Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Martin Webster

From: Martin Webster

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 18:46

To: [Various]

Subject: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Churchill’s alleged negritude and syphilis are side-issues in comparison to his promotion of Coloured Immigration

[This post was originally an email communication from me to a number of people on my email list, some of whom responded. I have adapted the format and set out the responses below this post.]

I don’t know whether the allegation that Winston Churchill had a negro ancestor has been proved by Sam Dickson’s assertion and John Ing’s suggestion — both on 11th June (see below). 

Moving from negritude to syphilis, some of you may remember an old comrade in the Cause, the late Dr William Mitchell, who had a GP medical practice in New Cross, south London, and whose son, Robert, stood as a National Front candidate for that area in the 1979 general election.

Dr Mitchell always maintained to me that Churchill suffered from “hereditary syphilis” thanks to his father, Lord Randolph. All the “official” Churchill web sites pooh-pooh that allegation, while other sources cite pro and con assertions. Wikipedia (no friend of ours) has this entry on Randolph, which is typical of the latter approach:

In January 1875, about a month after Winston’s birth, Randolph made repeated visits to Dr Oscar Clayton.[12] He had twenty years to live, but suffered from debilitating illness, particularly in his last decade. Quinault writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography considers that he probably was passing through the stages of secondary syphilis and then tertiary syphilis, but mentions a brain tumour and multiple sclerosis as other possible causes.[4] It is definitely the case that he was treated for syphilis, and it has been suggested that he was suffering from symptoms of the mercury-based medication.[13] Clayton was a society doctor and specialist in the treatment of syphilis at his London practice at 5, Harley Street.[12] Robson Roose, who was the Churchills’ family doctor in the 1880s, had written on syphilis, his diagnosis, as a root cause of debilitating disease. He referred Randolph to the specialist Thomas Buzzard, but continued to prescribe potassium iodide and mercury.[13]

According to Frank Harris, who published the allegation in his scandalous autobiography, My Life and Loves (1922–27), “Randolph had caught syphilis…” [12] He relied on a story by Louis Jennings, an associate of Randolph’s who had later fallen out with him. John H. Mather of the National Churchill Library and Center called into question Harris’ veracity and offered the alternative theory of a “left side brain tumour”. Mather noted that “There is no indication that Lady Randolph or her sons were infected with syphilis.”[14]

The more crucial issue

The more crucial issue for us to consider is this

What was the point of Winston Churchill mobilising the British people to … 

“…  fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …”

… when the last remnant of that brave generation of Britons have lived to see a time when, at the orders of the government, various services meant to protect this island and its people are ushering — with the help of the French navy! — wave-upon-wave of illegal immigrants on to our shores?

More illegal immigrants arrived in the first six months of this year (2,000) than arrived in the whole of last year.

Boris Johnson offers legal immigrant status to 2.85 million Hong Kong Chinese

And while that is going on, our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, writing in The Times on 3rd June, has offered to make what he says would be one of the “biggest changes” in the history of the British visa system “to allow 2.85 million Hong Kong citizens the chance of fully-fledged citizenship”.

Let us revert for a moment to the commencement of mass Coloured Immigration in the early 1950s when Churchill was returned to power. Unless at that time Churchill was senile and kept alive solely by his physician Dr Charles McMoran Wilson’s concoctions of baby monkeys’ glands, then he must take his share of the blame for the immigration catastrophe.

It was during Churchill’s post-WW2 government that huge pressure was placed by Tory Party ‘whips’ and other Establishment intimidation agencies on Tory MP Cyril Osborne to withdraw his parliamentary motion — the first and last of its kind ever proposed — for a debate on the issue of coloured immigration.

Such was the pressure that eventually Osborne became “ill”. Some say the illness was feigned; others that the pressure had made him genuinely ill. Whichever was the case, in his absence from the House of Commons his motion was not called on. Soon after he was awarded a knighthood. His health recovered.

As the pro-Tory Establishment-toady historian Andrew Roberts remarked at the end of the last chapter of his 1994 book ‘Eminent Churchillians’:

“… and so the greatest demographic change in the entire history of the British nation was achieved without any democratic ratification whatever …”

Nobody from any of the parliamentary political parties or in any major national newspaper or broadcasting network challenged the truth of that assertion. The Establishment went quiet and hoped nobody would notice.

Choice – the only voice which piped up

The only small voice which did pipe up was Choice, the occasionally-published newspaper issued by my old friend and patron Jane Birdwood (The Dowager Lady Birdwood). At the material time, I was the paper’s principal writer as well as its graphical originator.

Choice published a favourable review of the last chapter of â€˜Eminent Churchillians’ in the autumn of 1994. That rattled the cages of Jewish journalists, especially the nest them then infesting the London â€˜Evening Standard’. They were soon on the phone to Roberts asking him: “What have you done?!?” 

Realising that he had ‘dropped a clanger’, he sought to defend his reputation by mounting an ungallant personal attack on “the racist” â€¦ “the fascist” Lady Birdwood. (This from a man who used to hold discreet dinner parties at his swanky Chelsea home for the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith!)

Choice got its own back by publishing another story about the matter in which we praised Roberts for drawing attention to a matter which the Establishment wanted to cover up and not allowing himself to be intimidated. (har! har!) See the attached cutting from Choice

Roberts’ crucial sentence …

“… and so the greatest demographic change in the

entire history of the British nation was achieved

without any democratic ratification whatever …”

… means the multi-racial society that has been imposed on us by gradual degrees since 1948 has got no democratic legitimacy.

That has huge legal and moral significance in a â€œdemocracy” in terms of what is allowable and justifiable by way of resistance.

• The British people never asked for a multi-racial society.

• The people were never asked if they wanted a multi-racial society.

• Creating a multi-racial society was not made the central issue in any general election.

A multi-racial society was sneaked up on the British people by gradual degrees, under the camouflage of continuous horrendous lies. That is not what is known to be “the democratic process”.

The supportive public reaction to Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech frightened the Establishment

The Establishment reacted with shock at the enthusiastic public support for Enoch Powell’s forthright anti-immigration speech delivered on 20th April 1968.

In this, Powell warned: â€œâ€¦ I see the Tiber foaming with much blood …”. He declared that unless immigration was halted and reversed then the time would come when the immigrants would “hold the whip hand” over the indigenous British population.

Who can say that this isn’t happening now with rows of British policemen of all ranks ‘giving the knee’ to Black Lives Matter rioters?

The Establishment’s response to public support for Powell was not to reconsider what it was doing to our country by way of immigration — as true democrats would do —  but to impose oppressive Race Relations laws designed to suppress and criminalise opposition to what was being done.

These Race Relations laws were, in the first instance, drafted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and circulated under the title: ‘Group Libel Bill’). All of the several revisions of this legislation were lobbied-for and drafted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

In one revision to the Race Relations legislation, “intent” and “the truth” of what was uttered or published by a defendant were not allowed as a defence against charges of “inciting racial hatred”

We are now living under a tyranny. Massive changes to the ethnic and cultural fabric of our nation have been and are being imposed without any reference to the electorate by tyrants who tolerate no opposition.

The time is long overdue for serious resistance. Without resistance then the indigenous Anglo-Celtic folk of the British Isles — and, indeed, the whole of Europe — face genocide via enforced race-mixing.

From: Sam Dickson

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 18:58

To: Martin Webster

Cc: Various.

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration


As someone who has laboured in these vineyards for almost 60 years, I think the most remarkable feature of Whites in my lifetime has been their extreme passivity.

What has transpired in our lifetimes is horrifying and amazing but the most amazing thing is that Whites seem incapable of normal reaction.

The passivity is more remarkable than what has happened.

It’s akin to going into a grocery store and seeing a woman being raped in the vegetables section, a teenager being knifed in the fruit section, customers being robbed at gun point in the meat department…but the customers in the grocery taking no notice but just blandly pushing their shopping carts around and filling them with their purchases.

What can account for this?


I have never been able to diagnose whites.


From: NJ

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:10

To: Martin Webster

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Can’t see the situation could be resolved peacefully. It will come to the point of culmination. Politicians are scum everywhere, no use. It will be like a shoot-out in the streets of Dodge City …

Best wishes

From: Adrian Davies

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:11

To: Sam Dickson , Martin Webster

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Dear all,

I must say, I agree with Sam about the extraordinary passivity of white people in the face of reverse colonialism, inverse racism and dispossession of their native lands.

This collective defect is especially pronounced in Anglo-Saxons.  Twenty years ago, I would have added “also in the Dutch and the Swedes”, but both those people now show far more signs of awakening racial consciousness and resistance to dispossession than do ours.

Why is this so?  The likelihood of a people who have in the years since the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury in 1948 offered so little resistance to demographic displacement now offering the serious resistance for which Martin calls seems remote.  I shall be delighted to be proved wrong, but how?



From: [Name withheld]

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:22

To: Martin Webster

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Thanks Martin, really depressing, what dreadful people we have been ruled by. I have written to our MP re Chinese Hong Kong. I’ll send you a copy of his reply.  Why would our leaders have done this? Sounds naïve after all I’ve been involved in but it is unbelievable.


From: Robert Henderson

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:40

To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

The answer to passivity amongst the English is probability that the English evolved to have an extraordinary degree of self control which allowed Parliamentary government and a meaningful legal system to evolve and reduced the propensity for violence. The Canadian criminologist Elliott Leyton in his book Men of Blood  argues strongly for the English being exceptionally restrained when it comes to violence, a tendency going back at least as far as the Middle Ages. That does not mean that the English are never violent merely that at any given period the English were much less violent than the general run of humanity.

When I say evolved I mean Darwinian selection. It would work like this. Any human population will contain a range of personalities, e.g. brave, reckless, calculating and so on. Natural selection would work on the various personalities. The brave reckless personality would be selected for warrior societies and less brave and reckless for more restrained societies 

Our own society functioned very well before  the introduction of immigrants from around the world. It can’t function properly with huge and growing immigrant bodies within the  UK. In short, no society can function properly when it has introduced into it alien behavioural elements which exclude one another. 


From: Bill Baillie

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:56

To: Adrian Davies, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster

Cc:Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

The First Past the Post electoral system has prevented the representation of anti-immigration candidates in the UK. If we had Proportional Representation we would have a sizeable block of patriotic MPs, just as they have in the Netherlands and Sweden. Our first priority should be PR.

Bill Baillie

From: Adrian Davies

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:59

To: Robert Henderson, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message that was sent: 20 June 2020 20:40

That’s an interesting idea, but I wonder about its premises. Was the Battle of Towton, for example, an instance where the English showed “an extraordinary degree of self-control”?!

From: Adrian Davies

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 21:15

To: Bill Baillie, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

You’re right Bill that FPTP is a bulwark of the system parties against dissidents and that PR would be helpful (you would also be right to point out that the zeal of British nationalists for leaving the EU led to the abolition of the only PR elections that we have ever had in England: I appreciate that Wales, Scotland and N. I. have versions of PR for the devolved legislatures).

Bearing in mind that the duopolists respectively hold 365 and 202 of the 650 Westminster constituencies, and so control the legislative process, there is not a cat’s chance in hell of their conceding PR, at any rate, for so long as Labour entertains the (possibly delusional) belief that under FPTP it can ever return to sole power untrammelled by the requirements of coalition.  The present system works really well for the Conservatives, while Labour think that it might work for them the next time around.

From: Robert Henderson

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 21:20

To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Adrian Davies message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 20:59

Let me quote what I wrote:

“The Canadian criminologist Elliott Leyton in his book Men of Blood argues strongly for the English being exceptionally restrained when it comes to violence, a tendency going back at least as far as the Middle Ages. That does not mean that the English are never violent merely that at any given period the English were much less violent than the general run of humanity.”  

That deals with non-state actions. 

As for state actions such as war, the normal general rules of restraint are removed, although even there such rules as accepting surrender mitigate the violence. It is also worth noting that the English Civil War lacked the routine application of the normal continental rules about sacking a fortified town or city which had not surrendered and the only time such continental rules were applied was during Cromwell’s time in Ireland and that harsh treatment could be ascribed as revenge for the massacre by Catholics of thousands of Protestants in Ireland in 1641.


From: Adrian Davies

Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 22:00

To: Robert Henderson, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 21:20

Leyton’s is an interesting theory.  I don’t have the specialist knowledge of continental history required to say whether England really has been much less violent than other European states with genetically similar populations for the past 500 years.

The late Sir Alfred Sherman (an Anglophile Jew) reasoned that the apparent relative domestic peacefulness of England was the result of the extraordinary opportunities for those so inclined to make a career out of violence and extortion in the empire (very much the thesis of some of those presently advocating in favour of BLM, the only difference being that Sherman approved of such actions, if directed towards lesser breeds without the law.  Sherman would have thought Lord Clive’s extraordinary career as a self-taught military commander, shakedown and protection racket specialist in Bengal admirable rather than shocking, but I couldn’t possibly comment!)

My own take on our history is that hyper-individualism is an Anglo-Saxon genetic trait, which has evolutionary advantages under some circumstances (it makes the English remarkable explorers, inventors and entrepreneurs, though all these qualities are to be found in other European nations, as is apparent from the discovery of the new world by the Portuguese and the Spanish and the derivation of entrepreneur, for which, as the second President Bush observed, the French don’t have a word!) but also has disadvantages, for example in competing with groups that have a strong in group/out group differentiation mechanism (and one in particular).

First the Reformation and then the long period of British maritime hegemony moreover enabled England/the United Kingdom to develop in relative isolation from even the rest of Europe, so that in terms of defining who is the other, class distinctions eventually replaced religious distinctions as the dividing factor in society, while foreigners were rarely encountered at all.

After 1948, profoundly alien populations began to settle a country that was class stratified, with little sense of the importance of ethnicity, outside one or two areas such as the East End of London where earlier waves of immigrants were recognised by Britons as “the other”.

Despite the impact of all the factors that I have outlined above, it remains both surprising and profoundly depressing that there has been such little popular opposition to demographic transformation. 

From: Robert Henderson

Date: Sunday, 21 June 2020 15:31

To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster , Adrian Davies

Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Adrian Davies’ message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 22:00

England’s relative lack of violence is indubitably shown by war. Whereas the rape and massacre of  the inhabitants of fortified towns and cities and the theft of whatever came to the hands of their invaders was still routine in on the continent in the 17th Century (e.g., see the Sack of Magdeburg) it was effectively extinct in England by then, although as I mentioned before, not when England fought in lands other than England, e.g., Ireland.  

On this question of violence keep in your mind the wholly exceptional written records England has, ranging from the Exchequer Pipe rolls, the legal records now held in the National Archive and the parish registers    which take us back to the 13th Century at worst. Such records allow historians to build a much more intimate and accurate picture  than virtually any other country in Europe. This includes the decline of violence.  

Rather than individualism I would say the very early imposition of the rule of law (by the 12th/13th Centuries) and the survival and development of Parliament leading to Parliamentary government in the late 17th century are the drivers to less violence. There were many Parliaments and Assemblies throughout Europe in the Medieval world but these all fell into various degrees of disuse as monarchs became ever more powerful. By the mid 17th century there was barely a Parliament worthy of its name aside from England’s and the Dutch States-General.

As for individualism this can be overdone. Take economics. The UK became the greatest economy and power in the 19th Century behind a very effective system of protection called the Old Colonial System. This was not dismantled until the 1840s and 1850s. By opting for free trade after that time the UK lost its economic advantage and when WW1 came along we were seriously embarrassed both by our inability to feed ourselves from our own farming and by the lead which Germany had taken in the chemical industry. 

One final comment on economic individualism. I have never met a poor man or woman who had a good word to say for it. That tells you something important.  

At present we are seeing a hasty change of direction as countries have seen how dangerous laissez faire economics is for it puts us in the hands of potential enemies such as China.


From: [name deleted]

Date: Sunday, 21 June 2020 17:45

To: Martin Webster

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Thanks for this. To have had congenital syphilis, his mother would have had to have been infected, which would certainly have been possible, either being infected by her husband or from her own well-known extra-curricular activities.  However, I cannot myself see any of the stigmata of the disease in their son. Do you know why Dr Mitchell thought he had been infected?

I’ve recently finished reading Diana Preston’s Eight Days at Yalta. The impression I had from the book was that Churchill’s mental weaknesses at this time in his life were probably related to his prodigious alcohol consumption, which I rather suspect might well have been the cause of his “black dog”. Aside from this, I was interested to read that following Roosevelt’s death Harry H Truman fired all of Roosevelt’s Jewish advisors and refused to allow any of them to attend future conferences.  


From: Sam Dickson

Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 05:13

To: Robert Henderson

Cc: Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message of Sunday, 21 June 2020 15:31

The last serious civil war in Britain was in the 1640s. (The 1745 thing is too silly to be dignified by calling it a “civil war.”)

The passions animating both sides in that war were very strong. 

I have searched in vain in my genealogy for any cavalier ancestor.  Coming from centuries of Presbyterians, of course, it has turned out that all English ancestors known to me were Parliamentarians.  I had an ancestor who was a captain in the Parliamentarian army.  That’s as impressive as I have been able to come up with.  My ancestors were Presbyterians, not Puritans, and did not support the execution of Charles Stuart (although I think he had it coming.)  It’s remarkable evidence of the English people’s attachment to the monarchy that the Presbyterians continued to oppose executing the King after all that he had done to earn their hatred.

Despite the furious antagonism between the contending sides in the 1640s, it is remarkable how civilized the behavior was in comparison to things like the French and Russian Revolutions.

There were episodic atrocities.  The Parliamentarians killed some Royalist civilians.  Part of Charles’ army once ran amuck and killed a lot of civilians in some town or other (which became part of the charges against him in his trial).

But by and large each side was quite restrained.

Things like the Gulag, the Katyn Forest killings, the mass executions of “class enemies” in the Russian Revolution and things like the guillotinings, the September Massacres, the mass murders by sinking boats crammed with ordinary people in the French Revolution did not happen.

Neither the Parliamentarians nor the Cavaliers routinely killed the wives and children of their opponents.  Neither side believed that it was okay to rape the wives and daughters of people on the other side.

For all that we Anglo-Saxons think that the English (or British – since Scotland was involved too) Civil War was an awful event, compared to other peoples’ revolutions it was nothing.


From: Come Carpentier

Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 07:16

To: Sam Dickson

Cc: Robert Henderson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Sam Dickson’s message of Monday, 22 June 2020 05:13

Ascribing degrees of violence to nations or races according to their presumed genetics is hazardous and unreliable. I believe that the British showed a capacity like most other people, given certain circumstances, for intense violence and indeed, in a ‘softer’ tone ‘putting up your dukes’ in English society was quite accepted even in the early 20th century whereas to fight with bare hands (or knuckles) was considered ungentlemanly on the continent. Soccer hooligans from Britain are known and feared everywhere! I remember an English friend telling me (tongue-in-cheek) that ‘we had to train fighting dogs for the Empire’.

British mores and behaviour have also changed a lot over the centuries. The rather uproarious conduct acceptable in Shakespeare’s time (when people socially kissed each other on the mouth|) became unthinkable in times of Victorian propriety which were guided by rules similar to those we are expected to observe in the wake of the COVID epidemic.


From: Sam Dickson

Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 14:56

To: Come Carpentier

Cc: Robert Henderson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Replying to: Come Carpentier’s message of Monday, 22 June 2020 07:16


I hope the Anglo-Saxons (and Celts) still have the capacity buried somewhere inside of them of fighting back.

I keep wishing to see what someone (H. G. Wells?) predicted: that when cornered the English will work themselves up  into a frenzy of self-righteousness and destroy everything in sight.

Or Kipling’s “When the Saxon Begins to Hate.”

But I’ve been waiting a long time, just as many of you have.


From: Peter Rushton

Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 16:23

To: Owen Hayes , Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster

Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst,, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir

Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration

Today’s Daily Telegraph included what amounted to a call for some such resistance – significant mainly because its author Nick Timothy was ideological guru for the previous Prime Minister Theresa May. His theme is reminiscent of Evelyn Waugh’s disparaging comment to a neighbour after she congratulated him on the Tory election victory of 1951:

“The Conservative Party have never put the clock back a single second.”

The article is online at:


From: Robert Henderson

Date: Monday 22 June 2020, 17:00

To: Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton

Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir

All part of the long march through the institutions, Peter.  As  a history and politics  undergraduate in the late sixties and  early seventies  I saw  the long march in its  early stages  after Rudi Deutsche had floated the idea. Of course the idea of place men was nothing new but Deutschke gave it a much more formalised and vastly greater canvas to paint on. 
It was quite apparent even  then that it was  a most potent political weapon.  RH 

From: Nation Revisited

Date: 22 Jun 2020, 17:38

To: Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton

Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir

I have no doubt that left wing academics and liberal politicians are in favour of coloured immigration. I also know that the Jews are generally in favour of open borders. They have wandered the world for two thousand years and they are bound to feel sorry for immigrants. But I maintain that the main reason for immigration is economic. If you support world trade you can’t complain about immigration. The only way that we can protect ourselves is by becoming part of a self-sufficient bloc that uses its own labour and resources.

Bill Baillie

From: Sam Dickson

Date: 22 June 2020, 17:53

To: Nation Revisited, Sam Dickson,

Cc: Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir


A nation must be reasonably self-sufficient to be a sovereign and independent nation.

We have seen this in the Covid Virus “crisis” here in the US. (I will set to one side the fact that the virus scare is 5% real and 95% hype.)

We have been unable to implement widespread testing…because our medical supplies are no longer manufactured in America but are imported from CHINA.

The free trade fanatics – which include all Democrats and virtually all Republicans – have spent decades ridiculing people who questioned the wisdom of deindustrialization and off-shoring our manufacturing to the Third World.

Those of us who pointed out that this would leave us at the mercy of foreign countries, most of which are hostile to us, were called “economic isolationists”, “reactionaries”, “trade warriors” when the proponents were polite and “fascists” and “Nazis” when they weren’t.

Well!  Now we have the data in hand. Who was RIGHT?  Who was WRONG?

But – no surprise – the System media has been in absolute lockstep in never, never, never even raising the question about our dependence on foreign imports.

Instead, the journalists have blathered away about Trump’s “failure to prepare.”

Never about the Clintons’ role in stripping away our ability to produce our own medical supplies.  Not once have I seen anyone in the media ask any System politician or economist a question about this issue.

The unanimity of the media and the gullibility of the American people are astonishing.

There was more disagreement, dissent and free reporting of real news in Pravda and in Der Voelkischer Beobachter than in the American media.

And I’m not being cute in saying that.

There is absolute,total, deadening unanimity in all of our media.

Goebbels and Stalin could only dream of having such a compliant media and gullible public.

But reality remains reality.

And your point (and mine) has been proven right.

Free trade means abolition of country.

From: Martin Webster

Date: Monday 22 June 2020, 18:56

To: Nation Revisited, Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Peter Rushton

Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir


That’s a load of bollox, and you (should) know it.

“…part of a self-sufficient bloc that uses its own labour and resources…” you say?

What? Like the European Union — which you champion in honour your spiritual guru, Saint Oswald Mosley?

Please don’t try and divert the theme of this thread on to your Mosleyite obsession of â€˜Europe a Nation’.

The EU is gorging itself on alien (mainly Afro-Asian) immigration and is also having a great time using the French navy to usher on to our beaches boat-loads of illegal immigrants — 2,000+ this year already, double the number of arrivals last year. (As I write I learn that Stuttgart is the latest European city to be devastated by immigrant rioters. The German media and Police are doing their best to hush up the fact that Police of that city were forced to flee from a massive onslaught which saw Police cars torched, individual officers beaten-up., etc., etc. The German media have been describing the rioters simply as “people”!)

While I’m banging the anti-EU drum, may I say how illogical I found Adrian Davies’ support for your advocation of Proporational Representation. He lamented that the Brexiteers’ victory in (a) the 2016 Referendum and (b) the last general election, resulted in the loss to the British electorate of the only PR elections available to them.

Oh! Deary-me!

Adrian was too coy to spell out (to a mainly Brexiteer audience in this thread!) that the elections to which he was referring were the EU ‘Parliament’ elections!

The ‘loss’ to the British people of those elections is not matter for lament since the EU ‘Parliament’ has very little power. The real power in the EU belongs to the Commission, which is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The EU ‘Parliament’ is little more than a decorative bauble designed to con the ill-informed general public that the EU is a democratic institution

Furthermore, the number of British members of the EU ‘Parliament’ (by whatever method they were elected) were completely swamped by MEPs from other countries. Most of these other countries, (including Croatia) are in the ranks of the begging-bowl brigade who love the EU because it enables them to batten on to the taxpayers of the minority of EU countries who are net-contributors to the EU’s budget — who included, until recently, Britain.

“A self-sufficient bloc” Bill? Give me a break!

Getting Britain OUT of the EU once and for all must be British nationalists’ (as distinct from European nationalists) number one priority. Once that is done, we must then turn our attention to stopping immigration and starting repatriation.

Our internationalist enemies realised back in 2016 that at the root of the British peoples’ hostility for the EU, the thing that prompted them to vote as they did in the Referendum, was their hostility to the alien invasion of our land. That theme was at the root of my initial posting which prompted this thread.

So, Bill, don’t be like Mr Dick in David Copperfield who, no matter what was the topic of any discussion, he always steered the conversation towards the subject of King Charles the First’s head.

Martin Webster.   

That’s the end of the thread for the time being. We shall update this post as and when further responses are posted to the original post.


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

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.”[1] 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.”[2] 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.”[3] 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.”[4] 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.”[5] 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 along the beginning of any sort of retaliation against Arab and black Muslims, who bear the sole responsibility for all of these crimes.”[6] 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.[7] 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.”[8]

Faye is unapologetic about speaking bluntly and specifically of race. He employs the term “as part of a sincere longing for accuracy.”[9] 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.[10]

Again and again, Faye hammers home the racial reality of the 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.”[11] 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.”[12] For Faye, “these third-world immigrants are not worth a penny,”[13] and African immigration to France, and more generally to Europe, “is an abomination and must be brought to an end as soon as possible.”[14]

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”[15] 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.”[16]

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.”[17] 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.”[18] This is part of a much wider problem – the fact that in modernity “democracy imposes invasion upon peoples.”[19] 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.”[20]

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.”[21] 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, who 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.[22]

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.”[23] 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.[24]

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. [25] 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).”[26] 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.”[27] 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 “rather delirious and insane conception of Christian charity.”[28] 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 L’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.[29]

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 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 “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.”[30]

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 the indigenous population to a lower status.”[31] Western governments are complicit in the ethnocide of their native peoples by refusing to act even in the fact 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.”[32] 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.”[33] Macron is specifically denounced as a Kalergi-praising product of “globalist support and Jewish funding.”[34]

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,”[35] 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 faded 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,”[36] 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.”[37] 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.”[38] 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.”[39]

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.”[40] 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.”[41] 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,”[42] 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.”[43] 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 ‘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.”[44] 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.[45]

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.”[46] Pope Francis is described as “both a traitor and a madman.”[47] 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 positions 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 simply, 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.[48]

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.”[49]

The book’s eighth chapter, “The Jews Amidst the Racial War,” is the one I am most ambivalent about, and 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.”[50] 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.”[51] 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.[52]

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.[53]

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 to 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.”[54] 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.”[55] The rest, he asserts, “will have no difficulty in choosing sides.”[56]

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 MondeLiberationMediapartTelerama, 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.[57]

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.”[58]  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.[59]

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.”[60] 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.”[61]

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.”[62] 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.”[63]

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.”[64] 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.”[65]

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.

[1] Faye, Ethnic Apocalypse, (hereafter EA) 7.

[2] EA, viii.

[3] EA, xi.

[4] EA, xii.

[5] EA, 1.

[6] Ibid.

[7] EA, 2.

[8] EA, 2.

[9] Ibid.

[10] EA, 3.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] EA, 88.

[14] EA, 213.

[15] EA, 6.

[16] EA, 7.

[17] EA, 9.

[18] EA, 10.

[19] EA, 12.

[20] EA, 13.

[21] EA, 15.

[22] EA, 16.

[23] EA, 17.

[24] Ibid.

[25] EA, 20.

[26] Ibid.

[27] EA, 21.

[28] EA, 24.

[29] EA, 29.

[30] EA, 44.

[31] EA, 49.

[32] EA, 52.

[33] EA, 56.

[34] EA, 62.

[35] EA, 57.

[36] EA, 77.

[37] EA, 79.

[38] EA, 87.

[39] EA, 89.

[40] EA, 93.

[41] EA, 94-5.

[42] EA, 107.

[43] EA, 112.

[44] EA, 116.

[45] EA, 134.

[46] EA, 135.

[47] EA, 143.

[48] EA, 145.

[49] EA, 146.

[50] EA, 154.

[51] Ibid.

[52] EA, 155.

[53] EA, 215.

[54] EA, 164.

[55] EA, 165.

[56] EA, 166.

[57] EA, 176.

[58] EA, 178.

[59] EA, 183.

[60] EA, 189.

[61] EA, 192.

[62] EA, 207.

[63] EA, 202.

[64] EA, 209.

[65] Ibid.

The BBC and Other Media versus The Truth

The following is an Open Letter to the BBC's Points of View on the Media Coverage of Black Crime from Will Wright

Subject: Race and immigration ... and a suggestion for an interview documentary

7th May 2018

Dear BBC

There have been quite a few stories about race or immigration in the news lately: the fiftieth anniversary of Enoch Powell’s speech, the twenty fifth anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence killing, the Windrush controversy, Boris Johnson’s suggestion of an illegal immigrant amnesty and Prince Harry to marry a mixed-race American citizen, among others.

One of the most controversial is the great many black-on-black knife murders in London since stop and search was abolished. On your website page at you write “Knife deaths aren’t causing the outrage they should because the majority of victims come from black communities, a top UK officer says.”

It seems to me that this top policeman has got things the wrong way around. The reason the knife murders are not causing more outrage is because the majority of the killers come from black communities. It further appears to me that white liberals become very upset on the rare occasion that white people kill a black victim, as with Stephen Lawrence who is remembered twenty five years later.

What of all the young white men stabbed by blacks? Forgotten. All the black-on-black killings? White liberals would rather ignore this embarrassing phenomenon.

Mark Easton’s piece on 5th April is titled, “London killings: no easy answers to gun and knife crime”. I am inclined to agree with you that this is not easily sorted out. However, I would like to offer some unfashionable solutions.

How about the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment? If someone was convicted of murder then they should hang. This should apply whoever the murderer is, whoever the victim is. There would be controversial cases when the murderers were of a different race to the victims. But a brave government would implement this and brave judges would pass the death sentence on murderers.

Furthermore, I would reintroduce stop and search. If someone was found to be in possession of a knife, then they should be birched.

None of this would be ‘easy’ (I agree with your headline writer) but I believe that over time things would get better on the streets of London.

Moving on to something even more controversial – Enoch Powell’s historic speech. In that speech, Powell advocated repatriation of non-whites. Most commentators today seem to dismiss the speech as ‘extreme’ and suggest that Powell got it wrong.

But did he? We have predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs in many northern towns and cities targeting under-age white girls. Does anyone in the mainstream media dare to suggest that this is racial hatred or pedophilia? They would if white gangs were targeting black or Asian girls.

Surveys have suggested that one in five Muslims in Britain have at least some sympathy with Islamic terrorist groups – that is about 400,000 people. Among the Muslim community are some who hate Britain and the West and would blow us up given the chance. But we don’t know who they are, where they are, or when they will strike.

Then there are the violent Afro-Caribbean elements already mentioned.

I expect that the BBC believes that there are no easy answers and I agree. But there is a difficult but necessary answer: Enoch Powell’s answer, repatriation.

It is my belief that if the United Kingdom does not stop all non-white immigration and start a programme of phased repatriation quite soon, then white people will cease to be a majority in our own country. Eventually we would become extinct. This would happen through immigration of non-whites, emigration of whites, a higher non-white birth rate and interbreeding among whites and non-whites. Worst case scenario – there could even be a massacre of a minority white population.

Repatriation of non-whites should begin with known terrorists and convicted criminals. In any sane country it would go without saying that all illegal immigrants are automatically criminals and should be deported immediately.

Those non-whites who have led law-abiding lives should be treated as humanely as possible. But there will be difficult cases and that should not deflect us, as a country, from doing what is necessary for our survival as a white country.

Liberals and cultural Marxists seem to want non-white countries to belong to their indigenous populations – but all white countries to become multi-racial. I believe that if the white people of the world perish then, in time, this will be followed by the death of modern civilisation.

Many believe that most BBC news and political journalists are left-wing. I believe this too. But I also believe that most are very professional and try to put aside their personal opinions and be objective. I do think, however, that it must be difficult to do this and get outside of the left-wing groupthink.

I recently saw a documentary, on RT, presented by George Galloway, about the ‘far-right’. I did not think that was objective or fair – but Galloway did interview Martin Webster, the former National Activities Organiser of the Seventies National Front. Webster was shown for a few minutes during a half-hour programme.

So how about the BBC interviewing Martin Webster about his views on repatriation of non-whites? It would be better viewing if the whole half hour documentary concentrated on an interview, rather than showing NF marches from the Seventies. The BBC must be able to do this better than Galloway and RT.

Will Wright

Goodbye, England – The Crime Tsunami

Britain is being hit by a crime wave fuelled largely by highly organised gangs of lawless non-White youths, Eastern Europeans, South Americans and so-called “Travellers”.

Most of the victims are White – native Britons whose ancestors have lived in these islands for thousands of years.

Alarmingly, crimes involving physical violence, assaults, threats, and anti-social behaviour are spiraling out of control.

For example, on 4th April two men, part of a group of “travellers”, burgled a house in Hither Green, South-East London, where 78-year-old Richard Osborn-Brooks lived with his invalid wife. One of the men was Billy Jeeves, 28, and the other one Henry Vincent, 37. Vincent was killed with his own screwdriver following a struggle with the brave pensioner.

Both men were known to the police and had a string of violent offences to their names. What did the police do? They arrested Mr Osborn-Brooks on suspicion of murder! The subsequent public outcry forced them to release him and drop prospective charges, but only after they had kept him locked up in a police cell for two nights.

Now, because of threats received from the “travellers”, Mr Osborn-Brooks and his wife have had to abandon their home. They’ve had to accept being re-housed elsewhere, given a new identity, and living the rest of their lives under a cloud of fear that they may be recognised and suffer further violence or death.

“Hate Crime” Before Real Crime

The police now are more interested in political correctness, tackling so-called “hate crime” (a very nebulous and subjective concept), and placating ethnic minorities (apart from Whites) than in preventing real crime and catching real criminals.

Not so far away from Hither Green is the leafy suburb of Chislehurst, nestling on the border of North West Kent and South East London. This used to be a most desirable place to live, with its famous Chislehurst Caves and Chislehurst Common containing 180 acres of natural, unspoiled woodland.

But as the multi-racial nightmare enveloping London and other towns and cities throughout Britain has spread its tentacles further afield, so places like Chislehurst have been affected. They are now rapidly becoming areas where law-abiding citizens live in fear.

A recent development in crime is known as “spree burglary”, where criminals meticulously plan each burglary, following their intended victims on social media, and striking when the inhabitants, or most of them, are out or at their most vulnerable.

The burglary, often violent, lasts no more than 20 minutes or so because they know exactly what they are looking for. Three or four thugs carry out the raid, while a fifth sits in the getaway car. Their favoured method of breaking in is to smash their way in through the front or back door.

On one occasion the gang actually returned later to provoke the family and their friends, who were still at the front of the house waiting (and waiting) for the police to arrive. These people have no fear of being caught, or if they are caught, of being given any serious punishment.

In nearby Bromley there were 413 domestic break-ins in January and February 2018 alone. With no sign of the authorities doing anything about it these figures can only go up and up.

It’s not just burglaries, of course. All crime statistics now make for depressing reading.

Crime Rates Only Go Up

In 2017 youth homicide in London was up 70% on the previous year.

As at February 2018, knife crime is up 21% year on year, gun crime is up 44% since 2014 in London, and both robbery and reported rape are up 29% year on year in the country as a whole.

But the police have been busy. There have been around 3,400 arrests for “offensive” online comments in the last 12 months. So much for freedom of expression. But then we can’t have people making “offensive” online comments, can we? It might prompt ordinary White folk to get organised into getting rid of the politicians and taking their country back.

Of 40 categories of crime maintained by Scotland Yard, only six were marginally down in 2017. The rest have double digit increases over 2016.

According to the total number of crimes “plus ASB” committed in England and Wales in January and February 2018 was 501,287. Note how anti-social behaviour is treated as if it’s not really a crime. There were 201,969 such cases in this period – over 40 per cent of the total.

But ASB isn’t top of the list of most-committed crimes. That coveted position is occupied by “Violent Crime”, with 243,408 cases – a mere 4,125 a day. “Violent Crime” is a comparatively new category of crime, separate from Robbery and Burglary, which themselves usually involve violence, or the threat of it.

Burglaries (including non-domestic), with 72,211 cases, looks to easily top 430,000 by the end of the year, even if there’s no increase in the monthly rate. Recorded sexual offences and violent crimes have more than doubled in three years. At the same time police numbers have continued to fall.

In the UK as a whole in 2017 there were 261,965 domestic burglaries. That’s over 700 every day. Only one in ten were solved. This is appalling. Burglaries were up 32% on 2016 in some places.

The Capital of Crime

In Greater London a majority of the population is now non-White. Violent crime there is even worse than in the rest of the country. As of 24th April 2018, at least 36 people have been fatally stabbed, and 62 overall unlawfully killed, in London since the beginning of the year. What has now become known as “knife crime” is endemic, with 12,980 such crimes having taken place in the capital last year – up 2,452 on the previous year.

Most of these crimes appear to be black-on-black. Of 35 named victims, only nine have English sounding names, and many of those may be black. London now has a higher murder rate than New York.

So how are the police proposing to deal with this nightmare situation and restore law and order? This is, after all, what they’re supposed to be there for. Well, new guidelines for the Metropolitan Police published in October 2017 say that, for example, burglaries should be probed only if the perpetrators use violence or trick their way into a property, while crimes involving a loss of under £50 should not be investigated at all unless there is an identified suspect.

Usually they don’t even bother to search for fingerprints following a burglary. I know that from when my house was burgled in 2015. They give you an incident number and then lose interest as other crimes are reported hour by hour.

The police tell us in all seriousness that crime levels now are lower then in the mid-1990s. Prime Minister Theresa May insists that “overall, traditional crime is continuing to fall”. Policing Minister Nick Hurd (Nick? Why not Nicholas?) claims crime has fallen but that the government is “very concerned” about the “uptick in the most serious violent crime.”

Welcome to Modern Crime

What, exactly, is “traditional” crime? Would it be where burglars sneak their way into a house while the occupants are out or watching television, creep around pocketing a few things, and finally creep back out again? Or where they run off at the sound of someone coming?

Well, if that’s “traditional” crime, and I suppose it was back in the 1960s or even the 1980s, then Theresa May is right. That kind of crime is now rare. Instead we have gangs of foreigners smashing their way into homes through the front door, sending shards of glass everywhere, and terrorising adults and children into telling them where the valuables are.

Then there’s the gangs of black and mixed-race youths creating “no-go” zones in daytime as well as at night in our towns and cities. Another new benefit of the multi-racial society is a knife-crime spree with blacks knifing each other and anyone else who gets in the way, with a complete disregard for life and limb.

We mustn’t forget the horrendous crimes committed by gangs of Asians against young, vulnerable White girls – rape, assault, murder by arson, sex trafficking (forcing them into prostitution), and more – in Rochdale, Dewsbury and elsewhere, which is too huge a subject to cover here.

To be sure, things were bad in the 1990s, but they are much worse now, and there’s no sign of any improvement. Police Federation of England and Wales General Secretary Andy Fittes (Andy? Why not Andrew?) says, “To say crime has fallen is smoke and mirrors.”

It’s no coincidence that the collapse of law and order and the descent of many parts of the country into complete chaos and anarchy is taking place at this time in our history. It’s some three or four generations after the “Windrush Generation”, which we’ve heard so much about recently in the mainstream media. If you plant millions of disaffected non-Whites in our formerly homogenous country, the result after seventy of so years cannot fail to be very different from what we have now. A society fragmented and disintegrating, drowning in black and mixed race crime.

When liberal bigots tell us blacks descended from immigrants who arrived in our country early on deserve “compensation” for imagined grievances they are adding insult to injury. If the descendants of these people, both black and mixed race, were removed from the population then the crime rate would plummet. We would all be able to live easier, more relaxed lives, able to go out once more at any time of the day or night and not have to worry about being mugged, raped, threatened, or having our homes trashed while we’ve been out. And our children would be much safer from the threat of drugs.

As it is, our larger towns and cities are rapidly become battle zones. Even the countryside is becoming a crime infested area, with farmers being subjected to theft of machinery and livestock, usually by night, and arson attacks on crops and haystacks becoming commonplace. Not many criminals are arrested for these crimes, but when they are they adorn our TV screens with foreign features and eyes full of defiance and hate.

No Escape from Crime

If the perpetrators are “travellers”, which in the countryside they often are, the police are scared to investigate. They don’t want to be accused of “racism”, and they shrink from the prospect of a pitched battle with dozens, or even hundreds, of “travellers”, if they try to recover stolen property from one of their camps.

This is modern organised crime. Cars, farm tractors and other such machinery, and valuable goods of all kinds are stolen to order and in many cases shipped out of the country within hours. The ringleaders are millionaires, feeding off law abiding citizens, and doing nothing to justify their existence.

Our great country and its indigenous Anglo-Celtic folk, whose ancestors have lived here for thousands of years and have defended our shores against those who would take our country from us, need protection.

But first we have to face truths which should be obvious to any thinking person. Such as that the multi-racial society, with its unlimited immigration and ghettos of non-Whites, travellers’ communities and no-go areas, spiraling black and mixed-race birth rates, shrinking White births, violence and astronomical expense, is a complete disaster and should be brought to an immediate end. It was never sanctioned by ordinary White folk in any event.

Who in their right mind can now deny that Enoch Powell, who 50 years ago foresaw what was going to happen, was wrong?

Establishment politicians and the mainstream media refuse to accept what ordinary White folk are realising more and more with each passing day. That wherever there are substantial numbers of non-Whites, especially blacks and “travellers”, there is crime. Predominantly it’s violent crime, hence the recent addition of this category alongside robbery, burglaries, and all the rest of them.

White-on-black crime is rare, but when it does occur it is played up in the mainstream media. We discuss this particular phenomena in this post. It’s all over the BBC and ITV News and in all the headlines of all the newspapers. Black-on-White crime is a daily occurrence, and much of it is horrific, such as at Rochdale and Dewsbury. But this is always played down by the media. They just don’t want us to know about it.

This is exemplified by the different ways in which the deaths of two young people, Stephen Lawrence in April 1993, and Richard Everitt in August 1994. Lawrence was black, murdered, allegedly, by a gang of Whites, and Everitt was White, murdered by a gang of Bengalis. Click here for a brief summary of the different ways in which these two deaths were treated by the mainstream media.

We need a declaration of war on crime. The MacPherson Report, which followed the Enquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s death, effectively disarmed the police in the fight against non-White crime. It should be dumped. Proper measures should be brought in to deal with the crisis. A new citizens’ militia should be formed, fully armed, to protect our elderly and other vulnerable folk.

But nothing will be done as long as establishment politicians are in charge. They aren’t racial nationalists. They don’t identify with the indigenous White British. They haven’t the will to deal with these enormous problems, and they don’t feel the need. As long as people continue to vote for them at election time then, living in their secluded, gated hideaways, and taking plenty of money out of the trough, why should they worry?