or me the rising of the darkness is made most obvious in the deafening silence that surrounds the wholesale murder of Christians. It should be on front pages… top story on every news channel. And yet it rates only the most cursory of mentions - Neil Oliver.
Freedom News Freedom News writes and shares posts that are of Interest to a broad demographic . Articles are to be taken on a individual basis and not under the assumption that different Authors and content providers and Horwich Nationalist as well share the same opinions. Articles copied are fully attributed to Authors under international fair use acts. .
Wednesday, 3 December 2025
Labour lies because its policies are evil
Labour lies because its policies are evil
First Published in The Conservative Woman
IMAGINE you are waiting on a biopsy result. Your doctor, who doesn’t seem to like you but pretends he does, has prepared you for bad news. It’s possible you’re going under the knife – worst case scenario.
Unknown to you he already has the results, and they aren’t that bad. Because he knows best, he keeps that good news from you, calls you in, puts on his game face, sexes up the data and refers you for surgery anyway. Because he can.
The doctor is not popular with colleagues. They gossip and brief against him. You find out about the medical malfeasance and confront him.
He explains that the biopsy results did not take account of his policy of recommending surgery for all patients in your situation, the more invasive the better since you ask, and that he therefore ‘makes no apology’ for the partial and (strictly speaking) unnecessary removal of much of your liver. Again.
When you point out, as you might feel entitled to, that this all seems like bad form he swaps the game face for the outrage one and tells you, loudly, that he’ll ‘take no lessons’ from a patient who has been told more than once to take more fibre and cut out the sugar.
What would we make of such a quack? Do you think the word ‘liar’ is strong enough.? Would ‘madman’ not be better?
I suspect you know where I’m going with this. And while I concede that analogies and thought experiments are never perfect, I’m happy to duke this one out, point by point.
Rachel Reeves set aside the data given to her by the OBR to yet again plunder the assets and residual good will of everyone unattached to the ever-expanding client state.
Based on numbers more imaginary than the square root of minus one she constructed a fake budget intended to crush the aspirations and creative potential of all of us. Because that’s what the welfare culturedoes: persuades people out of the habit of work, thereby robbing them of an essential element of human dignity.
The availability of welfare is the mark of a civilised society; the ubiquity of it suggests a sick one. Pun intended.
Are we really saying that her political malfeasance can be chalked up as a lie or the breaking of a manifesto promise (does anyone still take those seriously?)?
This is not to say that lying is a trivial thing. St Augustine remarked that all lies are evil to some degree as they involve an assertion that the world is not how God says it is. Also, they tend to corrupt the general thinking of the person who tells them.
And that’sthe salient point. This government has gone beyond lying. It’s now all-in for pathological self-delusion. Which is, as I say, worse than ‘mere lying’. They’ve reached the point of lying when honesty would be easier, which is when mendacity tips over into mental illness.
So Reeves is worse than dishonest, and her budget is worse than ‘unfair’. What about the apparently more damaging claim, often made these days, that they have broken the social contract?
As if that health scare wasn’t bad enough imagine now you’ve also discovered your new spouse has been cheating on you, pretty much since you were married just 18 months ago.
‘Discovered’ isn’t the best word, come to think of it, because he’s not making any effort to cover up the infidelity.
He’s sold off your jewellery (been in the family for about 1,000 years so there’s some good stuff there). When you are out in public, you’re increasingly finding yourself being very careful what you say. He doesn’t want you working but is happy to let you have a weekly allowance from your own trust fund.
When you confront him over the cheating, he doesn’t quite deny it but insists that it’s healthier for the marriage that way and if it makes you feel better, he’s happy to put a tracker on yourphone.
Would we really want to say that the problem here is just the breaking of a marriage contract?
In less than 18 months this government has given away territory, introduced randomised policing, vaporised our borders, nationalised childhood, cancelled elections, made a cult out of genuine environmental concern, introduced de factoinfanticide, is proposing medical experiments on children and has criminalised prayer.
It is now proposing to fast-track dissenters and critics and people it doesn’t like into prison by the elimination of trial by jury.
It has systematically dismantled the traditional mechanisms by which it can be held accountable, not least through the regulation of speech. It now wants us to fund its spying operation against ourselves.
It has become, in short, an abusive partner who’s managed to get his name on the lease.
This isn’t ‘breaking a contract’. It’s violating a covenant. The idea that society is a contract is a liberal deception designed to make it seem like a snapshot in time when the truth is that it is a story told over centuries. This is Year Zero authoritarianism.
We need a more robust and thoroughgoing moral language to describe what these people are up to. They aren’t charlatans doing unfair things. They are evil.
Sunday, 30 November 2025
Resolve Only to be Free!"
Resolve Only to be Free!"
By Nick Griffin
A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it.’
As we grapple with the current realities and long-term implications of the Great Reset, we need firm spiritual, moral, and genuinely intellectual, foundations on which to build our resistance to the tyranny of the global elite. Since the tyranny is, at its deepest level, Satanic, it is self-evident that the spiritual foundation of our long struggle must be the Bible.
The Great Reset’s hollow rhetoric about ‘equity’ and ‘justice’, and key policies such as a ‘universal income’ are essentially a cheap retread tyre version of Communism. This makes the great Christian, Russian dissident, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the obvious and natural choice for the core lessons on moral resistance, and the final book in this Deus Vult trilogy will include a whole chapter on his powerful and apposite warnings to the West.
[N.B. This essay of mine first appeared in the book Deus Vult - The Great Reset Resistance, which I also edited. Do not be swayed by the fact that the tyranny which it discusses was specifically the Covid Plandemic.
Every word of warning and defiance is even more relevent now as when this was first published four years ago. Back then, the tyrants tried to disguise their pust for power as a concern for our health. The prophets of the coming Techno-Feudalism no longer even bother to hide their Satanic plans. So read on!]
To provide the necessary intellectual response to the tyranny of lockdowns, obligatory vaccination, the breaking of our most cherished traditions and freedoms, and the deliberate de-industrialisation and impoverishment of our world, we could look to a much broader range of brave, noble and far-sighted thinkers from our peoples’ historic struggles against earlier forms of tyranny.
Yet one man perhaps more than any provided a most remarkable insight into the nature not only of tyranny, but more importantly of the way in which nations surrender to it. And, above all, of the way in which those who want to regain their freedom should go about it.
That man was Etienne de La Boétie, a judge and diplomat born in the Year of our Lord 1530 in Sarlat, in the heart of France’s Périgord region. When still at university, La Boétie wrote the pamphlet that marks him out as the one of the greatest but most neglected political theorists of all European history. Entitled The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, his work speaks directly to our current plight.
It paints a vivid picture of the tyranny - not of mighty kings or awesome dictators - but of little, effeminate bureaucrats. Its description of the masses’ supine acceptance of the destruction of their world sums up perfectly what we saw in the few months of 2020 during which a self-chosen elite blatantly hyped a minor health problem into an artificial crisis, and used it as the excuse for a global coup d’etat .
 |
What is most valuable about The Politics of Obedience, however, is not its pin-point accurate description of the pit into which we have all been hurled, but its carefully thought-out analysis of the strategy needed to climb out of it. For La Boétie may be seen as the father of peaceful, mass civil disobedience.
This is the form of political and revolutionary action which is identified most closely with Mahatma Ghandi. He took the theory, honed it and used it to devastating effect from 1917 until India gained independence from British rule in 1948.
Boétie, by contrast, had no long years of practical experience in which to develop his theories on the nature of tyranny and the means of resistance to it. Rather, he wrote The Politics of Obedience aged when he was at university. It was probably written when he was just twenty two years old.
 |
Etienne de La Boétie - One of the Greatest Theorists of Resistance to Tyranny
That was in the year of our Lord 1552, so let us move straight on to discover just how a young man who lived nearly five hundred years ago has so much to say to those who must strive against tyranny in the 21st century.
‘All men, as long as they remain men, before allowing themselves to be enslaved must either be driven by force or led into it by deception….. and when they lose their freedom through Deceit, they are generally not so much betrayed by others as misled by themselves.’
Many ancient Greek, Roman and medieval writers before him had attacked tyranny, but La Boétie gave particularly deep thought into its nature, and into the nature of State rule itself. His new and absolutely fundamental insight was that every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance; the bulk of the people themselves acquiesce in their own subjection.
In another insight that belied his tender years, La Boétie considered the different kinds of tyrant: conqueror; king, or elected politician. Centuries before the latter became the most common sort of unjust ruler, he put his finger on why they are so particularly unbearable:
‘There are three kinds of tyrants; some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, and others by inheritance. Those who acquire power by means of war act so that it is evident they rule over a conquered country. Those who are born to kingship are scarcely any better; nourished at the breast of tyranny as they are, they suck in with their mothers’ milk the instincts of the tyrant, and consider the masses under them to be their inherited serfs; and according to their individual disposition, miserly or generous, they treat their kingdom as their property. He who has received the state from the people, however, ought to be, it seems to me, more bearable and would be so, I think, were it not for the fact that as soon as he sees himself higher than the others, flattered by that conceit which we call grandeur, he begins to plot never to relinquish his position.’
However they come to power, though, the end result is essentially the same:
‘But, Oh good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name can we give it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless mass of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannised?’
In explaining how tyranny is imposed, La Boétie devotes several pages to the importance to tyrants of bread and circuses, and of making themselves seem superhuman and commonly adored. This is perhaps the one point in his book which at present seems dated.
For we have seen that the New Unhappy Lords of the first stages of the Great Reset have particularly targeted the simple pleasures of the lowly masses. From football games to pubs, cheap foreign holidays to budget fashion chains, the bread and circuses of 20th century consumer capitalism have come under sustained and crushing assault.
As for striving to appear as earthly demi-gods, our modern tyrants seem rather to go out of their way to make themselves unpopular, to act as second-rate, bumbling fools. The move away from the historical norm of tyrants is so blatant that the only question is whether they are the victims of a collective hysterical delusion, and thus not in control of themselves, let alone the situation; or whether they are deliberately rubbing our noses in it, confident we can and will do nothing.
In general, though, everything that La Boétie wrote nearly five hundred years ago is instantly familiar. He notes the tendency of tyrants to attempt to turn their rule into a sort of state religion.
‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Were Right Yet Again! | ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||
‘Fauci must deal with the same issue as Oppenheimer: he used science that maybe he thought was for a greater good that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people. And will continue to kill millions more because this virus is with us until the end of time.’ | ||||||
|
The mass Two Minutes’ Applause for the UK’s health service, or the hushed fake gravity of the wall-to-wall nightly TV news announcement ritual of ‘Covid deaths in the last 24 hours’, the obligatory video clips of ice crashing onto the sea from melting glaciers, the presentation of Greta Thunberg as the Jean d’Arc of the Earth Goddess cult – manifestations of the new state religion are all around us.
We can see closer parallels still when La Boétie speaks of the pyramid of collaborators and fellow looters beneath the tyrant as:
‘…. the mainspring and the secret of domination, the pillar and foundation of tyranny. Here is a large sector of society which is not merely duped with occasional and pitiful handouts from the State; here are the Few who make a handsome and permanent living out of the wages of despotism. Hence, their personal enthusiasm for despotism does not depend on illusion or habit or mystery; their stake is all too great and all too real. So a hierarchy of patronage from the fruits of plunder is created and maintained: five or six individuals are the chief advisors and beneficiaries of the favours of the king.’
These half a dozen in turn maintain six hundred ‘who profit under them,’ and the six hundred go on to ‘maintain under them six thousand, whom they promote in rank, and to whom they grant the government of provinces or the direction of finances, in order that they may serve as instruments of avarice and cruelty, executing orders whenever required and wreaking such havoc that they could not survive except under the shadow of the six hundred...’
Given the unchanging nature of human behaviour, there can be no doubt that the billionaires who believe they can use the mob as shock-troops, or the revolutionaries who unleash violence in pursuit of the will o’ the wisp fantasies of ‘equity’ and ‘climate justice’, will very often pay a high price for their brief few years guzzling at the trough or revelling in their power to bully, cancel and persecute the innocent.
Men who serve tyrants, La Boétie reminds us, invariably become their biggest victims. All of history teaches us that they are far more likely to be robbed of their share of the spoils and executed than to die peaceful deaths of old age in the luxury and pomp they thought they had secured forever.
‘Indeed what loyalty may be expected from a man whose heart is bitter enough to hate even his own people, even though they do nothing but obey him? Incapable of love, he ultimately impoverishes his own spirit and destroys his own empire.
‘There can be no friendship where there is cruelty, where there is disloyalty and injustice. Wherever the wicked gather there is only conspiracy, never comradeship. They have no affection for one another; fear alone holds them together; they are not friends, they are merely accomplices.’
Rest assured that we will see the same with the tyrants and their lackeys of our own times. When their impossible dreams collapse under the weight of their own unnatural absurdities, when looting and vanquishing hated White males doesn’t bring Paradise on Earth, they will turn on each other. As so many of the leading lights of 1789 and 1917 discovered to their cost, the revolution always devours its own children.
 |
The execution of Robespierre. Revolutions devour their parents, and their children
One insight which chimes loudly already in our own times is what Boétie has to say about the type of figure who seems so often to be attracted to the role of tyrant who plunders and abuses his own people:
‘They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, but from a single man. Not from a Hercules or a Samson, but from a single little man. And all too often, this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the blasts of war and hesitant on the tournament ground; not only lacking the energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed a common woman!’
Had the concept existed, La Boétie might simply have said ‘jumped up traffic warden’. As it did not, the author was inspired to present us with that verbal identikit picture of France’s president and lockdown dictator Emmanuel Macron.
Indirectly, his description also foreshadows something which could scarcely have been dreamt of in sixteenth century France: that the men of civilised and Christian nations such as Germany and Scotland would one day allow themselves to be crushed, side-lined, robbed and abused by hysterical witches such as Angela Merkel and Nicola Sturgeon.
As for the idea that hardy pioneers of their blood would build wonderful and consciously free countries in new lands beyond the sea, only to hand them over to the likes of Kamala Harris or Jacinda Ardern, it would have seemed so fantastic that, even if he had seen it coming, he would not have dared to write it down for fear of throwing away all credibility for his overall thesis.
For all that, however, we do not have to stretch Boétie’s insight to make it cover the fact that the worst tyranny often comes from effeminate little men, committees of the same, or hysterical and often childless women.
Having warned us of the nature of tyrants and the pains of the tyrannised, La Boétie moves on to the very heart of the matter – the fact that tyranny is only possible because the people themselves permit it by collaborating with it:
‘All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, is imposed on you not by alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves make as powerful as he is……... He who oppresses you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body……. He has not one jot more power than that which you confer upon him to destroy you. Where does he find enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many strong arms with which to beat you, if he does not borrow them from you? The jackboots that kick down your doors, where does he get them if they are not on your own feet?
‘How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you the people, if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he and his favourites may gratify their lust; you bring up your sons in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows---to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you work yourselves to the bone so that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in bondage. ‘
How is this possible? Think of those Covid masks as La Boétie continues his timeless analysis:
‘….all those things to which he is trained and accustomed seem natural to man …..so habit is the first reason for voluntary servitude. Men are like handsome race horses who first bite the bit but later come to like it, and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to enjoy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings.
‘It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it quickly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that, watching how events unfold, one is forced to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.
‘It is said that Mithridates trained himself to drink poison. Like him we learn to swallow, and not to find bitter, the venom of servitude’.
La Boétie’s next point is particularly relevant to those who may still think that the extraordinary restrictions imposed upon us during the Covid ‘emergency’ will ‘wither away’.
‘Everyone knows that the fire from a little spark will spread and blaze ever higher as long as it finds wood to burn. But even without being quenched by water, when it merely finds no more fuel to feed on, it consumes itself, dies down, and burns itself out. Similarly, the more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy; the more one yields to them, and obeys them, by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, and the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if - without any violence - they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.’
Having warned us of the dangers and reminded us that tyrants do not relinquish their power on their own accord, La Boétie leads on to his prescription for how we must deal with them in order to take back our freedom:
‘From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you do but try. Not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer. Then you will see him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall under his own weight and break into pieces’.
La Boétie concludes that ‘there is no need for fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement.’
La Boétie’s pioneering call for civil disobedience, for mass non-violent resistance as the most effective means of overthrowing tyranny, springs directly from this core tenet: that all rule relies on the consent of the subject masses, who provide not just the things which the tyrant desires, but also the manpower and means by which he takes them.
The more one yields to tyranny, the stronger and more unbearable it becomes. But when the tyrants ‘are simply not obeyed,’ they become ‘undone and as nothing.’
Here we must note that La Boétie was considering the case of the overwhelmingly material tyrant, who wanted wealth, possessions, taxes, young men for soldiers and the prettiest girls as sex slaves. The destruction of the productive middle classes and the wholesale transfer of their wealth and assets has, of course, been a striking feature of the globalists’ rolling coup in recent years.
La Boétie would have seen this as entire normal. He would surely have looked, however, at the liberal obsession with imposing their ‘global-homo’ agenda on the entire Planet – and especially their manic efforts to indoctrinate and pervert children – as something very much out of the ordinary. Old fashioned tyrants generally wanted to rob you of your wealth and your practical freedoms; their 21st century counterparts are most excited of all by the prospect of stealing your mind and soul.
One does not necessarily need to be a practicing Christian to recognise that, of all tyrannies, this is of the most dangerous. But it is also the easiest to resist. Unless and until they have us all implanted with minds-reading chips, our thoughts remain free.
Even if they forced spy devices to monitor our conversations into every living room, office, school, car and street on the planet, there would still be wild and windswept places, parks and woods full of rustling trees, and coded ways of saying things.
The elite may have fantasies of a global corporate surveillance state, and hardly a day goes by without news of some further new step towards that dystopian end, but its final implementation is a very, very long way away. Indeed, their deindustrialisation mania and controlled but reckless demolition of our old normal will inevitably place growing strains on the ability of impoverished states even to maintain current levels of policing, let alone to increase them to the dizzy heights needed to impose the level of surveillance and control that their Brave New World fantasy demands.
 |
There is a story of a German POW camp for British soldiers during the Second World War. One of the huts was suffering, so it goes, from particularly low morale. Until the inmates hit upon the idea of inventing a beautiful young woman who slept in an empty bunk and shared their daily privations.
All the prisoners joined in the make believe, smartening themselves up, shaving every morning, watching their language, apologising to her if they broke wind. Standards in the hut were restored, and morale and spirits soared. After a time the guards noticed and, conforming to the best Hollywood stereotype of the evil and dim-witted Nazi, decided to break the men’s morale by demanding that they hand over their lady prisoner for transfer to another camp. The problem, of course, was that they refused to do so, leaving even the bestial, cartoon Hun at a complete loss.
While the anecdote is probably fictitious, it highlights for us the extraordinarily difficulty facing a tyranny which demands that you change the way you think and that your surrender you children to the indoctrination programmes that they sell to us all as entertainment.
It is very easy to set obedient police and soldiers to take your taxes, to force people to wear masks in the street or to submit to revolutionary self-criticism sessions in the workplace. It is very easy for the repressive State to outsource to liberal corporations bans on ‘unvaccinated’ flying and on expressing dissent on social media platforms.
It is a different matter altogether to tell parents that they cannot chose to show their children ‘old-fashioned’ programmes on video, to decree that a group of young people can’t gather round a campfire with a guitar and learn and sing some of the old songs, to order that a Pastor cannot read his flock passages from the Bible. I say again, your thoughts remain free!
When I say free, I do not mean ‘not under pressure’. Obviously the New Unhappy Lords will seek, and often find, ways to clampdown on any and every form of disobedience that comes to their attention. Given the central role that home-schooling can play in putting the values and authority of parents above those of the State, for example, we can assume that the example of arch-liberal Sweden and France – in which home-schooling is already illegal – will gradually spread.
If a globalist occupation regime decides to outlaw home-schooling, then unless their subjects are sufficiently awake, angry and mobilised to riot, blockade things, strike and generally make the place ungovernable, home-schooling will indeed be banned.
But while it is very easy for the State to check whose children are at school and whose are not, and to impose tough sanctions on those who defy them, it would be well-nigh impossible to ensure that parents and small groups do not run their own, additional school sessions in the early evening, at weekends or during the holidays.
Hence we see that Boétie’s insistence on the withdrawal of consent and collaboration is even more relevant to resistance to the technocratic liberal tyranny of our times. Despite the immense and power of surveillance capitalism, and without minimising the dangers of the lurch towards techno-feudalism, we must recognise and develop ways to exploit the fact that the massive coercive and economic power of the State and corporations does not intrude into much of our family, social and cultural life – unless we let it.
The State can take your taxes by force, but supermarkets and agribusiness corporations can only dominate your food chain if you use them instead of farmers’ markets or growing your own. The global-homo propaganda of the TV can only steal your children’s identity and souls if you switch it on.
‘Hate speech’ laws can make it dangerous to discuss who is responsible for the advertising poison that makes White men invisible and promotes miscegenation, but they cannot stop you teaching your children about our history.
The authorities cannot stop you creating a group of families where Dads matter and organise things. They cannot stop you working with like-minded people to build a movement which obtains premises where boys and teens learn the skills and behaviour of men, girls learn feminine ones, and social evenings provide the setting for them to meet, sing, dance and fall in love.
To defy the tyranny of State and Church cost many in Boétie’s time the agonies of the thumbscrew, the rack and the stake. To defy liberalism’s Pied Piper assault on your children involves nothing more onerous than selecting or making your own entertainment or teaching your own children your own values, out of school if needs be.
Boétie’s analysis contains one more very hopeful insight. We have already noted how the New Unhappy Lords of the technocracy diverge drastically from the normal behaviour of tyrants in making no effort to make the public see and adore them as supermen or demi-gods.
Historically, the first step towards building a popular consensus for mass civil disobedience for the removal of a tyrant would have been to educate the public into the corrupt and incompetent reality behind the painstakingly constructed façade of probity, legitimacy and competence. Fortunately, that work has already been done for us by the elite themselves – and they manage to reinforce the lesson every single day!
This goes a long way to explaining the obvious desperation in the current drive both to impose ever more repressive laws and technologies on the ‘human herd’, and to habituate us to obeying ridiculous regulations on nakedly nonsensical pretexts. But the complete lack of public respect for those imposing such artificial obedience means that it would only take one small spark to set off an explosion that could break down popular acceptance of tyranny almost overnight.
Non-Violent Direct Action
Additionally, a highly complex society such as ours is very much more susceptible to non-violent direct action resistance by a few than Boétie could ever have imagined. Although in the end the governments of Blair and his French and Belgian counterparts managed to defuse the crisis, the massive impact British and European fuel blockades of the year 2000 gave both us and the elite an early glimpse of this phenomenon in action.
There is another date in recent history to which we may look to hope. For one day we will surely see a repeat of the events of 1989, which saw the implosion of the Communist regimes which had tyrannised Eastern Europe for more than forty years. The collapse of Socialist rule in Hungary in 2006, following the accidental broadcasting of the former Communist Prime Minister’s contempt for the people, is another reminder of how easily repressive regimes can fall when the time is right.
In the meantime, the primary task of opponents of modern tyranny is demographic and educational resistance. Our community has to have children and to rear them to appreciate, celebrate and pass on our culture, values and faith to their own. If, at times, that has to be done in a largely underground fashion, it makes the task more difficult, but no less vital, and by no means impossible.
With a birth rate that makes the Giant Panda look fertile, the liberals are committing genetic suicide at the same time as imposing economic and cultural hara-kiri on the people and economic system that have supported their ghastly experiment in social engineering. Their time will pass.
Our job is to ensure that our ethnic and cultural identity survives their time, while quietly building the cadre of future revolutionaries who will lead the popular resistance to the liberal technocracy. When that day comes, the mass withdrawal of consent recommended by La Boétie will surely play a key role in the fall of the tyranny of the 21st century.
The Politics of Obedience was not published until 1577, when its message became particularly attractive to the Huguenots, the Protestant minority facing brutal and genocidal repression by the Catholic French state. It was republished in French revolutionary times, but La Boétie was certainly not a proto-Jacobin.
He would undoubtedly have sided with the Christian peasants of the Vendee in their heroic and desperate revolt against revolutionary genocide. He would side too with the peoples of the world, as together we struggle to take back the freedoms at present being stripped from us under the guise of fake crises of health, terrorism and climate.
In fact, for all that he died nearly five hundred years ago; La Boétie is indeed on our side in a very real and concrete way. As we have seen, his insights into tyranny and his proposals for its overthrow are uniquely applicable to our times and to the coming struggle. The deeds of the future must be ours, but let us leave the last word to Etienne de La Boétie:
‘As for me, I truly believe I am right, since there is nothing so contrary to a generous and loving God as tyranny - I believe He has reserved, in a separate spot in Hell, some very special punishment for tyrants and their accomplices.’
You can buy the book in which this essay first appeared, here:
https://templarstore.com/
 |
You're c
Friday, 28 November 2025
Nick Griffin Former MEP and BNP Leader Under Attack by Zionist Lobby?
By Horwich Nationalists
Former MEP and BNP Leader Nick Griffin is in our opinion being prosecuted by a private prosecution for sharing a cartoon on social media. By what we believe to be a Zionist attack group in order to silence Mr Griffin over his highlighting of the genocide being conducted by the Zionist state of Israel in Gaza. And his other pro democratic Christian Nationalist views.
In a blatant attack on the freedom of expression, They are proceeding with a private prosecution despite the Police saying there was no evidence for a prosecution by them. I would ask were are the free speech union over this? As well as other so called nationalist voices such as farage and Lowe. After all they are all standing on th shoulders of Mr Griffin and the BNP. History will show how Mr Griffin was a true hero and freedom fighter of the British people. Who was sadly ignored over his warnings of what the Globalists had in store for our once great nation. Not only that this is the not the first time the courts have been used to silence Nick . Jack Straw the former labour Jewish Home secretary tried to jail Nick for being the first main stream politician to highlight Muslim grooming Gang scandal .
The Campaign Against Antisemitism is a Netanyahu attack dog. Apart from jailing me out of sheer hatred, they have three aims with this Private Prosecution:
1) To screw more money out of their supporters. At the simple level it's a grift; 2) To suppress criticism of Israel and the IDF's ethnic cleansing operations. As well as me they are persecuting others whonhave spoken out, including Muslim and black critics of their g*n ocide; 3) To incite genuine antisemitism. The Zionists have always disliked Jews who refuse to emigrate to the the state. Boosting violent Islamism (including Hamas) is one side of that trick, encouraging Westerners to resent the power and bullying tactics of the political judaists is the other. Please don't fall into their trap. Oppose Zionism and political Judaism, not ordinary Jews.Follow Nick on X Follow Nick on Substack
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)