Politics

Twin Principles of Racial Nationalism

619 Views 19

By Frederick Dixon:

Racial nationalism has two, and only two, fundamental principles:-
1) that our racial integrity must always be protected against contamination by non-European elements and
2) that our homelands are for ourselves alone.

The two principles are absolute and eternal and all who accept them are comrades. Those who do not accept them are not racial nationalists; they may well be sincere in their patriotism but if their patriotism is not founded on an ideal of the nation as a community of the blood, they have no place with us. All things other than the two principles are negotiable and racial nationalists may disagree strongly about them, but for so long as they hold to the two principles they are as one on all that truly matters.

Here is a list of a few things which are often debated in nationalist circles, these are important things – sometimes very important – but they are “negotiable” because racial nationalists can disagree on them without ceasing to be comrades:-

free trade or protectionism?
authoritarianism or democracy?
monarchy or republic?
Christian or Heathen, Cosmotheist or Atheist?
holocaust or holohoax?
pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist?
feminism or traditional family values?
gay lib or back-in-the-closet?
capitalist, socialist or distributist?

The only question which a racial nationalist should ask himself or herself when considering those alternatives is “which alternative will best advance the cause of the two principles, which is most likely to hinder that cause?”

By Frederick Dixon © 2013

# # # #

19 thoughts on “Twin Principles of Racial Nationalism”

  1. Max Musson

    - Edit

    I believe that Frederick Dixon has arrived at a beautifully simple formula around which all racial nationalists can rally and which illustrates the potential for us all to unite under one banner in fighting for the salvation of our people.
    Zionism strictly speaking is the ideology of Jewish nationalist in so far as it strives to create and maintain the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland. Some White nationalists admire the determination and single mindedness with which Zionists have persued their goals, while others do not. What should unite us however, is our perception of the impact that Zionism has with regard to the ‘twin principles’ of racial nationalism as they apply to the peoples of European descent.
    Does the Zionist movement impact favourably or adversely upon our desire to maintain our racial integrity, and does it impact favourably or adversely upon our desire to establish and maintain an exclusive homeland for our people?
    These are the only two questions that we need to consider where Zionism is concerned, or any of the other issues highlighted by Frederick Dixon for that matter.

    1. Steve

      - Edit

      I have heard it argued there are different forms of zionism but I think for our purposes there’s only the one you mention.
      But on the question of favourable impacts, I think the answer is definitely “No”.
      Then there is the whole question of do these zionist Jews have any claim to what they call Israel in the way we can claim Europe as our own?
      Obviously the non Jewish zionist supporters probably don’t want to live in Israel, they’re well rewarded as it is.
      We can prove a genetic link but a lot of European Jews can say they can prove their faith back hundreds of years, though they are not Semites, they have no DNA link to Israel, they have a religious link in the way I could be a muslim & go to Mecca but I would have no genetic link as I am an European.
      I would have no right of abode there.

  2. Steve

    - Edit

    I generally agree with the 2 points in the article above, though whether mass expulsions of people who don’t fit the bill would be popular, I don’t know.

    The US would have a different problem as it could not claim point 2 especially.
    People could be pro zionist but keep them out of public office, look where it has got us already.

  3. jackdaw

    - Edit

    I think i would include a commitment to bringing about a society that holds racial separation as an absolute necessity for our people, if we are to thrive.

    1. frederickdixon

      - Edit

      I think it is implied in the second principle. But I agree that until the ideal position is obtained, and for so long as we have to suffer a multi-racial society, then separation is essential.

    2. s ducain

      - Edit

      We can create that society now without waiting to see what is going to happen in Britain. We just need committed people who won’t change their minds. I already live my life like this, even though I live in Wembley, where Whites are a minority. One thing we just HAVE to have if we create the society we want INSIDE other societies, is
      either home education or our own schools or segregated schools. It can work, but it means total dedication and also that we fight back in every situation, and that we automatically support anyone who is one of us. There already is a race that owes its success to doing just this for millenia, they are called Jews. We need to copy them.

        1. s ducain

          - Edit

          The trouble is that we cannot create such a state by ourselves, and if it requires goodwill from others it is certainly not going to happen. Also, White people in general are not really aware that what we build and the kind of society we require is ALWAYS going to be attractive to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th World, and therefore again be destroyed by conquest by either the womb or war. Part of the attraction felt by darker peoples is actually white skin. White people in general are unaware that non-Whites are hugely and frequently obsessively attracted to white skin, blue or green eyes, long straight hair etc. It’s not for nothing London is the sex capital of Europe. THIS is always going to be our downfall, unless our people somehow cop-on to the situation. I believe in ” getting there ” by fighting back on the island or creating an iron-cast tribal / Amish style group. But even if we could do this I think we would face the most massive discrimination from others especially Jews. They nearly all seem to hate white Christians more than any other group, for no apparent reasons.

  4. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    We need to thank Frederick Dixon for his incisive definition of racial nationalism. He has marked out the essential difference between those principles which motivate and unite us and those where there may be room for further discussion.

    Having said that, we must remain vigilant as to how the enemies of our race and nation operate. For example it could be said that the sort of music we listen to is purely a matter of personal choice which doesn’t obviously impinge on our racial nationalist ideology. Here I must admit a sneaky liking for “The Inkspots”, a Negro band of Barber Shop style singers from the 1940’s with whom I imagine Frederick Dixon would also be familiar..? Likewise, the late John Tyndall had a certain guilty love for Felix Mendelsohn’s music and tried to ignore the fact that Mendelsohn was Jewish or that his music had been banned during the Third Reich.

    And yet, who can deny that the modern ‘pop’ scene is a cesspit of crude race-mixing propaganda. The wretched cacophony which passes for music and with which we’re constantly greeted whenever we venture into a public place these days, can only be destructive to our sensibilities and therefore to our morale as Europeans. It’s instructive to note that not so long ago the police in Panama broke up a riot by playing classical music over the loudspeakers to a genetically diverse mob of protesters.

    Here I’ve just given one example that wasn’t on Frederick Dixon’s list of debatable points. However, we might conclude that whilst there may be room for discussion over issues which at first appear peripheral to racial nationalism, a little more study might reveal that certain cultural and organisational structures are better suited to our final objectives than others.

    1. Steve

      - Edit

      I don’t see a problem with liking jungle drums as an example but inviting the whole culture here is another matter, I think you can like things like that are out of their context, it doesn’t mean you want the whole culture here all of the time.
      It’s one thing putting on a rap CD but another to live in the ghetto getting jiggy with the soul brothers or whatever the lingo is these days.
      Well wicked eh?

    2. Steve

      - Edit

      Up Upminster way on the Underground, when they had yoof problems with them hanging about on the platforms they played Des O’Connor & the like to make it uncool to be there.
      Another technique is to play high pitched sounds that older people can’t hear to drive them off.
      I think it’s called mosquito?

    3. Steve

      - Edit

      The other point is the Inkspots are dead, so not really likely to cause us a problem if indeed they ever did.

  5. frederickdixon

    - Edit

    Mike, I’m afraid I’m guilty of far worse breaches of racial correctness than a liking for the Inkspots as I love the blues and can wallow for hours in that smoky, sleazy sound. In my ideal society, a healthy society formed according to the two principles, everyone could enjoy the blues, or any other kind of music, because any degenerative effect wouldn’t matter any more.

  6. frederickdixon

    - Edit

    I think that you have well illustrated the point I was trying to make. I’m sure that you support the two principles but believe that they are unobtainable unless Judah is dethroned. You have chosen the course which you believe will best advance our shared objective. I’m not so sure, and am inclined to be a (rather wobbly) philo-semite. That is something we can disagree on while remaining committed to the same ultimate objectives

  7. Steve

    - Edit

    That used to be the delights of travel, to see things that you wouldn’t normally see, these days it comes to see you.

  8. Steve

    - Edit

    I remember some comedian, well he thought he was, basically trying to portray the right wing as hypocrites, because they drive a VW, eat curry, listen to rap music, in other words everything in their lives is foreign.
    But I think he was deliberately missing the point of why we are in that situation.
    Also if you are a Nationalist why is it compulsory to hate everybody else’s?
    The truth is that it is not the case, you can like your own country but that doesn’t have to be at the expense of anyone else.
    If the French want to be French & the Germans, German, then we would admire that, we don’t despise the Japanese for being Japanese or the Chinese……we don’t want to be on our knees.

  9. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    I think Frederick has rather made my point which is that we can’t afford to be complacent. We’re fighting a war for our survival where for the time being the front line is a cultural battle. What Frederick seems to be suggesting is that by applying his two essential principles of racial integrity and territorial protection we will create a waterproof protection for ourselves and then be able to relax. Then, within certain bounds of common sense and common decency, we’ll be able to do much what we like.
    Unfortunately I don’t think life is like that. Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. There was a time when all Britons had a tacit understanding of racial integrity and territorial protection but that was gradually eroded on the cultural front until we ended up in the dire situation we have today.

Comments are closed.