Thursday, 20 July 2017

THE CAMPSITE AS PIONEER LITTLE EUROPE

Gypsies, pikeys, travellers, the inapposite 'Roma' if you are a Leftist - these are the latest darlings of the chattering bourgeois Leftist establishment and have become a protected species, both in spite and because of their thievery, general criminality and antisocial tendencies. Yet there are aspects of their way of life and protected status that ought to be of interest to us. Caravanning is, after all, a staple of European holiday-making. One thinks here of the small private affairs with just a central office and communal washroom, but also of the more extravagant caravan parks like those owned by Haven, and the entertainment-driven holiday camps of Butlin's and Pontin's.

 

This image and the ones below are of a second-hand static caravan costing £2500

 

Imagine then if one were to buy a plot of land big enough to cater for, say, twenty static caravans. Of course, one would have to investigate existing or potential infrastructure for the supply of water and electricity. Equally, already-existing planning permissuion would be a benefit for the future. In the beginning though, the camp site would represent a quick, cheap and effective way of building a community. The plot of land could be bought either by a single individual, who would serve as landlord, or by the community as a community, the latter method reducing the financial burden for any one individual. Land in poorer rural areas of the north-east of England can be picked up very cheaply. Again, however, one will have to look at work opportunities in the region to be able to earn a living. 

 

 

Second-hand static caravans can also be bought at low prices, as holiday campsites that cater for permanent pitches often stipulate that new residents buy new caravans either from themselves or from approved dealers. This artificially keeps the caravan market going with the usual capitalist disregard for sustainability and the environment, regardless of the empty rhetoric from big business interests and their politico lackeys. It also means that if you are not afraid of the winter chill (I grew up in a house with open fires and no central heating), a small privately-owned house for a budding family is readily affordable. There is no need to pay rent to unscrupulous estate agents or foreign lessors.



'But what about the stigma for the children?' I hear you cry. Let us be honest, White children in general are going to have to harden up significantly in a world that is against them. No one picks on traveller kids. Why? Because they are taught to fight and to look after one another from an early age. In the world of boxing over the last few years, we have seen the rise of White boxers from travelling communities: Billy Joe Saunders, Andy Lee and Tyson Fury have all won world titles and the latter's cousin Hughie Fury will fight for a version of the world heavyweight title later this year. Up-and-coming talents include Hosea Burton and Nathan Gorman. No one wants to bother gypsies, not even the police, because they operate outside the rules of society and are prepared to defend themselves in any way they deem fit - as must we.



In any case, once a community is established, hedge schools can be founded. No one in their right mind wants their child to be indoctrinated into the schizophrenic contradictions, self-hatred and nihilism of state education, but there are alternatives. A curriculum can easily be prepared that parallels that of the state by community leaders with a high level of education. State exams can be sat at a nearby school or college by contacting the Local Education Authority of that region, which will give adolescents the qualifications needed for regular work and/or possible further studies at college and/or university. The value of a practical education will be emphasised, as usable intelligence can only benefit the community. As stated, planning permission for the camp is desirable, for a civic hall can them be built for community activities, including education and social functions. Alternatively, these could also be held in the inn I mentioned in my last article on creating Pioneer Little Europes



As the commenter SNG mentioned after the aforementioned article, farmland - or at least farmable land - can also be bought later by the community, so that genuinely organic crops can be grown and livestock raised, so that the community becomes more self-sufficient and is not forced to eat the steroids, hormones, additives and preservatives found in supermarket foods. Bringing in income from outside through regular employment in the private sector coupled with higher self-sufficiency will result in both the increased wealth and wellbeing of the entire community. Again, I emphasise that a start of a PLE has already been made by these people here:



8 comments:

  1. A basic problem with all this is that people won't move until they think they have to, so it will take years to gain a critical mass of participants. Another thing is that you need to have people co-ordinating it who have expertise in things like property, tenant management, finance and so on. Without that, you run the real risk of making serious financial mistakes. High-level, detailed planning needs to be put in before you even start - and preferably there should be a written plan, with aims and goals set down and agreed.

    Caravans seem benign enough as a financial proposition, but in reality it's shark-infested water. My advice would be to steer well-clear of private sites offering caravans for sale. It's almost-always a bad deal. In effect, these plots are bought as premium lets that expire with the wear and tear of the caravan that you actually buy, with the result that 17 to 20 years later you end up with nothing.

    The best thing to do is buy your own land and your own caravans, which should be brand-new. It's expense but in the long-run it's the better investment: the caravan will not need replacing for maybe 20 to 25 years, with luck, and the land will of course be an investment in its own right. The obstacle is planning permission, but that can be overcome by presenting the venture as a commercial holiday site. You then sell to other white nationalists only.

    In regard to the land, it's best to buy it collectively, to avoid the disputes and bad-feeling that can be caused by one participant holding all the cards, so to speak. So buy under the terms of a trust or as a private limited company (limited by shares, rather than by guarantee), into which everybody contributes capital, even if it is just a small amount in some cases. Have a procedure for admitting new members and allowing existing members to resign, if they want.

    My take on this: I think the caravan idea is flawed as a strategy. Very few, if any, families will want to live in them. They have no need to, as they can obtain council housing of some kind. It's OK as a way of bringing nationalists together for breaks and recreational activities, and some families might buy into that, but not as permanent living space. In my view the WIN strategy is, in principle, the right way forward for community-building.

    To summarise WIN:

    (i). A small group of nationalists infiltrate a community, and acquire some property.
    (ii). These properties are let to nationalists in need of housing. The ideal candidates for this will be poorer nationalist families, especially from the south of England, and also nationalists who are coming out of prison.
    (iii). More tenants are brought in and slowly the pioneers take over the key civic and political positions, which is not at all difficult - especially if the pioneers are reliant on benefits and thus have free time during the day. They generally integrate themselves into the life of the community.
    (iv). After two or three years, 'Centre' is acquired (as per the suggestion in the pamphlet 'Live The Dream'): i.e. a multi-purpose building, centrally-located in the target area. This is used to house the project's cover organisation, which will be a community group of some kind that has the aim of regeneration. Businesses could also be officed there and social and cultural events held, as a service to the community.
    (iv). Over the years, key local businesses are acquired - the corner shop, a pub maybe - and more property. As the project expands, more sophisticated strategies are adopted: a management agency is established to control property that the project doesn't own, feelers are put out to wealthy individuals who might be interested in investing in residential and commercial property, a unit trust fund is set up using a sympathetic firm of IFAs.
    (v). If successful, then consideration is given to spreading the project to neighbouring locales, or replicating the project in other parts of the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have brought up 'complications' I answered in the article. I stipulated that land be bought not leased and that existing camps have regulations about buying caravans. I also mentioned planning permission. Did you read the article at all? Council housing is not an option, as council estates have turned or are turning into multi-culti drug-fuelled ghettoes, so we can rule that right out. Yes, again, you will notice this article promotes WIN.

      Delete
    2. I did read the article and my comments are a response to it. I have not mentioned council housing in my own comment.

      Delete
    3. You certainly did mention council housing and I quote you here: 'My take on this: I think the caravan idea is flawed as a strategy. Very few, if any, families will want to live in them. They have no need to, as they can obtain council housing of some kind.'

      Delete
    4. Yes, in fact I did make my reference to council housing.

      First, I was simply saying that most families will opt for council housing before caravan sites. That seems common sense to me. Again, my point is that you would need to take account of what people want. That seems obvious, but it can be forgotten. I would respectfully suggest that virtually nobody will want to live in caravans and I also don't see the sense in it, as there is plenty of housing available, it's just a matter of knowing how to obtain it: whether private landlords, or council/housing association landlords.

      Second, council housing would be relevant here as, in the context of WIN, we're talking about areas of the country that are predominantly white. I appreciate that the broad idea could be applied anywhere, but why would a white family needing accommodation want to move into a caravan site? Wouldn't such a plan be more likely successful if you were offering the opportunity to move into housing in a white area?

      I can see you've received my comments with some animosity. At least, it comes across that way - which completely baffles me as my comments were constructive and not hostile at all. If I bring up issues you brought up in the article, that doesn't mean I'm attacking you. I may have something to add to what you say, that backs you up - and here I did. Anyway, I will not visit or comment here further.

      Thank you very much.

      Delete
    5. As my family are friends with a family who run a well-known fairground in England, I know caravan communities are a viable option. Again, councils can put literally anyone next to you as your neighbour any time they see fit. For example, the Labour council targetted the Barnsley area of South Yorkshire with immigrants when they realised how many BNP voters there were there.

      I really don't get you, Tom. You have a negative view of everything, unless it's related to Hitler. It was the same when you stormed off out of the Millennial Woes advisory group. Whether you visit this site is entirely up to you.

      Delete
  2. I love the sound of this.
    Count me in.
    I'm just about to embark on some
    reconnaissance with a view to an
    attempt at a bit of 'white flight'

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've had this article and the one about the inns swirling around in my head on and off for a while now. Arguments for and against in my head. I kept meaning to comment and then having another think on it. It's easy to nitpick and criticise in a knee jerk fashion which is an easy and tempting instinct to fall back on. It does after all mean I or we don't need to do anything if we can prove the idea is flawed. Then we wait for the next good idea to do the hard work for us...if it comes. After mulling it over though I think this is a very good idea (along with the idea of the inns and likely other ideas branching off of this community building you haven't written down yet or is too early to work on before the pioneer communities are established) with few downsides which cannot be overcome. Will there be problems and difficulties in it? Of course. But as has been pointed out already sitting and waiting isn't problem free either and leaves us vulnerable with nothing but a slippery slope to ride down.

    The more I think about this the better it seems. Recent events and ramping up of hostility towards wrongthink only seem to add even more weight to your ideas. I'd hope that those unable to or unwilling to commit to living in such a community yet would be able to at least perhaps support it in solidarity and to help it get a good start and continue. Skills, labour, tools, etc. Individualism is poison, we're a collective looking out for each other or we are as good as dead.

    I'm sure there are lots of working class who simply don't have the capital and means to move, tied to jobs and with only enough cash to keep them afloat and out of debt or the bailiffs visiting. At least they too can perhaps build these communities up and once they grow enough perhaps invitations can be given out for the right stuff to come on board? As you point out in your articles related to this set of ideas it isn't just about economic issues, it is also about helping reform culture and the character of the people involved and the group as a whole.

    The concept just keeps sounding better and better with less and less downsides. I really hope this gets support and embraced by the movement as a whole. Fantastic blog all round, I should add.

    ReplyDelete