A transcript of a speech presented by Andrew Brons at the Yorkshire Forum Meeting on the 26th of November, 2016.
You might think that even use of the word ideology—let alone devoting a whole talk to it—is about as pretentious as you can get. But as the comedian Bob Monkhouse might have said: “When did I ever say that I was unpretentious.” That might be the only time that Bob Monkhouse has ever been quoted at a Nationalist meeting—a first and I suspect a last!
Is ideology just a pretentious word for policy? Emphatically not; but the two are necessarily connected. Ideology—a system or discourse of ideas—contains the necessary roots of policies. The ideological roots of policies are as essential to their health and well-being as the roots of trees are to the health and well being of trees.
Policies are planned or desired courses of action in government, such as: stop immigration; stop Afro-Asian immigration; or (in the case of UKIP) stop European immigration but not Afro-Asian immigration; or, for all other parties, encourage all immigration.
Ideologies contain beliefs, conclusions or assumptions about how the world and humanity is—descriptive statements and statements of our fundamental preferences for the future of the world or humanity or our part of it—what it ought to be like—prescriptive statements.
For us, our fundamental descriptive statement is that observed differences between peoples (plural of people) and between individuals can be attributed to heredity rather than to the environment or upbringing—to nature rather than to nurture.
To quote myself – about as immodest as you can get:
If the related peoples who contributed, over millenia, to the creation of our civilisation, become extinct then our civilisation will become extinct too.
Change the seeds and you change the crop that you harvest. Change the ingredients and you change the cake. Change the chemicals and you change the result of the experiment. Change the left hand side of the equation and you necessarily change the right-hand side of the equation.
Our fundamental prescriptive belief—what we want to be the case—is that our descendants should be as like ourselves as is practicable—as like us physically but, more importantly, as like us in personality, ability and inclination. That is about as close to immortality—everlasting life—as most of us are likely to get.
What about our opponents—by which I mean the shared opinions of all of the Establishment parties—from UKIP and the Tories, through the Liberal Democrats, through all the layers of the Labour Party, the Greens and Communists and Trotskyites. They all have the same fundamental descriptive and prescriptive beliefs and assumptions. Quite spooky isn’t it?
They all accept the lie invented by the Franz Boas school of Social Anthropology and propagated by its principal disciple, Margaret Mead that peoples (plural of people) and people (without an ‘s’ —plural of person) are the products of their cultures. Change the culture, they would say, and you will change the people and the peoples.
They believe (or affect to believe) that demographic change will have no effect on our culture or our civilisation. Newcomers will take off their cultural overcoats at the port or airport of entry and will don British or other European cultural overcoats at the same time. They will absorb British or other European cultural values as they breath in British or other European air.
That is, of course, nonsense. When you bring large numbers of people in from the Third World, you turn more and more parts of the host country into the Third World. That is what is happening to most of the larger town and cities of Britain and of most of the countries of Western Europe. If any in Eastern Europe are misguided enough to think that they are missing out, don’t worry. Your turn will be next.
Now there is a school of thought in politics (I would prefer to call it a school of lack of thought) that recoils from ideology—from coherent systems of thought and prefers to concentrate on concrete policies in isolation without thinking about the beliefs and opinions on which they are based.
Lord Carrington, a minister in both the Heath and Thatcher governments in the 1970s and 80s, said that the Conservative Party was never at its best (perhaps he ought to have stopped there) when it involved itself in ideological questions and arguments. This statement was a coded attack on Thatcher’s economic policies, so perhaps he can be forgiven.
Harold Wilson in the 1960s re-discovered the words pragmatism and pragmatic to suggest that policies should be adopted each in isolation, on their merits, without reference to any thought system. However, Wilson was trying to hold his Party together.
I think I’m being far too kind this afternoon.
However, anybody who thinks that he can escape from ideology, would be quite wrong. If you avoid thinking for yourself about the beliefs, assumptions and opinions on which your policies or prospective policies are based, somebody else will do it for you.
Those who seek to avoid ideology will find that the fundamental assumption of nurture and the fundamental prescription of the genocide of the indigenous population have been smuggled into the argument and chosen for them. If they try to resist, they will be given a hefty blow with the ‘R’ word and if they persist sent into moral exile.
The Social Anthropologists have replaced the real schools of Anthropology in all of our universities (I think without exception). The current heir to the Throne received his undergraduate education in the Department of Social Anthropology at Cambridge. There he was taught most thoroughly and effectively how not to think for himself. After the Lewisham riot against the NF in 1977 he tried to curry favour with the Marxist riot leader. Subsequently he has been keen to encourage guards’ regiments to admit Africans to their ranks.
That would all be bad enough but the disease of Social Anthropology has spread throughout the Arts and Social Sciences and even into the Natural Sciences and then onto the whole education system, the media, and the political parties, from UKIP to the Trotskyites.
Only this week the actor who plays the part of a wife batterer in The Archers featured in a long article about coverage of the subject in a programme that was originally about farming. The actor, a Timothy Watson, felt that his job as a strolling player, somehow qualified him to speak on the subject. He said he thought it was the role of the programme to discuss how and why somebody like his character behaves in that way. He said, “I believe it’s nurture not nature-we’re not born abusers.” He did not offer any evidence for his supposition because there is none. There is plenty of evidence that personality features, and therefore behaviour, are inherited.
There used to be nature-nurture debates. Now there are nurture-nurtures assumptions.
Is this relevant only to race and ethnicity and completely irrelevant to other policy areas? No, that would not be true. These fundamental beliefs are relevant to many other areas of public policy: law and order and the alleged causes of crime; international relations; education policy; employment policy, to name just a few.
The Boas-Mead School of Disinformation believes or affects to believe that behaviour is the product of nurture and that nobody is born to be violent, aggressive, selfish, dishonest and unscrupulous—the qualities necessary for most serious offences.
If a person turns out to have these qualities, they are the product of the offender’s upbringing and perhaps later social environment.
Its default position is a belief in an optimistic view of human nature—that people are naturally disposed to be kind, altruistic, selfless and friendly.
My view is not the opposite view—that all humanity are amoral monsters—a view associated with the 17th philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. It is not even that inherited behaviour cannot often be moderated by outside constraint and internal restraint. I am sure it can in many cases.
However, I do believe that people are born on a continuum from utter evil to completely saintly with most of us in a modal average of variation between occasional selfishness and occasional generosity.
However, concluding that some people were born with a predisposition to aggression is not permitted. That suggestion is dismissed at the outset, just as Timothy Watson, the Archers actor did.
When a particularly disturbing murder is committed, the unchallenged question is asked, “What could have made this person a killer?” By this is meant,”What in the person’s upbringing or later experience could have made this potentially pleasant person a killer?”
In 2007 an eleven year old boy, Rhys Jones, was riding his bicycle around a pub car park in Liverpool. He was shot three times and killed by a sixteen year old boy, Sean Mercer, who thought Rhys was older and that he was a member of a rival gang. There was a lot of inconclusive talk about what could have turn the sixteen year old into a killer. Then one article let slip the fact that Sean Mercer’s great grandfather had been hanged for murder.
I am not going to make a presumption that this proves a genetic link but it cannot be logically excluded from consideration. Of course, it has not so much been excluded as it has just been ignored as self-evidently irrelevant.
As I said at the beginning, policy makers cannot ignore the ideological roots of policy options. If they try to do so, they will find that their roots have been assumed – almost certainly from the received Establishment view.
If you presume that all people and peoples—races if you will—are equal or of equal potential, the remedy for the very real problems of falling indigenous population birth-rates, ageing populations, and rises in the dependent proportion will be obvious and simple. You can remedy it by importing young Third Warders with high fertility and desire to have children, and they will become New Britons or New French or new Germans.
However, when you discover that that starting presumption is a lie, that differences in ability are attributable to heredity and not environment, and that the average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is 30% lower than that of Europeans, the flaw in the policy makers’ argument is readily visible.
If you bring people in from the Third World in sufficient numbers, you turn more and parts of the host country into the Third World.
If we do not want that we must stop any further Third World immigration and encourage those here to re-invest themselves in their countries and continents of origin.
Public Policy in Britain and indeed in most of the White World is based on a series of lies implanted by a sinister bunch of malcontents determined to destroy the civilisation that we currently enjoy and which benefits the entire world.
It is not sufficient to say that their policies are wrong-headed although they usually are and that must be said. We must show that the fundamental beliefs and assumptions on which public policy is based are not simply wrong; they are untrue—the very opposite of the truth.
In the words of Margaret Mead, the late and unlamented Arch-Misinformed:
What is the origin of our ideology? Where does it come from?
The descriptive part, where we state how the world is—how humanity is—must be discovered by empirical means—by disciplined and systematic investigation and identification of facts, and by arriving at logical conclusions There can be no room for assuming something to be true—still less for wanting something to be true.
There is ample evidence from studies by educational psychologists and others with relevant qualifications that observed differences in intelligence between different individuals are attributable to heredity rather than the environment—nature rather than nurture.
This has been done by comparing differences between identical twins brought up apart (minimal differences) and between unrelated children brought up in the same household (significant differences—almost as much as random pairs of people from the general population).
Differences between different peoples, population groups, races if you will, are measured by testing large numbers of each group or race, working out an average and comparing the averages for each group or race.
We must remember that we are measuring averages and that no race is uniformly intelligent or uniformly unintelligent.
It is often said by unthinking people that you cannot make generalisations. Well you can. What you cannot do is to apply them to all members of the group.
Personality is more difficult to measure objectively and it would be difficult to measure it numerically. However, there have been some interesting studies of individuals and of peoples.
The Yoof twins is particularly interesting. They were born to an indigenous German mother and an American Jewish father but separated as babies. The father took one twin to the U.S and later to Israel. The other remained with the mother in Germany under the Third Reich and remained there throughout the war and the post war period. They were reunited in their 60s and when they met they were wearing almost identical clothes, had similar interests and a similar sense of humour. However, they had a terminal fall-out—perhaps predictably—about politics and recent German history.
Similarly, the American identical twins, Jim Lewis and Jim Springer were born in 1940, separated at the age of four weeks and were reunited at the age of thirty-nine. Again their dress sense, interests and lifestyles were very similar.
In contrast we all know from our own experience that ordinary siblings whose shared genes are only on average 50% and might be much less, sometimes have personalities that are very different.`
All of this would seem to indicate the importance of heredity in forming personality and therefore behaviour.
We justify our factual beliefs—our descriptions—by observation, measurement and logical conclusion. How do we justify our prescriptions, our values, our ‘oughts’—what we want for the future?
There are three approaches in politics of any stripe.
We might simply say: “This is what I believe should happen and my opinion justifies itself.” We might be more precise:
However, when our opponents say that they believe in multi-racialism and that it is self-evidently right it would be described as reasoned argument.
Is that one rule for us and one rule for them? Just a bit!
The second approach is to say that our values, our prescriptions, if brought into effect, would be supportive of some more consensus goal.
We might say that our civilisation was brought into being and is being sustained by members of the European and proto-European peoples, and that it will continue as long as those peoples survive.
Alternatively that societies that are homogenous and homogeneous—there is a difference—are more stable and peaceful than heterogeneous societies.
The third approach is what might be called the teleological approach. which is to look for some grand purpose and to judge values by whether or not they are consistent with and (better still) supportive of that Grand Purpose.
This might be a religious purpose: an edict of the Pope or the (alleged) Will of Allah.
It might be a belief in an historical perspective, such as Marxist theory, or it might be a natural law such as Darwin’s theory of evolution.
It has been suggested that a world of differentiated and delimited populations would be more favourable to progressive evolution. No population group would have this as an objective but it might be a positive unintended function.
For the reasons that I have given, I believe that ancestral Nationalism—Racial Nationalism, if you prefer it—ticks all three of those approaches.
The development and understanding of our Political Ideology is not an added extra, a luxury if we can afford it and if we can be bothered. It helps us to understand what exactly we are seeking to do and why we are doing it. When we wish to develop policy in a new area—one that has not been considered before—our first reference point would be to our ideological beliefs and values, the policy position should then follow logically.
Without an ideological understanding we are at best lost in the dark, At worst, we are prey to those who would mislead us and exercise a malign influence on us.
by Andrew Brons
You might think that even use of the word ideology—let alone devoting a whole talk to it—is about as pretentious as you can get. But as the comedian Bob Monkhouse might have said: “When did I ever say that I was unpretentious.” That might be the only time that Bob Monkhouse has ever been quoted at a Nationalist meeting—a first and I suspect a last!
Is ideology just a pretentious word for policy? Emphatically not; but the two are necessarily connected. Ideology—a system or discourse of ideas—contains the necessary roots of policies. The ideological roots of policies are as essential to their health and well-being as the roots of trees are to the health and well being of trees.
Policies are planned or desired courses of action in government, such as: stop immigration; stop Afro-Asian immigration; or (in the case of UKIP) stop European immigration but not Afro-Asian immigration; or, for all other parties, encourage all immigration.
Ideologies contain beliefs, conclusions or assumptions about how the world and humanity is—descriptive statements and statements of our fundamental preferences for the future of the world or humanity or our part of it—what it ought to be like—prescriptive statements.
For us, our fundamental descriptive statement is that observed differences between peoples (plural of people) and between individuals can be attributed to heredity rather than to the environment or upbringing—to nature rather than to nurture.
To quote myself – about as immodest as you can get:
"Distinctive peoples are not the product of distinctive cultures. Distinctive cultures are, ultimately, the product of distinctive peoples."If our people should be annihilated—physically or by dilution and outbreeding, by quite different peoples—then our culture would change and, in our opinion, for the worse.
If the related peoples who contributed, over millenia, to the creation of our civilisation, become extinct then our civilisation will become extinct too.
 |
| Strange fruit from a strange tree. |
Our fundamental prescriptive belief—what we want to be the case—is that our descendants should be as like ourselves as is practicable—as like us physically but, more importantly, as like us in personality, ability and inclination. That is about as close to immortality—everlasting life—as most of us are likely to get.
What about our opponents—by which I mean the shared opinions of all of the Establishment parties—from UKIP and the Tories, through the Liberal Democrats, through all the layers of the Labour Party, the Greens and Communists and Trotskyites. They all have the same fundamental descriptive and prescriptive beliefs and assumptions. Quite spooky isn’t it?
They all accept the lie invented by the Franz Boas school of Social Anthropology and propagated by its principal disciple, Margaret Mead that peoples (plural of people) and people (without an ‘s’ —plural of person) are the products of their cultures. Change the culture, they would say, and you will change the people and the peoples.
They believe (or affect to believe) that demographic change will have no effect on our culture or our civilisation. Newcomers will take off their cultural overcoats at the port or airport of entry and will don British or other European cultural overcoats at the same time. They will absorb British or other European cultural values as they breath in British or other European air.
That is, of course, nonsense. When you bring large numbers of people in from the Third World, you turn more and more parts of the host country into the Third World. That is what is happening to most of the larger town and cities of Britain and of most of the countries of Western Europe. If any in Eastern Europe are misguided enough to think that they are missing out, don’t worry. Your turn will be next.
Now there is a school of thought in politics (I would prefer to call it a school of lack of thought) that recoils from ideology—from coherent systems of thought and prefers to concentrate on concrete policies in isolation without thinking about the beliefs and opinions on which they are based.
 |
| Lord Carrington: all tactics, no strategy |
Harold Wilson in the 1960s re-discovered the words pragmatism and pragmatic to suggest that policies should be adopted each in isolation, on their merits, without reference to any thought system. However, Wilson was trying to hold his Party together.
I think I’m being far too kind this afternoon.
However, anybody who thinks that he can escape from ideology, would be quite wrong. If you avoid thinking for yourself about the beliefs, assumptions and opinions on which your policies or prospective policies are based, somebody else will do it for you.
Those who seek to avoid ideology will find that the fundamental assumption of nurture and the fundamental prescription of the genocide of the indigenous population have been smuggled into the argument and chosen for them. If they try to resist, they will be given a hefty blow with the ‘R’ word and if they persist sent into moral exile.
 |
| Cuck in training? |
That would all be bad enough but the disease of Social Anthropology has spread throughout the Arts and Social Sciences and even into the Natural Sciences and then onto the whole education system, the media, and the political parties, from UKIP to the Trotskyites.
Only this week the actor who plays the part of a wife batterer in The Archers featured in a long article about coverage of the subject in a programme that was originally about farming. The actor, a Timothy Watson, felt that his job as a strolling player, somehow qualified him to speak on the subject. He said he thought it was the role of the programme to discuss how and why somebody like his character behaves in that way. He said, “I believe it’s nurture not nature-we’re not born abusers.” He did not offer any evidence for his supposition because there is none. There is plenty of evidence that personality features, and therefore behaviour, are inherited.
There used to be nature-nurture debates. Now there are nurture-nurtures assumptions.
Is this relevant only to race and ethnicity and completely irrelevant to other policy areas? No, that would not be true. These fundamental beliefs are relevant to many other areas of public policy: law and order and the alleged causes of crime; international relations; education policy; employment policy, to name just a few.
The Boas-Mead School of Disinformation believes or affects to believe that behaviour is the product of nurture and that nobody is born to be violent, aggressive, selfish, dishonest and unscrupulous—the qualities necessary for most serious offences.
If a person turns out to have these qualities, they are the product of the offender’s upbringing and perhaps later social environment.
Its default position is a belief in an optimistic view of human nature—that people are naturally disposed to be kind, altruistic, selfless and friendly.
My view is not the opposite view—that all humanity are amoral monsters—a view associated with the 17th philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. It is not even that inherited behaviour cannot often be moderated by outside constraint and internal restraint. I am sure it can in many cases.
However, I do believe that people are born on a continuum from utter evil to completely saintly with most of us in a modal average of variation between occasional selfishness and occasional generosity.
However, concluding that some people were born with a predisposition to aggression is not permitted. That suggestion is dismissed at the outset, just as Timothy Watson, the Archers actor did.
 |
| The power of DNA. |
In 2007 an eleven year old boy, Rhys Jones, was riding his bicycle around a pub car park in Liverpool. He was shot three times and killed by a sixteen year old boy, Sean Mercer, who thought Rhys was older and that he was a member of a rival gang. There was a lot of inconclusive talk about what could have turn the sixteen year old into a killer. Then one article let slip the fact that Sean Mercer’s great grandfather had been hanged for murder.
I am not going to make a presumption that this proves a genetic link but it cannot be logically excluded from consideration. Of course, it has not so much been excluded as it has just been ignored as self-evidently irrelevant.
As I said at the beginning, policy makers cannot ignore the ideological roots of policy options. If they try to do so, they will find that their roots have been assumed – almost certainly from the received Establishment view.
 |
| "The New Europeans," they tell us. |
However, when you discover that that starting presumption is a lie, that differences in ability are attributable to heredity and not environment, and that the average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is 30% lower than that of Europeans, the flaw in the policy makers’ argument is readily visible.
If you bring people in from the Third World in sufficient numbers, you turn more and parts of the host country into the Third World.
If we do not want that we must stop any further Third World immigration and encourage those here to re-invest themselves in their countries and continents of origin.
Public Policy in Britain and indeed in most of the White World is based on a series of lies implanted by a sinister bunch of malcontents determined to destroy the civilisation that we currently enjoy and which benefits the entire world.
It is not sufficient to say that their policies are wrong-headed although they usually are and that must be said. We must show that the fundamental beliefs and assumptions on which public policy is based are not simply wrong; they are untrue—the very opposite of the truth.
In the words of Margaret Mead, the late and unlamented Arch-Misinformed:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed it’s the only thing that has."We might be small in number but we must be a countervailing small group of people who challenge the Boas-Mead lies at every turn.
What is the origin of our ideology? Where does it come from?
The descriptive part, where we state how the world is—how humanity is—must be discovered by empirical means—by disciplined and systematic investigation and identification of facts, and by arriving at logical conclusions There can be no room for assuming something to be true—still less for wanting something to be true.
There is ample evidence from studies by educational psychologists and others with relevant qualifications that observed differences in intelligence between different individuals are attributable to heredity rather than the environment—nature rather than nurture.
This has been done by comparing differences between identical twins brought up apart (minimal differences) and between unrelated children brought up in the same household (significant differences—almost as much as random pairs of people from the general population).
Differences between different peoples, population groups, races if you will, are measured by testing large numbers of each group or race, working out an average and comparing the averages for each group or race.
We must remember that we are measuring averages and that no race is uniformly intelligent or uniformly unintelligent.
It is often said by unthinking people that you cannot make generalisations. Well you can. What you cannot do is to apply them to all members of the group.
Personality is more difficult to measure objectively and it would be difficult to measure it numerically. However, there have been some interesting studies of individuals and of peoples.
The Yoof twins is particularly interesting. They were born to an indigenous German mother and an American Jewish father but separated as babies. The father took one twin to the U.S and later to Israel. The other remained with the mother in Germany under the Third Reich and remained there throughout the war and the post war period. They were reunited in their 60s and when they met they were wearing almost identical clothes, had similar interests and a similar sense of humour. However, they had a terminal fall-out—perhaps predictably—about politics and recent German history.
 |
| Jim & Jim, separated at birth, identical in tastes and habits. |
In contrast we all know from our own experience that ordinary siblings whose shared genes are only on average 50% and might be much less, sometimes have personalities that are very different.`
All of this would seem to indicate the importance of heredity in forming personality and therefore behaviour.
We justify our factual beliefs—our descriptions—by observation, measurement and logical conclusion. How do we justify our prescriptions, our values, our ‘oughts’—what we want for the future?
There are three approaches in politics of any stripe.
We might simply say: “This is what I believe should happen and my opinion justifies itself.” We might be more precise:
“We believe that the identities of the peoples of Europe are worth preserving and that belief justifies itself.”That would of course elicit accusations of prejudice and flight from reason.
However, when our opponents say that they believe in multi-racialism and that it is self-evidently right it would be described as reasoned argument.
Is that one rule for us and one rule for them? Just a bit!
The second approach is to say that our values, our prescriptions, if brought into effect, would be supportive of some more consensus goal.
We might say that our civilisation was brought into being and is being sustained by members of the European and proto-European peoples, and that it will continue as long as those peoples survive.
Alternatively that societies that are homogenous and homogeneous—there is a difference—are more stable and peaceful than heterogeneous societies.
The third approach is what might be called the teleological approach. which is to look for some grand purpose and to judge values by whether or not they are consistent with and (better still) supportive of that Grand Purpose.
This might be a religious purpose: an edict of the Pope or the (alleged) Will of Allah.
It might be a belief in an historical perspective, such as Marxist theory, or it might be a natural law such as Darwin’s theory of evolution.
 |
| Nationalism as a vision. |
For the reasons that I have given, I believe that ancestral Nationalism—Racial Nationalism, if you prefer it—ticks all three of those approaches.
The development and understanding of our Political Ideology is not an added extra, a luxury if we can afford it and if we can be bothered. It helps us to understand what exactly we are seeking to do and why we are doing it. When we wish to develop policy in a new area—one that has not been considered before—our first reference point would be to our ideological beliefs and values, the policy position should then follow logically.
Without an ideological understanding we are at best lost in the dark, At worst, we are prey to those who would mislead us and exercise a malign influence on us.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.