Optimism floats while pessimism sinks. You are unlikely to win at anything if you do not believe that you can, and will, win. Probably for this reason, some people believe that it is still better to be optimistic, even if you are later proved to be wrong, than to be pessimistic and then be proved right. And there are British Nationalists who think that they would rather go down proclaiming that they are right, even in defeat.
A part of modern political warfare appears to be psychological. You need to properly convince your own followers that you can win. But you also need to convince your enemies that their defeat is inevitable. That is what our enemies are doing: they are trying to convince racial nationalists that we cannot win.
Enemy propaganda suggests that British Nationalists are a small minority now and always will be. When George Galloway interviewed Martin Webster on the RT television channel, repatriation of non-Whites was discussed. Galloway asked, “But it is too late now, isn’t it?” Martin replied that London’s Blacks “are not happy here”.
A viewer asked Nigel Farage, on GB News, whether ‘Woke’ could ever be defeated. Farage replied that “Of course it can! The political pendulum swings back and forth. Political fashions change”.
Optimism is important. Of course, it is easier to be optimistic if you enjoy good health and are reasonably physically fit. Young people especially should be optimistic. It is downright evil when young people are encouraged to commit suicide by some internet propagandists.
Optimism is a good starting point. But political crusaders should also know what it is that they want to achieve. We should know what a British Nationalist victory will look like. Because it is hard to score a goal if you don’t know where the goalposts are. It is hard to hit a target if you don’t know where the target is. We need to know our ideology. Leaders should also have a strategy for winning political power, because that is the aim of all realistic politics.
Enemies of our British Nationalist cause?
If we need to be optimistic, then is everyone within our ranks who sows the seeds of pessimism an internal enemy of sorts, intentionally or otherwise? Is everyone who wants to change our ideology an enemy? The short answer to both these questions seems to be yes.
We need to believe that we can win. We need to believe that policies such as repatriation are moderate and necessary and must win mainstream support. We need to know what we are aiming for. Anyone who deliberately interferes with either our morale, or our ideological principles, is hurting our cause.
But I think our optimism should be tempered by realism. That we have to face facts. We have to deal with the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. We have to face unpalatable truths – about our country, and about our movement.
Bad ideas can be defeated. Both Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud have gone out of fashion. Their ideas are now discredited. Now we need to see the ideas of Franz Boas defeated. The man who told us that there is no such thing as Race. We need to see the ideas of the Frankfurt School defeated. The group that gave the world political correctness. Cultural Marxism is a greater evil than the original Communism from which it sprang.
If we are optimistic about defeating bad ideas, then what about the race problem? When racial minorities were a small number of people they could have been comparatively easily repatriated. Larger numbers of racial foreigners will present a greater problem. They could still be repatriated, but over a longer period of time. Provided that a reasonably big majority of the indigenous population are supportive of the idea.
But the larger the alien presence, the harder it is to remove. That is why our enemies want open borders and miscegenation. Provided that most White people don’t interbreed with non-Whites, then repatriation is, in theory, always possible.
Even a White minority population, in our own country, could conceivably win, even if this is highly unlikely. This couldn’t be done democratically, at that point.
The only way that racial nationalism could be permanently defeated is if the British population became almost totally of mixed race through inter-racial breeding. That is why this evil idea is being continually plugged in our television advertising and tv dramas etc.
A new threat is identified
Edward Dutton writes that our population is becoming increasingly of a lower intelligence. He adds that this process has been happening now for over two hundred years. He is writing about the indigenous population, quite apart from any low intelligence immigrants now here. Those of you who want to know why and how this has happened should read his book mentioned in a previous post.
If British Nationalists were in power, then we could take steps to reverse this. But when we are a small political minority, we cannot. But a low intelligence country (however that happens) is ripe for invasion. This is an alarming problem. Especially with a resurgent China that is resentful against us because of the imperial era. Chinese conquerors are not likely to treat us well.
Is Dutton a pessimist for mentioning the decline in the intelligence of the national population? No. He is sounding the alarm. British Nationalists should be aware of this. If civilisations have always risen and then fallen as a law of nature because of the process that Edward Dutton describes then this is hardly Dutton’s fault. But we could take steps to reverse this, or at least slow things down.
Time is against us. We should still not be afraid to know what the threats to our survival are. But we must believe in the potential for a racial nationalist victory. We must spread our ideas in order to make that possible, when the time is right.
In 2017 Nigel Farage was working for LBC radio. He took a call from ‘Ahmed’ who expressed the opinion that the Jews have too much power in the United States. Farage acknowledged that his caller had a point. Anyone who couldn’t acknowledge that point would have to be both utterly dim and utterly ignorant of US political realities, or the worst kind of lickspittle before the might of the Jewish lobby.
Organised Jewish reaction to Nigel Farage
The Jewish Chronicle, which describes itself as “The world’s oldest Jewish newspaper. Since 1841”, was quick to respond. Daniel Sugarman wrote an article: “Farage condemned over ‘Jewish Lobby’ comment”. It was subtitled “he also discussed their “money and influence””.
Jewish News also noticed Farage’s reply to his caller: “Farage urged to apologise for ‘Jewish Lobby’ remark – Former UKIP leader and chief Brexit campaigner makes controversial comment during LBC radio show”.
Maya Oppenheim at The Independent also was outraged by Nigel Farage’s awareness of Jewish power in the US. “Nigel Farage: ‘Jewish Lobby’ has disproportionate power in the US”. Her article continued with a quotation from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, condemning Farage for “crossing the line into anti-Semitism”.
Peter Walker at The Guardian accused Farage of “anti-Semitic dog whistles” and claimed that Farage has given a number of interviews that draw on “far-right” conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, under a subject heading “Nazis” (yes, really! Look it up), Becket Adams wrote an article entitled “Nigel Farage goes after the Jews”, in the Washington Examiner.
No-one can criticise Jewish power – not even Nigel Farage
That is just a small selection of the media reaction, in the UK, the US and Israel. This illustrates that anyone who criticises Jewish power is immediately silenced with accusations of “anti-Semitism”. The world Jewish community believes that it should be completely free from any external criticism.
But it cannot refute the suggestion that it has disproportionate power, so it shouts “Anti-Semitism!” as loudly as it can, hopefully terrifying all good liberals with the spectre of the Holocaust – because we all know where anti-Semitism leads!
As far as the organised Jewish community is concerned, any radio or television caller should never be allowed to make comments about disproportionate Jewish power. If a ‘rogue’ caller got through with such comments, then the programme host is supposed to ridicule and condemn those comments in the strongest terms, preferably referring to the Holocaust.
For now, the organised Jewish community tolerates Nigel Farage. The possible alternative of an authentic racial nationalist movement is too dreadful to imagine, for them. But Farage will have been given a warning. One day, when the Jews think that Nigel Farage has outlived his usefulness, they will chew him up and spit out the pieces. Because they never forget or forgive. All White Europeans are supposed to quake with fear.
But it is ironic that the Jews loudly protest that they don’t have huge political power, while at the same time exercising that very power that they deny possessing! It is called Chutzpah!
â€œThose who make peacefulrevolution impossible….Â make violentÂ revolutioninevitable.”Â -Â JohnÂ F.Â Kennedy
Everyone agrees that the British Government is making a complete mess of Brexit. The only question is whether it is fortuitous or deliberate.
In order to understand what has happened we have to recognise a few home truths about
the European Union,
British politicians, and
the British electorate.
1. The European Union
As racial nationalists we know that from its very inception in the late 1950s the European Union (then known as the “Common Market”, or European Economic Community) was but a staging post on the Global Elite’s march towards a multi-racial “World Government”.
In the early twentieth century, a leading global elitist of the day, James Paul Warburg, a US financier, stated that, “We are going to have a World Government. The only question is whether it will be by conquest or consent.”
Ordinary folk, of course, aren’t meant to know anything about this. Who in their right mind, whichever (Western) country they live in, would want to live under the rule of a “World Government”?
If freedom consists in part of limited government, then a World Government, and even a European Government (which is what the EU will shortly become), is the exact opposite of freedom.
A World Government, by definition, would be a tyranny. If just one nation were allowed to leave (just as we are trying to leave the EU) then it would be a World Government no more. So if we leave the European Union, then the future of the EU itself is under threat. How can it call itself the “European Union” without Europe’s most powerful nation in its ranks? No wonder the EU’s eurocrats and our own peculiar Euro-federalists are desperate to prevent us from leaving.
A Political Entity
Until the 1990s European Federalists could argue with some conviction that the set-up was a purely economic arrangement. Their case was that European countries had to pool their economic resources in order to compete with the likes of the United States and Japan. Of course, that argument was flawed in that both those countries were individual nations and not “communities” of nations. But in terms of population numbers and market size it had a veneer of credibility.
With further Treaties being signed by the leaders of the “member states” – Maastricht in 1992, Lisbon in 2007 – the surreptitious transformation of the former EEC into a political union gained pace. The conspirators (for that’s in effect what they are) have a clever ploy. They hold a grand meeting at which a pre-prepared “treaty” is signed by the various career politicians misrepresenting each “member state”. Each “treaty” has far-reaching implications, and takes vast swathes of sovereignty away from “member states”. But the date it comes into effect is invariably one or two years into the future, by which time the mainstream mass media will have conveniently forgotten about it. Few critics will pick up on exactly what is going on.
At Maastricht the conspirators felt confident enough to come out into the open and proclaim their precious entity the “European Union” consisting not of sovereign nations but of “member states”.
All along the policy of the Global elite has been to make it more and more difficult for any country to leave this “Union”. The “Customs Union” was the core part of the original EEC established in 1958 and the “Single Market” and the over-riding jurisdiction of the so-called “European Court of Justice” were concepts introduced in 1993 and extended in 2007. As we’ve seen over the last 31 months, any attempt by a “member state” to leave the EU can now be made so complicated that most ordinary people will give up trying to understand what it’s all about.
So we have the absurd arguments over whether we should leave the “Single Market” or the “Customs Union” as well as the EU, and over whether there should be a “hard border” or a “soft border” between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Oh, it’s all so complex.
Or is it?
A One Way Street
No. It’s not complex at all. Not once you realise that you’re supposed to be confused. Once you grasp that the EU has always been designed as a one-way street. As the wolf’s lair to which there are many footprints going in, but none coming out.
The EU’s leading politicians – Jean Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk, Guy Verhoffstadt, Michael Barnier and all the rest – believe they can bully the UK into remaining a “member state”, in defiance of the express wishes of the British people. They have a timetable, and they don’t want it delayed. For example, by 2022 they want the pound sterling abolished and the Euro to be the currency of all “member states”.
National armed forces together with NATO (ostensibly) provide for the defence of European countries. But the EU wants a “European Army”, the only purpose for which can be the suppression of internal dissent within the EU. It wants control over our financial services, fisheries and oil supplies, and more within a few short years. It wants the process of continuous and endless centralisation and federalisation to continue until no European nations remain.
European Arrest Warrant vs Habeas Corpus
These things are never talked about by the Remainers. This is especially true of the so-called “European Arrest Warrant”. This charming little surprise will be foisted upon us shortly if we don’t break free. Many of our historic rights guaranteeing the freedom of the individual are enshrined in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. These will be quietly abolished under the “harmonisation” of European laws – a process that has been under way for many years now, though limited thus far to various aspects of commercial law.
The European Arrest Warrant will give legal force to the arrest of any British citizen in his home, and his removal to custody, which could be in any European country. The pretext could be the alleged transgression of some Euro regulation or other, quite possibly on the unsubstantiated allegation of anyone else, perhaps politically motivated. Perhaps, even, for simply questioning the official narrative of the “Holocaust” story. This happens regularly in European countries.
There the British citizen could languish in a prison cell for months or years while the Euro authorities search for evidence to use against him in court. This is the situation in most European countries. They’ve never had Habeas Corpus, so it doesn’t much matter to them. If our Remainers are so sincere in wanting European integration then why aren’t they prominent in telling their European friends to adopt safeguards similar to our Habeas Corpus, instead of going along with their calls for the abolition of ours?
Has anything like this been used by our negotiating team to strengthen their hand? That the rest of the EU should have similar standards of protection against tyranny? After all, these Europeans are forever banging on about “human rights”. Perhaps they don’t mean OUR human rights.
2. British politicians
The two leading politicians involved in the Brexit betrayal are (1) David Cameron, the former Tory Prime Minister who made the promise of a referendum in the run-up to the 2015 General Election, and (2) Theresa May, the current (as of January 2019) Prime Minister, who has taken it upon herself, as someone in favour Britain remaining in the EU, to lead the nation in withdrawing from it (click here for a summary of the top 40 horrors lurking in her so-called Brexit “deal”).
Cameron was an Establishment politician from the start. He entered Parliament in 2001 and in less than five years he was the Leader of the Opposition. To say that he “won” the 2010 General Election would stretch the imagination somewhat. The 1997-2010 Labour government became so unpopular with the electorate, that it would have been difficult for the Tories to lose that election. But they nearly managed it, largely on account of the refusal of Cameron to listen to the real concerns and worries of ordinary British people.
Eton-educated, a former member of the notorious “Bullingdon” Club at Oxford University, and born into considerable wealth, he is one of those people who take for granted that they are part of the ruling class and that they know better than ordinary folk. He should have been ditched as Tory leader following the election, for not having swept to power with a triple-digit majority. As it was, he had to crawl into bed with the Lib-Dems in forming a coalition government.
Cameron’s “Cunning Plan”
From 2010 to 2015 he became concerned about the increasing popularity of UKIP. Large numbers of Tory members and voters, disillusioned with the wishy-washy policies of the Conservative Party under Cameron, were defecting to UKIP. So he had a brilliant idea. Why not prevent a disaster at the 2015 election by promising voters a referendum, just as campaigned for by UKIP?
He believed he could neutralise UKIP, attract badly needed ex-Tories back to the fold, and get a decent majority, all in one go!
On top of that, he would be able to use it to squeeze a few “concessions” from the EU and present them to voters as a good reason to vote to remain a member. The mainstream media and the rest of the Remain Establishment could be relied on to launch “Project Fear” and cajole the electorate to vote to remain. The awkward issue of membership of the European Union would be kicked into touch for another forty years, by which time we would be so entangled in the Euro super-state that there would be no chance of ever leaving it.
Cameron felt so confident that this bold move would work that he went on television to announce that it would be a simple “Yes” or “No” vote decided by a simple majority and that it would be binding on the government (provided it was a Tory government, of course). Not only that, but that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the Single Market and all the other sub-departments of the European Union, such as the European Court of Justice. There would be no half-way house. And if the result was to leave the EU then he, David Cameron, would carry out the wishes of the majority of British voters.
Let’s take a break here to consider another leading figure in all this – Nigel Farage. He was the leader of UKIP for many years, is the leader of the UKIP MEPs, and has his own radio show on LBC. While he is by no means a racial nationalist, he deserves great credit for forcing Cameron to hold the historic 2016 referendum. He is a fluent advocate of our exit from the European Union and must have had a tremendous influence in getting us the successful result. Future historians will undoubtedly identify him as a key figure in helping Britain regain its freedom and independence.
A Crippling Blow To The Global Elite’s Plans
We all know what happened. By 52 per cent to 48 per cent, a majority of over one million, the British people voted to leave. So did Cameron honour his pledge to take us out? He was a career politician, remember, so he cut and ran, resigning as Prime Minister, and soon after as an MP as well, in order to take his place at the feeding trough of retired Establishment politicians.
That left the stage open for the appearance of Theresa May.
Remainer PM + Brexit Negotiations = Farce
There weren’t many suitable contenders to lead the Tory Party (and thereby become Prime Minister) that could command the support of a sufficient number of Tory MPs. That’s how Theresa May managed to secure the keys to 10 Downing Street. She had, for political career purposes, kept a low profile during the referendum campaign, but for all that was at heart an ardent Remainer.
One of her first comments as Prime Minister was that “Brexit means Brexit”. What she meant, of course, was that “Brexit means Brexit means whatever I want it to mean.”
Theresa May had just completed a stint as the longest-serving Home Secretary. As such she had tremendous influence over immigration policy. Under her tenure the flood of migrants from the third world continued unabated, in spite of regular promises by her to stop it.
She turned out to be just as remote from the ordinary British public as Cameron was. Her husband, Philip May, is a past Chairman of the Oxford Union and a relationship manager for investment firm Capital International, a firm handling millions of pounds’ worth of investments for private wealthy clients the world over. One of her and her husband’s closest friends is the Chief Rabbi. They dine regularly together. Presumably the food is kosher.
At the time of writing the process of “negotiating” a withdrawal of Britain from the European Union, as directed by a majority of voters, has taken a staggering 31 months. All this because we’ve been told that we can’t just leave – we have to have an “agreement”, or “deal”, with the EU. The trouble is that the EU negotiators obviously won’t give us one. They are not acting in a bona fide manner for the reasons we’ve discussed.
They know our party politicians as the cowardly shower that they are. They believe they can extract billions of pounds from us and then not give us a proper withdrawal. They will make sure the UK is still tied to the European Union for years and years. Until a future date when some event will happen whereby the vote to leave can be forgotten. Then Britain will be officially back in the fold as nothing more than a “member state” – the term the EU contemptuously uses to describe formerly sovereign nations that have foolishly succumbed.
The so-called Article 50 process, the decision to seek a “deal”, and now the prospect of Parliament passing a law outlawing a “no deal” departure (more on that in a moment) are all ways designed long ago to frustrate the process of withdrawing from the EU. And that’s what May has intended all along. She is a false leader, an Establishment stooge, and she has faked the whole Brexit process from the beginning. She has engineered, or has gone along with the Establishment traitors who have engineered, the mess that Brexit has become.
Why? So that the majority who voted in favour of leaving the wretched EU will throw up their hands in despair and say to themselves, “We’re never going to get out of the EU, so we may as well accept it and make the best of it that we can.” And then, if there is a second referendum, the Establishment and the Euro federalists may be able to scrape a bare majority and claim ultimate victory, keeping Britain tied to the EU against the wishes of the majority, but all perfectly “democratic”.
The EU negotiators are cynically encouraging our own fifth column of Euro federalists, or Remainers, into forcing the Government into outlawing a departure from the EU without a “deal”. This notion is, of course, absurd. If we are unable by law to leave without a deal – any deal – then we are bound to accept whatever “deal” the EU throws at us. Further comment on this little ploy is surely superfluous.
3. The British Electorate
The British electorate deserve a special kind of praise. For a hundred years and more they’ve endured having their country ruled by a coterie of career politicians. They’ve been betrayed on every important issue. They’ve been taken into two disastrous and pointless world wars. They’ve seen their country over-run by uncontrolled mass migration of inassimilable third-world blacks and Asiatics, with sovereignty surrendered to the Euro Super-State.
During the referendum campaign they were subjected to an unprecedented avalanche of “Project Fear”. Lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into voting to accept the surrender of their ancient freedoms and sovereignty to the European Union.
And yet the British people resisted. They had the courage to defy the threats and warnings coming every day from the Euro federalists and their friends in the European Union, and they voted to leave.
If there’s one thing that the British people can be criticised for it’s for being too trusting in their politicians. The majority voted to leave the EU in 2016, and they fully expected their politicians to deliver promptly, as promised by Cameron and others during the campaign. They waited patiently for the various procedures that they were told were essential to be carried out. But now they expect what they voted for – an exit from the European Union.
The British people are slow to get over-excited about anything. They will take a lot of nonsense from upstart politicians before they lose patience. But when the tipping point is reached, when their anger has passed a certain point, there is no stopping them. Career politicians who don’t realise this fact carry on betraying the British people at their own personal peril.
EU Gravy Train
The European Union is a massive gravy train, and British people don’t like gravy trains. It has around 113 buildings, 65,000 employees (all with salaries, pensions and other benefits ordinary people can only dream of) and over 100,000 other hangers-on, mostly corporate lobbyists who live in and work from Brussels or Strasbourg. It has a far larger bureaucracy than the British Empire had at the height of its power – and that ruled a quarter of the earth’s surface without the aid of modern computer technology.
The fact of the matter is that the EU cannot afford to let us go. That’s another reason why “negotiating” with them is a waste of time and resources. They need our money. They know that if we manage to extricate ourselves successfully then other “member states” will follow our example, and the whole massive structure will collapse in on itself. Just like its forerunner, the Soviet Union.
It’s clear that we need more than just a referendum to leave this whole sorry setup. We’re going to have to fight our way out. And the first line of enemy defence to overcome is right here on British soil – the Remainers and other corrupt Establishment stooge politicians who have been betraying us for so long and feeding from the gravy train. Once they are taken out the way will be clear to do whatever is necessary to take the fight to the EU itself and “take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them.”
Future generations of Britons, yet unborn, are waiting to see if we are up to the level of our noble forebears in defending their birthright.
This post, from Will Wright, was originally posted in the Comments Box of an article published in the Telegraph Online, â€œThree in five Britons support a â€˜hostile environmentâ€™, for illegal immigrants, poll showsâ€. It will probably have been taken down by the time you read this, so here is the full version.
A racialist is someone who believes in racial differences and separate racial development. This is someone who wants his own race to survive, thrive and prosper. Someone who is a racialist might, or might not, also be a racial supremacist. That is someone who believes his own race is inherently superior to other races and wants it to thrive on a global scale, if necessary, at the expense of other races. But being a racialist is about a love of your own people â€“ not hatred of other peoples. No one can help being born of a particular race and it would be wrong to hate anyone because of this.
Any hatred should properly be directed towards the Establishment and the political class, rather than other races. The politicians have created a multi-racial nightmare. Some individual politicians are more deserving of blame than others.
â€˜Racismâ€™ is a word promoted by the Politically Correct lobby in the United States. It is meant to imply hatred and criminality. It has been imported from America by the PC brigade here in the United Kingdom. Since the Seventies, it has gradually replaced the correct word, ‘racialism’. This was always the intention. Reject the import and always use the word ‘racialism’.
Racial Nationalists are people who love their own country and donâ€™t want large numbers of foreigners to live permanently in their ancestral homeland. They particularly donâ€™t want racial foreigners settling in their country.
Liberals and the Left try to intimidate anyone who speaks in favour of their own peopleâ€™s interests by shouting â€˜racistâ€™. But unless large numbers of British people are prepared to say â€œI am a racialistâ€, rather than â€œIâ€™m not racist, butâ€¦â€ then Britain will surely be destroyed. We need hundreds, then thousands then tens of thousands to declare â€œI am a racialistâ€. This as a prelude to millions voting into power a racial nationalist political party.
The National Front, in the Seventies, was such a party. It was destroyed by every dirty trick in the book.
The Establishment putting up the election deposit.
A massive campaign of violence by the far left.
Oppressive race laws designed to crush any dissent against mass non-white immigration.
Nationalists being driven out of jobs.
Infiltration by the state security services etc.
In the Nineties and the new millennium, the British National Party was a poor imitation of the National Front. It found that banks wouldnâ€™t give it banking facilities and printers would not print its literature. It faced the same blanket hostility from broadcasters and newspapers that the Front had. It faced another threat too â€“ UKIP.
UKIP offered a â€˜safeâ€™ haven for those who felt patriotic but were too afraid to declare, â€œI am a racialistâ€. UKIP people from Faragedownwards were terrified of that magic, imported word â€˜racistâ€™. That is why they drove out Godfrey Bloom, Anne Marie Waters, Henry Bolton,Jo Marney, and others.
UKIPâ€™s immigration policy of an â€˜Australian points-based systemâ€™ is totally inadequate to save Britain as a white country. We need a complete halt to non-white immigration and a start made on a policy of phased repatriation of all non-whites.
Nigel Farage was asked what his greatest achievement was. I thought that he might have felt that helping to get Britain out of the EU was this. But no, he thought that stopping the â€˜far-rightâ€™ was more important. Farage is a false messiah â€“ just another judas goat.
So, let us make a start. I am a racialist. Now you write it. You will feel so much better â€“ and you wonâ€™t ever again be intimidated by the American-imported word â€˜racistâ€™.