November 2023 - Page 2 of 2 -

Christianity: friend or foe?

Will Wright

Is Christianity a friend or foe? I know this is a provocative question, but I do not ask it because I am fervently convinced of the idea that I am going to put forward. Rather, I want to stimulate thought, even debate. I certainly do not want to offend any of you. The subject that I am going to introduce, is too large to do justice to in one post. I suggest that those of you who are interested do your own reading about this (as well as reading this post, of course!).

The ‘White Man’s Religion’

Christianity has been around for two millennia. When the Roman Emperor, Constantine, made Christianity the official religion of Rome, he paved the way for ‘Christendom’ to eventually become synonymous with ‘Europe’. Christianity became the White Man’s religion for hundreds of years. It unified White Europeans, even as our peoples fought each other to create empires in the non-White world.

Each of us has been raised as Christians. I know that some of you are sincere believers who attend church. Christianity is deeply rooted in our culture. But did Christianity give White Europeans strength? Or did our people achieve what they did despite Christianity? Is seems a strange thing to write.

White Europeans civilised the world and created the modern world that we see today. Missionaries caused much of the world to become Christian. The other big widespread world religion is Islam.

The American Black Power leader, Malcolm X, promoted the ‘Nation of Islam’ as the Black Man’s religion, in his rejecting of White Europeans ruling the world. He too saw Christianity as the White Man’s religion.

Meet Marcus Eli Ravage (1884 – 1965)

Marcus Eli Ravage was a Jewish writer, born in Romania. He emigrated to the United States at the age of 16. He died in France aged 81. In 1928, he wrote A Real Case Against the Jews and Commissary to the Gentiles.

Ravage mocked anti-Semites for all that they said and wrote against the Jews. In typically Jewish fashion, he either denied the allegations, or he belittled them. But he further mocked White Europeans for embracing Christianity. His message to us seemed to be: how can you worry about Jews creating Communism and Global Monopoly Capitalism when you have allowed Jewish Christianity to take over Western Civilisation completely and comprehensively – and for two thousand years? He wrote:

“You are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, we crucified Jesus but because we gave him birth. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity but that we have imposed it upon you!”

Ravage relates how the Romans came to rule Palestine, and how the Jews rebelled against this. He says that Jesus originally intended Christianity to be only for Jews. But the Jewish elders hated a new religion that would make them weak, as a nation. They wanted to crush Christianity.

Christianity Repackaged

According to Ravage, Saul of Tarsus was persecuting Christians, on behalf of the Jewish leaders, when he had his vision on the road to Damascus. He realised two very important things. It occurred to him that the Jewish nation could never militarily defeat the might of the Roman armies. But he also realised that Christianity could be repackaged, and only for ‘export’. It could be comprehensively rejected by Jews themselves, but be spread by them among the people of the Roman Empire, in order to make Rome weak. He convinced the Jewish national leaders of his new mission.

Saul then reinvented himself as ‘Paul’, the new leader of Christianity. He took Jesus’ religion of weakness, meekness and cowardice, and infected the Roman Empire with it. The Romans sacked Jerusalem, and the Jews dispersed around the Roman world. But the Jews had their revenge (they are big on revenge) against Rome, because eventually, over centuries, the Romans became soft and their empire collapsed under repeated invasions by more robust peoples. Ravage writes:

“The Goy, we see with relief, will never know the real blackness of our crimes.”

“Why talk about Marx and Trotsky when you have Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus to confound us with?”

“But the upheaval which brought Christianity into Europe was – or at least may easily be shown to have been – planned and executed by Jews as an act of revenge against a great Gentile state. And when you talk about Jewish conspiracies, I cannot for the world understand why you do not mention the destruction of Rome and the whole civilisation of antiquity concentrated under her banners, at the hands of Jewish Christianity.”

“And mind you, no less an authority than [Edward] Gibbon long ago tried to enlighten you. It is now a century and a half since The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) let the cat out of the bag.”

“The goal now was nothing less than to humble Rome as she had humbled Jerusalem, to wipe her off the map, just as she had wiped out Judea.”

Was Ravage right?

Edward Gibbon, the historian did dislike the Jews, and he did blame Christianity for destroying the Roman Empire. That was controversial in 1776. Today there are condensed versions of his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire available. Ravage’s book can be obtained from Ostara Publications. If you go there, then also look out for a book about Julian The Apostate, who tried to reverse the Roman embracing of Christianity. Julian wanted a return to Roman Paganism.

Alternatively, Thomas Dalton has edited Classic Essays on the Jewish Question 1850 to 1945. That has Ravage’s essay, and much else besides, that is worth reading, but do not expect to buy that on Amazon. I got from Alibris Books UK.

Jews created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. But over time, the Jews lost their grip on that country. That happened too with Christianity. Christianity might have been adapted by Paul to weaken and destroy Rome. But the Roman Catholic Church became powerful – and very anti-Jewish. White European muscularity had reasserted itself! Christianity toughened up, as the White European religion. That is why Jews, such as Sigmund Freud, hated it so much and wanted to destroy it.

It seems ironic that some modern Jews strived to destroy something that their own forebears had created, and for subversive purposes. Could the answer be that, once it had destroyed the Roman Empire, it had served its purpose? But then it went on to become a source of strength to White Europeans. And that was unforgivable

Those of you who are interested, should read Kevin MacDonald’s middle book of his trilogy, Separation and its Discontents. It is about historical anti-Semitism. There is a chapter giving much detail about how the Roman Catholic Church kept the Jews from positions of power in society, for a long time.

What would we replace Christianity with?

In Nazi Germany, both the Lutheran Protestant churches, and the Roman Catholic Church, had signed agreements with the National Socialist state. The Nazi leaders recognised that Christianity was deeply rooted in Europe. Some Nazi leaders did not like Christianity, any more than Church leaders liked Nazism. But those in power must be realistic.

That did not prevent some Germans from attempting to revive the old Nordic religion, Odinism. They include the First World War Field Marshall, Erich von Ludendorff. But that seems to me to be a venture doomed to failure. Odinism perished hundreds of years ago, and could not easily be brought back, even with state sponsorship. In any case, would we really want it? What did Odinists, back then, really believe?

In Britain, some Anglo-Celts would like to revive Druidism. But there is the same problem. Druidism died out even longer ago than Odinism. No one alive now knows what the Druids believed. Some think that they had a religion akin to Hinduism – but that must be considered to be speculation.

Some modern Europeans believe that Man has outgrown religion. They think Atheism, or at least Agnosticism, is the way forward. But personally, that is unsatisfactory for me. I believe in God, even though I am not a regular church attender.

Christianity has influenced and controlled European civilisation for many centuries. It cannot just be rinsed away – even if we wanted to do that. We have to come to terms with that – even while recognising its Jewish origins.

The original Christianity would have died out two millennia ago. The Jewish national leaders hated it, because it would make Jews weak and universalist in outlook. The Romans were indifferent to it, while it remained exclusively among the Jews. Christianity only survived when Paul’s adapted version of Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire. Then, the Roman authorities immediately recognised it as a threat to Roman strength. They too tried to crush it.

Today, Europe and Britain have many racial foreigners. Some of the most troublesome people are Muslim fanatics. Some of them are political Islamists. Some White people see a revived Christianity as a counterbalance to militant Islam. But today’s church leaders are wet, political liberals.

If we ever see a racial nationalist government in the UK, then it would need to decide what to do about Christianity. To decide if it was a friend or a foe. For me, there are no satisfactory, obvious answers. In the meanwhile, we must all make up our own minds about how we feel about Christianity, and what we think about the modern churches.

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.

Winning Political Power: a wake-up call for British Nationalists

Will Wright

Real, serious politics is about winning political power. Serious political movements need to know how to win power. In the Western World, that means knowing how to win a general election, because that is the only way to form a government.

A Mass Movement led by competent professionals

Beware those who believe that British Nationalism could seize power in a military coup d’état. That is a fantasy in any modern developed country. Modern states are just too powerful for an existing regime to be toppled by a rebel army. British military leaders are extremely unlikely to ever want to take charge of the country. In any case, they would not be influenced, even less controlled, by British Nationalist politicians.

If our political Idea can grow into a mass movement, and build an election-winning political party, then that is how political revolutions happen in the modern world.

Successful movements win over the masses, but they cannot do that without also winning over large numbers of competent professional people. British Nationalism needs to be a truly classless movement.

Intelligent, capable, professional types can build and run a political party. They can create and develop strategies to win power.

But there is no point winning political power if you do not know what you want to do with it. Political thinkers need to develop an all-embracing political ideology. But then practical politicians need to turn the ideology into workable policies.

All of the above ought to be obvious. But it seems that it is not.

Fantasists

Some British Nationalists think that if they just go on pottering about, in their amateurish way, then one day the political tide will miraculously change in our favour, and we will be swept to power by the forces of Destiny. That will never happen. Destiny favours those who work extremely hard, and intelligently, towards their goals.

There are some people who do not want power – they want to influence those who currently hold power. But if you want to influence the politicians in power, then you still need some form of power yourself. That could include a very well thought out new political Idea – put across very persuasively by expert propagandists. It might involve having a very large, and very active, mass movement. Politicians keep a watchful eye on mass movements that could threaten their own powerbase. And influence might include having lots of money.

But if you have not got a persuasive set of ideas, nor a mass movement, nor huge amounts of money, then you are very unlikely to have any influence at all.

There is something else to consider too. Those who only want ‘influence’, rather than power, are ranked much lower than those types who want power. That is the natural order of things.

The secretive nature of corrupted power

Some types very much want political power. But it is just that they do not want to be public figures. They do not want to be campaigning politicians, or government ministers. Those people with colossal amounts of wealth use some of that wealth to control corrupt political parties. That is not simply ‘influence’. It usually means calling the tune. Because ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’.

Billionaires, who have never been elected to power, can never be thrown out by the electorate. They believe that they can buy whichever political party is in power. Only a new movement with a firm purpose, and a comprehensive ideology, can rout such types.

But people who have no powerbase of their own will never successfully challenge for government power. Nationalists need good ideas, good quality people, and a mass movement, to be able to challenge those who rule from the shadows. Even then, British Nationalism still needs an election winning mentality and a political party with a successful election strategy that takes winning political power seriously.

Beware losers!

There is unmistakeably something wrong with people who continually lose at life. They might have a bad attitude. They might be of very low intelligence. They might attract recurrent bad luck. But successful people shun such types. Bad luck is infectious.

Those who have bad luck need to recognise what they are doing wrong, and strive to achieve permanent change.

Groups which publicly appeal to nationalist sentiments, but are not set up to fight elections, are very likely a waste of time. Even a mass movement does not hurt the Establishment parties, unless it is taking large numbers of votes from them. Then it begins to hurt them.

A movement that makes a lot of noise, but does not hurt the Establishment, can become a safety value for the building pressure of public opinion. That can actually help the Establishment parties stay in power.

It could be argued that UKIP influenced the Conservatives to allow an In-Out EU referendum. But that probably would not have happened if UKIP had not won nearly four million votes from established parties.

A mass movement can, should and must, educate the public about politics. But to be truly effective it must start winning votes, as a political party – and eventually, start winning elections.

Sometimes, small political parties fight a token election campaign. They register a candidate, but do no electioneering, and then receive a very poor vote. Sometimes they do not even attend the election count. That is amateurish. Nationalists need to up their game – if they are serious about winning elections. If they are serious about winning political power. If they are serious about winning back our country!

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.

A K Chesterton, pan-Europeanism, and non-White immigration

Arthur Kenneth Chesterton was a man shaped by the time and place that he was born. He was an imperialist. He was a British patriot, born on the 1st of May 1899, in Krugersdorp, in British South Africa. He was not a hater of other races – not a “racist” as today’s insistent and wrong-headed mass media would have called him. He did not actively choose to become a racialist, based on intellectual arguments. He was born when the vast majority of White Europeans, of all nationalities, naturally assumed White racial superiority.

Chesterton and Mosley

In Britain in the Thirties, AK Chesterton joined Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists for a short period of a few years, before falling out with Mosley and leaving his movement. During those few years Chesterton was responsible for about seventy percent of all BUF propaganda output. He was a talented writer and editor. He was related to the famous novelist, GK Chesterton, and his brother, the well-known journalist, Cecil Chesterton.

At the out break of the Second World War, AK Chesterton enlisted in the British Army and fought for his country, just as he had already done in the First World War. After the War, Chesterton found even greater ideological political differences with Mosley. Mosley now believed in pan-Europeanism, and used the slogan: “Europe-a nation”. But AK Chesterton founded the League of Empire Loyalists, and was firmly opposed to British government attempts to join the European Economic Community.

When the National Front was founded in 1967, AK Chesterton was its first leader. But before then he wrote The New Unhappy Lords, subtitled: “an exposure of power politics”. My copy of the book is the fourth revised edition of October 1972. Chapter 21 is: Demoralisation at Home, from page 164 to 171, it is too long to quote in full in this letter.

Supreme Treason

On page 167 AK Chesterton writes:

“The supreme treason in the British Isles, however, is the creation of a colour problem in a White nation where no such problem has existed throughout the hundreds of years of its existence. In the 1955 elections the present writer and some of his colleagues went to Bromley to challenge Harold MacMillan about this issue, which even then had assumed alarming proportions. MacMillan said that he, too, was very much concerned about the situation…”

Chesterton continues:

“The next year MacMillan became Prime Minister, with power to move and secure the passage through Parliament of measures to put an end to coloured immigration. He did nothing. While he posed and strutted on the stage of public life further hundreds of thousands of coloured people poured into the British Isles from the West Indies, from West Africa, from India and Pakistan and from many other countries, thus casting derision upon Harold Macmillan’s professed “concern”, the expression of which obviously had no meaning other than to delude the British people. Today the coloured invasion has spread throughout England, being encountered even in the remotest country villages.”

A little later, Chesterton goes on:

“The politicians, to whom votes are all-important, now began to perceive that it was necessary to take some kind of a public stand, in their propaganda if not in their actions, against the coloured invasion, and Peter Thorneycroft, a prominent member of the previous Conservative Government, spoke to a Conservative gathering of the need not only to tighten up controls but to return to the country-of-origin certain types of immigrant. Thorneycroft had suffered a spell in the political wilderness by resigning from the Government on a relatively minor matter which concerned a difference on financial policy. Why, if he felt so strongly about the creation of the colour problem, did he not resign on this major matter, affecting in perpetuity the breed of men produced in the British Isles? The answer could be that the vested interests sponsoring coloured immigration had become so strong that anybody rash enough to offer real opposition might well be committing political suicide.”

The Mongrelisation of Mankind

Chesterton concludes:

“The dominating motive may well have been not economic but political – the conspiratorial plan, everywhere being carried out, of securing the mongrelisation of mankind. More will be said about this later. What has here to be stated, with the greatest possible emphasis, is that the mixing of White and Black or Coloured people results in hordes of unhappy half-castes who feel that they belong nowhere, whose tendency is to embrace the vices of both racial stocks and not to strive after the virtues, and who must eventually, through no fault of their own, bring to an end the tremendous history of achievement which is the heritage of the European nations.”

We should notice that AK Chesterton was writing in a book first published in 1965 and revised in 1972, about a situation that he first mentions in 1955! He writes of the Conservative Party’s intention to lie about both non-White immigration itself, and its own claimed policies to remedy the situation.

When Chesterton mentions “the vested interests sponsoring coloured immigration” and their strength, he is referring to organised Jewish interests. Why do I think that? Because the main thrust of the rest of his book is about the Jewish involvement in a drive towards a world government.

The Conservative Party has repeatedly lied about immigration over many decades now. All of my lifetime. It tells the public that it will deal with this problem, when it is clear that it will not.

Who is responsible?

One local friend of mine blames the generation of ordinary Britons who are now elderly (in their eighties) for not rising up against non-White immigration. He believes that ordinary Britons should have joined, and voted for, the National Front in the 1970s. If I have understood him correctly, in pub conversations, he also blames the National Front leadership of the Seventies for failing to win political power.

In an interview with Edward Dutton online, Martin Webster blamed our country’s leadership class for not providing proper national leadership. He said that it then fell to the lower middle class, and working class, people of the National Front to lead the opposition to the invasion of our country.

I agree that the Establishment betrayed us. Were they ALL either mercenary or ideological traitors? Were they careerists, individualists, and moral cowards? Could none of them see the long-term results of massive non-White immigration?

I believe that one group of people, both in Britain and across the Western World could foresee the long-term results of non-White immigration – the organised Jewish community. I believe, along with Arthur Kenneth Chesterton, that organised Jewish groups planned all of this. Partly out of a sense of revenge against Christendom, and also in order to achieve their aim of a one-world-state, with a world government. I offer no prizes for guessing who would control that!

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.

Outsiders

Will Wright

The British Nationalist movement was always haunted on its peripheries by eccentric and rather odd individuals. During the National Front years, most such types were a small minority on the edges. The more odd or extreme ones could be discouraged, and maybe a few could be tolerated on the edges. I have sometimes wondered why that was so. Do other political movements have a similar problem? I suspect that they do. But I am concerned with nationalism.

Civilization in danger

The Establishment in Western countries has in the last century come under the influence and control of Jewish individuals and organised groups. Western Establishments feel that they can accommodate a lot of different points of view. A lot of different political expressions. Those Establishments make a big show of believing in democracy and diversity.

But the Jewish controlled Establishment is constantly steering politics in a direction that it wants it to move in. Towards an eventual one-world political union – with some form of world government. For historical reasons Jewish opinion formers would like to see the demise of the White European race. That is being achieved by massive non-White immigration to White homelands. White people are being replaced. Whites are being out-bred. There is a growing trend towards multi-racialism in the West, and eventually mixed-race populations. This spells death for White peoples and the European culture that civilised the whole world.

Obviously, the Establishment cannot and will not tolerate White European racial nationalism. Every ambitious politician quickly realises that White racial nationalism is completely beyond the Pale for anyone who wants career advancement under the current regime. Racial nationalism has become THE outsider political ideology. Many among the public sense this.

Becoming mainstream

But intelligent racial nationalists want victory for our movement and our ideas. That involves us NOT being outsiders. We need to win over the majority of our people and for our ideology to become the mainstream. We need to eventually be the government in White European countries. We must do this be spreading our ideas and winning converts. We must not water down our ideology to do this.

But if we want to win, we cannot be seen by the public as permanent ‘extremists’ – permanent outsiders. We need to win over well-established people within society. We need a lot of clever and capable people inside our movement. We need to recruit people with good careers and people of substance. We need to attract people who are, under normal circumstances, normal, moral, and law-abiding people. And we do need some wealthy people to be attracted to racial nationalism.

What we don’t want or need is lots of social outcasts, odd-balls, down-and-outs. We need to attract successful people. We need a big movement full of good, normal people. Such a big movement could accommodate a few eccentrics on the fringes, just as other political movements do.

‘Losers’ cannot help us in our struggle

A small movement that is predominantly composed of losers, people who do not fit in in normal society, will never win political power – which should be the aim of any serious political movement. Our ideology is struggling for political survival. Our country is struggling for racial survival. We need to be realistic.

Many of society’s outsiders do not like being unloved outsiders. They look around for some group that might make them welcome. If nationalists are desperate for recruits then odd social outcasts might feel that the nationalist movement is somewhere that is welcoming for them.

But the political nationalist movement is not a charity for the dispossessed and unloved. It is currently a survivalist movement. It needs to become a movement of national resurgence. That aim is not compatible with attracting odd, anti-social, and even criminal types. Those people will repel better people.

Some self-help gurus advise those who want success to shun the unlucky. Bad luck is contagious. This might seem harsh, but nationalists cannot afford to unnecessarily attract bad luck. We are already fighting a ‘David and Goliath’ war to save our country.

Attracting quality people

Imagine the scenario: a patriotic, mature and successful man attends his first nationalist meeting. Is he favourably impressed? This is unlikely if he finds that the only other people there are none-too-bright social misfits, some of whom cannot even hold down a paid job.

If he discovers that the group is very amateurishly run, then he will conclude that this is a group for losers – and although it is unpleasant to acknowledge it, he will be right.

I can think of examples of some ‘leaders’ who specialise in attracting the kind of never-do-wells that will repel better people. Nationalism needs to attract quality people. Not by watering down our ideology, but by being more professional and properly organised. By us being sensible and intelligent in our conduct and presentation – especially when we meet potential recruits. We want to attract the best elements in society – not the dregs.

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.