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.
