I have been watching the debate over the BNP spokesman Arthur Kemp’s short article outlining what will be his central themes in his upcoming book “Can America Be Saved” with intense interest. The resulting debate this short post has unleashed in WN circles has been both healthy and helpful.
Kemp’s post also dovetails into the discussion at this site, and elsewhere, regarding the tactical dispute over the “maintreamists” and the “vanguardists,” in that at first glance Kemp’s advice seems to fall squarely in one camp while seeking to toss the entire other camp out of the movement altogether.
My view is that this reading of Kemp’s advice is simplistic. The core advice offered by Kemp is valuable, but due to some rather common misunderstandings on Kemp’s part regarding the very different political, cultural and legal culture of the U.S. as compared with his own U.K., his advice misses the mark on some points. This causes him to stumble into making certain assertions which—while well-intentioned—were misread by American observers.
My purpose here is attempt to bridge the gap and give my own reasoning on why I believe Kemp is largely correct.
I. Vanguard vs. Mainstream: A Continuum Not a Choice
There has been a lot of discussion about these two approaches and their relative merits and demerits, but to date all such discussion has mistakenly assumed that the two approaches are incompatible with each other.
In light of the current American situation, I do not believe we have yet passed the point of no return with regard to the United States of America. There are still hundreds of millions of European-Americans here and the prospect of their awakening and returning the nation to a stance of demanding a European-American majority is not at all out of the question. It is not likely, given the absolute triumph of Liberalism, but “not likely” is not the same as “impossible.” It does not take too much imagination to envision future scenarios in which the White majority is brought, kicking and screaming, to its senses.
In this respect, we are fortunate with regard to enemies. Blacks will continue to push the grievance machine, making it ever-more evident to even the most staunchly apolitical that there is no real solution to that political problem. Latinos will continue to act with a high degree of cultural confidence—especially in those portions of the nation once under Mexican sovereignty—resulting in an ever-increasing number of counter-productive mistakes, like the Mexican flag waving of 2007. Both together will continue to use their political muscle to leverage payouts, positions, contracts, favors and other government goodies to their co-racial brothers, further alienating the massive American working and middle classes.
While on the more sophisticated level, the financial and business elite have over-played their hand badly. So badly, in fact, that they were forced to raid the U.S. Treasury and capture the regulatory agencies and executive bodies entrusted with regulating financial affairs right out in the open. While, the system being what it is, they have largely gotten away with this to date, this does not mean that the working and middle classes are unaware of what has happened. Given the daily headlines, the bail-outs, the special deals and the obvious and open corruption of the lobbying system, the average White American is well aware—to varying degrees of sophistication depending on education, intelligence and personal interest—that life in these United States in the Year of Our Lord 2009 operates under two very different sets of rules.
In short, our enemies are doing a bang-up job of discrediting themselves and, note, that all of this negative publicity has caused a readily-observable backlash of average American anger even though there is not one single organized political entity leading those average Americans.
To say that we have raw material which has resulted in a correlation of forces in favor of a nationalist enterprise is an understatement.
Given those objective conditions, and given further the obvious level of racial and financial hubris exhibited by our enemies, it would be foolish to simply concede the playing field with putting up a fight.
It is in this light that Kemp is quite right. There is a fight to be had at the moment and the current state of nationalist forces to engage in that fight is laughably pitiful. In fact, I have grown increasingly convinced that it is this fact—the fact that our organized and effective forces are so weak—that has lead a too-large number of WNs to conclude that our chances of success out in the open are hopeless.
This is confusing cause for effect. If my enemies lay weakened before me, ripe for the kill, the fact that I have no effective weapon at hand with which to immediately take advantage of my enemy’s momentary vulnerability does not mean that my enemies’ weakness is an illusion. What it does mean is that I need to find an effective weapon post-haste.
Which is what Kemp is talking about. What, in America, would such an effective weapon look like? Given the target rich environment, the first weapon to be picked up is good, old-fashioned, open, democratic and forceful political work.
II. The European-American PAC Idea: Not Good Enough
However, this is where Kemp’s lack of practical experience with the United States betrays him. While he has diagnosed the first task ahead of us correctly, his proffered solution—a PAC of all things—appears woefully inadequate to American eyes.
For the sake of our British comrades—and let’s take a moment here to step down from our fake Internet world and really appreciate the fact that the BNP has created something real on the ground in the real world, a fact that renders any failure on the part of American comrades to at least give The Cousins a fair hearing inexcusable—let’s take a moment to discuss why such an approach is simply not adequate to the task at hand. To my mind, there are at least five major reasons why such an approach will not work and tens of minor reasons that are likely to cause major headaches.
Let’s just focus on the five.
First, PACs are specific legal entities, controlled by the Federal Election Commission, with a host of regulatory powers and requirements that would require, among other things, providing publicly available lists of donors to the United States Government and the army of left-wing organizations who would finally get the answer to the question “Hey, how do we get a comprehensive list of people we need to have shot as soon as the Revolution comes?”
Second, contributions to PACs are sharply limited and may only be used for election-related expenses. If the EURPAC wants to fund the development of home-schooling curriculum for White parents who want to opt out of the Diversity Machine, too bad.
Third, electoral success means just that, winning a seat in a local, state or national legislature or some executive office. Coming from a Parliamentary system, where such a seat means something—after all, in the UK you aren’t the executive power unless you are the legislative power, meaning that if you promise if elected you’re going to implement Policies A, B and C, you actually get to implement Policies A, B and C—it’s easy to see where Kemp misses the boat on this one. In the American political system, such seats mean nothing other than time-wasting on large committees until fund-raising prowess and seniority do their magic work, and even executives find themselves effectively powerless in the face of the Civil Service, aka The Permanent Government.
Fourth, neither the legislature or the executive ultimately hold power in the American system, since nothing that contravenes the Constitution is legal and you can be damn sure that anything EURPAC candidates do will be found to violate the Constitution, one way or another.
Fifth, even if EURPAC succeeded in electing such persons, the de-centralized nature of the current loose two-party system means that anyone elected is free to pursue their own agenda. Instead of electing a wave of reformists on the same page, we’d have hordes of mini-Kings, each with his own preferred idea on how best to move forward.
No, this approach will not work. What is needed instead is exactly what Kemp dismisses, an “American National Party.” I prefer the “Conservative Party of the United States,” but feel free to salt to taste. It doesn’t matter what the exact name of this party is (so long as it’s good) but in essence the third party track is the only way to effectively compete. This is so for three main reasons.
First, despite the best efforts of some of the top legal talent and some of the biggest money around (I’m looking at you, Mr. Soros….), the Bill of Rights traditions have retained enough force to protect political speech and freedom of association. In short, the new Conservative Party would be laboring under a number of very strong and well placed legal protections, protections not to be had in the game-as-usual of Pac-Man.
Second, on all of the issues important to WNs—ALL of them—there are no substantial differences between the current two parties. There is no point pretending to be a Republicrat or a Demopublican when everyone knows that what you’re really after is offering a complete alternative. And with both parties really nothing more than de-centralized fund raising machines, there is no real point or gain in power in capturing the brand. All that would do is saddle to newcomers with baggage to no real benefit. Instead, the new party must seek to replace one of the two in much the same way the original Republicans came on the scene. That is, focus on the central dilemma of the age (it was then slavery, it is now race), demonstrate clearly that the entrenched interests of the current two party system are inherently incapable of dealing with that political dilemma, make it clear that there can be no break of the political logjam without dealing with that political dilemma and, well, there you have it. While it is true that the American political system mitigates against third parties, this is only true right up to the point that it ceases to be true. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union mitigated even more strongly against the existence of even a second party, but nevertheless disappeared like a phantom in the night when a political problem arose that it was constitutionally unable to talk about, let alone deal with.
Third, no such WN political initiative will succeed without the backing of a broad, popular movement. Drips and drabs of political candidates for office as usual is not the kind of thing that is going to galvanize a currently apathetic and profoundly cynical and non-political population into a movement. To be blunt: no one marches in the street to get Republicans elected.
III. Practical Mainstreaming
Those serious issues aside, however, the fact is that to be viable and to attract our fellow whites, this new political organization must, at a minimum, following Kemp’s advice. Our new WN movement must present a credible, intelligent, witty, humorous, competent and thoughtful visage. Such a movement has no time for quasi-Christian sects, neo-Nazis (of all things, I mean, come on) or profanity spouting ultra-racists. To the extent that we present our case in the vocabulary of values White Americans respect—preserving our race, honoring our forefathers, keeping the covenant with earlier generations, passing along our heritage to our children—and doing so out of our deep love and concern for us, for us as a unique people with just as much of a right to a future and a homeland as the Mexicans, the Chinese and the Jews, all honor adheres to us.
But wait, I hear you say, what the hell good will that do? No matter how good our intentions, no matter now much we rid ourselves of negative and backward tendencies, no matter how hard we try to play kissy-face with the heavily-Jewish media or other powers that be, they are STILL going to call you Nazis, extremists, kooks, fascists and other really, really bad names. So, what’s the point?
The point is this: amongst the people we are trying to reach—the only people that matter—the charges won’t stick.
If we do in fact lie in bed politically with toy Nazis and those who are still holding out hope that Americans will sit down and really, really re-think whether its honor and respect for Abraham Lincoln is deserved and well-placed, then such charges leave us with no leg to stand on.
But, if we have done our work right, instead of weakening us or harming us, every time our enemies resort to such low tactics, there will be 2, then 5, then hundreds of Whites who will see through it and who will conclude that when a liberal says “Nazi” or “Racist” what they’re really doing is demanding that White European-Americans shut the hell up and submit to their own obliteration.
It is in this way that silent supporters, cadres and, finally, open support builds up. Half of White America already knows that when a liberal or a black leader speaks about Whites the result is bullshit. Why don’t we help get that number up to closer to 100% ?
IV. Our Platform: Nothing Special Gets Us a Foothold
What would such an alternative platform look like? While the purpose of this short essay is to outline a synthesis of Kemp’s ideas with the major currents of modern American WN thought, a short sketch of what such a new Conservative Party (or whatever it ends up being called) would offer is helpful insofar as even a simple platform reveals itself amenable to strong minority support from real-existing Whites. Again—important!—the purpose of this sample platform presented here is not to demand that this is the only such platform that could be set forth or even that this presents the best possible ideas, but to illustrate how easily WNs could construct a broadly-popular platform with the real possibility of attracting mainstream support.
If presented properly, I don’t see how anything less than 10% of European Americans would support the following simple platform:
A. A Return to Republican Government
— Removal of the Administrative State
— Replacement of cabinet officials with ministers responsible to the House
— A return to common law rule, wherein elected ministers have broad authority with minimal procedural and judicial review.
— Official recognition of the United States as a European-American state with tolerance and respect to minorities currently present.
B. Social Solidarity
— Establishment of English as the only official language at all levels of government and in public commerce
— Absolute color-blindness and a prohibition against any government classification with regard to race/sex/ethnicity/sexual orientation
— A halt to legal immigration for 40 years
— An absolute end to illegal immigration and the prosecution of illegal immigration profiteers.
— Dismantling of the Big Education/Big Finance/Big Union racket in higher education
— Establishment of uniform, excellent secondary schools
— Establishment of respectable, excellent skilled labor and business schools
— Establishment of publicly supported universities with entry by competitive examination
— The establishment of a National Health Service
— The establishment of a new food policy with a focus on local areas of production and supply; the suppression of over-processed foods
— The construction of a French-style nuclear grid
— The construction of a Quebec-style hydro grid
— The re-introduction of sensible public transport, clean, safe, with rules that are enforced
— A return to a nationalist, American economy
— The dismantling of globalist economic institutions
— A return to the honoring of labor, respect for the working man
— An emphasis on lowering the cost of family formation, the one-income rule
G. Foreign Affairs
— An end to the Cold War and National Security State
— A return to the maxim that we are friends of liberty everywhere, but keepers only of our own
— A repudiation of any universalist or human rights mission giving the United States the right to judge the performance of other countries
— The adoption of a Civilization Model of foreign affairs, allowing each its place
H. Latin America (a more important element of Foreign Affairs)
— The establishment of Puerto Rican independence
— The regularization of relations with Mexico with a demand for reparation for costs imposed by illegal Mexican settlement
— An effective border keeping the Latin and the Anglo spheres in North America peaceful
I. Civil Service
— Civil Service to return to serving at President’s pleasure.
— Massive reduction in Federal workforce, departments.
J. Military Service
— The re-establishment of the War Departmen
— National franchise rights dependent on term of service
— The re-establishment of the military academies, with new academies for American diplomats and American intelligence officers.
V. Vanguardism: There is a Certain Genius in the System
Given the weakened state of our opposition and the opportunity this presents us, we owe it to our people and to our country to attempt to change course. Perhaps things will go well. Perhaps a platform like the one above—which seems rather radical at the moment—will seem blindingly obvious in 2029.
We have no way of knowing. But there are two things we do know.
First, the sheer size, complexity and wealth of the current system means that it will not easily unravel. I believe those who are awaiting a general collapse will be waiting a very long time indeed. In any case, it won’t go gentle into that good night.
Second, that the same remarkable forces that now have constructed a world where an order is placed in Oklahoma, turning on a order for various parts in China, Mexico and Vietnam, getting to the same place in Illinois for assembly and then showing up in that store in Oklahoma before the all-important customer blows his top will be mobilized in that system’s defense. And there will be millions of very well-connected and powerful men and women with a real stake in the current system, be it financial or simply emotional.
Therefore, we must be prepared to see the mainstream effort fail.
But, what does this mean, to fail? Is our right to exist as a distinct European-American people contingent on nose-counting? Our right is our right is our right, even if only some small band of us agree. Our existence is not negotiable nor subject to a veto.
Which is why, while we’re doing our damnest to turn to tables on the current power elite, who I believe strongly are much more fragile then they now appear, we will at the same time be working sub-rosa, below the ground, in the shadows and in secret to prepare the ground for that horrible day when there really is no hope other than going our own way and saying good-bye to the country of our forefathers.
We must not be idle. We must be scouting good land—here and elsewhere—and recruiting experts in fields from animal husbandry to tool making to arms manufacture to carpentry. We must lay the groundwork in secret for what would in effect be a gigantic withdrawal, a Retreat, a flight to a new place to force ourselves anew.
Thus, mainstreamism and vanguardism are not distinct choices we must make. They are the flip sides of the same coin, the open blade and the veiled dagger, each to be used when the time is right.