Libertarianism 3. Objectivism

Ayn Rand began the first part of her life as a romantic novelist in which she portrayed her ideal man struggling against inferior men who tried to pull down what the hero had created. Although it is not the place to discuss the literary merits of her books, the Hero's were flawless, whilst their adversaries were pitiful, envy filled wretches who conspired to tear down the heroes.

The theme of her final Novel Atlas Shrugged can be seen as a romanticisation of Big Business. In the plot the hero's had achieved their coal, steel or railroad fortunes through hard work and business acumen, but were constantly being strangled by the machinations of politicians and lesser men. Their solution was to go on strike against world and without their genius watch civilisation slowly disintegrate around them without their help.

This theme of selfish individualism was carried forward into the philosophy known as objectivism, which glorified Big Business as the highest achievement of freedom and encouraged its adherents to drop any collective identities they held and adopt a purely individualistic identity. It is comically ironic that a movement that prided itself on its individualism took on all the trappings of a cult. For those interested in a blow by blow demolition of Ayn Rand’s work I suggest they read the book Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature available to read free on the Web.

Sadly though despite the fact that her philosophy does not stand up to scrutiny it was very influential on the libertarian movement, with her fiction and philosophy enjoying a wide audience. Whilst it would be wrong to label all libertarians as fanatical Randroids, many have been clearly influenced by her advocacy of rootless individualism to the point where many Libertarians defend Big Business, despite its close ties with the state and embrace an individualism clearly at odds with social reality. Hence the almost dogmatic insistence of the virtues of open borders despite the fact that by opening ones borders they would destroy what is left of the free society they hope to preserve.

Libertarianism 2. Jewish Origins

The two intellectuals who can be said to have revived classical liberalism in the second half of the twentieth century were Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises. The new name for this political renaisance was libertarianism - as liberalism by the mid-twentieth century had been corrupted beyond meaning. Although there were many points of difference in how Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises arrived at their political conclusions they shared a similar background. Both were European Jews who fled to America to escape totalitarian regimes in their respective countries. Ayn Rand was born in St Petersburg in 1905 witnessed the Russian revolution as a teenager and lived under the Soviet Regime until 1925. Ludwig Von Mises was born in 1881 in Austria, and after spending several years in Switzerland he sought refuge in America in 1940 fearing that the Nazi’s had designs on Switzerland.

From a nationalist perspective the fact that the two founders of the modern libertarian movement were Jewish can partly explain why the Libertarian movement has paid little attention to contemporary questions of race and identity and referred to sentiments of group loyalty as collectivism. In a political movement which prised individualism and defended individual rights to be labelled as a collectivist was tantamount to being labelled as a heretic.

The NLF does not indulge in grand anti-Semitic conspiracy theories but neither is it blind to the fact that Jews have played a disproportionate role in radical intellectual movements that have undermined racial and ethnic identity. As a diaspora community the Jewish community has suffered persecution from the dominant ethnic group in the nation. By advancing political ideologies that would have a tendency to undermine racial identities and loyalties Jews could feel more secure from persecution. Libertarianism whilst a welcome departure from the emerging consensus in favour of state activism contributed to this weaking of identity by advancing the notion that America, and by extension the West were propositional nations. For such libertarians it does not matter whether whites are replaced by non-whites, just so long as libertarian values endure. (The NLF on the other hand argues that not only does it matter that whites should endure for their own sake, but that if whites were replaced by non-whites such a nation would be one where libertarian values have no chance of being respected.)

As a further note the NLF would also point out at the initial ideological foundation work of libertarianism took place after the second world war and before the beginning of mass non-white immigration, when the Whites were not threatened with becoming minorities in their own countries and when states generally enforced segregation between races. The dominant issue for the Right before the 1960s was not race, but communism. In such a context it is also not surprising that the libertarian movemement never paid much attention to race, and when it did it largely repeated the emerging egalitarian consensus on race.

Propaganda of the Deed - Channel Protests

As I write an obscure Marxist-Anarchist group called 'No Borders' has assembled in Calais and are threatening to storm the Channel Tunnel in support of illegal migrants. This obscure group who would have otherwise been ignored by the media have pulled off what is known as the propaganda of the deed. With limited resources and little hope of influencing the political process through traditional methods open to mainstream political parties they have adopted a strategy of confrontation. The tension created by the threat of a confrontation between the anarchists and the police has caused a hostile media to flock to Calais and report on this obscure movement and unwittingly act as a conduit through which ‘No Borders’ can spread its propaganda and hopefully gain more activists as a result.

An obvious move for a Nationalists movement which wanted to raise the problem of illegal immigration and raise the profile of the movement would be to organise a counter-protest. This would not require a great deal of money or numbers, but rather a few dozen activists and the tickets to get to Calais. They would attempt to block the anarchists from storming the Channel Tunnel; the anarchists like all Marxists when confronted with nationalists would then attempt to break up the nationalist protests by force if necessary. This stand-off would be covered in the mainstream media and generate immense amounts of publicity for the nationalist group.

This is the kind of activism that the National Libertarian Front advocates, an activism that can generate mass publicity in return for a small investment that can realisticaly be met.

Libertarianism 1. A primer

Before I evaluate the various strands of the libertarian movement with a specific emphasis on the British movement, it behoves me to talk briefly to non-libertarians on libertarians.

A libertarian can best be summed up as a person who opposes coercion in human affairs and believes man should be free to make their own decisions so long as these decisions do not involve using physical force to infringe the rights of another person. In a political sense it believes in individual rights namely the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property and defends the free market. It holds a kinship with classical liberalism which was dominant in the west in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

A person who agrees that a society which maximised freedom and minimised coercion would be a just and desirable one would be classed as a libertarian, yet despite a unity on a desirable end their is a great devil in the details of realising these ends. The Libertarian movement is thus somewhat similar to the various marxist factions with their stalinist, trotskyist, fabian and anarchist wings. For instance an important division between libertarians is between minarchists who believe in a state limited to the protection of individual rights and anarchists who believe individual rights can be protected only through the abolition of the state. Therefore there is a great diversity of opinion within the libertarian camp over what issues are important and what should be done about them.

The BNP 6. Reform Impossible

It could be argued that the faults of the BNP highlighted by this Blog can be corrected. A new untainted leader could be elected who could initiate a series of reforms jettisoning its socialistic ideology in favour of genuinely free markets, tighten security and restore direct action to raise the profile of the party. This is a virtual impossibility.

The BNP's written and unwritten constitution is structured to allow members little or no say in the direction of the party. Whilst this prevents the party being infiltrated by enemies who would use their membership to derail the party it makes it very difficult for sincere members to change the direction of the party. In a party where power is vested at the top and the leader is given dictatorial powers, anybody who wishes to gain influence within the party must display loyalty to the leader and support his actions.

In the case of Nick Griffin he used his dictatorial powers to first purge the party of Tyndalite supporters, but then more ominously of moderates who had no links whatsover with the old BNP and who had contributed a great deal to the party's recent success. Their criticism of Nick Griffin's continued support of the odious Mark Collett, resulted in the expulsion of some of the best nationalist talent. These were not neo-nazi's who secretly paraded around in home-made storm trooper uniforms, but ordinary local people who he considered a threat to his leadership of the party.

If Mr Griffin were unselfish and looked to the best interests of the party he would have seen that he would need to step down and allow another leader to take his place, but being at the top of the BNP bureaucracy is lucrative, even more so now that he is an MEP. And there is little chance of Nick Griffin with his pariah status firmly enmeshed in the minds of the media of ever holding down a decent job, outside of nationalist politics. His desire to keep himself in the manner to which he has become accustomed meant that he came down hard on the moderates who he rightly believed were a threat to his hold on the party.

Nick Griffin's power over the BNP is absolute, there is no potential for changing the BNP's leadership and policies. The BNP, whether by design or coincidence, acts as safety valve to channel patriotic energies into a dead end.

The BNP 5. Infiltrated

The BNP itself has a poor record of protecting its members from persecution at the hands of the state. In 2007 a journalist infiltrated the BNP and after only a few months was given access to the supposedly confidential list of members in the central London area. The result was the outing and subsequent repression of individuals such as Simone Clarke who had her life turned upside for having engaged in no activism apart from payment of her membership dues.

One would have thought plugging any potential security leaks would be a priority for a political party where its known activists are openly persecuted for the views. However, at the end of 2008 the entire partly list, with addresses, phone numbers and occupation details fell into the hands of the media. Some members, including serving police officers were suspended as a result.

The BNP, is a dissident organisation that the ruling class aside from smearing and defamation resorts to fierce repression often in the form of applying pressure to get them fired from their occupations. The BNP takes the official attitude, as witnessed by its published writings, applaud the stoicism of its persecuted activists and argues this inadvertently gives them publicity. Whilst one can only admire those who unflinchingly declare their beliefs in public in full knowledge of the repression. By being negligent on the crucial aspect of security, it allows the Ruling Class to periodicly round up and destroy the nationalist opposition. The BNP might obtain some sympathisers as a result but they will remain sympathisers as they will be unwilling to put their livliehoods at risk and engage in activism.

The BNP 4. Activism - The Quiet Revolution

When Nick Griffin assumed leadership of the BNP in a bid to be seen as respectable he abandoned the struggle for the streets and banned marches arguing that they gave the BNP a thuggish image, were a waste of time and turned people away from the party.

The NLF views this as a serious mistake as marches generated immense publicity and propaganda for nationalist parties. Nationalist parties such as the BNP and National Front would plan a march and on the day they would be greeted by the far-left which would attempt to violently disrupt the march and prevent it from going ahead. The chaos caused by the March would break the media silence as the film crews and journalists would rush to the scene to report on the events unfolding. Unwittingly the media would be assisting the nationalism in engaging in the propaganda of the deed.

For example the BNP first became prominent in 1989 following a March in Dewsbury, in which there presence sparked the Asian community to riot. Judged on grounds of economy the BNP gained a massive amount of publicity for such a small expense.

A nationalist party will never be treated fairly by the media or the rest of the political system, so the BNP by refusing to engage in activism out of the box like demonstrations dooms itself to failure. The NLF believes the political struggle cannot be waged by purely electoral means alone but must participate in the struggle to regain the streets.

The BNP 3. Anti-Capitalist Ideology

The major libertarian objection (and of anyone who holds a remotely free-market position) is the socialistic attitude to the BNP with regard to the economy. It's trumpeted policies of economic nationalism are recipes for autarky with the result of establishing a fortress Britain. Britain has always been a trading nation and owes its golden age to the period of relative laisez-faire of the eighteenth and nineteenth century seems to be lost on the policy makers of the BNP, who eagerly prophecies the fall of international capitalism through some combination of peak oil and collapse of the financial system. Presumably Nick Griffin has simply updated the tired old cliche that 'capitalism' is doomed to collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions, resulting in some kind of pre-industrial village idyll like the Shire out of the Lord of the Rings.

The NLF is not a friend of 'big business' in the form of the corporation which if why the NLF advocates the smashing up of Corporations by removing the privileged legal status they hold which have enabled them to dominate the British economy. The NLF would also end the manipulation of the pound for political purposes and return it to the gold standard and so end the economic cycles of boom and bust. The idea that the BNP's policy prescription of protectionism, subsidies, nationalism and state planning will result in prosperity is false.

On a side note the NLF advocates a practical idealism with regard to realising a libertarian society. It argues for a homogeneous nation-state that is low-taxed and regulated but still provides the essential pillars of the welfare state, social security, health care and education - though using libertarian ingenuity to restructure the incentives to deliver such welfare more efficiently and at less expense. The NLF has no time for the type of libertarians who reduce libertarianism to dogmatic absurdity such as those who repeat the mantra of open borders.

The BNP 2. The Tainted Past

It is clear to any honest observer that following the new leadership under Nick Griffin, the party has changed. It has jettisoned its national socialist past under John Tyndall and embraced a liberal democratic form of white nationalism jettisoning anti-semitism and authoritarianism. However, regardless of what positive changes has been made the BNP remains tainted with its past as a party of national socialism. Indeed its leader Nick Griffin is on record for denying the Holocaust. Nick Griffin may well have genuinely changed his position in the 10 or 20 years since but this does not matter - his credibility is irreparably damaged and with his continuing tolerance of men such as Mark Collett. Most normal people, this author included, find the Nazi's reprehensible, believe the Holocaust happened and are justifiably proud of the role Britain played in defeating Hitler.

If the leadership of nationalism continues to be dominated by ex neo-nazi's ordinary people will continue to turn away from the BNP and also allow important issues of race, immigration and identity to be tainted by association.

The BNP 1. Reflections on the European Elections

As I write many nationalists are celebrating the fact that the BNP has secured itself their first seats in the European Parliament. It has been said that the BNP is now a force to be reckoned with. But despite the predictable hysteria of the media there has been no considerable upsurge in BNP support, rather the seats were gained because of the collapse of the labour vote. With the expenses scandal and the recession the BNP should have been well placed to capitalise upon this but it didn't. Rather the BNP has hit a glass ceiling. In my next series of posts I will analyse, just what is wrong with the BNP, why it cannot be reformed and why a new movement is desperately needed.

The Corporate Revolution – How corporatisation of the economy allowed leukophobia to achieve hegemony.

The Multi-racialist meme is not something that has emerged from the grass-roots but rather is something that has been imposed upon us from above by the ruling class, which has been able to do that due to the corporatisation of economic life. When I refer to the ruling class, I refer to a loose coalition of individuals from the media, academia and the corporate and public sector who draw power, wealth and status from a large and intrusive state. It is from such people that the utopia agenda of multicultural agenda is pushed on the masses because whilst the utopia dream will never be realised because it contradicts with human nature, the appearance of it can be maintained only through an increasingly totalitarian police state: something which clearly benefits our ruling class in terms of wealth, power and status for its individual members.

This ruling class has broadly succeeded in imposing its hegemonic ideology of leukophobic multiculturalism and achieved what is in effect a cultural revolution turning a proud, free and healthy people into an enslaved, dying people taught to be ashamed of the deeds of their ancestors and taught that there only hope of salvation is to embrace the holy trinity of diversity, equality and multiculturalism.

Having identified that the cause of our current malaise lies with our ruling class the question must be answered how did this state of affairs come about? At this stage the anti-Semites who unfortunately infest the nationalist movement would crawl out of the wood works and claim this is the result of some secret jewish conspiracy against the White race. Such crazy ideas have been decisively discredited by Ian Joblings article “Did the Jews do it?” but once discredited a better theory must be put in its place. Ian Jobling has written extensively about how humans are motivated by self-interest and the desire to obtain status and this helps explain why the myth of racial egalitarianism persists to this day in the face of massive evidence of its failure. Much has been written on the influence of the intellectuals as the high priests of the leukophobic dogmas but there has been no satisfactory explanation as to how the Leukophobic meme has managed to spread like a wildfire from the ivory towers of academia to the rest of the society.

The traditional nationalist explanation is that the people have been brainwashed by Hollywood and the rest of the media usually finding a scapegoat in the ethnic group disproportionately represented amongst them. But despite the well documented leukophobic propaganda that is fed into Britain’s living rooms every day via the media, the average white remains stubbornly conservative in his outlook. Any analysis of polling data would show that on issues of immigration, crime and affirmative action majorities continue to exist in favour of pro-white policies. Similarly any viable political candidate who stands for office and campaigns on implicitly pro-white issues usually commands immense popular support. Even the horribly tainted David Duke managed to get elected to the Louisiana state congress by campaigning against crime and affirmative action. Pro-white sentiments continue to exist even though the ruling classes continue to pump out the message that such sentiments are abhorrent.

This broad mass of white citizenry is what Richard Nixon once dubbed as the ‘silent majority’. This ‘silent majority’ of Britons implicitly hold pro-white nationalist views but is unwilling to engage in any commitment of public resistance to our current leukophobic ruling class. The current political situation in Britain and indeed much of the West is one of public apathy and declining electoral turnout. Political parties which once had a mass base of activists drawn from every walk of life are now little more than hollow party-machines staffed with career politicians promised power, wealth and status in return to providing a stamp of democratic legitimacy to the latest decrees from the ruling class. The few parties that actually stand opposed to the agenda of the ruling class such as the BNP are tiny and find themselves chronically short of activists and money. The British were not always a nation of apathetic sheep, – what changed? In a nutshell: the emergence of the corporation as the private wing of the ruling class enabling it to keep potential dissenters in line by threatening their livelihoods.

In 1940 James Burnham in his seminal work the Managerial Revolution argued that the defining feature of the twentieth century has been the rise of two mass organisations the corporation and the state. These two mass organisations, though separate in the function the former creating wealth, the other redistributing it to favoured groups, form the apparatus through which the ruling class draw wealth and power. The role of the state in destroying pro-white beliefs and institutions has been well documented elsewhere and I will not repeat it here. I wish rather to focus upon the corporation and the role it plays in supporting and enabling this leukophobic ruling class.

A corporation legally speaking is an artificial person created by real people for the purposes of conducting business. This artificial person called the corporation can be said to be ‘born’ when real men sign the certificate of incorporation and it ‘dies’ when it is declared insolvent or removed from the corporate registrar. When ‘alive’ the corporation has all the same rights and responsibilities that a real person has. It can hold and exchange assets, is entitled to the profits derived from its business and is also liable for its debts.

There the similarity ends, because the corporation is not a real person, but rather a legal shield for the real people who own and profit from it. If the Corporation fails then under limited liability laws the owners only stand to lose the value of their shares and no more, the corporations creditors cannot take the shareholder’s house and drive him into bankruptcy. By eliminating a great deal of the risk of investing in the enterprise the shareholder is not concerned that he has so little control of the corporations activities. Similarly an executive who drives his corporation into the ground may well lose his job and be temporarily hounded by the press but he will not otherwise be penalised getting to keep his house, his car and his generous pension provisions which may well run into the millions. Such an arrangement has obvious benefits to the corporation in terms of the investment and talent that it can attract and as a corporation is not a real person with a defined lifespan it is theoretically immortal and can continue trading long after its original founders are dead and buried.

Such advantages ensure that modern corporations have grown to become extremely large and wealthy dominating entire sections of the economy which were once the concern of independent traders. This is worrying for two reasons. First the primary feature of corporations is the separation of ownership from control. Major Corporations are owned by many hundreds of thousands of shareholders who whilst they can be thought of as the natural owners of the property they have no effective control over the decisions made by the corporation which will be made by a managerial class of directors and executives.

This separation of ownership from control is morally corrupting because as the corporations shareholders are such a diverse mass of people they become united only in pursuit of the lowest common denominator which is to maximise their profits. Whilst all forms of business are profit driven the amorphous nature of corporate ownership exaggerates this. Shareholders pressure corporate managers to deliver results, whilst effectively turning a blind eye to any unseemly action a manager may be tempted to do to deliver these results. It is therefore not a surprise that corporations engage in unethical behaviour like profiting from cheaper foreign labour whilst inflicting the social, economic and cultural cost upon the rest of society.

This destructive greed is systemic to the corporate organisation. All white nationalists own shares in corporations either directly or indirectly through intermediaries e.g. pension funds and Bank accounts. Many of these corporations go on to spend a great deal of money lobbying politicians to open the borders, fund fashionable leftist organisations like La Raza and the SPLC or implement strict diversity measures in the workplace. Although as shareholders they may theoretically own and control these corporations in practice they are powerless to pressure corporations to do anything except demand higher dividends and not enquire too closely how these dividends were obtained.

This moral corruption at the heart of the corporation eventually extends to all areas of society as unlike other forms of business which follow roughly a human life cycle corporations are not restricted to the lifespan of any individual as new management can easily replace old management. Corporations can therefore grow to immense proportions and yield massive economic and political clout. One can see evidence of this in the latest bailouts of massive corporate banks who willingly co-operated with the minority-subprime debacle. It was reasoned that as they had grown so large and influential they were deemed ‘too big to fail.’ Not sufficient with their existing privilege corporations continue to lobby government to pass regulations that hurt smaller non-incorporated businesses more thus eliminating their competition and further cartelising the economy in their favour.

In tandem with the rise of the corporate form has been the rise of what James Burnham has termed the managerial class. Men who do not physically own the mass organisations but are employed to manage them, fulfilling a role comparatively similar to that occupied by high ranking civil servants who manage the vast bureaucratic divisions of the state. They manage hierarchical mass organisations whose appetite for expansion is essentially unlimited. The Corporate executive success is measured in the increasing value of shares, the civil servant in the size of his budget. As the specific functions overlap it is common for members of this managerial class to have careers that interlock with both the economic and the political world for example David Rockefeller, Avrell Harriman and Robert McNamara to name but a few well known historical examples. It is also quite common for a corporate manager to end up regulating the industry he once worked for, after all who knows the industry better than someone who worked for one.

Whereas even 50 years ago there were still many middle class people who were free to speak their mind on the full range of issues as their wealth was independent, today most have been quietly conscripted into the hierarchical corporation where their livelihood depends upon conforming to the written and unwritten codes of conduct that strongly deter the average corporate employee from engaging in dissident politics. As one climbs the corporate ladder the opportunity for dissent decreases until the point where positive belief in the leukophobic agenda of the ruling class is a qualification for office. The corporate organisation therefore encourages the human cattle that labour for it into cultural and political passivity. The average corporate drone might feel that his country is going to the dogs but whenever he thinks about doing something constructive about it he thinks about his mortgage and becomes worried about what his boss might think and decides to be prudent and do nothing.

So knowing how the new managerial class interlocks the economy with the state we can better chart how leukophobic ideology has been able to override the traditional sentiments of the masses. Multiculturalism first became constructed by intellectuals in academia; the Multicultural meme was then transmitted to the student population who would become the future members of the managerial class. Established at the top of both hierarchical centres of power the meme was then transmitted to the rest of population which due their dependency on the corporate model they had no resistance to it. In a remarkable quick time the meme affected a cultural revolution where pro-white sentiments were driven underground only to be cautiously uttered in privacy amongst trusted friends and family.

What should be done? We should return to an older system of corporate law that existed in western countries until the middle of the nineteenth century where a corporation could only be formed by a charter from the state. Such chartered corporations should exist solely for the purposes of promoting a narrow public interest such as the development and management of infrastructure like roads, railways and electricity grids and further incorporation for purely private interests should not be permitted. As for the existing unchartered corporations that serve no public interest we cannot simply pull the plug on them overnight. Rather through legislation and the tax system we should stack the deck in favour of sole traders, partnerships and co-operatives ensuring the existing unchartered corporations are penalised with comparatively higher taxes and regulation than sole traders and partnerships. This would ensure a fairly painless transition from an economy dominated by corporations to one dominated by private businessmen. Such an economy would doubtless be very different to the one we have today but for our purposes it would ensure an independent middle class which have traditionally been the greatest safeguard against our nation and our liberties.

About

This blog was created to reconcile libertarianism with nationalism (or perhaps more accurately with the science of race realism). Libertarianism is doomed to failure unless it confronts perhaps the central issues of our age namely race and identity. Likewise nationalist movements will not flourish if they cannot explain why white people must survive as a people. Finally this blog aims to stimulate offline activism of a type that takes into account the numerous hurdles the nationalist opposition faces.