Author: Mad as Hell

Brexit Countdown: Leave, Remain, “No Deal” and the Establishment’s betrayal of the British People

Philip Gegan

U.S President John F. Kennedy, 1963 (AP Photo)

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible…. make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

Everyone agrees that the British Government is making a complete mess of Brexit. The only question is whether it is fortuitous or deliberate.

In order to understand what has happened we have to recognise a few home truths about

  1. the European Union,
  2. British politicians, and
  3. the British electorate.

1. The European Union

As racial nationalists we know that from its very inception in the late 1950s the European Union (then known as the “Common Market”, or European Economic Community) was but a staging post on the Global Elite’s march towards a multi-racial “World Government”.

In the early twentieth century, a leading global elitist of the day, James Paul Warburg, a US financier, stated that, “We are going to have a World Government. The only question is whether it will be by conquest or consent.”

Ordinary folk, of course, aren’t meant to know anything about this. Who in their right mind, whichever (Western) country they live in, would want to live under the rule of a “World Government”?

If freedom consists in part of limited government, then a World Government, and even a European Government (which is what the EU will shortly become), is the exact opposite of freedom.

A World Government, by definition, would be a tyranny. If just one nation were allowed to leave (just as we are trying to leave the EU) then it would be a World Government no more. So if we leave the European Union, then the future of the EU itself is under threat. How can it call itself the “European Union” without Europe’s most powerful nation in its ranks? No wonder the EU’s eurocrats and our own peculiar Euro-federalists are desperate to prevent us from leaving.

A Political Entity

Until the 1990s European Federalists could argue with some conviction that the set-up was a purely economic arrangement. Their case was that European countries had to pool their economic resources in order to compete with the likes of the United States and Japan. Of course, that argument was flawed in that both those countries were individual nations and not “communities” of nations. But in terms of population numbers and market size it had a veneer of credibility.

With further Treaties being signed by the leaders of the “member states” – Maastricht in 1992, Lisbon in 2007 – the surreptitious transformation of the former EEC into a political union gained pace. The conspirators (for that’s in effect what they are) have a clever ploy. They hold a grand meeting at which a pre-prepared “treaty” is signed by the various career politicians misrepresenting each “member state”. Each “treaty” has far-reaching implications, and takes vast swathes of sovereignty away from “member states”. But the date it comes into effect is invariably one or two years into the future, by which time the mainstream mass media will have conveniently forgotten about it. Few critics will pick up on exactly what is going on.

At Maastricht the conspirators felt confident enough to come out into the open and proclaim their precious entity the “European Union” consisting not of sovereign nations but of “member states”.

All along the policy of the Global elite has been to make it more and more difficult for any country to leave this “Union”. The “Customs Union” was the core part of the original EEC established in 1958 and the “Single Market” and the over-riding jurisdiction of the so-called “European Court of Justice” were concepts introduced in 1993 and extended in 2007. As we’ve seen over the last 31 months, any attempt by a “member state” to leave the EU can now be made so complicated that most ordinary people will give up trying to understand what it’s all about.

So we have the absurd arguments over whether we should leave the “Single Market” or the “Customs Union” as well as the EU, and over whether there should be a “hard border” or a “soft border” between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Oh, it’s all so complex.

Or is it?

A One Way Street

No. It’s not complex at all. Not once you realise that you’re supposed to be confused. Once you grasp that the EU has always been designed as a one-way street. As the wolf’s lair to which there are many footprints going in, but none coming out.

The EU’s leading politicians – Jean Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk, Guy Verhoffstadt, Michael Barnier and all the rest – believe they can bully the UK into remaining a “member state”, in defiance of the express wishes of the British people. They have a timetable, and they don’t want it delayed. For example, by 2022 they want the pound sterling abolished and the Euro to be the currency of all “member states”.

National armed forces together with NATO (ostensibly) provide for the defence of European countries. But the EU wants a “European Army”, the only purpose for which can be the suppression of internal dissent within the EU. It wants control over our financial services, fisheries and oil supplies, and more within a few short years. It wants the process of continuous and endless centralisation and federalisation to continue until no European nations remain.

European Arrest Warrant vs Habeas Corpus

These things are never talked about by the Remainers. This is especially true of the so-called “European Arrest Warrant”. This charming little surprise will be foisted upon us shortly if we don’t break free. Many of our historic rights guaranteeing the freedom of the individual are enshrined in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. These will be quietly abolished under the “harmonisation” of European laws – a process that has been under way for many years now, though limited thus far to various aspects of commercial law.

The European Arrest Warrant will give legal force to the arrest of any British citizen in his home, and his removal to custody, which could be in any European country. The pretext could be the alleged transgression of some Euro regulation or other, quite possibly on the unsubstantiated allegation of anyone else, perhaps politically motivated. Perhaps, even, for simply questioning the official narrative of the “Holocaust” story. This happens regularly in European countries.

There the British citizen could languish in a prison cell for months or years while the Euro authorities search for evidence to use against him in court. This is the situation in most European countries. They’ve never had Habeas Corpus, so it doesn’t much matter to them. If our Remainers are so sincere in wanting European integration then why aren’t they prominent in telling their European friends to adopt safeguards similar to our Habeas Corpus, instead of going along with their calls for the abolition of ours?

Has anything like this been used by our negotiating team to strengthen their hand? That the rest of the EU should have similar standards of protection against tyranny? After all, these Europeans are forever banging on about “human rights”. Perhaps they don’t mean OUR human rights.

2. British politicians

The two leading politicians involved in the Brexit betrayal are (1) David Cameron, the former Tory Prime Minister who made the promise of a referendum in the run-up to the 2015 General Election, and (2) Theresa May, the current (as of January 2019) Prime Minister, who has taken it upon herself, as someone in favour Britain remaining in the EU, to lead the nation in withdrawing from it (click here for a summary of the top 40 horrors lurking in her so-called Brexit “deal”).

Cameron was an Establishment politician from the start. He entered Parliament in 2001 and in less than five years he was the Leader of the Opposition. To say that he “won” the 2010 General Election would stretch the imagination somewhat. The 1997-2010 Labour government became so unpopular with the electorate, that it would have been difficult for the Tories to lose that election. But they nearly managed it, largely on account of the refusal of Cameron to listen to the real concerns and worries of ordinary British people.

Eton-educated, a former member of the notorious “Bullingdon” Club at Oxford University, and born into considerable wealth, he is one of those people who take for granted that they are part of the ruling class and that they know better than ordinary folk. He should have been ditched as Tory leader following the election, for not having swept to power with a triple-digit majority. As it was, he had to crawl into bed with the Lib-Dems in forming a coalition government.

Cameron’s “Cunning Plan”

From 2010 to 2015 he became concerned about the increasing popularity of UKIP. Large numbers of Tory members and voters, disillusioned with the wishy-washy policies of the Conservative Party under Cameron, were defecting to UKIP. So he had a brilliant idea. Why not prevent a disaster at the 2015 election by promising voters a referendum, just as campaigned for by UKIP?

He believed he could neutralise UKIP, attract badly needed ex-Tories back to the fold, and get a decent majority, all in one go!

On top of that, he would be able to use it to squeeze a few “concessions” from the EU and present them to voters as a good reason to vote to remain a member. The mainstream media and the rest of the Remain Establishment could be relied on to launch “Project Fear” and cajole the electorate to vote to remain. The awkward issue of membership of the European Union would be kicked into touch for another forty years, by which time we would be so entangled in the Euro super-state that there would be no chance of ever leaving it.

Cameron felt so confident that this bold move would work that he went on television to announce that it would be a simple “Yes” or “No” vote decided by a simple majority and that it would be binding on the government (provided it was a Tory government, of course). Not only that, but that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the Single Market and all the other sub-departments of the European Union, such as the European Court of Justice. There would be no half-way house. And if the result was to leave the EU then he, David Cameron, would carry out the wishes of the majority of British voters.

Nigel Farage

Let’s take a break here to consider another leading figure in all this – Nigel Farage. He was the leader of UKIP for many years, is the leader of the UKIP MEPs, and has his own radio show on LBC. While he is by no means a racial nationalist, he deserves great credit for forcing Cameron to hold the historic 2016 referendum. He is a fluent advocate of our exit from the European Union and must have had a tremendous influence in getting us the successful result. Future historians will undoubtedly identify him as a key figure in helping Britain regain its freedom and independence.

A Crippling Blow To The Global Elite’s Plans

We all know what happened. By 52 per cent to 48 per cent, a majority of over one million, the British people voted to leave. So did Cameron honour his pledge to take us out? He was a career politician, remember, so he cut and ran, resigning as Prime Minister, and soon after as an MP as well, in order to take his place at the feeding trough of retired Establishment politicians.

That left the stage open for the appearance of Theresa May.

Remainer PM + Brexit Negotiations = Farce

There weren’t many suitable contenders to lead the Tory Party (and thereby become Prime Minister) that could command the support of a sufficient number of Tory MPs. That’s how Theresa May managed to secure the keys to 10 Downing Street. She had, for political career purposes, kept a low profile during the referendum campaign, but for all that was at heart an ardent Remainer.

One of her first comments as Prime Minister was that “Brexit means Brexit”. What she meant, of course, was that “Brexit means Brexit means whatever I want it to mean.”

Theresa May had just completed a stint as the longest-serving Home Secretary. As such she had tremendous influence over immigration policy. Under her tenure the flood of migrants from the third world continued unabated, in spite of regular promises by her to stop it.

She turned out to be just as remote from the ordinary British public as Cameron was. Her husband, Philip May, is a past Chairman of the Oxford Union and a relationship manager for investment firm Capital International, a firm handling millions of pounds’ worth of investments for private wealthy clients the world over. One of her and her husband’s closest friends is the Chief Rabbi. They dine regularly together. Presumably the food is kosher.

At the time of writing the process of “negotiating” a withdrawal of Britain from the European Union, as directed by a majority of voters, has taken a staggering 31 months. All this because we’ve been told that we can’t just leave – we have to have an “agreement”, or “deal”, with the EU. The trouble is that the EU negotiators obviously won’t give us one. They are not acting in a bona fide manner for the reasons we’ve discussed.

They know our party politicians as the cowardly shower that they are. They believe they can extract billions of pounds from us and then not give us a proper withdrawal. They will make sure the UK is still tied to the European Union for years and years. Until a future date when some event will happen whereby the vote to leave can be forgotten. Then Britain will be officially back in the fold as nothing more than a “member state” – the term the EU contemptuously uses to describe formerly sovereign nations that have foolishly succumbed.

Democracy will have failed to deliver, and the social consequences of that are potentially devastating, as former U.S. Presidential election candidate Pat Buchanan explains on his blog here.

A Deliberate Mess

The so-called Article 50 process, the decision to seek a “deal”, and now the prospect of Parliament passing a law outlawing a “no deal” departure (more on that in a moment) are all ways designed long ago to frustrate the process of withdrawing from the EU. And that’s what May has intended all along. She is a false leader, an Establishment stooge, and she has faked the whole Brexit process from the beginning. She has engineered, or has gone along with the Establishment traitors who have engineered, the mess that Brexit has become.

Why? So that the majority who voted in favour of leaving the wretched EU will throw up their hands in despair and say to themselves, “We’re never going to get out of the EU, so we may as well accept it and make the best of it that we can.” And then, if there is a second referendum, the Establishment and the Euro federalists may be able to scrape a bare majority and claim ultimate victory, keeping Britain tied to the EU against the wishes of the majority, but all perfectly “democratic”.

The EU negotiators are cynically encouraging our own fifth column of Euro federalists, or Remainers, into forcing the Government into outlawing a departure from the EU without a “deal”. This notion is, of course, absurd. If we are unable by law to leave without a deal – any deal – then we are bound to accept whatever “deal” the EU throws at us. Further comment on this little ploy is surely superfluous.

3. The British Electorate

The British electorate deserve a special kind of praise. For a hundred years and more they’ve endured having their country ruled by a coterie of career politicians. They’ve been betrayed on every important issue. They’ve been taken into two disastrous and pointless world wars. They’ve seen their country over-run by uncontrolled mass migration of inassimilable third-world blacks and Asiatics, with sovereignty surrendered to the Euro Super-State.

During the referendum campaign they were subjected to an unprecedented avalanche of “Project Fear”. Lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into voting to accept the surrender of their ancient freedoms and sovereignty to the European Union.

And yet the British people resisted. They had the courage to defy the threats and warnings coming every day from the Euro federalists and their friends in the European Union, and they voted to leave.

If there’s one thing that the British people can be criticised for it’s for being too trusting in their politicians. The majority voted to leave the EU in 2016, and they fully expected their politicians to deliver promptly, as promised by Cameron and others during the campaign. They waited patiently for the various procedures that they were told were essential to be carried out. But now they expect what they voted for – an exit from the European Union.

The British people are slow to get over-excited about anything. They will take a lot of nonsense from upstart politicians before they lose patience. But when the tipping point is reached, when their anger has passed a certain point, there is no stopping them. Career politicians who don’t realise this fact carry on betraying the British people at their own personal peril.

EU Gravy Train

The European Union is a massive gravy train, and British people don’t like gravy trains. It has around 113 buildings, 65,000 employees (all with salaries, pensions and other benefits ordinary people can only dream of) and over 100,000 other hangers-on, mostly corporate lobbyists who live in and work from Brussels or Strasbourg. It has a far larger bureaucracy than the British Empire had at the height of its power – and that ruled a quarter of the earth’s surface without the aid of modern computer technology.

The fact of the matter is that the EU cannot afford to let us go. That’s another reason why “negotiating” with them is a waste of time and resources. They need our money. They know that if we manage to extricate ourselves successfully then other “member states” will follow our example, and the whole massive structure will collapse in on itself. Just like its forerunner, the Soviet Union.

It’s clear that we need more than just a referendum to leave this whole sorry setup. We’re going to have to fight our way out. And the first line of enemy defence to overcome is right here on British soil – the Remainers and other corrupt Establishment stooge politicians who have been betraying us for so long and feeding from the gravy train. Once they are taken out the way will be clear to do whatever is necessary to take the fight to the EU itself and “take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them.”

Future generations of Britons, yet unborn, are waiting to see if we are up to the level of our noble forebears in defending their birthright.

Enoch Powell’s Wake-Up Call 20th April 1968 – Full Text

To mark the 50th anniversary of Enoch Powell's first "Wake-Up Call" speech delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on 20th April 1968 we reproduce below the text of that speech. NB This post was published in April 2018.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary.

By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said:

“If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.”

I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued:

“I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London.

Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase.

Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence.

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry.

In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration.

If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.”

This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro.

The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come.

The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.

They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous.

All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so.

The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week.

“She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, ‘Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.’ So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months.

She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

“The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.”

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided.

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Editor's Note: You will note that there is no reference in this speech to "rivers of blood", yet the controlled media have managed to have it branded as such. Enoch Powell may not have been a true racial nationalist, but posterity will recognise him for being an honest man who clearly tried to warn us of what was happening to our country.

The Brexit Vote Still Stands as a Massive Blow to Our Enemies

A Review of Niall Ferguson's 'The EU Melting Pot is Melting Down', published in the Sunday Times of June 17th 2018. Please note that this review was originally posted in June 2018.

There is a danger at the present time – more than two years after the historic Brexit vote – that the 17.4 million who voted out, including genuine patriots and racial-nationalists in Britain, could feel a sense of frustration. And that is exactly what the liberal establishment, still reeling from the 2016 referendum result, wants us to feel.

But behind all their talk of how impossible Brexit is going to be and their confusion tactics of “hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “Customs Union” and so on (none of which were ever mentioned in the run up to the referendum) they are rudderless, adrift in a sea of their own despair.

This is the distinct message I have from reading what one of the leading pro-remain figures in Britain has just written in the Sunday Times of June 17th 2018.

Titled “The EU Melting Pot is Melting Down”, Niall Ferguson’s article displays a number of interesting insights into the mind of someone who is both a fanatical liberal and a believer in the innate superiority of international organizations like the so-called European Union over nation states.

He starts by enthusiastically telling us about the infamous play written by the “British” author Israel Zangwill called “The Melting Pot”, first staged in Washington and New York in the early years of the twentieth century.

Israel Zangwill – He hated the White race

 

This play extols the virtues of racial suicide, at least for the White race, and looks forward to the day when the White race that created the United States has perished and all the other races of “mankind” have fused into a kind of multi-racial slush, where nobody has any sense of identity any more, and no ancestry to be proud of or even interested in.

This, of course, is the logical result of the multi-racial, multi-cultural, society. It’s what the global elite want to bring about. They and their descendants, who will have carefully avoided the fate of the White race and will have retained their own peculiar identity, so far as they have one, will be in a position of unassailable dominance over all other humans on earth. Their victims will comprise the millions, or billions, dispossessed of their own racial identity, and who comprise a bit of black, some yellow, some Arab, some native American Indian, some Asiatic, oh, and even in some cases a bit of White.

Niall Ferguson and his wife

Ferguson, described in Wikipedia as “a conservative British historian and political commentator”, seems to be personally involved in this. Having been married to a White lady, Sue Douglas (admittedly not a great choice – she “worked on a legendary anti-apartheid newspaper in South Africa and [has] been one of the few women in Britain to edit a national paper”), he now has a new wife in the form of a “Somali-born Dutch-American activist, feminist, author, scholar and former politician” by the name of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is also, it seems, the unfortunate subject of a fatwah for having strongly criticised Islam, in particular over its treatment of women.

So how does this relate to the current situation relating to the betrayal of 17.4 million Britons who voted for Brexit?

Well, to liberals like Ferguson, the wonderful thing about the EU is that it is fusing all the peoples of Europe together into one super-state, with no borders internally and only nominal borders externally. And it threatens to abolish the concept of the nation state. Just like what “The Melting Pot” envisages happening across the Atlantic. But there is a problem.

You see, where you have a European super-state with an “open border” policy, which broadly is what the EU is meant to have, you get millions of migrants from Africa and the Middle East flooding into the countries comprised in that super-state. These are mostly war refugees fleeing from the US-instigated carnage inflicted upon their countries (though whether Ferguson and his fellow liberals can connect the dots is questionable). And once they’re in then it doesn’t matter which country they first entered – they can travel, using the “free movement of labour” law, to whichever country best suits their requirements.

Why is that a problem? It’s not, of course, because these millions of migrants are non-White, because they will ultimately out-breed the native White population, or because the inevitable miscegenation will bring about the end of the White race and of civilization in those countries.

Though these things will inevitably happen if drastic measures are not taken, that’s not a problem to Ferguson and his fellow race-mixers. The problem to them is that the mass migration is on such a large scale and taking place so quickly.

With so many millions of alien peoples flooding into Europe (and the US, as we discuss below) in such a short period of time, there’s a real possibility that a critical number of White people will wake up to what’s really going on in the world. They’ll realise what their vassal politicians and liberal commentators and opinion-formers (like Ferguson, for example) have been up to. They’ll switch off the TV, cancel their season tickets to the football, and then who knows what will happen?

It would almost certainly mean the end of “that loose alliance between moderate social democrats and moderate conservatives/Christian democrats on which the past 70 years of European integration has been based”, as Ferguson so tactfully puts it.

And that’s what he and the rest of the liberal elite are afraid of. They would much rather have the process slowed down, so that the same result could be achieved without the danger of those beastly White folk acting to bring about the end of this little plan.

This may already be happening. Apart from the shock of the Brexit vote, we have the rise of populist parties across Europe opposed to further European integration and non-white immigration, and actually ready to take on the so-called “European Union”. These range from the AfD in Germany to the League and the Five Star Movement in Italy. Hungary already has a populist-nationalist government that is almost ready to defy Brussels and leave the EU. Poland could follow suit very easily, and other countries like the Czech Republic, Austria and Greece are close behind.

All the pro-EU governments such as that of Angela Merkel can do is to “limp onwards” (in Ferguson’s words), with coalitions of their centre-left and centre-right parties shoring up a crumbling edifice, devoid of any meaningful ideology or strategy. So, for example, we have the Conservative Party in Britain, more a coalition than a party, divided into Brexiteers and Remainers, and with little to keep them together in one party save for a mutual desire to carry on existing and enjoying all the trappings of office.

The trouble with national leaders like Angela Merkel, according to Ferguson, is not that they are opening the floodgates of non-white immigration into the European heartlands and endangering the future of the White race. It’s that they are doing it in such a way that they are almost bound to fail. They don’t really understand the issues. “European centrists are deeply confused about immigration”, he wails.

What he means, no doubt without realising it, is that they’ve had any concept of race brainwashed out of them. They ought to take a seat at one of the theatres showing “The Melting Pot” so they can adapt their strategy, employ more stealth, and deepen their deception of voters so as to accomplish the task of abolishing nationhood and murdering the White race without any effective opposition.

But Ferguson and his ilk are not the only people commenting on the situation in Europe today.

For example, take Pat Buchanan. He is a long standing conservative political commentator, author and former presidential candidate in the United States. He’s the author of “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War”, “The Death of the West” and other books giving an alternative view of recent history. Writing in his blog on 19th June, two days after Ferguson’s article was published, he covers the mass non-white migration problem from a US perspective.

The US has had a similar problem for many years now. Millions of Mexican and Hispanic migrants are knocking at the door of the US every year demanding entry. American liberals are wringing their hands because young children are being parted from their parents during the process of detaining these illegal migrants under President Trump’s immigration policy.

A question has been raised. Is this cruelty caused by a desire to maintain the demographic make-up of the US (ie to keep it still mainly White)? Or is it caused by allowing a situation to arise whereby millions of non-white migrants take it upon themselves to risk being split up as a family in order to enter the US illegally and benefit from its superior welfare system?

In Europe, where recently a boat loaded with 629 illegal migrants from Africa was turned away by the Italian authorities and eventually allowed to disembark in Valencia, Spain, the issue is one of whether to allow illegal migrants to drown in the Mediterranean Sea or to allow them entry into Europe.

But the essential issue is the same. To be weak and “humanitarian” by allowing millions of third world migrants into an advanced, industrialised country that was built by White people for White people when they were a comfortable majority. Or to be strong and shut them out, protecting our White children and remoter descendants in the long term, but thereby causing distress and suffering to those would-be migrants in the short term.

Taking a sufficiently strong stand against the hordes of migrants now coming day and night into the US from Mexico and into Europe from Africa and the Middle East would unavoidably mean detaining them in camps pending removal. In many cases such detention would separate children from their parents. It’s easy to publish pictures of tearful children and grief-stricken parents, and to get the sympathy of people not directly affected by the migrant crisis.

But safeguarding the future of the White race and expelling all non-whites from White countries takes precedence over any such emotional issues. We have our grandchildren and their grandchildren, yes and their grandchildren too, all along down the line, to protect.

And we struck a massive blow for our national and racial survival with the Brexit vote. Perhaps some of us who have been in the vanguard of racial nationalism over the years can allow ourselves a little satisfaction at the small part we have played in alerting our fellow Britons of the dangers of internationalism and multi-racialism.

So let us take heart from all this. All these problems of migrants, detention centres, and camps are of the enemy’s own making. Whilst we cannot be idle in pursuing the world of our dreams, at the same time we may be able to pause for a minute to relish the despondency and misery that is currently flourishing in the enemy camp.

Transgenderism: a personal opinion

Will Wright

There have always been human and animal freaks of nature born. An old man, who I once worked with, and who died a couple of years ago, once told me that his mother had worked as a midwife. He claimed that midwives in the past often used their discretion to ‘smother’ some of the worst cases of human freaks born.

There have been very rare and sad cases of people born with ambiguous genitals and other features of the opposite sex. When babies were classified as either male or female, a tiny number were wrongly registered at birth. This caused such people to live very unhappy lives. Over the last sixty or so years, some of those people were offered the chance to change their gender, with the help of psychiatric counselling, hormone treatment, and eventually surgery.

Our Victorian forefathers were, generally, good Christians, and yet they put some human freaks in circuses for fair-going crowds to gawp at. To modern people that seems unkind. I believe that perhaps those extremely rare people who are of indeterminate gender, born today, should be treated with human kindness. Medical science should help them where it can.

The strange case of Jan Morris

What I have written above does not cover the whole picture.

James Morris was a proud Welshman, a British patriot, and a soldier in the British army. He was happily married and loved his wife and children. He was a journalist and a talented travel writer. He wrote the Pax Britannica Trilogy of books about the British Empire.

But Morris harboured a dark secret. All of his life he had believed that he should have been born female. In the 1960s, he went to North Africa and had what was then called a “sex change operation”. He wrote a book about the experience. It is called Conundrum. It is a fascinating read. Does that make me as prurient and as bad as those Victorian circus crowds? I do not know.

James Morris became Jan Morris. He had the full support of his wife and children. Although he divorced his wife, they still lived together. In more modern times, they later had a civil partnership. The first book of Pax Britannica, was written by a man. But Morris wrote the other two as a woman.

But why I relate this story, is because Jan Morris clearly does not fit the description above of someone born as a freak of nature. Morris was living successfully as a man. Morris’ problem appears to be a deeply psychological one. Was he insane? He appears to have lived a happy life for about eighty years – half of it as a man, half of it as a woman. He had no regrets.

As a writer, Morris wanted to explain his situation. But I do not believe that he sought to influence anyone else to have a “sex change”. He was not a campaigner, and certainly not a political militant.

You might be surprised to learn that I have a degree of sympathy for Jan Morris. Because I do feel human sympathy for those with very troubling psychological and mental problems, as well with those people born as physical oddities.

Some psychiatrists and psychologists believe that some people who are born with perfectly normal bodies, never the less genuinely believe that they were “born in the wrong body”. It is not really their bodies that needs fixing – but their minds. But such people currently cannot be persuaded to change their minds. So doctors alter their bodies instead, after much intense psychological probing.

I believe that both the physical oddities and the psychological ones are very small groups of people. Probably most of them do not hurt anyone else.

But there is something very important and quite new to consider.

A recent modern evil

The modern extreme-Left political group known as ‘Transgenderism’ is a positive evil that needs to be ruthlessly crushed. I do not think that to believe that is to be inconsistent with what I have written above. I will attempt to explain why.

When we consider authentic transgender people, we are thinking about very small numbers of people. They include those cursed with physical abnormality and those with deep-rooted psychological problems who actually go through with physical sex change operations. Any political activists among their number must be a vanishingly small number – a small minority of a small minority.

But most of those who push the widespread, well-publicised, Transgender campaign are not authentic transgender types. They are what I, and many others, call Cultural Marxists. Some other people call them extreme liberals. These people want to break up and destroy society. They want to spread mass confusion. They want large numbers of the population to be hopelessly confused as to their own identity. Particularly their gender identity.

Vast numbers of ordinary children are now being urged to consider whether they accept the gender that they were assigned at birth. Impressionable, but healthy, children and young adults are being bulldozed into using irreversible puberty-blockers, hormone treatment – and sometimes even surgery. That is downright evil. It threatens the survival of our people and our civilisation. It must be stopped.

Some male sex offenders are now claiming to self-identify as women. They will be safer in female prisons. But their fellow prisoners will not be! Some such prisoners have raped female prisoners. The alleged transgender prisoners have not undergone psychological counselling, hormone treatment, nor surgery. They still have their penises, and their violent sex urges.

But we are supposed, as a society, to accept that if they say they are women, then they must be. That is the very dangerous, insane, nature of Political Correctness.

Some women claim to be men. They wear men’s’ hairstyles and men’s clothes. They tightly bind their breasts. But they do not have sex-change operations, or even hormone treatment. They might be thought of as extreme lesbians, rather than genuine transgender cases. They still have their vaginas.

The Transgender Campaign

I think that some of the very militant, very left-wing activists pushing the dangerous Transgender campaign are types like this. But they are reinforced by politically correct politicians like Nicola Sturgeon – who is neither lesbian nor transgender. It is fashionable for mainstream politicians to support Transgenderism, in the interests of equality and diversity. But that is one form of madness that I cannot have any sympathy with.

Many mentally-unwell people have very poorly defined identities. They do not know who they are. Those who seek to spread mass confusion over ordinary people’s identities are public enemies, and must be brought to justice and held to account for their subversive activities. They are anti-social. They are criminal and political subversives and revolutionaries.

Tolerance and understanding can only extend so far!

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

 

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.

Much Worse than Rotherham: How British Politicians, Police and Feminists Are Guilty of Systemic Rapism

This post was originally published in this blog on 25th November 2020.
British Politicians, Police and Feminists Are Guilty of Systemic Rapism. That is the serious charge laid by the author of this post, originally published by The Occidental Observer and written by Tobias Langdon. The scandal of the Pakistani-Muslim run child sex slave rackets that have grown up in dozens of British towns and cities, not all of them in the north, is something that the establishment still seeks to suppress. Politically motivated mostly Labour-run local councils, Police Commissioners, and the mainstream media all turn a blind eye to the criminal exploitation of young, vulnerable White children, who have no-one to protect them, at the hands of ruthless, inhumane and unimaginably cruel Asian migrants.

November 19, 2020

In the year 2000, the small Yorkshire town of Rotherham was little-known in Britain, let alone overseas. In 2020, Rotherham is infamous around the world as a place where Pakistani rape-gangs have been raping, prostituting and murdering working-class White girls for decades. Meanwhile, the staunchly socialist and fiercely feminist Labour council and Labour MP, Denis MacShane, helped the rapists by either ignoring their crimes or actively suppressing news of what was going on.

Piranha-enrichment programmes

In other words, Rotherham was the scene of systemic rapism, that is, of systemic collusion by politicians, police and feminists in an engrained Pakistani culture of rape and misogyny. But although the Rotherham rape-gangs are now world-infamous, a very important question about their activities has barely been asked by the British media. To see what that question is, let’s look at a simple allegory that even leftists should be able to understand. Suppose that next week a British journalist comes across a small lake in Yorkshire called Rotherpool and discovers that left-wing ecologists began enriching it in the 1950s by introducing piranhas to its boringly bland waters. Anyone who objected to the piranha-enrichment on behalf of native fish was accused of vile speciesism and sternly lectured that all fish are the same under the scales.

Fish are all the same under the scales: some piranha teeth.

The journalist investigates further and discovers that, sure enough, the piranhas have been preying savagely on native fish right since their introduction. Meanwhile, left-wing ecologists and fish-wardens helped the piranhas by either ignoring their predation or actively suppressing news of what was going on. The journalist does his job, informs the British public, and a scandal erupts about the ecological disaster visited on Rotherpool. But that isn’t the end of the scandal. There are much bigger lakes elsewhere in Yorkshire: Sheffmere, Bradwater and Lake Leeds. The journalist and his colleagues naturally investigate whether piranha-enrichment has been going on there too. Indeed it has and the journalists discover that even bigger ecological disasters have taken place in those bigger lakes – and in truly giant lakes elsewhere in Britain.

Pakistani-enrichment programmes

The allegory is ridiculous, of course: leftists would never introduce dangerous alien species like piranhas into British lakes. And they certainly wouldn’t pretend that all fish are the same under the scales and that “speciesism” isn’t a valid scientific concept. Leftists aren’t irrational, stupid and malign people, after all. They don’t want to cause or conceal horrendous unnecessary suffering. At least, they don’t when it comes to important native creatures like fish. But when it comes to unimportant native creatures like the White working-class, leftists are happy to both cause and conceal suffering on an endless and industrial scale.

The point of the allegory should be obvious even to leftists. For “piranhas” read “Pakistanis”. For “lakes” read “towns and cities”. It wasn’t just the small town of Rotherham that experienced a Pakistani-enrichment programme. Big cities in Yorkshire like Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford did too. So an obvious – and almost unaddressed – question arises from the Rotherham scandal. If Pakistanis have been behaving so badly in a small town, what have they been doing in big cities nearby? And what have they been doing in even bigger British cities like London, Manchester and Birmingham?

Only Non-White Lives Matter

The British media haven’t been been trying to answer this question, but in fact the answer is already known. The Rotherham scandal was horrific, but much worse things have been happening elsewhere in Britain. Rape-gangs of Pakistanis and other non-Whites have been operating with the complicity not just of supposed feminists in the Labour party but also of the police. Let’s take the big city of Manchester, where a policewoman called Maggie Oliver worked on an investigation into child sex-abuse called Operation Augusta, which began sixteen years ago in 2004. As Maggie Oliver witnessed at first hand, senior officers weren’t serious about ending child sexual abuse. And unlike many thousands of her tough male colleagues who witnessed the same thing both in Manchester and elsewhere, Oliver wasn’t prepared to be complicit in what she calls “gross criminal neglect and misfeasance in public office” by those senior officers.

One Black Life Matters; Countless White Lives Don’t.

So she resigned from the Greater Manchester Police, campaigned for the victims, and was instrumental in exposing the so-called Rochdale scandal, in which White working-class girls in the small town of Rochdale had been raped and prostituted by Pakistani men. Nine Pakistanis were convicted, but they represented a new leftist adaptation of an old legal strategy. You’ve heard about specimen charges, selected when a criminal has committed too many offences for a court to deal with speedily and efficiently. The nine Pakistanis in Rochdale were specimen defendants, selected because a “community” contained too many criminals for the authorities to charge without embarrassment.

A nationwide problem

In truth, not just dozens, not just hundreds, but thousands of Pakistani men should be prosecuted and imprisoned for the sex-crimes they have committed against White girls and women in Brave New Britain. This is what Maggie Oliver wrote in 2020:

Operation Augusta engaged with other British police forces and we soon realised there was a nationwide problem, where in other cities and areas, including Liverpool, West Yorkshire, Bradford, Keighley, Birmingham and Bristol, young girls were being groomed and then raped by predominantly Pakistani men. Some examples of this were broadcast in the documentary by Dispatches, titled “Edge of the City”, in August 2004. Subsequent revelations about grooming gangs in other towns and cities such as Rotherham, Telford, Rochdale and Oxford all demonstrated a similar pattern.

By the spring of 2004, I had a detailed list of 207 men who we believed had abused at least 26 young girls. I recall that these men were all Asian. I am certain that these numbers are a massive underestimation of the true scale of child abuse. I know this because the numbers were strictly ring-fenced by the Greater Manchester Police as they did not wish for the investigation to escalate further. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver to the Independent Enquiry in Child Abuse, February 2020)

That is from Maggie Oliver’s Witness Statement to a massive “Independent Enquiry into Child Abuse” that was set up in response to such scandals as the repeated and prolonged failure of the authorities to prosecute Greville Janner, a senior Jewish politician and community-leader, on credible charges of raping gentile boys. The Enquiry hasn’t got to Janner’s case yet or investigated child-abuse among Orthodox Jews. This may be because it’s less an Enquiry than an Unenquiry, designed not to expose the truth but to obscure it. Maggie Oliver has said this about the Enquiry:

There is a massive imbalance in the witnesses, or the participants that have been called, and it meant that the vast majority of the time was being given to those organisations who have failed and are still failing victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. I provided a 58-page witness statement and I wanted to give give evidence to the inquiry, which was denied. Forty pages of my statement were deleted, all the statements were hidden behind numbers and symbols on the website.

You would imagine with a problem identified in the northern towns and cities like Rotherham and Rochdale and Middlesbrough and Halifax, you would have one of those towns included in a public inquiry looking at grooming gangs. Not one was included. So we had an area like Swansea, St Helens, Warwickshire. I know this isn’t a historical problem; it is going on in every town and city in the north of England. Even now, even today and I have information from this weekend [October 2020]. This is not a historical problem.

The establishment don’t want to hear that truth; they peddle out the same platitudes. They always say these are historical failures. These are not historical failures. These are current failures, that every single day children are being groomed by gangs of predatory men. (Maggie Oliver blasts national child abuse inquiry and says not enough is being done to help young survivors, Manchester Evening News, 19th October 2020)

Maggie Oliver is right: “The establishment don’t want to hear that truth.” And why not? Because the truth contradicts the massive lie at the heart of Britain’s new state religion of minority worship. According to this new religion, the White majority are evil oppressors and non-White minorities are saintly victims.

One victim among thousands: Victoria Agoglia was raped, injected with heroin, and murdered by Pakistanis in Manchester.

That’s why the quick and relatively painless murder of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence by a White gang in 1993 has been endlessly re-visited by the national media, while the prolonged and extremely painful murders of the White teenagers Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan by non-White gangs in 2005 were long ago forgotten. Just as in the United States, non-Whites commit violent crime against Whites in Britain much more often than the reverse.

Labour don’t care about “white trash”

Non-Whites also commit massive amounts of violent crime against each other. Minority worship makes this problem worse. Like the martyr-cult of George Floyd in America, the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence has caused thousands of extra deaths in the so-called Black community, because it has made the police ever-more reluctant to enforce the law against non-Whites. But even as the martyr-cult demands that the British police worship non-Whites, it also demands that they neglect the welfare of Whites. Here is Maggie Oliver again, describing how her police colleagues viewed the White victims of Pakistani child-rapists:

Attitudes towards these kids seemed to be ingrained and widespread. They were widely viewed by fellow officers, senior officers and politicians as “white trash” or the “underclass”. In this new millennium, they were seen as “losers”. As a result, they were left to fend for themselves, which they clearly couldn’t do. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver, 2020)

As its name proclaims, the Labour party was founded to serve and defend the White working-class. But in Labour-controlled Manchester, White working-class girls were dismissed as “white trash” and “underclass”. They were abandoned to the violent predation of Pakistani Muslims, whom the Labour party were not founded to serve and whose presence in Britain has always and overwhelmingly been opposed by the White working-class.

Rich Jewish lawyers

This betrayal by Labour is a scandal far greater and far more prolonged than the “anti-Semitism” that supposedly blighted the party under Jeremy Corbyn. As I pointed out in “Labour’s Shame, Jews in Britain are not being raped, prostituted, murdered and ethnically cleansed with the encouragement and complicity of the Labour party. Jews are a rich overclass in Britain, not the victims of decades of violent crime and official neglect. But the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) rides to battle against Labour on behalf of Jews, not of behalf of Whites. The EHRC’s concern for Jews and not for Whites is entirely predictable, given that the EHRC is headed by two rich Jewish lawyers, Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac.

The EHRC is not interested in genuine crimes and genuine suffering. Instead, it is interested in protecting Jewish power and privilege, and in extending the scope and fanaticism of minority-worship. That’s why the EHRC won’t be calling on Maggie Oliver to describe what she witnessed in Manchester after taking leave to nurse her terminally ill husband:

When I returned in September 2005 I found that the investigations [into child-sex abuse] had been closed down. I found that rather than investigating, arresting and prosecuting the serial sexual offenders for the multiple rapes that had been perpetrated against dozens of young girls in Manchester, elements of the Greater Manchester Police were instead just warning the abusers under the Child Abduction Act and allowing them to evade justice. I believe that a link to this might have been the July 2005  bombings in London, in which 52 people were killed by home-grown terrorists using explosive devices on public transport in the capital. Race relations were very fractious as a result, and there was hesitancy, I felt, from the police to take any steps that might inflame racial tensions, including investigating widespread abuse by predominantly Pakistani men.

My gut feeling at the time was that the young victims of sexual abuse in Manchester were overlooked, partly because of their class background, and dismissed as “slags” or “slappers” and “child prostitutes” (a term I utterly reject – no child can consent to be a “prostitute”). There were also no parents to fight for these children, as they were all already in the care system. They did not have a voice and the government and senior authorities within the Greater Manchester Police were not listening. The term often used was that the child victims were making “a lifestyle choice”.

I feel that the closing down of Operation Augusta in 2005 was a travesty and a missed opportunity for the Greater Manchester Police to prevent so much abuse that would later take place. I believe that had they pressed ahead and prosecuted more people implicated in Augusta we would have caught the abusers at the centre of the Operation Span inquiry. I believe that the senior officers who made the decision to close Operation Augusta are guilty of gross criminal neglect and misfeasance in public office. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver, 2020)

In its scale, the abuse in Manchester has plainly been much worse than the abuse in Rotherham. But there has been no scandal about what has gone on in Manchester and is still going on. And there have also been no scandals about abuse in London and Birmingham, Britain’s largest and second-largest cities, which have been enriched by non-White predators just as Manchester has.

Fighting antisemitism, ignoring rape and murder

Why no scandals about abuse in these big cities? Maggie Oliver has answered that: “The establishment don’t want to hear [the] truth.” And recall these other words in her witness statement: the White working-class victims “did not have a voice.” But the Labour party that controls Manchester was founded precisely to give the White working-class a voice – and a sword and shield to defend itself. In Rotherham, Labour snatched that sword and shield away, and left White working-class girls voiceless as they were preyed on by non-Whites. Meanwhile, the Labour MP for Rotherham, life-long feminist Denis MacShane, was working for Jews in far-off London and chairing an “all-party” inquiry into antisemitism which, he proudly boasts, “was hailed as a model of its kind and changed government policy.”

But bad as it was, Labour’s betrayal in Rotherham was only a small part of a much bigger betrayal. Much worse has happened in bigger cities, not just in Yorkshire, but wherever Pakistanis and other predatory non-Whites have been imported against the clearly expressed opposition of the White working-class. And it isn’t just thousands of non-White child-rapists who should be prosecuted, but thousands of treacherous White politicians, officials, academics and journalists, from prime ministers like Tony Blair and David Cameron on down.

Brave New Britain is built on lies

Blair and Cameron were busy working for the tiny Jewish minority when they should have been working for the White majority. And what happens when the majority loses control of its own nation to a predatory and ethnocentric minority like Jews? You get the partly exposed horrors of Rotherham and the worse but still barely exposed horrors of Manchester, Birmingham, London, Sheffield, Leeds and Bradford. Much worse than Rotherham has happened and is still happening in Britain.

Meanwhile, minority-worship and the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence continue to control politics, academia and the media. These false new religions insist that Britain is ravaged by the scourge of “systemic racism”against non-Whites. This is a lie. The real racism is against Whites, and one symptom of that racism is systemic rapism, or the collusion of politicians, police and feminists in decade after decade of rape committed by non-Whites against Whites. Brave New Britain is built on lies, but those lies will sooner or later crumble. Then the prosecution of traitors like Blair and Cameron can begin.

The original post can be viewed at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/11/19/much-worse-than-rotherham-how-british-politicians-police-and-feminists-are-guilty-of-systemic-rapism/ Reproduced by kind permission of Professor Kevin MacDonald and The Occidental Observer.

 

The Great Replacement, Racial Integrity, and Coming Apart

Will Wright

Integrity and Coming Apart

Today, I want to tell you about some thoughts I’ve had, in part prompted by Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart – The State of White America 1960-2010.

If a proud and brave nation is defeated in a war, that nation can still rise again. Even if it is occupied by foreign troops, or ruled by a racial minority. The German nation was defeated in the First World War. But the Germans again became a world power, and in a surprisingly short time.

But if a nation loses its pride and its courage and descends into decadence and degeneracy, then it is very much harder to create a national revival. A nation must keep its integrity. That means its racial integrity and its moral integrity.

I have written before about Race. I have written about The Great Replacement – how all White European nations are being replaced in their homelands by non-White peoples. I have also written about the harmful effects of having an influential and powerful Jewish minority in Britain and the United States in particular.

I want to write about Race again, but to concentrate on White people. We know about the dangers of us being replaced. We know that inter-breeding between races in the Western World will destroy our people. Inter-racial breeding is being heavily promoted by television advertising agencies working for global monopolist capitalists.

But what makes all of this possible? If our people are proud and brave and intelligent, then should we not be rising up against all of this in our hundreds of thousands? Has something happened to make us submissive to our enemies? Have we become stupid, or cowardly, or both?

Edward Dutton has explained that the British nation was becoming increasingly intelligent up to about 1800. But he also explains why this process has gone into reverse since that time, whereby we are now becoming less intelligent. We might be reaching a critical point. I covered this in an earlier letter. Or you can read At Our Wit’s End. Dutton continues this theme in another book, The Past is a Future Country, where he explains how civilisations end. He points out that when Roman civilisation collapsed, it then took about a thousand years for Europeans to reach the same level of civilisation.

But let’s get back to Coming Apart, by Charles Murray.

We must love ourselves – we must love our own people

Enemies of racial nationalism assert that our ideology is about hating other races. They could not be more wrong. Nationalism is about loving our own people and our own country. We need to know what is wrong with our people in order for us to recover and then defeat the existential threat to our people.

If all British people were both mentally and physically healthy and fit, then we would be much better equipped to defend ourselves. If we were still a very moral people then we would be able to resist our enemies far better. These points are often lost on less intelligent people on the fringes of what was our political movement.

Charles Murray is an American academic, so he writes about US society. But there is still much to be learned by British readers of his books. Murray is not a racial nationalist, he is not ‘one of us’. But his commentaries are useful to racial nationalists.

It is good, for a change, to have a book that concentrates on what is wrong with our race, rather than what is wrong with other races. If we can heal our own people then we are unbeatable.

The book is really about how the US upper middle class has spawned a new super-rich, and politically and culturally remote, Upper Class. It is also about how the old working class has given birth to a new White Lower Class, which is in some ways the equivalent of the Black underclass. The Upper Class is much richer, cleverer, and more remote from the rest of US society than any previous rich people. While the Under Class is becoming dumber and lazier than any White working class people ever were previously. Hence the title, Coming Apart.

As a racial nationalist, I would like to see a classless nationalist movement, and a largely classless society. Even if that aim is too idealistic, I would like to see the people at the top of society caring about their own people and their own country. And providing a proper national leadership.

I do not want to see the White people lower down society becoming poorer, lazier, less educated, less healthy, less moral, and more criminal. We do not want White society to be widely divided by class – we want it to be united in a common effort to raise our nation up.

Everything that Charles Murray identifies in America is also happening in the United Kingdom, and other European countries, if to a less extreme degree.

What particularly caught my attention and interested me, was when Murray tells us what America used to be like in 1960, versus what it is like now. He says that America was built on marriage, industriousness, honesty, and religiosity. He devotes a chapter to each of these topics. It is staggering how US society has changed in fifty years throughout my lifetime. I know who I blame for that bad change. But we need to read Kevin MacDonald to find those answers, rather than Charles Murray, as brave and well-intentioned as he is.

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Twitter