National Front Remembrance Parade – Sunday 11th November

Kevin Layzell of the National Front informs us that this year’s National Front Remembrance Day Parade will take place on Sunday afternoon, 11th November 2018.

All patriots are invited to march with the NF on this historic parade, which will form up at Bressenden Place, Victoria, at 2.15 pm, marching off to the Cenotaph at 2.45 pm prompt.

This year is of course the centenary of the end of the First World War. Please note that as a consequence of centenary events, the time of this year’s parade is slightly different to past years.

Click here for further information.

 

‘Antisemitism’ in wartime Britain: article suppressed by The Times

Cyril Radcliffe (later Lord Radcliffe), Director-General of Britain’s wartime Ministry of Information

In the early hours of this morning The Times published an online article under the headline ‘Antisemitism in Britain’, revealing the attitudes held by ordinary Britons towards Jews during the Second World War. This article quoted extensively from an official British document written in May 1943 by the Director-General of the British Government’s Ministry of Information, responsible both for some wartime propaganda and for monitoring the opinions of British civilians.

Within hours The Times suppressed their own article and the link now produces a one-line message: “This article has been removed”.

H&D does not know why The Times decided their readers should not be informed on this topic – but since we ourselves have obtained a copy of the once-secret wartime document, we now publish its contents. Even if The Times is afraid of the truth, we are not.

On 27th May 1943 Cyril Radcliffe KC (Director-General of the Ministry of Information) wrote to his Minister, Brendan Bracken. Radcliffe had spent the previous morning with his Regional Officers from every part of the UK discussing “the question of anti-Semitism”. He believed that they had given him a comprehensive picture of the scale of anti-Jewish feeling among the British public and that no other organisation would have been capable of giving “a better impressionistic view of the position than they were able to provide”.

Radcliffe’s letter to Minister of Information Brendan Bracken in May 1943 about “anti-Semitism” among British civilians during the Second World War

Only Northern Ireland and North East England seemed to show little anti-Semitism, according to Radcliffe: everywhere else in the UK there was “general agreement on the fact that from the beginning of the war there had been a considerable increase in anti-Semitic feeling”. This did not seem to have been incited by anti-Jewish organisations. According to the Ministry’s Regional Officers: “They seemed to regard it as quite beyond argument that the increase of anti-Semitic feeling was caused by serious errors of conduct on the part of Jews.”

This view of Jews had developed not only in cities with a long-established Jewish presence, such as Manchester and Leeds, but also in “areas which had known the Jews mainly as wartime evacuees from the cities”.

Radcliffe continued: “The main heads of complaint against them were undoubtedly an inordinate attention to the possibilities of the ‘black market’ and a lack of pleasant standards of conduct as evacuees. The chief enemy of the Jew appears to be in most areas the small trader who suffers peculiarly from the operations of Jews, whether they are in fact ‘black market’ operations or not. There was a general belief that Jews somehow or other get supplies and advantages which are not available to other people.”

One section of the letter is still censored, dealing with the proportion of Jews involved in black market criminal offences brought before the London courts.

Minister of Information Brendan Bracken (seen above right with his mentor Winston Churchill) was the recipient of a newly-revealed letter discussing propaganda strategies for dealing with ordinary Britons’ negative perceptions of Jews.

Radcliffe and his officers had discussed how official propaganda could best deal with British civilian “anti-Semitism”.

His advice was that rather than seeking to change people’s minds about Jewish behaviour and characteristics, propaganda should concentrate on hammering home the message that saying bad things about Jews was divisive and “peculiarly the badge of the Nazi”. This is strangely reminiscent of more recent propaganda that seeks to ignore specific facts about Jews or blacks, merely insisting that “the truth is no defence” in cases of “racial hatred”.

In 1943 there was of course not yet any question of criminalising “racist” or “anti-Semitic” opinions. This criminalisation of political incorrectness in Britain did not begin for another twenty years: wartime internment of British dissidents was restricted to active members of banned political groups such as Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union. Radcliffe and his officials preferred more subtly to persuade Britons to adopt the view that anti-Semitism was “a thing to be regretted, even if they thought that the Jews were to a large measure responsible”.

H&D would be very interested to learn who at The Times took the decision today to censor these wartime revelations, and why. Can the paper be shamed into reinstating their own story?

 

Simon Heffer on ‘The English revolution’

Simon Heffer addressing the Traditional Britain Group

In this week’s New Statesman, Enoch Powell’s biographer Simon Heffer has an excellent article putting Brexit in the context of previous attempts by Tory elites to respond to ‘the condition of England’.

The ‘condition of England question’ was first formulated in 1839 by the great Victorian writer Thomas Carlyle (long out of fashion) whom Heffer rightly admires. Like the 19th century Whigs whom Carlyle criticised for their blindness towards the desperate state of the Victorian working class, David Cameron ignored a blatant malfunction of the political system that had promoted him.

As Heffer puts it: “The democratic malfunction that millions of voters felt between 1975 and 2016 was that however they voted they would not alter membership of the EU, and the EU had an increasing impact on their lives and economic prospects. If you school people in the notion that the establishment of their social order relies on their ability to vote and not on deference to a Carlylean aristocracy – a properly progressive argument – then denying them a choice on a fundamental issue for decades will, when the choice is finally presented, resemble the bursting of a dam. So it was two years ago.”

Might Heffer himself be starting to recognise that the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s (when combined with mass immigration) had a corrosive effect on society, and that free market ‘right-wingers’ (who are in fact Victorian-style liberals but misnamed ‘conservatives’ on both sides of the Atlantic) have been just as blinkered as the Whigs in their assumptions about benign historical ‘progress’?

Click here to read the full article.

 

New archive for British ‘alt-right’ heritage

A newly launched online archive ‘Roots of Radicalism’ contains vital resources on the ideological heritage of our movement.

This website will be regularly updated and extended: it presently contains thirty articles from the British nationalist magazine Vanguard, first published during 1986/1987.

The site’s founders write:

The term ‘alt-right’ has become widely used in recent years. It does not describe a single, monolithic ideology, but rather a spectrum of related ideas and values. However, it can be said that the alt-right generally:

  • Recognises the positive values of group identities, nationalities and ethnicities;
  • Is prepared to unflinchingly challenge the dominant values of the liberal consensus, including the obsessive egalitarianism of the left;
  • Is not materialistic, and does not think that economic growth is the solution to every problem;
  • Does not believe itself to be on the same side as global capitalism – this, more than anything else, distinguishes the ‘alternative right’ from the conventional right.

Mainstream media commentators, blinkered by years of liberal orthodoxy, have tended to regard the alt-right as a disturbing, new phenomenon. We hope they are right to be disturbed, but they are wrong if they think that the ‘alt-right’ is new: its roots go back a long way, long before the term ‘alt-right’ had ever been thought of.

This website looks at the British contribution to this dissident political heritage, and – when finished – will include hundreds of articles from a wide variety of sources, from independent thinkers to those supporting nationalistic political parties.

As you will see these articles do not represent a single ‘party line’. The writers used a variety of different terms to describe themselves: not ‘alt-right’ but radical right or new right. Indeed many would have rejected the term ‘right-wing’ altogether, believing that they were trying to create an alternative to the existing, conventional Left-Right dichotomy and not wanting to be confused with the capitalist right. Such people generally used terms like ‘radical nationalist’ or ‘ethnic nationalist’ to describe themselves. Needless to say, the political Left used rather different terms, of varying degrees of ranting hysteria…

We believe, however, that the content of their writings are more significant than the labels attached to them. What these writers have in common is that they cared about Britain and the British people and tried to show that there is an alternative to the conventional ‘-isms’ of capitalism, liberalism, socialism or communism.

We hope you find this website to be a useful resource. It is our intention to add about thirty articles a month to the site, so please bookmark us, and visit us again from time to time. If there are worthy publications, authors and articles you feel we have overlooked please contact us and let us know – we make no claims to omniscience!

The archive is online now at www.rootsofradicalism.com

The advertising industry and 21st century brainwashing

Recently the Russian-based television station RT broadcast a programme about British nationalism, The Patriot Game presented by former MP George Galloway. Amid the usual leftist hysteria there were several minutes from an interview Galloway conducted with veteran racial nationalist Martin Webster.

Mr Webster stood up well to Galloway’s standard line of liberal outrage and moral blackmail, and among the issues he raised was the incessant and insidious propaganda campaign by advertisers to promote multiracialism.

By coincidence in the very same week, an article appeared in the London Review of Books, mainly focused on the over-hyped ‘scandal’ of online campaigning and data analysis by the UK firm Cambridge Analytica during Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The relevant sentence from the article was as follows:

New digital advertising billboards at Piccadilly Circus are harvesting data (they contain cameras to analyse the facial expressions of people in the crowds passing by).

This form of intrusive surveillance has obvious commercial attractions, turning Piccadilly Circus into a gigantic ‘focus group’. But is it too paranoid to imagine political / propagandistic implications also?

For example, if advertising billboards were to contain such cameras, it would be possible to compile mountains of data aggregating the responses of the general public to particular depictions of multiracialism. This would reveal public attitudes far more accurately than an opinion poll (where many respondents will give polite or ‘politically correct’ responses on racial questions).

Such data collection would allow propagandists to calibrate their approach more carefully and precisely: to promote multiracialism (or other agendas) in the most effective manner, whether gradual or blatant, according to what proves effective among the covertly surveyed passers-by.

 

Richard Edmonds speaks at POW camp commemoration

Translation of the speech made by Richard Edmonds on the 25. November 2017 at the commemoration held to remember the suffering of the German prisoners-of-war at the site of the Feld des Jammers (Field of extreme distress), Bretzenheim, near Bad Kreuznach, Germany. Note here that the Canadian historian, James Bacque, in his book, Other Losses describes the hardship suffered at this location, the Rheinwiesen prisoner of war camp, where hundreds of thousands of German prisoners of the US Army were corralled for months on end in the exposed open-air, and without any proper sanitary arrangements in place and fed on bare starvation rations.

 

Dear German friends, my name is Richard Edmonds and I am British. I would like to say here that it was the British Establishment which twice both in 1914 and then just twenty five years later in 1939 declared War against Germany, and without any good reason whatsoever.

We all know that the two World Wars were the most destructive wars that history has ever witnessed. The British Establishment’s declarations of war led to, in effect, the whole world attacking Germany. It is astounding that one nation could withstand for a total of ten years against such a combined massive force. As the French patriot and founder of the Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen said, the Germans are the martyr-folk of Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Second World War did not end on May 1945. Neither at the Rheinwiesen POW camp nor anywhere else in post-War Germany was there an end to the suffering. The War continued: in the place of bombs and bullets there now came all the crimes and injustices that men are capable of.

Here I would like to quote the German Professor of the University of Munich, Dr. Franz Seidler, from his book, Das Recht in Siegerhand (Victors’ Justice):

“It has taken more than a half century for it to become permissible to condemn the Western Allies (Britain and the USA) for the crimes that they committed in the Second World War against the rules of war and against the treatment of civilians during and after that war. The Western Allies bombed German residential areas with the cold blooded purpose of attempting to break the moral of the population and the Western Allies cared nothing for the five hundred thousand victims who lost their lives. The Western Allies shot thousands of German POWs. After the capitulation of the German armed forces the Western Allies denied German POWs their rights as prisoners of war as guaranteed by international conventions, and left them to rot in open fields (as at the Rheinwiesen camp). The German POWs were employed illegally by the Allies as slave-labour. The Western Allies approved and supported the greatest act of genocide ever committed in Europe when 15 million Germans were expelled from their ancestral home-lands. The Western Allies ruthlessly looted German industries and stole German technical know-how. They did nothing as hundreds of thousand of Germans, denied adequate rations and heating, succumbed to hunger and cold. The Western Allies imprisoned three million Germans in camps. All this after the War was over.” Quote ends.

Dr. Seidler speaks here of the violations committed during the Second World War by the Western Allies against the Rules Of war and Conventions on Human Rights. Amongst the many other subjects in his book, Dr. Seidler deals with the Nuremberg Tribunal and condemns both morally and from a judicial stand-point the trial which the triumphant Allies (the USA, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France) had organized at the end the War against the militarily defeated German leaders. Question who were the judges and prosecutors at this trial of the defeated Germans ? Answer: the British were the judges: the British who had mercilessly bombed Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin; the Americans were the judges: the Americans who destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atom-bombs at the very end of the War; the judges were Soviet Russians, and everybody knows of the crimes committed by the Soviet Russians (including the rape of two million German girls and women at the War’s end). I quote again Dr. Seidler: “The Allies’ Nuremberg trial of the defeated German leaders was a crime itself and a violation of all the rules of law of the civilised world.

But it was not only the German professor, Dr. Seidler, alone who more than half a century later condemned the the Nuremberg Tribunal of the former Allies. No, already at the very time that the trials were taking place in 1945-46, leading Americans publicly condemned the trials. For example, the top number one judge of the USA, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan F, Stone, condemned the Allies’ trial as “Lynch-justice”, and leading US politician, US Senator Robert Taft, condemned that trial as a “perversion of Justice, and that America’s participation constituted a blot on the honour of the USA”; Taft went further, he predicted that in years to come, Europeans would condemn the USA for its participation. So spoke US Senator Robert Taft in 1945.

Question: Why did leading American contemporaries speak so sharply against the trial organised by the Allies in terms of “Lynch-justice and perversion of Justice” ? Answer: because at the very time of the trials rumours became too loud to be ignored that Germans held in captivity by the Americans were being tortured by American interrogators for the purpose of “softening” them up in order that they be compliant witnesses for the prosecution. To cut a long story short, the American judge, Edward van Roden, was send from the USA to investigate officially the conditions of Germans held in American captivity. Judge van Roden discovered that under interrogation, 137 Germans had had their testicles crushed beyond repair. On his return to the USA, Judge van Roden held a number of press-conferences where he revealed what he had seen and learnt.

But amongst the Western Allies it was not only the Americans who tortured defenceless Germans. The British authorities also tortured German prisoners, who it was intended should serve the Allies’ interests as defendants or witnesses in the trials that were being prepared. In 2002 the journalist, Fritjof Meyer, an editor of the (left-liberal) German weekly news-magazine, der SPIEGEL, published an article in the German government publication, OSTEUROPA, which dealt with the case of the former Auschwitz camp commandant, Rudolf Hoess. The SPIEGEL journalist described exactly how Hoess had been captured after the War by the British occupation authorities and how these had tortured Hoess almost to the point of death in order to extract from the former Auschwitz camp commandant the “confession” that he, Rudolf Hoess had murdered four million at Auschwitz,.

It is clear that the SPIEGEL journalist does not believe a word of the confession extracted from the former Auschwitz commandant. The SPIEGEL journalist, Fritjof Meyer entitled his article published in the May 2002 edition of OSTEUROPA, “The number of victims of Auschwitz”, and wrote – and I quote his words – “Four Million victims in Auschwitz – a product of the war-propaganda of the Allies” The SPIEGEL journalist went further and quoted in his article, a statement made by the Polish expert, Waclaw Dlugoborski. Dlugoborski had been the Director of Research at the (Communist) Polish government memorial centre at Auschwitz. Dlugoborski had written in the (left-liberal) German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in September 1998, and I quote:

“Shortly before the end of the War a Soviet Commission of Enquiry determined, without any further research into the matter, that the number of victims of Auschwitz was four million,” Dlugoborski continued, “although from the beginning there were doubts as to the accuracy of this estimation, the estimation became dogma. Up to the year 1989 (the year of the collapse of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe) it was forbidden to question the number of four million murdered at Auschwitz; staff at the Auschwitz memorial centre were threatened with disciplinary procedures if they did so.” Although from the very beginning there were doubts as to the accuracy of the estimation.

The SPIEGEL journalist Meyer concluded with: “In February 1946 the Soviet prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Major Leo Smirnov, claimed that four million been murdered at Auschwitz.” A product of war-propaganda.

Friends, it is clear that by all standards of decency, the governments of the former war-time Allies, the British government, the American government and the Russian government should officially apologize to the German people for the crimes committed by their predecessors.

Long live Germany !  Long live Europe !.

Birmingham paper hypes story of 1990s MI5 mole in National Front

Andy Carmichael – MI5 mole in the NF – operated long after the party had already gone into decline

This weekend’s edition of the Birmingham-based Sunday Mercury gives great prominence to a recycled story from the 1990s, under the headline Revealed: How MI5 mole ‘sabotaged’ National Front in the West Midlands.

This is just another retelling of the Andy Carmichael story, first revealed by the Sunday Times in 1997.  Carmichael was recruited by MI5 in 1991 and via a West Midlands Police Special Branch handler was paid to act as an informant and agent of disruption inside the National Front.

The Sunday Mercury‘s latest twist comes from personal and party documents handed to Warwick University archives by Wayne Ashcroft, then a teenage NF activist, who is best known for his close association with Nick Griffin during the latter’s attempt to build a power base in the nationalist movement before he became BNP leader in 1999. Ashcroft’s dealings with Griffin were exposed in an edition of ITV’s investigative programme The Cook Report in 1997.

Wayne Ashcroft during his NF days in the 1990s

Contrary to the impression given by the Mercury, the NF was already a shadow of its former self by the time MI5 deployed Carmichael. Multiple splits had crippled the movement during the 1980s and during the early 1990s it was obvious that John Tyndall’s BNP, rather than the NF, was the significant force in British nationalism. Most of the senior figures in the NF’s ‘Flag’ faction (which by this time had unquestioned use of the party name) had already quit or were about to quit before Carmichael started doing MI5’s work.

Some of Ashcroft’s documents indicate that Carmichael helped to stir up a factional dispute within the NF, allying with party chairman Ian Anderson in changing the party’s name to National Democrats in 1995. Anderson’s rival John McAuley kept the NF name going, though Anderson had won a ballot of party members and took several leading activists with him as well as the party’s bank account.

In a bulletin included with the Ashcroft papers, John McAuley wrote:
“Carmichael was the main instigator of the ‘name change split’. Anderson could not have done it without Carmichael’s total support.”

Ian Anderson during an interview in 1991: the same year that Carmichael (who later duped him) was recruited by MI5

Curiously another important backer of Anderson (and personal friend of Carmichael) is not mentioned in the Mercury‘s story.  Simon Darby went on to be right-hand man to Nick Griffin in the BNP for more than a decade, despite suspicions among anti-Griffin nationalists that Darby might also have been a state operative.

Meanwhile Wayne Ashcroft (like Lancashire-based former NF/ND activist Stephen Ebbs) moved on to the Conservative Party. He changed his name to George Ashcroft and was elected a Tory councillor for Telford & Wrekin and deputy chairman of the Telford Conservative Association.  However he quit the Tories as part of a local dispute in 2008 and sat as an independent councillor until losing his seat in 2011.

Mr Ashcroft is now an MA student at Wolverhampton University and has had no connection with the nationalist movement for many years.  He told the Mercury:
“I am deeply ashamed of my actions at the time and I have renounced racism and anything of that kind. …I admire the work the security services do, they are very good at diverting people from such groups and many people went on to normal lives and families and today are not involved in racism. If it had not have been for Andy Carmichael and others like him there are many people who could have gone down a very, very different path. In that respect I greatly admire him for putting himself on the line, he is a remarkable man.”

Former MI5 agent Carmichael is now a window salesman in Sutton Coldfield.

Allies = All Lies

Richard Edmonds speaking in German and English explains how Allied war propaganda – acknowledged to have promoted lies about Germany during the First World War – was also responsible for numerous lies in the Second World War which (unlike the earlier ones which were swiftly discredited after 1918) have in many cases remained current to this day.

He discusses the revelations by eminent German journalist Fritjof Meyer concerning so-called extermination camps, and exposure in the Guardian and elsewhere of the scandals at a British-run torture centre in Bad Nenndorf.

 

Western Spring’s Memorial Tribute to John Tyndall

The Western Spring organisation has for several years set a very high standard of professional events at high quality venues: this year’s John Tyndall Memorial Meeting was an outstanding example. Held at a high-class conference venue in the West Midlands on July 1st, the meeting was attended by more than thirty members drawn from a wide spectrum of 21st century British nationalism.

Groups represented included the National Front, British Movement, British Voice, the British Democratic Party and the London Forum. It was especially encouraging to see a very wide range of age groups in the audience: John Tyndall’s continuing relevance was brought home not only to his own age group but to a rising generation of nationalist intellectuals in their 20s.

 

Max Musson of Western Spring chaired the event and gave the opening address. He reminded us that John Tyndall’s career in the forefront of the nationalist cause had encompassed periods of division and enfeeblement as well as the times of political advance that had shaken the establishment in the 1970s and 1990s.

This event showed that nationalists can cooperate and recognise that far more unites us than divides us: that – as Max pointed out – is part of John Tyndall’s legacy to our movement.

 

 

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton was the next speaker (see video above): he claimed that despite the fissiparous state of nationalism in 2017, the broader political context was more hopeful than it seemed. The surprisingly strong vote for Jeremy Corbyn’s far-left Labour Party indicates that the liberal hegemony is now over.

John Tyndall always insisted that our most deadly enemies were in the Conservative Party rather than on the left. I suggested that for almost forty years our nation had been infected by a ‘Blatcherite’ consensus common to both Margaret Thatcher’s Tories and Tony Blair’s New Labour, then followed by their lesser imitators.

The poison administered by these ‘Blatcherites’ combined social liberalism (an attack on traditional values, undermining the family, social discipline and of course racial integrity) and economic liberalism (enslaving Britons to a deregulated global market, whose masters demand unrestricted immigration to drive down wages and working conditions). These assumptions are now threatened by Corbyn’s undiluted socialism: nationalism should wake up to this new reality and recognise that they should abandon ‘Tory-lite’ policies: our times demand radical racial nationalism with a clear ‘socialist’ edge. Rebuilding a White Britain will not (at least in the short term) mean tax cuts and reducing state intervention: quite the opposite in fact.

 

 

Richard Edmonds was the next speaker (see video above). Now a member of the National Front Directorate (where he also served when John Tyndall was NF Chairman during the party’s peak years in the 1970s), Richard is perhaps best known to H&D readers for his years as BNP National Organiser and proprietor of the famous Welling bookshop during the late 1980s and ’90s. Richard paid tribute to JT’s phenomenal energy in building and rebuilding political movements, first through the NF’s vicissitudes, then starting again after 1980 through the New National Front, developing into the BNP and once again becoming the leading voice of pro-White politics.

Throughout this time JT produced the monthly journal Spearhead, a consistent and courageous voice for undiluted and uncompromising racial nationalist values. Spearhead’s values stood in stark contrast to the post-1945 ‘Western’ establishment, and that monolith is now crumbling, typified by the decline and possible collapse of the NATO alliance.

Folk singer Alison Chabloz (see interview in H&D 79) concluded the morning session with several satirical songs casting a fresh light on that political and judicial establishment, and of course the unmentionable ethno-religious group whose grossly disproportionate influence cannot be discussed, on pain of prosecution and imprisonment! Alison’s prosecution (initially at the instigation of the Jewish ‘charity’ Campaign Against Antisemitism but now taken over by Crown prosecutors) is continuing with further hearings scheduled during summer and autumn 2017.

 

[spacer height=”20px”]Steve Frost of British Movement, longstanding colleague and biographer of Colin Jordan, opened the meeting’s second half with a fascinating and often amusing discussion of the Jordan-Tyndall political alliance. CJ and JT had been comrades in an underground national socialist organisation during the 1950s, influenced by NS veteran Arnold Leese. They had both been active in A.K. Chesterton’s League of Empire Loyalists, then JT had joined CJ in the 1960 version of the British National Party and its 1962 split which became the National Socialist Movement.

Although Steve Frost made clear that John Tyndall emphasised a specifically British version of racial nationalism (in contrast to Colin Jordan’s ‘purist’ national socialism with a European focus), he also pointed out that CJ and JT retained a longstanding political and personal friendship often mischaracterised by journalists who tended to assume that they had fallen out since the 1960s.

Mark Collett – author of the new book The Fall of Western Man (reviewed in the forthcoming H&D Issue 80) – was the penultimate speaker. He had of course been a co-defendant (alongside John Tyndall and Nick Griffin) in an infamous criminal trial at Leeds Crown Court in 2005 under Britain’s notorious race laws. JT died on July 19th 2005 two days before he was due to appear in Leeds for trial proceedings; Mark Collett and Nick Griffin were eventually acquitted in 2006 after two trials.

 

In an inspiring speech, Mark Collett paid tribute to JT’s life of dedicated political principles: a life that embodied excellence in an era when Western Man has been taught no longer to aspire to excellence.

 

 

Jez Turner of London Forum – who like Mark Collett has emerged as one of the leading figures in post-Tyndall British nationalism – gave a rousing call for renewed dedication to the essential principles of our movement: defence of Race and Nation. These principles go way beyond the narrow obsessions with Islam and/or the European Union that have dominated so much supposedly ‘patriotic’ politics in recent years. Like John Tyndall, we should not be afraid to identify the roots of our national crisis in unflinchingly racial terms, and to call boldly for racial renaissance. With a new generation of leaders of the calibre of Jez and Mark, John Tyndall’s legacy is secure.[spacer height=”20px”]

[spacer height=”20px”]Then in the closing address to this very well organised event, chairman Max Musson gave an acute analysis of our movement’s critical choice, as to whether to persist with what Max regards as the blind alley of electoral politics or to accept that rebuilding a White Britain requires a very different approach, focused on offering a positive alternative by which White nationalists can create their own businesses and effectively their own communities. Max’s proposals deserve the fullest consideration by nationalists not only in Britain but around the White world.

 

ONE LAST CHANCE! ORGANISE OR PERISH!

Eddy Morrison calls for White Nationalist resurgence in Britain

NPD march

Every White British Patriot knows that the whole of British nationalism is both stagnated and at its worst point in the last seventy years.

There is a preponderance of nationalist parties in the United Kingdom and they have two things in common:

  • They are minuscule in numbers from numbers in the few dozens when only ten years ago the British National Party numbered in the thousands
  • They will NEVER unite. Each is lead by either one person or a small clique of ‘leaders’ who are ego driven. Common sense and the fact that we, the so-called vanguard of the White Nationalist fight back in Britain which is in serious and possibly irreversible decline, is displaced by their own egos and the fact that they and they alone have the ‘right answer’.

That is why ‘Nationalist Unity’ in any sense is not only undesirable but actually impossible. The Egotists will always put their own interests and/or the interests of their ‘Movement’ in front of any sense of urgency. A sense of urgency that is calling out from every part of our beleaguered Nation that the time is coming when there will be NO White European Race any longer.
We are being bred out of existence and led down that path by a traitorous and truly evil gang that are determined to carry on with the agenda they have been chasing for two centuries or more – and that is the end of all individuality, both national and racial, to be overwhelmed instead by billions of faceless automatons, all of which are one universal colour and one universal race.
Above them will sit – in fact is already sitting – the power crazed Internationalists who are holding the levers of power and heralding in the darkness of the New World Order.

Unbelievably many of the leaders of these ‘parties’ are still falling over themselves to deny that they are racist, Fascist or Nazi – the political swearwords of the Liberal Left. Instead of saying yes in their beliefs they put their race first and if that makes them racists, fascists and Nazis then so let it be.

Diversity-2

I can only see one possible last attempt at reforming White Nationalism into a meaningful political force that instead of pathetically denying in a moaning defeatist voice that they are not racists, but to go on the offensive and show what Racialism really is – the natural choice of putting your own people first – as Nature indeed intended, and throwing off all the stupid Globalist accusations.

Instead of a seemingly bunch of political cowards, the Enemy will see a far different opponent. A fierce and uncompromising opponent determined to win this final bitter struggle to secure the very existence of our White Race and a future for our future generations.

I am writing this not for the attention of those who cannot see beyond trying to get a meagre and shameful number of votes in a ridiculous ‘local election’. No my appeal is to the young White Nationalists who have shown over the past decade that they have the potential to make this last defiant fight into a reality.

I am also calling to all the veterans of the three or four generations who still believe in White Nationalism or National Socialism (call it what you will – it’s the same thing), to act as k the guides and leaders at every level to bring up this vast sea of potential recruits into a movement that can truly call itself a MOVEMENT!

They can ban us; arrest us or even try and kill us but they cannot kill the idea of a White Nationalist Revolution.

If this means forming or resurrecting a new White Nationalist Party with the will, the principles, the organisation and the vision to ensure that this time we win!

Eddy Morrison blogs at natsentinel.blogspot.co.uk and is editor of the White Voice e-newsletter: to subscribe email nationalfreedompress@gmail.com

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter