Is the practical takeaway from this article supposed to be that British nationalists should advocate for an ethnostate in our historic homeland, that is, the lands between the Elbe and the Kongeåen? What is to be the fate of the Holsteiner and the Dane in this eventuality? Or else, are we to understand that our only hope for the future lies in opening vaguely ethnic restaurants and carpet shops in all corners of the world, from Niger to Palau, after the manner of the Lebanese?
Even if you unreservedly believed that there was no hope, that Britain will simply slide into atavistic barbarism over the course of the century, the only sensible, rational, the only even comprehensible course of action would still be to resist it. Not through violent action of course, not even through physical presence - to do so will only invite Starmer’s gendarmes to indulge their more simian tendencies in response - but following the methods of the Republic of Silence that Sartre described:
Which can be reduced down to the continued, obstinate, ardent refusal to say that you are a German when you are a Frenchman. Hostility, disdain, contempt, spoken everywhere and at any opportunity - these must be our weapons.
The difference is that after a few years the Germans left.
A policy of icy silence might endure for a few years, even a few decades, but if the Germans never leave, indeed more arrive every day, and only Germans are given preference in employment, in culture, in all the essentials of existence, eventually all those icily silent die off or buckle and are replaced with… Germans.
I don’t have an answer. I do say though, with the caveat that I understand and do not resent if my comment is deleted by mods, that you’re too quick to renounce violence. One side already has no qualms about its employment. Eventually, inevitably, the other will follow suit.
I spent some time in Britain a couple of decades ago and was surprised how badly the working class lives. There is also a lot of hostility towards them and these riots serve as a wonderful opportunity for the middle classes to take it out on the working class.
In retrospect the riots were quite small and easily repressed. It seems like the British state would have a hard time with anything much bigger.
My guess is that the British elite has simply given up on growth and improvement in living standards. They know things are going to get a lot worse and are trying to establish authority before things get out of hand. Who knows if it will work? I think that the European precedent is that protests over falling living standards are much more potent than protests over atrocities.
I would also point out that the working class protesters and internet posters were naive in thinking that the state would consider their demands or accommodate them. They made it very easy for the police. The next batch of protesters may be less naive.
The guest author ('Toby Guise') and commenter 'anti-modern activist' point out the obvious: violent resistance helps the State achieve its objectives to forcibly put down resistance and enforce emergency-powers' authorization of martial law. Guise lays out a rational case that civil authorities in UK cannot be surprised by the riots and protests. He cites Holmes to conclude that the only plausible explanation is that that's what they want, and then he supports that conclusion with a brief history of socialist/Marxist platitudes related to exactly that point.
It is an objective assessment of options that determines violent resistance is futile, while others are "too quick" to promote and participate in the futility.
Variations of the ideal response to achieve optimal long-term outcomes are found in Sartre's Republic of Silence as well as in Havel's The Power of the Powerless, Solzhenitsyn's Live not by Lies, Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and Gandhi's Noncooperation and Salt Satyagraha campaigns.
Employing the only power that the powerless have (refusing to participate in the State's lies, or 'icy silence' as you characterize it) has to endure for more than "a few years." The Soviets' sovereignty over Russia and Romania lasted 74 and 42 years, respectively. Beginning in 1857, violent insurrections in India only tightened Britain's control. From Gandhi's first demonstrations of nonviolent civil disobedience in 1919, it took 28 years to declare independence.
In the US, an 'armed insurrection' is evidently what the State wanted on Jan 6, and they nearly got it. Increasingly heightened tensions portend the potential for armed civil conflict this time around. Wet dreams at the FBI, DHS and other agencies abound. They care not for plans to protect candidates or maligned citizenry. They have too many details to work out for various insurrection and 'domestic terrorism' scenarios.
w.mj -- I ignored your main point: An icy silence even over decades cannot disrupt the status quo, that current dynamics will enable preferred populations to remain atop the socio-political pecking order.
How many Marxist totalitarians have maintained the elevation of certain races or other demographics? Marxist regimes are not race/ethnicity-based like Hitler's Third Reich or religion-based like ISIS or an Islamic Republic. As The People's Cube satirically remarks, In marxism, there are only two genders: workers and collective farmers.
More to the point, how quickly have authoritarians dissolved political alliances and executed the true believers after they ascend to power? Once control is solidified, all are equal under the boot.
Just two (pedantic) points both to do with Bishop Barnet whose name has only one 't' and, surely, the quote should end with 'to be governed', not 'to be government'...?
With respect to a refuge other than Britain, it seems like the entire peripheral Anglosphere (Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland) is in a phase of declining living standards, mega immigration and work government oppression. It’s hard to see a refuge, although some end up in odd places like Latin America or Eastern Europe.
Strangely enough, the US is somewhat an exception. I visited recently and was surprised by how much their living standards have outpaced Canada. The first amendment provides formal protection for free speech, although the practice is sometimes lacking.
I wonder if a future president in the Vance vein could slow down or halt the insanity in the rest of the Anglosphere. It wouldn’t take much to bring the British or Canadian elites to heel.
Is the practical takeaway from this article supposed to be that British nationalists should advocate for an ethnostate in our historic homeland, that is, the lands between the Elbe and the Kongeåen? What is to be the fate of the Holsteiner and the Dane in this eventuality? Or else, are we to understand that our only hope for the future lies in opening vaguely ethnic restaurants and carpet shops in all corners of the world, from Niger to Palau, after the manner of the Lebanese?
Even if you unreservedly believed that there was no hope, that Britain will simply slide into atavistic barbarism over the course of the century, the only sensible, rational, the only even comprehensible course of action would still be to resist it. Not through violent action of course, not even through physical presence - to do so will only invite Starmer’s gendarmes to indulge their more simian tendencies in response - but following the methods of the Republic of Silence that Sartre described:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1944/12/paris-alive-the-republic-of-silence/656012/
Which can be reduced down to the continued, obstinate, ardent refusal to say that you are a German when you are a Frenchman. Hostility, disdain, contempt, spoken everywhere and at any opportunity - these must be our weapons.
The difference is that after a few years the Germans left.
A policy of icy silence might endure for a few years, even a few decades, but if the Germans never leave, indeed more arrive every day, and only Germans are given preference in employment, in culture, in all the essentials of existence, eventually all those icily silent die off or buckle and are replaced with… Germans.
I don’t have an answer. I do say though, with the caveat that I understand and do not resent if my comment is deleted by mods, that you’re too quick to renounce violence. One side already has no qualms about its employment. Eventually, inevitably, the other will follow suit.
I spent some time in Britain a couple of decades ago and was surprised how badly the working class lives. There is also a lot of hostility towards them and these riots serve as a wonderful opportunity for the middle classes to take it out on the working class.
In retrospect the riots were quite small and easily repressed. It seems like the British state would have a hard time with anything much bigger.
My guess is that the British elite has simply given up on growth and improvement in living standards. They know things are going to get a lot worse and are trying to establish authority before things get out of hand. Who knows if it will work? I think that the European precedent is that protests over falling living standards are much more potent than protests over atrocities.
I would also point out that the working class protesters and internet posters were naive in thinking that the state would consider their demands or accommodate them. They made it very easy for the police. The next batch of protesters may be less naive.
I wish I could say your analysis is excessively dark and overblown. Sadly I can't. I expected things to get worse, just not quite so quickly.
...reply to w.mj...
The guest author ('Toby Guise') and commenter 'anti-modern activist' point out the obvious: violent resistance helps the State achieve its objectives to forcibly put down resistance and enforce emergency-powers' authorization of martial law. Guise lays out a rational case that civil authorities in UK cannot be surprised by the riots and protests. He cites Holmes to conclude that the only plausible explanation is that that's what they want, and then he supports that conclusion with a brief history of socialist/Marxist platitudes related to exactly that point.
It is an objective assessment of options that determines violent resistance is futile, while others are "too quick" to promote and participate in the futility.
Variations of the ideal response to achieve optimal long-term outcomes are found in Sartre's Republic of Silence as well as in Havel's The Power of the Powerless, Solzhenitsyn's Live not by Lies, Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and Gandhi's Noncooperation and Salt Satyagraha campaigns.
Employing the only power that the powerless have (refusing to participate in the State's lies, or 'icy silence' as you characterize it) has to endure for more than "a few years." The Soviets' sovereignty over Russia and Romania lasted 74 and 42 years, respectively. Beginning in 1857, violent insurrections in India only tightened Britain's control. From Gandhi's first demonstrations of nonviolent civil disobedience in 1919, it took 28 years to declare independence.
In the US, an 'armed insurrection' is evidently what the State wanted on Jan 6, and they nearly got it. Increasingly heightened tensions portend the potential for armed civil conflict this time around. Wet dreams at the FBI, DHS and other agencies abound. They care not for plans to protect candidates or maligned citizenry. They have too many details to work out for various insurrection and 'domestic terrorism' scenarios.
w.mj -- I ignored your main point: An icy silence even over decades cannot disrupt the status quo, that current dynamics will enable preferred populations to remain atop the socio-political pecking order.
How many Marxist totalitarians have maintained the elevation of certain races or other demographics? Marxist regimes are not race/ethnicity-based like Hitler's Third Reich or religion-based like ISIS or an Islamic Republic. As The People's Cube satirically remarks, In marxism, there are only two genders: workers and collective farmers.
More to the point, how quickly have authoritarians dissolved political alliances and executed the true believers after they ascend to power? Once control is solidified, all are equal under the boot.
Spot on, on all points. Sadly.
Just two (pedantic) points both to do with Bishop Barnet whose name has only one 't' and, surely, the quote should end with 'to be governed', not 'to be government'...?
With respect to a refuge other than Britain, it seems like the entire peripheral Anglosphere (Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland) is in a phase of declining living standards, mega immigration and work government oppression. It’s hard to see a refuge, although some end up in odd places like Latin America or Eastern Europe.
Strangely enough, the US is somewhat an exception. I visited recently and was surprised by how much their living standards have outpaced Canada. The first amendment provides formal protection for free speech, although the practice is sometimes lacking.
I wonder if a future president in the Vance vein could slow down or halt the insanity in the rest of the Anglosphere. It wouldn’t take much to bring the British or Canadian elites to heel.
Join the Revolution today:
https://t.me/The_GSF_Vanguard
Yes but the murders were committed by a (probably mentally unwell) British citizen, born and bred.