the UK they include National Action, Western Spring, and White Independent Nation, among others (what I have elsewhere called the Second Wave of Nationalism) – as well as the various street-based militant off-shoots of the EDL and the BNP, ranging from the moderate and Christianist Britain First to the hardline North West Infidels. What distinguishes the first three mentioned, which I will focus on here, is their New (Post?)Nationalist character, in that their methods and ideology differ from traditional Nationalism. National Action, Western Spring and WIN all believe that the democratic way has failed and share a determination to build an alternative strategy, which takes various discrete but complementary forms – counter-cultural warfare and alternative fundraising (Western Spring), street agitation (National Action) and community-building (White Independent Nation, ‘WIN’). WIN and Western Spring in particular have adopted imagery that signals a departure from traditional Nationalism and that may form the basis for an entirely new and distinct approach to engagement with the masses regarding our ideas.
However ‘democratic’ Nationalism has not gone away entirely and, if anything, is undergoing its own resurgence in quite hardline form, albeit primarily online: the most prominent and successful example of this being the tabloidesque site, The Daily Stormer. The success of that site reflects a revivalism among motivated, computer-literate, young white men interested in Nazi chic and German National Socialism-redux and what they think was its associated ideology and symbolism. It is among this milieu that a sort of virtual resistance movement has emerged. In contrast to what might be described as virtual activism, which is really reactivism, this pro-active resistance has taken on many and varied forms, all designed to achieve dents in the morale of the agents of the West’s Anti-White Establishment. These tactics range from organised Twitter attacks against prominent Jewish politicians, to using social media to plan and organise real world marches, protests and demonstrations.
Against that background, in the last few days a British National Socialist activist and leader of a group called the British National Resistance, Joshua Bonehill, has announced a demonstration on the 22nd. March in Stamford Hill, North London, against its local Haredi Jewish community and their use of a communal security force, Shomrim. I have posted up two articles in response to Bonehill’s initiative: Jewish community-building: a vindication of WIN and ‘Leave Palestine’ or ‘Leave Europe’: some further (brief) thoughts on Liberate Stamford Hill.
Those articles outline my critique of Bonehill’s boldness (while also praising him for his courage and initiative). Surely if our true aim is racial survival, then we want racial separation, not integration, and communal activities of this kind among ultra-Orthodox Jews are therefore to be welcomed. I do acknowledge that activism such as this is bold, courageous and dynamic and moreover can be useful in that it galvanises the various factions and groupuscules that make up Nationalism today. Perhaps activism such as this can also help by applying some political pressure on those who are at least partially-responsible for our plight. However, ultimately I believe Liberate Stamford Hill is a futile exercise. The following exerpt from the first of my two aforementioned articles summarises the point:
I am not sure I am willing to agree with Bonehill that the presence of a Jewish ethnic community at the heart of our capital is a bad thing. Indeed, I must confess that I am slightly puzzled as to why Bonehill, a racialist, and others like him, would see such a community as a threat. Surely national integration with non-white groups is wholly antithetical to our aims and objectives. If the White Race is to survive, we need to separate: preferably geographically, but more importantly, racially separate, which implies we live separate lives. If Orthodox Jews, with their Shomrim and panoply of ritual and custom and unique social life, feel sufficiently threatened that they wish to move towards separation, far be it from us to discourage them.
Far from protesting against Stamford Hill, we should probably be cheering them on, but in any event, the reality is that such communities exist and are accepted – not just for Jews but more obviously for Pakistani Muslims as well, and also for blacks. The presence of such communities surely only serves to illustrate the relevancy of WIN‘s strategy for those who are dedicated to white preservation.
As I see it, this debate illustrates the difference between a Tribalist and a Nationalist. Whereas we, the Tribalists, see these racial threats as welcome opportunities to strengthen our own kind racially, Nationalists see such threats as one more opportunity for plaintive protest: whinging, whining and pleading at the feet of our enemies, in the hope of concessions.
It’s time for Nationalists of all stripes to adopt effective tactics.
Liberate Stamford Hill is a tribute to the courage of Bonehill, and if his demonstration achieves something constructive for white interests (and it is my hope that it does), no-one will be more delighted and enthused than me. But it is also a pluperfect illustration of why we as race-conscious whites continue to suffer. We have overlooked our essence in favour of Jewish abstractions. We have allowed ourselves to be corralled into bitter reactionary holding-pens of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, ‘pro-immigrant’ and ‘anti-immigrant’, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, ‘pro-Jewish’ and ‘anti-Jewish’. We have allowed ourselves to be moulded by our enemies.
Recently I fell into an online exchange with a Jewish anti-fascist activist. In the end, we parted cordially (I think) and I offered him my e-mail address so that he could contact me further in the hope that we could continue our discussion in more depth, as we seemed to be making progress in understanding each other. One thing that struck me from what my opponent continually reiterated during our exchange was the way everything he said was underpinned by a keen sense of tribal identity and cultural replication. I had to acknowledge to him that in this sense white people still have a great deal to learn from Jews, but at the same time I do think Jews also need to learn to listen more to the concerns of whites – for their own benefit as much as ours. This Jew assumed that I favour racial segregation and expounded on the supposed ills of this institution. I replied that it is not me who favours such segregation, but him, the multi-culturalist. I explained that the only cure for racial segregation is racial separation, and that it is the enforced multi-culturalism of the mixed-racial kind that he supports that is the driving force of the segregation and its ills that he cites. If Jews and other non-whites could be resettled out of European homelands, we would not ‘hate’ them.
He may or may not have understood the point, but I believe the only possible future is that we reach an accord with Jewry, that they recognise our usefulness and the white manifest imperative, and we in turn recognise the right of Jews to fight for their racial survival. He had assumed I was an online genocidal lunatic and expressed surprise when I explained to him that, while I am an anti-Semite, it needn’t follow that I hate Jews individually or collectively. My opposition to Jews and Jewry does not translate into visceral hate. It is, rather, a wish to fight for my own race’s existence while acknowledging the right of Jews (and others) to fight for their existence. In that sense, anti-Semitism (i.e. opposition to Jewish intrusion) is as much a natural result of white folk consciousness as Islamoskepticism might, for some Jews in some situations, manifest as a natural result of Jewish ethno-consciousness. Indeed, we see this Islamoskepticism (what Jews like to call ‘fear’ and ‘hate’ among whites) growing among the Jewish population as the reality of mass immigration dawns on them. To describe a person as ‘hateful’ simply for having these natural instincts is not only disingenuous, but dangerous, as it denies each of us the right to express and celebrate our genetic kinship with those who are racially and culturally closest to us, creating needless anger and frustration among individuals in society.
I explained to my Jewish interlocutor my view that multi-culturalism is the Jewish national survival strategy, while homogeneity is the white national survival strategy. One naturally conflicts with the other. This is why we are at ‘war’ with each other. I believe the solution we whites should be proposing is peace rather than war. Not Zionism. Zionism belongs to Jewish nationals. I am not a Zionist and no-one who is white should be. What happens in Palestine is the business of the Arabs and the Jews and any other actors present. It is the right of all sides to fight for their existence, and in recognising this, we should have the honesty to acknowledge that Jews have a legitimate right to fight and that we, as Europeans, having little or no understanding of the matter, should focus on our own racial survival and our own territorial imperatives.
On that latter point, it is true that diaspora Jews have played a significant role in undermining white cohesion and white interests, due to their proclivity for usury and degeneracy and their preference for multi-racial intrusion in Western societies. This is not the only reason for the racial and cultural decline of Europe, but it is a factor, and in so far as organised and activist Jewry is and has been a factor, I believe that those who want to protest should tackle the problem head-on and exploit the pressure points. This is why I do reserve some admiration for Joshua Bonehill, in that he has taken the initiative in organising a demonstration against Jews, not concerning the Middle Eastern Gaza, but the European Gaza – the emergent Third World future in our own backyard. In doing so, Bonehill (and other brave activists who take on diaspora Jewry, like Garron Helm) are close to the truth of the solution to our racial plight, but they must still cross a difficult emotional and intellectual Rubicon: to reject Nationalism and embrace the essence of our cause: White Tribalism. That means going back to basics and recognising who we are, where we have come from, where we are and where we are going. It means returning to the roots and embracing the essentialism of the Fourteen Words – a non-ideological and non-confrontational creed – and not only propounding this, but living it as well by forming white conscious communities, business alliances and support networks that mimic mainstream society and that ultimately establish our own parallel authority. Only when we start to act as a tribe can be begin to make progress towards eternal white survival. In short: white survival means anarchism.
Our message to the Jews should be ‘Leave Europe’, not ‘Leave Palestine’. We should be Anti-Anti-Zionists, leaving the fake narratives of Anti-Zionism to the left-wing tools and shills who will stand in opposition to Joshua Bonehill on March 22nd. They want Jews to leave Palestine and come to Europe: which should confirm to all but the most purblind the true bankruptcy of Anti-Zionism. We want Jews out of Europe, and if they want to go to Palestine, that’s their business. As for Zionism, they’re welcome to it. What ‘Europe’ is, or becomes, in the distant future in view of socio-demographic realities, I do not know. The ‘Europe’ of the future may be geographically much as it is today, but very white, or it may be frontier communities in an Alaskan wilderness, or a small cluster of ethno-states on the brink of planetary racial oblivion, or even, a white society on a different planet altogether. What I do know is that we whites want separation, not integration; we want sovereignty, not segregation. That is what makes us tribalists. That is what renders Nationalism per se redundant. That is what makes ‘Europe’ our true nation, wherever Europe may be, and indeed, whatever Europe may be. Yes, the ideal scenario would be that the approximate 8.2 million Jews currently in Europe, North America and Australasia make aliyah. I for one would be more than happy with such an outcome. I am no friend of the Jews. I’m sure I, and plenty of others, would contribute to a whip-round for Helga and Izzy’s plane fares. But we may have to accept that, at least in our own lifetimes, the outcome we live to see will be less than ideal.
We, the race-conscious revolutionaries, are not the majority of whites, let alone the majority on the planet. We are the ‘minority of the minority of the minority’. Our role now is not to maintain a nation but to maintain a tribe, to maintain the racial and cultural membrane that will preserve our distinctiveness and genius as a race. That requires active resistance, not passive politiking. It means there is going to be a movement breach between those of us who accept a robust form of neo-tribalism as the way forward for racial survival, the sine qua non, and those who want to cling on to the Zionist wreckage of bankrupt geopolitical constructs. The Jews are asking us to become more multi-cultural (in the mixed-racial sense), and thus, by definition, less white. That is an attack on the essence of us, the White Race. We in reply should ask the Jews to become more homogenous, and thus, by definition, more Jewish, and in the process, we become more white. That is our defence: to indirectly help the Jews advance their own cause in the hope and expectation that we will maintain ours. Such is tribal logic.
22nd. March 2015, Anti-Zionism, Britain, Colin Jordan, demonstrations, Europe, fake anti-Zionists, far-Left, far-Right, foreign occupation, George Galloway, Haredis, Jewish community, Jewish influence, Jews, Joshua Bonehill, Judaism, Leave Europe, Leave Palestine, Left, Liberate Stamford Hill, marches, Nationalism, Nationalist, New Tribe, Plaintive Nationalism, Political Judaism, political tactics, protests, Right, Stamford Hill, strategies, Tribalism, Tribalist, white interests, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, White Race, White Tribalism, Zionism, Zionist Occupation Government, Zionists, ZOG
‘Leave Palestine’ OR ‘Leave Europe’? Some further (brief) thoughts on Liberate Stamford Hill
The continuing tendency of the far-Right to rely on marching and demonstrations and other conventional political responses to our foreign occupation highlights the difference between a Nationalist and a Tribalist. Not many understand this difference, which is why we’re still suffering. We need to develop tactics that reflect the realities of Britain and Europe today. This is no longer our country.
Having said that, I think there are some nuances to consider. There’s a more constructive side to activities like this. Opposing Jewry isn’t necessarily a ‘right-wing’ thing. The Left do it a lot, under the cover of ‘Anti-Zionism’ – without realising of course that they are just tools – and it can have the effect of galvanising people on our side.
Look at the way the issue is being discussed now. This must be the first time since the days of Colin Jordan that there is open discussion about Jews, not qua Israel/Palestine, but qua their presence here in Europe. Isn’t that what we really want? In this sense, I would argue, the far-Right has the potential to offer an alternative to the Left’s Anti-Zionism. Instead of telling the Jews (in effect) ‘Leave Palestine’, we’re saying: ‘Leave Europe’. The fact that the Left are lining up with the Zionists (Jews) against us on this point I think speaks for itself.
This will also encourage a schism in the Left. A lot of the [non-Jewish] Left hate Jews even more than the far-Right do. Some of them will be confused about their own side standing in a counter-demonstration defending a Jewish community – especially when someone unfurls an Israeli flag, as is bound to happen on 22nd. March.
cacophony, Cassandra, Crazy People, Facebook, Free Speech For Nationalists, internet, JewBook, Nationalism, virtual Nationalism, Virtual Nationalists, Virtual People, Virtual World, Vote UKIP - Because We All Bleed Red!, web, White Nationalism, worldwide web
Goodbye Virtual People – For Now
Due to work commitments, I won’t be looking in or blogging much from now on. Much of the activity on the online forums, etc. is starting to get a bit boring and repetitive anyway. I can only read or listen so many times to the same ideas and theories recycled and regurgitated and life is too short to sit at a computer screen arguing with ‘virtual people’.
For those of you on JewBook, I will keep the two groups – Free Speech For Nationalists and Vote UKIP – Because We All Bleed Red! – open and everyone is free to post there. I will also continue to post videos from White Independent Nation, as and when they come to my notice.
Hope to see some of you in real life, in which case all will be forgiven – I hope. I have said some pretty harsh and nasty things about various groups and people over the years online in various places. Most of the harsh things people say and do online aren’t really meant. The life of a Nationalist – even a Virtual Nationalist – is lonely and frustrating. You are part of a mad world and at times you feel like a comedic character dressed in hi-viz warning the Crazy People around you of some emergent flaw or impending disaster in the scheme of things. They won’t listen, but the Virtual World does, even if at times it comes back as a nocturnal cacophony of echoes.
That beats being ignored altogether, which seems to be the Cassandran Fate of Nationalists in the Real World, but the difficulty with this online, virtual utopia of didactic exchanges is that we too often mistake the echoes for being listened to. Nothing virtual can replace respect and friendship. The real world is much realer.
Alt White, British Union, extremism, Facebook, factionalism, factions, fascism, Flash and Circle, fragmentation, Free Speech For Nationalists, Gary Raikes, groupuscular Nationalism, groupuscular theory, Max Musson, maximisation, Mosleyite, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nationalist Complementarity, Nationalist Unity, Nazism, NBU, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, New British Union, NS-redux symbolism, Oswald Mosley, political initiatives, political realism, radicalism, realism, virtual Resistance, Western Spring, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White-Max, WIN
Nationalist Unity vs. Complementarity: my response to the New British Union
Gary Raikes has recently issued an invite for a ‘Nationalist Unity’ meeting under the New British Union banner.
Here’s my response:
I have copied the following to other persons known to me, including (inter alia) Max Musson (Western Spring), who I know has an interest in Unity initiatives.
A vacuum has certainly arisen due to the failure of the National Front. ‘Free Speech For Nationalists’ is, at the moment, just a virtual group on Facebook, so although I appreciate the invite, I personally don’t speak for anybody and what follows is merely personal opinion.
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
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.
Christian Europeans, communists, Craig Yates, Europe, European nations, foreigners, Germans, Germany, Islam, Jewish influence, Jews, Muslims, National-Socialists, Nationalism, Nazis, Pan-European Nationalism, police, politicians, The New Reich, Third Reich, White Nationalism
I Am A Nazi Now – comment by Craig Yates
I think they are crapping themselves a bit because they know their white genocide project is being exposed and the focus will not be just on Muslims like they hoped but on those carrying out our genocide.
The next Reich that forms will not be Germany but all of the western world as we rise up and if needs be we will fight our own first for we will not allow our nations be destroyed and our race and culture annihilated forever.
They said Germany was nasty to the Jews but never told you how they fabricated the holocaust or how the Jews killed tens upon tens of millions of Christian Europeans.
They said multiculturalism is progress, enrichment, a new world order but never told you they intend to wipe out our race and culture totally and utterly.
it is in the economic interest they say, as our spending power decreases and decreases and wages plummet not by accident but by design.
it is vibrant they say when tens of thousands of our families are now broken and the children of these are systematically raped with total impunity by muslims gangs helped by our police and politicians.
You can call me racist, right wing, extreme, fascist, whatever you want.
But get it right. I am a NAZI now. They stood to protect us against all this sickness and evil we witness. They defended Europe from the communists (Jews) and because Jews controlled western finance, media and politics they managed to convince our forefathers the Nazis were the terrible evil when the opposite is true. they were valiant defenders of Europe from the Jews who seek to destroy us in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE!!