Sunday, 1 January 2012

Nationalist Culture: Our greatest problem?

Does nationalist culture reflect well?

Over the last few months, I have been looking around at 'Nationalism' and taking a bit more notice of the culture within it than I usually do, particularly on some of my more regularly visited sites.

In the process, I have been increasingly getting dismayed at what I have been seeing. When this is coupled to the general state of affairs, it cannot help but reinforce the feeling that we are finished as a nation and as a people. 

I wish it was not true, but it seems that we are just not able to step out of the murky waters and snap out of the cocooned nature which envelops us as a people and as 'Nationalists'. People seem unable to step back and have a good look at ourselves and some of our output. 

I do not exclude myself from this, for we all tend to bring the same formulaic things to the table, but I have more specific dynamics and examples in mind.

The antics have become all too predictable. Like a pantomime you have seen 5 times, you can get to the point where you just know what is going to happen next and can even mouth the words. This goes for each end of the nationalist spectrum. 

The 'less intellectual' side tend to mire themselves in absurd paranoia and crude discourse that alienates the very people they rail against as being "sheeple" - whilst savaging the 'intellectuals' as being 'arrogant' because they themselves are perhaps too impatient, unable to grasp some of their concepts or too belligerently blinkered to see what damage they are potentially causing with their own activities sometimes. 

The more intellectual side tend to mire themselves in lofty discourse and longer term plans based on sound strategies and understanding of the mechanics of society, but fail to bring the former group along with them, who they need because many of the more 'intellectual' sorts (perhaps like myself?) are often not up to the task of being out there directly in the thick of it and making it work. 

This is where the split comes in, and always seems to have done. I feel that this split is getting wider than ever. It is not good.

Sure, the 'intellectual' types can be good representatives, be the sorts to go on the TV and run rings around some of the media darlings.

They can often construct sound policies and articulate the points of Nationalism better than your average activist or supporter. They can be in offices and parliaments putting over our cause, showing a good front and look after all that kind of thing in a way people expect professionals to be like, sound like and act like.

But as can be seen at the other side of the spectrum -  such as some situations which were shown on the documentary 'Battle For Barking' - they would probably not cope well at all when being surrounded by 15 angry black youths who are looking to smash up both your stall and your face in the middle of London somewhere. 

Knowing about socio-political geography of the Ukraine during Stalin's reign or the mechanics of instigating protectionist economics (or whatever) is going to be no help at all in those kinds of scenarios!  People like that often have no idea of how to diffuse a situation, or deal with these people on their level or in their language.

Nor does their lofty intellectual verbiage and 'points of principle' always resonate with the average voter/supporter - who probably cares little for that 'guff' and just wants to know the basics of why they should support the cause or 'the party' (whichever one it may be) and why it is in their own personal interest. 

I am certainly not suggesting that people who can undertake more 'real world' activities are not knowledgeable or that they are unintelligent. We all come in different packages that span the spectrum. 

All I am suggesting is that different people are cut out for different roles, just like wider life itself.

You would not get a plumber to fix your car, or a mechanic to install your toilet system. One is not "better" than the other but they do suit different situations.

From the looks of it, you would not expect an Emma West like representative to cut down Paxman on the BBC or cut down Barroso in the EU parliament, and you would not expect a (near elderly) posh talking stuffy suit to be knocking seven bells out of some mouthy black youths kicking off on the table-top stall in self defence. 

Some people may 'love' Emma West style situations and think she is marvellous and say how she 'resonates' with people they know and speak to. If that can be used to our nationalist advantage by those people, then so be it, they are capable of harnessing that group. Target it at that group, and not the groups which would not share the view.

Others may be more disgusted by Emma West's actions (even though they fully support her right to say it unaccosted and support the sentiment which truly lay behind the situation) but they may be very impressed by a good performance discussing economics and societal relations on BBC Newsnight, which the non-politicos would probably not even be watching.

After watching it, they may be convinced that Nationalism relates to their own beliefs and be won over by the strength of argument and rationale. They may want to visit a site which expands further on that point or expands further on other aspects to what we have to say as a whole.

Yet, what do they get if they go to some sites which many see to be part of the nationalist core? What can be in the main pieces or in the comment sections?

"Is that Miller-band a Paki? He looks like one to me"....."Paki scum will one day go back or be buried in pigs excrement"....."Fake Ashkenazi Jew Cameron"...."Muslim cancer scum are breeding like rabbits ready for Jihad"...."The Zionist Jews and enslaving Rothschilds are doing what they did in 1793 when one of them said...."  .....etc. etc.

When it is not that, it can sometimes be muck raking, division, hostility, paranoia, infighting. Smearing good men whilst being silent on some of the real rotten eggs or things outside of our bubble. Squabbles on sites notorious for being filled with "reds" and hours and hours spent on line on these forums engaging with people who have no intention of being persuaded. 

Step back from it, look around, then look back in again at it - surely the culture of all this is pretty crazy and damaging as a whole.

Leaving that aside, and getting back to the "horses for courses", this is why there is no "one size fits all" situation that people hope for in our cause. This is in general - as a wider thing - and also within the same branches of one entity.

You cannot expect a nationalist graphic designer to also, automatically, be a good orator, an organiser and motivator -  nor can you expect a good organiser and communicator to also be good at graphic design. 

Somebody who may be great at organising and motivating may be clueless with money management and fund raising, and somebody good at fund-raising and book keeping may be useless as fomenting workable plans and devising policy. 

Some people are experts and very comfortable dealing with the public. They may thrive on it, enjoy the questions, the verbal jousting, winning the point or gracefully agreeing to disagree.

Other people may have tremendous fear of speaking to and approaching people who they do not know - and are much better suited doing whatever else it is they can do to help. 

An "intellectual" may be better at lugging the cases, folding up the leaflets, bundling up the leaflets into packages, and doing the 'menial' and time consuming work than their counterparts - who are perhaps much more competent and good "out in the field" at the coal face on the street. 

It is a game of two halves, it is not a case of "lowly" and "highly" - it is knowing where one can be best used; knowing our weaknesses and strengths and having an avenue to pursue that best role for the advancement of the cause.

Others may be good use completely outside of politics and activism. They may be good community leaders, they may be influential supporters and financial backers. 

They may be able to get community centres established for the fostering of a white society and consciousness in their area. They may be teachers who are able to help with 'home schooling' schemes and setting up 'free schools' for those who do not want state indoctrination for their children. They may be into technology and able to provide free or cheap second hand goods to the cause to save us money. The list is extensive.

This is what Nationalism is about too - not just demonstrations, stalls, campaigns, party politics.

How many people are we wasting, letting waste away doing nothing, because they are isolated and have no roll to fill?

I know I have been one of them, and have generally been so since I awoke to the cause! 

In the past, I have tended a stall for an hour or so with others, travelled to different places and done a couple hours of leafleting here and there, I have been to meetings, folded up thousands of leaflets ready for the mailboxes, been a guest at the election 'counting' halls for the party to overlook and check no funny business is going on with the votes.

I have been "active" with all that sort of thing. A general waif and stray, blowing around the periphery to see how things went.

Could I be a regional organiser? Do I have what it takes? Could I interact with the public with a stutter and fear of speaking? Could I phone around peoples houses and get them out for a day's action? Could I be a councillor or a community leader?  

No. In all honesty I could not, because of my nature. I know this. I do not delude myself. I cannot be anybody else but myself, and I do not pretend to be anything otherwise either.

Could I be an article writer, a leaflet designer, proof checker, video editor, etc on a mid-level basis? Could I help with those menial tasks, preparations, sound systems, etc. Yes, I think I could. 

I did offer, on more than one occasion, to see where I could be put within the British National Party - but of course, I was ignored. Not even a 'thanks but no thanks' came back my way. 

Even then, when I was doing something 'active' for the party, I was often very uncomfortable with it. It was hand-to-mouth all the time, ill prepared, ad-hoc, 'make do and mend' - and in some cases a complete "no show" by the party after being sat around waiting for hours. 

It was a shambles. A disillusioning shambles. It made you feel like saying they can stick your support up their backside because it was a circus act. I stopped even bothering going along to anything in the end.

It was on occasion even embarrassing, with various stunts going on and attitudes and banners which I could not explain or defend. It "was not for me" at all on those occasions, and at times I wondered what the hell I was doing there along side it.

If anybody was to ask me now, I would probably say "No, I am not getting involved". I am losing faith and all enthusiasm to keep wasting my life.

After once being eager, in the process of picking up nationalism, being 'charged' and righteous in my views and prime for being part of the machine, now, many years later, it is getting time for me to knock it all on the head, especially when I look around at what manifests itself as Nationalism and the lack of critical thought within it.

Some sites cannot grasp how childish and foolish they are being at times, or what may be 'wrong' with their whole approach and tone of content. "Do you see what is wrong with the site, or the article, or the position?" - "No" comes the reply. Okay then, that just reinforces my suspicions.

The folks pushing some groups and sites like to repeat the word "toxic" to reinforce their own "cleanliness" and batter down their rivals. This is toxic, that is toxic, so and so is toxic, and so on.

But the truth is that the whole "atmosphere" of nationalism itself is the toxic waste ground where nothing good will grow.

And they just seem completely unable to see it and unable see their own role in help create or sustain  it. 

This is why, at the moment, I think we are never going to get anywhere. We are in our own little cultural box and have long forgotten that we need to climb out of it.We seem happy in there, away from the rest of the world.

I know that we can do better. That's what's so infuriating and perhaps what keeps me lingering on, like the carrot dangling in front of my nose.

I do see ways in which we can move forward, I do see different things we can do. I do see various levels and channels of nationalism and what roles they could potentially do.

I do try and take things for what they are (and people for who they are) and wonder where they might fit.

I do foolisly have a little optimism that we may finally get something together.......the trouble is, even if we did find the strategy, are we able to change our 'cultural' ways? Given that the history of Nationalism has so far been a negative on that, forgive me for being pessimistic!

Can it change? In 2012, I will have to leave that up to you. 


  1. I think we will have to look to a wider demographic to put together a large movement of rebellion and dissent in this country.

    By which I mean a fuzzy edged big tent or loosely affiliated groups made up of a whole mix of single interest groups and beyond from the EU and race-realists, the countryside folk, the small government, direct democracy types, the weights and measures, taxpayers alliance types and on and on.

    From that wider bubbling ferment those previously afraid of the stigmas surrounding nationalism (class, violence, militarism, archaic political movements, stupidity) even where not a true representation can give their assent to something where the social costs and the internal alarm system is not so obvious.

    How it might be constructed and how best to target the two 1/2 party system at a local and at a national level - meaning dethroning them intellectually and morally and gaining the support of their tribal voters - is another thing.

    Personalities count for something and it is heartening that some of those who were part of the sixties and seventies impetus (Ferry, Daltrey, Cleese) have started to vocalise their dismay. Personalities will count where available particularly those who initially the elites are wary of attacking directly.

    All protest movements seem to dwindle, Tea Partyers in the US, Occupy in various countries.

    We need a big tent with a minimum level of agreement a fairly clear identity and a resource pool that we can dip into across the board to professionalise, formulate policy and target wisely.

    Of course as nats if Marine Le Pen wins (unlikely) that will enable a boost for those who counsel civicism as a first step. I don't see the success of civicists elsewhere fulfilling the role of Kerensky though, perhaps that may change as others come to the fore elsewhere.

  2. Sorry I did not reply to your comment sooner. I must have been distracted at the time and forgot to come back to it.

    I do not have much to disagree with regarding what you have said though.

    I certainly agree we need to try and harness existing things a little bit more, but perhaps I am a bit wary of how much time we have left in order to pull together such varying strands and weave the correct sort of blanket in time.

    Perhaps I am chasing a dream or a fantasy, but I do tend to like to believe that there is a whole new paradigm waiting to happen within nationalism, something which is clean cut, articulate, precise, revolutionary, but not really tied to 'protest movements' or even political party strategies.

    I am probably not making much sense, but like all mad people, I think I know what I mean! LOL.