10 comments

  1. This is absolutely amazing Keith. The EDL IS neoconnish. It seems to have been created to funnel of support from the BNP. It’s just antiIslam, not pro-English. And yet it is called: A white extremist organisation.

    This goes to show that any organization right of the left will be labeled whatever it needs to be labeled by the left for the sake of that agenda. In absence of a real right, tea partiers will be the extremists, in absence of them, socially conservative neoconservatives, and in absence of them neoconservative.

  2. If I’m not mistaken, the EDL came out of a couple of football hooligan gangs putting aside their differences and adopting a tabloid-inspired knuckle-dragging patriotism. I don’t think their ideological commitment has ever been that deep; they’re probably adopting this rainbow-patriotism out of pure opportunism, that more entrenched neocons are only too willing to exploit.

  3. Something that just occurred to me: while in the short term, the EDL’s tactics may win over some converts, in the long-run they are as doomed to failure as the contemporary left-anarchists, because they are ultimately drawing their cultural and intellectual energy from the PC elite. I have heard a number of liberaltards I know hysterically babbling about the EDL presaging some sort of far-right takeover à la 1930s Germany, but articles like this show the ridiculousness of such a notion.

  4. What the EDL seems to be doing is synthesizing the two principle factions of the present day Western ruling class: the neocons who embrace Islamophobia on the grounds that Muslims are un-PC, and the more conventional leftists who consider Islamophobia itself to be un-PC.

    The EDL claims it is not anti-Muslim, but only anti-Islam. I guess this is their equivalent of hating the sin but loving the sinner, like when U.S. right-wing Christian morons say they don’t really hate gays, only the “gay lifestyle.” They also seem to be further down the PC road than their American counterparts who still “cling to their guns and religion” in some instances, as Obama said. They don’t even appear to be anti-immigration, only anti-the wrong kinds of Muslims. I’ve blogged about his a little bit at AltRight: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/nativism-goes-left/

    “n the long-run they are as doomed to failure as the contemporary left-anarchists, because they are ultimately drawing their cultural and intellectual energy from the PC elite.”

    Yes, the argument that says “Islam is bad because Muslims don’t support Israel and oppose gay marriage” is not much of an argument at all. This just goes to show what a mess Western intellectual culture has become, particularly when it comes to issues of immigration and ethnic and cultural identity. The EDL doesn’t seem to be particularly anti-establishmentarian, anyway. I don’t see them offering any serious or intelligent critique of globalism, multiculturalism, capitalism, imperialism, the state, mass democracy, managerialism, or anything else.

  5. I find the EDL interesting, because on a surface level it resembles my own approach of upholding regional and cultural identities, the continuity of Western civilization, ethno-preservationism and the like, while taking positions on many issues, including social and cultural issues, that would ordinarily be considered left-wing, even very far left-wing.

    But to really address these questions in a serious and reasonable way, it’s necessary to develop a stridently anti-establishment outlook. On the question of mass immigration, it’s necessary to understand how it is actually fostered by the state, capitalism, imperialism, globalism, etc. and how it is a top-down policy being imposed by existing institutions and not something that’s merely happening on its own. It is especially important to recognize the relationship between Islamic terrorism and imperialism, and the role of Zionism and its influence over Anglo-American foreign policy as this relates to Western imperialism and intervention in Muslim countries.

    When critiquing immigration, it’s certainly a good idea to shed the white nationalist baggage that many immigration critics bring with them: reductionist anti-Semitism and Judeo-phobia, crude racial determinism, archaic racial supremacy theories, jingoistic patriotism, narrow parochialism, silly homophobia, and the like. But it hardly makes sense to criticize invasive immigration or Islamic colonization of European civilization by arguing that these are incompatible with either Zionism or a PC social outlook, particularly when the former is a principal source of conflict between the West and Islam and the latter is the legitimating ideology of those sponsoring mass immigration in the first place.

    It is fine to argue that the conservative nature of Islamic culture and religion is not compatible with Western secularism, feminism, liberalism, libertarianism, gay rights, etc. and that the presence of huge numbers of Muslims in Western countries would undermine the social and cultural liberalism that leftists claim to cherish. But it’s also important to address more comprehensive issues like the economic, ecological, demographic, and political problems posed by unlimited immigration, and the threat to civil peace posed by having incompatible populations under the same political roof.

    There is so much foggy thinking on these kinds of questions among Westerners at present that it’s difficult to know where to even begin as far as trying to clear some of this up. A helpful approach might be to ask the question of what we might do if we were political dissidents in China rather than in the West. If all of us were Chinese, we would likely oppose the authoritarian one-party state bureaucracy they have at present, the particularly exploitative model of capitalism they practice, their occupation of Tibet and sponsoring of the monster regime in North Korea, and any militarist ambitions they might have. If we were Chinese, we might oppose their system of state censorship, their rather high rate of executions, conditions in their prisons, oppression of Chinese ethnic groups outside the Han majority, religious persecution of Chinese Christians and other religious minorities, and so forth. We might welcome visitors from the West or elsewhere as tourists or for purposes of commercial, educational, and cultural exchange, or for joint scientific projects. We might even accept a reasonable number of foreign workers or even permanent immigrants from the West. But we wouldn’t want so much immigration from the West that China no longer resembled China but looked more like America or England or Germany. This would seem to be the approach we should take in the West at present.

  6. Some comments,

    “When critiquing immigration, it’s certainly a good idea to shed the white nationalist baggage that many immigration critics bring with them: .”reductionist anti-Semitism and Judeo-phobia, crude racial determinism, archaic racial supremacy theories, jingoistic patriotism, narrow parochialism, silly homophobia, and the like

    It’s really difficult, in the current atmosphere, to articulate a sane ‘white nationalism,’ where what is meant is “identifying as part of indoEuropean ethnoculture.” Yet, I am reluctant to give up the term. For one, I value forthrightness: I am a white nationalist, if ‘white’ refers to an ethnoracial identity — that is, a cultural identity with ancestral boundaries — and if ‘nationalist’ means identifying as part of (as opposed to against, or being indifferent to) that identity and if that doesn’t necessarily entail desiring self-determination (ie seeking a nation-state). Moreover, I see no advantage in giving up a term because it has been smeared or has a dirty connotation. The left doesn’t, instead they ardently try to defang terms (e.g. communist, socialist, fag, gay, slut).

    I thought, for a while, that developing a terms to describe that state of identifying with indoEuropean ethnoculture — something to describe the sense that is conveyed by terms like ‘Jew’ or ‘Han’ (both ethnoracial identities) would be effective — say Westerner or Occidental or Indo or something — but no one seems to be interested in doing that. So we are left with the crude term: ‘White’-‘Nationalist’ — –as opposed to White liberal (SWPL), Anti-racist-who-happens-to-be-white, or ethnically indifferent white guy.

    “I find the EDL interesting, because on a surface level it resembles my own approach of upholding regional and cultural identities, the continuity of Western civilization, ethno-preservationism and the like, while taking positions on many issues, including social and cultural issues, that would ordinarily be considered left-wing, even very far left-wing”

    I agree that an illiberal left would be nice — or. if you will, in our case a “White Nationalist” (as opposed to “liberal”) left — where left implies being concerned about the well being of others. I don’t see any contradiction in “upholding regional and cultural identities and being ethno-preservationist” and in being a leftist. It’s odd that virtually the whole left in the contemporary West embraces totalitarian pan-humanism (anti-race-ism).

  7. “reductionist anti-Semitism and Judeo-phobia, crude racial determinism, archaic racial supremacy theories, jingoistic patriotism, narrow parochialism, silly homophobia, and the like”

    One problem, of course, is that “non-philosemitism, Judeo-skepticism, ethnoracial preservationism, anti-totalitarian pan-humanism, non-jingoistic patriotism, particularism, and anti-homophillia, and the like” are reduced to …

    What’s would be a good strategy to carve out the latter from the former?

  8. “It’s really difficult, in the current atmosphere, to articulate a sane ‘white nationalism,’ where what is meant is “identifying as part of indoEuropean ethnoculture.”

    The Indo-European meta-political framework that the ENR has developed as an alternative to the materialist universalism of the neoliberals is more or less my reference point on these questions, though with some slight modifications and applied rather broadly. This outlook also overlaps with the Eurasianism of the National-Bolsheviks, Dugin, etc. I generally adhere to Alain De Benoist’s “ethno-pluralism” which involves, among other things, preserving distinct regions (Europe, Africa, China, Latin America, etc.) against the homogenizing forces of global capital, mass population transfers and American cultural and military imperialism. What I find interesting about the Left is that they will get upset about the extinction of the tiniest microspecies, but see no problem with the eradication of ethnic, cultural, and regional identities as they have existed since the dawn of human cultures.

    “Yet, I am reluctant to give up the term. For one, I value forthrightness: I am a white nationalist, if ‘white’ refers to an ethnoracial identity — that is, a cultural identity with ancestral boundaries — and if ‘nationalist’ means identifying as part of (as opposed to against, or being indifferent to) that identity and if that doesn’t necessarily entail desiring self-determination (ie seeking a nation-state). Moreover, I see no advantage in giving up a term because it has been smeared or has a dirty connotation. The left doesn’t, instead they ardently try to defang terms (e.g. communist, socialist, fag, gay, slut).”

    So if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re a white nationalist but not a separatist, is that correct? Wasn’t that more or less Sam Francis’ position, i.e. a defense of white ethnic/cultural interests in the political realm without advocating separatism per se? I critiqued white nationalism a while back at AlternativeRight.Com: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/white-nationalism-is-not-enough/

    As you tell by reading this blogsite, I promote a version of classical anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, etc.) that has been modified to make it relevant to contemporary societies, and I identify the State, the alliance of state and capital, and imperialism as the primary enemies. This adaption of historic anarchism overlaps well with opposition to present days forces fostering a homogenized humanity in the name of a vulgar economism and a shallow univeralism. On the ground level, my views are a synthesis of left-wing anarchism and right-wing populism, and the issues raised by white nationalists overlap with the latter, of course. While I am for incorporating the relevant and legitimate issues raised by white nationalists into the wider paradigm I am advocating, I reject white nationalism as a sufficient ideological framework on its own. Instead, I lean more towards the idea of a modern version of the Weimar-era “conservative revolution” associated with thinkers like Ernst Junger. Such an effort would recognize the “first principles” of the philosophical Right (http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/first-principles-right-and-left/) with the kind of left/right populist-libertarian-neotribalist anarchism/pan-secessionism I write about here being its political expression.

    I reject white nationalism as a primary ideological framework because a) it is too narrowly focused on race issues at the expense of wider institutional, structural, and cultural analysis; b) it often veers off into racial determinism which is merely the right-wing counterpart to the economic determinism of liberalism and Marxism; c) it is in its own way a form of egalitarian collectivism of the kinds promoted by the Left. What I mean by this last point is that many white nationalists seem to believe that merely being white by itself entitles an individual to recognition, respect or status, irrespective of that individual’s wider set of characteristics or behaviors. As Marilyn Manson put it: “Accept all white people? Hardly!”; d) it ignores the degree to which other ethnic populations have comparable issues of their own and identical enemies.

    “I thought, for a while, that developing a terms to describe that state of identifying with indoEuropean ethnoculture — something to describe the sense that is conveyed by terms like ‘Jew’ or ‘Han’ (both ethnoracial identities) would be effective — say Westerner or Occidental or Indo or something — but no one seems to be interested in doing that.”

    Why not simply “European”?

    “I agree that an illiberal left would be nice — or. if you will, in our case a “White Nationalist” (as opposed to “liberal”) left — where left implies being concerned about the well being of others. I don’t see any contradiction in “upholding regional and cultural identities and being ethno-preservationist” and in being a leftist. It’s odd that virtually the whole left in the contemporary West embraces totalitarian pan-humanism (anti-race-ism).”

    Liberalism taken to its logical conclusions becomes self-defeating (see Carl Schmitt). This is what Western liberals have done by adopting the view that they are morally obligated to surrender their traditional homelands to mass immigration simply because liberal ideology says they should. There’s also the wider economic determinism that sees diverse cultures merely as interchangeable commodities (like McDonald’s and Burger King). The consequence of this outlook is that the extinction of particular human cultures is regarded as no big deal. This is why I regard neotribalism and ethno-communitarianism within a wider anarcho-pluralist, decentralist-federalist-populist framework to be an antidote to the cultural nihilism of the modern Left.

  9. “One problem, of course, is that “non-philosemitism, Judeo-skepticism, ethnoracial preservationism, anti-totalitarian pan-humanism, non-jingoistic patriotism, particularism, and anti-homophillia, and the like” are reduced to …

    What’s would be a good strategy to carve out the latter from the former?”

    I see these things as a reaction against events from the past. It’s a standard principle of conflict theory that once former outgroups become dominant or powerful, they become as abusive and exploitative as the groups they replace. But I think that will be difficult to maintain over time. As the historical events against which these are a reaction recede further and further into the past, and as totalitarian humanism becomes more deeply entrenched in institutions, the use of such historical events as a basis of legitimation will become more and more implausible and begin to lose credibility. When their credibility is shattered, we will need a more reasonable paradigm to take its place. That’s why I’m trying to do here by developing an outlook that rejects the standard left/right, progressive/reactionary, racist/anti-racist dichotomies as false dichotomies. Totalitarian humanism will eventually give way just like Communism did before it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s