I would argue that the most important debate raging within nationalism at present concerns the nature of our rhetoric. Nationalists hold several core principles: opposition to foreign interference in our politics, rejection of multiculturalism and the promotion of indigenous rights to name but a few.
Although individuals may disagree over peripheral issues or interpretations of historical fact, generally there is more than enough common ground between nationalists to form a cohesive movement. What, then, is the problem?
The issue dividing nationalism – and if it were only an intellectual or theoretical divide, then this would be mostly benign – is the degree to which the truth should be enunciated exactly as it is seen and the manner in which this ought to be done.
Broadly speaking, there are two camps.
I will describe the one which I consider to be winning at present as the ‘aggressive’ camp for reasons which should become obvious. These people hold that the truth should be conveyed to the people exactly as we see it, with nothing held back; our beliefs on virtually every matter should actively be made known to everyone. More importantly, no attempt should be made to moderate or tone down our rhetoric in order to aid comprehension – the public must change their views to ours with no concessions on our part.
'The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'
At first glance, this ought to appear agreeable to most nationalists. After all, do we not desire for the people at large to agree with us and accept our policies and ideas?
Adherents of the other camp, which I will call ‘moderate’ as a comparison to the formerly described, have not opposite but difference views. Instead, they believe that our ideas should be communicated in a manner such that the people as they currently stand will be amenable to accepting them as truth; our tone should not be abrasive or off-putting if can be helped, and the most controversial ideas or those most difficult to accept ought to be placed on a back-burner or drip-fed to a future public more ready and more willing to believe them.
One very common misconception is that those belonging to the second group express a wish to lie. Indeed, some nationalists do take the idea of moderating our propaganda to the extreme and actually advocate the pretence of belief in the official line on, for example, nine-eleven or the Shoah. I do not advocate this strategy of deception and I do not include these people in my picture of the ‘moderate’ camp.
Why do I disagree with lying or pretence? The reason is very simple: when and if we achieve victory, and the web of establishment lies, half-truths and propaganda is disassembled, we would face a tricky decision as to whether to keep up our pretence or admit our deceit. Neither would be desirable for obvious reasons.
Besides, active deceit is the game of the establishment and the controlled mainstream media; if we engage in it even to a lesser extent, how can we claim to be any better than they are? We would become a mere alternative, perhaps slightly preferable due to our ideological position, to the governing system rather than its hopeful replacement, having surrendered the moral high ground.
Improving the tone or delivery of our propaganda does not necessarily have anything to do with changing or abandoning any of our beliefs in the slightest. This is why so-called 'fluffy' nationalists – a term I refuse to take seriously, since not even the liberals are genuinely fluffy even in comparison to the most hardcore ethno-nationalists – do not even fit into my picture of proper nationalism, let alone of the group I described as ‘moderate’.
I do not even consider it possible for us to genuinely change our beliefs at will. This is often a point I raise in debate with religiously-inclined people who attempt to convince me with the threat of eternal damnation for my non-belief; they speak as if I have deliberately chosen not to believe in God, rather than simply having failed to be convinced. My mind is made up for me by the observation of evidence and the interpretation of arguments – I do not consciously select which ideas to accept and which to reject – and consequently, I can at most merely feign belief in what I do not.
Because of this limitation, the only genuine alterations we can make to our propaganda involve changing its tone and its timing. We can not change what we hold to be true, and we should not pretend to, even though we could.
In the rest of this article I will attempt to put forward my argument for aligning with the so-called moderate camp.
We must begin with a few serious questions. What is the purpose behind all our rhetoric? In other words, why do we bother to communicate our ideas to other people? Why do we write articles and comments? Why do we distribute literature and propaganda? Why do we give speeches? Why do we argue?
If these questions are posed within the context of the nationalist movement, then the answer to all of them must be, ultimately, to achieve nationalist objectives, but that leads us to another question – what are they?
The answers now become more complicated and disparate, because there are many different ideas about what being a nationalist precisely entails, despite the aforementioned shared core principles. For this reason, I will group them into a single objective – to form a nationalist government which will bring about an end to at least the following: mass immigration, multiculturalism, and our membership of the European Union.
Simply put, there is no way to ensure that the objective of our movement, or indeed the future of our people, is satisfied without eventually forming a nationalist government by whatever mechanism. Our rhetoric therefore only has one purpose: to bring us closer to a situation in which the British people (or a larger group which the British people belong to e.g. the European people) are governed by nationalists.
Any rhetoric counter to this aim is clearly to be opposed; any rhetoric not advancing it in any perceptible way is not to be explicitly encouraged, since it is a waste of time and energy.
This means that our rhetoric cannot simply “speak the truth” in order to fulfil its purpose. This is not to say that the truth should not be spoken – in fact, it is absolutely necessary for it to be spoken. All I am saying is that if speaking the truth is the only thing achieved, then nothing has been achieved at all.
In addition to being spoken, the truth must also be heard.
There is no point in speaking if nobody is listening.
In addition to being heard, the truth must also be understood.
There is no point in speaking if your arguments fall upon deaf ears.
In addition to being understood, the truth must also be accepted.
You may be fully understood, but if your truth is not accepted, you have gained no ground. You may only have granted the enemy an improved understanding of your design.
In addition to being accepted, the truth must also be acted upon by those to whom it is imparted, or else nothing will ever change.
It is an impressive feat to convince millions of your position, but if none ever act, then no progress will be made despite the many people who would, in principle, support you.
Speaking our truth and ensuring that it is heard is not difficult. Available for our use are many nationalist websites, forums and blogs, as well as the comment sections on less-than-friendly news sites. It is also possible although perhaps difficult to get books published outlining controversial ideas (ours, whether we like it or not, are controversial) and, with enough patience, we can exploit television interviews to the best of our ability.
Having our truth understood is slightly more complicated, because this is where misconceptions – often fuelled by the controlled media and those who otherwise have designs against us – creep in. These are difficult to combat. For example, however often we repeat that our movement is based on love, and not hatred, we are still accused of hating members of various minority groups. Working against us is also the stupidity of the masses, a difficult obstacle to overcome.
How then can we maximise the probability that our truth will be understood by a significant fraction of the population? Perhaps the key here is to deal with simple ideas which can be grasped by the common individual. It is unlikely that the masses will be able to cope with complex philosophical or ideological arguments, or to fully comprehend economic doctrines.
I believe that the movement must have some measure of intellectual prowess in order to succeed, but this does not mean our most intricate arguments and philosophies ought to be targeted futilely at the general public. Our rhetoric should be direct and to the point, advertising our policies accompanied by our best everyday common-sense arguments to support them.
The crucial point is acceptance of the truth. However prominent our platform and however comprehensible our ideas, if not one soul is persuaded to agree with what we say, we are simply wasting time.
For this reason, we have to realise as a movement that we cannot address the public in the same terms as we address other nationalists. I can provide one very good example of this: in a nationalist forum it would be quite acceptable to refer to ‘the Holohoax’ or ‘the myth of the Holocaust’ because it is expected that other nationalists will know your mind and will have followed the same paths of learning as you to come to the same conclusion.
However, go to the doorstep of the average person and use the same language and they will quickly be turned off from ever agreeing with you. This does not mean that educating the average person about the true version of historical events is impossible, only that care has to be taken in how it is done.
Sometimes this is taken to the extreme. I have spoken to multiple nationalists who believe that we should introduce people to every aspect of the truth all at once; a typical doorstep conversation would involve telling someone that Jews run the world, nine-eleven was an inside job, most of history as they know it never happened, the Labour party is full of paedophiles and all people of other ethnicities ought to be expelled from the country.
Anybody who takes this manner of approach seriously does not belong in any position where they can be heard by anyone at all, ever.
Even most nationalists never learned the truth this way: by being introduced to it by somebody all at once, when they held opposite views to begin with. Nobody can be convinced in this way. Most of us spend considerable amounts of time reading opinion and examining evidence before we come to our conclusions – and yet, many seem to believe that turning somebody’s world upside down for them and hitting them with ideas they will initially find repugnant all at once is likely to get us somewhere.
I would argue that it has the opposite effect. To a common person, this comes across as delusional and even bordering on the insane, and will be totally repellent. When a way exists to get our point across without appearing unnecessarily brash or strident, there is no excuse for opting for the harsher tactic.
Should we then avoid mentioning so-called ‘conspiracy theories’? This isn’t what I actually suggest, although I expect many readers to think that I do. What we should do is realise that we will not get the opportunity to communicate with most people for any longer than a few minutes, and that a few minutes is rarely long enough to convincingly communicate anything but the simplest of our truths.
Even then, different people will react to our ideas in different ways. We must judge the capacity of each individual to change their mind separately – you cannot speak to an almost-nationalist in the same way you would speak to a communist if you are trying to convince them, since they will be receptive to different concepts and hold different preconceptions about almost everything. This means that there cannot be a blanket method of communication, covering every sector of society.
‘Getting the truth out’ cannot ever be a ‘one size fits all’ effort. Care, sensitivity and discrimination are required in all aspects.
My fear is that there will still be many nationalists who obstinately insist on speaking the truth as they see it in the most abrasive and insensitive manner imaginable. In their defence, it is valiant: without any hope of success, they continue to articulate (although often, ‘articulate’ isn’t the word which springs to mind) what they believe, simply because they think, quite rightly, that it is the right thing to do – but I maintain that it is not in the slightest the practical thing to do.
Careless words and actions, however courageous and stubborn, however passionately deployed against our enemies, will not prevent our inevitable decline into the position of a beleaguered people, outnumbered and outmatched in our own land, thoroughly miserable at the hands of our triumphant opponents.
What will our situation be in fifty years?
Perhaps we will be living happily under a nationalist government, in a homogeneous and peaceful nation, secure in the knowledge that the frustration of having exercised caution and sensitivity in our struggle had earned us our final victory.
On the other hand, we may be living in the world I described previously, and at that point, the memory that we had spoken our minds bluntly at every opportunity will have to serve as our only consolation in the face of the most difficult and terrible losses we will most definitely endure.
I cannot know to any degree of certainty which reality we are likely to experience. All I know is that the movement has perhaps a decade left to begin making serious progress, before the chance of our success begins to asymptotically approach zero as a result of the diabolical, exponential functions of immigrant demographics.
In summary, the truth is an extremely important component of our cause. In fact, in the fullness of time, it will be vital for our people to understand it – however, our hurry to bring this about should not be to the detriment of our overall success in the struggle for power.
Before you comment and accuse me of various faults, please reread the article carefully and consider what I am actually proposing. I am not advocating the use of deception, even in the sense of lying by omission, or changing the nationalist story for good. I am simply asking that we recognise how unconvincing our current propaganda can be to the general public, and do our best to modify it for the advancement of nationalism.
As for the argument that tough words and tough actions will appeal to the public when and if the real economic diaster hits or when the SHTF as some like to put it - perhaps this is right. However, I have two arguments against this point.
Firstly, we cannot be absolutely certain of this happening, and if it does not, we will have squandered the precious time we have in the interim.
Secondly, there is nothing to stop us adopting a stronger tone when the SHTF while employing a more cautious method in order to make major strides up until that point, which will put is in a far more favourable position to start with, when and if our time does finally come.