It is now almost 1 year since this blog was first launched and indeed several months since I bothered to post anything. I feel I owe an explanation to the few people who have been following to this blog and the even larger number who will continue to come to this blog by accident why I have decided to pull the plug on this operation.
The first reason is that a Front must consist of more than one man and his dog. I didn't want this blog to become just more depressing news comentary moaning about all the horrible things that are happening in the world. I wanted it to be the start of a movement and expected by now to be exchanging emails and have met in person like minded people off the internet. Nothing of the sort actually happened and I felt I was simply howling at the moon.
The second reason is that in the interlude I stumbled upon the Occidental Quarterly which provided me with a diverse range of articles and opinions which have altered my opinions significantly.
1. I no longer consider myself a libertarian: Even though I might find myself in agreement with a lot of their sentiment. i.e. I still largely hold Kevin Carson's insights into the true nature of actually existing capitalism.
2. After studying Kevin MacDonald's writings I am now rather less charitable to the idea of Jews being innocent scapegoats of White Nationalists.
3. I do not beleive a mass movement is going to occur and we should be focusing on quality not quantity. We also need to start thinking outside the ballot box...I will leave this to the readers fertile imagination.
So what are my plans now? 1.) to establish contacts with other white nationalists that are unafiliated (i.e. not part of the embarassing BNP - which failed miserably of course in recent general election - I atleast continue to beleive the BNP to be a bunch of bumbling iddiots). 2.) Deliberate on my ideas offline until I am ready to fully synthesise my political vision.
If/When I start a serious internet presence again I will post the link on this blog. Other than that the lights are being turned of on this blog permanently. Goodbye.
Saturday 5 June 2010
Saturday 30 January 2010
Secession: A Realistic Ideal
I advocate secession on several grounds. The first and perhaps most important is that the old nation-states no longer are capable of pursuing their essential function, which is to safeguard the common interests of the White people. The homogenous white nation-states which existed until after World War 2 has vanished under a sea of multi-racial immigration and parliament is dominated by parties bought and sold by special interests inimical to the interests of white people of the British Isles. The UK is no longer a nation-state but a multi-racial state.
It is ultimately naive to think that nationalists can put the toothpaste back into the tube and restore the United Kingdom as it existed before the sailing of the Windrush. The demographic transformation of Britain is proceeding at a rapid pace as more non-white immigrants add to the non-white tally everyday: White Britons may be in the majority today but in the not to distance future points to a demographic eclipse within a generation.
The second major problem is the utter lack of power that nationalists currently possess and the prospects of changing this. The BNP is talked up about making steady gains that will ultimately result in victory but at its current pace whites will be politically eclipsed before the BNP actually has enough MP's elected to form a government: At present the BNP is currently rubbing its hands in glee at the possibility of gaining its first seat in Barking this year, perhaps it will but it will still require the election of a further 322 MP's to be the majority party in government.
It would be a far better strategy for nationalists to concentrate on carving off a white slice of the British isles to create an independent white homeland. In the United States there are a number of nationalists calling for the creation of an independent white homeland in the Pacific Nort-West out of the whitest states of the Union. Nationalists in the UK should advocate the break up of the multi-racial state and the creation of a white homeland within the British Isles for example in North-East England, one of the Whitest areas of England. This strategy is the most pragmatic dealing with the realities of the power of enemies and avoids the messy problems in removing millions of non-whites who have colonised vast swathes of Britain.
It is ultimately naive to think that nationalists can put the toothpaste back into the tube and restore the United Kingdom as it existed before the sailing of the Windrush. The demographic transformation of Britain is proceeding at a rapid pace as more non-white immigrants add to the non-white tally everyday: White Britons may be in the majority today but in the not to distance future points to a demographic eclipse within a generation.
The second major problem is the utter lack of power that nationalists currently possess and the prospects of changing this. The BNP is talked up about making steady gains that will ultimately result in victory but at its current pace whites will be politically eclipsed before the BNP actually has enough MP's elected to form a government: At present the BNP is currently rubbing its hands in glee at the possibility of gaining its first seat in Barking this year, perhaps it will but it will still require the election of a further 322 MP's to be the majority party in government.
It would be a far better strategy for nationalists to concentrate on carving off a white slice of the British isles to create an independent white homeland. In the United States there are a number of nationalists calling for the creation of an independent white homeland in the Pacific Nort-West out of the whitest states of the Union. Nationalists in the UK should advocate the break up of the multi-racial state and the creation of a white homeland within the British Isles for example in North-East England, one of the Whitest areas of England. This strategy is the most pragmatic dealing with the realities of the power of enemies and avoids the messy problems in removing millions of non-whites who have colonised vast swathes of Britain.
Wednesday 27 January 2010
Federalism: Neo-Aparthied
Another possible model for nationalists to adopt having rejected mass repatriation is to devolve greater power to local government. The English could have their own parliament like the Scots and Welsh but so could the Asian and the Blacks. They could be essentially self-governing in their affairs much like the Swiss Cantons or the US states prior to the war between the states. White Britons could then in theory preserve their heritage and promote their own well being.
This of course is a foolish option. Either the system would be run on similar lines to the US model in which an active federal government subsidises black failure in the South and non-whites are free to enter majority White States or we have an apartheid model which as in South Africa has proved unsustainable not to mention morally wrong as it implies denying political rights to non-whites. Federalism or Neo-Apartheid as I prefer to term it will not work, it might provide the illusion of reaching an acceptable compromise in the short-term but in the long term it will work against the interests of White Britons.
What else is left but secession?
This of course is a foolish option. Either the system would be run on similar lines to the US model in which an active federal government subsidises black failure in the South and non-whites are free to enter majority White States or we have an apartheid model which as in South Africa has proved unsustainable not to mention morally wrong as it implies denying political rights to non-whites. Federalism or Neo-Apartheid as I prefer to term it will not work, it might provide the illusion of reaching an acceptable compromise in the short-term but in the long term it will work against the interests of White Britons.
What else is left but secession?
Tuesday 19 January 2010
Repatriation: An Idea who's time has passed
For most nationalists the race problem can be quite easily solved through a policy of repatriation. Older Nationalists groups have advocated a policy of compulsory repatriation for all non-whites in Britain. This might have been appropriate in the sixties and seventies when the non-white population was small and mostly comprised of immigrants. They had chosen to immigrate despite the angry objection of the British people and it would have been perfectly fair to insist that the trespassers leave. Had such people been ejected there and then before they had put down roots it would have been just.
Today, however, there remains the big fact that a large bulk of the non-white population in Britain has actually been born in this country. They are not responsible for what their parents did and indeed their parents have probably lived in their new country for most of their lives. It is immoral to force non-whites who have lived in this country for 40 years to go 'home' when the unfortunate truth of the matter is their home is now Britain. For their children they know no other home.
Acknowledging this reality, many nationalists have advocated a policy of voluntary repatriation. By giving immigrants financial incentives the reasoning goes they will voluntarily leave to go live in the non-white 3rd world. Certainly some would take the cash and leave - an Indian or Chinese professional might well take the cash - but would an uneducated Pakistani or Somalian agree to leave the land of milk and honey for a land of poverty and corruption. For many non-whites the monetary reward of voluntary agreeing to go back to the old country would have to be greater than what they can expect to receive by staying put.
In order to truly persuade everyone to leave it would be the equivalent of atleast buying a house for each non-white family. It would run into many billions and be financially crippling for the White taxpayers who would have to finance it on top of the many other government services they are squezed to support. This is an estimate which assumes that the non-white population at today's level - It may be many years before a nationalist group assumes power and it would likely inherit a stagnant debt-ridden economy. 90% of the population paying for 10% to leave will be financially very painful. 60% of the population paying for the other 40% to leave would be simply impossible.
It would realistically take several generations to turn back the clock and during this time many things could happen. Whites would continue to demographic death spiral in the wake of supporting a massive non-white population. An 'anti-racist' faction might get back into power and re-open the borders spoiling the work of a decade in a few months.
The commitment to repatriation is not a policy advocated with any sense of realism. It is rather endemic of a nostalgic desire to turn back the clock and return to an age where the British Isles was 100% white. British whites cannot command the resources to persuade all non-whites to leave and to remove them all by force is morally unthinkable. A Nationalist movement must come to terms with the fact that they cannot turn back the clock and that the non-whites have made the British-Nation State as it presently exists is unviable. In future posts we will look at Federalism and Secession as viable alternative models to the current Nation-State.
Today, however, there remains the big fact that a large bulk of the non-white population in Britain has actually been born in this country. They are not responsible for what their parents did and indeed their parents have probably lived in their new country for most of their lives. It is immoral to force non-whites who have lived in this country for 40 years to go 'home' when the unfortunate truth of the matter is their home is now Britain. For their children they know no other home.
Acknowledging this reality, many nationalists have advocated a policy of voluntary repatriation. By giving immigrants financial incentives the reasoning goes they will voluntarily leave to go live in the non-white 3rd world. Certainly some would take the cash and leave - an Indian or Chinese professional might well take the cash - but would an uneducated Pakistani or Somalian agree to leave the land of milk and honey for a land of poverty and corruption. For many non-whites the monetary reward of voluntary agreeing to go back to the old country would have to be greater than what they can expect to receive by staying put.
In order to truly persuade everyone to leave it would be the equivalent of atleast buying a house for each non-white family. It would run into many billions and be financially crippling for the White taxpayers who would have to finance it on top of the many other government services they are squezed to support. This is an estimate which assumes that the non-white population at today's level - It may be many years before a nationalist group assumes power and it would likely inherit a stagnant debt-ridden economy. 90% of the population paying for 10% to leave will be financially very painful. 60% of the population paying for the other 40% to leave would be simply impossible.
It would realistically take several generations to turn back the clock and during this time many things could happen. Whites would continue to demographic death spiral in the wake of supporting a massive non-white population. An 'anti-racist' faction might get back into power and re-open the borders spoiling the work of a decade in a few months.
The commitment to repatriation is not a policy advocated with any sense of realism. It is rather endemic of a nostalgic desire to turn back the clock and return to an age where the British Isles was 100% white. British whites cannot command the resources to persuade all non-whites to leave and to remove them all by force is morally unthinkable. A Nationalist movement must come to terms with the fact that they cannot turn back the clock and that the non-whites have made the British-Nation State as it presently exists is unviable. In future posts we will look at Federalism and Secession as viable alternative models to the current Nation-State.
Friday 8 January 2010
Dealing with the Multi-Racial Society
In the United Kingdom today, and indeed all over the western world, there are the problems of large and growing non-white minorities which threaten the stability of our Western Civilisation and our political liberties. Assuming the NLF gained power how would the NLF deal with a Multi-Racial county. The NLF neither wants to promote integration, nor does it desire to exercise any supremacy over non-whites: both are equally undesirable. This leaves ultimately 3 possible solutions: Repatriation, Federalism and Secession. These will be considered in future posts.
Sunday 3 January 2010
BNP favours death penalty for victimless crimes
Just as I thought I was being a bit excessive in shining a light of the authoritarian character of the BNP, another article has been penned applauding the execution of a nominally 'British' drug mule in China.
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/12/china-shows-world-how-to-deal-with-drug-pushers/
One can of course give the BNP credit for their blunt honesty when the say:
"The Chinese government has shown the world how to deal with drug pushers by ignoring liberal bleating and executing convicted drug-smuggler Akmal Shaikh — a punishment which should be mandatory everywhere for that crime."
Certainly the BNP does make a valid point in asking why the British Media gave more coverage to a globe trotting Pakistani drug smuggler and in rubbishing the claims of mental illness. Funny how the Left suddenly discovers HBD whenever a convicted criminal is executed. Indeed why does Gordon Brown fly into a torrent of denouncement at someone so small fry as Akmal Shaikh and not the continued occupation of Tibet.
That said the judicial murder of Akmal Shaikh was an appalling crime and the BNP should be ashamed of itself for gloating over the death of a man who had committed a victimless crime. The NLF's policy is to legalise all currently proscribed substances and remove the chaotic black market in drugs which is the real cause of the drug problem.
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/12/china-shows-world-how-to-deal-with-drug-pushers/
One can of course give the BNP credit for their blunt honesty when the say:
"The Chinese government has shown the world how to deal with drug pushers by ignoring liberal bleating and executing convicted drug-smuggler Akmal Shaikh — a punishment which should be mandatory everywhere for that crime."
Certainly the BNP does make a valid point in asking why the British Media gave more coverage to a globe trotting Pakistani drug smuggler and in rubbishing the claims of mental illness. Funny how the Left suddenly discovers HBD whenever a convicted criminal is executed. Indeed why does Gordon Brown fly into a torrent of denouncement at someone so small fry as Akmal Shaikh and not the continued occupation of Tibet.
That said the judicial murder of Akmal Shaikh was an appalling crime and the BNP should be ashamed of itself for gloating over the death of a man who had committed a victimless crime. The NLF's policy is to legalise all currently proscribed substances and remove the chaotic black market in drugs which is the real cause of the drug problem.
Monday 28 December 2009
BNP and the Red Economy
Lee Barnes a leading BNP member has recently penned an article called the BNP and the Creative Economy. http://bnp.org.uk/2009/12/the-bnp-and-the-creative-economy/. In the article he comments approvingly on a report from the New Economics Foundation which argues that the British economy should not be governed by the laws of free market economics but rather by what he terms the social value of work i.e. the state should penalise financial occupations like accountants and reward low paid caring occupations like Child Care Workers.
Though the article states this is not policy, but merely a talking point. The fact that a leading member would be allowed to pen such an article certainly reflects what the BNP leadership is thinking about, that the free market is Bad and Government intervention is good. The major problem is that the British economy is not a genuine free market, but rather a highly cartelised and regulated corporate economy which receives massive subsidies from the state and protectionism in the form of intellectual and copyright law.
The accountant will be paid more than a child care worker because of the simple laws of supply and demand. There are fewer individuals possessing accountancy skills than there are individuals who would be able to look after a child. Now this pay differential is massively distorted by regulations which errect entry barriers to the accountacy trade in form of mandating credentials. Corporate CEO's similarily are allowed to get away with their massive wages, which are in effect a rent on the labour surplus provided by the Corporate employees, only because our heavily regulated corporate economy crowds out more efficent smaller buisnesses.
Lee Barnes searching amonst New Leftist publications for ideas suggests that the BNP is bereft of its own ideas. Ever since the New BNP emerged under Nick Griffin it has considered ideas in so far as they are easily marketable to an electorate. Nick Griffins dismal performance on Question Time a few months ago was partly as a result of the intellectual incoherence of the BNP's populist strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)