Why British whites may have no choice but to become ethno-nationalists.
JUPPLANDIA
So the British Labour government are currently funding a campaign to make the countryside less white. In our two largest cities, of course, white people, the native English, are already a minority. White flight from urban areas has been a reality for most of my lifetime. My own parents were Londoners who moved out to the neighbouring county of Essex. Now, it seems, ‘escape to the country’ is also something to be responded to with new waves of propaganda, as well as new waves of unintegrated immigrants.
When my parents were young the area of London they lived in was completely white. Their street did not have a mosque, and the street signs were in English. The people in their area were all English, save for a small number of people who were of Irish descent. That was pretty much it. I remember going back to the area shortly before my mum’s death, in her company. She remembered all the streets and routes of her youth, and could still guide us through them. But she didn’t recognise any of it. What had been an English neighbourhood of an English city was a foreign land. She looked lost and heartbroken.
Of course our leaders and our mainstream viewpoint would just call her a racist. They would say she should have been delighted with this change, or should have simply moved with the times. Well, like many others she did move with the times. Out of a city where white people born there were no longer welcome. If, like many ‘liberals’, you think that’s an exaggeration, see exactly how diversity is celebrated in modern London:
Sadiq Khan, the Muslim Mayor of London, posted the above as a celebration of London’s diversity. Perhaps you too can notice the race which doesn’t feature in this diverse utopia….either in reality, now, or in propaganda celebrating that reality.
This has been the experience of white English people since before Enoch Powell’s infamous Rivers of Blood speech in 1968, six years before my birth. What Powell related in that speech was the experience of English people who no longer felt that parts of their country were known to them, familiar to them, and owned by them. What was demanded, then and now, was that they celebrate their own absence. What was inflicted on them was mass replacement, without their consent, in ways that worsened their experience and denied them the inheritance of a safe and familiar society.
They suffered.
But acknowledging that suffering, and rather accurately warning of future troubles that would result, was treated as a call to bloodshed, when it was the very opposite of that. This represented a moral inversion (where those who would preserve an innocent people are treated as those who would harm everyone else) which set the acceptable and soon mandatory tone for all discussions of immigration that ever followed, including current ones on ICE in the US. Some 58 years later defending your own existing population, if the majority of them happen to be white, is still treated as a moral crime, whilst any amount of betraying them and any amount of vile behaviour from others that arrive in their nations, is not.
The tale of British ‘diversity’ is a tale of dispossession and wilful, deliberate contempt for the suffering of those being replaced, a breathtaking modern irony given that the people supporting this long record of the national betrayal of white populations would be the first to, in an American context or even elsewhere, speak of ‘stolen land’.
The basic reality is that from at least the 1960s on (really from 1945 on) as Empire vanished and mass immigration to Britain started, the land being stolen was ours, and the people being colonised, were us. An experience repeated by every white population in Europe, and only partly disguised by the fact that the middle class of each of these places adopted a posture which declared that welcoming our Replacement was the definition of good, and objecting to it the definition of evil. People knew this was true before I was born, and there have been five decades of ever accelerating replacement since then.
Until the point where our presence, anywhere in our own nation, is deemed problematic, and our money is set aside to change that.
The greatest irony of all this, of course, is that the logic of racial grievance and pride applied on behalf of every other group, is the same logic denied in relation to white people, and that everything we are told that was despicably unforgivable about white behaviour in the past, is applied to white people today.
If it is perfectly normal and legitimate and even noble to say that the countryside is too white, then it must be perfectly normal and legitimate and even noble to say that the cities aren’t white enough. The logic must hold in both directions, or we see what it really is.
If it’s racism towards them that makes non whites feel outnumbered and uncomfortable in the countryside, then it’s racism towards them that makes whites feel outnumbered and uncomfortable in the cities and larger towns. You cannot say that one feeling of discomfort is unjustified, and the other is justified, because they represent the same alienation. Similarly you cannot say that is was wrong for Europeans to invade other lands when their presence was unasked for, and pretend that modern migrant invasions are somehow more asked for. They haven’t been, except by a very narrow class of leadership that feels no kinship with the majority populace.
The entire logic by which anti white policies are pursued actually justify pursuing policies against other races.
Imagine for example a black majority nation where the government spent public money on telling people that parts of the country were still too black. It is inconceivable that this would occur.
Imagine a black majority nation where every historic example of unkindness towards white people was rammed and shoehorned into every bit of the history of that nation. Again, this is astonishingly unlikely.
Or imagine Chinese communist party officials agonising over how they can make the countryside of China more white due to the distressing over representation there of Chinese people. Imagine China presenting the Boxer Rebellion and the Opium Wars exclusively from the perspective of these being crimes from the Chinese against white people. China of course, does the opposite, and despite all their tyranny and evil, have never indulged in an evil which sees being Chinese as a problem.
No black nation does or will ever do this. No other non white nation does or will ever do this (save perhaps with the exception of leftist parties in Israel that excuse Palestinian terrorism).
In cultural policies, in reactions to history, in teaching, in immigration and border policy, and in two tier legal status, employment law and ‘hate crime’ treatments, and in policies which designate areas as ‘too white’, we see an unashamed, unremitting, constant attitude of hatred towards white people. Except it is a hatred so normalised, so intense, so widely accepted that it doesn’t even know it is hatred, and in many instances is felt and experienced in a different way to hatred.
We see the curious phenomenon by which white majority nations are possessed of systems that not only severely mistreat white people and regard their existence as less legitimate than that of others, but where this is so much the accepted and respectable view that everyone middle class competes to express it more loudly than anyone else, and where not believing it and not expressing it is said to be a marker of unenlightened ignorance. Indeed, loyalty to this supposedly ‘benign’ outlook is a marker required for elite status, and if it is absent, the person in question becomes a figure of hate, no matter how wealthy or powerful or even popular they are, or were, before their lack of self hatred became clear.
This indeed is the core of Trump’s ‘racism’. He doesn’t hate himself, or people who share his skin colour. Therefore he is irredeemably evil in progressive moral theology.
All this is viewed as normal, when it is anything but. It is a hatred so settled and assumed that it considers itself the calm, objective denial of hatred, a cold blue flame instead of a hot red one, where a sort of bureaucratic and banal evil is as often present as a raging and passionate one, depending on whether this anti white feeling manifests in the policy document or the street assault.
And we see that white populations are the only ones on Earth told that they must reduce themselves to a minority, or disappear altogether,and celebrate that as an improvement. This logic of joyous self extinction isn’t applied to any other race across the entire globe (see further for a lone exception). With every other race, every other set of nations, and every other culture and identity, to defend your own existence is considered natural and just (again, the only possible other exception is Jewish people, who have a far longer history of receiving this kind of double standard applied to them).
This is just one of the ways respectable contemporary morality is simply an inversion of traditional and sane morality, but it has been one of the most powerful and destructive.
Thou must hate your own race is very much one of the core commandments of the progressive faith.
As well as, of course, being one of the core tactics of foreign subversion and demoralisation from the Soviets on.
And it’s success has been such that even a reluctant proponent of real opposition might eventually conclude, after 80 years of one-sided abuse, that some form of ethno-nationalism is the only appropriate response, that civic nationalism has like traditional conservatism utterly failed, and that white populations thar don’t find some degree of racial consciousness will only find a greater degree of suffering and extinction.
I say this as such a reluctant person, as one who finds more in common with a black patriot than a white communist or globalist. It is at the very least time to state firmly that there is absolutely nothing wrong with insisting on remaining the racial majority, especially given what fate usually awaits racially different non-Muslim populations if ethnically coherent Muslim populations reach significant minority status.
That we have already seen mass child rape without any change in racial and immigration policy, without any dent in the anti white bias and self hatred of the university educated middle class, should itself give a pretty clear warning of the level of horrors that will be ignored in the near future when the replacement is even more advanced. It should be hard to imagine that it could get worse, but it isn’t.
This article (More Notes on The Great Replacement) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply