Why I am an Anti-Anti-Zionist and Pro Anti-Semitism, Or The Logic of Tribalism

Tags

Alaska, aliyah, Alt White, Andrew Anglin, Anti-Anti-Zionism, anti-fascisms, anti-fascists, anti-immigrant, anti-Jewish, Anti-Nationalism, Anti-Semite, anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Australasia, BNP, body politic, bravery, Britain First, British National Party, British people, British politics, British public life, Christianised politics, Christianity, Clapton Common, community-building, conservative, courage, critique, David Lane, diaspora Jews, EDL, English Defence League, Europe, European Gaza, exo-politics, fake Anti-Zionism, fake anti-Zionists, far-Left, far-Right, fascism, First Wave Nationalism, Fourteen Words, Garron Helm, Gaza, groupuscular movement, groupuscules, Haredi community, Haredi Jews, hate, Hitlerism, Hold Back This Day, ideological holding pens, ideology, Islamoskepticism, Israel, Jewish anti-fascist, Jewish influence, Jewish people, Jewry, Jews, John Londen, Joshua Bonehill, Joshua Bonehill-Paine, Judaism, Left, liberal, Liberate Stamford Hill, London, make aliyah, Middle Eastern Gaza, National Action, Nationalism, Nationalist Complementarity, Nationalist Unity, neo-Nazism, Neo-Tribalism, New Tribe philosophy, Nick Grifford, North America, North London, North West Infidels, NWI, online debates, Orthodox Jews, Pakistani Muslims, Political Judaism, political Nationalism, Popular Nationalism, Post-Nationalism, pro-immigrant, pro-Jewish, pro-white Nationalism, race, racial groups, Racial Intentional Community, racialism, racialist, racism, Rags Make Paper, Right, Right of Return, Second Wave Nationalism, Stamford Hill, the Cause, The Daily Stormer, the Nationalist Movement, There Is A White Alternative, TIWA, traditional Nationalism, tribal logic, Tribalism, ultra-Orthodox Jews, virtual activism, virtual Resistance, Ward Kendall, Western civilisation, Western Spring, Westphalia Treaty, Westphalian Nationalism, white British, white conscious communities, white ethno-states, White Independent Nation, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, white people, White Race, white racial exo-politics, WIN

Why I am an Anti-Anti-Zionist and Pro Anti-Semitism, Or The Logic of Tribalism

I am going to suggest in this piece that White Nationalism, as such, is over and must be replaced by a strategy of White Neo-tribalism. That’s a bold assertion to say the least, I know, but I believe I can back this up this with solid evidence.    What I am about to say has specificity to the UK, but I also believe this analysis has broader application to pro-white Nationalism elsewhere.  My starting point is a series of insightful articles and podcasts by my friend, Nick Grifford on the website of White Independent Nation and his excellent blog, Rags Make Paper.  I commend to readers the following articles and podcasts in particular:

Why Nationalism Fails [WIN podcast]

Unity and the NBU [article]

The Movement [WIN podcast]

None of which is to say that Nick Grifford or WIN endorse my views.  What follows consists of my own personal opinions and conclusions.

Exhibit A in the case against Nationalism is 70 years of traditional Westphalian (far-Right) reactionarianism in alliance with the odd, retrograde sub-cultures of neo-Nazism and Hitlerism.  Other than keeping the flame alive – which I will concede is something in its own right – we cannot claim any permanent achievements either at the ballot box or in claiming a significant proportion of the masses as our own, with the result that Popular Nationalism lacks any settled status in British political life: not a healthy situation for the body politic or for the British people themselves.

The political strategy has failed and the democratic machinery is now closed to us – at least, for the time being.  The failure of the democratic Nationalist parties has left a vacuum into which new groupuscules have stepped – in the UK they include National Action, Western Spring, and White Independent Nation, among others (what I have elsewhere called the Second Wave of Nationalism) – as well as the various street-based militant off-shoots of the EDL and the BNP, ranging from the moderate and Christianist Britain First to the hardline North West Infidels.  What distinguishes the first three mentioned, which I will focus on here, is their New (Post?)Nationalist character, in that their methods and ideology differ from traditional Nationalism.  National Action, Western Spring and WIN all believe that the democratic way has failed and share a determination to build an alternative strategy, which takes various discrete but complementary forms – counter-cultural warfare and alternative fundraising (Western Spring), street agitation (National Action) and community-building (White Independent Nation, ‘WIN’).  WIN and Western Spring in particular have adopted imagery that signals a departure from traditional Nationalism and that may form the basis for an entirely new and distinct approach to engagement with the masses regarding our ideas.

However ‘democratic’ Nationalism has not gone away entirely and, if anything, is undergoing its own resurgence in quite hardline form, albeit primarily online: the most prominent and successful example of this being the tabloidesque site, The Daily Stormer.  The success of that site reflects a revivalism among motivated, computer-literate, young white men interested in Nazi chic and German National Socialism-redux and what they think was its associated ideology and symbolism.  It is among this milieu that a sort of virtual resistance movement has emerged.  In contrast to what might be described as virtual activism, which is really reactivism, this pro-active resistance has taken on many and varied forms, all designed to achieve dents in the morale of the agents of the West’s Anti-White Establishment. These tactics range from organised Twitter attacks against prominent Jewish politicians, to using social media to plan and organise real world marches, protests and demonstrations.

Against that background, in the last few days a British National Socialist activist and leader of a group called the British National Resistance, Joshua Bonehill, has announced a demonstration on the 22nd. March in Stamford Hill, North London, against its local Haredi Jewish community and their use of a communal security force, Shomrim.  I have posted up two articles in response to Bonehill’s initiative: Jewish community-building: a vindication of WIN and ‘Leave Palestine’ or ‘Leave Europe’: some further (brief) thoughts on Liberate Stamford Hill.

Those articles outline my critique of Bonehill’s boldness (while also praising him for his courage and initiative).  Surely if our true aim is racial survival, then we want racial separation, not integration, and communal activities of this kind among ultra-Orthodox Jews are therefore to be welcomed.  I do acknowledge that activism such as this is bold, courageous and dynamic and moreover can be useful in that it galvanises the various factions and groupuscules that make up Nationalism today.  Perhaps activism such as this can also help by applying some political pressure on those who are at least partially-responsible for our plight.  However, ultimately I believe Liberate Stamford Hill is a futile exercise.  The following exerpt from the first of my two aforementioned articles summarises the point:

I am not sure I am willing to agree with Bonehill that the presence of a Jewish ethnic community at the heart of our capital is a bad thing. Indeed, I must confess that I am slightly puzzled as to why Bonehill, a racialist, and others like him, would see such a community as a threat. Surely national integration with non-white groups is wholly antithetical to our aims and objectives. If the White Race is to survive, we need to separate: preferably geographically, but more importantly, racially separate, which implies we live separate lives. If Orthodox Jews, with their Shomrim and panoply of ritual and custom and unique social life, feel sufficiently threatened that they wish to move towards separation, far be it from us to discourage them.

Far from protesting against Stamford Hill, we should probably be cheering them on, but in any event, the reality is that such communities exist and are accepted – not just for Jews but more obviously for Pakistani Muslims as well, and also for blacks. The presence of such communities surely only serves to illustrate the relevancy of WIN‘s strategy for those who are dedicated to white preservation.

As I see it, this debate illustrates the difference between a Tribalist and a Nationalist. Whereas we, the Tribalists, see these racial threats as welcome opportunities to strengthen our own kind racially, Nationalists see such threats as one more opportunity for plaintive protest: whinging, whining and pleading at the feet of our enemies, in the hope of concessions.

It’s time for Nationalists of all stripes to adopt effective tactics.

Liberate Stamford Hill is a tribute to the courage of Bonehill, and if his demonstration achieves something constructive for white interests (and it is my hope that it does), no-one will be more delighted and enthused than me.  But it is also a pluperfect illustration of why we as race-conscious whites continue to suffer.  We have overlooked our essence in favour of Jewish abstractions.  We have allowed ourselves to be corralled into bitter reactionary holding-pens of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, ‘pro-immigrant’ and ‘anti-immigrant’, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, ‘pro-Jewish’ and ‘anti-Jewish’.  We have allowed ourselves to be moulded by our enemies.

Recently I fell into an online exchange with a Jewish anti-fascist activist.   In the end, we parted cordially (I think) and I offered him my e-mail address so that he could contact me further in the hope that we could continue our discussion in more depth, as we seemed to be making progress in understanding each other.  One thing that struck me from what my opponent continually reiterated during our exchange was the way everything he said was underpinned by a keen sense of tribal identity and cultural replication.  I had to acknowledge to him that in this sense white people still have a great deal to learn from Jews, but at the same time I do think Jews also need to learn to listen more to the concerns of whites – for their own benefit as much as ours.  This Jew assumed that I favour racial segregation and expounded on the supposed ills of this institution.  I replied that it is not me who favours such segregation, but him, the multi-culturalist.  I explained that the only cure for racial segregation is racial separation, and that it is the enforced multi-culturalism of the mixed-racial kind that he supports that is the driving force of the segregation and its ills that he cites.  If Jews and other non-whites could be resettled out of European homelands, we would not ‘hate’ them.

He may or may not have understood the point, but I believe the only possible future is that we reach an accord with Jewry, that they recognise our usefulness and the white manifest imperative, and we in turn recognise the right of Jews to fight for their racial survival.  He had assumed I was an online genocidal lunatic and expressed surprise when I explained to him that, while I am an anti-Semite, it needn’t follow that I hate Jews individually or collectively.  My opposition to Jews and Jewry does not translate into visceral hate.  It is, rather, a wish to fight for my own race’s existence while acknowledging the right of Jews (and others) to fight for their existence.  In that sense, anti-Semitism (i.e. opposition to Jewish intrusion) is as much a natural result of white folk consciousness as Islamoskepticism might, for some Jews in some situations,  manifest as a natural result of Jewish ethno-consciousness.  Indeed, we see this Islamoskepticism (what Jews like to call ‘fear’ and ‘hate’ among whites) growing among the Jewish population as the reality of mass immigration dawns on them. To describe a person as ‘hateful’ simply for having these natural instincts is not only disingenuous, but dangerous, as it denies each of us the right to express and celebrate our genetic kinship with those who are racially and culturally closest to us, creating needless anger and frustration among individuals in society.

I explained to my Jewish interlocutor my view that multi-culturalism is the Jewish national survival strategy, while homogeneity is the white national survival strategy.  One naturally conflicts with the other.  This is why we are at ‘war’ with each other.  I believe the solution we whites should be proposing is peace rather than war.  Not Zionism.  Zionism belongs to Jewish nationals.  I am not a Zionist and no-one who is white should be.  What happens in Palestine is the business of the Arabs and the Jews and any other actors present.  It is the right of all sides to fight for their existence, and in recognising this, we should have the honesty to acknowledge that Jews have a legitimate right to fight and that we, as Europeans, having little or no understanding of the matter, should focus on our own racial survival and our own territorial imperatives.

On that latter point, it is true that diaspora Jews have played a significant role in undermining white cohesion and white interests, due to their proclivity for usury and degeneracy and their preference for multi-racial intrusion in Western societies.  This is not the only reason for the racial and cultural decline of Europe, but it is a factor, and in so far as organised and activist Jewry is and has been a factor, I believe that those who want to protest should tackle the problem head-on and exploit the pressure points.  This is why I do reserve some admiration for Joshua Bonehill, in that he has taken the initiative in organising a demonstration against Jews, not concerning the Middle Eastern Gaza, but the European Gaza – the emergent Third World future in our own backyard.  In doing so, Bonehill (and other brave activists who take on diaspora Jewry, like Garron Helm) are close to the truth of the solution to our racial plight, but they must still cross a difficult emotional and intellectual Rubicon: to reject Nationalism and embrace the essence of our cause: White Tribalism.  That means going back to basics and recognising who we are, where we have come from, where we are and where we are going.  It means returning to the roots and embracing the essentialism of the Fourteen Words – a non-ideological and non-confrontational creed – and not only propounding this, but living it as well by forming white conscious communities, business alliances and support networks that mimic mainstream society and that ultimately establish our own parallel authority.  Only when we start to act as a tribe can be begin to make progress towards eternal white survival.  In short: white survival means anarchism.

Our message to the Jews should be ‘Leave Europe’, not ‘Leave Palestine’.  We should be Anti-Anti-Zionists, leaving the fake narratives of Anti-Zionism to the left-wing tools and shills who will stand in opposition to Joshua Bonehill on March 22nd.  They want Jews to leave Palestine and come to Europe: which should confirm to all but the most purblind the true bankruptcy of Anti-Zionism.  We want Jews out of Europe, and if they want to go to Palestine, that’s their business.  As for Zionism, they’re welcome to it.  What ‘Europe’ is, or becomes, in the distant future in view of socio-demographic realities, I do not know.  The ‘Europe’ of the future may be geographically much as it is today, but very white, or it may be frontier communities in an Alaskan wilderness, or a small cluster of ethno-states on the brink of planetary racial oblivion, or even, a white society on a different planet altogether.  What I do know is that we whites want separation, not integration; we want sovereignty, not segregation.   That is what makes us tribalists.  That is what renders Nationalism per se redundant.  That is what makes ‘Europe’ our true nation, wherever Europe may be, and indeed, whatever Europe may be.  Yes, the ideal scenario would be that the approximate 8.2 million Jews currently in Europe, North America and Australasia make aliyah. I for one would be more than happy with such an outcome.  I am no friend of the Jews.  I’m sure I, and plenty of others, would contribute to a whip-round for Helga and Izzy’s plane fares.  But we may have to accept that, at least in our own lifetimes, the outcome we live to see will be less than ideal.

We, the race-conscious revolutionaries, are not the majority of whites, let alone the majority on the planet.  We are the ‘minority of the minority of the minority’.  Our role now is not to maintain a nation but to maintain a tribe, to maintain the racial and cultural membrane that will preserve our distinctiveness and genius as a race.  That requires active resistance, not passive politiking.  It means there is going to be a movement breach between those of us who accept a robust form of neo-tribalism as the way forward for racial survival, the sine qua non, and those who want to cling on to the Zionist wreckage of bankrupt geopolitical constructs.  The Jews are asking us to become more multi-cultural (in the mixed-racial sense), and thus, by definition, less white.  That is an attack on the essence of us, the White Race.  We in reply should ask the Jews to become more homogenous, and thus, by definition, more Jewish, and in the process, we become more white.  That is our defence: to indirectly help the Jews advance their own cause in the hope and expectation that we will maintain ours.  Such is tribal logic.

What I Would Do

Tags

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

What I Would Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are we? White people.

What are we doing? Preserving the white race.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Debasement of Man: a brief comment on Dr. Matt Taylor

Tags

abstract concepts, abstraction, Arabs, belief system, black people, blacks, Christian morality, Christianity, civil rights, Civilisation, credo, cultural hegemony, culture, debasement, Dr. Matt Taylor, Dr. Taylor, engineering, equalitarian socialism, equality, ESA, ethnic enemies, European Space Agency, Fake Jewish Socialism, feminism, feminists, gender, gender equality, gender inequality, genetic improvement, healthy socialism, Hell, human beings, humanity, ideology, inclusion, individualism, individuality, inequality, Jewish, Jewish alien, Jewish influence, Jews, Judaism, Laws of Nature, liberalism, Man, Matt Taylor, Middle East, Middle Eastern peasants, militant feminists, National Socialism, National Socialist, Nature, New Social Movements, Persians, Pharisees, political correctness, positivism, progress, progressive, progressive societies, pseudo-positivism, public humiliation, race, racial competitiors, racial enemies, racial group, religion, Rosetta probe, science, scientific socialism, self-actualisation, show trial, Slave Morality, socialism, space, space science, technical culture, technology, universalism, universalist morality, Victim Worship, village stocks, Western civilisation, White Civilisation, white people, White Race, whites

The Debasement of Man: a brief comment on Dr. Matt Taylor

The video above is one of the most uncomfortable I have ever seen.  I had to force myself to watch the cruel, cringe-worthy spectacle through to the end.  It is a show trial confession, a high-tech simulation of a man publicly humiliated in the village stocks.  It is chilling – perhaps even a pin-hole vision to a future hell. I call it ‘debasement’, which is a strong word, but that is what we see in the video above.  An intelligent and capable man who shares credit for one of the greatest science and engineering achievements of our time is reduced to a quivering wreck under threat of losing his career and further public humiliation – all for wearing a shirt.

There is, I think, an age-old tendency of the weak to try and pull down the strong.  Often this tendency is an expression of something healthy: a desire among the put-upon group to liberate themselves from the yoke of their superiors.  This is admirable and I think it reflects an underlying manifest imperative among all human beings: the will-to-freedom.  Without it, society cannot progress and we cannot have progressive societies, but I use the word ‘progressive’ in its truest sense, which is to say: I refer to progress, to the desire found in every healthy and normal human being for ever-fuller self-actualisation.

Not all advancement is progress.  In particular, for progress to arise, we must recognise a certain basic fact about human beings: we are not equal.  Men and women are not equal.  White and black people are not – on average – equal in their capacity to build and sustain technical cultures.  And so on. Hermeneutically, ‘equality’ and ‘inequality’ have supplanted the simple, common-sensical recognition that different people are – different.  To deny these differences is to deny the basis of progress.  It is to stunt the evolution of human potential and instead reduce us to something like ants, a slave race scurrying around on a heap of dirt.  Any advancement that denies, or does not follow, the most elementary principle of Nature – inequality – is likely to be retrograde.

The New Social Movements such as feminism, civil rights and equalitarian socialism, that have journeyed from the eccentric fringe to becoming the mainstream cultural hegemony, do not respect these realities.  That is why their adherents rely so much on abstract concepts, positivist language and appeals to universal moral principles.  In the hands of a militant feminist or a Jewish communist, concepts such as ‘democracy’, ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ assume a malleability of such elasticity that the lingo is, to the naive observer, meaningless.  The realist understands the dirty little secret of these people.  It is that they are simply expressing some group interest.  Appeals to ‘fairness’ or ‘equality’ or ‘democracy’ are invariably appeals to the interests of Jews, blacks or pushy middle-class women – or whatever.

I consider it necessary to separate this largely fake ‘socialism’ from what I would regard as ‘healthy socialism’, which is a belief that society is a symbiosis of different interest groups that must and should work corporatively; that people should receive a fair deal and not be abused; that economic and political power must not be concentrated in the hands of a few; that any material inequality that pertains must not be permitted to grow too great, for it represents a threat to civilisation itself; and in its scientific form, that society should work co-operatively and hold its resources in common.  How those principled positions translate into practice can be argued to-and-forth, but not one of those principles even remotely embraces the notion that we should organise our society around the whims and feelings of weak and silly people.

National-socialism is a creed of excellence.  It is the celebration of might and strength, a love for one’s own people (Race), a belief in genetic (racial) improvement, a wish for civilisational advancement – and above all else, an opposition to (but not necessarily a simple hatred of) the Jewish alien.  A national-socialist (white-conscious) society would honour men like Dr. Matt Taylor and propel them to the stars.  We would not trouble ourselves with his political reliability or whether he or the organisation he works for believes in such things as ‘inclusion’ or ‘gender equality’.  That is because Dr. Taylor and others like him – both men and women – are the very embodiment of inequality.  They could not exist or pursue their innate brilliance without a fundamental and widespread belief in inequality and its benefits.  The apparent denial of these natural realities is what is pulling us into the abyss.

What is surprising is the way that this Fake Jewish Socialism – a victim ideology – has been accepted and become second-nature, reflexively quoted and cited in conversations, speeches, articles and monographs everywhere.  I believe it is simply a secular extension of Christianity and its slave morality. I regard Christianity as poison.  It is Judaism for Gentiles – the creed of Middle Eastern peasants, not successful men.  It is the type of belief system that would have advantaged a desert kritarchy who, surrounded by ethnic enemies and without any natural defences, might have sought to mentally enslave a much larger and less cohesive enemy racial group using soft measures.  You will note that the Jews’ other racial competitors, the Arabs and Persians, later adopted a religion of very similar provenance to Christianity.

Alas, Church attendance might be in decline, but the credo and ideology of the Pharisees is still very much alive and has its fanatical adherents positioned throughout society still. Only, their deity is no longer a Middle Eastern Jewish god, but something still more abstract: a special type of Equality.  Those who show any sign of resistance to this prevailing Slave Morality and Victim Worship, be it conscious, explicit actions or, as in the case of Dr. Taylor, in the form of unconscious tacit resistance – such as wearing a shirt that expresses one’s individuality – must be silenced and crushed.

Britain Is Dying

Tags

affordable housing, alcohol, Birmingham Trojan horse scandal, Britain, children, classroom, cultural system, culture, drugs, dumb whites, education, elites, Elle Gallagher, English, English people, Esther Rantzen, European nations, extremism, extremist programming, God, hate crimes, housing, Iraq, Iraqis, Islam, Islamic jihad, Islamists, Israel, jail, jail cells, Jeremy Kyle, Jewish influence, Jews, jihad, jihadist, Jill Dando, jilted generation, Judaism, Kurds, Kuridstan, luciferian, men, morons, Muslims, parents, political lying, political truth, prison, propaganda, radicalisation, recreational drugs, Salafism, Salafist, Salafist infiltration, schooling, schools, self-esteem, slavery, slaves, Syria, Syrians, teachers, truth, white people, zero-conscious culture, zero-consciousness, Zionism, Zionist elite, Zionist influence, Zionist mafia, Zionists

Britain Is Dying – a comment from Elle Gallagher

Britain is dying. It’s people are being replaced as part of the white genocide project carried out by Zionist mafia. Hundreds of thousands of girls walk the streets missing half their vaginas now and many of them live as slaves to a cultural system that begets them no rights as women, under threat of death for dishonouring the family name.

Many tens of thousands of children have been brutally sex trafficked for decades with the rapists assisted by social workers, police, politicians and media.

4 beheadings last year.

Trojan horse scandals with Salafist infiltration of state schools in addition to hundreds of Saudi sponsored madrassas allowed to operate with impunity breeding generations of jihadists just biding their time before they wage the jihad upon our shores.

Many of these jihadists see a jihad on foreign shores and such is their programming are drawn to it like a moth to light and engaging in the most brutal slaughter and oppression of Syrians, Kurds and Iraqis.

London riots.

Illiteracy and innumeracy and degeneracy abound in much of the youth. Jeremy Kyle providing an endless conveyor belt of morons; a creation intended by the schemers and plotters last century.

Our men sent off to fight wars for Israel that have absolutely nothing to do with our nations bar the Zionist mafia that rule over it and our continued blind obedience to them.

The mafia as evil as they have appointed paedophiles and vile vile creatures to do their work for them as they like to remain hidden, which is why children’s homes have been used as a source for rapists, torturers and murders in blood sacrifices to their luciferian God. And why even now when their crimes are becoming exposed the elites still remain untouchable because the sheep keep voting for them. They can murder significant figures who are decent and stumble onto their crimes like Jill Dando. When Esther Rantzen was telling you all how good childline was she failed to mention the grooming that went on at her parties with kids plied with drink and drugs.

English people who have dared speak out languish in jail cells for breaking whatever law the masters put in place to silence us with. Pretty soon I may find myself among this number.

And I may soon be among their number, for I set off some time ago to understand this world as it is not expecting what i would discover, but what i did discover is that no matter how bad things get, no matter crimes evil men bestow upon our nation or how they bleed our nations barely anyone cares for its destruction and the nation their children will inherit.

I discovered truths that most ridicule and dismiss and think irrelevant when the reality is these truths are the master architects of misery and destruction and are effecting OUR destruction. Our culture and our people are sick. They have our minds hooked onto trivial distractions while they feast upon the blood of this nation. They have most programmed to condemn readily anyone who speaks the truth.

When children once could play out all day long decent parents daren’t let them out in many parts because of the gangs and degenerate hell that awaits them.

Teachers scared of children in the classroom.

And many teachers of integrity find themselves on the wrong side of the system unable to speak out for fear of losing their job.

Millions of our young unable to find work, afford housing, have a life of self esteem and contribution because they have been marginalised, the jilted generation.

If this sounds depressing give it another 30 years and wait and see what our ignorance and apathy bestows upon tomorrow’s generation.

“I feel very much at home…”

Tags

Albert Bore, Aston University, Ayrshire, Birmingham, Birmingham City Council, Birmingham schools, Britain, Civilisation, Councillor Sir Albert Bore, councillors, dhimmitude, east Birmingham schools, education, egalitarianism, Europe, faith schools, far-Right, fascism, Guardian (UK newspaper), Hardons Blog, Ian Kershaw, indigenous Europeans, intellect, intelligence, intelligent liberals, intelligentsia, Islam, islamic extremism, Islamic extremism fallacy, Islamic schools, Islamofascism, Islamophobia, Jewish ancestry, Jewish influence, Jewish media, Jews, Kershaw Report, Labour councillors, Labour Party, liberal racial supremacism, liberalism, local government, MCB, Meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools [MCB pamphlet], Mohammedian religion, Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Parents Association, Muslims, narcissism, Nationalism, nuclear reactor physics, OFSTED, Peter Clarke, PhD, pluralism, politics, pseudo-positivism, race, Racial Nationalism, Racial Nationalists, reactionary politics, Salafi, Salafi sect, schools, Scotland, Scottish ancestry, Scottish civic identity, Scottish culture, Scottish lowlands, Scottish society, secular state schools, Tahir Alam, taqiyya, the Jewish Problem, The Puzzle of Albert Bore, Third World, Third Worlders, Trojan Horse, UK, UK government, University of Birmingham, white agenda, white interests, white people, White Race, white taqiyya, whites, Wikipedia

“I feel very much at home…”

“I have to say to you that I feel very much at home among the Muslim community in Birmingham, not least because so many Muslims have chosen to make Birmingham their home.”

With that solecistic utterance, Sir Albert Bore, a Labour councillor and leader of Birmingham City Council, began a speech to Birmingham’s Muslims on the occasion of the Prophet Mohammed’s birthday back in 2013.  This was before the emergence of the so-called Trojan horse scandal of Islamic Salafi interference and infiltration in the management of Birmingham’s schools, an institution over which Bore’s Council presided.  More on that in a moment, but let me say first that I, for one, would prefer that, where possible, white people should develop a more cerebral and nuanced understanding of our situation and appreciate the complex forces at work, particularly Jewish influences.  Focusing on Muslims is tempting and completely understandable: they are a menace, and the false narrative put across by the media that most Muslims are ‘moderates’ in matters of Islam and Western society needs to be tackled head-on. Nevertheless, it is the poison that the Jews pump into our media and institutional life that needs to be highlighted.  Jews are the glue that is keeping the anti-white project together.  If we can expose them and gain mass consciousness about the Jewish Problem, then the whole edifice will come tumbling down like a deck of cards.

Still, when the occasion demands, I join with those who stand against the growing and pernicious influence of Muslim and Islamic influence in this country and Europe. In that regard, the following video should be compulsory viewing for anyone who is in the slightest doubt about the existential danger the White Race faces from the Muslims. Seeing is believing.  Thanks to the excellent Hardons Blog for bringing this to wider attention in one of its recent articles.  Here we have what appears to be a white man calling for critics of Islam to be gagged and criminalised; a supposed ‘white man’ acquiescing in the destruction of his own kind.

It appears Bore is a former academic by profession, with a PhD in nuclear reactor physics from the University of Birmingham, having lectured in that subject at Aston University.  The man is therefore assumed to be intelligent, and in fact probably has more brains than the rest of us put together.  Thus, we are faced with a puzzle, if not a contradiction.  Some people would try to explain the puzzle by personalising the matter and simply denouncing Bore as evil, stupid or both.  I would beg to differ.  I believe the explanation is neither of these things.  After listening to Bore’s speech above, and from reading Bore’s comments and statements on the Trojan Horse affair, I think he is guided by a genuine belief in the rightness of his views and actions.  Above all else, he embodies the present liberal malaise among the elite in our society in that certain notions and concepts indigenous to European civilisation – democracy, equality, respect, civic decency – are abstracted and treated as a good in themselves, to which anyone of whatever racial or cultural origin can adhere without significant difficulty.  This template explains Bore’s whole approach to a range of issues.

Bore must know that what he is espousing is ridiculous, since the Mohammedian construct is inherently fascistic and thus conflicts with a pluralistic society, and furthermore, the interests of Muslims conflicts with the interests of whites.  One of the things that interests me is the way that intellectuals in our society can take these positions, knowing very well that they are encouraging the destruction of the very society that supports their endeavours and grants them the freedoms that a critical life thrives on. Islam has to be the most illiberal system of thought yet devised, and presents an obvious contradiction to a scholastic vocation, but this is not just about considering values and ideas in a vacuum.  There is the broader matter of race to consider.  It is difficult to square a commitment to Western civilisation with condoning the mass importation of Third Worlders, which is its negation. Change the races, change the faces, and you change society, its culture and values. A Third World population means a Third World society. A large Muslim population means significant concessions to Islam, and ultimate dhimmitude at some unspecified time in the future for our children. This is all obvious, is it not? So obvious, one wonders why I should have to spell it out.  Yet intelligent people like Mr. Bore don’t seem to understand this – or do they?

It’s a mark of the cesspool level to which I’ve dropped that whenever I see a public figure speak in this way, I always run a cursory web check to see if there is any indication of a Jewish ancestry. You’d be surprised.  ‘Bore’ is, reputedly, an Old English name and Wikipedia tuns up blank on his personal background.  I’m suspicious of him, but in the absence of evidence, I’ll assume he is ‘one of us’. Maybe it’s just his Scottish background or upbringing (Ayrshire)?  The lowlands of Scotland are known especially for fermenting an egalitarian attitude to politics, a cultural more that manifests itself in Scottish politics today, with its incessant ‘problematising’ of that Nation’s civic identity.  And as a former left-winger myself, I know how difficult it can be to leave behind beliefs that you have grown up with. Or perhaps he had a privileged or advantaged upbringing and is a bit closeted and naive?  What’s the score with him?  Is this just another example of the Labour Party’s wishful political dhimmitude to local Muslims for electoral reasons?  Or is it an indication of something more sinister?

Maybe this article provides an answer.  From the Halesowen News, it speculates about likely Labour Party candidates for selection in a Birmingham constituency:

…Najma Hafeez has had a long, and sometimes controversial, public life in Birmingham where she was a councillor for over 13 years.

She is the former wife of Birmingham City Council’s Labour leader Sir Albert Bore and in 1983 was the youngest and first Muslim woman elected to office in the city.

She rose through the ranks and became chair of several powerful committess including education, chair of social services and community affairs.

It seems the couple split in a nasty divorce:

She was married to the Birmingham City Council Labour leader Sir Albert Bore and they had two children. But the couple’s bitter split ended up in the courts when Sir Albert was cleared of assaulting her by throwing coffee in her face.

Their two children, now-grown up sons, are Omar Hafeez-Bore and Firaz Hafeez-Bore.  So Albert Bore has burned his ships in the manner of Hernán Cortés.  This explains a great deal.  He knows there is no going back for him now.

Earlier in the summer, when the media reported on the scandal of Islamic fundamentalist (Salafi) Trojan horse interference and infiltration of Birmingham’s schools, Albert Hafeez-Bore, as leader of Birmingham City Council, apologised for the failures of the Council in stopping these nefarious activities.  The following is taken from a report in the liberal Guardian:

Their activities were unimpeded by council officials who were fearful of allegations of Islamophobia, who forced ousted teachers to sign gagging clauses rather than treating their complaints seriously as whistleblowers, Ian Kershaw, the authority’s independent adviser, concluded.

Sir Albert Bore, leader of the city’s Labour-run council, apologised on Friday to the people of Birmingham “for the way the actions of a few, including some within the council, have undermined the great reputation of our city”.

However, this apology came only after a damning report by an independent education consultant, Ian Kershaw [only a redacted version was published], which stated that there was:

 ‘determined effort to change schools, often by unacceptable practices, to influence religious and education provision’.

The Report found a five step Trojan horse strategy at work in eight schools in east Birmingham where there is a heavy concentration of the Salafi community:

Step 1: Target poorly-performing schools in Muslim areas.

Step 2: Select parents to turn against schools.

Step 3: Install governors to encourage Islamic ideals.

Step 4: Identify key staff to disrupt from within.

Step 5: Instigate campaign of pressure.

Evidence of this strategy at work was found to some degree in the operation of ten schools in all.  The Report concluded:

There has been co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action, carried out by a number of associated individuals, to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamic ethos into a few schools in Birmingham. This has been achieved by gaining influence on the governing bodies, installing sympathetic headteachers or senior members of staff, appointing like-minded people to key positions, and seeking to remove headteachers they do not feel to be sufficiently compliant. Some of these individuals are named in this report; most are not. Whether their motivation reflects a political agenda, a deeply held religious conviction, personal gain or a desire to influence communities, the effect has been to limit the life chances of the young people in their care and to render them more vulnerable to pernicious influences in the future.

These findings were based on solid evidence collected by Kershaw and should be of concern to whites because, despite what the report says (Kershaw inexplicably is in denial and states there is no evidence of a ‘plot’), all this is evidence of a systematic and planned strategy among Muslims and Islamists to take-over our communities, and ultimately the whole country.  Actually, if anything the Kershaw Report was mild and moderate in its conclusions.  The findings of the parallel OFSTED investigation were far more damning and found “co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained” attempts to introduce an Islamic ethos into different schools.

This strategy has been called ‘Operation Trojan Horse’ – an organised attempt by Islamists to “covertly co-opt schools in England”.  The Wikipedia article states:

Tahir Alam, the chairman of the Park View Educational Trust which runs six schools in Birmingham, was found to have written a 72-page document for the Muslim Council of Britain in 2007 detailing a blueprint for the “Islamisation” of secular state schools.

A link to Tahir Alam’s 72-page booklet, ‘Meeting the needs of Muslim pupils in state schools’, can be found at the website of the Muslim Parents’ Association.  In many respects, the book serves as a model for future white-conscious community organisers.  I believe our response as white people should be to look beyond the reactionary condemnation of Muslims that the Jewish media wishes to encourage, for this is a mere distraction.  Instead, we should recognise the good sense in the approach adopted by Tahir Alam and others, and emulate this for our own people.  As white-conscious individuals and groups, we must adopt these same tactics.

Of course, no such thoughts emanate from either the ‘far-Right’ – who deceitfully and erroneously call themselves ‘Racial Nationalists’ when it suits them – or from the liberal media.  Each side has instead sought to project racial supremacism, applying effete liberal shock and outrage that a group of Muslims might threaten the equilibrium of civic decency and toleration that exists in schools.  The fantasy liberal position is summarised in the words of Councillor Bore, who, in reaction to the Kershaw Report, had this to say:

Finally, I want to apologise to the people of Birmingham for the way the actions of a few, including some within the council, have undermined the reputation of our great city, and particularly the Muslim communities for whom this has raised the spectre of Islamophobia. We have previously shied away from tackling this problem out of a misguided fear of being accused of racism. In a multi-cultural city, tackling the big issues together with all our communities is the only way of ensuring cohesion for all our citizens.

Bore is stuck in the groove of adherence to democracy.  Whether he likes it or not, he is forced to see things in civic rather than racial terms, thus in this way liberalism has become a cancer in the white body politics, metastasising into schools today – and tomorrow, where else?  Hafeez-Bore embodies the modern liberal Britain, which has no defence to this other than reactionary machinations and liberal wailing and howling about homophobia, equity and tolerance.  Bore of course had no choice but to apologise but his inaction and crawling to the Muslims over the whole issue can be seen for what it is.  His loyalty now is to our invaders – he has even mixed with them – and he is relying on public acceptance of the ‘Islamic extremist’ fallacy – “the actions of a few” – when in truth he knows very well there are no Islamic extremists, there are only Muslims, who, while certainly not a monolithic mass when it comes to the nuances of denominational matters, do act as a cohesive group when it comes to pursuing their own ethno-religious interests against the white host population.  Bore’s embarrassing speech in the video above demonstrates the effectiveness of this strategy.  Through the weasel words of the liberal babble-mouth, we see the face of treachery, a willingness to condemn our children to humiliating dhimmitude all for the sake of a few grubby votes, a knighthood and a fancy title.  It is treason.

In more wishful moments, I like to imagine the intellectual elite are hatching some cunning plan for white racial survival that mere mortals are not to be trusted with.  This plan is no doubt so cunning and convoluted that the rest of us cannot possibly discern what it is or who is involved.  Then I see videos like the above and note the deep betrayal of people like Mister Hafeez-Bore, and I wonder just what the hell is going on in this country.  I cannot provide an answer – some aspects of contemporary white behaviour just can’t be explained very rationally, except perhaps through the prism of white naivety and the strong pull of narcissism: that mixture of qualities that besets many who eventually meet an unfortunate end.  In Bore’s case, his ‘end’ will be at the hands of the invaders he has – quite literally – made his bed with and whom is lauding and defending.  He will have to learn the hard way, on the rocks of experience – most likely an experience that will be novel for him.  It’s coming.

For our part, we must now become traitors too, but traitors of a different sort.  We must pursue ‘white taqiyya’, and like the Muslims and the Jews, we must study and learn about our enemy on a very cold and dispassionate level, without hate and other reactionary excrescences and psychological pathologies clouding our judgement.  Our treachery must be the same as the Muslims, for we cannot any longer rely on the Albert Bores of this world to defend us.  They do not represent us and the liberal poison with which their minds are afflicted renders them incapable of acting in our interests.  They have even, as in Bore’s case, committed the ultimate betrayal of race-mixing, from which there is no going back.

Instead, we need our own version of Tahir Alam’s booklet, not just for schools, but for each and every sector of society, and we must then act on it.  That is what thinking and acting positively means. Not obsessing about our enemies and opponents and their foibles, but investing our energies and psyches on projects that forward a white agenda.  This shift in mental attitude is vital for white conscious activists.  It is clear that Bore and his liberal friends feel “very much at home” in a Third World cesspit.  So we need to build a new home.  Let’s start today.

The Dumbest People Ever: the nazification of whiteness

Tags

1930s, 1940s, 1945, Adolf Hitler, Britain, China, Daily Stormer, Daniel Boone, deracination, Earth, ethnic sovereignty, Europe, European Gaza, far-Left, far-Right, fascism, Fuhrerprinzip, Gaza, generic national-socialism, German National Socialism, Hakenkreuz, hate, hate speech, Hitler worship, Hollywood, ideology, ISIS, Islamic Caliphate, Israel, Israelis, Japan, Jeffersonian democracy, Jewish influence, Jews, Judaic-Nazi Myth, liberal racial supremacism, Maoism, mass social control, mixed-racial fascism, mixed-racialism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nationalists, nazification, neo-Kuhnite, Palestine, Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Gaza, philosophy, Popular Nationalism, racial fascism, Racial Nationalism, radical centrism, reactionary politics, Realpolitik, Second World War, Sig Heil, Smartest Person In History, Stormfront, Ten Minute Hate, Teutonic, the Left, the Right, The White Alternative, There Is A White Alternative, There Is No Alternative, Third Reich, Thomas Jefferson, TIAWA, TINA, United States, white heterodoxies, White Man's Burden, White Nationalism, white people, White Race, xenophobia, Zionism, Zionist expansionism, Zionists

The Dumbest People Ever: the nazification of whiteness

The latest emotional spasm in the media over Gaza is nothing new.  The matter of Israeli brutality (which is largely beyond doubt) and the resultant, pre-programmed outrage from the usual quarters, is so recurrent and predicable that it has practically become a Western tradition in its own right, with its own coded language and ritual and putative ‘outsiders’ who ‘don’t get it’.  Criticism of Israel and Zionists is of course perfectly understandable and, if I were required to make the choice, Anti-Zionism is the only position I would be prepared to take.  However, I have found that there is an additional, third option, which is simply to accept that each side, the Jews and the Arabs, have a right to fight for their existence.  This is what is known as neutrality.  It normally involves not making any outward assumptions about the legitimacy or moral superiority of one side or the other and simply letting them fight it out.  Some people may be persuaded to reject neutrality in this matter on the basis that ‘our’ governments are aiding the Israelis with military technology and what not, but these are not ‘our’ governments.  Western governments are largely under the influence of the Zionist lobby.  If they wish to supply and lend favour to their client, Israel, that is a matter for them, but no imperative arises from this for white people to take one side or the other.

I recognise that my view on this matter is likely to be in the minority among White Nationalists, however in reality we can see that much of the vitriol and propaganda directed at Israel is based on a mixture of hyper-emotional responses and a conceit among people of varying ideological alignments that a calculated, Machiavellian response to Israel’s actions that exploits an emotional facility among the public will somehow serve some political interest or other.  I would like to suggest that these responses do nothing but serve the long-term ethnic interests of Jews, who have mastered the art of playing-off the two Western political extremes against each other.  On the Left are the self-haters and the anti-white invaders, who either want to destroy the White Race or are indifferent to our genetic destruction and sneer at those who warn against this.  Some of them are projecting their private hate of non-whites and working class whites outward onto those who hold a more or less truthful position on race and tell it how it is. Meanwhile, on the Right, you will see the more explicitly xenophobic type.  The ‘Other’ may be white foreigners who arrive in my country to work or non-white immigrants.  It may be Jews or liberal whites.  It may be homosexuals.  It doesn’t particularly matter.  They just want something to hate.  At the moment, it is Jews who are the subject of the Ten Minute Hate, which is giving encouragement to the far-Right who think that the public are finally turning and ‘seeing the Jews for what they are’.  In fact, all that is happening is hate.  Hate is an end in itself.  It relieves the pressure of modernity, and provides an escapist target to distract from one’s own personal and environmental inadequacies and anxieties.  It is also the perfect manipulative tool for those who have an interest in mass social control: in this case, the Jewish-influenced media.

Zionism and Anti-Zionism are simply two sides of the same coin, used by nefarious influences in the West to manipulate us and keep us from seeing the European Gaza that has been created on our doorsteps.  Whether this ‘Anti-Zionism’ is fuelled by liberal racial supremacism (known by media codewords such as ‘compassion’ and ‘human rights’) or base antipathy towards Jews per se, it serves to ensure that the dog keeps staring at the finger (the Gaza in Palestine) and not at where the finger is pointing (the Gaza in Europe).  That most whites appear not to see this is the ultimate testament and further proof – if it were needed – of a white penchant for altruistically serving the interests of others rather than our own kind.  For the far-Right, white altruism over Gaza can be explained by a toxic alchemy of misplaced liberal racial supremacism (i.e. White Man’s Burden),  Realpolitik about the potential of geopolitical Islam as an ally and check on Zionist expansionism, and last, but by no means least, a boiling, primal antipathy among the white-conscious towards Jews per se. The far-Left, for their part – licensed by the media with a curious exemption that permits modish hatred of Jews at home and abroad – have an obvious ideological interest in attacking the notion of a Jewish ethno-state. Its continued existence is an affront to the liberal nostrums of internationalism and mixed-racialism.  Not to mention that Palestinian Arabs, being brown-looking, are bound to attract the basic sympathy of soft-hearted liberal types.

Looking at this more objectively – i.e. without the Judaic distortion goggles handily provided by the media – if we can let go of our manipulated feelings of ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ for Jews, as the case may be, and simply observe the plain truth, what we see happening in Gaza is terrible and not something one would wish on these people, but for those of us in the West it is not our concern whether the Palestinians win out or the Zionist Jews manage to retain their sovereignty.  By all means, civil aid can be provided to Palestinians who are suffering as a result of the Israeli onslaught.  No humane person could argue with such efforts, and if people wish to boycott Israeli and Jewish goods and services, then that is all to the good and you will not hear any objection from me, but from a racial and political perspective, Gaza is simply none of our business. By pretending that it is, we are repeating the same mistakes that led us to the European Gaza we now face.  We are allowing ‘white altruism’, our supposed compassion for others – which I would suggest is in fact just a mixture of narcissism and a sense of tacit racial supremacism – to cloud our understanding of what needs to be done to protect and preserve what is left of white communities.

The question we should ask is how we can advance a real white racial agenda?  I think we have to start by deciding who we are and then, where we are going. Who we are may seem a curious point to begin, if not a little incongruous, and Nationalists especially are averse to disruptive heterodoxies, but unless we are willing to re-assess dynamically, from first principles, the aims and objects of white survival, then we risk ossification and irrelevance.  One question might be: Are we still a White Race or are we now just a tribe of hyper-racially aware dissidents who need to separate from the culturally deracinated masses?  I don’t myself know the answer to that – it’s a massive question in its own right – though I suspect the answer is the latter, and I for one no longer consider myself a ‘Nationalist’ as such in any case (though I still use the term occasionally for brevity).  I began purposefully by discussing Jews and Israel, because those constructs are relevant to this question and are the source of how so many politicised whites, both on the Left and the Right, seem to define themselves.  The Jewish identity seems to be the counterpoint of the white political identity.  The white Left, expressing Jewish ethnic interests, are now consciously deracinated, if not conspicuously so, and believe that the rest of the world, including (ironically) Jews, should be like them, though they express this (self-)hate only tacitly and project psychologically by ‘blaming’ racially-aware whites, citing their ‘hate’.  Meanwhile, the white-conscious Right, affirming their ‘unJewishness’, aspire for the ethnically homogeneous state that the Jews are sustaining.  Here an interesting disjuncture arises.  Jewish interests seem to be promoting for whites in Western society ideas and values that, on the face of it, might ultimately threaten the Jews’ own ethnic survival; while Nationalists spend a great deal of time attacking Jews for exercising the very right that they, Nationalists, demand for themselves – the right to fight for racial survival – with the possible consequence that, should the Jewish state fall, any notions of racial or ethnic sovereignty might fall with it.  The apparent double contradiction is unravelled by realising that the Jews are playing us, not the other way round. Admittedly, it is a risky and dangerous strategy for them, but the stakes are high: if white people were to develop the kind of serious racial community that actually advanced the interests of whites instead of fake white altruism, Jewish influence (and lots more besides) would be threatened.  Better to keep the ‘dumb’ whites distracted and manipulate what ‘racial opposition’ there is by giving Nationalists (and the far-Left dupes too) an easy target: the bandit Zionist State of Israel.  White vitriol against Jews serves the purposes of Jews.  It distracts from the real issue, which is Jewish control of our own societies.  It also encourages needless emotional tension and paranoia between race conscious whites, who begin to obsess about Jewish influence and even start accusing each other of being Jewish or defending Jews.  What is required isn’t ‘liking’ or ‘disliking’ Jews, but a cold recognition of reality and then appropriate action.

In this respect, it is perfectly possible to like Jews individually, even collectively, if you so choose, while retaining a firm, unshakeable view about their influence in society.  It is also possible to admire Jews for their ethnic loyalty, and in other respects retain a balanced perspective on all things to do with Jews, while at the same time denouncing the ways in which they are acting to harm white interests. It is, furthermore, possible to resist slipping into the Jewish genocide narrative while at the same time understanding clearly the difference between right and wrong and that the vigorous exercise of racial morality and intra-group loyalty needs to give way at some point to obvious notions of respect and decency.  It is also possible to move beyond reacting to matters racial with simple emotional responses, such as hating, condemning, and narcissistic grandstanding, and to instead construct a positive narrative that advances white interests on our own terms. By hating, we are allowing our opponents – be they political Jews or whatever – to control us and dictate our agenda.  By simply reacting, we allow our opponents to frame our agenda and even our very identity.  The reactionary pathology is, however, deeply embedded in Nationalist political thought, largely I would suggest due to the dominance of the Right.

What is ‘Racial Nationalism’, when all is said and done?  I would suggest it is neither Left nor Right in character.  It is, if anything, an ideology and governing philosophy of ‘radical centrism’, simply an accentuated expression of what, anecdotally, we all know most normal people want: in this case, a community based on a shared identity.  Another word for ‘radical centrism’ is fascism, and in truth, the former term is just a euphemism for the latter.  For the white conscious, the objective is racial fascism in the sense that we would have a community that is, for all intents and purposes, an extended racial family, with all the policy and behavioural strictures that flow from this, and in which the individual is an integral part of the whole and subsumes important aspects of his interest and identity to the community.  Most white people have been taught to instinctively recoil at the thought of a fascist society, yet what they do not realise is that they already live in one.  What we live under today is mixed-racial fascism: or anti-white fascism, as it might be termed.  This system is the expression of the wishes of a minority racial interest in society, the Jews, and the non-white footsoldiers they have brought into Europe to dominate us.  Mixed-racial fascism is successfully presented as the opposite of fascistic, in that it promotes the propaganda of ‘liberal democracy’ and the notion that we are required to think of ourselves and each other purely as individuals, allowing a vacuum in which there is no private or community-level sphere of action and significant power can be drawn to a strong state.  Another crucial aspect of the propaganda of the mixed-racial fascists is ‘racial democracy’, the idea that race is no longer (or should not be) considered a relevant factor in people’s lives, except to the extent that it might be used as a basis for suppressing or frustrating whites.  The individuation of mixed-racialism fascism is largely confined to white culture.  Other, non-white, groups are permitted to retain their racial and ethnic cohesion to varying degrees.

We can see that now the shared identity of whites is being lost, all talk among the ordinary populace of ‘democracy’ is revealed for what it is: a superfluous, childish fantasy.  There is no ‘democracy’ for an ethnic group that cannot exercise its own culture.  Instead, the suppressed group has to start complying with the norms, values and rituals of the invading group.  This is almost a law of nature.  Where this invasion is carried out ‘democratically’, and is of a demographic and cultural character – as is the case in the mixed-racial fascism of Britain and most of Europe – initially the signs of racial alienation will be subtle and difficult to surmise, but in time the exorcism from the mainstream of the indigenous host culture, and its marginalisation, becomes obvious and blatant even to the most obtuse mind.  And as the white European public become more and more vocal and angry in their objection to these developments, those who were responsible for this will be nowhere to be seen when it comes to accepting the blame, but they will not be difficult to find.  They are your neighbours, your co-workers, your family – and the person you see in the mirror.  We are all responsible for this mess, and the key to reversing it, or at least doing something worthwhile and constructive about it, still lies in our hands, if only we could see it.

Those of us in the ‘reasoned middle’ who recognise this, who are neither far-Right, nor far-Left, who note the good sense of a realistic attitude to race, who ask for an examination of alien racial influence in white societies – including that of Jews – who recognise that race is an essential precursor of culture and is the basis of all that is good and positive in our society, see ‘Nationalism’, such as it is, as a vehicle for the resurrection of a European civilisation.  We are ‘Nationalists by default’, in that we rest on that creed for our survival and all that is decent, much like many of the intelligentsia in the former Soviet Union took refuge in free market Austrian School economics as a rebuttal to the excesses of Soviet state capitalism.  But then nationalism is not necessarily an intellectual position.  Its fodder is the emotional, reactionary flag-waving type who enjoys the comfort of being part of an identifiable sub-culture.  Those among nationalists who do exhibit a more erudite or thoughtful disposition tend to emphasise a deeper, esoteric understanding of society and a sense of shared experience that is difficult for outsiders to grasp in a conventional, linear way.  The intelligent non-racialist/non-nationalist looks on and wonders what the sense is in continuing to base one’s politics on archaic ideas and constructs.  It is, I would suggest, fundamentally a different mental attribute and character, rather than simply a difference in learning and experience, that leads to the nationalist intellectual rebelling against the canon.  The intellectual nationalist simply does not want to live among other races, and constructs his reasoning retroactively from there.  The difficulty is in intellectualising a position that cannot, and perhaps should not, be reasoned intelligently because in the end, this is about what is in one’s gut.  It’s about who we are.  I should not have to argue that I prefer to live among white people, nor engage in complicated academic discursions to justify what is, in reality, a natural position.  The burden of proof should be on those who argue for, or allow, deracination.

In response to what is happening in society, the ‘Nationalist by default’ is focused on constructive activity and is not really interested in being part of a ‘movement’ or rebellious sub-culture.  The accent is on ‘doing something’ rather than merely ‘being something’.  ‘Doing something’ is difficult.  It involves complexity and mediation with the real world.  ‘Being something’ is easy.  It need not involve anything more complex than attending a demonstration and shouting slogans at people, or maybe posting a comment on an online forum.  I would suggest that much (but not all) of Nationalism has become the latter, with many activists bogged down in emotional ghettoes, futile oppositional reflexes and antiquarian esotericism.  The tendency reaches its zenith in the nagging persistence of overt, outright Hitler worship and Third Reich virtual tourism.  It seems that some pockets of the movement have their own ‘TINA’ written into their political DNA: there is no alternative other than a visibly antiquated ideology that glorifies an Austrian-born German who shot himself in 1945.

The obsession manifests itself in different forms.  There are the neo-Kuhnite North American White Nationalists with their paramilitary uniforms, black leather jackets, Hakenkreuz and Seig Heil salutes.  There are websites that cater for them such as Daily Stormer, with its Teutonic imagery, recurrent wartime and Third Reich themes and repeated mentioning of Hitler.  The great cruel irony of this odd sub-culture is that its portrayal of German ‘Nazis’ is fundamentally Judaic in nature and antagonistic to whites in that owes its genesis in the enemy portrayal of the Third Reich.  One article on Daily Stormer describes German Third Reich military uniforms as ‘cool’.  Indeed they are – on Germans who lived in the 1930s and 1940s.  This is the year 2014 and most of us aren’t German. They don’t look cool on us.  They just look silly.  It’s as ridiculous as a group of syndicalists running a website on current affairs based on the imagery of Italian Fascism and the personality of Mussolini.  It smacks of mental and emotional weakness, an aping of the Judaic-Nazi Myth of National Socialist Germany, invented by the Hollywood System and Jews.  None of it has anything to do with the historicity of that era, or with national-socialism, Nationalism per se or white racial consciousness, as I understand these things.  It is just street theatre, encouraged by people who are hostile to us, who wish to discredit us, and who want to dissuade normal, sensible white people from thinking racially by presenting those who do as deviants, ‘weirdos’ and outcasts. One also has to question the literacy of this ‘Nazi’ symbolism.  If a form of American national-socialism were ever to be resurrected, it is much more likely to resemble something deeper in U.S. history than German-American nostalgia for National Socialists and a bunch of comic-opera thugs giving Roman salutes.

The whole basis of national-socialism (I use the term in its white racial sense) is that it must be culturally-consistent with its locality, otherwise it is not really ‘national’.  An American nation-socialism would be less Alfred Rosenberg and more Daniel Boone; less the Führerprinzip and more (perhaps) a Jeffersonian farmers’ democracy, or reflective of some other indigenous European civic influence. A national-socialism for Britain, likewise, would be something different and more reflective of the British experience.  I think this applies even if, like me, you reject nation-states as such and dislike the nativist perspective and think that the real nation is ‘white’.  Even in a less parochial, more ‘internationalist’ type of ‘Racial Nationalism’, the political, social and economic character of white sovereignty will reflect the varying ethnic peculiarities of local experience. Hitlerian National Socialism was a result of the specific circumstances in Germany and Europe at that time, just as Japanese national-socialism (run for the last 70 years under an ostensibly ‘democratic’ system) reflects the character of those unique people who live on an island off the Asian landmass and call themselves Japanese.  Same with Chinese national-socialism – otherwise known as Maoism, or ‘communism’ to those who believe in fantasies.  And so too with Jewish national-socialism – or ‘Zionism’ to you and me. That it is not to denigrate in any way the German experience, which is important and valuable and needs to be discussed because of its importance and relevance to our struggle now.  It is simply to recognise it for what it is: a local expression of a larger, generic idea that has empirical validity for all peoples.  We could call this generic idea ‘national-socialism’, ‘fascism’, ‘democracy’, or whatever you like, but the point is that to try and ape one specific example of it and turn it into our banner is not real politics and is not an intelligent response to mixed-racial fascism. It is, really, nothing more than an exercise in rebellious chic, a kind of indulgent fashion statement for the petulant – that makes you look ridiculous.

The ‘nazification’ of Nationalism and the perpetuation of the Judaic-Nazi Myth has been a gift to our enemies.  It has allowed them to portray a moderate message as ‘extremist’   It has even opened the way for our enemies to nazify whiteness itself, to portray any overt expression of white consciousness or white interests as something vaguely relating to a particular period in history that everyone is taught not to like.  This conflates the cure – white political action – with a completely unrelated toxin, discouraging whites from thinking as a group and allowing the mixed-racial poison to spread unhindered in the vacuum left by the absence of an appealing Popular Nationalism.  Much of this nazification is a reflection of a lack of self-confidence in our substantive political message and with that a need to latch on to a historic period when, it is felt, National Socialism found full force and vigour.  That itself is a myth, but the sense of anger and alienation among working class whites fuels the romantic retrospective, a pining for better times.  We can also ascribe deeper psychological motivations to neo-Nazi chic.  People of an immature disposition can be led into Nationalism because they want to rebel against society in some way, and what better or more effective way to do this than to adopt an ideology that is reviled in ‘polite company’.  Others attach themselves to causes that ameliorate their own inner insecurities, and this especially appeals to downtrodden whites, who want to feel that they are equal to, or even superior to, others, including other whites who they can pretend are not as far-seeing or visionary as they are.

We should also bear in mind the way Hitler is mythologised by White Nationalists.  He supposedly represents white consciousness at the apex of society, strong and triumphant.  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.  Hitler was also in some ways an intentionally vacuous figure, as most really successful politicians are.  White people can fill themselves into him and he personifies their greatest hopes and dreams, whatever they may be.  In all of this, a simple fact can be overlooked: Hitler is dead.  He has been dead for 70 years, so unless a necrocracy is being planned or a way of resurrecting the dead has been found, it’s difficult to see his present relevance.  We are alive and, unlike Hitler, we must confront the problems facing white people in the 21st. century.  The answer for us is not to become more marginalised and end up ghettoising our views.  The answer is to build a new White Alternative that appeals to ordinary white people.  That means looking forward not backward, becoming active rather than passive, turning away from reactionary politics and all its accoutrements – including leaders, elections, attackable structures – and building an ‘alternative politics’ based on white autonomy.  It means moving away from ‘hating’ others towards giving our fellow whites a positive message.

Some people think ‘hate’ is good or useful in that it is a weapon or forms the basis of some kind of membranous racial defensive values.  I think these notions are misconceived.  ‘Hate’ and ‘Hitler’ are just weapons in the ongoing psychological warfare against whites.  They work most effectively when they are paired together, and when combined with ‘Jews’, they turn all whites-conscious people into a moving target, regardless of individual sophistication, moderacy or reasonableness.  The target is easily hit with the trigger words that the media have invented specially for us.  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.  It is a weakness, as it clouds reason.  The accepted, legalistic definition of ‘hate’ is thus broadened out to all kinds of benign or relatively inoffensive behaviour and printed material so as to make it appear that racial arguments are insubstantial.  If you hate Jews, then you are acknowledging that you are under the control of Jews.

The positive message has to be about white people.  We can’t complain about others misrepresenting us if we are so determined to misrepresent ourselves by adopting or alluding to neo-Nazi imagery and ideas.  We ought to be able to laugh off the Nazi epithet and dismiss our opponents’ jibes along these lines as ridiculous and exaggerated.  We also ought to be able to ask our opponents:

“Why are you always misrepresenting white people as Nazis?

That would be a powerful question under the right circumstances, and it would be difficult for our opponents to respond to it, but we can’t ask this because some Nationalists are still stuck in the neo-Nazi groove, and that is part of the problem. Casual neo-Nazi chic is pathological and runs deep in some pockets of Nationalism, but it also shows itself more subtly in the mainstream of the movement.  The main online discussion forum for White Nationalism is called Stormfront, which is an interesting name, to say the least.  I believe the name was chosen innocently, as an allusion to the idea of a counter-cultural front that would cleanse Western society of mixed-racial influence, etc., but in reality, to the ordinary white, the name is Teutonic and alludes to the cartoon Hollywood Judaic-Nazi caricature.  Why should this be a problem?  Well, to someone who has always been a White Nationalist, it won’t be, but to an ‘ordinary person’, the site looks weird and extreme.  What we whites need more than anything else is to mainstream our message while maintaining our core integrity.

Stormfront probably attracts a lot of curiosity from white people who are suffering from cognitive dissonance – otherwise known as maturity – and there’s always a risk that the more independent-spirited among these ordinary folk will start to think for themselves, so the Teutonic imagery and the hostile character of sites like Stormfront hands a useful psychological weapon to our enemies, a Rubicon that acts as a barrier for dialogue between the ‘race-aware’ and those who are open to our message. Even the most critically-minded person will have difficulty getting past a name like ‘Stormfront’, as it conjures up all kinds of mental associations.  If we are honest about this, presentation does matter.  Of course, none of this would be a problem if ‘Stormfront’ was somehow a true reflection of who we are and what we are about.  Is it?  Is this the tone we want to set?  What are we?  What are we about?  Here we come full circle, because these are the kinds of questions we need to ask and find answers to.  Are we a comic opera company or a serious political movement?

Recently, Daily Stormer publicised an online poll for the Smartest Person In History, urging its readers to vote for Adolf Hitler.  This was clearly an attempt to draw attention to the supposed qualities of a 70-odd year old corpse, but I am not sure why I should vote for Hitler or any other historical figure.  Dragging Hitler up from the grave doesn’t help us. We whites need to stop valorising these demagogues, both the dead and the alive ones, and start voting for ourselves.  Instead of choosing between leaders who are dead and alive leaders who are brain dead, let’s choose a White Alternative, in which – just for a change – we start building our own solutions and answers, from the ground up.  I have no idea if Hitler was the Smartest Person In History, but the risk we run with this continued unhealthy obsession, not just with Hitler but with demagogues generally, is that for all our intelligence and achievements as a race, we are going to end up as the dumbest people ever.  In a thousand years, no-one will remember white accomplishments unless there are intelligent white people around to speak of them.  At this rate, all they will remember is that we were just another one of countless groups eradicated from the face of the Earth, or enslaved.  That is what is really at stake. This is a fight for existence.