The related story that the British media are trying to bury, is the native uprising that sees the British National Party gaining a lot of ground in the London local elections, the vote counting of which is still proceeding at this time.
I'm curious about that part too. It has to wait for morning for me.
Following up on my comment, here is the latest bulletin from the BNP's web site. The gist of it is that they won 100 local council seats so far, up from the 84 they held previously, and they may get a few more when the dust settles. According to this site, the BNP contested 562 out of a total of 3920 seats. This translates into the BNP making a gain of 19% and winning 2.56% of the total.
Latest update: the BNP managed to get into the London Assembly for the first time, winning one solitary seat that will be taken up by its list candidate Richard Barnbrook.
I think most of us who give the issue some thought can distinguish between ethnic nationalism and xenophobic particularism. Some can't, as we know, see past the Left paradigms of our current pseudo-culture, and they therefore become particularist in their own way. It's a delicate balance. We like our own, but how we define our won is something flexible in reasonable people. I have some serious concerns about the BNP, just as much as I do about some of our most thoughtless Leftist fellows in this struggle against jihad and Muslim supremacism. Falling for one mindless extreme or the other harms us.I sat the gains in the BNP's efforts, and frankly I'm disappointed they didn't do better, though I'm not at all surprised. The BNP is the best hope of a wake-call to the intelligentsia on the British horizon. It shows to anyone willing to attend to it that the natives are restless. In cases thus one is wise to attend before the problem grows. Not all BNP voters are drunken louts on the dole, and to write them off as such is to miss an important movement across Britain and, I guess here, across Europe: that the people are slowly moving away from the terrorism of the intelligentsia's normative narrative. Those few percent who voted for the BNP are today those who will go further tomorrow, and those who see it will follow to where the BNP is today, always some steps behind the active vanguard. The question is where the vanguard will stop and how powerful this radical vanguard will be when it does. I think it has far to go yet to give what i call "permission" to the masses to contradict in action the Gnostic intelligentsia. This is a beginning; and I am concerned that if it takes too long and is too flaccid a movement, the BNP will find itself overtaken by a deeper radicalism that will draw the middle to a further extreme. More now will save us greater problems in the future. The louder the warning now, the sooner the correction. The resentment of the working classes in Britain, the nativist movement, is healthy at this point; but if it lags, if it doesn't do its therapeutic good, if it doesn't wreck the old order and give space for a new and sober health in the body politic, then we will witness, I think, a further resentment that will draw out deeper hostilities and more likelihood of direct action against an unresponsive system.Let the lower classes, as it were, and the sensitive intellectual class members blow off some steam now, gain recognition of their concerns, find some redress, and perhaps things will settle. But I don't think so in this round. Not enough to prompt a change, meaning further prompting next round. As confidence grows in the BNP, or as confidence sags in the BNP we'll see a reaction in like. It's all up to the intelligentsia. Will they wait till the day they're in the cart on the way to their beheadings, or will they heed the call they should be hearing now?The average native Brit has legitimate rights as an ethnic native. To miss that or to denigrate it in terms of the nativist racism or xenophobia is to bring out further resentments that will lead to conflagrations, apocalyptic ones, I dare say, in the future, human nature always being the same regardless of time or place.We can be broadly 'us' today; and if we must be less broadly us today than we all might prefer, still it's better than to be at genuine war among us all later. So I cheer the gains of the BNP but wish the message of discontent had been stronger. 2010 will tell us far more, whether we like it or not. In that time we must come to terms with our issues regarding nativism. Leftist hoohah won't do us any good. If we support the BNP and other nativist parties in upcoming elections we must do so clearly in theory. To indulge in the authority of the given is going to wreck us. Either side will become more hostile and less effective against the opposition. We must accept that we are 'we' to some extent, and that beyond that some are not and cannot be 'us.' I accept most as us in the broadest way. But it's not limitless, as some of our fellows seem to think it should be. To come to terms with Reason as our guide, we can determine the bounds of our support for Israel and our support for, as an example, Vlams Belang, even for the BNP, while at the same time not dumping our foreign born wives and children. Or us, in some cases. My personal position, one not completely shared by my colleagues here, is that we need a general theory of our goal, open in the teleological sense I mean it in.To summarize, I welcome the gains by the BNp as a warning to the intelligentsia of Europe, but I fear it's not loud enough to shake them from their phantasies as yet. i don't have any deep liking of them, and i understand the antipathy of our fellows who hate them but we cannot write-off our own as less enlightened than we in the expectation that they will somehow go away rather than grow even more hostile inn future. They, like we, have legitimate rights and concerns. Where the middle ends up is going to be up to those who decide to act, acting as Men of Action. In that we need theory so we have an idea of where we go and to know where we do not go. It's not so simple as our fellows elsewhere would like it to be, and if they don't see the fog of necessary collusion with others, then we stand a good chance of genuine harm at a later time in the fog of war, shooting mindlessly and blindly at each other.
Aye, but isn't the fog of war already upon us? And still, we have no "general theory of our goal". And where could it possibly come from? (Are we to put off fighting the war and wait for it to come...?) What form of BNP-friendly neo-Marxism are we going to adopt, to put the question in its most provocative form?To put it more succinctly and Dagmatically, can a filibuster for a universal modernity have a general theory?In other words, is a universal modernity an identifiable or imaginable end of history, or simply a realization that the terms of the ever-changing game and of our alliances have to be played out in something like the constitution of a liberal democracy?If the BNP could give a satisfactory answer to that kind of question I'd consider supporting them. As it is, rather than just advocating a particular immigration policy alongside defense of the British constitution and a freedom-loving society, I see vaguely hints of national socialist fantasies and a leader who keeps having to remind himself each morning that he is no longer an antisemite and at war with the monied interests that rule the world.I could be wrong, but I wouldn't look to the BNP to be just a bull to charge the failed intelligentsia. I'd want my allies to have an appreciation of the free society. A universal modernist should not dream of trying to control the angry masses, or their emboldened leaders, one should only politic with them in a way that opens up a useful learning process in what it means to be a universal modernist. Maybe the BNP are in that game now, I don't know, I'm not close enough to the British scene to pass serious judgment. But if they're not, I'd guess they're still ready to cast aside their useful Dagmatists when the time comes.
Compare what Paul Belien says about Europe's "anti-ideological" nativists and note his criticism of the linked but unnamed Robert Spencer and his "ideological solution to Jihad".Maybe our way forward is to split the difference?
Exactly so; if we continue to envision our historiography in Marxist paradigms we will forever turn out neo-Marxist theories of eschatology in response to all ever-changing social conditions. We will be the ones trapped in amber.We can envision history as something more than our past intellectual experiences of History as dialectical historicism. We can look at the is of humanness and decipher Man from there in his generalities outside ideological constraints of our time and places, unlike the Left, unlike Islam, unlike those who don't consider History at all. We can do so because we are democrats. We are the only ones who can do so. The unobstructed vision of history is never going to be clear in its hindsight, and it's always hopeless in its foresight, granted; but a goal is not historically pre-determined just because one aims to impose a historical Plan. That's one thing we know as scientific historians, as it were. But unobstructed historical vision is possible to a greater extent with the least amount of ideology, and thus, the less ideology the more likely the future will be open to our goal, the making of it organic and innately Human as opposed to Gnostic and private.The BNP rework outworn and provably impractical phantasies as ideological responses to history as programme. We know that if one thing has failed empirically for 250 years it's not going to work next time in a different attribute. So scrap it. But we must act as agents in a free world. We will even by not acting. We'll allow others to act on our behalf as our response to history, like it/them or not. So to act, to improvise, to move for the sake of Action, though disparaged by ideological considerations in light of analysis of fascist practice, very much clear in the programmes of the BNP, et al, is to see ourselves as agents or them, regardless of our motives and our morals. Somebody will grab the reins of state, and if not us, then who? And if us, then where?
I think we're basically agreed.But as to the when and where questions for grabbing the state. Well, let's start at home. But as to the when here in Canada, if it is truly a "grab", then i'd say we have not really achieved our "plan". However much the Gnostics are now in charge, we do not exactly have to grab what is ours by inalienable right as free citizens of a free society. We only have to remember what our society is and insist on the rule of law and its underlying constitutional logic in the common law. We win when we are enough people enamored of our humanness to live in the kind of post-Gnostic society we wish to "imagine", so that we each can in our own lives do what needs to be done, when this becomes evident in our realm of life, in defense of a larger freedom, a necessity and action that is beyond any of us systematically to envision and plan out from on high. We win when a free society is not a plan or a grab but a fact daily lived by the majority of people.To teach or show people their humanness is to show them the necessity of freedom for the very reason that we are immersed in conflict and cannot seriously indulge the fantasy that this fact of the human condition will ever end by some Utopian plan. We win some we lose some, but as long as we lose to free people that's what matters. Yes, when the sundry liberal fascists have control of our state, we in some sense have to grab it back, but the very method of that taking back is not so much a "revolutionary" grab as an openness among those who will do the work to their inherent humanity and right as free citizens of a free society. And it will seem natural, and not a revolutionary grab, when they have done it.As should be clear, I speaking here as a Canadian, as a member of what was once largely recognized by its citizens to be a free society. Admittedly, one has to take a somewhat more revolutionary tack in other lands.
Lord a'mighty! Whether we were "in agreement" previously or no, I find this a dazzling piece of thought, well-articulated and lovely on aesthetic grounds. As they say at Oxbridge, "Wow. Just Wow!"My remaining question is how do you convey the message to the masses and the dull intelligentsia as is that slumber dogmatically in the here and now? After a few generations of the thin and bitter gruel from the Warmans and Kinsellas of our time I do believe the public would lap up such food for thought as above, given the chance. The queston is, how does one deliver this feast to the suburbs of public opinion? Excellent. Sign me up for tickets to this one.
When you've got a mountain to climb, just keep walking, one step, one step...To bring lots of people on board, we have to be willing to retrain that not sizeable part of our population employed as Gnostic minders. We need to make it clear that there are jobs in a free society that involve real disinterested judgment, the proper mediation of conflict among free peoples, and they don't have to keep on playing the lying emperor, or the empty nihilist, nor do they have to give up their "social conscience" to work in the real world which is not all brutal Darwinism... Lots of future writing projects in that...
The last few posts at Gates of Vienna have generated long and animated discussions on demographic calculus, the BNP, and ethnic nationalism, which I don't have the time to digest in full. There are many disjointed thoughts sloshing around in my mind that I hope to organize into a coherent whole. In the meantime, I want to point out that the BNP member and commentator at GOV, Sir H.M., does not fit the simplistic image of BNP supporters that people have. I recall his mentioning some time ago that his wife is of South Asian extraction. There is an aspect about the BNP that I am curious about: what is their position on White converts to Islam? Would they gain membership on the basis of their race or would they be excluded on the grounds that their ideology is harmful to the indigenous way of life?
Post a Comment