Friday, 6 April 2012

Back to Basics? - Part Five

Back to Basics? - Part Five

If the current system ever collapses, it is no use us scrambling like crazy to carve something out for ourselves - I think that we have to make our alternative seamless and surpass the failed models immediately. No sudden jolts, but a smooth change on the train track to take the carriage of this country to a different destination.

Other groups, ranging from Communists, Anarchists to Islamists, will be wanting to carve their slice, should the worst happen. Ours has to already be established and be the natural benefactor. That means working away at it before something happens, whether it ever actually happens or not.

When it comes to establishing this, what can we do? How can we best attack the system and how can we best frame our arguments and positions?

It is a David and Goliath struggle - but it seems as though we are often just slinging mud and having mud slung back at us rather than devising a slingshot and catapulting ourselves out of our troubles by pinpointing the weak spots of our opponents and proverbially hitting them in the eye. 

I think that this lack of pinpointing goes right through - from political parties to non-political campaigning groups.

What do I mean by this? Well. Has anybody seriously looked at how the opposing structure operates? I know I have not.

(Of course, this is purely being said on the basis of us taking it that it is not a complete and utter "stitch up" from top to bottom, which of course, many of us tend to suspect it is!).

Has anybody looked into aspects where we have a realistic chance of changing something, in small incremental steps? As I say, I have not done so even after ten years, but I do not know about anybody else, especially those who are much more willing and capable of being active than I am.

Some people, such as the drivers behind Britain First seem to be 'go getters'. They are much more of the type of characters who will roll their sleeves up and get on with things. I commend that, and I know that in those 'practical' terms (thanks to my personal limitations) they are better than I.

The trouble is, for me, that I do not often like their style, substance or approach up to present -and thoroughly disagree with the driving force of ideology behind the key players involved.

But it is not about me, it about what is viable or not. If they can pull some people in, all well and good, even though they do not seem to be what I wish to align with right now. I still wish them luck as part of a general push back.

However, are people in these nationalist parties or nationalist campaign organisations researching the systems we are up against? Have they any contacts who work internal to some areas we need to tackle? Do they know how to break the system or throw a few spanners in the machinery?

This is the kind of thing that I would like to see from these non-political organisations. They need to channel the many followers into efforts which 'politics' cannot remedy.

For example, how does the immigration system really work and function? What kind of petition or lobby could be truly successful based on that knowledge?

If we need to get to "D" with something or some issue, how to we first push down "A, B and C" in order to get there?

How can we get pro-immigration judges removed from office when they are shown to be clearly putting our lives at risk or have some other vested interest to let them stay? Who do we need to pressurise to act harshly on such judges, seeing as I suspect it might be terribly difficult to get rid of these legal people? Can sufficient scandal be highlighted to force the hand of those responsible and thus also make other judges less complacent of their rulings?

Sticking with the courts as just one small issue, how can we ensure that proper procedure is being carried out? (ignoring the Freeman movement/concept for a moment)

For example, numerous cases fall apart on loopholes - such as the lack of clarity of the point system relating to the requirement for English language in order to gain residency. Or when Judges are clearly not upholding the options available to them to overturn (or over rule) international treatise they might be bound into.

For an example of that latter thing, we know that many people have managed to stay here under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which states people have the right to a family life and a home life. 

However, the full clause of Article 8 includes caveats:


In some situations, public authorities may interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only possible where the authority can show that its action has a proper basis in law, and is necessary and ‘proportionate’ in order to:
  • protect national security
  • protect public safety
  • protect the economy
  • protect health or morals
  • prevent disorder or crime
  • protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

How many criminals, fraudsters, welfare drainers, health dangers, etc have been allowed to stay under the guise of a right to a family life or a home?

Clearly, the judges could have acted on at least one the above points if they had wanted to do so.  Yet they choose not to do so. How can we make them accountable for their lack of due course?

How can we petition for removal of legal aid for over-stayers and chancers? Can we attack the system with orchestrated campaigns to remove the honey-pot from immigration lawyers?

There may not be any ways of doing any of these things - but the point I wish to make is that we need to widen our scope and work out what is going on and how it is being "got away with" so that we can try and put a halt to it one block at a time.

That is just the legal profession, but there are many more areas just on the niche issue of immigration alone.

How do we sever the government funding to so called "charity groups" like AWEMA , how do we shut down all sort of 'immigration' supporting or 'helping' initiatives? 

There are over 160,000 registered charities in England and Wales. How many of them are not in our interests? Is there anything that can be done about them or the system that supports them? What dirt can we dig up?

Turn off the money taps and the parasites will tend to die off.

People and organisations who make a living off the immigration industry and act as 'mops' to soak up the mess (at our expense) are hardly going to vote or apply pressure for immigration restrictions or harsher measures for bogus asylum seekers.

Not only are they "that way out" - but their money and careers rest on it continuing to be chaos and problematic, as does their 'feel good about themselves' addiction fix.

Rather than sweeping petitions like "Remove all bogus asylum seekers" - which has a virtually zero chance of being debated in parliament or practically undertook - why not petition against the things which make it such an obstacle or overwhelming  problem to deal with first? Tackle it at its root, then chase it up the chain. Get it done in the right order!

I do not know how it all works - this all may be complete nonsense - but then again I am not managing a campaigning organisation and haven't investigated it in the way I would need to do. 

Flash demo's, grande gestures, spot campaigns are all very good and make us feel better, they may partially help with the counter-culture being established but they are not going to deliver anything directly real in my opinion. The counter culture is worth building, certainly. However, by what means do we gauge success?

We might need to install a death by a thousand direct cuts, not over-stretch and aim at the main arteries of a beast we cannot kill (because it is too big and will swat us away like flies).

A recent 'win' for what the Conservatives called "the hard-left" - regarding Tesco and this work for welfare scheme -  is probably the exception to the rule. It does not tend to happen very regularly.  Did it only get notoriety because it was perceived to be a 'leftwing' cause? Is that the basis upon which we also have to fight?

When it comes to party politics, again, how wise is it to mix up techniques?

Is it a good idea to be getting in street confrontations and brawling down a megaphone whilst surrounded by police officers? Everywhere we seem to go, we are shadowed with either baying mobs or the yellow jackets of the police, or both.

We might as well wear those yellow jackets ourselves they are that conjoined to our activities!

Seriously though, we are often surrounded by a police presence. That is not to say the police are always hostile - they are often welcome to keep lunatics at bay and are there to ensure we can have our say without violence from the opposition.

However, confrontations, police vans, etc - does that 'mental' association encourage people to vote for us or side with us? Does it not just reinforce the idea that we are dangerous somehow, or a menace that has to be under police presence?

Do the other parties do this? If not, why not?

Is there any evidence to support that it does work for us (or does not work)? If it does not work - ditch it. If it does work, lets do it more and do it better.

I do not particularly like banner waving and megaphone politics - but what I like or dislike is irrelevant. If it works, then great, lets do it. I suspect it does not work though. The point is, we need to try and gauge how different models are received by the public in relation to the model we are pursuing.

What are the best areas for different sorts of nationalist parties? Is there a pattern or particular social/structural demographic that lends it to be suitable to push one thing in one area and another thing in another?

I would rather we learnt to join together and be less fractured, but if this cannot happen, we have to form associations. An association does not mean we have to be friends, agree with each others positions, etc - it just means that we are mutually prepared to hold our noses to our differences if a particular activity or methodology suits our mutual interests.

We are also failing to monopolise on things which suit us but which emanate from our opposition. A recent example might be the aforementioned Tesco issue where they had advertised for a worker on a trainee basis where they would be paid their welfare plus travel costs.

In effect, they were to be working for free, helping the bottom line of big business interests and they were not guaranteed a job at the end of the placement.

It was said to be highly possible that these companies could operate a revolving door of 'free workers' paid for by the welfare - ie tax payers. Tax payers money being used to help the profit margins of multinationals.

Now, people may differ on this - and all may not be what it seemed - but from what I saw, many nationalists were just as outraged at this as the 'far left' groups which apparently forced some companies to back down.

If that result is something we support, then why not support it?

That would both help us win that support and also make these 'far left' people squirm because we are showing our support. They probably won't know how to handle it.

If there is any 'indirect' working to the greater good by supporting some of those kinds of causes (but yes, they must strictly be beneficial to our goals and not at risk of us giving more power to the opposition) then why not?

What kind of clubs can we establish? How can we properly manifest some of our ideas and principles in society? How can we interest the youth and forge some self identity and pride?

How can we rid ourselves of the 'chavvy yob' problem that our next generation either find themselves in or stereotyped as?

We can often look at our own next generation in despair - often it hardly looks to be worth saving at all. Are we to abandon them as no-hopers or are we to steer them in our direction? (If not 'with us' - which unfortunately may prove to be an image liability - then have us be seen to try and get them on the straight and narrow).

Is there any chance of doing this at all? Perhaps not, but rather than focus on the problems of everybody else all the time, why don't we try and get our own house in order too? Why don't we highlight that there are problems in some aspects of what passes as "our culture" or "our people" and suggest what we would like to see done to solve it?

How do we get young whites off a life of crime, or off drug addictions? How do we protect and shield our kith and kin from these dangers? (Apart from removing all the interlopers who peddle it! lol)

Is there any ways of getting them under our wing, giving them something to do, something to think about, giving them some identity and self respect and respect for others, some pride in their country?

These people can often menace an estate, or can be an embarrassment to what people see as "white culture" in modern Britain.

I personally have been told numerous times by people that although they do not really like being swamped with Asians, in some circumstances they would rather have the Asian neighbour than the 'nightmare' "Shameless" style family that lives next door to them.

Although we do not wish to denigrate our own people, we might do better by understanding peoples concerns over these kinds of things and then they can see we are not ignoring them because they are 'white' problems. (Antisocial behaviour, binge drinking, drug abuse, etc).

Can we establish a home-schooling network for those we can convince to opt out of the brainwashing labs we call schools? Are there any former teachers or tutors that can lend a hand giving nationally aware whites a helping hand to prosper? Can we take advantage of the Free Schools or Academy systems in some way?

What can be done? How can we gain recognition as being a good thing in our societies - something that people will want to join?

Are we talking to business people who might be on side? The people who ideally do not want to use imported goods or establish overseas offshoots, the small manufacturers or engineering companies, people who have a pride in their British staff and British made goods.

What do they want to see happen? What are their interests? Can they fit with our nationalist policies and positions?

Can we show - like the Channel Four documentary programme about making knickers - that British companies and British workers ARE viable under certain circumstances and that a "Buy British" campaign could possibly be resurrected now that the bubble of the service-based economy has burst?

The woman who set up that company (in the documentary) made British goods, employed British staff and faced off all the retailers and buyers who said it was impossible. In some ways, she has probably done more to establish a general counter-current to globalism (and its excusers) than many of us nationalists have ever done.

Shouldn't we be supporting that endeavour and trying to establish ourselves as a party or movement which wants to see more? It is positive. It is what people want, and what we want.

What about new technologies? Are we aware of this sector? New materials, new techniques, the future of industry and production, computer programming etc? Where is it going? What will it mean?

I was told last year by a friend of mine that the Labour government lost out on a huge deal in the computer games sector because they were completely out of touch with the importance of it and because they even made obstacles for this country and British companies to get those contracts.

What about the new carbon material that was devised recently that could have major implications on product design and manufacture, or the use of moss as an energy supply, thorium reactors, 3D design technology, rapid prototyping, etc. Yes, I did say moss! (biophotovoltaics B.P.V).

Where are we on all those kinds of things? Are people seeing us as cutting edge....or as a blunt knife from the past that serves little purpose?

When it comes to social issues, as I have said before - why not "out left" the left?

A recent BBC news article and news clip showed the squalor that Indian immigrants had found themselves in after paying £10,000 to reach this country. They were living like rats, living in sheds with rubbish, living under motorway bridges in sleeping bags.

It showed them wanting to go home to wherever they came from, but because they had burnt all their documentation they cannot seem to get out! It is madness.

Why aren't we screaming blue murder against the liberals and BBC/Guardian types who let this happen?

Why aren't we showing it to be positive to crack down on this and crack down on immigration for these peoples sake as well as ours?

Why aren't we making more use of the sweatshops that were found to be operating in Leicester or somewhere the other year?

The conditions were appalling for those people, and it also damages the interests of the British workforce by lowering standards, making it harder to find work, keeping their wages down AND importing foreigners.

All we could do was generally whine about the immigrants being here. Where was the positive momentum to steal the moral high ground? I do not remember much noise being made about it in those terms.

It is not even a case of exploiting these issues or jumping on a bandwagon:-

No nationalist wants this country to end up this way. No nationalist should believe in slave labour conditions. No nationalist should support the driving down of wages. No nationalist should support the companies and the concepts behind allowing this kind of immigration and situation to develop here.

It is therefore surely our ground as much as it is anybody else's.

What about the power of humour?

Nationalists are not known for their humour, but maybe this should change. The liberal-left have used humour and satire to break down institutions and traditional British culture.

Whether it has been 'stand up comedians', sketch shows, or things like 'Spitting Image', stage plays, there has been a leftwing dominance that does not even need to be factually or ideologically correct, all they have to do is mock and undermine as part of 'Critical Theory'.

I do not even credit them with the understanding of just what they are doing. Most of them will just be typical "useful idiots".

Why not disgrace the "far left" and ridicule the dumbest of them or highlight their double standards and make fun of them for it?

For example, can we find some UAF/Antifa types who are typical drunk students who are a disgrace to us all? Have they got an ipad or iphone made in some Chinese sweatshop filled with poisonous glass cleaning chemicals (as they boo and hiss behind anti-nationalist banners)? What kinds of things are they studying (if they are students), and are they "fit for purpose" as components of this country?

Are there any Youtube clips of inane comments by these people which we can easily compile and then make the whole lot to look completely uninformed and retarded?!

You can imagine the type of thing "Like, you know, like, people are not more prone to being criminals because they are immigrants, like, and well, you know, we had the slave trade and stuff...."

They need to be made a laughing stock in the public domain, made to feel self doubt, made to feel a little bit ashamed of their ignorance. Not just on silly forums 'battling the anti-fash' - but in wider scope areas.

The recent cartoon video titled 'How Whites Took Over America' by 'white rabbit radio' - although historically inaccurate - is a good example of a humorous and yet hard hitting piece of white nationalist propoganda. See

This could all be part of challenging the prevailing orthodoxy and standing up for ourselves whenever we can by not only rejecting the orthodoxies but simultaneously promoting our new one and sweeping away the old one.

To do this we need to master our wider field better, use sophisticated language techniques to reprogram the associations people have with us and our messages, create a culture where people stop apologising for our people or our past (for example).

Whether that be such things as always using "modern" before "nationalist party" or "moderate" before "nationalist party" or "common sense" - or whatever - the minds of the people need to automatically think of a positive word association whenever they hear the phrases or names. Instead of the left-applied "far right BNP" - for example - it needs to be our own term. In comment sections, public meetings, TV interviews, ram it home.

When it comes to the tricky matter of race, there is a slightly newer vocabulary and arsenal coming through the New Right circuit. I do not know how well it can be harvested or how well it could sit with capturing the public, but is interesting to see short bold statements of opposition coming through as tools to use.

It is a sign of a time where we are stopping apologising and ceasing to be on the retreat.

For example, it is not uncommon to see a more robust refutation of "celebrating diversity" than we have been used to. The usual way is to moan, tut, or roll the eyes and go on about immigration or 'pc gone mad'.

However, on the New Right they might say that they are not going to 'celebrate diversity' because they are being told to celebrate the decrease in white people and the marginalisation of their people.

They might say something like "Would you be celebrating a decrease in black people or Asian people? If not, then why should I celebrate the decrease in mine?" Simple points. Unflinchingly and unapologetically made.

Maybe we should help people learn some chessboard moves in self defence this way, whether it be slavery, showing up the silliness of saying we have been a 'tolerant' nation (and that is what makes is British!), pushing why our energy policies are superior or why meritocracy instead of 'equality' is not an evil.

If we are not going to pursue politics and are going to stop playing the 'soft ball', then we should at least get a more harder rhetoric sorted out - one which is much more viable, winning, hard to argue, and professional. Something which can impress, or show strength instead of being weak, or repulsive for people to hear.

Okay, as I come to the end of this series I know I am further clutching at straws. I know I am going off on a few wacky tangents.

However, I hope I have demonstrated there are many things we are not really doing well enough (or at all), aspects we are missing taking advantage of, that there is a different avenue to take with some topics, a different kind of nationalist culture to build, and that there are generally more strings to our bow than we currently pull.

There are probably many more things. I could probably write forever.  However, I do not want to take up any more of your time. You must have had the patience of a saint to wade through this series up to now! 

Is it all complete and utter nonsense? Have I already lost my marbles? Have I got it all completely wrong?  (On second thoughts, don't answer that!)

These are just my current thoughts on a few things, I am not saying they are right! I am just throwing some stuff out there. 

What do you fellow nationalists think?

I know many have given up, as might I. I know some believe nothing is possible and that we have no option but to just 'suck it up' now. I already know all that. I have tried to keep this set of articles away from getting into the very deep and murky waters of the truth-movement and all powerful elites who are always two or three steps ahead, etc. 
Maybe it is ignorant of me to do so, even misleading, but if people want to "have a try" and not just roll over and die perhaps I need to keep it 'ordinary' and 'within current view' of most ordinary people.

If I do write another piece to this series, it may relate to the recent 'beyond the fringe' series on the 'musings of a durotrigan' blogsite as an accompaniment, as well as the recent 'white rights-positive action' article on the Nationalist Unity Forum (formerly BNPideas). They are different approaches, but I do not really see them being exclusive or contradictory of each other.

This is where I think the energy is right now, creating a new, fresh and viable focus that is going to be fit for the future.

No comments:

Post a Comment