Despite media silence, Britain faces several existential threats. The character of the nation is currently under severe threat from Muslim immigration. The UK Muslim population is increasing rapidly and Britons are concerned. In 2003 a British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey highlighted that 48 per cent of the native British were concerned that an increase in the Muslim population would weaken Britain’s national identity. By 2013 that figure had risen to 62 per cent. Before and since the latest survey, the country has been rocked by the side effects of this population increase — Islamic terror, Muslim grooming gangs that have subjected thousands of indigenous British girls to rape and violence, the ‘Trojan Horse’ phenomenon where Muslim hardliners attempted to take over city schools, and the fact that a 2011 study showed that 21.3% of Muslims living in Britain have never worked. Muslims, together with Britain’s other ethnic minorities consume a disproportionate amount of welfare and tax credits, even relative to their swelling population.
The multi-cultural experiment has been an expensive one for the indigenous British public. The character of whole towns and cities has been altered wholesale. The elderly no longer recognize the land of their birth and childhood. Muslim-patrolled ‘No-Go’ areas have been established in British cities, as in much of Europe, where Whites are prevented from entering under threat of violence. Much the same situation prevails in those parts of the British urban landscape that Black gangs have rendered lawless. Millions in taxpayer cash has been wasted on failed ‘integration’ efforts, expensive social care for ‘problem’ minority families, special policing measures, and supporting minority cultural events. Britain’s socialist healthcare system, designed and implemented in an era when Britain was ethnically homogenous, has been stretched and tested to its limit; it’s future uncertain. Temporary migrants alone cost the National Health System around £2 billion a year, with the figure for settling immigrants rising to even more horrific levels.
These facts, and others pertaining to racial, religious and cultural differences, are not open for serious public discussion because of other existential threats to Britain — cultural Marxism and increasing restrictions on free speech. Cultural Marxism, and the many branches of related thought under its umbrella, have permeated British politics, British academia, the media, and large swathes of society. As a result, a perverse Lewis Carroll-like lexicon has developed around the discussion (or lack thereof) of race relations in Britain. Even though the 2011 Crime Census published by the Ministry of Justice showed that those of African and South East Asian ethnicity were substantially over-represented across all crimes, particularly so in violent crimes and robbery, Britain engages in perpetual witch-hunts against any dissent from the dogma that we are all the same. In one of the most apt recent illustrations of the madness that has taken root, the nation which obsesses over ‘hate crime’ has refused to punish Bahar Mustafa, a Goldsmith’s University ‘diversity officer,’ who tweeted the phrase “Kill All White Men.” Contrary to the utopian claims of the cultural Marxists, Mustafa represented a perfect truth: the agents of ‘diversity’ are not motivated by love, but by incredible hostility to White Britain.
To date, how has British Nationalism responded to these threats? Enoch Powell once remarked that “The life of nations … is lived largely in the imagination,” and, sadly, British Nationalism has failed to inspire the British imagination. This failure is not completely due to tactical errors, but in part to the context of the era. In this age of consumerist materialism and instant gratification it is more difficult than ever to lead someone by appealing to something other than what they may gain in the “here and now.” Of course, as I’ve outlined above, the native British would be substantially better off in a less ‘diverse’ nation. There would be little or no terrorism and no grooming gangs; there would be safe schools, safe and more familiar neighborhoods, more money to go around, and an infinitely greater legacy to be bestowed on the coming generation of British children.
But if the task wasn’t difficult enough, there have been enough problems within the fold to make success even more elusive. For a movement that originated the rallying cry “No More Brother Wars” we are proof positive that old habits die hard. Europeans are distinctive for their fierce individualism, and the traits of the warrior bands of centuries past are still alive and well. We are the first to pick fights with our brothers, and in this age of crisis this simply shouldn’t be the case. This is not to say that genuine disagreements don’t take place, or that cases of corruption are non-existent in our cause. Corruption and decay should be ruthlessly rooted out, but never at the expense of unity of purpose. The British people cannot be expected to unite with or behind a group that is itself languishing in disunity. Perhaps more than any other Nationalist movement, that of the British has been particularly fractious. Personality clashes, corruption, pessimism, unchecked ambition, incompetence, conceit, tactical errors, splits over ideological minutiae and, yes, government infiltration have all conspired to weaken and break apart the bonds that might have forged a movement capable of meeting the challenges of the era.
Organizational longevity hasn’t been scarce, but the focal point and effectiveness of the British movement has been shifting and unsettled. The British Brothers League (1902-1923), the British Union of Fascists (1932-1940), the British League of Ex-Servicemen and Women (1937-1948), the Union Movement (1948-1966), the National Front (1967 – present), and the British National Party (1982 – present) have all had their modest day in the sun only to subsequently fade into obscurity and inertia. Observing the poor fortunes of British Nationalism, at close hand and from afar, has been a tortuous and frustrating experience for me, as it has for many others.
But Jack Sen’s new project, the British Renaissance, brings some promise of change. For the first time in a decade, when I look at the stirrings now occurring in Britain, I feel optimistic about success there. I’ve followed the career of Jack Sen since his break with UKIP and subsequent interview for The Occidental Observer. Jack crossed a socio-political Rubicon in England by naming and shaming Jewish politicians like Luciana Berger for dual loyalties, something that hadn’t even been attempted by an English Parliamentary candidate since the early post-World War II period. What made the move all the more impressive was that Mr Sen, a husband and a father, was aware of the likely repercussions of this ‘outing’ of Jewish influence and, moreover, that he retained enough integrity to proceed despite having as much, if not more, to lose than many of us. Zionist-infiltrated UKIP wasted no time in exiling him from the party.
I wasn’t surprised when Jack moved to the British National Party, though I doubted the relationship would last long. I feel no great need here to dissect the current goings-on at the BNP (the internal workings of which I confess to knowing very little about) and I believe that Jack’s own report on his subsequent departure from that organization speaks volumes. Jack has informed me of a strong culture of fear and censorship at the BNP — an organization that seems to have lost its nerve and barely resembles the Nationalist party founded by the steely John Tyndall. Jack was castigated by BNP organizers for using the word ‘invader’ (the horror!) in a written piece on immigration, and was prevented from producing a documentary on the sexualization of children lest it offend homosexuals. Given the changes that have occurred in the BNP since the departure of Nick Griffin, and Jack’s unbending commitment to ‘calling a spade a spade,’ the eventual parting of ways was inevitable.
Whether or not one believes the current crop of financial allegations made against it by a female malcontent who took her story to the Antifa, the British National Party suffers from a crippling lack of trust as well as a current leadership that lacks the capacity to inspire the public. For all that may have been said against Nick Griffin, he was a media figure to an extent, and the British public at least knew who he was. Today, Jack Sen is more familiar to the British public than the current BNP chairman, a former teacher who is more likely to be remembered for his lifetime teaching ban after threatening a couple of his students and slashing the tyres of their bicycles. While the BNP chairman shrinks from the media, Jack has engaged the media energetically and continues to write, organize and speak prolifically. His ideas, and the narrative of his recent political history, are succinctly expressed in his new book, How to Get Suspended From UKIP and the BNP in 10 articles and 2 Tweets, which also features contributions from Andrew Anglin, Nick Griffin, Andrew Brons, and Jez Turner. Meanwhile the BNP is currently languishing in a state of inert terror, vanishing from electoral politics, producing the same tired literature, and shrinking from the media and any type of statement or action that might attract scorn. Along with its catastrophic decline in electoral clout and influence even within the wider movement, this renders the BNPs current de facto position as the focal point of English political nationalism barely tenable. It must give way, and there will be, in its wake, a position left vacant.
The British Renaissance project is more than just an attempt to fill this socio-political gap. The project marks a new departure in several respects. The faces, approaches and mostly importantly, the spirit of the venture, differ substantially from anything seen before on the British scene. I concur with Jack that the main difficulties facing British Nationalism are an apathetic public, an intolerant media, infiltration, and negative and selfish Nationalists. The central idea underpinning British Renaissance is that of unity, and ideological and structural purity. Jack is putting in place measures to screen out infiltrators and foster an atmosphere of co-operation and optimism. Already it is drawing on support from members of UKIP, the British Democrats under Andrew Brons, British Voice, and the BNP, as well as a number of smaller groups and previously unaffiliated members of the British public. If this continues to proceed on a larger scale, it will represent an unprecedented achievement for British Nationalism.
Perhaps just as crucially, the new venture has made it clear that the issue of Jewish influence will not be glossed over or made taboo, either internally or externally. The result will be an organization similar to AmRen or NPI, but with a more ‘aware’ message. In my own conversations with Jack, he has argued that concealing the issue “would be academically disingenuous and irresponsible.” Tackling this issue, especially in light of government-imposed restrictions on free speech, requires very careful treatment and subtlety. If it can be said that the silence on race has been harmful to the interests of White Britain, and damaging overall to race relations, in a truly free society we should be able to probe more deeply into the reasons for that silence. One of the reasons for the silence is of course the cumulative effect of successive waves of legislation targeting free speech. In Britain, the key figures in attempts to legislate against the discussion of race, and in race relations more generally, since the post-war period have been Harold Lever, Frank Soskice, Anthony Lester, Jim Rose, Harry Cohen, Malcolm Rifkind and, most importantly, Leon Brittan, architect of the racial clause of the 1986 Public Order Act. Taboo though it may be, it is an interesting fact that all of these individuals share Jewish roots, and this fact, along with any deeper implications, deserves to be discussed, analyzed and commented upon without intrusion by the State.
Unfortunately, Jewish groups in Britain jealously protect their interests in a manner that White Britons do not. In 2009 Channel 4 aired a documentary titled “The UK Israel Lobby,” which probed the manner in which pro-Israel Jewish organizations and individuals attempted to influence British political debate and public policy. The methods ascribed to these groups, and evidenced throughout the documentary, included: the formation of groups within groups (such as Conservative Friends of Israel); the use of media influence for the social ostracism of non-compliant politicians (such as an article berating William Hague appearing in The Spectator); the use of financial pressure (the withdrawal of CFI funds from Hague); and the lobbying of high level elites even on minutiae such as the use of descriptive language when describing Israeli military actions (specifically referencing a meeting between the CFI Director and Prime Minister, David Cameron). Predictably, Jewish organizations reacted quickly against the film-makers and Channel 4. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, along with the Jewish-operated Community Security Trust condemned the exposé as “anti-Semitic.” Following a slew of complaints to the media watchdog OfCom, the regulator issued a response adjudicating that:
Given the editorial content of this programme described above, and the way the programme sought to expose what it said was the way pro-Israel lobbyists use financial means to gain political influence, it is almost inevitable that many of the references to prominent figures and groups would be critical. However, such a critical analysis does not, in Ofcom’s view, constitute anti-Semitism. Importantly, Ofcom found that these references, and the programme overall were directed towards individuals or organisations because of their alleged actions and activities and not because of their religion.British Renaissance will undoubtedly come under fire from Jewish organizations that will label it, and Jack Sen, ‘anti-Semitic.’ However, I believe that Mr Sen, Jez Turner, and the other leading figures of British Renaissance are capable and willing to execute the delicate but necessary task of focussing, in a manner similar to the Channel 4 documentary, on the actions and activities of individuals and organizations who are demonstrably bringing harm to Britain, its traditions, and its future. In doing so, they will avoid the legal traps put in place by Soskice, Brittan et al (and pioneered by the very same Board of Deputies) while simultaneously ending more than a decade of concessions to imagined ‘respectability’ which resulted more often in a loss of integrity. Jack has repeatedly refused to stay silent on the role of Jewish influence in our current problems, as evidenced in yet another badge of honor when he was removed as a PEGIDA UK admin after referencing Zionist influence on their Facebook page. Jack recognizes that we cannot compromise with the uncompromising enemies arrayed on the Left. With the emergence of British Renaissance, we witness a rekindling of the principle that the best form of defense is attack.
As well as representing a new departure in some respects, the British Renaissance will hold firm to more familiar patterns and approaches within the wider movement. It will reject the materialistic, functionalist view of society and, with it, the definition of the racial problem as one of integration and assimilation of minorities into the ‘mainstream.’ The organization will remain faithful to the stance that there are empirically observable psychological and behavioral differences between racial groups, and that in addition to sharp cultural dissonance these differences render integration, assimilation and ‘consensus’ within a given society to be utopian in theory and impossible to implement in reality. The British Renaissance rejects multiculturalism as a dangerous ideology that is playing a pivotal role in the decline of the White demographic throughout the West. Promoters of this ideology, whatever their racial or religious background, are enemies of the people.
Although the problems facing Britain are large in scale, British Renaissance acknowledges that electoral and cultural tactics must be local in practice. Local meetings in established ‘free speech zones’ under the BR umbrella are being organized across the country. In these locations Nationalists can meet in friendship and solidarity to exchange and promote ideas. It is hoped that these meetings can eventually grow into significant electoral and cultural forces. In the meantime, the task at hand must be modestly framed. The fractures must be healed and the movement must be strengthened. Optimism needs to be restored. Enemies and infiltrators need to be confronted and expelled. Loyalties should be redefined. A renaissance must occur.
Both organized Jewry and the State have already taken notice, and taken action. The movement is set to hold its first major meeting in Southport at the end of the month, and had invited as speaker Matthew-John Heimbach, the tireless young leader of the Traditional Worker’s Party. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Community Security Trust lobbied the government to ban Heimbach, who has no criminal or violent history, from being able to enter the UK. This was then dutifully imposed by Home Secretary Theresa May, and with no recourse to appeal, Heimbach is now banned from entering Britain until the case comes up for review a decade from now. Meanwhile the budding new UK movement is deprived of one of the world’s most promising and energetic young Nationalists, and with it, the opportunity to forge new bonds, and exchange ideas with, their American brothers.
If external enemies weren’t enough of a challenge, we can also be sure that fratricidal habits will rear their head once more. Thus far these seem confined to conspiracy theorists who see every new movement as a spy-ridden puppet of the State, and those who have taken issue with Jack Sen’s heritage (his paternal grandfather being a non-European immigrant). The former I simply won’t engage with, since paranoid delusions are largely untreatable and even more rarely open to reason. State monitoring of the ‘far-Right’ has always existed (even Hitler began his political career by spying on the German Worker’s Party), but becoming inert through fear or apathy is not an option. To the latter I simply point out that the floor has been open for anyone who considers themselves of pure heritage to do what Jack has done, and yet either the talent or the will has apparently been lacking. As Jack has expressed it to me: “If there were more 100% indigenous people willing to risk their careers, societal ostracism and financial hardship, then I might not have taken the lead. But I felt I had no other choice but to engage, in light of the dire direction my beloved Britain is headed.” The goal here is to rescue white Britain, not to argue over ideological niceties. We simply don’t have that luxury.
We can rest assured that our enemies, within and without, will ensure we have many more obstacles ahead. But I believe that Jack Sen and his colleagues at British Renaissance will stay the course. I have been impressed with the contact that I have had with Jack thus far, and I have adopted an advisory role within BR in which I hope to assist him as much as possible in achieving great things in a country that has for too long been subjected to the hate of our enemies. Britain can, and will, be restored to the green and pleasant land it once was. Islam will not reign supreme. British policy, both foreign and domestic, will no longer be swayed by the financial clout of elites with alien allegiances. These lands will remain ours. The BR leadership has integrity, determination and, perhaps most importantly, imagination. And in these dark and dying days of the West we should remember Powell’s observation: in imagination lies the life of nations.