via
The Occidental Observer
For several reasons, Britain has long been the “sick man” of European
Nationalism. Aside from the British National Party’s string of local
and European election victories prior to its spectacular electoral
collapse of 2010, the story of British ethno-populism has, even in its
earliest incarnations, largely been one of under-performance. Setting
aside my own arguments and theories as to why this has been the case,
one is astounded and horrified at the transformation that Britain is
being subjected to. The Office for National Statistics has documented
that between 2001 and 2009 the non-indigenous population of England and
Wales increased by 37.4%. The mixed-race population increased in same
period by nearly 50%. As of 2014, the non-indigenous population of
Britain accounts for 80% of its population growth, with White births
accounting for just 16.5% of the total in West Birmingham. White decline
in Britain, as in much of the West, is not a putative future event — it
is a contemporary crisis, an extinction in progress.
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.
 |
London: Before and After the Racial Revolution was imposed from above
|
But this future is too distant, and the path to it too obscure, for
the great mass of the people. Their ‘imaginations,’ meanwhile, are
occupied with baser interests — fashion, celebrities, social approval,
the 9 to 5, and what to have for dinner. The great English pamphleteer
William Cobbett (1763–1835), himself no friend of the Jews, once pointed
out that “it is difficult to agitate a man with a full stomach.” A
contemporary pamphleteer of sorts, I might say that it is difficult to
agitate a man with satellite TV, an iPad, fast food and a luxury car
that requires judicious polishing every Sunday afternoon. Appeals to
heritage and posterity are, regardless of the merits of our cause,
mainly lost on the acquisitive “me generation.” And as long as the pains
of the demographic, cultural, and spiritual decline are dulled or
masked by materialistic opiates, we will encounter difficulty.
Nationalism, which in its purest form is anti-materialistic, will
struggle to gain followers more than any other political ideology in
this, the most materialistic age in the history of humanity.
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.
