There was a moment when the Conservative Party in Britain called for a "Big Society." At the time, we Brits looked at each other and said- well, what does that mean? The Tories looked at us and said, "well, we're going to sell everything, so you're on your own."
And sell out they did. Even so, the fundamental idea of a philosophically communitarian movement in society is not necessarily a bad one, nor is it a communist or socialist idea to do so- in particular, communitarianism is flawed as the system is imposed by the state rather than an organic, truly community movement. As such, neoliberals like the Tories all too readily exploited the idea of free social work; even though the idea is better on a whiteboard in Whitehall than on a council estate in Warrington. As The Telegraph noted in 2015:
I am in awe of (Nobel Prize Winner) Muhammad Yunus;
“Governments always want to get involved with my work,” he told me last week. “They plead with me to accept their help. But government meddling just warps incentives and mucks up what I’m trying to do.”
That, in a nutshell, is what the Big Society should be all about. If informed by such wisdom, it’s an idea that we should salvage.
The British Conservatives were transparent in their wish for citizens to take up the slack while public services were flogged off to the lowest bidder. There are many reasons why the Conservatives tried to produce this community spirit through legislation. Crime had already begun in 2006 to be treated as a problem for the plebians to just put up with, and accept as part and parcel of living in a big city.
"So when you see a child walking down the road - hoodie up, head down, moody, swaggering, dominating the pavement - think about what has brought that child to that moment". ~David Cameron, 2006
Hugging so-called hoodies didn't take off. In fact, nobody hugged anyone at all. a couple of hundred thousand kids were shoehorned into a tax-payer funded third-way programme to attempt to instill some civic values in the British and to reduce the impact of public sector cuts that many had come to depend on. The British people, it seemed, just aren't very interested in helping each other- at least, this is surely how it must look from Parliament. In fact, the British have an inbuilt suspicion of any toff who looks slightly uncomfortable as he tries to be nice. We like rich bastards who are smart, drive a flash car, and can do complicated sums and speak foreign languages. Cameron may be rich, he may have had a chauffeur, but he lacked steel. The conservative parties of the West have for too long conserved too little, spent too much, and disgraced their own good name.
This magazine is one of Conservative Opinion, Commentary, Philosophy, and Culture. We believe in tradition, human imperfection, a free society, hierarchy, rule of law and property rights. It's hardly a radical philosophy, and neither is nationalism. In fact, the entire concept of conservative philosophy is contingent on the ethnicity and race of the people who generate those ideals, as are all civic nationalist ideals and ideologies. Politics varies depending on which group is implementing those politics. In short, replace the people, and you replace all that was good and ill about their society. Modern conservatives have failed to remember this nationalistic component of their own philosophy- I suspect this is why we see so many corporatist neoliberals who are merely pretending to be conservatives.
The problem is that British politics is very interested in buzzwords and arresting people for telling the truth, and less interested in following through with the concluding parts of their half-formed ideas.
I suppose this is true in many countries. Political parties have so little actual concern for their people beyond voting blocks, it should be no surprise that we are left with the sound bites and the tax-bill at the end. For the the many, not the few- this is the clarion call of Corbyn's Labour but in reality this many is the state. The state will reappropriate the railways and the power stations, but the other many- the many of us- this greatest of Britains, will only see poverty. So it always goes with socialists. The half formed idea is that we will all benefit, the concluding part is that nobody will.
The left has miscalculated badly. Leftists have indeed unmasked themselves in the misguided belief that the rest of us are on board with gun confiscation, open borders, sanctuary cities, amnesty for millions of illegals, and the notion that Trump could be brought down by the revelation of a one-night stand years ago. They could not be more wrong. ~ Patricia McCarthy, American Thinker
From the perspective of the citizen surely this appears as akin to being courted and abandoned by all suitors. The neoliberals genuinely don't care beyond the profit line and prove that by kicking this generation’s problems down to the next, secure in their childless nihilism that for them, nothing else matters. Macron, May, Sturgeon, and others, childless all. As Raheem Kassam, Editor in Chief of Breitbart London said;
“If you look across Europe, for instance, the leader in Germany, Angela Merkel, in Italy, the United Kingdom, France – all childless. And it’s interesting because the leaders who do have children are far more invested in the future of their nations than the leaders without." ~Raheem Kassam
Even the so-called social justice advocates care nothing for the indigenous populations of Western nations, as the European is, as we have discussed previously, the permanent evil- the unfeeling monolith of Christendom. Even the leftist activist rag Word felt no qualms with unironically publishing this cover in Great Britain just this week.
I can agree with these abhorrent cultists in one sense. It is time to stand up for what you believe. If the binary is such that to vote for Labour is for open borders to Africa, and to vote for the Conservatives is to bend the knee to Jewish interests, neither should be supported by any Briton. This anti-Jew magazine cover could just as easily have been made by Stormfront, without a single change. I do not believe that our Continent should be run in the interests of either "side" that these anti-Jew, open-border, genocidal maniacs suggest; and absolutely not in the interests of any ideology that suggests that in Europe, European people should serve Blacks or Jews or Asians or anyone else. That is not a policy, it's demographic subservience and self-hatred.
Where then does this leave the ever-growing Nationalist sentiment in Western Civilization? Thanks to the painstaking efforts from neo-Marxists over the last decades, most White people are at least unsure about whether race has any importance. I say it does, if we are being set up for a fall because of it.
Data for country of birth for residents of England&Wales from 2011 Census showing white British and various ethnic minorities. 59% of non white-British residents of England & Wales were foreign born in 2011#EthnicReplacement #GreatReplacement #WeHaveNoOtherHomeland pic.twitter.com/hghEY35ej8— existenceofangels (@summontheangels) March 29, 2018
This data is scary- to be replaced in our homelands and without an Israel of our own to flee to is a galling thought. Even so, when faced with data like this most Whites will reject the idea out of hand, or retreat into the civic nationalist ideal that the soil of their country is somehow magical, and makes fellow Britons or French or Germans or Italians -or even Americans or Australians- by virtue of some intangible effervescent property.
So what is to be done? You must be charitable. Not only in the philosophical sense towards the people in your country who genuinely live in ignorance of the future demographic time-bomb, but in the real world. Thanks to a tremendous disinformation campaign perpetuated by the acolytes of the Frankfurt School -Jordan Peterson correctly describes them as neo-Marxist- the Second World War, which was the story of the victory of the uneasy alliance between nationalist nations and the USSR over National Socialism and Imperial Japan, has been retconned into being the victory of democracy and communism over nationalism. As I wrote some time ago in this magazine:
Nazi, bigot, cuckservative, alt-lite. This is a culturally conditioned response. The Neo-Marxist, inherently opposed to the concept of nationhood or tradition, is ever on the lookout for something to call “Adolf the Destroyer”. The ideals of what we call the greatest generation were to some extent nationalist, and in good faith. Today, those same men and women would be considered evil.
Nationalism is not inherently an awful concept, nor is racial identity. That the Second World War was fought by Nationalists on all sides is of little interest to historical revisionists who wish to extrapolate National-Socialism and apply it as a critique of all concepts of national identity. Resist this if you wish your nation to survive.
Any sense of national identity is immediately looked at with the suspicion that it may be somehow fascistic. In the spirit of open-mindedness, to paraphrase Hitchens, we must be utterly closed minded to nationalism- even though this strength of collective character is the very embodiment of the identity of so many nations and provided us with the strength to prevail through many terrors.
The charity then, must begin with yourself. Be charitable and understand the inextricable link between yourself and your immediate family stretches back through the eons to connect all Europeans, to greater and lesser degrees. With this knowledge, it becomes a duty to help those of your European family where you can. That is a huge task! Who can really say they work in the interests of all Europe? Well, doesn't the bible teach the importance of small things, also? The easiest way to do this is to look around at your immediate environment. What is going on? What is going wrong?
Youths of European descent are already joining together through groups like Generation Identity to express the sentiment that we are not just a concept. We are not just "Whiteness" which is toxic and must be dismantled. In fact- the opposite is true. Why not take responsibility for your local area, talk to your brothers in the town, and clean it- literally, pick up that rubbish! Help a homeless brother to his feet and try to help him.
The younger White children in our societies are similarly disenfranchised, confused and without example. What example do you set for children who look up to you? The alternative is they learn from television that their ancestors stole the land from Africans, that the gender roles are irrelevant, that masculinity is a bad thing. European women have a great power to influence the generation below them, by rejecting the genderless world in favor of their own feminine strength, creativity, and talents.
The elderly in European countries also need our help- after all, are they not the reason we are told that we need mass immigration in the first place? To help our old we must pay into a crumbling neoliberal system to pay for their pensions until we are the old ones and the last of our kind. I don't have all the answers to the economic problems, but you have the answer to an elderly person's problem today.
Even with our poor, even if you are poor, we can do great things in our own communities. Help a family like yours, cook them a meal- not through a desire to convert people to our cause or to gain the votes of people we care nothing for, but because these are our countries. These are our kinsmen. There was a time when everything that I have described to you was not a political act at all, it was the community spirit that lived within us, stripped from us by multiculturalism and a globalist agenda that says everyone is the same.
We should do these things now because we are nationalists and these problems are the problems of our nations.
Therefore, helping the poor, the elderly, the homeless White European is indeed a necessary political act. Lord knows we cannot form advocacy groups to petition governments for aid- not only would we be tarred as racists for wanting to help our own people preferentially during a time when our governments treat all others preferentially to us, it would be a futile and irresponsible gesture.
Irresponsible, yes. Why devolve power that is already yours to a state infrastructure that doesn't work in your interest, exploits your taxes to pay for new-comers; and treats you with disdain if you do not complain and a racist if you do? The realization of your responsibility to fight for our future does not look like people in the street with sticks- it is people in the street with warm food. It is you with a tin of paint, repairing the fence of Mr. Jones or Frau Fischer or Mme. Dubois.
Things the government will protect us from:— Dixy Dix (@Dixydix) March 29, 2018
Female conservative journalists✅
Returning ISIS fighters❌
Anti Semitic attacks❌
Russian nerve agent❌
Fighting for a better future begins with tiny acts of kindness. When people ask you why you are doing these things when everyone else is taking, tell them it is because it is the right thing to do. Tell them it is because of your love of your country; because you love your people. Talk to them frankly about how this is the soul of nationalism if they seem interested in what led you to this path. Your kindness and charity is the leadership we need right now.
"If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.” ~ G.K Chesterton
It is okay to do acts of kindness in the name of your people- and I wish this for all people of all ethnicities! The sad fact is that many people out there will hate me for writing these words of love to Westerners. If Islamic Relief can exist, and the NAACP can exist- can White people not simply help our own people openly, and on a personal level? If this is exclusionary to others and therefore wrong- I can accept that. Will then the NAACP help the poor Whites of Appalachia, or will Islamic Relief fund the building of churches in the Middle East?
I would be very interested to entertain all arguments as to why I am wrong, or suggestions on why this cannot work. I offer open right of reply- email me and I will print your responses, unedited and uncensored.