by Michael Kennedy
Anti racist is a code word for anti-white.
The importance of a clear message
The most effective propaganda is simple propaganda. An
activist must compete with a thousand voices in the media for the scant
attention of people, and it takes a considerable quantity effort to get
anything more than a simple slogan or basic message across to people in a
manner where it sticks. As much as self styled intellectuals might
sneer at the simplistic sloganeering of mainstream parties, as sad a
reflection of the world as this is, this is nevertheless the political
reality we have to deal with. One simply cannot afford to have a message
which must be explained, which is incomplete or which doesn’t
encapsulate the very point one wants to get across.
The multiracial experiment which gained momentum during
this culture culture revolution has placed white people in a
predicament. White people face the choice of continuing the path of
multi-racialism and essentially condoning and practicing genocide
against our race, or to be firm and defend our races right to exist.
Organisations such as Nationalist Alternative exist with a specific aim,
and a core goal, which is to ensure that White people in Australia, and
also around the world are able to safeguard their future against
assimilation, a force which would essentially end up with the removal of
Whites from humanity.
For many Nationalist groups around the world, there is
an understanding, and a desire to end what is essentially a program of
Genocide against whites through forced multi-racialism and assimilation.
Throughout Europe, a continent where the indigenous Europeans are
waking up to the fact their own survival is at state, Nationalist
parties of varying descriptions are coming up and gaining support of
people who at some level wish to preserve their own racial and cultural
identity.
There is no rational or acceptable basis for one to
argue against a race of people wishing to preserve their race. No one,
quite literally no one, can in this day and age argue against a race of
people wanting to preserve themselves and still be considered as having
an acceptable position.
So why do some Nationalist groups seem to be having such a hard time of it? Why does White Nationalism flounder?
Getting off message.
When
I read the web page of a “populist” Nationalist party such as the BNP,
or hear of France’s Front nationals position, I find it hard to find the
message in amongst the myriad of issues. The BNP for instance, spend
much time focusing on the Islamification of Britain, and addressing this
as a problem. Not that Islamification of a European nation is not a
problem, but when one looks at groups such as the BNP or the English
Defence League (EDL), it appears to me that the purpose of the group is
to deal with issues caused by immigration. This may not be what they
mean. Many of their members may mean to say “We want to
preserve the White British race”, but this is not the message they put
out. For those who aren’t ‘in the know’, this would be the only message
they get.
So one sees the EDL protesting against Islam, and
reaches a conclusion that the EDL’s purpose is as protest against Islam.
So much so that Jews, normally shy of White Nationalist groups would
lend support to the EDL, and the EDL vice versa. Clearly the EDL, if
their intention was ever to protect the British people, are failing
here. The BNP, despite gaining some popularity in the polls, though
nothing spectacular, are also set to fail, though no doubt have achieved
a degree of success so far, in so far as they have challenged
multi-racialism and raised the profile of important issues facing
Britain.
Another example is National Anarchism, a movement which
supposedly is about protecting the white race, but says everything but
that. It is for protecting the races, the cultures of the world. One can
protect races, without protecting the white race.
If these groups were ever about protecting Whites in
Britain, it is difficult to determine whether they are that now. They
are becoming today’s equivalent of the feminists of the 60′s, yelling
one thing while meaning another. Much like the feminists of the 60′s,
they will get what they asked for, but not what they wanted.
Many of the feminists of the 60′s, some of whom would
have been of the Marxist “smash the West” variety, in an attempt to
subvert the family, one of the basic building blocks of Western society,
called upon women to leave the home and take on a career. They called
on women to become men, financially liberated and independent. Now
however, in the 2010′s, feminists of the Marxist “smash the West”
variety are lamenting this new found individualism. As expected, the
emancipation of women from the home and into the workforce was a boon
for Capitalists. From the feminism of the 60′s emerged the new 21st
century woman. Independent, career driven, a consumer of goods, an
individual who’s identity is shaped on their choice of consumption. The
very model of the atomic, cosmopolitan, rootless, hollow, vacuous
consumer. An industrial product. For the modern feminist, this poses a
dilemma. Women had been ‘liberated’ from being a housewife and mother,
and had become a tool of consumer capitalism. The socialist collective
and Marxist awakening did not come about. Women weren’t supposed to end
up this way.
Where did this go wrong? The answer is quite simple. The goal
of the counter culture movement, of which feminism was a tool wasn’t
just getting women into the clutches of business, but to change the
social order. But this is not what they said. Feminists said women should find careers but many meant
they should change the social order and challenge Western paradigms and
the dominant culture. The issue isn’t that 60′s revolutionary feminism
failed by their standards, but that it worked exactly the way they said to others it should. But what they said they didn’t really mean.
One must be careful with what they wish for.
This is the danger with populist “mainstream”
Nationalist groups, and why any white person who is even half serious
about the very grave threat that the multi-racialist program is against
whites, should proceed with populist groups with caution.
This is not to say that populist groups have been
failures, or have been taking the wrong approach. One cannot discard the
fact that populist groups in Europe have had success, and that this
success is nothing to be sneered at. Bringing masses of people to their
causes has advanced ours, and enlarged our audience. Indeed, it is
better to have a populist party with a strategy with room for
improvement, than nothing at all. White people owe much to these
organisations.
Multiculturalism is dead.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel described
multiculturalism as a failure. Throughout Europe, the fact that this
Liberal idea, like most other Liberal ideas is a failure is becoming
more and more acknowledged. Focus is moving away from trying to become
more multicultural to simply trying to make it ‘work’, which just
focuses the anti-white efforts onto trying to assimilate out White
people and culture, something they were going to do anyway.
Multiculturalism is a lame duck. As a philosophy, it
cannot survive. It is naïve to think that a race of people will blindly
destroy themselves without a fight, or that the conditions which made it
possible, will continue indefinitely. The fact that the Left must,
through the use of force and violence consistently and relentlessly
oppose, suppress and destroy any opposition is testament to the fact
that the idea, if allowed to stand on its own, would be rejected. In
countries like Greece, where its citizens are facing a financial
depression, it is hard for people to accept, welcome and embrace further
non-whites. It makes no sense to try and import people to become
multiracial, when those already there are struggling. Throughout Europe,
the artificial financial boom which gave the impression of abundance
for all, and for all the third world who wanted to immigrate has ended,
and so to is the tolerance for multiculturalism. The “Far Right” are
ascending, and it is due to the failure of the Left to realise that a
program to destroy whites, funded by the whites they are trying to
destroy, wouldn’t last.
For the Liberals and the centrist parties however, this
merely changes the face of the problem. Nationalist groups such as the
Front national may have about 20% of Frances support, but during the
2012 election campaign they were finding that the centrist Sarkozy was
adopting their anti immigration sentiment, primarily in an attempt to
diffuse the Front nationals message, and render them politically
irrelevant. A similar phenomenon happened when Pauline Hanson’s One
Nation party made waves in Australian politics. One Nation, a “civic
nationalist” party attracted many supporters who saw One Nation as a
voice against racial and cultural destruction. But One Nation concerned
itself more with integration, with neo-liberal ideals of what a nation
is. It concerned itself with refugees and a ‘fair go’ for Australians.
Its message was confused, to the point where White men with Asian wives
thought the party represented their interests, and the party itself
never drawing a line in the sand. One Nation still posed a threat to the
Liberal – Labour duopoly, and to the Liberal and Labor parties shared
interests, of which are many.
Dealing with One Nation wasn’t difficult for the major
parties though. The “right of centre” Liberals, led by John Howard
simply turned up their “Nationalist” rhetoric a notch or two. They took
One Nation’s thunder, or tried to, thereby denying One Nation of their
political niche. In the 2012 presidential elections in France, Sarkozy
was forced to play a similar hand. By ramping up rhetoric about
immigration and its issues, he sought to take voters from Front
national. It was easy after all, because a Nationalist party which
focuses on integration issues, on crime, on the vagaries of Islamic
culture, on refugees is setting itself up for irrelevance. In some ways,
this can be seen as a success, in that it forces the mainstream parties
to adopt our ideas and sentiment, but meeting them in the middle mean
meeting them in what is most likely the wrong place. What is worse
though, much worse, is that they are setting the White race up for
failure.
For if a party’s rhetoric is on integration issues,
crime, culture differences, respect of “our” culture and the like, then
it is easy, very easy for a centrist party to co-opt and adopt this
rhetoric as their own. Complaints about crime can be adopted by a
mainstream centrist party and morphed into a policy to increase law
enforcement and expand police powers. Complaints about integration can
be adopted and changed into policies which push harder for immigrants to
adapt, into more money being spent on education and immigrant services.
Complaints about cultural differences can be adopted and morphed into
policies about greater education.
If a group such as the BNP win support in opposing
Islam, then the great danger to the British people, is that they will
get exactly what they ask for and have a government which is committed
to stopping Islamification. But this could very will end up being
education and harsher restrictions on Muslims, or further integration
into Britain, solutions which do not necessarily do anything to protect
White Britain. Australians who wanted greater border control with regard
to refugees, got their very wish with Howard, as he expanded
Australia’s immigration levels to unsustainable levels and brought in
the 457′s by the plane load from India. Many Australian’s meant to say
they were concerned about immigration, but the rhetoric was against
refugees, and against illegal immigration, so Howard was tough on
refugees, and ensured that immigration which happened was legal, and
there was certainly plenty of it. The media of course, was complicit in
funnelling Australia’s opposition to mass immigration into a limited
refugee issue, and still to this day is doing exactly that.
Nationalist groups which wish to preserve the race of
the nation simply cannot afford to adopt, as their primary goal and
purpose, rhetoric which can be taken and adapted by a mainstream,
neo-liberal party. If one just adopts a mainstream cause, and simply
takes a more extreme position, then one could only ever be a poor
imitation of the well funded and established political organisations,
and this is how they will be seen by most. This will end up being a
fatal error, and the ability of white people to protect their racial
future rests in Nationalists groups getting it right. A Nationalist
group must find a niche which no other group can intrude on. A
Nationalist group must adopt rhetoric which no anti-white group can
adopt, even in part.
It is possible to adopt a ‘close the borders’ position
and water it down. It is possible to adopt a ‘stop the refugees’
position and water it down. It is possible to adopt a “they don’t
assimilate” position and water it down. It is possible to adopt these,
and still continue with a program which removes the white race. The
issue really isn’t even whether the issues are watered down or
‘trimmed’. The issue is that Nationalists are predicating the moral
justification for the preservation of our race on these other issues.
All these positions are just as coherent in part as they are in whole.
They make just as much sense when moved along political lines as they do
in their point of origin. They can be changed, chopped and morphed.
They are not absolute, and for those who are wondering what is to become
of the European race, they are not really the point.
Sticking to the point.
A simple message is an effective message. Nationalists
need not be complex in their message, need not conflate various issues
or rest the justification for the protection of our race on whether
colonialism was really that bad or whether IQ differences exist between
races. For a nationalist group which seeks to preserve their nation, in
the traditional sense, they must find a simple, clear, concise message
which says exactly what they want to say. One that says exactly what
White people need to say.
Lets say the BNP decided to focus on a message, and lets
say that message was “We the BNP are an organisation against the
destruction of the British race”. There would be no ambiguity at all
about what the BNP stood for! Lets say, further to this, that when the
BNP spoke, they primarily spoke against the program of genocide against
Whites, and stated that their goal is to promote the preservation of
White Britons. Yes, they may very well discuss issues with refugees,
Eastern European immigration, Islamification and the like, as issues of
concern. But what if they stated, from the outset, that this racial
preservation was their purpose? What if people supported the BNP for
this reason?
What could a centrist party possible hope to do against
the BNP in such a situation? How can it be possible to adopt such a
sentiment, and water it down to the point ineffectiveness? How could the
Tories adopt, even in part such rhetoric? To adopt any of it, is to
admit to it, and it is something which anti-whites could never admit to,
that there is an existential threat to the white race through Liberal
policies. This would give an organisation like the BNP a much needed
advantage, a total moral monopoly over an issue which when discussed
correctly, with discipline, has such a stark moral imperative that one
cannot rationally oppose it.
Here is the difficulty. Keeping your message pure, and
keeping to the point, and never losing focus of the argument. For
Nationalists, this is critical for success when faced with an opposition
that will throw a thousand different arguments, from slavery to
colonialism to the holocaust to the economy to refugees to anything else
they might think of. None of these arguments warrant their program of
destroying White nations, but they are effective in distracting the
racialist Nationalist, in throwing the argument off track.
With Islamification, immigration numbers, refugees,
there are many shades of grey, many degrees and outcomes, and many
positions which can mean the same thing. There are compromises and
alternatives. But, if one was to state their position, in black and
white, as being one for the preservation of their race, how can one
adopt a lighter shade of this grey? If the Front national was to say “We
are for preserving the French race”, how could one hope to adopt this
sentiment and water it down? Immigration policy then becomes secondary
to protecting the white race, and discussion about immigration can then
be forced into the context of whether immigration is a mortal threat to
the existence of the French race or not.
Liberals ridicule such discussion, more so than
discussion about immigration and crime, but only because empty,
meaningless ridicule is the only thing they have.
A stark moral position is what Nationalists need. One
where there is only ‘for’ or ‘against’ and most importantly, one which
unambiguously states the true desire, the true intention of those
pushing the message. After all, ending what essentially is a program of
genocide can in no reasonable way be construed as evil, as wrong. One
can say that it is, but such a position cannot stand up to any scrutiny.
Many will most definitely try to attack those who want
to preserve their race, and the Left and “Respectable” Conservatives go
ballistic at statements such as “anti-racist a code word for
anti-white”, but only because they cannot deal with it. Racial self
preservation is a moral imperative, just, honourable and reasonable. It
is no less a moral imperative than self preservation. Taking a more
mainstream rhetoric may appease those who are anti-white, but appeasing
your enemies is rarely effective in defeating them. Anyone who opposes a
race of people preserving themselves is assuredly going to face a hard
time justifying such a position, even though initially they can rely on
censorship and standard Leftist theatrics of indignation, horror, denial
and disgust.
If you are an organisation which has as a principal, the
preservation of your race, and you are witnessing people who engage in
mixed race relationships turn up to support you, then you’re doing
something wrong. If you are in such an organisation, and people join up
thinking that having integration or assimilation with an Asian nation is
the way forward, you are doing something wrong.
The impulse to be more ‘mainstream’ is a deadly one. We
cannot possibly hope to win, trying to mimic the rhetoric of the
mainstream, but ‘cranked up’ a bit more. It would either render us
obsolete or as nothing more than a low rent, poor man’s version of a
mainstream party. Even worse, if we were to have a victory, it could
lead to a victory we don’t want, one where it is still acceptable to be
anti-white, but where borders are controlled tighter and sharia law is
not permitted.
The future of White preservationists is in steering the
growing masses of people disillusioned with multi-racialism, with
traitorous governments and Liberalism and Left Wing ideology eroding
their culture and heritage and seeking to eradicate them from the pages
of history towards a clear statement. Nationalist groups have had
success in reining these disenfranchised, disinherited people and
mobilising them, putting bodies on the streets and being noticed by the
establishment worldwide. While this stage of our struggle may have been
conducted differently, we must ensure that as we enter this new phase,
where the failures of multiculturalism are being dealt with, that we
shape our political future in a way which is amenable to what we want to
achieve.
We must demand, and force, first and foremost the
recognition that Liberal multiculturalism is incompatible with the the
continued existence of European peoples, and that statements of
multiculturalism, and the ideology of pluralism, diversity and the like
which goes with it, are statements against white people. When
nationalist groups make this statement loud and clear, then all other
nationalist issues, immigration, outsourcing, globalism and the like
will take on a new context. A necessary move to ensure that our primary
goals are achieved.
