A White Imperium


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 where served in 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.




One thought on “A White Imperium

  1. MsBridgit says:

    As a distinct race of people we have a problem a very severe problem and In one hundred years our demise as a recognized distinct race of people might well be irreversible. With all the hundreds of thousands of words I have read I have yet to read an article that gives me any hope of salvation, plenty of intelligent words but no answers, articles stating the obvious. The words are endless the phrases beautifully put together but for Gods sake someone give me hope, tell me there is a solution and not just theories. .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s