Tuesday, 8 May 2012

After the latest election collapse - A fresh start or reverse gear?


Oi! You!!!, Traitor! Marxist Scum! Genocidist! Zionist! Homo! Paedo!

I am just as disheartened and pessimistic as any other nationalist when it comes to the state of nationalism, the recent election results, the attitudes of the greater public and the ever pressing feat we have to accomplish if things are ever going to even slow down, never mind be reversed.

With this demoralisation we all have, often comes despair. With despair often comes anger and frustration. With anger and frustration often comes a retreat to old ways and old methods. 

Like a designer who has reluctantly been forced to learn how to use a computer to design things (instead of a pad and pencil), when he is placed under pressure, when he is frustrated at a lack of progress because he cannot do it as quickly yet (but in the future would be ten times as productive), when things are going wrong and mistakes are made, the tendency is there to say "balls to this computer stuff!" and start scribbling on the pad of paper again in order to get things moving.

Unfortunately, this fall back to old ways cannot go on forever. Unless new ways are devised, learnt and practised, our competitors will end up working faster, smarter, more efficiently, more cost effectively and our business or organisation gets to the point where it just cannot compete as a going concern and has to close down. 

Nationalism is a company of ideas and standpoints rather than material goods or services. We cannot afford to let our ideas and concepts become bankrupt. We need to improve, expand, take on staff, invest our time and money - but if we keep undercutting ourselves to scrape by and make do and mend, the steeper the curve of losses we will see in the long run. Like the old saying "penny wise, pound foolish".

We were perhaps at the moment of nearly breaking through with the training, but we have since been put under huge pressure internally and externally, and, in the process of things going badly wrong, people are now scrambling to return to the 'old days' and 'old ways' to try and get the job done again.

In nationalism there is no doubt a rather justified attitude just lately that all is lost - so "why care what we say or how we say it?", or a general suggestion of a return to styles and approaches that have historically got us nowhere - such as 'street marches', "extreme right" uniforms and venomous (read: alienating) discourse that is far removed from those we need to win over. 

I agree that we should not - ever - water down too much of what we stand for. I hope this website is a testament to that, as I have tirelessly maintained that we should keep all our targets intact, never wash ourselves away, stand up for our ethnic rights, stand up for our interests and never allow our traditional nationalism to be subverted by self styled 'modernisers' who appeal to 'real politicking'. 

I still believe that. We need to be quite radical, unique, different, rebellious, notable - not follow the rest blindly in the false hope we can be the same as the rest and then sweep to victory. Do we believe in what we stand for or not? If we do, then we need to sell it - not hide from it or help undermine it for short term expediency.

However, what I still differ upon with regard the approach models of some nationalists, is that one does not need to be blunt, or angry, or venomous, crude, confrontational, etc to keep to those principles and values and fight for our causes.

The focus for me is therefore much more upon 'selling it' if we are going to 'keep it true' to course.

How do we do that? That is what I think we have to ask ourselves and try to improve upon.


You can oppose immigration, oppose media monopolies, stand up for traditional family values, be pretty uncompromising on all aspects of our points and policies without having to resort to off putting or blunt terminology or rhetoric. 

It is not 'weakness' - as you are still telling the truth. It is not 'limp wristed' - as you are still fighting the same battles and fighting the same people, even those perceived to be behind the curtain. It is probably a dream come true for the opposition as they see us scurrying back off to our old alienating and antagonistic ways on the fringes.

Is using your little finger on a newly devised sub-machine gun trigger 'limp wristed' compared to  sticking with spears and arrows?

The bravery and fearlessness of the warriors that are the spear holders and archers is certainly there for all to see. They are certainly not being limp wristed for facing such a foe so bluntly and violently, but they will get mown down with bullets from a superior fighting machine all the same, because their armament and regiment is getting badly out of date and is not fit for winning any more.

Occasionally, the superior machine has a jam. It may stall, breakdown, whatever. This is where things get desperate and people are desperate, like in Greece at the moment. That is a different battle ground to our own situation and our own population at the moment though.

If things take a turn in that direction here, if our opponents machine breaks down, by all means sharpen up those old spears and prepare the arrows for something a bit more robust and commanding. Of course, we ideally need our own superior fighting machine.   

For the time being, despite what we may feel or think at times, we have to remember our purpose and our target audience and bear in mind those people who may be disillusioned with this country who are looking around for something to match their views, interests and positions. What do they come across? It is often not a brilliant or alluring advertisement, is it?

Further to that, we have to make people feel good about supporting us. We have to legitimise our points and values. We have to give people the tools of understanding us and what it is that we are 'driving at' with our counter culture.

We have to get the high ground, challenge the orthodoxies that prevail, be spotless, promote our solutions and become the robin hood to the sheriff of Nottingham.

In my opinion that sort of thing is our role; not playing to the gallery, not making ourselves feel better by getting things off our chest and having a 'blast off', not chanting and shouting slogans, not standing sticking two fingers up to everything and everybody, with an angry face and barking about 'Zionist puppets doing the bidding of marxist occupiers'. Nobody will have a clue what you are on, or on about.

It is something that requires a bit of discipline - and even a cold heart.  I say a cold heart, because if I had not become so cold hearted myself to what is going on, I would probably be swearing and cursing and using epithets right left and centre too. I would probably be wanting to start my own vigilante group and go on some kind of rampage because nothing is being done. But who would be with us anyway? We have to remember that.

I can understand wanting to cause a scene, cause an upset, take a stand.....but if nobody in the room or in the street (aside from a handful of activists) has any idea what your problem is or why they should be listening to you rant and rave, it is surely a waste of time and achieves nothing aside from an 'insider' morale booster that you 'socked it to them'.

I cannot blame people for caring that much that they verbally (or in written form) lash out, or jostle and shout and brawl against opponents or the police in public. I just prefer to serve our revenge as a cold dish, by keeping things on target and trying to remember our function, a function that might hopefully break down the systems and get support on our side - not alienate the public and become a bunch of boys with sticks and toy catapults trying to take on a whole state apparatus which has a better arsenal on its side. 

What lessons can be learnt from this country and how it operates societally? That is what I think myself and many others need to ask ourselves. Recent elections show once again that people are still (overwhelmingly) in their comfort zone of voting for the main three.

What is the psychology of this? How can we alter perceptions people have of us - and how can we interest people in what we have to say and make it directly relevant to them?

Recently, both myself and some others I follow on the New Right have been suggesting we need to create that (previously mentioned) allure; a positive drive, feel-good, moral high ground giving, better future solution providing front to our activities. 

We cannot rely on doom-mongering, exasperation, fear, annoyance, frustration, or a million recounts of WW2 and what might have happened differently, vulgarities, paranoia or siege mentality issues, etc, to win the day on their own.

For example, the article I wrote regarding nationalist discourse a few weeks ago shows a prime example of where we are really going wrong with this. We have to move away from all that and tighten up our act.

We have to stop being on the defensive all the time and sell our positives too. 

Why is it (aside from the usual suspects) that the race realist movement, the nationalist movement, along with its more mainstream handmaiden, the immigration reform movement, always loses? 

Why is it that despite quite widespread concern over immigration, crime, jobs, energy, infrastructure - people always return to the parties that created these problems (and will continue to do nothing about these problems), and even vote for parties that contradictorily promise to crack down on immigration yet also seek to give amnesties or encourage Turkey into the EU etc?

We have to recognise the fact that there is a widespread prejudice in the public domain that white people who have a sense of racial solidarity, who are nationalists, etc are backwards, ignorant, and hateful. It has been engineered that way for decades, and every now again, people on our side prove the stereotype to be right.

We have to understand that the 'conservatism' atmosphere which we often give off is sometimes equivalent of being seen as 'old hat' and forever looking to the past rather than solving the future problems. Conservatism is only at best a buffer to the planned speed of liberalism.

We have to remember that some of the core values that have defined 'the West' and fused public attitudes for a long time include individualism, pluralism, and tolerance. We are not going to overturn aspects of such deeply grained notions overnight without providing good reason.

There is no doubt that British hold these values very dear - that is precisely why those senses of fairness and fair play are used against us!

Most British people still tend to believe in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship {yes, even Muslims which they may normally moan about}, and support the general assertion of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are looking for security, prosperity and peace.

The reason why 'liberals' win is that they have managed to define themselves as the ones who uphold these things. What are activist groups for non-whites called? 'Civil rights groups' or 'Justice groups', 'Equality' organisations, promoting 'fairness' and 'equality'. 

What are the names of groups that actively spreads anti-white propaganda? Unite Against Fascism, Commission for Equality and Human Rights, etc. Even the very name “liberals” in fact suggests that these people are the partisans of liberty and justice.

So when nationalists try to argue against the hegemony of the liberals, we run into an overpowering headwind straight away. “What! You’re against rights and liberties?” "You are against human rights?!" "You are against equality?!!" people cry in disbelief. “You sick freaks! You Nazis!” "You backwards, hate filled boneheads!" etc.

We can’t even get a hearing because liberals have defined themselves as the defenders of Western values so successfully.

However, we know differently. 

We have seen people hounded out of their jobs for expressing an 'incorrect' thought. We have seen people locked away in prison for a "twitter" comment that was deemed 'offensive', we have seen violence and intimidation of nationalists just holding a meeting, venues threatened, the media openly biased against us and not affording us freedom of speech or 'equal' treatment in the public or political sphere.

We have seen laws enacted that deprive our freedoms of expression, deprive our freedoms to hire and fire on whatever grounds we like, depriving our freedoms to robustly criticise religious movements like Islam or robustly challenge the mass immigration and racial transformation of our nation. Just who are the 'fascists' in this world?

I think the key to victory for nationalists is for us to attack liberals’ self-portrayal and grab the mantle of being defenders of Western values for ourselves. We should present ourselves as the true proponents of values like individualism, pluralism, and tolerance, and the other side as the authoritarians. We might even want to argue that we are the true liberals, people who will make the world a better place to live in, not 'fascists'.

We are often called 'fascists' - but does any of this vitriol stand up to scrutiny? Who are the real fascists? 

For example, for us to oppose government policy of bringing in 250,000 immigrants a year is, in fact, to support all the “causes” that the 'left' usually claim to be in favour of: such as the unskilled worker, public sector employees, women, the elderly, equality, democracy, freedom, overseas development and yes, the already existing ethnic minorities. 

It is the unskilled (among whom unemployment is probably twice as high as it is among the skilled) who suffer lower wages from competition from unskilled immigrants, as a House of Lords report showed a few years ago. It is they who cannot find housing, etc, due to the same immigration burdens.

Public sector workers lose out because the more the Government relies on immigrants to do jobs such as nursing and teaching, the less need there is to improve pay and conditions.

When people are scared of losing their job in an extremely competitive market where over 500 people can apply for a single serving job at McDonalds, they will not complain or rock the boat as much when they see their wages stagnate and the cost of living ramp up.

Women suffer because the more that companies can rely on immigrants, the easier it is for them to avoid introducing family-friendly policies. 

The elderly are hit because the easier it is for companies to recruit young immigrants, the more incentive there is to chuck older workers on the scrapheap.

Opposing immigration defends democracy, where the established indigenous population are getting less and less say on the future direction of their own country because of mass importation of new arrivals looking to feather their own nests and vote for their own interests. How can it be fair or valid that the say of the indigenous is increasingly removed by those with no ancestral ties or affiliations or emotions about the host society?

In some ways Nationalism actually defends "equality", because mass immigration increases inequalities by making the poor poorer and the rich richer. Those who compete with immigrants, who tend to be poor, suffer lower wages, while those who employ immigrants, who tend to be rich, benefit from lower costs and higher profits. 

They also favour the ethnic minorities who compete more directly with immigrants in the labour market than other workers and suffer more from the rise in racial tension that is inevitable when you impose mass immigration on a country that does not want it.

Immigration exacerbates racial trouble, ill feeling, bitterness and hatred, mistrust, jostling and competing groups, slows down genuine progress of humankind - and generally causes a distraction against what the leaders of this country (and this world) are up to as we squabble and fight amongst ourselves.

Increased population means tighter restrictions on peoples lives, even on the small things. Where you can drive or not drive, park or not park, whether you can use a hosepipe or not, what 'green measures' you have to abide by, what you can say or not say.

Like if you pack 40 people in a house made for housing 4 people, you will ultimately need a 'fascist regime' of rules and regulations over almost all aspects of your living - in order to 'keep order' and maintain basic civility. It becomes an impossible situation, and depletes the value and quality of human life.

Opposing mass immigration supports 'overseas development', because poaching the most educated and skilled people from developing countries deprives them of tax-paying and politically stabilising middle classes. 

For example, we are undermining health and education systems in developing countries by stealing their nurses and teachers. A newspaper in Ghana once declared that their country was being “eaten” by the West because so many of the graduates it could barely afford to educate were being stolen.

We would do more to help other nations by stopping meddling in their affairs, stopping creaming off the best of the non-EU population, and sending these so called "vibrant" and "entrepreneurial" people back to where they came from. If they are unskilled, uneducated, burdensome, the same applies for different reasons. They are not conducive to the betterment of this nation (even if we ignore the existential threat we are under).

And as for us being anti-democratic or shunned by the wider public on everything we say (as opponents often suggest), survey after survey shows that most British people generally agree with us on immigration, crime, and other issues. They do not want mass immigration or to be turned into minorities either, so are they all fascists?

It is our opponents who are imposing all these measures and situations upon us, silencing dissent, silencing alternative proposals, ostracising people, enacting restrictive legislations, etc.

If we said that all potential immigrants should be tested for HIV, we would no doubt be decried as being fascists and xenophobes who are 'prejudiced' and 'discriminatory'. A suggested practice so “fascist” that it is policy in some of the most immigrant-friendly liberal democracies in the occidental world: Canada, the US and Australia. Are these recognised 'allies' all fascist regimes, too?

Is it really 'fascist' or 'hate' to ensure the health of your own nation and to prevent the spread of infectious, deadly and costly diseases? Surely it is a virtue, not a horror. Especially as people with such diseases from the third world can be treated much more cheaply there than here in Britain. By allowing in 150 AIDs victims here for treatment, the same money might treat over 350 AIDs victims in the country of origin.

Who is the 'fascist'? Who is the wrong doer by letting them come here?

The same for banning or screening homosexuals for giving blood. If they are x-times more likely to carry HIV than the wider demographic, then it is surely the sane thing to do to test those people before they give blood, or even prevent them outright from doing so in order to avoid unnecessary risk just for the sake of 'political correctness'?

Their "feelings" should not come before the nations health. It is the right thing to do, the virtuous thing to do, not "hatred" or "bigotry". We have to get back to sanity, poke holes in their silly reasoning and attitudes, show them up for being foolish and counter productive.

I have mentioned many more examples like this in the past, especially in my recent five-part series.

In addition, we have radical thinkers like Alex Kurtagic and others on the New Right who have recently written about 'equality as an evil' and how to counter some liberal 'givens' like egalitarianism as being a bad thing too.

It is not an easy thing to promote, but we have to try and kick away the legs of what props up the current system and enshrines the prevalence of views and standpoints that keep people sucked into the same systems.

In my opinion, this kind of thing, these kinds of arguments, if well presented, will turn our fortunes around. We have to understand society, how it now ticks, how to sell our products and still remain true to ourselves and our aspirations. 

Having a street demonstration about "banning faggots, fisters and rimmers from giving blood", or going on about "Zionist Jewish influence and their sick use of the holohaux to get their way", or "cult of the dead paedophile worshippers should see their korans burnt", or "baby killing abortionists should be hung from the lamp posts for treason to the white race" or whatever else along those lines, just does not seem to do that very well in my opinion. 

We can deal with all those things, often uncompromisingly - but how we actually change our tactics and get our societal change (and our counter-culture achieved) is the thing for us to look at. Preferably, for me, without going back to that pencil and paper which is being used as a crutch from a time already gone by. 

Yet of course maybe I have it wrong. Maybe there is a calling for some kind of Greek style party of the 'far right', with attitude, burly males in uniforms, no-nonsense talking..... but given the apathy and reluctance of our general population, hell, their sheer ignorance of what is going on against their interests, I just cannot see it taking off here. Not until it becomes as 'bad' as Greece.

There is no harm in being ready for all eventualities, but for the time being I would rather continue to court a measured and reasoned support - even if it only turns out to be cultivating support and recruitment and understanding of something more drastic later, if times get much worse. 

As even then, under those tougher circumstances, we will still need to be seen as on the righteous side and champions of our people, instead of being seen as a 'horrific threat' by the public.

We might as well try and do it right and as best we can now, because we will have to do it anyway, whatever happens.

11 comments:

  1. Good evening BA. Take heart, for not all of us are hellbent on negativity, and are instead making an effort to move things forward in a positive direction: http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/beyond-fringe-conclusion-and.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is an excellent piece. I have only recently returned to Nationalist blogs and the negativity I've found has been terribly disheartening. Almost every comments section seems dominated by four ideas: white men are weak; white women are foreigner-loving whores; world affairs are controlled by an indestructible cabal; the situation is hopeless. Since so many nationalists have a low opinion of the British people, I wonder why they care whether the British are eradicated.

    So please keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi there Anonymous. Thanks for popping by and lending some support!

    I suppose if I am honest, a lot of my stuff is usually rather pessimistic and negative. Then I had a little bit of a burst of positivity drive in a spate of articles that were intended to try and just make us all stop and think about what we are doing and how we are doing it.

    I am not sure how long you have been away, so you might already know that the nationalist scene has suffered an immense fracture and a pretty serious blow - a blow that has scattered things to the four winds and further into disorganisation, chaos, negativity, frustration and anger.

    I can actually appreciate to some degree why so many nationalists tend to have a low opinion of the British people - as all the evidence points to them being unable to "wake up" (as people say) and join us. In fact, the majority are often actively working against our interests!

    However, there is only so much doom mongering and bitterness that can be directed at them when what we should be doing is improving ourselves to tap into them and coach them to understand why we take some of the points and views we do, and why it is in their interests.

    There are indeed those types who are lost causes, which I don't think I would waste my time on.
    There are indeed "opponents" of ours (hardened communists, UAF types etc) who I also wouldn't waste my time on battling with...
    ....but there is a huge apathetic (and generally swayable) gap in the middle where there is still potential to gain support and supporters for the long-haul.

    The recent kind of "hardcore" 'nobody likes us and we don't care' "truther" attitude (that has developed after the blow to the cause) is a direction that I think will only send us back to the wilderness even further than we are right now.

    Although I am pretty pessimistic and close to walking away and washing my hands of it all myself, I understand that talking ourselves into the ground and doing nothing but whine and moan is not going to help us.

    We need a better attitude, a tighter cause, a cleaner and professional new dawn with which we can move ahead. I am not pinning my hopes on new parties or campaign groups or 'leaders' or whatever else - I am talking across the board.

    Thanks again for popping by.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I read your comments on the NUF website and decided to have a look at your blog, BA. You have an interesting and considered insight into nationalist affairs. Don't lose heart and keep writing!

    Regards

    Kevin Scott

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for popping by Kevin, all constructive or supportive commentary is appreciated too.

    The sheer length of the five-parter series (that I also linked to) might put a lot of people off, but like many other people I am bumping around on the bottom and thought I would explain what had been going through my mind.

    I did not see much harm in laying it all out, well, aside from giving the opposition too many clues. But they will be watching and counteracting whatever it is we do, I suppose!

    To be honest, I have long thought that we are flogging a dead horse now - and that I need to just accept it and get on with my life and stop worrying about it all - but at the same time, it is hard to switch completely off from it. Once you "know", well, you know.

    If there is any chance of a phoenix like rise from the ashes, I think it has to be more positive framed and well presented.

    I thought that the "nationalist culture" as a whole needs to be cleaned up and shaken up and freshly focused as part of this change, so I wrote this article and the others with the aim of giving people something to think about.

    It is nothing particularly solid or fleshed out, or even right or necessarily realistic - but I hope, if nothing else, that people can consider the general points of view or take a fresher view of what we are doing.

    Cheers,

    BA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kevin, I came across a good article on the "alternative right" website earlier - http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/euro-centric/political-correctness-as-a-weapon-of-class-war/ - and at the end it says it was taken from the Civil Liberty website.

    I followed the links, and I stumbled over your name. Bit of a coincidence!

    I am not sure if you are the same said person, but I intend to browse some of the articles there later (I am currently on lunch break) as I picked a few at random for a quick scan, and I think they might be good ones.

    Regards,
    BA

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello B.A.,

    In reply to your comments on the N.U.F., my concepts and vision have been, and continue to be, explored in my own blog. I am, however, not a moderate by any stretch of the imagination so I avoid directing the uninitiated to it. For example, thebritishresistance has banned me for being a "racist". Judging by the strange triumvirate that forms this cyber resistance; their history of movement participation, personal circumstances, and past group promotions, I take this epithet as a welcome compliment.

    Regards,
    N.G.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank's for stopping by Nick.

    I was not sure if you wanted the reply publishing or not, but I decided to publish it. Let me know if you want it deleted.

    The NUF is painfully slow at the moment with the commenting. However, I know Andrew and some others have been quite busy networking with different groups and having meetings.

    (I think that is perhaps more important than updating their site every day).

    It is a shame that comments cannot be edited there though, so it is understandable you came here to let me know, and I am glad you did.

    If I had my chance, I would like to delete all my comments on that article. I think they will come back to haunt me and humiliate me in quite a big way.

    I expect to get many more pieces or comments ripping me to pieces. It was foolish of me to write the comments.

    I guess I have been at the "end of the line" for a while now and have resorted to grasping at straws or cutting a slice of pie in the sky.

    I have been planning to write a reply to my critic over there at NUF (perhaps one of many to come), but I have yet to decide whether to bother explaining myself.

    I have my reasons for saying what I did about not putting myself up for election. It does not mean I would not do something else, or that I am telling others what to do.

    Anyway, that is another matter.

    I managed to read your series of articles earlier today. It is quite a radical plan and concept, something which I and others would need to give much more thought to.

    I am vaguely aware of PLE type ventures, so at the moment I tend to see this along the same kind of lines, but much better explained than those I first came across many years ago.

    Back then, I immediately dismissed it all out of hand.

    But that was before I knew about the real situation we were in and what all the elements are. (You bring some of it up yourself in your articles, but I am sure you will know what I am talking about).

    ReplyDelete
  9. (cont'd)

    I don't know whether this will be an insult or a compliment, but the concept and opinions on your site also reminded me of an article series on the Occidental Observer, by the American White Nationalist called Farnham O'Reilly.

    It has been a long time since I read some of those articles now, but if you are not familiar with them, they might be right up your street.

    (As it has been a long time since I read them myself, I had better be cautious about that though, lol).

    However, even so, you may like to read them. I think you might share quite a few things, although there are bound to be differences along the way.

    I lost track somewhere around part 5 or 6 of his series. I have just gone back there and it is up to around 13 parts and additions (!).

    However, here is the link to the series so far.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/category/what-will-work/

    At the time, the first and second ones caught my eye enough to proceed to the end of the 5th or 6th.

    As is human nature, other things diverted me away from the rest - but I might now catch up with them all.

    They are of course American-centric, but like many other things, the issues and concepts do cross the waters.

    Your proposed area is not that far from me, I suppose, although my area does not suit the parameters as it is heavily "enriched", like Blackburn.

    Although at times we may seem polar opposites (?), I think in some ways we share some inner sense that we need to explore a different kind of nationalism (and nationalist culture) and snap out of the more mechanical and blind methodologies.

    The current situation is not working too well, the current approaches and culture within nationalism itself does not seem to be working or geared up for attaining lasting results.

    Given the sheer demographic reality at our feet, I am losing all faith in electioneering anyway, even if it was not such a stitch up or hard to sustain.

    I have long ridiculed the idea that we will command the houses of parliament and sit in Downing Street, because that has never been my understanding of the role that electioneering has actually played.

    My position has been that as long as other things were not being ignored, it would at the least apply some pressure and 'normalise' our discourse in society a bit more.

    At our previous peak, with scores of councillors and such, we were getting some quite tremendous uptake and support.

    Even some of the newer arivals who were wet behind the ears about race and such came to understand and came to support what we were doing.

    Success breeds success, I suppose.

    The trouble was, aside from the system itself, the BNP itself was a rusty car that had been given a lick of paint. It looked okay, but was rotting on the inside and could not travel any further.

    I still think politics can have some role to play, but more in a sort of framework and concept as described in your series. Promoting interests, a center for giving out information and organising activities, etc - not particularly just for the sake of pinning a rosette on.

    If pinning a rosette on was to be done, it has to come last. You cannot stand a candidate and THEN change the society you live in, you have to change the society you live in and THEN stand a candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. (cont'd)

    Whilst I may have approached matters much differently to yourself in my five-part series, in some ways they are not entirely mutually exclusive from one another.

    My suggestions in my five-part series are aimed at changing our culture and how we may be going about delivering our message better.

    This is not necessarily just for the ideal of "votes", but more about establishing and getting lasting support for what is in our interest though other means - and for establishing a mindset and a culture change in wider society that makes it more pliable to our broader messages.

    I also have no illusions or delusions about wasting out time with the hardened opposition, like so many tend to engage themselves with, battling away with 'reds' on forums and so on.

    I am not really all that interested in winning such battles, engaging in their squabbles and spats, trying to "prove" we are not what they say we are, etc.

    We have to look after our own, promote our own, sell our own messages - not react to theirs all the time. We have to be ignoring the rubbish and make our own way.

    Perhaps like yourself, I have come to realise time is too tight and that we need to capture the already pliable, people who already have that basic instinct within them to be supportive (if we explain ourselves and go about things properly).

    Whilst others may come, who we once thought were lost causes, the first port of call has to be to solidify and gain the people already half awake and those prepared to listen.

    You may not see much in common in with my five-part series, I don't know, but perhaps if it was revised to fit inside the parameters of what you had discussed in your series, it might be more agreeable (or seen a different context).

    Time seems to be slipping by me at the moment. I have been really busy with work and different things. I will try to read through it all again this weekend.

    As I have only read them today, I don't yet know what I would do about it, or even what I am doing with myself in my life at the moment.

    I am not saying I will fling myself behind it as some sort of pioneer, or maybe not at all - but nor am I going to poo-poo it, criticise it or dismiss it out of hand.

    At least you have a well written concept laid out and have given things some thought. People often criticise 'thinkers', but unless we get all the different cards and options out on the table, we will never discover our best hand.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for your reply, B.A., and for reading my articles.

    Just a quick note: the thinking process is over. N.E. establishment is well underway and we are meeting in the S.E. very shortly.

    We will attempt this, we see no other options, and if it is successful it will spread. If it is not, then at least we would have ruled the venture out and can seek alternatives. But that will be for others to determine - for me the situation is urgent and words and ideas have now all but been expended.

    Best regards,
    N.G.

    ReplyDelete