Towards a Cultural Nationalism

By Dave Yorkshire. The first question to ask is ‘What is cultural Marxism?’ Most people believe it is synonymous with political correctness. But it is more than that. Cultural Marxism, after the ‘work’ of Antonio Gramsci, is about getting Marxist and neo-Marxist ideas ingrained in the public consciousness and even subconsciousness via subversion of the national culture.

One way is to imprint Marxist ideology on cultural texts for public reception. Thus, the more texts are received and absorbed by the public, the more sympathetic to Marxist ideas they become. Virtually every film, every television series, every soap opera, every song, every theatre or radio play, every novel, short story, poem, comic and graphic novel is used to push Marxist and neo-Marxist ideology to ever further extremes.

How many songs have you heard that urge our youth to reject their parents? How many films have you seen where miscegenation is normalised and those against it demonised? How many soap operas promote ‘alternative sexualities’ and promiscuity?

Think of all the films and TV series that urge us to dissolve national borders and build to a one-world government. In the series Star Trek and its series of films and spin-offs, we have not only a world government, but an intergalactic federation too. Gene Roddenberry himself said that he was creating ‘morality plays’.

Think of the recent trend in disaster films such as 2012, The Day After Tomorrow and Armageddon, where disaster is on a global scale. Global disasters call for global solutions and such trifling things as national borders are seen as ridiculous in view of such cataclysmic events.

If this is not already enough, these primary texts are the subjects of critical analysis in arts and humanities seminars in universities the length and breadth of the occidental world. Here, the structures through which the texts are analysed are themselves neo-Marxist, the four main fields of criticism being feminism, post-colonialism, deconstruction and post-modernism.

Others that have crept in more recently include ‘queer theory’ (based on the theories of militant homosexual sadomasochist Michel Foucault), critical response and reception theory (from the Constance School’s Hans-Robert Jauss and Wolfgang Iser), and the latest (based on the theories of Raymond Williams): cultural studies, which is slowly emerging as a subject in its own right.

The result has been the emergence of what is known as left-liberalism, a form of ‘soft-core Communism’, where the populace believe these ideas to be moral and just and based upon universal love and tolerance, without knowing the reality of whence and why these ideas have emerged.

Ironically, the intolerance of left-liberals towards Christianity, which actually does preach universal love and tolerance, while giving guidance and real moral values, has escalated in parallel. If anyone doubts what I write here, try a simple experiment: ask a left-liberal what he thinks of fascism and then ask what he thinks of Communism.

Watch the Pavlovian reaction of horror towards fascism and then watch the more mitigated response towards Communism.

With all of this cultural indoctrination, particularly reinforced at university, as seen, it is little wonder the BNP has made few inroads into the middle-class electorate. Even so, nationalism has been going in its present form since the 1950s.

In all that time, what have nationalists done to attempt to push back this cultural tide? The answer is very little.

The main problem with nationalism, in contrast to the various guises of leftism, is that our ideas have been completely disenfranchised in the arts and that previous generations of nationalists have allowed this to happen through their failure to renew them through art and culture.

Nationalists have concentrated solely on politics without realising that the very consciousness and subconsciousness of the electorate have been altered by artificial (in all senses) means.

This failure to provide structures outside of politics is one of the major reasons so many have come to nationalism and then drifted away: because there is nothing underpinning the politics to retain them; there is no meta-political nationalism.

At the conference, a shocking statistic was mentioned: if we had retained all the members that had passed through the party since its foundation, we would now be 70,000 strong.

The failure is also the reason why it has been so easy for one man to destroy nationalism. I speak here, of course, of one Nicholas John Griffin MEP. Under Griffin, instead of a coherent philosophical and artistic grounding that would have attracted middle-class Conservative voters (which we should be attracting, given their dissatisfaction with Lib-Con Cameron), we have seen a series of inane and embarrassing political stunts.

We have had Simon Darby telling his version of The Three Little Pigs, complete with men in pig masks; we have had a man in a gorilla suit; and then there was the coup de grâce: the 2010 general election was sabotaged from the outset when, in our great leader’s wisdom, we trotted out a rather middle-aged, well-fed and shoddy-looking knight to hail the unveiling of our election manifesto on St George’s Day.

As I watched that man with what appeared to be a metal colander on his head, I thought to myself: who in their right mind would vote for us upon seeing that?

Had there been an intellectual movement with many branches, Griffin’s stunts and corruption would have been negated, this now cancerous branch of the movement would have been easy to clip and a new branch would have come to fruition.

Instead, there it is, rotting the whole tree, with we desperate nationalists hoping we can save it. Think of it this way: no matter how degenerate or corrupt the Liberals and Labour become, people will vote for them en masse.

Even if, for some inexplicable reason, the parties suddenly ceased to exists, others of the same persona would emerge to replace them. Why? It is because leftist ideology is culturally ingrained into 99% of university graduates and a large portion of those who do not go to university. This is why the Tories have also been dragged ever leftwards.

The question remains: what is to be done about it? Firstly, certain structures are already in place to facilitate a cultural revival. I spoke to one lady who works on Radio RWB. This means we have a radio station (I am assuming via the internet).

Why have we not, therefore, produced radio plays and comedies for broadcast? At one time, the BNP had amassed a considerable fortune, which meant a proper on-air radio station could have been created through which we could sell our ideology to the masses, again in entertaining ways.

Secondly, the Red, White and Blue festival was the perfect event to showcase, in particular though not exclusive to, graphic artwork by nationalists.

Pictorial forms are often the most primal in engendering passion for a cause. I hope that, after the collapse of the festival under the incompetence of the leadership this year, it and other events will be revived that are able to promote the arts.

Thirdly, I propose a magazine for the creative arts, either commissioned directly by the parallel structure within the party or independently.

If produced in-party, when such time arrives as the present leadership can be ejected, the magazine can be sold as a replacement for the infernal DONATE button.

If produced as at least ostensibly independent of the party, monies from sales can be in part fed back into the party via ‘advertising and publicity’ arrangements.

The magazine will enable the emergence of an artistic movement based upon and furthering European traditionalist aesthetics and values, as well as providing a structure and vehicle for budding nationalist artists, which, in turn, will help to retain them within the movement, which will, in turn, help to intellectualise the movement.

Contributions will have to be of a high standard and the editor will have to be ruthlessly elitist in this respect – although a commentary and encouragement ought to be given on all serious submissions rejected.

Fourthly, as I outlined at the conference, there is an emerging market in Britain for what is now termed ‘the graphic novel’ (essentially narratives in comic-book format). This relatively recent art form has already been widely received in continental Europe, especially France, where some bookshops are dedicated solely to works of this type.

One may remember that the film 300 emerged from a graphic novel by Frank Miller. This form is easy to produce, has mass appeal and is commercially successful and can easily be adapted to carry the nationalist message.

The examples I gave as historical and mythical backdrops to potential storylines were the Crusades and Robin Hood, where allegories about corrupt elites, militant Islam and taxation can be coupled with now disenfranchised white heroic masculinity. As said, this is a saleable product and can generate revenue for nationalist causes.

Lastly, and, although not for commercial success, by no means least would be a magazine for cultural (particularly literary) criticism. This would essentially be an academic magazine with well-referenced and studied articles aimed at reintroducing nationalistic ideas into universities via criticism of literary and other cultural texts.

Think of what Theodor Adorno did for the extreme left; this can be done for the patriotic right. Academic leftism has run its course in universities, with professors regurgitating leftist dogma essay after essay. Contrary to popular belief, very few professors ever have an original thought in their lives, and the ambitious among them would kill for a new idea. We must give them a few.

The magazine, of course, would have to be divorced from the party entirely and run by nationalist scholars. This would take time and money and be a labour of love. This is, of course, the difficulty, and here I must appeal to any patriotic academics who may be reading this – in particular to you Dr Frank Ellis. You were once courageous enough to make a stand at Leeds University and I call upon you to do so again. Perhaps you can also persuade other academics – particularly retired ones who have nothing to lose – to join you. I urge you to get in touch with Andrew Brons; to quote an old slogan: your country needs you.

I hope nationalists will consider these ideas, for, until we fight back against the cultural indoctrination of our people, our success in elections will always be limited. Given the vast resources of the extreme left, it seems like a mountain to climb. Yet it is not so.

One must always bear in mind that the ideas we represent are natural and perennial and will easily wash away the superficial layers of indoctrination once received. This is why such ideas are disenfranchised; this is why the extreme left are afraid of such ideas.