It should be obvious to anyone who reads this blog that the BBC is heavily biased in favour of everything that is destructive of our values, our culture, our nation and our race. Not only that, but that it has been so biased since at least the early 1960s, when the obnoxious Hugh Greene was appointed as Director-General.
Greene was reputed to have said in private, at the time of his appointment, “We are going to use this organisation to change the way the rest of the country thinks. We want them to see stuff they don’t like. We don’t really care if they complain” (italics added). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Greene. It was he who made the presumptuous statement in 1968 that “we are all Marxists now”.
To understand what has been going on, we must remember that, like all national institutions that have been captured by the Left, the BBC has to continually engage in a policy of deception, so that its nefarious activities can remain hidden from the public.
What they tell us….
For example, the BBC regularly assures everyone that it maintains the highest standards of impartial news reporting and analysis. It tells us that its drama and other entertainment programmes reflect life in modern Britain. It would have us believe that its treatment of contemporary history is objective and untainted by any bias for or against any particular point of view or political affiliation. And they protest that in matters that are controversial, all sides are represented in debates, discussions, and interviews.
If any listener or viewer feels that any programme or presenter has contravened this high standard then a complaints procedure is in place, including the right of appeal. Now we have Ofcom too, as an extra layer of protection, supposedly.
The BBC’s 2016 Charter commits the Corporation to “provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world”. The same Charter also commits the Corporation to “championing freedom of expression” (ha,ha).
… and what they do
The reality is quite different. The BBC routinely ignores its Charter. Whilst hiding behind a veneer of respectability, the Corporation spews out heavily biased news and views, the re-writing of history, woke poison, and misinformation designed to confuse its viewers and listeners, especially vulnerable young people.
Even establishment figures are seeing through it all
Lately there’s been a development that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Some establishment politicians and former BBC employees are accusing the Corporation of being heavily biased in favour of allowing a never-ending stream of foreign migrants into Britain.
That such a policy is turning into a disastrous large-scale catastrophe for Britain hardly needs saying here. People like us have been saying that since at least the 1960s. Recent migrant riots in France, where cities like Paris have had large areas reduced to smoking rubble, and anarchy reigns, only underline the insanity of “open door” immigration policies.
Now we have Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative Party leader, saying that the BBC’s ingrained political bias has led to an “instinctive cultural sneer” when covering news about immigration. According to him, the BBC is now a branch of the “liberal Left”, completely out of tune with the public that it is supposed to serve. For such a long-standing and senior member of the Conservative Party to say that, things must be extremely bad.
An “institutional liberal bias”
And who would have imagined, even just a few years ago, that John Humphrys, the leading BBC newsreader and presenter of the odious Today Programme for many years, would now be accusing his former employers of having an “institutional liberal bias” and, again, of being out of touch with public opinion. Needless to say, he made these sack-worthy accusations on his retirement from the BBC.
Helen Boaden worked for the BBC for over 30 years as a news director at BBC Radio and BBC News, and Controller of BBC 7 and BBC Radio 4. She said as far back as 2013 that the BBC had a “deep liberal bias”, and did not take seriously the views of organisations that were opposed to mass migration into Britain (such as Migration Watch).
A glance at our Campaign to Abolish the BBC will show that the corporation
1. has abandoned all pretence at being impartial,
2. is engaged in a serious and sustained attempt to rewrite history from an extreme left wing viewpoint, and
3. has a so-called complaints procedure that is nothing but a sick joke.
In view of all this, we at Anglo-Celtic are running a series of posts, of which this is the first, to enlarge on what we say in our Campaign to Abolish the BBC.
Reproduced here by permission of The Occidental Observer and Professor Kevin MacDonald – a wide-ranging article covering several subjects, including the Peter Simple column that used to grace the pages of the Daily Telegraph most of the time from the 1950s to the end of the twentieth century. In particular it informs us about hogwash from the UK’s Jewish Board of Deputies, the murder of the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israel de Haan (an anti-Zionist), and Jewish hypocrisy in demanding the right to exclusivity for Israel and Jews living in gentile nations but “diversity” for everyone else.
None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949-2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.
“Read off the result in prejudons”
The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Nathan (1913-2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical ‘Peter Simple’ column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:
THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a ‘racist incident’ as ‘any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’ is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).
Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of ‘racism’, press the easy-to-find ‘action’ button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple Column, The Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001).
It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing ‘the race relations industry’ (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and ‘hate’ can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase ‘internationally recognised,’ which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is ‘recognised.’
Adopt the definition, already!
Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is ‘internationally recognised.’ Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:
Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism
Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.
Marie said: ‘This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.
The phrase ‘internationally recognised’ is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is ludicrously vague and elastic:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)
The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)
Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:
One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadiumOne Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena
Note the slogan ‘One Nation. One Siyum.’ A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity – the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).
Murder of a poet
But what is the ‘One Nation’ that has just completed ‘One Siyum’? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, ‘One Nation’ obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means ‘Union of Israel,’ that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for ‘divine intervention.’
Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesman, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israel de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become ‘non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,’ and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.
A Jewish supremacist party
And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called ‘far right’ and condemned with labels like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic,’ and ‘extremist.’ Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.
The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far ‘more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide’ than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.
Inbreeding and ethnocentrism
And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say ‘countries’ advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as ‘One Nation,’ it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. ‘Nation‘ ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning ‘to be born.’ Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.
This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes ‘the best job in the world.’
The Fine Line
The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of ‘Who decides who is British?’ It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and ‘lazy assumptions’ make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of ‘Welcoming the Stranger’:
Jewniversity: Sarah Fine
Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity
I usually ask the subjects of this column – ‘is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?’. ‘No’, is the occasional curt response.
But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.
Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?
To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?
Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.
On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself – indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.
But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders – doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) – can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?
But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.
Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.
Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is ‘our’ way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?
Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents – the first in the family to attend university – settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.
She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious – but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: ‘And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt’. (Who decides who is British?, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)
There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British – and who is American, German, French, Swedish, Australian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his ‘vote’ outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, ‘[w]hether he was granted entry’ was hugely important to him.’
And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.
The core of mendacity
Meanwhile, Jews in America, Germany, France, Sweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a ‘nation of immigrants’ and a ‘melting pot‘ for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidele Mutwarasibo, who has ‘a PhD in Sociology,’ and Salome Mbugua, who has ‘a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.’ And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:
The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: ‘Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.’ You might as well say that ‘Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united’ or ‘Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.’ And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.
Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites
Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: ‘Jews can, goys can’t.’ Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning ‘Union of Israel,’ remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.
Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter
And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidele Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as ‘Our Man in the Dail’ (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s ‘definition of anti-Semitism’ is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?
“Those who make peacefulrevolution impossible….make violent revolutioninevitable.” – John F. Kennedy
Everyone agrees that the British Government is making a complete mess of Brexit. The only question is whether it is fortuitous or deliberate.
In order to understand what has happened we have to recognise a few home truths about
the European Union,
British politicians, and
the British electorate.
1. The European Union
As racial nationalists we know that from its very inception in the late 1950s the European Union (then known as the “Common Market”, or European Economic Community) was but a staging post on the Global Elite’s march towards a multi-racial “World Government”.
In the early twentieth century, a leading global elitist of the day, James Paul Warburg, a US financier, stated that, “We are going to have a World Government. The only question is whether it will be by conquest or consent.”
Ordinary folk, of course, aren’t meant to know anything about this. Who in their right mind, whichever (Western) country they live in, would want to live under the rule of a “World Government”?
If freedom consists in part of limited government, then a World Government, and even a European Government (which is what the EU will shortly become), is the exact opposite of freedom.
A World Government, by definition, would be a tyranny. If just one nation were allowed to leave (just as we are trying to leave the EU) then it would be a World Government no more. So if we leave the European Union, then the future of the EU itself is under threat. How can it call itself the “European Union” without Europe’s most powerful nation in its ranks? No wonder the EU’s eurocrats and our own peculiar Euro-federalists are desperate to prevent us from leaving.
A Political Entity
Until the 1990s European Federalists could argue with some conviction that the set-up was a purely economic arrangement. Their case was that European countries had to pool their economic resources in order to compete with the likes of the United States and Japan. Of course, that argument was flawed in that both those countries were individual nations and not “communities” of nations. But in terms of population numbers and market size it had a veneer of credibility.
With further Treaties being signed by the leaders of the “member states” – Maastricht in 1992, Lisbon in 2007 – the surreptitious transformation of the former EEC into a political union gained pace. The conspirators (for that’s in effect what they are) have a clever ploy. They hold a grand meeting at which a pre-prepared “treaty” is signed by the various career politicians misrepresenting each “member state”. Each “treaty” has far-reaching implications, and takes vast swathes of sovereignty away from “member states”. But the date it comes into effect is invariably one or two years into the future, by which time the mainstream mass media will have conveniently forgotten about it. Few critics will pick up on exactly what is going on.
At Maastricht the conspirators felt confident enough to come out into the open and proclaim their precious entity the “European Union” consisting not of sovereign nations but of “member states”.
All along the policy of the Global elite has been to make it more and more difficult for any country to leave this “Union”. The “Customs Union” was the core part of the original EEC established in 1958 and the “Single Market” and the over-riding jurisdiction of the so-called “European Court of Justice” were concepts introduced in 1993 and extended in 2007. As we’ve seen over the last 31 months, any attempt by a “member state” to leave the EU can now be made so complicated that most ordinary people will give up trying to understand what it’s all about.
So we have the absurd arguments over whether we should leave the “Single Market” or the “Customs Union” as well as the EU, and over whether there should be a “hard border” or a “soft border” between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Oh, it’s all so complex.
Or is it?
A One Way Street
No. It’s not complex at all. Not once you realise that you’re supposed to be confused. Once you grasp that the EU has always been designed as a one-way street. As the wolf’s lair to which there are many footprints going in, but none coming out.
The EU’s leading politicians – Jean Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk, Guy Verhoffstadt, Michael Barnier and all the rest – believe they can bully the UK into remaining a “member state”, in defiance of the express wishes of the British people. They have a timetable, and they don’t want it delayed. For example, by 2022 they want the pound sterling abolished and the Euro to be the currency of all “member states”.
National armed forces together with NATO (ostensibly) provide for the defence of European countries. But the EU wants a “European Army”, the only purpose for which can be the suppression of internal dissent within the EU. It wants control over our financial services, fisheries and oil supplies, and more within a few short years. It wants the process of continuous and endless centralisation and federalisation to continue until no European nations remain.
European Arrest Warrant vs Habeas Corpus
These things are never talked about by the Remainers. This is especially true of the so-called “European Arrest Warrant”. This charming little surprise will be foisted upon us shortly if we don’t break free. Many of our historic rights guaranteeing the freedom of the individual are enshrined in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. These will be quietly abolished under the “harmonisation” of European laws – a process that has been under way for many years now, though limited thus far to various aspects of commercial law.
The European Arrest Warrant will give legal force to the arrest of any British citizen in his home, and his removal to custody, which could be in any European country. The pretext could be the alleged transgression of some Euro regulation or other, quite possibly on the unsubstantiated allegation of anyone else, perhaps politically motivated. Perhaps, even, for simply questioning the official narrative of the “Holocaust” story. This happens regularly in European countries.
There the British citizen could languish in a prison cell for months or years while the Euro authorities search for evidence to use against him in court. This is the situation in most European countries. They’ve never had Habeas Corpus, so it doesn’t much matter to them. If our Remainers are so sincere in wanting European integration then why aren’t they prominent in telling their European friends to adopt safeguards similar to our Habeas Corpus, instead of going along with their calls for the abolition of ours?
Has anything like this been used by our negotiating team to strengthen their hand? That the rest of the EU should have similar standards of protection against tyranny? After all, these Europeans are forever banging on about “human rights”. Perhaps they don’t mean OUR human rights.
2. British politicians
The two leading politicians involved in the Brexit betrayal are (1) David Cameron, the former Tory Prime Minister who made the promise of a referendum in the run-up to the 2015 General Election, and (2) Theresa May, the current (as of January 2019) Prime Minister, who has taken it upon herself, as someone in favour Britain remaining in the EU, to lead the nation in withdrawing from it (click here for a summary of the top 40 horrors lurking in her so-called Brexit “deal”).
Cameron was an Establishment politician from the start. He entered Parliament in 2001 and in less than five years he was the Leader of the Opposition. To say that he “won” the 2010 General Election would stretch the imagination somewhat. The 1997-2010 Labour government became so unpopular with the electorate, that it would have been difficult for the Tories to lose that election. But they nearly managed it, largely on account of the refusal of Cameron to listen to the real concerns and worries of ordinary British people.
Eton-educated, a former member of the notorious “Bullingdon” Club at Oxford University, and born into considerable wealth, he is one of those people who take for granted that they are part of the ruling class and that they know better than ordinary folk. He should have been ditched as Tory leader following the election, for not having swept to power with a triple-digit majority. As it was, he had to crawl into bed with the Lib-Dems in forming a coalition government.
Cameron’s “Cunning Plan”
From 2010 to 2015 he became concerned about the increasing popularity of UKIP. Large numbers of Tory members and voters, disillusioned with the wishy-washy policies of the Conservative Party under Cameron, were defecting to UKIP. So he had a brilliant idea. Why not prevent a disaster at the 2015 election by promising voters a referendum, just as campaigned for by UKIP?
He believed he could neutralise UKIP, attract badly needed ex-Tories back to the fold, and get a decent majority, all in one go!
On top of that, he would be able to use it to squeeze a few “concessions” from the EU and present them to voters as a good reason to vote to remain a member. The mainstream media and the rest of the Remain Establishment could be relied on to launch “Project Fear” and cajole the electorate to vote to remain. The awkward issue of membership of the European Union would be kicked into touch for another forty years, by which time we would be so entangled in the Euro super-state that there would be no chance of ever leaving it.
Cameron felt so confident that this bold move would work that he went on television to announce that it would be a simple “Yes” or “No” vote decided by a simple majority and that it would be binding on the government (provided it was a Tory government, of course). Not only that, but that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the Single Market and all the other sub-departments of the European Union, such as the European Court of Justice. There would be no half-way house. And if the result was to leave the EU then he, David Cameron, would carry out the wishes of the majority of British voters.
Nigel Farage
Let’s take a break here to consider another leading figure in all this – Nigel Farage. He was the leader of UKIP for many years, is the leader of the UKIP MEPs, and has his own radio show on LBC. While he is by no means a racial nationalist, he deserves great credit for forcing Cameron to hold the historic 2016 referendum. He is a fluent advocate of our exit from the European Union and must have had a tremendous influence in getting us the successful result. Future historians will undoubtedly identify him as a key figure in helping Britain regain its freedom and independence.
A Crippling Blow To The Global Elite’s Plans
We all know what happened. By 52 per cent to 48 per cent, a majority of over one million, the British people voted to leave. So did Cameron honour his pledge to take us out? He was a career politician, remember, so he cut and ran, resigning as Prime Minister, and soon after as an MP as well, in order to take his place at the feeding trough of retired Establishment politicians.
That left the stage open for the appearance of Theresa May.
Remainer PM + Brexit Negotiations = Farce
There weren’t many suitable contenders to lead the Tory Party (and thereby become Prime Minister) that could command the support of a sufficient number of Tory MPs. That’s how Theresa May managed to secure the keys to 10 Downing Street. She had, for political career purposes, kept a low profile during the referendum campaign, but for all that was at heart an ardent Remainer.
One of her first comments as Prime Minister was that “Brexit means Brexit”. What she meant, of course, was that “Brexit means Brexit means whatever I want it to mean.”
Theresa May had just completed a stint as the longest-serving Home Secretary. As such she had tremendous influence over immigration policy. Under her tenure the flood of migrants from the third world continued unabated, in spite of regular promises by her to stop it.
She turned out to be just as remote from the ordinary British public as Cameron was. Her husband, Philip May, is a past Chairman of the Oxford Union and a relationship manager for investment firm Capital International, a firm handling millions of pounds’ worth of investments for private wealthy clients the world over. One of her and her husband’s closest friends is the Chief Rabbi. They dine regularly together. Presumably the food is kosher.
At the time of writing the process of “negotiating” a withdrawal of Britain from the European Union, as directed by a majority of voters, has taken a staggering 31 months. All this because we’ve been told that we can’t just leave – we have to have an “agreement”, or “deal”, with the EU. The trouble is that the EU negotiators obviously won’t give us one. They are not acting in a bona fide manner for the reasons we’ve discussed.
They know our party politicians as the cowardly shower that they are. They believe they can extract billions of pounds from us and then not give us a proper withdrawal. They will make sure the UK is still tied to the European Union for years and years. Until a future date when some event will happen whereby the vote to leave can be forgotten. Then Britain will be officially back in the fold as nothing more than a “member state” – the term the EU contemptuously uses to describe formerly sovereign nations that have foolishly succumbed.
The so-called Article 50 process, the decision to seek a “deal”, and now the prospect of Parliament passing a law outlawing a “no deal” departure (more on that in a moment) are all ways designed long ago to frustrate the process of withdrawing from the EU. And that’s what May has intended all along. She is a false leader, an Establishment stooge, and she has faked the whole Brexit process from the beginning. She has engineered, or has gone along with the Establishment traitors who have engineered, the mess that Brexit has become.
Why? So that the majority who voted in favour of leaving the wretched EU will throw up their hands in despair and say to themselves, “We’re never going to get out of the EU, so we may as well accept it and make the best of it that we can.” And then, if there is a second referendum, the Establishment and the Euro federalists may be able to scrape a bare majority and claim ultimate victory, keeping Britain tied to the EU against the wishes of the majority, but all perfectly “democratic”.
The EU negotiators are cynically encouraging our own fifth column of Euro federalists, or Remainers, into forcing the Government into outlawing a departure from the EU without a “deal”. This notion is, of course, absurd. If we are unable by law to leave without a deal – any deal – then we are bound to accept whatever “deal” the EU throws at us. Further comment on this little ploy is surely superfluous.
3. The British Electorate
The British electorate deserve a special kind of praise. For a hundred years and more they’ve endured having their country ruled by a coterie of career politicians. They’ve been betrayed on every important issue. They’ve been taken into two disastrous and pointless world wars. They’ve seen their country over-run by uncontrolled mass migration of inassimilable third-world blacks and Asiatics, with sovereignty surrendered to the Euro Super-State.
During the referendum campaign they were subjected to an unprecedented avalanche of “Project Fear”. Lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into voting to accept the surrender of their ancient freedoms and sovereignty to the European Union.
And yet the British people resisted. They had the courage to defy the threats and warnings coming every day from the Euro federalists and their friends in the European Union, and they voted to leave.
If there’s one thing that the British people can be criticised for it’s for being too trusting in their politicians. The majority voted to leave the EU in 2016, and they fully expected their politicians to deliver promptly, as promised by Cameron and others during the campaign. They waited patiently for the various procedures that they were told were essential to be carried out. But now they expect what they voted for – an exit from the European Union.
The British people are slow to get over-excited about anything. They will take a lot of nonsense from upstart politicians before they lose patience. But when the tipping point is reached, when their anger has passed a certain point, there is no stopping them. Career politicians who don’t realise this fact carry on betraying the British people at their own personal peril.
EU Gravy Train
The European Union is a massive gravy train, and British people don’t like gravy trains. It has around 113 buildings, 65,000 employees (all with salaries, pensions and other benefits ordinary people can only dream of) and over 100,000 other hangers-on, mostly corporate lobbyists who live in and work from Brussels or Strasbourg. It has a far larger bureaucracy than the British Empire had at the height of its power – and that ruled a quarter of the earth’s surface without the aid of modern computer technology.
The fact of the matter is that the EU cannot afford to let us go. That’s another reason why “negotiating” with them is a waste of time and resources. They need our money. They know that if we manage to extricate ourselves successfully then other “member states” will follow our example, and the whole massive structure will collapse in on itself. Just like its forerunner, the Soviet Union.
It’s clear that we need more than just a referendum to leave this whole sorry setup. We’re going to have to fight our way out. And the first line of enemy defence to overcome is right here on British soil – the Remainers and other corrupt Establishment stooge politicians who have been betraying us for so long and feeding from the gravy train. Once they are taken out the way will be clear to do whatever is necessary to take the fight to the EU itself and “take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them.”
Future generations of Britons, yet unborn, are waiting to see if we are up to the level of our noble forebears in defending their birthright.
A Review of Niall Ferguson's 'The EU Melting Pot is Melting Down', published in the Sunday Times of June 17th 2018. Please note that this review was originally posted in June 2018.
There is a danger at the present time – more than two years after the historic Brexit vote – that the 17.4 million who voted out, including genuine patriots and racial-nationalists in Britain, could feel a sense of frustration. And that is exactly what the liberal establishment, still reeling from the 2016 referendum result, wants us to feel.
But behind all their talk of how impossible Brexit is going to be and their confusion tactics of “hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “Customs Union” and so on (none of which were ever mentioned in the run up to the referendum) they are rudderless, adrift in a sea of their own despair.
This is the distinct message I have from reading what one of the leading pro-remain figures in Britain has just written in the Sunday Times of June 17th 2018.
Titled “The EU Melting Pot is Melting Down”, Niall Ferguson’s article displays a number of interesting insights into the mind of someone who is both a fanatical liberal and a believer in the innate superiority of international organizations like the so-called European Union over nation states.
He starts by enthusiastically telling us about the infamous play written by the “British” author Israel Zangwill called “The Melting Pot”, first staged in Washington and New York in the early years of the twentieth century.
Israel Zangwill – He hated the White race
This play extols the virtues of racial suicide, at least for the White race, and looks forward to the day when the White race that created the United States has perished and all the other races of “mankind” have fused into a kind of multi-racial slush, where nobody has any sense of identity any more, and no ancestry to be proud of or even interested in.
This, of course, is the logical result of the multi-racial, multi-cultural, society. It’s what the global elite want to bring about. They and their descendants, who will have carefully avoided the fate of the White race and will have retained their own peculiar identity, so far as they have one, will be in a position of unassailable dominance over all other humans on earth. Their victims will comprise the millions, or billions, dispossessed of their own racial identity, and who comprise a bit of black, some yellow, some Arab, some native American Indian, some Asiatic, oh, and even in some cases a bit of White.
Niall Ferguson and his wife
Ferguson, described in Wikipedia as “a conservative British historian and political commentator”, seems to be personally involved in this. Having been married to a White lady, Sue Douglas (admittedly not a great choice – she “worked on a legendary anti-apartheid newspaper in South Africa and [has] been one of the few women in Britain to edit a national paper”), he now has a new wife in the form of a “Somali-born Dutch-American activist, feminist, author, scholar and former politician” by the name of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is also, it seems, the unfortunate subject of a fatwah for having strongly criticised Islam, in particular over its treatment of women.
So how does this relate to the current situation relating to the betrayal of 17.4 million Britons who voted for Brexit?
Well, to liberals like Ferguson, the wonderful thing about the EU is that it is fusing all the peoples of Europe together into one super-state, with no borders internally and only nominal borders externally. And it threatens to abolish the concept of the nation state. Just like what “The Melting Pot” envisages happening across the Atlantic. But there is a problem.
You see, where you have a European super-state with an “open border” policy, which broadly is what the EU is meant to have, you get millions of migrants from Africa and the Middle East flooding into the countries comprised in that super-state. These are mostly war refugees fleeing from the US-instigated carnage inflicted upon their countries (though whether Ferguson and his fellow liberals can connect the dots is questionable). And once they’re in then it doesn’t matter which country they first entered – they can travel, using the “free movement of labour” law, to whichever country best suits their requirements.
Why is that a problem? It’s not, of course, because these millions of migrants are non-White, because they will ultimately out-breed the native White population, or because the inevitable miscegenation will bring about the end of the White race and of civilization in those countries.
Though these things will inevitably happen if drastic measures are not taken, that’s not a problem to Ferguson and his fellow race-mixers. The problem to them is that the mass migration is on such a large scale and taking place so quickly.
With so many millions of alien peoples flooding into Europe (and the US, as we discuss below) in such a short period of time, there’s a real possibility that a critical number of White people will wake up to what’s really going on in the world. They’ll realise what their vassal politicians and liberal commentators and opinion-formers (like Ferguson, for example) have been up to. They’ll switch off the TV, cancel their season tickets to the football, and then who knows what will happen?
It would almost certainly mean the end of “that loose alliance between moderate social democrats and moderate conservatives/Christian democrats on which the past 70 years of European integration has been based”, as Ferguson so tactfully puts it.
And that’s what he and the rest of the liberal elite are afraid of. They would much rather have the process slowed down, so that the same result could be achieved without the danger of those beastly White folk acting to bring about the end of this little plan.
This may already be happening. Apart from the shock of the Brexit vote, we have the rise of populist parties across Europe opposed to further European integration and non-white immigration, and actually ready to take on the so-called “European Union”. These range from the AfD in Germany to the League and the Five Star Movement in Italy. Hungary already has a populist-nationalist government that is almost ready to defy Brussels and leave the EU. Poland could follow suit very easily, and other countries like the Czech Republic, Austria and Greece are close behind.
All the pro-EU governments such as that of Angela Merkel can do is to “limp onwards” (in Ferguson’s words), with coalitions of their centre-left and centre-right parties shoring up a crumbling edifice, devoid of any meaningful ideology or strategy. So, for example, we have the Conservative Party in Britain, more a coalition than a party, divided into Brexiteers and Remainers, and with little to keep them together in one party save for a mutual desire to carry on existing and enjoying all the trappings of office.
The trouble with national leaders like Angela Merkel, according to Ferguson, is not that they are opening the floodgates of non-white immigration into the European heartlands and endangering the future of the White race. It’s that they are doing it in such a way that they are almost bound to fail. They don’t really understand the issues. “European centrists are deeply confused about immigration”, he wails.
What he means, no doubt without realising it, is that they’ve had any concept of race brainwashed out of them. They ought to take a seat at one of the theatres showing “The Melting Pot” so they can adapt their strategy, employ more stealth, and deepen their deception of voters so as to accomplish the task of abolishing nationhood and murdering the White race without any effective opposition.
But Ferguson and his ilk are not the only people commenting on the situation in Europe today.
For example, take Pat Buchanan. He is a long standing conservative political commentator, author and former presidential candidate in the United States. He’s the author of “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War”, “The Death of the West” and other books giving an alternative view of recent history. Writing in his blog on 19th June, two days after Ferguson’s article was published, he covers the mass non-white migration problem from a US perspective.
The US has had a similar problem for many years now. Millions of Mexican and Hispanic migrants are knocking at the door of the US every year demanding entry. American liberals are wringing their hands because young children are being parted from their parents during the process of detaining these illegal migrants under President Trump’s immigration policy.
A question has been raised. Is this cruelty caused by a desire to maintain the demographic make-up of the US (ie to keep it still mainly White)? Or is it caused by allowing a situation to arise whereby millions of non-white migrants take it upon themselves to risk being split up as a family in order to enter the US illegally and benefit from its superior welfare system?
In Europe, where recently a boat loaded with 629 illegal migrants from Africa was turned away by the Italian authorities and eventually allowed to disembark in Valencia, Spain, the issue is one of whether to allow illegal migrants to drown in the Mediterranean Sea or to allow them entry into Europe.
But the essential issue is the same. To be weak and “humanitarian” by allowing millions of third world migrants into an advanced, industrialised country that was built by White people for White people when they were a comfortable majority. Or to be strong and shut them out, protecting our White children and remoter descendants in the long term, but thereby causing distress and suffering to those would-be migrants in the short term.
Taking a sufficiently strong stand against the hordes of migrants now coming day and night into the US from Mexico and into Europe from Africa and the Middle East would unavoidably mean detaining them in camps pending removal. In many cases such detention would separate children from their parents. It’s easy to publish pictures of tearful children and grief-stricken parents, and to get the sympathy of people not directly affected by the migrant crisis.
But safeguarding the future of the White race and expelling all non-whites from White countries takes precedence over any such emotional issues. We have our grandchildren and their grandchildren, yes and their grandchildren too, all along down the line, to protect.
And we struck a massive blow for our national and racial survival with the Brexit vote. Perhaps some of us who have been in the vanguard of racial nationalism over the years can allow ourselves a little satisfaction at the small part we have played in alerting our fellow Britons of the dangers of internationalism and multi-racialism.
So let us take heart from all this. All these problems of migrants, detention centres, and camps are of the enemy’s own making. Whilst we cannot be idle in pursuing the world of our dreams, at the same time we may be able to pause for a minute to relish the despondency and misery that is currently flourishing in the enemy camp.
There have always been human and animal freaks of nature born. An old man, who I once worked with, and who died a couple of years ago, once told me that his mother had worked as a midwife. He claimed that midwives in the past often used their discretion to ‘smother’ some of the worst cases of human freaks born.
There have been very rare and sad cases of people born with ambiguous genitals and other features of the opposite sex. When babies were classified as either male or female, a tiny number were wrongly registered at birth. This caused such people to live very unhappy lives. Over the last sixty or so years, some of those people were offered the chance to change their gender, with the help of psychiatric counselling, hormone treatment, and eventually surgery.
Our Victorian forefathers were, generally, good Christians, and yet they put some human freaks in circuses for fair-going crowds to gawp at. To modern people that seems unkind. I believe that perhaps those extremely rare people who are of indeterminate gender, born today, should be treated with human kindness. Medical science should help them where it can.
The strange case of Jan Morris
What I have written above does not cover the whole picture.
James Morris was a proud Welshman, a British patriot, and a soldier in the British army. He was happily married and loved his wife and children. He was a journalist and a talented travel writer. He wrote the Pax Britannica Trilogy of books about the British Empire.
But Morris harboured a dark secret. All of his life he had believed that he should have been born female. In the 1960s, he went to North Africa and had what was then called a “sex change operation”. He wrote a book about the experience. It is called Conundrum. It is a fascinating read. Does that make me as prurient and as bad as those Victorian circus crowds? I do not know.
James Morris became Jan Morris. He had the full support of his wife and children. Although he divorced his wife, they still lived together. In more modern times, they later had a civil partnership. The first book of Pax Britannica, was written by a man. But Morris wrote the other two as a woman.
But why I relate this story, is because Jan Morris clearly does not fit the description above of someone born as a freak of nature. Morris was living successfully as a man. Morris’ problem appears to be a deeply psychological one. Was he insane? He appears to have lived a happy life for about eighty years – half of it as a man, half of it as a woman. He had no regrets.
As a writer, Morris wanted to explain his situation. But I do not believe that he sought to influence anyone else to have a “sex change”. He was not a campaigner, and certainly not a political militant.
You might be surprised to learn that I have a degree of sympathy for Jan Morris. Because I do feel human sympathy for those with very troubling psychological and mental problems, as well with those people born as physical oddities.
Some psychiatrists and psychologists believe that some people who are born with perfectly normal bodies, never the less genuinely believe that they were “born in the wrong body”. It is not really their bodies that needs fixing – but their minds. But such people currently cannot be persuaded to change their minds. So doctors alter their bodies instead, after much intense psychological probing.
I believe that both the physical oddities and the psychological ones are very small groups of people. Probably most of them do not hurt anyone else.
But there is something very important and quite new to consider.
A recent modern evil
The modern extreme-Left political group known as ‘Transgenderism’ is a positive evil that needs to be ruthlessly crushed. I do not think that to believe that is to be inconsistent with what I have written above. I will attempt to explain why.
When we consider authentic transgender people, we are thinking about very small numbers of people. They include those cursed with physical abnormality and those with deep-rooted psychological problems who actually go through with physical sex change operations. Any political activists among their number must be a vanishingly small number – a small minority of a small minority.
But most of those who push the widespread, well-publicised, Transgender campaign are not authentic transgender types. They are what I, and many others, call Cultural Marxists. Some other people call them extreme liberals. These people want to break up and destroy society. They want to spread mass confusion. They want large numbers of the population to be hopelessly confused as to their own identity. Particularly their gender identity.
Vast numbers of ordinary children are now being urged to consider whether they accept the gender that they were assigned at birth. Impressionable, but healthy, children and young adults are being bulldozed into using irreversible puberty-blockers, hormone treatment – and sometimes even surgery. That is downright evil. It threatens the survival of our people and our civilisation. It must be stopped.
Some male sex offenders are now claiming to self-identify as women. They will be safer in female prisons. But their fellow prisoners will not be! Some such prisoners have raped female prisoners. The alleged transgender prisoners have not undergone psychological counselling, hormone treatment, nor surgery. They still have their penises, and their violent sex urges.
But we are supposed, as a society, to accept that if they say they are women, then they must be. That is the very dangerous, insane, nature of Political Correctness.
Some women claim to be men. They wear men’s’ hairstyles and men’s clothes. They tightly bind their breasts. But they do not have sex-change operations, or even hormone treatment. They might be thought of as extreme lesbians, rather than genuine transgender cases. They still have their vaginas.
The Transgender Campaign
I think that some of the very militant, very left-wing activists pushing the dangerous Transgender campaign are types like this. But they are reinforced by politically correct politicians like Nicola Sturgeon – who is neither lesbian nor transgender. It is fashionable for mainstream politicians to support Transgenderism, in the interests of equality and diversity. But that is one form of madness that I cannot have any sympathy with.
Many mentally-unwell people have very poorly defined identities. They do not know who they are. Those who seek to spread mass confusion over ordinary people’s identities are public enemies, and must be brought to justice and held to account for their subversive activities. They are anti-social. They are criminal and political subversives and revolutionaries.
Tolerance and understanding can only extend so far!
Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.
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.
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.
This series of articles was first written in early 2018, so please bear in mind that some of the content may appear somewhat dated.
The following is an Open Letter to the BBC's Points of View on the Media Coverage of Black Crime from Will Wright
Subject: Race and immigration ... and a suggestion for an interview documentary
7th May 2018
Dear BBC
There have been quite a few stories about race or immigration in the news lately: the fiftieth anniversary of Enoch Powell’s speech, the twenty fifth anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence killing, the Windrush controversy, Boris Johnson’s suggestion of an illegal immigrant amnesty and Prince Harry to marry a mixed-race American citizen, among others.
One of the most controversial is the great many black-on-black knife murders in London since stop and search was abolished. On your website page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43491155/police-are-black-knife-deaths-being-ignored you write, “Knife deaths aren’t causing the outrage they should because the majority of victims come from black communities, a top UK officer says”.
It seems to me that this top policeman has got things the wrong way around. The reason the knife murders are not causing more outrage is because the majority of the killers come from black communities. It further appears to me that white liberals become very upset on the rare occasion that white people kill a black victim, as with Stephen Lawrence who is remembered twenty five years later.
What of all the young white men stabbed by blacks? Forgotten. All the black-on-black killings? White liberals would rather ignore this embarrassing phenomenon.
Mark Easton’s piece on 5th April is titled, “London killings: no easy answers to gun and knife crime”. I am inclined to agree with you that this is not easily sorted out. However, I would like to offer some unfashionable solutions.
How about the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment? If someone was convicted of murder then they should hang. This should apply whoever the murderer is, whoever the victim is. There would be controversial cases when the murderers were of a different race to the victims. But a brave government would implement this and brave judges would pass the death sentence on murderers.
Furthermore, I would reintroduce stop and search. If someone was found to be in possession of a knife, then they should be birched.
None of this would be “easy” (I agree with your headline writer), but I believe that over time things would get better on the streets of London.
Moving on to something even more controversial – Enoch Powell’s historic speech. In that speech, Powell advocated repatriation of non-whites. Most commentators today seem to dismiss the speech as “extreme” and suggest that Powell got it wrong.
But did he? We have predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs in many northern towns and cities targeting under-age white girls. Does anyone in the mainstream media dare to suggest that this is racial hatred or pedophilia? They would if white gangs were targeting black or Asian girls.
Surveys have suggested that one in five Muslims in Britain have at least some sympathy with Islamic terrorist groups – that is about 400,000 people. Among the Muslim community are some who hate Britain and the West and would blow us up given the chance. But we don’t know who they are, where they are, or when they will strike.
Then there are the violent Afro-Caribbean elements already mentioned.
I expect that the BBC believes that there are no easy answers and I agree. But there is a difficult but necessary answer: Enoch Powell’s answer, repatriation.
It is my belief that if the United Kingdom does not stop all non-white immigration and start a programme of phased repatriation quite soon, then white people will cease to be a majority in our own country. Eventually we would become extinct. This would happen through immigration of non-whites, emigration of whites, a higher non-white birth rate and interbreeding among whites and non-whites. Worst case scenario – there could even be a massacre of a minority white population.
Repatriation of non-whites should begin with known terrorists and convicted criminals. In any sane country it would go without saying that all illegal immigrants are automatically criminals and should be deported immediately.
Those non-whites who have led law-abiding lives should be treated as humanely as possible. But there will be difficult cases and that should not deflect us, as a country, from doing what is necessary for our survival as a white country.
Liberals and cultural Marxists seem to want non-white countries to belong to their indigenous populations – but all white countries to become multi-racial. I believe that if the white people of the world perish then, in time, this will be followed by the death of modern civilisation.
Many believe that most BBC news and political journalists are left-wing. I believe this too. But I also believe that most are very professional and try to put aside their personal opinions and be objective. I do think, however, that it must be difficult to do this and get outside of the left-wing groupthink.
I recently saw a documentary, on RT, presented by George Galloway, about the “far-right”. I did not think that was objective or fair – but Galloway did interview Martin Webster, the former National Activities Organiser of the Seventies National Front. Webster was shown for a few minutes during a half-hour programme.
So how about the BBC interviewing Martin Webster about his views on repatriation of non-whites? It would be better viewing if the whole half hour documentary concentrated on an interview, rather than showing NF marches from the Seventies. The BBC must be able to do this better than Galloway and RT.
We’re supposed to have a free press. If you buy a newspaper and read the news pages, then you are supposed to be reading facts. But which stories are chosen, and which are ignored? Every day, thousands of things are happening in the United Kingdom and abroad. They cannot all be reported every day. So someone chooses which stories to include – and just as importantly which to exclude. That is a practical necessity, and it is done in a hurry. But it does influence readers’ political opinions.
When a story is being covered by other newspapers, it is hard for one paper to ignore it completely. But a newspaper can give much less prominence to a story that does not fit with the paper’s editorial line. By doing this, the paper is subtly telling its readers that this story is not very important.
You think that you are just reading the facts. But which facts? Some are included and some are deliberately omitted. Sometimes a newspaper is pulled to order for a story that is factually wrong. Is that a genuine mistake? Or was that a deliberate attempt to mislead the readers?
Even if you stick to reading the news, rather than the newspapers’ editorial and opinion columns, you are still being influenced. Intelligent readers can read the opinion columns knowing this this is someone else’s take on the news. We might do that and furiously disagree with that journalist’s opinion.
What we should remember is that most people are not political. They might consider themselves to be ‘middle of the road’ politically. But when they do not already have a firm ideology of their own, they are ripe for being influenced by what they read – both selected news stories and someone’s opinions on those news stories.
A free press?
Newspaper owners and senior journalists tell us that democracy depends on there being a free press. The argument is that the government of the day, and other prominent people in society, should be subjected to scrutiny and criticism.
Big circulation newspapers can, and do, influence how the public votes in general elections. We freely choose whether to vote, and who to vote for. But we are influenced by what we read in the papers. Or more likely, our favourite newspaper.
But while our politicians are mostly elected, our newspaper owners and editors are not. There are perhaps a dozen national dailies. But some of them have much bigger circulations than others. Some smaller circulation newspapers are read by people who are themselves powerful and influential – so circulation numbers are not always the most important thing to consider.
A handful of newspaper owners, editors and senior journalists have considerable power. They say that they are an indispensable part of democracy – but who chose them? Not the British public. The question is: who does freedom of the press benefit? Who is it freedom for? A small media class or the British public?
If you have ever tried writing letters to a newspaper on a frequent basis, you will know that not every letter gets printed. If your views are regarded as beyond the pale by the newspaper editor, then you might be banned altogether. Editors do not mind at all banning an individual, or a particular group of readers’ views – but they scream to high heaven if they think that their own right to express their opinions is likely to be curbed.
Who is doing the influencing?
A free press is not quite what those defending the concept suggest that it is. That situation, in itself, would be bad enough. But the situation is even worse if we consider the identity of those in charge of doing the influencing. Rupert Murdoch is a part-Jewish globalist. Conrad Black is married to, and heavily influenced by, Barbara Amiel, a Jewess, and a fanatical Zionist. Robert Maxwell claimed to be an Anglican and denied being Jewish at all. But after his death he was revealed to be “Israel’s super-spy”. He is buried on the Mount of Olives, a Jewish burial ground reserved for Israel’s elite.
If British newspapers are owned and staffed by foreigners and globalists, then they are hardly likely to put British interests first. That is not the type of people that we want influencing our political opinions, or our voting habits.
I feel that most editors and journalists working for the newspapers in Britain would happily ban my opinions. Just the same as most establishment politicians would happily exclude British Nationalist opinions from the political debate completely and permanently. Should we really care if some government restricts the power of the media? No part of the mass media speaks for us.
Copyright (c) 2022 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post, please contact the author through this web site.
Harry and Meghan. It was bound to end in tears. Not so much for them, perhaps (though that remains to be seen), but for the rest of us.
Just their names seem to ring out a note of warning to all British people. With the publication of Harry’s ghost-written book, “Spare”, both he and Meghan have placed themselves in the vanguard of a concerted attack on, not just the Monarchy, but the very foundations of the nation state of Great Britain.
Harry and Meghan (1)
From the outset Meghan Markle had no intention of sharing in Harry’s Royal duties or contributing positively to the monarchy. In the early days her toothy smiles and dark eyes hid her malevolent intentions. In more recent times both her and Harry have dropped any pretence of wanting to be a positive part of the Royal Family.
I’m not going to cover the history of how Harry met Meghan, married her, came to be her puppet, rowed with his family over her and her mechinations, and became isolated in his luxury home in Hollywood. We’ve all read about that to saturation.
By playing the “victim” in the whole story, Harry hoped to gather public sympathy and place his antagonists in the Royal Family on the wrong foot. He has achieved precisely the opposite. The public support he has enjoyed since his mother’s untimely death, and especially since his engagement to Meghan, has all but evaporated.
His much-hyped book, with its accusatory title and photo of Harry looking suitably wronged and angry, will no doubt be on the pulp pile before long, being sold off at 99 pence to free up some storage space.
The fact is that Meghan’s influence on Harry and on the events that subsequently engulfed the Royal Family was malign in the extreme.
Harry and Meghan (2)
The current crisis in the Royal Family can be said to have started in January 2020, when Harry and Meghan announced that they were “standing down” from most of their Royal duties in order to divide their time between the UK and North America. They did this by posting on Instagram, as you would. After all, why bother telling the Queen first?
The Guerilla War against the Royal Family
It wasn’t long before they were bidding the UK goodbye and moving their home to across the Atlantic. Not just to the other side, either, but way out west. First Vancouver, and later Los Angeles, where Meghan wasted no time in re-establishing links with all the good folks she knew in Hollywood before she met Harry.
This latter move came as a surprise to many people, who recall Meghan’s vow not to return to the US to live as long as Donald Trump remained President (as he was, still, at that time). But she was not alone, as dozens of other Hollywood celebs had made a similar vow after the 2016 presidential election, and yet continued to live in the US afterwards.
Meghan’s hostility towards President Trump and friendship with the likes of Barack Obama were just the outward manifestation of what she really is, which is a Cultural Marxist. As such, she is irrevocably opposed to the institution of Monarchy, wherever it may be.
This explains nearly all of what has happened since she met Harry and realised he was a weak character whom she could easily control. She has since done so ruthlessly and in a way that is calculated to cause the maximum damage.
Since their move to the US, Harry and Meghan have been engaged in a kind of guerilla war with the Royal Family. They complain at every opportunity that their privacy is being breached. Yet they choose to live a lifestyle that has them constantly at the centre of public attention.
Now we have the publication of Harry’s ghost-written book, “Spare”, containing accusations against people who are not only part of our Monarchy, but in many cases Harry’s own flesh and blood. The way in which he has betrayed his brother, William, is particularly unpleasant. Harry has now accused both his brother and his father of actual assault – an extremely serious accusation.
I won’t go into further detail of all the allegations as that’s not the point of this post, but it is clear that the breach between Harry and Meghan on the one hand and the Royal Family on the other is probably final.
Comparisons with Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson
The behaviour of Harry and Meghan has invited comparisons with that of King Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson. Both Harry and Edward VIII are/were weak individuals who married an older, more dominant and probably more intelligent, manipulative woman. Both Meghan and Mrs Simpson are/were Americans (Meghan is Canadian by birth but has chosen to live most of her life in the U.S.) and both were married before.
Mrs Simpson was married and divorced twice before she met Edward VIII. Meghan was previously married to an American Jew, Trevor Engelson, for two years. The extent of her lack of commitment is illustrated by the fact that, in order to marry Engelson she had to “convert” to Judaism, with all the rigmarole that entailed. Then, on leaving him, just two years later, she dropped Judaism just as easily as she had adopted it.
Mrs Simpson had no real career, other than marrying and dominating rich and influential men, it seems. Meghan had a modestly successful career in acting, though it is uncertain if she will act again. Both women are/were good at finding ways of making money, mostly involving their marriage to members or ex-members of the British Royal Family.
Yes, there’s money to be made by marrying a Royal. That is, if you’re prepared to stoop low enough. To their great credit, all commoners who have married into the Royal Family since the end of the Second World War have resisted the temptation to try and cash in on it. All commoners, that is, except Meghan.
Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson ended up isolated and living abroad. Harry and Meghan, also, are now rapidly becoming isolated, as well as living abroad. Even Barack Obama, who had been one of their most well-known supporters, snubbed them by not inviting them to his 60th birthday party a year or two ago.
But at least Edward VIII (when he was effectively banished and known as the Duke of Windsor) never attempted to cash in on his former Royal status or write a book “exposing” members of the Royal Family.
Now we have Harry revealing things that most people don’t want to know, and, worse, that can cause tremendous problems for the people he has left behind. The foolish revelation that he “killed 25 Taliban” whilst serving in Afghanistan has breached several protocols, and opened himself, his immediate family, and the Royal Family themselves to possible revenge attacks.
And the admission that he has taken illegal drugs on a regular basis has done nothing to help the fight against drugs and the degradation and death of White British youth who resort to them.
Harry and Meghan – Not all about money
Many commentators are saying in light of the latest developments in the Harry and Meghan saga that it’s all about money. The dramatic split between Harry and Prince William, the frequent “showdowns” between the two, and between Harry and his father. More showdowns between Harry and the Queen Consort, and Harry and Princess Catherine, and even Harry and the late Queen, have all helped to generate publicity enough to start the gravy train rolling.
But, ominously, when Harry met Meghan it wasn’t all about money.
Let’s take a look at where our nation is today. Our power and influence in the world is at rock bottom. Our economy is a shadow of what it once was, being propped up by a fiat currency that’s living on borrowed time. The lock downs of 2020 to 2022 have left a lasting, toxic legacy of bankruptcies, suicides of young people, fear and confusion. And that’s not just us. It applies to most of the rest of the western world.
But at least we in Great Britain have one thing that hardly any other country, outside the British Commonwealth, has. We have a monarchy. A Monarch who dedicates his or her life to representing the nation at home and throughout the world. A king or queen who has tremendous power, but who actually has very little power, thanks to the ability of our ancestors in coming up with a brilliant and unique solution to the problem that plagued them.
All powers in this country derive from the sovereign. All public office holders take an oath of allegiance to the king. When King Charles III is crowned at the forthcoming coronation, all the peers of the realm will take an oath of allegiance to him as King. The King personifies the nation. It is not the powers that he has that are important, but the powers that he withholds from other people.
He unifies the nation. He is the head of the Church of England, the chief lawmaker as the King in Parliament, and the chief law enforcer, above every Chief Constable in the country. He is the head of all branches of the armed services, and all courts in the land act under his authority.
Of course he delegates nearly all of these duties to the appropriate officers, who (in theory, at least) have specialist knowledge and experience in their field. But it is the King who represents and embodies this country, through his Prime Minister and other members of the government, at home, and through his ambassadors and diplomats abroad.
The important point is that he has the power to dismiss any of these officers if circumstances require. He takes ultimate responsibility and can himself, where necessary, be brought to account, as happened with King John (Magna Carta, 1215) and King Charles I in the mid seventeenth century.
Harry and Meghan vs our Constitutional Monarchy
This system of constitutional monarchy has evolved over several centuries. It took wars and battles, including the Civil War, to ensure its triumph. It is unique to us. It is precious. Those who decry the monarchy do so from a standpoint of ignorance. Because it is not the personages who comprise the monarchy at any given time that are important. It is the concept, the whole system of government, that is uniquely attuned to the British psyche.
We have a monarch with almost absolute power, in theory, but who seldom, if ever, has to use it. Thereby persons of evil intent who would impose an unpopular, authoritarian government upon us, are frustrated. Law abiding citizens can invariably breathe more easily on account of this institution. But in return for this absolute power, the Monarch has to forego most of his personal life.
Would those who agitate against the Monarchy be prepared to assume such awesome and fearful responsibilities for their whole lives? To forfeit much of their privacy, that most ordinary citizens take for granted?
To have their every move, potentially, photographed and videoed? And their every decision and, indeed, everything that they may feel obliged to be involved in, discussed and analysed by commentators in the media and on social media? And, of course, by the public at large in every inn and tavern in the land?
And to behave with dignity and restraint, whatever the provocation may be, and however unfair and unjustified any criticism may be?
Whatever wealth the Monarch may have or receive from the Civil List, it is doubtful that any amount of it would be sufficient to compensate him for the way of life he is obliged to follow, or his sacrifice of the things the rest of us enjoy without question.
Yes, we are a lucky nation, in this respect at least. But, as racial nationalists know, there are malevolent, evil powers in the world, becoming more powerful every day. They look upon us and our nation as an irritant, as something that is in the way of their grand scheme of destroying civilization in all civilised countries. They want to make us like every other country, before abolishing all nations completely.
With a monarchy ostensibly ruling our nation, that task is all the more difficult. They want our Monarchy out of the way. It is one of the very few things that could, even now, frustrate their plans to reduce human existence to that of digitised slaves serving a very small number of tyrants – a worldwide gulag from which there can be no escape. Big Brother will always be watching.
The abolition of monarchies in nearly all other countries of the world, sometimes in a most bloodthirsty manner, has made their work easier. Have these countries enjoyed more freedom and greater power and influence in the world through losing their Kings and Queens, their Princes and Princesses, their Dukes and Earls, their Emperors and Empresses, their Lords and Ladies?
No, they have not. They have, instead, become all the same. Cosmopolitan. They’ve lost their individuality. And they are less capable of standing up to the malign machinations of the international money power. This power, largely through its current manifestation of the World Economic Forum, has a particularly grisly vision of what the future will be like for everyone else. More on that in another post.
Harry and Meghan – Pawns in the Game
This is what the Harry and Meghan affair is really all about. They are the pawns in the game. Their string pullers smile grimly as they watch the pair trying to get their own back on the British Monarchy for perceived wrongs and making as much money as they possibly can in the process. They have made themselves part of the plan to enslave the British people.
By rocking the Monarchy with allegations of assault and other victimisation, and portraying leading members of it in a cruel, distorted light, Harry and Meghan are doing their best to destroy it. And the Monarchy is one of the few things left that stands between us and the dystopian future the likes of the World Economic Forum, the international money power, and all their grey-suited apparatchiks have in mind for us.
So let us all forget Harry and Meghan. They can do what they like now that they live abroad and have effectively resigned from the Royal Family. It will be refreshing not to hear any more of their bleating, virtue-signalling and self-pity. We have other, more important, things to think about. Such as raising public awareness of the dangers that our nation (and nearly all other nations of the world) face in these dangerous times. Goodbye, Harry and Meghan, and good riddance.
