Time to Stop Giving Ground

By Jane Everdene :

Have you noticed how all you need to do to get accused of being a “racist” is to voice any opposition to “multiracialism”?

How can any ethno-nationalist possibly avoid committing this grave crime?

First things first: our answer should not be to agree with multiracialism!

No, we are Nationalists and we believe in the racial and ethnic identity of our folk as a permanent feature. This is not open to watering down or compromise.

We believe that our culture is a product of our race, blood and DNA. It can be tampered with by perverted fashions – and our culture is grossly distorted right now – defiled by outsiders and a hostile elite. But the essential flavour of a culture is determined by the character of the people in that time and place. Change the people and you change the culture. Replace the people of China with Australian Aborigines for instance and you can picture that the prevailing culture of China would be transformed.

The demographics of Britain are changing. The indigenous White population is decreasing as a consequence of our non-replacement birth rate. Many British women are having mixed race children. Meanwhile, we suffer mass immigration. Quickly, at a historically unprecedented speed, White Europeans in the world are being racially replaced by a hotch-potch of non-European immigrants or colonists.

As this happens, crime and conflicts increase and we fear the possibility of civil war at some point within a few decades.

Perhaps this will not happen. Perhaps we will solve the problem by re-asserting ourselves as the majority deserving primacy of place, or perhaps we will sadly fade away like the dimming flame of a spent candle.

We should not be planning for the latter scenario!

We should not contemplate shaking the hands of those who so arrogantly aspire to replace us, asking them that the process may be as painless and congenial as possible.

How can a people with any pride delude ourselves that somehow our nation will continue as the British after our race replacement is complete? Surely to even begin to think like that is treason, and a betrayal of the sacrifices of our loving ancestors who raised large broods of children in conditions of poverty and fought in wars to give us a chance to keep the folk going, and who even aspired to greater glory. And surely our surrender will mean unimaginable horror for our future generations?

It is not acceptable to live as cowards, living our lives in denial of the tragic consequences that such surrender would bring.

To protect our folk from harm we have to discriminate friend from foe; who is one of “us” and who is one of “them”.

In the natural order of life, various groups compete for land, resources and other interests. Even where cooperation is possible, and desirable, no group will survive who puts themselves at a consistent disadvantage. There is such a thing as success and such a thing as losing.

For us to lose our country, and we have already lost it in terms of being in government and ruling our own national destiny, is terrible enough – but to become a minority at the tender mercies of a foreign influx and lacking a sense of our own tribal identity, means death. Which is why we must think at group level and not at the level of the individual.

To declare that we no longer see a person’s race and collective identity, but to treat everyone as an isolated personality, as “Fred Bloggs” judged purely on our interactions with them, is to also lose our own place within society.　Any society depends upon a cohesion based on in-group and out-group dynamics.

In today’s Britain, race is a big reality. Race is a factor in most news stories we read or watch in the mainstream media. In some ways this is good. We can find out who is causing problems and who is blamed for them (and apply our group discrimination to help us understand this and be safe).

If we are not aware of the race of people involved in various incidents, we miss vital clues as to the reason why such a thing has happened.

On the down-side, the slant in the media is all too often about putting down “Whitey” and glorifying non whites and racial mixing. In some countries in Europe there is even less revealed about racial replacement or crime than here in the UK.

The Swedish media talks about the alarming increase in honour killings by “Swedish men” for example and will not so much as call them “Asian” let alone “Muslim”. Similarly for rape and other crimes which are disproportionately racially divided.

In France, race is kept out of the census and the French do not allow the kind of racial profiling questionnaires we have in the UK. As a result, the massive number of Africans and other non-Whites in France is kept rather shady. Some guess can be made by noting the high incidence of a disease such as sickle cell anaemia in the Paris suburbs.

Statistics showing the extent of racial replacement are vital to those of us who need to warn about the falling proportion of White people. When such statistics are not mentioned, the intention is to infer that racial realities should not be of any concern to us at all. Of course racial profiling can be used by those representing the immigrants as well – so that they can point to where they feel they are being discriminated against, however the point has now been reached where these incomers are now so well established that it would be better for them, and serve their interests best by saying that “race doesn’t exist”, so that statistics can no longer be used as a tool to alarm and awaken the White population.

The term “racist” is used to trigger a kind of Pavlovian conditioning that associates nationalism and racial loyalty with ideas that are completely negative and hostile.

We need to neutralize the word “racism” through a process of “reclaiming” the word for ourselves.

As we all know this has been a successful tactic used by homosexuals who now call each other “queers” or “queens” etc., with affection rather than allowing such words to only be used by those whose intention is to insult. This tactic empowers homosexuals.

Similarly Blacks have reclaimed the ‘N’ word which they use freely and in a friendly way towards each other, although they still scream in horror if anyone of any other race uses that word.

If the word “racism” was reclaimed and defined simply as “racial loyalty”, then we could slap each other on the back and quip, “Hello you old racist!” with carefree abandon. That achievement would show that being racially loyal is nothing anyone should be ashamed of.

What we absolutely should not do, is to allow that word to continue to hurt us and make us to abandon racial loyalty. People admire strength and confidence and our cringing at such a small and ill-defined epithet “racist!” makes us look weak and silly. We should shrug off the negative implications of that word and take pride in others perception of our racial loyalty.

The multiracial perspective is that race should not matter to anyone, yet in reality this is a lie they don’t even believe themselves. It is merely a trick, because multiracialism is really a code word for “anti-White”. The multiracialist is not interested in the indigenous British population – the multiracialist is concerned primarily with benefiting non-Whites.

There is no nice way to tell them to cease and desist. The need to be rude and ruffle a few feathers really is called for here! Afterwards, when we have re-asserted our primacy in our own land, then we can explain to them how sorry we are if we have hurt their feelings. Politeness can be afforded then. But in the meantime, we must ASSERT our right to life, not ASK for it!

# # # #