Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Nigel Farage

UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

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 on UKIP and the Sailer Strategy

Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (1/3)

Below is the first installment of a three-part series on how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness. The second part will be about the “European alibi,” dealing mainly with the wave of anti-European hysteria currently washing through Britain, and the third and last one will be about “reclaiming the Occident,” since there’s a misconception in New Right circles about Europe and the West being antagonistic.

Below is the first installment of a three-part series on how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness. The second part will be about the “European alibi,” dealing mainly with the wave of anti-European hysteria currently washing through Britain, and the third and last one will be about “reclaiming the Occident,” since there’s a misconception in New Right circles about Europe and the West being antagonistic.

NATION-STATES AS STEPPING STONES TOWARDS GLOBALISM

I have hesitated before writing about the obscolescence of the Nation-State since I’m not sure that American readers, not to mention their European counterparts, are ready to fully realize its implications. White nationalism is a promising movement, but it is still defined in narrow American terms (“a homeland for White Americans”). On the other side of the ocean, Euro-nationalism is on the rise, but its conceptual framework still relies on Nation-States, which aborts the movement before it can fully develop.

Whether the project is a White Republic in the Pacific Northwest or a Southern Republic in Dixie (the latter being as likely as the restoration of absolute monarchy in Europe), or a “Europe of Nations,” miraculously deprived of extra-European settlers (and with the same failed states as today), nationhood, or rather “nation-statehood,” is still involved, and it is what prevents us from imagining a path out of the present mess. I suggest that, as a vanguard webzine, we get rid of nation-statehood altogether. More practical, grass-roots organizations will have to speak in terms that people will understand, but we are here to coin new terms, forge new concepts, and discard all the irrelevant ones.

Short-term National interests vs. Long-term Western interests

The main problem with the Nation-State is that it negates both what is above itself (race and civilization) and what is beneath itself (ethnicities). When stato-nationalists pay lip service to the “Europe of Nations” mentioned above, what they think of is Nation-States, and they defend Europe only to the extent that European states remain “sovereign,” that is, remain able to betray the European whole at any moment if it is in their short-term, selfish interests. From Francis the 1st allying with Suleiman the Magnificent against the Habsburg Emperor to Germany helping Lenin return to Russia during WW1, stato-nationalism has a clear record of repetitively harming the West. This will continue to happen as long as nations are not submitted to the Western, greater good.

Stato-nationalists have to resort to historical manipulation to justify their position: for them, nations came first, and then they “created” Europe/the West. Actually the reverse is true: Western European nations originate from the Carolingian Empire, which was shared out in 843 A.D. between the three grandsons of Charlemagne. This separation was rendered necessary both because of the dynastic rivalry of Louis the Pious’s sons and because of the linguistic gap between the Latin and Germanic parts of the Empire. One year before the Treaty of Verdun officialized this separation, two of the three sons of Louis the Pious, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, concluded an alliance against their brother Lothair, who was claiming the whole Empire for himself. Charles the Bald, whose troops were Latin-speaking, had to swear an oath in High Old German for Louis the German’s soldiers to understand. Reciprocally, Louis the German swore his oath in Old French. The latter is the earliest known text in this language. From the dislocation of the Western Empire, as it was then named, emerged thus three states. These were Francia Occidentalis (which would become France) and Francia Orientalis (later the Holy Roman Empire, which was Germanic). Lothair kept an awkwardly-shaped strip in the middle, including all the regions European powers would seek to conquer up to WW2: what would later become the Low Countries, Rhineland, Alsace, Switzerland, Northern Italy.

The Denial of Ethnicities

Petty nationalists often summon, quite hypocritically, the “principle of subsidiarity” to explain why Nation-States have to remain “sovereign.” It is hypocritical because this same principle is not applied within the Nation-State. Let’s take a relaively recent example: in April 2013, there was a referendum in France to determine whether Alsace, France’s Germanic region, could be reunited in one single sub-national entity, instead of being divided between two départements (the French equivalent of U.S. counties).

Marine Le Pen’s Front National campaigned against it because it would “dismember” France, and it even used anti-German and anti-European imagery to make its case. That unfortunate campaign meant that Germanic Alsatians have to remain separated from their German brothers in the name of “France,” an entity that doesn’t mean anything outside the Germanic, Celtic and Latin peoples the royal state had managed to unite while respecting their uniqueness.

Modern Nation-States are based on the denial of ethnicity. Aside from a few cases, most states don’t reflect the ethnic composition of Europe, let alone North America. Ethnicities are scattered in various states (Magyars in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Ukraine), or their homeland is divided between more than one state (Catalans, Flemings).

Is there any wonder, then, that Nation-States still exist in the current context of globalization? Far from being fences, Nation-States are actually the stepping stones upon which globalists relied, and still rely, to advance their agenda. I will deal with the European Union in the next installment. I’ll demonstrate how the EU is effectively run by its member-states, proving how stato-nationalists, particularly British nationalists, are deadly wrong on this matter, which they don’t seem to really understand or even know about.

Aside from the European Union, other supra-national organizations gather Nation-States together. The United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, and the WTO, are funded by Nation-States (which, to this day, are the only entities capable of raising taxes), composed of representatives of those states, and act, when they effectively do so, on behalf of their member states.

It is therefore ironic to see civic nationalists like UKIP’s Farage present the return to “sovereignty” as a matter of national pride for Britain, given that the entire globalistic project was built upon the basis of Nation-States. In Farage’s case, civic nationalism is perfectly compatible with global corporate “free” trade, as he has repeatedly admitted.

Divisive symbols

But before I move on to the next part, I’d like to conclude the present one with an observation that should be obvious for anyone thinking seriously of these questions: stato-nationalism has already failed, and there is no reason why it would magically succeed in the coming decades. Stato-nationalists, in their propaganda, have to use historic symbols of the division of the West. I can only feel admiration for Joan of Arc, who, when she was only 17, decided to rise up in arms and “chase the English out of France.” As admirable as this historic figure might be, and as necessary as her deeds were in the early 15th century, she obviously belongs in history books as of 2013. The enemy is not “the English,” and what has to be saved and reborn is not a single kingdom, but an entire race and civilization.

The English still pompously celebrate their Waterloo victory by shabbily welcoming continental trains at the eponymous station, but Napoleonic troops are unlikely to invade Britain through the Channel tunnel. Rather, Pakistani gang-rapists, West African soldier-beheaders and Caribbean looters come by plane, and are granted visas by the same state that British nationalists profess to defend.

Where are the Las Navas de Tolosa airports and Lepanto stations in today’s West? Having to raise the question, and even having to explain what these battles were about and why they mattered for the fate of the entire White race, illustrates how far we are from a real Pan-Occidental awareness, and how it will be needed in the times to come.

This article was originally published at AlternativeRight.Com.

No Comments on Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (1/3)

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search