- Counter-Currents Publishing - https://www.counter-currents.com -

The Laugh Test:
Multiculturalists Give Advice to Ethnonationalists

1,429 words

[1]

“Here’s my card.”

French translation here [2]

On February 26th, 2011, The Guardian announced the results of a poll conducted by the Searchlight Institute in the UK:

Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK.

A Populus [3] poll found that 48% of the population would consider supporting a new anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism, and would support policies to make it statutory for all public buildings to fly the flag of St George or the union flag.

Anti-racism campaigners said the findings suggested Britain’s mainstream parties were losing touch with public opinion on issues of identity and race.

The poll suggests that the level of backing for a far-right party could equal or even outstrip that in countries such as France, the Netherlands and Austria. France’s National Front party hopes to secure 20% in the first round of the presidential vote next year. The Dutch anti-Islam [4] party led by Geert Wilders [5]attracted 15.5% of the vote in last year’s parliamentary elections.

Anti-fascist groups said the poll’s findings challenged the belief that Britons were more tolerant than other Europeans. “This is not because British people are more moderate, but simply because their views have not found a political articulation,” said a report by the Searchlight Educational Trust, the anti-fascist charity that commissioned the poll.

. . . 63% of white Britons . . . agreed with the statement that “immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country”. Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that “Muslims create problems in the UK”.

Jon Cruddas [6], the Labour MP who fought a successful campaign against the British National party in his Dagenham and Rainham constituency in east London, said that the findings pointed to a “very real threat of a new potent political constituency built around an assertive English nationalism”. The report identified a resurgence of English identity, with 39% preferring to call themselves English rather than British. Just 5% labelled themselves European. The Guardian [7]

On its surface this is good news. It indicates that 48% of Britons are just waiting for an excuse to vote for the British National Party, which has “mainstreamed” itself, distancing itself from its associations with neo-Nazis, fascists, and skinheads and diversifying itself with Sikhs and Jews. Of course, it also implies that the enemies of the BNP and their willing allies in the mainstream media will never cease reminding voters of these connections.

This brings to mind Kevin MacDonald’s recent talk, “Nationalist Strategies [8],” which focuses on Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. Wilders has gone about as far as possible to construct a European nationalist party that stays within the boundaries of what MacDonald calls “the post-World War II consensus” about race, nationalism, and Jews.

As MacDonald points out, Wilders is perhaps the most philosemitic politician in Europe today (and sincerely so, judging from his marriage to a Jew). But still, Wilders has made barely a dent in Jewish opposition to Dutch nationalism. Indeed, fewer than 2% of Dutch Jews voted for Wilders’ Freedom Party in the last election.

But, as MacDonald points out, by staying within politically correct boundaries regarding race and the Jews, Wilders has gained the votes of Dutchmen who have awakened to the dangers of multiculturalism and immigration but who remain brainwashed about race and the Jewish Question.

All over Europe, there are strong winds of discontent over multiculturalism and immigration, and nationalist mainstreamers like Wilders are trimming their sails to catch them. It would be a good thing if these parties made some headway in ending multiculturalism and non-white immigration, just as it would be a good thing if the Tea Party made similar headway in the United States.

I’m a “let a thousand flowers bloom” kind of guy, and if this sort of stuff gets people who don’t know any better excited and involved and even leads to actual political change, I am certainly not one to dampen their enthusiasm. (I want them to keep their enthusiasm, but discover who their true friends and their true enemies really are.)

But White Nationalists should not lose sight of the fact that the goals of people like Wilders and the Tea Party fall far short of a white ethnostate. Furthermore, they would rebuff any overt association with us as a threat to their already shaky mainstream legitimacy.

The common denominator of nationalists like Wilders in Europe, the Tea Party in the US, and White Nationalist mainstreamers world-wide is that they wish to craft a message that stays within the boundaries of that post-World War II “consensus”: racial preservation and betterment (eugenics) are evil; the only legitimate goal is cultural preservation; since we are only concerned about culture, we hold open the possibility of cultural assimilation to people of all races; anything that smacks of fascism or National Socialism is anathema; and, of course, the ultimate evil is anti-Semitism, thus any form of European ethnic self-assertion must embrace the right of Jews to come and go and live where they please.

But that consensus is merely an artifact, a product of Jewish power. Thus my question to the mainstreamers is this: How do you propose to achieve white power without dislodging Jewish power? Because without Jewish power, white nations around the world would not have embraced multiculturalism and non-white immigration. And Jews don’t seem to be persuaded of the necessity of changing these policies. Thus I just don’t see any way of winning without identifying the organized Jewish community as the principal enemy and removing them from power.

The Searchlight poll also should be greeted with some skepticism. The Searchlight Institute is the UK equivalent of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Now if the New York Times announced that the SPLC, based on extensive public opinion polls, advised American White Nationalists that they could win the allegiance of 48% of the voters simply by renouncing violence and fascist symbols, how many White Nationalists would be dumb enough to take the bait without wondering if it conceals poison or a hook? (Their ranks have thinned recently [9], but I’d still wager that the number is depressingly large.)

What is the Searchlight’s agenda here? These people, of course, only tell the truth by accident, meaning that they only utter a truth if they see an ulterior angle in it. So none of their alleged facts should be taken at face value. Instead, they should be examined in light of how they advance the multiracialist agenda.

First of all, the Searchlight people are clearly worried about a real phenomenon: rising nationalist sentiment in the UK. Second, they wish to rally anti-racist forces to resist it. Third, they probably wish to scare up some funds from their donors. Fourth, they wish to do as much damage to their nationalist enemies as possible.

If I were the Searchlight Institute, I would craft my poll questions and massage my data to lead nationalists to conclude that doing something maximally dumb and self-destructive is the road to power. If the SPLC and the ADL were stupid enough to follow my advice, I would definitely advise them to do the most self-defeating thing that they could be persuaded to do.

What is the takeaway lesson of the Searchlight poll? Renounce violence and fascist symbolism and 48% of the vote will be yours. And in the UK, with its multiple parties, 48% of the vote means power.

The British National Party does, of course, have roots in National Socialism and the violent skinhead subculture. That is because National Socialists and skinheads saw the problems of multiculturalism and non-white immigration and were willing to fight them decades before the moderate, middle-class suburbanites who are now turning to the mainstreamed BNP.

Many of the most committed BNP Vanguardists were driven out or left in disgust when Nick Griffin embarked on mainstreaming the party. But some disinterested old fighters still remain. (When Griffin began his reforms, they just chose to close their eyes and think of England.)

Now the Searchlight is suggesting to Griffin and the muggles that the only thing standing between them and power are the sixteen remaining Nazis and skinheads in their ranks. If they take the bait, the result will be more internal strife in the BNP and White Nationalist circles world-wide. Mission accomplished.

I dream of the day when our movement is mature enough that such suggestions by our enemies do not pass the laugh test. Until then, I guess we can hope that our enemies will simply die laughing at us.