Mad as Hell, Author at

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.

Feminism undermines the White European World

Will Wright

Feminism – a Horrible history?

Terry Deary wrote his series of books, Horrible Histories, likely aimed at children and illustrated with humorous cartoons. But to many modern Westerners history is horrible. The naïve and the politically correct would like people in history to have lived as people do today. They think that historical figures should be judged by today’s politically correct standards.

For almost the entirety of human history, including the last few thousand years that we have been civilised, all peoples lived in hierarchical societies. There was little equality. Slavery was common to all civilisations.

There is something else too that is today controversial. For nearly all of human history, males were very heavily dominant. Whether you are accepting of all of this, or you are appalled by this, makes little difference. These are historical facts.

Did our forebears live naturally, as humans are meant to live? Or are we evolving to be more moral, more god-like beings? Most of the world today acknowledges some form of democracy – even in cases when that is a total or partial sham. But all nations are still ruled by elites, even when their rule is obscured. That has always been so, and always will be so. Slavery lives on in some parts of the world, even though Westerners, and the United Nations, condemn this. In some countries, men are still firmly in charge.

Feminism

There have always been some strong women, just as there have always been some weak men. There have always been matriarchs and warrior queens. But they were the exception. Women bore children, reared children, and looked after the home. That was so since the primitive days of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Many believe that men’s and women’s role in a family and within society are biologically determined.

That has become controversial when it once was not. Modern Feminism began as a political movement in the United States. Most of the pioneers were both Jewish and left-wing. If anyone doubts that then look on Wikipedia for ‘List of Jewish feminists’. Names like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin spring to mind.

List of Jewish feminists – Wikipedia

When I think how many different organised Jewish groups have subverted the Western World in degenerate ‘art’, psychology, anthropology, domination of high finance, the creation of Communism, Hollywood films, pornography, gangsterism etc, then I am immediately distrustful of any cause or group that is heavily dominated by Jewish activists.

There are two things that make me opposed to feminism: that it seems to go against the natural order, and that it is Jewish. In many ways, we in the White European world have become a feminised society. That might well mean that we are both a more left-wing society and at a disadvantage in any competition with the non-White world, which is still more aggressive and masculine.

The Feminised Society

Feminists in Western countries have attempted to introduce the idea that masculinity is somehow “toxic”. The obvious implication of that idea is that we should have much less masculinity. That society should be much more feminised. But if all human societies historically were always male-dominated, then it is far too early to know the long-term effects of female-domination. Feminised society is out-of-step with world history. Doesn’t that sound rather subversive?

When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, she was the only woman in her first Cabinet. There were few women in Parliament at that time. Now there are a great many. The BBC’s Daily Politics has a presenter and four guests. Often there is only one man out of five people present. There is a predominance of female newsreaders and political interviewers on most channels. There are also a great many female political commentators in the Western newspapers.

Women will say that they like men who are considerate and listen to them. Men who will do what their wife wants. But then they often marry men who are not at all like their described ‘ideal man’ – they marry very masculine men.

If there is such a thing as ‘toxic masculinity’, then two of its worst manifestations must be the rape of women and serious violence against other men. Black men are disproportionately involved in both those kinds of violence. But oddly, the feminists always attack White male patriarchy, when they mention ‘toxic masculinity’. Both Black men and Black women have more testosterone than their White counterparts. A Japanese scientist suggested that this was because Black Africans are an older and more primitive race of humans. No White scientist alive today would dare to publicly suggest that.

Just as the feminists do not mention Black males who rape, neither do they demand action on organised Pakistani gangs which systematically and repeatedly rape under-age White girls. Is not that ‘toxic masculinity’?

Subversion or immaturity?

When the White European nations ruled much of the world, they were very collective-minded. People thought in terms of family, neighbourhood, their church, and their nation. Today people are both materialistic and individualistic, and often lack any direction. But some nations and races are much more collective-minded today.

Many White people do not believe in anything higher than themselves. Families are dysfunctional, neighbourhoods and churches are in decline. People do not owe allegiance to either God or their country. That will need to change if there is to be a White European racial revival. White society cannot afford divisions – not class, not generational, not religious, and not between the sexes.

White people need to believe in big ideas. Big collective ideas. They need to care about their nations and not materialistic and selfish concerns.

Is feminism born out of materialism and selfishness? Is it simply an immature demand for rights and equality? Or has it been deliberately created to undermine White European civilisation – like much else that is Jewish in origin? It makes you wonder.

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

‘Ridley Road’, BBC lies and the re-writing of history

Bill Baillie, the editor of Nation Revisited, has had his web site sabotaged by the likes of Google. He has asked that Anglo-Celtic.org re-publish the material that Google has objected to, and in the interests of freedom of expression we are pleased to do so. The following article relates to a BBC Television history-rewriting exercise in the form of a highly ficticious, extreme left-wing slanted drama called "Ridley Road", broadcast in the autumn of 2021.

I posted Martin Webster's article on my blog European Outlook but it was taken down by Google for violating their Community Guidelines. I thank Anglo-Celtic for defending free speech.

Bill Baillie

The information you mention from Mike Whine, a one-time ‘Defence Director’ of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, to the effect that the creation of the Jewish terrorist ’62 Group’ was prompted by the National Socialist Movement’s violent attacks on sundry Jewish and Israeli organisations in the UK is utter tosh.

This invention was surely provided to cover for gratuitous Jewish violence, indeed terrorism, by the 62 Group gang who were inspired by the Zionist terrorist group the Irgun and mobilised, among others, by Soho club owner and gangster Harry Bidney.

I have never heard of the Jewish/Israeli organisation which Whine specified – and I have been taking the Jewish Chronicle for most of my adult life. I certainly never heard those names mentioned in the (very small) membership circles of the NSM – let alone where their HQs were, let alone plans to attack them.

During my time in the NSM (mid-1962 to late-1963) the NSM was too preoccupied staging publicity stunts such as:

The “Free Britain from Jewish Control” rally in Trafalgar Square in July 1962. No more than 15 NSM members were present at this, confronted by about 2,000 Jews! My attendance got me expelled from the League of Empire Loyalists and so I migrated to the NSM.

Later that month smuggling the American Nazi Party leader Lincoln Rockwell into the UK contrary to a government banning order.

Ending that month, the ‘Camp in the Cotswolds’, attended by no more than 20 NSM members, along with two or three Germans, the strange Anglo-Greek , Hinduism convert, “NS philosopher” Savitri Devi – and Lincoln Rockwell.

These stunts infuriated the government – to say nothing of Jewry! – so the NSM was still rewarded with a Police raid on its Notting Hill, West London, HQ. The prosecution of the movement’s leadership (Colin Jordan, John Tyndall, Ian Roland Kerr-Ritchie and Denis Pirie) followed soon after on Public Order Act charges to do with running a private army. They were found not guilty of doing this, but guilty of “giving reasonable apprehension” that they were! They were sentenced, variously, to between three and nine months in jail.

During this period the membership of the NSM, such as it was, melted away. The movement’s HQ, now my habitation, was left in my charge (a 19 year old!) Nocturnal attacks on the building were frequent. Only two or three supporters ever called by – one of whom, decades later – was identified at his funeral by a retired Police officer as a former salaried agent of MI6!

The reason why I give this brief 1962/1963 history of the NSM is to illustrate that the leadership was too swept up by events to contemplate, let alone organise, the kind of terrorism alleged by Mike Whine, and that the membership was so vanishingly small and so quickly scattered to the winds, that there were no ‘soldiers’ available to carry out such attacks – which, to the best of my recollection, were not reported by the media at that time.

John Tyndal, Denis Pirie and I quit the NSM in late 1963 in order to set up the Greater Britain Movement. We left the NSM in the hands of Colin Jordan and his newly-married French wife Francoise Dior. Thereafter, Jordan tended to spend his time in the North Yorkshire moors, while she took charge of the London HQ.

Under her influence (so it was claimed in court) a couple of silly teenage lads attempted in 1964 to burn down two synagogues. They failed and along with Mrs Jordan, they were jailed. That is the nearest the NSM ever came to acts of terrorism. Nothing remotely of the order alleged by Mike Whine and – NB! – more than two years after the 62 Group was deploying its cosh, razor and fire-bomb activities.

Mike Whine’s pretext for the formation and vicious gangster activities of the 62 Group does not bear scrutiny. That, of course, will not have deterred the BBC from basing a TV series on such mendacity. You, Philip Gegan and I have discovered the enormity of the BBC’s appetite for lies when we came to complain about a BBC Radio 4/BBC Sounds series ‘about’ the National Front – in particular, the August 1977 “Battle of Lewisham”.

More of than anon.

Best wishes to all patriots,

Martin

Non-white gangs of youths can be violent racists, too

Martin Webster

This blog post was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on January 6, 2012. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page.

Editorial note: The following letter was published, with some deletions, in The Independent regarding the murder convictions of David Dobson and Gary Norris, both White, for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence, who was Black, of West Indian origin. (The link that formerly existed to this letter on The Independent‘s web site has since been edited and leads to a different page.) This is Martin Webster's original letter, posted here with his permission:

Sir:

All murders are to be deplored; all murderers should be brought to justice; and the media should give coverage to all such crimes.

This said, I note the different treatment accorded by the Metropolitan Police, the judiciary and the media to the murders by teenage “racist gangs” of 18 year old Stephen Lawrence in Eltham, SE London, in April 1993 and 15 year old Richard Everitt in Somers Town, Camden, North London, in August 1994. Stephen was of West Indian origin; Richard was white.

The circumstances of the murders were similar. Both were attacked by gangs of teenagers who before and after the murders expressed violent racial hatred. Stephen was murdered by a white gang. Richard was murdered by a Bengali gang. Neither victim behaved in any way to provoke even verbal abuse, let alone being stabbed.

Massive media publicity, sustained over nearly two decades, followed Stephen’s case. There was a visit by the Home Secretary to the murder scene where a public monument was erected. A public judicial inquiry was conducted in which the police were denounced as “institutionally racist”. Money was found to fund a private prosecution, which failed.

As we now know, two men, Gary Dobson and David Norris, have been convicted after a second trial at the Old Bailey of Stephen’s murder and sentenced to life imprisonment of which they must serve a minimum 15+ years and 14+ years respectively. The judge called for Stephen’s other attackers to be brought to justice because they were engaged in a “joint exercise”. This has been echoed by the entire media and political establishment.

With all this, “Stephen Lawrence” has become a household name. Richard Everitt’s name was never in the headlines for long enough for the public mind to retain it.

Eleven Bengali youths (one as old as 20) were arrested in connection with Richard’s murder. Only two came to trial, Badrul Miah and Showkat Akbar. There were no calls for all the attackers to be prosecuted on a “joint enterprise” basis. Akbar was found guilty of violent disorder and sentenced to three years, of which he served 18 months. Miah was sentenced to life but let out on licence after 11 years despite the trial judge describing it as an “unprovoked racist attack”. The media tried to pressure Richard’s parents to say the murder was not racially motivated.

There was no visit by the Home Secretary to Somers Town, no public monument; no public judicial inquiry; and virtual silence from the local MP, Frank Dobson.

I will not attempt to second-guess the jury in the Dobson and Norris trial. I simply wish to suggest that the verdict against them should not be taken as proof that the population of this country, at least, the white working class section of it, is getting justice from the police, the judiciary and the media because they all subscribe to the notion that in Britain only white people and never black people commit offences motivated by racial hatred.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Webster.

The Black Crime Wave and The Media Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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