The Moral High Ground

by The Editor

The Establishment presents itself as moral and opposed to low things like prejudice, narrow-mindedness and bigotry. This arrogance prevents them questioning whether they have indeed created a multi-racial utopia.

By David Hamilton

The Establishment presents itself as moral and opposed to low things like prejudice, narrow-mindedness and bigotry. This arrogance prevents them questioning whether they have actually created a multi-racial utopia or not. They are prejudiced but against their own people. Furthermore, their unrealistic and irrational policies have brought about the very situation the ideology of the last 60 years was supposed to prevent.

The main ideology since the Second World War is Multi-Racialism with variants like anti-racism, open borders enthusiasm and other variations which are idealistic and progressive. The zealots for immigration justified it by lies like the economy couldn't do without it or blaming working people to justify importing cheap labour, “They won't do the dirty jobs!

In the 1960s the New Left took over Liberalism, kept the name but changed the content. For example, and this is profoundly important, individual rights were changed to group rights which introduced totalitarian thinking as group rights gave minority groups (victims) preferential treatment over the host population (oppressors). The watchwords of The New Left were “Everything is political” which is a totalitarian approach and “We must change attitudes” which required social engineering. Liberalism was changed to a form of Marxist totalitarianism.

The New Left were not working-class socialists but Bourgeois-Socialists and middle-class students were the apparatchiks. They eschewed economics for identity politics, which was effectively an inverse of Hitler's racial superiority ideology as they promoted ethnic minorities, gypsies and homosexuals, the groups Hitler disdained. The New Liberals (Left) were authoritarian where Classic Liberals genuinely believed in rights. (1)The New Left took over universities in 1968 and nearly brought the French government down with the riots in Paris, the LSE in London and Berkeley in the US. Many leaders of the New Left-Trotskyist groups like Tariq Ali became the new Establishment(2).

Liberals had undermined Western nations with guilt but from the 1960s it changed to hatred of their own people. Multi-racialism has the same structure as Nazism only Whites were the target group in place of Jews. It was a reaction to Hitler's attempt to exterminate European Jews and stop that happening again. The people the Nazis persecuted were almost deified, Whites became the scapegoats when things went wrong under the term “racism.”

The New Left project was to destroy existing communities, especially the working-class communities that supported the old Socialists while using the term for the new constituency groups, “black” and “gay”communities; the Classic Liberals' individuals became representatives of in-groups like “single mothers”, “lesbians” and “gay men”, and “alternative life-styles”. They opposed traditional organising units like the family, and community and promote the breakdown of these as personal freedom and sexual emancipation but ignored the consequent unhappiness, loneliness and deprivation. The abstract justification was all; practical consequences nothing. Schools’ curricula is feminised and young men are denied the invigoration of competition and the denial of adequate male role models for White lads but many are provided for ethnic groups.

The Liberal Capitulation

This movement would have got nowhere without the support of major popular musicians of the time like Bob Dylan and The Beatles. John Lennon donated to the IRA and Black Panthers.

William Rees-Mogg, editor of The Times, defended Mick Jagger and Keith Richards who were up on a drugs charge in an infamous piece of cowardice called “Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?” In 1971 the state capitulated to the convicted editors of OZ when Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Widgery had them brought from prison and told them if they agree to stop working on OZ their appeal would be certain to succeed which they did and it did.

Classical Liberals believed in rights for ethnic people and homosexuals but Cultural Marxists give them preferential treatment. They were undermining our respective Western nations with guilt but from the ascension of the New Left Whites became targets for abject hatred and the move to dispossess and dehumanise us began.

This shift in the 60s was the change from fighting for racial equality to dehumanising us as haters. The term “racist” replaced “racialist.” In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003, Sir Alfred Sherman, former speech writer for Mrs Thatcher and lead writer for The Daily Telegraph, recalled the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60s:

I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.”

In education Liberals allowed free expression within Liberal parameters and the style of essay writing was to consider the pros and cons of a case and discuss. Cultural Marxists are removing many subjects from the curriculum especially history because if we don't know our common roots and shared ancestry it is easy for them to socially engineer us into a new people streamlined ready for their utopia. They dumb-down and reduce vocabulary so people can only think what the elites want them to.

The Public Abasement of Dissidents

Cultural Marxism inherited much from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book which was fashionable for middle-class students between the 50s and 80s. Mentors like Herbert Marcuse and Eric Hobsbawm were open admirers of Stalin. Both Chinese and Soviet Marxists dealt with dissent with a public show trial where the victims publicly abased themselves and confessed their crime. In contemporary Britain this persecutory role is performed by the media.

Dr James Watson, a 79-year-old geneticist who, together with Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, is regarded as one of the great scientists of his time and was persecuted for telling The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says ‘not really’". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The British establishment’s agency of inquisition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Politicians moved in to persecute him: “It is a shame that a man with a record of scientific distinction should see his work overshadowed by his own irrational prejudices,” said David Lammy, the Skills Minister.

London mayor Ken Livingstone, “Such ignorant comments... are utterly offensive and give succour to the most backward in our society.”
The Science Museum cancelled a sell-out meeting it had planned to hold to honour Watson on the grounds that his remarks had gone 'beyond the point of acceptable debate'. Several other centres scheduled to host his talks followed suit. What a scientific argument! His employers, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island suspended him as chancellor. Scientist Richard Dawkins saw the real issue:

What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant "thought police", of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation.

Celebrity Jade Goody had the wrong attitude to Indian film star, Shilpa Shetty, in Celebrity Big Brother. The Daily Telegraph showed the three “racists” looking common while Shilpa was shown at prayer, elegant in a sari and looking sidelong. The programme is based on getting an assortment of characters into a house and titillating the viewers to keep the viewing figures up, with bullying and personality clashes being the attraction. Jade kept apologising confessing publicly that she was disgusted with herself - the Cultural Marxist rulers’ version of a Soviet show trial. She had to be broken in public, made to repent and show abject contrition. Jade has some Afro-Caribbean ancestry and an honest person would look for a cause other than racism like class envy or bad manners, but there is an ideology at work which imposes the same explanation on different situations – anti-White racism

The British state is persecuting a dissident, Emma West. The incident in question refers to a video of West ranting against multi-racialism on a tram but to no one in particular. This was 18 months ago and the case has been delayed since, with hearings re-scheduled five times - not for practical or legal reasons, but because Emma has not abased herself and maintains a plea of Not Guilty, despite being imprisoned for two weeks in the nearest there is to a Category A prison in England for women, HMP Bronzefield, taking her children into care and remanding her in custody on the spurious grounds that she was in danger.

Emma is a danger to the authorities because pleading Not Guilty raises the threat of the case becoming a public debate and the state wants to maintain the illusion that everyone agrees with mass immigration apart from a few nutters.

She has also been further charged with assaulting two police officers at her home. These charges were due to be heard in a Magistrate’s court on the 3rd of March but have been delayed until after her trial on the racial harassment charges. It was not a serious assault because it is being dealt with in a Magistrate’s court.

The Conservative Outlook

Conservatives respect the past and traditions and believe that by studying history we are equipped to deal with present crises by applying past lessons and referencing how our forebears solved similar situations in the past. It is practical reasoning not rationalistic thinking; concrete words rather than abstractions and favours the particular over the universal, though it uses substantial universals to describe concrete objects like White men and White women. Progressives remove the substance from words, we keep it.

There is a significant difference in the style of writing of conservatives. It is empirical. Features of conservative writing are a study of the world around us rather than the imposing of the same ideology on disparate events - if Whites are involved it's always racist: repeated reference to historical precedent as examples of what similar situation now might lead to. History is our guide and also creates a sense of belonging and of being a part of something larger and older than ourselves which leads on into the future.

A Non-Ideological Worldview

Formal ideology grew out of the Enlightenment to replace religion with a secular programme of thinking and behaving and those who deviate have to be corrected. This began the change in the rulers from an aristocratic class based on blood and land to rule by secular elites united by ideology with membership dependent on thinking and saying the right things - an Ideological Caste.
Ideological thinking starts with first principles and requires underpinnings to support or justify beliefs. Conservatism is not an ideology but an outlook that grows from our emotional bonds with our families and expands outwards through neighbourhood and community to the nation. It emanates out to Europe and the Anglosphere, though weaker. We feel for the South African Boers who are victims of genocide but it is stronger for our kin. Parents who wish other children to do better than their own are perverse.

We have a responsibility for our kin, and a duty to them. We have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed our nation and culture to us and we must honour that.
People need the numinous things in life – religion, art, culture, a wholesome countryside. The numinous is a feeling of, and a need for, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent; not just the material and the hedonistic.

Ideological Use of Language

Thoughts and feelings are expressed through language, which is why the elites are reducing vocabulary so we can not think the wrong things. When the state controls thought and language we are controlled in our ability to think as was demonstrated by the descriptions of Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. They use linguistic connotations like “racism” which only applies to “Whites” or “British”.
The ruling elites try to change our thinking by changing our vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggesting certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included “immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian,” “mixed race,” “half-caste,” “mulatto.” There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality as in the official designation of “Anti-Islamic activity” for Muslim terrorists.
The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a “hater” or a “racist”.

We are derided as prejudiced if we protest against the elites having us dispossessed, which is used to mean ignorant and narrow-minded, but Prejudice is traditional wisdom received from our ancestors. It saves us learning the hard way and we would have been spared this dispossession by immigrants if our natural prejudices had been followed after the last war.

Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: ‘bigot’ and ‘tolerance’ are prominent examples. ‘Bigot’ means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to the “far-right”. A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants.

We need a concrete, definite vocabulary, not vague language like ‘person’ and ‘humanity’, but ‘Englishman’ or ‘Englishwoman’, ‘Welshman’ or ‘Welshwoman’, ‘Scotsman’ or ‘Scotswoman’ or ‘Irishman’ or ‘Irishwoman’, ‘boy’ and ‘girl’, ‘land’ rather than ‘country’. They are more specific and convey a solid idea of substance; and get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of the loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic.
The great Welsh national anthem “Land of My Fathers” is a is a pertinent example as it makes a clear statement of debt to forebears and suggests the piety necessary to honour what the ancestors have passed down and our obligation to pass it on to our descendants. This is embodied in the Fifth Commandment to honour thy mother and father. Unless they are very cruel parents, of course.

Joseph De Maistre in Considérations sur la France (1797) put it:

I will simply point out the error of principle that has provided the foundation of this constitution and that has led the French astray since the first moment of their revolution.

The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc. I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.

...This constitution is capable of being applied to all human communities from China to Geneva. But a constitution which is made for all nations is made for none: it is a pure abstraction, a school exercise whose purpose is to exercise the mind in accordance with a hypothetical ideal, and which ought to be addressed to Man, in the imaginary places which he inhabits....

What is a constitution? Is it not the solution to the following problem: to find the laws that are fitting for a particular nation, given its population, its customs, its religion, its geographical situation, its political relations, its wealth, and its good and bad qualities?

Now, this problem is not addressed at all by the Constitution of 1795, which is concerned only with Man.

Restructuring Peoples' Thinking

We are being socially engineering and traditional ways of thinking systematically broken down. An example: the television programme “Gypsy Wars” contrasted a local woman and travellers who had invaded her land. They show her as a representative of us but in the role of the travellers to break the public's views of travellers and change their attitudes. They showed no young Gypsy men, because they are aggressive and would garner support for the woman, though the makers of the programme would not want to show them as a threat. Village life was not shown, because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when she was the victim. When the police had to evict travellers from Dale Farm the media again showed no men. That is how television re-structures people's thought to fit them into their anti-British ideology.

For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Guardian newspaper to filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes

We are being dehumanised and made a non-people. To survive we must abandon the inculcated niceness, the apologetic approach and assert ourselves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good. The next generation need to be built up to inherit the responsibility for their lives and culture. The media are occupying them with what to wear, how to get their hair done and where to have a tat! It is done to get their money and is morally evil as they are being debauched by temptations and enticements.
Brainwashed people say "So what? It doesn't matter if different people take over!" This shows a failure to understand human nature. They think it will be painless like handing the baton on in a relay race, but examples from history like the Norman invasion show violent oppression of the conquered follows; other countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe show what will befall our children if the plans of the evil elites are not countered.

How Do We Counter the Dominant Ideology?

The way to develop a new world view is to study the effects of the elites policies and gather examples of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration; collate it and our version of reality begins to form. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to each other. We also need to consider what gives life meaning and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I distinguish this from the ideological notion on nation that grew from the Enlightenment: England, for example, has been an organic nation at least since Alfred the Great.
I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people. I oppose universal abstractions because they lead to unrealistic thinking- they have no substance. Human Nature is a substantial universal because everyone has it: it is not insubstantial and meaningless but a substantial universal because its shared by all peoples. We must not be intimidated by the Cultural Marxist term of abuse “racist.”

By linking to traditions our people link with great historical figure like Queen Elizabeth I and Lord Palmerston, say, who are role-models as are Enoch Powell, the great fifth Marques of Salisbury, who fought against immigration, and Sir Winston Churchill, who tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955 (3), and many others. If I were Welsh it would be Glyndwr, or if Scottish, Rob Roy.
The U.S. has the precedent of Eisenhower's Operation Wetback. In 1949 the Border Patrol seized nearly 280,000 illegal immigrants. By 1953, the numbers had increased to over than 865,000, and the U.S. government had to do something about it. In 1954, agents found over 1 million illegal immigrants.
To build a movement in the States there is the excellent groundwork done by Pat Buchanan in his four books, including Death of the West and Suicide of a Superpower.

People follow the dominant elites because they appear strong and successful and many who agree with us vote for the dominant parties for that reason. A conviction based on the knowledge that they follow in the steps of great national figures would help counter that disadvantage.
We must stress the positive benefits we have to offer our people: preferential treatment in their own country, better education, priority in housing and employment for our children and protection from child-rape by older members of the rival Muslim community. You only need look at the un-British names of medical and law school graduates to see how our young are being deprived of careers that are their birthright. We would offer children more opportunities and a better future without unfair competition from outsiders. This is the natural way and we are finding words to express this and to make our thoughts clearer.

The ideology of multi-racialism was a reaction to Hitler's attempted extermination of European Jews and their aim - "it must never happen again." But it is happening again and caused by Western elites. Jews are being persecuted in France, Sweden and elsewhere by Muslim extremists the elites have imported. They have brought the same situation back they wanted to prevent happening again. What an indictment on Western elites - that they have reintroduced the persecution of the Jews. But still they import more, and still they claim to occupy the moral high ground. Everyone must have seen Muslims brandishing placards that read, "God Bless Hitler" and must know that "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is on sale in Muslim shops all over Europe?
It is not patriotic people like me or nationalists who brought this about. We always opposed mass immigration and if we had been listened to this would not have happened. It has been created by multi-racialists, anti-racists, open borders zealots and smug morally-superior Liberals and Cultural Marxists: the type of people who kid themselves that we nationalists are evil - the type who occupy the supposed moral high-ground. It is a moral imperative to replace this unrealistic, universalist and utopian ideology with traditional ways to reverse the evil situation they have created.


1. Churchill tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration but it was not ready until after he had to give up the Premiership because of failing health. His successor Anthony Eden shelved it. Churchill also wanting the Conservative Party to fight the 1955 general election with the slogan “Keep England White”.

Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957 Macmillan. 2003 p 382

2. Aidan Rankin, 2001 Politics of the Forked Tongue: Authoritarian Liberalism

3. Rape of Reason is an interesting analysis of New Left tactics at the Polytechnic of North London by Keith Jacka, Caroline Cox and John Marks. It shows how Liberals gave in to them.

Organic and Ideological nations

The attempt to destroy us

Imposing political ideology on the young


What is the anti- White mentality?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.