Month: September 2022

Books and influencers for White racial nationalists

Will Wright

There are many books out there that have been written by White racial nationalists. If you regard yourself as a racial nationalist, then I would expect that you have read some of the better-known ones. We all lead busy lives, but anyone who is serious about national and racial survival should read some such books, in order to be well-informed and able to argue with all the very many enemy propagandists out there.

I know that some of you are very sociable people, with a wide number of friends and associates. I know that several of you can, and do, influence those people towards a patriotic and nationalist perspective on politics. If you take out a little bit of time to read, and better inform yourselves, then you will be even better influencers.

I accept that some of you don’t, and won’t, read books recommended by me, and others. Some of you prefer to let someone like me do the reading – and then provide you with a distillation of what the book is about and, and its core message. It is flattering to me, that some of you trust me in this way.

But I might have understood a book differently to how you would have understood it – if you had gone to the source and read the author’s words, rather than mine. If I tell you about a book, I might have missed something important in the book, from my review of it. After all, I write my letters in rather a hurry, because I too am busy.

In 2010, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler wrote a book called Connected. It is subtitled, The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How they Shape our Lives.

When the authors write about “social networks”, they are meaning that in the old-fashioned way. That is, people whom you actually know in the real world – your family, friends and work colleagues. And of course, they also mean those people who you might interact with on ‘social media’ internet sites.

The book sells itself by posing six questions, on the front cover, in brightly-coloured speech bubbles:

• Who do you have sex with and why?
• Is wealth contagious?
• Can your siblings make you smart?
• Is happiness catching?
• Does free will exist?
• Can your friends make you fat?

It makes, what to me, is a rather surprising claim. That you can influence two levels of people beyond the one that you know personally. That is friends of friends of friends. That might likely be people who you don’t actually know yourself.

Remember, that is when you are just living your life normally. Your attitudes, thoughts, and ordinary behaviour influences people who you don’t actually even know! Imagine if you deliberately set out to be an influencer. How many people could you reach, if you start out with a wide circle of personal contacts?

So what I now suggest to you is two quite separate, but related, ideas. Firstly, be a reader, and become even better informed. Secondly, spread the message of those writers with whom you agree. By ordinary conversation. By your own emails. You will influence some people who you don’t even know, as the word is spread.

I suspect that this might partially be how the Leave side won the Brexit referendum. People discussed their ideas, and influenced their family, friends, work colleagues, but also other people two steps beyond them.
Read this book, and become a conscious influencer of others. And I think that some of you are already naturals!

Who to read?

I started this post by writing about White racial nationalist writers. Individuals who I consider are ‘one of us’. But there are other writers whom you should read too. Some of you might like to read those writers who are clearly on our side, and maybe ignore those who are more Establishment types. With some others of you, you might prefer to read the more Establishment writers, rather than more propagandist books, by racial nationalists.

I recommend both. Perhaps I can give an example, citing three individuals. Arthur Kemp is a racial nationalist, who has been active in Southern Africa, the United States, and the United Kingdom. He wants to influence you towards our political viewpoint.

Charles Murray is an American academic – he presents his research in a form easily read by the general public. Douglas Murray (no relation) is a British political journalist. He is an Establishment figure in the sense that he writes in both The Spectator and The Telegraph.

Recently these three men all have books on the subject of race.

Charles Murray’s is called Facing Reality – Two Truths about Race in America. The two truths are that the different races have different rates of violent crime, and also have significantly different average IQs. Charles Murray believes that the two truths are linked.

But he tries to be uncontroversial and non-incendiary in the way he writes. He is trying to get his message across to a great many Americans, by trying to avoid inflaming passions.

His namesake, Douglas Murray has a new book (released in the spring of 2022) The War on the West – how to prevail in the age of unreason. British readers, beyond the current reach of British Nationalism, might well read this book, because Douglas Murray is fairly well-known.

Both Murrays are Establishment types, but ones who are willing to say things that more liberal types would cringe at. Charles Murray describes himself as “centre-right”, and I would guess that the British Murray likely does too.

Arthur Kemp’s book is hard-hitting, and packed with information. For me, it is an ideal antidote to the Black Lives Matter poison. It is titled, The War Against Whites – The Racial Psychology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West.

Which book should you choose? All of them! I think that they are complementary books. Read them all, and be able to shoot down all of those people who hate the White Race, whatever their own race is. Then get cracking informing your concentric circles of influence!

Is British Nationalism really “right wing”?

Will Wright

Out-dated terminology

I don’t really like the word “right-wing” being used to describe British Nationalism position, or any White Racial Nationalism. Even more so, I dislike the expression “the far-right” Why? Let me tell you.

I accept that “left” and “right” are so deeply ingrained in our language and thought, that it is hard not to use those terms, and I certainly know that I do use them myself. But I wish that we could obliterate them.

I want to see the Nationalist movement as new, different, vibrant, dynamic and ultimately successful. I see it as at odds with the Establishment world, which I see as tired, old, degenerate, corrupt – and suicidal. I see Nationalism as a radical and revolutionary creed. I want to see the Nationalist movement smash (metaphorically) the old political world into a million pieces, that can never be put back together again. We must build a new, stronger, better Britain, that will endure.

The old world had built-in weaknesses – one of which was the class system.
But the words “right-wing” and “left-wing” belong to that old corrupt world. They belong to an era of class warfare, whereas Nationalism is, and must be, a classless movement.

In the old world, the left, and particularly the extreme left, saw themselves as representing by far the biggest social class – the working class. They believed, and some still do believe, that they had a built-in advantage, that would one day translate into permanent political power.

In this left-wing view of the world, the political right is an old-fashioned minority that is losing ground. The far left sees what it insists on calling “fascism” as a fight back by the old ruling class. A sort of counter revolution. The left claim that British Nationalism is a part of the old ruling class that represents a minority that is doomed to failure.

I reject that picture, created by our ideological enemies, totally. But if we use old world terminology, created by our enemies, then we are accepting the enemy view of the world.

British Nationalism and Realism

While I like the imagery of smashing the old political world into a million pieces, I am old enough to realise that this is not, in practical terms, how revolutions happen. There is always some degree of compromise with the old regime, as I have explained in previous posts.

The dynamic mass movement that I would like to see emerge, will always have some common ground with other ideologies. Sometimes that will be left-wing ideologies, and at other times and places, right-wing ideologies. Before we come to power, we will need political allies, in other camps, because history teaches us that any new movement that succeeds will always have allies already in place in the old regime – the hated Establishment!

When we find allies in Conservative circles, we should recognise that these people are allies, rather than a part of our movement. Sometimes these people are temporary allies, to enable us to come to power, or win an objective, like leaving the EU. But people do change their political thinking and allegiances. Some Conservatives, and others, might one day become proper, ideological British Nationalists.

But in the meantime, British Nationalism does not benefit from being grouped with old-fashioned Conservatives, or labelled “right-wing” or “far-right”. We want to win over all indigenous classes, to create a classless mass movement, and eventually a classless society. We are part-way towards a classless society, so being branded as “the far-right” does us practical harm.

In this regard, I do not agree with either AK Chesterton, or John Tyndall, embracing the enemy label “extremist”. Being an “extremist” clearly implies that you are out on a limb – in an over-the-top minority position. We want to become the majority. We need to become the majority political ideology if our race and nation are to survive.

It seems to me that Tyndall and Chesterton were being self-indulgent, and that it was a gut reaction in defiance of our enemies, when they described themselves as extremists. I once cringed when I read the ludicrous Eddy Morrison write “We are the Ultras”.

In the same way that everyone ought to think well of themselves, no one should want to be, or even be thought of by others as, an extremist. British Nationalists should believe that ours is the correct political ideology and work to convert others, so that ours becomes the majority political view. Labelling yourself as an extremist is doing the enemy’s work.

British Nationalism must smash the left’s notional link with the working class

Antonio Gramsci wanted to see the Marxists take over the West’s universities. His allies in the Frankfurt School achieved that. The left broadly won over the educated middle classes, in a way that the older Marxists had never won over the working class – either as revolutionaries, or voters.

But because the educated go on to govern us, the left scored a more lasting victory than either a violent revolution, or a leftist victory at a general election. But those with a higher education will never be the biggest class in society.
While leftist ideas have won a victory through the backdoor, which enables left-wing ideas to be translated into government policies, the left no longer represents the biggest class. This thought is unsettling for some on the left. So much so, that they refuse to accept it. Some lefties don’t like the idea that they are now the elite, and very much out-of-step with traditional working class ideas.

Because voting habits are ingrained over generations with many British voters, left-wing Labour MPs continue to win seats in working class constituencies. But they do not truly speak for their constituents on issues such as race and immigration, the EU, defence, and law and order.

British Nationalists need to find a way to smash Labour, and any left-wing successor party, as an electoral force. Then those people who are highly educated, but brainwashed with Cultural Marxism, will stand out as an unpopular minority. It needs to be rammed home to working class voters that Labour is no longer their party.

Margaret Thatcher is credited with standing up to the old Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. She claimed the credit for the decline of Soviet Communism. Because her laissez-faire economic policies wrecked heavy manufacturing industry at home, and her raft of trade union laws hampered those communists who had taken over some of them, she claimed a victory over British Communism.

But what she didn’t do is root out the well-embedded Cultural Marxists in our universities. That must be done as a priority, to prevent future generations being infected with an ideology that amounts to racial suicide.

If Cultural Marxist ideas are killed off in our universities, and Labour is now widely exposed as a politically-correct, educated middle class, London-centric party, then Labour might eventually die.

But let us concentrate on which political ideas politicians and political parties actually stand for, rather than lazily labelling people as “right-wing” or “left-wing”. Because using old world terminology doesn’t advance racial nationalism.