By Max Musson:

As someone who has campaigned for an end to mass immigration into the UK and for the compulsory repatriation of non-White immigrants, I am very familiar with the National Front and one time British National Party slogan, ‘Stop immigration, start repatriation!’ and have lost count of the number of times I have heard liberals and leftists argue that repatriation in particular, is impractical, cannot be countenanced on humanitarian grounds and would make Britain a pariah state in the eyes of the ‘international community’, thereby attracting penal and potentially crippling trade sanctions

The liberals and leftists argue that; the ‘international community’ would not just stand by and let Britain conduct a programme as ‘inhumane’ as the repatriation of non-White immigrants; the nations from which the immigrants originated might not be prepared to take the immigrants back; and there would be uproar nationally as the majority of the British people would find such a measure unacceptable. So, what is the truth of the matter?

In recent months, we have seen two nations, Saudi Arabia and Israel, begin the repatriation of tens of thousands of immigrants that have entered their countries illegally. Furthermore the countries from whence these immigrants came, have accepted their compatriots back and there has hardly been a squeak from the ‘international community’.

Yesterday in the Guardian newspaper, there is a report that since mid-November, twenty flights per day have been landing at Addis Ababa airport from Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, disgorging some 7,000 unwanted immigrants each day, back into the arms of the Ethiopian authorities.

MDG : Ethiopian worker repatriation from Saudi Arabia“As of 8 December”, the Guardian reports, “115,465 Ethiopians – 72,780 men, 37,092 women and 5,593 children, 202 of whom were unaccompanied – had returned from Saudi Arabia, according to government figures. The migrants, most of whom were in Saudi Arabia without work permits, were expelled after a tightening of labour regulations in March and the expiration of an amnesty for illegal workers on 4 November.”

Furthermore, it is reported that over a million migrant workers from across Asia have also been expelled from Saudi Arabia as part of their crackdown on illegal immigration, which is designed to get more Saudis into jobs and reduce the high unemployment rate.

Ketziot 4In Israel, alarm at the number of particularly African immigrants entering the country illegally prompted work to begin in November 2010 on a more formidable border wall along the border between Israel and Egypt, which was completed in January 2013 at a total cost of $430 million. The wall has reduced the numbers able to cross the border illegally to negligible levels and now the Israeli government have turned their attention to getting rid of the estimated 60,000 African immigrants or ‘infiltrators’ as they are called, that are already in the country.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu signaled one year ago, that he was ready to begin repatriating African migrants, which he termed the “second stage” in the effort to clear Israel of “illegal infiltrators”.

“We have succeeded in blocking the entry of infiltrators from Africa to Israel,” Netanyahu said at the start of a discussion he convened on the issue. “After having faced the threat of the entry of hundreds of thousands, this month, not one infiltrator entered Israel’s cities.

“Now we are moving on to the second stage, that of repatriating the infiltrators who are already here.”

Netanyahu claimed that most of the “infiltrators” are economic immigrants and that they threaten the Jewish character of Israel and he said that all new arrivals would immediately be placed in detention.  Israel was “building holding facilities to house tens of thousands of infiltrators until they can be sent out of the country”, he said.

Illegal immigrants who agreed to leave Israel immediately and of their own volition immediately following these announcements were provided with financial assistance of 1,000 euros and a plane ticket. Those that delayed are being progressively rounded up in raids by police and immigration officials.

Thus, far from ‘treading lightly’ lest the ‘international community’ should take umbrage, the Israeli government are in fact ‘sailing very close to the wind’, by creating facilities that look dangerously familiar to anyone with first hand recollections of the ‘Jewish Holocaust’.   Immigrants rounded up so far have been sent to hurriedly prepared holding facilities at the Saharonim Prison at Ketziot in the Negev Desert near the Israeli/Egyptian border. Here, the Israeli authorities have determined, they can be detained for up to three years while their applications for asylum are considered. Very few are accepted however as between 2009 and the end of 2012, out of 7,000 applications, only sixteen people have been granted refugee status or asylum.

Ketziot 2aSpace has been created at Keziot for up to 5,000 illegals to be detained in tented accommodation situated in high walled and barbed wire fenced enclosures, that have been described a inadequate by human rights activists, and which combine overcrowding with a lack of hygiene facilities.

Sudanese refugees at Ketziot Detention CampUpon arrival at the camp, the men are separated from the women and children and up to twenty individuals are accommodated in tents designed originally for just six. Camp inmates have no privacy and are merely given a bed to sleep on.

Ketziot 3a

As for the eventual fate of the ‘infiltrators’ into Israel, it has come to light that Uganda have agreed to accept an undisclosed number of immigrants deported from Israel in a deal that involves the sale of Israeli manufactured weapons to the Ugandan army, together with a non-disclosure clause preventing the precise details of the deal from being released.

I would appear therefore that ending non-White immigration and the repatriation of those already here is not such a problematic issue after all, providing the government concerned has the will to devise a plan and the nerve to carry it out.

By Max Musson © 2013

# # # #



57 thoughts on “Repatriation

  1. Are the infiltrators given stripped pyjamas to wear when they go to bed in the tented concentration camps I wonder?
    After all their infiltration has been intense and the infiltrators I would imagine need to be identified from the guards of these concentration camps.
    May be it is because they are black and don’t need a symbol like the Star of David to identify them.
    What surprises me is that there is no mention of the six million others and the ones that throw themselves against electric fencing.
    That aside it does prove without doubt that with a little determination the dire situation in this country can be reversed.

  2. Say what you want about Israel, but from what I’ve seen, they care more about the preservation of their people than probably any other nation on earth. If only white countries could do the same, it would help if a greater portion of the leaders of European countries were actually indigenous whites/Europeans.

    I think the difference between a comparison with Israel’s ‘infiltrators’ (can you imagine a European country’s leader referring to immigrants as such?) and our own is that, let’s not kid ourselves, our non-white/non-European populations are grossly larger in number than any non-Israelis in Israel, to the point where they now make up significant percentages of the population. Let’s also not pretend that Europe isn’t officially seen as the ‘land for everyone’, we are not in the same boat as Israel or Saudi Arabia, and we are seen differently, and as a result what we do is seen differently.

    Sweden – 21% of the population is ‘of a foreign background’, and 14% of the country’s population weren’t even born in Sweden. That is how different our situations are, how is a country like Sweden supposed to repatriate 21% of its population? That 21% meaning 1,921,000 people out of 9,555,893 (that the Swedes know of), you think they immigrants and non-white citizens alike will accept the will of the government in the same way the seemingly passive East African ‘infiltrators’ of Israel and Saudi Arabia will?

    Norway – 14% of the Norwegian population were immigrants or children of two immigrant parents, that’s 14% of a population of 5,063,709.

    Britain – London, the capital city, is only 45% white, and this doesn’t mean British, it means anyone classed as white regardless of their ethnicity, so repatriation would mean repatriating 55% of the capital city’s population, that’s a single city alone. Officially Britain is 87% white, and I don’t think that means white and British, so you can bet that number is actually much lower, and assuming that figure was correct, it would mean a required repatriation of, officially, 8,213,630 people, not limited to immigrants.

    Does anyone seriously think they would accept this? More importantly, does anyone seriously think the white population would? This is another difference between Israel and European countries, most Israelis support the government’s actions in deportation and repatriation, most Europeans would be completely against it, either because they are overwhelmingly leftists, since those with right of centre views tend to be older and dying off, while those with leftist views are often the young still in education, repatriation works when the population is behind it, and, sadly, ours are not, they might be decades and decades from now, when the façade of normality can no longer be maintained, but by then it will be too late, our populations will have been bred or mixed out of existence, Sweden is an example of this happening at an astonishing rate, and it won’t matter if the population and the government finally decide to enact measures for repatriation, because they will be such a small percentage of their native lands that they will be politically neutered and irrelevant and be incredibly outnumbered. You might as well bet on the chances of Native Americans or the Maori trying to repatriate Europeans, as well as other races, from the US and New Zealand.

    Not to mention that according to the ICC, a body that pretty much every country in Western Europe has signed up to adhere to its authority, has classed repatriation as a ‘crime against humanity’. Repatriation isn’t impossible for White countries, but it is if they were to try and do so and accept that they wouldn’t become international pariahs, and the targets of countries with significant economic power, China and India for example. Now, if the governments of a racial nationalist European country could accept that their aims would inevitability result in that, then fine, but trying to have an aim of repatriation whilst believing we wouldn’t be international pariahs is naive, in order to succeed, a government and a people would have to decide that the survival and preservation of their race and ethnicity is more important than international relations and trade.

    1. We take your point Nimble, the numbers of immigrants are larger for European countries but that does not mean that a policy of repatriation is not possible. Furthermore, as Israel and Saudi Arabia have shown, such a policy does not inevitably bring with it pariah status and trade sanctions. We simply need the will to make it happen.

  3. No doubt it will help their case that all those being mentioned are truly “illegals” that, by the laws of the nation state involved, have no right to be there.
    That is, unfortunately, a little bit different from those who may be born in the said nation as second, third, or fourth generation. As we all know, here in Britain, ‘closing the door’ and ‘sending back the illegals’ is not going to be enough to save our bacon any more.
    It all helps buy time though, especially if there was a firm grip placed on immigration (or preferably an outright shut down of it) for the foreseeable future.
    Despite the nuance of category though, it never the less shows what can be done when the determination is there by a government and agencies. I cannot remember what abysmal figure England has for their deportation rate, but it was something dire – such as being well under 10%. I suspect many of those re-enter again for another go at it!
    I read that there had been riots in Saudi Arabia over this, in which some people died. Did the authorities back down though? No! They sent them all packing anyway.
    Can you imagine something like that happening here, where folk die in a riot on deportation and the government whisks them all away anyway, in the face of howling and screaming Guardian reading masses? lol. The Saudi authorities/state has more sense than to cave in to such demands and the kind of circus that happens here.
    I seem to remember they have certain laws too which forbid land ownership and true citizenry to foreigners, but that is rather hazy now. But all sorts of nations have these little clauses, like India having some kind of “right to return” policy, where no matter if you and your grandparents had never seen India, as long as you were of Indian descent, you would be accepted back as an Indian citizen.
    There was also recently a move by the Dominican Republic to retroactively pull the rug of citizenship from under the feet of Haitians who had crossed the border in the previous decade or so, including offspring that had been born there since a particular cut off point. I do not know all the details, nor the implications, but it was still a bold move to try and get a situation under control before the D.R becomes a outpost of Haiti.
    Population transfers, so I believe, have also happened after the fall of Yugoslavia and other places throughout history, nor were they (to my knowledge) all extremely violent/brutal – as would be the general impression that is given off when these kinds of things are brought up. There have also been ‘population exchanges’, where for example, we might fictionally swap 60,000 black Africans for 60,000 white ones upon mutual arrangement by the said states.
    There is perhaps some degree of support out there for this country to deport the estimated 1million+ immigrants in this country. I think that even many UKIPers would be at least open to the idea or already supportive of such moves. People are cheesed off enough about immigration and “abuse of the system” to now hear such moves being put forward – should we be able to find all these illegal people in the chaos of a multiracial society!
    Whether people would be ready to support the deportation of those here ‘legally’ – or second, third, fourth generation – is not as likely though.
    However, there was a poll of some sort earlier this year that I recall indicated that a significant amount of people wanted shut of Muslims (because they were perceived to be the most incompatible with ‘liberal democracy’ and as they have gained a reputation as being the most nuisance), with quite a significant amount of young folk suggesting so.
    Generally speaking though, I doubt such moves would pass without an uproar of some sort from the more general society.
    I suppose we would need a cooperated infrastructure and a determined government – and wider society – to be able to manage deportations and repatriations. Something we do not currently have. Also, without these in place, I could quite easily see a million “illegals” being deported……only for Cameron or Miliband to simply let another million ‘legal’ ones and a million more illegal ones to arrive!
    It would have to be a “joined up” effort to really alter the seeming fate of our future.
    Nevertheless, removing a few million would be a good start anyway – and would at least send the right signals to the world – something we have, as a nation, been doing the opposite of since the 1950s.
    I had to laugh at that European minister saying that Britain would be seen as the ‘nasty nation’ of Europe for what was some unbelievably wet/limp wristed remark which David Cameron made about the new arrivals due from Bulgaria and Romania. Good! We need such a reputation!

    1. Obviously a policy of repatriation would not be implemented while the likes of Cameron or Miliband are in charge. Such a policy would only be countenanced by a nationalist government. The purpose of this article is simply to demonstrate that such a policy could be successfully implemented if only government had the will.

    2. Much could be done in stages.

      First, and following our exit from the EU, all EU citizens could be switched to work permits on the expiry of which, several years later, all would have to leave the country.

      Second, all illegals would be offered a carrot in the form a flight to a destination of their choice and a cheque only cashable outside the UK, while a stick to flush them out – in the form of draconian penalties – would be applied to those who employ or house them.

      Third, asylum applications would be accepted only from persons suffering persecution in Iceland or Ireland (the two countries for which the UK is the nearest). All others already in the country would be offered the same carrot as illegals, if they refused they would be deported.

      Fourth, non-white persons lawfully in the country would be offered improved and well publicised assistance to surrender their rights of residence or citizenships and to leave the country.

      The above moves would certainly be controversial but I’m sure that they would receive general popular support. It is the following moves which would be very difficult and could probably only be enacted following a general crisis and a serious hardening of the public mood:-

      Fifth, the revocation of all citizenships and indefinite leaves to remain granted since the beginning of the millennium; their former holders being switched onto temporary work permits.

      Sixth, the setting up of internment camps for those who refuse to co-operate in their deportation.

      Seventh, the application of measures to make life in this country less comfortable for non-white ethnic minorities (such as banning halal slaughter) leading to many more “self-repatriating”.

      1. Franklin Ryckaert

        - Edit

        Banning ritual slaughter and circumcision would make life difficult for TWO kinds of people who never realy fit into Europe.

    3. ‘Population transfers, so I believe, have also happened after the fall of Yugoslavia and other places throughout history, nor were they (to my knowledge) all extremely violent/brutal – as would be the general impression that is given off when these kinds of things are brought up.’


      From what I understand, forced repatriation was deemed by the ICC, and I think also the UN before it, as a ‘crime against humanity’ based on what happened to the ethnic Germans spread around Europe at the end of World War Two, and for years after 1945, where 12-14 million ethnic Germans were either forced to flee or forcibly repatriated/expelled from Central/Eastern Europe, and anywhere from 473,000 to 2-3 million ethnic Germans were killed, depending on the sources, the newer sources tend to claim a lower death count, either through internment and subsequently disease or starvation, as well as a number being killed by partisans.



      So that is why “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” is defined as a crime against humanity by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.


      Off the top of my head, the only ‘smooth’ forced transfer I can think of are the Greek and Turkish population exchanges of 1923

      1. I think you are correct in saying it probably wouldn’t be a peaceful transition, my worry has always been that innocent decent people will suffer but that’s happening now anyway.
        Violence is what will probably trigger the push for repatriation of non whites & moslems.
        Yes we would be up against the likes of the UN & the International Criminal Court but plenty of other people get away with it.
        I guess not much was done about the crimes against the Germans.

        1. I think it also helps if several European countries go the same way at the same time.
          That would make it more difficult for the UN etc to do anything much.

      2. To be honest, I have not particularly studied population transfers, I have only seen various ones mentioned in the past and talked about in the past by some on the New Right, and not all of them brought up the issue of mass killings, so in a vague way I suspected it that it can be done under the right circumstances. I think it was said that before WW2 it was seen as an acceptable way to resolve differences that were leading to civil war, but of course, times change.
        Although again, it is perhaps a convenient dream on my part. I would have thought that the situation cast around WW2 (and the kinds of treatments and actions that happened in that context then) could not manifest in the same way today – what with a beady eye cast on all world events by major nations, 24 hour rolling news coverage, all sorts of international organisations, etc.
        Besides, I think it would have to be worked out so that it can be done fairly smoothly before it could ever be implemented. It would not be a snap decision forged in desperation, but a pre-planned move where all the angles have been covered.
        If there were therefore ways and means to achieve a significant population transfer without any mass casualties, or any casualties, then I suppose I would support that process – irrelevant of what a raft of multinational organisations may think about it, as long as we could defend ourselves and postpone any ‘crippling’ sanctions until after the job was done. As a nation we could bounce back, but we are not going to bounce back from what is coming down the track.
        I think all of this talk is a bit pie in the sky anyway to be honest. We might as well dream of scattering them all to what remains of various ‘British Overseas Territories’ and then severing ties with them all (pulling up the drawbridge) after accepting any British descendants back – if they wish to come back.
        Then there is the murky water of what the cut off points are on who gets classified to remain here on a sliding scale of acceptability – and via various complicated matters of family ties and different combinations of who may be deemed assimilable and who may not….. A substantial bulk are indeed going to be obvious though.
        It is important to think big – and like Max, I think many things are possible if the will and determination is there to do it.
        To quote Enoch Powell at the Conservative Party conference of 1968: “Too often today people are ready to tell us: ‘This is not possible, that is not possible.’ I say: whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible. We have nothing to fear but our own doubts”.
        However, being cynical, I admit that I do doubt it will ever happen or be allowed to happen. That does not mean to say it is impossible or cannot be done – just that I cannot envision it taking place.
        Given that the ratchet of “acceptable” thoughts and discussions have tightened – to the point where saying “gollywog” in a conversation can land you in court – and given that there is uproar by the opposition over the most tiniest of things (and that even the likes of UKIP get branded as vile, nasty, racists and Nazi’s), I sometimes joke that we might as well give them something to really bleat about, something that makes Nigel Farage look like a paragon of virtue in the eyes of the “liberal-left”. lol.
        When it comes to “illegal immigration” – the category addressed by the examples given the actual article – there shouldn’t be any reason at all not to expect a full deportation programme from our government. Israel and Saudi Arabia (plus many other nations around the world) are sending millions of people out of their nations on this basis. Therefore, it can be done, so we should also be able to do it.

  4. Very good article! I am familiar with the ”racist” policies of Israel pertaining to their own immigration problem and I reckon they are going against their long-term interests; after all, if they refuse to take on immigrants, Israel will not survive!

    Anyway, we could do the same thing. We have, however, a far bigger problem than 60,000 African refuges (or whatever) we have whole cities that a filled up with anti-whitist non-whites who have been trained to think it acceptable to disrespect the native population.

    They are also armed!!!
    If we had a nationalist government WE would have a major problem because the neo-Marxist media, the Americans, and the brainwashed section of the British public would all resist. I hope I’m not being cynical, but I reckon, if mass expulsion was decided upon in parliament, hordes of Whites would side with the target population.

    The Whites would do the intelligence work (for obvious reasons) and the non-Whites would take orders where the ”racists”’ were, so they could capture, torture and kill them. The leftists, feeling moral and righteous, would cry into the cameras about their fight for justice while the non-Whites rampaged through the cities in pure, hate-filled fury.

    In short, our expulsion would have to include ”anti-racist” whites (about 20% of the population). Deluded, many of these creatures would point their fist into the sky as they entered the plane headed towards the non-white world with their brothers; I reckon — no, I know — for most of them it would be a one-way trip.

    Now, to be able to do this, we would need the armed forces, the police force and the full resources of the state. At the moment, the LIb-Lab-Con establishment is filled the anti-white 20%, so we have no way of achieving such an objective.

    Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are different: they aren’t run by people who suffer from self-hatred! That is a simple statement of reality.

    Mr. Musson, however, is right in principle; it could be done! That is all he was saying, and it does need to be pointed out, so I hope more people read it!

    1. Yes, it can be done Shaun, but as you point out it would not necessarily be a straight-forward process and would need to be planned and carefully implemented if it was to be successful.
      What we need to remember though is that the current immigrant numbers are not critical. If we look back at the world in 1900, we can see a time when White people ruled the world, yet we composed only 25% of the world’s population. Today we indigenous British composed c. 80 to 85% of the population of these islands and therefore, if united and organised we could readily overcome any resistance to repatriation.

    2. Yes there are a lot of zionists & fellow travellers who wouldn’t wanted here & would be deprived of their cosy little jobs & status anyway.

    3. Unfortunately you’re right. I live in America and this place is in serious trouble. A friend just told be about a small town in Washington State where 98% of the population are illegal. The Liberals and Jews are pushing for Amnesty and organizing them.

      What we’re witnessing is the South African model applied to the entire Western World. The Litvaks arrived with the help of the British government in SA. Within the span of a few generations Joe Slovo has used mass non-white immigration along with Jews operating on every political level and complicit, hippy Gentiles to overwhelm the system, close the media, and end Apartheid. This is no accident. This was planned from the beginning. Just like Rhodesia was no accident.

      The worst part of all of this is the Tea Parties are “we’re all one people” Zionists while the Libertarians are anti-white racists. There’s literally no one in America… yet. The only good thing we have now is Americans are sick and tired of war. The Jews have overplayed their hand. If you push hard enough and fast enough you could get this done. Also, there are people like me that are organizing. Not enough of us to help you physically but enough to sow the seeds of malcontent here. That could keep America off of your back.

      GL brothers! Many tribes, one people!

  5. I think you’ll find it will be made a problem by the international community should a white nation do it, it’s us whites they’re trying to exterminate, although this shouldn’t stop us doing it anyway. I think, however, we should go further than this, it’s clear to me that the left wing should be kicked out too, they shouldn’t complain as they love multiculturalism so we should send them all to South Africa, I’m sure they’ll love it and live happily ever after!!!

    1. Mike, I agree with you to the fullest degree. If there is a nationalist revolution in this country I hope the left-wingers are expelled with the non-whites.

      One of the reasons is there belief in equality. To these people there is no difference between any race when it comes to culture (which is a code-word for behavior); so a group of Nigerians will be the same to live among-st than a group of Danes. Smashing, I reckon these people deserve to live out their theories in the real world!

      Ok, I’m in fantasy land … please forgive me! I would like to expel leftist-egalitarian Whites to the most corrupt, criminal, and impoverished parts of the non-White world.

      Anti-White whites are the reason all this happened; so I don’t think, in reality, they deserve to live in this country anymore.

  6. Great article. A clear-thinking evaluation of illegal immigration and the available options for a viable solution for it is very refreshing.

  7. A good article. Media objections to repatriation seem only to be raised when European type people are the repatriators. I recall seeing a small item in the press a few years ago which briefly reported the repatriation of one million Bangladeshis by the government of Burma. This merited only a brief filler paragraph in the papers. It seems that Bangladeshis for example are unwanted anywhere, even the arab states accord them (their fellow muslims) low status.

  8. Yes, I don’t think it is logical to call somewhere your country just because you were born there. I think it is natural to have some form of racial bond to the people who live there; like, for example, the Russians in Russia, the Indians in India, and the Jews in Israel.

    Culture (code-word for behavior) binds the people together through a shared history, traditions, collective achievements and national-feeling, etc. In my viewpoint, the attack on Western culture (how we have behaved) is the reason they are winning.

    Basically, if you can pathologize the culture (behavior that keeps Whites strong) and normalize a new reality through the mass media then can you destroy a people — there, that is the Frankfurt School in one sentence!!

    It is normal to want a homeland for your people, but they call this subculture within wider White ”culture” sick — how dare they? No: this is how it works! We just need to understand this.

    Anyway, I remember reading a touching article one time about some indigenous women living in the South Pacific. People in her island were being displaced by an American airbase and she wrote a speech to the UN to get them to stop.

    Basically, she said her people were different to the Americans. They weren’t as energetic, they preferred drinking and taking magic mushrooms to materialism, and they had no real love for American ”culture”.

    She went on to say that she didn’t want the American people on her island and she felt no guilt in asking the UN to get them too leave. Her final quote was a classic: ”they expect us to work too hard.”

    Now, as a guy who believes in the nationalist political philosophy, I respected what the woman was saying — in short, her people wanted an easy life on their island and they didn’t appreciate some American airmen coming their to show them how to improve, etc.

    I think if the non-Whites had an decency they would leave; but we all know they are getting programmed to hate us, so they aren’t capable of seeing things from our perspective.

    1. I would say the woman has a right to be in her country taking magic mushrooms or whatever as long as I’m not paying for it!

    2. To be honest I question the bond some Jews have to Israel, some have no racial bond or genetic link there & are displacing people who can legitimately say they have a link going back hundreds of years but they’re not Jewish though probably Semitic.

  9. Youtube UK to deport all Muslims?

    According to this video 1 year and we could live in a great land once again, another 2 years a white land reborn, expelling traitorous white anti racist, racists, would be like the cat that got the cream.

    A nationalist government would firstly have to prove their mettle to the swaying masses, while a initial repatriation program of illegals and criminals was pursued, followed by review of asylum cases, supplying the militant lefties with fuel to riot on small scale exposing the agitators to prison sentences, the rioting immigrants now criminals.
    A nationalist media and education system exposing the wrongs or the past would help reinstate racial pride and further divide students.
    The goals we wish to accomplish has many routes to choose from without alienating ourselves from further increased support, but I feel that a total clean sweep could only be achieved once the general population has seen the light and what it has to offer.

  10. I think if the political wind were to change, some would leave of their own accord for somewhere more favourable, if there was some sort of sustained anti immigrant violence, then some would go but some will definitely fight.
    At the moment the white population seems to tolerate a lot of anti white violence but of course the media collude in covering up or at least not showing the bigger joined up picture.
    Many incidents have the racial element ignored if the victim is white.

  11. In my youth I listened to loads of reggae music. Black repartriation was one of the most common themes they sung about ( apart from smoking marijuana that is ). If it’s ok for non-whites to discuss this, why not us?

  12. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    The main problem and the reason so many people find a proper solution to the immigration problem so difficult to imagine is because of our perfidious mass-media. Every possible outlet, whether Lib Lab or Con, on every conceivable subject, from the death of Mandela through to the abomination of homosexual “marriage”, from the promotion of mixed race couples in advertising to the snide references made to the “Syrian regime”, our media is so riddled with hostility to the White Aryan interest that we’ve become immured to its true nature. We’ve allowed ourselves to become slowly poisoned, so like an alcoholic we lose the will to reject the poison that’s destroying us.

    Only a complete revolution in our thinking and a total rejection of what we’ve been led to believe is moral or normal by the paid liars of the newspaper, radio and television industries will restore our equilibrium as a folk. Once this happens we won’t need to worry so much about the feasibility of repatriating alien peoples, It will all seem such perfect common sense that it will be difficult to imagine how anyone could ever have thought otherwise.

    1. Yes it makes me laugh when people say how could they have fallen for Hitler & I say well look what people fall for now!
      That thing of a lie that’s repeated often enough, becomes the truth is definitely in force.
      But a lot of people see through that more & more.

    2. Yes, I agree. The non-Whites in our country have taken the piss. Look at these Muslim grooming gangs; these people, filled with hate, have targeted the most vulnerable members of our race, and this did this because they are White.

      The perfidious mass media, however, have framed these vile crimes in the context of culture and not race! I don’t know how sick you have to be to excuse grooming gangs, but this is the anti-White reality the Masters of Discourse (a collective devil) have created.

      You’re right, if enough of us straightened out our thinking we would say: NO MORE! A very simple concept. We would say we are no longer willing to allow our right to exist be demonized by the greasy scumbags in the mass media, our most vulnerable people be sexually assaulted by savage Jihadists reprobates, our major cities operate as Third-World criminal enclaves, and our women to be manipulated into breeding us out of existence.

      If that point is reached I believe we should have a zero tolerance attitude towards anything that isn’t pro-White. As far as I’m concerned our non-White friends have taken advantage of our kindness and it’s about time we show all these so-called alpha males and anti-Whites (even of our kind) the truth of this great Biblical dictum: ”You reap what you sow.”

  13. I think in the end the one who is most violent, aggressive & ruthless will win, like in nature but that in its self might not achieve long term victory as they end living as savages with little civilisation to speak of.

  14. It will require one of your fellow European countries to fall to the sword of Islam first. Once that happens eyes will open and you will have the support you need. As awful as it sounds you should hope that Sweden which is already 21 percent foreign will rapidly increase its non native population to the point Islam shows its true intentions.

  15. Repatriation depends on their countries being willing to take them back. However, the unspoken question is: What if the originating countries unloaded their undesirables on the West and don’t want them back at any price? Or if they already have an over-population problem and can’t really afford to take them back? Then what? That is the most likely problem we are going to face and if the economy fails we won’t have money, etc. to pay off the foreign governments. You may not want to discuss it here, but you will need an answer to that problem that is politically and morally acceptable to the White populations. Personally, I think this problem only took about 50 years to create, but it will most likely take hundreds of years to finally solve (think Moors in Spain.)

    1. The solution Adit, is that one presents one’s adversaries with a proposal consisting of a series of options, all of which resolve the ‘problem’ from our point of view. We should always give people the opportunity to do the right thing in the nicest way possible, and the first option should comprise a genuinely attractive offer followed by – in varying degrees – further similarly attractive offers, but backed up in the final analysis by one’s final option that should be an altogether more hard nosed offer they simply can’t refuse. That way, if we are eventually forced to take ruthless measures to achieve our ends, one’s adversaries cannot claim it is anyone else’s fault but their own.
      In short, while our adversaries may have enjoyed the fact that the Whiteman has behaved like a pussy for the last 70 years or more, we must show them very politely but very firmly, that the boss is back!

      1. I agree. None of the crimes that have taken place since ”we” have allowed multiracialism to take place would have occurred if we hadn’t have allowed it to happen. Unfortunately, we live within the context of nature and nature will always dictate a brutal rule: the strong dominate.

        In most western countries most of the time we have been passive observers while racial aliens have preyed upon us at every opportunity. The double standard is clear: whenever White people have fought back it has been called racism and when the aliens have behaved like savages (i.e., the Muslim grooming gangs) it has been recorded as the result of ”oppression” — by White people!

        The game is changing. More and more, White people are cornered and having to endure the injustices handed to them by a System that hates them. White people will always fight back when cornered: every animal does. This is nature too.

        Nevertheless, I doubt the non-Whites would just leave. They have been programmed to believe they are equal, they are oppressed and they are destined to genocide the White man as compensation for his history. Mixed with contempt at the weakness we have shown for the last 70 years, I reckon, if we get a nationalist government, these people will fancy their chances….

        Then it remains to be seen if we are the weak, gutless, and selfish creatures we have been portrayed as by the mass media. Or are we, due to the Masters of Discourse highlighting everything bad within our society, a lot better than we are given credit for when the time comes to prove it?

      2. I read “A Path to Power” that you wrote and I agree. I’m not British but I’m willing to donate. When will you launch the campaign to collect the monthly 30 Pounds Sterling per month? Since you are not a political party I believe there is no limit on what non British Nationals can donate. Is this correct?

        1. That is correct and a new recruitment campaign will begin early in the new year. We thank you for your generous offer and will be in touch.

    2. Perhaps they can be offered permanent residence in one of your country’s possessions like The Falkland Islands. That would be humane.

    3. We ultimately do not have to take the costs but let them do it.

      Most non-whites in this country rely on state benefits to keep their standard of living. When you remove their income, make areas white only and make their standard of living then many will decide themselves to emigrate. Other countries could charge these people money to live in their countries which non-whites in this country would raise through selling their assets and from donations.

  16. Michael Woodbridge

    - Edit

    While the West is still richer than elsewhere it can put pressure on other nations to accept the repatriation.of our unwanted coloured population. If the West were to become impoverished the coloured population wouldn’t want to stay in any case. It all begins and ends with our own political will. One way we might achieve repatriation in a humane way is by appealing to the idealism of our coloured immigrants, just as the idealism of the Zionist movement motivated many Jews to go to Israel. We should start a heavily funded “Pioneers for Africa” and “Pioneers for India” campaign.

    1. Franklin Ryckaert

      - Edit

      You cannot appeal to “idealism” in habitual parasites, you will have to use force.
      As for the obnoxious “anti-racist” Whites who need to be expelled too, they will of course not be welcome in any non-white country, but perhaps they could be send to a country like Brazil, which is still 40% white and accepts immigrants of any race.
      Mass repatriations are possible logistically and financially, the only real problem is one of mentality and that can be changed if enough people express their opinion publicly. All political problems are ultimately psychological.

      1. You’re right. Political problems are emotional and psychological. The simplest thing you can do is drop them off on the shores of Africa. Since every culture is “equal” then they’ll be accepted right?

  17. 1) No one has mentioned the morality of compulsory repatriating non-whites who were born in Britain and have never lived anywhere else.

    2) If we hold that non-whites born in Britain have no legitimate right to live in the land that they were born, by what right can we complain of the oppression of whites outside of our European Homeland who are the descendents of colonists who took the land by force from non-whites?

    3) Repatriation assumes a solution within the borders of the existing state. Whereas the other alternative solution secession means redrawing the state boundary to reflect existing demographic realities. Secession is more moral because it reflects the legitimate rights of both white and non-white.

    1. Simon, for decades now we indigenous British have let successive governments get away with the flooding of our country with non-White immigrants against the wishes of the majority of our people, and we have rationalised our acquiescence on this issue, telling ourselves that ‘we don’t have to mix with the non-Whites if we don’t want to’, we can afford to ‘live and let live’, but we were wrong!
      Successive governments have passed laws, initially making it illegal to commit acts considered hateful against immigrants; then it was made illegal to insult immigrants and hurt their feelings; then it was made illegal to keep ourselves separate and we now have multiracialism rammed down our throats morning, noon and night. We have as Andrew Neather once put it, “had our noses rubbed in it” and if we resist these laws then we are confronted by muscular young men in uniforms, armed with tazers, who will arrest us and subject us to prosecution. If we resist arrest, then this leads to an escalation in the level of violence that the state is prepared to inflict upon us, leading ultimately to the use of deadly force. Throughout this process the state is demonstrating to us that as far as the liberal establishment is concerned, as far as the EU and the New World order are concerned, ‘might is right’.
      Therefore, when we eventually form a nationalist government, what an immigrant may or may not regard as ‘fair’ will not be the guiding principle behind our actions. We will have the ‘might’ and whatever we choose to do, be it repatriation or otherwise, will be our ‘right’.

    2. As far as I am concerned it has always been understood that there will be victims in all of this as there are now, it was never going to be easy.
      The people behind this present situation are trying to construct something that is irreversible.
      Secession wouldn’t work as we have basically done that already & they’re hungry for more.
      The compromise would mean that non whites in the UK would be second class citizens with certain restrictions placed on their lives, such as not being allowed to breed with whites or have certain jobs or go into politics.
      The reverse of what is happening to white people now.
      But I would imagine non whites & old regime members (after asset stripping of ill gotten gains) would have the freedom to leave, maybe even given help to go?
      Also certain whites would have to be restricted too, because of their past behaviour.
      Politicians restricted to manual labour, that sort of thing.

    3. & anyway the present regime doesn’t respect the legitimate rights of both white and non-white.
      So we’d be no worse in many respects.

    4. 1) What morality? What was “moral” about genocide? The problem is you keep thinking this was deliberate enough for total outrage. They should be removed regardless.
      2) Whites are already hated and targeted. Mass deportation will change nothing. The Lib grovelers will grovel. Many will say “it’s not my fault.” I live in America and I’m told by other whites “you should go back to Europe!” The religion of the white Left is Ethno-masochism.
      3) The moment you go down the road of Universal Morality you’ve already lost. Americans defeated Mexico in a war after being invaded. Then we bought the land Mexico tried to occupy through force. Mexico and Mexicans still claim it’s their “right.” The lesson is – there is no such thing as Universal Morality between races. No one plays “fair.” Medieval Europe was successful because they understood this. Post-modern Europe has tried to put everything into “Universal” terms from people to cultures. That’s what created this mess. The only morality is kinship, top to bottom. The first Churches understood this. The Greeks became Christians after they lost their way to Universalisms. At some point you become so generic, so relative you cease to exist. We’ve arrived at that point.

    5. “2) If we hold that non-whites born in Britain have no legitimate right to live in the land that they were born, by what right can we complain of the oppression of whites outside of our European Homeland who are the descendents of colonists who took the land by force from non-whites? “

      In the cold light of day, the fact is that even Whites born in non-White homelands are still aliens living on non-White territories. They cannot morph into the non-White natives of the lands they reside in and not being of non-White ethnicity, non-Whites have the right to repatriate Whites back to their own ancestral White homelands if they wish.

      The idea that Whites happened upon a stretch of uninhabited foreign landmass and proceeded to make it their own still does not nor will ever make it theirs’.

      The same principle applies in the reverse although non-White invaders didn’t happen upon stretches of uninhabited foreign White landmasses – no, they commenced invading fully inhabited indigenous White homelands en masse which is one of several pertinent reasons they have no Natural Law rights of residence or citizenship at all in any of them. Manmade laws don’t morally apply in such context.

    6. North America, Australia and South Africa were sparsely populated lands. Whites didn’t have to take anything by force, they simply arrived, settled, and created new nations. After the first pioneers, anyone arriving thereafter was arriving in a white country that already existed, not “taking land by force”. Many whites were forcibly deported to Australia for being criminals, and many white Irish were taken to the US and the Caribbean as slaves. In the USA, white explorers actually BOUGHT a lot of land off natives, but the natives reneged on the deal.

      Most people in the former colonies today are partly or fully non-descendants of those first white settlers. There are Mexicans in the US and orientals in Australia. They are equally non-native settlers as are the whites (saying Mexicans are part native is like saying middle eastern Arabs are native to Europe), yet only whites get the blame for it. The Chinese are just as invasive to Australia as whites are, but they’ll never be termed colonizers. Whites in former colonies are the ONLY race that is blamed for the demise of natives of that land.

      The natives meanwhile, accept pretty much anyone with a single native cell in their bodies as members of their races. Which means these people owe their existence just as much to colonizers as to their indigenous ancestors, making their causes a joke. Anyway, these mostly non-native natives actually have reservations. Whites in our indigenous countries don’t have a single acre that we have autonomy over.

      In Britain, we didn’t even get the full vote until 1918. So how can we as a race be blamed for the governments actions centuries ago that we didn’t even vote for?
      How can the current British race be blamed for something we have never personally participated in anyway? That’s racist.

      Finally, according to your own logic it must be fully moral to repatriate foreigners from the Celtic lands, since they themselves are colonies, not colonizers. How can you say it’s right to force the Irish to accept foreigners after all the Irish have suffered throughout their history, including genocide and slavery? And it must be moral to repatriate people from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, since they were never involved in imperialism?

  18. If ‘might’ makes ‘right’ then why does even the most brutal totalitarian regimes invest so much time and effort on propaganda to convince the masses that their regime is moral and just. If ‘might’ makes ‘right’ then secret police and concentration camps would be sufficient to keep the population in line and all that money spent on propaganda would be a waste.

    1. You need to read Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World Revisited’. He explains the ways in which ‘soft’ totalitarianism is so much more effective for the needs of tyrants that ‘hard’ totalitarianism. At the end of the day however, if an individual doggedly resists all of the ‘soft’ ploys of a totalitarian regime, that regime will always resort to ‘hard’ tactics, i.e. force.

      1. People tend to compare our current predicament to 1984, but I think Brave New World is a far more accurate and underused comparison. Brave New World is a very interesting read. It’s prescient. Imagine if Huxley were to write another “revisited” essay today.

        1. Huxley was right in so many ways. Just look at the cheering for everyone to legalize narcotics. The indoctrination is so bad the people are self-medicating. You don’t even have to force them a pill, they’ll take it willingly.

  19. One way of course to start the ball rolling is to take a leaf from the NWO, Problem, reaction, solution, if some organisation were to plan for a result then design a problem that will produce a reaction and then offer a solution. However planning for a substantial change in British society through the democratic process is quite frankly a waste of time. We simply do not have enough time to build a solid opposition that would, we hope, eventually come to power. Time is short and solutions must be found with utmost haste, if eggs must be cracked to make the omelet then get ready to start cracking. We need our Bay of Ton kin, Reichstag Fire, 9/11 or similar to get moving in the right direction.

    1. With regard to your second suggestion, I would answer that while our situation is indeed dire, we have more time than you think, especially if people act promptly now and put their weight behind our campaign to acquire the means needed to challenge for political power. The more progress we make in acquiring the Six Prerequisites, the more time we buy ourselves to complete our mission.

Comments are closed.