The August Uprising in Britain: What would a Revolutionary Organization have Done?

TheocWulf wrote:First off my reply was aimed at Coach but im glad others have expanded on it.

If anybody can show me evidence of the riots being politically motivated outside of Tottenham in refrence to the death of Mark Duggan then please do,Otherwise I see it as I pointed out before Consumerism going mental.People encouraged to spend every penny they earn of shiny stuff (If they had said pennys) suddenly had the abilty to take it for nothing so they did.

I understand the revolutionary sentiment by members here but I and others see no social nationalist thaught or principle behind the riots,perhaps this may be the spark that ignites a social nationalist feeling in England I hope it is.

As for non indigenous population of the UK I see no place for them in a social nationalist country short of them having an autonomous region seperate from the indigenous poulation.Id widh them no ill will and all the happyness in the word in a community for themselves, if they had no ethnic or cultural homeland they felt they could not to return to.

Excellent post.

Rev Scare wrote:For what it is worth, I see the rioting of these poor youths as entirely understandable and even condonable. These people are wholly alienated by society, live in destitution, and cannot discern but a glimmer of hope neither in their immediate nor long-term future. Rioting is one manner of striking against the system, and in this particular scenario, I cannot help but view the various instances of turbulence as unconscious manifestations of class struggle. I have absolutely no sympathy for the business owners nor for the complacent sheep caught in the crossfire who live their lives as cogs in the system and would merely condemn these working class outbursts as "criminal acts."

In fact, if the RSF were in any position to do so with regard to resources, I would suggest that we consider a possible overture to the RKOB so as to establish a tentative relationship in the hopes of collaborating to organize rebellion.

Do you realize that many of those " complacent sheep" caught in the crossfire may very well have been ordinary workers for all we know?

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Do you realize that many of those " complacent sheep" caught in the crossfire may very well have been ordinary workers for all we know?

While I do not generally agree with violence, the unrest in England has thus far directed its attention almost exclusively to the destruction of private, often petit-bourgeois, property. Working people must be imbibed with class consciousness before they can become a politically potent force. This is why I believe that collaborating in order to organize rebellion is crucial, so as to cultivate class consciousness amongst the rioters and thereby develop a constructive movement rather than one driven by blind rage—which may very well serve to alienate working individuals instead of appealing to their class interests.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:
I have a scenario for you. Say a leader takes over these riots and "overthrows" the capitalist system? How are YOU going to ensure ethnically white states are established?

Good question and one worthy of further debate and deserving of time for a considered answer. However, look at it another way, same scenario but how would you ensure the establishment of a white state, given that you are obviously coming from a WN point of view?

I think that to give Europe over to the hand of invaders would be a tragic loss. And yes they were brought in here to be oppressed by the system but that doesn't give them right to the land.

Would you not say that the same criteria applies to the whites who arrived in America during the 16th and 17th centuries? Do you have sympathy for the Native-American peoples who saw the spread of European settlers as an invading force? And yes, those early white settlers in what was then the 'New World' were largely transported to the colonies to fuel the oppression of the system (and I'm not talking about blacks, but white Europeans). Or are you going to argue for the notions of a white destiny to own the world?

If Europeans truly don't see value in preserving their heritage it makes me think my brothers across the Atlantic are more hopeless than I thought.

Not even worth an answer

TheocWulf wrote:
I understand the revolutionary sentiment by members here but I and others see no social nationalist thaught or principle behind the riots,perhaps this may be the spark that ignites a social nationalist feeling in England I hope it is.

And how would Socialist-Nationalist thought arise from a community that has probably never been exposed to it? Where were the Strasserites? Marching alonside the EDL and other fascist organisations, still unsure whether they are left or right?

Coach wrote:Okay, TheocWulf, if you believe that "the Nation is paramount", then please define what you consider a nation, using YOUR OWN NATION as the descriptive example. Yes, this is a loaded question, which will reveal your political essence. Failure to answer "what do you see as the definition of a nation?" and "what is YOUR nation?" as you see it, in a serious way, will reveal it even more so. I suggest giving it some deep thought and consideration in relation to a consistently proletarian-based revolutionary socialism, before giving an answer. Is your initial instant at-the-ready answer to this really "YOUR nation"? Do you identify with and belong to a "nation of the oppressors", or a "nation of the oppressed"? Have you considered the possibility that 'people like you' are so nationally oppressed that you and they are actually suckered into thinking you have some common 'nation' with the exploiting and oppressing classes, and that perhaps you are actually waving the 'national' flag of your own worst enemies? Have you considered the possibility that neocolonialism isn't just something done 'over there', but especially in the global capitalist context, the ruling classes are playing neocolonial divide and conquer games with the various nationalities (including 'people like you') WITHIN their imperialist 'home turf' too? If so, then what good are the conservative traditionalist 'patriotard' class-collaboration varieties of nationalism for us?
Has the United Kingdom or "Britain" EVER in history actually belonged to the indigenous working people and poor people?

I consider a nation a specific area with boundrys that contains a group of people culturally linguisticly and ethnicly related And im useing England pre Industrial revolution as an example of this.Granted there were non brits around at the time and granted we brits are a mixture of Angle,Saxon,Jute,Frisian,Norman,Dane,Norse,Irish and Pictish but these tribes had many things in common like mythology art and culture and Kinship model of organisation ect so could gel together at that becuse conditions on the ground were suited to this as the world became a smaller place.The kinship model was no longer a decent model and the need of a state in England was needed as small kindoms like Mercia,Northumbria,Wessex could no longer operate as single nations econmicaly or militarily so people began to come up with the idea of a stae IE King Alfred and his descendants in the Viking wars in creating England as a state.

Now thats how I see the begining of the state in the UK we have had many diffrent types of leadership in my country we have gone from kin based communitys to Plutocracy and in between them we saw Monarchy,Dictatorship (in the form of cromwell), liberal democray and a few more debatable ones.My point being Leadrship models change and I look forward to it changeing again for the best.

As to your question if I feel part the "nation of the opressed" or "nation of the opresser" Im going with nation of the opressed the common folk of my country have always been opressed since Norman times.I also dont think the idea of a nation is a capitalist idea to keep us all in line the idea of a kin group living in a boundry having relations both good and bad with other kin groups.Now is the UK a capitalist idea yes it is it was capitalists on both sides of the border that made the union between Scotland and England.But together in all them years of shared history and shared hardship regardless of economic model we have come together as a folk and if a social nationalist government started tommorow I see no reason to break up the nation becuse it was a capitalist idea,The internet was a capitalist idea but I think its safe to say we would like it to stay.

As for the flag waveing you keep mentioning a flag itself is not capitalism its the flag of the tribes of my island to signify our union and british people are fond of it so well never get rid of it unless one tribe no longer wanted to be part of the union of course.

As for my position on working class solidarity Im all for it China for Chinese ,Greece for Greek workers Britian for British workers

Just to confirm my posistion I want the workers of my nation to have power in the nation becuse capitalism will destroy us and will bring more and more non folk to my nation in an effort to destroy any kind of national or tribal identity world wide and once the people who are the labour have a say in the means of production we can also have a fair system for our tribes.

Isakenaz wrote:And how would Socialist-Nationalist thought arise from a community that has probably never been exposed to it? Where were the Strasserites? Marching alonside the EDL and other fascist organisations, still unsure whether they are left or right?

I doubt Strasserites were on the streets at all as we are disliked by both traditional left and right groups.

As for expanding Social Nationalism Luckily the econamy is going down the toilet and immigration is still an issue I belive we should use this oppertunity to try to recruit from both left and right.But I think well get most of our recruits from the right as its a mainly working class movement at street level.The cosmo left is another matter as any form of racalism is considered very uncool by the traditional left.

TheocWulf wrote:
I consider a nation a specific area with boundrys that contains a group of people culturally linguisticly and ethnicly related And im useing England pre Industrial revolution as an example of this.Granted there were non brits around at the time and granted we brits are a mixture of Angle,Saxon,Jute,Frisian,Norman,Dane,Norse,Irish and Pictish but these tribes had many things in common like mythology art and culture and Kinship model of organisation ect so could gel together at that becuse conditions on the ground were suited to this as the world became a smaller place.The kinship model was no longer a decent model and the need of a state in England was needed as small kindoms like Mercia,Northumbria,Wessex could no longer operate as single nations econmicaly or militarily so people began to come up with the idea of a stae IE King Alfred and his descendants in the Viking wars in creating England as a state.

You have a very simplistic view of the makeup of Britain, completely ignoring the Celtic British who were here long before the Anglo-Saxon Germanic peoples you list, but thats nit-picking. Britain as a state existed long before the incoming Germanic invaders decided to name their part England, in fact the early Anglo-saxons fought each other long and hard under the aegis of the 'Bretwalda' (spelling may be incorrect).

Now thats how I see the begining of the state in the UK we have had many diffrent types of leadership in my country we have gone from kin based communitys to Plutocracy and in between them we saw Monarchy,Dictatorship (in the form of cromwell), liberal democray and a few more debatable ones.My point being Leadrship models change and I look forward to it changeing again for the best.

And yet throughout it all we have kissed the asses of the nobility, drifting along under the rule of this king or that king, with no imput from us the ordinary British. Your ideas of Nation and state are a simplistic rehash of learned behaviour dictated by you betters. Even your 'dictatorship' saw Cromwell desperately attempting to be king without admitting it. The only real opposition came from the likes of Lilburne and the other levellers and their ideas are more liberal than socialist. Even today the so called democracy is lorded over by the royals and their followers. On forums such as Stormfront, all to often the excuse is given for the queens apparent desertion of her coronation oath, that she has no power. So if she has no power, what flipping use is she?

As for my position on working class solidarity Im all for it China for Chinese ,Greece for Greek workers Britian for British workers

That sounds almost BNPish. How do you define British?

I doubt Strasserites were on the streets at all as we are disliked by both traditional left and right groups.

As is usually the case with those who adopt a fence-sitting position. I would suggest (as an ex-Strasserite myself) climbing down and choosing a side. Stop playing the fool to the Hitlerists and come over to Socialist-Nationalism.

Isakenaz wrote:You have a very simplistic view of the makeup of Britain, completely ignoring the Celtic British who were here long before the Anglo-Saxon Germanic peoples you list, but thats nit-picking. Britain as a state existed long before the incoming Germanic invaders decided to name their part England, in fact the early Anglo-saxons fought each other long and hard under the aegis of the 'Bretwalda' (spelling may be incorrect).

Sorry yes I forgot the Welsh or then known as Britons and im annoyed I have actually since im a quarter welsh myself.Yes the early kingdoms fought to the top dog of the isle but what the Viking wars showed us is the state of Heptarchy was not strong enough to to fight outside influences and only a united front could rid England of Vikings until the time of Knut.

And yet throughout it all we have kissed the asses of the nobility, drifting along under the rule of this king or that king, with no imput from us the ordinary British. Your ideas of Nation and state are a simplistic rehash of learned behaviour dictated by you betters. Even your 'dictatorship' saw Cromwell desperately attempting to be king without admitting it. The only real opposition came from the likes of Lilburne and the other levellers and their ideas are more liberal than socialist. Even today the so called democracy is lorded over by the royals and their followers. On forums such as Stormfront, all to often the excuse is given for the queens apparent desertion of her coronation oath, that she has no power. So if she has no power, what flipping use is she?

Thats not what I was getting at im not defending some sort of Führerprinzip system at all we as a people have been as revolutioanry before and probably always will be people just had diffrent goals at the time.During the Civil war people want freedom and democracy we now know that democray and freedom cannot be achived whilist capitalists are in power I belive the next revolution in this country will be against capitalism if it takes a social nationalist form great but it might also go down a traditional cosmo left route and hey who even knows might take a fash route but the enamy will be capitalism.And yes Lilburn and the Levellers were the only real men who really wanted a fair society.

That sounds almost BNPish. How do you define British?

Your right it does but its a Sentiment Im ok with and notice I put "Workers" next to each nationality.I define British as an Indigenous North west European who lives in the isle today called Britian who is tied to the land and the other people on it by Ancestory,language,shared history and ethinicity and has a number of ancestors and decendants who have and will inhabited this isle.

As is usually the case with those who adopt a fence-sitting position. I would suggest (as an ex-Strasserite myself) climbing down and choosing a side. Stop playing the fool to the Hitlerists and come over to Socialist-Nationalism.

Im not playing the fool to Hitlerists if I wanted to id play that endless game on Stormfront with the usual arse from both sides.Why some Strasserist bother I dont know.If you dont mind me asking what made you decide that Strasserism was no longer a valid ideology?

TheocWulf wrote:
If you dont mind me asking what made you decide that Strasserism was no longer a valid ideology?

Various reasons, but chiefly three; Imperalism, Chauvinism and Religion. Three aspects I have no time for.

Isakenaz wrote:Various reasons, but chiefly three; Imperalism, Chauvinism and Religion. Three aspects I have no time for.

Are you takeing those reasons from Strasser himself or the National Fronts short held Strasserist ideas?

Thats not me haveing a pop im genuinly intrested in this debate

Isakenaz wrote:Good question and one worthy of further debate and deserving of time for a considered answer. However, look at it another way, same scenario but how would you ensure the establishment of a white state, given that you are obviously coming from a WN point of view?

I would ask them to leave. And if they didn't use force. Yes, sure they helped us in rioting and it might seem shallow, but what the hell else can we do? There is too many of them to just settle them down on an area and say "hey hey you guys just live here and don't bother us white folks". Though, I doubt I would even be in a position to say this because the leaders are also cosmos and believe in a multi-racial state. I would like to hear your answer.

WN point of view? If you mean I am a white nationalist because I support a nation for white people you are correct, but I hardly consider my views to be in line with those involved in NS.

Would you not say that the same criteria applies to the whites who arrived in America during the 16th and 17th centuries? Do you have sympathy for the Native-American peoples who saw the spread of European settlers as an invading force? And yes, those early white settlers in what was then the 'New World' were largely transported to the colonies to fuel the oppression of the system (and I'm not talking about blacks, but white Europeans). Or are you going to argue for the notions of a white destiny to own the world?

I don't really feel much connection to the culture and land here. I feel that my heart belongs in Europe, where my ancestors have lived for thousands of years. I hate the red white and blue. I don't care about world domination, and however wrong the settlers may have been what is done is done. We can give the remaining Amerindian tribes some land for their own people. This doesn't mean we have to accept the same fate as them though. I, as a person, played no part in the destruction of their lands. Saying it is okay for Europe to be invaded cause of the Amerindians is like saying "My grandfather killed your grandfather so it is okay if you kill me".

DO you see value in preserving your heritage?

TheocWulf wrote:Are you takeing those reasons from Strasser himself or the National Fronts short held Strasserist ideas?

Mostly from Srasser himself, or Reeds biography of him. In fact anyone other than the National Front or the BNP (as Grifin was once a self proclaimed Strasserite along with his one time best buddy, Southgate).

There are those here on this forum who can give you a better handle on Stasserism than me. For me all his ideas are based around a 'German Revolution', a German Revolution for Germans. Like Hitlers ideas of National Socialism that doesn't seem to stop others from disregarding the bits they don't like, or think doesn't apply to them.

At some stage I am looking forward to a proper debate on Strasserism, and I look forward to your imput, for it would seem at last we have someone who wears the Strasser tag and sees it as more than a label.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:
I don't really feel much connection to the culture and land here. I feel that my heart belongs in Europe, where my ancestors have lived for thousands of years. I hate the red white and blue. I don't care about world domination, and however wrong the settlers may have been what is done is done. We can give the remaining Amerindian tribes some land for their own people. This doesn't mean we have to accept the same fate as them though. I, as a person, played no part in the destruction of their lands. Saying it is okay for Europe to be invaded cause of the Amerindians is like saying "My grandfather killed your grandfather so it is okay if you kill me".

Did I say that? If i did I apologise because that sound like wooly-headed thinking.

DO you see value in preserving your heritage?

That's a stupid question. If I didn't why would I bother to be hear debating with you. It's simply that I would rather preserve it than aid in its destruction by fighting a race war in which we can only be utterly destroyed.

Isakenaz wrote:Mostly from Srasser himself, or Reeds biography of him. In fact anyone other than the National Front or the BNP (as Grifin was once a self proclaimed Strasserite along with his one time best buddy, Southgate).

There are those here on this forum who can give you a better handle on Stasserism than me. For me all his ideas are based around a 'German Revolution', a German Revolution for Germans. Like Hitlers ideas of National Socialism that doesn't seem to stop others from disregarding the bits they don't like, or think doesn't apply to them.

At some stage I am looking forward to a proper debate on Strasserism, and I look forward to your imput, for it would seem at last we have someone who wears the Strasser tag and sees it as more than a label.

Ill even admit Reeds work on Strasser is at times arse licking of the highest order and It makes me cringe abit.Reed in my opinion seemed to think or write in a sytle where I think He may have actully Belived that Strasser had already done the things he (strasser) said he would do or would have done.

Well im only a yuff of 25 so I can only look on people like Grifin and southagte during the NFs strasser stage as I wasnt about and id be intrested to hear of peoples accounts of that time.Griffin seems to have moved on very far from his strasser days and I never knew that he ever considered himslef one.I know abit about Southgates days as a strasserist in fact he has writen a book about strasser id like to read but with some of accusations in regard to a certain secuirity firm that may be linked to a much larger secuirty firm im not sure about giving him an adress even if it is just for posting me a book.

I belive Hitler said something about national socialism being a very german animal and I know Strasser belived the revolution in Germany could only be from the top down and thats why the Black front was intrested in top level politcal infiltration of the party.Now I belive its a mixture off top level and street level activism that will bring us our victory.As for how a 20/30s German ideolgy fits in Britian 2011 it needs tweaking and this is an idea ive been working on not very seriously so far.

Isakenaz wrote:Did I say that? If i did I apologise because that sound like wooly-headed thinking.

I assumed it was implied. I apologize if there was a misunderstanding.

That's a stupid question. If I didn't why would I bother to be hear debating with you. It's simply that I would rather preserve it than aid in its destruction by fighting a race war in which we can only be utterly destroyed.

I don't want a race war either, I would love to see all these races come together, bring down the system, and mutually separate. That being said, I don't see any reason to support these riots unless a strong socialist-nationalist organization takes control of them and directs them in a positive direction.