The Concept Of Folk: Nationalism And Mainstreamers

The Nationalist and the Conservative

by Frank L. DeSilva

Nationalist are always young.

This ‘spirit’ of youth may be mental, physical, or ideological. This youth is the way-sign of the nationalist, insofar as the impetus for nationalism comes from a sense of romance, idealism, and the vagaries, which accompany youth; in short, the technics of the nationalist consist of a burgeoning sense of experimentation – of one’s coming of age. The modern conservative sees this as juvenile behavior, and resents the political manifestations of this type of romance, for he feels it will supplant him. It is very true that in most cases, the nationalist seeks to reaffirm what is traditional, what he [the nationalist] sees as the better part of the past – the golden age of his experience – but knows that he cannot salvage all of it. The modern conservative sees this as fanaticism.

Like all young people, there is a certain shock value associated with the ‘doing’ of youth, and the intellectualizing of the elder. The nationalist shocks the complacent conservative (truly, a “mainstreamer”) out of his cultural stupor by bringing to light, by reaffirming, the original idea, the primal origins of their shared beginnings, to the forefront. These manifestations may be recognized as ideological, racial, cultural, or civil discontent. It may very well bring out emotions long suppressed: hate, fear, survival, love, and sympathy.

Hate, because those who are supposed to be looking out for them, those who have been entrusted with the power to protect and serve, have abrogated this duty, have given the halls of justice and leadership over to the enemies of their kind. Fear, because the nationalist can see clearly the underlying betrayal of his national borders, the abuse and rape of his economic system, and finally through the cowardice of the body-politic, of the timid conservative, in allowing the disgraceful dissection of his ancient traditions, either through the written word of his forefathers, or the direct interpretation of the nations laws and precepts. Survival becomes his highest priority, and the feelings of love and sympathy for his fellow man becomes ever the benchmark of his aspirations. The Nationalist, in almost every case, sees a betrayal, by those in power, in whatever the Age who, as guardians, who decided to change or redirect those things, which had gone before; in other words, to make a change against what was seen as right for generations. As seen by the Nationalist, these changes had not come from any continuity of interests, or over a slow evolutionary period [seen in hundreds of years, not in dozens], but rather through the impetus and social construct of the personal wishes of individuals, rather than the needs of the People at large, devoid of contact with the real world of the living, outside his marble halls, and insulated by his money and sycophants. Such breaches of longstanding Tradition were the elements of France in 1789 – which brought about a victory in revolution by its adherents – at least the victory of ‘mass’ over ‘quality’. The conservative, alas, has not understood this past so apparent for he continues to rationalize his position.

While the Modern rationalizes his position, the Nationalist reacts to his. It is instinct.

Granted, his emotions tend to place him outside the accepted sphere of influence of modern society. Indifferent though they [the mass] may be, being of the same race-soul, nevertheless, is drawn to it as well. They share the same instinct. Yet, as if it were deaf and dumb, the mass feels indifference to what they ‘feel’ intuitively as evil to their way of Life – they react in the same fashion to those that would act against those things felt, even if seen unclearly, that affects all in its path. To the mass, the conservative elements within certain white nationalist circles, still attaches such ‘code words’ as patriot, constitutionalist, legitimate power, etc., to instill a sense of continuity with the past. The mass will not see just how far they have been controlled for they are kept busy with work, worship, and raising families; after all, they seek nothing of the truth of the matter, they remain simply content with things the way they are. The mass, generally, are oblivious to the sequence of birth, life, and senility of their waking consciousness. The mass rarely will accept the fact that their legacy is dead, they too, are afraid of the rising tide, a new West, unaffected by the traditional closed door agreements of the past, for this new nationalism belongs to the ancient, unspoken attendance of a new generation of Nationalists, wrapped in guises that have long gone untaught by the powers of the State, in whom, the traditional con-servative,  remains attached.

The Nationalist of Western racial stock faces the same consistent elements of status quo – on either Continent. The ‘american’ flag, the symbolic representative of that long and honorable tradition of nationalism, as a symbol of America, is no longer the symbol of the original presence of the Western race-culture. Let us be clear on this point: The ‘symbol’ of America no longer functions, in any real sense, as it did in its inception. This symbol, this flag, was a symbol of War – of that hostile act of belligerence and warfare against kindred, related by blood – Western blood. It was between white brothers. The fact that non-white elements played various parts in this conflict, on one side or the other, is of relative significance. The symbols, political technics, and the like, were founded by, and for, one people – alone.

The symbol of the flag represented an intrinsic stability inherent in a unified effort. This effort was War – an act of betrayal against a body politic which had led the Western experience for five hundred years or more in relative unbroken succession. But it was more; it was ‘order’ without law, it was law based on consent – not of the people, this a common fallacy – but in harmony with them.

The common ground between the nationalist and conservative of the past, has been, and is, for the most part, the issue of ‘bearing arms’, but for different reasons, and generally belittled, at least publicly, the standard acceptance of Race, and race-culture. The Conservative elements, then as now, believes in the documents of the past to maintain this ‘right’; the Nationalist believes that there is no ‘right’, other than the right to choose for himself the ‘right’ to self-determine his role in relation to his surroundings. If the reader will take, good-naturedly, another reminder, let it be this, and ever this: If there is anything such as a ‘god-given right’, it is up to man to enforce it (!). Man has made his political State what it is, not god. The Conservative awakens from his slumber – his attacks against the positions of his erstwhile political brethren, multiply daily.

Within the ‘white nationalist community’, these refrains are coming to fruition again, as in days past; from England and Europe there are those, many would affirm, are “mainstreamers”, proposing the same old rhetoric of inclusion and immersion within the established order securing, it is hoped, a few scraps from the table of Long-Shanks, in the hopes of a few hard-won days in the sun, fighting themselves, as well as their cousins, for who should share the kudos of the day; unity, of course, no matter the cost, being relegated, once again, to those ‘fringe’ elements, maintaining a safe distance, compromising in speech and deed – hence, compromising the very life-blood of their People.

It is that ‘alien’ mentality with which the nationalist is very much at odds – that of the modern ‘wannabe’ white nationalist. The Nationalist is, by far, more vociferous in his attack against the play-acting nationalist, than he does the conservative – but without the larger media aid of the conservative it is apparent who still holds the upper hand. While the childish argument continues, the nefarious State of today, closes its grips upon both; this monstrous governmental technic continues to reserve for itself the right to maintain weapons in the hands of its militancy, its police force, its national security services. This, above and beyond, the majority of those Western people’s who demand the same right, also, but who, as of this writing, have not the power to enforce their will.

The issue is not, nor ever has been, over ‘gun ownership’, this was simply the clarion call of the Conservative, the ‘sound-bite’ for the masses. The issue is Freedom, pure and simple. Freedom to maintain a race-cultural imperative; to protect Family; one’s Home, self, and ultimately, the freedom to defend oneself from the tyranny of a technic, individually or collectively, of any infringement of one’s Liberty by a foreign or domestic power. Period.

The Nationalist realizes that defense against all predators is a law cognizant with nature. The nationalist knew, and has always known, that the issue of gun ownership was his first line of defense – that the issue of ‘sporting arms’ was the pleading of the conservative to the traditional governmental technic, like a son pleading with his father for favor, for his ‘inalienable rights’ when, actually, the basis of his pleadings were based upon documents of the past which, at the outset, granted no rights, it simply verified, as a device of communication, recognized and battle-won, yes, those hard won rights decided in struggle and contest; decided by blood and sacrifice. Through Blood and Iron; through the contest, of culture and civilization.

This was made abundantly clear when, in the early 80’s, White Nationalism took to the field in a blaze of glory, sending all the conservative elements into, a mainstream position; a position, to this day, which affords the most dubious of spokesmen and leaders, a continued safe haven to ‘fight’ the system.

The canard of ‘extremism’, used by these timid souls calling themselves ‘white nationalist’, never admitting the source or the power of this definition, pushed a few souls into the arena of political mandate, without the logical impetus of the very populous they claimed to advance! Hence, the proverbial merry-go-round between these two camps, continued unabated. Alas, for our own Gordion Knot, and the hand which would undo its complexities! It is not the fault of Nationalists, if the conservative elements lack the ‘leadership princip’ necessary to draw and control all comers for, of necessity, revolutionary change will not come from men and women who, albeit a purely idealistic world-view, look for a kinder and gentler evolution rather, than a more realistic understanding of revolutionary tactics and the necessity which fosters it. Kooks and sociopaths to some, are the disenfranchised, humiliated, and beaten common folk of our everyday lives – restraint, after all, is a gift given sparingly in these sundered times. In essence, as before,



Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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