The War on White People Archives

Triggered by Bach: Classical Music as Implicit White Supremacy

Western classical music, inspired, written, performed and enjoyed almost exclusively by White people even to this day, alone among music of whatever description, has the capacity to inspire the soul, and not just provide entertainment.
But it has for some time been under sustained attack. Its protagonists are, of course, the usual array of non-whites, Jews, and liberal whites who want to debauch our entire culture and destroy our race by means of “multi-culturalism”.
For example, they use their power of finance to degrade our music festivals by forcing the organisers to cater not just for White classical music but also for lesser kinds of music as if they were the equal of classical music.
They would, if they could, bring the music of Mozart and Beethoven, for example, down to the level of rap. This valuable contribution by Brenton Sanderson dissects their shallow arguments and exposes the falsehoods promulgated by the Left. A must-read for anyone who is concerned about the current assault on genuine music.

Re-posted with permission from The Occidental Observer. URL: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/07/01/triggered-by-bach-classical-music-as-implicit-white-supremacy/

“White supremacist” has long been the preferred Jewish epithet to throw at White people who have the temerity to do what Jews do routinely: openly advocate for their ethnic interests. This hackneyed label has always been utterly beside the point: whether Whites are superior to non-Whites has no logical bearing on the moral legitimacy of White people defending their collective interests. Having said this, everyone is well aware that the achievements of White people in countless cultural and scientific domains surpass those of other groups, and can objectively be regarded as “superior”. A conspicuous example is the Western musical tradition.

The superiority of Western classical music is so decisive one could almost rest the argument for the superiority of Western culture on it alone. There exists a hierarchy in the world of sound, as in other phenomena. Noise occupies the lowest rung in this hierarchy; it is an undifferentiated mass of sound in which no distinction exists. The lowest kind of music, say that of Australia’s Aborigines, most closely corresponds to noise. Western classical music, by contrast, exists on the highest rung because it apprehends sound in the most highly differentiated way possible. It is the farthest from noise and most fully exploits the inherent potential of the world of sound.

How well this potential is apprehended and developed can lead to Bach’s inimitable counterpoint, the extraordinary tonal architecture of Beethoven’s symphonies, Bruckner’s sonic cathedrals – or to banging on a hollow log with a stick. Besides stimulating pleasure in audiences, great classical music has an unrivalled capacity to shed light on our ontological predicament and connect aesthetic experience with the transcendental. Goethe once noted, with reference to Bach’s great fugues, where as many as five separate lines of musical argument are simultaneously sustained, that “it is as though the eternal harmony has a conversation with itself”. Only Western classical music, I would argue, can create this sublime impression.

To point out the foregoing is to trigger rage from anti-White commentators who huff that it has “long been an argument of white supremacists, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and racial separatists that “classical music”, the music of “white people”, is inherently more sophisticated, complicated, and valuable than the musical traditions of Africa, Asia, South America, or the Middle East, thus proving the innate superiority of the “white race”. The problem with this assessment, aside from denying the very existence of the White race, is the inability to demonstrate (or even attempt to demonstrate) that Western classical music is not inherently more sophisticated, complicated (and yes valuable) than other musical traditions.

That classical music stands as a glaring (and galling) testament to the preeminence of European high culture (and implicitly of the race overwhelmingly responsible for it), was evident in the reaction to a speech President Trump gave in Poland in 2017. The speech, praising Western civilization, included the line, “we write symphonies”.Jonathan Capehart, a columnist at The Washington Post, fumed: “What on Earth does that have to do with anything? In that one line, taken in context with everything else Trump said, what I heard was the loudest of dog whistles. A familiar boast that swells the chests of white nationalists everywhere”. For Anthony Tommasini of The New York Times, Trump’s point, extolling the “richness, history and, indeed, the superiority of Western culture”, was “all too clear and dismaying”. Alex Ross, Jewish music critic for the New Yorker, found “ludicrous and sinister” Trump’s “implication that some cultures are incapable of creating symphonies”, a sentiment that, he maintained, should have “stirred bad memories”.

Classical Music as Insufficiently Diverse

As well as decrying as deeply offensive the invocation of classical music to praise Western civilization (and thus White people), commentators routinely bemoan the lack of “diversity” in the genre. According to Jewish music critic Greg Sandow, the “problem of racial diversity in classical music has long been the elephant in the room”, and he labels “ugly” the fact that classical music, “in practice pretty much a lily-white art”, claims “special privileges (lavish funding, school programs devoted to it) in an age of growing diversity”. Rather than simply reflecting the divergent preferences and aptitudes of different racial groups, the underrepresentation of Black and Brown people in Western orchestras (and their audiences) is inevitably ascribed to White racism. Black screenwriter Candace Allen, the ex-wife of conductor Sir Simon Rattle, branded the British classical music world “racist”, claiming a combination of discrimination and lack of exposure to classical music at an early age meant Blacks were unlikely to make it to the concert hall (in the audience or on stage), and when they did, “their sense of alienation made the experience not one to be repeated”.

According to this conception, an insidious White supremacist conspiracy keeps the classical repertoire dominated by the music of dead White men performed by living White men, and prevents Black and Brown people from succeeding in the genre. For the “White supremacist” social order to be maintained, Raymond Arsenault insists, “Blacks had to know their place, and the world of popular music was one of the places where they allegedly belonged”. While the “relativist revolution begun by anthropologist Franz Boas and others had already eroded the presumption of black inferiority”,in the Western world of public opinion and culture, “the time-honored shibboleths of white-supremacy held sway”.[i] One of these “hibboleths” was that:

Mastery of classical technique required superior intelligence, discipline, and years of training. The world of classical music was the province not only of natural talent but of cultivated genius. Here the barriers to black achievement were thought to be both cultural and physiological. Conventional wisdom held that blacks did things naturally and impulsively without much thought or deliberation. Classical music, by contrast, was intellectual, highbrow, and European in origin. As such, it was deemed inappropriate for African Americans three or four generations removed from the jungles of Africa. Black success in the world of classical music would be tantamount to beating whites at their own game, something that could not be tolerated or even contemplated in white supremacist circles. It would represent an affront to white sensibilities, upsetting expectations based on multiple layers of observation and socialization.[ii]

The White supremacist conspiracy to thwart Black and Brown achievement in classical music purportedly extends to musical education where, in the most commonly used theory textbooks in the United States, only 1.63% of musical examples come from non-White composers. This is problematic for Linda Shaver-Gleason because studying a particular piece “reaffirms its canonical status; enshrining it in a textbook is deeming it worthy of study“. Constantly referencing White composers “reinforces the idea that they’re the ones who deserve the most respect, as if to say, “Marvel at the many techniques Mozart used so perfectly!” Ethan Hein, a (presumably Jewish) doctoral fellow in music education at NYU, decries the stubbornness of music teachers in teaching “European-descended” classical music over that of “music descending from the vernacular traditions of the African diaspora”. Orienting music education towards the European classical tradition, an “implicit racial ideology”, is, he declares, “insidious” in its “affirmations of Whiteness”.

While White people are chastised for “appropriating” the cultures of non-White groups, the notion they should be allowed to maintain cultural and artistic institutions reserved exclusively for their own racial group is considered anathema. The Vienna Philharmonic came under attack in the 1990s for its failure to embrace the new ideological and moral imperatives of increased racial and gender diversity. One commentator condemned the orchestra for “its consistently racist and sexist hiring practices”, dismissing as “clearly absurd” claims made by representatives of the orchestra that it performs an essentially European art-form and thus should be composed of White men. Dieter Flury, a flutist for the orchestra, opined at the time that:

From the beginning we have spoken of the special Viennese qualities, of the way music is made here. The way we make music here is not only a technical ability, but also something that has a lot to do with the soul. The soul does not let itself be separated from the cultural roots that we have here in central Europe. And it also doesn’t allow itself to be separated from gender. So if one thinks that the world should function by quota regulations, then it is naturally irritating that we are a group of white skinned male musicians that perform exclusively the music of white skinned male composers. If one establishes superficial egalitarianism, one will lose something very significant. [S]omething produced by a superficial understanding of human rights would not have the same standards.

Music writer Stefan Aune insists the European domination of classical music cannot be attributed to advantageous genetic endowments possessed on average by White people, and has “no patience for individuals or institutions harboring antiquated beliefs about the superiority of White-European performers or composers”. Ignoring all the data proving the existence of significant racial differences, he ascribes such beliefs to “racism and a fundamentally incorrect view of musical history”. The European domination of classical music has, he insists, everything to do with “cultural inequalities” and nothing to do with inborn characteristics:

In the last analysis, racial and gender inequalities throughout the history of classical music are a question of access rather than innate ability. Individuals like [mulatto composers] Chevalier de Saint George, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and George Bridgetower erode the argument that classical music is an exclusively white-European cultural enterprise. They show that individuals from any background can succeed in the western musical tradition, and they also show that the western musical tradition is not nearly as culturally homogeneous as many would argue.

The composers identified here are remembered solely because they were non-White – not because of the excellence of their compositions. Rather than being excluded from the classical repertory because of their music’s relative lack of quality and popularity, Linda Shaver-Gleason believes they are victims of the aforementioned White supremacist conspiracy which has “intentionally suppressed” their music “in the service of a narrative of white – specifically German – cultural supremacy (because, alas, that too is part of Western culture)”.

Constructing Beethoven as Black

Even the romantic idea of the composer-genius is regarded as an element of this conspiracy to keep Western classical music a Whites-only field. For Shaver-Gleason, “The conflation of “genius” and “white man” means that no minority will be viewed as a real genius, and hence not a real composer”. Given Beethoven’s status as the archetypal musical genius, it is unsurprising that aggrieved Blacks have, since the early twentieth century, attempted to propagate the myth that Beethoven had some African ancestry. The basis for this spurious claim was the composer’s somewhat swarthy complexion, and the fact a part of his family traced its roots to Flanders, which was for a period under Spanish monarchical rule. Because Spain had a longstanding historical connection to North Africa through the Moors, a degree of blackness supposedly trickled down to the great composer.

The myth was eagerly disseminated by Jamaican “historian” Joel Augustus Rogers (1880 – 1966) in works like Sex and Race (1941-44), the two-volume World’s Great Men of Color (1946-47), 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro (1934), Five Negro Presidents (1965), and Nature Knows No Color Line (1952). Rogers, whose intellectual rigor was basically nonexistent, claimed that Beethoven – in addition to Thomas Jefferson, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Robert Browning, and several popes, among others – was genealogically African and thus Black. Despite being thoroughly debunked, the myth still lingers in contemporary culture: in 2007 Nadine Gordimer published a short story collection called Beethoven Was One-Sixteenth Black: And Other Stories. The determination, contrary to all evidence, to make Beethoven Black is, of course, a desperate attempt to make the composer and his oeuvre a glorious symbol of Black accomplishment.

Shaver-Gleason warns such efforts are self-defeating, merely serving to treat the Western canon as fundamental and all other styles as deviations from this norm, thus reinforcing “the notion that of classical music as a universal standard and something that everyone should aspire to appreciate”. Trying to make Beethoven Black and desperately scouring the historical records for examples of non-Whites who wrote symphonies is to accept”a white-centric perspective that presents symphonies as the ultimate human achievement in the arts”. Black musicologist Philip Ewell agrees, and advocates “overthrowing the existing structure and building a new one that would accommodate non-white music a priori”, no reaching for “inclusion” necessary because non-white composers would already be there”. One Black music writer endorses this stance, and resents that the waltzes of Johann Strauss Jr. are regarded as part of the body of superior classical music, while the music of James Brown – “the Godfather of Soul” – is regarded as mere entertainment.

The East Asian Affinity for Western classical music

Curiously, the alleged White supremacist conspiracy that allegedly prevents Blacks and Browns from succeeding in classical music doesn’t have the same effect on East Asians – the one non-White group that likes performing and listening to classical music. A survey of Asian-Americans aged 18-24 found 14 percent attended a classical concert in the preceding year, more than any other demographic in that age group. Asian attendance rates match or surpass the national average up through the 45-54 age range. The younger the classical music audience gets, the more Asian it becomes.

Unlike non-White groups affronted by claims to the superiority for Western classical music, East Asians are under no illusion about the inferiority of their own musical tradition when compared to European art music. This acknowledgement lies at the heart of why East Asian parents are so enthusiastic for their children to play and appreciate the genre. As Amy Chua acknowledges in her widely publicized (and criticized) Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother:

That’s one of the reasons I insisted [my two daughters] do classical music. I knew that I couldn’t artificially make them feel like poor immigrant kids. But I could make sure that [they] were deeper and more cultivated than my parents and I were. Classical music was the opposite of decline, the opposite of laziness, vulgarity, and spoiledness. It was a way for my children to achieve something I hadn’t. But it was also a tie-in to the high cultural tradition of my ancestors [Chua is proud to be descended in the direct male line from Chua Wu Neng, Imperial Astronomer to a 17th-century emperor]. To me, the violin symbolized respect for hierarchy, standards, and expertise. For those who know better and can teach. For those who play better and can inspire. And for parents. It also symbolized history. The Chinese never achieved the heights of Western classical music – there is no Chinese equivalent of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony – but high traditional music is deeply entwined with Chinese civilization.[iii]

Chua is married to a Jew and recalls her stereotypically Jewish mother-in-law (a “progressive” art critic) being opposed to her grandchildren learning the violin – suggesting they learn Indonesian gamelan percussion instruments as more in keeping with the multicultural zeitgeist of the contemporary West. To back her case, she noted how French composer Claude Debussy had been captivated by gamelan music which helped inspire shimmering impressionistic masterpieces like L’apres midi dâun faun. Chua is distinctly unimpressed with this line of argument:

Personally, I think Debussy was just going through a phase, fetishizing the exotic. The same thing happened to Debussy’s fellow Frenchmen Henri Rousseau and Paul Gauguin who started painting Polynesian natives all the time. A particularly disgusting variation of this phenomenon can be found in modern-day California: men with Yellow Fever, who date only Asian women – sometimes dozens in a row – no matter how ugly or which kind of Asian. For the record, Jed [her husband] did not date any Asian women before me. Maybe the reason I can’t appreciate gamelan music, which I heard when we visited Indonesia in 1992, is that I fetishize difficulty and accomplishment. Gamelan music is mesmerizing because it is so simple, unstructured, and repetitious. By contrast, Debussy’s brilliant compositions reflect complexity, ambition, ingenuity, design, conscious harmonic exploration – and yes, gamelan influences, at least in some of his works. It’s like the difference between a bamboo hut, which has its charm, and the Palace of Versailles.[iv]

Debussy first heard Indonesian gamelan music at the Paris Exhibition in 1889 and possibly again at the same event in 1900. In his biography of Debussy, musicologist Stephen Walsh notes that while it’s common to talk about the influence of the gamelan on Debussy’s compositions, it merely accentuated existing aspects of his style:”He did not need the gamelan to teach him pentatony, the whole-tone scale or modalism. They were already part of his language. Insofar as this contact with the oriental musical mind helped release him from the toils of Wagnerism and, worse, the [conservatively-inclined] Conservatoire, the truth is that it did so only in part and quite gradually.”[v]

East Asia has produced countless young technical virtuosos, but their nimble fingers and admirable work ethics are often not matched by the emotional depth required for the successful interpretation of nineteenth-century Romantic repertoire. Chinese film director, and classical music fan, Chen Kaige, hopes Western classical music can educate an intensely materialistic and collectivist Chinese people in spirituality and individualism. “One of the biggest differences between Chinese and Western culture,” he points out, “is that we don’t have religion. We don’t worship anything. Western classical music has elements of love and forgiveness that come from religion. Chinese music is very intellectual, very exotic, but there is no love. You don’t feel warm after you listen to it.”

Appreciation of Classical Music Correlated with Intelligence

The East Asian affinity with Western classical music is perhaps not surprising given that appreciation of the genre has been correlated with higher intelligence. Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa posits that more intelligent people populate concert halls because they’re more likely to respond to purely instrumental works. By contrast, people across the intelligence spectrum seem to enjoy vocal music. Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis predicts highly intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. According to this theory, they are better able to comprehend, and thus enjoy, novel stimuli. Vocal music predated sonatas by many millennia, so, in evolutionary terms, purely instrumental music is a novelty – which, according to Kanazawa’s theory, means highly intelligent people are more likely to appreciate and enjoy it.

Studies support Kanazawa’s theory, finding clear preferences for instrumental musical genres among those who score higher on intelligence tests. Controlling for age, race, sex, education, family income, religion, current and past marital status and number of children, more intelligent people are more likely to prefer instrumental music than less-intelligent people. A 2019 Croatian study confirmed these findings, showing that people with lower intelligence preferred music with lyrics, rather than complex orchestrations. 467 teenagers performed a non-verbal intelligence test and were then asked to rank musical genres in order of preference. Those who recorded the highest IQ scores displayed a clear preference for instrumental music. On the other extreme, preference for rap music is significantly negatively correlated with intelligence.

The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis helps to explain why Black people (as a low-IQ group) are generally repulsed by classical music, and why it has been used successfully as a crime prevention mechanism in racially-diverse cities around the world. Neurologists note that certain types of music work as a crime deterrent because of people’s neurobiological responses to things they don’t enjoy or find unfamiliar. When people hear music they like, it stimulates dopamine production and puts them in a better mood. But when people dislike the music, their brains respond by suppressing dopamine production – souring their mood and making them avoid it.

Conclusion

Mass non-White immigration into Western nations has ensured that, for a growing percentage of their populations, classical music holds little or no appeal. Classical music audiences in the United States and other Western nations are contracting: according to a National Endowment for the Arts survey, in the early twenty-first century, the percentage of American adults who attended at least one classical music event dropped from 11.6 to 8.8 in just ten years.

Non-White immigration to the West was always unpopular with existing White populations who were assured it posed no long-term threat to their demographic and cultural dominance. This was always a lie: changing the demographics and culture of the West (in Jewish interests) was the core motivation for these policies. With the Great Replacement now well underway, even White people who enjoy a White art form – like classical music – are regarded by some as engaging in an activity that should make them feel “uncomfortable”. One White commentator, for example, laments that “we don’t seem uncomfortable enough” when “sitting in the concert halls of Europe and America’s cosmopolitan cities in a usually very white audience listening to a usually very white orchestra”.

African-American writer Teju Cole is similarly perplexed that White people who enjoy hearing White musicians playing White music don’t feel more uncomfortable: “It never ceases to surprise me,” he notes, “how easy it is to leave the hybridity of the city, and enter into all-white spaces, the homogeneity of which, as far as I can tell, causes no discomfort to the whites in them.”[vi] Jewish music critic Greg Sandow likewise finds offensive that, “in a diverse culture, classical music stands out (on the whole) as strikingly white, and that even many white people, especially younger ones, look at classical music, and feel (whether they put it in words or not, or even if they don’t consciously know they think this) that something isn’t quite right, that this isn’t the country they live in”. The solution to this problem, according to Fred Bronstein, the Jewish former director of the St. Louis Symphony, is for future classical music audiences to be “much more diverse than we can even dream of today. And audiences will only become truly diverse when the performers on our stages are diverse”.

Classical music, like other aspects of Western culture, has been a casualty of the anti-White diversity mania that now infests Western intellectual life. The Cultural Marxist critique of classical music wallows in bad faith arguments and cognitive dissonance: Western classical music is nothing exceptional, yet cannot be invoked to praise White people because this necessarily implies the inferiority of other races; a White supremacist conspiracy thwarts Black and Brown achievement in the genre, but it utterly fails to prevent East Asian interest and success; Black composers have written symphonies (and, indeed, Beethoven himself was Black), yet the Western classical music tradition is inherently White supremacist and needs radical deconstruction.

Ultimately, the reason invoking classical music to laud White people is so keenly resented by anti-White intellectuals is because the gap in civilizational attainment it underscores is an embarrassing affront to regnant egalitarian assumptions. Classical music is one of the crowning glories of Western civilization, and White people have every right to take proud in their race’s achievements in the genre, and to cite these achievements as motivation for pro-White activism.

[i] Raymond Arsenault, The Sound of Freedom: Marian Anderson, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Concert That Awakened America (New York: Bloomsbury, 2009), 81

[ii] Ibid., 75.

[iii] Amy Chua, Battle Hymn of the Triger Mother (London: Bloomsbury, 2011), 22.

[iv] Ibid., 40-41.

[v] Stephen Walsh, Debussy: A Painter in Sound (London: Knoph Doubleday, 2018) 211.

[vi] Teju Cole, Open City (New York: Random House, 2011) 252.

A Jewess’s rant in The Spectator against the British body politic

Martin Webster

Note: This post was first published in November 2019.

Hysterical, self-pitying, self-indulgent, arrogant, spiteful, illogical, hateful.

These are the adjectives which came into my mind when reading Tanya Gold’s tirade “‘Utterly betrayed: Britain’s Jews are now politically homeless” by Tanya Gold – in The Spectator of Saturday 9th November 2019 – initially against the Corbynite left of the Labour Party, but which developed against much of our country’s body politic.

In the end, I was left with a sense that she was raging against the British people and nation as a whole – even the gentile world at large. This is nothing new in the voluminous canon of Jewish contemplation about the “goyim”, the inhabitants of the non-Jewish world.

If somebody had published such a screed against Jewry they might find themselves charged with some sort of “hate crime”, under a law devised by Jewish lawyers and pushed on to the Statute Book at the behest of Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish parliamentarians (of all parties) and their gentile philo-semitic colleagues (of all parties), all of whom are at once:

(a) perpetually hungry for Jewish financial and media patronage bestowed by the likes of the Conservative/Labour “Friends of Israel”organisations,

and

(b) terrified of being marked down as “anti-semitic” if they refused any Jewish demand.

I found that the case which Tanya Gold’s article seeks to assert self-destructed as I read it, so I will not seek to deconstruct it in detail here. I will simply point to one short passage which exposes the school playground level bigotry – and hence the hypocrisy – of this woman who seeks to denounce bigotry:

I have not considered voting Conservative before. But I won’t. There is
a respectable strain of Conservatism, but this is not it, not for me – one
glance at Jacob Rees-Mogg’s face is enough

Jewry seeks to control all political parties

Judah has become rampant in Britain not only on account of what the founder of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, described as “the terrible power of our purse”, and not only because of the ever-increasing Jewish control of the media, but because Jewry has been able to dominate all the parliamentary political parties – and a lot of the minor parties as well.

In that latter regard, let us not forget Jewry’s sustained effort, circa 1998 to 2007, to get British National Party leader Nick Griffin “on board”, only to find that he and his party were so “flaky” that they had to turn their effort to dominate the “far Right” to cultivating the man who calls himself “Tommy Robinson” and promoting his “English” [sic] Defence League. I chronicled all this in my Electronic Loose Cannon e-mail bulletins issued during the first decade of this century while the BNP was still significantly extant.

Jewry’s strategy has been simple for the past 100 years or more: It seeks to exert a controlling influence over all political parties, factions and tendencies so as to protect Jewry both here in Britain and abroad – especially (post WW2) Israel, which is the totem pole focus of its essential tribal and hence political loyalty.

It is because Jewry sees its once stranglehold grip on the Labour Party slipping, at least for the moment, and because it fears that if Labour’s bid for independence is allowed to succeed then the revolt might spread to other major parliamentary parties, that it is making war on the Corbyn-led Labour Party with increasing ferocity.

The Conservative Party purports to be fighting the 12th December General Election to “Get Brexit Done”. In my view that slogan is a confidence trick because the “Brexit” which Boris Johnson is offering is not an implementation of the 2016 Referendum result which mandated a clean break from the EU and all its institutions.

Parties which seek to escape
Jewish control to be destroyed

Jewry is engaged in this election, increasingly by giving support to the
Conservatives, not to achieve any sort of Brexit (to which it is opposed as a revolt against the internationalist and cosmopolitan milieu in which it thrives but all others involved degenerate) but to shatter the Corbynite hold on the Labour Party and, thereby, to demonstrate to the entire body politic that parties and politicians who seek to escape Jewish control will be destroyed.

It was this motivation that prompted the Board of Deputies of British Jews, via the Labour Friends of Israel, to set up in 1977 the Anti Nazi League (“Anal” to nationalists) in alliance with the “anti-Zionist” Socialist Workers Party, then led by a group of Israeli passport-holders fronted by a man who called himself “Tony Cliff” but whose real name was Ygael Gluckstein. In the run-up to the 1979 General Election Anal subjected the National Front’s lawful activities to mob violence. Their objective was made clear with their chant: “Smash! Smash! Smash the National Front!” It is deliciously ironic that among those active in Anal’s “Red Rent-a-Mob” are people who are now being witch-hunted as Corbynite “anti-semites”within the Labour Party.

Jewry’s strategy in treating the current Labour Party with the same venom – if not, yet, with the same degree of physical violence – as it deployed against the NF in the 1970s strikes me as very high risk. In making such an effort Jewry puts itself on view to the general public in a way that it traditionally prefers not to do. The nasty, neurotic, self-worshipping aspect of Jewry’s personality becomes exposed, as it is here for all to see in Tanya Gold’s article.

“Anti-semitic” or not, the Labour Party is multi-racialist

This is not a plea for anybody to vote Labour on 12th December! Whether or not there are “anti-semites” within the Labour Party, that party – be it “Blairite” or “Corbynite” – adheres to unrestricted immigration not only from Europe but from the whole of Africa, Asia and South America and actively approves of inter-racial mating. It seeks to allow the families of illegal immigrants to “unite” here, not in their own ancestral homelands. Corbyn himself in his younger days flaunted his relationship with the negress Diane Abbott, now the Labour Shadow Home Secretary.

When Coloured Immigration into the UK commenced in the late 1940s the
Communist Party was comprised for the most part of Scots and Jews. To begin with the Jock element was in the ascendancy and proclaimed (correctly in my view) that Coloured Immigration was a “bosses” plot to undermine the wages of British workers. But the Jews, fearful of where such sentiments might lead if British society became less, not more, cosmopolitan, fought back and eventually turned the CP in favour of immigration and multi-racialism. (“Workers of all Lands Unite!”) This policy development soon influenced the Labour Party. Those seeking to know how the CP influenced Labour Party policy in the 1940s have only to read Douglas Hyde’s 1951 memoir: I Believed: The Autobiography of a Former British Communist.

This “Communist” multi-racialist policy is in fact an essentially Jewish policy; a strategy devised to leave non-Jewish nations/societies weaker and, relatively, Jewry stronger. If Jewry sustains its internal discipline, via Judaism and societal pressure, which interdicts marriage with non-Jews (“Vot? You vant to continue ze vork of Hitler?”) whilst promoting all manner of non-Jewish races to inter-breed with each other, then the culturally/ethnically distinct Jewish population will develop its patriotism and objectives whilst all manner of other folks are dissolved into racial/cultural chaos.

Not that the Jews are a particularly ethnically homogeneous nation, but as I have remarked before: In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King.

A Race War Prophecy

Race War Prophecy

Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War
Guillaume Faye
Arktos, 2019.

"A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves."

Guillaume Faye, Ethnic Apocalypse

This is a review by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. of the last book written by the French “far-right” intellectual, Guillaume Faye, with the title of “Guerre civile raciale” (A Racial Civil War). It has a foreword written by Jared Taylor.

M. Faye sadly passed away in March 2019. He wrote this book knowing he had nothing to lose as he was dying anyway. It deals brutally with the nightmare that a growing number of European countries are gradually waking up to – the fact that when you have millions of Africans and Arabs, largely Muslim, of low IQ and with no record of stable civilisation, settle in White countries in numbers that are now outnumbering those of the native White population, then the result is not exactly going to be that everyone lives happily ever after.

Mr Joyce is in danger, in places in his review, of falling into the trap of summarising the book chapter by chapter, but that aside this review is essential reading for all genuine racial nationalists. We are obliged to The Occidental Observer for their permission in republishing this article, which was originally published at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/09/08/a-race-war-prophecy/

The original post contained numerous footnotes that we have not been able to reproduce here for technical reasons. Readers are referred to the original post (link above) for those.

The celebrated French far-Right intellectual Guillaume Faye passed away in March, after a long battle with cancer, but not before leaving us a literary parting shot that deserves to be a bestseller. In his final book, Faye explores the demographic, cultural, political, and military degradation of France, drawing sobering lessons for the West as a whole. The book makes a number of stark and terrifying predictions that, when all current trends are taken into consideration, have an overwhelming probability of coming to fruition. Foremost among these predictions is that the West is now almost certainly destined to convulse with a savage and intense civil war (both civil and internal, both religious and racial) without parallel in the history of mankind. With all the dark candour one might expect from a dying man with nothing else to lose, Ethnic Apocalypse, or as it was published in French Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War), is perhaps the most brutally frank, bitterly scathing, and searingly honest accounts of the current trajectory of the multicultural West that I’ve ever come across. The reader searches the text for euphemism, finding none. There are no evasions here; no duplicity in nomenclature. Faye doesn’t speak of cultural differences, or religious incompatibilities. He has little time for talk of assimilation and integration. The problem, he declares, “is neither ideological nor even religious in nature, but, in fact, anthropological. And so is the solution. The coming war will involve people who have nothing to say to one another and who should never have been made to live together”. A little over 50 years after Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech, Faye’s book is both a nod to Powell’s prescience, and a chronicle of the nascent ebbs and waves of a crimson tide that now seems fated to engulf us all.

The volume opens with a heartfelt preface by Jared Taylor, who appears to have been appropriately affected by its contents and describes the text as “certainly the darkest, bravest, and frankest book my friend has ever written. It is a brilliant analysis of the mortal threat to us of massive non-white immigration.” Arktos, the publisher of the English translation, then offer a brief note explaining the change in title from the “intentionally incendiary” French, pointing to the fact “the original title would render this book a magnet to our contemporary censors, who would work under the curious pretext, no doubt, that any book which speaks of a racial civil war in its title must surely be advocating the same”. It is a credit to Arktos that they haven’t changed anything other than the title of this book which, while not necessarily advocating for race war, certainly doesn’t shy away from considering or even desiring the positive results that might arise from such an eventuality. As Arktos make clear, “many of the ideas the reader will encounter herein are harsh and hard to look upon, but they are genuine and astute; they are a serious man’s assessment of what he regarded as a coming emergency of continental, if not global proportions”. And with the conclusion of these preambles, explanations, and caveats, Faye’s final book gets underway.

In the first chapter, “Diagnosis Before the Storm”, Faye outlines the fundamentals of the problem facing Europe and those of European origin. He begins with a list of murders and atrocities committed in France, including the slaughter of a priest by Muslims during Mass and massacres in Paris, Nice, and other provincial French towns. He points to an”ever-increasing criminality involving clearly identified perpetrators whose ethnic origins is often concealed by the official media”, and a “growing difficulty for the native population to coexist with African and Oriental immigrants who are increasingly aggressive, demanding and violent”. What surprises Faye is that “we have not yet registered any defensive reaction on the part of this formerly valiant people or that of other European countries, let alone the beginning of any sort of retaliation against Arab and black Muslims, who bear the sole responsibility for all of these crimes”. The response thus far has been that one “snivels and proceeds to place candles and flowers where massacres have occurred”, something that the author attributes to both a loss of collective energy (the lower socio-professional classes have been wearied by incoming populations whose “cruelty remains unequalled” and to a state that targets any identitarian awakening with repressive measures. Faye argues that Whites (he specifically uses the term throughout the text after stating “let us state the facts as they are”, are “leading miserable and exasperated lives, are weary of being deprived of their tranquility” but that “an unpredictable spark” may yet cause them in “a spirit of self-defence, to organise themselves and ultimately launch a counter-offensive”.

Faye is unapologetic about speaking bluntly and specifically of race. He employs the term “as part of a sincere longing for accuracy”. Some people find the term disagreeable? The author responds:

Do you know what is really unpleasant, by contrast? Living your life surrounded by ten million, twenty million, or even a greater number of Africans and Arabs, with whom one never wanted to associate. What is very disagreeable indeed is acknowledging the thought that, soon enough, the people of our race, namely the Whites of Europe, will be a minority in their own lands. What is more unpleasant is our inability to describe the very horror of our situation without burdening our statement of the facts with foolish periphrases and politically correct words, all of which remain less expressive of what is crucial for us to say than of what one is required to say.

Again and again, Faye hammers home the racial reality of our situation, and is biting and scathing in his descriptions of those who have flooded Europe. He describes a reality where “our peaceful French men and women” are “mocked, attacked, raped and killed every day by individuals belonging to non-European races”. These “foreign and belligerent races” have “come to have their cake and eat ours”. They “want to reap the benefits of Western prosperity without having to make the same effort we have made in order to enjoy it, while simultaneously retaining their own identity and hating us most openly. They perceive us as being foreign and will continue to do so; it thus seems fair to me that we should regard them in the same manner”. For Faye, “these third-world immigrants are not worth a penny”, and African immigration to France, and more generally to Europe,”is an abomination and must be brought to an end as soon as possible”.

Faye reflects for several pages on the novelty of race war, remarking that while Europeans may in the past have driven back invaders and occupiers as part of a Reconquista movement that ended with the liberation of Greece in the early nineteenth century, these invaders “did not enjoy such demographic superiority” as they do in the present, and they were historically “perceived as foreign occupiers with their own army” rather than being embedded in our societies in the fashion they are today. Because of the overlapping elements (religion, race, and treason among Whites), Faye predicts that “this war will therefore be characterised by a very high intensity resulting from the multiplication of its explosive causes, since the conflict will simultaneously be a civil and internal one, an ethnic one, a religious one and a racial one. An unheard-of event in Europe”.

The author also remarks that the conflict is “probably inevitable”, due to the “huge and constantly accelerating wave of colonising immigration” and the fact most of these immigrants possess a “hatred combining resentment with a desire for revenge”.Tensions are building further because the secret services have designated the retaliatory actions of native groups, rather than Muslim or immigrant aggressors, as the main danger to French society, an aspect of what Faye calls the French state’s “Collaborationist Tropism.”.This is part of a much wider problem – the fact that in modernity “democracy imposes invasion upon peoples”. Citing Angela Merkel’s flooding of Germany with millions of non-Whites, Faye remarks: “The underlying purpose is for the system to impose upon ethnic peoples – upon Whites, to be perfectly clear – an invasion at the hands of foreign masses of illegal immigrants and to force them to accept the destruction of their own living environment and culture.”Parliamentary democracy, in reality a “putrid oligarchy”, is “guilty of paving the way for an ethno-racial civil war not only in Western Europe (beginning with France itself), but perhaps also in the United States and Canada”.

Faye asserts that the worst possible progression would be that this mass invasion occurred “smoothly”, but that we have instead encountered “terrorist violence, delinquency and nuisance”. This has made it more difficult to disguise the fact “that a conflict with these foreigners is underway”. Conflict is therefore always preferable to “surrender without fighting – a progressive agony characterised by demographic and cultural disappearance, population replacement and Islamisation”. Faye is adamant in his insistence that

A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves. In this regard, these Islamist provocations, whose purpose is to spark off a civil war, are dialectically positive for us Whites and perhaps even suicidal for them if the events result in our awakening. If one keeps pulling the sleeping tiger by the tail, it will awaken.

The book presents a racial civil war as potentially cathartic, solving “the generally delinquent, criminal, hostile, provocative and parasitic behaviour of a large part of these populations who, in all areas of our daily life, render all cohabitation unbearable” Faye argues:

It may turn out to be necessary to go through such events in order to salvage what is essential, because an ethnic and cultural war, in the event that we do emerge victorious, will rid us once and for all of the main problem, of the evil which, although never clearly formulated, is common knowledge to us all and has been gnawing at France and Western Europe: the immigration stemming from low-IQ Africa, the gradual colonisation of our territories, and the destruction of our identity. In short, our future disappearance from history books.

In the book’s next chapter, “The Conquest of Europe is Underway”, Faye surveys the recent influx of millions of Muslims into Europe, and points to some of those”degenerate whites and impudent Jews” who have orchestrated it and cheered it on. He describes the current phase of mass migration as “more important and much more serious than the two world wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 and Soviet Communism (1917-1991)”. These migrants “have no reason to be here at all yet are confident of their rights, turn out to be demanding and aggressive, never doubting the fact they shall remain unpunished, evade deportation and enjoy the assistance of both “humanitarian” associations and the state itself”. The author condemns the role of the Catholic Church in both offering and soliciting “humanitarian” aid for the migrants, and is clearly disgusted by the “complete traitor” Pope Francis, who is condemned in the text for his “complete lack of historical knowledge”, “Trotskyist views”,and “a rather delirious and insane conception of Christian charity”. Faye also presents the example of Jacques Attali, the economist and political advisor, as a demonstration of “impudent Jews” in action. He quotes Attali as writing the following for La Express in June 2018:

The only solution is for us to understand, as soon as possible, that it is in our interest to massively develop this neighbouring continent [Africa] and help accelerate its demographic transition; to organise the coming of migrants to Europe; and to create the necessary conditions [on European soil] to welcome and integrate millions of people into our cultures upon their arrival from this cradle of humanity.

In a chapter titled “The Omens of a Civil War”, Faye moves into an examination of instances in which low level ethnic conflict is already underway. This can be most clearly seen in the establishment of ethnic “no-go” zones in many European towns and cities, and their role as a hotbed for violence against police. Faye’s statistics for injuries suffered by French police in the course of deliberate ethnic ambushes and more general ethnic delinquency are sobering, running into the thousands every year. For Faye, these areas are not just “zones of lawlessness”, but in fact “invaded areas” that have been successfully conquered by foreigners, and are essentially no longer part of France. Although the security services have been successful thus far in preventing significant acts of French retaliation, Faye points to the June 2018 arrest of ten men and women (“for the most part family men, with no criminal history”) for planning attacks on mosques as an example of the fact that “tensions are indeed on the rise, as the country gradually turns into a powder keg”. In the author’s estimation, if such attacks were indeed to be carried out, “it would unleash a civil war upon us once and for all”.

The book’s third chapter, “The Ethnocidal Project Targeting European Peoples”, examines in more detail how life in White countries is being fundamentally changed for the worse. Faye defines ethnocide as “the destruction of a people through non-sanguinary, long-term and more pervasive processes, namely progressive immigration flooding; the destruction of one’s cultural identity and historical memory; repressive measures; spoliation; and, last but not least, the relegation of the indigenous population to a lower status”. Western governments are complicit in the ethnocide of their native peoples by refusing to act even in the face of “incessant neighbourhood riots”, “ritualistic and mass-scale car arsons”, “occasionally deadly attacks and ambushes targeting policemen, gendarmes, and firefighters”, “verbal or physical assaults committed against native French people”, “the violent harassment of White women in the streets”, “acts of aggression perpetrated against doctors”, schools falling “into the grip of daily violence”, and “the open and raucous appropriation of public spaces, followed by that of entire towns”. Faye asserts that the state and associated elites are complicit in the ethnocide of the European peoples because they desire to create a “new man”, “a necessarily anti-racist and mixed-race type of man”, and describes the figures behind this effort as “cosmopolitan elites” and “collaborationist court Jews”. Macron is specifically denounced as a Kalergi-praising product of “globalist support and Jewish funding”.

In predicting the battle lines of the future civil war, Faye asserts that the primary aggressors in Europe will be Muslims, with the main Muslim organisations coming to direct the activities of ethnic rioters throughout France. In the early stages, this camp will be assisted by collaborators in the form of leftist “journalists, officials or politicians at all national and local levels”, before support and financial aid is further provided by Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries “engaged in the Islamisation and colonisation of France”. Against this coalition, Faye posits that a substantial element of the police and gendarmerie will move into a retaliatory mode, joining “a growing number of exasperated Frenchmen with no ideological or political connections with the far Right, who could organise themselves into neighbourhood-based self-defence groups or structured militias”. After initial skirmishes, Faye asserts that a specific response to collaborationist efforts would be required and, in his discussion of “the origin of pro-migrant and anti-French elites”, Faye doesn’t shy away from explaining that Jews are a prominent collaborationist element in French society:

It must also be said that in both rightists and leftist parties, though admittedly far more often in the leftist spectrum, one encounters Jewish MPs, ministers, general councillors and mayors who, for the most part, define themselves as “citizens of the world”, or quite simply Jewish, rather than French. This is a rather unpleasant fact, since the nation they are supposed to love and serve with a patriotic heart is actually our own! As soon as the fate of Israel becomes more important than that of France in the words of the journalists, thinkers and politicians that are supposed to represent and be a part of our country, the result is a serious conflict of interest, one that I cannot fail to highlight.

The book’s fourth chapter, “Foreign Occupation”, is an extended indictment of multiculturalism from the point of daily, widespread ethnic delinquency. Faye rails eloquently against the “vindictive” state of mind of “the young Afro-Muslim population”, who comprise “entire groups of seasoned and trained juvenile delinquents that fear neither the police – whose members are highly demotivated, discouraged and spiritless – nor a lax justice system that finds itself unable to keep pace with them”. We learn that in France “90% of all minors and young adults involved in all conceivable forms of criminality stem from Afro-Arab immigration”. The young delinquents organise in a “primitive tribal pattern”, and “shall form the shock battalions of an already brewing racial civil war”. The majority of the White victims of these urban occupying tribes are young women, provoking Faye to remark, “In all cultures, the normal, vital reflex is to protect one’s women against any and all sexual assaults committed by foreigners. This, however, is not what we are witnessing in today’s Western Europe, whose members have now surrendered to complete mental weakness; it would indeed be racist and entirely reprehensible for us to ensure our women’s protection”. Faye rejects this weakness. For him, the matter is simple: any idea of a peaceful, multicultural living together with these groups is an irrational sham. “The only programme that one could envisage in their case is one where they would all travel back across the Mediterranean, regardless of any eggs broken along the way. A convivial living-together is only possible when it involves populations that are biologically and culturally related. Anything else is but a sham. We do not wish to live with these people. Period.”

The next two chapters focus specifically on the Islamic nature of the mass migration into Europe, and the Islamisation process as a whole. In Faye’s view, “Islam shall act as the sole banner, the sole emblem for the rallying, mobilisation and identification of non-European populations. It shall embody what some fight for and others against, even if – and because – what lies under its din and behind its blazing shadow is a haunting biologico-racial melody”. Faye clearly despises Islam, calling it “the poorest and the most mediocre of all human religions”, and jihad little more than a “form of delinquency”. He highlights the existence of an “Islamosphere” occupied not just by the Muslims themselves but by “French people who have chosen the path of collaboration”. These are leftists who “spread the idea that Muslims embody the new image of the oppressed”, and work in concert with Muslim, Black, and Jewish lobbying groups to “intimidate French people and discourage any and all French criticism and resistance against immigration invasion and Islamisation”. Such collaborators, including the Jews Edgar Morin and Emmanuel Todd, whom Faye briefly profiles, are “driven by a fierce hatred of France, its culture, its traditions, its deep-rooted provincial population, its ethnic people and its little white folk – described as a bunch of racist hicks - and have infiltrated our associations, our national education system (a very serious development indeed) and the media”. Although many of the immigrants are anti-Jewish, presenting something of a paradox, Faye reminds us that these Jewish activists have not “joined the pro-immigrational cause from rational reflection, but due to an emotional and irrational surge of hatred for their native France”. He continues, referring also to irrational support for Islamisation from feminists and the broader Left:

What particularly fascinates these dumbstruck Islamo-leftists, these defrocked Trotskyists, these intellectuals nursed in the lap of cultural Marxism, these old communists or crypto-communists that still hold Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in high regard and venerate Mao, Pol Pot, the violence of the Reign of Terror (1792-1793), the Paris Commune of 1871 and the crimes committed by the Spanish Republicans, is something consubstantial with Islam, something that they have in common with the latter and that is the focus of their deference and adoration – the tropism of fanatical violence and totalitarianism, which remain correlated and inseparable. That is what they have been missing since the disappearance of “genuine” communism! And what Islam is now offering them is a similar dish, served bloody and on a silver platter.

In chapter 7, “As the Catholics Lose their Footing”, Faye takes aim at Pope Francis and institutional Catholicism which has acted as “the ferocious enemy of the ethnic identity of white Europe and the objective accomplice of the migrational invasion conducted under the banner of Islam”. Pope Francis is described as “both a traitor and a madman”. Particularly concerning is the existence of large numbers of otherwise right-wing and traditionalist Catholics who nevertheless waver on matters of race. For Faye, this is an unforgivable position that threatens to place such Catholics – prisoners of their own intellectualism and of an annoying sort of biological relativism – in an impossible situation in the eventual civil war. Faye explains:

It is all quite simple, actually: ask any patriotic Catholic if an African who also happens to be a patriot and has recently converted to Christianity should be sent home in the event of a mass de-migration process that would follow our side’s lightning-like assumption of power. You will see how long they hesitate before giving you an answer. There we have it! No, seriously now, hesitations of this order are no longer acceptable. We have no time to waste on such childishness. Foreigners are DIFFERENT FROM US and must return to their homeland as soon as possible.

The only dogma of concern to Faye is the simple fact that “in order to win a racial civil war, one must first be racist, regardless of whether one participate in it willingly or reluctantly. A racial AND civil war will involve violence, as well as terrible tragedy and injustice. An indigenous person must, however, choose other natives over all foreigners, rather than prefer some allogeneic “brothers in Christ”. In their desire to soften the hearts of the French people fighting them, many immigrants will attempt to play this card”.

The book’s eighth chapter, “The Jews Amidst the Racial War”, is the one I am most ambivalent about, and is perhaps the weakest in an otherwise outstanding volume. To begin with, it is one of the shortest chapters, and one senses that Faye was uneasy or uncomfortable tackling the subject “head on”, rather than in the asides and minor profiles he scattered throughout the book. The basic problem, as I see it, is that while Faye was rightly scathing of those who are so anti-Jewish (in a distorted fashion) that they see Muslims as their allies (he names Alain Soral as an example), he failed to see that he had actually fallen into the mirror image of that problem, despising Muslims with such tunnel vision that he came to see, and search for, Jews as allies – despite all the evidence of Jewish collaborationist activities that he himself would amass and discuss. This isn’t to say that Faye doesn’t hit some high notes in this chapter. He remarks that “the Jewish soul finds itself continuously torn between exacerbated particularism and a universalistic sort of tendency; between its ghettoised spirit and its conquering mindset”. He rightly concludes that “this results in a number of contradictory features: their seeking of peace and security while relishing the idea of being persecuted; their aspiration to dominate and proud acknowledgement of their intrinsic superiority, alongside their embracement of the image of a small people that is perpetually under threat”. But, showing remarkable ignorance of Jewish opinion polls and voting patterns that suggest overwhelming political affinities among Jews as a whole, he believes, foolishly in my opinion, that these Jews, “Court Jews”, can be quarantined from the rest of the Jewish population who are potential allies.

As for any idea that a Jewish Question exists:

There is, however, a serious analytical mistake made by numerous anti-Semitic writers, especially Kevin B. MacDonald – that of focusing on the psychological traits of Jewish intellectual movements that are in favour of cosmopolitanism, and of confusing these traits with the behavioural and mental patterns of the Jewish ethnicity. A growing proportion of “common Jews” are now rejecting both anti-racism and cosmopolitanism, partly in response to the Muslim-Arab invasion.

But Faye’s retort to MacDonald can only be regarded as, at best, anecdotal, and is flatly contradicted by, for example, my own analysis of Jewish representation in contemporary refugee and migrant organisations. MacDonald’s theory is also not of “the psychological traits of Jewish intellectual movements” (can intellectual movements have psychological traits?) but that a group evolutionary strategy in which the behavioural and mental patterns of the Jewish ethnicity can be observed in such movements. It’s clear that Faye was confused, and I suggest that his tunnel vision on the Muslim Question was the reason why. We might further consider his comment in the appendices of the book:

Judeocentrism [belief that a Jewish Question exists] is a hollow obsession whose causes, meaning and goals cannot be clearly defined. There are some who will claim that the reason I say this lies in my fear of the Jewish lobby, but I am not afraid of anything and am going to die soon. Over the years I have come to understand that the anti-Semitic reduction of all our current problems to the Jewish question is the most striking form of contemporary conspiracy theories.

And so, rather than reduce all of our current problems to the Jewish question (when has anyone on this site neglected to refer to Muslims, Blacks, or broader social decay including the failings of our own people?), Faye decided to reduce all of our current problems to the Muslim question. I must be clear in that I firmly believe that Faye is not guilty here of subversion or fear of the Jewish lobby. If I did, I would hesitate to recommend this book. Instead I see a paralysis-like error in thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France. This error (commonplace in countries with large and growing Muslim populations) comprises a small element of this excellent book, a few pages in a text more than 200 pages in length, and is in many places in the text quite contradicted by the “Judeocentric” material Faye himself cannot help but refer to. But I would neglect my duty as a reviewer for this website if I did not make it clear that one must have the flexibility of mind to be aware of all facets of the existing problem, and to avoid Faye’s potentially dangerous habit of seeing allies where they simply do not exist.

But this is a book about racial civil war, not the Jewish Question, and in the final three chapters Faye returns to this theme with a vengeance, producing some of the best content of the volume. In “Our Law Enforcement Organisations Are at the End of Their Rope”, the author explains that French police are already at the frontline of the earliest phases of the racial civil war. He relates a number of infuriating anecdotes, including that of a police officer disciplined and demonised for shooting an African in the leg to avoid being beaten to death by a 15-strong African gang, but particularly horrifying is the brutal June 2016 murder of a police couple, slaughtered by Arabs in their own home, in front of their child. Brushed under the carpet by the media and authorities, Faye sees the incident as a “barbaric assassination” that “takes on the symbolic meaning of a declaration of war, one that is obviously both ethnic and racist in nature”. Due to the refusal of the establishment to act in a rational manner against racial criminals, French police are resigning in large numbers, with almost 3,000 quitting the police force in 2017. Faye argues they “might end up joining a potential Popular Resistance in the coming civil war against the Occupation and its collaborators”. The rest, he asserts, “will have no difficulty in choosing sides”.

Chapter ten, “Race and Racism – At the Heart of the Coming Clashes”, concerns the total destruction of White lives under multiculturalism. Faye explains:

Maliciously targeted by Le Monde, Liberation, Mediapart, Telerama, and France Culture, these “petty Whites”, i.e. our people and indigenous lower classes, have been forced to embrace ethnic coexistence, an artificial living-together that our leaders themselves do not even practice. This fool’s bargain also implies a blatant disregard for democracy at the hands of this shitty republic’s governments – a republic that has, since 1974, been resorting to decrees to impose an immigration invasion upon the French people, going against the latter’s wishes and corrupting their dreams of tranquility.

Whites are saturated with the ideology of anti-racism which “is completely contradictory as a result of its bias and tendency to overvalue ‘coloured people’ to the detriment of Whites”, thereby contributing to “the profound racialisation of our society” and proving an “aggravating factor in an ethnic civil war characterised by its racial and racist dimensions”. The increasing obviousness of racial antagonism in our societies is masked only via the efforts of Marxists in academia, government, and media who produce a steady stream of propaganda

for the sole purpose of intellectualising, blurring and thus rendering unsolvable the daily problems experienced by our French natives, who are forced to live among non-Whites. Our rulers impose immigration upon each and every one of us, as sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and other accomplices are seen on television in their fancy clothes and lovely little brown-nose glasses, telling us that it is all actually a blessing. The process of ethnic replacement is underway, but all is well, no problemo.

In the eleventh and final chapter, “How the War Shall Unfold – Possibilities and Predictions”, Faye uses the material discussed thus far to build a model of how a racial civil war will begin and proceed in France, and other nations in Europe. This is a thought-provoking and sobering piece of work. A brief summary here would inevitably do an injustice to Faye’s well-developed sequence of thought, but Faye certainly sees the origin of a future conflict in police confrontations, either involving Muslims claiming police brutality in response to their heightened delinquency or “following the death of some Black African scum”. Rioting is viewed by Faye as having every potential to bleed into sustained guerrilla warfare and, if it were to be prolonged long enough, Faye sees the potential for Antifa (leftist-anarchist troublemaker groups) to join forces against the police. The alliance will be short-lived since collaborators in the race war, even if the ethnic faction wins, will “not be given the position they hope for in this future society. Instead, what awaits them is death, humiliation, beatings and a state of modern slavery”.

Faced with an escalation of violence, including massive Islamic terrorist attacks funded and supported by Muslim countries, the only hope for Europe is that such events cause a shock “strong and traumatic enough to reverse mentalities”. In fact, Faye argues that this is the primary condition for possible victory, without which we are fated to slow replacement and ultimate defeat. He stresses the same precondition for the United States, which he warns will endure “severe turmoil, perhaps even partitions, in the course of the next century”.

Faye reflects for some time on the possibility that we would suffer defeat, and ponders what would become of the European peoples in the eventuality. I don’t want to linger on that here, though I encourage all those reading this review to read the book and let this particular section urge them on to renewed efforts for our cause. Instead, here, I want to focus on his more optimistic conclusion, “The De-Migration of the Afterwar”. Here the author offers a vision of White victory. He posits that the racial civil war would “through its unique violence, turn into an unprecedented collective trauma whose memory will echo across the centuries”. In other words, multiculturalism would never again be repeated by our descendants. There would be a “massive repatriation of African and oriental populations to their countries of origin”. It must be made possible, and must take place and commence very soon, because it is both necessary and vital. Let me state things clearly: whether willingly or by force, they shall indeed leave. This is not only my promise, but also my prognosis.

Despite his error on the Jewish Question earlier in the book, I leave the last words of this review to Guillaume Faye, who returns to the theme, despite himself and with wisdom, to close his magnificent book – a book I recommend to all readers of this site, and to whoever may encounter this review elsewhere:

These anti-racist and anti-White leftist Jews will have to watch their backs when the wind turns! They will have to consider the option of returning to the land of their ancestors once the just anger of European identitarians allows the latter to cleanse not only France, but also every other part of the West. This is not a threat, but a piece of advice.

The African Population Bomb

This post was first published in July 2019.

This post follows up from an earlier post at http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-worlds-most-important-graph/ on the “world’s most important graph”. This topic, suppressed by the mainstream media, should be top of the discussion list at every school, college and university in every White country.
In 1995 the population of Africa overtook that of Europe. There are comparatively few Whites in Africa. There are millions of Africans and other non-whites in Europe. The graph predicts that the population of Africa will top 4 billion before the end of this century, whereas Europe’s population will remain steady at around half a billion (presumably including the increasing numbers of non-whites and mulattoes living there).
Of course it won’t really be like that. Around half of all Africans intend to travel to Europe to live in one of our Welfare States where they don’t have to work and the (White man’s) state will look after them. Unless we stop them…

The following post was written by Gregory Hood, of American Renaissance, and published on June 27th 2019. The URL of the original article is given at the foot of the page.

Thomas Jefferson called Missouri’s petition for statehood a “fire bell in the night” portending war. For me, the fire bell is the first large all-African group of immigrants caught crossing the southern border. They knew the legal tricks to pull to be released into the country. This portends doom.

My foreboding comes from what Steve Sailer calls “the world’s most important graph“.

If current projections hold, the population of sub-Saharan Africa will increase during this century to more than 4 billion people. This would be an 18-fold increase in 150 years.

A 2017 Pew Research poll asked Africans if they wanted to emigrate. Three-quarters of people in Ghana, almost as many in Nigeria, and more than half in South Africa, black Africa’s most developed economy, said yes.

Since 2010, sub-Saharan African countries have accounted for eight of the 10 fastest growing migrant populations. About 25 million black migrants lived outside their own countries in 2017. Blacks will swallow up Europe and North America if we do not keep them out.

Bill Gates is aware of this population trend. “By the end of the century, almost half the young people in the world will be in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said in a recent video. The Gates Foundation already spends half its money on Africa, splashing out for medicine, education, and economic development.

What does Mr. Gates expect in return?

These young people can be a huge asset if they’re healthy and educated. They drive economic growth, they drive innovation. So it’s a challenge to the world to take advantage of investing in youth. Improving their health and education really pays off.

How can Mr. Gates believe this? He is not completely immune to the facts. “To put it bluntly, decades of progress in the fight against poverty and disease may be on the verge of stalling,” Mr. Gates noted in 2018. “Africa must almost quadruple its agricultural productivity to feed itself,” he said in another interview. “That’s very daunting.”

Mr. Gates has repeatedly called for more birth control in Africa but also funds programs that increase population and decrease mortality. His efforts create an eternally increasing African population that needs ever-more Western aid and technology to stay alive. This burgeoning population also floods into the West, where Africans become domestic dependents. This reduces the West’s capacity to nursemaid the Dark Continent.

Mr. Gates seems to sense all this, but is paralyzed by political correctness. Why call desperately for birth control if African youngsters are going to bring economic growth?

Perhaps it’s because Mr. Gates has heard something about IQ. “The average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is about 82,” he said in 2013. However, he declared that it has “nothing to do with genetics or race or anything like that – that’s disease and that’s what disease does to you . . . ”

Mr. Gates prizes intelligence. According to a conversation recounted by Rich Karlgaard, Mr. Gates said of success in business: “It’s all about IQ. You win with IQ.” Microsoft was famous for creating tests to try to measure the intelligence of job applicants.

But the Gates Foundation can’t raise test scores in America, let alone Africa. It recently admitted its $575 million initiative to transform teacher evaluation, compensation, and employment practices, especially in low-income minority schools, was a complete failure. It may have even made things worse. How does Bill Gates expect to transform sub-Saharan Africans?

Recently, Mr. Gates said that “intelligence takes many different reforms”and is “not as important as I used to think”. Perhaps he’s trying to avoid the political landmines in wait for anyone who talks about intelligence.

Bill Gates is not alone among billionaires who amassed fortunes through ambition and intelligence but now seem determined to squander money in the name of egalitarianism. Mark Zuckerberg wasted $100 million dollars trying to improve the public schools of Newark, New Jersey. Mayor Ras Baraka, son of the anti-white and anti-Semitic poet Amiri Baraka, then accused philanthropists of “parachuting” into the city and not working with the locals. Mark Zuckerberg didn’t even get credit for his virtue signaling.

Michael Bloomberg made his fortune by selling a specialized information service for securities traders. It was for high-IQ people who can’t make excuses for failure. Yet Mr. Bloomberg recently donated $1.8 billion to his alma mater Johns Hopkins University to foster a more “socioeconomically diverse student body”. No one criticized Mr. Bloomberg for wasting money on “diversity” rather than funding science or health research. He took heat because he didn’t give the $1.8 billion to local community colleges.

The Western elite are not fools. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg are very intelligent and don’t believe in “equality” when it comes to recruiting employees. Yet in philanthropy, they have forfeited their judgment to race-baiters and egalitarian propogandists. At best, they are wasting their money. More realistically, they are making the world worse.

In the face of a soaring African population, only clear thinking about race can forestall disaster. Sentimentality about the supposed potential of an African planet is dangerous foolishness. The West needs an elite that puts its resources behind excellence, rather than equality. Such an elite requires men not just with intellect, but courage. Are there such men? The future of our civilization – and the world – depends on the answer.

Mr. Hood is a staff writer for American Renaissance. He has been active in conservative groups in the US. The original article can be read at https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/06/the-african-population-bomb/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I turn to re-emigration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A K Chesterton, pan-Europeanism, and non-White immigration

Arthur Kenneth Chesterton was a man shaped by the time and place that he was born. He was an imperialist. He was a British patriot, born on the 1st of May 1899, in Krugersdorp, in British South Africa. He was not a hater of other races – not a “racist” as today’s insistent and wrong-headed mass media would have called him. He did not actively choose to become a racialist, based on intellectual arguments. He was born when the vast majority of White Europeans, of all nationalities, naturally assumed White racial superiority.

Chesterton and Mosley

In Britain in the Thirties, AK Chesterton joined Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists for a short period of a few years, before falling out with Mosley and leaving his movement. During those few years Chesterton was responsible for about seventy percent of all BUF propaganda output. He was a talented writer and editor. He was related to the famous novelist, GK Chesterton, and his brother, the well-known journalist, Cecil Chesterton.

At the out break of the Second World War, AK Chesterton enlisted in the British Army and fought for his country, just as he had already done in the First World War. After the War, Chesterton found even greater ideological political differences with Mosley. Mosley now believed in pan-Europeanism, and used the slogan: “Europe-a nation”. But AK Chesterton founded the League of Empire Loyalists, and was firmly opposed to British government attempts to join the European Economic Community.

When the National Front was founded in 1967, AK Chesterton was its first leader. But before then he wrote The New Unhappy Lords, subtitled: “an exposure of power politics”. My copy of the book is the fourth revised edition of October 1972. Chapter 21 is: Demoralisation at Home, from page 164 to 171, it is too long to quote in full in this letter.

Supreme Treason

On page 167 AK Chesterton writes:

“The supreme treason in the British Isles, however, is the creation of a colour problem in a White nation where no such problem has existed throughout the hundreds of years of its existence. In the 1955 elections the present writer and some of his colleagues went to Bromley to challenge Harold MacMillan about this issue, which even then had assumed alarming proportions. MacMillan said that he, too, was very much concerned about the situation…”

Chesterton continues:

“The next year MacMillan became Prime Minister, with power to move and secure the passage through Parliament of measures to put an end to coloured immigration. He did nothing. While he posed and strutted on the stage of public life further hundreds of thousands of coloured people poured into the British Isles from the West Indies, from West Africa, from India and Pakistan and from many other countries, thus casting derision upon Harold Macmillan’s professed “concern”, the expression of which obviously had no meaning other than to delude the British people. Today the coloured invasion has spread throughout England, being encountered even in the remotest country villages.”

A little later, Chesterton goes on:

“The politicians, to whom votes are all-important, now began to perceive that it was necessary to take some kind of a public stand, in their propaganda if not in their actions, against the coloured invasion, and Peter Thorneycroft, a prominent member of the previous Conservative Government, spoke to a Conservative gathering of the need not only to tighten up controls but to return to the country-of-origin certain types of immigrant. Thorneycroft had suffered a spell in the political wilderness by resigning from the Government on a relatively minor matter which concerned a difference on financial policy. Why, if he felt so strongly about the creation of the colour problem, did he not resign on this major matter, affecting in perpetuity the breed of men produced in the British Isles? The answer could be that the vested interests sponsoring coloured immigration had become so strong that anybody rash enough to offer real opposition might well be committing political suicide.”

The Mongrelisation of Mankind

Chesterton concludes:

“The dominating motive may well have been not economic but political – the conspiratorial plan, everywhere being carried out, of securing the mongrelisation of mankind. More will be said about this later. What has here to be stated, with the greatest possible emphasis, is that the mixing of White and Black or Coloured people results in hordes of unhappy half-castes who feel that they belong nowhere, whose tendency is to embrace the vices of both racial stocks and not to strive after the virtues, and who must eventually, through no fault of their own, bring to an end the tremendous history of achievement which is the heritage of the European nations.”

We should notice that AK Chesterton was writing in a book first published in 1965 and revised in 1972, about a situation that he first mentions in 1955! He writes of the Conservative Party’s intention to lie about both non-White immigration itself, and its own claimed policies to remedy the situation.

When Chesterton mentions “the vested interests sponsoring coloured immigration” and their strength, he is referring to organised Jewish interests. Why do I think that? Because the main thrust of the rest of his book is about the Jewish involvement in a drive towards a world government.

The Conservative Party has repeatedly lied about immigration over many decades now. All of my lifetime. It tells the public that it will deal with this problem, when it is clear that it will not.

Who is responsible?

One local friend of mine blames the generation of ordinary Britons who are now elderly (in their eighties) for not rising up against non-White immigration. He believes that ordinary Britons should have joined, and voted for, the National Front in the 1970s. If I have understood him correctly, in pub conversations, he also blames the National Front leadership of the Seventies for failing to win political power.

In an interview with Edward Dutton online, Martin Webster blamed our country’s leadership class for not providing proper national leadership. He said that it then fell to the lower middle class, and working class, people of the National Front to lead the opposition to the invasion of our country.

I agree that the Establishment betrayed us. Were they ALL either mercenary or ideological traitors? Were they careerists, individualists, and moral cowards? Could none of them see the long-term results of massive non-White immigration?

I believe that one group of people, both in Britain and across the Western World could foresee the long-term results of non-White immigration – the organised Jewish community. I believe, along with Arthur Kenneth Chesterton, that organised Jewish groups planned all of this. Partly out of a sense of revenge against Christendom, and also in order to achieve their aim of a one-world-state, with a world government. I offer no prizes for guessing who would control that!

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

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

This post was originally published in this blog on 25th November 2020.

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

_{November 19, 2020}

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

Piranha-enrichment programmes

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

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

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

Pakistani-enrichment programmes

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

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

Only Non-White Lives Matter

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

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

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

A nationwide problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour don’t care about “white trash”

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

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

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

Rich Jewish lawyers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fighting antisemitism, ignoring rape and murder

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

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

Brave New Britain is built on lies

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

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

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

The Great Replacement, Racial Integrity, and Coming Apart

Will Wright

Integrity and Coming Apart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must love ourselves – we must love our own people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Webster

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

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

Sir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,

Martin Webster.

The Black Crime Wave and The Media Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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