Friday, 16 May 2014

Some thoughts on a recent local nationalist meeting


From small acorns....will mighty oaks grow?

Reflections upon a recent (and local) group Western Spring meeting.

Many nationalists ought to be aware by now of a fairly new venture for British Nationalism, called Western Spring.

This is an exciting new venture that aims to take a comprehensive and radically new approach to British Nationalism in comparison to that of party politics. 

If one is not familiar with the group, more information can be found here: Western Spring

Continuing with this article requires the reader to be aware of the Western Spring programme, to have read the explanations provided on the website and to have come to appreciate the "prerequisites" that have been published so far. If this is not done and understood, the following article may not make much sense. 

My third meeting with fellow travellers within this group brought up a collection of ideas and observations about what is taking place with the project in our locality, or in some of our cases, not taking place.

Focus was particularly cast upon the bottleneck that throttles a more speedy uptake to the programme being put forward, but it also diversified into wider matters relating to what kind of content and tools we may need to provide in order to explain ourselves.

This is in relation to both existing nationalists as well as those around us who are not particularly nationalistic, but who may listen to what we have to put forward to them.

It is some of those subjects which I would like to put forward here in this article.

Different people may have different experiences and different opinions over the following matters, but the idea here is to open up different perspectives people have about the proposals and to see how they can be shaped to fit together as well as made to fit inside of the existing parameters that Western Spring have already (rather meticulously) established.

Given that so much thought and consideration has been behind the birth of Western Spring, not only in terms of operation but in relation to the real way in which the world operates, I am naturally going to be cautious of anyone endangering this quite particular goal with observations and pressures that may inadvertently send things off on a tangent.

I can only express how I see it - and hope that others can do the same in order to see where we have differences and similarities.

Recruitment was one of the main themes of the meeting. For any organisation to grow, it is obvious that it requires supporters and financing. Although the Western Spring project is indeed growing, it was explained how we were currently at the stage of generating a lot of interest and activity, but still not being large enough in terms of active participants to be able to tip things onto the next level.

This is a temporary state that is a natural part of establishing any organisation or any new business. At some point, with enough activity and numbers, I believe it will tend to snowball and pick up speed as it develops.

In light of this, it is naturally expected of people to recruit anybody they know who may be sympathetic to nationalism and who may sign up to the venture, come to the meetings or otherwise get involved.

However, it became obvious to me that all of us present in the room that evening had a common theme when it came to achieving this target.....that 'new people' (who we would tend categorise under the bracket of 'relatives and friends') are not always so easy to find.

I am pretty sure that the originator of Western Spring would have been dismayed by this lack of ability on our part, for it is bound to be frustrating when he is trying to establish this venture and move onwards to the next stages and yet the grouping was not any larger.

Yet the theme was pretty consistent in the room, and indicated to me that what should be (in theory, on paper) easy to do, could in fact be quite hard.

Naturally, I can only speak for myself here and my own observations about myself and nationalists in general, but by our very nature I think we are often "apart from the pack".

We are independent thinkers who have thought extremely long and hard about why Western Spring is necessary, why we are supportive of British Nationalism, and why we have chosen to support the plans being put forward.

We therefore tend to not be of the "mainstream" opinions and standpoints when it comes to all sorts of subjects, particularly that of race, nation, morality, patriarchy, meritocracy, feminism, homosexuality, financial awareness, awareness of the power of the media and the power of those groups who we suggest control it.

This unfortunately leads us to be quite insular, quite removed and distant from the mainstream society we have come to detest - and does not often present us with the ability or opportunities to speak our minds openly to wider circles of friends, or even closer friends, in case we either lose their friendship or become such a one track minded set of individuals that it puts a strain on our family ties and friendships.

I had to admit that out of all my close family and friends, I could hardly think of one person who would be so racially aware and so able to cope with the concepts of Western Spring, that I could recruit them into it or suggest they attend the next meeting.

As I explained during the meeting, it does not necessarily mean that they are against what we are saying - it is more a case that we have spent many years arriving at our conclusions and opinions, whilst they have hardly given it much thought at all - and are still very distant to us when it comes to grasping the need for such a programme and why it has to be done in the way being suggested.

In addition, we may all meet people who are racially aware - but who have not fully formulated what it is they think, never mind properly understood the issues being raised.

They are the sort who may instinctively know that something is going very wrong, they instinctively know who 'their own' people are and have an affiliation and preference to them - but who tend to go about their thinking in completely the wrong way. A way that is perhaps crude, unhelpful, mixed with nonsense, double standards or short sightedness wrapped up in the usual media driven narratives.

Ironically, despite the howls of our opposition, British Nationalists do tend to remove these kinds of notions from people - not encourage them!

In theory, these people I describe may be good candidates to become attuned to British Nationalism in the future - but who are at this stage nowhere near ready for it. They need to be coached along much further yet before they are "in tune" to what is happening, never mind the rationale behind a comprehensive programme aimed at rectifying it.

If individual members of the Western Spring project do not know anybody suitable, then they do not know anybody suitable. They can only then resort to tapping on their neighbours door, canvassing the passing public, issuing leaflets and so on in a way that is more familiar to political party activity than the Western Spring activity. (This also relates to something else which I will bring up later).

As far as I understand it, Western Spring does not seek this kind of everyday publicity as such; and nor would I think it would become possible for existing members to vouch for friends of friends, and friends of theirs, and so on.

Growing a base of such people therefore may risk destroying the venture prematurely, before solid work is built in terms of enclaves. I think that doing such publicity activities could risk destroying a crucial element of stealth and also impose those complications relating to properly vetting people.

It is for this reason that I think it is still premature to try and coax the wider public (and these kinds of individuals) into the movement.

So, what could be the alternative to this? Either fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the viewpoint, I think we may need more reliance upon the spadework already done over the last 20 years or more by more seasoned and connected nationalists.

As has been explained at Western Spring many times, nationalism through the party political route has been an abject failure. Much regret exists about all this time and effort that appears to have been wasted over the last 40 years, not to mention the churn of nationalists that have walked in and back out of the doors of many different parties, many of which who have returned to mainstream life in either demoralisation, disgust, or sense of futility.

However, I hope that all such previous spadework has not been in vain. I firmly believe that it is existing nationalists and "past" nationalists who we need to win over first.

People who were perhaps once "super activists" or regional organisers, people with connections to those who are nationalists or who were nationalists, and who could be interested in this exciting new programme.

People within the National Front organisation, Heritage and Destiny, British Democratic Party, people who were once county councillors for the BNP, people such as Michael Walker from 'The Scorpion' magazine who gave this excellent talk at the 2008 American Renaissance, and so on.

Where are all these people now? They may well have given up on the futility of nationalist politics, but they are going to be "switched on" to the rationale of a programme like Western Spring and could potentially be convinced to take part in it and bring people they know into it.

When it comes to the wider populace, I suspect it may be a case of "build it, and they will come".

This leads me to another issue relating to the recruitment, or idea, of tapping the doors of our friends, family, neighbours and folk in our immediate areas. 

During the previous meeting I attended, it seemed that this was the objective (in order to start establishing the racial enclaves that are part of the overall Western Spring programme).

Again, I have some reservations about the feasibility of this thinking, should this indeed be the proposed case.

Primarily, this is because of the problems already outlined above. In addition, I think it is not always wise or feasible in the long term to try and establish random little groups in this way. Again, I can only speak for myself - but I shall provide an explanation of my view on this.

My own town is largely Pakistani and Bangladeshi, with a slowly increasing population of Eastern Europeans and Blacks. There are a few mixed population wards to the town, but there are also parts which are almost exclusively "ethnic minority".

My own immediate vicinity is still majority white, but it is slowly becoming "mixed" - whilst the previous "mixed" areas are becoming almost exclusively "ethnic minority".

On this basis (of what is to come), combined with the aforementioned problems of recruiting 'new' people, I do not see the point of trying to recruit neighbours into co-opting into establishing some kind of enclave in such towns facing such situations.

So again, what would be the alternative to this?

I think that the alternative, if not already being done so, is to strategically identify specific target areas and to encourage those who are able (and who may have the least to lose) to relocate. 

I appreciate that is not an easy task, or a simple ask to make of people, particularly if there are no target areas close to their current arrangements, families, jobs and so on.

However, I do think it may be much more easier to collect the 'already aware' people I mentioned earlier and construct something in a targeted locality (buying up any houses or renting houses in an area that are suitable and come up for sale or rent) - than it would be to see more weaker (and half hearted) mini groups that try and expand through neighbours, taking part in pushing out objectionable people from the street and so on.

This again leads me on to another aspect of recruitment and enclave building.

As I tried to explain in the meeting I attended, I think it is important to give people a vision of how things would be, how it would work, and, for the more political minded, what kinds of policies and positions we would support and try and get going in our enclaves.

I think that only the more extremely committed would physically move to take part in this without having any further incentives to do so. People are selfish this way, and I think it is understandable for people to be so these days, to sit back and just enjoy what remains of our time as a civilisation and as a human being whilst we can.

So, what could be offered?

Of course, there are the concepts of a safer society, a society that should be free of many of the ills that wreak havoc on many housing estate or community. 

There are the concepts of there being a better education for their children (once we get footholds in the schooling system), workmen/tradesmen who are not going to be ripping off their fellow nationalists, maybe help with employment and so on.

In addition to this, there may be people who are interested in making money out of this programme. Our natural instinct as nationalists may be to be greatly against this, however, I am coming to take a different view. 

There may be more affluent people out there who are nationalists who do not want to relocate to a different area, but who still want to help facilitate those who may. Would they be in a position to buy property in order to be "landlords" whilst the settlements are being built up? 

With the way savings, interest rates and pensions etc are going at the moment (and for the foreseeable future), many people may be interested in getting a better interest on their finances/savings by "diversifying their portfolio" and pulling in a regular rent instead of the misery sums provided by the banks.

Would people be prepared to open shops and create a living for themselves? 

Have they experience as a greengrocer, newsagent, or hardware store, coffee shops, cake makers etc? Would they be willing to take a chance at setting something up in a new location, or even if they have no experience, trying their hand at something for a change anyway?

This may play into the "Judo" principle that has been mentioned in Western Spring. For example, what grants, funds, advisory units, and so on, are available to set up businesses like this? Should we not be figuring out how to use all these devices that are out there to our advantage and to help pull people in?

The same goes for house building, and whatever else, which may tie into physically building some parts of planned enclaves as well as provide employment to "our own" in the process. Would people be prepared to work some hours "free" for the cause whilst also being paid for 7 hours of an 8 hour working day? Can we pull in resources from nationalistically inclined materials suppliers?

People may be studying business management, media film editing and production, etc. How can they use these skills towards the cause? The same goes for engineers, plumbers, bricklayers, electricians, teachers, nursery nurses and so on. People may be rubbish at "recruitment", like me, but that does not mean to say other things are not viable from them.

It may all be fantastical, but I hope I convey the vast range of things that could be going on in the future. Things that provide some security, some reason to move, some financial reward too, in some cases, for doing so. 

The way I see it, although the founders of Western Spring may not like to see it this way, is that many people may decide on their own participation levels. If they can do any of the above, that is great. If they cannot, then surely a relocation to an enclave area is enough in itself to still be part of building it?

By this, I mean using the services, the shops, supporting the school governors who are 'our people', and so on...all by default of just living their otherwise normal lives. Having something that is as easy as breathing, where participation is just 'normal life' (and not a concerted effort) might be important to bolster those numbers in the future.

Returning to recruitment for a moment then, I think it would be good to have a succinct A5 sized outline of the programme that can be learnt by existing members in order to better explain themselves, and it, to new people. 

If we draw some attention off wider people for that, a further layer of what it is about and how it could work (such as the kinds of things I mention above, and the attractions an area like that would provide) is likely to be required too.

This is because like "party policies", people may want to know where we stand, what exactly we are working towards for these societies in a wider sense, how they will become superior to the collapsing values around us - and how they will actually work if we gain some control, or how they would work if we do not and if they are under pressure!

If there are too many unknowns, people may not want to make a leap of faith. Many die hard nationalists will struggle to solidly commit themselves in real terms (including myself) - never mind those "friends of friends" that were described earlier. 

However, these works must not be so detailed as to risk "hanging ourselves" on it in terms of throwing nit-picking obstacles in the path of nationalists (who may violently disagree on political solutions or social/moral positions). 

Focus has to be maintained on the task at hand, not fall out over slight policy differences that we cannot control anyway until we have influence to do so!

If at all possible, I think it would also be handy, as part of this, to have a myth-buster on the site which counteracts all the usual narratives that we face, whether from fellow nationalists or the brainwashed wider public.

For example, when we listen into any radio debate these days on anything controversial, we are treated to the same parroted lines as though they are being repeated from a massive blackboard:-

"We are a nation of immigrants anyway, so why should we care?!"
"Immigrants pay more in taxes than they do take out"
"We need immigrants to pay our pensions"
"The NHS would collapse if there were no immigrant origin doctors, nurses and cleaning staff",
"This objection is all about ignorance, fear, bigotry, hate"

And so on. 

A handy rebuffing of all these kinds of narratives may provide a great service to all nationalists as well as be part of the explanation of how our planned society would cope without all these wonderful benefits of diversity!

The last part is the tricky aspect of the movement itself.  I tried to raise this issue at the recent Western Spring meeting in my area, but perhaps it was good that it was slightly misconstrued!.

I tend to say things as I see them, so I hope I did not cause offence with Max Musson over what may have sounded to be allegations or insinuations. 

This tricky part is that of transparency and finances.

There is no polite way to say this, but I think people are naturally going to be suspicious of organisations that encourage fairly substantial monthly payments without having any idea whatsoever of what has been raised, how many are "in" the movement, what it has been spent on, or where else it may be going. 

Personally I have good faith and trust at this time, however, I sought to bring it up because not everybody is so trusting and because finances are a well known and well worn tool of sowing distrust and discord within a movement. 

How to bridge the gap between what has to be a stealth organisation and that of having some transparency of accounts and accrued assets, I do not know. What I do know is that people will not be prepared to throw money into what is a 'black hole' forever.

The usual insinuations will appear - that the money is a "Ponzi scheme" to milk good intentioned nationalists, that it is being trousered ready for them and their family to move elsewhere to escape what is coming, that people are getting rich from it whilst also being genuine, such as saying that we have 3,000 subscribers when in reality there are 4,000. 

I am happy to continue contributing for now (and for the rest of the year). I have faith in the project and those tied to it. 

That being said, as many may know, I am extremely worn out with nationalism as a whole at the moment. I am not presently in the mind frame to throw myself into recruitment drives, to move house to an enclave, or whatever else. I'm not saying I won't do these things, but I personally feel like I need a break from it for a while, as well as from the computer in general.

I do not want to let the side down or be a demoraliser by leaving, so I certainly feel obliged to linger on, but I feel I am not presently in the mood or right frame of mind to be a motivator or all that vigorous in my nationalist beliefs.

In fact, I fear my presence could act as a dampener on getting the Western Spring thing going because of my lack of activity. I would not want that to happen, as it is one of the few remaining things I believe in.

Yes, I do believe in the project, I am actually quite excited by the potential scope of the project and the whole move away from electoral routes. 

I do have a vision of how it may work (well, up to a point!) and I do have positive things to say and to suggest like in this article today. 

So, just because I am feeling a bit tired and burnt out at the moment, it does not mean to say others need to give up.  I have not given up, but I may have to drop back for a while.

Just feel for the poor sods in nationalist politics after the elections, now that is likely to be demoralising and depressing for them!

The good news about that is that we may find some fellow travellers among them that may have a good rethink about what they are doing and start to think positively about moving away from politics and trying activities of the sort being put forward by Western Spring.

I hope this article has been somewhat explanatory of my opinions about some of the issues with Western Spring (and my own shortfalls), and I look forward to any comments that are constructive!



Monday, 21 April 2014

Nationalism - Too Much Information?





It has been a while since I put an article up, but as I was getting fed up with the last entry being the one that was stuck at the front of the site I thought I should do something about it. It is very stale information and felt I should stick something else there for a change!

I wrote the following for a comment to be posted elsewhere. It is relating to a suggestion that we need to be putting more material out there as part of our propaganda drive - and that putting more material out is more important than some other things, because it helps fuel action and funding.

I have decided to put it here instead because (to be fair to the person suggesting it) I have gone much more "general" in my position than what he or she may have been actually talking about. In addition, it may go some way to explain why I am not doing so much writing these days for the blog here.

Anyway, here it goes. (Sensible comments are of course welcome).

The cynic in me has come to think that, if anything, there is perhaps too much information out there.

So much information in fact, that is becoming a bit of a distraction for us all to be keeping up with all the sites, the news and the issues; and fooling ourselves that by reading and contributing comments to such sites that we are somehow helping to get something done.

All it may get done is to keep our existing movement engaged with each other and to keep an interest up among ourselves by being bedded into this endless loop.

That is important - but I would tend to be cynical at how much of this churn of articles and issues actually gets read outside of our own little world bubble - and when new people do come along to try and learn about what is going on, I often wonder what they think about some sites and some of the rhetoric being used. Is our "shop window" conducive to want people to buy our product? Do they understand what is on sale from these snapshots?

There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of blog sites, forums, political party sites, etc pushing out various nationalistic messages across the spectrum between your counter-jihad sites to 'white nationalism' sites to your more hardcore national socialism.

We will never match the machinery and power of the mainstream media, for not only are they better funded and allowed free reign to peddle what they like - they also capture the masses by default whereas we have to try and drive people our way, otherwise they will never even look in our direction.

On that score, it is not so much a lack of propaganda material, but a lack of drawing people in comfortably to view it.

We have many well populated and viewed sites like American Renaissance, Counter Currents, Occidental Observer, Alternative Right, Radix, Taki Magazine, VDare, Western Spring, The New Observer, The British Resistance, Majority Rights, Occidental Quarterly, The Voice of Reason, and according to various tastes, The Daily Stormer, Stormfront, Gates of Vienna, Frontpage and so on.

Then there is the British National Party, the British Democratic Party, the National Front, the Traditional Britain Group, hundreds of personal blogs (with next to no readership participation apparent), facebook groups, as well as archived material like a load of old Spearhead articles from the National Front heydays, many books available to purchase and so on.

When it comes to our situation and our positions, I tend to think that amongst all this lot, everything that needs to be said has already been said. It is all there, somewhere. 

What is the purpose of endlessly regurgitating the same things over and over again, telling ourselves what we already know? I get tired of reading the same rhetoric all the time, laced with all the usual stab words of 'cultural marxist' and 'traitor'. I can't be bothered with it any more, so I would not expect my own readership here to have to suffer the same.

Considering how few of the wider population actually embroil themselves in our sites (compared to the already semi-aware, winnable and converted I mentioned earlier), I do wonder at times what the point is of pumping out all this stuff.

It is perhaps reassuring to be amongst like minded folk and no doubt it is cathartic to blow off some steam by making a sharp comment - and as I say, it does help to keep people 'in the fold' - but perhaps the time needs to come for quality and purpose over that of a mindless churn and what amounts to just one long moan about what is going on and what is being done to us.

We need purpose to the articles, purpose to the sites. We need to shatter the narratives of our opponents, provide people with the right tools to de-construct common arguments made against us. We need informative articles about what we are aiming for, why we are doing it, why people ought to join us and what we are actually doing about it.

Endlessly describing what is being done week in, week out - and thus angrily citing case after case of affronts to our nation (which fills so many sites) is perhaps not such a good use of our time and efforts. It is also hugely demoralising as well as being passive, as we generally wait for the next batch of woe and outrage to hit us for us to then read or write about.

I am alone in this view? Am I just battle worn and cynical? Like many sites like this, is there anybody out there at all?!!

You see, I think it would prove my point that this article is again the fodder for the already converted, that it says little about our situation, that the site is not well read, that volume of material is therefore not that important, that your average citizen is not going to be pouring over it or understanding what it is all about.....

On the other hand - do all the above kinds of sites help push our cause forward? Is the volume and tide of it all part of the push-back? Do we need to write more material, more often, no matter what it is? 

Where does one go from here?


Friday, 3 January 2014

Some thoughts on recent nationalist news.




I see that there's a fair bit of news today on the nationalist circuit about the bankruptcy of Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party. I had intended the following thoughts to be a comment to another site discussing this matter, but as ever, it grew a bit too long, so I have put it here instead.

I can't say I take all that much pleasure from seeing what I assume will be the further fall of a nationalistic party political force. One that most of us here, at one point or another, will have been a part of and will have had hopes for.

Yet of course, like many others, on the whole, I am otherwise rather cold to it now and even of the opinion that it may need to be put out of its misery (or adapt) rather than left to limp on - something which Mr Griffin may once again succeed in doing.  

After all, the bankruptcy of Mr Griffin is not the same thing as that of the party itself.

It is however, not all that unexpected, given what has been going on over the last few years and given that things were heading that way with reports of bailiffs and such in the advent of the ROMAC situation (and various other antics).

It was these disturbing antics which went on a few years ago (too numerous to mention, too farcical to not be a comic and probably too disgusting for newer BNP supporters to ever believe) that drove away so many good people.

The thought that so many would leave (with some estimating 80% of the old membership) would have been incomprehensible shortly prior to the collapse of faith - when the party was on a popular high and on the verge of entering a much bigger league.

This walk-out was because we were not talking about a couple of minor things which could still be brushed under the carpet and ignored "for the greater good" (like they had been before with various things).

No, it was scandalous to such a degree that most people with any integrity and insight into what had been going on could just not bring themselves to have allegiance with it any more. 

Well, I will rephrase that. I mean it became a matter of conscience and a matter of whether one was capable and willing to excuse it all in the hope that things would once again become good in the future. Some chose to battle on regardless because they, perhaps rightly, continued to see it as the main and most well known nationalist entity in the country.

I could understand that and appreciate that, but I did personally not share the ability to forgive and forget and to continue to put my faith in the kinds of ways things were being done. I did not take the decision lightly, in fact it was quite difficult for me to come to terms with the end of an era.

In some cases it reached the point where people who once championed Mr Griffin could no longer even stand the sight and sound of him (and those he kept close around him).

A local meeting I attended at the time things were going haywire had brochures everywhere that had pictures of Nick Griffin (in various fake poses) on almost every page. It had become far too sycophantic and thus hard to stomach to many in the party.

We had also been shown why the British National Party would never escape the little pool to dive into the bigger pool required of it. It was at the limit of current capacity - and could not be carried forward whilst operating in the same manner it had been, especially when good people were being forced out of the party whilst liabilities were routinely and mysteriously being kept on, including people who were not even members and were running rival parties!

I suppose that the crushing and heavily demoralising defeat in Barking and Dagenham was the main straw that broke many a camels' back though, particularly amongst those not privy to what had been going on internally -  simply because it was was so crushing of our hopes and efforts. To watch the whole lot slide away like that was pretty uncomfortable.

However, unlike many other issues that were driving people away, I do not believe that the results in Barking and Dagenham can be wholly pinned upon the British National Party and Nick Griffin in particular. On this, it was outside the control of Nick and the BNP - and outside the control of nationalist party politics.

This is because it was revealed on the 2011 Census that Labour had effectively gerrymandered or conditioned the demographics there - to the degree where Barking and Dagenham lost around 20% of the White voter base in a decade!

However, it was (in the end) just part of a combination of internal and external factors that made it ever less viable to continue supporting the very model upon which it was all based and, by extension of supporting the party and the leadership, what had been going on at their hands.

Calls were of course made for a refreshing and renewal of the British National Party, but once again, various underhand deeds were set up to scupper these hopes and desires.

What should have further modernised the party, allowed further delegation away from a "one man party" and what should have given us some necessary purges of liabilities, was denied to us. We can still see the same old antics and same old cliques carry on what is left of the party we knew, in the same old ways.

In general though it was (or should have been) becoming clear that the model of party politics was becoming infeasible. It was being shown to be weak due to the fickle audience it may have temporarily accrued - whilst simultaneously being subject to the influences of outside factors beyond our control (and what will always be outside of our control). 

What Labour did (along with their supporting entities) also showed many of us that we do not really live in a democracy - and that even if we did, to win futile seats that cannot be maintained (or sustained with guarantee) is very likely going to be a waste of everybody's time and effort. 

It is also depressing and demoralising to have to keep building things from scratch on this basis only to keep securing the same kinds of marginal percentages in the election results.

How many of us would still be prepared to keep being a part of this process? How many are going to take up leafleting hostile wards, standing in seats that cannot realistically be won? How many are doing nothing for the whole year (or years) in between these election pushes?

The whole idea was looking a farce, particularly expectations of achieving the relevant gains required to implement our objectives for this country (in the time we have left as a majority population).


Despite being buoyed with an influx of new working class "patriots", the resulting slow decline of the British National Party has led to a quite a severe collapse in the old guard of nationalism over the last few years and as I say, I think it has been pretty painful to witness.

Many of us have since become politically homeless and desperate for something to come along that suited us, or for something that was viable to get something real changed out there. However, we are now where we are - and those things cannot be undone. Those opportunities cannot be taken again.

On the positive side, it is precisely this process of collapse and disillusionment that has given us the rise of new opportunities - and new opportunities to have a re-think about our models, approaches, routes.

Perhaps this wobble was just what was needed to really jolt us out of blind faith (or just sheer blindness) as to be throwing everything into one route - a route which was enveloped by the British National Party and Nick Griffin (as the two were and currently are unfortunately seen as one and the same thing to many people).

This time for reassessment is where Western Spring has come into the picture -  set amongst a whole raft of British National Party clones, various (failed) "cultural nationalist" parties, ideas such as petitioning groups, various counter-jihad / cultural marxist entities.....and all sorts of weird and wacky throwbacks to the 1930s that most people in this country would find hard to take seriously.

Western Springs' recent article about the bankruptcy of Nick Griffin is quite scornful and playfully antagonistic towards the British Democratic Party too.

However, I am not going to be quite as scornful of the British Democratic Party.

I can understand why some people may have a problem with their policies/positions on homosexuality and why they will be frustrated at their lack of "telling the full truth" (because of their chosen model of approach within party politics), but that is not enough for me to launch into attacks, smears or other dismissive hostilities.

This is because I look at it for what it is trying to be: A clean cut and respectable ethno-nationalist political party that retains a vast bulk of genuine nationalist policies and positions.

That is the model they have chosen, and on that basis, despite me not being a member and having no real allegiance forcing me to say this, I think it has the basis of being one of the best nationalist parties and 'political party' vehicles out there at the present time.

The people in it and around it seem like decent people, intelligent people and articulate people. The founding videos and videos of their meetings were in my view excellent and a step above the ones I had been used to in the British National Party.

On this basis, I would not expect to see the kinds of antics going on within it that disgusted so many of us with Mr Griffin and the British National Party either.

I think that the website is good for their purposes. The articles are generally good, the policies are good, the constitution and internal procedures sound to be much better than the British National Party -  and as such I think it gives a good impression and overview of what bread and butter nationalist "political" policies and positions are.

It fulfils the purpose of the model they are using. It is informative and explanatory, whether it be energy, self reliance, identity, immigration, transport, etc, as well as the thorny issue of race. It is therefore somewhere I could redirect friends and family to, if need be, to give further impressions and explanations of what kind of things I stand up for.

I do not therefore like to think of them and their followers as being "the other" or some kind of opposition. If one still believed in party politics, it is perhaps the party that many of us would have wanted to appear for years. What they are like in reality and "on the ground", I do not know, for have not got myself involved.

Yet this is where the praise for the BDP ends. You see, like Max Musson over at Western Spring, I have no faith in the democratic 'party politics' route any more. I have no faith in the model of operation. I have no hope for the fruition and sustainment of their activities. 

To my knowledge, there is nothing really all that wrong with the people, the policies, etc within the party, it is just the kind of vehicle they are clinging blindly to that keeps me from being interested.

I am also aware that some of the people have not exactly been flattering of Western Spring and are perhaps the reasons as to why Max is a little hostile when he alludes that they are not interested in any sort of unifying efforts and why he suggests they have no imagination or perceptiveness.

That kind of blanket stubbornness is never helpful, particularly when the British Democratic Party make no efforts to set out why they believe their 40+ year proven failed model can win this time, or why the excellent proposals set out by Western Spring are not correct and not worth trying.

It is that inability to pierce the logic of Western Spring that disappoints me and that they cannot even seem to explain why, for example, there would be any point going through the whole rigmarole and footwork of standing a candidate in wards like mine (which they already have done against the British National Party candidate!).

My ward is part a slowly transforming area of town. Whites are on the decline, Pakistanis are moving in. Most other wards making up the town are now around half (or majority) Pakistani origin too. The council chamber is pretty much dominated with Pakistani councillors, whether they be Labour, Lib Dems or Conservative. If not them, then delusional white liberals.

The British Democratic Party - or any nationalist party - simply cannot retain the area, they cannot ever control the council, they just seem to be leafleting and going through the motions of trying to win a "winnable" seat here; one which has shown a decent BNP turnout in the past.

What though, is this going to achieve? Where do they go from there? What is the next step for the area? Can they prevent the White flight and naturally occurring elderly decline of the locals? It is the same thing magnified for elsewhere, regions, pockets of the nation. There is no master plan, just the same old plodding away in the hope that a better party without Nick Griffin will race to success.

So, I see no answers to any of this. Nor to the kinds of situations we saw at Barking and Dagenham. They are, to me, therefore trying to build a solid political house of cards upon quicksand. Sands shift and the winds of change will doubly tend to blow it over and so it collapses all over again.

We cannot carry on doing this over and over. This is what Western Spring aims to tackle.

When one considers the (albeit Herculean) proposals and tactics linked to by Max Musson at the bottom of his article (linked to above), carrying on with the same blind hope in party political models and strategies seems somewhat of a cruel joke. One that you want other people to avert being the unwitting butt of.

This is perhaps why it frustrates Max so much that the good folks over at the British Democratic Party cannot see the benefits of his approaches and, thus far, to my knowledge, cannot seriously challenge those articles beyond that of the usual cynicism and wafer thin (or off-the-cuff) disregarding.

However, I can appreciate the doubts of a commenter there. He asks as to whether there is actually anything going on with Western Spring, or whether it is all hopes, dreams and talk. I think a lot of people will be thinking this way - and I include myself at times. Western Spring is wide open to that accusation.

I suspect that Western Spring has a fair wedge of members now who are contributing financially and perhaps in other ways to the "movement of national salvation" - but it is still, after a year of my signing up, pretty much a black hole when it comes to being privy to visible and provable successes that are going on, information as to what is being achieved or planned next, or how much money has been raised to date and so on.

Whilst I still have faith and trust in Max Musson (and the wider Western Spring venture) and whilst I still see it as far superior and better thought out than 'party politics' - there will come a point where people will need to see some kind of hard evidence if they are going to continue throwing funds and such into the pot.

Myself, I am that sick and weary of it all (nationalism) that I have no enthusiasm or will to roll my sleeves up right now and make a nuisance of myself with Western Spring. There is something in me, at nearly 36 years of age, urging me to crack on with the rest of my life, establish a family and so on, instead of fretting about it all.

Rightly or wrongly, that noise is the loudest in my ear when considering the state of play out there in the country today. Doing that, in fact, may be the best contribution I could make to the cause! But, for the moment, I am still in the fortunate position of being able to help the cause via Western Spring through my monthly funding. 

That is (sadly) the extent of my contribution at the moment and for the foreseeable future.

I am not one to be phoning around and demanding to know what is being done and where, so I have no intentions of chasing Max Musson around and making a nuisance of myself to gain 'evidence' of what may be being said in response to criticisms - especially when I am not of the mind (at the moment) to get something established myself. 

I also appreciate the caution that has to be taken when revealing information and specifics, but I do think that all the contributors need some indications via the Western Spring site (and not unverifiable emails) as to how things are developing and what is currently being worked on.

Have we bought buildings, houses? Have we got any significant backers? Has anybody managed to infiltrate the areas suggested in the programme.....

Up to press, the wider readership and membership have nothing much other than a website.

I fear that without some indications of progress being given, people may lose faith and trust in the project and that, perhaps like myself, will in turn be at risk of packing it in and walking away from everything. I could not blame them, but I would rather it did not happen. 

For those who are not familiar with the Western Spring project, please follow the link in this article and read the batch of articles which Max Musson has supplied at the bottom of his article here: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/nick-griffin-declared-bankrupt/

Friday, 27 December 2013

The Fox's Prophecy



Something a little different for the Yuletide season, although not particularly related to Christmas. A tale of the fall of England and the following rebirth. Not a bad prophesy considering it is nearly 144 years old, especially the parts I have chosen to embolden.   (Hat tip to Unrepentant British Nationalist, circa 2008).

 The Fox's Prophecy

(Attributed to D. W. Nash - 1870)

Tom Hill was in the saddle,
One bright November morn,
The echoing glades of Guiting Wood
Were ringing with his horn.

The diamonds of the hoar-frost
Were sparkling in the sun.
Upon the falling leaves the drops
Were shining one by one.

The hare lay on the fallow,
The robin carolled free;
The linnet and yellow finch
Twittered from tree to tree.

In stately march the sable rook
Followed the clanking plough;
Apart their watchful sentinel
Cawed from the topmost bough.

Peeped from her hole the field-mouse
Amid the fallen leaves.
From twig to twig the spider
Her filmy cable weaves.

The waving of the pine boughs
The squirrel's form disclose;
And through the purple beech-tops
The whirring pheasant rose.

The startled rabbit scuttered
Across the grassy ride;
High in mid-air the hovering hawk
Wheeled round in circles wide.

The freshest wind was blowing
O'er groves of beech and oak
And through the boughs of larch and pine
The struggling sunbeam broke.

The varied tints of autumn
Still lingered on the wood,
And on the leaves the morning sun
Poured out a golden flood.

Soft, fleecy clouds were sailing
Across the vault of blue.
A fairer hunting morning
No huntsman ever knew.

All nature seemed rejoicing
That glorious morn to see;
All seemed to breathe a fresher life -
Beast, insect, bird and tree.

But sound and sight of beauty
Fell dull on eye and ear;
The huntsman's heart was heavy
His brow oppressed with care.

High in his stirrups raised he stood,
And long he gazed around;
And breathlessly and anxiously
His listened for a sound.

But nought he heard save the song bird
Or jay's discordant cry;
Or when among the the tree-tops
The wind went murmuring by.

No voice of hound, no sound of horn
The woods around were mute,
As though the earth had swallowed up
His comrades - man and brute.

He thought, "I must essay to find
My hounds at any cost;
A huntsman who has lost his hounds
Is but a huntsman lost".

Then round he turned his horse's head
And shook his bridle free,
When he was struck by an aged fox
That sat beneath a tree.

He raised his eye in glad surprise,
That huntsman keen and bold;
But there was in that fox's look
That made his blood run cold.

He raised his hand to touch his horn,
And shout a "Tally-ho"
But mastered by that fox's eye,
His lips refused to blow.

For he was grim and gaunt of limb,
With age all silvered o'er;
He might have been an arctic fox
Escaped from Greenland's shore.

But age his vigour had not tamed,
Nor dimm'd his sparkling eye,
Which shone with an unearthly fire -
Fire that could never die.

And thus the huntsman he addressed,
In tones distinct and clear,
Who heard as they who in a dream
The fairies' music hear.

"Huntsman" he said - a sudden thrill
Through all the listeners ran,
To hear a creature of the wood
Speak like a Christian man -

"Last of my race, to me' tis given
The future to unfold,
To speak the words which never yet
Spake fox of mortal mould.

"Then print my words upon your heart
And stamp them on your brain,
That you to others may impart
My prophecy again.

"Strong life is your's in manhood's prime,
Your cheek with heat is red;
Time has not laid his finger yet
In earnest on your head.

"But ere your limbs are bent with age,
And ere yours locks are grey,
The sport that you have loved so well
Shall long have passed away.

"In vain shall generous Colmore,
Your hunt consent to keep;
In vain the Rendcomb baronet
With gold your stores shall heap.

"In vain Sir Alexander,
And Watson Keen in vain,
O'er the pleasant Cotswold hills
The joyous sport maintain.

"Vain all their efforts: spite of all,
Draws nigh the fatal morn,
When the last Cotswold fox shall hear
The latest huntsman's horn.

"Yet think not, huntsman, I rejoice
To see the end so near;
Nor think the sound of horn and hound
To me a sound of fear.

"In my strong youth, which numbers now
Full many a winter back,
How scornfully I shook my brush
Before the Berkeley pack.

"How oft from Painswick hill I've seen
The morning mist uncurl,
When Harry Airis blew the horn
Before the wrathful Earl.

"How oft I've heard the Cotswolds' cry
As Turner cheered the pack,
And laughed to see his baffled hounds
Hang vainly on my track.

"Too well I know, by wisdom taught
The existence of my race
O'er all wide England's green domain
Is bound up with the Chase.

"Better in early youth and strength
The race for life to run,
Than poisoned like the noxious rat,
Or slain by felon gun.

"Better by wily sleight and turn
The eager hound to foil,
Than slaughtered by each baser churl
Who yet shall till the soil.

"For not upon these hills alone
The doom of sport shall fall;
O'er the broad face of England creeps
The shadow on the wall.

"The years roll on: old manors change,
Old customs lose their sway;
New fashions rule; the grand sire's garb
Moves ridicule to-day.

"The woodlands where my race has bred
Unto the axe shall yield;
Hedgerow and copse shall cease to shade
The ever widening field.

"The manly sports of England
Shall vanish one by one;
The manly blood of England
In weaker veins shall run.

"The furzy down, the moorland heath,
The steam plough shall invade;
Nor park nor manor shall escape -
Common, nor forest glade.

"Degenerate sons of manlier sires
To lower joys shall fall;
The faithless lore of Germany,
The gilded vice of Gaul.

"The sports of their forefathers
To baser tastes shall yield;
The vices of the town displace
The pleasures of the field.

"For swiftly o'er the level shore
The waves of progress ride;
The ancient landmarks one by one
Shall sink beneath the tide.

"Time honoured creeds and ancient faith,
The Alter and the Crown,
Lordship's hereditary right,
Before that tide go down.

"Base churls shall mock the mighty names
Writ on the roll of time;
Religion shall be held a jest,
And loyalty a crime.

"No word of prayer, no hymn of praise
Sound in the village school;
The people's education
  Utilitarians rule.

"In England's ancient pulpits
Lay orators shall preach
New creeds, and free religions
Self made apostles teach.

"The peasants to their daily tasks
In surly silence fall;
No kindly hospitalities
In farmhouse nor in hall.

"Nor harvest feast nor Christmas tide
Shall farm or manor hold;
Science alone can plenty give,
The only God is gold.

"The homes where love and peace should dwell
Fierce politics shall vex,
And unsexed woman strive to prove
Herself the coarser sex.

"Mechanics in their workshops
Affairs of state decide;
Honour and truth - old fashioned words -
The noisy mob deride.

"The statesman that should rule the realm
Coarse demagogues displace;
The glory of a thousand years
Shall end in foul disgrace.

The honour of old England,
Cotton shall buy and sell,
And hardware manufacturers
Cry "Peace - lo, all is well".

Trade shall be held the only good
And gain the sole device;
The statesman's maxim shall be peace,
and peace at any price.

"Her army and her navy
Britain shall cast aside;
Soldiers and ships are costly things,
Defence an empty pride.

"The German and the Muscovite
Shall rule the narrow seas;
Old England's flag shall cease to float
In triumph on the breeze.

"The footsteps of th' invader,
Then England's shore shall know,
While home-bred traitors give the hand
To England's every foe.

"Disarmed, before the foreigner,
The knee shall humbly bend,
And yield the treasures that she lacked
The wisdom to defend.

"But not for aye - yet once again,
When purged by fire and sword,
The land her freedom shall regain,
To manlier thoughts restored.

"Taught wisdom by disaster,
England shall learn to know,
That trade is not the only gain
Heaven gives to man below.

"The greed for gold departed
The golden calf cast down,
Old England's sons shall raise again
The Alter and the Crown.

"Rejoicing seas shall welcome
Their mistress once again;
Once more the banner of St George
Shall rule upon the main.

"The blood of the invader
Her pastures shall manure,
His bones unburied on her fields
For monuments to endure.

"Again in hall and homestead,
Shall joy and peace be seen,
And smiling children raise again
The maypole on the green.

"Again the hospitable board
Shall groan with Christmas cheer,
And mutual service bind again
The peasant and the peer.


"Again the smiling hedgerow
Shall field from field divide;
Again among the woodlands
The scarlet troop shall ride."

Again it seemed that aged fox,
More prophecies would say,
When sudden came upon the wind,
"Hark forrard, gone away".

The listener started from his trance -
He sat there all alone;
That well-known cry had burst the spell,
The aged fox was gone.

The huntsman turned,
He spurred his steed,
And to the cry he sped;
And when he thought upon that fox,
Said naught, but shook his head.

Monday, 16 December 2013

Going out on the lash with Choudhary?



 Going out on the lash with Anjem Choudhary?


"Get your 40 lashes here! 40 lashes! Get your 40 lashes ladies and gentlemen!"


Via some nationalist sites (as well as the Daily Mail), I have seen the news about (provocateur extraordinaire) Anjem Choudhary's latest publicity stunt relating to his advocation of upholding Sharia law on the sale and consumption of alcohol within the Brick Lane area of London.

Once of a day I might have got all in a lather about this kind of thing. However, I have to admit that in recent years I haven't had the inclination to really care all that much, despite the smug and mocking tones of Mr Choudhary being as irritating as ever.

Please let me explain my position, because I know I might be at risk of alienating some people with my opening preamble.

Of course, it grates on me that interlopers are demanding their own ways in our homeland. I think that tends to go without saying, for any nationalist. However, with things at the state they are currently in, particularly in London and 'Brick Lane', what, in all honesty, would the EDL or the authorities do about it if it was the entire London Muslim "community" backing this group, (which it currently is not)?

London is already lost as a 'white city' in a formerly homogeneous 'white nation'. Native whites in London are less than 45% - and falling/fleeing fast.

Who, in all honesty, believes that the EDL or the police 'service' (which is being slashed in numbers whilst the overall population is rising) can enforce what such a massive demographic get up to (and what they can demand and threaten) on the streets of London now and in the long term future?

Given that a vast majority of those who will be subject to their demands will be a mixture of other non-whites of various heritage (including their own kind who own curry restaurants and corner shops), many smug liberal whites and drunk student types who claim to like the "vibrancy" of London as it is today (and are thus part of the problem).... why should I really continue to care about what Anjem Choudhary (and his handlers) are up to there and enforcing upon them within Brick Lane?

Of course, the whole principle of this being able to happen in the future is wrong and I reject it. But as things stand, what exactly is going to be done about it by the state, the councils, the police, the government etc as they stand today?

Will the homosexuals, the 'recreational' drug users, the liberal hedonists, the occupants of the BBC dwellers in posher parts of the sprawl, the Guardian journalists, Chinese nationals, the  Jamaicans (and every combination of nationality possible) come rushing to our aid in robust defence of merry old England and the English people, in order to throw this particular demographic out of the country? I do not think so.

I tend to expect that the future governments of this country will capitulate to all this kind of thing as quickly as manure off a shovel when they are faced with the infeasibility of trying to enforce that millions of people adhere to "our rules" in swathes of land which are effectively now 'their own'.

I think that they will thus, in all likelihood, start saying that they need to police their own areas, that for public order they advise that certain behaviour is adhered to for maintaining good community relations.

I suspect that they will let property owners in those areas apply leases and such that would stipulate how the tenant must comply with the expectations of the contract and the wishes of the local population.

(There was a recent example of this where James Caan, the Muslim from the TV show 'Dragons Den', undertook a recent deal with a Dubai based investor to purchase a retail park, one which will be subject to "Islamic principles".  As usual - and as with this instance - such things will continue to get the blessing of local politicians who want to be seen to be 'securing jobs' etc by selling this country off to the highest bidders).

If people are employed by Asian owned companies, the companies will no doubt be allowed to issue a dress code for work - which means some form of head covering for women, trousers instead of skirts, and minimal to no make-up, etc. If you don't agree, you don't work there. That will be the position and the attitude. 

The government of the future will no doubt suggest that the existing Sharia courts can be expanded into other areas of law which may affect the wishes of the locality (which is how they got the ones they already have in the first place).

None of the above is 'sinister' - it will just be rolled out nonchalantly after a puff and a wheeze by people in the Daily Mail comment sections. 

But what if things do get a little more sinister in the future? Not necessarily from your everyday Muslim, but from a more fanatical section that is applying and enforcing the rules through fear?

Seeing as an area might ultimately start to get a reputation for beatings or assaults for people not wearing the right clothing or whatever, our own people will no doubt start to wear a headscarf in them voluntarily, 'just in case'; so as not to make themselves a target and perhaps even to be "polite" (if they are liberal minded enough).

I do not expect acid attacks for 'non compliance' to be prevalent for quite some time, but they have already happened here in Britain for different things, amongst their own people - as have beatings for non compliance to Islamic sensibilities, such as a teacher who was nearly beaten to death for teaching un-Islamic ways to students.

I suppose it is quite alarmist for people to suggest acid attacks and beatings will happen more often, but the point I wish to make is that the so-called "moderate" Muslims, just like everywhere else in the world, will generally be under the thumb and the fear of 'extremists' like that - whilst at the same time not being able to really argue with the basic Islamic sentiment behind it (such as the wider advocation of Sharia).

They may not agree with the methodology or the actions, but that does not mean to say they disagree with the ultimate ambition.

How can they disagree? They believe in Islam as a political and socio-religious tool. That is what it is all about. That is why they are Muslims! To expect them to support the opposite of that aim is fantasy land, like the current political leaders seem to live in with their notions of "shared values" and "muscular liberalism".

The claims made in the Daily Mail article (by the Quilliam Foundation) that the application of Sharia (and thus an overthrow of what we perceive to be democracy) is not the aim of Islam and Muslims is laughable. As is the assertion that Muslims cannot apply Sharia to non-Muslims.

Obviously, it is quite the contrary and self evident in many parts of the world that Islam is one of the only religious systems whose rules do tend to apply to everybody else when they are in a position to demand it!

Islam is different to the rest in many ways, such as how it claims the Koran to be the direct word of God via an interpretation by Mohammed. Many of us will know what the score is by now, so I need not get into all that.

However, where I differ with the general consensus and articles which I have seen on this event or stunt pulled by Choudhary, is that I noticed that the placards they were holding on the demonstration said things like "10,000 alcohol related deaths per year" and "save lives, don't drink alcohol".

He pushes it to the extreme, but I cannot really argue with some of that sentiment. On our own extreme, what am I supposed to do, praise the idiotic and moronic binge drinking culture that we see on our city streets of a weekend? Am I supposed to support that kind of society and hedonism just because the Muslims are not fond of it?

I like a drink of lager as much as anybody, but I am fortunate in that I can enjoy a moderate drink and not be part of the swill that I think is helping to drag down western society. Many other English people all over the country can socialise without getting silly. There is something sadly wrong in our culture though which encourages some of the worst behaviour. Why is there this need?

I should make it clear that I am not talking about alcoholics who are afflicted with a terrible curse, which is an illness. I am talking much more precisely about those who purposefully and wilfully indulge in the kinds of behaviour and attitudes we see on many a "fly on the wall" programme. The kinds of people who "don't care" what is going on in this country away from their social life and the 'here and now'. They are often no real friends of ours and our movement, aside from their default ethnic heritage.

In addition, look at the (albeit snide) picture that the Daily Mail have used for their fifth picture:


"I'z no idieea whash relly goi'n on, but 'Up the English!' Cheers!"

The newspaper is of course causing the usual mischief in my view, but is it all that good for our people to be seen like this? Is this a good advertisement of what we want to save and what we want to be like in the future? Are these people to be the heroes of our civilisational revival?

The man in the picture may be a great bloke, he may be on our side and much more clued up than he looks, and if so, I will stand aside him if the day ever comes. In the meantime though, generally speaking, is it good for their own well being, their health, their ability to focus on what is important (and what is being done to them)? I don't think so.

Is it giving us any moral high ground or real defence of what we are really fighting for? No, I don't really think it is.

Surely we need to do better, be seen to be doing better and making something better of ourselves?

As I have said before, that is one of the problems I have had with the EDL position, for they seem to automatically, or by default, defend aspects of our country and our culture that are in all likelihood doing us damage and a disservice, just because the Muslims are against it.

Although I can appreciate the point about deaths from alcoholism, the liver failures, the unsafe feeling at the disorderly night life of a weekend, etc, I do not share the position of the Muslims though.

Where I certainly differ from their placards is that they claim that banning alcohol is the answer - and that some hard line "Sharia" is the answer.  

They are wrong. Nationalism and a return to our own systems, cultures and expectations from society is the answer.

As ever, if we can use Choudhary to send people our way, then so be it. He is useful for that purpose. But let us not take the eye off the ball with all this "do as the Romans do" or "abide by our laws" kind of nonsense that tends to dominate the newspaper and comment section discourse, because it basically does not work that way.

This is because demographics is destiny, particularly in a democracy. There are now already enough "BME's" in this country to swing a general election away from our indigenous interests - if they wanted to do so as a bloc.

People need to start bearing this in mind, because the mainstream parties certainly are. They are working out how to appeal to this new future voter and how to be "representative" of the demographic change, in order to keep their parties afloat.  They could not care less about the indigenous British people and their survival. They are not going to back us or look out for our interests.

Nor should we take our eye off the people who let them all in at the first place and why.

It does not matter to me all that much whether we deal with the ultimate drivers or those who do their bidding, providing we shut it down one way or another. For example, there are many organisations and people getting rich off our demise and we ought to be working out how to start closing down their money chutes - whether it is immigration lawyers, charity groups, or whatever else along the route back towards the root of the problem.

(We can also choose to opt out of various systems and trappings as best we can, preferably backing our own new way ahead as an alternative instead).

The Islamists claim they have solutions for what they see as evil blights on society - and they are pushing them, as shown in the Daily Mail report. Yet what are our solutions to the collapse of our own societies and people - apart from simply being against what the likes of Choudhary are doing and having some kind of dream of shipping them all out on aircraft carriers one day?

What are we offering to the country - and what are we holding up to the nation as something worth preserving and worthy of securing a future of? 

Around us is the stench of failure, collapse, corruption, immorality, consumerism, selfishness - the noose woven by the 'liberal-left', globalists and particular vested (Jewish dominated) interest groups on both of those teams that have conspired to break down our civilisation and loot it. That is not what I want to secure and save for the future.

We often bring up past achievements, past inventiveness and past greatness when we are defending our rights to survive. But that is just that, the past. We are living on a memory and on the sweat and blood of those who have gone before us. What about now and the future?

I am as guilty as the next man for being no shining example. My zeal has fallen, without question. I have in recent years reached a point where I feel the need to just get on with my life and just bear in mind what I have learnt, in order to be prepared for events in the future.

It has become too exhausting to continue to care so much. I do still care, and I think I always will -  but in some ways I have had to moderate my care in order to start living a life of my own instead of perpetually feeling as though I am trapped into watching a nation commit suicide. It is not healthy or all that productive to live such a life. It helps nobody.

Although I consider Choudhary to be bit of a noisy publicist for a factional grouping (who could even be a subversive plant in society), in general, the Muslims are planning ahead and pushing ahead. They are looking 10, 20, 30 years down the line in many areas they live. They are setting their stall out and asserting themselves.

We, on the other hand, as a nation and a movement, seem to be eternally on the retreat and dealing with an aftermath of situations like this one shown in the Daily Mail report (that are borne from matters which have already got out of control) instead of dealing with ourselves as a society and making our own fate however best we can.

We need to be in the driving seat of where we are heading as a people, not looking onwards from the back seat of somebody else's vehicle (like Anjem Choudhary or indeed "the Zionists").

But then we get back to the same old question....what exactly do we do about it, how do we do it, and have we the will as a nation to succeed? 

That is what I think would be a better thing for us to focus on, not some mouthpiece behind a megaphone and his statements of issuing 40 lashes. Sure, it is important, but it is also important that we figure out what to do about it and how we are to present ourselves as a counter force.


Friday, 11 October 2013

Nationalism - an Entirely Different League?



 Nationalism - an Entirely Different League?

Tommy and Kevin being interviewed with the Quilliam Foundation

I have not written anything substantial for quite some time, but I wrote a comment to a website the other day and it became that long I thought I had better make it into an article instead. 

It is relating to the English Defence League and the the current brouhaha that everybody seems to be talking about lately.

Whilst I have not been involved with the English Defence League, it has always been an interesting phenomena to watch from the outside. I can therefore only offer my opinions as that outsider, but I hope that what I am about to write will make some sense, all the same.

Admittedly, I have never been a fan of the EDL as an organisation (and have previously argued why too many times to mention) but despite my concerns over the ideological nature of the organisation itself, I have always taken the view that there may well have been some decent members and supporters in the ranks -  albeit ideologically confused supporters at times, in my opinion.

Like many others, I heard the breaking news on the BBC radio news a few days ago that the leadership of the EDL were leaving the organisation. They were said to be leaving in order to join up with the Quilliam Foundation, as part of 'rejecting extremism' {both 'far right' and Islamic} and to 'tackle radical Islam' in a more serious or 'professional' way.

As somebody who still works for a living (and has little time to pour over the internal ruptures of such organisations), I have not really had chance or inclination to look any further in to it than is what is displayed on the surface, but again, all I can say is that I have a view on what the EDL was and why Tommy might have changed his approaches. 

I already seem to differ with some other nationalists on this, but this is not really new for me I suppose!
 
Unlike many comments I have seen lately over the matter, I do not really see it as some kind of revelation (or him being some kind of turncoat to his cause). People are suggesting that Tommy has been 'got at' or put under pressure, but I have no reason to suspect this at all, or suspect any shady or shadowy groups plotting and scheming in the background to his decision. 

Of course, for this article, I am going to be taking the EDL at face value and assuming that the motives of the founding members (and main support base) were genuine, albeit ideologically flawed or naive in basis.

It was interesting to hear them on the radio that day stating how they had come to the conclusion that street activity was no longer giving fruit to the organisation; that they felt such events were now stagnating and how they thought they ought to look into other ways to try and stop what they perceive to be the greatest threat to the future of this country - 'radical Islam'.

Given that the EDL was always flawed in their choice of focussing on the visible resultant faces of this nation's transformation rather than the hidden drivers (be it the Jewish element, economics or for plain arguments sake 'the government') - I believed a point would eventually come where they realised that marching up and down and jeering at the reds or Muslims over the police barricades would not have any solid affect upon the future direction of this country.

It is certainly true that they pulled in significant numbers on their rallies and demonstrations and I can only admire that this was done and made possible - it was much higher than many nationalist organisations seemed to have achieved. They were once recognised as having 'stolen back the streets' from the 'far left' - which is no mean feat.

However, when it comes to anything resulting from these noisy bursts of action (often directed against 'current news' affairs relating to Muslims), it is unfortunate that "empty vessels tend to make the most noise". I say this only because I do not see any long lasting resultant from their methodology or their demonstrations.

For an example of this flawed methodology, one has to ask how many hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been given the right of settlement in this country since the EDL was founded? How many more hundreds of thousands of births have been given by the Muslim demographic already entrenched in this country from Aberdeen to Ashford?

Have they ever marched outside the Home Office whilst demanding border control? Have they called for action to be taken to reduce the Islamic demographic expansion of what is already here, via repatriation or programs to incentive lower birthrates amongst the group (or higher birthrate in ours)?

Not to my knowledge they haven't. That is not their focus point. Islamic extremism is their focus point. The building of a Mosque or something is their focus point. 

Of course, the new mosque in terms of bricks and mortar is not really the problem though, despite it being another sign of conquest and triumphalism. It is the demographics that can command them in the first place which is the real element to grapple with in the long haul. 

I may well be corrected as I am not inside those circles, but I have not known of any pressure being applied by the group in terms of achieving long term and solid goals, things that would greatly change the trajectory of the future.

We seem to have had spot rallies over things which have already happened (and cannot be changed) and over things which will be tomorrows chip wrappings.....but the machine rolls relentlessly onwards regardless of their protestations. 

Even extreme events that spike the nation's attention fall prey to being the proverbial chip wrappings. 

Lee Rigby? Who is he? Already, the slumbering public have moved on like it never even happened. There has been a new series of Big Brother and Dexter since then, so the matter of somebody being hacked to death on British streets is long gone from their attention. You may receive an "Oh yeah", as they recollect it from the memory banks.

It is a sad fact, and horrible to have to point out, but history is spotted with these kinds of events -  and Lee is unfortunately just another marker along the transition of this country into being a different one entirely, in all aspects but that of geography. 



No doubt there are many good EDL people present who are sick of the way the country is
heading, but who may not know how to handle it or what to think.
They just want to take a stand -  so they are doing!


To be fair to the EDL and their support base, I think it is rather admirable to be taking some kind of stand against what is going on with the Islamisation of this country and Islamic extremists in particular. 

I say this because it is a problem, it does need to be challenged, and, admittedly, they were doing well at getting their general cause recognised and they were acting as some kind of magnet for those who sought to visibly and physically show some kind of opposition. 

I hold my hand up and say that it takes some bravery to put yourself on such a front line, to have your address revealed, be hassled by the police or to have threats put on your life. 

If it is all to be taken on face value, being so confrontational and an open target to both maniacs and the general state establishment is more than I have ever done. I am not knocking that side of the organisation or the wider support base.

The trouble I have had with it all is that, in my opinion, the message the EDL had from the start was always confusing and incoherent in basis. The closer you picked at it, the more it fell apart. 

For example, they were at it again during the radio interview I heard. They said that the threat they are against is "radical Islam" - and they were at pains to state that they were "not against ordinary Muslims". 

It takes a great deal of sophistry and mental contortion to try and sort the wheat out from the chaff without looking completely ridiculous. Unfortunately for the EDL, it is ridiculous and always will be ridiculous to try and draw these distinctions. 

For example, if a Muslim demands Sharia banking and refuses to sell alcohol in his corner shop, tends to support Hamas against Israel, but does not force his wife or daughter to wear the veil and fits in with 'the lads' every month when watching Manchester United play football - is he an extremist or not?  

(More to the point though, if the nation is filled with such people, does it even ultimately matter?!)

To some degree I know what Tommy and Kevin mean about 'ordinary Muslims' - because the reality is that (no matter what the hyperbole is by some people) not all Muslims are strapping on backpacks or mutilating their children. Not all of them are 'raping our children' or 'forcing their ways on our society' or whatever else. 

Living where I do at least gives me some idea as to how things actually are with these people. 

Yes, there are 'groomers'. Yes, there are drug dealers. Yes, there will be fanatics. There are certainly gangs. There are probably older males who are wife beaters, there will be some forced marriages, some cousin marriage problems with births, some car insurance fraudsters, some forced wearing of the veil, and all the rest of it. Even the liberal local press covers it all from time to time.

However, to use the rhetoric like we tend hear on EDL rallies or on general internet sites (which can suggest that they are all like this) is wrong headed and I think it actually makes the job of dealing with it harder.

This is because not only is it evidently false - but the fever pitch of 'patriotic fervour' can be greatly embarrassing and almost impossible to try and argue that it is typical of all Muslims (and still be taken seriously). 

If people can see and hear with their own eyes and ears that it is not like this generalisation, then they will tend to dismiss you as some sort of lunatic or "uneducated bigot" right from the start.

That is one reason why I have always considered it damaging to the cause when people run so hard with these exaggerated themes and stereotypes.

Yes, we who frequent nationalist websites will all know how things will end up, but that is a different argument to what many people perceive in the "here and now", which is, on current trends, a transition period between a White western nation to a mixed race, black and Muslim fused nation. 

Will the forced wearing of the veil become more normalised in the future? I think it will. Will we see more attacks and demands to comply with Islamic sensitivities? Undoubtedly.

The trouble is that its not yet like that; and many people out there still do not understand that demographics is destiny. 

These arguments we tend to get over the veil, or pupils at Muslim schools, or halal dinners, or 'unfairness' over whatever else, will not matter a jot in the future when they can command what is happening. 


"Oh No! Not another crazy British Activism analogy!"

Imagine you have a rugby pitch, a rugby team and a club house on the edge of the rugby ground. It might have been there for over 120 years. There are plaques on the wall, rugby themed decorations adorning the building, and so on. Everybody knows it is a rugby ground. 

Imagine that football was started to be played on the pitch too. Arrangements were made so that different groups had different times of use; and they generally accommodated each other and lived alongside each other sharing the same space. It was only a few games a season, so it was no big deal. Some people moaned, but they were seen to be petty and stubborn, just "set in their ways".

Imagine that the sport of rugby generally started to suffer a decline - a very slow decline. Although rugby players and their supporters were without doubt the mainstay of the venue, more footballers and football supporters were using the pitch and the club house than ever before - and eventually the two rival groups started to fend for the same places at the same time. 

That was just the way it was, it was nobodies 'fault'. The football crowd needed the venue more than they initially thought, and the rugby crowd had no real argument to make as to why the pitch and grounds could not be used when their own allocated slot was not being sufficiently filled.

Before you know it, the majority of the club house and bar is filled with football supporters rather than rugby supporters. 

Rugby memorabilia is slowly replaced with football memorabilia, the rules of the club house gradually need to be reformed to reflect the nature of the football players who now command the space more frequently than those rugby players who had established it. 

This, quite understandably, greatly annoys some stalwart rugby players and fans. They can not quite understand just how it had come to this!

Tell me, when these last rugby supporters in that club house stand up and say "Excuse me, this is a Rugby Club not a football club, we have rules and expectations here, you should fit in to our historic ways of doing things" - how seriously are they going to be taken?! 

Aside from the name of the grounds, it is no longer a rugby club, but a football club instead, and their opinions no longer count. In their minds, it is still a rugby club and still their grounds - but in reality, it is not.

This is the way it is with all these retarded debates over the viel, or "doing what the Romans do", or, being against "Islamic extremists only"

(The liberal-left will just say they are "both just sports", that "they both have balls and teams" and that it "does not really matter" as they are basically the same thing!).

Substitute "Islamic Extremists" for a handful of football hooligans at the 'Rugby' club house and you have the retarded arguments of the EDL (and many of the 'patriotic' populists that unfortunately tend to go with them). They are against the hooligans causing a fight, but otherwise okay with the state of the club?

This is where Tommy Robinson and the EDL have always had it wrong. 

The simple fact of the matter is that the more the country becomes demographically and religiously Muslim, via those "ordinary" Muslims he accepts, the more Islamified it becomes anyway - and the more vigour will be applied over 'their' territory and observance. 

It matters not a jot what they get up to when they command their own areas to such a great extent. It does not bring our own country or people back by somehow forcing them to live in accordance to our expectations. Nor does the pressure and narrative that they should do so alter the trajectory of this country.

It is ridiculous to me that Tommy and people like him seem to expect that 'the government' or 'society' or an ethnic minority group (like the English in Tower Hamlets) can somehow dictate as to how the Muslims live their lives. It just does not work that way Tommy!

It is not a matter of "extremists" - it is a matter of demographic weight as a whole, transforming society itself. The "extremists" and threats are just the extra layer that occurs as demands increase, whether those "ordinary Muslims" are supportive of them or not. 

They will, all in all, then be arguing with themselves and thrashing out their own issues - and we will increasingly not have a dog in this fight.



This kind of thing started to worry Tommy Robinson

When it comes to Tommy Robinson leaving the EDL, he was talking on the radio about how he had seen various pictures and messages from his supporters that he felt had become too extreme - and suggested that he did not want to be linked with that kind of organisation - or be held to blame if (or when) something happens at the hands of those kinds of individuals in the EDL. 

He specifically cited a man who lifted his jumper up to reveal a tattoo or image that showed a picture of a mosque being bombed. I assume he means the one in the picture above.

Although we English are renowned for our quirky humour and laughing in the face of adversity (and I am pretty sure that to the person concerned it was a sick joke and a statement, not a signal of intent), Tommy Robinson, quite rightly in my opinion, said he started to wonder just what he had helped create. 

It seemed to be dawning on him just where it all might lead to - and who might be getting their collar felt by the police, or who might ultimately be held responsible by society for ratcheting up such rhetoric and attitudes in his ranks.

In other words, he, his chums and his backers have done their job of riling up the patriotic elements of society - and now that they have watched it spiral out of their control and have seen it grow its own legs, they are getting out so that the ties are severed as to how it all came about - and so that they will not be held responsible for the situation they now fear they have set in motion.

I happen to find it true (and share his view) that this kind of rhetoric has got completely carried away and detached from reality in recent years. But this is what tends to happen with such groups.

As soon as you create a bubble, a following, a narrative, a "closed loop network" all telling each other what they want to hear and each element 'ratcheting up' their venom and such for the negative objects of their cause, the more they can get detached from the perceived reality of the wider population. 

It is not only done with the Muslims, but also Jews and Zionists or Bankers or whoever the collective target is. I am not suggesting the criticisms and some observations are not valid - I am specifically talking about the rhetoric and sweeping paranoia that would seem truly bizarre to anybody outside of that group discussing them.

This mental conditioning carries on until it reaches the point that people involved in it can hardly converse with anybody who is not inside that closed loop network. This process can only go on for so long before those involved lose sight of how they are both perceived and understood by other people. 

This is not really a good recipe for success, particularly if you have no solid theory or ideology on which to base your cause and back up your arguments.  

Nationalists have historically done okay on this defence because we do fundamentally have one, but it was always a problem (for me) with the EDL, because it was unclear and seemed to be all over the place with anything other than "extremist Islam".




For an example of their arguments having ideological holes (that can be easily poked through by the media) - I had an email sent to me a month or so ago advertising the EDL rally in Tower Hamlets (as it was said to be a "No Go Zone"). 

Fair enough, we have all heard what is going on. We know what they mean. But what if it was not a "No Go Zone" and there were no 'extremist' Muslims confiscating cans of beer on the street or whatever? What if the EDL had already seen their wish of "banning the burkha" come true - meaning that it was not quite so in your face 'Islamic' in the area of Tower Hamlets? 

Would they then be fine with Tower Hamlets as a racially and culturally alien place that is no longer English? If not, what would be their excuse as to why they don't like it?

This the kind of ideological incoherence that always left Robinson and his fellow deserter open to being undermined by the mainstream press, by Paxman, etc, not to mention the 'leftist' groups that opposed them - and all the other organisations that allegedly seek to "tackle extremism", like the Quilliam Foundation.

In fact, the EDL as an entity provided the exact type of fodder which these organisations sought, in that it gave off that simplistic message of how "if only they could be shown that not all Muslims in present society were limb amputating jihad warriors in the making, and we could reach some understanding about shared humanity, the problems of extremism on both sides will go away".

Hence we have the Quilliam Foundation, the alleged 'family dinner' with a Muslim family linked with the Quilliam Foundation......and all the kinds of "dialogue" we all know and recognise - related to how there can be "understanding" achieved between such disparate groups! 

It is like clockwork really, especially when the organisation in question (according to their website), tends to share the same ambitions as Tommy Robinson and the EDL. 

"Quilliam is the world’s first counter-extremism think tank set up to address the unique challenges of citizenship, identity, and belonging in a globalised world. Quilliam stands for religious freedom, equality, human rights and democracy.

{...}Cultural insularity and extremism are products of the failures of wider society to foster a shared sense of belonging and to advance liberal democratic values.

With Islamist extremism in particular, we believe a more self-critical approach must be adopted by Muslims. Westophobic ideological influences and social insularity needs to be challenged within Muslim communities by Muslims themselves whilst simultaneously, an active drive towards creating an inclusive civic identity must be pursued by all members of society.

Quilliam seeks to challenge what we think, and the way we think. {...}"

Rather than being some kind of shock, or that Tommy has been "got at", the news just confirms my existing view of these two people (and the EDL organisation) as being perfectly fine with the racial and religious take over of this country - as long as there is no "fundamentalism" that poses a threat to the Cultural Marxist "liberal democratic values" orientated society we have today.

Whether the Quilliam Foundation is a trojan horse Islamic organisation established to smoothly transition this nation into being ever more Islamic, or some "Neo-Con" or "Zionist" leaning organisation claiming to seek and encourage "cultural understanding" and "prevent extremism" in the pressure cooker society they are building, I do not really know. 

Given the name of the organisation and the possible historical links with the name, I am certainly open to the idea that it is a trojan horse Muslim group that is talking in the way the establishment wants, with all this "religious freedom" and "democracy" stuff - in the full knowledge that once the balance tips it will be a different kettle of fish..... but by then, it will not matter of course.

We ought to know by now that things are not always what they seem, and that nothing should be trusted and taken on face value. They might be genuine, but it is always wise to look at things sideways from time to time. 

Dr Taj Hargey - Forthright Hero against radicals or an Engineer of Islamic Britain?

The imam Taj Hargey, who is often on our TV screens and radio stations coming out with some very "patriotic" statements against radical Islam and general Islamic culture (such as beards, veils, separation of men and women, etc), is another candidate who I would consider to be duplicitous in their intentions.

Whilst many EDL supporters or 'patriotic' types in this country may be cheering on Mr Hargey for his extremely forthright statements against Muslims partaking in all the Islamic annoyances that many people have in this country (including myself at times), one should also consider what this strategy of his might actually be doing! 

When he says things like: "We need to create an indigenous British Islam that is integrated into its own environment. It should stay true to Koranic teachings but is also erudite, egalitarian and enlightened"....

......Is he really on 'our side' or is he really on the side of more quietly establishing Islam as part of this country, noting the history of Islam and some of their success in the past via grafting on to a host society rather than standing noticeably apart from them? 

I think the latter may be true. No doubt his intentions are good in his view, but what is the outcome for us British natives? Is a pleasant eradication or a smooth supplanting to an Islamic nation any less of a bitter pill to swallow than one which is rocky?

(Dr Hargey, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with the Quilliam Foundation, I only mention it to make the point). 


X Marxs the spot: What's underneath? - Liberal? Neo-con? Islamic Trojan Horse?

Back to the stated aims of the Quilliam Foundation. 

When taken at face value by most people, the aims of "cultural understanding" and "preventing extremism" are all very fine and good - providing you do not care what ultimately comprises of a society and a nation (as long as there is no conflict on your watch).

However, from a nationalist perspective, it all becomes a kind of petri-dish project in which they intend to create 'Eurabia' or the 'globalised world' state as peacefully and as painlessly as possible.

This is again where I think Tommy, the EDL and others in that counter-jihadi bracket already have so much in common with these foundations - and always have had, even if they were not aware of it. 

It is therefore not that big a revelation to me that they might have been persuaded to move away from the EDL and to go more along the 'think tank' path undertaken by the Quilliam Foundation on this particular occasion. 

It also ties in nicely with the notion of presenting what Tommy Robinson calls "Neo-Nazi extremism" and "Islamic Extremism" as being on the same platform. Tommy himself is now being quoted in the press as being interested in countering 'the far right' and "Nazis" just as much as 'radical Islam'. 

What he exactly means by 'far right extremists' is unknown to me, but one hopes that he is only talking about those he calls "complete idiots" who are coming out with ridiculous statements of intended violence, such as the 'blow up all mosques' brigade. Unfortunately, I suspect he means anybody with "racial" views too.

I hopefully need not state the peculiar circular logic of this supposed synonymity between Islamic extremism and "far right extremism". 

This is where the necessity of the indigenous to defend themselves (and to thus look for "far right" champions) is a direct resultant of the wholly unnecessary impositions upon our country and our people.  

We are the ones having something done to us and have the right of defence from the outset, it is not correct to suggest that they are on a par or equal footing

To repeat then, the Quilliam foundation website states it wants to "address the unique challenges of citizenship, identity, and belonging in a globalised world", that it "stands for religious freedom, equality, human rights and democracy", a "shared sense of belonging and to advance liberal democratic values" as part of "creating an inclusive civic identity" for "all members of society".

Globalised world, religious freedoms, liberal democratic values {read: the programme of cultural marxist dogma], and 'inclusive civic identity by all members of society'.......all the usual stuff championed by the establishment and a majority of Britons....but where does the future of the white race, white Britons, the continuance of the indigenous peoples of these Islands come into this? 

Nowhere. It does not feature into the picture, and it never will do for them. Nor did it come into Tommy and Kevins mind. Far from it. They are engaged in the exact opposite, particularly Kevin from what I have heard of his personal/family circumstances. They are not going to champion our cause or our issues.

They were happy to advance gay rights, they were happy with multi-racialism, multiculturalism, happy to wave Israeli flags, and generally happy to push all the same kinds of Cultural Marxist causes for society that have set about rotting this nation down for the best part of a century, just as long as "Islamic extremism" and "Islamification" did not get to pose a threat to those things.

That is why, for nationalists, I think it is all bogus and why the EDL was always a bogus organisation at the top end. 

If you are not nationalist, then the aims of the Quilliam Foundation (and many other organisations like it on the percieved 'right' the 'left' of the political spectrum) probably sound wonderful and an excellent ambition, for nobody really wants violence and war. 

(That is one reason as to why Nationalism is in many ways a safeguard for civil wars and conflicts, and something that ought to be championed, because mixing up societies does not have a good track record of peace, freedom, equal opportunities based on merit or just plain stability within a territory).

However, for those of us who know what the real score is (and who thus value what is really at stake), this 'harmony' and 'cultural understanding' bunkum is not enough. It is far from enough

In fact, it is an entirely different situation and an entirely different argument to that we are presented with by the EDL, the media, and these organisations. Nationalists are in an Entirely Different League.

We are the rugby players in the club house. The football trophies are stacking up, yet the wider rugby team and our own supporters are sadly talking about the wrong things and not quite understanding that their voice and demands will count for very little in the future. 

Are we really going to face the humiliation of stamping our feet and demanding that the new occupants of the club house continue to do things as we like and expect, only to realise that it is us who will have to leave?