In a word: ethnic. In this primer I will set out a basic form of ethnic nationalism that British nationalists could create and promulgate so that we may yet make a philosophically and politically seriously assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power, as these now operate in our home. I will explain the great necessity but also the great difficulty of that task, and I will appeal to all nationalists to search their heart on the question, and to help in so much as they are able.
- Our people are dying by the hand of our own political class and the corporate and banking interests which they serve. It is, then, not a natural death, or an inevitable outcome of jet travel and the will of poor peoples around the world to improve their lives. It is not a political mistake, or an act of stupendous negligence. It is not a “pay-back” from history. It is a political assassination, and the assassins know precisely what they are doing, and want to do it. It is their chosen course for us. It is a true genocide by Article 2 (c) of the 1948 Convention, for which they confidently expect not to have to answer.
The two principal methods the assassins employ are:
- a) Endless, colonising and replacing migration of populations from elsewhere in the world.
- b) Psychological warfare, also known as culture war, on the natural role and character of Man and Woman, and on our ethnic person.
But beneath these lies an array of deep-seated causalities acting upon us from the history of events and from the history of ideas, the sum of which presses us to the inevitable conclusion that “a serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power” must mean a revolution on no mean scale. A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces. Many, and quite possibly all of them, have to be swept away, too.
The following chart of these forces, including those striving for control of the future of all humanity, supplies a relational form to them, be they historical or historiographical, or even futuristic! I am still astonished, when I gaze at the totality of it, at just how much harm for our precious people there is in this world. Heaven knows, there is room for some good.
In addition to them, the system prevailing in Britain today, which is liberal modernity, is buttressed by several other powerful factors, the greater part of which nationalists will be only too well aware. These vary from the lockstep behaviour of the legacy media to the closed nature of the two-party system, and from the adaptability and survival instinct, not to say duplicity, of the Conservative Party to the licence of the malign activist-left. Working peoples’ fear of debt … the tendency for a large majority of people to simply obey authority … the tendency of women to vote for “just getting along”, and possibly even for mate competition … difficulties abound. We have to overcome them all if we want our people to live.
2. Those corporate and banking interests mentioned above have themselves undergone a revolution of method and purpose. Global elitism has always been something of a hybrid endeavour but prior to the development of the internet in the early 1990s, and certainly prior to the Big Bang in 1986, the model was heavily Judaic in inspiration, with a debt-based, supra-nationalist programme. Today’s model, however, is futurist in inspiration, with a hard-asset based, 21st century technological programme. One can confirm for oneself this shift from one elitism into another by comparing the respective intellectual vigour and policy engagement of the World Economic Forum with, say, Bilberberg.
3. Effectively since 22nd October 2009, when Nick Griffin was defenestrated on the BBC’s Question Time, British nationalism has been conducted without an electorally functional party organisation, and the only real contender for a new one is being blocked out of hand by the Electoral Commission.
4. The movement as it existed from the 1950s failed not just organisationally, under the assault from the Establishment and the hard-left, but also ideologically. The dominant ideology of the movement, drawn from the fascist misreading of Friedrich Nietzsche and embroidered by counter-Judaic, anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic elements, and Catholic social thought, does not appeal to our people, and cannot be made to do so. It is another barrier, actually, and no basis for a popular revolution. This has to be recognised. It is the first step on the road.
5. Griffin’s attempt to brand the BNP as “ethno-nationalist”, and thereby escape the “fascist” label that had been effortlessly applied by the anti-racist left for decades, never involved intellectual substance. The reason is all too simple. There was no founding thought on ethnic nationalism that did not first exclude European-descended peoples from its aegis. Even the term “ethno-nationalism” was coined by a non-nationalist American academic, Walker Connor. Needless to say, Griffin’s label had no political effect whatsoever, but it did lead the nationalist horse to the ethno-nationalist pond, even if it was dry; and a certain thirst developed.
6. Today, in consequence of all that, while not a few older hands in the movement are still wedded to Bowdenesque thinking, the broad movement is now operating from raw instinct … from our nature as natives of a colonised land. Nativism, as it inheres in our demand for the life of our kind – amounts to one-third of ethnic nationalism’s true ideological range, as I’ll explain below. Of course, we need the whole thing.
7. British nationalism is the only life-line our people possess. We cannot go back ideologically. We cannot stay where we are. Ergo, we have to move forward and, together, create a real politics of ethnicity … a nationalism of the true peoples of the land, but this time including our land and our people.
What is a political movement anyway?
As a rule, serious socio-political movements, especially revolutionary movements, do not form around some inchoate popular cause and rise among the mass of uneducated people merely by the efforts of one or two firebrands. For example, with few exceptions the leading Chartists were publishers. In Wales the movement was guided by a solicitor. The fathers of the co-operative movement were men of substance and education. Even Keir Hardie, the sine qua non of the working-class political hero, was always a man apart from his fellow-miners; learning to read and write as a small child, then to write in shorthand, and finally attending night school. He yearned to put the physical labour of minework behind him, and by the age of 23 he had succeeded in doing so, working as a trade union organiser and preaching in church on a Sunday. The political class is necessarily drawn from the educated class; and, in so much as British society has had a meritocratic component for a hundred and fifty years, resulting in ever-growing social mobility, the educated class is substantially drawn from the middle-class. A movement today which does not trouble itself to speak to the middle-class will have to dine on very thin intellectual pickings (moreover, a movement focusing on ethnicity is doubly bound to see as one all the men of the tribe).
A political movement, then, may be defined as a body of concern articulated by a well-educated cadre to an instinctually-guided, less educated mass. In practise, one can readily distinguish five stages of articulation. They are:
a) Pure philosophy: the conceptualisation and communication of new and significant insights into the life of Man. For there to be a revolutionary politics, the pure philosophy must address an especially great and pressing question about the human experience arising from the times.
b) Political philosophy: the propositional application of those insights, and related principles and values, to the organisation of national life and the conduct of power therein.
c) Political analysis: the methodological interrogation and/or critique of the existing political system from the standpoint of the above political philosophy.
d) Policy-making: Practical and programmatic correctives to the existing political system, or aspects thereof, according to the above analysis.
e) Politics: The promotion of b ,c and d above and, perhaps, the popular acknowledgement of some or even all of each.
This chain of transmission is how historical change to the polity typically occurs. As a rule, the higher the intellectual antecedents extend, the more potential there will be for far-reaching change. Similarly, the more extreme and anti-natural the existing system has become, the more far-reaching can be that change. Conversely, the more historically established an existing system is, the more it will be resistant to change from without, and the more revolutionary will be the ambitions of those who desire it.
At this point, my question to you, dear reader, is: do we, as a movement, currently possess the kind of philosophical, ideological, and political heft that is required to meet nationalism’s appointment with history? I think the answer is clear. I think part of the solution is also clear.
What ethnic nationalism is, and is not
- Ethnic nationalism is a philosophy of ethnicity, and not the flimsy ethno-nationalism of the British Nationalist Party from the turn of the millennium.
- It is existential and Heidegerrian in its intellectual parentage, not moralist and Nietzschean, not idealist and Hegelian, not Catholic and economically distributist.
- It is new and unwritten in any formal, academic sense, and although its ontology and general structural form can be divined today, its detailed substance awaits the creative hand of the intellectually adventurous nationalist. It is not, therefore derived from fascism or National Socialism or Third Positionism. It is not the politics described as ethnic nationalism by post-war sociologists like Gellner, Anderson, or Smith, or artistes like Goodwin and Hazony in the present-day.
- It is exclusively ethnic and, therefore, universal to all peoples, not race- or class-based, not social or civic. Its universalism is the universalism of the truly human and gloriously diverse. It is the universal gift of Man’s evolution.
- It is naturalistic in its fundamentals, not socially-constructed, not a work of ambition or fantasy. It is not an order to the youth to be martial and heroic and pursue the life of glory. It knows that the water that is in the rocks will flow regardless, and such heroism that might flow with it will do so likewise at its due time. At that and every other time it will commend what is ownmost and true, and never a whit more.
- It is authenticising in a coming age, if the technocrats have their way, of frightening human artifice. So it privileges nature and proffers nature’s dignity where the tech boys proffer the hive mind.
- It is essentialist and identitarian. It does not dictate identity, or even describe it. It privileges the experience of it.
- Likewise, it is structurally emergent. It does not require authoritarian imposition on the people. It opens their own path to this precious estate of living freely and out of their nature and consciousness, and implicitly trusts their footing.
- It is, accordingly, liberational. It speaks of that awakening which all nationalists know as the gateway to their Weltanschauung. Its one human right is the only one contingent on Nature, which is the absolute right of peoples to defend their life (derived from Nature’s sole imperative to transmit genes for fitness unto the morrow, in the teeth of Time and Entropy).
- Being a nationalism of ethnicity it is differentiating and discriminating, and does not brook a single loss to the Other.
- It is nativist and defensive in posture, not imperialist and aggressive. It offers respect to other nations, and demands the same in return. It commends the people’s natural love of the land of their arising, and their singular claim to it.
- It is cohering of all the interests among the people, as all true nationalisms must be. For the people are a single organism in place and time, famously and quite properly described by George Orwell as “an everlasting animal stretching into the future and the past”. Such we are and such we must remain.
- It is radical. Like all forms of nationalism, it stands outside liberalism and against liberalism, and all the things of liberalism. It is a hostile competitor to it. It has no derivation from within liberal thought, and it does not occupy a place on either of the liberal ideational axes. It has its own place between pure nativism and tradition on the axis of the European nationalisms.
- Confident in the creative talents of the people, it is conceptually positive and optimistic in its philosophical framing and its political offer. It is not reactionary. It is not pessimistic in the Spenglerian sense.
- Its ultimate gift is a future upon which the people may freely assert themselves and destine, making what they will of it by their own hand and howsoever they may.
If we succeed in the mission of making it whole and taking it to our people it must form the basis of a new and total system enworlded for future generations. This is, therefore, a vast undertaking intellectually and practically, with the highest imaginable import for everyone in this country, actually.
Let us do the work together of making it our political reality, and a reality, therefore, of the forced decision taken by Griffin and Co all those years ago. It is time for us to have a philosophy of our people’s particular being and identity and a politics of our very claim on life.
As to what ethnic nationalism might look like on paper, well, we are still some way short of setting that out, even provisionally. For my part, frustratingly abstract for some as it is liable to be, I’m working onward from the ontology to the basis for a structure of parts and principles and processes. The principles, which I won’t set out in detail now, are currently looking like this table below, and there is a link in the text above to an article at my site introducing this:
I do not know whether this little table will last. It’s quite an abstract presentation. It has no explanatory text. It is a tentative gesture, like everything I am doing. It could be replaced tomorrow if a better formulation arises. It’s just one table. But that isn’t the point. It exists. It’s already an advance on all the deceitful and wrong collective work of the liberal academics who have gone before, none of whom will speak of our blood and our eternal place in this world, or our absolute right in Nature … the right common to all peoples under existential attack … to defend both of these.
Yes, we can shout from the rooftops about that right. But moving the historical wheel takes much more than that. It takes foundational thought, and it takes everything that then flows from that. It is the work of not one mind or ten or twenty, but of thousands. It is the work of everyone who, by their own cognitive processes, takes ownership of what will, in time, take ownership of them.
When I survey this movement, I sense an almost feverish desire to make common cause … to cooperate on projects … to be doing something. It is understandable, no doubt, and brave and admirable too. But it is not nearly enough, as I have sought to explain. Political activism is a downstream phenomenon. It will go to waste if we never attend to the great void which exists where philosophy, be it pure or political, should be. Neither is anything that past generations of British nationalists have claimed as philosophy remotely adequate to this task. They never even imagined that Power would be talking about the obscenities it talks about today. We are in a new world hurtling towards another, still more uncertain and threatening, and perhaps only a decade away.
The point is, you and you and you are the only ones who can do anything about it. So what do you think?