How Patriotism is Co-Opted and Misdirected

Did you ever wonder why people that pretend to advocate for your interests spend so much time talking about things that are beside the point? Rush Limbaugh, for example, will say that there is propaganda for making White people feel guilty — which is true — but then he leaves race out of it. Instead, he says, they are trying to make us feel guilty about global warming. Huh? Global warming? This is supposed to be a greater focus of anti-White guilt-propaganda than the Holocaust? And so the Jewish problem and more generally the race problem is left as the elephant in the living room that everyone is so accustomed to stepping around and not discussing, that we almost forget that it’s there. Another common diversion is to say that government as such is the problem, rather than specific things that the government does, like helping non-Whites at the expense of Whites. The rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and other mass-media conservatives is full of this kind of substitution and omission of forbidden subject-matter. 

Probably many public figures receive such suggestions about what they should and should not discuss, with incentives to cooperate and deterrents for refusing to do so. The absurd media-blackout on Ron Paul in the last U.S. presidential election, for example, surely did not occur spontaneously. I can name several media-figures supportive of Ron Paul (Pat Buchanan of MSNBC, Andrew Napolitano of Fox Business News, Rick Barber of KOA Denver) who all just happened to lose their shows in late 2011 and early 2012. For his part, Rush Limbaugh managed to discuss the controversy over crooked voice-votes and rule-changes at the Republican national convention for hours without saying the name Ron Paul once, even though it was really all about him.
This is an instructive clip from Nick Griffin’s speech, The BNP Solution. Griffin invites former members of the British National Party who have joined other groups to return, explaining that some of those other ostensibly patriotic groups were formed specifically for the purpose of co-opting or weakening nationalism:

Out of all the groups, the most important one by a mile was the English Defense League/British Freedom Party. That was a serious, systematic, hugely funded effort by a section of the ruling elite, by the Zionist-Neocon clique, to dominate, to simply take over nationalism, and turn it into their tool, to encourage the White working class to go and fight their wars, and so that when the banking collapse comes people are looking in the wrong direction instead of [at] the real culprits.

This party, we were approached, I was approached, we were offered money from the United States, and all they wanted was two things. 

They only wanted us to concentrate on Islam — and I yield to no one in my criticism of Islam, and grooming; I put my neck on the line; many of you have put your neck on the line as well — but, it’s not the only problem. And they wanted us only to focus on that. 

And it only came with one other thing: they wanted us to drop our criticism of the banking system. Those were the only two things: we had to concentrate on talking about Muslims, and we had to drop our criticism of the international banking system.

And I refused. And we refused. That was in about 2007. And all hell broke loose really from that time, when systematically they tried to take this party apart [by setting up well funded competing organizations].

So, if you witness a discussion where somebody insists that Muslims are the real problem about which we all ought to be most concerned (even in the United States where there are very few Muslims) you’ll have an idea what the agenda behind that might be. I recall months and months of wailing and gnashing of teeth on conservatard radio over the fact that somebody supposedly wanted to build a mosque in the general vicinity of the former World Trade Center. What difference does it make? Non-issues like this are hyped into matters of importance in order — as Nick Griffin says — to keep us in an uproar against Muslims and positively disposed to fighting the Zionist Jews’ wars.

While it is remarkable that Nick Griffin could speak for some minutes about Zionists, Neocons, wars for Israel, and international finance without ever saying the word Jew, it is at least to Griffin’s credit that in the instance described he did not take the easier path. You can view Griffin’s entire presentation on the BNP’s Online Television Channel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *