Saturday, 22 November 2008

The phony war

Who will benefit from this week's BNP membership list leak? Anti-fascists? Rival nationalists? Rebel members? No, those that benefit are the globalisers and the liberal elite. Those responsible for the leak may be anti-Griffin modernisers, the Tyndallite old guard, leftist infiltrators or spooks, but it doesn't really matter - divide and conquer is the name of the game. This latest example of the BNP hitting the headlines (and they more than most will recognise that any publicity is good publicity) highlights the need for a redefining of politics away from the tired Left/Right paradigm and towards the new battleground of pro and anti-globalist camps. Genuine anti-globalists should jettison the Left/Right straightjacket - it only serves the interests of our common enemies.

The 'fascist'/'anti-fascist' divide descended into trench warfare a long, long time ago which neither side can win. There is a hideous way in which dogma consumes each side, so much so that the left and right charicature each other to the extent that each side's perception of the other is rarely a fair representation. The right see anti-fascists as ZOG's bootboys, and the left see the right as the hired thugs of the bosses. So it is two gargantuan myths that sustain this standoff - the left won't rest until the world proletarian revolution has wiped world history away, and the right won't be happy until the world resembles the plot of The Turner Diaries. This will get us nowhere.

Both the left and right are made up of reactionary and radical elements. We've had a century of them knocking lumps out of each other, we're long due a makeover. Pick out the best bits from each, mold it into something better, then throw it in the face of the elites. You might be an internationalist and see no borders - fine, but that does not mean the patriot is your biggest enemy - let him love his flag, he's no neo-imperialist turning the planet into Starbucks, is he?

The National Anarchist perspective on the left/right divide is one I agree with: If far-leftists fight against the globalisers, neo-liberals and neo-imperialists then they are worthy of support. When they side with the globalist agenda, support multiculturalism and left-liberalism they should be opposed. The same goes for the so-called far-right: If nationalists defend their people against unrestrained capitalism and global markets, they should be encouraged. If they side with the elites and reaction they become the enemy.

The war between the left and right is a trap, a vicious circle...and we need to look for an end game. In order to challenge the (vast) power of the globalisers, it is down to those who would deny them imposing their certainties on the world to place ALLIANCE BUILDING between different anti-globalist camps at the top of the agenda. This isn't to suggest that we form a pristine new movement of the Third Way that we can all join - it aint gonna happen. But it is up to the non-sectarians from all camps (themselves a considerable minority) to work towards co-ordination and new approaches. The mainstream anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist factions would benefit from the social nationalists, while the energy and organisational prowess of the left-anarchists can teach the traditional nationalist groups a thing or two about avoiding stupor.

Now, before anyone starts, we know that 90% of leftists and rightists will snarl and spit feathers at this suggestion. So what? Leave them to rot. We have to concentrate on the 10% that are non-dogmatic, more independent of mind, the free-thinkers who are open to new ideas, receptive to debate and who won't start ranting and raving. Look at what we have in common - in the case of the 'left' and 'right' it's more than the blinkered would let on.

Saturday, 8 November 2008

Unity in 2012

Ralph Nader didn't become the 44th President of the United States, but he did get 677,285 votes - third place. Not as much as the triumphant 2.8 million he got in 2000 but then the Greens had backed him. They didn't back him this time, preferring to see the GPUS candidate, ex-Democrat Cynthia McKinney get 146,281. Mckinney only managed to get on the ballot in 32 states, whereas Nader reached the dizzying heights of 46.

The Nader camp raised 4M dollars and overall ran a much more professional campaign. We must have unity in four years time between the Nader coalition, the Greens and (if they don't scare off the average American too much) the flotsam and jetsam of the far-left - the SPUSA, SWP and the Party of Socialism & Liberation all ran their own presidential candidates - they should all have got behind Nader in my book. I'm not suggesting they should all kiss Ralph's feet, but the radical movement in the states would benefit from one single figurehead.

Bob Barr for the Libertarian Party took nearly half a million votes across 45 out of 51 states. Now, it might be a tall order for the Libertarian Party to seek common cause with America's strongish paleo-conservative milieu, although I can't see why the newly formed, Ayn Rand worshipping, Objectivist Party can't come to some agreement with the LPUS in 2012.

What I'd really like to see in four years time is a united campaign from the Constitution Party (who's Chuck Baldwin picked up 180,000 votes this time) and the Reform Party, thereby uniting America's Old Right. Maybe Sarah Palin, could be persuaded to stand if she falls from grace in Republican circles...or Ron Paul...why not? They'd get more than Pat Buchanan did in 2000. A strong protectionist candidate in 2012 could once again show average Americans that self-sufficiency in the economy is no bad thing.

As a little footnote to my thoughts on America here - I don't get over on Stormfront much at all, you'll be relieved to know, but I bet the place is going mental at the moment, no, not so much because of Barak's skin pigmentation, but who he's just picked as his Chief of Staff - no not because of Rahm Emanuel's Jewish ethnicity (shock horror) but because his dad was a member of the Irgun, a militant zionist militia in Palestine...I can hear the aryan warriors spitting feathers as I write.

The Greens are now the third largest party in New Zealand with 8 seats (up 2 from 2005)with 6.43% of the popular vote. Although it was a bad night for the other anti-globalist forces - New Zealand First was wiped out. The far-left did badly: The SWP front Residents Action Movement got 405 and the less sectarian/born out-of-a-unity-project Workers Party got 824. For a party which claims 770 members, this isn't good.

Up in Glenrothes the fortunes of the once mighty Scottish left were just as derisory as their kiwi comrades. Solidarity picked up 87 votes, which is awful and the Scottish Socialist Party managed 212, although their apparent attempts to appeal to the Green vote are encouraging. For UKIP, who have never really bothered north of the border to beat a woman representing Tommy Sheridan's party (still a very popular man up there)speaks volumes about the poverty of the old left.