No Longer Naive
“When I joined I was naive, when I got suspended I was naive, and I think I grew up just a few days ago.”
There are people in ‘Nationalism’ who need to pay heed to Mr. Sen.
No Longer Naive
“When I joined I was naive, when I got suspended I was naive, and I think I grew up just a few days ago.”
There are people in ‘Nationalism’ who need to pay heed to Mr. Sen.
22nd. March 2015, Anti-Zionism, Britain, Colin Jordan, demonstrations, Europe, fake anti-Zionists, far-Left, far-Right, foreign occupation, George Galloway, Haredis, Jewish community, Jewish influence, Jews, Joshua Bonehill, Judaism, Leave Europe, Leave Palestine, Left, Liberate Stamford Hill, marches, Nationalism, Nationalist, New Tribe, Plaintive Nationalism, Political Judaism, political tactics, protests, Right, Stamford Hill, strategies, Tribalism, Tribalist, white interests, White Nationalism, White Neo-Tribalism, White Race, White Tribalism, Zionism, Zionist Occupation Government, Zionists, ZOG
‘Leave Palestine’ OR ‘Leave Europe’? Some further (brief) thoughts on Liberate Stamford Hill
The continuing tendency of the far-Right to rely on marching and demonstrations and other conventional political responses to our foreign occupation highlights the difference between a Nationalist and a Tribalist. Not many understand this difference, which is why we’re still suffering. We need to develop tactics that reflect the realities of Britain and Europe today. This is no longer our country.
Having said that, I think there are some nuances to consider. There’s a more constructive side to activities like this. Opposing Jewry isn’t necessarily a ‘right-wing’ thing. The Left do it a lot, under the cover of ‘Anti-Zionism’ – without realising of course that they are just tools – and it can have the effect of galvanising people on our side.
Look at the way the issue is being discussed now. This must be the first time since the days of Colin Jordan that there is open discussion about Jews, not qua Israel/Palestine, but qua their presence here in Europe. Isn’t that what we really want? In this sense, I would argue, the far-Right has the potential to offer an alternative to the Left’s Anti-Zionism. Instead of telling the Jews (in effect) ‘Leave Palestine’, we’re saying: ‘Leave Europe’. The fact that the Left are lining up with the Zionists (Jews) against us on this point I think speaks for itself.
This will also encourage a schism in the Left. A lot of the [non-Jewish] Left hate Jews even more than the far-Right do. Some of them will be confused about their own side standing in a counter-demonstration defending a Jewish community – especially when someone unfurls an Israeli flag, as is bound to happen on 22nd. March.
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.
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.
Amerika, anti-Semitism, Brett Stevens, Christianity, class interest, Counter-Semitism, economic interests, ethnic interest, Europe, European, Holocaust 2.0, Israel, Jewish influence, Jews, Judaism, mass society, Palestine, Pan-European, Pan-European Nationalism, Pan-European Race, philo-Semitism, philosophy, pro-Zionist, racial interest, The Jewish Question, The White Question, Western society, White Nationalism, White Race, White Sovereigntism, white sovereignty, Zionism
The White Question
A useful article by Derek Hopper: ‘Why the “Jewish Question” is the wrong question’.
I agree with the basic point being made by Hopper: blaming the Jews has led some people to overlook that white people have made their own choices. This is reality, and to this extent, his observations are the truth. That’s why the real discussion should be around not the Jewish Question, but the White Question: which is to say, how white people can take back control of their own destiny, independent of other races.
Where I take issue is in the way he then extends this entirely valid observation into a pro-Zionist position:
As such I can never abandon Israel — which is absolutely European in structure and philosophy, as integral a part of Europe as Christianity — to Holocaust 2.0, because as an outpost it represents a precious fragment of my continent.
And, where he waxes lyrical about Jewish perspicacity and so on:
Jews are not a threat to this imagined pan-European race but are instead a valuable asset both culturally and economically.
In my view, acknowledging the reality of our position needn’t lead inexorably in the direction of philo-Semitism. We can, instead, adopt a counter-Semitic position and a neutral position on Israel/Palestine, and I would regard such as axiomatic for a white sovereigntist. After all, Jews are not white.
What happens in Israel/Palestine is the business of the antagonists, but what happens in those areas over which the White Race extends its territorial imperative is the business of white people. As Hopper tacitly concedes in his essay, Jews as an ethnic group do have influence on Western society. Hopper believes this has been not only benign, but beneficial. Some of us disagree, but the point is that this influence is widely-acknowledged, including by Hopper, and so to simply point to the choices and actions of white people is to avoid an important issue.
White people have made choices, yes, but what we should also consider is the extent to which these choices have been framed for us in a way that benefits certain groups in society. The assumption that society does not work for the interests of specific groups – class-based and ethnic – is common on the Right, and naive.
The catalyst of a renaissance for the White Race will be the tiny ‘minority of a minority’ of whites who reject this thinking and comprehend the reality of our position – both the way society is structured against white interests and the capacity of whites to pursue their own interests without dependency on others. These will be the ones with the potential to create a new reality for themselves. They will understand how mass society is working against their racial and economic interests: thus, they will acknowledge, among other things, the Jewish Question, but more importantly, also, the White Question.
Where this points to tactically is not an alliance with Jews, but the separation from Jewish capitalism of those capable whites who are able and willing to comprehend the reality of their position and build a new society.
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.
anti-English, Anti-English League, BNP, British Treason State, Conservative Party, covert Zionism, demographic displacement, EDL, EDL Jewish Division, EDL marches, English Defence League, English Home Counties, Europe, Europeans, Everyman tendency, Faustian chalice, George Orwell, Home Counties accent, Islam, islamic extremism, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic literalism, Israel, Israeli lobby, Jewish influence, Jews, Labour Party, left-wing, liberal-left, lifestyle politics, Majorca, MI5, modish Left, Movement traitors, Muslims, National Front, Nigel Farage, Nineteen Eighty-Four [novel], North America, Orwellian, Pioneer Little Europe, PLE, Politburo, Potemkin Village, race, racial consciousness, racism, racists, radical Islam, radical Muslims, Room 101, Special Branch, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, tanning shop, telescreen, the Party [Nineteen Eighty-Four], the Sixties, the West, thought crimes, Thought Police, Tommy Robinson, Trojan Horse, UKIP, Western values, White Independent Nation, White National Community, White Race, WIN, Winston Smith, Zionism
Uncle ‘Tommy’ and his Anti-English League
The latest espial machinations of the British treason state are proving a little obvious, even for the more obtuse or thick-headed. Even those treasured British qualities of subtlety and understatement have been cast aside for what might be indelicately called DDR tactics, in a desperate scramble to neuter a golem that has, frankly, spiralled out of control. Thus, that well-known and successful [MI5/Special Branch*] asset, Stephen Yaxely-Lennon, aka. ‘Tommy Robinson’, has now – finally – bowed to the inevitable and assumed his rightful place in that unfortunate Pantheon of high profile race traitors – in the process, confirming all that was suspected about him by anyone with multiple functioning brain cells.
Tommy’s confessional press conference, now well and truly down the memory hole, was positively Orwellian. Perhaps it was just my imagination, but it appeared to me that our ersatz ‘Winston Smith’ was sweating and shaking throughout proceedings. ‘Tommy’ seemed agitated and worried, and at times distracted, almost as if he had just undergone some kind of lengthy inquisition and torture at the hands of sinister, black-clad interrogators. But whatever had just happened in Room 101, what transpired at the hastily-arranged press conference was, in its own little way, quite extraordinary, and outrageous too. In the manner of an errant member of the Politburo who had just been caught selling tractors on the sly, ‘Winston’/’Tommy’ informed us frankly of his ‘thoughtcrimes’ against the ‘Party’ and how he would repent for these gross felonies by (inter alia) helping the ‘Thought Police’ rat out ‘racists’ in the organisation he had led.
Now, it’s easy to sneer, but this article will only do so a little bit – for entertainment purposes. ‘Tommy’ deserves it a little because of that disgusting pledge he made to betray his own followers. No doubt he has had his role to play for the State security services, and will continue to, just like (most probably) our ‘Nigel’ in UKIP, but one also suspects in Tommy’s case the devices of knaves inflicted on an earnest, well-meaning dupe rather than anything more sinister. There are, after all, degrees of treachery and not all traitors derive glee or satisfaction from their own duplicity, however egregious. It’s true that ‘Tommy’ did his best, and received all kinds of threats against both himself and his family for his trouble. Which of us would care to step into his shoes? It would be indulgent and hypocritical to overlook this. Having such a high profile, and furthermore, facing the prospect of yet another criminal trial this month on the usual trumped-up charges, with the looming possibility of a custodial sentence, it is inevitable that he would feel the strain and might be persuaded to accept a ‘respectable way out’. Who can blame him for this? I can’t. That is not to excuse his oblique treachery, nor the very obvious collusion in which he has partaken for his own benefit, but in his defence it is worth pausing to reflect that his motives might have been more personal than is widely appreciated.
So ‘Tommy’ joins his anti-English friends in a well-paid state sinecure, probably as a sort of ‘expert’ on ‘anti-racism’, or some such. He is no more nor less qualified than others found supping from that Faustian chalice. Despite this, I must confess to having a soft spot for dear ‘Tommy’, with his tanning shop (slightly amusing in the circumstances, but on a more serious note: also admirable in that he ran his own business); his strained vowels, which are unmistakably from the English Home Counties; his avuncular mannerisms; and his Everyman tendency to say “I’m just a bloke from Luton town, innit”, whenever he is asked to consider some imponderable. No doubt that was the idea: I was supposed to relate to ‘Uncle Tommy’. Alas, I and many others were not taken in, and there are a number of reasons why the true nature of the EDL was obvious from the start. Nevertheless, it’s important to assess the EDL phenomenon on its own merits and consider, objectively, what are the real lessons to be drawn.
The first problem with the EDL was its unfocused and confused message. It was never precisely clear what this amorphous organisation actually stood for, other than being vaguely against some of the more overtly nastier and militant elements of Islam. The controlled media often asked ‘Tommy’ whether the EDL was against Islamic infiltration of the West generally or just extremist Islam? Agonised studio discursions followed in which countless hairs were split and many hands were wrung. Islam is not the same as ‘Islamism’, we were informed. Most Muslims respect ‘British values’, we were assured. ‘Tommy’ was told it’s naughty to confuse ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’ Muslims with ‘moderates’ and he shouldn’t do it again, or presumably he’d be off to bed without any supper – or maybe off to prison. Lots of people clapped, whooped and cheered, but most of us watching at home were baffled, and none the wiser. In reality, all this was bumbling semantics, the purpose of which was to distract the more gullible and credulous from recognising the plain truth. ‘Islamism’ shares the same goal and objects as Islam, and the apparently ‘moderate’ mass of Muslims are nothing more than a Trojan Horse for ‘extremists’. What the ‘extremists’ desire is the same as what the ‘moderates’ desire – that is, total demographic displacement of Europeans in favour of Muslims. The difference is that the ‘extremists’ are honest about this, whereas the ‘moderates’ are dishonest about it and try to keep it to themselves. The problem the Muslims have is that it’s all rather obvious, and so a means is needed to distract people – hence ‘public debates’ between ‘reasonable’ Muslims and false opponents or state-run dupes, like Uncle Tommy.
Rather than sticking to a simple and truthful message, the EDL acquiesced in the media’s dissembling agenda which elides the, essentially, semantic distinctions between ‘extremist’ and ‘moderate’, ‘literalist’ and ‘reformist’. In so far as Islam matters, the real issue was and remains the demographic threat that Muslim populations represent for European civilisation, and the way in which Islam acts as an ideological front for racial interests that are opposed to ours. This did not seem to matter to the EDL, as it allowed Muslims to attend its marches; it grovelled before Muslims in fake debates on the telescreen; and, it openly courted support from influential individuals and organisations within the Muslim community, who were sympathetic to the goal of combating what the media like to call ‘extremism’.
The EDL was also wrong-footed by the pro-Israel/Zionist tendency. It is this lobby that are the true cheerleaders for the encroachment of Islam and general mixed-racialism in European societies. That is not to say there is no place for an anti-Islamic or anti-Jihadist organisation that focuses purely on the Islamic threat, but it is to say that such activities should be a way of introducing the masses to the real existential threat to whites – Israeli nationalism and Zionism – which use Islam as a means to undermine the racial integrity of European societies. Yet this point was completely missed or overlooked. Instead, the EDL did the precise opposite: going out of its way to court Zionist and Jewish support. EDL followers were to be found flying and displaying the Israeli national flag on official marches, completely unchallenged. The message seemed to be much the same as that touted by many ‘respectable conservatives’ – yawn – in both Europe and North America: i.e. that the Jews and Europeans are somehow natural allies against Muslims, rather than bitter enemies.
One could, perhaps, understand all this if the EDL were operating tactically and merely paying lip-service to Islamic and Zionist interests for pragmatic reasons. Given the political climate, this might even be seen as inevitable for such a high-profile group, but ‘Tommy’ went far beyond mere formalities. He accepted funding from Jewish backers; permitted a Jewish division of the EDL to be established (as well as a Hindu division); and, gradually – and absurdly – turned himself into a kind of unofficial conciliator with the Muslim community, publicly-declaring the EDL to be anti-racist and anti-fascist. The man was a muddle-head and a dupe, but when assessed coolly, his active connivance with the interests and personalities of those he putatively opposed can be seen as a harbinger. Uncle Tommy was running nothing more than an Anti-English League, the effect of which was to legitimise the arguments that the EDL should have been vigorously opposing.
I have not yet mentioned, but now will, the EDL’s comical embrace of the various fetishist messages of the liberal metropolitan Left. Supposedly, the EDL had a pro-homosexual division, among other ad hoc absurdities. To the greater part of the population, it may seem curious that I should be troubled by this. Isn’t this the 21st. century after all? Shouldn’t we all be tolerant and understanding now? The problem is not with tolerance, which is a positive feature in society – provided it is tolerance of things done privately and which only inflict the most marginal personal and social harm. The difficulty here is with the new modish anti-tolerance that corrodes the original virtue. The very defence of civilisation requires that our values should not only be conserved and maintained, but preserved and passed down to future generations. That, in essence, is what reasoned traditionalism is: a belief in the permanence of a civilizational code that each generation seizes, then fashions and refines to the distinct needs of its own time, but leaves coherent and undisturbed for the next generation. Homosexuality is a threat to all this. It is a threat to our survival, especially in present circumstances, in that Europeans are facing an unprecedented demographic assault. Thus, to defend the propagation of homosexuality reflects only surface coherence about ‘tolerance’. Looked at properly, the Anti-English League was working for our extinction, happily adding dry mote and wood to the pyre while busily fussing about Muslims.
Why do the EDL, and Western cultural dissidents in general, feel the need to backslide like this? The reasons are legion, but the key points can be summarised as follows. First, it is evident that there is no longer any significant support in the West for racial politics, whether conservative or radical. There is, among the Everyman, a seed of reactionary and reflexive race awareness that might well have been germinated before now and could have flowered under different circumstances, but its potential has been irradiated by a toxic political class. Even the most mild, reasoned opposition to immigration is characterised as ‘racism’. It certainly is racism – the accusation is true – but the disinhibiting power of the accusation is such that most are dissuaded from acting on their natural, latent tendencies. Other social and cultural issues that are tangentially racial are treated in the same way. For example, justified scepticism concerning equality for homosexuals, along with traditional support for the promotion of age-old conjugal relations is viewed as ‘gay-bashing’. This pressure from above, percolated through powerful media, has contributed to a climate in which a ‘street movement’ such as the EDL, regardless of the original sincerity or not of its founders, becomes a watered-down reactionary force, constantly having to make concessions to ‘popular’ modish sentiment. In fact, such sentiment is not really ‘popular’ at all, as the EDL’s successful record in organising demonstrates, but the EDL was never a conscious movement with a clear and focused message, and so the very real concerns of its marchers have been lost and, to outsider, look like clatter and din.
Thus the EDL neither contributes to, nor stems from, consciousness at the street and workplace level. Oddly, a ‘street movement’ that was apparently (and in some ways, actually) raised from ordinary people served to embody neither class consciousness nor race consciousness and, in time, just degenerated into a convoluted form of escapism – a kind of ‘lifestyle politics’ mixed-up in brawling, drinking and shouting. Those marchers who stood behind the EDL banner may as well have gone on holiday to Majorca and done their shouting and inane sloganeering there. They were as aimless as their parents, who, in their own formative years – the Sixties – marched for similarly escapist slogans of peace and free love.
That’s not to say it was a complete waste of time. Just as the Sixties provided an influential counterweight to a reactionary Establishment, the very physical reality of the EDL and its presence on the streets, has provided a visible symbol of resistance, but just as the Sixties generation later became practising neo-thatcherites, the EDL organisation has, in the fullness of time, become a creature of the people it was, in principle, meant to oppose; and, its own marchers will, in time, meld into the mixed-racial masses. The same thing, in different ways, has happened, and is happening, to other racially-attuned opposition movements. Take the BNP, which was extensively-liberalised, especially under Griffin. To an extent, the reforms of the Griffin era were actually quite sensible when viewed in the context of a party with serious electoral aspirations, but the BNP of today is no longer a Nationalist party. Whatever pretence it might make at being otherwise, the BNP is now part of the mixed-racial Establishment and serves its agenda, albeit as a rebel rather than a favoured son. The National Front, likewise, promotes an agenda that is right-wing rather than Nationalist and that serves to legitimise the very structures that have brought about a mixed-racial society in the first place. That is not to mount a slur on all the people involved – especially in the National Front, which consists of sincere people. What applies to Uncle Tommy applies also to others: not all betrayals are carried out consciously, or even willingly. Many so-called ‘traitors’ act out of genuine motives and are just misguided, but the point is that those who campaign for ‘democracy’ eventually become institutionalised and committed as democrats, a position that directly conflicts with the revolutionary nature of Nationalism.
Nationalism is fascist, not democratic. To be a Nationalist is to recognise the natural order of things and that the best must be at the forefront of society. Democracy, by contrast, is about recognising the lowest common denominator and allowing the weakest to dictate to the rest of us. This is what our society calls ‘moral’ and this is how our society really is. This implicitly requires a rejection of Nature and a celebration of mediocrity. The Uncle Tommys and the ‘democratic’ leaders of the BNP, etc., are quite at home in this democracy. They enjoy its perks and have borrowed the language of the modish Left, deploying it with glee and bleating like sheep about their ‘rights’ and the need for ‘integration’ of all and sundry.
Why does this happen? While it is not solely a British phenomenon, it is true that in Britain any genuine political racialism and fascism has long been drowned-out by the ‘voices of moderation’. That is not to say we never hear fascist or racialist arguments – in fact, there are plenty – but they normally take on the form of pale imitators of the real thing: mostly, right-wing demagogues and ultra-Tory civic nationalists posing as ‘men of the people’. In this respect, the anti-racists and anti-fascists are actually correct. Whether or not Nigel Farage, for instance, is a real and actual racialist is a little beside the point, since his arguments do point logically in that direction anyway. Alas, no amount of UKIP posturing, in or out of office, will ever lead us to a Nationalist position. To point in that direction is not the same as to lead us there, since the means being employed are democratic and thus redundant. More ‘moderate’ politicians, in both the Labour and Tory Party, will also deploy ‘national’ arguments and narratives when it suits them – an obvious example that springs to mind is the 2010 Labour slogan, ‘British Jobs For British Workers’, which was apparently originally used by the National Front some thirty years before. At a deeper level, most politics are still practised within a ‘national’ frame of reference. Yet these narratives are entirely false and counterfeit, as there is no longer any national (i.e. racial) consciousness behind them. Appeals to nationhood are not for the advancement of a progressive society in which identity is recognised and celebrated, but only for the encouragement of blind obedience to some profitable scheme or other. Mr. Farage, for instance, is a creature of capital. He will be told quietly to have a care, though, lest he go too far with his arguments and damage Britain’s relationship with one of the world’s largest trading blocs. In short, Nationalism in Britain, such as it is, remains a force for ruling class interests, not working class interests. To an extent, this is a problem around the world – Nationalism being a worldwide impulse – but it is also fair to say that the type of frustrating Potemkin Village politics we have in Britain is a peculiar Anglophone problem, and in our case, reflects a structural problem in the British political ferment.
Unlike on the Continent, there is no autonomous, trade unionist or syndicalist basis for broader pro-European nationalism in the United Kingdom. There is no Nationalist current on the Left, for instance. We seem to be entirely a Movement of the political Right. I wonder if this is either desirable or healthy? I, for one, certainly do not feel ‘right-wing’, and though I fully-appreciate the malleability of such terms, in most respects I have common cause with the Left and even with Marxists. To me, Nationalism is an indigenous impulse and belongs to the working people. The real dividing line ideologically is on the matter of Race. Yet it is on that sole issue that so much now hangs. It seems to be a Marxoid ploy to eradicate human identity, but this invidious scheme has little or nothing to do with real Marxism or indeed the genuine, indigenous working class movements that have characterised Britain – the Diggers, the Roundheads, the Chartists, the suffragettes, the Social Democratic Federation, and so on. I, too, belong to that seditious working class tradition known as ‘socialism’, yet I see nothing of that reflected in Nationalism today. Consequently, there is nothing of our ideas in the workplace among workers themselves, and so we cannot relate to the struggles of ordinary people. Instead, we have Union Flags and bulldogs and Daily Mail (i.e. Jewish and Zionist) opinions. The ‘Movement’, such as we are, is essentially elitist and lacks organic dynamism. Our strength in numbers on the web is clear and is much commented-on, with veiled hints of repression here and there, but just as with the EDL, our flaw is that we have been captured by the opposition and are being turned and used for the opposition’s purposes.
Beneath the surface, we have yet to realise our real mission, which is not about plastic flags and ‘Pomp and Circumstance’, but about the real Britain and the real Europe of working people who share a common heritage and civilisation. This requires that we link our racial protest to the material protests of ordinary people. I believe the only way to do this is through the strategy of building race conscious communities, from which a new Popular Nationalism can be raised-up that is preoccupied not with idealistic patriotism, cartoon ‘Nazis’ and other flights of fancy, but with the more mundane material needs of white people, including their survival.
The EDL, for years the only street protest movement going, has provided a depressing mirror on our current state, but we must learn from its ultimate failure. It was unanchored in any conscious community or workplace agitation. Thus it emerged in a bubble, fuelled by understandable media sensationalism about Muslims burning poppies rather than genuine grievances relating to people’s lives. It seemed to be a street movement, yet many of its marchers were from the ‘affluent’ end of the working class: middle-managers, technicians and professionals, a demographic we sorely need, but also a group that tends make up the hobbyists and holds to reactionary views. Consequently, the protests always had a hint of hyper-reality about them, with the ‘plastic’ civic nationalist emblems and the over-the-top rhetoric. They were easily contained because the EDL were nothing more than an elaborate and perspicacious stunt – a very successful prank, and very English in that respect – and thus eminently containable. In the end, it provided little more than an outlet for a type of reflexive or casual racism, which is widespread but easily tackled by the Establishment, capitalists and the Left through formal repressive measures and media suffocation strategies.
For his part, Uncle ‘Tommy’ may have started-out on his political journey as a dupe, and he may now be a traitor, but to his credit, he has wised-up massively. He now seems to realise the limitations of unanchored street protesting (and also its dangers to his own life, limb and finances, hence his ‘conversion’). Pursuing a ‘democratic’ strategy and begging the British treason state to make changes that it doesn’t want to make and which no longer have wide public support is akin to howling at the Moon. It’s not that the maintenance of a street movement would be misguided or is inappropriate. Rather, it’s that such tactics represent ‘putting the cart before the horse’. Unless undergirded by a strong community of ideologically- committed and race-conscious people, it’s little more than feathers blowing in the wind, and ripe for manipulation by state controllers.
For Uncle Tommy then, all that’s left is a ‘satisfying’ (and no doubt well-remunerated) ‘career’ as some kind of ‘race relations’ waffler. Think of it as akin to being ‘kicked upstairs’. Tommy has outlasted his usefulness to the Politburo now, and the choice is that he can either stick to his ‘principles’ (trumped-up charges, then prison, etc.) or just take the money and be pensioned-off. He predictably chose the latter, and to be fair, that’s what ordinary men like him are expected to do. His only hardship is that he must grin and bear it while being associated with the disingenuous utterings of his new colleagues, but that’s no more than what is expected of any employee with a modern employer in our wonderful, enriched society. The answer for those who care for the preservation of European civilisation is a massive and concerted effort to build race-conscious communities, with the more traditional avenues of electoral politics and street activity having complementarity rather than centrality. The PLE concept is the model and we are now already seeing derivations of it from skilled and talented emulators across the White National Community. It is my respectful contention that if we are to preserve anything of our Race, these efforts must be the focus of our collective physical, intellectual and psychical energies.
This was another article published last year on the website of White Independent Nation. Although the events it refers to are no longer current, and if I were to write this again I would phrase some of it differently, I do think the general message of the article is nevertheless still ripe. We must not allow ourselves to get sucked in by these populist movements again. We must retain our focus. The article ends with an appeal to the generic PLE concept, though I would favour the specific model offered by White Independent Nation. I would, however, now suggest that whites should broaden out their strategy to building a new alternative sub-culture: what I call the White Alternative.
'liberal' national-socialism, 1950s, 1960s, 1980s, American Friends of the BNP, American White Nationalists, Anglosphere, BNP, Britain, British National Front, Burkeanism, civic nationalism, Civilisation, community, conservatism, Craig Cobb, David Duke, denazification, Developed Mantra, DNA tests, Don Black, Edmund Burke, English constitution, Europe, European Gaza, Europeans, existence versus fighting, far-Right, far-Right liberalism, FDIS, freeborn Englishman, Freedom Democracy Identity Security, Gaza, Griffin's Four Words, Griffin-Duke-Black troika, hate, hating, hatred, implicit Zionism, internet, Islam, Israel, Jewish influence, Jews, John Tyndall, Judaism, kosher nationalists, Leith, liberalisation, liberalism, liberals, linguistic correctness, Margaret Thatcher, Martin McGuinness, Michael Moore, mixed-racialism, moderation, multi-culturalism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nationalists, nazification, New Four Words, Nick Griffin, Palestinians, political correctness, political language, pseudo-positivism, Racial Nationalism, radical Muslims, Rights of Man, Texas, thatcherism, the Establishment, the far-Left, The M(15)cGuinness Option, the West, Third World, traditionalism, UKIP, ultra-Zionism, United States of America, web, White Nationalism, White Race, Zionism
David Duke and ‘liberal’ national-socialism
One of the things that I think Nationalists have to start doing is being a bit more sceptical and questioning about some of these personalities who have led ‘the movement’ over the last seventy years. Nationalism belongs to white people, and we have the right to look critically on those who were meant to stand for our racial interests but who have failed for one reason or another. Some of them (this does not apply to all) have been happy to take the money or enjoyed high public profiles but have not delivered. Of course, failure is not a crime in and of itself, but it should prompt questions. It is not really good enough to continue with the same tactics and methods over and again, nor should we be surprised at repeated failure if the course being followed is a repetition of previous failed strategies. The reality facing us is that Racial Nationalism has been beaten back into a tiny corner of the internet and an even lesser space of civic life in Britain, with actual activity sporadic in nature and consisting of poorly-attended meetings and the odd public demonstration. We also face a legal, political and social environment that is not just hostile to white conscious people, but to all white people: to the extent that, some pseudo-nationalists in UKIP think that the right way to criticise mass immigration is to attack other white people coming in from Europe rather than point to the really damaging phenomenon of decades of non-white immigration. As matters stand, we have no strong leader or personality (assuming leaders is something you like) and we have no unifying strategy or direction, but I would suggest that this void has existed for quite some years now and we have just been living on borrowed time.
The underlying problem was always that Nationalists did not have a message that connected with ordinary people. That is for two reasons: the first internal, the other external. The internal reason was that, from the beginning of the post-War period, the far-Right became the dominant tendency within this movement and consequently there was no organisation, structure or base of ideas to link racial causes with the cause of labour and socialism: in other words, there was nothing to connect the idea of a racially homogeneous society with people’s everyday lives. In fact, the message of the far-Right was not generally racial as such, but patriotic. Whatever we might think about the education system, people are more educated nowadays than ever. We can argue over the quality of that education, which is a separate issue, and it could also be observed that the ‘education’ largely consists of being schooled in various politically-correct epithets – all true – but I would suggest that the idea that people are dumbed-down by TV and other frivolous pursuits or that the education system itself is dumbed-down, while also containing some truth, is a little too simplistic and does not take into account the complexity of what has occurred. What we are dealing with is, on the one hand, a population that is more leisured, self-centred and affluent than in the past, largely based on credit and equity, and with the social independence that goes with it; but on the other hand, a people that are not as literate and are more willing to treat politics as a series of retail choices, with nice fuzzy messages being seen as more appealing than weighty discussion. These socio-cultural changes really began in the 1950s with the advent of the consumer society and continued into the 1960s with the decline of traditional industries and the emergence of a more individualistic culture. During the 1980s, the government’s attack on trade unions broke solidarity in the industrial workplace and created a sense of a country that valued entrepreneurial attitudes.
The last gasp of right-wing ‘collectivism’ was the National Front phenomenon of the late 1970s. After this faded, the National Front began to fall apart ideologically as it could not find a coherent intellectual response to thatcherism and the changes in society that had begun 30 years before and had produced a very different society that was in tension with the more social and statist beliefs of the far-Right’s old guard. By the late 1990s, the image of the then-leading Nationalist party, the BNP, was starting to look dated, while in the United States, Nationalists had no significant profile at all outside of alternative media. A younger group within Nationalism (including within the BNP) looked to remedy this ossification by revising the presentation of Nationalism. Under the Griffin-Duke-Black troika, a period of liberalisation and moderation was instituted. At a meeting of the American Friends of the BNP in Texas in April 2000, Griffin said this (in the presence of David Duke and other leading American White Nationalists):
There is a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. The BNP isn’t about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too……But we are determined, now, to sell them, and that means basically to use the saleable words, as I say: freedom, security, identity, democracy….Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable…..Perhaps one day, once, by being rather more subtle, we’ve got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcast media; then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say ‘yes, every last one must go’….Perhaps they will one day, but if you want that out as your sole aim to start with: you’re going to get absolutely nowhere, so instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity…
The speech from which these words were taken was found and broadcast by opponents of Nationalism who wanted to expose Griffin for his insincerity and cynicism and present the BNP as a ‘Trojan horse’ for a more extremist agenda. But the issues with ‘far-Right liberalism’ are larger than the BNP and its former leader. The new liberal tendency emerged across the far-Right and reflected long-term changes in society that its leadership believed they needed to adapt to. In Griffin’s case, the Establishment (whether with his covert co-operation or not) set out on a determined course to attack and undermine him from the beginning, using a complicit and rather corrupt media. This was ‘necessary’ because, in simple terms, a liberalised far-Right would be more attractive to the white electorate who could, at last, express their latent racial consciousness through support for a more ‘respectable’ political party. Such a party might still pose a threat to mass immigration and multi-culturalism, if it were to gain important influence at a local and national level.
In fact, the BNP had fallen into a trap. Griffin was half-correct. It was important to ‘denazify’ Nationalism and detoxify its message so that the old psychological barriers that had been erected by the media and that prevented reasonable, sensible people from thinking in racial terms could be removed. The problem is that in rightly avoiding one trap, Griffin fell into another. That is not to say Griffin was stupid. In hindsight, we can see that his use of the four buzz words – freedom, security, identity, democracy – was quite clever in its own way, and it did work in broadening the appeal for what would otherwise have been a marginal political movement. But by expressing racial nationalism in liberal language, he allowed anti-white opponents to argue the case for white genetic eradication on their own terms rather than on Nationalist terms. It was like stepping unprepared into enemy territory and trying to fight a war by borrowing the enemy’s weapons. Instead of finding a political language of its own, the far-Right sought to fight using the language of the most virulent opponents of Nationalism. To explain why, and to illuminate the point, let us de-construct each of Griffin’s four catchphrases in turn:-
Freedom This harks back to typical conservative Burkean nostrums of the English constitution and other quaint myths: the notion of the ‘free-born Englishman’ and what not. I call it ‘myth’, but in fairness it does have some basis in reality, in that English – and British – government has traditionally been quite reserved with an emphasis on self-government. The Griffin BNP sought to resurrect such notions in the belief that they would appeal to the romantic aspect of the British mind and various mythologies about a time when the government did not interfere in the freedoms of ordinary people. It’s therefore a counterpoint to the type of political correctness and microscopic state intervention that characterises a multi-cultural society. So one can see the logic. The problem is that the BNP wasn’t campaigning in some kind of neo-feudal society made up of freeborn agricultural peasants of native stock, but rather in a mass, urban post-industrial society that, while still overwhelmingly white, had largely accepted mixed-racial ideas and contained a large contingent of non-whites. Against this background, a party that argues for ‘freedom’ just ends up attacking one of the symptoms of a mixed-racial society, not the cause, and in the long-run, even if successful in gaining influence, such efforts can only assist in cementing the sickness by alleviating and ameliorating some of its harsher effects on white people. In truth, a genuine racial nationalist movement cannot appeal to saleable notions of ‘freedom’, which are freedom only to get into debt, to race-mix and to ignore the long-term consequences of one’s actions. Race-conscious freedom is inherently socialist in nature and exactly opposite of the liberal sense of freedom. It means asking the individual to recognising that he is part of a larger racial community, on which his own welfare and the welfare of others depends. How this racial message can be made appealing is a different discussion, but the point is that by co-opting the canonical notion of freedom, the BNP contributed to making the British people less free. Losing your homeland is no kind of freedom at all, even if you do have a nice new car and live in a hip culture.
Security This reflects the far-Right traditionalist interest in the ‘law and order’ agenda and its advocacy of a ‘crime control’ approach to the problem of crime and anti-social behaviour. The slogan acts as code to whites who have legitimate and well-founded fears about the non-white impact on crime levels. However, it also plays into the hands of anti-whites who want to suppress Nationalism and who favour the use of repressive measures against Nationalists to do so. In effect, while liberals advocate sociological approaches to crime for the ordinary population (and perhaps rightly so), they are happy to deploy harsh crime control measures against Nationalists and others who are politically-inconvenient.
Identity The use of this term reflects the post-modern sense of insecurity and uncertainty that is endemic in an alienated society. The idea is to give people a feeling of belonging and community that is lacking by appealing to a unified sense of who we are. This is perfectly laudable, but it would be more substantive if predicated on race, which in the majority of cases is a pretty sure denominator. By talking about ‘identity’ rather than race, the BNP turned what is a simple fact into a moveable and flexible concept and gave an opening to its opponents to frame the debate in terms of what is meant by ‘this’ or ‘that’ identity – usually ‘British’ identity, as the name of the Party suggests an attachment to Britain and the demonym ‘British’ can be made to seem inherently fluid and civic in nature. Of course, we can always have an argument about what is meant by ‘white’ people, and there are also various media traps in race-based advocacy – such as DNA tests (see the case of Craig Cobb as an example) – that can be used to undermine us, but these largely come out of an obsession with identity, which appeals to narcissistic impulses, rather than a fixation on race, which is more rigid and scientific in its basis. It is much harder to undermine a message built on ‘race’, rigid and unchanging, than on ‘identity’, which is inherently flexible and as in Cobb’s case, can even be demarcated by dubious science and percentages. What we need is less identity and more race. Alas, it seems that under Griffin, racial purity was segued into a civic, non-racial concept of identity. That is what the BNP now stands for – admittedly, under force of law – but the process for turning the BNP into a civic nationalist party was begun by Griffin long before the infamous 2009 legal case.
Democracy The reasons for the use of this word, and the problems with it, echo the points in Freedom above. A nice fuzzy word that helps lots of people feel good about themselves, but the problem is that it can be made to mean practically anything. One has to ask what kind of democracy exists in a society that no longer serves the interests of the white racial group (if it ever did) and in which whites are out-voted by other, more effective racial blocs.
What all these nice-sounding words have in common is that they are the building block of a political language that is shorn of context and meaning, and as such is manipulative. It is part of a phenomenon in modern liberal society that I call pseudo-positivism: i.e. the removal of social, economic, and racial meaning from language and its replacement with connotations and interactions that reflect whatever is practically-accepted or ‘works best’ in society. (See, my essays: ‘Race Consciousness and the Ebola Scare‘, ‘The Mechanics of Virtual Resistance‘, ‘Uncritical nationalism versus critical Nationalism‘, ‘Nationalism and the Hermeneutical Dilemma: some brief thoughts‘, ‘democracy versus Democracy, or Why the patient can’t be restored‘). The most nefarious manifestation of the liberal, pseudo-positivist mindset is political correctness, something the BNP attacked vociferously while adopting its own style of linguistic correctness under Griffin. Thus Griffin’s ‘liberalisation’ agenda, with its emphasis on language and presentation, had the effect of de-racinating the BNP.
Another new aspect of white nationalism that has come to prominence over the last ten years or so is the video movement. This is perhaps encapsulated best by the efforts of David Duke, who has almost become nationalism’s answer to Michael Moore, only a little more substantial than his counterpart. What David Duke and Michael Moore share is that they are both liberal – each of a different type. Duke’s video channel on YouTube is worth visiting just to get a sense of what we are dealing with. Duke has obviously changed his physical appearance and style to match his new-found Griffin-like liberalism. The white beard, which looks comforting; the professorial manner; the spouting of dreary ‘Rights of Man’ twaddle; the talk of racial rights. The idea is that Duke should appeal to the innate sense of fairness found in the ‘reasonable man’, the man on the street. It is a reflection of our times that he has to do it not by being racial, as such, but by being liberal, implicitly Zionist and linguistically correct. That I should make this accusation might at first seem odd and contradictory. Duke’s main area of interest is Jews and Israel, and he explicitly attacks Zionism, so most people would not think of him as Zionist. I would beg to differ. Zionism is the interest served by Duke’s attacks on it. Much like those sages of the British National Front, Mr. Duke can protest and affect to be an anti-Zionist all he likes, but in my eyes he is just another tool of the Jewish Racial State: implicitly ultra-Zionist. To explain why, I would propose here to examine from a racial perspective an issue currently in the news: Israel’s attacks on Gaza.
The ‘debate’/’discussion’ on Gaza is, I would contend, a case in point of the implicit Zionist tendency among the far-Right. The argument seems to be that there is some kind of external, universal standard that people and nations must adhere to in moral conduct. I would challenge this, as I think it is in reality just a lazy assumption. Any such standards are merely a guide, at best. In reality, life is a fight for survival. Culture, when looked at objectively, and whether it is Islam or Judaism or the zero-conscious non-culture of ethnic Europeans, is just a tool, a vessel, a means for a racial group to advance its own genetic perpetuation with varying degrees of success. That we Europeans have lost our culture and sit like zombies in front of Third World-manufactured blocks of substrate does not give us the right to sit in judgement on other cultures who are still successful at perpetuating the genes of their peoples. Those who think, for instance, that radical Muslims are primitive and uncivilised because they stone people, may have cause to re-evaluate their concept of ‘civilisation’ if those same Muslims are more successful than us in spreading their genes. What’s civilised or not does not depend on shallow, ignorant, self-centred, back-of-a-postcard notions of ‘niceness’ and ‘conscience’ that have been handed to us by media Jews, for their own ends. The harsh truth is that rest of the world – outside Europe and the Anglosphere – has no time for our ‘civilisation’ and childish decadence.
The Israelis will not stop their attrition on Gaza and the Palestinians, even if we ask them nicely. The reason they are invading Gaza is because they realise that they have to fight for their existence. They won’t stop until they have annihilated the so-called ‘Palestinians’, through a combination of force and guile, just as they won’t stop their intellectual and cultural assault on our societies, no matter how outraged people get. And quite rightly so. ‘Rightly so’ because they have as much right to fight for their existence as the so-called ‘Palestinians’ do, and just as much right as white people do. They have the right to trick, and lie to us, and deceive us. That is not to condone such behaviour. I am not myself a Zionist in any sense and I am not a friend of the Jews. It’s simply to look at the situation objectively. Human rights mean nothing to a drowning man, and they mean nothing to a people fighting for its existence. That white people don’t seem interested in fighting for their existence and would rather sit on their sofas attacking those who do is neither here nor there. The problem isn’t that Jews are psychopaths. The problem is that we’re not more like Jews. We’re not prepared to defend ourselves racially any more, unlike Jews, who – to their credit – are. Instead, we’ve become this giggling, drug- and drink-fuelled, TV-obsessed mass of narcissists and emotional basket-cases who weep and cry about dead kiddies in a war thousands of miles away that we will never be able to contextualise or understand. It’s really just the mentality of children, which is what the White Race has become – just a bunch of fat, over-indulged moral teenagers whose politics is whatever uninformed, de-anchored, decontextualised juvenilia the global Jewish media can throw at us, while laughing at us behind our backs.
The more Duke and other far-Right figures, both in the UK and North America, blather and feign outrage at Gaza, the more Zionist they look. Duke tends to talk in terms of the right of racial groups to exist, and often refers to established legalities that supposedly support this, but the reality is that there is no right for any race, group or individual to exist. There is, however, a right for a people or race to fight for their existence. Our argument should be that if the Arabs (Palestinians) and the Jews (Israelis) have this right, then so should whites. This is an argument that needs to be made not to non-whites, whose racial interests are contrary to ours and whom we are ‘fighting’, but to our fellow whites. It is not that whites as a racial group have inherent or inalienable rights or that a world with white people would be better; rather, it is that there is a right for white people to fight for their existence in the common genetic struggle: including against the ‘European Gaza’ that the Jews have created in our homelands.
This is why I have never been able to take the ‘new David Duke’ and his nonsense seriously, so for a long time now I have simply assumed that he was some kind of state puppet and that he had taken the American equivalent of The M(15)cGuinness Option, if you like, though it did also occur to me that he might be engaging in a legitimate tactic to insinuate himself into the agenda of non-whites in order to undermine them. Actually, both explanations are equally plausible and need not be mutually exclusive. The videos showcase Duke as the thorough-going narcissist that he is – not always a bad quality, but a quality that would support some combination of state involvement/Jew shilling, political expediency and base money-making. However, recently I have begun to develop in my own mind an alternative, more sophisticated rationalisation for his actions, which I think needs to be considered alongside other, more obvious and baser explanations. Duke clearly shares the genuine fear among all of us that whites will become a demographic minority in their own countries, and this is what may have prompted what he sees as a need to ‘liberalise’ White Nationalism and turn it into a rights movement – and to an extent, that may also be what motivated the Griffin BNP, which, as discussed above, transformed itself from a racial narrative under Tyndall into more of a liberal, rights-based narrative under Griffin. ‘Rights for whites’ is an old slogan for the far-Right, but whereas in the past it might have represented an inarticulate and somewhat incongruous expression of white racial assertiveness, today increasingly under Duke’s ‘liberal’ national-socialism it has become a plaintive plea for more multi-culturalism, not less. Of course, it is not difficult to appreciate the logic: if other non-white groups have the right to exist and expressively flourish, then so should whites, and so on. The difficulty with all this emphasis on ‘rights’ is that it is a Jewish strategy that is being borrowed and like most of their ways of doing things, it entails huge risks. What the Jews are counting on is that, like a good-natured pup, the dumb white keeps looking at the finger and not where it’s pointing. One might ask: If Jews and other groups are not allowed a ‘racial morality’ and cannot attack Gaza to the extent their capability allows, then maybe white people shouldn’t be allowed a similar right to fight for their existence and should instead bow down and accept whatever second-class status might be on offer in this new multi-cultural society – so long as they can exist. If the Jews of 3,000 years ago had been satisfied merely with existing, then they most probably would not be still here today. It was their willingness to fight, and indeed risk their existence, that propelled them. What Duke and his semitically-correct counterparts on the American Right ask us to do is conform to some fictitious liberal morality, which we know is fanciful, and be beholden to Jews, who can easily smooth over the contradictions in their own position. Wouldn’t a better approach be simply to point out that if the Jews can fight for their existence in Palestine (a matter on which we should take a neutral position), then likewise we white people should be able to fight for our existence too? Buying into all this liberal pap may be the line of least resistance/popular, but ultimately it’s self-defeating. The only answer is to adopt a properly racial position. That means neutrality on Palestine and to also point out, both to Jews and the putative anti-Zionists, that just as Jews have a right to fight for their existence, so do whites.
I couldn’t fit the below neatly into the essay, so I include it below.
First, continuing my ‘Developed Mantra’ theme, a good question to ask Jews would be:
If you Jews can defend yourselves in Israel, then why do you think it is wrong for whites in Europe to do similar?
Better still, an adapted form of that question should be put to whites – especially those who, with a bit of persuasion, might be sympathetic to us.
On the implicit ‘Zionism’ of the ‘controlled opposition’ in the West – i.e. far-Right and the far-Left – I have not mentioned much of the far-Left in this regard, but now will, very briefly: One reason the so-called ‘anti-Zionist’ Left serves the Jews very well is that it provides cover for the real Gaza, which is the Jewish attack on whites, and means that any criticism of Israel is made to look like a criticism of Jews and therefore ‘anti-semitism’. Obviously, the far-Right’s own ‘anti-Zionism’ can only aid this objective, which is why genuine Racial Nationalists should be neutral on Palestine and should instead ask Jews about their own influence in our society: the ‘European Gaza’, and should also ask whites to direct their attention to this large and ignored ‘elephant in the room’.
My opinion is that Zionism and anti-Zionism are simply two sides of the same coin – much like most anti-capitalists are actually just supporters of capitalism in a different form. They may not be conscious of their own complicitly, but that is not necessarily an excuse.
In the case of the far-Right – including the BNP, the National Front, the BDP, etc., etc. – they have all worked to serve Zionist interests in one way or another. It may be that in most cases this service was unrendered unconsciously and ‘by omission’ – I have no problem accepting that, but having genuine motives is not enough. The truth matters. The whole history of the British far-Right is something that needs a revisionist re-examination: including its Zionism and the real possibility (which I consider likely) of it having been under state control.
Second, my response to Griffin’s Four Words (as mentioned above – my own term for it) would be:
Solidarity instead of ‘Freedom’.
Community instead of ‘Democracy’.
Race instead of ‘Identity’
Safety instead of ‘Security’.
I’ll call that ‘the New Four Words’, but it’s something that needs work. It’s just a start. The point is that any messages we adopt should achieve the balance of being appealing to those sections of the population we can realistically hope to attract, but also true to our core beliefs and loyalties. We should not try to argue on our enemy’s own terms just for the sake of hoped-for electoral success, which can only be short-term and transient anyway and will not lead to meaningful reform.
9/11 attacks, action, Al Qaeda, Asians, Benjamin Netanyahu, bigotry, blacks, child abuse, cognitive dissonance, conservative Jews, conspiracism, conspiracy theory, democracy, discrimination, Ebola, Ebola scare, empiricism, equality, European Gaza, evolutionary origins, evolutionary psychology, fantasy world, Gaza, group think, gun crime, Hamas, haters, human rights, immaturity, inaction, Independent [newspaper], irreason, Israel, Israelisation, Jewish Left, Jewish Racial Nationalism, Jewish settlement, Jewish victimhood, Jews, Judaism, Labor Party (Israel), liberal virus, liberalism, liberals, Likud Party, maturity, Muslims, Nazis, observation, Palestine, Pervertocratic Pervocracy, political language, positivism, pro-Jewish racism, pseudo-intellectuals, pseudo-positivism, race, race consciousness, Racial Nationalism, racialism, racism, racists, radical Islam, radical Muslims, reality, reaosn, Revisionist Zionism, Traditional Zionism, truth, U.S. government, unicorns, United States of America, victimhood, Western civilisation, Western society, Westminster paedophile ring, white Britons, white genocide, white guilt, White Race, xenophobia, yellow journalism, Zionism
Race Consciousness and the Ebola Scare
Some people believe in democracy. Other people believe in unicorns. What the two beliefs have in common is irreason: an inability or unwillingness to accept reality. Reality itself is the product of both reason and observation, with each having a dependency on the other, so that our reasoned understanding of things influences our observations and how we interpret them, while our observations influence how we reason about the world. The most powerful of the forces underpinning reality is simple, everyday observation. Often the path to reality – that is to say, a realistic understanding of our situation – begins by simply looking. If we would just take off the myopic goggles provided to us by the media, our friends and workplace colleagues and all the other apparatuses of indoctrination, and simply look, with our own eyes, we would begin to recognise a new, more truthful reality. The irreasoned masses bypass this simple process of observation partly because of peer pressure and the motive power of group thinking – which has deep evolutionary origins and which we all succumb to from time-to-time – and also because they are engaging in wish-thought – the supplicant of reason – which, again, we all succumb to at important points in our everyday lives. We all wish that things could be a certain way, and sometimes, in consequence, we block out simple observation and the reasoned conclusions that irresistibly flow from them and instead see things as we would wish them to be. We then apply our actions accordingly, in defiance of reality. The reality is that capitalism is a social system designed to exploit the majority of working people, but most people will still turn up for work in the morning. Sometimes, the fantastical nature of the irreasoned belief is too much, even for the type of highly-indoctrinated mind that is a feature of modern society; often, it becomes squarely apparent to the confused mind that the irreasoned belief is so inimical to one’s own existential or material interests that the contradiction has to be confronted, if only privately and quietly, in one’s own mental world.
One common result of this disjunction is what is known as cognitive dissonance: a term that is now memetically cited with increasing frequency in pseudo-intellectual discussion. Cognitive dissonance is, in fact, just another word for maturity. It is the mental strain experienced by an individual who has come to realise that the interests promoted in society are contrary to his own, and perhaps, contrary to the interests of society itself. Society has put in place powerful forces to combat maturity, including TV soaps, mindless pop music, football teams, permissiveness in drug-taking and social relations. All these are designed to distract attention and smooth-over the stresses and neuroses that arise in the mature mind. Of course, these distractions do not work with the more intelligent, educated or effective person. For that type of maturity, a more sophisticated intellectual fantasy world needs to be constructed and sustained. This may take the form of very basic political ideas, such as the notion that democracy is the best system, that ordinary people have a stake in society and that hard work makes you successful. These ideas are supported by fictions, such as voting, home ownership, plastic careers and important-sounding job titles. Political language and conceptualisation plays an important part in constructing and maintaining the fantasy world. People are trained to think that political language and concepts have no social, moral, economic or racial basis, as such, but simply represent the outcome of practical experience. This is what I term a ‘pseudo-positivist’ outlook. An example would be the treatment of ‘democracy’. Democracy is seen not for what it truly is – a system of social control and the expression of group interests – but rather, as the most practically beneficial way of running and organising society. In that kind of intellectual environment, lacking as it does any contextual insight, it is easy to posit that ‘democracy’ is the ‘right’ or ‘moral’ way whereas anything anti-democratic is the ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ way. Most of the time, such assertions are lies, or at least hypocritical, but the lack of any understanding of what democracy is contextually or whose interests it serves results in a situation where any meaningful discussion is outside the parameters of accepted debate and those who question the system tend to be stigmatised and ignored. The liberal mind is the perfection of linguistic pseudo-positivism: it supports state, even military, intervention in the lives of individuals, families, groups, even whole nations, on the pretext of ‘democracy’ or some other political phrase or concept polluted with positivism. What helps the liberal virus is that most people are mentally exoteric: they base their perceptions and judgements on the information they receive and they plan their lives according to the experience of themselves and others. This is a perfectly intelligent way to think, to an extent, but it is also ideal basis for social control. The content of received knowledge and information is dominated conceptually by the interests of the elite. Without this control, the fantasy world would start to break down under the irresistible influence of reason and observation. We can see that our society is not democratic – that conclusion is the result of plain reason and observation – but most refuse to pursue this line of thinking further, still less articulate it. Instead, the positivist mindset is dominant and the ordinary person – the modern liberal – parrots uncritically the mantra of democracy, human rights, equality and so on.
One of the cruder tricks deployed by the media to control us is through the dissemination of scare stories. Normally, this kind of yellow journalism focuses on providing a hysterical interpretation of events that plays to the base instincts of people, so as to attract attention to the right narratives and distract attention from incidences and narratives that might point the way to harsher truths about society. The usual topics are crime and health scares. It is important to understand what while dishonest hack journalism is commercially-motivated and intended to sustain readership, its editorial preoccupations also reflect whatever is the political climate of the time. In a white race conscious society, crime stories would be expected to not only feature blacks in significant number, but also emphasise the racial and ethnic identities of the perpetrators. In our mixed-racial society, it is necessary to undermine confidence among the still-dominant socio-economic group, whites – especially white Britons – and so violent crime by whites against non-whites tends to be sensationalised. Non-British whites are also used as a scapegoat for the problems of mass immigration, especially if the white group has little or no power or influence, as is the case with Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians, who represents an easy target. Muslims and Asians generally are becoming more influential, and so attacks on that group are restricted to ‘radicals’ and ‘fundamentalists’, who can still be targeted for sensationalist coverage, whereas ‘ordinary’ Asians and Muslims cannot (generally) be targeted in the same way that ordinary whites, especially non-British whites, can be. Jews are not the subject of this type of sensationalism at all, except in the narrow sense that they can be portrayed as perpetual ‘victims’ of the ‘race crimes’ of everybody else, especially whites but also Muslims. When it comes to this kind of sensationalist coverage about ‘race’, positivist linguistics is deployed classically to encourage a fantasy perception of what is going on, so that instead of seeing things in terms of a conflict between different racial groups with competing racial and economic interests – which is the normal, reasoned way of seeing things – ordinary people are encouraged to divide the protagonists into ‘haters’, ‘racists’, ‘bigots’, Nazis’ and ‘victims’. Supposedly, if we are to believe the newspapers, Muslims are for the most part peace-loving and only a few of them are fanatical. A more rational journalist might pose to himself, and the public, the question of what, in fact, all Muslims want from their religion. He may come to the conclusion that in fact all Muslims are radical, but only some are honest about it, and the ‘radicalism’ itself is simply an expression of a racial interest that Islam has evolved to promote in host societies. If we believe the newspapers, we are asked to accept that whites who are race conscious and articulate this are just a bunch of wannabe Nazi dictators who want to kill Jews. What in fact they may be is something duller and more prosaic – just people who have pride in their identity, like normal people do, and who simply want to maintain the European, Western characteristics of Britain and Europe – which is surely to be expected, and is in any case a laudable goal. We are asked to believe by those same sensationalist journalists that Jews are the victims of everybody else. No-one asks the rational question: what have Jews done to carry this unfortunate stigma?
Those who highlight Jewish influence in society are labelled kranks, misfits, losers and crazies, as if it is irrational to question who benefits from the way society works or to suggest that what happens in society might have a social, economic, financial and racial basis. When in fact Jewish crimes are, rightly and justly, highlighted by the media, as is the case with the ongoing coverage of Israel’s brutality in Gaza, this is always represented through the concave lens of pseudo-positivism: we are told that the Israelis (not the Jews) are committing atrocities or genocide or breaching human rights. It is not explained that these crimes are an expression not so much of Israeli nationalism, but Jewish Racial Nationalism and the need for Jews to maintain their own racial state. The original Zionists were of the Jewish Left and desired settlement in Palestine. Over time, this tendency – which became characterised as ‘Traditionalist Zionism’ – faced a rival, in the form of Revisionist (conservative) Zionism. The Revisionists demanded nothing less than a Jewish state. They won out and the Traditionists gradually melted away as the State of Israel became a geopolitical reality, but they did not go away completely. The cleave is reflected in Israeli domestic politics to this day. The Likud party of Netanyahu is the modern version of the Revisionist tendency, while the weaker tendency in Israel, towards conciliation, is represented by much of the Israeli Labor Party, which has its origins in Traditionalism. The division is largely meaningless as both sides believe in maintaining the tribal integrity of Jews, which is the real issue. The permanent, relentless state of alert that exists in Israel assists in maintaining the Jews’ sense of tribal identity and in repelling outsiders, but this is not reflected in the coverage of the Western media, where the matter is decontextualised, allowing apologists for the Jews to defend pro-Jewish racism on terms that are amenable to them, using the false narrative of legality: specifically, Israeli civil and military defence against Hamas. No matter how brutal or inhumane Israel’s offensive operations become, so long as Israel’s own race-free narrative is accepted, then the truth can be easily hidden and concealed, or at worst, manipulated, controlled or minimised.
If people were to take off their liberal goggles and actually look, what they would see in Gaza is Jewish people defending their own racial interests. To an extent, this is admirable, but this revelation would also be highly-dangerous for Jews if popularised, for it would expose to an otherwise oblivious public a rare but accurate diagnosis of their motivations and it would not be long before people would start to apply the same motivation to the actions of Jews in Britain and other Western societies. There is no reason why we should not do so, and there would be nothing worse for the Jews than if we were to do so. Suddenly, Racial Nationalists and those who are sympathetic to us would have a riposte: “You are only saying that/calling for that because you are a Jew!” It really is a simple matter of ‘Who benefits?’. Thus, the alarmism and scare stories over Gaza serve an important defensive purpose for Jews. They prevent ordinary white people from seeing the massive elephant in the room: the ‘European Gaza’ that the Jews in the West have constructed and still maintain. It is in the Jews’ interests that we should feel that we are besieged by Muslims, their age-old enemy in Palestine, and now ours thanks to the Jews. The ‘Israelisation’ of our society ferments the threats and divisions that Jews thrive on and that keep them together as a tribal group, while sowing division and mistrust among whites.
To highlight that Jews and Jewish values have a critical influence in society for the benefit of Jews is certainly a conspiracy theory. What it is not is a form of conspiracism. The former type of explanatory phenomenon – ‘conspiracy theory’ – is rational and, even if shown to not be valid, is still based on reason, logic and observation. The latter type of explanatory phenomenon – ‘conspiracism’ – is irrational, irreasoned and tends not to be based on observation. The difference can, perhaps, be illuminated by an example. Consider the contrast between someone complaining about rule by lizard-hybrid beings (an example of conspiracism), with someone suggesting that Jews might have too much influence in society (an example of conspiracy theory). Conspiracism, then, is a belief in conspiracy for its own sake, irrespective of the empirical merits of the theory or explanation; whereas conspiracy theory is simply what all of us, from governments downward, have engaged in most of the time: the official U.S. government explanation for the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theory in that it is believed a conspiracy of Al Qaeda operatives planned it and did it. Conspiracy theory – whether it is about Jews or Al Qaeda or something else – is based on a rational understanding of the world, a commitment to reason combined with a belief in the validity of empiricism and observation, and an acknowledgement that conspiratorial power and influence can be exercised subtly and unconsciously in the advancement of underlying interests in the society, both on a large- and small-scale. The notion that Jews run society is not the same as blaming Jews for society. Blaming others is an immature and unintellectual impulse. We are concerned here with cause and effect, not hating or blaming – but hating and blaming are an important tool of distraction. Most people block out questions about society, or accept the licensed explanations offered to them by powerful interests. Typically these official explanations, even when they have a valid or rational basis, can take the form of hating or blaming politicians and other prominent figures or groups – e.g. Tony Blair is called a liar and vilified – or they can involve blaming some vague, intangible concept – for instance, militant feminists or ‘liberals’ or Marxists are said to be to blame for social and moral degeneration in Western society. Or it can just be blaming groups in an unanalytical way: for example, blaming Jewish capitalists or bankers or blaming blacks for gun crime, or whatever. This ‘blaming’ gets us nowhere unless it is replaced, or at least accompanied by, a dispassionate analysis of (a). what is not satisfactory about society; (b). which groups or individuals benefit from the way society is run; and, (c). whether there can be any causation established between the problem, its effects and those who appear to make decisions. That’s an intellectual exercise that requires time, thought and patience. Our society is structured in a way that is inimical to this kind of analytical activity. Instead, we are expected to act as receivers and repeaters of information, which itself has undergone the rigours of editorial concision; and when our opinion is asked for at all, we are expected to reduce a complex world into the narrow, pedestrian mould of ‘acceptable’ opinion, often resulting in the regurgitation of soundbites that conveniently dispatch the issues of the day on terms that are expedient to the interests of the powerful. Social media assists this process of intellectual suffocation. Twitter, for instance, which has become a popular social media site, is based on the practice of micro-blogging, a comment format that lends itself to repetition of whatever opinions and attitudes are trending rather than original thought and insight. Twitter also encourages a mob mentality, so that people who express opinions that are contrary to, or outside, the dominant fantasy world of irreason can be verbally attacked and threatened at will, with little recourse.
What is interesting is the way that every now and then we see a tear in the manufactured reality of this fantasy world. The existential racial threats presented by the realities of mass non-white immigration and liberal mixed-racialism cannot be hidden or denied with any real conviction. They have the potential to cause cognitive dissonance among even the most ‘educated’ and liberal whites. What these whites are starting to realise, albeit slowly and sub-consciously, is that we have our own Gaza here in Europe. This is gradually becoming apparent even among white people who would otherwise never consider themselves to be ‘racist’ and indeed would be quick to sneer condescendingly at others who express opinions even vaguely xenophobic, regarding such as unsophisticated buffoonery.
Consider these contributions from readers of the liberal newspaper, the Independent, posted in the comments section of an Ebola story:-
Coming to a multicultural hospital in Britain soon………………..
You open your borders to all and sundry and this is the end result.
All this talk about quarantine, sealing borders etc !! The UK cannot even prevent TB carriers from SE Asia entering the country. Some of the highest incidences are in East Lancashire which have larger Asian Heritage populations
What if someone decides to weaponise this virus ? Say a group decides to acquire a bottle of Ebola laden bodily fluids from some poor African family. This would indeed be a potent weapon if smuggled to the west.
So why are we still allowing people from these third-world hell holes into the country? We should be establishing a quarantine zone around the affected regions on land, sea and in the air.
It will spread through the London ghetto’s like wild fire.
And Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, etc. etc.
Yes, but what are the downsides?
The symptoms of Ebola are almost indistinguishable from those associated with the aftermath of eating Nando’s chicken:
Joint and muscle aches
Lack of appetite
Or any kebab.
Except Ebola victims have a better chance of survival.
Bushmeat, HIV/AIDS, benefit tourism, scam marriages, religion, fraud and scams, FGM, witchcraft and now Ebola; is there no end to it? There probably will be now!
Its called “enrichment and diversity”.
It’s not called the Dark Continent for nothing.
And no doubt if we start turning people back at Heathrow the left will be ranting about “racism”.
Spot on. Better a dead non-racist than a live racist is their motto.
Invite the third in, you have third world problems.
Shame the cretins running the country can’t see that!
I would suggest that only a few years ago these types of comments would have been next to-unthinkable at the foot of an article in a national liberal newspaper, and would only have been tolerated rarely in that environment, maybe from the odd reader or two. My suspicion is that for some of these people, it will have been the first time in their lives that they have found the courage to comment in this way publicly, albeit under an online pseudonym. A newspaper like the Independent, with its social liberal reputation, is simply not commonly associated with comments like this, and the few that do make what are (on the Establishment’s own terms) ‘racist’ comments would usually expect to see their comments removed by the moderators, and would be lucky not to be banned from the site. The Ebola scare is of course just the latest example of media scare-mongering. Unless it were to mutate into airborne form, the virus presents a minimal threat to the more advanced healthcare systems of the West, but it would be a mistake to dismiss any media scare story without looking at the underlying causes and what it suggests about the direction of public opinion. Whatever Ebola may be in the medical and public health sense, Ebola as a political phenomenon is a conduit of the fears of a more enlightened public who are starting to experience cognitive dissonance – i.e. maturity. People are starting to recognise that ‘diversity’ brings costs with it. We are always being told that we need immigrants in our society. No-one stops to consider that the immigrants might need us, and might even need us more than we need them. That kind of rational examination isn’t popular among the elite, but as reason and observation continues to erode the fantasy world constructed for the masses, the media are running out of options. Scare stories like Ebola are cyclical – we had a similar round of Ebola scares a few years ago – and these stories are often planted in the media for an ulterior purpose, in that they can distract the attention of the viewer from larger scandals. The Westminster paedophile ‘scandal’ is cyclical and comes up every few years, reflecting the pressures brought to bear on the media to conceal a larger problem. (See my essay: ‘Pervertocratic Pervocracy: the political science of child abuse‘). The latest Establishment paedophile stories focused on narrow issues around documentary evidence and unpopular individuals. This so-called ‘scandal’ probably succeeded in diverting attention from the real issue, which is that child abuse seems to be, or has been, committed on a large-scale among the Establishment and has been systematically covered-up.
Sometimes the media use disjointed stories to distract attention. On the face of it, there would seem to be no connection between Ebola and Jewish attrition in Gaza, but if we think a little deeper, we can see connections between the two stories. The Ebola scare is really a manifestation of the innate, instinctual, impulsive drive among social animals to repel ‘the Other’, the alien, the invader. Ebola itself is a metaphoric surrogate for the real target: non-white foreigners who we know would destroy our society. It is these same instincts that drive the Jewish Racial Nationalists who fire their rockets into civilian Gaza. Like it or not, it is the instinct to repel outsiders that is the motive force behind a great deal of social action. Without it, there would be no effective community; we would all just be a collection of individuals and consumers pursuing selfish lives, and civilisation itself would be fundamentally different – that is, if we had a civilisation at all. It is likely that each of the commenters who posted something beneath the Independent article referenced above see themselves as quite ‘normal’, ‘ordinary’ people who are not ‘racist’ in any way. It is likely that they will go on with their daily lives and not think much about Ebola again. They affect to be frightened, but deep down they know that the media have constructed a scare story to help them sustain the fantasy that keeps our manufactured reality going, keeps us showing up for work, keeps us voting, keeps us doing all the ‘normal’ things that ‘normal’ people do. Some of these same people might also have commented on the other scare story – Gaza – but will certainly not think about the ‘European Gaza’ that is being constructed by the Jews before their very eyes. That blip of maturity and racial consciousness that they exhibited when commenting on Ebola is a sign of hope for us. It means the patient is still alive and can be revived, but it is going to take a concerted effort, and in the meantime our own metaphorical Gaza is being constructed, brick by brick – a prison of our own making. One day the metaphor will take literal form and we will have to fight, not a distant outbreak of Ebola, but the suicidal irreason on our own doorsteps.
18th. century, 1950s, 1960s, 20th. century, affluent poor, agricultural society, anti-whites, autonomy, BDP, BNP, British, capitalism, capitalists, civic identity, commerce, Conservative Party, Craig Cobb, Dave Spart, democracy, dumb whites, Europe, far-Right, First World War, industrialisation, Jews, John Ball, John Bull, Johnny Foreigner, Labour Party, Leith North Dakota, LibertyGB, mass production, National Front, non-whites, North America, political Right, Pomp and Circumstance, pro-Zionist, racial identity, Richard Edmonds, right-wing, right-wing Dave Spart, rural society, Second World War, state-fascism, The Lessons of Leith, The Smiling Jew, the White Race, Tommy Atkins, UKIP, ultra-Zionist, Union Flag, Union Jack, urban society, urbanisation, Zionism, Zionist symbolism
The Far Right: conning us since 1945
For seventy years, Nationalism in this country and the rest of Europe and North America has been dominated by the political Right, especially the far-Right. These people have created a rather shallow political movement, borrowing the superficial aspects of a fictional national identity invented by satirists at the beginning of the 18th. century. Their cause appeals to the unthinking, undeveloped mentality of the bigoted provincial who dislikes Johnny Foreigner: a kind of right-wing version of Dave Spart. These people do not represent me. They never have. Their simplistic messages have never appealed to my deep sense of feeling for these islands, for its geography, its unique people and culture, but above all, my allegiance to the White Race. I am a socialist, not a Zionist. My symbol is John Ball, not John Bull. The far-Right reflects no more my ‘nationalist’ tendency than a Catholic nun. That said, I think John Bull has had a bit of an unfair press. The original creation was the classic honest country yeoman: provincial, unpretentious and common-sensical, if a little blinkered. It was only later, around the time of the First World War, that the image of John Bull morphed into an authority figure and was used, for instance, on Army recruitment posters to enlist white men into the mass slaughter of that senseless war – a contrast with ‘Tommy Atkins’, who replaced John Bull as the representative of the ordinary Englishman. This transition in John Bull’s propagandistic function from common man to a personification of authority reflected fundamental changes in British society and the working class experience: the movement from a society that was rural and agricultural in character to urban and industrial, and the resultant need for social control in society; the transition in the social relations of production from autonomy and landed peasantry to commerce and mass production; the change from strong families and communities to the strong state. The root of the far-Right’s reactionary, authoritarian propaganda – indeed, the root of the modern state-fascism of the 20th. century – is the liberalism of the mass industrial society.
As such, the far-Right is just the latest in a long line of ideological vehicles for mass social control, working in the interests of capitalists. Its strategy seems to be to rely on an out-dated notion of Nationalism that was for all intents and purposes abolished by the Second World War. (See my essay: ‘The Lessons of Leith‘). The British have always had a more subdued attitude to patriotism than that found in other European countries. The British far-Right’s pro-Zionist symbolism – the use of the Union Flag and John Bull imagery – does not connect with ordinary people and to a large extent plays into the hands of anti-whites and non-whites, who wish to co-opt the ‘British’ civic identity as their own. The various party political brands of the far-Right, including the National Front and the BNP, together with its ‘normalised’ outlets such as UKIP, are about managing dissent among the system’s middle-managers and self-employed. The typical demographic of their supporters is not ‘poor’, but middle-class and the affluent working class, i.e. the petit bourgeosie. These tend to make up the majority of right-wing supporters and voters. The delusions that such people carry through their lives (what I call ‘respectable deceits’ in my essay, ‘The Smiling Jew and other clever wiles‘) are similar to those among Labour and Conservative supporters and are based on the belief that they have a stake in the system. Voting itself, and a lot of mainstream political activity, has now largely become the preserve of a modern parody of the Platonic citizenry, a sizeable minority who make up the system’s client base and are the easiest to control because they believe either that the system already works in their favour or can be made to do so. As such, party politics – including the far-Right – has become just a way of diverting the frustrations of the ‘affluent poor’ into activity that is relatively harmless to the system. Thus any real opposition is suffocated without the need for violence. (See my essay, ‘Democracy Keeps Us Dumb‘).
When I encounter these ‘affluent poor’ who accept the system implicitly, either by supporting it or seeking to reform it, one of my questions to them is why they choose to be so munificent towards their rich masters: the Jews and the capitalists? Why do they vote against their own racial and economic interests? Why would someone who has nothing expend so much time and energy in propping-up capitalism and Jewish supremacy, using received propaganda? Of course, these ‘affluent poor’ are in denial about their disenfranchisement. They don’t accept that they have nothing. They still live under the delusion that they have a stake in the system. They own their own home and run their own business or hold down a well-paid job, or have some kind of plastic status, or whatever. These props fuel the delusion of citizenship, as does the promise of proxy say and influence through the attainment of political power and influence by ‘their’ party, UKIP. These are delusions, supported by lies that come from the mouths not of the elites, but of the ‘affluent poor’ themselves. They repeat and reinforce the positivistic mantras that the media feed them: democracy, human rights, legality, dictatorship, liberty, etc. ad nauseum. The question we should be asking these people is simple: Has lying worked? It’s a simple enough question, maybe a little too simple, but sometimes the truth is straightforward. The reality is that lying hasn’t worked. What these people want us to believe is that we should carry on lying nonetheless and vote for UKIP or the BNP or the BDP or LibertyGB or the National Front, or whatever. I have some time for the idea of tactically voting for these outfits on local issues, but the awkward truth is that electoral politics hasn’t worked, largely because since the 1950s/60s, Nationalism has been controlled by the far-Right. They have not found a narrative that relates their cause to the needs and interests of ordinary people. All they have to offer is Zionist symbolism. Why should I vote for that? Why should I bow down to Jews? Keep your pin badges and your Pomp and Circumstance. I would rather go down fighting, thank you. The BNP, the National Front, Britain First, LibertyGB and UKIP are all the same: just the kosher Right under different names. They are all officially pro-Zionist or ultra-Zionist. They are all plugging the same line, using slightly different language and emphases. Enough is enough! We have to start voting for ourselves.
FORWARD THE WHITE RESISTANCE!
'the reasonable Zionist', British conservatism, British Zionism, buzz words, capitalism, child abuse, Christianity, commies, CPS, Crown Prosecution Service, democracy, fake conservatism, far-Right, George Orwell, human rights, idealism, idealist/materialist dichotomy, interventionist liberalism, Jews, Jimmy Savile, Judaism, Labour Party, liberalism, liberty, materialism, militant feminism, Nationalism, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Noam Chomsky, Orwellian, paedophile dossier, Peter Hitchens, phraseology, pro-Jewish racism, propaganda, propagandists, race, racialism, radical liberalism, Rolf Harris, scandal, Shoah, socialism, Stuart Hall, The Nervous Jew, the Sixties, The Smiling Jew, the West, the White Race, Trotskyism, UKIP, Western values, Westminster paedophile ring, White Race, Winston Smith, Zionism
The Nervous Jew: deconstructing Peter Hitchens
One of the more admirable aspects of the political writing of the Jew Noam Chomsky is the way he is prepared to de-construct the liberal hypocrisy of professional intellectuals. Chomsky has demonstrated time and again the limitations of positivist/liberal thinking and the emptiness of buzz phrases like ‘democracy’, ‘liberty’ and ‘human rights’ when deployed in defence of societies that are as undemocratic and unjust as those the West targets for its propaganda. That Chomsky is also a rank hypocrite who uses the same tactics himself is less noticed and less remarked on, but that having been noted, it remains the case that his writings are useful in that they prompt us to ask a very important question: What role do society’s intellectuals play in maintaining repressive systems at home and abroad?
Peter Hitchens is a professional intellectual of some interest to me, for the following reasons:-
(1). He is Jewish and strongly Zionist, but affects to be devoutly Christian. Admittedly, there is little difference between the two positions, and certainly no contradiction as far as I can see, since Christianity and Judaism are more or less the same moral belief system, albeit with some important but superficial differences. But the important point is that Hitchens’ ‘pretend Christianity’ allows him to pursue the classic Jewish tactic of hiding among whites and affecting to adopt Western values.
(2). Although he makes no serious attempt to hide his Zionism, Hitchens does like to distract from it a little by putting forward easy and obvious concessions to the Palestinian side. He does this to appear as the ‘reasonable Zionist’. When Israel commits an obvious atrocity, it’s likely Hitchens will have some condemnatory formulation prepared in response to it, while at the same time also pointing out (perhaps rightly, in fairness) that people should not adopt a simplistic view of things and arrantly castigate Israel.
(3). The third reason is Hitchens’ apparent conservatism. I say ‘apparent’ because like much else about him, in Hitchens’ case what appears to be conservatism is in fact something else. That ‘something else’ is not quite alien to conservatism – I am suggesting Hitchens is a propagandist, not a liar – it is more of a hybrid that serves a hidden or difficult-to-see purpose. The purpose is racial. Hitchens (like Chomsky and other media Jews) is a pro-Jewish racist.
To explain this and how it relates to Hitchens’ conservatism, we should consider the extent to which British conservatism and British Zionism dovetail. Both have an interest in preserving the system they have successfully infiltrated and in attacking any political or social force that might threaten it. In Hitchens’ case, this has led to a rather pronounced brand of traditional social conservatism. I would argue that Peter Hitchens serves as the personification of British conservative-Zionist intellectual confluence and is in fact the archetypal practitioner of the ‘respectable deceit’ referred to in my previous article (The Smiling Jew and other clever wiles). Such people tend to see anyone who questions the system fundamentally as a ‘crank’ or ‘troublemaker’.
Indeed, one thing you will notice about Hitchens is the way that he hypocritically often makes use of mockery and personal insult against his opponents, while complaining loudly whenever the same is dished out to him. This is because Hitchens is actually engaged in a racial struggle, the type of struggle in which loyalty to one’s Race must come before intellectual honesty and objectivity. For Hitchens, the personal actually is the political. He sees his political opponents as existential enemies who might threaten not just the illusions of material prosperity that support the ‘respectable deceits’ of his post-War generation, but also the survival of the Jewish race. Hitchens is, in short, still fighting the left-wing battles of his (alleged) Trotskyist youth, using much the same obnoxious methods, only deploying different language.
I strongly suspect Hitchens’ Trotskyist period is largely a fiction and that his actual involvement in anything remotely rebellious was very small and resembled juvenile pranksterism more than Trotskyism. However, I have no evidence for this – it’s just an intuitive suspicion on my part. It would make an interesting project for an investigative journalist to pursue, and if my suspicion is correct, it would also prove him a liar, and raise lots of interesting and serious questions about who he really is and what he is up to. However, it may not be of any great importance either way. In truth, even if we accept Hitchens on his own terms, his Trotskyism was not as significant as he pretends. Hitchens talks up these radical movements, conjuring up dark visions of enemies within, in much the same fashion that people on the far-Right like to, but the reality is more prosaic. Trotskyists are essentially left-wing radicals who follow the general politics of Leon Trotsky. I have some experience of my own in the matter. I was never a Trotskyist, but I was in the Labour Party and held quite left-wing views, and I knew Trotskyists and other sorts of state-communists (as I would call them, though admittedly use of the term ‘state’ risks being a little clumsy with regard to the ideology of Trotsky, but that’s another matter). Their views are not significantly far removed from democratic socialists in the Labour Party, though they pretend to be, and people like Hitchens, who want to give the impression of an edgy radical past, pretend that they are. They aren’t. Of course, Hitchens acknowledges this himself, rightly pointing out how the modern Labour Party has achieved many of the aims of the radical left of his youth. Where perhaps he errors in in assuming that this means the modern Labour Party and the contemporary Left and the radicals of his era are, more or less, one and the same movement. There is merit in the theory, but things are not quite that simple.
Cultural conservatives like Hitchens tend to emphasise what I call ‘idealism’ over ‘materialism’. To Hitchens, being radical is about idealism and effecting cultural changes and has no bearing on the deeper racial (genetic) and economic interests in society. To put that in plain terms, using an example: to Hitchens, militant feminism is just the assertion of radical women against some kind of prevailing social orthodoxy. Most people are persuaded by this type of view, but it serves an ulterior purpose in that it means that most people don’t stop to consider what vested interests (racial and economic) might really be driving feminism and push for its success. The latter is the materialist perspective. Of course, the idealist/materialist dichotomy is a simplification: Hitchens’ presentation of his views can sometimes embrace social complexity, as is the case for all of us, but the point is that in postulating a continuation of radical liberalism from the Sixties to the Blair government, Hitchens does not take into account of the forces that drive social change, which are primarily racial and economic and outside the remit of national governments. In other words, Hitchens doesn’t want us to consider that the way our society is organised into owners and non-owners – i.e. capitalism – and the existence of different racial groups might have bearing on social and cultural change. Instead, like other conservatives, Hitchens adopts the ‘culture wars’ narrative. Feminists are just men-haters. Left-wingers are just ‘commies’. Blair is just a silly drip or a ‘war-monger’. The advantage of a purely cultural narrative like this that it is evacuated of materialist analysis is that it allows the propagandist to blame everything on a concept – it might be ‘liberals’ or ‘feminist man-haters’ or whatever. Hitchens, and people like him, would rather we don’t grasp that the reason the UK went to war in Iraq is because we have a capitalist government under the influence of Zionist Jews. Instead, Blair is a ‘liar’ or an ‘interventionist liberal’. Of course, Blair may be these things as well – I’m not dismissing these views entirely – and by engaging in this type of second-hand critique, Hitchens does run the risk that the dog might stop looking at the finger and see what the finger is pointing at. However, my point is that there is more to it than what people like Hitchens like to pretend. Hitchens would like us to believe that everything happens in a vacuum and cannot be explained rationally and that we should instead be satisfied with blame, scape-goating and name-calling, and perhaps, the comfort of a superannuated rational actor in God. He doesn’t want us to look for more rational explanations, as this might cause us to start asking some uncomfortable questions about the way society is run.
There is of course nothing wrong with the notion that the Left have managed to effect considerable cultural change in society over the last sixty years, but this hasn’t happened because of a bunch of bolshie commies and man-hating feminists. Hitchens can afford to be candid about his own supposed radical past because he is certain we will accept this second-rate explanation, which is given credence by his ‘confessional’. It is part of a front that he has constructed to distract from his true agenda, which is the racial interests of Jews. It helps to create in the mind of the naive observer an impression of knowledge and reasonableness, especially given that Hitchens likes to claim he has left this ‘radical’ past behind. The clue as to the truth of this claim is apparent whenever you see him speak or read his words on a page: his rhetorical and argumentative methods remain left-wing in that he can be prating, hectoring, simplistic and personal – and above all else, manipulative – in the way he puts across his points, often resembling an excited student at a university debating society. What we can see with Hitchens, as with anyone else, is a continuation, in which he has been pursuing the same cause all along: not as some mad, frenzied radical ‘liberal’, but as one of the Jews.
An article that appeared on Hitchens’ blog today caught my attention and I will offer my analysis of part of it. One thing that immediately grabs attention about Hitchens – and the linked article offers a very good example of this – is his consummate skill as a propagandist, both as a speaker and writer. It is almost as if he has received some professional training in the art of rhetorical persuasion, such is the cogency of his prose. To deconstruct his prose, I adopt here the method of textual analysis, based on the premise that in small details we will often find important truths, about the author and society in general. As for the article itself, to borrow a rhetorical flourish often used by Noam Chomsky – the piece is ‘a classic in the genre’. It’s an example of how British conservatism and British Zionism converge. Surely one for the archives, it should be regarded as a ‘useful study’ (as Chomsky likes to put it) of a particularly disreputable intellectual ferment.
My comments are interleaved with the prose…
We have become a nation of suspects. The last wisps of British liberty are being stripped away and, as usual, this is happening with the keen support of millions.
Hitchens begins by cleverly framing his arguments as ‘We’. The idea is that you and I are now suspects and should fear a strong state. Hitchens would like us all to stand by him and his fellow Jews. It’s a tactic of submission to the reader, a plea that we should share in the impending Shoah. The ‘We’ is actually the Jews, including Hitchens. The Jews are the suspects in the real crime – the ongoing genetic eradication of the White Race. Everyone knows this at an intuitive level – it’s the elephant in the room – but no-one dares admit it, even to themselves. Hitchens, The Nervous Jew, wants to keep it that way.
The ‘British liberty’ referred to is in fact British Zionism, which is what the British state really stands for. Hitchens wants us to cling on to various teary-eyed myths, like jury trials, presumption of innocence, lay juries and, no doubt, impartial judges in horsehair wigs. Of course, these may be fine and civilised traditions in their own right, but they are also useful as heart-pulling levers for propagandists like Hitchens who have no real arguments. The ‘stripping away’ referred to is the stripping away of Jewish assets and the removal of Jews, which is what Hitchens really fears might happen if public discontent goes much further.
The reference to “the keen support of millions” suggests a fear of popular opinion. Hitchens would rather we do not have our say, but instead listen to Jews like him, and preferably keep jolly quiet and vote UKIP.
First we have a scandal, entirely without hard evidence so far, which supposedly affects the whole of Parliament.
Not true. The Westminster paedophile scandal has evidence to support it. All that’s needed is a simple web search to find references to corroborated stories of abuse by household names and high-profile figures. Hitchens here is, at best, disingenuous. As a London journalist, he must know what the allegations involve.
Scandals of this kind – vague, general and fed by rumour – are a feature of societies on the eve of regime change.
In the first part of that sentence, Hitchens is – again – being disingenuous. First, Hitchens uses the term ‘scandal’, which I think is telling. ‘Scandal’ is a media term. To people like Hitchens, this sort of thing is something rather disreputable and embarrassing involving a few dirty old men. That’s the way he wants you and I to think about it too. The word ‘scandal’ is a verbal fail-safe, to ensure that we don’t question any further or see the whole situation as anything more than an example of bad morals among elite types.
In fact, this is not a ‘scandal’ at all. This sort of behaviour is to be expected among perverts, which is what these people actually are. It’s just another example of why these people have no legitimacy and no right to rule over us any longer. To talk of ‘scandal’ is to trivialise what in fact is the total moral collapse of a political system.
But let’s humour Hitchens and go along with his own trickery. We can start by observing that Hitchens is wrong on his own terms. The ‘scandal’, as he calls it, involves specific allegations of specific acts of abuse by specific people who have exercised, or still, exercise power and influence. Hitchens knows this. It is not ‘vague’, ‘general’ or ‘fed by rumour’. These are actual allegations that have been historically investigated by the police and considered by the CPS, in some cases only to have been dropped on highly-dubious pretexts. They are now being investigated again, by the police, and there is also to be a public inquiry. Why would there be a public inquiry if the allegations were without evidence (which Hitchens knows is not the case anyway)? Of course, a public inquiry can result entirely from political or parliamentary pressure, but even if we accept that’s the case here, then where has that pressure come from? Thin air?
Hitchens’ tactic is the old and tired one of trying to portray as hysterics those who are concerned about elite behaviour and whether it is institutionalised. It’s not an argument.
The second part of the sentence does, however, contain an isolated truth – albeit you have to take the wording out of context. Hitchens is ‘right’ in that we are indeed in a society on the eve of ‘regime change’. That’s why Hitchens, The Nervous Jew, is imploring us to think twice. ‘We’ are all suspects, when in fact he knows very well it is the Jews and their useful idiots who are in the firing line, not just for isolated acts of paedophilia and sexual abuse, but for their attack on the White Race.
They discredit ancient institutions and make troublemakers look virtuous.
Hitchens likes ‘ancient institutions’ but doesn’t like ‘troublemakers’. Righto. I’m sure we’ll all sleep better at night knowing that.
This is an example of the way that Hitchens uses buzz phraseology to govern interpretation of events. Any system based on deceit needs to do this, often for what is thought to be good or honourable ends. Good things are ‘ancient’. Bad things involve ‘troublemakers’ and so on. Hitchens probably believes this sincerely and believes that people who challenge his precious system mean ill. And he would be right. Many people are waking up and do mean ill – towards him and his fellow Jews. That is what makes him, rightly, nervous.
The charge of child sex abuse is so horrible that anyone who is accused of it is automatically presumed guilty and shunned by all, so it is more or less unstoppable once it has been launched.
Not true and disingenuous anyway. If someone is suspected of committing child abuse and there is the basis of a case, then that is of proper interest to society and the authorities. What is popularly thought about child abuse is separate from what did or did not actually occur and is not an excuse for cover ups, which is what Hitchens implicitly condones – just as Tebbit admits that the Thatcher administration (and no doubt other governments) covered-up abuse to protect ‘the system’, and thus condoned abuse. The point of this ‘scandal’, as Hitchens calls it, is that there is strong evidence that cover ups have occurred. Whereas figures such as Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall, both white, have been prosecuted and convicted, despite their senescence, and rightly so, key political figures suspected of child abuse and paedophilia remain unmolested by the law. It is also significant, I think, that despite the large scale of his paedophilic activity, Jimmy Savile was never brought before a court to answer for his actions. Savile was well-connected politically, whereas those who have been prosecuted in the wake of the Yewtree frenzy seem to have no political connections nor any significant involvement in politics.
Our lives belong to us, not to an elite. Our country belongs to us, not to Jews and their media fictions. The significance of the Westminster paedophile scandal is that it is a rare shard of truth that vividly cuts through the media fictions and ‘respectable deceits’ of this system, and any hierarchical system. All that the elites have in response is the teary-eyed liberal buzz phrases of Hitchens and his fake conservatism, plus credit bubbles, celebrities, pop stars, and official bullying. One day, this system will collapse – for the betterment of all.
So I disagree with the prevailing pessimism among Nationalists and I consider that we are fortunate to live in these interesting times. Our mettle, intellect, character and ingenuity are being tested and as a Race we will emerge from this stronger – and wiser. At the moment, whites are failing the intellectual test. We have not yet identified our true enemy, and we wilfully refuse to, instead buying into the fear peddled by conservative Zionists like Hitchens, and others. Hitchens employs Orwellian allegory, threatening us with a dystopian future lest we peer beneath the surface of the Jews’ invented reality. I think of Nineteen Eighty-Four, its vision now common currency among reactionaries, and I draw from it renewed strength, not fear. I remember that at least Winston Smith could identify his real enemy. We, the dumb whites, stunned and stupefied into calm compliance, haven’t yet even managed that. In some respects, the fictional Winston was mentally freer than most whites today. We need to acknowledge that the true enemy is the Jews. Muslim fanatics, Asian paedophile gangs and gun-toting blacks are all serious problems, true, but they are merely the more visible and obvious manifestations of a broken society. They are not the cause. The collapse of Western society – the event that Hitchens, The Nervous Jew fears – would bring these issues into focus and would identify to whites their true enemy – Jews like Hitchens. Hitchens, being thoughtful, knows this and that is why he rails against the excesses of his fellow travellers. The Nervous Jew has much to fear.