Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Guerrilla Nationalism

Some nationalists have asked me, 'If your article, "The Rupture", is right, what do we do?'. Here I will attempt to provide an answer, or the beginnings of an answer, to that question.

The thesis of that article was that attitudes in the West have changed irrevocably since the 1950s and 1960s. The attitudes which have changed are towards: non-white immigration; mixed-race marriages; homosexuality; drugs; pornography; births of children outside marriage; co-habitation of men and women outside marriage; evasion of military service; smoking; physical health and fitness; and a host of other things. As well as that, attitudes towards certain elements of the West's history have changed. In the 1950s and 1960s, American youth were taught to regard Davey Crockett as a great American hero; now they are taught to venerate Martin Luther King Jr., or perhaps the black communist activist, Rosa Parks.

Really something that sums up the changes that have taken place since the 1960s is the career of 'Johnny Anglais', a teacher in Britain who was dismissed from his job for moonlighting as a male stripper. Now, in 2011, he has been reinstated to his job, and writes articles extolling the British to become less prudish and more accepting of pornography. Can one imagine a Johnny Anglais getting his job back in 1980? Or even 1990?

The avalanche of non-white immigration to the West, and the white indifference (and helplessness) in the face of it, is part and parcel of the same social changes which produced a Johnny Anglais. They come together in the same package. One cannot have non-white immigration without the push for gay marriage; or female priests without interracial marriage. They are the one and the same thing. Nationalists, unfortunately, fail to recognise this. Often they seem like bewildered whites, transported through time to the present day from the 1960s and 1970s to the present: 'What are all these non-whites doing in Los Angeles? Melbourne? London? I don't understand it! It was all white yesterday - how did this happen?'. The answer is that it happened in tandem with all the other social changes.

Using this (undeniable) fact, a proponent of immigration could make it the starting point of the following argument: 'You'll agree that certain of the social changes wrought after the 1960s were good. Immigration was one of those changes, but, unfortunately for you, we couldn't have one change without another'.

Yes, it is true that certain things, now in 2011, are very good, and that we didn't have those things in the 1960s and 1970s. Among them are: mobile phones, the Internet, CDs and DVDs. In addition, certain of the social changes were, indeed, good. There is much more awareness of sexual crimes against children, whereas (if the news is to be believed), such crimes were rampant in state homes, religious schools, etc., in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. (But one of the side-effects of that awareness is an extraordinary media obsession with paedophilia - an obsession with paedophiles (viewed, of course, in a negative light) and with homosexuals (viewed, of course, in a positive light) seems to be one of the dominant themes of the news media these days). But while I agree that all the changes did come at the same time, in the same package, so to speak, I disagree that it was necessarily so. We could have had an ethnically homogenous society, and, at the same time, cracked down on smoking, obesity, paedophilia, and developed an acceptance of defacto partnerships too.

My proponent might persist: 'These changes were part of a naturally-occurring historical process for which no-one was responsible. You try and find heroes and villains in the piece - by blaming the 1960s social revolution on Jewish counter-culture activists, for example - when, in reality, these events occurred by themselves, of their own accord. No-one was to blame for them, any more than anyone is to blame for natural phenomena, like the wind and rain, or the orbit of the planets around the sun... Therefore, you have to accept the fact of immigration, and the erasure of white, Christian and Western identity because of that immigration'. This argument, in my view, is a kind of quasi-Marxist argument. The events of history, so the Marxist argument runs, are part of an inevitable historical process, which no-one is in control of. The economies of the West shifted, naturally, from feudalism to 19th century capitalism, and will, in the end, terminate in socialism and communism. Individuals don't really exert that much of an influence upon events, and neither do ideas - events are determined by economics or, in the words of Althusser, 'social structures'. When we apply an analogous argument to multiculturalism and immigration, we end up with: 'Multi-culti, immigration and the death of the white race is inevitable, white man: face up to it! No-one is to blame. Whites have had their time in the sun; now it's time for them to shuffle off the stage, and make way to China, India, Islam, Africa...'.

My response to this is to quote the words of Hitler: 'What is made by man, can be unmade by man'. Multiculturalism and immigration didn't come about 'naturally', 'spontaneously'; they came about by a concerted push, from mainly white liberals, and Jews, who were determined to launch a massive program of social engineering, with the intention of changing the face of the West forever. They achieved this with the connivance of some of the members of the WWII generation - the Whitlams, Frasers, Ted Heaths, Lyndon Johnsons - who had decidely liberal views which were radically out of step with those of their peers. (One can't blame the baby boomer generation entirely). The views of the sixties radicals were anti-establishment at the time, but now are the consensus. It's only a matter, now, of replacing that establishment, of extirpating the Sarkozys, Merkels, Camerons and Obamas.

The question is, how to do it?

The problem seems insurmountable, when one considers the extent of social changes which have taken place. If one were to do a survey of every white American, asking them if whites should be prevented, by law, from marrying Afro-Americans, or Hispanics - their reaction to such a question would be bafflement, followed by 'No'. The same survey, in the UK, but with a different question - should whites be prevented from marrying Indians or Afro-Caribbeans - would meet with the same reaction. Likewise, a survey in Australia, on whether or not whites should be prevented from marrying Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipinos. In a similar fashion, were one to survey their opinions on Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, and desegregation, the answer would be overwhelmingly positive; as to their opinions on Apartheid and South Africa, overwhelmingly negative. The possibility that desegregation in the US, and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, was a disaster - for both blacks and whites - would never occur to them. And why not? Not even today's "conservatives" would dare suggest such a thing.

Aside from the change in attitudes, there are the changes in the facts of the ground: that is, the sheer number of immigrants here in the West (and a number which is growing every day). Even mainstream politicians, like David Cameron, nowadays make vague promises to 'cut immigration'; a politician in the US can gain some popularity by promising to do something about illegal immigration from Mexico. But no politician ever talks about what's to be done with the enormous number of immigrants already here in the West. How do we make them go home? Can we, in fact, make them go home? How?

Everything could be changed through a radical change in the political system. But that cannot be achieved without something like civil war. It would be delightful if a Libyan style convoy of armed revolutionaries were to descend on Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, Canberra, turf the politicians out and occupy the White House, 10 Downing Street, the Lodge, just like the Libyan rebels did with Ghaddafi's palaces. Unfortunately, nationalists don't have an army and they are a small minority in the population with minimal political support for the time being.

To revert to my analogy in "The Rupture": we whites are like the humans in the series Battlestar Galactica. The enemies of the human race, the Cylons, have won a devastating, overwhelming victory. In Battlestar-, the initial Cylon attack was modelled on Pearl Harbour, and many of the space battles which followed - between human and Cylon spaceships which were, essentially, aircraft carriers - were evocative of the Pacific War. In the real Pacific War, of course, the US, the British and Australia managed to build up enough men and materiel to strike back, defeat the Japanese and conquer Asia; in Battlestar-, the humans don't have the military resources, or even the numbers, to mount such a counter-offensive. In that regard, their plight is similar to ours.

In season two of Battlestar-, it is revealed that a small number of humans, on the planet Caprica, did survive the terrible, devastating Cylon nuclear onslaught. They take to the hillls and take up guerrilla warfare against the Cylon occupiers. Militarily, such a course of action doesn't make much of a difference, but it does make life harder for the Cylons, and something is better than nothing.

In the same way, we nationalists have to continue to exist - and cause discomfort and embarrassment, to the liberals, multi-culturalists, multi-racialists and proponents of mass non-white immigration (not to mention the non-white immigrants themselves), with the fact that we do exist. Is it the year 2011, and we still have people who oppose the joys of diversity? Who insist on asserting a unique white identity in the face of globalisation and multiculturalism? Who have the same attitudes towards mixed-race marriages as the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialists? How can it be?

Not only do we nationalists need to continue to survive, but we also need to be intellectual. If anyone ever reads any compendiums of writings by the New Left, one sees the hippies and beatniks were an intellectual bunch, and made their arguments within the intellectual framework of their time. It wasn't all peace, love, and smoking dope. The New Left, via theorists such as Marcuse, drew upon the Western cultural and intellectual tradition (one of the paradoxes of the West is that it gave birth to ideas which have the potential of undermining it and eventually destroying it). To bring about a cultural revolution - and this is what the sixties boomers did - one first needs an intellectual revolution...

At this point in time, no one political party is strong enough, or powerful enough, to turn back the tide. This is, in part, because we are now fighting on enemy territory - the Western political landscape now belongs to the enemy, not to us. The initial offensive, launched back in the 1960s, devastated our position, and we have no position to fall back on. (We whites can't exactly leave America, Canada, Europe, Australia, and migrate to an island somewhere). What we need to do, then, is follow the guerrilla dictum and harass, hound and harry the enemy. The modern leftist anti-capitalist movement has the right idea, I think, in regard to tactics - it's just that they are confused (and hopelessly self-divided) when it comes to ideology.

We are, as Evola said in another connection, men among the ruins. We, now in 2011, need to be guerrillas among the ruins.