Thursday, 29 March 2012

Back to Basics? - Part Three

Back to Basics? - Part Three




We all know that the cultural agenda has to be transformed somehow, but is it possible?

We all should also know the sheer power and might of the "influence" that pushes away from our desires and wishes, so we should therefore know that it is a tall order to achieve.

We may not be able to beat the 'left-wing' nature of society that has been bred (or which has become so malleable and omnipresent throughout society)......but maybe we are looking at it wrongly, maybe it is time to use it to our advantage rather than pit ourselves as automatically opposing it all just because something or other is deemed 'left-wing' or 'liberal'?

The ruling class keeps control by setting the cultural agenda of the country, top down through the political and legal administration, through the schools and universities and churches, through the media, through the family, and through the underlying assumptions of popular culture.

There is also some reliance on the use (or threat) of force to silence criticism (as recently seen at Gatwick airport where David Jones was intimidated) but the main instrument of control is the systematic manufacture of consent from people who know of nothing else or do not know of any other ways things could be arranged.

This control fully happens when it reaches the degree of  permeating the whole of society, determining its values, attitudes, beliefs and morality, and generally supporting the established order of things in all conversations and other relationships. 

What were once radical "left-wing" viewpoints are no longer controversial for most people. Instead, they are seen as common sense, or, even if undesirable, as a natural state of affairs which cannot be changed. 

Conversely, some old "left wing" views are deemed unbelievably horrific by the modern left itself. There was a recent article in the Guardian newspaper from a horrified lefty having to come to terms with how many of the proponents and supporters of eugenics were of the left, like George Bernard Shaw.

This just goes to show that a 180 degrees turn can be made - and that the term 'left' in the mainstream can still apply! The 'warm and fuzzies' and the "righteous" fitted into each end of the parameter within the space of little more than a few generations.

Is there any possibility at all of working a 180 degrees turn again, only to our positions? 

If you are a long established member of the British National Party, you should be aware that it is largely a left-wing party not an "extreme right" one. 

We want to renationalise power, railways, fundamental utilities. We do not want to involve ourselves in regime changes or neo-liberal or neo-conservative escapades for the New World Order. Therefore we are of the "stop the war coalition" side of things more than anything. 

This is not bandwagon jumping, it is a natural and historical pillar of nationalism. In fact, all the other parties that have been in office have embroiled or given tacit support to foreign wars and interventions.

All of these kinds of things should be used to our advantage where possible. We should be able to operate on "left leaning" rationale for many things as well as the perceived 'right'. 

Marine Le Pen seems to work off both sides, and seeing as 'right and left' in the modern world is being rendered increasingly obsolete in terms of dealing with our problems, then it is perfect for nationalism. 

On some subjects, there is nothing particularly wrong with the 'left wing' position. If the society at large is more prone to those ideals and they also suit our purposes, then surely we need to harness it rather than criticise it. 

The trouble is that the societal discourse parameters on anything more oppositional than 'mainstream' are pretty much set and defined, making it very hard for some things to be discussed at all. We have to break this parameter and make our own discourse no longer all that controversial. It has to become more widely discussed.

How we set about doing that is very important. How we conduct ourselves and represent our cause is important. We are just not getting it right yet, although we were (and still are) improving.

We have to give people another choice, and provide it in a way which is not too "renegade" yet still gets a job done. We have to legitimise and inform peoples concerns in a realistic and more well informed discourse.

Websites (or organisations) like the Tax Payers Alliance, Migration Watch, Civitas, etc have a more professional and balanced air about them than we tend to have on ours. They may be quite boring, but they are probably looked up to as being of a more 'sound judgement' and can have more trustworthiness or authority to them than our own sites.

We need to be taken that seriously and command that kind of air about us. This may mean tightening up the comments, tightening up and cleaning up the overall discourse and providing more "evidence" to state our case and make our claims, when possible.

People can get carried away in their rhetoric, to the point it becomes 'other wordly' or 'odd' to an average citizen.

Maybe we should even establish 'non nationalist' entities and websites to get certain things done, or make more use of the ones already available - even if they do not share our views.

Some people would not touch the British National Party or groups Britain First with a barge-pole because they think they know what they are about. They see all the flags and the usual type of discourse and they don't really want to know. They have been trained to react this way and to close off from it.

The temptation is for us to say "sod them, then", but perhaps that is quite silly because, rather oddly, those same people may support the very same petition or issue being put forward if it comes from a non-obviously nationalist camp or organisation. Maybe even more so if they believe it is "progressive" and "the right thing to do".

It is what others do, after all. You do not tend to see hammers and sickles adorning various think-tank sites like Demos. They work for their ideology and aims in a much more covert fashion.

When it does come to doing things openly in the name of a nationalist party or other nationalist entity, although we do not share their ideologies, even UKIP can strike the right kind of tone and noises better than we can at the moment (or better than we have previously done).

I do not know about anybody else, but I think that one of their videos was exceptionally well presented and well executed. It was the one called Over Crowded Britain. (I believe they were involved in making it anyway).

It is easy to curse and moan about UKIP, as we nationalists know the score when it comes to what their concept and visions are. Many nationalist sites cursorily bluster about them and call them names, often fairly, but personally, when I see something worthwhile or that is a good job - be it from UKIP or from British Freedom Party or anybody else - then I will say it is a good job.

If you have not seen 'Over Crowded Britain', then please watch it in order to understand what I mean by establishing a good approach and presentation.

Not only is it well presented and well executed, it is only 20 minutes long. This is about the right length of time, per sitting, that most people could have time or patience for. Therefore it is much more likely to get watched.

It packs in a lot of information on a level that people can support and appreciate the points of. It could easily be distributed by post, social media, etc.


Why on Earth haven't nationalists managed to make something like this in the last 20 years?

Our media output has been getting much better, but as a whole, the content or 'feel' of approach is still nowhere near on par. Imagine a video like that, or a series, which also touches on other subjects....

This is what I am talking about. Continuing to professionalise rather than slack off and slink back into our old bullish ways. Video shoots of megaphones and flags, being lippy to the police or generally ranting and chanting outside of courts is not really selling what we are saying.

It is certainly showing opposition to what is going on, and often quite rightly too - as  there is a place for some of that - but it is not really selling our ideals or what we have to offer. Videos like 'Overcrowded Britain' are selling what we are saying, in my opinion. We have to get the balance right between showing defiance and showing what we desire.

Importantly, I think we could do even better than 'Overcrowded Britain' in our written and visual output. We could do this by rather than just point out to viewers all the flaws and horrors we see, we have to offer them something attractive, something better than what currently passes as modernity.

People do not want to be pulled down and made to feel awful - they want to believe in something better and believe they are doing the right thing.

Are we doing this at the moment? I do not think we are. We prefer to focus on Jihadists coming for us in our beds in the future, or whatever else in the siege mentality we often emit.

I know I should not rule those future situations out - but right now, right this minute, they are not true or accepted as possible by most people. It strikes them as being fantasy and paranoia. They may be a bit uncomfortable about the way society and the country is going, but they will probably have not reached our worst case scenario visions yet.

Whilst we need to press the urgency, inform people of what is happening and tell them why we think it is important to halt and reverse, we should also be saying "here is how it could be done" or "here is how life and society could be instead".

For too long we have been in the position of arguing against 'progressive' modernity.

The progression should be ours, set towards our desired modernity.

This might not always be quite as hard as at seems.

There was a poll for Sky News within the last decade which indicated that some fifty-five-percent supported some of the more forthright positions and policies of the British National Party (when they were not told whose party policies they were).

I found this interesting, because although it steered clear of some of the most controversial policy positions, it gained such a level of support I think it would have surpassed both Labour and Conservative policies in a similar style of opinion poll or even an election.

(Nb.Not that I presume office could be won or that the system is all that democratic!)

They were not even shown the rest of the policies and positions, and nor would they have been versed in the true nature or facts of some of the more 'controversial ones' and why we hold them. The Pavlovian dog responses would surely have kicked in.

Therefore, there is clearly a disconnection between the policies and viewpoints nationalism has to offer and what actually ends up manifesting itself as the nationalist culture when people stumble across it.

In fact, we (no thanks to the media) are often unnecessarily repelling them. If they do come along and stay, it often does not last. We are notorious for that 'two-year-churn'.

People come along and they are perhaps a bit wary to what we are about. They then come to understand us a bit better and lend their general support - even on the general racial preservation/protection issue (when they wake up to the full implications of what is going on and why we hold those kinds of positions).

It can still be an obstacle to bring it up, but evidence of the support surge in 2008-9 shows that it can be done. People increasingly joint the British National Party and voted for/supported the British National Party even though they knew full well that the party still held some 'racial' policies.

Many 'newbies' were a bit hostile at first and wanted to water it down as they did not really understand it - but, many of those people soon learnt what it was really about and they are now ardent supporters of those policies. At the very least, they may not be as hostile to them as they once might have been.

The question remains though, of whether it is a hindrance to keep this intact. I have written extensively on why ideally it should be kept (but kept on a lower key) - but I may have to learn to not be so dogged about it.

But apart from that thorny issue, why are we not even retaining the members we do attract and do get on-side? Leaving aside all the current turmoil and splits, the high churn rate seems to have been the case for decades.

Some people join a particular party like the British National Party, they might attend a meeting or chat on a stall. But something seems to happens to them. They perhaps become disgusted somewhere along the line, perhaps they become disillusioned, but either way not all that keen any more.

They do not seem to want to hang around the nationalist culture or discourse, particularly those people who may be a bit odd-ball or off putting. They drift off, they decide to keep themselves to themselves, then generally drop off and never renew their membership.

Indeed, although it should not be the case, I think there is still a certain 'class' element in this.

Getting the middle-class and upper middle classes to gel with the working classes can perhaps still be a challenge in these situations.

Most of us get along okay no matter what our background or status, but there can be a general atmosphere in a small grass roots party which is always a bit rough edged or 'hand to mouth' or 'make do and mend'.

I remember my second or third BNP meeting in the north west very well. I realise that we do not exactly have a pick of venues and that we must be grateful for those public houses which accommodated our meetings - however, it was pretty rough.

I had the misfortune to have to go to the gents there, the floor was soaking/swilling in what I suspected to be urine under the trough and the two cubicle doors had been kicked completely off their hinges. It was a good job I did not need to use one!

It was not the fault of the British National Party, but quite honestly it is hardly the right impression we should be giving out. The venue room was decent enough, but the area was 'rough' and the toilets were as described above. I will give the venue the benefit of the doubt that it had happened that weekend and that they had not yet had the chance to sort it out. 

I know that I am probably sounding a bit snobby, but I would have been embarrassed if I had taken along a new-comer or a friend of mine. It is not a reflection of our ideals, it should not matter, but it can be a reflection of what we are and what we are like as a whole.

Perhaps it is time to get the hell out of the back rooms of pubs anyway. Are there not any other ways of hosting meetings?

Perhaps the bi-monthly or quarterly 'drinking club' has to stop, especially if it becomes nothing but a chat with old pals about their latest motor or where they went on holiday or how 'them paki's have started to move in' down the road.

I know there has to be some form of socialising and that is what many people probably go for, as it is also part and parcel of building relations and a movement to have those extra-curricular or 'knowing' natters with like-minded folk.  But what about a few more serious meetings, recruitment events, set in more sober and serious locations?

Public houses could be alternated to not put people completely off coming, or, it could be arranged that people head off to somewhere after the main event if they want to do so. I am just throwing out views here! They might be a load of nonsense and it might be very unpopular! Perhaps this does happen already in different parts of the country.

So, back to this churn. Some people come along and drift off, yet others do seem to come along from time to time and become absolute work horses for the party - but the same thing happens anyway.

They may hit brick walls, they may receive no training or back up, they are perhaps left to rot or to cope with things they are not ready for. They are starved for funds locally, undermined from the top, messed around, sometimes stabbed in the back or 'left holding the baby'.

Maybe they just aren't cut out for 'politics' and are not enthusiastic about being a councillor, or lots of similar stuff that seems a load of hard work for nothing. I don't know. The prospect of being a local councillor does not entice me, personally, I have to admit. I am a product of the isolation generation, who is reluctant to get involved with anything or any activity, even with my own family!

But other people are not like me, they are good in the community, they are good 'people persons', leaders, organisers, the kind of people who set up a neighbourhood watch scheme or a scouting group, or campaign against a local quarry sending wagons down country lanes 24 hours a day. You know the sort. People with interests, hobbies, zeal and vigour.

So what happens to them then, the people who do come along and throw their hat in the ring? If is not the above list of troubles, they might be witnessing internal goings on, the weirdness, the squabbles, the irregularities and incompetencies. After two years or so, they are often gone either way. Resigned on principle, pushed out, whatever.

Are we helping to change that culture which people witness when they look into our neck of the woods? Would they want to join us and put their necks out to be engaged in this lot?

I have not had much involvement with the British National Party myself, but three or four incidents have happened which have led me to continue to resist sticking my neck out. But then again, I am not all that hard or hard nosed. I am rather timid.

Unfortunately, from my outsiders perspective we are not helping to change any of this 'scene' or 'culture'. Especially with our on-line activities, where we often seem too self unaware to notice - or too belligerent to care.

(There is always a void between what our "scene" is on the internet and what the "internal" and "real world" scene is on the ground. I am not in a position to state with any authority on the latter).

Reports from 'academics' who produce studies on the 'far right' (like Matthew Goodwin) have repeatedly stated that the potential for massive support is out there.  (By the way, is there a focus group on the "Far Left" in our universities?!!)

I think that it has been incompetence, mismanagement, stupidity, and state repression/misinformation which has mostly kept 'swayable' people at bay this far, and that their rejection may not last must longer because of the rapid changes that are occurring in society. 

Comment sections of newspapers (for example) are getting more heated and much more panicky in tone than they used to be. People are fed up with the usual troupe of parties and their rhetoric. People are realising that the only way to achieve change or get noticed is to vote for any extremist party - whether it be so called "far left" or "far right".

Are we ready to lead the way? Have we the answers and workable solutions ready to capture this potential? Do people trust us or our suggestions?

Not at the moment. Not as far as I can see. We are pretty much irrelevant. They probably do not know what our fuller range of policies even are or what we really stand for as a whole.

The distance between what we are really standing for (such as an opposition to globalisation, support for human bio disversity, self sufficiency, etc) and what people think of us is miles apart.

We do not often do all that well at disabusing them of that knowledge gap or stereotyped opinion.

If it is not feasible to argue with somebody about the influx of immigrants on racial-preservation terms, then it needs to be discussed (in those particular circumstances) in terms of whose interests it is in for it to happen, that it is purposefully destroying the fabric of society, destroying trust and thus creating a society where we all fight each other whilst the-powers-that-be get away with murder. Quite literally.

Perhaps if we explain the 'programme' in these (anti globalism) terms there might be a higher degree of success with winning some of those people over, or at the least, letting them see some depth to our point - and that it s not just that "we hate those darkies!" or that we are finding "scapegoats", ie, the usual inane charges against us which first make us try and state we are "not 'racists'....but" before we can even start a response.

That is what we are, after all, opponents of globalism and the vested interests of the elite who seek to destroy nation states and distinct peoples. That is our real focus, the process and the effect it will have.

I suppose I can only really speak for myself here, but I think many of us are primarily here because we love our people, our country, our heritage we and love what is behind us, not because we are hateful of others.

It is the whole process and looming conclusion that is wrong, not innocent individuals who have found themselves here. They are just on the receiving end, reviled, reacted against by us because they are the living embodiment of a situation we do not like or wish to be happening.

Aside from the obvious perpetrators of crime and anti-white/anti British rhetoric, we do not know who these individuals are or what their situation is. But the point comes where it ceases to matter, because the sheer gravity of this situation takes hold of you - and they become nothing but the unwanted other whose presence is part of the problem.

It is not pleasant, it is not at all nice, it is hard to have to explain and to live with, but that is generally how it is.

This situation scares the pants of the establishment and the opponents of ours, because history shows that it does not tend to bode well for the future. They are, understandably, desperate to keep a lid on it all.

That is probably why we see so much repression and suppression of dissent from the political programme rolled out before us. I think that what we often neurotically treat as being malicious intent from the top, is often the 'well meaning' actions of 'useful idiots' who know no better.

However, it is they who have put it upon us and they who have insisted we take it and be quiet. It is they who had removed all levers available to put the brakes on. I do not know how they could have ever expected anything else to arise. The fault of this friction and potentially volatile situation is entirely theirs.

How to bridge the gap and get people to act sooner (in measured/sterner ways now) rather than later (in potentially horrific ways) is the all illusive question and answer we have all sought. Different people need different things, that is why I think there is no one size fits all solution.

No comments:

Post a Comment