The War on White people and how Whites can successfully fight back.

Poliltical violence has always been used by the Left

Will Wright

Fight or flight…or something else?

It is well-known that human beings and other animals have a biological ‘fight or flight’ mechanism. Aggressive animals fight while timid animals flee. But what is less well-known, is that sometimes neither standing and fighting nor fleeing are possible. Then, animals do something else instead. An animal that is caught and overwhelmed by a bigger, more powerful predator goes limp. This is an involuntary biological reaction.

A hare caught by a fox, or a wildebeest caught by a lion goes limp. This might be so that it does not suffer too much when death is close. When explorer, David Livingstone, was caught by a lion, he was surprised that he went limp. He was lucky to survive to tell the tale.

A fictional gangster related that usually when he received a good kicking from gangland rivals, he went limp.

While that is a biological reaction, there appears to be a psychological equivalent. When human beings are forced into the presence of bigger, more aggressive human beings they tend to submit, and then become permanently submissive. This might explain why some women stay in abusive relationships, and why some men are raped in male prisons.

Once men become submissive, they experience a drop in their testosterone levels, which in turn makes them even more submissive – a vicious circle. Violent, dominant males experience a rise in the level of their bodies’ testosterone, which makes them even more violent and dominant.

Political violence and the psychology of dominance

Abnormally violent people, such as the Kray twins, either overwhelm others by excessive, sadistic violence, or they intimidate them with the threat of it. Anyone overwhelmed by unexpected, very fast, excessive violence tends to surrender and become submissive.

But it is not just gangsters who know this. Left-wing extremist revolutionaries and terrorists have always known this dark psychology, and use it in political violence against people who actively disagree with them.

Many Jews traditionally hated the established order in Christian White Europe. They plotted to overthrow it. If they could convince large numbers of the lower classes to rise up against their rulers, then the Jewish revolutionaries could achieve their aim.

This depended on convincing the masses of Marxist economic theories, and then inciting them to violence. Large numbers of violent workers could destroy the old order. Communist revolution always depended on violence and intimidation. Jews like Marx and Trotsky saw this as overwhelming and successful.

After a revolution there was always a period of terror. A totalitarian state frightened the population into submission.

Political violence is often used by the Left — Image courtesy of Creative Commons and https://thefederalist.com

When the political violence of communism met its match

After the First World War, German National Socialism and Italian Fascism defeated Communist political violence. They had to be prepared to meet violence with violence. The Nazis exposed to the public what Communism was really about. They were able to attract large numbers of German workers away from Communism, and then turn the violence on to the Communist leadership. Violent revolutionaries got some of their own medicine.

When highly-organised Jewish Communists attacked some of Sir Oswald Mosley’s meetings in the 1930s, they got more than they bargained for, and were on the receiving end of violence from Blackshirt meeting stewards.

But those Communists, back then, did not have a victim mentality. They still intended to use political violence themselves in future. What changed things was when the liberal press condemned Fascist violence (but oddly, not Communist violence). Some Communists then saw that they could use the liberal conscience as an unwitting ally.

By the 1970s, the Socialist Workers Party openly advocated the use of violence against National Front demonstrations. Yet it saw no contradiction in later screaming about “fascist” violence when its own street fighters got the worst of the violence that they had initiated.

Communism in decline

Western populations gradually became more affluent. Marxist economic ideas held much less appeal. Those theories also became discredited. Communist agitators could no longer incite the workers to violent revolution. Or win elections.

In the past there were two kinds of working class people. The best types were aspirational. But they not only wanted to better themselves economically, but educationally. The rougher elements of the working class wanted instant gratification – beer and football. More material goods, but not better education.

Many people in modern Britain are an odd mixture. They are classless, but not in a good way. They are materially much better off than their parent’s generation and more middle class. Yet they are very unacademic and non-intellectual – like the roughest elements of the old working class.

Old-style Communism is dead. If left-wing revolutionaries are going to find any shock troops for a violent revolution, it will be among the immigrant descended non-Whites. The politics of grievance and resentment. Jewish intellectuals, ‘former’ Communists, have invented Political Correctness, which has replaced the old Communism, and that is why some know it as Cultural Marxism.

Political Correctness

Old-style Communists wanted to decapitate White European countries, then replace the old elites with new Jewish elites. Cultural Marxists want to ‘castrate’ Western manhood. White men are told that masculinity is toxic. Feminism is promoted. Every city has an outrageous annual ‘Pride’ march. Transgenderism is promoted.

It was always the case that some immigrants were violent and criminals. Since the early 1900s, East End London Jews were gangsters and violent Communists. More recently, Pakistanis and Blacks have tended to be violent and criminals. But it is thought by some scientists that Black Africans (of both sexes) have more testosterone than their White or Asian counterparts. Some people speculate that this is because Black Africans are an older race. But testosterone makes people potentially violent. The very “toxic masculinity” that the Politically Correct brigade are supposed not to like! At least in White men.

Blacks, Indians and Pakistanis, and all other racial minorities are encouraged to be very assertive in White countries. But White people are made to feel ashamed of their country, their history, their culture. White men are being cowed. They are failing educationally. They seem to be actually becoming gradually less intelligent, for the reasons that Edward Dutton gives in some of his books. Constant intimidation, including political violence, is lowering testosterone levels and making White men even more submissive and docile.

Has political violence disappeared?

Old Communist revolutions were achieved by violence, and then the new Communist regimes ruled by terror and state violence against dissenting individuals. At the moment, Political Correctness seems to be winning through the educational system, the media, the law, and traditional politics.

White people, but particularly White men, are being subdued while we drift into extinction and replacement by non-European peoples. There is not presently the same level of terror as in Stalinist Russia. But people are intimidated. So what are we afraid of?

Losing our homes? Losing our jobs? Becoming social pariahs? Being imprisoned? Isn’t the real truth that we have been intimidated by psychological techniques, including political violence, that rely on our biological responses to either fight or flee when we can no longer do either? So we become subdued, submissive, and psychologically castrated by a low testosterone count. Psychologically speaking, we go limp and ready for death.

And perhaps the threat of revolutionary violence has not really disappeared after all. There are large and growing numbers of racial foreigners. They are growing ever more confident and assertive. Will Black and Pakistani violent mobs one day be released on the British population – if we ever try to reassert ourselves?

Copyright © 2023 Will Wright

Optimism and Nationalism

Will Wright

If you are a White European living today anywhere in the Western World, then the future looks bleak. All the evidence suggests that White Europeans are being replaced by non-White peoples. Any racial nationalist who looks around in modern Britain will see almost everything political moving in the wrong direction. On top of that, racial nationalist opposition to all of that is being crushed by the authorities.

Nationalists can be optimistic

What can true patriots and racial nationalists do to cheer ourselves up? It is not an easy question to answer. It will no doubt take much greater minds than mine to provide a full and satisfactory answer. But perhaps I can offer a few thoughts.

Firstly, we need to stay optimistic and believe that we can win. Throughout history, many people have been treated harshly by those in power. But the ones who prevailed were the ones who stayed optimistic. Because optimism floats while pessimism sinks.

Some people object: how can we be optimistic in the midst of all that is going wrong with the world? What is happening that can give us any hope? Well, there is always something that we can notice and focus on that might be against the general downward trend. For example, the British people voting for us to leave the European Union.

This was a victory that should logically have been unthinkable. The Establishment allowing an In-Out referendum. Yet it happened and our people revolted. At one time, large numbers of British citizens believed that Communism was right. There are not many today who would argue that. At one time, Sigmund Freud was hailed as the greatest thinker in psychology. Today he is largely discredited. Couldn’t that happen with the ideas of Franz Boas, the Jewish charlatan who told the West that “there is no such thing as race”?

Optimism comes from within

If we recognise that optimistic people are more likely to win than pessimistic people, and we need to stay optimistic, then where does optimism actually come from? It comes from within. No matter what is happening, the best of us can look within and summon up courage and belief that one day, the tide will turn in our favour. This is not about logic – it is a powerful belief summoned from within. It transcends logic – it is far more powerful.

Secondly, we need to be aware of what we give our attention to. What we focus on. If we only ever focus on what is wrong with the country and the world, and the nationalist movement, then we will become depressed. Perhaps that is what happens with some right-wing Tories. They are focussed on what is wrong with the country, without being able to see a solution. They are simply reacting – they are reactionaries.

Optimism and Nationalism need an ideology

But British Nationalists should believe in an ideology that exists independently of day-to-day events, and independently of what other political groups believe.

If our focus is on what we do want, rather than what we do not want, then our morale might be higher. There is a school of thought that suggests that people always get more of what they are focussed on – whether or not the object their focus is desirable or the very opposite. If you are focussed on all that is wrong, rather than the nationalist vision of Britain, then you are unwittingly attracting more of the bad stuff!

For many years, I was infuriated by those who seemed to be blindly and irrationally optimistic. I wanted reasons to be optimistic. But it seems that this is not how optimism works. It is a non-rational, but powerfully attractive force.

Thirdly, we should recognise that it is hard to hit a target if you do not know what the target is. We need to know what it is that we want – what we are trying to achieve.

Optimism and the Nationalist ideology

British Nationalists should know our ideology. We should be able to picture an all-White Britain. We should be able to visualise a Britain that is independent and powerful. One with strong military defences. A country where British families can prosper and thrive.

We should be able to recognise the situation as it is now. We should know why we reject that. But we ought to mostly be focussed on the vision that we do want. Then we are more likely to draw that vision into reality. Positive, upbeat people, who know what they want and where they are going are much more attractive to other people. A confident political movement with vision will attract more followers and eventually become a mass movement.

We need a leader with an unshakeable belief that he is right. One who can see the future. Then we can all get behind him and fervently believe in the vision too!

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright

An important article on Free Speech in the Daily Telegraph by Simon Heffer… (You can hear a ‘but’ coming…)

Martin Webster

Simon Heffer has an interesting article in The Daily Telegraph, “George Orwell’s chilling prediction has come true – it’s time to make a stand. The censorship of books, statues and history is an attempt to eradicate the past and enforce a single point of view”. It might be helpful to read the excerpts below first before returning to my commentary.

The points Heffer makes about the destruction of free speech resulting from the rewriting of Roald Dahl’s works are sound, as far as they go — but if he and his ‘Right Wing’ Tory kind wish me to express sympathy for the plight in which they now find themselves, I can only quote a phrase coined by the first Chairman of the National Front, A.K. Chesterton: “The level of the Thames will not rise appreciably as a result of any tears I may shed.”

Heffer and his kind of ‘right wing’ Tory believe that mass Coloured Immigration has been not been good for our country. But he and they have never revealed the cause of what I regard as a disaster — who was behind it — nor did they campaign with their might and main to halt and reverse it.

On a slightly digressive topic, he and his kind never wanted Britain to join the EEC — later the EU — and whined about our membership of it. But it took a brave non-Tory, Nigel Farage, then leading the United Kingdom Independence Party, to get the Brexit ball rolling. Thereafter, it took a sequence of chaotic Tory administrations to fumble the ball — whether by incompetence or deliberate slyness masquerading as incompetence we may never know.

Thanks to the Tories, a part of the United Kingdom — Northern Ireland — is faced with the European Court having the final say on trade between itself and all other parts of the UK. This is not, as Boris Johnson promised, “getting Brexit done”. His Brexit was not “Oven-Ready”. The full restoration of British national sovereignty may yet — and not for the first time — rest on an adamantine “NO!” from Ulster Unionists. (End of digression.)

What did Heffer and his kind do to oppose the imposition of the Race Relations Act and its subsequent increasingly oppressive anti-free speech amendments? Nothing. That Act was the start of the post-WW2 slide towards the suppression of rights and liberties hard-won by our ancestors over centuries.

The first draft of Race Relations Act was devised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the 1950s under the working title ‘Group Libel Bill’. All subsequent amendments were drafted by Jewish lawyers connected with the Board and pushed on to the legislative agenda of whichever party was in office, not only by Jewry’s massive media power but also by senior Home Office civil servants such as Neville Nagler who, on retirement, became CEO of — yes! — the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Did we ever hear about any of this from Heffer and his kind, who must have known? No. To speak up against the anti-free speech iniquities of the Race Relations Act legislation would have been deemed to be “anti-semitic” simply because organised Jewry was so hugely associated with its promotion — another essential fact it was crucial for careerists not to mention!

Apologists for Tory cowards plead that to have campaigned for the free speech of “Right Wing extremists” would have destroyed the career of a chap like Heffer, a clever, talented and industrious man.

No column in the Telegraph. No editorships with that group or with the Mail group. No professorship at the University of Buckingham, (a “private university” stuffed with Jews). No publishers like Weidenfeld and Nicolson willing to publish your books. No lovely home near Saffron Walden in the bliss of rural Essex.

As I write this, a phrase pops into my head: “…All this can be yours! All you have to do is bow down and adore me!”

So Heffer and his kind went rather quiet when patriots — some of them, perhaps, rough diamonds — got pulled into court for “incitement to racial hatred”. These ‘Right Wing’ Tories sought to justify the abandonment of their free speech ‘principles’ by attacking “Right Wing extremism”. Jewry patted them on the head and gave them another biscuit.

Thus the slide down the slope to outright oppression accelerated.

And now — mercy me! — Heffer and his kind find themselves oppressed by the very same forces which over the decades since WW2 have worked to criminalise and crush the free speech of “right wing extremists”.

Only a day or so ago we learned that these forces of oppression now include the government (Home Office/MI5) organised security outfit Prevent, set up to steer young people away from terrorist activities. Prevent has issued to its agents lists of books, films, TV programmes, journalists and the like which only a few years ago were part of Britain’s mainstream cultural fabric. Interest in any of them nowadays must be regarded as an indicator of terrorist proclivities. Reports must be made to the authorities.

I wonder if Simon Heffer is on that list? He did, after all, write a far from condemnatory biography of Enoch Powell 25 years ago. Say no more! Nudge!-nudge! — wink!-wink! I’ll tip-toe to the telephone straight away.

Thus far I have only referred to “Simon Heffer and his kind”. Who are “his kind”? The most telling example I can give of the kind of person in that company is Andrew Roberts, to be precise: Lord Andrew Roberts. He is a long-standing toady to Jewry, though likes to be thought of as ‘right wing’. Early in his career as a historian he held at least one private lunch at his Chelsea home for the late Ian Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia.

As Roberts’ career progressed he found it expedient to make an attack on the late Dowager Lady Birdwood (Jane Birdwood) in the London Evening Standard’s ‘Londoner’s Diary’ because she quoted extracts from the last chapter of his book Eminent Churchillians.

This chapter recounted how the Conservative Party in the 1950s stifled the efforts by Cyril Osborne MP to get the issue of Coloured Immigration to the UK debated in the House of Commons. Roberts described how Osborne’s efforts were crushed by the Establishment’s resort to blackmail, intimidation and bribery. Roberts ended his account with the words:

“… and so the greatest demographic change to the population of Britain in a thousand years was achieved without any democratic ratification whatever…”

Yet in his comments to the Evening Standard he found it necessary to call Jane Birdwood “a danger” simply for quoting his words — which by then I expect he wished he had never written — which establish that the multi-racial society was imposed on Britain without any democratic legitimacy through the deployment of conspiracy.

Roberts’ elevation to the House of Lords must surely indicate that he performed a sufficient number of Acts of Contrition to secure the forgiveness of those who must not be offended.

Background to the above photo from Choice.

After the National Front and I parted company in December 1983 (I had been the party’s National Activities Organiser since 1969) I set up a small typesetting/graphics business. In about 1987 Jane Birdwood asked me to type-set/design her occasionally-published newspaper Choice. I soon discovered that due to her advancing years she wanted me to write most of the articles as well.

In late 1994 I picked-up on the publication of Andrew Roberts’ Eminent Churchillians and in the review of it I quoted from his text which exposed the fraud perpetrated on the British electorate in the matter of suppressing a debate in the House of Commons about Coloured Immigration. The review praised Roberts for revealing those facts.

Because Choice had always been an anti-Jewish paper, its praise for anybody — even if not on a specifically Jewish topic — was always pounced-on by the Jews and, as in the case of Roberts, they ‘leaned on’ on the person concerned for the ‘crime’ of doing/writing/saying anything that Choice would find praiseworthy.

They clearly got on to Roberts big-time. Steward Steven, who was Jewish, the then editor of the London Evening Standard, made room in the paper’s ‘Diary’ for Roberts to distance himself from Jane and subject her to gratuitous abuse. She was then about 88 years of age.

Extracted quotes from Heffer Telegraph article:

[…with, towards the end, one or two apposite comments from myself…]

…[snip]…

“What is it about the past that some young people find unbearable? After all, no one is expecting them to live through it. Indeed, some of us who did find the present infinitely worse. …”

…[snip]…

“…Sadly, it goes far beyond children’s books, and indeed books generally: films, statues, television programmes, indeed, if they are allowed into the public arena at all. Are we really so delicate? Why tolerate this lunacy?…”

…[snip]…

“…We have arrived at our own endless present, or Year Zero, where the record, historical and otherwise, is readily falsified. Its rules are designed to prevent what that arrogant and self-regarding minority who feel obliged to police and alter the thoughts of the rest of us consider the ultimate crime: giving offence.

“Most of us have spent our lives encountering things that could, if we wallowed in self-regard, offend us deeply. We were trained to ignore them and get on with life. Now, suddenly, we cannot be trusted to do that.

“Therefore books, art, films and television programmes must be censored or suppressed, statues taken down as though the lives they commemorate never happened, streets and buildings renamed to eradicate thought criminals. Like Pol Pot, that minority feels a moral duty to erase the past to attain Year Zero. Sadly for us, their main qualifications are an overbearing self-righteousness, a profound ignorance of history and a deep misunderstanding of the idea of liberty that few of us share.…”

…[snip]…

“…a section of society with high responsibility for preserving freedom of speech and discourse – the trade of publishing – now willingly sacrifices its historic principles, for which people once risked prison, to censor books. …”

…[snip]…

“…People like an argument and in a free society deserve to be allowed one: they don’t want some affronted youth telling them they can’t read, learn and dispute something, like the Victorians covering up their table legs.

“Prof Biggar’s book committed the crime of stating a simple truth: that the British Empire did good things as well as bad. The hostility with which such a contention is met today is deranged: it is literally undebatable.

“Indeed, a prime motivation in wiping out the past and creating the endless present is the determination of a young generation of British people – ironically almost all white, and expensively educated – to make their fellow Britons hate themselves for their heritage.”

…[snip]…

“The climate has changed violently, precisely because we have allowed it to.”

[MW: Yes indeed! You and your kind allowed this change by your silence when “Far-Right Extremists” were in the dock!]

…[snip]…

“They inflict their control freakery on their elders, who are equally terrified to gainsay them.”

[MW: Yes — people such as you; people who put ‘respectability’ and personal career first and the survival of our race and nation nowhere.]

“If we don’t make a stand, it will end with destroying our democratic right to liberty, and sooner than we imagine.”

[MW: When have you ever ‘made a stand’ when it really counted? The time for making purely intellectual / political “stands” is at an end because the likes of you funked it when such stands could have been effective. Now we face, as Enoch Powell predicted ‘…The Tiber foaming with much blood…’.]

This post was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald's The Occidental Observer on February 26th 2023. We are grateful for his permission to re-post.

Things That Could Have Been

Philip Gegan

I’m in my mid-70s now, the time of life when it’s not uncommon to look back and think what life was like 50 or 60 years ago, and things that could have been.

And to think, as well, about the path that I have taken in life, and what were the most influencial factors that made me take that path.

In my case, one of the most important events that was to shape my whole future was the Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence (“UDI”), that took place in November 1965. I was seventeen and at the start of my second (and final) year in the sixth form at school. The previous year had seen a General Election and that had to some extent crystallised political opinion within our class of around 25 or so pupils, who made up the “Upper Sixth Arts”. I had avoided the many unofficial debates that had taken place at that time, because I didn’t know quite what stance to take. I was opposed to Labour on account of what my parents had told me about the Labour Government of 1945-51, but I wasn’t very happy with what the Conservative Government had been doing or impressed with the personalities associated with it.

To support the Liberal Party was out of the question, so I was rather in limbo, but nevertheless often attacked verbally by my fellow pupils because I didn’t support Labour. Most of them were fully taken in by the Labour Manifesto (“Let’s Go With Labour!”), but a few of them, still buoyed up by the 1962 “Liberal Revival”, manifested by Eric Lubbock’s victory for the Liberals at the nearby Orpington by-election, supported the Liberals.

Point to note here. Where I and my fellow pupils lived was a most desirable part of the country, though none of us appreciated it at the time. In the valley of the River Cray, where the overflow housing from Orpington and Petts Wood met the woodlands of North-West Kent, there was Chislehurst Common to the north-east, Petts Wood itself to the north, Orpington to the south, and the main A20 road running from London to the Channel Ports, cutting off St Mary Cray and Sidcup. London was comfortably far enough away at around ten or twelve miles, but close enough for a school visit to one of its theatres, or to catch a train up to Stratford upon Avon to see a Shakespeare play.

The inhabitants of the area were almost exclusively White. That was something that, in those days, was just taken for granted. There weren’t any black or asian pupils in the school. Not that there was any rule preventing it, of course. There just weren’t any living in the catchment area. None of the shops were owned or staffed by non-Whites. At home, there weren’t any non-Whites to speak of on the TV or radio. England’s cricket and football teams contained English players, and they were, of course, White. The postmen (and women, if there were any) were, of course, White. And English, apart from perhaps one or two Scots and Welsh. If one of your parents went to see a solicitor or accountant, a doctor or a dentist, an optician or a hairdresser, those people were invariably White. After all, that was obvious. Common sense. We lived in England, didn’t we? So what else would you expect?

Things That Could Have Been – if only!

But people knew what was going on. They just didn’t like to talk about it. You only had to take a bus to a neighbouring town and you would probably be giving your bus fare to a black bus conductor. That was something that had crept up on us over the last five to ten years.

Just along the road, the busy A20 that ran up to London, chock-a-block with commuter traffic each morning and evening, things were different. I think there was a vague realisation at that time in places like Orpington, Chislehurst, Petts Wood, Sidcup and Foots Cray. With cars and motor cycles now commonplace and travel easy and cheap, folks could see for themselves what was happening in parts of south London, not so far away, and confirm the rumours.

Even back in those days whole streets in some areas of the inner London suburbs were being occupied by blacks and other ethnic aliens. And occasionally on the TV there were programmes featuring life in northern towns which were now host to hundreds, even thousands, of coloured immigrants, as we were bold enough to call them in those days.

So that was the backdrop to the situation I found myself in at that time. My classmates and I engaged in a debate nearly every school day, sometimes humourous, sometimes hostile and intense, over the question of whether Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith was right to declare UDI. He had done so in an attempt to preserve White rule in a country where, at that time, there were around 4 million inhabitants, only around a quarter of a million of whom were White.

Things I didn’t understand

There was something I really didn’t understand about all this. My classmates were, almost without exception, very intelligent, and several were extremely witty as well. After all, seventeen and eighteen year olds know everything worth knowing, right? And yet, in spite of all this intelligence, they all fell for the “majority rule” argument put out by all leftists when discussing colonial rule and the question of votes for natives of colonial countries. It was so simple. There were more blacks than there were Whites in Rhodesia, so therefore it was their country. The blacks should have equal voting rights and thereby handed the responsibility of running the country.

The fact that the Whites and their ancestors had built the country in the first place by providing the essential skills and building the infrastructure required for the whole system to function was contemptuously ignored. The fact that in every other African country where “majority rule” had been imposed by Westminster the result had invariably been chaos and bloodshed, especially black-on-black, was deemed irrelevant. The fact that the ability of large numbers of blacks to produce large numbers of children (kept alive through infancy to pro-creation age by the medical knowledge and skills introduced by Whites) was no qualification, on its own, for running a highly advanced country, was also very unpopular whenever I raised it.

Often I had my back to the wall, figuratively speaking. I stuck to my guns in spite of some of these simplified facts being put to me again and again. I knew nothing about racial differencies in those days. I just relied on instinct, and the fact that I knew I was right.

By the end of that academic year, when we had all taken our A-level exams and were leaving school, I had convinced one of my detractors that, actually, I was right. I’ve always regarded that as quite an accomplishment, especially as he had been the school representative at a regional school debating contest just a few months earlier.

When I left school, I worked for a year in the Strand, London, just opposite the Law Courts. It was a small insurance office with about 30 to 35 people of all ages working there. One of the life office reps used to buy the Yorkshire Post because it was “a good right wing newspaper”, but apart from him no-one seemed to be interested in politics or the direction the country was being taken.

It was the same with my friends at home. I was active in a sports club, and enjoyed the social life that went with it. Just as at school, I sometimes found myself in a heated debate about some aspect of politics where I was out of line with orthodox, respectable, thinking. Usually the topic was coloured immigration or our proposed membership of what was then the EEC (European Economic Community). What was it with these people, I often wondered. Why did they take a viewpoint that was so at variance with common sense? Because it was common sense that should have prevailed in these arguments.

Were they trying to be clever? They couldn’t all be stupid. Some of them went to university. I was yet to learn how a university education almost guaranteed a left-wing viewpoint on everything. Probably those people, or those of them that are still alive, retain their left-wing politics. Others were open to argument, and many came to agree, broadly, with my position. But they would never commit themselves. They were happy just to complain about the state of the country, and the way the politicians were selling it down the river. But they would never actually do anything.

Even when I introduced them to party literature, after I had joined the National Front and nailed my colours to the mast, they still wouldn’t actually do anything, other than agree with me. Were they just humouring me, pretending they agreed just for the sake of it, but never intending to help do anything about the situation? I don’t think so. I knew them too well for that.

I lost touch with most of these friends when I was forced to move to another part of the country. I made new friends in the National Front which I largely kept in spite of my relocation. I sometimes wonder now if any of my former friends regret their lack of action back in the 1960s and 1970s. Do they look around now at the state of the country, or read things in the newspaper, or see the news reports on the television, and have any feelings of remorse? Because it’s almost too late to do anything now. But it wasn’t back then, when they had other things to do….

British Nationalists –
Should we be pessimistic or optimistic?

Will Wright

Optimism floats

Optimism floats while pessimism sinks. You are unlikely to win at anything if you do not believe that you can, and will, win. Probably for this reason, some people believe that it is still better to be optimistic, even if you are later proved to be wrong, than to be pessimistic and then be proved right. And there are British Nationalists who think that they would rather go down proclaiming that they are right, even in defeat.

A part of modern political warfare appears to be psychological. You need to properly convince your own followers that you can win. But you also need to convince your enemies that their defeat is inevitable. That is what our enemies are doing: they are trying to convince racial nationalists that we cannot win.

Enemy propaganda suggests that British Nationalists are a small minority now and always will be. When George Galloway interviewed Martin Webster on the RT television channel, repatriation of non-Whites was discussed. Galloway asked, “But it is too late now, isn’t it?” Martin replied that London’s Blacks “are not happy here”.

A viewer asked Nigel Farage, on GB News, whether ‘Woke’ could ever be defeated. Farage replied that “Of course it can! The political pendulum swings back and forth. Political fashions change”.

Optimism is important. Of course, it is easier to be optimistic if you enjoy good health and are reasonably physically fit. Young people especially should be optimistic. It is downright evil when young people are encouraged to commit suicide by some internet propagandists.

Optimism is a good starting point. But political crusaders should also know what it is that they want to achieve. We should know what a British Nationalist victory will look like. Because it is hard to score a goal if you don’t know where the goalposts are. It is hard to hit a target if you don’t know where the target is. We need to know our ideology. Leaders should also have a strategy for winning political power, because that is the aim of all realistic politics.

Enemies of our British Nationalist cause?

If we need to be optimistic, then is everyone within our ranks who sows the seeds of pessimism an internal enemy of sorts, intentionally or otherwise? Is everyone who wants to change our ideology an enemy? The short answer to both these questions seems to be yes.

We need to believe that we can win. We need to believe that policies such as repatriation are moderate and necessary and must win mainstream support. We need to know what we are aiming for. Anyone who deliberately interferes with either our morale, or our ideological principles, is hurting our cause.

But I think our optimism should be tempered by realism. That we have to face facts. We have to deal with the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. We have to face unpalatable truths – about our country, and about our movement.

Bad ideas can be defeated. Both Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud have gone out of fashion. Their ideas are now discredited. Now we need to see the ideas of Franz Boas defeated. The man who told us that there is no such thing as Race. We need to see the ideas of the Frankfurt School defeated. The group that gave the world political correctness. Cultural Marxism is a greater evil than the original Communism from which it sprang.

If we are optimistic about defeating bad ideas, then what about the race problem? When racial minorities were a small number of people they could have been comparatively easily repatriated. Larger numbers of racial foreigners will present a greater problem. They could still be repatriated, but over a longer period of time. Provided that a reasonably big majority of the indigenous population are supportive of the idea.

But the larger the alien presence, the harder it is to remove. That is why our enemies want open borders and miscegenation. Provided that most White people don’t interbreed with non-Whites, then repatriation is, in theory, always possible.

Even a White minority population, in our own country, could conceivably win, even if this is highly unlikely. This couldn’t be done democratically, at that point.

The only way that racial nationalism could be permanently defeated is if the British population became almost totally of mixed race through inter-racial breeding. That is why this evil idea is being continually plugged in our television advertising and tv dramas etc.

A new threat is identified

Edward Dutton writes that our population is becoming increasingly of a lower intelligence. He adds that this process has been happening now for over two hundred years. He is writing about the indigenous population, quite apart from any low intelligence immigrants now here. Those of you who want to know why and how this has happened should read his book mentioned in a previous post.

If British Nationalists were in power, then we could take steps to reverse this. But when we are a small political minority, we cannot. But a low intelligence country (however that happens) is ripe for invasion. This is an alarming problem. Especially with a resurgent China that is resentful against us because of the imperial era. Chinese conquerors are not likely to treat us well.

Is Dutton a pessimist for mentioning the decline in the intelligence of the national population? No. He is sounding the alarm. British Nationalists should be aware of this. If civilisations have always risen and then fallen as a law of nature because of the process that Edward Dutton describes then this is hardly Dutton’s fault. But we could take steps to reverse this, or at least slow things down.

Time is against us. We should still not be afraid to know what the threats to our survival are. But we must believe in the potential for a racial nationalist victory. We must spread our ideas in order to make that possible, when the time is right.