Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Back to Basics? - Part Two

Back to Basics? - Part Two

Although I would have liked to kick start this article on a positive note (especially considering what I had said in part one) I do think we have to come to accept that much of country we thought we knew has already gone. There is no escaping this reality. No amount of clever words or wishful thinking will make it any different.

We have to come to terms with the idea that we have currently lost the battle for this country and therefore the battle for our traditional views of how it should be both comprised and organised, whether that be demographically, culturally, educationally, financially, or in terms of manufacture, legislature, religiously, morally, structurally.

Rather than resign ourselves to defeat though, we then need to ask ourselves what we can possibly do about launching a new counter attack on the victors - in order to reinstate ourselves and our legitimacy.

'They' may have won the immediate battle, but the complete war is not over yet. The tectonic plates are shifting under their feet as they flit from one self made crisis to another. The wheels are coming off their cart as things are having to accelerate faster and faster.

Have we got the solutions we need in order to tear down the current hegemony being waged against us (or take over from it should the juggernaut come to a halt)?

What do we need to sell and promote which counters their actions? What have we got to offer? Where are we going? We seem to have lost our way and our sense of direction.

Whilst the war is not over, I think the 'defence' and the 'reactive' commentary time is pretty much needing to be over for us though.

The positive counter action must come instead (or increasingly along side) of us being on the back-foot and always commenting on what the latest scandal is - or harping on about a past which is already dead and buried and cannot be resurrected.

It is up to us to shape the future and shape it our way instead of being defined by our opposition and reacting to actions of the opposition.

We need to be busy on what we can do that is actually sensible, forging our own counter culture and undermining and hollowing out the prevailing order of things - not endlessly shouldering the burden of the entire world on our shoulders and discussing things (including many global affairs) that we are not even remotely in the position to change right now.

On that score, I think it is time to bring nationalism back home again. We have increasingly diversified off into the rabbit hole of a thousand issues, sometimes to the point I wonder where the nationalism I initially joint up with has disappeared to.

Whilst some of these things are important issues in their own right and are usually part of what we see as the mechanisms for the loosely named 'New World Order', we seem too scattered to be effective on any one of the separate issues.

Many of them are nowhere near the ordinary public's radar anyway. So much of the nationalist discourse is completely off their chart too, not because of us, or because they are illegitimate, but because of the way society is and because they are not particularly interested in it.

We may generally understand what is going on and why, but they tend not to do so and when something does bother them directly they will tend to want the immediate short-cut.

We might understand why things in their life are happening or why many aspects of society are changing (whether it be the export of their jobs, the disaster in education, why nothing seems to work in this country) because we are often operating another level up the chain than your ordinary citizen who hardly ever watches the news and never investigates anything.

They are generally only going to be interested in themselves and how it could be better.

They are not interested in Marx, Critical Theory, "the Jews", 9/11, Freemasonry, Libya, Syria, the nuances of paleoconservatism and how it differs from neoconservatism, or our internal nationalist affairs, etc. Those are perhaps our hobbies and interests as nationalists, which is something I have recently come to think as being separate to the task in hand.

The trouble is, that kind of thing probably accounts for somewhere around 85% of our forefront nationalist discourse!

Whilst it is important we discuss matters amongst ourselves and have a multiple tiered structure in order to educate others (who have the interest enough to learn), when it comes to what the public see of us and what we present to them, I think it has to be a lot different.

When we are not doing that above list, we have the media (and other opposition groups) giving us our narrative too! We are ventriloquists puppets far too much! They speak for us much more than we are speaking for ourselves.

I am not sure how to split up the two elements of 'insider' chat and 'public courting' chat, or if they can ever be truly split -  all I am saying is that we may need to remember who our target audience is if we are to advance our support and influence outside of the 'already converted'.

What are they going to be interested in? How can we reel them in? How can we wean them onto our lines of thought - including a basic element of ethnic self defence? I believe it lurks in us all, we have to make people make sense of their struggle and why they suppress it or cannot rationally think about it.

How do we sell them our product? How do we get them interested in our counter-current and how do we structure ourselves so that we are multiple tiered in order to let the more investigative people work their way up the ladder if they want to know more?

I suppose that from time to time we could still offer suggestions and explanations of why and how things have got to the way they are, generally fill them in whilst we are explaining ourselves - but forty articles about the Frankfurt School or hijabs (or whatever) written in forty different ways is not really going to grab their time or attention.

We should all try and reduce repetition. We need to perfect some subjects, use more media technology, make it accessible, in order to reduce the sheer volume.

This is one of the reasons I never wanted to start a blog site, as there is already too much information and repetition. It was only the collapse of an excellent forum (the "Independent British Nationalist Forum") and my increasing sense of wasting time in other forums that forced my hand. 

How many times have we argued over slavery? How many times have we seen the 'races don't exist anyway' debate? How many times has the hijab been discussed - either for or against? We are on a treadmill of the same things time after time. Meanwhile we get nowhere, and our country slips down the plughole.

Again, most people are not interested in these subjects anyway! Or if they are, they are not obsessed over them to the point of ignoring everything else.

There are many things which we are fighting on a higher level that trickle down onto every day peoples lives in a different format.

For example, we might understand why some situations are developing, such as a destruction of our armed forces for a potential merger with Europe - but ordinary people in the armed forces, or who are involved in supporting the infrastructure of the armed forces may only tend to see the loss of their jobs, or the closure of their regiment.

They may not see it for what it is, and what ultimate purpose it is being done for, because that is higher up the chain.We have to bridge the gap, but in a very careful and measured way.

If we are to fight a whole host of things which we often discuss between ourselves, we need to do it in another way than looking like cranks or swivel-eyed lunatics. How can we discuss matters that build on nationalism and 'mean' nationalism, protect nationalism and thus oppose globalism in terms people will understand and appreciate?

Look after the small things in this way, and the bigger things may tend to look after themselves.

It may be a flawed analogy, but if we are not able to close down the tobacco industry because it is too big and too in bed with media, government, vested interests - we might be able to counter it via the actual consumers and stop them buying cigarettes, even though they are still currently addicted to the cigarettes.

There is a gulf between what the 'politicians' are doing in our name and what people want, or indeed voted for. Maybe it is part of the 'corporate fascist' and 'cultural Marxist' fusion process that has evolved, but whatever it is, there is a discord there between the public and the establishment.  

The company, media, government are forcing it down from the top. We do not have access to the same tools, the same funding, the same coverage - so we have to work from the bottom up or the middle out. It is a long shot, but win that counter current enough and 'the industry' which is making us sick will have no option but to close because people are not wanting their product any more.

People-power is the only real tool we have available to us, so we have to utilise it well. I actually think that we do have much to offer.

We have to get our messages and our "chessboard moves" against the orthodoxy positions honed and understood by all advocates and representatives.

As much as it annoys me to say it, it is often these silly little jousts on TV interviews, street stalls, doorsteps, etc that leaves one side or the other walking away victorious when courting public acceptance and legitimacy. 

When it comes to societal matters or party political matters with the mainstream parties, wherever possible, we need to remember to offer an alternative proposal to that policy or viewpoint.

If the other parties are doing something generally right, or at least 'proposing' something that is right, why not support it with our own twist added (if appropriate) if it is no skin off our collective nose? If it can look good for us, then we may as well blatantly use it without any sense of shame. The other parties do it all the time.

This ability to navigate policies will mean all of us learning some wider standpoints from the manifesto we build (or what we take from the existing British National Party). We should try and gain the ability put them forward and make them known as 'our territory'.

A previous example of this is the 'British Jobs for British Workers' policy and campaign, which was known as being our campaign (even going back to the National Front days) and therefore we had it much more recognised when people like Gordon Brown stole it. Some media outlets did even say that 'British Jobs for British Workers' was the slogan of the "far right", at the time.

How can you argue against British Jobs for British Workers?! That is the key thing about it, it is nationalist, it is common sense, it is popular. It puts the others on the back-foot of having to defend indigenous people being undermined and flooded with foreign labour.

We need more of this kind of thing, I think. What else lay in our positions as nationalists like this?

I think that it is practical, something more people can do, and I think it might help keep things 'realistic' and in reach of the public - rather than going off into Alice in wonderland territory too much, paranoia siege mentality too much, or 'retrospective' mode too much.

I will admit that I do not do this policy pushing myself, but perhaps I should. I am still technically a member of the British National Party, but what are our schools/education policies? What are our general taxation policies? I haven't the foggiest idea without refreshing myself on them.

I have read them all in the past, more than twice - but I do not think about them too much compared to other issues. Naturally, I know many of the basic points which are obviously orientated on 'nationalism' as a self sufficient nation, but others I would be stuck on without flicking back through the documents.

How are we supposed to build ourselves a solid reputation when we can only think about (or deal with) one or two of the most notorious issues? How can we build a credible party-political base and court a coherent counter movement with the public when hardly anybody in our movement can even promote the contents of the manifesto?!

In fact, for many of us, when we move away from the obvious issues we seem to either drop to pieces or fall out with each other over aspects of policy! That cannot be good, can it?!

Nobody can know it all, I appreciate that. None of the other parties or their supporters will know their own manifesto inside out, they just issue "sound bites" and often flip-flop on a whim to whatever is popular, but we have more integrity than that. We are radically different, and tend to believe what we stand for and what we say.

I am not even saying party politics is necessarily the right course of action - all I am saying is that if we are going to operate something on that model as part of a wider set of tools, we need to work that model and remember its purpose or function.

We need to sell our ideas regardless of whether it is for the ballot box or societal change and 'understanding' in general. Whether it is policies for 'politics', general social positions, specific petitions, community events, it does not matter. It is generally an attempt at shifting societal opinions. 

I am not saying we need to abandon everything we do now either, just that we need to remember to add that 'realism' and 'realistic' promotion of there being 'more to us' back in the mixture of our presence, if we are to gain more notoriety for professionalism (like our counterparts are starting to achieve on the continent).

No comments:

Post a Comment