By National Youth:
Nationalism is often conflated with reaction. To be a Nationalist, it is said, that one must be “right-wing” and conform to all the positions therein. This is an insidious lie. Genuine Nationalism—Nationalism that has sought the betterment of the Nation as the highest moral good—is at this present moment, the only political force that can be said to oppose the great injustices of our time.
In responding to the claim that Nationalism is reactionary, it is important to note where this misconception came from: the Nationalist is the only person to consistently nullify the claim that we must collectively suffer for the supposed crimes of our ancestors. Instead, the Nationalist revels with pride at being the progeny of men and women who explored, conquered and civilised the world. This is often mistaken as being a desire to turn back the clock—nostalgia and reverence are mistaken for backwards and conservative thinking. It is here we find the root of this misconception.
Whilst it is important for any community to be aware of its history—to know where it came from and who their ancestors were. It is also worth noting that the past was never a paradise. Nationalists often look to the formerly healthy communities of South Wales and the North of England as examples of a type of community that we would like to build for the entire country. However, it is important to look at the conditions that forged these communities—the exploitative and dangerous industrial working conditions of 19th Century Britain—without strong bonds between the working people of these communities, life would have been unbearable.
The opposition often use this fact to suppose that we favour a return to such conditions—to return the working class to such economically-debased conditions.
The same can be said of those who criticise our support for the family. It is said that a return to the 1950s is our objective. Many cultural conservatives fall into the trap of answering in the affirmative—that they do wish to see a return to the 1950′s. This is a fatal error. Whilst this period of time looks attractive compared to our current predicament, the 50s was the product of a certain time and place. The lengthy post-war economic boom made it feasible for the wife to stay at home, it alleviated the stress of the Depression years and brought forward a dynamic rise in the average spending power of ordinary families.
It is in these years of economic expansion that the seeds of alienation were sown. The Nuclear family, far from being a historical norm is in-fact partially an aberration. The Nuclear family is insular and compact—it is efficient from an economic perspective—but is an isolated historic occurrence.
Whilst it does contain inherent advantages: the mother remains at home, allowing for the thorough raising of the children; roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and does conform to what is the most basic and organic element of Human organisation. It was thoroughly unnatural in some respects.
A society where the basic family unit is comprised solely of parents and their children and implicitly states that this small group of people are responsible for themselves and themselves alone. It makes permissible an egotistical attitude: my family is all that matters—I’m alright guv’nor. It makes abandoning an elderly grandmother for a job offer on the other side of the country, fine. It cuts the bonds between the extended family. It’s the first step in the dissolution of the community altogether.
What our Nationalism demands is the reestablishment of the community. This in an age where the primacy of the economy absolutely constitutes a revolutionary objective. Of course, there is an economic dimension to life, but there is also Man’s social, cultural and aesthetic needs to consider—needs that must take precedence over mere production and consumption.
The two prevailing ideologies of the 20th Century: Capitalism and Communism best exemplify how politics has been manipulated and a false dichotomy has been created—presenting the illusion of two binary opposites—when, in fact, both possess similar presuppositions and historical contexts. They hold that men are equal: for the Capitalist, one pound is as good as the next, regardless of whomsoever it comes from and the means by which it was created, all are equal before the market; for the Communist, the liberation of the individual is paramount and must be emancipated from all forms of social control. They are materialistic, seeing Man as Homo Economicus—economic man—a man that is self-interested and rational. Putty, to be moulded by economic forces.
Historically, they both arose from the growth of industry at the beginning of the 19th Century, a time where mechanics was in the ascendancy, against all other dispositions. It must be noted that these materialistic dogmas were opposed, even when still at the embryonic form, by British intellectuals such as Thomas Carlyle, who passes a damning condemnation of the philosophers of his time:
“The Philosopher of this age is not a Socrates, a Plato, a Hooker, or Taylor, who inculcates in men the necessity and infinite worth of moral goodness, the great truth that our happiness depends on the mind which is within us, and not on the circumstances which are without us; but a Smith, a De Lolme, a Bentham, who chiefly inculcates the reverse of this, – that our happiness depends entirely on external circumstances; nay, that the strength and dignity of the mind within us is itself the creature of consequence of these.”
Jonathan Bowden on Thomas Carlyle
We find in Carlyle, a folkish opposition to the prevailing currents of his time and elucidates with immense precision the phenomena that would in our age be fully realised, in all its destructive glory. Perhaps Carlyle is not a figure we can rely upon solely for inspiration; what alienated him from the rest of Victorian England has already taken its course. It is highly implausible that Carlyle would have been able to conceptualise Britain today. But we can understand his diagnoses of the problems he found in Britain at that time and make use of his critique.
It is in Carlyle, we find an understanding that Man is not reducible to a mathematical algorithm and a set of quantifiable data that can be entered into a computer and commanded to run like Chrome or Word. It is from here we can begin a reconstruction.
This begs the question: how does one recreate an organic community? This is where it is crucial to understand that Nationalism is not just a set of policy suggestions—it is not a manifesto in the conventional sense. Nationalism is a geist, a spirit. It is in this sense that before we even change anything formally—anything in the mind—the heart must be won over first.
This is why historically, movements that have reflected a radical Nationalism that we can sympathise with have been extremely visual in their orientation. The understanding has been that Man is not a rational being, but a rationalising one. The mind follows the heart.
Once this fundamental truth is grasped, a practical imperative can be understood: through the strength of our imagery and deeds we will win the hearts and minds of the British people. Those who exuberate power will inspire those around them.
Belief that in order to create, that which was before must be destroyed. Belief in the future, that the people will rise up and regain control of their own destiny. Belief that tomorrow can be better than today. A conviction that the British will not sink into a multiracial quagmire, but affirm themselves in their own ancestral homeland. The belief that a great people can live once again—that is why Nationalism is a Social Idealism.
This article was originally published on the website of the non-partisan Nationalist youth movement, National Action. National Action is an initiative attempting to market our politics to a younger audience, an undertaking that has never been pursued seriously until now. To learn more about this upcoming movement, follow these links:
https://www.national-action.info
https://nationalaction.tumblr.com
https://www.twitter.com/national_action
1) Thomas Carlyle. (1828). Sign of the Times. Available: https://www.victorianweb.org/authors/carlyle/sings/signs1.html. Last accessed 19th January, 2014.
By National Youth © 2014
# # # #
Kyle McDermott
- Edit
In my opinion, the unseen force constellation at work behind the façade of the power structure is the international Zionist-plutocracy. I think that the patriotic far right has the wizards of the New World Order very worried, worried enough begin baring their two Euro-fangs:
(https://www.expatica.com/fr/news/french-news/germany-france-eye-joint-push-against-far-right-sources_283177.html)
Germany, France eye joint push against far right: sources
Germany and France want to jumpstart relations between Europe’s two top economies, including by jointly countering the far right and eurosceptics in European elections, sources close to the German foreign ministry said Tuesday.
The sources said that in the run-up to the May elections, the two EU powerhouses were mulling joint appearances with “a clear pro-Europe message” aimed at vigorously opposing “nationalistic and intolerant campaigns by populists and eurosceptics”.
Foreign ministers from the two countries are due to discuss proposals in Paris later Tuesday to breathe new life into bilateral ties after Europe’s financial crisis exposed major differences in approach to budgetary discipline and growth.
Signs have emerged in recent days of both sides taking a step towards easing friction.
Berlin warmly welcomed President Francois Hollande’s “social democratic” reforms announced last week to spur the beleaguered French economy, while Germany has offered logistical support to the French operation in the Central African Republic.
After speaking by phone on Saturday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his French counterpart Laurent Fabius will likely examine concrete measures including joint trips to some of Europe’s troubled neighbours, the sources said.
They are also expected to discuss cooperation on relations with the United States and sub-Saharan African countries, as well as support for eastern European countries’ EU aspirations.
Steinmeier, a Social Democrat in conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel’s left-right “grand coalition” government, told a Sunday newspaper that Europe could not leave France alone in its bid to restore order in the strife-torn Central African Republic.
Last week he also praised France’s “courageous” re-orientation of its economic policy.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
It really shouldn’t be necessary for us to have to disassociate ourselves from Reaction. Our revolutionary creed can’t even begin to think of itself as “Right-wing” in the conservative sense and I’m delighted to see that the writer fully understands this. If we were to claim the idea of being of the “Right” it could only be in the sense of our claiming the right to our identity and our right to claiming a future for our folk, as in “New Right”. However, that much is debatable.
Not so long ago I went to a conference where the speaker, who was a university professor, said that to be conservative meant that we could only react to things and never initiate anything new.To do more than try to preserve the status quo would be to betray our principles..!
Our race has evolved a unique sense of altruism which should be directed to help our own folk and only our own folk. This is what National Socialism did and this is what an updated Racial Socialism can do. The essential thing is to think of ourselves as Socialists because in so doing we maintain a clear distinction between ourselves and those who wish to prop up the global capitalist system, by appealing to a shallow, Zionist inspired, anti-Islamic hysteria.
Shaun
- Edit
Sir, I think you could be right about socialism. I am not an expert economics, but, from what I’ve read, socialism does makes a lot of sense.
My first contact with socialism came through a novel called The Jungle by an author called Upton Sinclair. Socialism, in that novel, was potrayed as a working man’s protection against exploltive capitalists.
I think state ownership can work. If you had competition, say, between different companies to secure government contracts, I reckon you could create enough dynamism to drive prices down, remain efficient and understand the demands of consumers, etc. A planned economy worked during the wars….
I think economics is a weakness for many nationalists. Like anything, an understanding of the subject takes a lengthy period of diligent study, but there is enough resources available on the Internet to start right now!
The establishment like to portray themselves as the masters of trade, industry and business; but we have, in my opinion, around 4 million people on the dole in this country, so they are doing something wrong, aren’t they? A good understanding of business, economics, trade, and industry would give a nationalist movement a mass appeal.
Everybody wants a little more money than they have at the moment.
Steven
- Edit
I would say the true figure is around 6 million and could be as many as 9 MILLION if you take into account all those who are deemed to be “economically inactive” Nationalists have been the own worse enemies by not mentioning the economic issues this country faces. Really, how do we expect to connect with the people if we don’t do this? The only answer to Britain’s increasingly severe economic predicament is the kind of nationalist economic development that countries such as Japan and South Korea have demonstrated. A vote for the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, and the Tory Party’s B team otherwise known as UKIP is a vote for the same, old failed economic appoach we have adopted for decades and which has resulted in the NATIONAL DISGRACE of having millions of people seemingly on the dole for ever.
Shaun
- Edit
Yes, the economy is a big issue. The Demons (sorry, our rulers) know this and pretend they know more about trade, industry and business than the ”racists”.
It stands to reason that a collective of skilled nationalist economists who understand business, trade and money and all that would be a great asset. The mainstream media, a lie factory that is crumbling by the day, isn’t the place to spread this message; but we have other ways — and there is no better message than this: I CAN MAKE YOU RICH.
Why is the self-help industry so successful? Most people NEVER get anywhere near the levels of success presented in books like Napaleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich; but trust me, after reading it, you FEEL like you’re made of the same stuff as Henry Ford, Thomas Edison and Andrew Carnegie. Sometimes that is good enough.
As for the welfare class in this country, I see it as a human tragedy. There is a good book called The Welfare State We Are In, and it documents what they Welfare State has done to some of our people.
It does this:
1. Stops people saving
2. Stops women looking for men who will provide for them — that’s why we’ve got these chain-smoking misceginaters everywhere.
3. Breaks up community cohesion because the state provides for every body.
4. Encourages lazy, addicted lifestyles.
5. Encourages people to not look after their property.
6. Increases the tax burden, so it prevents people starting the businesses that get people back to work.
If the nationalists could develop a program to solve this problem (you wouldn’t need to be too intelligent to do this), many Whites would be happy about it. We are an altruistic race, so you could NEVER persuade Whites not to help the unfortunate; but most Whites would like a system that helps people help themselves.
Anonymous
- Edit
Two good starting points for economic nationalism are Friedrich List’s ‘The National System of Political Economy’, and Henry Charles Carey’s, ‘The Past, the Present and the Future’. Though written in the 19th century, they are still worth going over, since many of the issues they consider (most notably protectionism versus free trade,) are still pertinent today.
[More recent is Erik Reinert’s ‘How the Rich Countries Got Rich, and why the Poor Countries Stay Poor’, and Eamonn Fingleton’s classic, ‘In Praise of Hard Industries’. The latter provides three very solid reasons in favour of manufacturing – a sector that should be at the heart of any nationalist economic program.]
For an extremely radical, yet academically rigorous perspective, I’d recommend Thorstein Veblen’s works – such as ‘The Theory of Business Enterprise’.
jackdaw
- Edit
Love the picture you’ve used for this article. Is it a flyer from NA?
News Team
- Edit
Yes indeed.