The coming change?

By D. J. Webb

We seem to be witnessing the rebirth of nationalism across the Western world, but it is not an uncomplicated nationalism. How could it be now that our societies have all become multicultural? In the days when there were few immigrants about, nationalism could appeal to the vast majority of the population. Now it could only ever appeal to a section (i.e. part of the “White” electorate), and many “liberals” choose (with a heavy dose of malice and virtue-signalling) to interpret nationalism as fascism, as some kind of menacing threat to minorities already here.

You can’t ever really turn the clock back, and so the chances of creating monocultural societies are vanishingly low. We’re saddled with the legacy of decades of rather stupid policies. These policies were introduced in a manner that specifically sought to change demographic realities in a way that would frustrate any attempt to overturn the “liberal” dispensation.

The result is political confusion. In the UK, the form our nationalist pushback is taking is demanding exit from the EU lest Poles and Lithuanians arrive in greater numbers. I fear this is not well-thought-through. Although a decent education and benefits policy should ensure we needed few migrants, discouragement of our own working class (sitting on the dole and on the “sick”) and an educational policy that churns out millions of people with degrees in political propaganda but nothing useful in the workplace means that we are likely to need a great deal of both skilled and unskilled migration for the foreseeable future. Which migrants should we take?

The think-tankers and wonks (Carswell, Hannan etc) are trying to revive the Anglosphere/Commonwealth. Maybe the Anglosphere means something, but the Commonwealth is not identical to the Anglosphere, and swapping even greater numbers of migrants from the New Commonwealth countries in the place of Poles and Lithuanians is a rather foolish policy, and not one that can make the slightest sense in nationalist terms.

Reading recently that India sees an opportunity to push for more Indian students graduating from UK universities to be allowed to take up work in the UK as the price of freer trade between a post-Brexit Britain and India underlines the folly of this all. Theresa May, in India at the moment, has refused to relax visa rules on Indians as the price of a trade deal, but she has reiterated that nine out of ten applications for immigration from India are already accepted and has stated that the UK intends to continue to source “the brightest and the best” from India. Gasp! Of course, India realizes that the Asianization of Britain is in its long-term interests.

It seems Brexit can be handled by the British elite in a way that leads to greater multiculturalism and not less. Given the fact that Britain will decline as a percentage of the global economy throughout the century, the only decent response to the rise of the non-white world is for the European countries to advance their interests jointly on the world stage. If America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were to abandon their current multicultural policies and redefine themselves as European societies that aimed to retain a European majority, then the Anglosphere and Europe could forge an even better and stronger alliance that could on a sustainable basis defend the rights of all the European countries on the world stage. At present, this outcome seems remote.

A nationalism that fails to recognize the decline of the white world and the common advantage of white nations in forging an alliance simply won’t work. The EU and NATO as they are presently conceived are outdated concepts, ultimately based in the Cold War and US attempts to rally wider European support behind it against Russia. Even today, both of these institutions see anti-Russianism as a key part of their outlook on global affairs.

No one has sat down and asked the question: what will the world look like in 2100? Do we intend any countries to have a European majority by then? Should Western (i.e. European) civilization be maintained at all? Are the common interests of European countries based in a joint promotion of non-Western migration and cultural change? Or should we insist that the non-White world can trade with us, but must accept our rights to our portions of the globe, just as they have theirs?

The US is, of course, the source of the problem, in that a decision was taken in the 1960s to wrap up America as a European country and to encourage all of its allies in Europe to do the same thing. With a majority of births in the US now to non-White mothers, a change is already baked in. America could follow long-term policies of Europeanization, by deporting all illegals who come to the attention of the authorities, deleting all programmes for non-White migration (including family unification, spousal visas and asylum) and by encouraging European migration to the US. But such policies would need to be followed consistently for decades to yield results. What is our strategy for dealing with a France that will once day be majority Muslim? We can’t even discuss these problems, given the continued dominance of the anti-racist narrative in our culture, a dominance that is becoming ever more coercive.

It was always likely that political attention would finally focus on these issues only when the final end-result was already set in stone. Yet if a minority of black people in the US manage to defend their interests by means of racial solidarity, there is no reason why 200m White Americans could not reconceptualize themselves as a racial community with a common identity. From the point today where political discussion is all on how to get black support or Hispanic support, the political parties could be forced into the situation of having to compete for the support of a White community that openly interpreted politics in terms of the advantages to it as a community too. It seems therefore that there is a possibility that the Trump movement could forge a long-term movement for White identity in America. Those who oppose identitarian politics need to explain why identitarianism is fine only when it is restricted to non-White minority groups.

In the UK, the wonkish issue of withdrawal from the EU functions as a nationalist cause, but one that is not explicitly geared to the preservation of European culture in Europe (including Britain). The referendum on Brexit should be followed by one on immigrexit. I want to “exit” the policies of immigration and multiculturalism too.

The Conservative Party is in the way, just as the Republican Party is in the way in the US. Theresa May is thinking of hijacking nationalism and converting it into support for a new and more destructive wave of globalization. I am left hoping that political instability as the existing party structure is openly acknowledged not to suit the current circumstances will play a positive role in all European countries. Yet UKIP’s collapse since June shows that no outfit is yet ready to or even attempting to garner support among the White working class for nationalist policies that go beyond Brexit.

There are two key points underlying all of this. Firstly, that globalization was an outlook that ultimately stemmed from the period of US hegemony in Western politics. The old era is going, and those who are wedded to globalization, including Mrs May’s Asianization policies, may eventually find themselves on the wrong side of history, just as imperialists who tried to hold on to scraps of territory East of Suez were fighting a losing battle. Secondly, Brexit and Trumpism reflect the fact that even the Establishment is not sure of its policy of globalization any longer. In any society, a united and confident ruling class can generally carry all social debate. Somehow society has noticed that the old policies are not working any longer. While many Establishment voices actually oppose EU membership, and even multiculturalism if you listen carefully, and while elite support in the US for Trumpism is greater than might be apparent through a reading of the media, large numbers of officials and large numbers in the professional middle classes who have for decades received their cue from the globalizing elite are trying to hold their existing line.

We need to be clear. Nationalism and opposition to immigration are not divisive. They are potential societal unifiers. It is immigration and multiculturalism that are divisive. But in a world where non-White economies are rising quickly in influence, nationalism only works in the context of a joint European, and preferably Euro-American, enterprise to preserve Western civilization. This is an idea whose time has come, but one-world triumphalism, a legacy ideology, still stands in our way. The anti-Establishment movement at present remains too inchoate to give birth to the general agreement on European survival that is our only way forward—if we get to have a way forward, that is.


  1. “Of course, India realizes that the Asianization of Britain is in its long-term interests.”
    In my judgement, the Indians are more British in manners than modern-day Britons.
    And what will the world look like in 2100? Bloody Afghanistan at this rate! An Islamic Caliphate of some sort, for sure.

    • [quote]”In my judgement, the Indians are more British in manners than modern-day Britons.”[unquote]

      I’ve sometimes had this impression about Indians as well, but I wonder if this is a naive observation? I suspect it is, and that the real reason Indians seem more ‘polite’ and reserved, etc. is due to more complex factors – among other things, their status as a migrant heritage group and the learned deference this has encouraged, supported by the native culture in most areas of India and the influences on it of British administration there. Indians who are here have a need to adopt a strategy that doesn’t make them stand out too much in the way that Moslems do.

      One thing that influences me in this view is an incident that took place when I was hospitalised many years ago. This was an English NHS hospital. A few beds down from me, an Indian gentleman was talking to a younger Indian teenager, who had just arrived in the country. They were talking at such a volume that I couldn’t help but hear them. The older man was carefully explaining to the younger that he would be welcomed in this country and how he could go about taking advantage of the help on offer, including free housing, free education and so on.

      On the other hand, I’ve liked most of the Indian people I have known – one of them, a shopkeeper, helped me when I was being attacked and victimised by a gang of thugs (who were white, I might add). I will always be indebted to him.

      The ambivalent impressions also arise when we consider the East Asians, who are mainly Chinese in this country. They are always seen as quite a benign ethnic group, but I wonder if that is really true? Could it be that our observations are naive and in fact they are not as harmless as they seem, it’s just that they make themselves appear that way?

      I’ve always liked black people and I have always got on well with them. As a teenager, I worked as an engineering maintenance worker on the Tube in London and worked with several black men, and I also lived in a part of London that was heavily black. I never had problems, despite the fact that this was officially the first- or second-most dangerous ward in the UK, with guns, drugs, gangsters, everything – and some of the people I got to know were actual gangsters, yet they never seemed perturbed by my presence and were always unfailing polite to me on the basis that I was, in the words of one of them, “the politest man I have ever met”. On the other hand, I now see that many of my experiences and impressions from back then were quite naive and that I was either not fully seeing things or I was being presented with the positive side of people rather than the full picture.

      • I’ll be brief as I have work to do! When I was a teenager, a friend worked as a bricklayer. He made a throwaway remark which for some reason has always stayed with me; he said that the Indians he worked with were clever and industrious, whereas the Pakis were thick and lazy. I have to say that as a broad generalisation I have to agree with him. Trouble is you can’t always tell them apart by appearance!
        I deal occasionally with the Hindu Indian community in Crawley. They are mostly refugees from Amin’s Uganda, who went to Preston to work in the textile industry before that fizzled out, then migrated to Gatwick airport. They are to a man the most polite and courteous people you will ever meet. That is what I meant when I said they are more British in manners than present-day Britons.
        What I find thoroughly depressing, however, is that the younger generations have adopted the worst habits of the indigenous British youth. They walk like apes and talk like yobs and seem to have abandoned their wonderful culture. So sad.

  2. Good article, but you can hardly describe multi-culturalism as a “mistake”, but we are not allowed on this channel to discuss who engineered the mistake. However, since they remain anonymous for the purpose so this reply, recently I saw a TV programme where they were hard at work seeking common ground with Muslim leaders. I wonder why?
    Multi-culturalism is part of the most serious side of the plan to destroy the nation state. We have “got back” our right to govern ourselves, in theory.. We have recently seen two murders relating to mass immigration. Jo Cox and the Polish chap. Presumably you can only keep oppressing the natives for so long before the safety valve explodes.
    How about the fact that in the face of mass immigration in the East End the famous Cockneys, whom Hitler could not drive out with his bombs, have left!!

    I have been drumming on about the party system for over ten years now,, apparently to no avail, because people still think that UKIP is the answer. All political parties have the same effect on our legal constitution, their presence inside the House of Commons destroys the separation of powers and with it the laws which used to enforce that separation. The fact that the likes of David Cameron and presumably now Stephen Philips QC invoke a clause of the Act of Settlement, (offic eof profit uner the Crown) requires you to resign, is just a useful tool when it suits. Otherwise there would be no party Ministers in the House of commons, which is as it should be.

    UKIppers presumably think that because they are the good guys with some good motives that they can ignore the fact that they are aiding and abetting and condoning the destruction of our legal constitution.
    If you think UKIP is against immigration you would be wrong. Nigel has said so.(see Farage versus Brons on youtube) Built into their constitution is the outlawing of discrimination. Discrimination is to my mind the exercise of liberty in order to protect my cultural identity. The only way to now control immigration is to hand back to the native British/English their right to peacefully discriminate, a right which was viciously removed under a series of laws.That was an abuse of the rule of law if ever there was one. No major political party will do that and certainly not UKIP, which means that immigration will continue unabated, not least because we have two years before Brexit arrives, if ever. How many immigrants can then flood in during that period?

    The major party politicians should be charged with inciting racial hatred. When I sat in the Mall in 1953 at the Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Under a young Queen who promised to “govern according to our laws and customs”. and In spite of a serious war we were still a united people and largely white. Little did we suspect then what was being planned for us in the ensuing decades by politicians, many of whom were refugees and received our succour and hospitality , only to turn on us to destroy us..

    • Nobody is going to hand anything back to us. UKIP and other political groups are just a means to an end. They are not the ‘solution’, they are just what we have available to us at the moment.

      The basic problem here is that almost-all white people are trapped in the prison of moral signalling and wanting to be seen as a ‘Right-thinking Person’. UKIP is an expression of this tendency and is as near as the ethnic British are willing to go at this point in time in expressing any collective interest as an ethnic group in their own right. One UKIP activist I know spends his time organising photo opportunities for a local Sikh man who happens to be in the Party. This is in an effort to make UKIP appear something other than ‘racist’ and ‘nasty’. This moral signalling is quintessentially white, though it also has its versions in other races. The circumstances of a family, job and financial obligations are also a factor, preventing the individual from speaking out.

      In making your own comments, you hide behind a pseudonym, or you have at least omitted to reveal your surname. I, at least, hide behind no-one, but even I have my limits – I will not damage the Libertarian Alliance or the livelihoods of Dr. Gabb and other writers on here (including one or two people I dislike) by spouting off about socially controversial subjects. If I want to do that, I can do it elsewhere – and you can be sure I will do it under my own name, and if there are consequences, I will face the music without the slightest murmur or complaint.

      Too many white people see this as a ‘moral’ issue. It isn’t. Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, it is moral, but the moral basis of the argument has to be non-Christian. There is morality in wishing to fight for one’s own existence, and by extension, the existence of one’s tribal group, but this is a materialistic/mechanistic and Darwinist morality. You never hear the Catholic Church urging individuals to commit suicide, so why do they want us to commit auto-genocide as a civilisation? Surely the same logic applies, and actually, I think it does, even within Christian morality – the sedavacantists are in the right wood, even if they are barking up the wrong tree: the Pope isn’t Christian, even if he is debatably Catholic.

      To a non-white person in Britain, the moral equation is simple because the prevailing modernist (liberal) Christian orthodox morality favours human fungibility and this has become what is meant by ‘equality’. Of course, this moral argument is a bogus rationalisation that conceals an anti-white racial agenda.

      To combat this, we either have to engage in moralising ourselves, in an effort to persuade the ordinary public that there is a socially-acceptable rationalisation for ethnic and racial preservation, or we have to abandon the moral narrative entirely and simply state the truth: that we have the right to fight for our existence.

      None of that is to say I completely reject Christian morals. Perhaps I could digress a little and give you my brief thoughts on the meta-moral questions? Though I am not a believer myself, I think there is great ethical wisdom in the authentic Christian message, and in its secular outgrowths: socialism and Marxism. For instance, I regard the Biblical maxim that the highest shall be the lowest and the lowest shall be the highest, as the basis of civilisation – a white civilisation. An all-white society would very likely be ethically socialistic. Where Christianity morality (and socialism, etc.) falls apart is at the point that it becomes a rationalisation for civilisational suicide, as it is today. You can’t have equality between people who are unequal in the first place.

      • Tom,
        Most of my past posts have been with my full name. I am not hiding anything I just happened to have slipped into using Martin. When I was asked to desist I was using my full name.My most humble apologies. However, I am already on the Gestapo files so why worry.

        You are not right in one thing. UKIP is not all that we have. It may be that a few more people have found the bottle to stick their heads above the parapet but they are pretty cowardly because they are terrified of being called “racist”. Nigel Farage only recently boasted that he “single-handedly killed off the BNP” These were the people who were prepared to stick their necks out come what may and endure for decades the brick bats and violence while the rest were cowering
        safely in the other parties. So, why were ex BNP etc beyond the pale as far as Farage was concerned. I am advised that UKIP arrived as a serious contender just when the BNP was rising in the polls. Draw your own conclusions. I will tell you something else. Somebody has the names and addresses of just about every decent patriot in this country and that somebody was an anonymous person in UKIP head office.
        At the last election I spoke briefly at a hustings even though having withdrawn as an Independent (I was up against a good UKIP man) and I warned the audience that political parties are very dangerous. They are dangerous for the reasons outlined above but also because they remove from the individual the freedom to say “no” I don’t want this policy.
        At election time you are FORCED to vote for one or other of the manifesto “packages”. Your vote implies that you consent to the whole “package” even though you may not realise it. Wrapped up in all the benign policies are the nasty ones and you may not opt out. That is a very clever totalitarian concept and it fools most people. It is called “party democracy” or “parliamentary democracy”
        Freedom is the “ability to accept or reject ONE policy at a time.It is called “control”. Compare the two? With that freedom squashed, voting for any party, including the BNP, is dangerous. By voting for any party you surrender control.

        Only an Independent candidate is the safe answer.
        First,your vote resides in his/her custody to be used with judgement and with regard to liberty. With the party candidate your vote transfers automatically to the party of that candidate and the party candidate is sworn to obey the party line.
        Try writing to your party MP and see what help you get. The reply is the party line.

        Second,you commence the re-separation of powers intended under the Act of Settlement 1701. In the days of the King Executive it was designed to prevent the King interfering with the House of Commons and separation of powers.
        The party system (democracy) automatically puts the Executive inside of and in control of the House of Commons. If you go to my website you will find the evidence.

        Why are the party whips deemed less dangerous to our liberty than the King? Simply because they are tied up with this dangerous fiction of choice at election time and “the will of the people” and “parliamentary democracy”.

        • I will tell you why the BNP is or was ‘beyond the pale’ as far as UKIP is concerned; it is because a person’s race, ethnicity, skin colour, what have you, is a matter of supreme importance to the BNP. To UKIP it is a matter of supreme indifference.
          I agree with what you say about the party system – MPs now owe their allegiance – their careers at any rate – to the Party rather than to the voters.

          • Ok Hugo.
            In that case why was UKIP pretending that it would do something about immigration if there was that supreme indifference? Since even die hard commentators admit that immigration was a significant factor in the Brexit result then in that respect UKIP is a con. I admit that one cannot avoid recognising that it played a significant part in obtaining the Brexit vote. I fought with the local group and this is not a criticism of the local activists other than their misguided allegiance to a party.

            If replacing the native people of England,indeed promoting “the others” instead of our people via hostile legislation and quotas is of supreme indifference to UKIP (the points system does not discriminate on grounds of ethnic origin and nor do they) then UKIP must be a con. Clearly it is money talking, the needs of business not the people which prevails. Nigel poses as a champion of the people? UKIP is going to con the Labour supporters of the north into thinking they are different to Labour. That was Steven Woolfe’s gambit until he showed his true colours and fallibility.

            Who we are is fundamental to everything and our history and being blessed with the most wonderful natural barrier in the world once made us so? This does not say that some immigrants do not appreciate what they have got and become model citizens but on whose behalf is our Parliament governing?*** The sheer unending volume means we are now a divided nation thanks to our main party politicians, when in the 1950s we were not. ” a nation divided against itself cannot stand”.
            Why would native born English politicians do this to us? Fear. Fear of whom or what?
            ***If one visits the Oxford Union 2014 immigration debate on youtube one hears Godfrey Bloom, Douglas Murray and a certain ex-immigrant now Tory MP with a name something like Zadawi. Listen to his reply in the debate. He doesn’t thank the English people for everything he has he thanks the system.
            Above all he thinks that replacing the descendants of those English who built our great nation (us and our children) with more of his kind that somehow everything will be dandy.

            • UKIP was not ‘pretending’ it would ‘do something about’ immigration. UKIP’s policy was, and is, to CONTROL immigration. That means admitting those who would be of benefit to the country and keeping out those who would not.
              And yes, race, ethnicity and skin colour are utterly irrelevant to the above if you ask me.
              If you ask a BNP member you would probably get a different answer.

              • Hugo, are you not using exactly the same type of specious argument as Zadawi. He said “immigration is good for the “economy” you are saying it is good for “Britain”. Who in Britain is it good for? Why is turning parts of England into Third World ghettoes good for the English? Or is this not only “rubbing our noses in diversity” (Blair) but punishing the third or fourth generation for our ancestors having having had an Empire. Where do your allegiances lie? We have an unavoidable time bomb sitting under us, it is called their birth rate.
                If that Empire was as evil as people make out, why are all these people rushing in our direction?

                • I am not saying anything of the sort. If you wish to disagree with me that is fine, but please have the courtesy to disagree with what I am saying, not with whatever words you choose to put in my mouth.
                  You’re as bad as my wife!

              • Do you not think that UKIP might be pushing this line so it can at least confront pro-migration arguments in terms (still) palatable to the general public, whilst the likes of Farage recognise the need to maintain some degree of ethnic purity in the UK, which the media would (by default) lambast as “racist”?

                • No, I do not think UKIP is ‘pushing a line’. I think we actually believe what we are saying – that it is in our country’s interests to allow a certain amount of selective immigration – at any rate I believe it. I know that is a novel concept but indulge me.

                  • Yes, but we’re talking about tens of thousands… I certainly think they have changed their tune in the recent years and have begun emphasising the virtues of Commonwealth immigration to deflect the “racism” charge the media constantly brought up when discussing the topic.

                    • Who is talking about ‘tens of thousands’? Not I. The ‘virtues of Commonwealth immigration’ as you put it, is an antidote to the current situation whereby we fall over ourselves to accommodate the world’s undesirables and to keep out the good people of the Anglosphere. Bulgarian doctors are permitted to practise exempt from any test of their medical and language skills. It is illegal to test a Bulgarian doctor on his English language skills, yet doctors from Australia and NZ have to pass just such a test, which is clearly arse about face. We are insitutionally incapable of deporting criminals and ne’er-do-wells from the EU and the less salubrious parts of the world, even when they are sponging off us and attacking us. Yet we routinely hear of South Africans, Canadians etc who are ruthlessly deported because they haven’t filled in some damn stupid form correctly or submitted it ten minutes late. It makes me sick.
                      I began to write on the subject of ‘immigration’ an hour ago but my computer suddenly died and I lost it all – briefly, ‘immigration’, like ‘crime’, is not an abstract concept. Crime is committed by criminals, and immigration consists of people who wish to come here.
                      My view is as simple as can be – if somebody wants to come to England, and if his presence will, on balance, be a benefit to the country, we should admit him. If not, we should keep him out. Seemples!

          • It is for that reason that UKIP is at best an interim agent of change. Whilst I could see Farage as a very respectable PM, the party itself may have a more limited shelf life.

  3. Excellent piece, and I agree that the last thing we should be aspiring to do is replace white European migrants with non-whites from the Commonwealth. Migration as a whole is in need of circumscription, subsidised as it has been hitherto.

    The notion of preserving our own space whilst continuing to trade at arms length is also important to dismissing claims that this entails ‘isolationism’.

  4. [quote]”Now it could only ever appeal to a section (i.e. part of the “White” electorate), and many “liberals” choose (with a heavy dose of malice and virtue-signalling) to interpret nationalism as fascism, as some kind of menacing threat to minorities already here.”[unquote]

    The author of this piece, in a different thread, stated that any discussion with me is a waste of time because my website, according to him, “promotes neo-Nazism”. Unfortunately, moral signalling is a quintessential white trait, but I think the “liberals” are correct. Nationalism is a “menacing threat” to minorities already here, and they are aware of this, which is why they vociferously oppose any attempt to shift politics in even the most weak nationalist direction – witness the bitter opposition to UKIP, a relatively moderate party.

    These issues will only be resolved when a critical mass of white people resolve to abandon ‘morality’ and defend their people (race) and the civilisation the European Race has spored.

    As for identitarianism, I am highly ambivalent about it. Indeed, the whole matter puts me in a quandary. I can see the logic of identitarianism, but at the same time, isn’t the white melting pot idea exactly what got America into this mess in the first place? That being the case, why would we British be keen to emulate their mistake?

    Political, military, economic and cultural association between white nations is one thing, but subsuming national identity to a white racial identity is just a form of multi-culturalism and results in a cultural desert, as has happened in North America. The Quebec in Canada, who have managed to resist the European melting pot in the rest of white North America, have retained a strong national identity that is implicitly white. I think that is the way to go. Of course, we are all Europeans, but our ethnic identity is the most important, I think.

    I also think there are benefits in ethnic competition between white nations that retain robust national identities. I doubt we Europeans would be as great if we had gone down the road of Africa and turned ourselves into borderless, tribal societies on the basis that “we’re all the same”.

  5. Final comment to strike a bit of balance? Years ago at a Tory Conference in Brighton the TV showed an Indian gentleman calling for the restoration of the English constitution!! I was of course delighted that anyone was publicly doing so. I was ashamed that it was not an Englishman but I also recognised this gentleman had probably acquired constitutional knowledge as a result of our rule in India. I fully agree that very often the Indians behaviour puts our some of the native British to shame. Th dumbing down of our society is surely thanks to a series of governments and their egalitarian policy?
    In reply to Tom’s complaint. Excuse me, I didn’t really put words in your mouth, Admittedly I used the word “Britain” and you used the word “country” but the collectivist concept is the same. Mr Zadawi said he owed everything to this “country” when he should have said “the English”.
    Control of immigration still means you are replacing (!!)native people with foreign people, does it not? Once again, you, UKIP, and Mr Zadawi are talking money not ethnic preservation.Mr Zadawi, now firmly established clearly thinks that the English would benefit by being replaced( that word again) by more of his kind.

Leave a Reply