National Libertarian Front

Pulling the Plug

2010-06-05T10:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Secession: A Realistic Ideal

2010-01-30T07:26:00.000-08:00

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.

Federalism: Neo-Aparthied

2010-01-27T13:29:00.000-08:00

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?

Repatriation: An Idea who's time has passed

2010-01-19T13:46:00.000-08:00

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.

Dealing with the Multi-Racial Society

2010-01-08T08:56:00.000-08:00

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.

BNP favours death penalty for victimless crimes

2010-01-03T11:10:00.000-08:00

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.

BNP and the Red Economy

2009-12-28T03:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Racism and Individualism

2009-12-20T14:50:00.000-08:00

Sweeping Rand's Barnyard: Racism and Individualism by Nicholas Strakton

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/barnyard.htm

An interesting essay from a reformed objectivist on Ayn Rand's philosophy and the reality of racial differences.

Mass Mobilisation 3. Battle for the Streets

2009-10-25T10:02:00.000-07:00

As has been mentioned previously one can expect due to the vices of our opponents an NLF march would provide media exposure for the NLF. At the same time it can also provide valuable intelligence for our enemies if we are not careful. From photo's taken of the protest any individual can be identified by our opponents and once identified can use their resources to make life very difficult for the nationalist, through smearing, threats and loss of employment.

Given that it cannot be expected for all NLF members to be willing to make their views completely public for a myriad of reasons, if the NLF is going to mass sufficient numbers to protest it must be able to protect their identity from the ruling class. On the march this can be done by adopting the clothing associated with the Black Bloc. Dressed entirely in Black and with their faces concealed behind bandanas, hoods and sunglasses they not only protect the identity of the activists but also give a visual image that will attract the media far more than activists wearing jeans and T-Shirts. Also by appearing as one big mass it gives the group a unique identity.

Mass Mobilisation 3. The Battle for the Streets

2009-09-30T13:16:00.000-07:00

Much traditional libertarian activism has been focused upon Academic pursuits. This is not surprising since the leaders of the Libertarian movement tended to be Academics themselves, interested in spreading libertarian propaganda through traditional academic methods i.e. publish a pamphlett, speak at a conference or issue press releases.

The NLF is not an Academic forum for genteel debate on the fine detail of nationalist and libertarian theory but rather a physical organisation one aimed at achieving political power. One key area that the National Libertarian Front will contest is what may be euphemistacly termed the Battle for the Streets.

When we refer to a battel for the streets, the NLF speaks of the use of the street demonstration as the keystone in NLF propaganda. Unlike other ideologies nationalism has developed the organising of a public meeting, holding a demonstration or a simple march through a city centre into a fine art. In a certain sense this is due to the fact that it is a strategy of last resort as nationalists and libertarians are denied access to the media. Only through the march, the demo and the party rally can the NLF pierce the media blackout and deliver its message directly to the mases.

Unfortunately such is the intolerance of our ruling class towards opposition that any recognisably nationalist demonstration will be denied its freedom of speech and association and be targeted for destruction, by far leftist groups such as UAF. These groups partly funded through tax payers money will try to use violence and intimidation to prevent these protests from taking place. The police acting upon directives from the Ruling Class will rarely be present in sufficient force to deter this from happening.

Though any nationalists should be able to organise any march that isn't violently opposed. Such dramatic tensions whipped up by the hostility of the far-left indirectly helps serves the nationalist cause, as the media will flock to a newsworthy story like moths to a flame piercing the media blackout. Invariably the media will attempt to paint the NLF in the most negative light, the NLF will still be able to reap immense propaganda value by registering in the minds of the masses that the NLF not only exists and is important enough not only to command TV and Newspaper attention but also that it stands opposed to the increasing unpopular status quo. The thus generated by such a demo will encourage some amongst the masses to actually seek out what the party really stands for and of them a few may become involved as activists in the movement.

Such a strategy of tension must be repeated, the NLF must constantly be generating newspaper headlines in the mainstream media. Any news item however distorted has great propaganda value, not least because it because it is being discussed at all which implies a level of strength and organisation that makes the prospect of NLF political victory possible.

English Defence League

2009-09-13T09:49:00.000-07:00

In the past few months a new nationalist force has emerged and been reported by the media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/english-defence-league-chaotic-alliance

Despite the best efforts of the controlled media to paint this as being directed by sinster 'neo-nazi's' from behind the scenes, the English Defence League appears to be very much a spontaneous uprising with activists drawn from the English Working Class. It's ideology is pretty threadbare and it was formed in reaction to the hatefull protests of Islamic Fundamentalists, which denigrated servicemen returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, supported terrorism and demanded that those who insulted Islam be beheaded. The English Defence League then began confrontational marches of the type that were once the monopoly of the National Front and old BNP.

From the NLF perspective what is noticeable is that they have largely proved the point that the NLF argues in regard to activism. All it took was a handfull of ordinary people with little or no resources to agree to meetup in a certain spot and march. The trouble that was stirred up by the quickly attracted the media who gave them far more publicity than they would if they had merely spent the afternoon quitely leafleting the town.

Naturally the reports are highly distorted, one should be very skeptical of the claims of violence committed by the EDL activists. It is more likely that such violence has been greatly exagerated and not the intention of the organisers, but rather committed by a football holigan element who attached themselves to the protest. The end result is, however, the same free publicity for the English Defence League in the print and TV media. Such publicity will attract more marchers and generate more lurid headlines until the movement finally implodes due to its own organisational and ideological weakness.

That said the English Defence League suffers from many weaknesses that will be its undoing. Firstly its ideology is clearly undefined being merely an expression of anti-islamism, which will I suspect lead it to being infiltrated by both agent provocers and other more ideological nationalists, who will form hostile factions which will rip the movement apart in short order. Secondly without keeping it members and supporters disciplined with a formal organisation it will attract the hooligan element who will discredit the movement and repel quality activists.

Mass Mobilisation 2. Democratic Centralism

2009-08-29T01:06:00.000-07:00

When advocating a party organisation, the NLF does not seek to replicate traditional mainstream party machines in which the bulk of its focus is on winning elections. The party mechanism is usefull in terms of maintaining ideological consensus and ensuring its activisits work together towards a common goal with the effect that their results of their co-operative enterprise are greater than if they acted alone. The party's involvement in elections will be limited for reasons of resources, serious campaigns cost money that is not available and any attempt at campaigning at a national level, without such results will result in demoralising failure. For example, demoralisation set in amongst the members of the National Front following the 1979 general election when all its candidates lost their deposit. That said the NLF will concentrate its resources on the local level, where is there a reasonable chance of success with a view to raising the profile of the party and gather recruits.

The NLF will not be an election focused party machine but will engage in not only intellectual battle against the ideas propping up the current regime but will also engage in what is euphemastically known as the 'struggle for the streets', engaging in extra-parliamentary activism such as grass roots community activism, marches, demonstration and entryism. It is through such activities that the NLF will create the conditions that will enable it to take power.

Mass Mobilisation 2. Democratic Centralism

2009-08-25T14:16:00.000-07:00

Finally the NLF needs a formal structure, not only do party meetings need to be structured formally, but the party organisation should also be similarly structured. The communist party, for instance, has a model the NLF should do well to emulate. The smallest unit of organisation in the Communist Party is a cell, which is made up of 3 people, then comes the party branch, then the regional organisation, then the national organisation. The smaller groupings will meet more frequent and the regional and national groups will hold congresses every few years, when they adopt resolutions and make amendments to the constitution and party program. As in a normal party the rank and file membership elects delegates to the regional and national congresses.

Though it may seem presumptious of a small fledgling organisation like the NLF to begin by setting up regional and national organisations, but it is important to have the skeleton structure in place and all mass movements have begun with a handfull of people. For instance the at the first Bolshevik party conference only nine delegates showed up and and a central committie of five were elected. (Those five were arrested a month later by the Russian secret police).

Mass Mobilisation 2. Democratic Centralism

2009-08-24T12:10:00.000-07:00

3. Formal Meetings - A Meeting should be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner and governed according to a set procedure. This set procedure is known as 'parliamentary procedure' (Regardless of whether the meetings are held in parliament or not.) These rules specify that meetings must have a chairperson, a secretarty, minutes, an agenda. The reason for this is not to strangle the NLF in bureacracy but that real politics is a time consuming buisness and and mainly consists of work undertaken to support the conduct of the political party, such as fund raising, the creation and distibution of propaganda and tasks to obtain facilities where the party can do its work i.e. to book a meeting room for a bar for a party assembly. Such bueracratic procedures are put in place to ensure that plans are put in place and then executed and the meeting does not degenerate into a purely social event. This is not to denigrate the value of socialising but it should not get in the way of generating positive activism. Better a meeting passes swifty and all outstanding points are addressed and then the committe members have the rest of the evening to drink and socialise at the bar.

A futher purpose of the formal meeting is to promote openess and accountability, any grievances can be put on the record and be dealt with through legitimate channells and not through gossiping. Having things put on record ensure that goals can be measured and ensure agreements on ideological positions and organisational changes are voted on and put in place. Minutes can also help identify potential trouble makers in the party ranks intent on sowing division in the party. Through evidence of the minutes of meetings a case can be built up
and presented to the party's disciplinary committe and deal with the individual in question. Having a formal disciplinary process is more important for a nationalist orientated party as time and time again Nationalist parties have been infiltrated by hostile elements intent on wrecking these parties. These must be identified early and thrown out of the party before they are able to do any serious damage. It should be pointed out the infiltrator works much better in a cloudy and uncertain party atmosphere where everything from ideological positions, the nature of activism and the vetting of new members is done without reference to a strict and defined process. Finally in any political organisation that handles money financial transparency is essential, every penny must be accounted for and subject to examination by the membership.

It should be pointed out that in keeping these records that security will be paramount. No potential damaging personal information should be released in them and it may also be in the interest of the NLF to keep certain dealings more secret than others. The NLF for instance will not publish the address of a meeting rooms it has organised in advance and will instead inform the relevant members on a one on one basis.

Mass Mobilisation 2. Democratic Centralism

2009-08-23T11:50:00.000-07:00

Once a handful of regulars have known and socialised with each other long enough and have built up the bonds of trust a meeting shall be arranged to establish the constitution of the political party. The NLF is to be a party and not a lobby group, scholarly journal or such like.

In nationalist and libertarian ciricles there is widespread division and faction over ideological matters and much energies are wasted in unproductive arguments amongst the faithfull, which rarely if ever result in consensus. The NLF will avoid factionalism by imposing consensus from the start by ensuring the political party is governed according to the principles of democratic centralism.

Democratic Centralism owes its political origins to Lennin's particular brand of marxism. Its keys tennants are listed below:

1. Ideological Consensus - The NLF develops its ideological principles through vigorous debate which are then adopted by formal democratic vote and then sticks to it through thick and thin. In the inagaural party conference the delegates of the party elected by the party. These delegates then through debate will adopt a constitution, a program (which sketches the aim of the group over the long-term) and resolutions. In future congresses, constitutions and programs are ammended by votes from the delegates - paragraphs are struck out, new ones added and new resolutions aopted.

Once this has been done, each NLF member agrees to abide by the program and the resolution, when representing the NLF's position to non-members, even if the individual member does not personally agree with the position. (This is a common enough phenomenon in mainstream, liberal democratic political parties: the MP in the Labor or Liberal Party has to support the position adopted by the party membership at the time, even if he does not agree with it, and refrain from criticising it in the public eye). Public criticism of the NLF by a member on any of its points should result in disciplinary action.

2. Members and Cadres - Only paid up, card-carrying members who chose to subject themselves to discipline of the party are truly members. Anybody else is merely a sympathiser. Furthermore there must also be gradations of memberships i.e. the Cadre who devotes more time to the party than a member who does nothing apart from pay his dues on time should be afforded a greater voice in how the party is run.

Mass Mobilisation 1. The First Step

2009-07-26T04:20:00.000-07:00

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Lao-Tzu

The next series of articles will look at how a handful of libertarian nationalists can utilise their limited resources and skills to mobilise a mass movement to achieve political power as the purpose of politics in the final analysis is to organise enough people to take control of the state to implement their political agenda.

All ideological movements must face this problem but for nationalists the problem of mass mobilisation is unique as they must labour under threat of persecution. They are denied many of the rights of free association and free expression that other political groups take for granted. They are granted no access to the media, cannot meet in the open and known nationalist activists who are identified by the authorities through the seizure of party lists are formally and informally hounded from their jobs.

At present most nationalists are isolated 'keyboard commandos'. They exist only in cyber space and most likely have never met another nationalist face to face, let alone been active in a nationalist organisation. To some extent this is also true of the average British libertarian layman who's activist potential remains untapped because no appropriate means of agitation are provided for him by the libertarian leadership who tend to concentrate on intellectual endeavors which are naturally the preserve of a professional elite rather than that of your libertarian layman.

In the internet age most nationalist and libertarians become acquainted with these ideologies via the internet. The blog, the email and the online forum have revolutionised political activism by circumventing the traditional political gatekeepers, but barriers continue to exist that prevent activism. The nationalist scene has its fair share of neo-nazi's freaks and weirdos which no libertarian nationalist would want to be associated with yet one is expected to take a leap of faith in joining existing nationalist organisations without ever having scrutinised the people who comprise the organisation. With state agents actively trying to penetrate and derail these organisations it is not surprising that many nationalists are unwilling to come out from behind the keyboard for fear that by joining such an organisation they might be opening a Pandora's box, which will come back to haunt them.

This psychological barrier can only be broken down by building up trust and friendship first. Before any decision is taken to participate in formal organisational activism, be they attending a conference, canvassing or attending a demonstration our prospective nationalist must know and come to trust the men and women of the organisation he is thinking of joining: this can only be done by getting to know them on a social basis.

This requires libertarian nationalists to arrange to meet each other offline on an informal basis. They would, using the medium of the internet, agree to meet at a bar on a certain date and time and do nothing - just sit, drink and talk. There would be no roll call, no chair person, no public speeches and no secretary taking minutes. There would be no structure, the libertarian nationalists are free to talk about whatever they wish, invariably they will talk about politics but they might talk about sport or films. There is only one rule and that is nobody must exert pressure on another to do any kind of activism that he doesn't want to do.

At the end of the evening the libertarian nationalist will likely have come away with a positive impression of his fellow libertarian nationalists at the meet up and he will agree to another meet up again in perhaps 4-6 weeks time. Though it may initially appear that little constructive action has been achieved through these repeated meetings the bonds of friendship and trust are built up, which any political movement requires to thrive. Over time the numbers who attend these meet ups should hopefully increase to a few dozen regulars who know and trust each other enough to form an embryonic activist organisation to engage in offline activism to stimulate a mass movement.

For security purposes the dates and times of these meetings would not be publicised in any online forum or blog. The reason is to prevent any disruption by Antifa like groups, for example , a National Anarchist blogger refers to such an incident where such an informal meeting was infiltrated by the Antifa.

A nationalist friend of mine once organised a meeting of nationalists
through the Internet. Half a dozen would meet each other, some for the first
time, at a barbecue in a public park. The event was publicised in an online
chat forum for nationalists - including the place where the barbecue was to
take place, and the time. The actual meeting went ahead well enough, and the
nationalists in attendance, all young men, got along.

Naturally, an Antifa activist managed showed up and managed to pass
himself off as a nationalist and infiltrate the group. He took photos, as did an
Antifa pair standing some distance away. The photographs, and even some footage
of the gathering, were splashed across an Antifa website in the next few days,
along with mocking commentary. Understandably, the nationalists in
attendance were mortified, and some of the more inexperienced ones went
underground and never came back to the scene.

Anybody reading this blog interested in meeting up with this author and other like-minded libertarian nationalists in the United Kingdom should send an email to: kjerico142@googlemail.com Remember the longest journey begins with the smallest step.

The Liquidation of the Ruling Class

2009-07-19T06:11:00.000-07:00

This manifesto does not explain how the NLF will gain power, which will be the subject of future posts but rather what it would do having gained power.

The policies that an NLF government would pursue would be one that would break the power of the plutocratic ruling class and restore a free and homogeneous Britain. Some of this analysis is based upon the work of Sean Gabb's 'Manifesto for the Right' made in 2001, with a few important revisions. The policy of the NLF would not be one of moderate reforms, but rather would within the first 100 days shut down much of regulatory agencies and thus cripple the plutocratic ruling class to stop from attempting it to take back power before it is entirely liquidated.

In its first few days of government the NLF will abolish all the regulatory departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry, Culture and Sport, Education and Training, Agricultural, Fisheries and Food. Local government functions that deal with town planning and child welfare would equally be abolished, alongside all manner of financial regulatory authorities. The employees of these departments should be sacked and the legislation enabling these organisation should be repealed. The above agencies are only examples of the agencies that would be abolished as the NLF would run through all regulatory bodies with a fine tooth comb and abolish each one guilty of enabling primary statism.

Not one more penny would be spent subsidising the transportation infrastructure to lower the distribution costs of big business. The railways and trunk roads would be genuinely privatised and handed over to the workers to run them as co-operative enterprise. Local roads would be handed over to local residents. Intellectual property and copyright would be declared null and void. The NLF would allow corporations to continue to operate under limited liability law at greatly increased taxation but no further incorporation under limited liability would be permitted.

Education would continue to be funded by government, but its curriculum would be determined by local residents. State schools would also be supplemented by private schools and home schools funded by vouchers. State funding for Higher Education would continue, tuition fees should be abolished and a modest grant restored. Whilst existing students shall remain unaffected the NLF will reverse the expansion of higher education by progressively limiting the number of places to around 10% of high school graduates. Although Higher Education is a bastion of the ruling class the purpose of these retaining goverment funding is not to alienate students who the NLF will need to draw on for activists.

The welfare state will be left substantially alone and part of the revenue savings created by our abolition of regulatory agencies should be used to increase the state pension and abolish means testing for benefits. Any later reforms of the welfare state to reduce welfare dependency or privatise pensions ought to be careful not to penalise any existing claimants. The NHS should continue to be funded by government, but the work contracted out to private individuals and co-operatives (Not corporations).

On matters of race and immigration, the race relations industry will find itself unemployed and laws against free speech and association should be repealed. Legislation will be passed forbidding further non-white immigration and as to the existing ethnic minorities in Britain an NLF government would look to their legal status. Illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported without compensation, Legal immigrants working on visa's should not be permitted to renew them when they expire. No compulsion will be exercised to immigrants and their descendants who have been in Britain long enough to obtain citizenship, rather as part of the liquidation of the ruling class the NLF will offer generous financial incentives for such minorities to voluntarily return to their countries of origins. Whilst they remain in Britain they will retain full civil and legal rights.

The NLF would also change the tax system to remove the burden of taxation off ordinary people and small business and shift it to the plutocratic ruling class. With the tax savings generated from destroying much of the regulatory bureaucracy as well as the tax increases for corporations and other ruling class interests, ordinary people will see their tax bill shrink significantly whilst keeping much of the welfare state.

Such policies if implemented will ensure the liquidation of Britain's plutocratic ruling class in a manner which would be least painfull for the ordinary people who are exploited by it.

Primary and Secondary Statism

2009-07-15T11:15:00.000-07:00

The NLF beleives it is a mistake to treat every reduction in state activity as a step in the right direction. Rather we view each proposed reduction as part of the overall statist whole. The NLF being nationalists oppose open borders and are not only in favour of restrictions on white immigration, but advocate a complete halt to non-white immigration. We do this because we beleive that in a genuinely free world there would be no push/pull factors arising from the coercive power of states which would cause such mass movements of alien peoples from one corner of the globe to another. Rather a free world would be a world of ethnically and culturally homogenous nations, rather than the abraisive multi-cultural 'diversity' that is being imposed upon the West today.

Using this systematic or dialectical approach the NLF does not treat all manifestations of statism as equivalent, rather it views each concrete action of the state in relation to the system of power as a whole. To put it in more simplistic terms we look at the big picture and see whether a state law actually means more or less power for our plutocratic ruling class. Any state action that increases the power or wealth of the plutocratic ruling class is an example of primary statism, e.g. Limited Liability Law, Intellectual Property, Business regulation. Any state action that alleviates some of the exploitation of the oppressed class such as the minimum wage and the welfare state should be seen as secondary statism.

The NLF approach should be to agitate against the primary facets of statism, whilst leaving the secondary facets substantially alone. Although the NLF is in principle opposed to both facets of statism the secondary statism exists to aleviate the consequences of the exploitative nature of primary statism. By destroying primary statism one eliminates the conditions that give rise to the demand for secondary statism. Without the instability and exploitation characteristic of the corporate-statist economy the demand for state welfare and labor protection will wither away on its own terms. For now to advocate the dismantlement of secondary statism whilst the primary statism remains in place is akin to handing over more exploitative powers to the plutocratic ruling elites and inflicting more suffering on the already heavily oppressed masses.

Libertarianism 7. Kevin A Carson

2009-07-11T02:17:00.000-07:00

The most interesting development in recent years in Libertarian circles has been the ideas of Kevin A Carson, who has taken standard theories of the state and applied it to modern day corporations demonstrating that these modern day corporations operate with much of the inefficiencies of states, the reason why they are so dominant in our present society is that they are given massive privileges by the state through limited liability laws, transport subsidies, artificial property rights like intellectual property and using government regulations to raise entry barriers creating in effect credit and land monopolies.

Such laws result in an economy dominated by a cartel of a few large corporations, which due to the absence of genuine competition that would exist in a free market can and do abuse their monopoly position to engage in exploitative practices such as raising prices above the cost of production to the ability of consumers to pay (Drug Companies are notorious for this) and strengthening the bargaining position of employers relative to labour.

The result has been an economy where despite massive increases in labour productivity in the last 30 years the standard of living of the working population has remained stagnant or in some cases gotten a lot worse. The productivity increase has been entirely aborbed by the richest 1% of the population, who have obtained it via exploitative practices.

Having highlighted this Kevin Carson argues that in a political economy dominated not by free market exchange but power, unionism of the labour force and the welfare state must be seen as positive fight back by labour in order to recover their slice of the pie that has been stolen from them by the corporate cartels. Ultimately, however, Kevin Carson argues the ideal solution lies in the abolition of power relations by taking away the state privileges the corporate cartels hold and returning to a genuine free market, where labour enjoys the full fruits of its productivity.

The sort of society that would emerge from the abolition of corporate privilege would be an economy that would be vastly decentralised in which the majority of the population would be self-employed or be part of worker cooperatives and where production was geared to serve local markets. Without the inefficiencies and exploitation of corporate cartels today's standard of living could be achieved by working only 20 hours a week.

The NLF finds only a few faults with Mr Carson's work, firstly Mr Carson is an anarchist, secondly nowhere in his work can be found of the exploitative practices of mass immigration and thirdly the NLF is skeptical of the claims of peak oil. Otherwise the NLF is in substantive agreement with Mr Carson on the matters of political economy, it is a theory that validates standard nationalist critiques of globalisation and the supposedly 'free market', yet shows how nationalistic ideals can be created through the genuinely free market.

Libertarianism 6. The British Movement

2009-07-07T10:43:00.000-07:00

The resurgence of the Libertarian movement in Britain occurred in the late 1970s under the direction of Chris Thame who's life was tragically cut short in 2006. During his life he was the key person in organising the Libertarian Alliance, which aimed not to repeat what it saw as the errors of American Libertarianism. Firstly it would not contest elections believing these to be a waste of time and effort serving only to divide the movement and exhaust the movement over matters of triviality. Secondly, the Libertarian Alliance sought to avoid the conflict endemic in the Libertarian movement such as the conflict between Objectivists and Austrians and provide a forum for genteel debate.

The Libertarian Alliance saw its role as not engaging with the masses but in targeting the intellectuals - the 5% of the population that were interested in political ideas. Taking its cue from the Fabian Society, it published scholarly articles, organised conferences, spoke at University and appeared on radio debates in the expectation that these ideas would eventually be picked up by the political classes and implemented, much like the ideas behind the Institute of Economic Affairs were eventually picked up and became the template of thatcherism.

Needless to say it didn't, the Libertarian movement in Britain which peaked in the early 1990s has been in decline ever since with its aging membership not being replaced with young members, to the point where the pessimistic amongst them predict that eventually there will be too few living libertarians to sustain a movement and it might die just as Libertarian ideas were dead through much of the twentieth century. This decline prompted Sean Gabb in conjunction with Chris Thame to resurrect class analysis, which for many has been regarded as the preserve of marxism. They concluded that Libertarian ideas whilst true were not being given the light of the day because they were a threat to the wealth, power and status of the class of individuals who draw, wealth, power and status from an activist state.

The Libertarian Alliance, in spite of this analysis continues its strategy of courting the intellectuals even though their ideas is not in the self-interest of the many statist intellectuals suckling at the states teat. The National Libertarian Front argues that radical political change cannot be achieved by publishing a few more pamphlets rather it must engage in the sorts of visible activism traditionally associated with the 'far right' and 'far left'.

Libertarianism 5. Austrian School

2009-07-03T11:00:00.000-07:00

Murray Rothbard whilst remaining an anarcho-capitalist his view on what attitude libertarians should adopt to the current political issues changed over his life time. He began as a member of the Old Right but left in the 1950s as the Cold War hotted up and most conservatives supported an activist foreign policy to deal with the communist threat. In the 1960s he aligned himself with the New Left and joined in the protests over the Vietnam movement, whereas following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the last years of his life he turned his attention to more cultural matters and wrote the first important critiques of mass non-white immigration.

Upon his death in 1995 his student Hans-Herman Hoppe elaborated on Rothbard's earlier work and despite himself being an anarcho-capitalist has provided the most cogent argument against open borders and has proved controversial to say the least, with his detractors in the libertarian movement preferring to examine the motives and character of Mr Hoppe rather than the substance of his claims. This fracture has led to the emergence of the Property and Freedom Society where normally taboo subjects such as racial differences and IQ can be discussed openly.

The greatest weakness of the Austrian School in general has been as an apologist of the Corporation, for example the the standard Austrian analysis of the current recession will level apportion blame on the state but avoid any serious criticism on the role of corporations as enablers of such state activism. Also the Austrian School is purely an intellectual movement and does not contribute to any activism beyond the publishing of scholarly articles and the holding of conferences.

Libertarianism 4. Austrian School

2009-07-01T14:14:00.001-07:00

The Austrian school refers to the group of intellectuals influenced by the work of Ludwig Von Mises, an economist from Austria. Austrian economic theory provides a very detailed defence of the free market in a very sober and academic way. The two famous students of Ludwig Von Mises were Hayek and Rothbard. Of the two students Hayek ideas have proved more influential in the political mainstream and provided the basis for the Thatcherite economic policies of the 1980s. It should be noted in passing that the Thatcherism did not entail a rolling back of the state, but rather its aims were limited into making the state more efficient and encouraging the further cartelisation of the British economy by corporations.

Rothbard on the other hand was more influential on the Libertarian movement itself. He became more radical than Von Mises developing a new stand of libertarianism known as anarcho-capitalism, which arguing against 6,000 years of civilisation claimed that all states were tyrannical and needed to be overthrown and replaced by competing private security agencies who could be trusted to provide law and order and to such territories liberated from the state. The NLF on the other hand are minarchists believing states are legitimate and useful to the extent they protect individual rights.

Rothbard's anarchism has helped ensure Libertarianism remains in the political ghetto as it has created a rather rigid inflexibility amongst many libertarians, of taking the non aggression principle to the point of dogma. For example on state borders many libertarians would view it as tyrannical instrument as it prevents migrants from coming into the country and engaging in voluntary exchange. The fact that many who would otherwise enter the country in the face of firm border controls would become a burden on the welfare state and, given the forced association due to anti-discrimination laws, would in practice be trespassing on private property is simply brushed aside.

Libertarianism 3. Objectivism

2009-06-30T11:07:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-28T09:19:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-26T03:21:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-24T14:56:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-23T10:47:00.001-07:00

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

2009-06-21T14:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-17T11:05:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-16T14:19:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-16T11:52:00.001-07:00

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

2009-06-15T14:43:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-06-14T02:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-13T00:38:00.000-07:00

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.