Someone said that I made a big fuss about not saying “whites”, preferring “Europeans”, and then went and said that white people were demeaned in adverts.
So I contradicted myself.
This is “the 6th rule”, per Orwell’s rules of writing—the sixth rule being to break any other rule rather than commit a barbarism.
I take it to be the same as the message of Jesus—which is not to be bound by rigid legalism.
So if you came to me and said, “Britain should be a white nation and we must have more white children,” I would say, “No, not so.”
That’s because, while I accept biological race exists, I don’t think political units and human social life can be reduced to it.
There’s also music, poetry, history, myth, and religion—these are gestalt with blood, but not reducible to it.
It’s why I’d say “British” or “English”, because, in my experience, not based on opinion polls or media articles, Asians and blacks will not describe themselves as English or British—and if they do it sounds awkward and contrived (you can tell they don’t really mean it, something that you can’t capture through “social science”).
However, that doesn’t mean Englishness or Britishness can be reduced to “whiteness”.
The Americans are “white”, but they are our mortal enemies—they want to destroy us.
Americans are acculturated from birth with the view that England is the enemy and that everything English must be destroyed—they pick this up via introjection when they’re taught their history, the revolution’s history, and their implicit notions of what “good” and “bad” mean as children.
A great many of our problems stem from America’s influence on this country—this really being the influence of Judeo-Masonry, which created America from the start to be what it is today, the agent of the AntiChrist on earth.
“Whiteness” doesn’t capture this truth.
However, if you said to me “in this advert they literally spit on white men” then I’m not going to quibble—because I can’t impose my views on colloquial speech and wouldn’t be understood otherwise.
So it’s “sixth rule” territory—I’d use “white” and “black”, because it’s required to be understood; and I’d sooner break the rule than commit a barbarism (or not be understood).
However, if you just want to live in a “white-majority country”, a country with a welfare-consumerist orientation, well, we had that in the 1960s—and it led to the problems we have today.
The problems are more metaphysical than just race—though race is implicated in those problems and has an objective reality, our problems are not reducible to race.
When I was on the train to Skirrid Fawr, I saw two young Welsh men and I thought, “They look and sound just like my cousin.”
This is my “racism”, not a genetic racism or a scientific racism but a racism that recognises a type—which includes even the excitable way they talk and the way they think.
Now, on that train, the fact is that, apart from myself and a Muslim woman, everyone else was dressed the same—Calvin Klein, Nike, Adidas, and then the iPhone.
One reason I have always had an interest in Islam is that Muslims are one group in Western welfare-consumer culture who still wear their traditional dress—the women are still in veils and “pyjamas”, whereas everyone else, black or Polish, is in Adidas.
The Welsh certainly aren’t in their little traditional black hats and petticoats—and haven’t been for centuries.
In the same way, when a “black man” swipes a phone in London, I always wonder what tribe he belongs to—of the many tribes of Africa—and whether that tribe is known for thievery.
That is all lost under modernistic welfare-consumer culture—he’s just “a black man”, an approved census designation and mass propaganda point for the regime.
Similarly, I always liked Colin Wilson because he was from Leicester and he reminded me of my paternal grandfather, also from Leicester—and that is “micro-racism”, the tribe within the race, that is destroyed by terms like “whites” and “blacks”.