The Future of British Nationalism After Brexit

Brexit-Grexit-EU-Cartoon

Brexit has come and gone, and like Wellington said of the Battle of Waterloo it was a “damn close run thing.” Indeed, that was one of the reasons I supported Scottish independence two years ago — to stop Scotland dragging England to the left on important issues like this. (My other reason was so that Scotland could discover on its own — and rather painfully I suspect — the limits of leftism when not buttressed by a larger non-socialist entity).

But what about the fallout from Brexit and its effect on British nationalism? Yes, it gets us out of the EU and shakes the foundations of the still incomplete Tower of Babel. But what lessons can we learn from it, and what directions should nationalists take?

Perhaps the most interesting point about the Brexit Referendum is the political vacuum it revealed. All the main parties, except UKIP, officially backed the defeated cause. That’s right — the Conservative Party, Labour Party, and Lib Dems, as well as the SNP and Plaid Cymru, supported REMAIN. But, even with a higher turnout than in a general election, they failed to get their way.

What does this mean? It means that practically the entire British political establishment was not aligned with the wishes of the majority of the British voting public. Read more

Britain says no

brexit

Cucked reactions to the Brexit vote

“Bliss was it to be alive.,.” the words of poet William Wordsworth seem appropriate on a morning when Britain woke up to find the world had turned upside down — and our ruling elite had been given a decisive bloody nose. The British people’s narrow but definite rejection of the European Union is the biggest upset since Churchill was rejected by the voters in 1945.

The country seems in shock this morning. Red-eyed female presenters on the BBC look as if they have suffered a close family bereavement and the commentators are scrambling around trying to make sense of it all but there is no doubt who they are blaming: David Cameron, the “heir to Blair” himself and a man who had sworn to make Britain safe for the financial and bureaucratic elites.

In a system in which the defining characteristic of politicians must always be the ability to successfully sell lies to the voters, Cameron finally failed to deliver. He had come to power on a promise to reduce annual net immigration to under 100,000 and instead it had soared to an official 310,000 (unofficially it much higher than 500,000). While ordinary people were aghast, Cameron had merely shrugged his shoulders and said his hands were tied by Europe.  For generations, British politicians had got away with this. Then he allowed himself to be talked into a referendum. You can see the rationale. The voters had fallen for it repeatedly and there seemed no reason to think they would not do so again. Read more

Jacques Delors on the Failure of the European Union

This article is aimed at the many Europeans who are emotionally invested in the European Union (you might be surprised at the number, especially among the young and educated). Whereas I emphatically support European cooperation and even a degree of European political unity, I want in good faith to argue here that this political construct is at best woefully insufficient and often outright destructive for the challenges we Europeans will face.

The current governments and cultural establishments in Europe put a lot of stock in the EU as the means for Europeans to retain power and security in the twenty-first century. For example, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has explicitly claimed that the EU is a valid response to our catastrophic demographic decline. The late French President François Mitterrand, a major founder of the EU, was in part motivated by the idea that Europeans could reclaim their agency after half a century of Soviet and American domination of the Old Continent. The current president, François Hollande, similarly claimed during the recent commemoration of the Battle of Verdun:

You [the audience] are French and German, German and French, by birth or by adoption, but you are Europeans by convictions, not because you would simply fear the return of the tragedies of the past, but because you want to be global actors in the world of tomorrow, with our values, with our principles.

Other European governments make similar claims that the EU is central to our power, peace, and prosperity. British Prime Minister David Cameron made his case to stay in EU in the upcoming referendum on membership, saying: “The reason that I want Britain to stay in a reformed EU is in part because of my experience over the last six years is that it does help make our country better off, safer and stronger.” Conversely, EU-philes like immigration apologist Philippe Legrain (tweet him here) predict economic and political disaster if the EU is disbanded.

Personally, I tend to think both the pro-EU and anti-EU cases tend to be overstated. The EU is notorious for its paralysis and political gridlock. The word most associated with the EU in the news is no doubt “crisis”: The financial crisis, the euro crisis, and now, worst of all, the migrant crisis. The EU, far from being a respected world power, seems more than anything else a non-entity wracked by indecision.

The question then arises: Do European leaders really believe their own claims about the incredible power and prosperity enabled by the EU? Read more

On Recent Violence in Yorkshire and Orlando, and the Liberal “Suspension of Disbelief”

candlelight

“The blindness of the masses, their readiness to surrender to that resounding but empty eloquence that fills the public squares, make them an easy prey. … We will have no difficulty in finding as much eloquence among our people for the expression of false sentiments as Christians find in their sincerity and enthusiasm.”
‘The Rabbi’s Speech’ Hermann Goedsche, Biarritz (1868)

I’ve never really enjoyed horror movies. I don’t mind the gore, the violence, or even the bad acting. What I can’t forgive is the mind-numbing predictability that typifies the genre. While many of its fans might preach about the fun to be had with the ‘suspension of disbelief,’ I’ve often been the annoying fellow in the movie theatre asking “Why don’t they just turn on the light/leave the house/stay out of the basement?” Being frightened or shocked requires a lowered level of anticipation, and a lowered level of anticipation requires the viewer to ignore surrounding patterns, cues and clues and, above all, to ‘suspend disbelief.’ To partake in the horror experience, we need to set aside not only our tendency to perceive an unfolding formula, but also the fact that we may have seen such a formula many times previously. And although we are aware that what we are observing is a complete fiction, we must undertake efforts on a subconscious or conscious level to convince ourselves that it is, or could be, true.

As a very rational thinker with an eye for patterns, I find it difficult to partake in the horror experience. It takes a lot to shock me and, for much the same reason, I was left largely untroubled by the recent events in Orlando and Yorkshire. I certainly didn’t feel any sense of surprise at either instance of violence. Like every horror franchise that runs for too long, acts of Muslim terror on our soil started losing their shock value around a decade ago (or at least they should have). And England has been undergoing such a level of dispossession, murder and child rape that a violent response, even from the fringes of White society, was an unfortunate inevitability. Since our movement is greatly concerned with monitoring the facts and the reality of our unfolding racial horror, we anticipated these ‘scares’ with no less certainty than we anticipated the rising of the sun. We knew the likely places from which these events would emanate, and we know that more will follow. Read more

The #StolenReferendum: How Cameron & Co have ruthlessly exploited the murder of MP Jo Cox to save their skins and the EU ‘Project’

Remain

Britain’s vote on Europe looks set to go down in history as the ‘Stolen Referendum’. As the Remain campaign’s ruthless exploitation of the appalling murder of MP Jo Cox continues, big business, banks and other Remain enthusiasts are increasingly confident of coming out on top in Thursday’s historic poll.

Yet such a victory will have been bought at a terrible price — a blatant triple fraud against the democratic process, perpetrated with the enthusiastic support and involvement of all three leaders of the UK’s old established governing political parties and of the overwhelmingly dominant political force in Scotland.

The damage such a consensus for deceit and election rigging will do to faith in the democratic process is incalculable.

The first great Establishment electoral fraud in the now terminally polluted campaign was in place even before the sorry farce began: In a shameless re-run of the corruption that discredited the UK’s first In/Out referendum, in 1975, the contest was drastically skewed by the fact that every household received two documents in favour of EU membership (one from the Government and one from the Europhile campaign) compared to just one from the campaign for independence. Read more

The Real Ernest Hemingway

Hemingway

Editor’s note: This is the first few paragraphs of an article from Instauration, February, 1979. It is a fascinating portrait of an elite American shortly before the Fall — extreme cowardice on race and Jewish issues combined with a veneer of hyper-masculinity. Even in the 1930s he had withdrawn from the real battles:

At that time, the milieu in which Hemingway moved was the insider’s world of New York, Hollywood, and Paris; and if he had followed the dictum that a writer is supposed to write about what he knows, he would have written about that world. But that would have entailed facing some very unpleasant truths, so he funked it and wrote about Spanish peasants instead.

His real attitudes were expressed behind closed doors:

“I guess I can say spic in my own house,” he said.

“What would Eleanor Roosevelt say to that?” someone shouted.

He made an obscene gesture and smirked. But the joke really was, I suppose, that he would never have dared make it to her in person.

by Cholly Bilderberger

THE MENTION of Ernest Hemingway (pictured) in the December Instaurationtriggered a flood of memories, ranging from amusing to grotesque. He cultivated the rich and powerful assiduously, and our paths crossed often. I ran into him in East Africa, hunting with Winston Guest; bellied up to the bar at the Ritz with Leland Hayward; lunching at 21 with Marlene Dietrich; playing king to the whole world in Havana.

Pertinently enough, he embodied every strain of racism from pitiless clarity to utter confusion. And in him the spectrum was doubly pertinent because he was a national phenomenon, like Byron in his day and Jack Kennedy in his, acting out the fantasies of an entire nation, boozing and womanizing and generally living the American male dreams up to the hilt. His alcoholism, brutality and battiness were ignored and covered over by friends and enemies alike, where those traits in other famous figures were broadcast in detail. He had, again like Jack Kennedy, a strange power over his countrymen — a sort of blackmail in which he said, by implication, “If you dare to tell the truth about me, I’ll tell the truth about you, which is the same truth.” And, yet again like Jack Kennedy, he was the perfect chicken American male, the capon talking in terms of action but perfectly passive (or absent) when it came to going against established interests.

The only people he couldn’t bully were those in positions of power, and to them he was exceedingly deferential. He was always quite polite and pleasant with me, and I enjoyed his company. Oblique and cunning in everything, he nevertheless let you know his exact feelings one way or another.

Read the rest of the article at the National Vanguard site.

The selective compassion of Jo Cox

cox

Jo Cox wanted to make the world a better place and it was a cause for which she was willing to travel halfway across the globe. Whether consoling rape victims in Darfur or bombed out villagers in Afghanistan, it seemed the jet-setting international aid worker was rarely far from the action.

Lately it had been the struggle of Syrian war refugees to get to the West that touched her heart, and their plight was a subject she returned to again and again after becoming a Member of Parliament. It seemed there was no victims anywhere she could not empathise with.

Except, perhaps, with one striking omission.

And that would be the White child rape victims of Muslim grooming gangs in her own back yard. For her West Yorkshire constituency is near the epicentre of the Muslim child rape epidemic that has been sweeping the Labour heartlands of northern England, largely ignored or covered up by social services workers, police and politicians.

For it is a striking omission that of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them. One cannot help wonder if this shrewd silence was connected to the fact that her lavishly paid MPs job in the constituency of Batley and Spen largely depended on the support of the local Muslim community.

Co-incidentally, just as Jo Cox was shot and stabbed to death outside her constituency office in Birstall last Thursday,  sentencing was about to take place at Leeds Crown Court  after a long trial involving a horrific case of Muslim child exploitation. Read more