On Political Violence

Back to the Home Page
Back to the Thought and Comment main page

I do not support political violence and I have no involvement in such, nor do I seek through this site in any way to promote, glorify or advocate violence. There is nothing on this site that is intended to break the law.

I do not believe violent revolution of some kind is inevitable, nor do I see it as desirable. I do not wish ill on my own people, or really any people of any race or creed. I do not want a societal collapse to happen and I hope it will not. My politics are based on the notion that all peoples of the world, of all races, can prosper. Ideally, I should like to pursue my beliefs through normal, peaceful means.

However, that preamble must now be caveated and qualified with the positions set out below. The law does allow me to discuss violence theoretically and speculatively as a strategy for Nationalism, and that is the theme I now turn to:

(i). I do think that when (no 'if', as I think this is now inevitable) system politicians start to be murdered and assassinated by Nationalists on some organised basis, that will be deserved and I will not hold back from stating as much. It is deserved because they are conscious traitors to the white British working class. However, that does not mean I believe that violence is the correct strategy at this time or that I would advocate a repeat of such incidents, it is merely to say that I take the view: 'if it happens, it happens', and don't expect me to send a condolence card. A violent death is the Fate of a traitor, and when it happens (it will), I see no cause for regret about it.

(ii). I believe that political violence is entirely legitimate in principle and I have no moral objection to terrorism as a strategy. I believe that anybody who takes a contrary view to this is either deluded or hypocritical. The delusion is easily cured with a library card and any general history book. The hypocrisy is normally just priggish middle-class cant.

(iii). I believe that political violence can be an effective strategy in the right circumstances, but I take the view that those circumstances do not at present pertain and that it would be foolhardy to pursue such a strategy now beyond a theoretical planning exercise.

(iv). I believe that some kind of paramilitary strategy similar to the IRA's will ultimately be necessary for Nationalists if the white British as a nation are to be saved - and it will involve killing and maiming people, just as armies kill and maim people in war - but this can only be pursued if and when Nationalists are pursuing an effective political and community strategy and have established community citadels. It cannot be pursued at this time, and probably not for the foreseeable future either.

(v). I believe that a conventional political/electoral strategy involving normal politics and normal policies on ordinary, day-to-day issues - street lamps, repairing potholes, town planning issues, etc. - in stronghold areas that are militantly nationalist, is a prerequisite for white revolution. I believe that the history of modern revolutionary struggles establishes this conclusively.

(vi). I believe little or nothing can be achieved from ideologically-pure ivory towers or online anonymity/pseudonymity (the two things are, I think, linked). The coming battle - political/electoral, psychological, cultural and military - will require effective, competent, tough-minded men. Which is not to say I favour unprincipled political action, only that I believe we need to find a widely-acceptable way to communicate our principled message.

(vii). We need sensible, articulate, intelligent men who are at home in a council meeting or a public rally and see those fora as a necessary part of the battle and who have the patience to serve and wait many years, doing the boring political work, before 'our moment' comes.

(viii). The task - duty even - of Nationalists is to find an acceptable way to express and communicate our core ideas. If we cannot do this, then we have lost the battle before we have even started.

(ix). As I see it, the first task is to define our goal and our aims. Once we have done that, we must then agree on a short, user-friendly verbal formulation of these in terms that the public will recognise as sympathetic and legitimate. Just by way of example, it could be: "We believe in the right of the British people to a homeland of their own, where needs such as housing, healthcare, education and employment are met and government puts the British people first".