Looking backwards, looking forward

Will Wright

Coming together, coming apart

In 1967, a number of British Nationalist parties merged to form the National Front. I do not know if the term ‘nationalist unity’ was bandied about, but that was the unmistakable aim of the merger. Almost all British Nationalists belonged to the National Front.

By 1972, there was a short-lived splinter group, the National Independence Party. That was followed by the National Party, in 1975. That party was defunct two years later. But the name that the public knew was the National Front.

By 1980, things were much more serious. In the Midlands, there was a rebellion. The British Democratic Party was formed. Then Andrew Fountaine created the Constitutional Movement, which became the Nationalist Party. Then John Tyndall created the New National Front, which became the British National Party.

Since the NF’s founding, there was the tiny, and infiltrated, British Movement which was parasitic on the NF.

All of these groups damaged both the cause of nationalist unity and British Nationalism itself. Yet the odd thing is many of those splitters began talking of nationalist unity.

The National Front had split four ways. Yet further wreckers caused the rump of the NF to be split another three or four ways. The party effectively died in the 1980s.

Tyndall’s BNP limped on. Older members died. Few people were recruited. When Nick Griffin seized the leadership, the BNP began to expand. But few among the new recruits ever became proper ideological nationalists.

I had joined the NF in 1974, and I joined the BNP in the 1990s, because it appeared that British Nationalism might again be moving forward. But that party too split into numerous splinter groups.

But the important thing to realise is that most ordinary rank-and-file British Nationalists are not factional. If they see a once united party breaking up, then they simply drop out of politics altogether. That happened with both the NF and later the BNP.

Fake organisations

The Establishment had a hand in destroying both the NF and the BNP. The NF had been subjected to very serious violence since the beginning. It suffered infiltration, official harassment of various kinds, media vilification, oppressive laws, and much else.

The BNP also suffered some of those things. But it also suffered the organisation and leading individuals permanently ‘debanked’ long before Nigel Farage experienced that temporary nuisance. By then, finding printers was also a problem.

A political party that has no bank account and cannot print literature has an enormous handicap.

But the Establishment hit on a new idea also. UKIP had been founded by a Liberal, to oppose British membership of what became the European Union. A few desperate British Nationalists saw it as a substitute for a nationalist movement.

But the Establishment was wise to infiltration. UKIP constitutionally banned all former and current members of the NF and the BNP.

The State could have it both ways. The public could vote for a tame organisation that wasn’t ideologically nationalist but never officially declared that, while real nationalists were excluded.

As Farage moved from UKIP to the Brexit Party and then Reform UK, the ban on British Nationalists continued.

But Farage did not run street protests or marches. For that, the secret state needed the services of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, known as ‘Tommy Robinson.’ Martin Webster warned his subscribers about ‘Robinson.’ So too did Nick Griffin, then still the head of the BNP.

But the secret state now had a controlled opposition. UKIP and its successors for elections and Tommy Robinson for the streets.

Problems

A lot of rank-and-file nationalists were, and are, lazy. They have not been active, and they have read very little. Partly, because of the latter, they cannot tell a genuine organisation from a fake one.

Our country is threatened on multiple fronts. Our sovereignty is threatened by international organisations. Our very existence is threatened, at home, by mass immigration and a multi-racial society. Separatist groups want to split the United Kingdom apart.

But uninformed patriots hear “Stop the Boats!” and assume that is a call to end multi-racialism. But very often it is not. Anyone who criticises Islam in the UK, is assumed to be against a multi-racial society. Very often those people are not opposed to a multi-racial society.

Anyone who waves a Union Jack is assumed to be one of us. Obviously, waving a Union Jack is far preferable to waving the red flag of the Left, or the EU flag, but it is not proof of ideological integrity.

The Tories have been betraying Britain ever since 1945 but still making patriotic noises and displaying the Union Jack at their conferences.

Under Blair, Labour adopted the Red Rose, instead of the Red Flag. Starmer had the Union Jack printed on Labour election leaflets – much to the horror and protests of a very large section of his rank-and-file.

But patriotic symbols, divorced from patriotic policies and patriotic action, are a shabby confidence trick.

Some people understand that idea, when looking at the two main parties of government. But for some reason, they cannot see that principle, if the flag bearer is Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson, and now Danny Tommo.

We should believe in an all-White Britain. Nigel Farage will not even stop legal immigration. (He probably won’t stop illegal immigration either.) Farage will not implement phased repatriation of settled immigrants in any meaningful numbers.

UKIP was a White party. But Reform UK is deliberately a multi-racial party, with two built-in Jewish sections. Farage is happy to accept a multi-racial society.

Tommy Robinson, Danny Tommo, and John Francis all oppose British Nationalism.

With the indigenous population now probably at about seventy percent of the whole, an aging (and dying) White population, and legal immigration at an at time high, stopping the boats is not going to make much difference, even if it ever happens.

We need to stop ALL legal immigration, and we need remigration. Ideally, that would be repatriation. But if foreigners cannot return home, they can still leave Britain. But Farage, Robinson, Tommo, or John Francis do not support that. Only Farage is ever likely to be in a position to do that, anyway.

These people are not our friends or ideological bedfellows.

What is to be done?

Both Griffin and Collett believe that the electoral route to power, for British Nationalists, is blocked by Farage. Before long, it will be impossible for any racial nationalist party to win, even in theory, because of changing demographics.

If we accept that Farage does not even intend to stop legal immigration, then on that basis, it begins to look like Nick Griffin has a point when he says we will not see significant remigration in our lifetimes. (And that is assuming that Farage actually wins power.)

Griffin does not even advocate remigration, because he sees it as a waste of time and energy. Collett does still advocate remigration.

I think we should still say we favour that solution, even if we never see it happen.

Griffin thinks all British Nationalists should join Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain. That party will not win power, but Griffin hopes that Nationalists could radicalise the big numbers inside that party, in readiness for a time when White areas will need to be made secure.

Meanwhile, Mark Collett wants Reform UK to win the next general election. Not from a stance of hero-worship of Farage, but as a strategy to destroy the Conservative Party, and possibly eventually, the Labour Party, too.

Reform will have much shallower roots than the two main parties.

I like both Griffin’s ‘entryist’ intentions towards Restore Britain AND Collett’s purely strategic support for a Reform UK election victory. But it immediately strikes me that these two ideas could be mutually exclusive.

And something else occurs to me. Sometimes revolutions take on a life of their own.

Revolution

Revolutions eat their own children. Robespierre went to the guillotine. Trotsky was assassinated. Ernst Rohm was assassinated. Those were violent times.

Farage is not well. He has had several (at least three) brushes with death. One day he will be replaced. Just perhaps, it could be by a younger, more radical man who does believe in remigration.

Of course, the Establishment is trying to ensure that Reform UK is absorbed. The inclusion of high-ranking non-Whites shows us that. So too, does the inclusion of two Jewish lobbying groups.

Elite Theorists argue that the ordinary people never change anything. But they are not forced to be completely right. Even dictators need to have popular support to rule for any length of time.

In spite of Establishment, non-White, and minority Jewish efforts, a large grassroots remigration movement might one day influence the direction of travel of Reform UK.

Both the Establishment and the people once supported British membership of the EU, but opinions change. Maybe the idea of remigration might become mainstream, in spite of Griffin’s thoughts on the matter.

Like Griffin, Collett, and all other sincere Nationalists, I am left clutching at straws.

We must continue to hope and pray and stay optimistic. Sometimes, when all looks lost something totally unexpected happens.

© Will Wright 2026. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.

People who are wilfully blind

Will Wright

An unusual meeting between two very different men

Imagine a man who is an expert in subatomic physics. In his leisure hours he has made a study of Eastern mysticism. To his surprise he realises that statements about the nature of the universe, made by mystics many centuries ago, are remarkably similar to statements about the nature of the universe, made by modern scientists studying the subatomic world.

He writes a book about it, pitched at the intelligent layman. Then several others write on the same theme.

One day, he is thrown together with another man, either by fate, or some mischievous god. They are stuck in a hotel bar in bad weather.

The second man knows nothing of either subatomic physics or Eastern mysticism. He has not read the book. In fact, he does not do much reading at all, even modern novels.

The two men talk about food, beer, football, a little politics. They drink quite a few beers. But the second man asks the physicist to tell him about his book. He explains the theme, but the questioner quickly becomes bored.

Later, when someone asks the second man what he thinks about the book, he readily dismisses it as “a load of crap.” But is he really qualified to hold an opinion on this book?

Which of the two men has your sympathy?

A study of Jews

I have read quite a few books about Jews and also quite a few books by Jews. I have drawn conclusions about Jews. I have observed Jewish behaviour and discussed it with people who are also knowledgeable about Jewish people.

Sometimes, someone patriotic asks me about this. But that is often done in a busy pub, where many other topics of conversation are competing. I do not get much said.

Often, the questioner will state, “It’s not the Jews we should be bothered about, it’s the fucking Muslims,” or some variant on that idea.

If I ask someone which they care about – Pakistani rape gangs, or Black knife murders, they might look oddly at me and say, “I care about both.” I feel like that if someone asks me which is the bigger threat, Jews or Muslims. Surely, we care about both threats. And we do not need to take sides in any quarrel between Jews and Muslims, either in the Middle East, or right here in Britain.

To my dismay, I often find that people who do little reading, and have never been properly active in politics, are quick to decide that they know better than me that all the country’s problems are the fault of Muslims.

Is this situation Nick Griffin’s fault?

Increasingly harsh laws have made it dangerous to speak publicly, or write publicly, about Race. Nick Griffin, very well educated and very knowledgeable about racial problems, thought he had found a way around that problem.

As the largest immigrant group are Pakistani Muslims, Griffin concentrated the BNP’s attention on Muslims in the UK. That was a strategy, but unfortunately, a lot of people took Griffin at his word.

The BNP recruited a lot of people, but many of those people never learned racial nationalist ideology. For such people, Blacks, Chinese, Indian Sikhs and Hindus, Jews, are all okay. Only Muslims present a problem.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, the infamous ‘Tommy Robinson,’ is a political ignoramus and a petty crook. He has been promoted by the state to take British Nationalism’s proper place on the streets. For ‘Robinson’ he really believes that Muslims are the only problem. He always had a Sikh as his right-hand man.

Jewish politicians, lawyers, media types, educators, all promoted a multi-racial society for decades. Other Jews were also implicated in much violence against Nationalists. But now Jews feel threatened by the militant Islamic presence here in Britain. They expect British patriots to jump to the defence of Jews. Those Jews encourage hostility towards Muslims. ‘Tommy Robinson’ is their puppet.

Many mainstream media people also pay lip service to the idea that it is exclusively Muslims who are the problem.

Tommy’s man in Hull: John Francis

John Francis Giddins is a flamboyant former martial artist, from London. He is a former member of Tommy Robinson’s EDL. He boasts of Jewish ancestry and is supported by a Black former pub and club bouncer, Martin Morgan. John Francis, as he likes to be known, has organised yet another rally in the centre of Hull. The theme? ‘Black, Brown and White, unite!”

He claims to be against extremists of both the Right and the Left, as well as Muslim extremists and politically correct extremists. So Giddins promotes a multi-racial society and opposes the ‘far right.’ How exactly is this man a threat to the Establishment, when he follows its line?

I urge all genuine patriots in Hull, do not support this man, he is not the real deal.

Nigel Farage and Reform UK

I think that Nigel Farage was/is sincere about his opposition to British membership of the European Union. He was opposed to free movement of labour. But he is not and never has been a racial nationalist.

However, he is happy to be mistaken for one, when there are elections.

Just as ‘Tommy Robinson’ has taken British Nationalism’s place at street demonstrations, Nigel Farage has taken British Nationalism’s place at the ballot box. Nationalism has been usurped by controlled opposition.

Reform UK spokesmen have jumped on the anti-Muslim bandwagon, even though the party has several prominent Muslims in the party hierarchy. It also has other racial foreigners.

Now Reform UK has two Jewish organisations. There is a Friends of Israel group, just like the Establishment parties all have, as well as a Reform Jewish Alliance.

If Reform UK replaces the Conservative Party as the main right-wing party, voters, rank-and-file members, financial donors, and prominent politicians will all move over to Reform UK. Now Reform UK has given public and official support to the organised Jewish community. If Reform UK becomes the Government, then how can that really be described as a revolution? Reform will not even stop immigration and will never remigrate large numbers.

A big problem for Nationalists

Most superficially political people today, not only do not know about the Jewish dimension to British politics, but they also do not want to learn about it. They are much happier only being anti-Muslim.

If Pakistanis and others keep themselves apart from White society, because of Islam, they should in theory be much easier to remigrate. But the organised Jewish community would like them to renounce Islam and merge into British society – and forget about support for the Palestinians.

The Jewish opposition to Islam is not the same as British Nationalism’s desire for an all-White Britain.

© Will Wright 2026. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.

 

RSS
Follow by Email