Wednesday, 30 January 2008

Anymore for anymore?

Following on from the news that a new political party (pushing for full English independence) is about to come into the world, this month has seen the birth of another one. The Libertarian Party (UK version) has been signed up with the Electoral Commission by disaffected UKIP types, from what I can gather. Go get 'em boys! risk of being labelled a doom & gloom merchant - Wake up and smell the coffee. Look at the last few years: Veritas, UKPopDems, Popular Alliance, Populist Party, New Nationalist Party, Freedom Party, England First Party, Grassroots Democracy Party. Let's not deal with the 'left' we'll be here all night. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely admire people who think they've got what it takes to go it alone, but with the exception of a few localist concerns, such as the Community Action Party based in Wigan and couple of other places, any new initiatives have fallen by the wayside or have failed to gain momentum.

MINORITY REPORT - Titbits from the Outer-limits
Amid reports of disarray among the BNP 'Voice of Change' rebels, they managed to pull off a seemingly successful conference last sunday, with talk of a leadership challenge. Watch this space, as they say.

Saturday February 2nd marks Candlemas and also Imbolc meaning In the Belly or Oimelc, meaning Ewe's milk It is a time of rebirth, when the days grow longer, the sun stronger and when the life force shows signs of ascendancy.

Tuesday, 22 January 2008

Er...Maybe not

It seems that I was a little premature with my assertion that the English nationalist milieu seems to be rallying around the English Democrats Party. Former EngDem NC member and prominent London activist Andrew Constantine has now left the party altogether in protest at the majority's opposition to full English independence. It seems as though a new party calling for full independence is in the offing.

I see independence as a positive step and support it fully, but sadly I don't see much potential in a new pro-independence party making much progress, not because I think English independence will not attract popular appeal - I think it will - but because it is nye on impossible for small parties to to gain a significant foothold in the political arena. Even 'titans' like the Greens, UKIP and BNP are miniscule when you look at the big picture. If a pro-independence party does come about this year, I wish it all the very best and will admire its spirit, but I'd fear for its future all the same. My advice to activists is to stay in the English Democrats, bite your lip, build the profile of the English cause, fight for a maximum GLA vote in May - then come out fighting after the elections and win the party for independence. Look at the infrastructure, membership and resources the EngDems has. Use it! Can you really afford to start from scratch?

Saturday, 19 January 2008

National Anarchism made simple

Further to my recent post on National-Anarchism ('Tear up the rulebook', 5th January) I'm reproducing this article, 'National Anarchism Made Simple', salvaged from the now defunct National-Anarchist Campaign website. Although I don't agree with every dot and comma, I do believe it offers a digestible primer to National Anarchism and I reproduce it here because it falls into a general anti-globalist, non-dogmatic and syncretic political outlook which this blog aims to promote...


The world today is undergoing a process of GLOBALIZATION.

This means that nation states are losing their relevance and more and more economic, political and military power is being concentrated in the hands of powerful INTERNATIONAL players.

One effect of globalization is the destruction of nations, cultures, peoples, values . . . anything that stands in the way as the NATIONAL gives way to the INTERNATIONAL.

If your values are at odds with those of the globalises -- whether your values be nationalist, communist, anarchist, Islamic, Christian or anything else -- you will see things that you hold dear being swept aside.

Today’s globalizers are NEOLIBERALS. They preach the supremacy of the free market, unrestrained trade, unrestrained capitalism in all its brutality . . . The rich prosper -- the poor tend to be exploited.

The world is not being run well by these neoliberal globalizers. Their greed leads to terrible suffering worldwide.

These neoliberal globalizers bleat about the horrors, real and invented, of communism and Nazism. But their greed and their wars kill more people than either communism or Nazism!

Even if we accept the view of mainstream historians that 50 million people died in the Second World War -- more people than this die from starvation-related causes worldwide every three years!

These neoliberals are full of their own moral righteousness.

But how 'moral' was it to drop nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, cities full of civilians, at a time when they knew full well that Japan was trying to start surrender negotiations (as Truman's writings and the testimony of senior FBI officials such as Dulles show)?

They were very quick to condemn the Soviet Union for invading Afghanistan.

But these neoliberals, spearheaded by the United States, did not hesitate to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Haiti, Grenada, Vietnam and many other countries when it suited them.

They are quick to accuse others of 'war crimes' and to put them on trial.

Funny how international law can never be applied against their leaders when they do the same things and worse . . .

The hypocrisy of 'Western values' is clear.

They condemn Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who opposed them, as an 'evil dictator' yet they have had good relations with 'dictatorial' regimes such as those in China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Their kind never hesitated to prop up 'dictators' in countries such as Chile and Argentina when it suited them. Indeed, they even supported Saddam when it was convenient -- before he spoke out against them and before they decided to try to get his oil!

The cornerstone of their worldview is the evil of the German concentration camps in World War II, yet their own World War II atrocities such as the nuclear bombing of entire Japanese cities full of civilians at a time when the Japanese government was trying to surrender, the deliberate expatriation of Russian and Yugoslav emigres to their death at the hands of their 'allies' (the 'evil dictators' Stalin and Tito), and the unnecessary conventional bombing of cities full of civilians such as Dresden are considered irrelevant. Where were the war crimes trials of their leaders? Where is the orchestrated anger and outrage about their crimes?

The world is being taken over by people with blood on their hands whose 'values' are based on hypocrisy, who do not hesitate to kill and enslave when it suits them, and who are quite willing to erase cultures, religions, ideologies, ways of life that they perceive to be standing in their way.

In the past, great empires have crumbled. The Roman empire crumbled. The Ottoman empire crumbled. The Nazi empire crumbled. The British empire crumbled, as did that of the French. Even the Soviet empire crumbled. But the New World Order is different.

(a) It is a global empire -- there is no outside force to overthrow it or to put economic pressure on it.

(b) It has at its disposal absolutely vast military, policing and above all intelligence resources (spies).

(c) It is able to use subtle control of the media -- television and newspapers -- to control the flow of information to the ordinary people.

(d) It has developed a system of 'two-party democracy' whereby in each country there are two 'main' parties or coalitions, both of which support neoliberal globalization. The people tend to 'oppose' one by voting for the other, not realizing that both stand for the same basic things and are often in the pockets of the same people.

How can we oppose them? What is to be done?

Opposing them through elections is pointless.

(a) You cannot win important elections unless you have sustained access to the media -- on television and in newspapers. You need to be on television every night. The neoliberals will never allow their opponents such access. You have some freedom to speak but little freedom to be heard.

(b) You cannot win important elections unless you have vast manpower and financial resources. Even if you get such resources, the neoliberals will use 'dirty tricks' to take away your money and drive away your supporters.

(c) Even if you win an election, so what? The real global policy decisions are taken globally, and often by people who are unelected. To have a real effect you would need to win elections throughout the world -- and neutralize the effect of the people who have the politicians in their pockets!

(d) Yet if you were to win just one important election, the system could well use the full force of its media, economic sanctions, dirty tricks, and possibly even armed violence to sweep you from power. Look at the Algerian election of 1992 -- the Islamists won, so they cancelled the elections!

The electoral route is a waste of time.

Opposing them with revolutionary violence is pointless, at least in the countries of the West.

In the Middle East and the Third World, some gains have indeed been made through violent insurrection. The Israelis were kicked out of Lebanon and have lost much ground because of violence from their opponents. The Americans have been forced to rethink their imperialist ambitions in Iraq. Even in little Nepal, the Maoists have secured much territory and power through violence. However, with the possible exception of the '9/11' attacks, violence in the core countries of the West has failed to secure significant anti-Establishment gains.

Given the military resources of the Establishment, but more importantly its police and intelligence resources, anyone who thinks they can overthrow the neoliberals by violence is either insane or an Establishment spy trying to provoke you into getting yourself arrested.

Always be suspicious of those who urge you to commit acts of violence.

We national-anarchists have a different solution.

We accept that the enemy has won. The neoliberal globalizers have gained control of the world. We do not have the resources to overthrow them.

However, there are things that we can do to preserve values and ways of life that are contrary to those of the neoliberals.

We need to move away from destructive strategies that seek to take power from the Establishment. We need to move away from electoral participation and violence. These paths have been blocked. We are just wasting our time if we try to pursue these routes.

We need to move towards constructive strategies. Strategies of building alternatives to the New World Order. Strategies of acquiring our own resources, or forming alliances with other anti-Establishment groups, but above all of building our own isolated communities and turning our backs on the New World Order, decisively and for ever.

Our ultimate aim should be to build self-sufficient, isolated, intentional (voluntary) communities in the most inaccessible regions of the Earth.

We should turn our backs on the New World Order for ever and live according to our own values, whatever they might be.

If you are a Christian, then build a Christian community. If you are a communist, then build a communist community. If you are a white separatist, build a white separatist community. If you are a Buddhist, build a Buddhist community. If you care about the environment, build an environmentally friendly community. Turn your backs on the murderers and hypocrites who have bought the world! Live according to your own values, whatever they may be, and not according to theirs!

People have been building intentional communities to try to preserve particular ways of life for many thousands of years. Many have failed but some have succeeded.

It is a very difficult path to follow, but it is far easier than trying to change the world through elections or through violence.

Do not misinterpret this as a call simply to move to the countryside with a few friends. Such 'cabbage-patch national-anarchism' will fail.

(a) If you are geographically close to the population centres of the New World Order then it will be easy for people to join and leave. You will attract half-hearted types. Moreover, it will be easy for people to go off in a huff. This can cause fatal damage. You need isolation so that it's a 'big thing' to join and leave. Only the dedicated will want to take such a big step. And they will be less likely to go home when the going gets tough.

(b) If you don't isolate yourself sufficiently, you will be tempted to become dependent on the Establishment media, electricity supply, schools and other facilities. Eventually you -- like so many others before you -- will simply become overwhelmed by the world around you and dragged back into it.

(c) If you don't isolate yourself sufficiently, it will be easier to find yourself involved in conflicts with the outside world. Such conflicts have caused the demise of many attempts at community building.

National-anarchism, to work in the long term, must involve complete and uncompromising isolation. It is not about taking a holiday in the countryside.

The secret of making this sort of strategy work is to attract and inspire pioneers -- people and organizations with intelligence, motivation and above all resources.

The emphasis therefore must be on producing and targeting propaganda, with the aim of generating pioneers who will use their personalities, intelligence and wealth to establish remote, intentional communities.

Tactical unity or death

Two small parties caught my eye again this week:
According to the (one man?) UK Popular Democrats , talks with Veritas (or what's left of it) are still on, although there was no mention of Adrian Davies's once councillor boasting Freedom Party, which I presume is kaput, that had been declared as an interested party last autumn.

Also, the Popular Alliance, the Veritas splinter group which once boasted Tony Bennett of CountyWatch fame, is at least still twitching. The party is contesting the Stretton ward on East Staffs Borough Council on 14th Feb. Will we see a St Valentine's Day massacre, perhaps?

But the writing's on the wall. There is no realistic future for these groups. For this type of politics, UKIP is the only show in town.

I suppose you can forgive the English Democrats for ploughing a lone furrow. Although technically a federalist party (they stop short of calling for English independence) they are not for the existing status quo when it comes to the national question like UKIP et al. So it's healthy to see that activists from the English Independence Movement have recently voted themselves out of existence and are pledging support for the EngDems whilst fighting their case from within and around it. Unlike the unionists, English nationalists seem to be recognising the need for tactical unity*

Now, I'm acutely aware that taken to its logical conclusion, this argument leads to the "all socialists should be in the Labour Party" line. However, when in a position of - less face it - organisational and numerical weakness, it's a necessity.

* We can discount the England First Party which primarily owes its existence to a clash of egos on the far-right.

The BNP rebels rallying around Sadie Graham have set up the Voice of Change pressure group. Their website can be viewed here

There is still no official word on why Garry Bushell pulled out of the London Mayoral race. Odd, I mean he had an official campaign site and everything.

Monday, 14 January 2008

Teflon BNP

Despite the latest shenanigans including the cops raiding Sadie Graham, the BNP managed to take 28% of the vote in the Ibstock & Heather ward by-election in NW Leicestershire last Thursday - just 63 votes away from snatching the seat from Labour. Joe Public is oblivious to the internal problems of the party, so as far as popular appeal goes, it's business as usual for the party. Apparently there were 60 odd local activists out campaigning and this in an area that has supposedly been worst hit by the rebellion. It's almost certain GLA seats are in the bag come May.
Incidently, the rebels are about to launch a 'Voice of Change' pressure group to influence BNP trajectory and are wisely NOT planning a new party. Hurrah!

Talking of the London elections, a leading English Democrat, Andrew Constantine, has resigned from the party's NC. They've just had a meeting to select a Mayoral candidate of which Andrew was one. This has been caused by Garry Bushell stepping aside apparently due to other work commitments. As I write, no name has been announced, but if I were a betting man I'd wager Constantine's resignation is because he's lost out to Fathers 4 Justice campaigner Matt O'Conner who has just joined the Party. A bit of a protest from a seasoned activist being upstaged by a celeb Johnny Comelately? Of course I could be way off the mark, but losing Bushell is a blow to the EDP -O'Conner hasn't got as much pull. The BNP are set to benefit from this

Saturday, 5 January 2008

Tear up the rulebook

One of the more interesting of anti-globalist tendencies that have emerged in recent years is National Anarchism (or 'National-Anarchism' if you prefer). Whilst it can hardly be described as a mass movement (there are just a handful of propagandist groupscules and websites) it's potential lies in its adherent's willingness to jettison rigid dogma and speak cruel truths about both the state of play for anti-capitalists (the outlook is extremely grim) and the human condition (it's highly unlikely we are all going to agree on all adopting one alternative political system, so we should aspire to build our own and not pass judgement on others)

It has been a difficult birth. Predictably derided by dogmatists from both the left and the right, today's small band of national anarchists must be reminded of that old Buzzcocks song 'Shot By Both Sides'. Drawing parallels with the Third Position, national anarchists vigorously refute charges of fascism, racism and communism alike.

A rather scholarly N-A website, National-Anarchist Campaign, is unfortunately now defunct. It was maintained by one David Michael, an ex-BNP member, who it would appear is something of a pariah to some on the right, and indeed other national-anarchists (but that's life, eh?!). His writings were brutally honest about the present ideological poverty of the left and right. However the site's FAQ and a 'Plan of Action' can still be read here and here .

Some other sites that espouse national anarchist arguments are, from the US: Folk and Faith and a group from the Bay Area. And from Down Under there is the New Right group, who, I believe, are the first N-A group to have a street presence.
Will National anarchist ideas gain an audience and appeal or will they be killed off by the Old Guard? Time will tell. While syncretic ideologies are nothing new, one thing all anti-globalists can learn from the national anarchists is that if we really want to build viable alternatives to the present set up, we've got to swallow our pride, live and let live and tear up the rulebook. We have to recognise that we can't take on the system head on. We must start simply ignoring it as much as we can in our own sweet ways. Unfornately I fear, this reasoning will fall on the deaf ears of too many sectarians in all camps.

Although it boasts an electoral system more confusing than a road map of Milton Keynes, election time in the good old US of A is always a time to illustrate that American politics doesn't end with elephants and donkeys.

The traditional left always manage to launch a campaign and this time around it's the Socialist Party of the USA throwing caution to the wind. The left in the States has always been stronger than you might think, from the IWW to the CPUSA, although it is a safe bet that the SP's Brian Moore is not going to be sat in the Oval Office this time next year.

The Greens are going for it again (in 2000 Ralph Nader bagged them 2.8 million votes - and arguably let Dubya in)

Another lot to look out for are the paleoconservative Constitution Party with a platform that's anti-UN, NAFTA, GATT and WTO (Yeah! Death to the New World Order!) They are also anti-immigration, Pro-Life, anti-porn, anti-gay marriage and anti-income tax.

The Libertarian Party (who were once mentioned by Ned Flanders in an episode of The Simpsons) are also hoping to do well. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is close to the LP and may stand for them if he fails to win the Republican candidacy.

MINORITY REPORT - Titbits from the Outer-limits
The Electoral Commission have fined the BNP a grand for not getting their 2006 accounts in on time.
The Griffin/Graham rift seems to have calmed down a bit. In a diplomatic move Griffin has given many of the rebels an amnesty, but only time will tell if this episode has done them any permanent damage.

I read in the Daily Telegraph this week that there has been a sharp decline in pub skittle alleys in recent years. Yes, another part of our heritage dying (and anyone who thinks pub games aren't 'heritage' don't know the meaning of the word) So what's replacing them? Yeah, bloody dining areas...still there's always the big American-style Bowlplex out of town, eh!

The culprit (aged 24 and old enough to know better) who vandalised the Statue of King Alfred in Wantage this week has at least shown a bit of remorse by turning himself in. I'm not so much angry with him as pitying him. Here is someone whom, I suspect, only identifies with the plastic modern-day McWorld...unless he's some kind of extreme Brythonic nationalist I suppose.

This coming Monday is Plough Monday, the first after epiphany. Traditionally the start of the agricultural year, a village plough is brought into the church to be blessed before it's took out to turn the earth ready for sowing. In some areas it was first dragged round the village by the plough lads who sang and begged for a coin or two.