Nationalism and the power to influence others

Will Wright

Social animals and Nationalism

Human beings are social animals. We are sociable animals. Many other animals are herd animals. Some predators are pack animals. Our closest primate relatives live in small groups of a dozen to twenty. Primitive and remote human beings often live in groups of about one-hundred-and-fifty – every individual knows every other individual. Hence Nationalism is a natural stage in our development.

Modern human beings live in cities and are connected to others across the world, by modern communication tools – if they want to be. We all influence each other. All the time. Whether we intend to or not. We might be genetically programmed to be in touch with a hundred-and-fifty people, our ‘tribe’, but we can be in touch with many more than that – if we want to be.

Christakis and Fowler

social networking and british nationalism

In a 2009 book, Connected – The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How they Shape Our Lives, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler argued that we influence each others’ attitudes and behaviour up to three people away from us, whether we know it or not. When they write of social networks, they are writing about ordinary human contact in the real world.

Isn’t that surprising? We influence people who we either do not know very well, or have never even met. Friends of friends of friends. But if that can, and does, happen unintentionally, then what if we consciously decide to influence others quite deliberately, and for a specific purpose? For a political cause, say.

Modern authoritarian states and Nationalism

Modern states are very powerful. Invariably they tend towards the suppression of genuine Nationalism. They have power over the lives of ordinary citizens. Authoritarian states control what information people have access to. Press and television are in the hands of a few. That elite can, and does, influence people’s opinions.

But it is naïve for anyone to imagine that ‘democratic’ states do not also do that. The internet, email, and social media, changed the possibilities. Things happened so quickly that the authorities did not realise the implications – until it was too late! No one has overall control of the internet. Anyone can influence others. And that includes British Nationalists.

But the emerging global elite is striving to gain the same level of control of the electronic media as it traditionally had over the press, radio, and television.

What is to be done by aspiring political radicals and would-be revolutionaries?

Why talking to each other is essential for Nationalism

If we accept that we all influence each other, then we can very actively and deliberately talk to lots of people. In person, on the telephone, by email and text message, by social media. The authorities, in a supposedly democratic country, cannot completely suppress that.

I suspect that something like this might have been partly responsible for the Brexit referendum result. That result was the opposite of what the Establishment wanted – but it happened. There is hope yet!

Intelligent British Nationalists should give some thought to how things might work out.

When two or more people talk, they might, or might not, be attempting to influence each other. But it seems obvious to me that the person who is better informed, on any subject, will influence the others more than they will influence him. That does not necessarily have to be phrased as “winning the argument”, although it could be.

Whoever is more certain will influence those who are less certain. Not necessarily the person who is actually right. But the one who is most convinced that he is right.

Perhaps that is why someone who is actively very left-wing might drag those who are more moderate left-wingers towards his point of view. Similarly, a committed British Nationalist might influence those who are non-political patriots, and maybe even recruit them to the cause.

But a thought occurs to me. If certainty is a big factor in influencing others, then could a loud-mouthed, but very certain, ignoramus influence those he speaks to? Yes! None of us want to be that ignoramus! We must know what we are talking about. We must know what we believe, and we must know in which direction we want to influence other people.

Two main tasks for British Nationalists

But here is a hopeful thought. If each of us knows a lot of people, and communicates with a lot of people, then we cannot really fail to influence them – to some extent. But we need to maximise that influence, and to steer it to where we want it to go. Learning to do that is an acquired skill.

We are all learning until the day that we die. Those of us who support British Nationalism need to learn two main things. We need to learn ideological information, and we need to learn how to get that information across to many others.

A propagandist has communication skills. But if he does not also know his message, then he is lost. Conversely, someone very knowledgeable about our ideology who cannot, or will not, communicate that information in an easily understood way, to many other people, is isolated and is wasting his time.

The good thing is that once you know what you want to say, and how to say it, then you have cracked the code! Ordinary people talking to other ordinary people has a ripple effect in society. People who you have not yet met will be influenced by you, and often, before you meet them.

My advice: get learning, get talking!

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright

Optimism and Nationalism

Will Wright

If you are a White European living today anywhere in the Western World, then the future looks bleak. All the evidence suggests that White Europeans are being replaced by non-White peoples. Any racial nationalist who looks around in modern Britain will see almost everything political moving in the wrong direction. On top of that, racial nationalist opposition to all of that is being crushed by the authorities.

Image courtesy of Creative Commons

Nationalists can be optimistic

What can true patriots and racial nationalists do to cheer ourselves up? It is not an easy question to answer. It will no doubt take much greater minds than mine to provide a full and satisfactory answer. But perhaps I can offer a few thoughts.

Firstly, we need to stay optimistic and believe that we can win. Throughout history, many people have been treated harshly by those in power. But the ones who prevailed were the ones who stayed optimistic. Because optimism floats while pessimism sinks.

Some people object: how can we be optimistic in the midst of all that is going wrong with the world? What is happening that can give us any hope? Well, there is always something that we can notice and focus on that might be against the general downward trend. For example, the British people voting for us to leave the European Union.

This was a victory that should logically have been unthinkable. The Establishment allowing an In-Out referendum. Yet it happened and our people revolted. At one time, large numbers of British citizens believed that Communism was right. There are not many today who would argue that. At one time, Sigmund Freud was hailed as the greatest thinker in psychology. Today he is largely discredited. Couldn’t that happen with the ideas of Franz Boas, the Jewish charlatan who told the West that “there is no such thing as race”?

Optimism comes from within

If we recognise that optimistic people are more likely to win than pessimistic people, and we need to stay optimistic, then where does optimism actually come from? It comes from within. No matter what is happening, the best of us can look within and summon up courage and belief that one day, the tide will turn in our favour. This is not about logic – it is a powerful belief summoned from within. It transcends logic – it is far more powerful.

Secondly, we need to be aware of what we give our attention to. What we focus on. If we only ever focus on what is wrong with the country and the world, and the nationalist movement, then we will become depressed. Perhaps that is what happens with some right-wing Tories. They are focussed on what is wrong with the country, without being able to see a solution. They are simply reacting – they are reactionaries.

Optimism and Nationalism need an ideology

But British Nationalists should believe in an ideology that exists independently of day-to-day events, and independently of what other political groups believe.

If our focus is on what we do want, rather than what we do not want, then our morale might be higher. There is a school of thought that suggests that people always get more of what they are focussed on – whether or not the object their focus is desirable or the very opposite. If you are focussed on all that is wrong, rather than the nationalist vision of Britain, then you are unwittingly attracting more of the bad stuff!

For many years, I was infuriated by those who seemed to be blindly and irrationally optimistic. I wanted reasons to be optimistic. But it seems that this is not how optimism works. It is a non-rational, but powerfully attractive force.

Thirdly, we should recognise that it is hard to hit a target if you do not know what the target is. We need to know what it is that we want – what we are trying to achieve.

Optimism and the Nationalist ideology

British Nationalists should know our ideology. We should be able to picture an all-White Britain. We should be able to visualise a Britain that is independent and powerful. One with strong military defences. A country where British families can prosper and thrive.

We should be able to recognise the situation as it is now. We should know why we reject that. But we ought to mostly be focussed on the vision that we do want. Then we are more likely to draw that vision into reality. Positive, upbeat people, who know what they want and where they are going are much more attractive to other people. A confident political movement with vision will attract more followers and eventually become a mass movement.

We need a leader with an unshakeable belief that he is right. One who can see the future. Then we can all get behind him and fervently believe in the vision too!

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright


Matthew Goodwin: friend or foe of British Nationalism?

Will Wright
Matthew Goodwin
Matthew Goodwin (image from Creative Commons)

Matthew Goodwin is not a British Nationalist. He is Professor of Politics at Kent University. He is well in with the likes of Penguin/Pelican Books and the BBC.

He is a respectable figure and he wants to stay that way. Occasionally, he is one of four guests on the BBC2 lunchtime programme, Politics Live, where I learned of his latest book, Values, Voice and Virtue – The New British Politics.

The hostess there is Jo Coburn, an active member of the Ealing Liberal Synagogue. She is married to Mark Flanagan, former head of strategic communications for both the Labour government and the following Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Coburn’s guests frequently include another Jew of some variety.

I do not know whether Coburn personally chooses her guests, or whether that is done for her from either above or below. But we can tell the kind of company that Matthew Goodwin keeps.

Matthew Goodwin – treading carefully?

As an academic, Goodwin has to demonstrate a certain amount of objectivity, although a host of Marxist sociology lecturers etc seem to get by quite nicely without doing that. Just as the BBC is obliged by its charter to be politically impartial. Martin Webster and Philip Gegan have shot down that myth, on the Anglo-Celtic website. Anglo-Celtic is campaigning to abolish the BBC.

Matthew Goodwin has co-authored a number of books where British Nationalism is either implied to be, or openly stated to be, “fascist” or “far right”. But Nationalism seems to be a major interest of Goodwin’s. I do not know what first attracted him to his subject.

But as he developed his interest, he also developed an understanding, and an empathy with some modern nationalist ideological positions. He might have developed a sympathy with moderate nationalist positions. But, as he is based at a politically correct university, he dares not say so openly, if in fact that is the case. Many have been driven out of universities for not taking the right line.

In 2018, Goodwin co-wrote with Roger Eatwell, National Populism – The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. They concentrated on ‘national’ populism, rather than populism in general. In that book they wrote:

“One point that has recurred throughout is that people who support national populism are not merely protesting: they are choosing to endorse views that appeal to them. So we need to look more closely at the promises being made by these politicians and examine whether, contrary to the popular claim that it is a new form of fascism, national populism strives towards a new form of democracy in which the interests and voices of ordinary people feature far more prominently.”

I enjoyed that book and even wrote a letter to the Hull Daily Mail about it – see the published text below.

Matthew Goodwin’s new book

The back cover of Values, Voice and Virtue states:

“What has caused the recent seismic changes in British politics, including Brexit and a series of populist revolts against the elite? Why did so many people want to overturn the status quo? Where have the Left gone wrong? And what deeper trends are driving these changes?

“British politics is coming apart. A country once known for its stability has recently experienced a series of shocking upheavals. Matthew Goodwin, acclaimed political scientist and co-author of National Populism, shows that the reason is not economic hardship, personalities or dark money. It is a far wider political realignment that will be with us for years to come. An increasingly liberalised, globalized ruling class has lost touch with millions, who found their values ignored, their voices unheard and their virtue denied. Now, this new alliance of voters is set to determine Britain’s fate.”

In chapters one and two, Goodwin discusses the new political elite and how it accomplished a revolution. He writes in chapter two:

“It opened the economy to a new and very disruptive model of hyper-globalization. It opened the country’s borders to a new and unprecedented era of mass immigration. And it opened up and hollowed out its national democracy, handing much greater power, influence and control to supranational institutions.”

Nowhere in the book is there any mention of the Jewish role in all of this. Some time ago, I wrote to Matthew Goodwin and asked him if he was aware of the books by Kevin MacDonald. I did not receive either a reply or an acknowledgement of my letter.

But I am reminded of Ruling the Void – The Hollowing of Western Democracy, by the Irish academic, Peter Mair, and Coming Apart, Charles Murray’s commentary on United States society. Edward Dutton has things to say about some of this in his co-authored book, The Past is a Future Country.

The truly brilliant Kevin MacDonald has much to say in his fourth book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, in the last two chapters, eight and nine. This includes comments on another book, by Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World, a book describing how Westerners (read White people) do not look after their own, like other peoples in the Third World do, and the way this situation developed.

I think that there is hope for some Establishment academics. Remember, even Kevin MacDonald started out as a leftist, and later became a Reagan-supporting conservative. Only later did he become a racial nationalist.

All of these books, including the two mentioned of Goodwin’s books, are worth reading. Because British Nationalists should be well-read and well-informed.

There is some evidence that Establishment academics, in Britain and America, and elsewhere, are aware of the political situation, and are currently cautiously commenting on it. Of course, most of them will not mention the Jews. MacDonald is the honourable exception.

A revolutionary situation developing

Some intelligent people know that there is a potentially revolutionary situation developing. The Establishment is trying hard to crush all Nationalist thinking. I have little doubt that people like Charles Murray in the United States, and Matthew Goodwin in the UK, would furiously deny having any sympathy with racial nationalism (at this stage, probably honestly). But they are noticing things that we know about.

All political revolutions start off as an Idea, and then develop slowly at first. Later, when they have gained momentum and more public support, there are always some among the old Establishment who come over to the new regime. Some of those people are braver than others. Some want to see which way the political winds are blowing before they will jump ship. Some are cynical and self-serving, but want to be well in with the new rulers – and they can be used by the new regime.

But I almost think that it is a pre-condition of the success of all revolutions that they win some  sympathisers among the old order that they want to replace. Are we seeing the first tentative signs of that with people like Goodwin and Murray?

If we do not make significant progress, such types will turn their professional interest elsewhere and play down their previous comments.

But a revolutionary situation demands a revolution. Goodwin’s book has five chapters. The first two are, The Rise of the New Elite, and Revolution, by which he means Cultural Marxism’s revolution. He does not call it that, but chooses “Hyper Liberalism” instead. In this he echoes the Tory writer, Nick Timothy, in his book, Remaking One Nation – The Future of Conservatism. Timothy refers to “Ultra Liberalism”.

Chapters three, four and five are about how the political elite are out of touch with the public. He devotes these chapters to the “Values, Voice and Virtue” of his title to the book. But interestingly, the conclusion to the book is called “Counter Revolution”.

Is he advocating that, or warning against it? Read the book and form your own opinion! I hope to comment again on this book, in a future post.


Published in the Hull Daily Mail, on Friday November 30, 2018, as:

Local politicians could learn a lot from this book

Recently, I read ‘National Populism, the Revolt Against Liberal Democracy’ by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. Although this book is by a couple of academics, it is an easy read and a good buy at £9.99 from Pelican books. Published on 25th October, 2018 it is right up to date and in my opinion, a must read for anyone who is interested in contemporary politics.

But more than that, I think some of our local politicians could benefit from reading it. Colin Inglis and David Nolan might find it useful in understanding why they were on the losing side in the EU referendum. But they are not the only ones.

Stephen Brady, who thought that immigration had been good for Hull, might see things from a different perspective once he has read this book. Regular Mail contributor, Michael Somerton, might realise that not everyone thinks in purely economic terms. Middle class feminists might gain insight into why America rejected Hilary Clinton and embraced Donald Trump.

Most of all I hope lots of Mail readers rush out to buy this book. The writers devote a chapter to each of the four ‘D’s:

  • The distrust of the political class.
  • The threatened destruction of nation states and indigenous populations by super-states and mass immigration.
  • The relative deprivation of ordinary people compared to the global, jet-setting super-class.
  • The de-alignment of the old political parties with their traditional voters.

Trump, Brexit and the rise of continental nationalist movements – the new force is populist nationalism.

The writers explain that this is different to fascism. This nationalism threatens the future of ‘centre-right’ parties and ‘centre-left’ parties.

According to the authors, the right’s only answer is to steal nationalist policies. The left hasn’t found an answer and faces terminal decline. The left cannot please both politically correct, middle class liberals and immigrants on the one hand – and their traditional working-class supporters on the other.

Much of Labour’s new recruits are in London, rather than that party’s traditional northern heartlands.

This is a very timely message, let’s see it in a few Christmas stockings!

This entire post (apart from the image of Professor Goodwin) is copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. Extracts or the entire post may be re-posted provided acknowledgement is given to the author and a link supplied back to this post.