I have been accused of late of fomenting rebellion within the nationalist movement. I suppose this could be construed as the case, although I reject the allegation that it amounts to “fighting amongst ourselves.”
Since the days of fascism—proceeded by the destruction of German nationalism, the subjugation of Italy by homicidal communists and gangsters, and the English 1936 Public Order act which banned the wearing of political uniforms out-of-doors—nationalism has not progressed or developed one iota. Partly it has been diminished to an unrecognisable silhouette of its former vigour, while the rump luxuriates in the past, the way an overly enthusiastic historic reenactment society might. To critically identify and these failings and suggest improvements is not an attempt to incite a fracas, it is a sincere, though deliberate effort to evoke debate, self-evaluation, and fertilise the intellectual pastures of the ‘Far Right.’
What really astonishes me is the lack of any effective forum whereby our overarching philosophy can be deliberated and agreed on, realistic objectives designated, and a definitive strategy finalised. The assorted discussion forums that do exist are mostly too nebulous and expansive—leading to all manner of repetitive antipathies—such as is Stormfront, or are essentially stadia for public speaking or, worse still, merely periodical drinking clubs. Matters of plausible substance are rarely confronted and nothing is ever really achieved. And when, by some fortuitous happenstance, a meaningful exchange of ideas does transpire, it tends to terminate in rampant dissension or the earnest wagging of inebriated heads.
Passion can be easily divorced from rage and resentment if there is common ground and common purpose, as is generally demonstrated within the nuclear family unit, and beyond into wider society. If we ultimately cannot ‘get along’ then there is no use speaking of far-fetched concepts such as the ‘nationalist movement’ or a consolidating ideology. White nationalism is, therefore, an incoherent rabble—a dog chasing its own allusive tail— because its determinant philosophy has not been exhaustively anatomised, authored, and acknowledged.
Nationalism’s ploy of aping pre-war social movements or acceding to corrupted woolly variations of what must be our core beliefs has not worked – The End.
In addition to atavists and political diluters, other sub-cultures were born following the cataclysm that transpired in Europe over the course of the nineteen thirties and forties; these included, for instance, the birth of skinheads. Complications become apparent when, to use the same example, skinheads began to define their own inspiration and collective purpose in an attempt to foster camaraderie with those of a like-mind in a hostile living environment. Skinheads drew upon their understanding of the Third Reich for ideological guidance and supplemented important omissions and gaps in their knowledge—existing primarily because of anachronisms, media conditioning, and the reshaping of national identity due to immigrant saturation—with, what they viewed as, complimentary thoughts, symbology, and apposite personalities. What is perceptively lacking is a definitive purpose for skinheads and a philosophy that combines their outlook with that of the broader nationalist movement. Because of this deficiency, skinheads have formed their own tribal allegiances (a sub-culture) and the reverential interconnections, such as those that existed between Stormtrooper and Führer during the Third Reich era, remain sorely underdeveloped.
If skinheads must revel in their unconventional music, lifestyle, etc., then let them do so as vital parts of a larger organism; let them become the hammers of the sacred Idea: warriors retrieved from the precipice of obscurity and obsolescence. Let their music champion our Idea and let their lifestyles reflect what we intend to bestow upon our folk in the centuries ahead. Without a universal and unifying purpose, it has been effortless to demarcate the various and necessary elements that together form the nationalist movement and render them—and it—utterly ineffectual. It is the eternal, and still very much efficacious, martial strategy of divide and conquer.
Following World War Two, nationalists ventured to reestablish communication with our kinsfolk by means of the parliamentary posturing and via the ballot box. This approach is understandable, although it does somewhat undervalue the surreptitious motives of those who agitate for fratricidal wars and whose votaries now manipulate and regulate trends, fashions, and the opinions of voters. In Britain, following the 1979 general election (immediately before which Margaret Thatcher stole the emerging National Front’s thunder by implying that a Conservative government would forestall unbridled immigration; something to which the prior presence of Enoch Powell palpably provided credence), the political route meandered off beyond the horizon. The cognition of the unexacting expertise with which the establishment convinced the credulous electorate of its lies while concealing its true designs, must never be dropped into the memory hole. Elsewhere, and more recently, political nationalism has been rendered impuissant by emphatic tyranny, as the leaders of the Greek Golden Dawn have experienced.
For nearly two decades, between the overt display of plutocratic chutzpah in 1979 and the ascendancy of the World Wide Web, nationalism limped on as best it could and was duly punished for its lack of innovation and ingenuity. But under the auspices of Dr. William Pierce, the cerebral functions of WN ideology did not finally succumb to erroneous assumptions and opinions, but was instead provided with a respectable amount of essential, if widely unavowed, life support. Since the death of Pierce, however, White Nationalism has desiccated and exists in a state of abeyance, which is a raw and regrettable eulogy for such a great man.
The World White Web
The new cyber era should have been a golden age for White nationalism. To follow are my own thoughts of what needed to be done at the time we were gifted the opportunity to do it:
In a short article I wrote in early 2012, entitled When the internet is censored, I insinuated that perhaps we had not exploited this new medium to the fullest:
“Since the inception of the diaphanous Web, Nationalists – those of a certain age and who possess even a third of their much lauded brain power – have been busily creating contacts across the country in concerted attempts to make provision for and mitigate the retraction of this useful tool.
“The ability of Nationalists to correspond, connect and create has never been seen on such a vast scale as during the internet epoch. Have we exploited it to the fullest? We shall see when the internet is censored.”
I will now set out what we should have done in the (I very nearly typed ‘vain’) hope that it might generate a modicum of fresh thought and discourse. The reason for doing this is not to rub our noses in the mess with the advantage of hindsight and neither is it to provoke ‘fighting amongst ourselves’.
We are often subjected to the ardent declaration that, ’We [White Nationalists] need our own media!’ If we had been smart and fully cognisant of our living environment during the fledgling juncture of the internet, then this protestation would now not be a requisite for amplifying the appeal of our convictions.
Based on what I know of the early, widely accessible, Web—and bearing in mind that I was a mere teenager at the time—nationalists missed their chance to create something magnificent, something of real advantage to our race. Instead of nationalists plaintively offering up websites for general consumption, floating our principles and unique perspective on current and historic events in a semi-public arena (as we are consigned to do today), we might now be completely in control of the context. If we had established a thousand websites over the course of the last fifteen years, be they essentially news sites, forums, or blogs, that shared a calculated SEO strategy, positioned in every corner of cyberspace, and were federated in common purpose, there is not a single incident pertinent to our people that would not be hygienically recomposed (i.e., all traces of enemy propaganda sponged off and our own liberally applied and subtly buffed) for virtual, ‘viral,’ mass consumption.
The excuse that we simply did not know or were not technically proficient does not vindicate our position—or lack thereof—especially when juxtaposed with our professed ‘superior’ intelligence and celebrated historic genius. Indeed, my two year old daughter can competently operate a tablet computer, while my other school-age child would have been burnt at the stake only a few hundred years ago if she made public what she can accomplish on this, and similar, electronic devices.
Of course a hydratic (and you are quite right, I did just make the word up – I also toyed with polycephalous) approach would have been pivotal to our success in the battle for epidemic communication, but even now we see the phantoms of what might have been materialising; the ‘Bugsters’ of the once ubiquitous ‘Mantra’ being one such an example. Imagine the impact of our message of racial pride and rejuvenation had a concerted effort to engender certain WN notions, shrewdly incorporated into pithy and memorable catchphrases, both in reality and its virtual counterpart, had our method of distribution been substantially more formidable! With a philosophy and objectives firmly planted in our collective consciousness, our strategy would both trickle, as the babbling of an informational brook, and dramatically surge, as though a doctrinal dam had been breached. These consecutive waves of mental re-conditioning would yield few results in the traditional media of pre-internet communications, ostensibly broadcast television and radio, but in cyberspace, our presence would be pronounced. And, having been counted among the architects of the modern Web, our digital technicians would have inevitably fabricated a security framework second to none, countering efforts to shut down inconvenient dissent.
This represents the tantalising taste of our self-realisation, but it is now impossible to speculate what might have been concocted when taking a purely hypothetical setting into account.
Conflict of Interests
The fighting amongst ourselves broke out long before I was born. I need not remind the reader of a pair of “world” wars (wars that would have been farcical were it not for the unspeakable and irrevocable damage to our gene pool) or that the black-shirted thugs of the BUF, who supported one British fascist leader, viz. Oswald Mosley, succeeding in beating up and breaking the jaw of another British fascist leader, called Arnold Leese, in the primitive days of White nationalism. It may interest the reader to note that Leese, leader of the Imperial Fascist League, and a veterinary surgeon by profession, once remarked that Mosley was a “kosher fascist” who did not adequately address the ‘Jewish Problem’.
The root of the nationalist tendency to squabble and quarrel and scrap can no doubt be traced back to our rebellious and unorthodox character. The very thing (whatever it truly is) that marks us out as different from our contemporaries—those who sip at the poisoned cup of a rotting liberal socialist democracy—has created the conditions in which coalitions are practically impossible. Unless we submit to an inescapable and all-embracing Idea (an intentional philosophy) then White Nationalist unity will continue to elude us. Although it must be stated that a unity of purpose is by far more imperative than the imposition of a desperate unity owing to enemy coercion.
Why fly into vociferous incantations about ‘Jews’ when the public has no idea what a Jew really is? The much lauded ‘naming the Jew’ epitomises a valueless nationalist pastime, a means to invoke the applause and the roisterous yells and whoops of one’s peers. Whites, on the average, are not interested in Jews or their machinations. Yet, I am confident that a proportion of our people would be tremendously concerned if we impelled them to admit that they presently existed beneath hostile occupation. This process is not, in my opinion, excessively onerous because the salient, noncontroversial facts exist, many, in the case of non-White colonisation, in plain sight. Before we can scrupulously depict the foreground and focus the attention of our folk, the surrounding landscape must be approximately sketched.
When I point out that Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer website appears to have adopted a stratagem of jumping up and down shouting “JEWS! JEWS! JEWS!” or that Greg Johnson of Counter Currents Publishing, who is, make no mistake, a very clever man, fails to correctly or accurately define what White nationalism actually is or should be, what I am not doing is stirring the pot of politics for my own personal gratification. As I said in a response to a disparaging remark rustled up by an online commentator in respect to my recent critique of Johnson’s Counter-Currents piece, Grandiose Nationalism:
“Since when was debate and a critical assessment of others considered “fighting amongst ourselves”? I am sometimes quite hard on my children, but I still love them and only want what is best for them; I bear them no ill will, even if I raise my voice.
“Many White Nationalists have become emotional pussy cats and tend to ‘take sides’ and defend their positions with claws extended. Nothing ever came of ignoring a problem, but we continue to do so nonetheless. If I see a problem, however, I address it and, to be frank with you, I couldn’t care less if it upsets people – especially not nationalists, who are supposed to be the stewards of our race. WNs should have chins of iron and skins of elephant hide. If they do not then they aren’t going to win.
“No one will sit around a table and thrash out the issue because everyone has their own agenda, which makes those agendas contrary to the survival, proliferation, and development our race. These folk are likely to become irrelevant dinosaurs if they continue not to deal with our plight as a race rather than a loose collection of vituperative talking heads.”
If White Nationalism was sustained by a guiding philosophy then we would enjoy jurisdiction over our own distinguishable factions, just as our precocious enemies had jurisdiction over international finance capitalism and its apparent ideological inverse, communism. It is the protocols of our racial enemies that permitted millions of Muslims into the contemporary West (as their ancestors had done in ancient Spain and, in classical history, by betraying Babylon to Cyrus of Persia) while at the same moment giving them the impression of vehement proponents of Anti-Islamic sentiment. Why then can we not similarly control even our own internal political graduations: Pan-nationalism verses—as Greg Johnson has termed it—‘petty’ nationalism; Neo-Hitlerism verses progressive White tribalism; Anti-Zionism verses Anti-Semitic Pro-Zionism?
In addition, when a callow White Nationalist, like Joshua Bonehill (now a famous nationalist hero), or a veteran campaigner, e.g., David Duke or Alex Linder, gesticulate towards religious Jews, complete with curly sideburns and funny clothes, and pronounce that, ‘They are the problem,’ not only is the impression given that these men, and in many instances groups or informal fellowships, are only partially sane—something the controlled media diligently manages to reinforce—it also compels me, and others with similarly inquiring minds, to doubt their underlying sincerely, degree of perspicacity, and general mental competence.
Criticism is not conflict
To emphasise the point I am striving to make, please bear with me during the following anecdote. In order to avoid implicating actual groups and individuals, I will grant them complete anonymity:
After it had become readily apparently that the British National Party was not the vehicle for national salvation it was previously assumed to be, around 2009 (a fact that became apparent to me ten years earlier), a breakaway caucus of nationalists formed a steering committee based on the proposition that a fresh, potentially very different, substitute was urgently required. As I understand it, one of the committee members had decided upon an gambit which was radically at variance with the dependably pedestrian democratic failures of the immediate past. Suffice it to say that the contributions of this member were quickly repudiated and he departed in a cloud of acrimony. The resultant political party has yet to achieve anything of any significance. The excluded committee member went on to form his own group, which, again, is advancing at a chronically slow pace.
The lesson (at least, the lesson I gleaned something from) is to avoid dividing and sub-dividing like bacteria, into—unlike bacteria—increasingly debilitated and isolated grouplets. Instead we must accept a stabilising philosophy and understand our purpose as stewards of the White race. But collaboration does no imply, and should certainly not demand, that we adorn ourselves with matching monogrammed ties and t-shirts, or zealously purchase indentically headed notepaper and other accoutrements. This baffling organisational preoccupation with formal unification ordained under a single banner should by now have been pummelled out of us; it is certainly something to which other competing races do not adhere, whose syndicates and confederations are countess, and yet share a common ‘racist’ single-mindedness. Our exigent stipulation is that White ‘racist’ organisations ratify our philosophy, objectives, and strategies, with the consequence of not doing so being unequivocal exclusion. The first two prerequisites are clear to me:
Our philosophy is to ensure the survival, proliferation, and development of our race, no matter the cost. Our philosophy personifies our primary objective. Secondary objectives, and the strategy employed to achieve them which in turn satisfies our philosophy, are open for debate and can, in time, be delegated to the various groups that will come to exist beneath the guardianship of our sacred Idea. My own thoughts on supplementary goals are as follows:
1) Procuring living space, as has been espoused by White Independent Nation and our friends and affiliates;
2) The racial, political, and spiritual education of a substantial minority of the White population. This I believe can largely be brought about by political parties—assuming they covertly drop any pretence of winning a general election—and by way of the internet, although I am convinced that we were deaf to the noise of the starting pistol in this respect and now trail woefully behind the pack in the relay;
3) The reengagement of our young people. As yet, I see no tangible or credible progress in this regard, to our infinite shame.
Now the preceding may have shocked some of you, it may even appal a handful of the self-proclaimed ‘extremists,’ but how about we begin engaging with our race on a level that does not send them into hysterics? That is not to say that we dismiss the core principles, the essential motivations of our creed, but it should not be necessary to cry “JEW!” and unleash the figurative dogs of war. I am strongly of the conviction that we, given our eminent genetic inheritance, are intellectually capable of altering the nature of our struggle so as to fit our philosophy, objectives, and strategy. If we cannot do this, then just maybe we are not the race we were or have deluded ourselves into thinking we still are.
We dwell in self-imposed, thoroughly provincial sub-cultures, fields of tribal activity that have germinated to form identifiable micro-nation states. Our loyalties are divided between jealous devotion to our hobbies and what should be our governing philosophy. These trivial avocations cause conflict not only within the nationalist movement and nominally associated groups, but, just as crucially, the White population at large. We would be literally mad to continue down this lonesome road of no return. The survival of the movement, and of the White race, does not depend on your money or your adherence to obscure Nationalist celebrities or nostalgia, it requires your intellectual input, your devotion to a faith, and your unreserved ability to live for the cause, as described in our sacred Idea.
If anyone else has any better suggestions then please send your answers on a postcard.