Books and influencers for White racial nationalists

Will Wright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who to read?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is British Nationalism really “right wing”?

Will Wright

Out-dated terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Nationalism and Realism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does British Racial Nationalism Have Any Friends in the Establishment?

In the months since the historic Brexit vote on June 23rd 2016 there have been a surprisingly high number of establishment figures that have come out as being in favour of our withdrawal from the so-called "European Union". People such as Lord Lawson, Andrew Neill, Michael Caine and John Cleese, as well as many Tory and Labour MPs. In this thought-provoking post, Will Wright discusses whether this is a trend that is likely to grow as the British public gradually wakes up to the nightmare they are being sleep-walked into and start to do something about it.

Do we have friends in high places?

Does British nationalism have any friends in our county’s establishment? This might seem a strange question to ask. Some nationalists might have taken it for granted that everyone in the establishment and the political class is beyond redemption. Does it matter?

When a country has a revolution, or a fundamental change of government, many people recognise that one ruling group of people has been replaced by another. But, that’s not the full story. The country itself is still much the same. The civil service, the police and the military are mostly the same people as before.

Some senior people in those institutions find it fairly easy to go from supporting the old regime to supporting the new one. Some journalists, unless they are very ideologically committed, might carry on much as before. Revolutionary regimes tend to purge those they regard as ideological enemies, just as the previous order would purge those it considered dangerous revolutionaries – but most of the people in the country are the same people in the same roles.

Governments change when a new party wins an election, or in some countries, when there is a violent revolution. But something happens before that point. Something that is subtler. Some people who are very much part of the establishment, politicians, judges, senior civil servants and policemen and military leaders, gradually change their allegiances from the old order to the new.

It is this change before a revolution happens that enables it to happen. All new regimes had supporters in the old order. This seems to have been true of the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Nazi takeover in Germany.

There might be some in the British establishment who have always been patriotic and broadly in agreement with us. Such people might have been browbeaten into silence, at the moment, waiting for a patriotic mass movement to emerge. After all, shouldn’t we expect the military to be nationalistic? Shouldn’t we expect judges and policemen to believe in law and order? Shouldn’t we expect some common ground with journalists and politicians ‘on the right’?

When a movement is very certain about what it wants to achieve and very active and determined about achieving it, then something magical happens. The movement becomes very charismatic. The magnetic pull of the movement becomes ever greater and more and more people are attracted. Of course, people in establishment circles are not immune from this. Some of them prepare to make peace with a new regime and get ready to serve it.

So, does British racial nationalism have any supporters in the establishment? At the moment this is not at all clear. The conditions are not right to bring about open support – there is no charismatic mass movement. Anyone who declared any kind of support for nationalism would be purged.

During the nineteen-seventies, the National Front was numerically small compared to the established parties and those of the far-left. But, through a spirit of activism, lead by National Activities Organiser, Martin Webster, it was becoming charismatic. Some members of established parties defected to the NF. Many policemen, especially London policemen, supported the NF. So, too did prison warders and many London postal workers.

John Tyndall boasted, in Spearhead magazine, that the establishment would be frightened if it knew of the strength of support among those groups. Tyndall was probably too quick to mention this. The establishment did notice – and took steps to reverse the trend. The military, the police and the prison service all now ban nationalists from joining. In all the big public service trade unions, the far-left are in charge. They join the management in driving out nationalists.

All big public organisations have ‘Equality and Diversity’ courses for their employees. The unions state, “no platform for fascists and racists”.

So, is all lost? No.

Nationalists need to have a very clear vision of the future that we are going to achieve – long-term and well as short-term. There seems to be something mystical about thinking very long-term. Once a body of people has a vision they must be very active in pursuit of that goal. Then the charisma and magnetic pull takes over. People are attracted to conviction politicians – they can tell when someone is authentic. Once a mass movement is born, then the conditions are in place for friends in high places to declare themselves.

Most people pay lip-service to ‘Equality and Diversity’ but privately regard it as a form of brainwashing. The unions are in terminal decline. Not many people join or support them anymore. The old political parties have become alienated from voters – and alienated from their own rank-and-file members.

Banning nationalists from certain professions will be counterproductive in the long run. This practice might even be challenged in the courts if someone declared themselves to be a nationalist and then was refused a job. The establishment’s equality and diversity legislation can be used against it.

We need someone with vision to build the mass movement.

Some thoughts on the State of British Nationalism

Will Wright gives his thoughts on the current state of British Nationalism. This is, of necessity, a brief review, but perhaps it will stimulate thought and discussion via the Comments section below.

It is very clear that none of the three main parties will pursue policies to advance our survival as a nation, let alone our success. The British people need a political party dedicated to promoting their interests. Such a party needs to be racial-nationalist in character, democratic and with a proper legal constitution. At the moment I cannot see anything that fits the bill. But let us take a look at some of the groups and dead ends out there.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) – has aimed for a level of professionalism on a par with the Establishment parties. It appears to have a constitution and a rule book and a ruling executive. It appears that Nigel Farage would have liked to have abolished the executive and have an even more personal leadership based on his own personality and power. UKIP did well to win most of the British seats in the EU Parliament. It also won about four million votes, which pressured Prime Minister, David Cameron into holding an In/Out referendum on EU membership.

But UKIP is far too worried about respectability and not being seen as a ‘far-right’ or racialist party. I believe that this timidity has limited its potential and more or less consigned it to being just another Establishment party. It has gone into decline after the EU referendum. It may have been used as a vehicle to draw support away from the BNP.

British National Party (BNP) – born of John Tyndall’s desire to have absolute control over any party that he led, it doesn’t have a proper democratic and legal constitution. It was stagnant for many years before Nick Griffin mounted a coup. It therefore did not even meet Tyndall’s needs. It started to grow and win local elections under Griffin. The political climate favoured its growth and the BNP worked hard to recruit people.

But Griffin squandered the opportunity to educate patriotic recruits and turn them into lifelong, ideological racial nationalists. Too many party people did not really know what they were fighting for, other than a vague notion that they were against political correctness. Griffin seemed to be too concerned about being seen to be respectable. He wanted a break with the past and that’s what the BNP got. For me, he broke the ideological link to previous nationalists going back to just after the Second World War. Many BNP members thought that their only enemy was Islamism.

Under Tyndall, the Party’s fault was a dictatorial leadership. Under Griffin this fault remained and he added a dilution of nationalist ideology to the problems.

English Defence League (EDL) – has many faults. If nationalists are going to win in Britain, then it needs to be done by a political party winning seats consistently and then winning power. But the EDL isn’t nationalist, or racialist, or even a political party. It was founded in Luton as a kind of crusade against Islamism. It sees its identity as ‘English’ rather than ‘British’ at a time when the continuance of the United Kingdom is under threat. On the surface, the EDL isn’t concerned about respectability. It attracts politically illiterate football supporters. They know something is wrong with the country and they want some kind of action. In the hands of a racial nationalist party they could be educated and turned into dedicated activists. Instead they hold disorderly street demonstrations and shout football terrace type chants. Oddly, the unrespectable leaders seem at pains to state that they are pro- Israel.

National Action – has been declared to be a terrorist group, by Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. This was because they applauded the assassination of the Searchlight/Hope Not Hate-supporting Labour MP, Jo Cox by a mentally unwell man. Masked men giving stiff right arm salutes is not the right path for nationalists. The Establishment is looking for any excuse to ban nationalist groups. Islamic terrorist supporters are crying out for ‘even-handedness’ – they want nationalist groups banned. It is idiocy to give the Government that excuse. In any case, terrorism cannot succeed. Only a mass movement and a political party can effect the necessary change to our country. NA is a dangerous dead end and authentic nationalists should avoid it like the plague.

Britain First – seems to have punched above its weight. This small group has a pair of very brave, very active leaders, Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen. Their skilled use of the internet to promote their activities has seen them get international attention. Provided they can recruit and educate nationalists, then they might have the beginning of a good nationalist party. They need to turn their publicity into election success. It may be that they are, like the BNP and the EDL, too focused on Islamism.

National Front – this is a well-meant attempt to resurrect the original party of the same name. This is a tiny party and some of its members are not old enough to remember the golden years of the nineteen seventies. At the time of writing, it is not making its presence felt on a big enough scale nationally. Has some good people, but not enough of them.

British Movement – this is supposed to be a revival of the original party of that name. In my opinion it is a complete waste of time and energy – a real dead end. It doesn’t fight elections or hold demonstrations. It is an inward-looking group of Hitler enthusiasts. Some of its people don’t even know much about Hitler. If you are an authentic British racial nationalist, then don’t waste your time with this group.

London Forum – is useful for getting nationalists together to hear speeches on various themes. The speeches can then be re-produced on You Tube for dissemination to a wider audience. Its success may be due to its being not party-aligned. If one party emerged as highly dominant on the nationalist scene, then that non-alignment ought to change. Everyone serious about success should then join that party – like what happened in 1967 with the National Front.

*****

Serious nationalists should consider how they are going to succeed. Here are some suggested guidelines.

1.       Know your ideology. Know national and international history. Read books by nationalists and, sometimes, our ideological enemies. Know what constitutes nationalist thinking – and what does not. But don’t be too keen to exclude people. Know what you are fighting for.

2.       Loyalty – be loyal to the Idea, the Cause. But be loyal to the movement, and importantly, be loyal to each other.

3.       Be brave. Physically and also psychologically. Nationalists will be assailed from all sides.

4.       Be self-disciplined.

5.       Don’t be overly bothered about respectability. But don’t go in the opposite direction and try to be politically extreme or sensationalist for its own sake.

6.       Recognise that our ability to persuade our fellow countrymen is the key to our success. Develop your skills as a persuader and a political propagandist. Read up on influence and persuasion techniques. Know your enemies’ arguments and hone your debating skills.

7.       Understand that winning a general election is the only way that a nationalist party can succeed in the UK. Shun any talk of infiltrating the Establishment parties or of armed revolts or terrorist activity.

8.       Unity. One big nationalist party may succeed – a myriad of tiny nationalist groups never will. Many of the groups mentioned have members that might make good members of a new reformed nationalist movement.

9.       Leadership. While we should reject dictatorship and personality cults, leadership is important to success. It comes in different forms and operates on different levels. There are organisers, speakers, writers, website-designers, administrators, fund-raisers and distributers of books and magazines.