Let’s start by defining terms. What is meant by “Britain” and “British”? “Britain” is the whole of the main island of our archipelago which once was Britannia to the Romans and Prydein to the natives. The natives were collectively the Britanni or the Priteni although they would have been identified more by their tribes such as Deceangli, Votadini or Ordovices. They still exist, though much watered down by intermarriage over the last two millennia. These days they are called Welsh, Cornish, Cumbrian and Scottish.
Layered over the natives were the major Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Jutish, Viking and Norman invasions and migrations all of which have contributed to the creation of the modern English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish over two thousand years. The Kingdoms of England and Scotland have existed for over 1,100 years; Wales, on the other hand, has never been an independent, united political entity.
There have been small more recent admixtures such as the Flemish, Balts, Huguenots and some Dutch, Germans and Italians plus sundry others. All have been absorbed into the whole to create English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnicities. An intriguing fact is that modern genetic research shows that, contrary to traditional belief, the Anglo-Saxons did not ethnically cleanse the area now known as England. There seems to have been considerable inter-marriage and, as a result, the modern English are much more Brythonic Celtic than they imagine themselves to be. Some even carry genetic markers identifying them with the peoples who first migrated to these islands via Doggerland when the last ice sheet retreated. Cheddar man has living descendants.
There still exists then, although diluted, an ethnic British identity which is at its strongest in the Celtic nations and regions of Britain. For centuries, it had been submerged under the English, Scottish and Welsh identities which are more recent creations but, exist it does, despite many of the people of Scotland and Wales, and even many English people, refusing to see themselves as British.
That identity has been stolen and given away by the British state which has existed since the 1688 ‘Glorious Revolution’ and the 1707 Acts of Union. It has turned it in modern times into an administrative identity which has no bearing on the ethnic origins of any individual subject of His Majesty. Anyone can be British. But not anyone can be English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Those are ethnic identities or at least they are until the state moves to change that, something that must be vigorously resisted. An Indian born in England does not become English any more than an Indian elephant born in an English zoo becomes an English elephant.
We should be under no illusions about the nature of the British government, or the “Yookay” government as it has become known. It does not serve us, nor even much care for us. It views us as mere economic units while serving the interests of the international banking cabal which has controlled it since 1688. Through money created as interest-bearing debt, inflation and ever-increasing taxes it has systematically robbed us of the full fruits of our labour. And now it is robbing us of our birthright as it connives with globalist oligarchs to create a one world communist government (or fascist, take your pick). Its state security services are not there to ‘keep us safe’. With their origins in the East India company, they are there to keep the interests of the City of London safe, while keeping an eye and ear on us. The British state is the enemy of the British peoples. We see that clearly. Why should we care if it is destroyed?
The plight of the indigenous people of Britain is serious. We learn today from the Office of National Statistics that among white British peoples, the number of deaths now exceeds the number of births, and this is now a permanent trend if nothing is done. We are beginning to die out. By 2031, more than 50% of the births in Britain will be to non-indigenous parents while there will be a steady reduction in our numbers. It’s baked in by the disastrous birth-rates. Meanwhile, the British government, which knows this and obsesses about economic growth yet cares nothing for the demographic security nor the spiritual and cultural health of the people, is preparing the ground for even higher rates of inward migration to replace us, so that it can continue to extract ever more taxation on behalf of the oligarchs.
But the thing is, migrants get old, sick and infirm too. And far too many of them, especially those of a particular alien creed, do not work and pay taxes. Or they do work and, dealing only in cash, pay no tax. They are an economic burden. Therefore, even more young migrants will be required to keep the benefits-go-round going. You can’t keep piling people into these islands, clogging up the roads, filling the public institutions to overflowing and covering the countryside with jerry-built new homes. What’s the limit? 100 million? 200 million? Until the whole country is tarmacked over and built on, and we run out of energy, food and water? I don’t think so, mate.
Those of us who are conservative with a small ‘c’, those of us who wish to conserve our nations, our culture and our way of life recognise that we have an unspoken duty, a contract between ourselves, those who went before us, and those who will be here after us. We have an obligation to take our country, nurture it and improve it where we can and, if we make mistakes, correct them so that we pass on to our descendants a homeland at least as healthy and prosperous as the one we were born into. Conserving our own people, our customs, traditions, culture, history and way-of-life is the very essence of conservatism.
A colossal mistake has been made. It is called International Socialism, and it has been brought to us by the wolves in sheep’s clothing who have insinuated themselves everywhere. It is bringing us to our knees and we must correct it.
The indigenous people of Britain will have to decide what is more important to them. Their debt dependent standard of living (which is not high by American standards) and government hand-outs or the continued existence of their race and culture in their ancestral homeland. Why? because the welfare state, which has only really been with us since 1945, is now so onerous to the exchequer, that if nothing is changed, nothing is done to reduce the burden, if the migrations continue, national bankruptcy and the collapse of the state are guaranteed.
Some see the collapse of the state not as a catastrophe but as an opportunity to get our country back. It would be hard. It would be painful. People would suffer and many would die. There would be relentless hard work just to put a crust on the table, keep warm clothes on our backs and dry roofs over our heads. The currency would be increasingly worthless. There would be no luxuries for the many. Some of the ‘online right’, notably Gavin Boby and Nick Griffin, have outlined how they think this would go. Many migrants would leave but those who don’t will be concentrated in the large towns and cities. The native British would be in the smaller towns and countryside where they could control all the resources. By forming local trading and co-operative communities and stepping back from the system, we could rebuild in enclaves that could be drawn together over time. It would probably take at least two generations.
Is this what Rupert Lowe meant by a hard road ahead when he launched restore Britain as a political party and invited people to join him? I don’t think it is.
To prevent the state collapsing there will have to be ruthless cuts to public expenditure. Vast swathes of government activity will have to be eliminated and first to go will be the support given to migrants. That must end. No more free accommodation, free food, free smart phones, free medical and dental care and free money. All must be withdrawn. I will not go into the other cuts that will need to be made, that’s another article, but they will make the so-called austerity years look like an endless bounty. At the same time the effectiveness of the police and armed forces, such as they are, will have to be maintained. They will have to be purged of Common Purpose “leaders” and bolstered by a combination of new recruitment, the call-up of reservists, calls for volunteers and the recall of recent retirees, many of whom will still be relatively young.
Whatever Rupert Lowe, Nigel Farage and ‘Tommy Robinson’ may have said about ethno-nationalism will be immaterial. They are to the left of very many of their party members and followers, and they are soon going to have to face that fact. And their petty feuds and rivalries must be set aside because the future of the country as the ancestral home, fons et origo, of the English-speaking peoples is at stake. They cannot afford not to listen to ethno-nationalists and must adopt their policies if they are serious about winning power in 2029, if not before.
Once power has been won by a government of patriots, deportation or remigration, call it what you will, is inevitable. First to go must be all foreign criminals and all illegal migrants, including women and children. No ifs, no buts. They broke into our country so their very first act on British soil was to break our law. This may need to be done forcibly. Civil servants who object may refuse to carry out their political masters’ orders. If they do, they must be sacked.
This will be just the start, for it is not so much the ‘illegals’ that are a problem but the ‘legal’ migrants. At this point it is appropriate to take a look at some of Tom’s worries.
Tom frets that trying to reverse the ethnic mix will tear society apart, turning neighbour against neighbour, the police and courts would be overwhelmed, and foreign countries would condemn us. We would generate lasting hate. What society does he mean? Ours has been all but destroyed by the Fabians and there is no cohesion with those who are not here to integrate anyway. Do we not already have lasting hate towards us from many of them? Yes. So, we don’t care. And what foreign countries would condemn us? Those that wish to unload their human flotsam and jetsam on our shores? We don’t care. Au contraire, I strongly suspect that among those peoples who really matter to us we would find renewed admiration and respect for at long last we would have stood up for what is ours. The lion will have roared.
He’s also worried that it deflects us from our real enemy, the globalists and their drive for a One World Communist Government. Worse still, he says, this focus on race would distract us from the true problem and risks giving them the excuse for tighter control. I don’t agree. The ‘enrichment’ was put here by the globalists; they cannot achieve their aim of destroying Britain and subjugating its people without it. By attacking their weapons, we are attacking their campaign. Besides, patriotic conservatives will provide the government which fixes this. There will be NO globalist control of that.
Tom says the change is here and we cannot undo it by trying to make Britain white again. On this we can agree. Returning us to being the post-war 99% white British country is unachievable. But there must be NO doubt about whose country this is. European colonists in Africa and Asia were forced to leave as Empires ended and colonies were given independence. For example, many are the British people, some of them household names, who were born in India (Rudyard Kipling, Cliff Richard, Joanna Lumley). The same thing can happen here. Our people left their homelands, when are they leaving ours?
Ethno-nationalism doesn’t necessarily mean a nation should belong only to one ethnic group. It may have been so in the days when families first formed tribes and then tribes federated to become nations. Just as Japan is the home of the Japanese, China is for the Chinese and India is for the Indians, England is therefore the home of the English, Scotland the Scots, Wales the Welsh and Ireland the Irish. However, that is not to say that ethno-states are 100% racially pure. None are, for historical reasons and because of frontier changes. Nor would we be. But the essence of it, what thinking ethno-nationalists want, is this: We the indigenous people of Britain MUST have demographic security in our own ancestral homeland. We could perhaps be happy with the more than 90% native British that it was 30-40 years ago. That may not be possible in the short term but in the longer term, with the right immigration, fiscal and social policies, it is achievable. For the sake of our descendants, especially those yet to be born, we have to do it.
So, who could stay and who would go? Let me get one thing out front: The Windrush generation were not invited, not wanted and not needed. They did not ‘rebuild’ Britain. They came here for a better life for themselves. Significant numbers of Indian and Chinese migrants have been here since the 19th Century having started to come in the 17th Century. These people are here. What we need to concern ourselves with are those who have come here over the last 30 years or so, however they managed it. People who are not ethnically English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish can become fully integrated and we can be very welcoming and happy to have them – if they take our side.
People who have settled here but still retain foreign loyalties are a problem. Especially if they actively hate and despise us as some clearly do. We also now see an element of gloating about “reverse colonisation” and declared intentions “to take over”. They must go. There is one demographic in particular which fits this description. This is where we have to be absolutely ruthless. Millions must go. We are not talking about 1 or 2 million; we are talking about 10 to 20 million.
Tom says our history shows we solve problems through law and fair play, not ethnic cleansing. Does it not feel as if we are being ethnically cleansed in our own homeland? It does to me. So, this is a risk we must take. A part of recovering our nation will be exposing the truth about who has been doing all this to us and why. We have never faced a situation like this before and, I’m afraid to say, law and fair play will not cut it, especially when the law is administered by the politically biased bunch of KCs and judges whom we are unfortunate to have.
Tom concluded by writing that we can make Britain British again by demanding assimilation, controlling numbers, and focusing on the common good. But, as he wrote, we will have them on our terms by insisting they join our culture and accept our customs and laws. I agree.
At the same time, we must remake the tax and benefit system, removing all traces of Fabianism so that it encourages our own people, and only our own people, to marry young and have many children to get the birth-rate back up to greater than 2.1 children per couple. We actually need the birth rate to be 3 to 4 on average. It will still take the best part of a century to recover from the current baked-in decline. Oh, and I nearly forgot. We must outlaw the Fabian Society and ensure that neither it nor anything else like it ever has such power and influence in our country again.
(UKR)