Search This Blog

Friday, 5 December 2025

A Fertile Time for Nationalism What Is To Be Done? Part 5

 

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Crowborough Protest

There’s never been a more fertile time for the development of real nationalism in Britain. The huge success of the grass-roots Raise the Colours operation both reflected and encouraged a feeling of desperation at the way the country is going and a collective determination to do something about it.

Every Thursday brings a fresh clutch of local council by-elections, with Labour and Tory seats falling as often as not to Reform or the Watermelons. The sustained surge in support for Farage & Co. means that the ballot road remains completely blocked for ethnonationalists, but this should if anything be a ‘plus’ for the movement, since it now dissuades all but the most painfully naïve from throwing their money and effort down the electoral drain.

The continued demonstrations against migrant hotels and the worst of the new migrant crimes confirm that the anger of the British people (and the Irish too, for that matter) is near boiling point. But the vast majority of those attending such protests are local people.

Some of them are also attended by small groups of committed nationalists but, in general, most of the attendees at these very welcome events are either non-political normies or civic nationalists hoping to build their own organisations or to further wind up tensions in the hope of speeding the advent of the civil war which they are so sure is coming.

So what, in this wonderfully fertile time, are genuine nationalists doing to push the Cause forward? The answer, compared to past times, is extraordinarily little. At no stage in the history of the BUF, Union Movement, National Front, British Movement, British National Party, etc did any of them have opportunities anything like as good or widespread as exist for nationalists today.

This is not to support or equate all of those groups, or to say that they would necessarily have been relevant to the current times. It is just to point out that their leaders and activists would have given their eye-teeth and (generally stiff) right arms for the external circumstances and potential of Current Era Britain.

What, then, are the real nationalists – or people who claim to be real nationalists – doing to advance the Cause? There are certainly a very significant number trying to do something. Indeed, educated, intelligent, artisan and middle-class teens and young men are more sympathetic to nationalist ideas – often in very radical ways – than at perhaps any previous time in modern British political history. It’s really very heartening and promising.

Willing though many are, however, we must ask: Are they working in the best ways possible to help fulfil that promise? I believe that there are more ways than ever in which they could do so, and I will set out specific proposals here very shortly. But before we examine what should be done, it is useful to look at what is currently being done. Not least, to establish that there is easily enough energy, commitment, money and ability sloshing around at there to build something really worthwhile.

We all know what the ‘Counter-Jihad’ crew are doing with their firehose injections of Zionist cash. We all know that Reform activists continue – despite the desperately poor electoral capabilities of Farage’s massively funded army of amateurs – to challenge and beat up the old parties. But I’m not writing about them; we’re interested not in populists, but in real nationalists. What are they doing?

Patriotic Alternative banner drop

Broadly speaking, we can divide their current efforts into four. First, the Ideas Men. These are the individuals and groups who are working primarily with podcasts and occasional real-life meetings to spread radical nationalist ideas among mainly young people. Every now and again they venture out and make contact with the public at asylum hotel demos or Remembrance Day parades.

Generally, however, it’s a matter of building their own contact base and local groups, while spreading ideas. This is fair enough, or is as long as the ideas they spread have their radicalism tempered by common sense and British tradition. Those who constantly seek to maximise social media reach by shock tactics and flirting with extremism may be raking it in from monetised social media platforms, but they are also setting decent but impressionable youngsters on a collision course with life-wrecking repression.

Even where this trap is avoided, though, there is a further problem. That is that there is very little. effort being made to touch nationalist ideas, activists and organisation down into the real lives of ordinary people.

Irish Nationalists on the march

Flying the flag at grass-roots anti-immigration demonstrations is a very good place to start, especially if the hardcore nationalist presence appears not as a tag-along extra, whose presence might only lead to convenient demonisation headlines in the media, but as an actual benefit. The Christian Nationalist Siol na hEireann in the Republic of Ireland are a good example of what can be done.

Its activists frequently attend anti-immigration demos, handing out scores or even hundreds of Irish flags and placards. These turn what might otherwise appear to be a fairly disorganised crowd of ordinary people into a fervent and united-looking patriotic parade. I am told, in addition, that most of their demo props are handed back at the end of the event by the grateful locals, who happily take a party leaflet or newspaper in return.

This process is helped enormously by the fact that Siol na hEireann, while ideologically the most distinctive and coherent nationalist group in Ireland, has from the very beginning made a sustained effort to present itself and its ideas as springing from the soil and soul of their own nation. It is, therefore, an avowedly Christian and Irish Republican organisation.

The latter isn’t my taste, adhering as I always have to the loyalist tradition, but this approach means that MSM attempts to demonise the party - and by extension demonstrations at which it appears – miss the mark. Thus the hardcore nationalist ideas put across in the papers its people hand out at the same events can go into the hearts and minds of their previously non-political compatriots.

It is all in marked contrast between the self-isolating ‘black block’ extremism and sub-Hitlerite posing on the fringes of the nationalist movement in Britain.

That said, however effective attendance at such demonstrations may be, it doesn’t achieve that much if it is seen as an end in itself, rather than just a first step. It helps to wake up a slightly wider audience and recruit more people to carry on doing the same thing. This is political work, but it can’t really be described as ‘building a community’, Nor does it make any long-term difference to the movement’s effectiveness.

Overall, though, it is obvious that someone has to do this first-step work. And, if awakened and radicalised members of the public, particularly young people are later on brought in and involved in doing things which are long-term constructive, then this initial groundwork is well worthwhile. When I set out my proposals for that constructive engagement with real communities, it will become clear that no organised group has yet got beyond this first stage on the British mainland.

Monster Raving Loony Party

Next, we come to the shrinking minority still obsessed with the parliamentary road, those still talking about, or actually, contesting Westminster elections. The NF and the BNP both poured vast amounts of effort and money into this. While some argued even then that this was a waste of resources, there were two crucial factors which justified the tactic at the time:

The first was that, in those pre-Internet days, the TV party political broadcasts which we got for contesting certain numbers of seats – one broadcast for fifty seats, more for large numbers of additional ones – were immensely valuable in terms of recognition and recruitment. The same is true of the free Post Office delivery of election leaflets. We knew that some of them were dumped in skips by leftist or minority postmen, but enough got through to make each election an important recruiting drive.

The second was that, back then, the demographics were so different that there was still time for the election of a nationalist government to turn things around and avoid disaster. While that was the case, we had a moral duty to give our people the chance to make that choice.

It was with this in mind that I did a speaking tour of all the BNP’s main branches in 1997, warning them that we had no more than 25 years to win through the ballot box. After that, I told them, the combination of growth in ‘their’ numbers, the drop in ours, and the extra mixing that would take place, would make the electoral victory of a hardline, ethnonationalist party with a repatriation platform an impossibility.

Consistent

My post-2014 position – that it is now too late to avert (though not to late to prepare for and survive) disaster – is thus completely consistent with the one I held nearly thirty years ago . We’ve had the 25 years. We didn’t make it. Times up. The demographic situation is now at least as bad as expected. Hence, we now have to do very different things, on account of those changed circumstances.

Sadly, there are still a few genuine nationalists, primarily some of my old BNP comrades, now in the British Democratic Party - and others who have convinced themselves that independent nationalist candidates may do better - who still believe in the parliamentary road. The last general election saw far fewer of these well-meaning saps than ever before, but there are some already raising money to launch another Electoral Charge of the Light-Headed Brigade next time around.

Many more, for that matter, will stand for parties such as Advance, Reclaim, Restore and whoever else shares their belief that Reform will shortly implode (very unlikely) or will one day get elected and fail to deliver. This latter analysis is a racing cert, but that doesn’t for one moment explain why it makes any sense to throw away a fortune opposing Reform in the ballot box while Nigel & Co. are on a high.

Very occasionally, the pitiful handful of votes the parties just to the ‘right’ of Reform will get will allow Labour or the Tories to hold on to a seat they would otherwise have lost to Farage. Everywhere they stand, however, they will lose their deposits. Since that’s been held at £500 per constituency since 1985, it’s nothing like the significant sum it was back then, but then you have to add the cost of the leaflets, a couple of billboards, at least one car-mounted speaker system, and other campaign extras.

Even a basic campaign, just enough to get you noticed, has to cost at least £2,500. To do a half-serious job you need to spend £10,000 per seat, which is still a fraction of what the serious contenders will spend. However much you spend, it’s money down the drain.

Despite this, Ben Habib and various other leaders on the borderline between populist and nationalist, will push their people to stand. Despite the fact that their organisations are backed by various multi-millionaires, they are very likely to insist that their local groups must raise the money by themselves.

This will be done, quite possibly in hundreds of seats – and it will achieve nothing. Come the day after the election these decent, brave but foolish people will have been utterly humiliated. It’s a crying shame, particularly since – as we will see – there are so many things which would be a far better use for their money and commitment.

Confused and Confrontational

Third, we have the people who I will label ‘confrontationalists’ because, although they all like to dress in black and use Nazi slogans and salutes, they don’t like being called Nazis. Despite their posing, they still have enough sense to understand that it’s a demonisation smear which isolates them from all normal adult Brits. This begs the question as to why they still go in for such self-destructive nonsense, but that’s their problem rather than ours.

The confrontationalists are small groups, many of young men, who are effectively following the already proven disastrous path of National Action. They gather together in small, semi-underground groups with the ‘optics’ of Antifa-style Black Block uniforms, with masks and sunglasses, banners with provocative slogans and neo-Nazi style logos, stiff right-arm salutes and chants which, if not overtly National Socialist, are invariably out of kilter even with the radicalised spirit of the time.

White Vanguard

White Vanguard -current being groomed to be the next National Action. This too will not end well.

They might think it looks ‘edgy’, and it may indeed help them recruit a few more 16-year-olds. But they are setting themselves up to be arrested, persecuted, banned and imprisoned. This isn’t a possibility, it’s an inevitability; the provocateurs egging them on and sharing their Telegram posts know exactly what they are doing and where it ends, because they’ve done it before.

When I warned people in National Action when it was first started, that was where they were heading, they all denied it with great indignation. “We’re going to be fine. Get out of the way, old man. Watch how the young lions do it”.

They were duly crushed. A very significant number of them - given their only total number was only a couple of hundred - went to prison. An extremely high casualty rate, with nothing achieved at all achieved. Those jailed for that futile madness will in various ways be marked and diminished for life.

Those who escaped prison are now effectively deprived of their right to work with their fellow Brits in any sort of collective venture, however positive it may be. They are toxic, damaged goods, because their involvement in any sort of patriotic group leaves it open to the accusation that it is a ‘continuity organisation’ and hence also liable to be banned. Or their past may be overlooked, so that they are able to get back involved, only to find themselves blackmailed by the police to become informers.

The fourth group, very, very visible in nationalist politics, are the ones who use social media to rake in cash by monetising Migrant Crime Porn, angry slogans and impossible demands.

It came out recently that a very significant number of anti-immigration, pro-British social media accounts are actually run from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh. These complete grifters aren’t even white.

But most of them are, and they’re all on the same grift. Some post from abroad, living as expats everywhere from Spain to Thailand. They fund their lifetsyles peddling rage and doom porn, endlessly telling us what everyone paying attention already knows – the elites’ precious multicult is a bloody, unjust, unstable disaster.

Whenever there’s another disgusting attack, murder or some crime by any sort of immigrant, they jump in with posts designed to get maximum traction. Views and reposts make money.

Steve Laws post
Steve Laws, fed-poster, monetising misery and Letter to Santa sloganising

Now, all these crimes and injustices against our people are disgraceful and should be condemned. The System’s efforts to deny, cover up or minimise them should be exposed. But doing so in the most extreme and “racist” terms possible tends only to make opposition to mass immigration look violent, dangerous and full of hate.

More measured posts have value when put out by people and organisations which actually do things in real life. Such publicity efforts from time to time attract new recruits, who can then be involved in their work. Incisive but sensible social media posts are the 21st century equivalent of stickers and leaflets – perfectly legitimate recruitment tools.

But most of those who post their outrage and empty “Mass Deportations NOW” slogans are not involved in any sort of organisation. Take a closer look at them – do they ever put their hands in their pockets and shell out some of the money they rake in for anything useful?

I have already explained how, without the ability to take and retain state power, “Remigration” is an impossible dream and therefore a dangerous distraction from hard reality.

Siren calls for Remigration have become, to paraphrase Marx, the opiate of the anti-immigration people. All sorts of people have called me all sorts of names for pointing this out, the most common accusation being that it is “defeatist” to point out that remigration is never going to be delivered, either by populists in government or nationalists in opposition.

Forget such childish fantasies. The real world choice is not between remigration or becoming a minority in our own homeland, it’s what kind of minority we are going to be. A powerless, abused and persecuted minority, or a powerful, confident and respected minority?

If you’re willing to accept the former, then you can help to make it happen either by doing nothing at all, or by wasting the next 20 years shouting empty slogans and pretending that some White Knight in shining armour is going to come to our rescue.

The grifters selling these fantasies on podcasts and postys are not only dishonest and greedy, they are also cowards. Sorry to be so blunt, but our people treally don’t have the time for their Deportations Now snake oil. There is nothing more cowardly than refusal to face up to the truth.

A Very Fertile Time for Nationalism

The great shame of all this is that the ordinary people of Britain - the oft-despised ‘normies’ – are actually already awake and on various paths to full-on ‘radicalisation’. They are looking for ideas and explanations and for ways forward. This is an enormous opportunity for the nationalist movement - and it is being missed.

There’s no need to panic about this, the process is still in the early stages, and it will run for years to come. We needn’t beat ourselves up over the fact that opportunities have been missed because there will be more and greater opportunities, in the near, medium and longer term future.

But unless we start to organise to take advantage of those opportunities, time will carry on slipping past. The countdown to minority status in our own homelands is ticking away. We cannot afford to waste time, whether that’s by doing nothing or - equally foolish - by doing things that achieve nothing.

Message Nick Griffin

The slogan grifters invariably present the white minority date as the ultimate Black Pill, the moment in time after which we’re all automatically doomed. Overnight, they say or imply, we will lurch from being in a position to wave a magic remigration wand, to being cold climate Boers, waiting helplessly to be butchered in our beds.

It is, of course, Black Pill defeatist nonsense. The multicult future is a nightmare, we were indeed “Never Asked”, I and many others were putting out leaflets and putting up stickers warning about it more than fifty years ago. The broken society to which elite treason and Boomer stupidity and cowardice have condemned us is indeed ugly and dangerous.

1970s sticker. I have no idea how many thousands of these I brought and put up as a teenager. Most of them were about immigration, often demanding “Repatriation”. Did demanding it make it happen? “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”.

But our people are not going to be genocided. They are going to be the largest minority in Balkanised states where everyone is a minority. If we fail to organise to jostle with the other minorities, to secure our rights and a decent share, and to deter any who would do us harm, then our people will indeed be brutalised and gradually diminished to vanishing point.

If we organise, if we choose to make our own destiny, that will not happen. But it does get harder and harder with every year wasted powerlessly imploring the Powers That Be to listen to us and to change direction.

We are going to be a minority, however much we wish for a political and demographic miracle, that cannot now be avoided. It is completely beyond our capability to change. But we will decide – through our wasted time or our effective action, what sort of minority we will be. That is why we must set to the work of turning our people into a well organised, confident and, whenever necessary, militant minority.

Now, we know about human nature. We know that many people – especially when asked to do something unfamiliar and outside their comfort zone - have an unfortunate tendency to find that, well, they’re already doing something else. They don’t need to change direction, or to do more, or it would cost money to do things and they really can’t raise the money. All different excuses for the same failings – either doing nothing or doing things which don’t produce any real progress, like the four primary nationalist activities we examined earlier.

Before going on to propose a range of genuinely useful initiatives for the future, let us therefore consider briefly the question of resources, of time and money. All of the initiatives I am going to propose can be carried out with roughly the same amount of commitment – and rather less risk – by the activists of nationalist organisations such as the NF or British National Party, and their equivalents in other countries.

There’s no point us considering what the Counter-Jihadists or the Slogan Grifters ‘do’. Turning out once every six months to chant “oh, Tommy, Tommy” isn’t activism, it’s feel-good entertainment.

Share

Likewise, spending hours every day looking for the viral meme opportunity which will reach enough punters to hit the target to keep the monetisation cash coming in. It’s not activism, it’s a little business for the goy slop content providers, and conscience-salving for the lazy or cowardly who Like or repost it.

“I’ve reposted a meme saying that all groomers should be deported. That’s my bit done for the day, so now I can spend the evening watching my team’s overpaid foreigners try to beat the other team’s overpaid foreigners”. None of them think of it like that, of course, but it’s how it is.

The other two current forms of ‘activists’ are, however, a different matter, because they do at least actually do something which can be classified as ‘activism’.

Let’s consider the Confrontationalists first. To be honest quite a few of these also confine their effort to social media posts, scrolling through the Telegram echo chamber or watching the same talking heads discuss the same issues for another three hours for the benefit of the same audience.

But, to be fair, some do move on to IRL meet-ups. Local social gatherings, ultra-daring forays to put up a couple of dozen stickers, a banner drop or a summer camp.

As it happens, these activities are generally as far as they go. Apart from the fact that we didn’t have the Internet, us old hands did all of them back in the seventies, The problem is that they either go no further, or where they tend to go next.

Those which go no further are self-evidently pretty pointless, but some of those which do are very much worse. Because their favoured Telegram channels of podcasts are littered with tempting rabbit holes: Neo-Nazis and CIA-sponsored Azovites. Worst of all, the hints of paganism and black sun occultism which are gateways to full-blown Satanism, with rape, paedophilia, fantasies of human sacrifice and the murder of homeless veterans at the sulphurous dark bottom.

Ryan Fleming

Ryan Fleming, National Action activist and Satanist author. Jailed for sexually abusing a handicapped boy, and then again for paedophile grooming of a young girl. It’s what these people do!

Most of those who get to the start of this slippery slope will never actually get all the way down, because long before they end up fighting as NATO globohomo mercenaries or LARPing Clockwork Orange in underpasses, they get grassed up by one of the agent provocateurs who’ve been pushing them to extremism. Their houses are raided, they’re devices seized, and the next thing they know is that they’re sentenced to four or five years for Public Order offences and malicious communications

This is the point at which all those juvenile Hollywood Nazi posings and declarations of racist hatred really backfire. Once a group of youngsters are caught with this sort of material, even straightforward and entirely innocent group trips to the gym become – in the hands of the prosecution barrister, ‘evidence’ of organising a paramilitary group for political purposes.

That adds several more years to the prison sentence, when the neo-Nazi stuff has already lost them any potential sympathy from a jury, or given one of David Lammy’s future judge-only courts the excuse needed to throw the book at them.

Put it all together and let’s say that these betrayed, frustrated and angry young men end up with four-year sentences, which is entirely realistic for such ‘offenders’. That means serving two years. What a terrible waste!

Just imagine how much constructive work a group of highly motivated young men could do in two years! – and still have time to enjoy their freedom. In that time some of them could even find themselves their future wives, or even have their first sons and daughters.

Given that we’re in a demographic war of survival, wouldn’t that be better than deliberately provoking the Powers That Be, isolating themselves in a sort of quasi-political cult, spending two of the best years of their lives in prison and coming out as marked, organisationally toxic men?

At present, fortunately, the Confrontationalists are very much in the minority, but add the time they’re going to throw away to that wasted by the other tendencies which contribute to the general impotence of the nationalist movement. All of a sudden, it should be obvious that we have the manpower and the time to achieve many really worthwhile things – if people would only get serious and pull their fingers out.

The same is true for money. Not just the £2,500 minimum that various ‘parliamentary road’ groups will throw away in each constituency at the next general elections, but also the money that many of the others do not raise at present.

What do I mean by this? The groups who do little other than discuss ideas on line, and the cowardly migrant porn grifters have another thing in common other than their lack of constructive work: They also habitually avoid giving their followers constructive targets which would involve them raising money and using it to acquire real life assets which would advance the movement’s capabilities.

This is partly because many of them haven’t a clue what to do, but it’s also because people being encouraged to raise money for concrete projects are much less inclined to pay to ask questions on podcasts or buy someone a coffee. And that’s not what they want at all.

The good news is that this means that the nationalist movement does have the capacity to raise the funds needed to start doing the things that need to be done. The question is, “what is to be done?” And, now we’ve gone through all the problems, the first of the concrete answers will be given in the next part of this series. I promise!

Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale is a reader-supported publication on Substack. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


Wednesday, 3 December 2025

'Darkness is RISING!' | Neil Oliver sounds alarm on the 'unilateral disarmament' of Christianity

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.

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.    

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Sunday, 30 November 2025

Resolve Only to be Free!"

 Resolve Only to be Free!"

By Nick Griffin

Follow Nick On Substack 

Follow Nick on X

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 .

John and his fellow pygmy tyrants

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.

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.

execution of Robespierre
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/product/deus-vult-the-great-reset-resistance/

You're c