This is the third section of the scene-setting, opening division of my referendum paper.  It is probably the last section I will post here, at least at this very early this stage in proceedings.

The religious and philosophical antecedents of the political struggle aside, what are we to say about the contesting forces and their respective causes?  Is it even necessary to measure the motivations of a repressive class against the rights and interests of the people it represses, or the expansionist interest of a coloniser against the defensive and life-preserving interests of the people of the land it colonisers?  Would any fair observer dismiss the victim people as consumed with hatred, and label their cause illegitimate on such self-evidently specious and confected moral grounds?  If we do not dismiss the victim people mechanically and out of hand, how can we not find for them?

But such objectivity is entirely missing from the picture.  That entity which the Tories, lost in their petty economism and managerialism, call “consumers”, “tax-payers”, “voters”, and which the Labour Party, lost in its absolutist ideology of sameness, used to call “the workers” and “the masses” but these days calls “racists”, and which nationalists call “our people” (which, of course, is what they are) … that entity bears all the violations … the child-rapes and racist murders and terror outrages, the abuse from creatures damaged by racial self-contempt, the antipathy, betrayal and deceit of successive generations of politicians, the crass social engineering, the totalitarian omerta in the media, the official assault on “ white male hegemony”, the abandonment of white boys in education for the sake of the Other, the catch-all lie of dissent-as-hate, the “service” from the police, employers’ impertinent obsession with what we say outside work, the African faces pushed at us through our TV screens every few seconds, the sheer unrelenting and unlimited extent of the change to our towns and cities ... all this they ... we ... bear with tact, grace, and an obdurate stoicism.

These are true signs of who we are.  They are not the signs of a disparate crowd of individuals indifferent to anything that has no pecuniary reward attached to it.  They are not the signs of some too too hideous monster from the history of empire, whose moral nature is shot through with irrational hatred and who has to be got out of the way, basically⁸, so non-white victims everywhere can be freed into the utopian forever-future of racial justice⁹.  Most importantly, they are not the signs of a people buckling under the repression and blanket propaganda.  They are the signs of a people of the highest moral quality.

For sure, tact and grace are receptive feminine virtues, and do not contain the reactive and assertive energy, the recoil, to make change.  But stoicism is a male virtue, and it signals that many blows have had to be absorbed but not a single backward step has been taken¹⁰.  It is a quiet and unfussy, prominent part of the native character.  It is the modern equivalent of a shield wall.  It produced, for example, the two greatest feats of endurance in British military history, which are the British Army’s long, costly defence of French soil in 1914-18 and, in relative terms, the even more costly offensive of Bomber Command in 1939-45, which for two years after Dunkirk was conducted as the sole means by which this country could carry the fight into the enemy’s home, and which produced negative crew survival rates during the great battles of the air of 1943.  Still they flew.  It is the quality on which we, today, have fallen back in the present unequal and undeclared conflict, while the attack against us grinds onward unopposed and we wait for the means and moment to reply, and to carry our voice, our will, our kinship, our native right, our interests, back into the realm of the political after an absence of several decades.

That is what a referendum, as a clarifying and reforming mechanism, is really for: our reclamation of the political.  That is what those who populate politics today are so afraid of, and with good reason because they cannot defend their own project against our people’s demand for life.  The abstract values they have inhaled from the liberal air, and which they hold to be absolutes, instantly collapse in contact with it.  Likewise, the malign and intellectually featherweight, self-serving ideological ejaculations of the anti-racist left turn to dust¹¹.  It is to be expected.  The demand for a secure existence and a sovereign and free life for our people issues from their possession of life itself and from life’s unquenchable appetite for continuity.  Everything, even the principle of power, even that of human freedom, is secondary to it.  There is no higher cause than this, which is the cause at the heart of ethnic nationalism, and no instance of that cause more just than when the life in question is that of the children of the soil.

And what, in contrast, is the moral quality of the cause of the Establishment, in whose politicians’ gift the granting of a referendum resides?  What moral defence is there for any part of its race project?  Can any Establishment speaker even explain the presence of replacement populations in our home?  Perhaps that was possible in the beginning, when Bernard Montgomery was demanding a standing Army of the Rhine of 500,000 of our young men to confront Soviet expansionism in the west, because labour shortages at home were already chronic.  But in those days we were assured that the imported labour would be returning home as soon as practicable.

That all changed within a single generation.  With Enoch Powell safely marginalised and race relations already an obsession of the political class, we started to be instructed that the West Indian and south Asian populations were now our permanent new “ethnic minorities”, and, in the words of the Conservative Party manifesto for the general election of 1979, “... there can be no question of compulsory repatriation”.  By the mid-80s Roy Hattersley, then Labour deputy leader, was touring local radio stations to announce that this was now a multicultural country.  Not a sound from the Thatcher government was heard.  It was all agreed.  Prior to the London terror attacks of 7th July 2005, when fifty-two people lost their lives, nearly every senior politician of all the parties would solemnly inform us how “Diversity is our strength”.  That lie rarely passes their lips now, unless they are addressing a non-white audience.  They dare not tell that to us.  They have fallen strangely, uncharacteristically silent.

Indeed, throughout everything no one of any party troubled to explain why this was happening.  There has never been a formal explanation.  Politicians preferred to present the whole thing as some irresistible force of modernity which had to be managed as best it could.  As to its fundamental cause, that could be a gift of the jet engine, as some have argued, or of some timeless and unstoppable, Nature-given human practise of people “moving around the planet” (the current UN and EU narrative of the migrant who, mysteriously, cannot be shut out of European lands, like floodwater at the door), or it could just be the world’s refugees righteously seeking “safety” or asylum, or the world’s poor and the world’s brain surgeons seeking betterment.  It could be any cause, frankly, but that of destructive elites deliberately mixing-up the world’s populations in our home in pursuit of objects too shameful to be allowed into the light.

For the benefit of clarity, these peoples whom they force upon us are, first, replacement populations invited here to settle in our home without end; and, second, transformative populations brought here to gene-kill us by miscegenation.  Their status in our home is not that of an authentic ethnic minority, as we are instructed to think, but a coloniser.  They are not an oppressed victim, either.  An “oppressed minority” which enjoys the unremitting and total support of the government and opposition, the liberal Establishment, the media, the corporate sector, academia, law, and Third Sector is not a victim.  It is a pawn.

Who the chess-player is, exactly … if it has a single identity at all ... we do not formally know.  We can only make educated guesses.  But it’s not the politicians.  They are no better than hired help.  They get a good deal.  As irredeemably self-important beings, they have what they want, which is power over the political life of the nation and potentially a lucrative post-Westminster career.  They have the trappings of that power, perhaps even an office of state and the responsibility that comes with it.  If not, well, there are regular opportunities to display “humanity” before the cameras, perhaps in a refugee camp or in the children’s ward of some inner-city hospital at Christmas time.  Or Eid.  It’s the proven method by which one attains social elevation and the good public opinion of one’s liberal peers.  The speeches in the chamber, the clamour of journalists, the in-fighting, the late-night cutting of deals, the freebies and boondoggles, the whole venal mess … it’s intoxicating and exciting.  It’s a good life for an eager PPE grad from Oxbridge or London South Bank, or wherever.

It is also the true condition of any mediocre individual who lives so much on the surface of things.  The surface, of course, does preclude an holistic sense of the age, and because these people have no holistic sense of the age they are its unquestioning creatures.  In consequence nowhere are there free and creative agents, men and women of a stature sufficient unto the day.  On one side there is a great surfeit of pliant, principle-free drones, small thinkers and careerists given by character and ambition to the management of small things.  On the other there are repressive ideologues with no ideas of their own, creatures of passionate intensity¹³ at war with their natures and ours.  Powerful they may be - as powerful as we are weak.  But this generation of politicians are afraid to look our people in the eye.  They will not speak our name.  They do not ask any question of us.  They do not want answers, because answers would require decisions and decisions actions about matters of concern, matters of existence itself, which they have abjured themselves from ever acknowledging.  It is one of the reasons why their denunciation of nationalists is so rabid and unreasoning.  They are pushing away their own insupportable guilt and hypocrisy.

This is the dysfunctional political class we would have to lead towards giving our people the last thing in this world they want to give us, and to do so in the knowledge that it would likely rock their political lives to their core.  It is a seemingly impossible task.  But now let’s take a look at the matter in detail.

Notes

⁸ For very many of us, the explosion of (what looks very like) primed and purposive white-hatred from Black Lives Matter/Antifa has ripped the carefully constructed mask of “happy, normal diversity” away, and afforded us a glimpse of the implacably violent Jacobin reality.  As Marion Maréchal-Le Pen stated in an interview last month by Voice of Europe, “What is being prepared behind this propaganda is terrifying.”

Further, BLM/Antifa has succeeded in tipping off the natives about the nature of things in a way that Islamic terror attacks and Muslim child prostitution gangs never have.  Until now, apologists for the Establishment race project have more or less succeeded in insulating it from those phenomena.  In the terror case, they have made great show of their remorse for the victims and have talked up the actions of the police and security services.  In the case of the child prostitution, they have imposed a collective silence.  One way or another they have managed to avoid the difficult questions about Islam and the racism and paedophilia in the Muslim colonies.  But it is a radically different story with BLM.  Here the same apologists have positively rushed to “take the knee” and assert how “racism” and “whiteness” must be expurgated from the person of the native British.  Even those Tories who calculate that a public display of submission to Africans might be altogether too “woke” for our people and politically embarrassing are no less forthright than the rest of them in their condemnation of the Original Sin we supposedly bear.

The bearers, meanwhile, see the meaning of all this perfectly clearly, and know that there is a vast lie being promulgated against them.  They sense that the demand being made of us is totally unfounded and impossible to satisfy.  Indeed, the impossibility of satisfying the demand has clear implications for an on-going persecution.  To be exact, it is the demand that we, and we alone, renounce our perfectly normal, perfectly human nature - the given and instinctual in us as in all peoples – and give up our very being.  That stark reality is what the race project actually means for us, as the colonised people; and that is what we, as nationalists, would put to the test should we successfully demand that our people must decide on their own future and not be coerced into silence while the multiracialisation of our home and our consequent endless ethnic decline are engineered.

⁹ The post-racial utopia of the cultural left is only a rendition of Judaism’s struggle for Olam Ha-ba (filtered historically through the medium first of Christianity, then classical liberalism, then the Marxisms).  There is a third version, which is The Globality.  All three are methodologically the same, but service the permanent supremacy of different elites.  Or not entirely different, since Jews are prominent in radical equalitarianism, particularly among its intellectuals, and they are prominent among banking and dateline corporation elites.

Methodologically, there are three pillars to the re-organisation of humanity: law, people, rule.  National legislatures have to be replaced by a supra-national legislature, ethnic homogeneity has to be replaced by panmixia, and self-determination can then be replaced by dictatorship.  All three are mutually supporting, and all three are at an advanced state of realisation in the West, which is the first and last region where the re-organisation has to succeed.  No other region of the planet presents an obstacle to it.  But if it does not succeed here it will not succeed at all.

It should be said that there is no requirement in the Judaic and globalist models for a vertical governmental structure.  National governments can remain, akin in spirit to Ken Clarke’s “parish council”.  Democracy can be paid lip service to.  Politicians can be elected.  But all meaningful decisions would be taken in the internationalist fora without the people’s participation, including matters relating to their own de-naturing and de-ethnicisation, and applied universally.

The triumph of Leave in 2016 rocked the first pillar.  But by itself it could not bring it down.  British politicians are still moving in lock-step with their counterparts across the West, like a murmuration of starlings.  But our destiny is to collapse it all.

¹⁰ When the limit of stoicism is reached action results, that’s the thing.  Thus the high and permanent incidence of city-dwelling natives, often couples with young families, who move out to live in white areas.  Among many who do not or cannot quit the city there is, instead, the struggle to live in the catchment area of a “good” school.  If “racism” was really declining as advertised by the liberal media, we would increasingly be looking upon “diversity” as “our strength” and we would be calling for more and more Third World immigration.  We would be starting to press in on the cities for the express purpose of living with Africans and Asians.  But we’re not.  Nobody is or ever will, and it is beyond the power of the most ideologically anti-racist government to make us want to.

The phenomenon of White Flight falsifies the media claims.  It is the most sincere judgement on the Establishment’s project we an currently make.  Of course, if we can one day secure a referendum ...

¹¹ For example, the old argument that race does not exist, led in the main by American-Jewish academics during the period from the publishing of EO Wilson’s Sociobiology in 1975 to the death of Stephen Jay Gould in 2002, has been falsified by population genetics.  It hangs on, an ideological dead thing, as liberal writ among US professional bodies.  But it has creative power only among ideologues.  It occasionally surfaces on this side of the Atlantic in the anti-racist argument that the English do not exist (an argument also heard among Scottish and Welsh nationalists).  A snide variation is the “Romans, Vikings, Normans” line, occasionally embellished with Huguenots.  Helpfully, the geneticists of the People of the British Isles project demolished that wholesale in a commentary on their work, stating that that Viking and Norman genetic input is negligible.  The argument for Roman genes is so risible it did not even get a mention.

A more common but still related argument, erasing our difference to the peoples colonising and replacing us, is that Africans and Asians become native British merely by being born here.  Like the others, this assertion is completely fact-free.  Probably no one actually believes it, least of all the Africans and Asians.  Mysteriously, it never works in reverse.

Another more common argument among folks who have read the Guardian for far too long is that it’s impossible for us native British, particularly the English, to define ourselves.  The idea here – wholly racist in itself – is that we must produce on demand this supposedly elusive definition in order to lay claim to our existence.  But we can define ourselves by genealogy.  It’s easy:

Subject to gene-flow from neighbouring territories, the native British are the people wholly related to the non-immigrants, non-Irish and non-Jews present in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland on 22nd June 1948, when the HMT Empire Windrush sailed into British territorial waters.

... and anyway the demand itself cedes the argument to us.  By setting the definitional test we must exist if we do indeed self-define, and there is then no argument for us ceasing to exist because it would manifestly be a genocidal argument by its own lights.  The only way out for the frustrated anti-racist is to then argue that not only us but every other native people must forthwith realise that it has no reason to continue existing, and therefore fall into line with “the project”.  Which is obviously a psychotic argument.  Racism or psychosis.  That is the choice to which our political opponents have brought themselves, which is rather glorious.

¹² Ethnic minorities are not generated by acts of political malice.  All around the world an ethnic minority is recognised as a minor, genetically distinct community with a deep, legitimising history on the soil.  In this country only the Irish and the Jews can make such a claim, and possible the Roma who have been here for centuries; though in each case there are counter-arguments.

¹³ Research in 2016 by the media and news analyser, Factiva, revealed that lines from WB Yeats’ famous poem The Second Coming, written in 1919, were sourced for political comment more times in the first seven months of 2016 than in any previous year the company could examine, such was the sense of fear and loathing in the mainstream media.  The short opening verse of the poem contains the vast majority of quoted lines:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.