By Michael Woodbridge | Western Spring | 27 February 2015
The ramshackle remnants of British Nationalism afford us a unique, ideological, opportunity which can provide a revolutionary framework for the future. Bold courageous thinking is in order. In this article we’ll take a brief introductory look at the historical context of British Nationalism and examine a way forward as suggested by the American writer and religious founder Ben Klassen.
Up until 2010, when the British National Party was still largely thriving, there was a possibility, just a possibility, that by “not rocking the boat” and adhering to its intellectually dishonest but populist agenda, our movement might just break through to establish at least a toehold in “the corridors of power”. Not so any longer! In fact with hindsight the demise of the BNP might be seen as a blessing in disguise. Without the requisite ideological weaponry any form of British Nationalism is bound to fail sooner rather than later. This is not a personal criticism of the many fine men and women who made untold sacrifices out of an altruistic sense of duty. However, if anyone should doubt the futility of their course they would be advised to follow the fortunes of the United Kingdom Independence Party over the next few years. By adopting the same superficially, patriotic agenda, but in an even more watered down form than the BNP, Ukip will follow the BNP into the same political cul de sac. As such and without the foundation of an honest Racist ideology, Ukip will only ever be a useful irritant against the political establishment but never in itself a means to effect necessary change.
Had a miracle occurred and had the BNP won a parliamentary seat at Dagenham during the 2010 General Election or even advanced sufficiently to be in a winning position for the next round this year, the Party would have still remained ideologically half-baked. Terms such as “Democracy” and “anti-White Racism” abounded in BNP literature. It should have dawned on the leadership that by adopting the nomenclature of the enemy they were fighting the enemy on its own home turf. The term “Democracy” was used by the BNP to imply all that’s good, just and desirable in modern society. Unfortunately, the word has become increasingly identified with the American/Zionist agenda whereby innocent citizens are terror bombed from a great height in order to effect “regime change” and the “democratic” blessings which are supposedly going to flow from it but never do. The other major mistake the BNP leadership made was to adopt a negative connotation to the word “Racist”. So we had glossy pamphlets announcing that “Racism cuts both ways”. Yet in their eagerness to turn the proverbial tables on their “politically correct” opponents the BNP leadership ended up wearing politically correct clothes themselves, leaving no space for a principled Racist ideology. Vainly might we try to disentangle the term “Racialism”, “Racial Loyalism” or “Racial Nationalism” from the term “Racism”. But the BNP leadership had already scored a home goal. In any case we were never going to persuade a hostile media that while those nasty “Racists” down the road might be bigoted morons who probably write poison pen letters and allow their pit bull terriers to foul the pavement, we nice, cuddly “Racialists” want nothing more than to champion the sweet reason of identity and the true diversity of “humankind”.
Rather than confront our enemies full on by adopting the term “Racist” as our own, the BNP leadership avoided using the “R” word altogether and so retreated ideologically by discovering “Ethno-Nationalism”. The problem with “Ethno-Nationalism” though is that it avoids a scientific definition of Race. Ethnicity is as much a cultural concept as a racial concept and although we know Race and Culture are dependent upon one another the distinction between them becomes blurred. When asked about the concept of Ethno-Nationalism at a Red White and Blue rally, the late and hugely lamented Jonathan Bowden replied that he was a Racialist … the idea was a fudge, and he wasn’t going to lie to the British people. He might have also quoted the Victorian statesman who wrote, “All is Race, there is no other truth.” Another quote from the same source, which the BNP in its eagerness to play the victim card might have taken on board was, “Never complain, and never explain.”
In the propaganda war, of which we’re a part, we should never allow our opponents to frame the argument. On the contrary, we should wear their attempted demonisation as a badge of honour. We should become our enemy’s worst nightmare. Of course if we simply reacted in a ridiculous way to every false accusation and started behaving like “Hollywood Nazis”, we would also be allowing our opponents to frame the argument. Those who might wish to act in such a way are as much our enemy as, shall we say, Russell Brand might like to dream he was.
Aficionados of the cinema might notice how Soviet propaganda films from the Second World War never referred to the German enemy as “Nazi” or “National Socialist”, but always as “Fascist”. This is for the very good reason that the Soviets considered themselves to be the guardians of true Socialism and couldn’t bring to themselves to acknowledge that the Germans might have felt the same way about themselves.
During the ‘Cold War’ we in the ‘West’ were constantly told that Communism and National Socialism were evil twins. Since 1989 and the triumph of Global Capitalism the position has shifted somewhat. Former Trotskyites in America, largely Jews, have become Neo-conservatives, super patriots and warmongers. The Trotskyite/Marxist agenda of “Political Correctness” with its unrelenting pursuit of an unobtainable, universal equality has become the leading dogma of our age. This suits the establishment very well because neo-Marxist deconstructivism breaks down tradition and resistance leaving the way open for the insatiable greed of the Capitalist system. Both Marxist deconstructivism with its brainchild “Political Correctness together with unbridled Global Capitalism perform a pincer movement in our planned destruction. Between them they have become an out of control juggernaut. It’s been referred to elsewhere as the “Greed Machine”. The Capitalist half of the juggernaut views with contempt those who object to its progress by describing them as “Nimbeys” (Not In My Back Yarders). In truth, those lucky enough to have a backyard know that it’s their one legitimate breathing space where they can retain some control over their lives.
In opposing our racial and cultural extinction many of us have been drawn to National Socialism. Yet, at the heart of National Socialism is a paradox because, as exemplified during the Second World War, there could be a conflict between an intense loyalty and love for one’s own country and one’s paramount duty to ones race. To take just one sample, the case of of John Amery, son of Leo Amery, Churchill’s wartime Secretary of State for India, who was hanged for treason after the War for recruiting British prisoners to fight against the Bolshevik menace on the Eastern Front. Who amongst us could now say that John Amery who not only risked his life but his reputation and honour, was any the less patriotic than the countless thousands slaughtered on the battlefields in a dysgenic war fought on behalf of our countries enemies? When he faced Albert Pierrepoint, the hangman, he quipped, “Mr. Pierrepoint, I’ve always wanted to meet you. Though not of course under these circumstances.” Pierrepoint acknowledged that John Amery was the bravest man he’d ever hanged.
It was the realisation of the limitations of Nationalism that led many progressive minded patriots after the War to look for an ideology that, without betraying their cultural heritage, would take us beyond the small Nation State. Prominent amongst these were Sir Oswald Mosley and Francis Parker Yockey, both of whom favoured a European Union. However, whilst Mosley and Yockey thought of Europe primarily in cultural and geographic terms it took Ben Klassen and his American based Church of the Creator (now the Church of Creativity) to put Race firmly at the forefront of the political agenda with his ideology of Racial Socialism.
In some ways it would take an American such as Ben Klassen to clearly understand the pre-eminence of Race in determining culture. Born of German speaking parents in Russia he was brought up and educated in Canada. During his career he had been a farmer, a schoolmaster, an inventor of the electronic tin opener and a Florida State Legislator. It was in his book, ‘Nature’s Eternal Religion’ that Klassen developed his Racial Socialist theme.
Ben Klassen found that each of America’s multiplicity of cultures was defined by its Race. As John Tyndall once said, “America is a melting pot which refuses to melt”. So we’re left with Native Americans, Afro-Americans, Latin Americans, Jewish Americans and European Americans. Thus Race rather than National background becomes important. It’s also important to note that just as men from various countries in the Waffen SS during the Second World War fought together in comradeship as one army, so White Racial Loyalist Americans will have more in common with others from various national backgrounds than they have with degenerates of their own nation.
Rejecting all political dogma, Ben Klassen defines Racial Socialism simply as, “Organised Society”. This is the polar opposite of Mrs Thatcher’s Capitalist view when she said, “There’s no such thing as Society”.
As Klassen said, “What we are really concerned about is: what is the most practical and viable type of organised society for the White man to live in? What is best for the White Race?” He says that Racial socialism is teamwork elevated to its highest perfection for the welfare of the whole Race and led by its ablest leaders. Rejecting “individual enterprise” as fraud, Klassen cites the game of ‘Monopoly’ in which the eventual winner gains the upper hand long before the game is over. As he says the White Man’s natural mode of living is as a member of the tribe, as a member of a larger group. Were he to live outside it and live as an individual, again, his society would break down and he would perish.