Politics

A White Imperium

839 Views 23

By Nick Grifford:

Modern British nationalism is, broadly speaking, dogmatically retroactive. It is politically impotent, culturally impoverished, and presciently challenged.

Perhaps this is true in relation to most White nationalisms, but personally I can only comment on the curious persuasion that is endemic throughout this Sceptered Isle — at least among those with any sense of collective identity. It is apparent that the preponderance of nationalist parties and groups in the United Kingdom share common ground; specifically policies and opinions that centralise on “an end to immigration”, a return to some former global position, “getting out of the EU”, “genuine democracy” and the specious argument,“the British people did not vote for this”.

Not only are these mandates wholly reactionary, it is injudicious to believe that we can achieve a pure and genuine democracy given the knowledge that no one man is inherently equal to another. In addition, and bearing in mind the democratic apparatus that we have enjoyed thus far, the British electorate have provided their often flagrant – though more frequently tacit – support to proposals that have systematically reduced them to the level of debt-serfs in a neo-feudal New World Order; operated by a loose, malevolent junta of organisations that are eminently active in attempting to extirpate our people through endeavours such as the promotion of homosexuality, miscegenation, rampant non-White immigration, birth control via feminism, the phenomenon of White Guilt, and so on. Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Immigration, if properly regulated, can be a positive practice, especially when consideration is given to the damage suffered to our gene pool as a direct consequence of two recent fratricidal world wars and the ennoblement of abnormal and dysgenic avant-garde sexual behaviour. Small quantities of skilled White migrants should be permitted to settle in Britain for reasons both economic and demographic. In a similar fashion, small numbers of skilled British emigrants may also benefit other white nations. Furthermore, those Britons who wish to actively explore their Teutonic, Nordic, Celtic, and even Latin heritage, should not be dissuaded to do so if the urge compels them. In this manner, rather than risk repeating past chauvinisms – which have historically resulted in bloody conflict between White countries – we will eventually develop a relationship with our international kinsfolk that is respectful, peaceful, progressive, and reciprocal.

It is my opinion that a European union of sorts is something of a Holy Grail. The motto of the current socialist (read Marxist egalitarian tyranny) European Union is “united in diversity”. As the reader will no doubt be aware, the inveterate definition of “diversity” is virtually Orwellian in nature and is most certainly an affirmation of White genocide. It is Ironic that ethnic diversity – as has been inflicted on the Occident over the past fifty years – results inevitably in genetic homogeneity on the one hand, and protracted ethnic strife on the other.

The European Commission has expatiated on the proverb thusly:

“The motto means that, via the EU, Europeans are united in working together for peace and prosperity, and that the many different cultures, traditions and languages in Europe are a positive asset for the continent.”

Taken at face value, this statement of intent certainly has much to applaud, but we must insist on being pedantic with regards to the enlisted semantics:

 1) “via the EU”

Unfortunately for many European nations, the road to hell is most certainly paved with good intentions. The erroneous ideological bedrock of the EU (the European Union appears to be the heir of Stalin’s terrible legacy) and the pernicious Judge, Jury, and Executioner, style of administration, has been damaging for not only the cohesion of Europe and the majority of the integrant economies, but also the genetic make-up of our continent.

 2) “Europeans”

Europeans are White and Whites are Europeans. Non-White peoples and nations should not be permitted to form comprehensive coalitions with European states. In order to put an end to the voguish enquiry “who is White”, the following declaration by the late Dr. William Pierce of the now defunct National Alliance must be enshrined in a future constitution:

“Who can say that he has no non-Aryan ancestry at all in his family tree? Not I. Most people can say who their parents and grandparents are. Only a few Americans can go back as far as four generations, however. I doubt that as many as one percent of Americans can go back six generations with any degree of certainty. Jews and liberals seize this fact to confuse people with the claim that we’re all mongrels, that there is no such thing as a “pure” race, etc. — therefore, it doesn’t do any good to try to preserve the White race, because it really doesn’t exist.

I’m sure that you are not fooled by that sophistry. We must be practical. We know that there is a White race, and that it is easy to select individuals from that race who constitute a relatively “pure” sub-group. I’m not an expert on Amerindian ethnology, but I do know that the Indians consisted of many tribes which were racially distinct, ranging from essentially Caucasoid to essentially Mongoloid. So if one has Indian admixture, it depends a lot on what tribe. As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn’t mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he’s no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.”

 3) “working together for peace and prosperity”

Or, more crudely put, “working together for a comfortable existence”.

When Arthur Schopenhauer proposed that, “a happy life is impossible; the best that a man can attain is a heroic life,” the unmistakable implication was that greatness, achievement, and progress are the essential variables of a worthwhile existence; in stark contrast to the pursuit of immediate personal fulfillment that delineates contemporary lifestyles. Comparably, Antony Burgess, the author of A Clockwork Orange, in the final installment of his Enderby saga, offers us the following Faustian sound bite: “Die with Beethoven’s Ninth howling and crashing away or live in a safe world of silly clockwork music?”

Taking the above into account, the racially conscious successor to the European Union should make the necessary amendments to its present maxim.

The EU has an unsettling effect on British nationalism in that is generates – willfully or not – archaic animosities that by now we should have discharged. For example, many nationalists are scornful, jealous even, of the Germans because they are possessors of a strong, export-driven economy, and they are hostile to the Polish because large numbers arrive here looking for employment. It is unfortunate that some criminal elements – including non-White “gypsies” – are attracted to this country due to Britain’s infamous judicial tolerance and excessively liberal welfare system; one can only assume that the opposite is true in their country of former residence. This plays directly into the grasping hands of the entrenched establishment who are able to utilise this acrimonious sentiment and create, control, and aggrandise jingoism. Entire political fraternities have been inaugurated upon the broken back of this casuistry Anti-Europeanism.

The postulation that “getting out of the EU” will in some small way assist in resolving our colossal problems is complete fallacy (not that there exists a sensible argument for remaining within the socialist union, but it simply has to be viewed in context and not treated in isolation). We Europeans have been scheduled for genocide and distancing Britain from our kinsfolk will not alter this impending fate. In fact, if the United Kingdom (soon to be the Divided Kingdom) becomes ever more insular, we risk the prospect of future generations – encouraged by our enemies – reiterating the grave error we made in 1939.

The future of Europe must be that of a White Imperium, governed by a council of the nations who work tirelessly for the survival, proliferation, and development of our race. Not only is Europe our continent, but every landmass on Earth that we conquer shall be a legacy for our progeny. The stewards of this White Imperium must prudently avoid the fate of their prominent predecessor empires by emphasising racial self-determination and prohibiting slavery for all time. During our expansion across the globe, our vanquished racial competitors cannot be suffered to reside among us and must be expelled in their entirely. It is paramount that the myopic motivations of the Old Order (peace and prosperity) are supplanted by the compulsion to proliferate and develop. In order to expand we require unlimited lebensraum and for our development, conflict; these imperatives irresistibly function in unison. As Friedrich Nietzsche advised us, “war and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your sympathy, but your bravery has saved the unfortunate”.

Unfortunately for the opponents of Western multiracial democracies, British nationalism appears to conform to the exact protocols expounded upon by the anti-European European Union, albeit on a nanoscopic level. If the United Kingdom could only enjoy a modicum of “peace and prosperity” I every much suspect that British nationalism would quietly curl-up and go to sleep. I would hesitate to argue that this is on account of the perfidious nature of leading nationalists, but is more likely the souvenir of an island mentality, blended with centuries of memetic indoctrination by a ruling elite whose own interests were served by stirring-up the waters of Europe.

As British nationalism struggles with the death throes of the British National Party; the fractionalisation of the National Front; the emergence of the populist and conservative United Kingdom Independence Party; the lacklustre inertia of the British Democratic Party; and the infighting that habitually flourishes within the Movement, it would be wise to reconsider exactly what nationalism means to us today and whether it is in fact the correct vehicle to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

By Nick Grifford © 2014

# # # #

23 thoughts on “A White Imperium”

  1. frederickdixon

    - Edit

    Agree entirely with William Pierce’s sensible and practical definition of whiteness.

    Disagree entirely with these words of Nick Grifford “the postulation that getting out of the EU will in some small way assist in resolving our colossal problems is complete fallacy”. The main problem with the EU is that it has deprived us of the control of our borders and unless we leave we cannot recover control, and that has led to three major disasters:-

    1/ destabilising population flows into Britain.

    2/ an ever increasing population which at current rates will add ten million to the population (entirely of immigrant stock) within 35 years, with consequent pressures on housing, countryside etc.

    3/ the ability of any EU country to give anyone from outside Europe the right to live in Britain by granting them citizenship (all those “Dutch” Somalis for example).

    That is why we must get out, and whatever subsequent arrangements we enter into with any country, European or otherwise, we must recover complete control of our borders.

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      I tend to agree with you Frederick, in the sense that there is little likelihood of creating a White Imperium extending across the whole of Europe earlier than we would be able to achieve power in the UK and thereby regain control of our national borders by withdrawing from the EU. If there was an earlier groundswell of support for White nationalism centred within continental Europe, such that a White Imperium and therefore an all White Britain would be achieved sooner by us remaining part of the EU, then I would be inclined to remain within the EU however.
      .
      A similar concept under the banner, ‘Imperium Europa’ has been advocated by Norman Lowell for a number of years, and while Norman advocates a retention of the EU and working to change it from within, he also champions the concept of ‘subsidiarity’ which would allow the individual nations of Europe, national sovereignty and a much greater degree of local autonomy within the Imperium as a result.

      1. The Truth

        - Edit

        First and foremost the land must be liberated from the grip of the globalist system, then it will be possible to help others do likewise. First comes the national awakening then the civilizational one.

  2. Shaun

    - Edit

    As for what constitutes White, I agree with William L. Pierce. I have known people with Mediterranean parents, and clear mixed-race ancestry because of that, who I still considered White. They looked White, acted White and thought White — that is enough.

    I have never met one nationalist who believes in the blond hair-blue eyes nonsense. Not one.

    As for the EU, I reckon it should be reformed from within. They created it as a weapon towards a mixed-race population under a totalitarian One World Government, but if it can be filled with nationalists and changed for the better — then that must be the strategy. Right?

    I think the French, Dutch, Finnish, Hungarian, Greek, Danish, Belgiumize, Swedish and Norweigian nationalist parties are rising. They look set to constitute one third of the votes in the Euro Elections in May.

    As Norman Lowell (a funny likable guy) said, ”Let them do the donkey work….”

  3. heechee

    - Edit

    Shaun quote:”As for the EU, I reckon it should be reformed from within.”

    But how? I fear it is too corrupt and one need only look to Greece to see the vile underhand, and even murderous, tactics they would use if Nationalist sentiment grows too high in any member nation.

    And surely it follows that an exit vote would increase nationalist sentiments among our own population? And as non member we can bar the EU from it’s propaganda policy within our own borders.

  4. Steed

    - Edit

    You forgot to mention the emergence of English Nationalism. Sadly, I think there may emerge a conflict between on one side WHITE NATIONALISM: Which advocates white superstates such as the EU, or the free migration or intermixing of different white ethnic groups, and on the other side ETHNIC NATIONALISM: Which wishes to preserve the unique cultures and bloodlines of traditional nation groupings.
    .
    It’s all very well acknowleding that right now both types of Nationalist have the same immediate cause and the same enemy(s), but for those of us who like to look ahead we would want to know that we’re not fighting for an ultimate goal which we don’t believe in.
    .
    This is why I perhaps prefer to think in terms of fighting for the general concept of autonomy right now, rather than outlining specific outcomes. This way the people of each nation can, upon liberation and the return of sovereignty, decide for themselves which destiny appeals.

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      We all appreciate the point you make here Steed, and while some of us talk of White nationalism, it is not because we do not value and have an appreciation of the “unique cultures and bloodlines of traditional nation groupings” within the UK, or because any of us would willingly see such things subsumed into a homogenous European culture, but merely because as things stand at present we are in danger of losing all vestiges of not just the cultures and bloodlines of the UK, but the cultures and bloodlines of all of Europe, and faced with the potential horror of such a total and calamitous loss, most nationalists appreciate the importance of united action on the part of the peoples of Europe and would not want to be seen like some deranged passenger aboard the sinking Titanic, arguing that they do not want to board a blue lifeboat, and would prefer to wait in the hope of finding a red one.

      1. Steed

        - Edit

        Fair enough Max. I don’t want to sound like a stuck record, nor a thorn in this website/organisation’s side. I understand the pragmatic aspect of your approach, I just feel that the issue deserves a more open discussion – for the sake of ALL. I don’t want to see rifts, and I think the best way to avoid them is for all approaches to be discussed openly. I shall try not to bring this up too often in future 😉

        1. Max Musson

          - Edit

          Thank you Steed, I wouldn’t want you to feel like a thorn in our side as I’m sure that you are a true patriot and when the moment of truth arrives, whatever that might be, we will find ourselves standing on the same side. I too am an Englishman, but if we are to maximise our chances of success, then tactically and strategically we have to keep our options open and be prepared to adapt somewhat if circumstances demand it.

  5. SerpentSlayer

    - Edit

    I think what is essential to the idea of a western Imperium is strengthening ties between genuine European Nationalists throughout Europe. I have heard calls for aid from our Ukrainian comrades, are we to let them go unanswered?

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      Hi SerpentSlayer, If you are aware that calls for aid have been received from genuine nationalists then I would suggest those calls have so far gone unanswered. The trouble is that Ukraine is rather distant from the UK and it is by no means clear what is going on in the current crisis nor which factions deserve our support.
      .
      The current government of President Viktor Yanukovych, would appear to be pro-Russian and anti-EU and this might suggest that Yanukovych is deserving of our support in view of the anti-nationalist stance of the EU and the quasi-nationalist character of the Putin government of Russia. On the other hand, we have lining up against Yanukovych, the pro-EU Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms (UDAR) of ex-boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, allied with the allegedly ‘far-right’ Svoboda party of Oleh Tyahnybok, which is reported to be a ‘social-national’ party, and the Fatherland Party of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, which sounds nationalistic, but is pro-EU and one of whose leading figures, Yulia Tymoshenko, was complicit in the Orange Revolution of 2004, presumably finance by the Soros organisation. Separate again, but also in violent opposition to the government are the ‘Right Sector’ activists, who are described as ‘ultra-right’.
      .
      If you wish to shed light on this and update us SerpentSlayer, I will be pleased to consider publishing any articles you may wish to forward.

      1. Shaun

        - Edit

        I am not sure about all the problems in the Ukraine, but I will offer my opinion – and it should be taken as that. I might be wrong.

        I’m a boxing fan, so I know quite a bit about Vitali Klitcshko. He was a good fighter – the Great White Hope, no less – but when he defended his title against Danny Williams he showed something new to his personality: his polictics.

        It was 2003, the Soros funded-NED funded Orange Revolution was in full swing, and Vitali Klitschko wore an orange belt around his waste. If he is pro-western, then he is pro-Zio-globalism.

        Also, in Eastern Europe, there is a tendency for oppostional figures to ally with the far-right. For instance, Alexander Navalny, an anti-Putin demagogue, has recieved funding from … who? … Yes … The NED…. He has also allied himself with nationalist forces….

        I hope, at this stage, the Ukrainian Government stop these people from ruining the country, but I could be wrong.

      2. SerpentSlayer

        - Edit

        I would like to take you up on the offer Max. I feel the situation in Ukraine, as well as Greece is something that needs more attention paying to it by us. We have comrades wrestling with the same monsters that we are using to justify our inactivity. I would like to write something that discusses that.

      3. The Truth

        - Edit

        Max,

        The Ukrainian people deserve our support. Putin, Yanukovych, Yatsunik (the Jewish opposition leader) etc are all tied to the global system of slavery, they are merely fighting for positions rather than principles. It isn’t at all necessary to support political powers in order to embrace a people, unfortunately Ukraine is currently being pushed toward bloodshed by two warring sides tied to the global system.

        1. Max Musson

          - Edit

          “The Ukrainian people deserve our support”, you say, but which Ukrainian people? Is there an organisation that truly represents their interests?

  6. The Truth

    - Edit

    Does anyone really believe that a bunch of politicians and would be politicians are capable of getting the British and European people out of what can only be described as a civilizational crisis. One would be mad to think that any current or prospective ‘patriotic’ party is capable of this. In any case the current political system is the one of the reasons for our present slavery, how could anyone believe a solution can be found there. In fact there is no ‘solution’, there is no going from one extreme to the other, from the bad to the good, not without a ‘purge’ of the body, and what dreadful things must come from this body before it is made clean again. And don’t believe that i am talking about a heroic struggle here, we all should be very afraid when this purging of the body begins. Think Syria and now Ukraine, this internal conflict and decaying is going to spread far and wide.

  7. Pontillius

    - Edit

    I don’t normally post comments on any site because in the past the “moderators” reject them because I don’t always agree with their sentiments. One site in particular is the Daily Mail.

    Anyway, I think there are too many Nationalist and Patriotic sites now to be able to bring about any changes in Britain. I have actually lost count of how many there are; from the BNP down to our local Nationalist Party in this town consisting of 6 members who meet in the local pub to discuss what they are going to do when (not “if”) they get into power.

    These parties are so busy arguing amongst themselves to have any effect on the politics of this country. The ConLibLab party are just laughing at them. So long as they don’t all unite into one big party they are not seen as a threat. I actually heard a Conservative party member say at an election rally, “Don’t worry, the rats are too busy fighting amongst themselves over a small bit of cheese to be of any consequence!”.

    Why the hell don’t they all get together and put these petty differences to one side and concentrate on getting our country back from “the incoming population” as they are now referred to?

    1. Max Musson

      - Edit

      The BNP clone, nationalist ‘micro-parties’ exist simply to flatter the vanity of those involved, without ever placing them in a situation whereby their personal shortcomings will be exposed. They will not contemplate merging their tiny organisations with others, for fear that the larger organisation thus created may not want them to lead it, and for fear that if the larger organisation did, they would not live up to expectations.
      .
      It is much ‘safer’ and easier on the nerves and ego to strut around with six followers, pretending to be THE great heroic leader ‘tragically’ never recognised by the wider public, than it is to expose oneself to the very real danger of failure, should one be called upon by the nation to play that part for real.

    2. Steve

      - Edit

      “…our local Nationalist Party in this town consisting of 6 members who meet in the local pub to discuss what they are going to do when (not “if”) they get into power.”

      It’s sounding like “Life of Brian”!
      I hope we’re not getting crucified.

Comments are closed.