“Building back greener and building back fairer and building back more equal and, how shall I, in a more gender neutral and, perhaps a more feminine way.” Thus says the bumbling subversive, Johnson. How can building back (whatever this curious term may mean) be done in both a more “gender neutral” and a more “feminine” way at one and the same time? If it’s more feminine then by definition it’s less “gender neutral”. Conversely, if it’s more gender neutral then it’s less feminine. Furthermore, how does the unrestricted pouring of concrete over our green and pleasant land, destroying the habitat of wildlife in the process, equate with being “greener”? Logic alert!
The summit was billed as a G7 meeting so the two EU functionaries, who are not heads of government, ought not to have been present or, if in attendance, certainly not standing on the dais with the seven heads of government.
The security was overdone. There was no need for 6,000 police officers, for example. If an incident had occurred they would simply have got in each other’s way. An ordinary citizen rarely gets to see even a single police officer if their home is burgled, so why should professional politicians receive such special treatment at our expense?
Allow a jumped-up professional politician with an ego bigger than their intellect to snatch more power over the lives of ordinary folk and it’s the devil of a job to get it back again. History shows this time and time again. What does Johnson intend to convey by the apparently innocuous sounding phrase “build back better”? More interference by government and big business in the lives of ordinary people, more state sponsored child sexual exploitation, more gender-bending of the young, more criminalizing of dissent, more promotion of immigration and immigrants at the expense of the English and more destruction of the natural environment to house the new arrivals.
The occupation government raised the white flag of surrender to its “wokest” wing when it legislated to waste 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid each and every year. That’s currently fifteen billion pounds the government needs to borrow, at interest, in order to give away overseas. Foreign aid, as we nationalists know, is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich (and often very unpleasant) people in poor countries. Certain of these countries are not even any longer “poor” by any rational calculation. Can a “poor” country boast a nuclear and/or space programme?
Conservative? Just what exactly are they conserving? Apart from their bank balances? Certainly not ours.
So are things hopeless, then? Far from it. To quote Churchill “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm” and “Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts”.
We British nationalists are not defeated. We have not yet begun to fight. We are only getting warmed up for the titanic struggles that lie ahead. The election of at least two British nationalists to district and county council seats, one in Essex and another in Durham County, is a sign of things to come.
The phrase “Let a hundred flowers blossom” could apply with equal relevance to the ideological distinctions within the broad nationalist movement as to the myriad of organizations espousing those various shades of opinion.
Whereas over the course of the last decade or so we have seen a centrifugal force within nationalism, in the years to come we are likely to see a centripetal force operating.
It remains to be seen which ideas within nationalism will be the most attractive to our people and which vehicle or vehicles most successfully propagate those ideas. But ideas, unlike individuals and institutions, never die.