Although the nationalist vote has—until recent internal events within the BNP—increased time and time again at each successive election, many activists often hear the cry that ‘Whites won’t wake up’ and vote in their own interests, and, that therefore, all is pointless and lost.
Now, obviously, we don’t agree with that assumption – otherwise we would not be here, doing what we do – but the basic question of why Whites seem so slow to “wake up” is a valid one, and needs answering, if only for our own confidence.
The well-known American professor of psychology, Kevin McDonald, in an article in the journal The Occidental Quarterly, has addressed this very issue. McDonald’s writing provides a fascinating – and intrinsically true – insight into White behavioural patterns.
Essentially, McDonald says that Whites have, through the evolutionary process, developed an extremely high degree of conscientiousness. This entails diligent application to work, day-to-day tasks and intellectual pursuits which have, without question, allowed Europeans to develop technology which is unsurpassed anywhere in the world.
This conscientiousness, has however, had a price, argues McDonald. The price for conscientiousness has been social and material advancement – not a bad thing in itself, but this had brought with it a large degree of social self control.
All too often, social ostracism in European society has led to disastrous outcast status, which has directly affected the material advancement – and social standing – of those who are outcasts.
For a conscientious person, therefore, social ostracism leads to material loss, and loss of social standing – and both of these potential problems will severely affect the psychological well-being of a conscientious person.
Therefore, McDonald argues, European people, being the most conscientious, are subject to the greatest amount of pressure to conform.
Non-conformity leads to social ostracism, which in turn leads to potential financial loss and a lowering of social status. Both these are anathema to a conscientious person, never mind a conscientious group.
Ever since the Left won the political day, McDonald continues, it has become difficult to dissent from the prevailing opinion on race and immigration, without suffering the consequences of social ostracism, and the difficulties it generates.
This does not, however, mean that Europeans do not see or even do not understand what is going on. He quotes several American opinion polls which have found, for example, that over 70% of White Americans think it is worthwhile to preserve European civilisation, yet, they continue to vote for political leaders whose implicit and openly stated policies will lead to the destruction of that very civilization.
Here in Britain, we know of old that in opinion polls the British public has consistently opposed both the EU Superstate and mass immigration. Yet, we also know that only a relatively few (but thankfully growing) number of the British voting public actually vote for parties which support what the opinion polls say are the most popular prevailing opinions on the EU and immigration.
The bottom line – in both America and Britain – is this: Whites as a group, in opinion polls, endorse policies that will guarantee their survival, but when given political choices, they vote for politicians who are opposed to those policies.
McDonald explains this contradiction in terms of self-imposed censorship and screening, driven primarily by the urge to be conscientious and not face social ostracism. White people, he says, instinctively react negatively to their displacement by immigrants, but enforce learned self-control over their instinctive urges, in order to keep their social acceptance and not face social ostracism.
In this way, McDonald says, Whites start coalescing in groups which are overtly White, yet do not, as the learned professor says, “say the name.”
In other words, Whites, especially the liberal ones, while paying lip service to integration and immigration, take steps to ensure that they themselves, and their children, are kept as far away as possible from the consequences of those policies.
They do this, McDonald says, not because they are not aware of what is going on, but only because they fear the social ostracism which might come with dissension from the prevailing political view on the topic.
This explains the phenomenon of “White Flight” from the cities, the formation of social interest groups which are overtly White in constituent parts (for example, in America, ‘country music’ or Nascar racing; in Britain ‘country life’; ‘Englishness”, Scottishness. Welshness etc.)
All of these activities allow Whites to physically congregate in groups which are overwhelmingly European, yet do not use any mention of the word ‘race.’
Everyone knows that the exodus from the cities, for example, by Whites is the direct result of those cities filling up with non-White immigrants. Everyone knows that the wealthy are removing their children from public schools where the non-White student ratio is too high, to private schools where wealth affords a measure of segregation – but no-one uses the ‘race’ word to explain it.
Instead, they will say it is ‘for better education’ or ‘the country life’ or ‘a better place to raise children’ and so on.
All this confirms the truth of McDonald’s thesis: namely that Whites’ conscious behaviour of being “anti-racist” is in direct contradiction to their overt behaviour.
Whites choose freely not to live in non-White areas, and will make superhuman efforts to get out, but will never admit that their reason for doing so was racial. This would lead to the much feared social ostracism.
White ethno-centricism is very real and alive, it just manifests itself in ways which cannot be identified as an overtly pro-White fashion.
McDonald concludes by saying that the way out of this problem is twofold: firstly, bold assertive announcements by individuals of pride in their racial and cultural heritage; and secondly, the creation of White associations where the Whiteness of that group is overt and regarded as the norm, rather than being cause for social exclusion.
This conclusion, as valid as it is, is not however the final answer on the matter. To address the very real fear Whites have with the word ‘race’, will require more than just the two solutions McDonald suggests.
The real issue is to tackle and identify those issues upon which the vast majority of the British public feel strongly – the EU, immigration, economics etc. – in a fashion which will make them comfortable to be associated with, and not make them think they will give up their social status by being known publicly to support such policies.
Pronouncements on ‘racial superiority’ for example, are often counter productive as they are largely subjective – everyone likes to think of themselves as better, and which group is better in an absolute sense can and does often turn into a very negative political debate which leads nowhere.
Arguments based on group IQ are similarly problematic. IQ-based arguments, while true for groups, are more difficult to assert on an individual level. Within any one individual’s circle of acqaintances, there are often enough intelligent non-Whites and enough stupid Whites to make the advancement of IQ-based arguments too complex for many individuals to appreciate.
Additionally, most reasonable people will take an inherent dislike to any notion of “inferiority” or “superiority” on moral grounds alone, and so this is not an argument which should be used.
In fact, if the White obsessive fear of the word ‘race’ is to be circumvented, arguments which implicitly point out that it is not primarily an issue of race, are often most effective.
Instead of addressing “non-White immigration” – which immediately raises the learned, self-imposed censorship flags in the minds of the vast masses of British voters, issues such as the replacement of cultures, the displacement of native Britons, the ecological and social effects of immigration in general, and so on, will have to be used, more and more.
In other words, the real lesson to be learned from the truth of McDonald’s findings is that ‘overt racism’ is of limited appeal to the British electorate.
While white voting patterns will not be broken by ‘racist’ arguments, it is however clear that the British people will happily grasp any opportunity to associate on an ethno-centric basis if this can be done without giving offence to other groups or races.
It is our duty to ensure that they have this opportunity.
frederickdixon
- Edit
“Overt racism is of no appeal to the British electorate at all”. True, but that only means that “overt racism” should be avoided in electoral politics. Arguments for the protection of racial identity, for racial separation, for racially based immigration and repatriation policies must continue to be advanced OUTSIDE electoral politics because they are right, true and necessary. Similarly, scientific evidence for differences in intelligence and temperament (and the practical consequences of those differences) must continue to be produced and discussed.
Propagating these issues by every means short of electoral politics keeps open the possibility of a favourable change in perceptions enabling, in due course, the readmission of racially based arguments to respectability – and to electoral politics. That in turn means that individuals and organisations must be able and ready to do that propagating, which is why Western Spring is such a welcome and promising new addition to the growing white nationalist presence on the internet.
Anglo-Australian Alliance
- Edit
“Why won’t they wake up?”
Your question asked by Richard Spencer and answered by Alex Kurtagic.
(scroll to 2 minutes in)
Most will not like the answer provided; some will acknowledge the reality of the following point made:
The people will not wake up because the data [the truth] is inconvenient and does not flatter their vanity.
Most would like to live a comfortable lie than face up to an uncomfortable truth. Let’s hope the ensuing financial collapse will make inroads into their awakening en masse.
BritishActivism
- Edit
Nice article.
It has always been a very hard balance to get right and I do not envy those who do get out there in the real world and try to walk that tightrope within the sphere of politics.
I think that it is still important for people to be able to defend our racial positions in a very articulate manner. Such as when they are being pushed hard upon those positions – or in terms of an internal ideological understanding of the roots of a nationalist viewpoint (so as not to be wet behind the ears, prone to civic nationalism, neoconservatism, or open to various other subversion or subterfuge).
Yet at the same time, I think most sensible people will have come to realise that hardcore full-on 100% race based politics is not really a viable offer given the mental state and mental programming of the population today.
FrederickDixon is perhaps talking about what the New Right seem to be calling meta-politics. That is, extracurricular activities which accompany and build up a higher sense of racial awareness throughout society itself – and a revolutionary spirit which could ultimately sweep the old-established order away and usher in a new future.
The recent (and short) Bloc Identitaire video which is doing the rounds at the moment (of the French youth speaking in monologue) is an example of a quite revolutionary and unapologetic position that the current hegemony needs to be swept aside.
It is a counter-culture which also seeks to assert righteousness and modernity as being on its side.
I find that righteousness and such are important weapons in our arsenal that are being severely underutilised. Given the white pathology or mindset given in the article, which explains how people act, I think people also seek and desire to be doing the “right” thing, the “good thing” for a better future.
There are many, many awful things which have manifested themselves in this country at the hands of ‘liberals’ – and it is high time, in my opinion, that we learnt to take the mantle from them and show them up for what they really are and what they have allowed to happen.
We need policies which are in tune to nationalism, but which also offer something attractive and virtuous that people feel is the right thing to be doing and that they are on the “right side”.
We can also take advantage of the fact that we are neither left nor right on the traditional rule-of-thumb spectrum. Many of my own positions might be classified as ‘leftwing’ – but I am also morally ‘rightwing’.
The trouble we have at the moment, when it comes to political offerings, is that we are not particularly coherent or fresh, and we spend most of the time complaining about what everybody else is doing and what is being done to us, rather than pushing through an alternative way of how things ought to be, and how we would like things to be.
Some of the usual nationalist culture needs to be dropped, by which I mean that the time for being eternally retrospective or ‘knee jerk’ or being ‘ad-hoc’ in our approach must be nearly over. The moaning and the whining has to be much more measured with an offer of positivity and what we have to offer for a renewed and great British future.
The other trouble we have is that (through lack of a coherent combination of all the above points into one new vision which the general public would recognise as our territory) the other rival parties (which most people still seem to cling to), can simply steal or do half-baked distorted versions of our agenda, thus undermining our capabilities to capture wide support.
I have seen umpteen issues going on in this country which should have been nationalist territory, our bread and butter, but which have been neglected for more ‘here and now’ issues of the day or had the thunder stolen from us by the BBC, the Guardian, or other outlets which have taken up the issues.
They have taken them up in their own ideological ways instead of ours. What is the nationalist vision? Where do we want to be heading? Where do we want the future of this country to be heading? I don’t think many people in the general public understand the entirety of what we may have to offer.
Many of us think that it is far too late to save our bacon, and indeed, that any political venture is going to be stitched up in what is an already neatly stitched up system operating against our interests. But if we are going to continue to play the games, roll the dice, use politics as part of a wider tool of creating and soundly establishing a counter-current, then I think we have to revolutionise our thinking and our output.
Getting nationalists to change their ways, or breaking out of the mold whilst still being ‘on message’ is going to be extremely hard though.
We need a whole new shift, we need guidance and a new sense of purpose that we can believe in, that we can be proud to support and that we feel comfortable and safe to be defiantly standing behind. No antics, no bizarre goings on, no stunts, a honed, articulate, professional message.
At the moment, and for a long history, we have not enjoyed such a position – and for the reasons written in the article, amongst others, people have not been so willing to get aboard, or even half aboard, perhaps because they feel awkward, a guilt, a shame, or fear of the unknown and their ostracisation.
This is why I tend to think that they need to feel that they are bettering the future, doing the right thing, the righteous thing, the morally good thing, and that via a combination of smaller standpoints and policy positions throughout the whole range of subject matters, the bigger things could start to take care of themselves, especially if subtly backed up with meta-politics.
This is why I offer my ramblings in this reply, to see if they hold any merit or give any clues of what a new kind of movement could try to do.
We have a monumentally difficult task on our laps. Nobody really knows what to do about it, or if anything can still be done about it.
I myself have become much more weakened in my own ferocity in even bothering to care about what is going on anymore. It is difficult, it is hard, it often seems cruel and nasty, even obnoxious, in a society where egalitarianism and equality etc rule the roost of most people – and how it runs through the general positions of society.
The big things also seem too big to tackle, and the small things seem too insignificant or too wrapped up in other side-issues to even bother about.
People talk of metapolitics and extracurricular activities to forge a new white awareness identity and a counter current like seen on the Bloc Identitaire video, but what can we actually do?
Who is able and willing to do it? What prospects do such ventures have? How can it all tie together (but separately) with political groups, think tanks, protest groups, or even something completely different to what has gone on before? This is perhaps where we need to get our thinking caps on.
Until all these things in the current sociopolitical hegemony can be broken down or turned around, or hijacked for our own ends, I do not know what the solution is. But I agree with Frederick in that Western Spring is a welcome and promising return of a nationalism I recognise.
Enlightened Patriot
- Edit
Lets us hope that Western Spring quickly blossoms into the Nationalist force we desperate need it to be. I am hopeful that it does not need the gestation period that the BNP required or even grow to the same strength, time does not allow. When the people of this country finally realise the futility of voting for the 3 main parties (even the 4th – UKIP) to effect proper change, that desperate times call for desperate measures, they will be driven to a party they can trust and believe in – if it’s message is right. I hope it will be Western Spring that they will be able rally to.
VoidPhilla
- Edit
Some people are waking up but the onslaught of years of propaganda & programming makes it difficult to see reality, some people just can’t see the scale of the problem, the betrayal & can only see local symptoms, some people, as mentioned above, prefer the comfortable lie as the truth is too horrific to comprehend.