• About

John Londen

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

John Londen

Tag Archives: web

Goodbye Virtual People – For Now

29 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

mqdefault

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.

Brief thoughts on ‘physical force White Nationalism’

05 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

academia, biological racial war, biology, economics, fantasy, fantasy vs. reality, finance, Holy Racial War, internet message boards, media, Nationalism, physical force, physical force struggle, Physical force White Nationalism, political violence, politics, racial war, reality, society, technology, terrorism, total racial war, violence, web, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, White Tribalism, WIN, worldwide web

story15

Brief thoughts on ‘physical force White Nationalism’

Often on message boards I see commenters arguing that the only solution for White Nationalists is political violence of some sort – a ‘race war’ or ‘holy racial war’.  I often wonder whether such people are serious or understand the implications of what is proposed.

My own active, real world involvement in White Nationalism is mainly with a group called White Independent Nation (‘WIN’).  As a group, WIN does not participate in political violence and does not endorse this as a strategy or tactic for White Nationalists/National Socialists.

Our methods are entirely peaceful and democratic.

If it’s helpful, one way of re-conceptualising ‘war’ is not just as a campaign of military or physical force, but as a wider struggle embracing political, social, economic, financial, technological and biological means. In this context, I call it total racial war in that the war of attrition is not just potentially waged physically on the streets, but also intellectually and biologically in academia, media and in the civic and social life of the community. Against that background, it is possible to see violence not as an inevitability, but as a tool that might be necessitous and efficacious under some circumstances, but not others.

That then raises the question of when violence should be considered. WIN’s position is that whatever the ethics and morals of a physical force struggle – something that can be debated academically one way or the other – we do not see this as the correct or appropriate primary means for pursuing a ‘racial war’, either at this time or possibly ever.

That might seem a bit dry and not very exciting. Bold talk of physical struggle raises the spirit and election campaigns appeal to the egos of nascent politicos. But we have to assess the battlefield as it is, not as we would wish it to be. The strategy of White Independent Nation will appeal to those who are willing to accept a realistic, unsentimental assessment of our prospects and who are capable of pursuing long-term goals and objectives quietly, away from the public eye, and without glamour or ego.

It’s time, I think, for White Nationalists (I would call us White Tribalists) to ‘get real’ and start pursuing tactics appropriate to Reality rather than the fantasy prevalent on internet message boards.

Rise of the Pseudo-Intellectuals

22 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

amateur scholarship, anti-capitalists, archaeology, biochemistry, biology, capitalists, chemistry, Civilisation, conspiracism, conspiracy theory, corrupted intellectuals, disinformation agents, FMOTL, Freemen On The Land, functionalism, gassing, German, Germany, history, hobbyists, Holocaust, Holocaust denial, Holocaust fiction thesis, Holocaust lie thesis, Holocaust scholarship, human biology, Information Society, intellectualism, intellectuals, intentionalism, internet, Jewish influence, Jews, John Adams, media, Nationalists, nazification, objectivity, online pseudonyms, physics, Poland, Polish, political Left, political Right, President of the United States, pseudo-intellectualism, pseudo-intellectuals, race, Racial Nationalists, Russia, Russian, shills, socialists, state infiltration, subjectivity, Third Reich, truth, truth-tellers, truth-telling, truthers, United States of America, web

DeckplatesF1Mar13

Rise of the Pseudo-Intellectuals

What defines an authentic intellectual is a cold and relentless determination to find an explanation that is as truthful as possible and a willingness to adopt whatever position the truth implies, no matter how impolitic or inexpedient.  In today’s society, expressing racialist views is both those things.  Admittedly, I express my views online behind a pseudonym, but there is still some cost to me in the sense of the negativity that I feel after every virtual confrontation.  Then there are the confrontations in the real world.  It would make for an easier life just to go along with the crowd and to accept that diversity is a social good, lying to myself in the kind of perpetual mad fit of delusion that is shared by the majority.  I cannot do this because it’s not the truth.  It’s not the truth because diversity, by definition and by extension of logic, must lead to the eradication of the races, including – paramountly for me – the White Race.

Does truth matter?  I think that it does. Truth has a value unto itself. Truth is an island that the waters of reason lap against. Reason has a variety of currents and winds and, how we reach the island – whether we crash against the rocks or land safely – depends on the current followed.  But what we cannot ignore is the island. Truth exists, like a rock.  It can be denied, but eventually there has to be a Reckoning with it, in some way.  Truth does also involve a degree of subjectivity.  Even the objective fact of whether an island exists can be subjectivised through representation: an island can be plotted on a chart in different ways.  We can also observe that objectivity is dynamic: the island can erode, and in time disappear.

I must admit that what I see as the truth is heavily influenced by what I want to see and the conclusions I have decided I want to reach.  That also applies to you and everybody else.  A total adherence to objective truth is most likely not possible as what we think and report to others is always going to be polluted to some extent by subjectivity, in the form of such things as observational bias and preconceived conclusions, etc..  Whether this also means there can be no such thing as objective truth per se is a different question.  I think there is such a thing, but others may disagree.  It’s a philosophical question that I won’t labour here. Suffice it to say that when we make arguments ‘for’ or ‘against’ diversity, we are really arguing ‘for’ or ‘against’ what we want.  We are plotting the truth on the map in the way that we want it to be represented and we are choosing, or following, a given ocean wind or current to reach the truth as we see it.

One of the boons of the web as it has been commercialised and popularised over the last twenty years or so is the way in which it has allowed people to go online and find certain political information that is not widely circulated and definitely would not be found through mainstream sources.  More importantly, the web has become an important platform for people to share their thoughts and ideas, without inhibition or (most of the time) censorship from others, replacing old informal institutions such as the public house and the street corner, which are now marginalised as social fora.  The advent of the digisphere appears (ironically but to the benefit of society) to have caused a resurgence in intellectual engagement: reading, writing and ‘speaking’ about ideas.  But has it improved our thinking?  Does this increasing amount of ‘intellectual’ activity have any intellectual substance, or is the web just a way for the elite in an Information Society to control the masses by means of a deluge of frivolity?

I believe the intellectual substance of any argument should be evaluated according to its demonstrable truthfulness. The quest for truth is the hallmark of an effective and functioning society, and thus the truthfulness of public discourse – or its relentlessness – is the acid test for the direction of society itself.  If truth is being denied, whether via outright censorship or beneath a sheen of frivolity, then we know society is in trouble because it suggests that the natural conflicts and tensions that exist below the surface of any collective human endeavour are not being addressed, and instead base, individuated impulses such as selfishness, greed and other kinds of immorality are being allowed to run rampant, even celebrated.  Worse, it suggests that the interests of an alien racial group are being promoted above those of the indigenous group.  Once the truth is denied, we begin to see the fragmentation and ultimately the collapse of society, which normally happens gradually, even imperceptibly.  That is why continued intellectual activity among the population is important.  If people are able to find a way to read, discuss and write about ideas freely, this can act as a bulwark against the excesses of the diversity machine, and may even stop the machine itself.

There is nothing more powerful than an idea.  That’s something of a cliché, but it is surely also a truism.  Once the notion that diversity is contrary to white interests takes root in the mind of an ordinary person, then it is not long before that person also begins to regard the vision of a white society as a realistic possibility, rather than a flight of fancy or the hate-filled demagogy of kranks.  The mind is a work in progress and a precious thing, and self-image is particularly powerful.  One thing I have noticed over the years – and no doubt you will have – is the way that our opponents on the Left often have to resort to negative and rather unpleasant tactics to present their (non-)arguments. It is true that this is also sometimes seen on our side as well (and that is very regrettable), but not nearly as often.  Left-wingers (I use the term purely as shorthand for anyone who believes in diversity, but I realise that not everyone on the Left falls into that category) are often shrill when it comes to discussing any subject of emotional value, and in my experience, when they are faced with an opponent who is able to deploy arguments or some kind of critique against them, they will deploy verbal techniques such as bullying and swearing as a way of brow-beating the contrary voice.

As Nationalists who care about our own people, we should take care not to use similar techniques in these dark days ahead. We should respect the feelings of others in debate, regardless of who they are, and even if they disagree with us.  If we do, it will mark us out as different from our shrill opponents on the Left and it will win us friends.  More importantly, it will uncloud and declutter our message and allow those we are debating or discussing our ideas with to see the plain truth of our message.  Insults, swearing and shouting are like a bad ocean current or an unfavourable wind.  They will not ship our racial friends and our white opponents to the island, at least not in a safe way – and if we are genuine, that is surely what we must want.  Bad debating tactics just send everyone off course.

For some of our opponents, the aggression and moral grandstanding is about more than just ego.  It also hides very real fears: such as the fear that what we say about racial differences might be true; and, a fear about what this might mean for society. But there is also the more professional type of fear, which sees the rise of intellectual activity among the masses as a threat to the status and privileges of the elite.  This is often exhibited in the insult or sneer of ‘pseudo-intellectual’, a term which – at least in my anecdotal experience – is used to describe anyone who is not publicly identified and accepted as an ‘intellectual’ (whatever that really means and according to whatever varying and highly-subjective criteria are applied), who expresses ideas and theories that are different or challenging and who dares to write in complex sentences, convey complicated ideas or use words and expressions of more than two syllables.  There is always some irony, I find, in usage of the term ‘pseudo-intellectual’ as a pejorative, in that it has a pseud quality in and of itself. We are all, in a sense, intellectuals in that we’re using our minds to address what we see as a problem and most of us must use our intellect in our day-to-day jobs or whatever work we do.  Thus, this notion of ‘licensed’ intellectuals is a little odd.

Some people just want to be led and told what to do and what to think. Such people are easily attracted to labels and trigger words and will invariably resort to insults and slander when they confront arguments that they can’t counter.  I find this tendency is just as common among ‘educated’ people as anywhere else in society.  People who are willing to think – and worse – who encourage thought in others, are not popular and are seen as a threat in a hierarchical society, which largely depends on non-thinking and non-criticism among the masses.  A great deal of the sneering also has a class basis to it.  As a social group, intellectuals protect their status by seeking to mystify learning and professional expertise, creating signifiers that separate learned people – ‘intellectuals’ – from the proletarian masses whose lack of erudition and canonical knowledge and understanding can then be perceived as exhibiting a lack of intellectual substance.  This is nothing more than a tribal instinct, in this case designed to protect the economic interests of a given group in society, but as such, it does open the way for a countering epithet.  If there are pseudo-intellectuals on the web seeking truth, then there are surely corrupted intellectuals who are determined to keep us from it.

For reasons I will explain, I see the rise of the so-called ‘pseudo-intellectual’ in the Information Society as a positive and beneficial thing, but there is a ‘bad’ sort of pseudo-intellectual: the amateur truth-teller (and worse still, the ‘professional’ truth-teller) – sometimes called ‘truthers’ –  who normally base their views around a definite conclusion based on a selection of facts.  Often these people exist to provide a distraction – within the conspiracy world, they are known as ‘disinformation agents’ or (when the distraction is carried out unconsciously) ‘shills’.  The purpose of the disinformation agent is to discredit the more reasonable critic or sceptic by tarring him with the brush of being associated with a ‘nutter’ or krank.  I will illustrate the tendency with an awkward subject – awkward, because it’s close to home for Racial Nationalists.  There are some within our movement – perhaps this accounts for most of us – who believe that the Holocaust is a lie or a blatant fiction or something similar.  I make the distinction between ‘lie’ and ‘blatant fiction’ because the former involves wilfully not telling the truth or telling untruths about facts, whereas the latter involves inventing facts.  The difficulty, I think, arises with Holocaust denial when the ‘lie’ thesis strays into the ‘fiction’ thesis.  It’s at that point that it becomes less about wanting to find the truth and more about wanting to (accurately or not) invent a mythology about Jews who tell lies.

Whether or not the Jewish and other victims were gassed; whether this was centrally-directed; whether their deaths were in fact a result of neglect or camp conditions rather than any intentional scheme for genocide, are all interesting questions.  It might even be true that the Holocaust is a lie.  It certainly wouldn’t surprise me at all if it turned out that the whole thing had been grossly distorted or even concocted from scratch by Soviet and Jewish propagandists in the late 1940s. But the reason I take little interest in the subject is that I don’t know any Polish or Russian (although I do speak German); I’m not an expert on such things as chemistry, biochemistry, various aspects of human biology, etc.; I haven’t studied the physics or chemistry of crematoria; I’m not an expert on the history of the Third Reich; I do not have the time (or frankly, the inclination) to visit Germany, Poland and Russia to look at archaeological sites and documentary archives, even if I could read them in the native languages; and, most important of all, I just do not see this as any longer relevant politically. In fact, the only relevancy of the whole thing is for our opponents – but the smear can only work if we allow them the open goal. This does, I’m afraid, raise the question of why some in our movement are so enthusiastic about Holocaust denial and the associated tendency of ‘nazifying’ our message.

Those who claim to ‘know’ for sure what happened seventy-odd years ago are just lying to themselves (either that, or they are being paid to lie to the rest of us).  I apply that dictum to both sides of the ‘debate’, including those who enforce silly laws that criminalise Holocaust denial.  No responsible person – and certainly no professional historian – can remark on those ‘events’ (if indeed they happened at all) with such deadened conclusivity, but Holocaust denial in the absolutist sense is a dangerous current, an ill wind – just bad news for us in that it takes us off course. Even if it is shown that the Holocaust is a lie – and I repeat, it would not surprise me if that turns out to be the case – denying an historical event that you personally know nothing about, that you have no real expertise in, and that doesn’t relate to our cause is an inadvisable method for getting to the ‘island’.  You may well one day be vindicated in your denial, but this will come at a very high cost.  The victory will be entirely accidental, since chances are you didn’t know what you were talking about in the first place, and it will also be pyrrhic: take this route, and we are liable to get throw against the rocks and lose most of our crew before we are done. There is an easier way.

The easier way is to accept that we do not (and probably will never) know the truth (or the whole truth) of whatever subject is under consideration, but we are on a journey to find it and we will see glimpses of it, and sometimes more than glimpses. As part of our quest, we must adopt at least some of the ethics and methods of professional scholarship, and even though we are amateurs and hobbyists, we should treat our work as a vocation, for what is at stake for us as Nationalists is of the utmost importance: the future of the White Race.  In this sense, the epithet of ‘pseudo-intellectual’ need not be a badge of shame.  Far from it. What drives the sneering and the slander is a fear of truth.  What should drive we, the pseudo-intellectuals, is a fear of lies and lying.  Those who challenge the basic precepts of society’s institutions – whether it is the legal profession (Freemen On The Land), the diversity industry (Racial Nationalists), capitalism (socialists and anti-capitalists from the Left, Right and neither), or Jewish interests (reasonable Holocaust scholarship) or whatever – are generally presenting an alternative truth that challenges the implicit interests of the elite. The role of the corrupted intellectual is to defend those implicit interests.  The role of the rising pseudo-intellectuals is to defend the search for truth, to defend civilisation itself, such as it still exists and such as it can be re-made.

So I am actually quite proud of the epithet ‘pseudo-intellectual’, in so far as it applies to those who respect truthful arguments. Judging by the damage done to this country and our Race by ‘actual intellectuals’, there is no disgrace in being a pseudo-intellectual. It also seems to me that the Achilles’ heel of actual intellectuals is their propensity for empathy, which (in part) is what has got us into this mess and is what is driving all the fakery and plasticity that we see around us.  Any form of authoritarianism must, in practice, have the support of the intellectual classes in society and our society is no exception.  The torture chambers of today are the university seminar rooms, which are also the source of the ideas that have given rise to a psychological war on our Race.

We, the pseudo-intellectuals, are very much a work-in-progress, but precious minds must flower.  John Adams, the second President of the United States, said:

Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.

Adams could have written that for our time, for it is surely only a daring person who will read, think, speak and write freely. We, the despised and reviled, are all that is left of this tradition.

AltWhite: maximising, not mainstreaming

15 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

1930s, 1940s, Abrahamic religions, Adolf Hitler, agricultural revolution, alternative politics, Alternative Right, AltRight, AltWhite, anti-hate agenda, Arturo Pendriago, Austrians, BNP, Britain, British politics, civil resistance, Conservative Party, Creative Commons, culture, Daily Stormer, Gaza, German National Socialism, Germans, Griffin's Four Words, hate, hate speech, Hitler, Industrial Revolution, Information Warfare, internet, Jewish influence, Jews, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, LibLabConUK, mainstream, mainstreaming, maximising, Middle Eastern religions, nazification, nazification of whiteness, Nazis, neo-Nazi chic, neo-Nazis, neocorcital warfare, Nick Griffin, political mainstream, politics, race, racism, religious, social media, symbiosis of opposites, the Establishment, the Left the Right, The New Four Words, TIAWA, UK, UKIP, virtual Resistance, web, White Alternative, White-Max

snow_white_alternative_by_maniacgfx-d57xshk

AltWhite: maximising, not mainstreaming

In a previous article The Dumbest People Ever: the nazification of whiteness, I outlined one of the presentational problems for so-called ‘Nationalism’: that in certain pockets of the broader white-conscious movement, a perception is often encouraged in the public’s mind of some rather weird and scary people who are more interested in nostalgia for historic National Socialism, neo-Nazi chic and the memory of an Austrian-born German who shot himself nearly 70 years ago, than in the promotion of white identity and civilisation as something positive and beneficial in society.

An edited version of the article has been re-published by Alternative Right [my thanks to them, especially Colin Liddell].  The article has attracted a lot of comments on the site.  So far almost-all, I am glad to say, are positive about the general message and show an understanding of what I was trying to say: that Nationalists need to find a way of staying true to their core ideals and values while at the same time avoiding the self-inflicted presentational trap of ‘nazification’, which ghettoises us.

On the other hand, I noticed this comment from someone called Arturo Pendriago:

This writer is going on about hate as if it is a bad thing. Hate, and the stronger its intensity the better, is something whites need to re-familiarize themselves with.

When I read sentences like, “The reason the word ‘hate’ is invoked so much in a legal and political context is that it is acknowledged that to resort to hate is to admit that you have given in.”, I think I’m reading an article at HuffPo.

Are you serious?

Hate is going to move white people forward, not rationality, not compromise, not lukewarm platitudes about how it clouds reason, as if reason is going to save white people from being displaced in their own countries.

Another gem: “His memory therefore appeals to whites who feel the very opposite of ‘strong’ and ‘triumphant’: in other words, weak and
emotionally-dependent whites who see their group identity under
continuous and permanent assault from nefarious forces in modern society
and want to draw strength from old stories of military glory, Pathé
reels, and what not. It’s a comfort for people who want to be passively
led.”

So, if you feel threatened that whites are under continuous and permanent assault (which they are), do anything but HATE, people! That would be counter-productive. That makes you look ’emotionally-dependent’ to us oh-so-enlightened rational nerds.

Jesus, did I just walk into a Freudian therapy session?

Just more shaming of whites to the right of you. Can we stop attacking whites who are FUCKING angry and who admire Hitler? Good gawd, what side are you on?

I’ll leave that to hang in the air.  Suffice it to say: I am very serious.  Unless we can move beyond this stuff and get over ourselves, we are always going to be stuck arguing on the enemy’s terms.  Whatever I might think about the Third Reich, German National Socialism, and the ‘anti-hate agenda’, the reality is:

(i). Hitler is dead.

(ii). I am not German and I did not live through the 1930s and 1940s.

(iii). I am not a member of a comic opera company, nor do I aspire to be.

(iv). I have no interest in hating or disliking other people – whether Jews, blacks or green men from Mars – which is just a waste of time and gets us nowhere.

(v). I have no interest in plying the Jewish agenda – be it the fake outrage over Gaza or fake nationalist political parties at home.  White people should not be the playthings of Jews.

I do, however, have an interest in helping build a positive white identity movement that might contribute something to saving the White Race and, one day, restoring white sovereignty for our children.  That is a legitimate and worthy goal.  TIAWA: There Is A White Alternative, based on independent white politics.  Hitler, jackboots, stone eagle statues and men in black uniforms is more the stuff of amateur theatre and lunatics who have been let out the asylum. What it has to do with being pro-white is beyond me.  In any event, if we are serious, then we have to surveil the battle ground ‘as it is’ and adopt a strategy and tactical position that reflects reality.  I have no doubt that neo-Nazi cultural activities and websites like Daily Stormer do bring some benefit, if only in terms of bolstering morale, but this has to be weighed against a major downside: they erect a barrier that stops reasonable, sensible, sane white people who agree with us from joining and supporting us because they think we are a bunch of lunatics.  Like it or not, those who ply the Nazi theme are gifting our opponents an open goal.  This is quite apart from the fact that the whole ‘Nazi’ sub-culture is essentially a Jewish invention anyway and has only a tenuous historical basis.

Related to this, one of the other messages of the article was that we should abandon the old style of politics based around political parties, hierarchies, elections, fund-raising and leaders.  That is not to say we should give up on having political parties or on voting.  It is to say that we need to invent a new model for these institutions that serves our racial purpose.  The four main parties in Britain – the LibLabConUK – are still using an outdated, top-down model, which is reflected in a style of governing that is disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people. The way I see it is that we already know this doesn’t work for us: in that sense, the ‘grey cloud’ of our ‘failure’ has a ‘silver lining’ in that it has given us early warning of the system’s ‘crisis of legitimacy’.  The Establishment will find out later and will have to confront this, meanwhile we need to get ahead of the curve and invent a new way of doing things – a kind of low intensity political warfare that doesn’t involve large financial investment, formal structures and personality worship, but is instead based on information, networking, community organising, crowd-funding and civil resistance, and that takes advantage of the Creative Commons of the web as a tool and a means to get our message into the bloodstream of society, and that also takes advantage of social media and web-based communication as a means for organising and directing activity in the real world.  (See my previous article: ‘The Mechanics of Virtual Resistance‘).

Our purpose should not be to mainstream our message.  That has already been tried by Griffin’s BNP.  (See my previous article, ‘The New Four Words‘).  Rather, our purpose should be to achieve our maximum potential support while staying true to our core ideals and values: what I will call ‘White-Max’.  The problem with Griffin’s approach was that he was trying to persuade as many people as possible to vote for a political party that pined for ‘respectability’ and acceptance by its racial enemies.  The BNP wanted to win elections, but this is just a means to an end. Yet Griffin’s Party gradually began to adopt this means as an end in itself and came to ‘believe’ in ‘democracy’ as a good in its own right.  This inevitably resulted in a watering-down of the BNP’s actual ideology so that in practice it became democratic and mixed-racialist, to the extent that we now have the spectacle of BNP activists going online and accusing others of ‘racism’.

Our approach, by contrast, should be to focus on persuading those who are already sympathetic to us that they can safely support us.  We do not need to persuade the greater part of the British public of the vital importance of white survival.  They are now lost to us, and any attempt to persuade them is not only a waste of valuable time and resources, but can only result in a watering-down of our core beliefs to the point that the exercise would become meaningless: see UKIP for more details.  White-Max means identifying a minority of whites who might come over to our side and changing the way we present ourselves to help them do that.  This shift in presentation must also involve a change in our methods to reflect the new realities we confront.

How will the white maximising (‘white-max’) movement achieve its ends? I believe indirectly, through the use of economic, cultural and technological means. Some of which will be subtle and unobtrusive, others more explicitly and blatantly pro-white – but without the toxic ideological baggage that has hindered similar operations in the past that have tended to focus on the niche neo-Nazi market. There is a need to make white people comfortable with their racial identity again.  That requires an AltWhite culture that is detoxified of the ‘nazi’ images and labels and instead celebrates white identity and accomplishments positively.  If white people – the young especially – begin to recognise that it is ‘cool’ (or ‘good’) to be white, then this may form the basis of a resurgence in support for white politics as our people begin to think and act as a racial community and identify as such.  AltWhite would be an important weapon in our own Information Warfare, the purpose of which would be nothing less than a race-conscious revolution, a great social movement that will operate much like the Industrial Revolution or the agricultural revolution. Through the multi-faceted efforts of many people and the infinite variables that result from their race-conscious efforts, we will – imperceptibly, gradually and peacefully – siphon-off those whites from liberal society who are conscious of their racial identity and who refuse to join the race-mixing mass culture.  Above all else, an AltWhite culture would mark a necessary separation of white identity from the broader political Right, allowing people of a variety of political persuasions both Right and Left, to embrace their own Race and culture.

This neocorcital warfare also requires a variety of new political approaches.  The ‘alternative politics’ will be characterised by (among other things) the use of lawful and non-violent resistance methods and infiltration, distraction and false flag techniques; we will use information and expertise to help others create their own pro-white community organisations and engage in white-conscious community-building; and we will launch public campaigns that focus on the issues around immigration and that attract support without being overtly ‘racial’.

In the end, what we have accept is that our racial enemies have out-thought us rather than out-fought us.  They are genetically-primed for kinship and have strong racial-cultural vessels in the form of Middle Eastern ethno-religious institutional ritual that emanate solidarity, community and belonging.  We need to build our own, new, cultural reproduction capacity, but we can only do this if we first leave behind the institutions, behaviours and thought patterns that are killing us.

Bias Towards Whom?

08 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

17th. century, 18th. century, 4OD, BBC, biais, bias, Britain, British Broadcasting Corporation, British politics, broadcasters, Channel Four, civil service, Cultural Marxism, democracy, Dragons' Den (UK), far-Left, far-Right, Information democracy, Information Society, internet, Jewish influence, journalism, Left, left-wing, left-wing bias, left-wing revolutionaries, liberal bias, liberal-left, licensing laws (printing presses), Loyal Opposition, media, Middle French, Nationalism, newspapers, parliamentary licensors, Popular Nationalism, Potemkin Village, press, printing presses, Quixotic, Right, right-wing, Spectator (UK magazine), Tatler (UK magazine), television, The Apprentice (UK), Tories, TV, Undercover Boss (UK), web, Zeitgeist

bbc

Bias Towards Whom?

We often hear or read about complaints concerning the alleged bias of one mainstream media organisation or another. The BBC, for instance, is regularly accused of having a kind of ‘left-wing’ bias. Sometimes this allegation is broadened to all media in Britain, so that it is said most press and broadcast media have a general liberal or Left bias.

The reverse allegation is, of course, often heard from the Left, in that they claim the mainstream media is bias towards the political Right or is against the Left in various ways. Admittedly, most of us will readily accept that bias is a natural state of mind that is difficult to conceal when commenting on news or current events. We all approach comment from a perspective that is our own and a strong level of objectivity is difficult to achieve in those circumstances. The root of the complaint, then, is in the belief that those who journalise or report on what is happening in the world are expected to resist ordinary, base temptations of partiality. Perhaps unrealistically, bias is thought to be the preserve of commentary, while news should be gathered by a kind of Quixotic cadre of objective public servants who, idealistically, report what they see and nothing else.

Of course, the real world doesn’t work like this. We only need look at history. Bias in media has existed since the dawn of the first printing press. In the early days, the capital needed for establishing a serious and viable press was such that the technology was concentrated in relatively few hands. Naturally, great reliance was placed on the financial sponsor, with the result that only a narrow range of opinions were published and circulated from the first printing presses. This informal censorship, if one might call it that, later took on legislative form in the infamous licensing laws imposed by Parliament during the 17th. century. These laws restricted what types of opinions might be published and circulated. As you might expect, views that were hostile to the political elite of the day could be suppressed, and were often prevented from being published at all. It was only with the rise of the modern journalist trade during the late 17th. and early 18th. century that the liberty to speak freely in Britain took on meaning in the public space, as publications such as Tatler and the early Spectator emerged.

The modern equivalent of the parliamentary licensors and the wealthy print owners are the BBC executives and their counterparts in the private sector. The BBC executives often have close involvement in a variety of political and cultural activities outside their immediate responsibilities at the Corporation. The private sector media owners are invariably hugely influential figures in business and across society, especially in politics. Together they form a media and political class: class being the apt term, since they act cohesively, and consciously, in their collective interest. These people will generally tolerate only a narrow bandwidth of ‘acceptable opinion’, and it is within this Potemkin Village that the public is presented with its political choices, through newspapers, various online channels, the radio and the TV. These ‘choices’ are in fact largely a series of ‘false opposites’, the falsity being that on closer examination, it becomes apparent that almost-all of the political parties are presenting the proverbial ‘business as usual’ agenda, while minority views that might challenge the status quo are not permitted to find expression.

The emergence of the web as an alternative media is slowly threatening this domination by wealthy interests of news and opinion. The web is a means by which information can be disseminated democratically and on a mass basis relatively cheaply, but even with the rise of internet news and commentary, the economic structure of media still harks back to the wealthy print owners and their parliamentary licensors. The reason for the continuing struggle for ‘information democracy’ is the economic power of the media barons, who still have available to them ‘soft’ means of censorship and control. Their methods, tried and tested, include, inter alia, powerful advertising and marketing techniques; the use of propaganda to dissuade serious consideration of alternative viewpoints; the promotion of concision in broadcasting; the control of what is ‘acceptable language’; and the simple denial of airspace (or print space). The rudiments of this information control apparatus give a whole new dimension to the term ‘bias’. Its Middle French origin word, biais, meant a slant, slope or oblique. We see here also a possible origin for the term ‘spin’: i.e. the giving to favourable slant on events and news stories. In keeping with that etymology, and in spite of the web’s democratic potential, what is broadcast, published and consumed by the public day after day is still a slanted reality, a simulacrum in which a distorted, even alien, picture of the world is presented, yet a picture that at the same time uncannily reflects the priorities of our everyday oppressors: be they employers, official types or a hostile government. But what is all this in aid of? What is being protected?

We must remember that self-perpetuation is in the nature of a hierarchy. This gives rise to a variety of materialist expediencies, which we see manifested in everyday news about politics, and in the mundanities of our own lives. What the politicians and information managers wish to protect most of all is their own sinecures. It is the case that a wave of Nationalist support in Britain would imperil the livelihoods and material interests of a large part of the ruling elite. And we know that the same could be said about a rise in support for the extreme Left, which is anti-capitalist, yet we note with frustration and dismay the appeasement and co-option of the social liberal perspective by the Establishment, including mainstream media. The explanation for this must be deeper than mere cultural bias. There have to be materialist considerations at play. We can also observe that it is Nationalism – and the broader far-Right – that suffers most of the British State’s overt oppression, and while the far-Left does also at times receive its share of official attention, it is the far-Right and Nationalists that are openly reviled and despised by the British State, and also, significantly, among the mainstream media.

Does this overt biasing both against Nationalists and toward social liberal attitudes suggest a deeper, systemic partiality among media institutions? Or are the allegations of left-wing bias, levelled especially against the BBC, just another clever distraction that, when repeated by Nationalists, serve to take attention away from the country’s real problems? The monsterisation of the so-called ‘Left’ is an easy and clever way for the elites to distract attention. The Tories in particular enjoy the fact that those of a populist bent rail against the so-called ‘Marxist’ or ‘left-wing’ BBC while overlooking the destructive, anti-social and anti-national policies of the government itself, not to mention its ‘Loyal Opposition’. That most of the people who use the term ‘Marxist’ in this context have little or no idea what it means is hardly relevant. The point is that there is a need for a diversion, a scapegoat, and it must be plausible. And it is plausible that the BBC is infested with what is called Cultural Marxism. What exactly is meant by the phrase ‘Cultural Marxism’ depends on who is speaking or writing, but in non-academic hands the vague gist is that it is an extreme, socially-liberal type of leftism involving a wish for a more egalitarian, racially-mixed and internationalist society. Does the BBC support this sort of thing? Officially, the BBC is impartial. Unofficially, however, its various journalists, broadcasters and reporters do seem to promote a certain partial outlook, and while it is difficult to define precisely what that outlook is, we can say with relative ease what it isn’t. It is not socially-, morally- and culturally-conservative, nationalistic, or family-centred. In fact, it is uncomfortable with these things. But is it left-wing? The question, and indeed the accusation, are circular in that the Left are people and groups with a variety of different ideological positions. However, it is clear that when the issue of media biasing is addressed by Nationalists and the far-Right, then the Left is being defined as those who believe in, or prioritise, social, economic and racial equality. Few could or would disagree with that as a fairly inclusive description, if not a definition. We can include within it almost-all political groups that identify with the egalitarian Left culturally, if not ideologically, and propound equality as a good in itself. To what extent does the BBC align itself with this ‘ideology of equality’?

The evidence is mixed, but a clear picture does emerge. The BBC often broadcasts programmes that are deeply pro-business in character. We only have to look at ‘reality’ series such as The Apprentice, Dragon’s Den, etc. as a case in point, as they celebrate business and the vague idea that one must be competitive and cut-throat in order to ‘get ahead’. Then there is the BBC’s news and current affairs output, with items and stories that often have a pro-business focus. On the other hand, we can detect with the BBC an editorial slant that is equalitarian, in that stories and news items are selected that highlight certain issues. We see this in the BBC’s coverage of business issues. There is often a focus on the supposed pay gap between male and female workers, and the issue will be presented in a way that is favourable to those who believe that female workers suffer a raw deal. Coverage of the immigration controversy will be presented from an angle that highlights the business and economic benefits that migrants supposedly bring to the UK. Some programmes show a more overt editorial biasing. An edition of Countryfile in December 2012 highlighted the supposed ‘problem’ of a lack of ethnic minority people living in or visiting the countryside. That and other particularly egregious examples do suggest an equalitarian bias that is anti-national and anti-white in character, but to label this as ‘left-wing’ does not necessarily tell us a great deal. It is not that the BBC and its cousins in the media are institutionally ‘left-wing’. Nor are they institutionally ‘right-wing’, necessarily just because they produce pro-business programmes. That is not to let the Left (in both the Labour and Tory parties, and their cultural friends, etc.) off the hook concerning their failed policies in this country, rather it is to seek a closer understanding of precisely what is being propagandised and promoted through our media and why. Do these people really keep yapping about ‘equality’ because they’re all left-wing or involved in some sinister neo-Marxist plot? Or is the real reason more prosaic? We really need to ask the age-old question: Who benefits? A different, and arguably more accurate, way to summarise the situation is that the media, including the BBC, tend to be ‘metropolitan’ in attitude.

By ‘metropolitan’ I refer to the adoption of certain mores, norms and attitudes that are modish and reflect the lifestyle of those who might benefit from or look more favourably on a more liberal outlook in society. In British society today, we can see that a new ‘metropolitan class’ is emerging that could be likened to the patrician class of the late Roman Republic, occupying the strata of elite political, cultural and administrative posts in society and evolving into an ersatz Nomenklatura, with its own class signifiers. One such signifier is a distinct anti-plebeian attitude and an overt disdain for working people and their provincial mores and needs. A stark example of the phenomenon is found in discussion about immigration. A common provincial complaint is how problems with open-door immigration are not discussed in public, yet in truth, the subject is dealt with at length in public discourse. The difficulty is not in its absence from public discussion, but in the perspective from which it is dealt with, which invariably emphasises the priorities of both big business and metropolitan types, two groups that loudly welcome the ‘benefits’ of open immigration policies in the form of low-cost, pliable labour and cheap restaurants, etc. Likewise, in some ways it benefits the business class to promote the idea that all women are potential victims of ‘sexism’ or that ‘racism’ is widespread, as this encourages division and individuation in the workplace, as opposed to solidarity. If working people unite, they are strong – especially if they unite within effective unions. If, on the other hand, working people are encouraged to divide and becomes suspicious of each other, maybe also compete with each other for illusory ‘middle class’ careers, there is less a sense of solidarity, and the bosses are stronger. To an extent, these priorities manifest in open snobbery towards the ‘ignorant provincials’ who dare to challenge the established order of things. Insults such as ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, ‘Nazi’, ‘red’, ‘commie’ and so on are a reflection of a class bias, with one class using verbal intimidation to block reasoned debate about its assumed privileges and the damaging and anti-social effect they have on the country-at-large. Simple class snobbery also plays its role. You might say that the provincials are the ‘workers’, while the metropolitans are the ‘bosses’ and the workers really should know their place and keep quiet. This type of attitudinal cringe is of course nothing new in Britain, but it is important to understand that class prejudice is not merely a cultural phenomenon, it is also economic in character – in other words, it serves a purpose, with a long antecedence into the traditional feudal economic structure of British, particularly English, society.

What we will also consider here is the interaction of basic socio-geography. Britain – particularly England – is London-centric, and this is reflected in the priorities of the media. In a more pluralistic society with diffuse and autonomous power structures, there might be more room for the provincial attitude to take root. Nevertheless, and despite superficial appearances offered by devolution to the sub-national level, Britain remains a heavily centralised society with its power structures concentrated in London. A ‘British media’ does not, as such, exist. What we have in fact is a London media that broadcasts to the entire country, adopting a metropolitan social, cultural and political orientation. In London, and among Londoners, the ‘anti-plebeian’ and ‘metropolitan’ values are pervasive because of what London is. It’s a metropolis. Its people tend to see things in metropolitan terms. That’s only natural. In fact, no matter how conservative you are, or think you are, if you lived in London you would over time begin to allow accommodations to the social environment around you. If you were sufficiently robust mentally, you could resist it to a degree, but not totally. Most media people either live or work in London, or both, and where they do neither, they still work for a media organisation that is London-centric in the sense of either being located in London or being under London-centric cultural influences, or both. Most successful media people also spend the formative years of their careers in the London media environment. However, the metropolitan mindset is only a tendency – so, there are exceptions, and there are ‘metro’ people who will flit in-and-out of the tendency and exhibit a more provincial or conservative mindset from time-to-time, depending on the issue. But to display a provincial, anti-metropolitan viewpoint consistently would require the journalist or broadcaster to rebel against his own paymasters. That is something that most journalists – and certainly nearly-all young journalists – will not do. The media are cliquely and McCarthyite in their treatment of their own, and will shun and exile professionally any journalist who does not articulate and repeat the Zeitgeist, and so understandably many journalists will not reveal their true thoughts or betray inner doubts.

Those of us outside London, especially those like myself who live in areas that are still traditionally quite conservative, working class and white-dominated, look at the goings-on in the ‘mainstream media’ with bafflement. The gossip and parliamentary tittle-tattle; the petty arguments over who said what on Twitter; the strange and fanatical crusade to purge racism among white people; the obsession with house prices and abstract growth figures; and so on. To the provincial mindset, none of this is particularly relevant or equates to the common experience, still less makes sense. Nevertheless, the circus rumbles on, on all channels, purveying the metropolitan, anti-plebeian perspective. Recently, on Channel Four (another, supposedly, ‘left-wing’ channel), we were treated to the dubious delights of a fresh series of Undercover Boss, a risible programme that infantilises and humiliates ordinary workers. The perspective of the programme-makers is deeply patrician. They believe implicitly that ordinary people are helpless and should not take responsibility for the material conditions in their working environment. Instead, they should look to their munificent ‘boss’ who, like a knight in shining armour, will come to the rescue to make their working conditions ‘fair’ and give a few quid to charity in the process. The picture is of ordinary people not in control of their own lives while carrying out difficult and arduous work that the ‘boss’ can’t do, yet the boss earns several times their salary. It’s fitting for a society in which selfishness and greed have been elevated to a virtue that is then crystallised in patronising workplace munificence; a society in which the ordinary worker is denied union membership and basic dignity; a society in which what matters is getting one up on the other fellow. Most of the participants in the series are low-paid and unskilled and not in any position to answer back to an impertinent boss who understands his own company so poorly that he needs a camera to follow him round while he discovers just how bad a manager he is and how good his workers are. I think it is safe to say that Undercover Boss is not a left-wing programme, though it may unintentionally fill the more astute Channel Four viewer with some very left-wing ideas as he or she angrily throws a shoe at the TV set and contemplates what they would do if they got their hands on the stupid boss being featured that week.

Our metropolitan media are happy for us to believe that they are simply a bunch of ‘left-wing’ revolutionaries, but the truth is not quite like this. What they – and their friends in politics – really are is the propaganda arm of an anti-social predator class in society. These modern ‘licensors’ are the mouthpieces of society’s capitalists, and just as in the 17th. century the parliamentary licensors did the bidding of their wealthy constituents, today the political and media class work against the people in pursuit of a self-enriching agenda. The BBC, in common with all broadcasters, is certainly biased. This bias may, from time-to-time, appear in ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ form, but its true nature is more complicated. You may be sure that the real bias is toward those who wish to maintain their profits at the expense of the people and will do everything possible to stop a Popular Nationalist movement arising. This is because in a Nationalist society the community will place the health, welfare and dignity of its folk above all else, and give its children a future – and the modern licensors will not be welcome. As we work towards that society, we may require from time-to-time policies or initiatives that resemble the Left or the Right, but are in fact Nationalist. That is our only bias: we are merely working for the interests of our own people.

_________________________________________________________________

This is the second in a series of articles I wrote last year for the White Independent Nation website.  Again, I stand by today what I wrote then, only I would probably be more explicit now about the role of Jewish influence in the media, whereas in the above article it is only hinted at very subtly.

TIAWA: There Is A White Alternative

07 Thursday Aug 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

'leader syndrome', 1980s, Alt Right, Alternative Right, alternative sub-culture, Amnesty International, anarchism, anti-Establishment politicians, Anti-Nationalism, BNP, civil resistance, communism, community, Conservative Party, controlled opposition, Creative Commons, credo, Credo for the White Alternative, crowd-funding, demagogues, deracination, devolution, EDL, escapism, Establishment politicians, evolution, fake Nationalism, false alternatives, far-Left Racial Nationalism, far-Right, far-Right Racial Nationalism, football clubs, Francis Fukuyama, fringe politics, globalism, Herbert Spencer, Hitlerism, Hope Not Hate, humanity, intelligent adaptation, internationalism, internet, John Bull, kosher nationalism, Leviathan, liberal democracy, liberal mindset, liberalism, liberals, Local Resistance Zones, Lotus mind, Margaret Thatcher, multi-culturalism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nationalist iconoclasm, Nationalists, neo-liberalism, Neo-Tribalism, New Order, New Tribe, Nick Griffin, patriotism, political science, Post-Nationalism, Queen, race, racist conservatives, Revanchism, sadism, Safety, Searchlight, Second Wave, sectarianism, self-gratifiation, self-help, self-organisation, Solidarity, television, thatcherism, the elite, The End of History and the Last Man, The End of History? [essay], the Establishment, the Last Man, The Lessons of Leith, the Lotus, The Mechanics of Virtual Resistance, The New Four Words, the political class, the Second World War, the West, There Is A White Alternative, There Is No Alternative, TIAWA, TINA, TV, UAF, UKIP, Union Flag, virtual Resistance, web, White Alternative, white business networks, White Homeland Party, White Independent Nation, White Neo-Tribalism, White Opposition, White Resistance Movement, WIN, zero-conscious culture

Revolution-3-259x300

TIAWA: There Is A White Alternative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End Note: TOWARDS A CREDO FOR THE WHITE ALTERNATIVE

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

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

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

Our allegiance is only to New Tribe-aligned groups –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Duke and ‘liberal’ national-socialism

05 Tuesday Aug 2014

Posted by John Londen in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

'liberal' national-socialism, 1950s, 1960s, 1980s, American Friends of the BNP, American White Nationalists, Anglosphere, BNP, Britain, British National Front, Burkeanism, civic nationalism, Civilisation, community, conservatism, Craig Cobb, David Duke, denazification, Developed Mantra, DNA tests, Don Black, Edmund Burke, English constitution, Europe, European Gaza, Europeans, existence versus fighting, far-Right, far-Right liberalism, FDIS, freeborn Englishman, Freedom Democracy Identity Security, Gaza, Griffin's Four Words, Griffin-Duke-Black troika, hate, hating, hatred, implicit Zionism, internet, Islam, Israel, Jewish influence, Jews, John Tyndall, Judaism, kosher nationalists, Leith, liberalisation, liberalism, liberals, linguistic correctness, Margaret Thatcher, Martin McGuinness, Michael Moore, mixed-racialism, moderation, multi-culturalism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nationalists, nazification, New Four Words, Nick Griffin, Palestinians, political correctness, political language, pseudo-positivism, Racial Nationalism, radical Muslims, Rights of Man, Texas, thatcherism, the Establishment, the far-Left, The M(15)cGuinness Option, the West, Third World, traditionalism, UKIP, ultra-Zionism, United States of America, web, White Nationalism, White Race, Zionism

david duke

David Duke and ‘liberal’ national-socialism

One of the things that I think Nationalists have to start doing is being a bit more sceptical and questioning about some of these personalities who have led ‘the movement’ over the last seventy years.  Nationalism belongs to white people, and we have the right to look critically on those who were meant to stand for our racial interests but who have failed for one reason or another.  Some of them (this does not apply to all) have been happy to take the money or enjoyed high public profiles but have not delivered.  Of course, failure is not a crime in and of itself, but it should prompt questions.  It is not really good enough to continue with the same tactics and methods over and again, nor should we be surprised at repeated failure if the course being followed is a repetition of previous failed strategies.  The reality facing us is that Racial Nationalism has been beaten back into a tiny corner of the internet and an even lesser space of civic life in Britain, with actual activity sporadic in nature and consisting of poorly-attended meetings and the odd public demonstration.  We also face a legal, political and social environment that is not just hostile to white conscious people, but to all white people: to the extent that, some pseudo-nationalists in UKIP think that the right way to criticise mass immigration is to attack other white people coming in from Europe rather than point to the really damaging phenomenon of decades of non-white immigration. As matters stand, we have no strong leader or personality (assuming leaders is something you like) and we have no unifying strategy or direction, but I would suggest that this void has existed for quite some years now and we have just been living on borrowed time.

The underlying problem was always that Nationalists did not have a message that connected with ordinary people.  That is for two reasons: the first internal, the other external.  The internal reason was that, from the beginning of the post-War period, the far-Right became the dominant tendency within this movement and consequently there was no organisation, structure or base of ideas to link racial causes with the cause of labour and socialism: in other words, there was nothing to connect the idea of a racially homogeneous society with people’s everyday lives.  In fact, the message of the far-Right was not generally racial as such, but patriotic.  Whatever we might think about the education system, people are more educated nowadays than ever.  We can argue over the quality of that education, which is a separate issue, and it could also be observed that the ‘education’ largely consists of being schooled in various politically-correct epithets – all true – but I would suggest that the idea that people are dumbed-down by TV and other frivolous pursuits or that the education system itself is dumbed-down, while also containing some truth, is a little too simplistic and does not take into account the complexity of what has occurred. What we are dealing with is, on the one hand, a population that is more leisured, self-centred and affluent than in the past, largely based on credit and equity, and with the social independence that goes with it; but on the other hand, a people that are not as literate and are more willing to treat politics as a series of retail choices, with nice fuzzy messages being seen as more appealing than weighty discussion.  These socio-cultural changes really began in the 1950s with the advent of the consumer society and continued into the 1960s with the decline of traditional industries and the emergence of a more individualistic culture.  During the 1980s, the government’s attack on trade unions broke solidarity in the industrial workplace and created a sense of a country that valued entrepreneurial attitudes.

The last gasp of right-wing ‘collectivism’ was the National Front phenomenon of the late 1970s.  After this faded, the National Front began to fall apart ideologically as it could not find a coherent intellectual response to thatcherism and the changes in society that had begun 30 years before and had produced a very different society that was in tension with the more social and statist beliefs of the far-Right’s old guard.  By the late 1990s, the image of the then-leading Nationalist party, the BNP, was starting to look dated, while in the United States, Nationalists had no significant profile at all outside of alternative media.  A younger group within Nationalism (including within the BNP) looked to remedy this ossification by revising the presentation of Nationalism.  Under the Griffin-Duke-Black troika, a period of liberalisation and moderation was instituted.  At a meeting of the American Friends of the BNP in Texas in April 2000, Griffin said this (in the presence of David Duke and other leading American White Nationalists):

There is a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. The BNP isn’t about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too……But we are determined, now, to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say: freedom, security, identity, democracy….Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable…..Perhaps one day, once, by being rather more subtle, we’ve got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcast media; then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say ‘yes, every last one must go’….Perhaps they will one day, but if you want that out as your sole aim to start with: you’re going to get absolutely nowhere, so instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity…

The speech from which these words were taken was found and broadcast by opponents of Nationalism who wanted to expose Griffin for his insincerity and cynicism and present the BNP as a ‘Trojan horse’ for a more extremist agenda.   But the issues with ‘far-Right liberalism’ are larger than the BNP and its former leader.  The new liberal tendency emerged across the far-Right and reflected long-term changes in society that its leadership believed they needed to adapt to.  In Griffin’s case, the Establishment (whether with his covert co-operation or not) set out on a determined course to attack and undermine him from the beginning, using a complicit and rather corrupt media.  This was ‘necessary’ because, in simple terms, a liberalised far-Right would be more attractive to the white electorate who could, at last, express their latent racial consciousness through support for a more ‘respectable’ political party.  Such a party might still pose a threat to mass immigration and multi-culturalism, if it were to gain important influence at a local and national level.

In fact, the BNP had fallen into a trap.  Griffin was half-correct.  It was important to ‘denazify’ Nationalism and detoxify its message so that the old psychological barriers that had been erected by the media and that prevented reasonable, sensible people from thinking in racial terms could be removed.  The problem is that in rightly avoiding one trap, Griffin fell into another.  That is not to say Griffin was stupid.  In hindsight, we can see that his use of the four buzz words – freedom, security, identity, democracy – was quite clever in its own way, and it did work in broadening the appeal for what would otherwise have been a marginal political movement.  But by expressing racial nationalism in liberal language, he allowed anti-white opponents to argue the case for white genetic eradication on their own terms rather than on Nationalist terms.  It was like stepping unprepared into enemy territory and trying to fight a war by borrowing the enemy’s weapons.  Instead of finding a political language of its own, the far-Right sought to fight using the language of the most virulent opponents of Nationalism.  To explain why, and to illuminate the point, let us de-construct each of Griffin’s four catchphrases in turn:-

Freedom This harks back to typical conservative Burkean nostrums of the English constitution and other quaint myths: the notion of the ‘free-born Englishman’ and what not.  I call it ‘myth’, but in fairness it does have some basis in reality, in that English – and British – government has traditionally been quite reserved with an emphasis on self-government.  The Griffin BNP sought to resurrect such notions in the belief that they would appeal to the romantic aspect of the British mind and various mythologies about a time when the government did not interfere in the freedoms of ordinary people.  It’s therefore a counterpoint to the type of political correctness and microscopic state intervention that characterises a multi-cultural society.  So one can see the logic.  The problem is that the BNP wasn’t campaigning in some kind of neo-feudal society made up of freeborn agricultural peasants of native stock, but rather in a mass, urban post-industrial society that, while still overwhelmingly white, had largely accepted mixed-racial ideas and contained a large contingent of non-whites.  Against this background, a party that argues for ‘freedom’  just ends up attacking one of the symptoms of a mixed-racial society, not the cause, and in the long-run, even if successful in gaining influence, such efforts can only assist in cementing the sickness by alleviating and ameliorating some of its harsher effects on white people.  In truth, a genuine racial nationalist movement cannot appeal to saleable notions of ‘freedom’, which are freedom only to get into debt, to race-mix and to ignore the long-term consequences of one’s actions.  Race-conscious freedom is inherently socialist in nature and exactly opposite of the liberal sense of freedom. It means asking the individual to recognising that he is part of a larger racial community, on which his own welfare and the welfare of others depends.  How this racial message can be made appealing is a different discussion, but the point is that by co-opting the canonical notion of freedom, the BNP contributed to making the British people less free.  Losing your homeland is no kind of freedom at all, even if you do have a nice new car and live in a hip culture.

Security This reflects the far-Right traditionalist interest in the ‘law and order’ agenda and its advocacy of a ‘crime control’ approach to the problem of crime and anti-social behaviour.  The slogan acts as code to whites who have legitimate and well-founded fears about the non-white impact on crime levels.  However, it also plays into the hands of anti-whites who want to suppress Nationalism and who favour the use of repressive measures against Nationalists to do so.  In effect, while liberals advocate sociological approaches to crime for the ordinary population (and perhaps rightly so), they are happy to deploy harsh crime control measures against Nationalists and others who are politically-inconvenient.

Identity The use of this term reflects the post-modern sense of insecurity and uncertainty that is endemic in an alienated society.  The idea is to give people a feeling of belonging and community that is lacking by appealing to a unified sense of who we are.  This is perfectly laudable, but it would be more substantive if predicated on race, which in the majority of cases is a pretty sure denominator.  By talking about ‘identity’ rather than race, the BNP turned what is a simple fact into a moveable and flexible concept and gave an opening to its opponents to frame the debate in terms of what is meant by ‘this’ or ‘that’ identity – usually ‘British’ identity, as the name of the Party suggests an attachment to Britain and the demonym ‘British’ can be made to seem inherently fluid and civic in nature.  Of course, we can always have an argument about what is meant by ‘white’ people, and there are also various media traps in race-based advocacy – such as DNA tests (see the case of Craig Cobb as an example) – that can be used to undermine us, but these largely come out of an obsession with identity, which appeals to narcissistic impulses, rather than a fixation on race, which is more rigid and scientific in its basis.  It is much harder to undermine a message built on ‘race’, rigid and unchanging, than on ‘identity’, which is inherently flexible and as in Cobb’s case, can even be demarcated by dubious science and percentages.  What we need is less identity and more race.  Alas, it seems that under Griffin, racial purity was segued into a civic, non-racial concept of identity.  That is what the BNP now stands for – admittedly, under force of law – but the process for turning the BNP into a civic nationalist party was begun by Griffin long before the infamous 2009 legal case.

Democracy The reasons for the use of this word, and the problems with it, echo the points in Freedom above.  A nice fuzzy word that helps lots of people feel good about themselves, but the problem is that it can be made to mean practically anything.  One has to ask what kind of democracy exists in a society that no longer serves the interests of the white racial group (if it ever did) and in which whites are out-voted by other, more effective racial blocs.

What all these nice-sounding words have in common is that they are the building block of a political language that is shorn of context and meaning, and as such is manipulative.  It is part of a phenomenon in modern liberal society that I call pseudo-positivism: i.e. the removal of social, economic, and racial meaning from language and its replacement with connotations and interactions that reflect whatever is practically-accepted or ‘works best’ in society. (See, my essays: ‘Race Consciousness and the Ebola Scare‘, ‘The Mechanics of Virtual Resistance‘, ‘Uncritical nationalism versus critical Nationalism‘, ‘Nationalism and the Hermeneutical Dilemma: some brief thoughts‘, ‘democracy versus Democracy, or Why the patient can’t be restored‘).  The most nefarious manifestation of the liberal, pseudo-positivist mindset is political correctness, something the BNP attacked vociferously while adopting its own style of linguistic correctness under Griffin.  Thus Griffin’s ‘liberalisation’ agenda, with its emphasis on language and presentation, had the effect of de-racinating the BNP.

Another new aspect of white nationalism that has come to prominence over the last ten years or so is the video movement.  This is perhaps encapsulated best by the efforts of David Duke, who has almost become nationalism’s answer to Michael Moore, only a little more substantial than his counterpart.  What David Duke and Michael Moore share is that they are both liberal – each of a different type.  Duke’s video channel on YouTube is worth visiting just to get a sense of what we are dealing with.  Duke has obviously changed his physical appearance and style to match his new-found Griffin-like liberalism.  The white beard, which looks comforting; the professorial manner; the spouting of dreary ‘Rights of Man’ twaddle; the talk of racial rights.  The idea is that Duke should appeal to the innate sense of fairness found in the ‘reasonable man’, the man on the street.  It is a reflection of our times that he has to do it not by being racial, as such, but by being liberal, implicitly Zionist and linguistically correct.  That I should make this accusation might at first seem odd and contradictory.  Duke’s main area of interest is Jews and Israel, and he explicitly attacks Zionism, so most people would not think of him as Zionist.  I would beg to differ.  Zionism is the interest served by Duke’s attacks on it.  Much like those sages of the British National Front, Mr. Duke can protest and affect to be an anti-Zionist all he likes, but in my eyes he is just another tool of the Jewish Racial State: implicitly ultra-Zionist.  To explain why, I would propose here to examine from a racial perspective an issue currently in the news: Israel’s attacks on Gaza.  

The ‘debate’/’discussion’ on Gaza is, I would contend, a case in point of the implicit Zionist tendency among the far-Right. The argument seems to be that there is some kind of external, universal standard that people and nations must adhere to in moral conduct. I would challenge this, as I think it is in reality just a lazy assumption. Any such standards are merely a guide, at best. In reality, life is a fight for survival. Culture, when looked at objectively, and whether it is Islam or Judaism or the zero-conscious non-culture of ethnic Europeans, is just a tool, a vessel, a means for a racial group to advance its own genetic perpetuation with varying degrees of success. That we Europeans have lost our culture and sit like zombies in front of Third World-manufactured blocks of substrate does not give us the right to sit in judgement on other cultures who are still successful at perpetuating the genes of their peoples. Those who think, for instance, that radical Muslims are primitive and uncivilised because they stone people, may have cause to re-evaluate their concept of ‘civilisation’ if those same Muslims are more successful than us in spreading their genes. What’s civilised or not does not depend on shallow, ignorant, self-centred, back-of-a-postcard notions of ‘niceness’ and ‘conscience’ that have been handed to us by media Jews, for their own ends. The harsh truth is that rest of the world – outside Europe and the Anglosphere – has no time for our ‘civilisation’ and childish decadence.  

The Israelis will not stop their attrition on Gaza and the Palestinians, even if we ask them nicely. The reason they are invading Gaza is because they realise that they have to fight for their existence. They won’t stop until they have annihilated the so-called ‘Palestinians’, through a combination of force and guile, just as they won’t stop their intellectual and cultural assault on our societies, no matter how outraged people get. And quite rightly so. ‘Rightly so’ because they have as much right to fight for their existence as the so-called ‘Palestinians’ do, and just as much right as white people do. They have the right to trick, and lie to us, and deceive us. That is not to condone such behaviour. I am not myself a Zionist in any sense and I am not a friend of the Jews. It’s simply to look at the situation objectively. Human rights mean nothing to a drowning man, and they mean nothing to a people fighting for its existence. That white people don’t seem interested in fighting for their existence and would rather sit on their sofas attacking those who do is neither here nor there. The problem isn’t that Jews are psychopaths. The problem is that we’re not more like Jews. We’re not prepared to defend ourselves racially any more, unlike Jews, who – to their credit – are. Instead, we’ve become this giggling, drug- and drink-fuelled, TV-obsessed mass of narcissists and emotional basket-cases who weep and cry about dead kiddies in a war thousands of miles away that we will never be able to contextualise or understand. It’s really just the mentality of children, which is what the White Race has become – just a bunch of fat, over-indulged moral teenagers whose politics is whatever uninformed, de-anchored, decontextualised juvenilia the global Jewish media can throw at us, while laughing at us behind our backs.

The more Duke and other far-Right figures, both in the UK and North America, blather and feign outrage at Gaza, the more Zionist they look.  Duke tends to talk in terms of the right of racial groups to exist, and often refers to established legalities that supposedly support this, but the reality is that there is no right for any race, group or individual to exist.  There is, however, a right for a people or race to fight for their existence.  Our argument should be that if the Arabs (Palestinians) and the Jews (Israelis) have this right, then so should whites.  This is an argument that needs to be made not to non-whites, whose racial interests are contrary to ours and whom we are ‘fighting’, but to our fellow whites.  It is not that whites as a racial group have inherent or inalienable rights or that a world with white people would be better; rather, it is that there is a right for white people to fight for their existence in the common genetic struggle: including against the ‘European Gaza’ that the Jews have created in our homelands.

This is why I have never been able to take the ‘new David Duke’ and his nonsense seriously, so for a long time now I have simply assumed that he was some kind of state puppet and that he had taken the American equivalent of The M(15)cGuinness Option, if you like, though it did also occur to me that he might be engaging in a legitimate tactic to insinuate himself into the agenda of non-whites in order to undermine them.  Actually, both explanations are equally plausible and need not be mutually exclusive.  The videos showcase Duke as the thorough-going narcissist that he is – not always a bad quality, but a quality that would support some combination of state involvement/Jew shilling, political expediency and base money-making.  However, recently I have begun to develop in my own mind an alternative, more sophisticated rationalisation for his actions, which I think needs to be considered alongside other, more obvious and baser explanations.  Duke clearly shares the genuine fear among all of us that whites will become a demographic minority in their own countries, and this is what may have prompted what he sees as a need to ‘liberalise’ White Nationalism and turn it into a rights movement – and to an extent, that may also be what motivated the Griffin BNP, which, as discussed above, transformed itself from a racial narrative under Tyndall into more of a liberal, rights-based narrative under Griffin.  ‘Rights for whites’ is an old slogan for the far-Right, but whereas in the past it might have represented an inarticulate and somewhat incongruous expression of white racial assertiveness, today increasingly under Duke’s ‘liberal’ national-socialism it has become a plaintive plea for more multi-culturalism, not less.  Of course, it is not difficult to appreciate the logic: if other non-white groups have the right to exist and expressively flourish, then so should whites, and so on.  The difficulty with all this emphasis on ‘rights’ is that it is a Jewish strategy that is being borrowed and like most of their ways of doing things, it entails huge risks. What the Jews are counting on is that, like a good-natured pup, the dumb white keeps looking at the finger and not where it’s pointing. One might ask: If Jews and other groups are not allowed a ‘racial morality’ and cannot attack Gaza to the extent their capability allows, then maybe white people shouldn’t be allowed a similar right to fight for their existence and should instead bow down and accept whatever second-class status might be on offer in this new multi-cultural society – so long as they can exist. If the Jews of 3,000 years ago had been satisfied merely with existing, then they most probably would not be still here today.  It was their willingness to fight, and indeed risk their existence, that propelled them.  What Duke and his semitically-correct counterparts on the American Right ask us to do is conform to some fictitious liberal morality, which we know is fanciful, and be beholden to Jews, who can easily smooth over the contradictions in their own position. Wouldn’t a better approach be simply to point out that if the Jews can fight for their existence in Palestine (a matter on which we should take a neutral position), then likewise we white people should be able to fight for our existence too? Buying into all this liberal pap may be the line of least resistance/popular, but ultimately it’s self-defeating.  The only answer is to adopt a properly racial position.  That means neutrality on Palestine and to also point out, both to Jews and the putative anti-Zionists, that just as Jews have a right to fight for their existence, so do whites.

End Notes

I couldn’t fit the below neatly into the essay, so I include it below.

First, continuing my ‘Developed Mantra’ theme, a good question to ask Jews would be:

If you Jews can defend yourselves in Israel, then why do you think it is wrong for whites in Europe to do similar?

Better still, an adapted form of that question should be put to whites – especially those who, with a bit of persuasion, might be sympathetic to us.

On the implicit ‘Zionism’ of the ‘controlled opposition’ in the West – i.e. far-Right and the far-Left – I have not mentioned much of the far-Left in this regard, but now will, very briefly: One reason the so-called ‘anti-Zionist’ Left serves the Jews very well is that it provides cover for the real Gaza, which is the Jewish attack on whites, and means that any criticism of Israel is made to look like a criticism of Jews and therefore ‘anti-semitism’.  Obviously, the far-Right’s own ‘anti-Zionism’ can only aid this objective, which is why genuine Racial Nationalists should be neutral on Palestine and should instead ask Jews about their own influence in our society: the ‘European Gaza’, and should also ask whites to direct their attention to this large and ignored ‘elephant in the room’.

My opinion is that Zionism and anti-Zionism are simply two sides of the same coin – much like most anti-capitalists are actually just supporters of capitalism in a different form.  They may not be conscious of their own complicitly, but that is not necessarily an excuse.

In the case of the far-Right – including the BNP, the National Front, the BDP, etc., etc. – they have all worked to serve Zionist interests in one way or another.  It may be that in most cases this service was unrendered unconsciously and ‘by omission’ – I have no problem accepting that, but having genuine motives is not enough.  The truth matters.  The whole history of the British far-Right is something that needs a revisionist re-examination: including its Zionism and the real possibility (which I consider likely) of it having been under state control.

Second, my response to Griffin’s Four Words (as mentioned above – my own term for it) would be:

Solidarity instead of ‘Freedom’.

Community instead of ‘Democracy’.

Race instead of ‘Identity’

Safety instead of ‘Security’.

I’ll call that ‘the New Four Words’, but it’s something that needs work.  It’s just a start.  The point is that any messages we adopt should achieve the balance of being appealing to those sections of the population we can realistically hope to attract, but also true to our core beliefs and loyalties.  We should not try to argue on our enemy’s own terms just for the sake of hoped-for electoral success, which can only be short-term and transient anyway and will not lead to meaningful reform.

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.

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

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