Trump’s ‘Thatcher Effect’: Obstacle to White Nationalism?

“While anti-fascists had eroded the organisational capacity of the National Front in the late 1970s, Margaret Thatcher had stolen their ideological clothing. As prime minister, she had successfully held together a coalition of support with her blend of jingoism and watered-down Powellism.
Daniel Trilling, Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain’s Far Right (2012)

A rising White Nationalist movement that is somehow stunted in what should be its greatest moment of opportunity. A politically incorrect candidate for office, seemingly unafraid to discuss immigration, and who uses controversial rhetoric touching on race to attract mass support and move victoriously into government. An anti-fascist and left-liberal coalition driven to apoplexy by the repeated intrusion of “racist” arguments and ideas into the national discourse. And a mass influx of coloured migration that somehow continues unabated, perhaps even getting worse. This would be a useful and accurate summary of Donald Trump’s first term in office, which continues to frustrate and confuse those looking for tangible results. As discussions continue on Trump’s putative utility for the anti-immigration cause and on the alternative possibilities of “accelerationism” under a radical left-wing Democrat government, the following essay attempts to offer some advice and lessons from history — a relatively recent history, and one in which all of the important aspects of the Trump phenomenon listed above can be clearly seen. As will be demonstrated from the example of Margaret Thatcher and Britain’s National Front, it is argued here that Trump is an obstacle, and not the way, to the advancement of the Dissident Right.

A Movement on the Rise

The years 2014–16 may in some sense be regarded as a watershed in the recent history of Dissident Right ideas in the United States, and yet they were truly dwarfed by the progress of the Dissident Right in 1970s Britain. Founded in 1967 from a union of the British National Party and the League of Empire Loyalists (and later, the Greater Britain Movement), the National Front was a vehicle for racial thinking and anti-immigration viewpoints at a time when Britain was being swamped by successive floods of coloured migrants from former British colonies. Much like today’s political context, there was a relative neglect of immigration and race-related issues by the mainstream political parties. In yet another important similarity, British industry was beginning to undergo dramatic changes, with the emergence of increasingly troubled and alienated classes of Whites forced to live alongside growing Black and Pakistani enclaves. Simmering inter-racial tensions were being managed, barely, via the gagging of Whites under an increasing number of “race relations” laws, devised almost exclusively by a body of Jewish lawyers. The National Front was able to exploit this context and force its way into the political arena, taking voters from both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party throughout the 1970s.[1] During the period 1972 to 1974, the Front boasted an active and paying membership somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000, and achieved advancement during local elections in 1973, 1976, and 1977. Its electoral influence has been described by scholars as “significant,”[2] and its cultural impact was such that every voter in Britain knew exactly what the movement was, as well as the basic thrust of its ideological trajectory. It was a movement on the rise, and confidence was high.

A Politically Incorrect Leader

All this changed in 1978, at a moment when some thought the National Front had made a major ideological breakthrough. In late 1977 and early 1978, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party were roughly equal in the polls. The Labour Party was faltering under the weak leadership of Prime Minister James Callaghan, and had endured intense criticism for successive waves of industrial strikes, race riots, and a resurgence of ethno-religious violence in Northern Ireland. But the Conservative Party in opposition elicited an apathetic response from voters, as the impression grew that both political parties were equally flawed and unable to meet contemporary challenges. The real breakthrough for the Conservatives came due to a combination of severe strikes under Callaghan (“The Winter of Discontent”) and, perhaps even more importantly, a game-changing interview given by Thatcher (then Leader of the Opposition) to the primetime show World in Action in February 1978. In the interview, during which she was asked about the growth of the National Front, Thatcher remarked:

We are a British nation with British characteristics. Every nation can take some minorities, and in many ways they add to the richness and variety of this country. But the moment a minority threatens to become a big one, people get frightened.[3]

Thatcher then indicated that a Conservative government would “limit all immigration.”[4] The effect of these statements was immediate. Scholar E.A. Reitan points out that, “almost immediately the Conservatives shot up 10 percent in the polls,”[5] while Thatcher biographer Robin Harris records that “immediately after the interview the Tories were eleven points ahead.”[6] Aware of the success of the comments, Thatcher reiterated the same sentiments in a February 1979 interview with The Observer in which she stated:

I am the first to admit it is not easy to get clear figures from the Home Office about immigration, but there was a committee which looked at it and said that if we went on as we are then by the end of the century there would be four million people of the new Commonwealth or Pakistan here. Now, that is an awful lot and I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture and, you know, the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in. So, if you want good race relations, you have got to allay peoples’ fears on numbers.

Three months later, Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister after the Conservatives gained 63 seats in Parliament and moved into government.

A Left in Panic

The Left were incensed by Thatcher’s comments, with much commentary later mirrored in hysterical reactions to Trump’s election campaign, and especially some of his statements before and after Charlottesville. Labour Home Secretary Merlyn Rees responded to the 1978 interview by arguing that Thatcher had “moved towards the attitudes and policies of the National Front” and was “making respectable racial hatred and inciting the threats to public order that we have seen in some of our towns and cities where there is an immigrant population.”[7] Another M.P. accused Thatcher of “giving aid and comfort to the National Front.”[8] All of this of course heavily prefigures the accusation that Trump “energised” the Alt-Right.

Promises Unfulfilled

The truth, of course, was that Thatcher was an unmitigated disaster for the National Front and the cause of racial nationalism more generally, and only time will tell how beneficial or harmful Trump will be to the American movement. It’s crucial to note that at no stage did Thatcher “elaborate on the policy changes which the party would make,”[9] and no cast-iron procedures were outlined beyond a declaration that immigration would be in all cases “limited.” Thatcher’s statements relating to immigration were essentially her version of Trump’s “Wall” — specific enough to attract votes, and yet sufficiently open to interpretation and evasion to confound the support base. Biographer Robin Harris points out that there was no “end to immigration” under Thatcher, and that she personally played a part in the dropping of suggestions like a migrant register and migrant quotas at the proposal stage.[10]

Despite the lack of progress, Thatcher’s politics acted as a release valve for racial tension, permitting Whites to ostensibly vote in line with their ethnic interests while denying them tangible results and depressing their instinct for further action. Rob Witte remarks that “the 1979 general elections turned out to be a total disaster for the National Front, and the major reason for its electoral reverse clearly was Mrs. Thatcher’s public identification of the Conservative Party with a hard line on immigration.”[11] The basic mechanism here is the fatal instinct for Dissident Right sympathisers in the electorate to push their votes away from ideological purity (the original, smaller radical party) and into what they see as a more likely channel for translating their views into policy (an established, major political party). In this instance, the “anti-immigration” Prime Minister had effectively killed the anti-immigration movement in Britain for a generation  – until the stunning rise of the British National Party in the early 2000s and its demise, under the same process as Thatcher/National Front, with votes in this instance going to the fledgling UKIP of Nigel Farage.

Shill or Dupe?

A further interesting parallel to explore is the question of the extent to which Thatcher or Trump were/are knowing participants in the marginalisation of the Dissident Right. And, just as current opinion is split on Trump, scholarly opinion remains split on Thatcher. It’s her biographers who appear most willing to entertain the notion that she was sincere in her anti-immigration politics but was thwarted by the political context in which she operated. Harris, for example, argues:

Though her phrasing was clumsy, Mrs. Thatcher knew exactly what she was doing. She was convinced that her instincts reflected those of the majority. She was also sincere. She had sympathised with [Enoch] Powell when he was sacked for his speech on the subject in 1968.[12]

Internal government memoranda between Thatcher and Home Secretary William Whitelaw, released to the public in 2009 and dated July 1979, also seem to confirm that Thatcher had at least some sense of racial feeling. For example, Thatcher said that there were already too many people coming into Britain, and that “with some exceptions there had been no humanitarian case for accepting 1.5 million immigrants from south Asia and elsewhere. It was essential to draw a line somewhere.” Whitelaw responded that refugees were a different matter than immigrants in general, and that according to letters he had received, opinion favoured the accepting of more of the Vietnamese refugees. Thatcher responded that “in her view all those who wrote letters in this sense should be invited to accept one into their homes … She thought it quite wrong that immigrants should be given council housing whereas white citizens were not.” Thatcher was also asked what the implications of such a move could be given that an exodus of the White population from Rhodesia – now Zimbabwe – was expected once majority rule was established. She made it clear, however, that she had “less objection to refugees such as Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians, since they could more easily be assimilated into British society.”

But the greater weight of scholarly opinion has concluded that Thatcher was a political opportunist who had no abiding sympathy for the Dissident Right or its ideas, and that she was quite happy to exploit the concerns of the electorate simply in order to gain power. Nigel Copsey, perhaps the foremost scholar of the British Far Right, has described Thatcher’s 1978 rhetoric as little more than a “cynical adoption of the race-card.”[13] Some have gone even further, implying a degree of deliberation and co-ordination in undermining the National Front. For example, Brian Harrison, an academic at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has argued that the Conservative Party of the 1970s, and Thatcher herself, were heavily influenced by a cadre of Jewish intellectuals for whom any kind of racial-nationalist thinking would have been anathema. He continues:

By the late 1960s — particularly after Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech on race at Birmingham in 1968 — some on the left feared that Conservative anti-socialism would take anti-intellectual, even fascist, directions. Far from it: the Conservative leadership after 1975 was populist, but not anti-intellectual. Instead, it mobilized one group of intellectuals against another. Still less was its impulse fascist. The party’s brief foray after 1978 into restricting immigration was designed to head off the National Front (then relatively active), not to assist it, and Thatcherism had many Jewish exponents.[14] [emphasis added]

Making Jews and Israel Great Again

It’s curious that Harrison frames the relationship as Thatcherism having many Jewish exponents, because the main body of his article basically makes the argument that it was the other way around – that Thatcher was an exponent of Jewish ideas,[15] especially the “pro-tolerance” Libertarian ideas of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (who although not Jewish surrounded himself with a Jewish intellectual milieu). In fact, Thatcher’s ideological affiliations to Jews were so intense that they’ve become the subject of a 2017 monograph, Margaret Thatcher – The Honorary Jew: How Britain’s Jews Helped Shape the Iron Lady and Her Beliefs, which explores how she was surrounded by a cadre of Jewish advisors like Nigel Lawson, Malcolm Rifkind, David Young, Alfred Sherman, and Stephen Sherbourne. One of Thatcher’s closest political colleagues (she would later describe him as her “closest political friend”) was the Jewish Keith Joseph (1918-1994), a kind of Kushner to her Trump, and author of an Oxford thesis on “tolerance.” Joseph is even described on Wikipedia as the “key influence in the creation of what came to be known as Thatcherism.” Thatcherism was of course a form of distilled Jewish Libertarianism, a political-economic system masterfully denounced by Brenton Sanderson:

Free markets advance the interests of Jews through imposing an impersonal economic discipline on non-Jews through which their ethnocentricity and anti-Semitic prejudice can be circumvented. … Jews have indeed prospered under the conditions of free market capitalism among often hostile majority European-derived populations. … Jews, even in the freest of markets, are notorious for developing and using ethnic monopolies. … Accordingly, the free-market libertarian agenda, when promoted in the context of a society that is multi-racial, and where some racial groups exceed Whites in the degree of their ethnocentricity, may not promote the group evolutionary interests of Whites in enhancing their access to resources and reproductive success.

As such, the “right wing” political and economic philosophy of Thatcher and Joseph was perfectly happy with non-White migration as long as the immigrants were good free market capitalists. Harris, discussing Thatcher’s attitudes to Enoch Powell by the 1970s, remarks that “She no longer agreed with him, if she ever had, about the Kenyan Asians who found sanctuary in Britain in 1972. She regarded them as industrious and and entrepreneurial, in fact model Thatcherites.”[16] In fact, the Conservatives under Thatcher and Joseph introduced propaganda that portrayed beliefs in multicultural, multi-racial, free market populism as fundamentally British, a fact amply demonstrated by the debut of a 1983 election poster showing a Pakistani or an African together with the slogan “Labour Says He’s Black. Tories [Conservatives] say he’s British.”[17] Such posters were paired with a manifesto that stated bluntly: “We are utterly opposed to racial discrimination wherever it occurs, and we are determined to see that there is real equality of opportunity. The Conservative Party is, and always has been, strongly opposed to unfairness, harassment and persecution whether it be inspired by racial, religious, or ideological motives.”[18] It goes without saying that this kind of multicultural, multi-racial, free market populism is almost identical to that advanced by Trump, whose increasingly vacuous declamations on “The Wall” are only matched in frequency by his references to the Black employment rate [it’s now rising again].

A final parallel worth considering is Thatcher’s position on Israel. Even as Leader of the Opposition, on March 22 1977, Thatcher posed in an Israeli General’s anorak, complete with visible markings of rank, on an Israeli hilltop lookout post on the Golan Heights. She was there as part of a three-day “fact-finding” visit to Israel.[19] Just as Israel currently enjoys a love affair with Trump, scholar Neill Lochery recalls that “Even at this early stage, Israel’s love affair with Thatcher was underway with the Israeli press and public paying a great deal more attention to her visit that those of most VIP.”[20] Until this date, the British Foreign Office had been resolutely hostile to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who was involved in the brutal mutilation and murder of two British Army sergeants in 1947, as well as the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel, during which 28 British citizens were killed. In the late 1970s, when a potential visit by Begin to London was discussed, a Foreign Office memo was circulated containing the words: “I hope we will firmly repel this viper from our bosom.”[21] On May 23 1979, Begin entered Number 10 Downing Street as the guest of Margaret Thatcher, whose daughter had by now spent a summer on a Kibbutz and who was herself a regular supporter of the Finchley Anglo–Israel Friendship League.

Thatcher was seen by Jews and Israel almost as their “agent,” capable of overturning the moves of those opposed to Israel and asserting their will in government. Lochery discusses how Israel viewed the British Foreign Office as implacably hostile to their interests, but saw Thatcher as incredibly useful. When the nine members of the European Economic Community (EEC) tried to frame a common policy towards the Arab–Israeli conflict and agreed to talk of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination (The Venice Declaration of June 13 1980), “The Israelis were shocked by the Venice Declaration, although they blamed the Foreign Office for Britain’s part in it rather than Thatcher. On 15 June 1980, the Israeli Cabinet strongly criticised the declaration. In Britain, the local Jewish lobby was mobilised to persuade Thatcher, in effect, to overturn or ignore the declaration. From this point forward, the Israelis looked for allies within the EEC who could offer some type of shield against what it saw as further anti-Israeli moves within the community. Thatcher was clearly a figure that the Israelis saw as fulfilling such a role.”[22] They were correct, and on May 24 1986, Thatcher became the first British prime minister to pay an official visit to Israel. She was welcomed by Shimon Peres, who said the strength of the Anglo–Israeli relationship had never been better.

Whither Trump?

It’s argued here that there are sufficient parallels between the historical example of Margaret Thatcher and the contemporary phenomenon of Donald Trump to merit serious consideration of the desirability of a continuance of the Trump presidency. The primary concern, in light of historical examples, should be that, contrary to hysterical media narratives, multicultural right-wing populism of the variety espoused by both Trump and Thatcher has a confounding rather than galvanising effect on the basic instinct of Whites to assert and pursue their interests. These approaches are typified by a lack of tangible results on the primary concern (immigration), which is often disguised by diversions into superficial, even puerile, jingoism and in some instances actual war (Falklands War for Thatcher, and the real possibility of Trump engaging in conflict in the Middle East). It is unfortunate that one of the major strengths of the Dissident Right (its focus on immigration as a White concern) is also a weakness in the sense that it is remarkably easy to water down, repackage, and market to the electorate. Nigel Copsey has argued that one of the reasons for the failure of the National Front was not only that Thatcher had essentially stolen its ideological basics, but that the Front itself had failed to “build an effective social movement space.”[23] It is particularly alarming that the American Dissident Right of 2012–2016 really had developed an effective social movement space (albeit one that was in large part located online) but was still lulled into a position where its ideological basics were stolen, and its energy was drained or diverted. At the heart of the issue here is whether the Dissident Right influenced Trump, or whether the energy and points of policy inherent in the Dissident Right were diverted to a Trump campaign that will ultimately fail to deliver on anything except Jewish/Israeli interests.

Just prior to Trump’s election, I participated in a number of podcasts where I offered my tentative support to the Trump campaign but mentioned that Dissident Right groups always perform best against strongly Leftist governments. I expressed my concern that we might, under Trump, see a chilling effect on the Alt-Right and an emergence of the “Thatcher Effect.” I hesitated to elaborate then on what I meant because of the optimism, and because I wanted to believe, like everyone else, that the Wall would be built, that ICE would be conducting raids, and that Whites across America would get used to a harder rhetoric on race and immigration than they had hitherto been exposed to or permitted. But I write this elaboration on the “Thatcher Effect” in a different context entirely to that which was expected — a context of censorship and deplatforming, seemingly unstoppable migrant caravans, and a settlement in the Golan Heights named after Trump. If nothing else, I hope it’s food for thought.

[1] J. Solomos, Race and Racism in Contemporary Britain (London: Macmillan, 1989), 132.

[2] R. Garbaye, Getting Into Local Power: The Politics of Ethnic Minorities in British and French Cities (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 51.

[3] R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: a comparative analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands (London: Routledge, 2014), 54.

[4] Ibid.

[5] E. A. Reitan, The Thatcher Revolution: Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, and the Transformation of Modern Britain, 1979-2001 (New York: Rowan and Littlefield, 2003), 22.

[6] R. Harris, Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher (London: Bantam Press, 2013), 144.

[7] S. Taylor, The National Front in English Politics (London: Macmillan, 1989), 145.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] R. Harris, Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher (London: Bantam Press, 2013), 144.

[11]R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: a comparative analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands (London: Routledge, 2014), 54.

[12] R. Harris, Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher (London: Bantam Press, 2013), 143.

[13] N. Copsey, Cultures of Post-War British Fascism (New York: Routledge, 2015), 66.

[14] B. Harrison, ‘Mrs Thatcher and the Intellectuals,’ Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994, 206-45, (207).

[15] Ibid, 209.

[16] R. Harris, Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher (London: Bantam Press, 2013), 143.

[17] Z. Layton‐Henry (1983). ‘Immigration and race relations: Political aspects,’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 11(1-2), 109–116, (111).

[18] Ibid.

[19] N. Lochery (2010). ‘Debunking the Myths: Margaret Thatcher, the Foreign Office and Israel, 1979–1990.’ Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(4), 690–706.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] N. Copsey, Cultures of Post-War British Fascism (New York: Routledge, 2015), 66.

38 replies
  1. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    I’ve always been puzzled why people thought Trump was opposed to immigration. The ones that “have to go back” were illegal aliens, and the wall was going to have “a big beautiful door” in order for them to “come back legally”.
    As Guillaume Durocher has stated, immigration is the reserve army of capital. Capitalism really only works for those with capital, or access to it, and most of us don’t have the amount needed to play the game, or have access to it. That’s not to say that there aren’t goys out there who don’t do well, but rather it’s like the Olympics, the non-dopers are effectively lining up 5 meters behind the dopers in a 100 meter race. The successful goys have taken the (((dope))), just like Thatcher and Trump.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        At the heart of the issue here is whether the Dissident Right influenced Trump, or whether the energy and points of policy inherent in the Dissident Right were diverted to a Trump campaign that will ultimately fail to deliver on anything except Jewish/Israeli interests.”

        Wall construction is going slower than expected, but it IS going forward.
        If Dems had won the election, instead of Trump, nothing would have been done except for possibly giving millions of illegals citizenship.

        Is the above not believable?

        According to MSM reports, yes, much slower than expected,
        but the few new sections that have gone up are supposedly in the most “high traffic” areas and
        rates of crossings have dropped and corresponding rates of drug smuggling have also dropped.

        Reportedly an omnibus bill appropriating 147 million USD in new money has been dedicated to New Wall funding.

        Moreover, although quite possibly a diversion for other things that the (((US government))) may be doing to screw the American people, John Bolton’s recent call for war with Iran in retaliation for downing man-less drone was not given the okay by Trump.
        So yes, Trump did put a Neo-con Jew in charge of Foreign Affairs(?), but is he really paying attention to him?

        Someone at TOO recently outlined the amount of “Collective Wealth” that Jews control and how Trumps meager billions are no real match for them.

        So in order to survive, could it be that Trump has to at least appear that he is playing ball with the (((Snakes))) even if it is beach-ball and not the WNist desired hard-ball?

        Moreover, is it possible that Trump’s statements like “..a wall with a big beautiful door”, are a necessary evils for an American populace,
        that by any “developed nation’s” (White Nation’s) measure,
        has to be considered to be comprised of the stupidest (White) nation of people on the planet.

        Granted, America may have more than its fair share of geniuses, but overall…, well…, We all know the story…
        Average Americans are largely recognized,
        even by their nearest geographical and intellectual neighbour,
        the Jewminion of Cafkada,
        as being remarkably ignorant of anything going on outside of (((their))) “live-stock pen” and what the Jew Stream Media tells them.


        On Thatcher and her Argentina / Falklands conflict as a diversion from immigration vs.
        Trump’s Iran-drone flare up as a diversion for slow progress on immigration:

        Watching the occasional 10 or 15 minutes of CNN at an acquaintance’s place the other night tells me that we…,
        White Nationalists at TOO and other like minded sources of Truth on-line…,
        are the real worry of the [redacted] Jews.

        Whites are finally waking up and the pace of awakening is quickening in direct proportion that the Jew Stream Media is dying.
        Our ideas are filtering into main stream White culture and We are co-opting the hearts and minds of the voting base of the Republican Party.

        (((Sources))) like CNN, the NY Times, etc are bleeding red ink while We are overcoming and even expanding…,
        albeit slowly due to (((temporary set backs))) like de-platform-ing, delisting, denial of service by electronic money transferring infrastructure, etc…,
        but expanding nevertheless.

        I agree that it would be ideal if we had our own Third Party Candidate on stage at any future Primary or Federal elections instead of supporting Trump, but show US the man and the money and I would agree.

        What would however be useful is to petition Trump, or any other moneyed White man,
        to fund help fund a WNist party and give it national exposure during an election so as to draw votes way from the Dems and move the entire conversation further in Our direction.
        After losing the Primaries, We could throw our support behind Trump and the watch the entire Conversational Paradigm shift further to the “White”-Right and away from the Jew-Wrong.

        • Achilles Wannabe
          Achilles Wannabe says:

          Roy what do you make of the fact that Trump’s 3 biggest backers are Jews -Addelson and co- that he grew up in Jewish NY/ New Jersey real estate, that he is a protege of Roy Cohn and that whole NY Jew milieu, that his daughter is a convert to Orthodoxy and she married a Lukidnick? Do you really think he has been deceiving the tribe all these years? My hunch is that he has Crypto in his family tree

          • RoyAlbrecht
            RoyAlbrecht says:

            You bring up an extremely valid point here.
            If I may be delusionally comparative for a moment, I look at Trump’s position through my own experiences.
            Having grown up in a Jew & (((boot)))-licking-Limey n’hood, there are two ways one can “…handle…” the Jews.
            My way was to refute them from the get go and face a lifetime of sabotage ending in ruination of material life,
            go the way my brother went…, namely;
            know what Jews are,
            worship them openly,
            do their bidding and
            have a materially successful life.
            However, that did not mean that in the privacy of his own shop, around his German-Canadian employees, he could not be heard loudly cursing the [redacted] Jews every time they screwed him in his automotive repair dealings.
            Jews more or less own Hamilton and proxy-control,
            through their usual means of threats, collusion and sabotage, the entire steel/metals industry from primary extraction to quaternary recycling.
            If one does not behave as (((they))) expect one to behave, one becomes an immediate target among targets on their prioritized hit list.

            Look at Putin. He has been in the driver’s seat of Russia, including arguably the in-between years of Dmitry Medvedev, for about twenty years now. During Putin’s tenure, he had to establish himself first and consolidate his position before he could smash the jew-oligarch power circle and send most of (((them))) to either prison or scurrying to Israel or the UK.
            Thereafter, Russia, by all accounts, has had a rebirth with respect to the Orthodox church, the internal economy (we will not mention currency evaluation, as it is rather complicated and beyond this scope), nationalism, and most other WNist measures.

            What has Trump ACTUALLY given his Jews so far?
            Moving a building (US embassy) from one Jew occupied city to another,
            placing a roster of token neo-Cons into influential positions without listening to their advice,
            voicing the usual platitudes at the usual boot-licking affairs (AIPAC, JRC, Wailing Wall theatrics, in short not much of substance).
            Moreover, judging by the remaining Jew Stream Media (Fox aside) outlets, (((they))) hate Trump more than ever!
            Furthermore, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that Trump himself is a Jew.
            The fact that some of his children have bred with Jews is, I believe, even something that Trump himself did not really want…, or did he?…,
            Trump Jr. divorced his Jewess, Eric and Ivanka may yet realize their mistakes, as is usual in such cases, after they have been married a few years.
            Moreover, Trump is IMO, one very CLEVER and INTELLIGENT cookie.
            As the old saying goes:
            Keep your friends close and your enemies closer!

        • royAlbrecht
          royAlbrecht says:

          Here is another more recent video from Steve Bannon on Fox giving an overall update on progress on the wall.

          Sometimes the thought goes through my head that Jews are timing the break out of civil war to coincide with a balance of power that is materially in favour of the Jew Multi-cult mélange because to do so now would mean certain loss given Whites possess higher aptitudes.

          The jews do not necessarily want a winner, they just want as many Whites dead as possible.

    • Luther Burgsvik
      Luther Burgsvik says:

      “I’ve always been puzzled why people thought Trump was opposed to immigration.”

      Perhaps it’s ‘Trump Desperation Syndrome’, a right wing equivalent of the left wing ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’. People on the right are so desperate for a saviour-type figure that they’ll falsely percieve certain values in a person who doesn’t actually have them (eg Trump was secretly ‘a patriot fighting against the elites for everyday white Americans’). In the end both sides only end up seeing their own fears or desires rather than seeing who or what Trump actually is.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Looking back on Trump’s campaign, it is clear that he was pro-Israel and pro-legal immigration from the Third World. So there is no reason why his supporters would change their mind about him when it comes to those two issues. They are falling for his excuses about not building the wall and deporting more illegals because they are ignorant of history — specifically, the fact that presidents Eisenhower and Wilson both deported illegals (and in Eisenhower’s case, legal guest workers) without asking for permission from the courts or for money from Congress. They simply used the military and its budget to do the job.

        The question is, what will Trump do if he’s re-elected? He will do nothing to secure the border, he will sign legislation restricting gun rights, he will continue to support Israel, he will do nothing to stop censorship by tech companies, and he may get us into a war with Iran, Russia, and/or China. All of this because of the Jews he supports and who support him.

        We would be better off with a Democrat for president. Then non-Jewish white Americans would have to accept the fact that there are no political solutions left. They would be forced to unite, boycott the system, and look towards the creation of a white ethnostate.

  2. The Mechanic
    The Mechanic says:

    MAGA is a Hebrew word, as in Krav MAGA.
    First comes the MAGA, then comes the Krav.
    Reading from right to left, of course.
    Good luck.

  3. Jack McArthur
    Jack McArthur says:

    I have seen figures for IQ level and different peoples but there seems to be something far more important than just genes that explains the dominance of one group in media, finance and politics.

    Jesus when offered the entire world by satan does not deny that it is in his power to give it, indeed the NT says the ruler of this world is satan. C. S Lewis described living in this world as operating behind enemy lines. The agents of satan, it could just as easily by you, should therefore be found over represented wielding the levers of power. IQ is indeed a medium but cannot explain by itself the servitude of the West.

    Living myth is important The ancients took this for granted. The same archetypal themes reoccur through ages.

    In the roman period oracles of Isis described the Greek rendition of yhwh as being actually Seth, the original trickster jealous god, associated with the desert, who killed the good god Osiris. Some scholars have even drawn comparison’s between Seth and Satan.

    In the OT moses goes into the desert to meet Yhwh In the NT Jesus goes into the desert to meet satan.

    A catholic scholar pointed out nearly a hundred years ago that the Ancient Egyptians were a moral people who took the natural law for granted. They didnt need to be taken to a mountain with thunder, lightning and shaking ground (all associated with Seth) and given tablets of stone to tell them.

    Yesterday I dipped into Schlesinger’s Robert Kennedy & His Times. It quotes Lord Beaverbrook at the end of WW2, and the birth of modern Israel, and that the United States was a “subjugated nation to a Jewish minority” Britain had become “a satellite to the United States” and that Roman Catholicism was the “great hope of mankind because of its organisational ability…”

    I think it was the following decade that Fulton Sheen predicted that in the end times even the papacy would seem to be occupied by Satan. That the present bishop of Rome is one of the most active voices in bringing about the demise of Christianity through open borders, whilst the previous pope is still alive, seems to point that the curtain is going down.

    • Jack McArthur
      Jack McArthur says:

      Some supporting citations:

      Oracles of Isis with Jews as people of Seth see Religion in Roman Egypt, F. Frankfurter, Princeton University Press, p. 207.

      Yhwh = Iao = Seth, see Moses the Egyptian, Jan Assmann, Harvard University Press, p. 37. He makes an onomatopoetic connection through the Egyptian word for “ass” but note the curious coincidence of the ass being a sacred animal of the Hyksos (who worshipped Seth in a monolatric way) and were buried with them.

      Lord Beaverbrook comments on the subjugation of the USA see p. 79 of the 1979 Futura Andre Deutsch 1979 edition.

      Seth as storm, desert god etc, see The Ancient Gods Speak, edited Donald Redford, Oxford University Press, p. 331.

      Natural law and Ancient Egypt, see Studies in Comparative Religion”, editor E. C Messenger, Essay by A. Mallon S. J, vol 2/5, p. 16-17, Catholic Truth Society, 1934

      I cannot recollect the Fulton Sheen book but a web search alludes to this opinion

      Satan as ruler of the world see John 12:31.

      Satan offering Jesus the world see Matt 4:8

    • PaleoAtlantid
      PaleoAtlantid says:

      Fedor Dostoyevsky identified the crisis as having a ‘spiritual’ aspect. Here is a brief excerpt from Journal d’Un-ecrivain. 1873-76:
      “Yes, Europe is on the eve of collapse, a universal, terrible and general collapse […] To me Bismarck, Beaconsfield, the French Republic, Gambetta and others, are all only of appearances. Their master, who is the same for every one else and for the whole of Europe is the Jew and his bank. We shall see the day when he shall pronounce his veto and Bismarck will be unexpectedly swept away like a piece of straw”.
      Prophetic words from 1873!

    • milan
      milan says:

      @ Jack McArthur

      Yes, indeed and just how close now are we to that Abomination of Desolation described by Jesus as fulfilling that end. Further to this why is it that anyone who tries to do the right thing politically in the US winds up dead and in most cases under very strange and inexplicable circumstances? Washington further is a city built on 7 hills? Rev. 18 perhaps?

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Christianity sets you up for servitude to the ” chosenites ” ; whom in turn infiltrate , sabotage and subvert all christian power centers and thus subjugate christians by surreptitious conquest . The expert application of vast financial resources assures conquests . Christian retardation on matters of money / finance , economics and true histories also facilitate those conquests by which christians are subjugated to the chosenites . Sufficient IQ is needed to understand this process . Many devout christians seem to lack sufficient mental ability to process real world information and prefer instead to reinterpret ancient biblical texts until their new fantasy narrative is amenable to current popular ethnic perceptions of reality .

  4. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    Back in the 1980s Wilmot Robertson told me that subscriptions to his periodical “Instauration” dropped dramatically after the election of Reagan in 1980, at about the same time and parallel to Thatcher’s chilling effect on the National Front.
    But regarding the hoped for “accelerationist” benefits to be derived from a more explicitly anti-White government, we must consider that whereas Britain in 1979 was officially about 5% non-White the U.S. is now officially over 40% non-White, the population under the age of 10 is over 50%, and if illegal immigrants are in the 20-30 million range estimated by the Yale study then the actual residents of the country are already very close to 50% non-White. Being this close to the long-dreaded racial “tipping point,” the point of no return beyond which it would hardly be possible to successfully advance our racial interests by electoral means, effectively removes accelerationism as a credible political option. In short, we don’t enjoy the luxury of time and numbers that Britain had in 1979.
    Regarding Trump, it should be remembered that he has consistently publicly stated the same views he ran on in 2016 for at least 30 years. For all the frustration of Trump’s repeated efforts to curb illegal immigration, and reform legal immigration in a merit direction that would probably not have allowed most of the non-White immigration we’ve had over the last 50 years, he still seems motivated to continue the fight against all the power of the establishment, coming up with new ideas and angles to get something done.
    But most importantly, the next establishment president would probably mean amnesty and a path to citizenship for all illegals, an even greater influx of non-Whites through the open door, and a governmental, not just corporate, crackdown on our First Amendment rights as soon as they can get five supportive justices on the Supreme Court.
    The 2016 election was probably more about race than any in the last century. The anti-White establishment very clearly knows this. They believed they were on the verge of realizing their long cherished goal, of consolidating their power and delivering a final extinguishing blow to any possibility of a White resurgence. Then along came Trump and by some act of providence confounded their hopes by the narrowest of margins.
    The stakes are much higher now than they were in 1979. We have little or no room or time for maneuver. Time works two ways. It doesn’t matter how fast we accelerate if we’re already out of time. Then it’s time’s up, game over.

  5. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    Mrs Thatcher’s maiden name was Robertson. She was a member of the clan. The clan chief, Col. Robertson died and the new chief took over. A letter arrived from a negro in the Windies saying that he was the Chief.
    The College of Heralds in Scotland agreed with him and Mrs Thatcher had nothing more to do with the Clan Robertson.

  6. Trump's Grandfather was a Jew
    Trump's Grandfather was a Jew says:

    There have been rumors that Trump is a crypto Jew. His (((German immigrant))) grandfather Frederick Trump was a brothel owner and pimp in Alaska. His business partner was Ernest Levin.

    See Bloomberg report from 2016.

    German immigrant pimps were almost always Jews.

    Jewish generals/spies and their Black/Hispanic armies are in a death struggle against White Europeans.

    • RoyAlbrecht
      RoyAlbrecht says:

      Bloomberg is a Jew…, never trust a Jew.
      Show the source please.
      Show a second and/or third source substantiating the Jew source please.

  7. JRM
    JRM says:

    Brilliant article. The paucity of choice in this Empire is one of our really fundamental problems. We have a two-party system, which is almost guaranteed to result in a certain amount of overlap in party positioning, as each party attempts to cast the largest net possible. And of course, the game is fixed from the start as both parties belong lock and stock to Israel.

    These days you hear a lot about the polarization of the parties, the unpopularity of compromise, and the end of bipartisan cooperation. Still, with most of the nation’s White population preoccupied with their daily living, plus the usual consumption of bread and circuses, the number of “normies” is still vast.

    Hitler rode to power on the strength of party coalitions growing out of a quite dysfunctional multi-party system. Our lack, as WNs, of a smaller but more ideologically “pure” party as a base of operations for candidates who will not stray from the task we set them too, is killing us. The Republican Party effectively smothers the nationalist “baby” every few years.

    We are going to have to decide if we want to hedge our bets, vote Republican whilst we hold our noses, or wait for the accelerationism to fundamentally change the playing field.

    Trump has surely been a heart-breaking disappointment, but who here would have preferred HRC as President? That’s where they’ve “got us”. And the choice won’t be any more palatable with the 2020 pack of traitors coming up.

    • royalbrecht
      royalbrecht says:

      I do not see things as “…heartbreaking…”.

      In Iceland, the jew-owned media is bleeding red ink,
      the parliament is strengthening Hate Crimes legislation in a WNist direction to include; “…threats of violence…”…,
      as a precondition for commencing prosecution…,
      something the Jew Stream Media in Iceland is shrieking “Foul” about and complaining that the Law should be “…strengthened…” by becoming even more vague than it already is so as to be able to cast an even wider net.

      The Jew Stream media seems to be projecting the perception that they are winning, but if the 2016 and upcoming 2020 US election,
      not to mention national election trends within the EU,
      are any indication as to the ACTUAL sentiments of the population as a whole,
      things are moving in a WN-ist direction.
      the only question is:
      “…are they moving quickly enough to salvage something from the chaos that will soon ensue?”.
      Furthermore, recent events in Hong Kong and the fact that CNN is projecting events from within the “…good Red Chinese Establishment…” view and
      making the Demonstrators out to be the “…bad guys…”,
      is an indication of where things are heading.
      Now is not the time to be heart-broken, but to recognize that the tide has turned and Aryans may yet stop the Jew Plague from engulfing the planet.

  8. r1b1
    r1b1 says:

    As befits another faction of The Money Party the Conservatives represent only international flight capital and its owners and as such cannot be trusted to act in the interests of the ethnic British any more than any other actual or aspiring political presence in UK.

    Compare and contrast the 1980s Tories with them in 1964 – presumably a “con” then too:

    I have alwasy suspected Thatcher, like May, of having some biological component in her anti-White impulsions.

    For UK readers, two germane action points:




  9. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    Some years ago, Brandon Smith ( called it well before the fact: Trump would be elected as “champion” of the “right”, a “populist leader”, to be set up to take the fall when TPTB pulled the [economic] plug. We the people (aka sheeple) would be very ready to blame “those in power” for the downfall of our economy and sharp reductions of our well being. We would then grasp like thirsty hikers across a desert at the beverage offered: The [poisonous] solution to this problem-reaction Hegelian dialectic, viz., the NWO and its salutary accoutrements.

    Here’s the caveat, which BS also acknowledged: The consequences of PTB’s “pulling the plug” have to have a “reasonable” explanation beyond “politicians”, “banksters”, “pedophiliacs”, “black-maled transgenderites”, etc. Unlike sophomoric “false flags” now proliferating in the heat of summertime USA, we have to have a BIGGY — ETs, UFOs, the Second Coming [not at my age, I can tell you!], EMF power outages, or direct asteroid strikes remarkably only on NY, London, Paris and Rome [OK, wishful thinking, right?].
    NOTE: Michael Hoffman pointed out to me today that the Ned Pepper bar in Dayton, Ohio — where I once grew toward manhood — took its name from Ned Pepper, the outlaw character in “True Grit” (“Lucky Ned Pepper”). False flaggers can be cute!

    It would seem that this “end game”, like having but two knights and a king vs. a king in chess, will last a very long time, probably well after I am dead and gone. Don’t hold your breath, the key advice. Prepare.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      I informed BS that I am a WN and he responded “you guys are at the top of my/our hit list.”

      He also uses the term racism just like a snarling leftist would.

      BS was associated with Yale Law School grad Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers. Their gig is civic nationalism, and they hate our guts. Most likely controlled opposition.

      CNs believe in all of the original Founding Documents, except for the part about the USA being open to Free White Persons. . .

    • RoyAlbrecht
      RoyAlbrecht says:

      Two Knights vs. a King in the end game is a technical draw.
      A more precise chess allegory for the present situation would be:

      A Knight, a Bishop, four Pawns and a King for Black = Multi-cult + Jews
      A Tower, a Bishop, five Pawns, as yet active King and an inferior but not untenable position for White = (White) N. America, U.K., and Europe with a bad position and seeking a true leader among us.

      In other words, Whites are still materially superior, but position-ally compromised and without an Active White Leader.

  10. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    Trump has been a vocal and consistent actor for Likud. His acting performances at home have been virtuosic.

  11. claudius1889
    claudius1889 says:

    So far Donald Trump has demonstrated to be a false option like Thatcher was. It should not surprise us considering his background and his daughter’s shameful marriage to a fanatical Zionist. Trump was aware of the importance of the immigration issue in the 2016 elections and he played along accordingly winning the support of the majority of the White working-class that gave him the victory. Like many White nationalists, I was a sceptic about his commitment to the White cause, and as many of them I was disappointed, but not surprised, by his conduct.

    In the case of Great Britain, Thatcher’s success proved how stupid and politically uneducated the average White British voter was (and still is) In fact the average Englishman is a coward, who is terrified to be seen as “a racist” and therefore he will never do the right thing that means support a true White nationalist movement, like the BNP. The same thing happens in the USA with the so-called conservatives, that is why we have not seen any progress by true White nationalist organizations like the American Freedom Party.

    Thatcher was a puppet of the Jewish World Order like Donald Trump is. They were both groomed to nullify the White people’s just anger and resentment over their political, cultural and racial demise. Considering the power of the Establishment this should not surprise us. The question is: Would the American White nationalists be able to get together behind a party of their own, like the American Freedom Party? I think this is the only solution to the problem. Forget the Republicans, they are the same treasonous trash than the English Conservatives.

  12. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Yes, excellent writing. I’m afraid though the discussion remains firmly bound by the huge Jewish monsters of the Fed, Bank of England, and banks around the world. None of these are soundly based; debt, like immigration, continues to swell. Their influence on all aspects of life, including housing and civil servants and academics and media, is terrifying, dangerous, and has serious risks of disasters. And of course no political parties have even begun to debate what must be done, including reclaiming ‘white’ assets from Jews. ‘Democracy’ has turned out to mean endless arguments over comparative trivia. As no doubt was the intention of its still-concealed 19th century hucksters and barkers.

  13. Johnny Walker Read
    Johnny Walker Read says:

    I always wondered why middle America would put their faith in a New York scam artist with mob connections. Must have been out of desperation and a need to believe in somebody, even if that somebody was a nobody. Eye’s are now opening, even if it may be too late..

    • Flo
      Flo says:

      It’s not so mysterious when you consider the alternative the electorate was offered. Nobody wanted that foul-mouthed, foul-tempered basketcase haranguing them for four years. Better the entertaining, smart-alecky New Yorker.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        Yes, Trump is far from perfect, but he has done a lot of good for Whites and the planet…,
        given the (((forces))) arrayed against him…,
        and to forget it would IMO be ungrateful:

        Political Correctness is almost a dead letter with almost everything but the Jewish Question left to deal with,
        Re-Energized the Spirit of otherwise “Broke-Back” Whites throughout the USA and the West,
        Encouraged leadership in (former?) White nations [Orban, AfD, Italy, Brexit, et al… Trump lent courage to populist leaders and helped accelerate the shift to stop the influx of foreigners in Europe],
        Started a real Wall…, did not just repair old fences,
        Crippled Sanctuary Cities,
        Beefed up military and helped Vet’s,
        Put a Semi-Paleo-Conservative [non-Jew] Catholic on the Supreme court,
        Cracked down on organized crime,
        Stimulated economy and brought back a lot of outsourced industries to the USA,
        Has largely discredited the as yet mis-named Jew Stream Media,
        Challenged or at least brought some negative attention upon the Fed. Res. Bank,
        Started normalizing relations with N. Korea, Russia, Syria, and other nations that Jews wanted the USA to destroy,
        Has avoided going to war for Jews with Iran,
        Reduced and withdrawn troops in the various (((US))) conflicts around the globe,
        Is hated by the vast majority of Western Jews,
        and probably a lot more things that I forgot about.

        Remember that before you trash the man and be constructive with your criticisms.

        • Angelicus
          Angelicus says:

          Roy: I do not understand people like you, I mean people that refuse to face reality. Trump has filled the government with fanatical Zionists, has moved the US embassy to Jerusalem in a disgusting display of subservience to Israel, has built next to nothing on the US-Mexican border, has done NOTHING to fight/curb the hateful anti-white bias in the American educational system, etc, etc, etc… He is a pathetic Jewish-groomed shill like the other treacherous piece of shit named Ronald Reagan

          • royAlbrecht
            royAlbrecht says:

            Filled the government with Zionists, whose advice he promptly ignores.
            Big deal…, he moves an office location from one occupied stronghold to another.
            He has built something however, and in the most crucial spots. Moreover, NGO’s ( I question how much behind the scenes support they are receiving from the Trump admin.? ) are picking up the ball where the Gov’t is unable to move forward.
            As for anti-White bias in the US education system…, political correctness is at a 40 year low and falling fast…, thanks largely to Trump.

  14. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    Thatcher with malicious relish also destroyed much of British industry. Her biggest blow against White workers and their historic communities was done by the wholesale closure of deep-mine coal mining. Her acolyte Blair continued her policies, not with a stern frown and wagging finger but with a superior smug grin.
    It is only by the power of the media of news and entertainment that White people continue to accept continual abuse and humiliation at the hands of ‘you-know-who’.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      @PaleoA. I agree that her closure of the mines, which totally relied on government subsidies put people out of work and therefore devastated communities. But this, just like British Leyland, and other government rescued tax supported prop ups, was unsustainable. If you visited and traveled and talked to people in the mid seventies, you would understand. Britain was a socialist mess, dingy, dirty, and dank.

      In Singapore, when an industry is deemed not competitive, government, management and labor pool their resources and target another industry of which they project profit and viability. This involves the retraining of workers and expenditure of capital amassed by the Government . Singapore has a vast Sovereign Fund.

      Those who use all inclusive, sweeping generalizations that paint digital, schwarz und weiss characterizations of Good/Bad Capitalism [or Socialism] fall into the Fallacy Reasoning Traps. Simply put, if exceptions can be brought forth, contra to a general statement, then the general statement has to either by requalified and requantified or discarded.

      Both Capitalism and Socialism will work in small, homogenous groups. The Tragedy of the Commons {often retorted, but rarely successful} is the inextinguishable feature of Socialism, especially in larger scale.

  15. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    It’s the late 1980’s London, Knightsbridge and I looked Enoch Powell in the eyes as I past him and could detect an simmering anger. He may well have reflected on his past encouragement of cheap labour from Pakistan.
    The Conservative party have always flattered-to-deceive when it comes to mains issues:internal and external national security; immigration; education and housing- all inter-related.
    Leftist Channel Four broadcast a rather hysterically narrated documentary in 2015, “Britain’s Most Racist Election”. The year is 1964 and a Conservative candidate Peter Griffiths running on a ticket that is critical of immigration in and supportive of his own fellow English people in Smethwick West Midlands-Birmingham. The next year,1965, Malcolm X paid the (formely) English town a visit to show his solidarity with West Indians and South East Asians.
    Fast forward to 2019 and we have particularly moronic phrases like ‘minority-majority’ when referring to deracinated English towns and cities.

  16. Frederick Peterson
    Frederick Peterson says:

    With regard to the reports of Thatcher’s dismissive remarks concerning the claims put forward on behalf of Vietnamese refugees, it should not be forgotten that one of the very first administrative actions of the newly-installed Thatcher government in the summer of 1979 was to sanction the settlement of 10,000 Vietnamese boat-people from Hong Kong. A number that has since grown more than ten-fold owing to the magic of ‘chain migration’.

  17. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    It should be clear by now that we will not solve our problems through electoral politics. Our political candidates (including Trump) are pre-selected (or don’t get elected; e.g., Ron Paul), and the ones lacking money are bought off or threatened with well-funded opposition candidates if they don’t toe the line. The United States as conceived by the founding fathers was a failure almost as soon as it was born. First, Hamilton and the Whiskey Rebellion, next a voluntary confederation of independent states brought under the boot heel of an expanded federal government (Lincoln and the Civil War), then Woodrow Wilson’s inner circle of Jews in 1913. Wilson’s election pounded the final nails into the coffin.

    All of this was, of course, foreseeable. Read Menasseh ben Israel’s petition to Oliver Cromwell for the readmission of the Jews to England dated 1651 (you can google it). By then, the Jews controlled the world economy. They have been our masters ever since. So any progress made by non-Jewish whites will have to be through grassroots efforts. Nobody besides ourselves is going to save us. We need to raise consciousness among our fellow whites around the world, get them to see the necessity of uniting (and excluding non-whites and Jews), and aim for the creation of a defensible white homeland or confederation of white homelands. Otherwise, there will be few if any whites left in the world two hundred years from now.

Comments are closed.