Pulling the Plug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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'.