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.
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.