Tag: Britain

Displacement from Within

October 27, 2015 9:37 pm October 27, 2015

6 min read

477 views

What Turner documents is not just a ‘displacement’ of Britain’s indigenous population by foreigners, but, more important, its debasement of those, who have inherited the land and cultural institutions of their ancestors. Martin walks like a man on a tightrope between the void of today’s West and the transcendence of participating in true art.

It’s an oft-repeated cliché among the so-called alternative Right to say that while Britain once ruled a third of the globe, today it barely controls the streets of London. Those hit the hardest by Britain’s transformation (or, more accurately, deformation) is the working class—once the backbone of British industry and patriotism. Today, fed on the twin somas of sports and what little popular culture has to offer, the working class languishes in a post-industrial dystopia.

Derek Turner’s novella Displacement is a portrait of this Britain—a Britain of displaced workers, alienated elites, and a growing non-native population. It takes place alongside other social novels in the history of the British isles from Disraeli and Dickens to Orwell. But what separates Displacement from many works in this tradition is its non-didactic and honest portrayal of those whom it depicts.

Displacement’s protagonist, Martin Hacklitt, is the forgotten man of today’s Britain—an intelligent youth of poetic disposition, who finds his release from the drudgery and baseness of everyday life through practicing parkour in the streets of London. Parkour, or free running, is a sport that attempts to replicate natural obstacles. Using tall buildings, walls, and other bits of today’s urban jungle, its participants seek to bend their bodies to the world around them and find a sense of liberation from their banal lives below. At least this is how those ‘French books’ Martin reads on the subject describe it.

Martin, a quintessential Englishman, balks at the heady prose and philosophizing of the French parkour books he reads, and sees in it a way to keep fit. Outside parkour along with his poetry, Martin’s other main concern is his love for his on-and-off-again girlfriend Kate. They began dating in high school, where Martin stood up for himself to a gang of bullies. However, by the time of the events described in the novella, the two had grown apart.

Martin is eventually given celebrity status by a chance photograph depicting him performing parkour acts, with the tabloids referring to him as the ‘London leaper’. Who he is quickly takes on an ideological dimension, with left-wing presses seeing in him some exotic, rogue outsider, whereas the conservative media describe him as an enemy to public order.

Kate, recognizing Martin from pictures in the tabloids, contacts him and hopes to set up an interview with a posh, that is, upper class, journalist. Kate’s swift return to Martin—learning of his his celebrity status—will have most Radix readers instantly reminded of hypergamy and the work of F. Roger Devlin, as it should. One of the strengths of Displacement is its chilly realism. Indeed, nowhere is that more apparent than here. For instance, Martin’s inner monologue upon meeting Kate again after a long lull is reminiscent of many one would find in the sort of true-life ‘beta’ stories in the so-called ‘manosphere’:

“Martin tries to take her hand and she withdraws it, but not abruptly. He will try again soon. It feels weird not touching her when she is so close. They always touched, held. But if she feels the same she is disguising it well. She looks so poised, he marvels, yet the speed with which she has rattled out her news shows she’s nervous. As so often over the intervening three-and-a-quarter years, he wonders how many boyfriends she’s had, and hates them all. But he cannot ask her that yet.”

Many readers, especially young men, will recognize some of the same thoughts that have gone through their minds in the context of today’s feminized and deracinated society. But Kate is no villain—merely misguided and far too drawn by the pull of our age. Turner holds his vitriol for the real antagonist of the story—the liberal journalist Seb.

Seb seeks to write a story on the London leaper. For him, journeying to working-class Deptford is akin to traveling to an exotic Caribbean island. He is constantly taken aback by the boorish behavior of Martin’s football-hooligan brother and his staunch old-Labour, old-Britain father, who is constantly trying to hijack Seb’s interview. In addition, he is attracted to Kate and hopes to use this project to get closer to her.

However, when the story is published, it is more or less a hatchet job. Martin’s working-class background is viewed through the gaze of contempt by Britain’s ‘Guardianista’ cultural class. To Seb, the final version of the article was not meant to be this stereotyped, and, exasperated, he tries to excuse his less-than-positive story on Martin’s roots to Kate:

“I knew it! I knew it didn’t do you justice – I mean that it didn’t do Martin justice. But I only had very limited space. You know how it works!”

Indeed, this language should sound quite familiar. One only has to look at Jared Taylor’s recent run-in with the New Yorker to find another journalist, who hoped that he captured his ‘complex subject’.

Seb eventually attempts to buy off Martin’s loyalty by inviting him to edit a volume of Postmodernist poetry, the theme of which is outsider work edited by outsiders. In doing this, Martin is unwittingly making a deal with the devil, compromising who he is to be taken in by the cultural establishment that rules Britain and, indeed, the entire West. His football-hooligan brother says it best:

“Funny, ain’t it really – by having these published all you poetry plonkers become insiders, don’t you?”

Martin’s brother hits the nail on the head for many bright, poor whites, who go on to be educated at Oxford and Cambridge in the U.K., or the Ivy League schools in the U.S., or who achieve some status of cultural distinction by the current ‘Apes of God’, as Wyndham Lewis called the modern cultural classes.

In the end, we see him compromised, but through his portrait, we also note an all-too-familiar tale of what happens to bright young boys from traditional working class today. Displacement gives those of us, who self-describe as Identitarian and thus find ourselves in the political fringes, a moving literary look into the heart of our forgotten people.

No Comments

Europe Race Reviews

Christopher Priest’s Fugue for a Darkening Island

Radix Journal

June 8, 2014 6:25 pm June 8, 2014

6 min read

344 views

17 Comments

Originally published in 1971, Fugue for a Darkening Island was Christopher Priest’s second novel. The scenario is similar to that explored by Jean Raspail in The Camp of the Saints,…

Originally published in 1971, Fugue for a Darkening Island was Christopher Priest’s second novel. The scenario is similar to that explored by Jean Raspail in The Camp of the Saints, and the outcome nearly identical, but the arguments and point of view are markedly different.

Africa has been ravaged by all manner of natural and man-made disasters. With the emergence of a number of nuclear states, and the inevitable nuclear exchange, the Dark Continent has become uninhabitable. There are survivors, however, and great multitudes of starving, poor, desperate Africans set sail for the north. Over a period, dilapidated boats loaded with thousands run aground on British shores, some going as far as the River Thames, in London. The government at first seems baffled, unable to stop them, or take decisive action to prevent the boats from coming ashore. The Africans land and quickly disappear into the cities. This, incidentally, is exactly what has been happening lately in Spain’s southern border, where African migrants have changed tactics and, instead of attempting to slip into Europe in small numbers, now organise nocturnal raiding parties, climbing fences several thousand at a time, thus making it impossible for the border authorities to stop them. In the Priest’s novel, the landings carry on until eventually the island ends up with two million invaders, which in the novel are referred to as ‘refugees’. A ‘Right-wing’ government—by which we must understand not fascism, but something along the lines of Enoch Powell’s brand of conservatism—takes strong measures to protect British subjects, aiming to contain and eventually expel the invaders. The invaders, however, organise into ‘Afrim’ militias, which soon begin raiding English towns and forcing people out of their homes. The country descends into a civil war: on the one hand, there are the Nationalists, who are with the government; on the other are the Secessionists, who want to restore order and give full citizenship and rights to the ‘refugees’.

Against this background we follow the story of one Alan Whitman, a university lecturer. Whitman’s marriage is a shambles: his wife, Isobel, seems sexually frigid (though it later transpires that she feels neglected), and his response is to philander serially and indiscriminately, driven purely by his sexual urge. The Whitmans have a daughter, Sally, who is the ostensible reason the marriage still holds—ostensible, because both adult parties are a state of avoidance and denial. In due course, the Whitmans lose their home and are forced into the countryside, where Alan has his wife and their daughter living like animals, without a decisive plan of action, and without the wherewithal to do what is necessary to get them to a safe destination. This unchains a series of events. First, Isobel leaves him, and, though they are later on reunited, he then loses her again when Afrim militiamen take her and their daughter away from him at gunpoint, to be shuttled away who knows where. By this time Alan has ended up with a group of British refugees, led by one Rafiq, of indeterminate origin. Initially, the group avoids committing to any faction. When the gang finds a cargo of firearms amid the ruins of a Nationalist convoy, however, Rafiq decides to organise the group into a militia, but Alan, a pacifist, walks away, averse to committing himself politically or to violence. Whitman is, indeed, thoroughly unheroic: weak, spineless, indecisive, and liberal. Predictably, he is detached when the crisis first develops—a gape-mouthed witness, predominantly preoccupied with his numerous love affairs, when a boatful of invaders wedges itself against the London Bridge, right under his nose; he then sides with the invaders, presumably speaking up for their human rights (though about the specifics we are not told); he subsequently loses his job when the university is closed down, forcing into manual labour; and even then he is in denial, acting only as and when circumstances leave him without options. His actions, on such occasions, are invariably prissy and limp-wristed. He steadfastly refuses to support the Nationalist cause, thinking it racist. It is a miracle he survives as long as he does.

From the narrative, the author’s sympathies seem to lean in one direction: the Nationalists are spoken of or portrayed as extremists, their measures as repressive and counter-productive, and their supporters as creepy Neanderthals in suits; the Secessionists, by contrast, tend to give Whitman fairer treatment, and he, of course, deems their vision for a resolution the superior one. Nevertheless, Priest does not make any effort to humanise the Africans: they are like shadows in the landscape, emotionless, and utterly ruthless throughout; from the most part they are a distant menace. Priest also seems to view avoiders and deniers with amazement and contempt, for avoidance and denial afflicts not only Whitman; they are, indeed, a theme throughout the novel.

In the end, and as always, events force Whitman to commit himself against his liberal judgment. Afrim militiamen had used the white women abducted by them to set up brothels and thereby establish a method for procuring supplies. Rumour has it that his wife and daughter were likely taken to one of the brothels along the Southern coast. He finds the brothel and the family is reunited, except that his wife and daughter are now two out of a score of female bodies rotting on the beach. That same evening, we are told, Whitman murders a young African, steals his gun, and goes back into the countryside. That’s where the story ends.

The 2011 edition of this novel offers a revised version of the original. In his preface, Priest explains that, at the time, he had simply set out to write a disaster story, against the background of events in post-colonial Britain such as Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, but that the language of race relations had changed in the intervening time, causing a novel that was initially praised for anti-racism to be condemned for racism. He deemed this too much of a distraction, so he updated the text to substitute nowadays troublesome words like ‘Negro’ and ‘coloured’ with politically correct terms, in an effort to leave the text ‘politically neutral’. I don’t think it is, and this impression is accentuated by the veering into speechification towards the end of the novel, when Whitman realises his own uselessness and his wasted life on the periphery. And yet, though I suppose the intention is for the reader to view Whitman’s conversion to militiadom as a tragedy, an unintended and yet equally possible reading is that the effete Whitman finally discovers his manhood and goes out to earn his right to be called a citizen, reality’s repeated bites having finally instigated the growth of a spine.

17 Comments

Europe Politics Reviews

Derek Turner’s Sea Changes

Radix Journal

May 30, 2014 12:41 pm May 30, 2014

8 min read

284 views

1 Comment

As far as anti-establishment contemporary fiction goes, Derek Turner’s Sea Changes is among the best one is likely to read in English today. In tone, it is clearly a satire;…

As far as anti-establishment contemporary fiction goes, Derek Turner’s Sea Changes is among the best one is likely to read in English today. In tone, it is clearly a satire; in sensibility, it is clearly traditionalist; but in sentiment, it has the added virtues of temperance and compassion, qualities that steer this novel clear of the vices that have afflicted others dealing with immigration and the tone and character of modern race relations—Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints comes to mind—which have usually been vehicles for sublimated spleen. Perhaps the reason is that this novel was aimed at a mainstream audience, and not at fellow outsiders looking for a wink and a nod.

Sea Changes tells the story of Ibraham Nassouf, a young Iraqi. Desiring to escape the poverty and limited prospects of existence in his native Basra, he sets sights on emigrating to England, dreaming of the sort of life he had seen in Western media and magazines; his very grim and unpleasant journey, however, ends badly, for, having paid, along with dozens of others, a gang of human traffickers to take him to Britain, the latter decide to throw their human cargo into the sea and spray it with bullets after being challenged by a British coastal patrol. Ibraham is the only survivor, but he is washed on the beach along with forty or so of his fellow migrants, mostly African. The discovery, the suggestion that the migrants may have been murdered by local racists, and the throwaway remarks of a stolid farmer who finds himself in front of a television camera, being asked for comment by a reporter hyper-attuned to the racial angle, triggers a noisy media event, which dominates and is the raison d’être of the story.

Unusually, sympathy is with Ibraham, despite the fact that he funded his migration journey with money he earned working for a gangster in Basra. In a serio-comical fashion, at once caricaturesque and sophisticated, Turner skilfully conveys the squalor, uncertainties, precariety, mentality, and transient relationships involved in a journey of this nature. At each stage, Ibraham is reliant on a shady link in a long chain of sleazy, crooked, callous types who, while outwardly amiable, well-wishing, and occasionally hospitable, nevertheless make a living, or supplement their income, by fleecing the immigrants passing through. Ibraham is portrayed exactly as migrants are portrayed in Western media: a well-meaning, somewhat childlike, hard-working poor devil escaping war or poverty, and willing to go through hell for a better life in a rich Western country. Similar treatment is accorded to the Mediterranean countries of Europe forced to deal with the ever-rising tide of Third World migrants: the latter are seen by the authorities as pests, to be moved around and put out of sight in processing centres, where they languish in boredom and inactivity, but where they learn about rights they never imagined they had. It is a shadowy, confusing, and unforgiving world, constantly in flux, where every human is both predator and prey. What is worse, once Ibraham arrives at his destination, England, that paradise of the North Atlantic, it turns out his troubles have only just begun, for he becomes the ball in what is for him a confusing game of political football, in which he, the migrant of colour, is manipulated as a tool by the white English who, while appearing incredibly kind and helpful to him, are in fact completely self-absorbed and do not give a hoot about him. Eventually, he attains his dream—after some difficulty, he is allowed to remain in the United Kingdom—and he is even given permission to import his family. But life in London proves a tremendous disappointment, and we leave him living in bleak accommodation, jobless, with embarrassing flatmates, and in the throes of alienation, living in—but not part of—a culture he neither understands nor any longer wishes to understand. Looking back, life in Iraq, difficult as it was, at least offered community, friendships, and meaning. The process of migration proves destructive.

The closest to villain in the novel is John Leyden, a handsome Left-leaning journalist replete with fine phrases and crusading zeal, yet also egotistical, vain, shallow, arrogant, hypocritical, infantile, and spoilt rotten to the core. The reader does not end up hating him, however; rather, he comes across as a buffoon—a cog of the system he helps maintain. In the end, we are left to wonder about his motivations, for he is clearly not psychologically healthy or normal, despite his polished façade and professional success. His main antagonist is another journalist, Albert Norman, an old, grizzled, jaded, fat, wealthy, peppery, recalcitrant reactionary, whose politically incorrect column is both popular—indeed, it is the only thing levitating the circulation numbers in an otherwise modernising (=flagging) newspaper—and the last bastion of sense in a world gone mad. Along with Ibraham, Norman is Turner’s vehicle for some of his commentary on modern Britain, but, though almost heroic, he is ultimately an object of pity, for he is eventually defeated by the forces of ‘progress’ and even comes to realise his own futility. These two characters constitute the poles between which we find an array of depressingly familiar types: the thriving ethnic activist, the anti-racist thug, the Gerry Gables of this world, the ‘modernised’ offspring of rural parents, the cynical politicians, the semi-illiterate socialists, and, of course, the equally opportunistic, but far less skilled, anti-establishment politician. The latter, incidentally, a Nick Griffin analogue, has a seat in Parliament, until his party is banned in a swell of righteous fervour. Though stereotypes, all appear as three-dimensional characters, neither wholly good nor wholly evil, and indeed very human. All are, nevertheless, cogs in a machine.

Turner’s assessment of the situation is, therefore, that the problem is not the malfeasance of particular individuals, though some are more contemptible than others: everyone is implicated in some fashion, knowingly or unknowingly, actively or passively, whatever their individual reasons, however sensible their course of action may seem in the circumstances. The problem is systemic. And what sustains the system, in this case, is not the media, nor the politicians, nor any particular ethnic group, since they are all part of it: it is the idea that equality as the highest good—the highest expression of moral enlightenment. This is not explicitly stated in the novel; the latter is very focused on how British society today thinks about race and immigration. Yet, it is obvious, or it should be, that, in a type of society in which ethics possess singular importance, as is the case in Western societies, despite the corruption of modern times, what drives the tone and character of race relations today, and the debate on immigration, is the ethics of egalitarianism. That is what drives all the chatter, all the policies, all the decisions, all the actions and reactions despised by the type of reader who will read these lines. Without it, there would be no Sea Changes, nor a need for it. This is what, in my opinion, is most admirable about this novel, and why it is, to date, the most serious treatment of today’s cultural malaise, despite its satirical tone and occasional incursion into outright caricature. This is the only illustration I have seen in fiction of the way egalitarianism produces unfair, unjust, invidious, and unhappy outcomes. Something worth pondering.

There are, of course, some minor niggles, stemming from this being Turner’s first effort at fiction. I was distracted by the presence of superfluous adverbs, for example, a common mistake not made by more experienced writers of fiction, and not tolerated by professional editors at large mainstream publishers. And I am not a big fan of the front cover and general layout, which I think undersells the content. The book is, indeed, far better than it looks. Yet, this aside, Turner’s prose is elegant, effective, and rich with beautiful metaphor and well-crafted phrases. It is consistently good all the way through, and there is no sagging in the narrative, despite the predictable unfolding of events; it is, in fact, a page-turner, which sails along at a leisurely pace. Above all, Turner is to be commended for having successfully negotiated, with humour, sensitivity, and insight, a topic given to hysterics (on both sides), making the case against egalitarianism for readers of any political persuasion, radical and conformist alike.

1 Comment

America Europe Politics

UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

Radix Journal

May 21, 2014 5:20 pm May 21, 2014

14 min read

320 views

No Comments

The UK Independence Party has stolen the show, and the polls leading up to the upcoming May 22nd European Elections in their country – much to the shock and dismay of the rest of the rainy isle’s political establishment.

There’s anarchy in the UK and you can’t blame street-class punks for the ruckus. Instead, it’s a bunch of older guys decked out in the unintimidating colors of purple and yellow wrecking havoc in Great Britain.

The UK Independence Party has stolen the show, and the polls leading up to the upcoming May 22nd European Elections – much to the shock and dismay of the rest of the rainy isle’s political establishment.

But what about this party is attracting so many disaffected voters and angering so many of their political colleagues? The answer is that they are for restricting immigration – which is an item much desired by the British people but is repulsive to British elites.

This phenomenon is not limited to the UK as right-wing parties all over Europe have made significant strides in recent years and are set to make even larger gains in the upcoming EU elections. But UKIP being situated in our paternal land of the British Isles is a case that calls for further analysis and a comparison with the political climate in America. In particular, what does UKIP have to say about the much vaunted Sailer Strategy and is their operation an item for us to emulate?

UKIP was created in the early 90s as a single-issue organization dedicated to opposing the EU. Unlike the British National Party, they weren’t ethno-nationalists cleaning up their image to appeal to voters—they were solely concerned with the apparent threat of European integration for libertarian reasons.

They’ve remained a marginal party for the majority of their twenty years of existence, until the recent collapse of the BNP and the emergence of Nigel Farage as the face of UKIP in recent years.

Farage, as a documentary produced by the BBC reveals, is UKIP in human form. Hailing from a middle-class background and with work experience in the London financial trade market, Farage does not cut the figure of the average nationalist politician. And he isn’t. He’s a libertarian who’s political philosophy was formed by John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and is mainly concerned with restoring the UK to the status it enjoyed under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher.

If you watch this documentary, you would take Farage to be the British version of Rand Paul, add in more charisma and a perennial pint in his hand. He never talks about the declining culture in Europe or how it its native people are threatened by modernism and rapidly shifting demographics. The documentary primarily covers him discussing the “tyrannical” regulations and bureaucracy that has been created by the EU and how it hurts entrepreneurship and the free exchange of goods.

All of these items are the same topics that are continually rattled on by the Republican Party in the United States to the avoidance of issues that actually matter for the long-term survival of the White race. The difference between Farage and the average GOP politician is that he is strongly in favor of restricting immigration and understands that it has had an enormously negative effect on his native land.

This is where the BBC documentary veers from its cheery coverage of Farage and takes a derisive tone towards this particular stance. Every journalist that was previously singing the praises of Farage denounce his stance on immigration and claim it makes no sense if you believe in libertarian principles such as the free exchange of goods. While the documentary depicts this as an unavoidable blemish on UKIP’s platform, it is actually one of the primary causes for their success and why the party has managed to steal blue collar votes away from the Labour Party.

The commentators interviewed for the documentary and the producers behind it have no problem giving preferential treatment to Farage’s libertarian side, but they have zero tolerance for any attitudes that might be critical of the United Kingdom becoming an island of forced multiculturalism. That’s because libertarianism is not a threat to the System, while playing with White interest politics is.

It is clear that UKIP is in no way run or even composed of serious ethno-nationalists and this documentary concedes that.
Rather, the system is concerned that too much of UKIP’s success is derived from the same troth that every party of the right (whether center-right or far-right) has to appeal to in order to do well in elections. That is white angst, and the concern is that UKIP might actually try to implement the demands of this frustration rather than misdirect it towards ends that matter little to the actual interests of White people.

White angst is the dirty secret to conservative politics in the Anglosphere. Politicians and strategists understand that Whites are feeling the crunch of rapidly changing demographics and diminishing economic prospects and exploit it as much as possible for political gain. The Republican Party certainly exploits it, and so do the Tories. The problem is that they don’t actually try to solve the problems that are causing White angst. They just target it at frivolous issues like the capital gains tax and the all-encompassing power of teachers’ unions.

Which makes UKIP somewhat of an insurrection against the political establishment and has drawn comparisons between it and America’s Tea Party phenomenon. Both groups share several similarities and appeal to similar demographics. They’re both dependent on older, middle-class voters who are worried by mass immigration and feel that they have lost their respective countries. They spout off about the political status quo and continually use language that renders the impression that both movements want to take back their countries from powers that have wrestled control away from the proverbial people. For UKIP, that power is the EU. For the Tea Party, it’s the democratically-elected Obama administration (which will be out of office in two years, but don’t get hung up on facts like that).

UKIP also shares the unfortunate tendency to respond to accusations of racism by digging up every non-White supporter they have and giving them a press conference. This tactic, like in the States, doesn’t work in the British Isles.

But there is one substantial difference that makes the two groups different beasts—UKIP actually wants to resolve some of the causes of White angst. The Tea Party, as Richard Spencer has noted and like the party it has become linked to, turns white angst into fights about defunding Obamacare and eliminating Common Core standards in education. Immigration is a secondary issue and when it comes to debating the topic, the only opposition tolerated is towards illegal immigration–not immigration in general.

UKIP on the other hand has made anti-immigration a primary part of their political platform and seems intent on implementing some impediments to the flow of mass migration. The Tea Party seems content to remain a massive scam operation that sucks money out of retired citizens who think their donations go towards winning back America.

This is why UKIP has become the darling in the eyes of many who dream that one day the GOP will wake up and actually begin to fight for White interests. VDARE and others see the success of UKIP and Front National and say “This is what we need to do in America.” They see their gains as the Sailer Strategy in motion and double down on their belief that this is all that takes for America to become a White country again.

But this is a hopeful delusion as UKIP is not a phenomenon that we can emulate in America, nor does their platform fully restore Whites to their rightful place as the masters of their own destiny.

For those who don’t know what the Sailer Strategy is, here’s an outline of the idea that is promoted by Steve Sailer and others on the paleo-right. Essentially, it argues for the GOP to solely pander to Whites and correlates with his ideology of “citizenism.” Citizenism is a not explicitly racial political alignment that merely calls for the GOP to focus on the interests of the citizens who already live here rather than those outside of the country. Sailer engaged in a debate with Jared Taylor on the topic of his ideology versus White Nationalism and it forms the bedrock for the form of American nationalism preached by Peter Brimelow and VDARE.

While it is notable that UKIP is actually keen on implementing policies that would temporarily halt the flow of non-Whites to their country (and this is a good thing), it is not enough to reverse the tide of degeneration that’s sweeping through Europe. Besides, their political focus is not of an ethno-nationalist bent and they would be content if the UK simply returned to the Thatcher-era. All they want is an efficient economy where they can attain more comfort and live their lives without so many immigrants.

Even if they eliminated immigration entirely, the UK would still retain the same values that ruined it in the first place and the cult of profit would not be diminished in the slightest. Thus, the UK would very likely end up in the same predicament that it is in now.

That’s not to say their efforts to reduce immigration aren’t beneficial and if you are a British citizen, you shouldn’t withhold your vote from the party because they aren’t doing enough metapolitical activity. But we should be realistic about what a UKIP victory would accomplish and not pedestal their organization as the one we should all replicate.

Their method of using the political process to further their goals can also not be replicated in the US for the time being. VDARE seems eager for America to have its own USIP and how this third party or outside pressure group on the GOP would finally restore the historic American nation.
The only way you can believe this is if you have a naive view of the American political process. There are some major differences between America’s electoral process and Britain’s. For one, Britain restricts the amount of fundraising a party can amass and publicly funds opposition parties like UKIP to pay off their administrative costs. Meanwhile, America allows for unlimited campaign fundraising and any limits to campaign financing keep getting knocked down by the Supreme Court. This has led to the Republican Party (and the Democractic Party as well) to become a handmaiden of a small donor class that dominates its policy decisions and controls the party’s structures.

Some point to the Tea Party’s development as a sign that the power of this donor class is not as all powerful as it has been portrayed, but those same people overlook the fact that the Tea Party is largely an “Astroturf” movement and is never directed against issues relating to long-term White interests. Furthermore, the donor class that supports the Tea Party and “insurgent” conservative politics are only marginally different from the establishment GOP and the majority of them support open borders and recoil from the thought that America should be kept White.

These donors have immense power since money drives the political process in the United States. To run a competitive Congressional race, a candidate would have to amass at least a million dollars, if not more, to have a chance of winning. Our movement unfortunately does not have the money to spend on a campaign like that and we cannot afford to waste our precious time, resources, and the few people willing to involve themselves in our cause in efforts such as campaign politics.

Even the watered-down rhetoric we would employ in a “citizenist” campaign is not tolerable to the Republican Party and the figures that VDARE has latched onto as potential saviors of the republic (such as Jeff Sessions) argue against immigration for exclusively economic reasons—not because it threatens the so-called historic American nation. Even if you ran a campaign that only used code words such as the historic American nation, “Treason Lobby,” and “minority-occupation government” (MOG) the GOP’s donors would hurriedly rush to whatever district you were running in, pour millions of dollars to defeat your campaign, and pressure every single figure in the party to denounce you.

It is also disingenuous to lie to ourselves into believing that we can take America back. No, we can’t take America back nor should we attempt it. America is dying and trends such as rampant illegal immigration further balkanize Americans along racial lines (which is a good thing). In a citizenist campaign, we would be forced to denounce any type of racialized thinking and give lip service to Christian fundamentalism if we would have any hope of fending off the attacks of the donor class and attracting the base. Those are items that are a bridge too far for us and it would only alienate a significant portion of the people who are interested in our cause for the right reasons.

The formula for UKIP’s success is they actually believe the bullshit they preach about wanting a normal liberal democracy with less immigrants living off welfare. That is not what we want and is incredibly foolish to demand that Identitarians stop promoting our own ideology and instead, advocate a non-racial political agenda that none of us actually believe in. It is one thing for the Freedom Party in Austria and Front National to moderate their nationalism, actually attain power, and see results of their dediabolization, which also doesn’t call for them to act like idiotic, bible-thumping patriotards. It is quite another for us to do the same, achieve little success, and end up acting like and being labeled idiotic, bible-thumping patriotards. I’d rather be smeared as a Neo-Nazi.

The success of UKIP and other right-wing populist parties in Western Europe is a positive sign for our people and the policies they want to implement would alleviate the non-White swamping of our ancestral lands. But if we want to preserve White identity, we have to do more than win elections—we have to offer a metapolitical view of the world that counteracts the liberal mindset that dominates our people and guides our philosophy once we grasp power.

And in America, it is pointless for us to see their success and try to emulate their tactics over here. America is a different place with a completely different set of circumstances. We should not waste our money and resources on fruitless electoral politics. We should focus our energies on developing ideas, culture, and groups that present an alternative view of the world and create a sense of community for those who share our beliefs. With that strategy, we can create the root for our renewal and develop the resources and manpower to take on larger projects, such as electoral politics, when the time is right.

Until that time, we can only cheer on the developments in Europe and carry on with our metapolitical endeavors.

No Comments

America Race Sex

STIHIE: Cambridge Grad Stands By Jamaican Rapist Husband

Radix Journal

May 7, 2014 3:09 pm May 7, 2014

2 min read

309 views

No Comments

An elite education certainly does not buy common sense as the tale of this one Cambridge University graduate shows.

An elite education certainly does not buy common sense as the tale of this one Cambridge University graduate shows:

A Cambridge University graduate has defended her sex predator husband who told his victim he was raping her because ‘he didn’t get sex from his wife’.

Adriana Ford-Thompson, a York University research and teaching fellow, described her 37-year-old husband Mark Thompson – branded a danger to women by the judge – as ‘gentle, kind and sensitive’.

The environmentalist said the jury had ‘taken my husband away from me’ by finding him guilty, before he was given life in jail for the kidnap and rape of a student and sex attacks on three other women…

Here’s the background on how the couple met and how he viciously attacked the student he was convicted of raping:

Thompson moved from Jamaica to London at the age of 16, where he took up boxing, before heading to Tanzania in 2005 to teach martial arts.

He met his wife while she was over there conducting research and in 2007 moved to York to be with her while she finished her PhD. They married in 2009.

The jury which convicted Thompson heard he put the student in a headlock and dragged her to his van which he had parked around the corner.

He told the terrified young woman: ‘You have two options – you can give me what I want and you tell nobody what has happened, or tonight is the night you die.’

Read more of this story at The Daily Mail if you are so brave.

Oh, and here’s a picture of the happy couple together on their wedding day.

As Gregory Hood wrote, “Marriage is Dead, Long live Marriage.” Once again, this is another example of the insidiousness of interracial marriage and how it has to require a mentally ill mind, like this woman has, to justify and rationalize it. Let’s hope she doesn’t remarry.

No Comments