Riots and Revelations

The situation in Britain now is so perverse that, if you could convey it to people from a century ago, I think they, after getting over the disbelief and astonishment and accepting that this really was true, would assume it could not possibly have come about by chance. Whatever their complaints about the Britain of 1900, they wouldn’t have believed it capable - on its own - of the degeneration we have seen. They would insist that it must have been wickedly subverted, every failsafe removed, and entire systems of governance, culture and morality repurposed, made to achieve the opposite of their purported function.

I hardly need list the symptoms of this, but for the sake of posterity…

• The control nexus (of which the government is merely one node) ships massive numbers of unassimilable foreigners into the country against the repeatedly expressed wishes of the natives, and in clear violation of their best interests.

• Natives who complain about this are hounded, doxed, demonised, made unemployable, and often imprisoned.

• Their children are systematically indoctrinated by fiction media to accept their dispossession. They are encouraged to despise the “bigoted” attitudes of their parents and grandparents, and to loathe their nation’s history. The boys are encouraged to idolise non-native men. The girls are encouraged to race-mix with them.

• Teachers deliver the same indoctrination in the classroom - in every classroom. You won’t be allowed to become a teacher unless you voice enthusiasm for such things. Alternative views have been eradicated from the classroom and the lecture hall.

• Natives are systematically disadvantaged in numerous sectors of education and employment.

• Natives are demonised in fiction and news media while non-natives are made to look wonderful.

• The mass sexual abuse of native children by non-natives is systematically down-played by news media, who shift discussion to false “equivalents”.

• Natives’ history is systematically distorted in education and fiction media.

• The very existence of the natives, as a group, and their ownership of their homeland, are systematically denied by education, fiction media, news media, and phoney “science”.

• The police do whatever they are told to do, kneeling for the participants in one riot, hunting down the participants in a different riot.

• Judges pass obviously outrageous prison sentences upon certain people, for blatantly political reasons. These people are denied bail and pressured to plead guilty for fear of sentences even more outrageous. All of this is to send a message to other people: “don’t dare complain or the same will happen to you”.

• The media rushes to concoct fake narratives about events, to keep the public misinformed.

• A so-called “charity”, which is heavily linked to the government and the civil service, seeks to indoctrinate the young and ruin the lives of “troublemakers”, and actively aids the government in concocting fake narratives in order to control public thought and direct events.

• Fake news from such Establishment agents is forgiven, fake news from the Establishment’s enemies is answered with threats of prosecution.

• The media “memory hole” stories of appalling violence by non-natives, explain away such incidents with talk of mental illness, tell natives “don’t look back in anger”, and at all costs defend the suicidal ideologies that make such incidents possible.

• The prisons are emptied of rapists, child molesters and murderers so that troublesome natives can be assigned their cells. They are placed alongside non-natives who might well be violent to them, and journalists gloat about it.

• The slaughtering of three little girls by a non-native is dismissed by the Prime Minister, who says “it doesn’t matter” that the rioting was a response to this outrageous crime, which was enabled by the outrageous government policies that the natives have been complaining about for decades. Their shock, their trauma, their resentment, their dignity, their pain… “doesn’t matter”. This is in stark contrast with how he reacted to Black people rioting several years before.

• The natives’ freedom of speech is continually undermined, one government after another actively seeking to erode it further.

• Not one single organisation is fighting for the wellbeing, rights or interests of the natives.

• Any political party that would do anything about any of this is refused the right to stand in elections, debanked, demonised and, in most cases, destroyed.

Any one of these examples would, in itself, be cause for great alarm. The whole lot together indicate a society that is not just largely, not just fundamentally, but wholly opposed to the continued existence of its native population. To underline: British society is actively perpetrating the destruction of the native British people.

It has been said that the ruthless authoritarian response of the fledgling Starmer government to this summer’s (White) riots is a “mask off” moment for the Labour Party. Others have called it a “mask off” moment for the British Establishment, which transcends the particular party in office. Indeed, things that didn’t happen under the Conservatives have suddenly happened under Labour; things that one would more neatly associate with the former have instead happened under the latter. That can only mean either that the Labour Party has utterly lost its sense of itself, or that the particular party in office simply doesn’t matter, because the Establishment abides.

I think, in fact, all of these statements are true. It has been a “mask off” moment for the Labour Party, and for Keir Starmer himself, and for the Establishment which enables and directs them. The Labour Party has lost its sense of itself - or, to put it less romantically, has been completely repurposed. And the Establishment does abide; no matter which party is in office, things only ever evolve in one direction. And after all, while Starmer’s behaviour casts a bad light on him, he is only Prime Minister in the first place because the Establishment wanted him, not someone who might have reacted to these riots in a different manner. (Boris Johnson is good at stoking war abroad, but not so willing to stoke it at home.)

But in the end it doesn’t really matter. We don’t need to pin the blame on Starmer, Labour, the British Establishment or Davos; they are all one and the same miasma. Yes, the Conservative Party might have reacted differently to the riots, so to some extent we can blame Labour’s ideology or Starmer’s personality, but the pendulum is kept swinging for a reason. One empty suit is shifted out, another is shifted in. Each one might be enthusiastically on-board with the agenda or compelled to go along with it, this being the only variance. And thus the Establishment abides, always getting what it wants against the wishes of the natives, and always degrading and dispossessing them.

---

With the mask now “off”, we are reaching a new level of clarity regarding our situation - what it is, how it was created, how it was advanced through the decades, and why. Liberals are utterly unfit for receiving this clarity. Conservatives, even more so. I’m not sure who, beyond ardent burnt-out nationalists like myself, will be able to accept it. Even many nationalists will struggle, though we love our country and our people, against the vicious reality of what has been done.

None of it was accidental. If an untrained, uneducated and unworldly ordinary person could accurately predict how it would play out - and many did - then the trained, educated and worldly people at “the top” of British society certainly could. The idea that they acted out of naivety has been a comfort for many of us, but must be discarded. If there is incompetence, it is at least equalled by malice. The inescapable fact is, Britain was destroyed from the top, with clear appreciation of the very end from the very start. It cannot have been any other way, for the simple reason that men at that level are not morons.

The question, then, is why they went along with it. Here it is important to bear in mind the wider context. What happened in Britain happened also in Sweden, in France, in America, in Italy, in Denmark, in Australia and Canada and New Zealand and Belgium. Therefore it would be foolish to look for specific causes within Britain itself. Within each country, what we will find is defeated obstacles to the programme, not successful causes of it. The thing itself originates nowhere and everywhere.

A screenshot from Google Streetview, literally found upon my first random click on the map of Britain

Upon the soul-crushing landscape of 2024 Britain - car parks, vape stores, kebab shops, migrant hotels, glass and steel monsters, mosques that used to be churches, parks where foreign men ply virginity from White girls in exchange for a bag of chips - the grand narrative of the 20th Century becomes clear: it was the century in which a civilisation was weaponised against the very people who created it. The civilisation was on its descent anyway, but on the journey downward its reins were seized and it was transformed into a system for transforming people into human mulch. This was an attempt to ensure that Europeans could never be powerful again - because they would no longer exist. They, not their civilisation, were the problem to be solved.

This would be achieved by placing massive numbers of non-whites in every White country, forbidding the Whites from complaining about it, encouraging the foreigners to approach White women, encouraging White women to acquiesce, and extolling the junk science of “hybrid vigour”.

Alongside that “positive” strategy has been a “negative” strategy: discourage the producing of White children. This has been achieved with an array of lifestyle choices and ideologies: gay, trans, go childless, consumerism, feminism, climate change. Since non-white people are largely impervious to such “causes”, each one is effectively a death ray that shoots through the population but only affects the White people. To use such weapons while simultaneously filling the place with non-white people can only result in replacement.

---

For all that Winston Churchill was a warmonger, a drunkard, a fool and probably a sort of psychopath, and for all that he opposed the Aliens Act in 1904 (due to philo-Semitism), I believe he did care about Britain, in his own way. Otherwise, he would not have opposed mass immigration in the 1950s.

In 1955, he supposedly wanted to use the election slogan “Keep England White”. This is disputed, but if he didn’t say those exact words, he might as well have done. It is obvious that he opposed mass immigration of non-white people into Britain. Setting aside his professed beliefs about racial hierarchy, he also opposed it on pragmatic grounds (as did his grandson forty years later, incidentally). Ian Gilmour reported that Churchill said to him in 1955:

I think it [immigration] is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice.

Clearly then, even by 1955, the question of immigration had been, at a very high level, “settled”. This happened at a level above even the Prime Minister (since he didn’t know it had happened) and filtered down to government ministers so that everyone “understood”. If this were not so, Churchill would have had success in engaging them on the matter. Indeed, he would not have even needed to do so, since they would have been clamouring to discuss it and resolve it. Yet they weren’t doing so, and, when Churchill tried to animate them on it, they turned away.

There is no reason why Churchill would have had unique insight into the social anthropology of ordinary people. Indeed, given his elite social status, there is every reason to the contrary. Yet apparently none of his cabinet could see that mixing huge numbers of very different people would result in conflict. Of course, they did see, and knew they weren’t allowed to talk about it - the African elephant in the room. Dotty old Winston just hadn’t got the memo. Neither had Conservative MP Cyril Osborne:

But Osborne was only a standard politician, so wouldn’t be subject to a consensus which, at that time, perhaps only applied to members of the cabinet. But, after Churchill’s time, that consensus would predominate over all of Britain’s mainstream politics.

He was three years dead when, in 1968, Enoch Powell broke rank and gave his famous speech, with which 74% of the public agreed. In response, the Conservative Party hobbled Powell’s career and made sure he would never become Prime Minister. It seems likely then that, by 1968, the Conservative Party was controlled by globalist powers. Given Churchill’s remark, this might have already been true by 1955.

The story of the Labour Party is less clear. They officially opposed mass immigration until the 1980s, bringing in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 and supporting the Immigration Act 1971, but opposed “anti-colour legislation” in 1962. The arrival of the “New Left” into the party in the 1970s did away with any remaining racial loyalty to the British people, and the disastrous results were seen as soon as that generation took office in 1997.

The European Coal and Steel Community existed from 1952 but was superseded by the European Economic Community in 1958, which was superseded by the European Union in 1993. The United Nations and UNESCO were both founded in 1945.

But as the world grows grimmer, one thing that becomes clear is that democracy is a mirage, and politics has - since the fall of aristocracy - been ever more subordinated to global finance. Therefore the development of globalist governmental bodies like the EU might be less important than the emergence of the World Economic Forum, in 1971.

I don’t believe the WEF is a deciding agent, but it is a useful instrument for those who are. (Why else would it have been created?) Somebody should take the time and spend the money to uncover the truth - if this is possible - of what really was said behind closed doors between 1945 and 1971. But after 1971 it is all quite out in the open, and little research is necessary since the pronouncements, while producing a mottled picture at first, were public and the picture becomes clearer by the year as they were ever more honest, eventually stating outright that wholesale erasure of the native populations of all European countries is, if not desirable and wonderful, a matter of zero import.

But, again, nobody intelligent and connected enough to make such a decision can be ignorant of the consequences of such a decision. If you have the power to authorise, promote and facilitate mass population transfer from the Third World to the First, then you are bound to have the requisite learning to be fully aware of what people from the Third World are like, and therefore that they will severely degrade the societies to which you are importing them. I can believe that Bono is a useful idiot, but those who use him are not. And again, if they really are idiotic, then why is the man on the Clapham omnibus so much wiser? It doesn’t wash. They must have known - from the very start.

Britain’s descent from imperial power to proud secondary nation was probably inevitable, but its descent to “rape-ridden Third World hellhole with wifi” was not. It was desired, designed, and pre-ordained.

The White working-class would find their areas flooded with racial foreigners, their girls given over to them, the fathers punished for trying to intervene, and their “ignorant” culture demonised.

The White middle-class, too, would be herded into the mixing chamber, never to be seen again - led by notions of open-mindedness and “sophistication”, tricked by their own snobbery into becoming something to which the lowliest chav would feel superior.

The Anglo-Saxons, the Celts, the Swabians, the Corsicans, the Frisians… all these beautiful products of evolution and struggle would be mixed back into the primordial goo of general, undifferentiated, unexercised, nondescript humankind. And thus the distillations of a hundred millennia would be undone.

At some point, maybe in the early 1950s or the late 1940s, I can imagine an English civil servant at a meeting somewhere, realising the nature of the programme and the power behind it, realising what was going to be done to his people and that he was powerless to stop it, and being utterly shocked - thunderstruck at the horror, at the enormity of the evil. Perhaps there were a thousand such men at such meetings, each discovering at his appointed time that a diabolical century-long scheme was being hatched, and each powerless to do anything but go along with it. If such men existed, none of them ever made a single public statement about what was going on, so we can make an assumption: either nothing was going on, or they were absolutely terrified. Well, something must have been going on.

But these terrified men would soon, under orders, reshape the cultures of institutions such that their type, upon retirement, would be replaced by a very different type. These new bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats and ambassadors, would not be shocked by the programme, but brazenly complicit in it. In turn, they would change things so that their successors were not shameless sociopathic liars like them, but unthinking true believers like Keir Starmer.

Thus must have dawned the age of traitors… and that has been the age ever since.

It must have happened like this, because it could not have happened by accident. Nobody is that incompetent, nobody is that blind, nobody is that stupid. It is a testament to the good will and simple nature of ordinary people that they can believe such things of their leaders. But that good will must run out, and soon. And that simple nature must be redirected, made fit for purpose in an age in which the step-mother is trying to murder the children.