“I Am A Racialist! And Proud!”

This post, from Will Wright, was originally posted in the Comments Box of an article published in the Telegraph Online, “Three in five Britons support a ‘hostile environment’, for illegal immigrants, poll shows”. It will probably have been taken down by the time you read this, so here is the full version.

A racialist is someone who believes in racial differences and separate racial development. This is someone who wants his own race to survive, thrive and prosper. Someone who is a racialist might, or might not, also be a racial supremacist. That is someone who believes his own race is inherently superior to other races and wants it to thrive on a global scale, if necessary, at the expense of other races. But being a racialist is about a love of your own people – not hatred of other peoples. No one can help being born of a particular race and it would be wrong to hate anyone because of this.

Any hatred should properly be directed towards the Establishment and the political class, rather than other races. The politicians have created a multi-racial nightmare. Some individual politicians are more deserving of blame than others.

‘Racism’ is a word promoted by the Politically Correct lobby in the United States. It is meant to imply hatred and criminality. It has been imported from America by the PC brigade here in the United Kingdom. Since the Seventies, it has gradually replaced the correct word, ‘racialism’. This was always the intention. Reject the import and always use the word ‘racialism’.

Racial Nationalists are people who love their own country and don’t want large numbers of foreigners to live permanently in their ancestral homeland. They particularly don’t want racial foreigners settling in their country.

Liberals and the Left try to intimidate anyone who speaks in favour of their own people’s interests by shouting ‘racist’. But unless large numbers of British people are prepared to say “I am a racialist”, rather than “I’m not racist, but…” then Britain will surely be destroyed. We need hundreds, then thousands then tens of thousands to declare “I am a racialist”. This as a prelude to millions voting into power a racial nationalist political party.

The National Front, in the Seventies, was such a party. It was destroyed by every dirty trick in the book.

  • The Establishment putting up the election deposit.
  • A massive campaign of violence by the far left.
  • Oppressive race laws designed to crush any dissent against mass non-white immigration.
  • Nationalists being driven out of jobs.
  • Infiltration by the state security services etc.

In the Nineties and the new millennium, the British National Party was a poor imitation of the National Front. It found that banks wouldn’t give it banking facilities and printers would not print its literature. It faced the same blanket hostility from broadcasters and newspapers that the Front had. It faced another threat too – UKIP.

UKIP offered a ‘safe’ haven for those who felt patriotic but were too afraid to declare, “I am a racialist”. UKIP people from Farage downwards were terrified of that magic, imported word ‘racist’. That is why they drove out Godfrey Bloom, Anne Marie Waters, Henry Bolton, Jo Marney, and others.

UKIP’s immigration policy of an ‘Australian points-based system’ is totally inadequate to save Britain as a white country. We need a complete halt to non-white immigration and a start made on a policy of phased repatriation of all non-whites.

Nigel Farage was asked what his greatest achievement was. I thought that he might have felt that helping to get Britain out of the EU was this. But no, he thought that stopping the ‘far-right’ was more important. Farage is a false messiah – just another judas goat.

So, let us make a start. I am a racialist. Now you write it. You will feel so much better – and you won’t ever again be intimidated by the American-imported word ‘racist’.

Our “Democracy” Under The Spotlight

Is Our Democracy The Real Thing?

Will Wright

Author's note: On the 10th May 2018, the Telegraph published an article by Fraser Nelson, the editor of the Spectator: “Ignore the doomsayers – across the world, democracy is in rude health”. As the online version of the Telegraph has a comments section at the end of many articles, I decided to add my contribution to the discussion.

I had previously written some thoughts on democracy and decided to post the whole of my article in the comment box. It was well received by a number of other readers. Here is my article in full.


In the old Soviet Union there was Peoples Democracy. At elections you could vote for a selection of candidates. Just one catch, they were all members of the Communist Party. Something similar has operated in all communist countries. Most British people don’t have too much difficulty in recognising this as a very limited choice and seeing Peoples Democracy as a sham.

Noam Chomsky wrote, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

Not all regimes believe in democracy. There have been various military dictatorships in South America and Europe in the past. In post-colonial Africa, ‘one man, one vote – once!’ was too often the norm. Some Middle Eastern countries have despotic kings. The Nazis proved to be more honest than the communists in regard to democracy. Although they used elections to build support and come to power, Hitler was very open about his intention to destroy democracy once he had power.

Some countries have a limited form of democracy. The Afrikaner regime in South Africa had elections. But the Communist Party was outlawed. The effect was that many communists redefined themselves and fraudulently campaigned as ‘liberals’. Also, the majority black population was not thought fit to be allowed the vote.

In the United Kingdom we have genuine democracy. Or do we?

Sure, the UK is not a single-party state. We have a number of separate political parties. But how different are they? They all believe in internationalism. They all subscribe to the idea of global warming and accept that a multi-racial society is a desirable thing. Until recently, they all supported laissez-faire economics and global monopoly business. All the Establishment parties wanted continued membership of the European Union. None of them support a restoration of the death penalty for murder or the return of corporal punishment (the short, sharp shock that stopped many progressing in criminal careers). They have all allowed mass immigration. They have all neglected defence. This is consensus politics.

So then, isn’t our political system just a subtler, more sophisticated, even more deceitful version of People’s Democracy?

In the West, generally, isn’t it interesting that when an individual or party offers something genuinely different from other parties, then they are attacked from all parts of the existing political spectrum? Indeed, isn’t this the sure way of telling when a new person or party is genuinely different?

Writing in 1882, Friedrich Nietzche wrote, “Parliamentarianism, that is to say public permission to choose between five political opinions, flatters those many who like to appear independent and individual and like to fight for their opinions. In the last resort, however, it is a matter of indifference whether the herd is commanded an opinion or allowed five opinions. He who deviates from the five public opinions and steps aside always has the whole herd against him.”

In 1979 Margaret Thatcher was about to fight a general election and believed that she could come to power. She was concerned, however, about the National Front. That party had beaten the Liberals into fourth place in several parliamentary by-elections. The Front was standing candidates in over half the parliamentary seats. In theory, if it won enough votes it could have formed a government. Thatcher promised an end to immigration, effectively stealing the NF’s clothes.

But something more drastic happened. The Establishment put the election deposit up from £150 to £500. It was claimed that this would stop ‘frivolous candidates’, however, the real intention was to prevent the cash-strapped National Front from being able to afford to stand so many candidates.

In the Nineties and Noughties, the British National Party was finding it hard to get printing done. More importantly, it was being rejected by all the big banks. It is very hard to run a competitive, modern political party if you cannot print literature or operate a bank account. Interestingly, the far- left parties and the Green Party have never had this difficulty with big capitalist banks.

Both Labour and Conservative governments have enacted ever more repressive ‘race relations’ legislation. This effectively criminalises any dissent against their appalling immigration policies. Any party that wants to stop mass immigration and start repatriation on the ground of race is treading a legal minefield.

In the Seventies, a host of far-left parties and their front organisations physically attacked National Front meetings and marches. These were stewarded and robustly defended. But this didn’t stop left-wing mobs attacking the homes of NF members and beating up lone NF members if they found them.

If any of these things had happened to any other party the media would have been screaming to high heaven about a threat to democracy. Indeed, now that MPs are being subjected to a degree of hate, they are calling for special measures to ‘protect democracy’ (themselves).

As a British Nationalist, I readily recognise the truth in the quotes from Chomsky and Nietzche – in my view they are talking about related phenomena. The Establishment does allow lively debate on a limited part of the political spectrum. British Nationalism is not one of Nietzsche’s five permitted opinions and so has the whole herd against it.

My Conclusion: British Democracy is not what it seems to the casual observer. At best it is a limited democracy. But if your views are out of favour with the establishment then you have been effectively disenfranchised.

The BBC and Other Media versus The Truth

The following is an Open Letter to the BBC's Points of View on the Media Coverage of Black Crime from Will Wright

Subject: Race and immigration ... and a suggestion for an interview documentary

7th May 2018

Dear BBC

There have been quite a few stories about race or immigration in the news lately: the fiftieth anniversary of Enoch Powell’s speech, the twenty fifth anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence killing, the Windrush controversy, Boris Johnson’s suggestion of an illegal immigrant amnesty and Prince Harry to marry a mixed-race American citizen, among others.

One of the most controversial is the great many black-on-black knife murders in London since stop and search was abolished. On your website page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43491155/police-are-black-knife-deaths-being-ignored you write “Knife deaths aren’t causing the outrage they should because the majority of victims come from black communities, a top UK officer says.”

It seems to me that this top policeman has got things the wrong way around. The reason the knife murders are not causing more outrage is because the majority of the killers come from black communities. It further appears to me that white liberals become very upset on the rare occasion that white people kill a black victim, as with Stephen Lawrence who is remembered twenty five years later.

What of all the young white men stabbed by blacks? Forgotten. All the black-on-black killings? White liberals would rather ignore this embarrassing phenomenon.

Mark Easton’s piece on 5th April is titled, “London killings: no easy answers to gun and knife crime”. I am inclined to agree with you that this is not easily sorted out. However, I would like to offer some unfashionable solutions.

How about the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment? If someone was convicted of murder then they should hang. This should apply whoever the murderer is, whoever the victim is. There would be controversial cases when the murderers were of a different race to the victims. But a brave government would implement this and brave judges would pass the death sentence on murderers.

Furthermore, I would reintroduce stop and search. If someone was found to be in possession of a knife, then they should be birched.

None of this would be ‘easy’ (I agree with your headline writer) but I believe that over time things would get better on the streets of London.

Moving on to something even more controversial – Enoch Powell’s historic speech. In that speech, Powell advocated repatriation of non-whites. Most commentators today seem to dismiss the speech as ‘extreme’ and suggest that Powell got it wrong.

But did he? We have predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs in many northern towns and cities targeting under-age white girls. Does anyone in the mainstream media dare to suggest that this is racial hatred or pedophilia? They would if white gangs were targeting black or Asian girls.

Surveys have suggested that one in five Muslims in Britain have at least some sympathy with Islamic terrorist groups – that is about 400,000 people. Among the Muslim community are some who hate Britain and the West and would blow us up given the chance. But we don’t know who they are, where they are, or when they will strike.

Then there are the violent Afro-Caribbean elements already mentioned.

I expect that the BBC believes that there are no easy answers and I agree. But there is a difficult but necessary answer: Enoch Powell’s answer, repatriation.

It is my belief that if the United Kingdom does not stop all non-white immigration and start a programme of phased repatriation quite soon, then white people will cease to be a majority in our own country. Eventually we would become extinct. This would happen through immigration of non-whites, emigration of whites, a higher non-white birth rate and interbreeding among whites and non-whites. Worst case scenario – there could even be a massacre of a minority white population.

Repatriation of non-whites should begin with known terrorists and convicted criminals. In any sane country it would go without saying that all illegal immigrants are automatically criminals and should be deported immediately.

Those non-whites who have led law-abiding lives should be treated as humanely as possible. But there will be difficult cases and that should not deflect us, as a country, from doing what is necessary for our survival as a white country.

Liberals and cultural Marxists seem to want non-white countries to belong to their indigenous populations – but all white countries to become multi-racial. I believe that if the white people of the world perish then, in time, this will be followed by the death of modern civilisation.

Many believe that most BBC news and political journalists are left-wing. I believe this too. But I also believe that most are very professional and try to put aside their personal opinions and be objective. I do think, however, that it must be difficult to do this and get outside of the left-wing groupthink.

I recently saw a documentary, on RT, presented by George Galloway, about the ‘far-right’. I did not think that was objective or fair – but Galloway did interview Martin Webster, the former National Activities Organiser of the Seventies National Front. Webster was shown for a few minutes during a half-hour programme.

So how about the BBC interviewing Martin Webster about his views on repatriation of non-whites? It would be better viewing if the whole half hour documentary concentrated on an interview, rather than showing NF marches from the Seventies. The BBC must be able to do this better than Galloway and RT.

Will Wright

The Black Crime Wave and The Media Response

In our last post, ‘Goodbye England – The Crime Tsunami’, we wrote about how the multi-racial society has ushered in the era of modern crime. We also covered how the media attempts to suppress news of the black crime wave, and instead gives disproportionate coverage to those rare cases of White-on-black crime.

Even as far back as 2006 it was evident that the number of assaults and murders where White people were the victims and blacks were the perpetrators was greatly disproportionate to their respective numbers. Even the left-wing Guardian admitted that nearly half of the victims of racially motivated murders were White.

April 2018 marked twenty five years after the murder of the young black, Stephen Lawrence, by a gang of young Whites, in Eltham, south-east London in 1993. This anniversary was given extensive coverage by the media, with a church service at St Martin in the Fields and the imposition on our country of an annual “Stephen Lawrence Memorial Day”.

We also noted that in August 1994 a young White boy, Richard Everitt, was murdered in a similar fashion by a gang of Bengalis.

Twenty five years on, we are being subjected to a guilt-fest over Stephen Lawrence’s death, but that of Richard Everitt has been long forgotten. The media want us to believe that White gangs still regularly attack and murder blacks. but this is the opposite of the truth.

With over 60 murders - nearly all of them black-on-black - in London alone in the first four months of 2018, it's obvious that blacks in London, and elsewhere, are far more likely to be murdered by their fellow blacks than by Whites.

Why, then, are the mainstream media so desperate to focus our attention on a solitary murder committed over 25 years ago, by a gang of Whites on one black youth? Why aren't they reporting the tidal wave of murders by young blacks of young blacks? This is a media cover-up, plain and simple.

The police and the media are, of course, controlled at the very top by the same people – people who have a vested interest in imposing the multi-racial society upon all formerly White countries as a means of destroying the White race and dominating whatever is left of humanity by way of a world government.

We need to reverse the tide of race-mixing propaganda – all of it based on lies and deceit. Let’s do more to celebrate the long and proud history of White people everywhere. Let’s remind ourselves, and the world, how much White people have contributed to civilization – to the arts, to technology, to discovery and to knowledge.

And let’s ensure that future generations of White children are born into a world where White civilization and White values prevail, and where the nightmare of the multi-racial society is but a distant memory.