The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Trump’s ‘Thatcher Effect’: Obstacle to White Nationalism?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“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]J. Solomos, Race and Racism in Contemporary Britain (London: Macmillan, 1989), 132. 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]R. Garbaye, Getting Into Local Power: The Politics of Ethnic Minorities in British and French Cities (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 51. 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]R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: a comparative analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands (London: Routledge, 2014), 54.

Thatcher then indicated that a Conservative government would “limit all immigration.”[4]Ibid.
(R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: a comparative analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands (London: Routledge, 2014), 54.)
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]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. while Thatcher biographer Robin Harris records that “immediately after the interview the Tories were eleven points ahead.”[6]R. Harris, Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher (London: Bantam Press, 2013), 144. 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]S. Taylor, The National Front in English Politics (London: Macmillan, 1989), 145. Another M.P. accused Thatcher of “giving aid and comfort to the National Front.”[8]Ibid.
(S. Taylor, The National Front in English Politics (London: Macmillan, 1989), 145.)
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]Ibid.
(S. Taylor, The National Front in English Politics (London: Macmillan, 1989), 145.)
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]R. Harris, Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher (London: Bantam Press, 2013), 144.

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]R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: a comparative analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands (London: Routledge, 2014), 54. 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]R. Harris, Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher (London: Bantam Press, 2013), 143.

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]N. Copsey, Cultures of Post-War British Fascism (New York: Routledge, 2015), 66. 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]B. Harrison, ‘Mrs Thatcher and the Intellectuals,’ Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994, 206-45, (207). [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]Ibid, 209.
(B. Harrison, ‘Mrs Thatcher and the Intellectuals,’ Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994, 206-45, (207).)
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]R. Harris, Not for Turning: The Life of Margaret Thatcher (London: Bantam Press, 2013), 143.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]Z. Layton‐Henry (1983). ‘Immigration and race relations: Political aspects,’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 11(1-2), 109–116, (111). 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]Ibid.
(Z. Layton‐Henry (1983). ‘Immigration and race relations: Political aspects,’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 11(1-2), 109–116, (111).)
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]N. Lochery (2010). ‘Debunking the Myths: Margaret Thatcher, the Foreign Office and Israel, 1979–1990.’ Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(4), 690–706. 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]Ibid.
(N. Lochery (2010). ‘Debunking the Myths: Margaret Thatcher, the Foreign Office and Israel, 1979–1990.’ Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(4), 690–706.)
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]Ibid.
(N. Lochery (2010). ‘Debunking the Myths: Margaret Thatcher, the Foreign Office and Israel, 1979–1990.’ Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(4), 690–706.)
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]Ibid.
(N. Lochery (2010). ‘Debunking the Myths: Margaret Thatcher, the Foreign Office and Israel, 1979–1990.’ Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(4), 690–706.)
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]N. Copsey, Cultures of Post-War British Fascism (New York: Routledge, 2015), 66. 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.

Notes

[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.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 98 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I think that you work for the non-partisan powers that be. Anyone who whips up race war does, right or left, whether they know it or not. Identity Politics is Race War is Divide and Conquer. Do the math.

  2. truthman says:

    IIRC there was no real difference in non-white immigration numbers under Thatcher than under Callaghan. However, Callaghan Thatcher and Major were much much better than Blair. Compared to Blair they all look like alt right heroes.

  3. LondonBob says:

    I give Thatcher and Trump the benefit of the doubt. The exchange with Whitelaw, wonder who was writing those letters supporting Vietnamese immigrants, shows that it is about building sufficient support amongst the establishment, or replacing them, rather than one individual. Thatcher had a network around her not interested, or hostile to, the national question, so does Trump. Yes, they could pick new people but ultimately it is the battle of ideas that matter, and it is here we must engage. This is the way the Jewish left achieved hegemony.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  4. Your problem here is that what the poster advertises is not a reflection of reality. I a a conservative, and I think that poster reflects an ideal of what the republican party claimed. But at the end of the day, they policies that my party espoused reinforced was an order that was decidedly not based on character, talent or outcomes, but heavily color reinforcement.

    My party did not seek to overhaul the policies and practices that targeted blacks in place since slavery and after. Instead it pretended that merely saying the words and slapping up the rhetoric was in fact reality — it wasn’t then and it isn’t now. Sadly, not then, and not now. And based on the rhetoric it’s not going to be the case in the future. A kind of blind willful ignorance still pervades the content of political territory that conservatives and republicans should own and should have owned since the end of slavery. Maybe had they not allowed themselves the embraced the practiced predicated on smkin color that might not be the case.

    As for immigration, I don’t trust this president any further than I can see him. I am not going to applaud the hat trick by either arty to favor noncitizens of any color, any nationality, any ethnicity over and citizen for any reason.

  5. I am going to short cut my response to your “race” (wrong word choice – you mean color) immigration comments.

    The problem is that in today’s technologically rich environment the record makes a clear case that positioning/socialization against blacks was overwhelmingly unfair and one of the tools to ensure that unfairness was to import masses of whites, when there were masses of blacks who needed that access, even low rung ladder access.

    And by melding color to immigration policy you undermine the primary case of protecting sovereignty because outwardly it and perhaps in reality, it is merely just another color superiority ploy. And by doing so, you fuel the very opposition you intend to challenge. So instead of immigration and nationality, it is a broad tend to “racialism” and that makes it hard to support.

    I may lose, but I am going support nationalism as opposed to the dark attempt top replace any US citizen. And unlike the president, regardless of the loss — I am going to defend the citizens of the US whether they like me or hate me or vice versa.

    There is no Thatcher effect, the truth is Great Britain had colonies. She told those native populations during colonial rule that they were in fact British citizens — and her failure to act accordingly is one reason why her colonial empire retracted. Millions of those natives fought bravely alongside whites in defending British interests and yet very little of the benefits of their local riches were bestowed on them.

    Even the people pf the colonial powers are eventually going to conceded to conscience if they have one.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Malla
  6. And those who are bemoaning the morality and sanity of conscience as invading large portions of whites in the US —–

    Just take your bibles and dump them in the bin on your way in or on your way out. Because it’s a very safe bet your line of thought or intent is aligned with Christ.

  7. Don’t be fooled: the capitalist ‘right’ has always favored immigration, because it simultaneously drives down wages while driving up rent. For the business/asset-owning class then, what’s not to like about immigration? Quality-of-life concerns, like crime, etc., only affect those not lucky to live in the gated community with good (i.e., not black) schools.

    As far as Libertarianism is concerned, it should be obvious that it is simply another Jewish, anti-white ideology, just like Bolshevism. (Come to think of it, at least the latter puts some rhetorical emphasis on the idea of the collective, which is completely absent from the former.)

    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.

    All of that’s very true, Andrew. The problem is that, while overtly anti-white parties and politicians may well galvanize whites when in power, they accomplish this by doing them tremendous harm in the process. So it’s basically six of one, half a dozen of the other, I’m afraid. What are we going to do?

  8. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    As if Blacks and Whites can or will ever be united in any meaningful way. The mere notion is immoral, as it mandates the destruction of the latter.

    Blacks don’t want “race war” if they are predicted to lose something because White awareness is too high or engaged, but as soon as there is something to gain then its back to their race war engaged in any manner in which they can get away with it.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  9. tsk tsk correction:

    Just take your bibles and dump them in the bin on your way in or on your way out. Because it’s a very safe bet your line of thought or intent is not aligned with Christ.

    • Replies: @Anon
  10. Anon[220] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    your line of thought or intent is not aligned with Christ.

    What line of thought / intent is that?

  11. Anon[220] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    I am going to short cut my response to your “race” (wrong word choice – you mean color) immigration comments.

    Color has a racial correlation.

    The problem is that in today’s technologically rich environment the record makes a clear case that positioning/socialization against blacks was overwhelmingly unfair

    Why? By what edict do Blacks have a right to integrate with Whites and their societies the world over? By the edict of self interested Blacks? Irrelevant. By the self interested moral logic of Blacks? Irrelevant. By the political logic of White enemies? Doubly irrelevant to the point that its almost a moral mandate to act in opposition to their destructive and hostile aims.

    and one of the tools to ensure that unfairness was to import masses of whites,

    Why? Its only fair that people import their own extended family into their society. No one else can claim inheritance. Blacks should make societies in their majority nations wherein foreign Blacks want to be imported and the natives want to import them. Blacks have nothing to do with Whites nor their societies.

    when there were masses of blacks who needed that access, even low rung ladder access.

    Except that they have nothing to do with Whites and our extended families need that access and have more of a right to it, by virtue of our relation to them and desire for them over Blacks that have nothing to do with us.

    And by melding color to immigration policy you undermine the primary case of protecting sovereignty because outwardly it and perhaps in reality, it is merely just another color superiority ploy.

    Nationalism has always been ethnic and was first instituted to solve the massive wars and destruction that imperialism was causing in Europe.

    And by doing so, you fuel the very opposition you intend to challenge.

    Your theory is that by not giving our land, resources, and our racial existence to racial strangers we are fueling opposition because the opposition wants our land, resources, and access to our men and women? So be it. If there is any war that has ever been worth fighting, its that one.

  12. @Digital Samizdat

    Yep, capitalist ‘right’ is Jewish, as is Libertarianism, Bolshevism, multiculturism, and so many other destructive ‘isms’. The Chosenites call so many of the shots, its difficult to know where their power starts and/or ends. Certainly Thatcher, the grocer’s daughter, would never have made it to No 10 without their blessing. She was appointed to undermine WN in Britian and promote multiculturalism, which has been so devisive to the UK. She also oversaw the process of de-industrialisation by shutting down or selling off major industries, so that Britian became a nation dependent on its (Jewish owned) banking and service sector (now outsourced to its former colonies).

  13. “What line of thought / intent is that?”

    That morality simply is an inconvenience.

    ——————————

    The answer to every question is that citizenship in the US and its accompanying rights is determined by the Constitution and that you would ask any pf the above inquiries indicates that you neither comprehend nor are you willing to abide by the laws of the land.

    Which defines the nature of the tribe to whit all citizens belong. And that trumps class, culture, language and that even trumps and supercedes skin color as some manner of mandate for inclusion.

    Your comments and inquiry reflect a the kind of relativistic thinking that liberals seek to embrace and invoke to their agendas — that their feelings are the rules as opposed to truth.

    Now let’s apply the record of history — whites have been at each other;s throats despite being Europeans. That is the case for one simple reason, their cultures are not based primarily on or at all really on whiteness. if so then this beknighted existence you want to put forward as superior would have fostered unity — instead some the world’s most damaging conflicts have come at the hands of whites.

    Its a very simple equation if whiteness by definition is to superiority — then one expects superior consequence. Yet in the US whites who hold and have held all the vestiges of power according to no small number of permanent decay in Europe and the US. Even something as staple of white leadership as war making: has been tragic for the US and that as recent as the last ten years.

    Now in the past I have tolerated your knee jerk reactionary misuse of my comments by yanking them out of context and then responding to some aspect to which they do not apply.

    For example and this is just one of many.

    You make comments about family as though family is equivelent to family dynamics. A notion that is utterly bankrupt of truth. Once someone becomes a citizen they are entitled by law and order to the rights and responsibilities of of citizenship and your advance that family trumps that legal right is what condemns your entire assail. And worse, it is an indication that you intend to deny citizens their rights because of your personal feelings about family. That is not only illegal it’s immoral. And the history makes clear that whites

    who have railed about law and order have used law and order to justify discrimination — you disqualify yourself from the discussion by your making up what I said and what it means. You cannot by law deny blacks because they are not of your “racial” liking. The fact that the country has makes the point for redress. The fact that you persist makes you wholly ignorant of the how the country is designed and why.

    And while the founders knew they preferred whiteness, they also knew that a country founded on law of equality would be unsustainable because it was already a country of people with variances, including skin color as part of the fabric.

    The fight you want to have is against the US. And that makes anything you have to say suspect, further

    traitorous.

    • Replies: @JP
  14. Some corrections:

    You make comments about family as though family is equivelent to constitutional dynamics. A notion that is utterly bankrupt of truth.

    Yet in the US whites who hold and have held all the vestiges of power according to no small number of has led to permanent decay

    And while the founders knew they preferred whiteness, they also knew that a country founded on law of equality based on anything else would be unsustainable

  15. Interesting about Thatcher. In Australia, circa ’96 > Pauline Hanson’s One Nation was a version of the UK’s NF. Less militant, more conservative (it’s base was country Queensland & NSW — National & Liberal party territory. One Nation was ultimately a cynical & incompetent mess. However, many “conservatives” did respond to its immigration fears. Like Thatcher, John Howard, leader of the coalition (Aust’s version of the UK’s Tories) were fearful of vote leakage. Like Thatcher they co-oped One Nation’s basic ideas without actually doing much (they successfully turned the whole debate from 100,000’s of legal immigration to the few thousand of illegals).
    But Howard went one step further; a notorious tabloid journo, a future Liberal/coalition PM & one or two others decided over cappuccinos under a lovely Sydney sun to fit Hanson up with electoral fraud. Nice one. She went to jail. On Appeal the whole thing was revealed as the nasty trumped up bucket of crap it was & she was released immediately. All very edifying — NOT.

  16. Malla says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    She told those native populations during colonial rule that they were in fact British citizens — and her failure to act accordingly is one reason why her colonial empire retracted.

    No she did not. The retraction of the British Empire is much more complex than that.

    Millions of those natives fought bravely alongside whites in defending British interests and yet very little of the benefits of their local riches were bestowed on them.

    Again, nonsense.

  17. Gordo says:

    Good article, yes Thatcher was a globalist masquerading as a nationalist and stole the support of the National Front, who were also being undermined by the organs of the state.

    You put a very good case that Trump is the same.

    • Replies: @K. W.
  18. IMO Thatcher reduced immigration as much as she realistically could without being painted (more) of a monster. If she’d had tried anything more draconian, the media and chattering classes would have ensured she was finished.

    Remember, the 1980s were a time of marked increases of non-white immigration in much of the rest of the west. The US, Canada, NZ and Australia most notably, but also France, Germany and other European nations. At the same time, non white immigration to the UK had been reduced from a high of 136,400 in 1962, to 60-70,000 between 1972-1976, to a low of barely 20,000 by 1987. Not once between 1982 and 1990 did non-white immigration to the UK exceed 30,000. Over the last 20 years, thats been more typically around 250-300,000. While births to immigrant mothers rose from 11.3% in 1971 to 13.1% by 1979, under Thatcher they fell from 13.1% in 1981 to 11.6% by 1990 (under major, they rose from 11.6% to 13.1%, under blair from 13.1% to 23.2%, and under the Tories have risen to 28.4%, higher than any major western nation bar Canada – 31.5%)

    When she left office, the UK was still a largely white country…the 1991 census essentially coming up with a figure of 95% white (slightly less…93.8% in England alone), down from perhaps 96.5% white in 1981, the vast majority of the change due to births over deaths, not immigration.

    Lets consider what she did.
    Withdrawal of the automatic right of foreign husbands/fiances to enter the UK
    The 1981 Nationality Act – Ended any possibility of Birthright citizenship
    The Primary Purpose Rule – Clamped down on sham marriages. Also had to prove that elderly dependants had no one who could support them in their origin country.
    Prevented Students from using that type of Visa for a means to settle.
    Prevented further East African Asians from entering Britain by replacing commonwealth citizenship with British overseas Citizenship, which granted no right of entry or settlement unless parent/grandparent had been born in Britain.
    1988 immigration act prevented chain migration for those settled prior to 1973 & made deportation of illegals easier.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
  19. Although this article is much better than ordinary Joyce’s unenviable “musings” on JQ, it still falls short in some respects.

    I’ve read Thatcher’s main work “Statecraft” (strange, Joyce never refers to her central ideological book) & what is, for attentive reader evident is: Thatcher was a modern British nationalist with political-economic ideology close to classical liberalism (in her case, Hayek et al.), white not, I would say, quite understanding blood & soil nationalism (which in Anglosphere goes under race realism or more extreme forms as white nationalism).

    As for Jews & Israel, Thatcher was a realist, not a dupe for some imaginary Zionists. Her take was: the state of Israel is here because of Balfour declaration & what happened after. It has nothing to do with “who was there first” or similar abstractions.

    She was acutely aware of national question of European peoples, more than most American presidents. She, I think it is obvious, did not fully comprehend power of racial identity in multi-racial societies. So, bluntly, was she, re racial national question:

    a) completely unaware
    b) partially unaware
    c) aware, but cynical opportunist
    d) aware, but a bit wishy-washy & not willing to open another front, this time potentially much more dangerous than bickering with France & Germany
    e) blinded by her liberal economic philosophy & thus couldn’t see the magnitude of racial component in a national question
    f) traitor

    My opinion is d), plus something of e).

    • Agree: Pater
  20. K. W. says:
    @Gordo

    Agreed. While Trump is at best an egomaniac who is easily misled by Zionists, and at worst a controlled-opposition tool who never had any interest in MAGA, it would be ideal if White Advocates are seen as the most devoted friends to Trump-supporting normies so that we can take the lead in the opposition to whatever leftist is likely to win in 2020.

  21. Dan Hayes says:

    Dr / Mr Joyce:

    While Thatcher was fighting on the economic front, she did nothing to forestall the nascent Gramscian cultural revolution. She was apparently unaware of what was already undermining and ultimately subverting the basis of British society!

    Instead of an Enoch Powell, Britain got Thatcher, another shortsighted pol.

  22. “No she did not. The retraction of the British Empire is much more complex than that.”

    Excuse me, but you might want to take a peek at British colonial history. The colonies inhabitants were British citizens. And those promises made then have been a continuous problem, as some of the same have attempted to cash in on that citizenship. Apparently unaware that the phrase “one of the reasons” is an indication that there were other reasons — so my comments indicate that along with her treatment of her colonial subjects, there were other variables that contributed the decline of the British Empire, my reference being one of them – not the sole cause.

    I would not confuse the promise with the reality, but clearly, the “Europeanization” of blacks in her colonies was part of those promises attempted fulfillment.

    https://www.theglobalist.com/nigerias-current-troubles-and-its-british-colonial-roots/

    —————-

    “Again, nonsense.”

    You are encouraged to research the first shots of WWI which took place in Africa and fired by an African in the British Army.

    http://www.passportia.org/uk/british-nationality/descent/

    https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/colonial-troops

    — a deeper look will reveal that some of the very first casualties were British colonial subjects WWI
    — and in WWII despite the concerns black africans took part in the war effort in support Great Britain.

    Not a huge fan of wikipdia however,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Colonial_Auxiliary_Forces

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_African_Rifles

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  23. Thomm says:

    I can’t believe that anyone thinks there is any obstacle to White Nationalism other than the White Trashionalists themselves.

    As Heartiste often used to say, “99% White Trashionalism is nothing more than the bottom decile of white men getting angry that the bottom decile of white women are no longer being forced to be with them.”

    Actually, he was way too generous. About 40% of White Trashionalists are bisexual.

    It is the greatest concentration of Dunning-Kruger ever. Well, the only comparable concentration is the female contingent of this defective subrace – the fat bluehaired feminists.

  24. Anounder says:

    >a man who let his daughter be impregnated by a Jew is not a White Nationalist

    Who’d a thunk?

    • Agree: Realist
  25. Death to White Supremacists.
    Jared Taylor has been banned from Europe. That is great. White people deserve to go extinct. Our planet’s future depends on it
    A black person from Angola can go and visit his White Baby Mama in Germany but this so called “Huwhite Nationalist” can not even enter Europe. LOL.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  26. GeeBee says:
    @obwandiyag

    And in what way, pray, are whites permitted to defend themselves against invasion and take-over by non-whites without incurring your charge of ‘inciting race war’? It seems that you are suggesting that whites under threat of marginalisation ought merely to remain silent, or else risk being ‘divided and ruled’. Your lame analysis is nothing more than a prescription for white extinction being accomplished without so much as a murmur of resistance.

  27. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Thatcher did the colonial Falklans Islands war ( Malvinas for the argentinians ) which was a pyrrhic victory for the english . Without the US logistic help the war would have been a clear defeat for the british . The British Navy suffered so many losses that never recuperated since then .

    Thatcher threatened to throw an atomic bomb to civilians , to a ” big city ” in Argentina .

    The british lost 31 ships , sunk or damaged , 154 planes and helicopters and 1100 men .

    http://www.institutodeestrategia.com/articulo/americas/cuales-fueron-las-bajas-de/20180218110112010727.html

    • Replies: @Gordo
  28. Nodwink says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    your first paragraph hits the nail squarely on the head

  29. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Ronald Reagan ( 1911-2004 ) , Margaret Thatcher ( 1925-2013 ) and Karol Wojtila ( John Paul II ) ( 1920-2005 ) .

    Great terminators of history . They not only ruined the Eastern Empire , but the two millenia old Catholic Church and the Western Empire as well .

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  30. eah says:

    I don’t think one has to look that hard for ‘obstacles to White Nationalism’.

  31. sally says:
    @obwandiyag

    Race wars are not different than pimple wars.. all people without pimples are targets of those people with pimples. <==Do not forget the law of vote cancellation ..
    if 9 people are on an island, and they elect one to be their leader..
    the one leader will find an issue that will divide the remaining 8 into two groups of 4..
    each group of 4 will vote in accordance with the group's philosophy on the issue
    so that the 9th person controls the outcome of all elections.

    Group for the issue __________= 4 votes for the issue
    Group against the issue_______= 4 votes against the issue
    Net vote before leader votes___= 0 <=its a tie
    Leaders' vote (9th vote)______ = 1 which ever way the leader wants..

    [MORE]

    explains why no one should ever vote for either a democrap or reputaturd.
    not voting for a democrap or a reputaturd applies in all elections, city, county,
    state or federal elections.
    Make someone not affiliated to any party or to any issue your write-in candidate.
    write their name in the spot on the ballot for each job.. do whatever
    <== to avoid operation of the law of vote cancellation.
    Use your 3 votes (1 for the member of the 450 member House of
    Representatives who are suppose to represent the people from your voting district
    and 2 votes for the two senators who are suppose to represent the people
    from your state in the 100 person Senate of the USA.

    In other words the house and senate are defined in the US constitution
    under the paragraphs listed under article one, currently the composition
    of the House is 425 members (1 from each of 425 voting districts) and
    the composition of the Senate is 100 (2 from each state) <=collectively
    article I of the US constitution accounts for all 525 senate & house jobs,
    each member or senator is paid a massive salary but in spite of the
    salaries the Article I folks have few real powers, they are basically there
    to false flag they your representatives in congress approved what the
    Article II government said it wanted.
    The Article II government is made up of just two people (P and VP)
    but those two people have all of the power to operate the government and
    to conduct foreign activities including war and everything. yet you the
    voter cannot cast a vote for either one of the Article II persons<=what
    after all of that money is spent by the candidates on the media and after
    all of the big to-do about who should be the president, <you
    tell me my vote in the national election for president and vice president
    does not count? <=your gotta be kidding me!
    The president and the VP are elected by the electoral college, unless you
    are a voting member of that college, you cannot vote for the P or VP.
    Soliciting your vote in high profile Article II person elections is a
    false flag designed to polarize (so the law of vote cancellation works).
    voting for president and vp in the national elections is promoted, not to elect
    the P or the VP, but instead to polarize the two groups so that divide and conquer
    outcomes can be achieve. <=falling for this D&C strategy make it possible
    for the very few to control all election outcomes.

    My recommendation:
    Use your vote to send a message, write on the ballot the name of person
    you want to be elected for each elected job you are asked to vote on.
    If you do not have a person in mind, then write in the letters "NOTA"..
    <=NOTA is the person you are voting for.
    but in all events and cases do not vote for any person that is a member
    of, or that is supported by either the Democraps or the Reputaturds.
    NOTA stands for none of the above..

  32. @obwandiyag

    Race war is already here. Demonising White males is in fashion. Wokeness is rampant. Whites have yet to fight back- and thats exactly what you fear. Identity politics is engaged in by every group except Whites. Whites trying to be neutral while everyone else is tribal is a losing game.

    The only people I see trying to defuse White ethnocentrism are Jewish mischlings who seem to realise that they are both ideally placed to subvert whatever growing White tribalist movement is coming and who know that not being official Jews with a powerful communiry to run to realise they will be first in the firing line.

  33. Miro23 says:

    Some countries don’t have these problems. For example the Japanese are comfortable with being ethnic Japanese in Japan, same as Chinese in China and Jews in Israel.

    The reason it works is that they don’t shy away from a conversation on race/ethnicity. They view their success as based on ethnic unity.

    Anglos could do the same (although they won’t). It would reinstate the primacy of race/territory. The “blood and soil” argument could take a milder or harder form, with both not making much difference to the lives of ethnic minorities in the UK or US.

    MILD VERSION: Everyone in the US who has/had parents/grandparents who were US citizens in 1950 receives a new US citizenship card with 1) full political rights and obligations 2) the right to hold political office and be employed in the US administration. People who don’t qualify receive a US residency card with the same rights as US citizens (other than political) if they pay taxes.

    HARD VERSION: Same as above, but everyone in the US who has/had parents/grandparents who were US citizens in 1950, and more than 50%s ethnically Anglo (or Anglo European).

    Either version would produce a massive Jewish, MSM, SWJ, multi-cult outcry, but it would define the political “ownership” or Anglo countries and wouldn’t affect the day to day lives of foreign residents. In fact, in the longer term it would improve their lives since it would stop the Brazilianization of the UK/US and produce a more stable and less conflictive society.

    Unfortunately, it’s so late in the day that only a dictatorship could realistically introduce it, and halt the present UK/US multicultural struggle for power.

    • Agree: Gordo
  34. @obwandiyag

    Truth is very seldom soft and cuddly. It is more often harsh,divisive, and brutal. If you want to live in a fantasy world, I suggest Disney Land.

  35. @LondonBob

    Keep givin’, cause the whole time you’re gettin’ it right up the ol’ shite chute.

  36. @Anon

    Yeah, I love it when the Re-publicans worship Ronnie Reagan, the man that not only brought the crack plague to LA through Iran Contra, but also foisted the Soviet style educational system upon America.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  37. Jake says:

    The most salient part of this article is the notion that English conservatism (personified in Thatcher) is vary bad for all non-Elite whites.

    I concur.

    If you fall for WASP conservatism, for its various jingoisms, which always are predicated strongly upon hating many non-WASP whites, then you tie the noose that they place around your neck and tighten as they see fit.

  38. Trump is a charlatan who is doing the bidding of his zionist masters who control every facet of the zio/US and have since 1913 when the zionists fastened their privately owned FED and IRS on an unsuspecting public.

    Trump is a deceiver just like his zionist overlords and when Trump and his zionist White House gets through with America there will be a civil war, and by the way Trump and Helliary are twins, same zionist overlords and same agenda.

  39. @Johnny Walker Read

    Agree, the book Trance Formation of America by Cathy O’Brien tells it all about Reagan and another book is Thanks for the Memories by Brice Taylor and see their videos on youtube, tells the unvarnished truth about Reagan.

  40. @obwandiyag

    In other words, THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY should not notice that they are being voted into a White Racial Minority within the borders of America by Hindus and Jamaicans……KAMALA HARRIS’S PEOPLE seriously FUCK OFF you GD CUCK…

  41. @obwandiyag

    In other words, THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY should not notice that they are being voted into a White Racial Minority within the borders of America by Hindus and Jamaicans……KAMALA HARRIS’S PEOPLE seriously FUCK OFF you GD CUCK…

  42. @TheJewishQuestion

    I disagree somewhat, only because the temperments of Thatcher and Trump are so different. And Trump, who has no impulse control (he must weigh in and Tweet on everything), has not helped the WN cause much thus far. But, from my faraway armchair perspective, it seems to be getting better organized out of necessity. As Trump, by the very air he breathes, has so enraged Washington, Big Media, and the Left in general, he may, especially if he wins a second term, actually bring about a Civil War, even though he clearly doesn’t want one. It won’t be WN’s who will start it (though they’ll be blamed) but our enemies on the increasingly violent Left – who already have. Their rhetoric is getting seriously out of hand, as they want to away our guns, via ‘red flag’ laws, based on nothing more than a neighbor’s suspicion. And it’s not even an election year yet. Wait until next year!

    If Trump was Thatcher or Reagan, with their more calming, professional demeanor, the Left would not have lost its collective mind and be so ready to start killing whites. Actually, and it may be counterintuitive, but a second term Trump may bring about that which he opposes even more so than a Warren/Sanders/Harris/Biden ‘White Man Evil’ presidency.

    • Replies: @Alden
  43. The Liberals used to argue that nonwhite Legal Immigration was a great benefit to the NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS….since 2008….That nasty bit of propaganda has been replaced with taunts along the lines of DIE WHITEY…DIE WHITEY….These MURDEROUS GENOCIDAL TAUNTS come from Hindu “Americans” such as street shitter Sairo Rao…and Muslim “American” Immigration Lawyer Ahkmad Hassan who is on a rampage to take-down the Civic Nationalist Fags NUMBERSUSA…and FAIR….and CIS…..I wish Hassan well in those efforts to destroy these CUCKED FAGGOT Civic Nationalists who spent decades telling young White Women not to have lots of White Babies……ZPG And NPG=The mass murder of NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS at the hands of Akhmad Hassan’s People……

  44. Mulegino1 says:

    It’s kosher bait and switch.

    Pro-Rothschild/Globalist Tweedle-Dem versus pro-Zionist/Likudist Tweedle GOP equals the tribe’s hegemony.

    A true nationalist movement needs a real identity rooted in a common origin, culture, spirituality, tradition, history and soil. The true and American identity was forged on the frontier in the west and it transcended the parochial and limited (English and Protestant/Masonic) interests of the Founders.

    Divine Providence cleared the way for western expansionism and the establishment of a great tellurocratic nation of overwhelming Christian European provenance and serving as a home to those of the great mother continent seeking to build a home to escape the dynastic quarrels, economic squalor and overcrowding of Europe.

    That was America’s true providential role, and while it was strong and vigorous, America had the power of assimilation and the chronic vigor which Cardinal Newman (in an altogether different context) described as essential elements of truly organic and healthy development of any nation or institutions.

    Unfortunately, lust for empire, easy profit in the east, and the intrusion of the tribe with respect to cultural and social matters replaced the vigorous nationalist expansionism and great continental power and turned it into a predatory, sea borne empire whose meddling and interventionism would ultimately have catastrophic consequences both for itself and the mother continent.

    The USA of today is little more than a cowhide shaped landmass held together by the Hollywood (Jewish) illusory “American dream”, consumerism, sports spectacles and negroid entertainment. Americans- rather, “USAn’s”-have forsaken the providential role of America as a homeland for free Christian Europeans for the shining “shopping mall on top of the hill.”

  45. nsa says:

    The jew owns the figurehead trumpstein, the federal government, visual and print media, and finance…….meeting no resistance at all from any segment of american society. To the contrary, a large fraction of the white population, the chrissies, actually worship the jew and wallow in their own weakness and subjugation. So the gloating vismins posting here, taunting whitey mercilessly, are just pointing out the reality of american society: the usa is now a multi-racial cesspool with zero chance of any reversal. The last american to take on the jew directly was henry ford 100 years ago…..who did his best to prevent WWI and the beyond stupid slaughter of whites by other whites. To maintain car sales, he was forced to apologize like a pathetic puppy getting its nose rubbed into a piss puddle on the living room carpet.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  46. wayfarer says:

    Why cultural Marxists hate a conservative America.

    “Clay Higgins schools a lying Google corporate suit.”

    • Replies: @Paul C.
  47. In order to retain the lilly-white, Christian ethos of the West, you must declare Jews and Muslims enemies no. one and two then move on to developing a platform of repatriation of all Hindus, Chinese, Africans, Latinos etc back to their native lands. Now that’s a tall order given that you do not control the money supply, however you do retain the numerical strength in the collective armed forces of the traditional white countries, so get cracking or it shall be all over within the next three decades at the most. What say you, sirrah?

  48. Tulip says:

    There are political issues which transcend racial and ethnic identity which roil the voters:

    1.) Immigration restriction;
    2.) Political correctness.

    Hostility to immigration and political correctness find a significant constituency across all ethnic and racial divides (although that does not mean there is a coordinated constituency). These hostilities are also contrary to the programs of the Center Left and Far Left, which creates a substantial possible constituency for the Center Right or the Far Right, should they get up off their knee pads, turn their backs on the corporate lobbyists, and build a popular mass political coalition.

    On the other hand “white nationalism”, repatriations of legal citizens, suspensions of civil liberties and due process, jackboots, anti-semitism/counter-semitism, and the rest of that whole package have a much narrower constituency than the above two issues. Voters will support Far Right parties founded by libertarians with much more gusto than Far Right parties with neo-fascist roots. Also, not only do the issues of “Storm Front” white nationalism alienate most normal people who desire an end to mass immigration and political correctness, it is self-limiting by excluding minority demographics who desire restrictionism.

    In terms of democratic politics, to get anywhere in polls politicians will have to reject white nationalism or white exclusionary politics or they will remain fringe candidates. I suppose white exclusionary politics could capture things through a putsch or something similar, but in reality there are a whole set of institutional, legal and political defenses in place to prevent such an event. Sure, if the economy goes into a depression, there is a nuclear war and a hot ethnic civil war, white nationalism might capture the state, but its a true long shot. Look at how bad things got in Germany before Hitler got anywhere close to the ring. America hasn’t just lost a world war, we don’t have a new and unstable parliamentary government, we aren’t paying war reparations, there is no depression, and we don’t have large-scale support for revolutionary communists threatening socialist revolution–nor do we have a cadre of angry elites who got ousted following the collapse of the Kaiser.

    While there are ideological voters, most voters are not ideological, and to establish a viable electoral coalition, there has to be more substance that just a couple political issues or froth about “white genocide”. This means compromise, and also disaffected ideologues upset that things aren’t pure enough forming fringe parties. Yes, the right will probably co-opt all popular positions on the far right, and no, the unpopular positions on the far right will probably remain in the cellar. Is that good or bad for the cellar dwellers?

  49. @Anon

    Excellent points. This has always been about saying, “let the rapist cup your mouth in the forest, as you scream…any attempt to remove his hand from your mouth, is preventing his rape of you”…as if that logic makes any sense. That’s what whites are being told to do. And the “good whites” who think virtue signaling is going to save them, seem to continually misunderstand that blacks (and browns) are already in a race war with whites, for the nations resources–and not just “the land” or “access”–but for the very tax dollars whites work for–and they have zero qualms making that clear, over and over.

    Yet the “good whites” (Anglo, virtue signaling descendants of Puritans) keep thinking that somehow “we are all in this together” (e.g. “diversity is our strength”), despite all the factual and documented evidence, daily, to the contrary. Blacks (especially) are in no ‘social contract’ with whites, it’s completely one-way, with the rules increasingly changing and narrowing in on whites (see the recent war on Becky, something unheard of during the politically-correct 90’s). From daily crimes committed against whites (especially white women), to affirmative action (against whites’ own children), to set-asides, welfare, an inability to walk down a street in most metropolitan / urban areas, to censorship against whites anywhere, anytime, for any wrongThink–nothing is trending toward “all in this together”.

    People say the breaking point is near. I don’t see it, not within the white culture–it will take a lot more, and by that, I mean an active “shoot them as they walk down the street, everywhere” type situation…and if that is near, it will be from the other side–and even then whites will hesitate to defend themselves.

  50. @obwandiyag

    Identity Politics is Race War is Divide and Conquer. Do the math.

    I agree completely!

    Identity Politics trivializes traditional ethnic cultures. White Nationalism is a ridiculous term. Let’s have a football match between the Green-Eyed Globalists and the Brown-Eyed Nationalists. How about the Blond Hairs versus the Black Hairs?

    Congratulations, to all you programmed-minion-proxy warriors. You have accepted the terminology of your oppressors. The instant that you implement and accept using weaponized wording, you have lost. You have rejected your ethnic languages for legalese. You’ve rejected your traditional music and culture for Hollywood-produced propaganda. Who owns Hollwood? Your ignorance is magnified in your children. For the sake of fitting in, you have allowed them to be consumed by popular culture created by individuals like Bernays. What did you think was going to happen? You think protecting your skin color will make things right? You are in debt and live on land that you do not own. You are being managed by oligarchs that use your basic urges and sexual desires against you. If being “Nationalist” means standing up for USA (Usury, Sodomy, Abortion) and accepting the dictates of a tyrannical source to send me or my kids off to die in Iran for the desires of Adelson and Singer, then I reject it completely.

    How are the ideas of “Whiteness” any different than “Multiculturalism?” They both promote the mixing of cultures. European cultures have lost their native tongues and their unique cultures due to their own laziness. How many Irish know how to dance an Irish Jig? However, lets forget those things that actually make our identity and focus on forming a union based primarily on white skin. Andrew Joyce groups Europeans together ignoring completely that Hungarians, for example, are completely different in language and culture to the Scottish. Joyce`s philosophy is nuanced but not much different than the psychotic Globalists wanting to group the Somali with the Brit. They are all non-compatible options. Ethnic cohesion is exactly what they do not want.

    Kalergi’s plan of creating a mongrel Europe controlled by a Jewish-based oligarchy at the head is a fact and is definitely being executed. It started with the EU promoting and pushing the homogeneous European “White” citizen after WWII. European cultures became so diluted, with garbage like ‘Eurovision’ that they became easily malleable for a greater cultural experiment.

    The only way to break the spell is for the younger generations in each European country to snap out of it and to take a stand. It won’t be easy and virtually impossible. Look at what is happening in Poland is right now. That is why the NGO’s are going ballistic with pushing the Globohomo agenda. They want to be in control of the group that determines critical mass.

    • Replies: @FvS
    , @Adûnâi
  51. @Anon

    Ah yes, the Hag, the Red Headed Stranger, and Trigger…LOL

  52. FvS says:
    @Jon Baptist

    “White Nationalism is often misunderstood or misrepresented as nationalism for generic white people as opposed to specific white ethnic groups. But there is no such thing as a generic white person. In this world, all white people belong to specific ethnic groups. Even colonial melting-pot societies like the United States do not create generic white people, but new ethnic identities: Americans, Canadians, etc. White Nationalism means self-determination for all white peoples, not merely generic whites, just as saving the rhino means saving all the specific subspecies of rhinos, not some sort of generic rhino.” – Greg Johnson, The White Nationalist Manifesto

  53. @nsa

    he was forced to apologize like a pathetic puppy getting its nose rubbed into a piss puddle on the living room carpet.
    LOL. So true

  54. FvS says:
    @obwandiyag

    This country was founded by Europeans, for Europeans. If whites allow ourselves to become a minority population in our own country, we will lose our civilization, our heritage, and even our existence as a distinct people. True national unity can only be achieved through racial and ethnic homogeneity.

  55. Adûnâi says:

    There are two typos – missing spaces after [16] and [20].

    The article is incredible. But it still is an important and disheartening fact that the issue of the White suicide is so unimportant to the Uglo-Sucksons that they can forget about it in a matter of years. And taking a woman for an answer to the issue is even more ridiculous than putting hope in a Judeo-Christian capitalist.

    Some great articles on César’s blog.
    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/homework-for-british-nationalists/

  56. Cowboy [AKA "Kartoffelstampfer"] says:

    Thatcher, like Trump, was owned. The evidence is very strong that Trump had sexual relations with Jael. The evidence was also very strong that Thatcher had been sexually abused by her father

    The similarities don’t end there. Just as Trump was best buddies with Epstein, so Thatcher was best buddies of Jimmy Saville.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253929/Jimmy-Saviles-private-letters-Margaret-Thatcher-Files-edited-2-months-ago.html

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-jimmy-saviles-close-friendship-with-margaret-thatcher-8432351.html

    Just to be fair, Ronald Reagan was also owned, his master was Roy Cohn.

    • Replies: @Anon
  57. Adûnâi says:
    @Jon Baptist

    “You think protecting your skin color will make things right?”

    It is the first and last step. Without the blood, all is lost. But as long as it is preserved, a sliver of hope remains.

    “If being “Nationalist” means standing up for USA (Usury, Sodomy, Abortion)”

    The USA, Russia and France are the original anti-White melting pots, chimaeras united not by blood but founded upon a mad idea. All must burn for a revival to take place.

    “How are the ideas of “Whiteness” any different than “Multiculturalism?” They both promote the mixing of cultures.”

    Why are cultures even important? Do not forget – they are a protection layer against intermixing first and foremost. But is that important nowadays when we know our true genetic groups, races and subraces? Are those distinctions worthwhile when our entire race is going under?

    I’m not advocating for mixing Nordics with Sicilians, but for the establishment of eugenic policies across all European nations that put the highest value in the people of ultimately similar stock – the swarthy should be outbred by the fair in both Scotland and Czechia!

    Currently, those “cultures” (if they can even be called such) are but dumb puppets in the hands of Jews, creating division between allies for the pettiest of reasons (such as language or religion). The resurgence of old-school nationalism in Central Europe is wasted when it is used to prop up NATO bases in Latvia out of the fear of Russian invasion – at the time when both Latvia and Russia are dying out, still have not repelled women’s rights, still suffer from uncontrolled migration!

    “Look at what is happening in Poland is right now. That is why the NGO’s are going ballistic with pushing the Globohomo agenda.”

    Isn’t the sentiment that “gays are humans” born out of the Christian dogma that all men possess equally-worthy souls? Weren’t Christians the ones who burned 98% of all Latin literature (as per Catherine Nixey) and destroyed the native European “pagan” temples first in Rome, then in Germanic and Slavic lands thus mutilating the European culture forever substituting it for Jewish myth? Doesn’t Galatians 3:28 form the basis of the very Globohomo agenda?

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
  58. @Mulegino1

    This comment captures the stout spirit and ravenous motivation that built this place until its system was weakened by the parasites.

    And you make the point by contrast that contemporary habits of spectating and consuming pail against the competitive performance of the past.

    Too many have become like Jews who spectate and consume but never labor to venture out into the arena to compete and perform.

    Of course, Jews, being the world’s most effective ass kissers and fair weather friends, they ingratiate themselves to the performers to gain a share of the performers’ rewards, while their fellow spectators who are goyim are left only in the consumer’s deficit position.

    • Agree: Mulegino1
  59. @FvS

    I’m going to have to correct you on that point:

    Right before the 101 Airborne boarded those planes to parchute into Normandy on D-Day….General Ike Eisenhaurer can be seen talking and joking around with the men of 101 Airborne…you have probably seen the film footage many times….And now there is an audio recording of what General Eisenhauer said to these Young White Men:

    General Eisenhauer:”Men, I want to remind you of the main reason why you are probably going to die today…You are on a great mission today….You are going to die fighting the Nazis so that Pakistani Muslim Legal Immigrants and their US Born Pakistan Muslim American Children…..And Congolese LEGAL IMMIGRANTS….and the US BORN Children of Congolese LEGAL IMMIGRANTS….can come to America by the millions every year…to vote White Americans….your White Children…your White Grandchildren……your White Great Grandchildren…..into a violently persecuted White Racial Minority within the borders of America!!!!…No go DIE for America today!!!”

  60. White Nationalism means self-determination for all white peoples.

    While drowning, Greg Johnson is giving you an anchor when you need a life raft. He literally has pigeonholed all “white” people in exactly the same fashion as the psychotic talking heads on mainstream media. Any weaponized term identifies you as a pawn in the game. A white piece is forced to be moved on a chessboard because it is an integral component of the game. Don’t allow anyone to play you. Tommy Robinson (Lennon, or whatever his real name) is a Zionist shill collecting money from Israeli sources. Why is that? You think he is the only one? Don’t fall into being controlled opposition. Remove yourself from their game.

    This doesn’t strictly apply to “Whites.” The “Blacks”, and all ethnic cultures for that matter, are being destroyed and played in exactly the same way. You think the Chinese weren’t played with Yalee Mao and the implementation of Communism?
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140401235649/http://jewishfaces.com/china.html

    http://digital.library.yale.edu/cdm/ref/collection/yale-ydn/id/135148

  61. @War for Blair Mountain

    Congolese Sheboon Joy Reid daughter of Congolese LEGAL IMMIGRANTS……

    On a daily basis…on National TV taunts the HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY with grand proclamations of WHITE GENOCIDE………

    This is what OUR PEOPLE died for on D-DAY…

    WW2 wasn’t worth it…

    The CIVIL WAR wasn’t worth it….

  62. @Adûnâi

    Isn’t the sentiment that “gays are humans” born out of the Christian dogma that all men possess equally-worthy souls?

    All souls are of priceless value. However, sexual deviancy doesn’t not give added value to the soul. It destroys worth. Dante wrote that Sodomy and Usury are on the same level in Hell.

  63. Republic says:

    It is too late for a White nationalist party to be elected today in the UK. In 1968 Powell after he was sacked by Heath probably could have formed his own party and gotten elected as PM, as he was very popular.

    Today White Nationalists in the UK are routinely arrested for violation of hate speech laws and their parties banned

    It is still possible for a real White nationalist party to be created in the US, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing as draconian hate speech laws are being rapidly implemented.

    • Replies: @Whitewolf
  64. Stacey Abrams…Governor of Georgia…

    Would that be like having:IDI AMIN elected Governor of Georgia?

    STACEY ABRAMS

    IDI AMIN

  65. eah says:

    Seems Jews are a major “obstacle” to White Nationalism.

  66. Non-whites have no right to access White (of any nationality or ethnicity) people. That’s all there is to it. The constitution is a piece of paper as we can see it’s being used to justify infinity brown migration.

    The fact that Trump is acting as a gate-keeper very much like Thatcher (or AfD, or Sweden Democrats) is more than obvious – ‘just sit tight goy and trust the plan, we are #winning’. Maybe it was necessary, it probably was, just to show that this was not the way.

  67. @eah

    For (((Lawrence TRIBE)))…The existence of White Babies is a hate crime against JEWS and the majority nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc…

    The Democratic Party is waging a GENOCIDAL RACE WAR against OUR PEOPLE!!!!

    (((LAWRENCE TRIBE))) doesn’t even hide his hatred….

    WW2 WASN’T WORTH IT….

  68. @TheJewishQuestion

    Yep, capitalist ‘right’ is Jewish, as is Libertarianism, Bolshevism, multiculturism, and so many other destructive ‘isms’. The Chosenites call so many of the shots, its difficult to know where their power starts and/or ends. Certainly Thatcher, the grocer’s daughter, would never have made it to No 10 without their blessing. She was appointed to undermine WN in Britian and promote multiculturalism, which has been so devisive to the UK. She also oversaw the process of de-industrialisation by shutting down or selling off major industries, so that Britian became a nation dependent on its (Jewish owned) banking and service sector (now outsourced to its former colonies).

    De-industrialization was catastrophic and has even been linked to drug addiction among the working class as seen in the sordid movie Trainspotting. Today Scotland has the highest drug death rate in the European Union.

  69. @M Krauthammar

    Germany’s cultural ‘enrichment’ began in 1945.

  70. Thank you Andrew Joyce for this remarkable observation and review.

    • Agree: Republic
  71. @EliteCommInc.

    I recommend you read Africa Unchained: The Blueprint for Africa’s Future by Ghanaian academic George Ayittey of the Free Africa Foundation. His thesis is that thugocrats in power, are retarding economic development.

    The ‘white guilt’ and chicken nugget reparations ATM card can’t fix this.

    Nigeria’s inept leaders reportedly stole about $400 billion oil money between 1960 and 1999. They can’t even process the country’s crude but import refined products.

    Elsewhere, Singapore, another British colony, has no natural resources but has amassed around $500 billion in sovereign wealth from industries like petrochemicals.

    • Replies: @Alden
  72. The Democratic Party

    wants

    TO MURDER IN COLD FUCKING BLOOD!!!

    THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY

    That’s for sure….

  73. That’s why Margret Thatcher was protecting the “elite” judeo-masonic pedophiles in the 8O’s :

    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Margret++Thatcher+obstructed+investigtion+of+pedophiles

    [email protected] scum like Epstein

  74. Any form of white nationalism is already too late when the hispanic population reached 10% of the total. As they will out breed every racial group.

  75. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    British politics, just like the politics of all western nations are run by controllers who carefully play the two-party game in each country to fool the public into thinking that change in immigration is really going to happen. Third parties like the BNP are either infiltrated and destroyed from within or their main platform is adopted by one of the two mainstream parties but is never implemented. Thatcher was put in power by these people who saw that the public wanted a “conservative” after years of Labour Party socialism but in the sphere of immigration, nothing was to change. A similar situation happened in Canada in the 1980’s when a group called the Reform Party was formed by Canadian nationalists to end the swamping of Canada with non-whites. Their immigration policy started out saying that the vast majority of the immigrants would be reflective of the settler founding peoples who created Canada (in other words European). All the while the media completely ignored the Reform Party. One day this weak-looking little man by the name of Preston Manning who was the son of previous Alberta Premier Ernest Manning joined the party and ran for the leadership. A lot of party members voted for him because they had liked the father. When a well-known, controversial newspaper columnist by the name of Doug Collins was nominated to be the Reform Party candidate in the rich Vancouver suburb of West Vancouver, Manning refused to sign the nomination papers after having previously said that he would never interfere with the local riding’s choices of nominees. Many nationalists left the party after that not liking the treacherous Manning. Under him, the party watered-down its immigration policy until it became the same as the government’s immigration policy. They were now the same as the Conservative party and decided to join together. Monied interests put Manning in and riding on the name of his father was a shoo-in to become the leader. He neutralized the party from within. After he became the leader, the national media became for friendly to the Reform Party and after a couple of years treated it as a “mainstream” party. A new nationalist party has been formed in Canada but in my opinion, is wasting its time as the same thing will happen. To me, Trump is controlled opposition, Nigel Farage is controlled opposition. No change can be accomplished within the bounds of the election system, the whole system is controlled as can be seen if one views the events in every western country in the past 70 years. Until the controllers themselves can be rendered inoperative, all we can do is dream.

    • Replies: @S
  76. Both EliteCum and Obiwan are all over this article. Too much time on their hands?

    “White” is not a nation, therefore no “white nationalism”, I don’t care which side you’re on. If you’re saying, Don’t hate on white unity, find the right term. If you’re saying, Whites cannot unite, you’re obviously a racist, so find a better term.

  77. anonymous[115] • Disclaimer says:
    • Replies: @S
  78. S says:
    @anonymous

    ..the politics of all western nations are run by controllers who carefully play the two-party game in each country to fool the public into thinking that change in immigration is really going to happen.

    Yes, Trump’s purpose has been to falsely get the historic Euro-American population’s hopes up that he might actually do something about the decades of deliberately uncontrolled mass immigration, only then to dash them, while simultaneously with certain knowing pronouncements acting as a ‘racist!’TM lightning rod to radicalize (ie Bolshevize) the Dem party. When 2020 rolls around the United States will be on the precipice of a Russian style ‘civil war’, where even now it resides.

    Does Trump’s ego blind him to what he is doing and how he is being used, or is he performing this service freely and in full agreement? Is he expecting a massive payout? Being blackmailed possibly? A combination of all of that perhaps?

    I put civil war in quotes as Sohlzenistyn correctly alludes in his writings that the so called Russian ‘Civil War’ was really a war against identity, ie the historic Russian people’s, as well as other people’s identities ultimately which had formally been part of the Russian Empire. It’ll be the same with the US and its historically predominant north-west Euro (ie ‘White’) population should there be a Red October like event here.

    Neither ‘Capitalism’ nor closely paralleling ‘Communism’, the establishment’s so called ‘right’ and ‘left’ of the manufactured, contrived, and controlled Hegelian dialectic which has been at play since 1776 and 1789 respectively, ultimately accepts or tolerates identity in the form of distinctive physical and cultural peoplehood. Both anti-life systems war against this as does their synthesis, Multi-Culturalism.

    As for wage slavery acquired by the so called ‘cheap labor’/mass immigration system, the economic and political basis of the multicultural society, there’s little question as things stand that the powers that be would willingly and freely give it up without there likely first being a major struggle of some type on their part.

    It’s the source of the US/UK’s ‘progressive’ establishment’s wealth and power, both in it’s ‘right’ and ‘left’ manifestations. Besides that, if they were to give up the mass immigration system, which they certainly should, they’d have to do the difficult at times, but ultimately edifying work, of actually having to really and truly care about people, which in their inverted world is what they call ‘hate’.

    ‘..the immigrants usually serve three main functions: cheap labor to replace native groups, settlement in the ‘frontier’ (periphery), and control over the natives and their land. These dynamics generally result in the maintenance of hegemony..’

    https://www.academia.edu/2116622/Between_urban_and_national_45_Political_mobilization_among_46_Mizrahim_in_Israel_s_development_4847_towns_

    • Agree: Adûnâi
  79. S says:
    @anonymous

    Interesting book you’ve linked to.

    I wonder how much the unfortunate ideology of British Israelism might have affected Thatcher’s thinking in that regard.

    Essentially, Imperial British-Israelism had one goal above all others: the justification of the Empire. Unlike the splintered years which preceded and antedated it, the middle period presented a focus any loyal subject of the Crown could take to heart and proudly support.

    http://www.revneal.org/Writings/Writings/british.htm

  80. jamesc says:

    Andrew Joyce has made some interesting points in this article. I have a couple of things to add.

    1 Milton Friedman, who was an influential figure on Mrs Thatcher, was responsible for the disastrous monetarist experiment from 1979 to 1983 (arguably it was abandonned in 1981). Friednman had a high profile as an advocate of the 1980s free-market agenda.There is a revealing youtube video of Friedsman speaking to a Jewish audience explaining how capitalism was good for the jews. Needless to say, the arguments are rather different than the message he put out to the public.

    2 Mrs Thatcher’s visit to Israel was quite remarkable, in that she was guest of honour and gave a speech at the King David Hotel in 1986. This, of course, was the very same place that the Irgun had bombed, in an attack against the British in 1946. Of course there was no apology from any of the guests.

    3 Mrs Thatcher’s links with Israel date back to her first visit in 1965, as a guest of Anglo-Israel Friendship League of Finchley.

    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106406

    https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Thatcher-and-Israel-503040

    She also stayed at the King David Hotel, this time less than 20 years after what was the worst terrorist action against British people until the Lockerbie incident, which she does not seem to mention.

    Have some fun googling, especially the Israeli press, which is rather more frank than anything you will see in
    the UK media on Mrs Thatcher’s relations with Israel.

  81. “I recommend you read Africa Unchained: The Blueprint for Africa’s Future by Ghanaian academic George Ayittey of the Free Africa Foundation. His thesis is that thugocrats in power, are retarding economic development.”

    I don’t think I need to. My comments have nothing to do with “white guilt”. The record is clear on that score.

    I would fully agree that how the power structure plays out will determine the future. That the continent must untangle the mess of colonialism toward a new socialization process. And that is going to be very difficult. But they will have to sift through the shallowness of organization by color imposed fro more than several hundred years. And decide if they artifices of the boundaries actually work or not and configure them accordingly.

    There was always going to be a retraction given that the gap between the colonial powers and the native population was an oceans wide. In such power vacuum it makes perfect sense that authoritarian figures fill the gap. That is not unique to Africa that some of those leaders are not adept and exercising authority to the better of the populous or even their own ends. That is an ahistorical dynamic the world over as is the process of how to stitch up whatever was left from the previous power. Its convenient for us to call out thuggery now that the primary thugs, white power is on the wane. Part of the western tactic of relieving ourselves of critique for the mess we left behind. I could point to the finger across the globe of the white leaders who were “thugs” and disasterous leaders.

    Poor leadership (stifling economic growth and spread), if that is in fact the case is not unique to black africans.

    Frankly, I imagine what most dread (and assume will never be) a United Africa with the wealth and power to back it up. And I won’t be shocked if that transition comes by way of a very strong central authority that stabilizes and then transitions to something wider.

    The US was not born from democracy — few, if any nation states were.

  82. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    …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.

    Any kind of goyim racial-nationalist thinking.

  83. eah says:

    Sometimes the best way to eliminate an obstacle is to blow right through it.

  84. White America is indeed experiencing a mass awakening. What are Trump and the GOP/Conservative, Inc. doing with this energy?

    Funneling it into attacking Tlaib, Omar, and AOC for the sake of Israel and Jewish Supremacy.

    Removing Trump and the GOP from power would theoretically help focus White America.

    But, there is no political solution. Eight years of Kamala Harris and the Kosher Sandwich would once again funnel White America’s resentment back into the GOP like clockwork. America is fundamentally corrupted and dysfunctional as a whole. The best solutions are the most difficult solutions.

    Secession and Separation.

    Acquiring Greenland to add to this Failed Empire is MAGA Cartoonism.

  85. Alden says:
    @follyofwar

    Great post. Every president in my lifetime has been anti White from school desegregation affirmative action unlimited non White immigrants to Trump’s failure to do anything about both illegal and HI-B and student immigration.

    Trump is just one of a long line of anti White presidents. It’s like Q Is the Pope Catholic?
    A. Yes the Pope is Catholic
    Q Are American Presidents anti White?
    A. Yes American Presidents are anti White.

    I just enjoy the insanity of the anti Trump liberals and Jews. November 16 was so much fun. I’m looking forward to November 20 and watching liberals and Jews heads explode in their rage and hatred of Whites.

    And if Trump loses and the anti White party wins it won’t make any difference since every President the judiciary and both political parties are anti White and have been for about 70 years now.

  86. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cowboy

    Laugh Out Loud.

  87. Alden says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    United Nations, missionaries diplomats and the gazillions of NGO grifters and hustlers all trying to save African retards from themselves call it TIA

    This is Africa Africa is what Africa is.

  88. Paul C. says:
    @wayfarer

    Thanks for sharing. Not that I have faith in the government, but still good to see a Congressman speak out against tyranny.

  89. JP says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    The very first law passed after the Constitution was ratified was to restrict immigration to white men of good character. Many founding fathers expressed the belief that they never thought of blacks nor Indians as Americans: that title was reserved for the white Christian (or Deist) settlers who built this country, predominantly English but with a smattering of Scots, Irish, French, Dutch, German, etc.

    The declaration of Independence even complains about the British setting the savages against them. There was nothing preventing them from allowing Indians to vote, they were already present in many of the states. And yet, voting was done by white colonist men. Seen in this context, even the rhetorical flourish that all men are created equal clearly applies to the only people they saw as people: whites. In no sense can you possibly claim this nation was founded on equality of all races.

    The Constitution has been dead since at least 1933, and especially since 1965. The fact that you’d revive the corpse that your fellow travelers have murdered to try to guilt others into line shows that you’re a special kind of sociopathic liar. Chutzpah doesn’t quite cover it.

  90. Whitewolf says:
    @Republic

    When you factor in Jews and Christian Zionists the chances of a White Nationalist party being elected at the federal level in a two party system are nil. At a state or local level you might have a chance.

  91. “The declaration of Independence even complains about the British setting the savages against them. There was nothing preventing them from allowing Indians to vote, they were already present in many of the states. And yet, voting was done by white colonist men. Seen in this context, even the rhetorical flourish that all men are created equal clearly applies to the only people they saw as people: whites. In no sense can you possibly claim this nation was founded on equality of all races.”

    laughing.

    I am glad we agree.

    Now let’s move from the real to the ideal. It was intended that all men be equal . . .

    I am afraid you have stumbled upon the great hypocrisy. In the Constitution it recognized that blacks were in fact people, human beings hence the term “persons” if the clause that endorsed slavery.

    Furthermore, and I am delighted you put your comments in stark terms — bravo to you. The founders made a “devils bargain” they granted slavery knowing full well that the enslaved were human beings of equal creation and it explains:

    1. why the revolutionary war nearly ended before it began

    2. Thomas Jefferson’s own contradictions about the life of equals because in that same document of complaint about Britains encouragement to incite slave revolt, he blames England for slavery —

    3. the fact that blacks are referenced throughout as members of the colonial society’s free persons who also fought for independence. Of course our favorite is Crispus Attucks.

    ————————————————–

    The founders new all too well that blacks were humans created equal, their efforts to to have a country and a war depended on debating the question — and in the end they embraced a lie to have country and they knew it.

    And John Brown and Nat Turner and abolitionists white or not — were the sparks

    It is the sword that ever severs who are an d could have been and can be.

    —————————————–

    It will not be solved by immigration.

  92. correction:

    It is the sword that ever severs who we are and could have been and can be.

  93. qqqqq says: • Website

    (1) Wow, just wow.

    (2) “Hispanics are natural conservatives, what with the strong family and religious orientations!”

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS