A presentation by Andrew Brons to British Renaissance broadcast by Resistance Radio
When we think of political activity, we tend to think of a direct appeal to the electorate on the basis of concrete policies. This would be in the form of an immediate plan of action: stop this; start that; place a restriction on the other.
However, policies are not chosen or judged in the abstract. They are chosen or judged, favourably or unfavourably, against a background of beliefs and assumptions about the nature of humanity and its different peoples and individuals; the nature of society; and the dynamics of social change. These beliefs and assumptions are not policies They are descriptive statements – beliefs about how the world is and prescriptive statements about how it ought to be.
They are the beliefs and assumptions on the basis of which policies are fashioned. If we address policy questions but ignore the underlying beliefs and assumptions, our policy pronouncements will be rejected out of hand, by some, because the listener, reader, viewer or interlocutor has false beliefs or misguided prescriptions about the nature of the world and how it should be guided.
We must not accept without question that the population is made up of autonomous individuals who have been left to arrive at their own conclusions or decide their own priorities – far from it. Virtually the whole academic world, the media and the Political Class from Trotskyites to UKIP peddle false beliefs and misguided hopes of the Social Anthropologists, Franz Boas and Margaret Mead. They spread the lie that differences between peoples and between individuals are attributable to nurture and not nature and they express the hope that differences between population groups ought to be eradicated by encouraging miscegenation.
Combating this poison will be an enormous task but it is a task that cannot be neglected. We do not have the communication weapons of our ideological opponents but the internet provides us with a scaled down version of theirs. Resistance Radio is a prime example.
I believe that the Nationalist Movement needs to produce an ideological magazine. Heritage and Destiny does this up to a point but it does many other things too. The content of this ideological matter must be acceptable to all genuine Nationalists and not just to some exotics strands, while being anathema to others. It must also be appealing to people who are not already committed to our ideology.
Even that humblest of means of communication, the leaflet, might be employed to spread the ideological message and not just the political message.
Back in 1965, John Bean’s British National Party published a leaflet explaining how past civilisations had failed when the civilisation-creating and civilisation-maintaining populations had been diluted and replaced.
We could produce a leaflet entitled Ancestry Matters, which could easily be mistaken at first glance to be a family history advertisement, until the reader sees the following line: “It does, you know”. Such a leaflet would be distributed to the general population but would probably have limited impact.
We could alternatively or additionally design a somewhat diluted and less obviously ideologically-motivated nature rather than just nurture leaflet to be sent to functionaries within the policy-making and policy administering sectors of government, the academic world, main stream teachers, as well as routine communicators. This would strike a less evangelising tone and simply sow seeds of doubt about the Establishment’s lies, among the Establishment’s own auxiliaries. The language would have to much more guarded, less strident, perhaps less certain and more doubting. Such leaflets could profess to be from insiders to insiders. They could be targeted towards particular individuals or to whole categories of auxiliaries.
We must fight the War of Ideas in an attempt to resist and reverse the Social Anthropologists’ assault on truth and thought, which has been conducted for decades.