1. British cultural Stalinism
Every now and then, one comes across an article in a newspaper which is, for the racially-conscious nationalist, fraught with significance. The article, for me, was the headliner at the British tabloid, 'The Daily Mail': Suspended Midsomer Murders producer in crisis talks with TV bosses as fans defend his decision not to include ethnic characters .
To those who haven't seen it, 'Midsomer Murders' is a genteel British detective show, which has been running since 1997 and is set in a cosy English country town. It is based on a detective novel series by Caroline Graham. The show is enormously popular, in Britain and abroad (it has been sold to 40 countries, and even Germany's "iron chancellor" Angela Merkel is a fan). The village is, uncharacteristically for that part of England, full of murder - over 222 characters have been killed since the series first started.
The appeal of the show is obvious: the cast is all-white, and the premise of the show is very English. In its depiction of an ethnically homogenous, white and British country life, and the stunningly beautiful British countryside, it is reminiscent of the Britain of old - e.g., the novels of the great Welsh writer, John Cowper Powys - and the character traits (eccentricity, snobbery, community fellow feeling, a tolerance of other peoples' vices) are all very British as well. On top of that, the show is well-written and directed - like all good murder shows, it manages to plumb the depths of the human soul, and explore the motivations of human beings - but a little formulaic. Many old-age pensioners adore the show, and my mother loves it. But then, if one does want cutting-edge, violent British drama, there are alternatives: 'Wire in the Blood', 'Dalziel and Pascoe', among others, which are excellent shows, but grim and gritty, and (this is not unrelated) more ethnically diverse as well.
So, the show appeals to a latent racialism, and Anglophilia, and a love of the beautiful, sweeping, green British landscapes, forests, rivers and weirs. In a way, it represents an oasis of Englishness in British TV programming, which, following the dictates of the age, is relentlessly "diverse". Ethnic "minorities" are always being cast even in the most unhistorical roles: a black Friar Tuck was featured in an adaptation of Robin Hood, and Queen Guinevere, in 'Merlin' - an adaptation of the Arthurian legend - is played by a Pakistani. And then there is the relaunched version of time-travelling 'Doctor Who', another British institution, once fairly ethnically homogenous, but now abounding with Indians, Sikhs, Pakistanis, Afro-Caribbeans, and the like, even in episodes set in the distant British past. The writers, producers, directors and executives responsible for these shows are, in effect, rewriting history: the goal is to convince viewers (especially the young) that Britain has always been 'ethnically diverse'; that the 3.2 million immigrants, brought in during the Blair and Brown years, have always been with them. (Without a doubt, in the future, a film will be made where Muslim and Nigerian fighter pilots are shown to have won the Battle of Britain against the "racist" Luftwaffe).
In the midst of all this, 'Midsomer Murders' sticks out like a sore thumb. Unfortunately, the executive producer, Brian True-May, spilled the beans and more or less admitted why the show was such a success:
He created a storm by saying he did not use black or Asian people in the ITV drama because 'it wouldn't be an English village with them'.
He described it as the 'last bastion of Englishness' which relied on an 'English genteel eccentricity', claiming it 'wouldn’t work' if it suggested there was racial diversity in village life.Inevitably, Mr True-May was punished for his indiscretion:
Mr True-May told the Radio Times if he had more minority cast members 'we might be in Slough'.
Mr True-May said: 'When I talk to people and other nations they love John Nettles, but they also love the premise of the show.
'They love the perceived English genteel eccentricity. It’s not British, it's very English.
'We are a cosmopolitan society in this country, but if you watch Midsomer you wouldn’t think so. I’ve never been picked up on that, but quite honestly I wouldn’t want to change it.'
When asked to clarify what he meant, he added. 'Well, we just don’t have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn’t be the English village with them. It just wouldn’t work. Suddenly we might be in Slough.
'Ironically, Causton [the fictional local town in Midsomer Murders] is supposed to be Slough. And if you went in to Slough you wouldn’t see a white face there.
'We’re the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way.'
He admitted that Englishness should include other races, but added: 'Maybe I’m not politically correct'.
Mr True-May, who lives near where parts of the show are filmed, added: 'I’m trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed and I don’t want to change it.'
His comments sparked fury among charities and campaigners and he was suspended by the production company behind the show All3Media. ITV also said it was 'shocked and appalled'.
But scores of viewers made clear they felt the suspension was a total overreaction and his own co-stars came out in support.
Campaigners accused the executive of trying to 'wipe' ethnic minorities 'off the screen' and of 'distorting' the presence of black and Asian people in rural areas.
Rob Berkeley, of race equality think tank, the Runnymede Trust said: 'Clearly, as a fictional work, the producers of Midsomer Murders are entitled to their flights of fancy, but to claim the English village is purely white is no longer true and not a fair reflection of our society.'
Mohammed Shafiq, of the Ramadhan Foundation, which aims to create a better understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, said: 'There is a wider agenda in what he is saying which is worrying for me.
'To try to wipe us or our presence off television screens is wrong and factually incorrect.'
Last month Mark Damazer, Radio 4’s former controller, said radio shows should better reflect modern British society, although he cautioned against deliberately targeting ethnic groups.
Mr True-May last night said he had been instructed by lawyers not to comment. His tearful wife, Maureen, described his suspension as 'ridiculous'.
The 'Daily Mail', being a right-wing tabloid, seems to be sympathetic to Mr True-May's predicament. There is no such sympathy, though, from the left-wing 'Guardian' newspaper. An opinion columnist (a Black woman, of course) wrote a blistering attack on the 'racism' of True-May: 'How dare he imply that we immigrants are not "English". (Presumably, the problem can be changed by renaming all of the Middle East and Africa 'England'. Then the immigrants from these regions can be as 'English' as the countries they came from...).
All this had me thinking: when did the British, renowned as the originators of liberalism and the very idea of freedom of speech, become so Stalinist? When they did they become so fearful of "offending" others? Who is to blame?
Nationalists, more often than not, like to blame the problems afflicting the West - including this rampant political correctness and cultural Stalinism which has struck down Mr True-May - on an ethnic minority group which is outside the Western culture and civilisation: this ethnic minority group has infiltrated countries like Britain, seized control of institutions like the media, and then went on to lobby for non-white immigration and anti-race hate laws. I am, of course, speaking of the Jews. And undoubtably, wealthy and powerful Jews do own a sizeable chunk of the British media, as they do in America, and they do pull strings in British politics, as they do in America. One can provide, as Kevin MacDonald has, plenty of evidence showing that Jews, in the West in the 20th century, felt like outsiders in the ethnically-homogenous European and American societies they lived in; so Jewish intellectuals, artists, press barons, movie producers, radical left-wing activists, did all they could to subvert, and overturn, that dominant Western culture. One result of that pressure was the abandonment of 'whites only' immigration laws in the US, Australia, Britain and elsewhere, in the 1960s.
But the question is: in 2011, were Jews to blame for what happened to Mr True-May? Were the executives of ITV and the All3Media Jews? Did they say, amongst themselves, 'Right, even though this man isn't an anti-Semite, hasn't denied the Holocaust, and hasn't said anything about Israel, we're going to come down on him - hard'? Probably not: the executives concerned were, most likely, scared, white middle-class British men and women, fearful of a negative reaction (from "offended" ethnic minority groups) and so acted pre-emptively.
It is quite true that the self-appointed representatives of ethnic
minority groups (who are , in British cities, on the way to becoming the majority) have adopted the same tactics of the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and other Jewish lobby groups. That is, they portray themselves as a poor, pitiful, persecuted minority, who are bullied and harrassed by the dominant white culture, and who need special protections, special treatment. Even the slightest criticism is "offensive", and "offenders" have to be punished - ruthlessly. The punishments include boycotting, dismissal, blacklisting, and even fines and imprisonment. (This way of doing things has been going on, by advocates of Jewish rights, for some time: Hitler recounts, in the collection of after-dinner speeches and asides, 'Hitler's Table Talk', of how a friend of his, Knäppner, was fined 80 marks (a substantial sum at the time) because his dog barked at a Jew). So, the Runnymede Trust, the Ramadan Foundation, and other minority group lobbyists and agitators, have adopted the tactics of the Jewish groups - what I call 'militant cry baby-ism'.
But, in the end, we Westerners can't blame political correctness and cultural Stalinism on outside, foreign forces - that is, Jewish groups, immigrant lobby groups and the like. The same goes for the 3.2 million immigrants, and 1 million illegal immigrants, brought in by the British Labour Party over the course of 13 years - probably the biggest influx of immigrants, into any country, in history. In that period, the Labour Party - one of the oldest of British institutions - waged a no-holds barred war against the white British minority, and even now, continues to defend its record on immigration. Now, while the influence of prominent Jews (like Lord Levy) on the likes of Tony Blair is well-documented, few of the Labour leading lights are Jews: for instance, the mad, left-wing equality maniac and feminist, Labour MP Harriet Harman, who is almost a parody of the left. (She only recently praised immigrants to Britain as 'heroes' for taking welfare payments and remitting them to their relatives in their home countries - a kind of British foreign aid at work). So far as I can tell, the woman came from a Christian background, as did Blair and Brown themselves.
3. Sweden and 'The House We Live In'
Elsewhere, one can find plenty of other examples of 'political correctness gone mad' - a madness which cannot be put down to Jewry. Take, for instance, this news story, from Sweden, 'Illegal immigrants to get new rights in Sweden'.
The Swedish government, attempting to justify its giving new rights to illegal immigrants (rights to government-funded health care, education, also the right to start businesses (and presumably be the recipients of government assistance there as well), spouted the usual multi-culti rhetoric - this time, with a twist. The new, pro-illegal immigrant policies are designed to combat the Far Right:
Sweden in 'historic' deal on immigration policy
Sweden's centre-right Alliance government and the Green Party have reached an agreement on changes to the country's immigration policies specifically designed to diminish the influence of the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats...
The four government parties, the Moderates, Christian Democrats, Centre Party, and Liberal Party (Folkpartiet) have forged a comprehensive framework agreement with the Greens which Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt called "historic".There you have it: the pillars of the Swedish political establishment, uniting against the Far Right. But, paradoxically, instead of bowing to pressure - and changing some of their policies to take a harsher line on illegal immigration (which is what some of the mainstream Center-Right parties elsewhere in Europe have done), they instead are coming up with policies designed, explicitly, to reward illegal immigration. I have to admit, when I first read this story, I was shocked. I thought I had seen it all, but hadn't.
"This lays the long-term groundwork for a humane, just, and orderly migration policy," he said during a Thursday morning press conference.
He added that the agreement means that Sweden has made a clear choice about where the country's migration policies are heading.
"We're going to continue on the road toward humanity and order, this is a choice which closes the door on xenophobic forces," said Reinfeldt.
Among other things, the agreement will give illegal immigrants the right to healthcare and education.
Reinfeldt explained that he used the expression "close the door" in explicit reference to Sweden Democrats, a far-right party which gained seats in the Riksdag for the first time in September campaigning on an openly anti-immigration platform.
"We who believe that people should be free to move across borders and seek a better life somewhere else have made this agreement," he said.
"We're closing the door on the only area they [the Sweden Democrats] care about and want to have influence on."
In a statement, Christian Democrat leader and social affairs minister Göran Hägglund said the agreement created a "stable majority in the Riksdag" and "ensured that the Sweden Democrats won't have any influence over immigration policy moving forward".
According to the Green Party's Maria Wetterstrand, the most important thing is that Sweden is no longer among countries that degrade their asylum and immigration policies following the entry of a xenophobic party into parliament.
"Because the government chose the Green Party, policies are moving away from the Sweden Democrats," she said.
But: how many of these Swedish leading lights, all of the Swedish equivalents of Harriet Harman, are Jews? Or are being influenced by the Jews?
This is not to say that Jews do not attempt to play a part in Swedish political life. Swedish Jews have been complaining, for some time, that they feel "persecuted" and "nervous" in the suburb of Mälmo, which is heavily populated with (mostly Muslim) immigrants. The Swedish news site, the Local, often has a picture at the top of a sad-looking Swedish Jewish spokesman, dressed up in his Swedish winter gear, with the quotation from him: 'In ten years time, we don't know if there will be a Jewish community in Mälmo any more'. (One might say: in ten years time, we don't know if there will be a Swedish community in Mälmo any more, but doubtless, Jews in Sweden, or elsewhere, do not care about that). Inevitably, the US-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre has gotten involved, demanding that the Swedish government provide more security for the Jews of Mälmo, and insisting, with colossal impudence and arrogance, that the Mayor of Mälmo, Ilmar Reepalu, be sacked. (Imagine the uproar if a Swedish group demanded that the mayor of Manhattan, or an Israeli town, be sacked). At the same time, of course, the Centre supports Muslim immigration into Sweden, and condemns all forms of racism and xenophobia, etc.
But, to return to the 'historic' immigration policy of the Swedish government: one cannot say that the Jews had a hand in it. Likewise for the immigration policy in Britain in the past 13 years, or in Australia in the past ten years (which saw the Asian immigration population soar to around 9%). The biggest surge in non-white immigration was the work of the conservative, center-right Howard government, which had, so far as I can tell, nary a Jewish minister. Howard's Liberal Party is the oldest political party in Australia, and, like the British Labour Party, a national institution. No doubt, it has prominent Jewish (and other non-Western) members, like the Labour Party, but, overall, it is predominantly Anglo-Saxon - just like British Labour.
At the same time, Jews did, in the 1950s and 1960s, play a role in getting rid of segregation in the American South, in abolishing 'whites only' immigration laws in America, Australia and elsewhere; they constantly mocked, ridiculed, criticised, and deconstructed, the dominant white Western, Christian and European culture; and so on. But, nowadays, it is the white political establishment - and intellectual, media, religious and cultural establishments - which perform that destructive function.
A recent article, in the Occidental Observer, by James Edwards, draws roughly the same conclusions. The article is mostly about a nauseating, Oscar-winning Frank Sinatra film, 'The House We Live In' (1945), written by a communist Jew. The film extols multiracialism in America - what Yockey called, witheringly, 'brotherhood propaganda'. But what is significant is how mainstream, how respectable, that same propaganda is now. It could be the rhetoric of a Bush Jr., or Obama, or any 'conservative' commentator in the New York Times - and not the vapourings of a radical Jew. Mr Edwards comments on this, and on the leading role played by Jews in the desegregation movement:
Nowadays, of course, the message of the movie is considered mainstream. Who doesn’t love “tolerance” and “diversity” these days? But back then, the idea that race and religion were meaningless trivialities was only being pushed by radicals, Jews, and Communists. Forced racial integration was considered to be a Communist plot, largely because it was a Communist plot. And if you think I exaggerate, just consult some history books. Christians and conservatives of today love to pretend as if they’ve always stood for and promoted interracial marriage, integrated schools, integrated churches, Civil Rights laws, etc., and that Martin Luther King was the embodiment of Christian conservatism. But nothing could be further from the truth. Conservative evangelical churches in the era between WW 2 and the 1970s railed against racial integration, and opposed all efforts to mix the races. Probably not five white preachers out of a thousand would’ve conducted an interracial marriage in 1964. Conservatives and Christians weren’t “marching with Dr. King”; the non-blacks marching with MLK were Quakers, liberal apostate “Christians”, commies, beatniks, and, overwhelmingly, Jews.
What is interesting is that the old radicalism has become the new conservatism: Christian churches which opposed desegregation now claim to have supported it along, for instance. While this radicalism was fuelled, largely, by radical Jews on the Left, now prominent, establishment, mainstream whites have co-opted it.
4. The three phases of multiracialism
This is obvious enough, but it is a conclusion many nationalists find it hard to swallow. For one, it would be admitting that the white peoples of the West have a self-destructive streak. It is easy to blame the decline of the West on outside forces who are bent on destroying it - the Jews - and, in all probability, the long march to multiracialism and mass non-white immigration would not have started without Jewish influence. (Likewise, the Second World War may not have occurred, or would have taken a different form than it did, if it were not for the powerful Jewish advisors around Roosevelt). Likewise, no-one doubts the power, the sovereignty, the American Jewry has: if they ultimately decide that Iran should be bombed, Obama will bomb Iran. One has to see American Jewry as the evil magician, dressed in black, in an old sword and sorcery film. Sitting atop a tower, gazing into a magic crystal ball, he orders brainwashed legions of American and British soldiers to crush, destroy and kill - in the name of Zion. But, while the magician has power over US politicians, and the US economic policy, is he really responsible for the Harmans and Reinfeldts?
Initially, he was responsible for multiracialism, but then the torch was passed. It is almost as though there were three phases in the development of multiracialism, as I will explain.
In the first phase - which started in 1933 - we saw the advent of the Jew as 'cultural distorter', the outsider to Western society, relentlessly pushing, through films like the 1945 Sinatra one, the 'brotherly ideals' of 'tolerance' and race-mixing. In this period, a sturdy Anglo-Saxon racialism dominated, and so the Jewish ideals of 'brotherliness' were seen, to a large extent, as fringe ideals. (And indeed, many Jews were, in this period, on the political fringes - extreme liberals or communists). As for desegregation, the legalisation of miscegenation, and the abandonment of anti-white immigration laws - you could forget it.
In the second period, the fully-fledged left-wing and Jewish offensive got underway. This period saw many whites join the crusade (as Mr Edwards' article points out). The American TV show, 'Mad Men', portrays this beautifully. In Season Two, one advertising executive (in the year 1962), Paul Kinsey, is a self-proclaimed beatnik and an all-round pompous phoney; he grows a beatnik beard and takes up a Negro girlfriend (who works at a cash register at a supermarket) with the intention of showing his friends and collegues how 'hip' and unconventional he is, and hosts marijuana parties in his luxury flat, in a hip, bohemian part of town. He even goes on one of the 'freedom rides' down South, and spouts Marxist/New Left gibberish to uncomprehending Negroes on the bus.
Eventually, as we know, beatnik-ism morphed into the hippie movement, and the desegregationists - along with the anti-war movement, the legalise homosexuality and pornography movement, the early 'women's liberation' movement - won the battle. The American white's only anti-immigrant law was abolished in 1965. We then see plenty of movies, comic books, novels, etc., extol the virtues of interracial love, brotherhood and tolerance. Undoubtably, Jews played a big role in all this as well: but we see more and more whites getting on board (the hippies, quakers, radical left-wing white, middle-class university youths (e.g., the Baader-Meinhof and Red Brigade types). Non-Jewish liberals, like Dr King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, were adopted, by white youth, as secular saints.
In the third phase - from about the seventies and eighties onwards - multiracialism, non-white immigration and the praise of the two becomes the norm, the new orthodoxy.
The question is, where does this leave that radical Jewish screenwriter from 1945? There is nothing more disappointing for a radical than to see all of his ideals put into practice. Today's Jewish screenwriters can write a disgusting film depicting interracial love, but the problem is, this sort of thing now elicits a yawn. The best way to prove this is to see, in polite, white company, what the reaction is when you suggest that white men should be barred, by law, from marrying Asian women. The reaction, more often than not, will be incredulity and horror: how could any decent person suggest such a thing? Whereas, in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, the reaction would have been one of approval.
But the likes of Dr William Pierce were always finding such-and-such a disgusting film endorsing race-mixing (written and produced by Jews) or some other sordid, blasphemous cultural production, and recounting them to his radio listeners with indignation and a real sense of urgency: 'Can't you see what the Jews are doing? They are trying to destroy the white Western culture'. Which would have been a cutting-edge, relevant thing to say in the 1960s - and Pierce was a veteran of the Far Right struggle, in the 1960s, against the Jewish-led counter-cultural movements - but not in the 1990s and 2000s, when there have been at least two US presidents who were draft-dodgers, and one of them - the "conservative" Bush Jr., from a distinguished East Coast Yankee family - an enthusiastic endorser of Hispanic immigration, legal or illegal. In other words, the Pierces and Dukes are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
In effect, that Jewish radical from 1945 has succeeded: race-mixing, non-white immigration, homosexuality, pornography, radical feminism, have become normal; the white, Western Christian culture has become so battered, by the 'culture of critique', that most mainstream whites no longer recognise that they have a unique culture worth defending any more. (Indeed, such a notion would be seen, by many whites, as almost revolting). In all probability, were the Jews to be whisked away, by magic, to the planet Mars tomorrow, the Harmans and Reinfeldts would continue along the same dreary course to the cultural and racial destruction of their own people, and mulattas like Rihanna and Beyonce would continue to be held up as the ideal of womanly beauty.
What will happen next really depends on one's view of human nature. Yockey believed that the white Western civilisation or 'Culture' would eventually reject any 'parasitic' elements that sought to attach themselves to it. (By 'parasitic', he meant large immigrant populations - Jew, Muslims, Blacks, Asians, and so forth - which did not belong to it, and which, more often than not, belong to foreign 'Cultures'. The Jews and Muslims belong to the Semitic, or what Spengler calls, 'Magian' Culture, for example). The Culture reacts just like an organism does, and strives to preserve and maintain its health by manufacturing 'anti-bodies' which will deal with the parasites. In other words, racialist and nationalist movements would eventually spring up and expel the invaders.
Yockey's view is the reverse of that of the Harmans - or indeed, the average man in the street who believes that Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and Obama Barack are heroic men of great stature. What is certain is that Islam, and in particular, the presence of over ten million immigrants on European soil, is such an obvious, aggressive instance of Culture Parasitism that not even the blindest whites can miss it and fail to feel a certain alienation towards it. An African, or Chinese, immigrant can 'keep their head down', and not bring themselves into an open confronation with the Western culture. But there is something about Islamism which urges Muslim immigrants to a head-on attack - just like the Islamist radicals who protested against the returning British soldiers' march at Luton, burning poppies and shouting anti-British slogans. In other words, Islam has a tendency to get itself noticed, in a big way.
I will finish here by returning to 'Midsomer Murders'. A (presumably white) Briton wrote a letter to the Guardian newspapers in response to the True-May scandal:
Perhaps the now ex-producer of Midsomer Murders, Brian True-May – now he has some time on his hands – would like to visit my rural hamlet in Buckinghamshire? He could bring Simon Jenkins with him – since he apparently agrees with True-May, who said: "We don't have ethnic minorities involved because it wouldn't be the English village with them. It just wouldn't work" (Report, 15 May). We don't live far away from the village where much of Midsomer Murders is shot. Here, in our small hamlet of around 50 people, we have a British family of African descent, a British Asian and also my wife, British of Iranian descent. While there is no point in pretending that most English villages are multicultural, there are clearly some that are. What's more, there will be plenty of villages that are in the future. Thank God, or Allah, for that!In the main, we Western nationalists have our work cut out for us. The enemy is us now, or, more precisely, our parents, siblings, friends, who look at multiracialism, non-white immigration and Mandela, Obama and Dr King as the greatest goods, and men like the Mark Seddon of above. That communist Jewish screenwriter of 'The House We Live In' has migrated into the white people themselves, and now controls all their thoughts and actions. Like the demon in 'The Exorcist', he must be driven out.