“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. Read more

Of late, much has been made in the alt-right press of the idea of “White genocide” as an existential threat posed by mainstream society, aimed at the obliteration of Whites in their formerly dominant homelands in Europe and North America.  This movement—conceived and implemented by Jews and their leftist lackeys—is said to portend the virtual or literal end of the White race.  It has no standard definition, and goes by various labels; a recent TOO piece by Richard McCulloch refers, for example, to the “White replacement and destruction movement” (WRDM).  It has been expressed concisely (if ambiguously) by one writer who stated that, on this thesis, “the White race will have no future, and the future will be without the White race.”  It sounds grim.

While it is true that White rule in many nations is under threat, I think it is premature—at least in the coming decades—to decry the physical elimination of Whites anywhere.  Exaggeration and hyperbole do not serve White interests.  We need to think a bit more carefully about ‘White genocide’, and indeed about the concept of genocide itself, lest we get lost in a storm of hype.  Real threats to White interests risk getting subsumed by bogus—or at least exaggerated—dangers.

Let’s start with a look at the word ‘genocide’—a term with thoroughly Jewish origins.  We can begin with standard dictionary definitions, but even here, there is a studied ambiguity.  My Merriam-Webster has a single definition:  “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”.  Dictionary.com is very similar, adding only “or national” group.  The construction of the word is straightforward:  geno+cide, from the Greek genos- (birth, origin, or race), and Latin –cide (from cidere:  death, killing).  The word was coined in 1944 by a Polish-Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in light of the on-going Nazi attack on Jews.  Etymologically, then, the meaning is, or should be, clear:  the physical death of an entire race of people—that is, the physical elimination of a genotype.

But upon further examination, we immediately run into problems.  First, as anyone knows who studies the issue, the Germans did not seek, nor did they implement, the physical annihilation of the Jews; rather, they wanted something much less ominous:  a German Reich cleansed of Jews, by a process of deportation and removal.  The deaths (and there were many thousands) were an incidental byproduct, not the objective.[1] Read more

Putting together a comprehensive list of black-on-white crime is a difficult task for two, superficially contradictory, reasons: 1) There is so much of it. 2) There is so little reporting on it. I doubt there is a day that goes by in the United States without at least dozens of instances of blacks assaulting, robbing, and/or defacing the property of whites. Yet, if all you’re reading is the New York Times, you might guess that crime of that sort takes place half a dozen times a year at most. But, if you start to dig through local news sources, and discover the code words used to discuss black crime (e.g. “youths”), the ocean of write-ups becomes overwhelming. Indeed, American Renaissance has nearly one thousand news items tagged “Black on White Crime,” while Paul Kersey has well over 3,000 blog posts about the matter.

In creating the below list, I sought out to do two things: 1) Cover crimes that were committed and reported on before internet news took over America’s media landscape. That is to say, to feature news stories not already found in several different places online. The most recent year I covered was 2005, which was the first year American Renaissance’s online news feed started publishing stories regularly. 2) Highlight especially brutal crimes. There is so much black-on-white crime, that even “standard” murders and rapes are far too many to count. So instead I focused on those stories that most demonstrate black psychopathy, black hatred for whites, and the schadenfreude so many blacks seem to derive from harming whites in most any way imaginable.

As such, this list should in no way be considered exhaustive—the aforementioned sources, Paul Kersey’s blog and the “Black on White Crime” tag on AmRen, are both more thorough. I have also left unlisted a few of the more well-known cases of black-on-white murder, precisely because there has already been plenty of coverage about them—namely Colin Ferguson’s shooting spree, the killing of Missy McLauchlin and the Wichita Massacre. This list serves instead to show that not only has black on white crime been a standing problem in America for over three decades, but that that crime is made up of some of the most brutal and disgusting acts imaginable. In a world where whites are regularly made to grovel over “micro-aggressions,” jokes, and even simple slips of the tongue, we would do well to remind our liberal fellow-whites what real hate looks like.

——————————————————————————————————————– Read more