The UKIP Fetish For Liberalism


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The UKIP Fetish For Liberalism

Nigel Farage today explains UKIP’s immigration policy:

Importantly, Ukip wants to ensure that highly skilled people from the Commonwealth – from India, Canada, New Zealand, and beyond – get a fair chance to get into Britain, unlike now, where we give precedence, via our open border with the European Union, to half a billion people from Europe and its former Communist countries.

I feel so passionately about this because my ancestors were migrants – technically, asylum seekers. One side of my family were French Huguenot refugees. The “wave” of immigration behind my ending up here numbered around 50,000 people. This was the largest immigrant group in Britain between 1066 and 1945.


Today the world is bigger. Globalisation happened. Transport is easier. So some might argue that net immigration levels bigger than that Huguenot wave are inevitable and normal. But here’s the thing: the migration of 50,000 Huguenots took place over 100 years. Today, Britain lets in more than 620,000 people per year. That’s 1,200 times higher than Britain’s largest wave of immigration until 1945.

Some might say this isn’t a fair comparison. And maybe it is only good as a historical indicator, and we should be a little more modern in our comparisons. I’m happy to do that. In the Seventies, long-term migration from European member states was around 20,000 per annum. By the Nineties, it was around 60,000. In 2014 it was 251,000. To call this anything other than drastically unsustainable would be an understatement.

We are a party that believes that Britain can and does benefit from skilled workers. From doctors to engineers, business people, investors, craftsmen. From people who will come here, fit in, work hard, and create jobs and growth.

One example of this from my ancestry is my great-great-grandfather Nicholas Schrod, a skilled cabinet maker. He and his wife integrated into British society, worked their fingers to the bone, and created a life for their children, and their children’s children. A life that eventually led to me standing here, praising migrants just like them.


From Jewish migration to Windrush, to the Asian migration in the Seventies and Eighties – some immigrant communities have indeed integrated and made this country a better place. So what Ukip wants is not to do down migrants. It’s not to stigmatise, or discourage, or blame people for coming to this country and trying to make a better life for themselves.

This is why we’d establish an ethical visa system for work and study. This is why we’d increase Border Agency staff by 2,500. This is why we’d stop migrants claiming benefits until they’ve been here and paid into the system for five years, and why we’d reinstate the primary purpose rule, bringing an end to sham immigration marriages. It is why we’d provide more resources to our police to ensure better identification of illegal immigrants. It is why we’d remove the passports of those who fight alongside terrorist organisations. It is why we’d close our open borders with Europe and establish a points-based system to make the rules more fair for our friends in Commonwealth countries – ensuring that Britain has enough doctors, and other skilled workers for our economy to grow, and to put British people first.

I have critiqued UKIP and the central plank of its immigration policy – an Australian-style points system – in a previous essay, Kangaroo Studies.

UKIP is a liberal party: that is, liberal in racial, cultural, social and economic terms.  Not just because the Zeitgeist demands it of any mainstream political party that aspires to influence, but also because its leading members are liberal.  This stands in stark contrast to the Party’s footsoldiers, who tend to be illiberal and provincial in sensibility.  For anyone who cares for the future of white civilisation, the above words of the Huguenot Farage are damning. It may all be couched in sympathetic terms, but what it reveals is a politician who is passionately pro-immigration, and thus tacitly anti-white.

To emphasise the point, consider the below exchange involving Farage in the European Parliament (a forum he hardly ever attends, if the official records are anything to go by):

UKIP have had a policy of extending ‘preference’ to Commonwealth immigrants for a number of years, perhaps always. The reality is that the UKIP leadership is more liberal than Labour’s. The root of the problem is that they are ideologically committed to free trade liberalism. This is because they represent, not the working class [hahahaha…] but the mercantilist interests of the ruling class. I have pointed this out in so many words on numerous occasions in different forums, but no-one can take it in.

UKIP won’t take us out of the EU, even if they formed a government. Quite apart from anything else, there’s the quibble that their policy is to promise a referendum, not actually leave immediately – which is doubly ironic in that, first, it begs the question why we should vote for them at all; and second, shows they neither respect nor understand parliamentary sovereignty – but even if they promised to leave without a referendum, years of complex negotiations and general messing around would follow, after which we would still be influenced by the EU and form much the same policies at national level whether in or out of the regional club.

Most importantly, leaving the EU would make little or no difference to the race issue, just as it made little or no difference before we joined – in fact, it might even make matters worse, if UKIP’s policies and the mentality of the average white Briton is anything to go by. At least within the EU most of the whining, moaning and grumbling is about white (Slavic) immigrants. Imagine if our immigration policies were based on UKIP’s template of free trade? UKIP’s free trade is, quite possibly, a recipe for a free-for-all.

Having said all that, I’ll also make some positive observations about UKIP:

1. First, they are a good tactical choice at the polling booth if you’re in a marginal constituency – provided the UKIP candidate is white.

2. Second, while it’s an unpleasant observation to make, if UKIP’s anti-working class politics ever becomes influential then it might have the positive side-effect of discouraging non-white immigation to Britain. I’m reminded of Hong Kong, which – if I understand correctly – has an indigenous population well in excess of 90%, yet manages to operate as a global free port with very little non-Chinese cultural intrusion. This could be a good example for our larger cities follow – and might yet prove me wrong about UKIP. On the other hand, in a nearby destination, Singapore, the indigenous are treated rather less kindly under a regime that pursues broadly similar policies. The point being that much depends on the political framework within which the policies are pursued. Are UKIP generically liberal (Singapore) or national-socialist (Hong Kong)? A national-socialist (racialist) approach has already been thoroughly discredited in Europe and the innate liberalism of the UK socially, politically and constitutionally (in contrast to China) leaves us vulnerable to a cosmopolitan methodology of free trade.

3. Third, we shouldn’t knock the concept of ‘free trade’ as such. It’s really more a question of whom the trade is free for. You can, in principle, have economically-protectionist policies that involve free trade. Self-reliance should not mean isolation. In other words, and to simplify the matter: you export enthusiastically and import reluctantly. This would be the basis of a productive economy, but that’s a whole separate issue and not straight-forward.

4. Fourth, it’s true that UKIP might lead to something more radical and explicitly pro-white. Just because UKIP is a safety-valve, that doesn’t mean it should be dismissed. Think about why safety valves are needed in the first place.

5. Fifth, all the anti-fascists are vigorously slandering UKIP on a daily basis. So they must be doing something right. I think it’s because they clock points 2 and 4 above and know what UKIP might lead to.

White or Aryan? Some thoughts from a Spanish Viking


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


White or Aryan?  Some thoughts from a Spanish Viking

The whole matter of white origins is a very complex subject and not something I have ever had the time to sit down and really study properly. Which is not for lack of interest on my part – it is a subject that fascinates me, and I am particularly intrigued by the idea that ancient white civilisations might have existed outside of Europe.

One thing I have noticed from cursory reading of the material is that this whole area is built on shifting sands. No-one with any actual expertise in the various disciplines involved really seems sure of what they are saying. By contrast, those who lack expertise but hold strong views invariably put across their opinions with unwarranted certainty.

Anthropology, for instance, is not a science, whatever its pretenses otherwise, and most of its methods are not truly scientific. That is why I am wary of accepting affirmative pronouncements in these matters, even from experts. Most of the work of anthropology over the last 100 years or so has been heavily coloured by politics. It would not surprise me if what I alluded to a moment ago turns out to be true: that ancient white peoples occupied the whole of this planet, but anyone relying on the academic material would never alight on that supposition. We whites certainly have the capability and inclination to have been the world’s first cosmopolitan race.

I’ve seen here and there on white nationalist websites use of this word ‘Aryan’, which I know is typically associated in the public mind with the German National Socialists of the 1920s to 1940s.  I don’t particularly object to it, but I prefer ‘white’, more out of habit than anything else. Some white nationalists reject use of the term ‘Aryan’ altogether, while others use it imprecisely in what I can only assume is a sort of whimsy or fancy.  Is it accurate?  I think a lot depends on what is meant by the term ‘Aryan’. It seems to be malleable and can be used in a purely linguistic sense or in more of a racial sense. Different people have different theories and ideas on who was (or is) Aryan. The suppositions are sharply conflicting, which doesn’t bode well for those who seek certainty. Some people think that the Aryans are of ancient indigenous European origin. Others believe that the Aryans were a cultural and language group of central Asian origin that expanded across southern Europe and perhaps northern Africa as well, mixing with the Mesolithics (the Basques, etc.), then moving northwards, initially as a brown-skinned race. Over time due to evolutionary pressures, this whole group then lightened in skin colour. My intuitive judgement on the matter, based on what little I know, is something along the lines of the latter theory, and being of a naturally ‘intellectual’ bent, I am suspicious of those who would reject it purely for political reasons. But I just don’t know – and I strongly suspect no-one ‘knows’.

Interestingly, I read somewhere (sorry, can’t source this right now) that indigenous Britons are predominantly of Basque and Celtic origin with only very minor Nordic and Germanic admixture. If true, that means (in pseud modern parlance) we’re basically Spanish Vikings speaking hybrid Latin-German. That would certainly explain my short temper. Next time an ignorant lefty tells you we’re all black, that should be your answer – if, like me, you’re of indigenous British origin.

Sean Surplus discusses a WIN podcast


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

download (1)

Sean Surplus discusses a WIN podcast

Sean Surplus, white nationalist radio host at TCTA, recently discussed a WIN podcast on his show: the relevant segment is 44 minutes onwards.

I think the podcast Sean is discussing is ‘Why Nationalism Fails’:

Is It Dead Yet?


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Is It Dead Yet?

The never-ending saga of Retro-Nationalism is starting to resemble one of those Jewy horror movies.  It’s an appropriate analogy, I find, given the 70s/80s feel of what passes for political Nationalism nowadays.  You may recall that at the end of those films, there was always a character who asked after the health and welfare of the monster/serial killer/homicidal nut, knowing that this evil force of Nature couldn’t be easily put down.  He, she or it had to be shot, stabbed and burnt several times before finally succumbing.

I have to ask of the National Front: ‘Is it dead yet?’

Eddy Morrison said: “We will know by the 1st February.”

I just wish the Electoral Commission would get their act together and kill-off this Frankenstein’s monster for good, by either refusing registration to both factions (if possible) or by granting registration to the dormant Official (Southern) faction, which would have the same effect of killing it off.

I will lay my own cards on the table here and make no bones about this: I hope the NF – Northern, Southern, Official or whatever – is dead and buried. Not because I wish anyone involved in it ill, but because it’s time to turn a new page. For once, our enemies are actually right about something. It would be good if the National Front were confined to the dustbin – good for white people, that is.