Friday, 6 February 2015



I am going to suggest in this piece that White Nationalism, as such, is over and must be replaced by a strategy of White Neo-tribalism. That’s a bold assertion to say the least, I know, but I believe I can back this up this with solid evidence. What I am about to say has specificity to the UK, but I also believe this analysis has broader application to pro-white Nationalism elsewhere. My starting point is a series of insightful articles and podcasts by my friend, ‘Nick Grifford’ (a pen name for a UK-based activist) on the website of White Independent Nation and his excellent blog, Rags Make Paper. I commend to readers the following articles and podcasts in particular:

Why Nationalism Fails [podcast]
Unity and the NBU [article]
The Movement [podcast]

None of which is to say that Nick Grifford or WIN endorse my views. What follows consists of my own personal opinions and conclusions.

Exhibit A in the case against Nationalism is 70 years of traditional Westphalian (far-Right) reactionarianism in alliance with the odd, retrograde sub-cultures of neo-Nazism and Hitlerism. Other than keeping the flame alive – which I will concede is something in its own right – we cannot claim any permanent achievements either at the ballot box or in claiming a significant proportion of the masses as our own, with the result that Popular Nationalism lacks any settled status in British political life: not a healthy situation for the body politic or for the British people themselves.

The political strategy has failed and the democratic machinery is now closed to us – at least, for the time being. The failure of the democratic Nationalist parties has left a vacuum into which new groupuscules have stepped – in the UK they include National Action, Western Spring, and White Independent Nation, among others (what I have elsewhere called the Second Wave of Nationalism) – as well as the various street-based militant off-shoots of the EDL and the BNP, ranging from the moderate and Christianist Britain First to the hardline North West Infidels.

What distinguishes the first three mentioned, which I will focus on here, is their New (Post?)Nationalist character, in that their methods and ideology differ from traditional Nationalism. National Action, Western Spring and WIN all believe that the democratic way has failed and share a determination to build an alternative strategy, which takes various discrete but complementary forms – counter-cultural warfare and alternative fundraising (Western Spring), street agitation (National Action) and community-building (White Independent Nation, ‘WIN’). WIN and Western Spring in particular have adopted imagery that signals a departure from traditional Nationalism and that may form the basis for an entirely new and distinct approach to engagement with the masses regarding our ideas.

Storming daily.
However ‘democratic’ Nationalism has not gone away entirely and, if anything, is undergoing its own resurgence in quite hardline form, albeit primarily online: the most prominent and successful example of this being the tabloidesque site, the Daily Stormer. The success of that site reflects a revivalism among motivated, computer-literate, young white men interested in Nazi chic and German National Socialism-redux and what they think was its associated ideology and symbolism. It is among this milieu that a sort of virtual resistance movement has emerged. In contrast to what might be described as virtual activism, which is really reactivism, this pro-active resistance has taken on many and varied forms, all designed to achieve dents in the morale of the agents of the West’s Anti-White Establishment. These tactics range from organised Twitter attacks against prominent Jewish politicians, to using social media to plan and organise real world marches, protests and demonstrations.

Against that background, in the last few days a British National Socialist activist and leader of a group called the British National Resistance, Joshua Bonehill, has announced a demonstration on the 22nd of March in Stamford Hill, North London, against its local Haredi Jewish community and their use of a communal security force, Shomrim. I have posted up two articles in response to Bonehill’s initiative: Jewish community-building: a vindication of WIN and ‘Leave Palestine’ or ‘Leave Europe': some further (brief) thoughts on Liberate Stamford Hill.

Those articles outline my critique of Bonehill’s boldness (while also praising him for his courage and initiative). Surely if our true aim is racial survival, then we want racial separation, not integration, and communal activities of this kind among ultra-Orthodox Jews are therefore to be welcomed. I do acknowledge that activism such as this is bold, courageous and dynamic and moreover can be useful in that it galvanises the various factions and groupuscules that make up Nationalism today. Perhaps activism such as this can also help by applying some political pressure on those who are at least partially-responsible for our plight. However, ultimately I believe Liberate Stamford Hill is a futile exercise. The following exerpt from the first of my two aforementioned articles summarises the point:
"I am not sure I am willing to agree with Bonehill that the presence of a Jewish ethnic community at the heart of our capital is a bad thing. Indeed, I must confess that I am slightly puzzled as to why Bonehill, a racialist, and others like him, would see such a community as a threat. Surely national integration with non-white groups is wholly antithetical to our aims and objectives. If the White Race is to survive, we need to separate: preferably geographically, but more importantly, racially separate, which implies we live separate lives. If Orthodox Jews, with their Shomrim and panoply of ritual and custom and unique social life, feel sufficiently threatened that they wish to move towards separation, far be it from us to discourage them.

Far from protesting against Stamford Hill, we should probably be cheering them on, but in any event, the reality is that such communities exist and are accepted – not just for Jews but more obviously for Pakistani Muslims as well, and also for blacks. The presence of such communities surely only serves to illustrate the relevancy of WIN‘s strategy for those who are dedicated to white preservation.

As I see it, this debate illustrates the difference between a Tribalist and a Nationalist. Whereas we, the Tribalists, see these racial threats as welcome opportunities to strengthen our own kind racially, Nationalists see such threats as one more opportunity for plaintive protest: whinging, whining and pleading at the feet of our enemies, in the hope of concessions.

It’s time for Nationalists of all stripes to adopt effective tactics."
Liberate Stamford Hill is a tribute to the courage of Bonehill, and if his demonstration achieves something constructive for white interests (and it is my hope that it does), no-one will be more delighted and enthused than me. But it is also a pluperfect illustration of why we as race-conscious whites continue to suffer. We have overlooked our essence in favour of Jewish abstractions. We have allowed ourselves to be corralled into bitter reactionary holding-pens of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, ‘pro-immigrant’ and ‘anti-immigrant’, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, ‘pro-Jewish’ and ‘anti-Jewish’. We have allowed ourselves to be moulded by our enemies.

Jews in London let their sidelocks down for Purim.
Recently I fell into an online exchange with a Jewish anti-fascist activist. In the end, we parted cordially (I think) and I offered him my e-mail address so that he could contact me further in the hope that we could continue our discussion in more depth, as we seemed to be making progress in understanding each other. One thing that struck me from what my opponent continually reiterated during our exchange was the way everything he said was underpinned by a keen sense of tribal identity and cultural replication. I had to acknowledge to him that in this sense white people still have a great deal to learn from Jews, but at the same time I do think Jews also need to learn to listen more to the concerns of whites – for their own benefit as much as ours. This Jew assumed that I favour racial segregation and expounded on the supposed ills of this institution. I replied that it is not me who favours such segregation, but him, the multi-culturalist. I explained that the only cure for racial segregation is racial separation, and that it is the enforced multi-culturalism of the mixed-racial kind that he supports that is the driving force of the segregation and its ills that he cites. If Jews and other non-whites could be resettled out of European homelands, we would not ‘hate’ them.

He may or may not have understood the point, but I believe the only possible future is that we reach an accord with Jewry, that they recognise our usefulness and the white manifest imperative, and we in turn recognise the right of Jews to fight for their racial survival. He had assumed I was an online genocidal lunatic and expressed surprise when I explained to him that, while I am an anti-Semite, it needn’t follow that I hate Jews individually or collectively. My opposition to Jews and Jewry does not translate into visceral hate. It is, rather, a wish to fight for my own race’s existence while acknowledging the right of Jews (and others) to fight for their existence. In that sense, anti-Semitism (i.e. opposition to Jewish intrusion) is as much a natural result of white folk consciousness as Islamoskepticism might, for some Jews in some situations, manifest as a natural result of Jewish ethno-consciousness. Indeed, we see this Islamoskepticism (what Jews like to call ‘fear’ and ‘hate’ among whites) growing among the Jewish population as the reality of mass immigration dawns on them. To describe a person as ‘hateful’ simply for having these natural instincts is not only disingenuous, but dangerous, as it denies each of us the right to express and celebrate our genetic kinship with those who are racially and culturally closest to us, creating needless anger and frustration among individuals in society.

I explained to my Jewish interlocutor my view that multi-culturalism is the Jewish national survival strategy, while homogeneity is the white national survival strategy. One naturally conflicts with the other. This is why we are at ‘war’ with each other. I believe the solution we whites should be proposing is peace rather than war. Not Zionism. Zionism belongs to Jewish nationals. I am not a Zionist and no-one who is white should be. What happens in Palestine is the business of the Arabs and the Jews and any other actors present. It is the right of all sides to fight for their existence, and in recognising this, we should have the honesty to acknowledge that Jews have a legitimate right to fight and that we, as Europeans, having little or no understanding of the matter, should focus on our own racial survival and our own territorial imperatives.

On that latter point, it is true that diaspora Jews have played a significant role in undermining white cohesion and white interests, due to their proclivity for usury and degeneracy and their preference for multi-racial intrusion in Western societies. This is not the only reason for the racial and cultural decline of Europe, but it is a factor, and in so far as organised and activist Jewry is and has been a factor, I believe that those who want to protest should tackle the problem head-on and exploit the pressure points. This is why I do reserve some admiration for Joshua Bonehill, in that he has taken the initiative in organising a demonstration against Jews, not concerning the Middle Eastern Gaza, but the European Gaza – the emergent Third World future in our own backyard. In doing so, Bonehill (and other brave activists who take on diaspora Jewry, like Garron Helm) are close to the truth of the solution to our racial plight, but they must still cross a difficult emotional and intellectual Rubicon: to reject Nationalism and embrace the essence of our cause: White Tribalism. That means going back to basics and recognising who we are, where we have come from, where we are and where we are going. It means returning to the roots and embracing the essentialism of the Fourteen Words – a non-ideological and non-confrontational creed – and not only propounding this, but living it as well by forming white conscious communities, business alliances and support networks that mimic mainstream society and that ultimately establish our own parallel authority. Only when we start to act as a tribe can be begin to make progress towards eternal white survival. In short: white survival means anarchism.

Fill your boots!
Our message to the Jews should be ‘Leave Europe’, not ‘Leave Palestine’. We should be Anti-Anti-Zionists, leaving the fake narratives of Anti-Zionism to the left-wing tools and shills who will stand in opposition to Joshua Bonehill on March 22nd. They want Jews to leave Palestine and come to Europe: which should confirm to all but the most purblind the true bankruptcy of Anti-Zionism. We want Jews out of Europe, and if they want to go to Palestine, that’s their business. As for Zionism, they’re welcome to it. What ‘Europe’ is, or becomes, in the distant future in view of socio-demographic realities, I do not know. The ‘Europe’ of the future may be geographically much as it is today, but very white, or it may be frontier communities in an Alaskan wilderness, or a small cluster of ethno-states on the brink of planetary racial oblivion, or even, a white society on a different planet altogether. What I do know is that we whites want separation, not integration; we want sovereignty, not segregation. That is what makes us tribalists. That is what renders Nationalism per se redundant. That is what makes ‘Europe’ our true nation, wherever Europe may be, and indeed, whatever Europe may be. Yes, the ideal scenario would be that the approximate 8.2 million Jews currently in Europe, North America and Australasia make aliyah. I for one would be more than happy with such an outcome. I am no friend of the Jews. I’m sure I, and plenty of others, would contribute to a whip-round for Helga and Izzy’s plane fares. But we may have to accept that, at least in our own lifetimes, the outcome we live to see will be less than ideal.

We, the race-conscious revolutionaries, are not the majority of whites, let alone the majority on the planet. We are the ‘minority of the minority of the minority’. Our role now is not to maintain a nation but to maintain a tribe, to maintain the racial and cultural membrane that will preserve our distinctiveness and genius as a race. That requires active resistance, not passive politiking. It means there is going to be a movement breach between those of us who accept a robust form of neo-tribalism as the way forward for racial survival, the sine qua non, and those who want to cling on to the Zionist wreckage of bankrupt geopolitical constructs. The Jews are asking us to become more multi-cultural (in the mixed-racial sense), and thus, by definition, less white. That is an attack on the essence of us, the White Race. We in reply should ask the Jews to become more homogenous, and thus, by definition, more Jewish, and in the process, we become more white. That is our defence: to indirectly help the Jews advance their own cause in the hope and expectation that we will maintain ours. Such is tribal logic.

Originally published at

No comments:

Post a Comment


by Richard Wolstencroft The date was December 4th, 2017. Milo Yiannopoulis rode into my home town of Melbourne on his Sedan chair to...