This coming year has many dangers in store for our race and nation but opportunities as well, and both arise from the multiple possible outcomes of the Brexit process. For me and probably for most racial nationalists the outcome, whatever it may be, will be judged not on its consequences for trade or the economy nor even for sovereignty (that slightly academic obsession of most Tory Brexiteers), but on its consequences for immigration.
So we may leave without a deal, or with Mrs. May’s deal, or we may leave the EU but join Norway, Switzerland and Iceland in EFTA or the leaving date may be delayed by an extension to the Article 50 process, or it may be cancelled altogether so that we stay in (unlikely), or there may be a second referendum after which we will stay in (or not!). Although it’s impossible to tell at this juncture what will happen, there is one safe prediction – that whatever does happens there will be further division and hostility because at least one half of the population will be unhappy.
But whatever hash the Government makes of Brexit, no matter how many spanners the Remainers throw into the works, on immigration there are only two possible outcomes. Either we stay in a relationship with the EU so close that we must continue to accept free movement, or we do not, in which case we recover control of our borders. A close relationship with continuing freedom of movement from the EU would arise if either Brexit failed completely, or we rejoined EFTA (the European Free Trade Association) as preferred by many Europhile Tories and some Labour MPs. If we left without a deal, or with Mrs. May’s deal, we would “take back control” of our borders, to quote the Leave camp’s slogan during the referendum.
Taking back control of our borders with, hopefully, a subsequent major reduction in immigration was why I voted as I did, and the victory of Leave was surely because enough others thought and did the same. But not long after the referendum, the Tory MEP Daniel Hannen, a leading Brexiteer, said that those who were expecting a major reduction in migration were going to be disappointed. I remembered then a quote which I had read somewhere to the effect that the Leave campaign was an uneasy alliance between two very different, even incompatible, things: firstly a nationalist desire to protect Britishness from the destabilising effects of the globalist capitalist project, which means reducing immigration; secondly plunging headlong into that very same project with the maximum practicable free flow of money, goods and people, which means NOT reducing immigration – this is what is meant by slogans such as “Global Britain”
Nearly all members of the Cabinet, even the Brexiteers are of the “Global Britain” persuasion which is why the Government has produced the White Paper on post-Brexit immigration policy which I described in my article on this site on the 24th December, and which has such disastrous potential for our national identity and demography. Andrew Green of Migrationwatch comments: “Why has the Government caved in so completely to the industrial lobby? The cynic might say that the industrialists are the Conservative Party’s chief paymasters. They might also say that the Remainers in the Cabinet are not unhappy that a major objective of the Brexiteers should lie in tatters. Others would say that the appointment of a profoundly business-friendly Home Secretary was bound to lead to a weakening of immigration policy.” Tatters indeed.
The dangers for our race and nation in this coming year are evident. But Andrew Green did go on to say that the policy would be the Conservative Party’s suicide note. I doubt if many visitors to this site will shed a tear for the Tories, but nor are they likely to enjoy Labour’s equally catastrophic immigration policy. There is though obvious potential for the patriotic Right, whether a revived UKIP, or a Farage led break-away, or something coming out of the fringe, or something completely new. It is happening all over continental Europe and we will not remain immune if Brexit is betrayed or immigration continues at insupportable levels. The first-past-the-post electoral system does, of course, make it very difficult for a third party to break through but the revolution set in motion by Brexit has not yet run its course and there will be more victims, hopefully including the familiar Parties. Even if the old Parties do remain in place, and do keep out patriotic upstarts, such upstarts can still have an immense impact – UKIP forcing the Brexit referendum being the obvious case.
But as Western Spring always advises, we must not put our trust in electoral politics alone for the survival and eventual recovery of our race and nation. Only nationalist communities immune from the need to curry electoral favour, and immune too from electoral ups and downs, can do that.
By Frederick Dixon © 2019
# # # #
JOIN WESTERN SPRING
Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:
[contact-form to=’[email protected]’ subject=’Membership Enquiry’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Phone No.’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Postal Address’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Post Code’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
# # # #
Jock Lewes
- Edit
Welcome back, Mr Dixon. Happy New Year!
The issue of immigration in the context of Brexit has meant two different things.
First, to most leave voters it meant stopping immigration of non-Whites, even though Brexit was a weak tool for achieving this outcome. The British are desperate and clutched at the Brexit straw as a means to stop non-White immigration. I say “stop” deliberately, because that is what millions of us want, even though we know that in practice a total cessation is neither necessary nor even desirable. “Stopping” was the spirit of the Leave vote.
Furthermore, Europe has an increasing proportion of naturalised “Germans”, “Swedes”, “French” and “Italians” who were born in the Middle East, the Indian Sub-Continent and Africa. Leave voters could see that migration from the EU would include a growing number of Mohammeds (etc.) with EU passports. Many of these acquired EU passports as a means to enter Britain.
I was in London over the New Year and the proportion of poor Romanians, Albanians and others from Eastern Europe, including street beggars, appeared to be markedly larger than it was just a year ago. These people do not fit in; we all know it and many of us would prefer to see their entry restricted to those few who we actually want and need. As well as beggars, there are drug importers, arms smugglers and burglary gangs, all of whom know us as a soft touch with far more money and fewer precautions than potential victims in their homelands.
So, secondly, we voted for Brexit so that we would have the legal right and the physical ability to specify who should cross our borders and the terms under which they entered and remained here.
We have seen the media, politicians and the opinion bloviators trying to crowd out of the Brexit debate all discussion of migration, culture, heritage, Britishness, sovereignty, values and religion with their relentless focus on bare economic issues. “Who would vote against their own economic interests?” they shout at us – as if we were Flat Earthers. Well, everyone who gives money to charities and to good causes, who sends Christmas gifts, who volunteers in their community; we happily vote and act against our personal economic self-interest – because it is in the broader interests of our families, descendants, communities, nation and what we see as a good society.
Frederick Dixon
- Edit
Thanks for the “welcome back” Jock (although I haven’t been far!) And a happy new year to you too. I entirely agree with what you say.
Alec Suchi
- Edit
Mass non white immigration has been continuing in the UK since 1948 and our membership of the European Economic Community occurred in 1973, but many people will link the two events. In the process those people would have voted to leave as a means of expressing their disapproval with the consequences of mass non white immigration and with what is now called the European Union.
The Conservative Party would sacrifice the racial identity of the country in furtherance of the interests of big business, and its “Brexiters” emphasise the importance of trader deals and economic prosperity as the most important issues.
The Labour Party are more inclined to pursue an internationalist agenda in furtherance of its ideology and this would include further mass immigration from outside Europe.
A failure to deliver a meaningful separation from the EU would further undermine faith in the integrity of our political process and a contempt for electoral system