(Originally published August 2013) In 1841 Goodwyn Barmby coined the phrase communism when he founded The London Communist Propaganda Society. Barmby was a “utopian socialist” and a follower of Robert Owen’s benevolent and philanthropic philosophy. Owenism was the driving force behind a community experiment in Orbiston (1825-28), near Motherwell in Scotland. The objectives of Owenism, and indeed the Orbiston project, were “the employment, instruction and comfort of the labouring classes and of the poor… the education and universal happiness of mankind,” but the principle motivator behind Orbiston was to provide an example to others and promote Owen’s “New System” of social reform based on the equal distribution of wealth. Considering the depression that pervaded Britain following the Napoleonic War, it is not difficult to appreciate why the likes of Robert Owen were urged to contrive an alternative to the poverty and distress of post-war Britain. After purchasing land and undertaking construction work at the site, the architects of the scheme began the settlement process. This was to become the undoing of the Orbiston dream. Another founding member involved in this exercise of community building was Abram Combe, a tanner from Edinburgh. Combe’s views of the earliest denizens of Orbiston where recorded in the Orbiston Register of 19th August 1827:
“A worse selection of individuals, men, women and children, could scarcely have been made — a population made up for the most part of the worst part of Society. The adults were steeped in poverty ; lazy, dirty and thriftless : the smell of tobacco in almost every house, and a dunghill beginning to rise under almost every window. The children and youths were no better ; they were quarrelsome, unmannerly”
It is clear that Combe believed that the poor folk seeking refuge at Orbiston were fleeing the designs and misery of the Old System, “rather than to seek the advantages of the New.” The co-operative, anti-capitalist nature of Owen’s New System created tension between the administrators and the communitarians themselves. And, although various trade persons and artisans were initially attracted to Orbiston, the community itself could not generate enough wealth to permit complete autarky and it began to borrow in order to remain buoyant. Internal factionalism and animosity began to tear Orbiston apart and, following the death of Combe in 1827, bankruptcy finally ended the first overt demonstration of pantisocracy on British soil. But Robert Owen appeared blind to the eminent failure of Orbiston and in 1828 he wrote:
“It will gratify you to learn that the good cause is progressing substantially in all countries, and that your exertions, although not crowned with immediate success at Orbiston, have contributed essentially to make the principles known, and to prepare the way for their practice in many places.”
Some previously involved in the Orbiston project later become entrenched in the trade union and Chartist movements, but most slipped back into what Owen had termed the Old Order. What can we learn from Orbiston, Owenism and, more broadly, embryonic concepts pertaining to what we now refer to as Communism? It would be useful to define the word community in the first instance and contrast it with what we know about egalitarian socialism. A standard dictionary definition of the word is reproduced below:
“Community: a group of people bonded together by a common religion, nationality or occupation.”
It really is a coup d’état on behalf of modern day Marxists that the word community became embroiled in something so anti-community and culturally anaemic as Communism. In entomological terms, community represents the synergy of the French for ‘common’ and the Latin for ‘fellowship;’ a Common Fellowship – what could be a more common fellowship than that of race? The Orbiston experiment, and communism per se, can be ably summerised by the great warmonger, Winston Churchill. In 1920 Churchill observed:
“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played… a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
It is plain that the imposition of both ‘equality’ and ‘community’ on a group cannot succeed in real terms. The former disregards a basic fundament of human nature, which is that no two individuals, of whatever race, are intrinsically ‘equal’. The latter attempts to enforce a commonwealth-style amalgam that is neither organic or representative of the concerns, skills, expectations and ambitions of a large body of people. Imposition is rarely organic, thus we are reminded of the millions who were murdered beneath the tyrannical banner of the good intention, misdirected magnanimity and outright violent social reformation. There is, in fact, very little difference between our own mindset and that of Robert Owen; he too felt that his undertakings were operating in the best interests of our people – of society as a whole, especially those most requiring relief and assistance – and that the outcome would be, without qualification, beneficial. In our case, this benefit is inaugurated with a basic notion: the survival of our race, genetic inheritance and our eventual ascension. The radical difference between the socialist standpoint and ours is that we comprehend nature’s eternal laws and enjoy the advantage of being capable to objectively analyse historical events and drawn them together as if they were component parts of an intergenerational tapestry (more commonly known as history). A study of Orbitson reveals the following:
- The creation of a new community is likely to attract those who seek an immediate escape from the old (collapsing) manifestation and our interests are liable to conflict;
- The imposition of a community based on any theory that has not been empirically explored in the natural environment – no matter how well intentioned – will inevitably produce hostility and, in time, the dissolution of the community;
- Finance is such a governing factor that it is best not to, in the first instance, attempt to completely fund any community building project.
Based on the above, it is evident that only the gradual and progressive influence on an existing, and suitable, community will yield any long-term and wide ranging results. The distinct merits are these:
- By selecting an appropriate area we can determine those who we associate with;
- The community is already in existence–although its bonds my be sorely stretched–so energy does not need to be exhausted in the establishment thereof. a process of subtle effect can therefore take place immediately;
- Financial resources can be better utilised as the members of an existing community will not rely on us for their staple support.
The pertinent question that must be asked is where should W.I.N. community influence take place? Areas of relative affluence not only attract high property prices, and as such cap any investment opportunities, they are also, on the average, either heavily multiracial, mostly urban, areas or semi-rural locations with an aging demographic and little infrastructure required to maintain growing White families. Avoiding multiracial environments is essential. Concentrated multiracial towns and cities are certainly suitable recruiting grounds for nationalists, but to generate community cohesion – avoiding the inevitable, negative attentions of our competitors, hostile anti-Whites, and the political police – will become impossible and, eventually, debilitating. Isolated locations must also be circumvented for the opposite reason provided above: they are frequently not suitable recruiting grounds and, due to very low population density, revitalising a sense of community on any significant scale is impractical. Areas of ‘White flight’ must certainly be considered as good potential target areas, although a pertinent question hangs over the heads of those who, in the end, chose simply to run away. The answer to this can frequently be gleaned from the study of voting records. Regions with low house prices, low levels of multiracialism, but acceptable White demographics and a relatively buoyant rate of employment, represent sound investment opportunities. Another factor is the opinion of the average resident towards the government and its policies, which roughly follow similar trends no matter the party ‘brand’ in power. Those who feel that they have been badly let down by their political representatives during the great transition of industry abroad in recent decades, are far more likely to be willing to accept an alternative message of national rejuvenation. This gauge of not only the general character of the people, but of their resilience to counter the economic treachery of successive British governments, is key to selecting a target area. An examination of voting patterns is also useful: a history of strong nationalist support is most certainly a boon. Furthermore, there is no advantage to pouring funds into an area and attempting to set up a conscious indigenous community when folk flock in droves to the first Chinese or Indian restaurant to appear on the high street or immediately begin breeding with any recent African, for instance, arrivals. A cautious and scientific assessment is crucial to a successful enterprise. What remains is a post-industrial location that is predominantly White; enjoys lower than average house prices; has a steady economic environment, dominated by small to medium-sized businesses; and is stocked with enough people, from a wide age spectrum, to promote community interests and cohesion. Such places do exist. How then can the machinations of an openly racist government be negated? Geography plays an important part. A proposed location must not be within a traditionally “multicultural” locality in order to avoid the likelihood of estate mergers or overspill. This unequivocally rules out districts close to large, multiracial towns and cities in spite of other more positive features. The proposed location must also be not particularly high-profile or attractive to the town planners, therefore the lack of a large employer of unskilled or semi-skilled labour is obligatory; small to medium-sized independent businesses must proliferate the area in question. If the target area is fairly inconspicuous and particularly unattractive to the ‘social mobility’ commandants, then it will be a notable number of years before their magnifying glass happens across our area. By which time, our influence on the public consciousness, and local councils, must have become intractable. Taking into account these variables, we have a good chance of building conscious indigenous communities resistant to the scourge of ‘diversity’ and ethnic cleansing that is becoming all to common in Britain’s larger cosmopolitan population hubs. These are the set characteristics of a favourable target area, but in order for it to triumph we must adopt a potent work ethic and the obstinate will to win.