The Myth of Virtious Democracy

By Jim Cardoza 

origional Publication at American Thinker 

 Democracy is widely spoken of today as though it were a moral achievement in itself -- an end rather than a means, a virtue rather than a procedure. It is invoked with reverence, defended with passion, and exported with missionary zeal. Yet this reverence obscures a simple but essential truth: democracy, by itself, has no moral content. It is merely a method for making collective decisions. Like any tool, its value depends entirely on what it is used to do -- and, just as importantly, what it is prevented from doing.

History offers no shortage of examples where democratic processes have produced outcomes that were not merely unwise, but profoundly unjust. Majorities have voted to segregate, to confiscate, to censor, to conscript, and to suppress. At various times and places, democratic majorities have endorsed slavery, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. None of these policies were redeemed by the fact that they were approved by a vote. Fifty-one percent of the population does not acquire moral authority simply by being numerically superior.

The confusion arises when democracy is mistaken for liberty. The two are not the same, and they are often in tension. Democracy answers the question, who decides? Liberty answers the question, what may not be decided at all? A society that allows everything to be voted upon has already abandoned the very concept of rights. Rights, by definition, are not permissions granted by a majority; they are protections against the majority.

This distinction was well understood by the architects of the American constitutional order. They did not set out to create a pure democracy, and they said so plainly. What they created instead was a constitutional republic -- one in which popular participation was constrained by law, structure, and principle. Elections determined officeholders, but not first principles. Majorities could choose representatives, but those representatives were forbidden from infringing certain individual rights, regardless of how popular such infringements might be.

That design was neither accidental nor naïve. It was the product of hard-earned historical knowledge. The Founders were students of history, not romantics intoxicated by slogans. They understood that power does not become harmless when exercised by many rather than by few. A lynch mob does not become just because it is large, nor does confiscation become moral because it is popular.

America’s enduring significance as an icon of liberty lies not in the frequency of its elections but in the architecture of its restraints. The Bill of Rights does not begin with an affirmation of democratic will; it begins with prohibitions -- Congress shall make no law. These words do not elevate the majority; they shackle it. They recognize that the greatest threat to freedom in any society is not merely tyranny from above, but oppression from all directions, including from one’s neighbors.

The modern tendency to equate democracy with virtue has led to a steady erosion of these restraints. When every issue is reframed as a matter of “the will of the people,” the space for individual liberty shrinks accordingly. Property rights become conditional. Speech becomes negotiable. Due process becomes an inconvenience. Each of these losses is justified not on moral grounds, but on numerical ones.

What is particularly dangerous about this trend is its self-righteousness. Policies that would once have been recognized as coercive are now defended as democratic. The language of rights is replaced by the language of outcomes. Those who resist are accused not of defending liberty, but of opposing democracy itself -- as if democracy were the ultimate moral standard rather than a procedural mechanism.

Yet the test of a free society is not how efficiently it registers public opinion, but how effectively it protects unpopular individuals. Freedom of speech matters most when speech is despised. Property rights matter most when envy is widespread. Due process matters most when emotions run high. These are precisely the moments when democratic impulses are most likely to collide with liberty -- and when constitutional limits matter most.

Advertisement

The American system, at its best, recognized human nature as it is, not as we might wish it to be. It assumed that people are capable of wisdom, but also of passion, prejudice, and shortsightedness. It therefore divided power, slowed decision-making, and elevated principles above preferences. These features are often criticized today as undemocratic, which is precisely the point. They were meant to be.

Democracy, stripped of constitutional restraint, becomes little more than a counting exercise -- a competition for control over the machinery of coercion. Whoever wins the vote gains the power to compel obedience from those who lose. In such a system, politics ceases to be about justice and becomes a struggle over spoils. Groups organize not to defend rights, but to capture power, knowing that today’s majority can impose its will without limit.

Liberty offers a different vision. It does not promise that outcomes will be equal, popular, or even comfortable. It promises something far more demanding: that individuals will be secure in their lives, their property, and their choices, regardless of shifting public moods. This security is not an obstacle to self-government; it is the precondition for it. People can meaningfully participate in public life only when they are free from arbitrary power, including the arbitrary power of the majority.

None of this requires hostility toward democracy. Voting has its place, and a vital one. It allows peaceful transitions of power. It provides feedback to those who govern. It offers a mechanism for resolving disputes without violence. But these are practical virtues, not moral ones. Democracy is valuable because it is useful, not because it is inherently righteous.

America’s greatness has never rested on the sanctification of majority rule. It has rested on the radical idea that there are things no majority may do -- that the individual is not a mere instrument of collective desire, and that liberty is not a favor bestowed by numbers. When that idea is forgotten, democracy becomes not a safeguard of freedom, but a means of dismantling it -- one vote at a time.

In the end, the choice is not between democracy and liberty, but between democracy constrained by principle and democracy unbound by it. History leaves little doubt about which one preserves freedom, and which one merely redistributes power until nothing remains worth preserving.

Jim Cardoza is the author of The Moral Superiority of Liberty and the founder of LibertyPen.com. Read more of his essays there.

Image: Honore Daumier

The single greatest Christian persecution in Human history.

 

By Fr Daniel

The genocide of Orthodox Christians in Atheist Soviet Russia is perhaps the single greatest Christian persecution in Human history.

What crimes did the Bolsheviks commit during the ‘Russian Revolution? They nailed him to the floor of the church. He remained alive for a long time. Red-hot ramrods were slowly driven into his body until one pierced his heart… This is how Bishop Sylvester (Olshevsky) of Omsk died in February 1920. Bishop Tikhon (Nikanorov) of Voronezh was crucified on the Royal Doors of the iconostasis. Bishop Andronik of Perm was buried alive in a pit which he had been forced to dig himself. Bishop Hermogenes of Tobolsk was tied to a ship’s wheel and drowned. Bishop Seraphim (Chichagov) was carried on a stretcher to be executed at the Butovo firing range, as the nearly 90-year-old elder could no longer walk. Grand Duchess Elizabeth & the nun Barbara were thrown alive into a deep mineshaft in Alapaevsk. Bishop Benjamin of Petrograd, along with several laymen, was shot after a show trial based on false charges related to the confiscation of church valuables. Priest Peter Skipetrov was shot in the face in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Archbishop Nikon Rozhdestvesnky (accused of ‘antisemitism’) was stabbed & maimed to death outside of his monastery (Trinity Sergius Lavra), his body was disfigured beyond recognition. The Bolsheviks also beheaded him. Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev was dragged outside the walls of the Kiev Lavra, shot, and bayoneted while he gave his blessing to his executioners. The elderly ascetic, Bishop John (Pommer) of Latvia, was tied to a door torn from its hinges, laid on a workbench, brutally tortured, and then set on fire while still alive. Bishop Thaddeus of Tver was drowned in human waste. Father Alexey Merkuryev of the Urals was murdered in front of his congregation, daughter, and son. Bishop Theophan of Solikamsk was stripped, his hair braided, a pole threaded through it, & he was slowly lowered into an icy hole in the Kama River. His body became encased in ice. But the hierarch was still alive - and then he was drowned. Some priests and laymen had their hands tied behind their backs, their eyes blindfolded, and were ordered to walk across the ice until they fell into a hole. The torturers mockingly called them ‘divers.’ The holy prisoners of the Solovki labor camp had their beards and mustaches ripped out and were starved to death… No number of pages or tears can recount all that our land endured so recently - just yesterday. This is only a drop in the ocean of blood shed by the Holy New Martyrs, whose memory we commemorate each year. Hundreds of thousands of priests and millions of laypeople were killed and torn apart for their faithfulness to Christ. More than 2,000 have been canonized as confessors and martyrs - and how many more are known only to God? And this was not some mere political struggle. It was hell itself unleashed. Only demons devoid of all conscience could torture people in such ways. The scale, ferocity, and mercilessness of Soviet persecution of the Church is encapsulated in a single figure: out of 80,000 churches and monasteries at the beginning of the 20th century, by 1939, barely a hundred parishes remained across the vast Russian land. Not a single monastery. Not a single seminary. Not a single bishop at liberty. Just a scattered handful of monks.

An Open Letter to Rupert Lowe MP

 

An Open Letter to Rupert Lowe Stop the Charge of the Stupid Brigade! By Nick Griffin follow Nick on Substack follow Nick on X  Dear Mr Lowe I, and many patriotic Brits like me, admire a great deal of your work, both within Parliament and more broadly in your constituency and beyond. I refer here not only to your principled stand on the obvious issues - the grooming gangs, halal and kosher ritual slaughter, your long-standing opposition to the EU and your willingness to say that mass immigration is an issue of ethnicity as well as economics or culture. I think also of your common sense, practical and traditionalist work on subjects such as the grave injustices done to men in family courts, the importance of apprenticeships, and the threat to our freedoms from government moves towards digital ID and the abolition of jury trials. Needless to say, while we agree broadly on some very important issues, we also disagree on others, particularly over some economic ideas and some aspects of foreign policy. This letter is therefore not be read, or misrepresented, as a proposal for some sort of alliance. Money and Energy Rather, I take the liberty of writing purely with regards to a single issue: your proposal that a large number of patriots should contest the next General Election. Whether this would be on behalf of Restore Britain or as independent nationalists seems unclear at present but, in either case, it would be an act of electoral suicide and, far worse, a grotesque waste of money and energy which could and should be put to far better use. I write in the hope of helping you to avoid this error and, instead, to become the truly significant and decisive figure in the development of the indigenous British resistance which you undoubtedly have the potential to be. In a moment I will explain why this electoral diversion would be such a grave mistake, before going on to outline the very much more realistic, effective and constructive strategy which the times and realities of our situation demand. The Only Exception Before doing so, I will set out very briefly the one potentially very good justification for Restore to prepare to stand well-funded candidates in a strictly limited number of seats. In the event that Reform actually win the contest, it would become even more important that you are returned in Great Yarmouth. We both know Farage, and how he will inevitably betray much of the trust put in him by the British people. Our country needs you in Parliament to hold his feet to the fire and to act as the rallying point within the House around whom MPs who incur his disfavour can regroup. This would create both a genuinely nationalist lobby within the Commons, and potentially also in the Lords, given Reform’s presumed future need to create large numbers of peers to push legislation through. By the end of the term, this grouping could easily be the nucleus of a serious electoral challenge from the ‘real right’. While I do not believe that there is any parliamentary solution to be convergence of catastrophes bearing down on the ‘old normal’, I am confident that such a new force could play a crucial part in marshalling our people for the Long March back. But it will not come by your people contesting seats in 2029. Potential Block in Parliament If you are able to hold your seat in the next election, all the past history of UKIP and Reform tells us for sure that, within a couple of years, it is perfectly possible that up to half of Farage’s MPs and peers will be expelled or will resign. You could quite conceivably become leader of one of the largest blocks in Parliament without standing in a single seat other than your own. The question is whether this patriotic block would be a sort of waiting room for single-term MPs facing the axe at the following election, or whether they could immediately connect with a really effective grass-roots movement and thus become a permanent and vitally important feature of the British political landscape. Thus, while I am very aware that you and I are not, as per Kipling, “of one blood” politically, I regard it as a matter of national interest for you to be re-elected to serve another term representing the good people of Great Yarmouth (where, incidentally, my eldest daughter was born). It may be that you and Farage can reach a private agreement on this matter but, judging by his bitterly factional record, it is more likely that he will stand a Reform candidate against you, in order to split the vote and ensure that his post-election dissidents do not have an experienced and stalwart figure around whom to rally. That being the case, you will need to have a pretty sturdy electoral stick of your own with which to encourage him to do the right thing and keep out of your way in the one seat that really matters. While I am about to counsel you in the strongest possible terms to avoid launching an electoral Charge of the Stupid Brigade in the country as a whole, I do therefore believe that you should pick a dozen seats, in addition to your own, in which you make very serious preparations to stand. These should be the seats of Reform’s sitting MPs and most important candidates, with particular vulnerability to even a small split in the vote also playing a big part in their selection. Clearly, you need to be able to apply real pressure to Farage in order to leave him no option but to give you a free run in your own seat. If losing you your seat would cost him nothing, he will at least be tempted to get you out of the way. If splitting your vote (probably in half) will lead to a dozen of his key figures having theirs split in turn – even if only by a few hundred – then he would look mad, as well as bad, to reject the deal. That apart, however, you should not be encouraging anyone, anywhere, to do anything other than leave the field to Reform and put their money and energy into better things. There are both minor and major reasons for this. The minor one is that contesting any number of no-hope seats would interrupt the laser focus you need to apply to holding Great Yarmouth. To stand a realistic chance of doing that you need not only to spend every last penny of the maximum campaign expenditure, but also to mobilise literally thousands of your members and supporters to travel from all over and campaign for you in your constituency. It isn’t just a matter of them turning up and being given some leaflets and a few doors to knock. The childishly amateur tactics and campaigns rolled out by Reform (in Caerphilly, to give the latest gruesome example) have absolutely no place if you are to have the serious political future which is there for the taking. Caerphilly - A Warning, NOT a Defeat for Reform Nick Griffin · October 24, 2025 The Reform vote in Caerphilly yesterday is a great result which doesn’t look like one. The usual left-wing media suspects are all crowing happily, with the Labour-supporting Mirror trying to gloss over the catastrophic Labour showing as a “crushing blow for Farage”. Read full story You need to be signing up committed campaigners and bring them together in regional training hubs all over Britain. That way, when they turn up in Yarmouth in 2029 or whenever, they’ll be of real use, rather than waste their time and throw away your seat by running around like Reform headless chickens. If you continue to promote the “candidates everywhere” line, you will automatically scatter all that energy into penny packets and waste it. Please bear with me while we do a little bit of maths, to establish the purely financial loss awaiting the “broad electoral road” approach. As you know, there is a maximum amount that any single candidate or party can spend in a parliamentary constituency. While this differs according to number of electors and whether the seat is primarily urban or rural, the basic figure is £54,010 per seat. As you also know, all the main parties spend that sort of money in all the seats in which they are serious contenders and for which there is real competition. Since money buys slick campaigns, it’s well-nigh impossible to win without matching them. That’s why Nigel overspent in Clacton; he knew it was risky but had no choice. There are 650 seats. To form a majority government a party must therefore win at least 326 of them. Since a win is never guaranteed these days, let’s say that any party which was seriously in with a chance of forming the next government would fight at least 400 seats. And fight them properly. That would cost a staggering £21,604,000. Well over £21 million! With, let us remember, absolutely no guarantee of winning a single seat because, in every case, there will be at least one other party spending roughly the same amount in the hope of winning. Now let us come back down to reality. Clearly, only a tiny fraction of that fortune would be raised and spent by Restore, independent nationalists, Advance or anybody else. What would be a realistic figure? £5,000 per seat? Even that would be a massive strain on local organisations, though it is theoretically possible, especially as you do have some very well-heeled donors who could subsidise them. Do the maths again: 400 times £5,000 is a much more reasonable £2 million. But when you’re spending one tenth of what is available to the actual front runners, you automatically all but guarantee that you are going to lose. So that’s two million quid down the drain, for nothing other than having the Post Office deliver your main leaflets for free. I return the the Charge of the Light Brigade analogy. “C’est magnifique. Mais c’est ne pas la guerre,” said the French commander watching the heroic carnage from a safe distance. In this case, it would neither be politics nor magnificent, but a criminally stupid waste of hope, money, time and morale. Let’s come even further down the scale. With just £2,500, a group of good-hearted amateurs will be able to lose their £500 deposit, run around with a speaker car, put up some posters and (with a very significant amount of preparation work) get the Post Office to deliver. It won’t, of course, achieve anything. The only thing they will have left to show for it will be their rosettes and the loud-speaker. In the old days, before the Internet and social media, it was very different. The Free Post leaflet drop and the party political broadcast on the main TV channels were literally the only practical way to push a new or minor party into the public consciousness. The election of 1979, for example, in which Margaret Thatcher stole perhaps a million votes from the National Front, nonetheless gave the NF a haul of 10,000 enquiry forms and letters through the post. Elections back then weren’t about votes, but about the best way to build an organisation. With social media, websites and search engines all that is long in the past. So what are the maths with that £2,500 figure? Well, it’s still a million pounds. Everything I’ve already said about waste still applies. But now those who engage in such suicidal charges are also throwing away all credibility in the eyes of anyone with a brain. To switch metaphors, it’s like entering Grand Prix in a Robin Reliant with a blown head gasket and claiming you can win. I’ve said that these antics achieve nothing. Actually, it’s even worse than that. While none of these candidates can possible win, it is quite likely that the few hundred each one may just scrape in will split the Reform vote just enough to hand a few seats to Labour or the Tories. They probably won’t cost Farage or his most obnoxious Tory retreads their seats, but they will keep out a few decent men and women who, if elected, would probably have left Reform within a year or two in any case. You’ll be pleased to hear that we’ve now done with the tragic bit. It’s time to look briefly at what that million pounds and the energy of your thousands of members could do if applied sensibly. The money could be poured into organising and building in our communities. It could train and match-fund twenty experimental anti-grooming teams, and twenty Community Observation Patrols. It could equip and fund a starter wave of mobile soup kitchens for homeless veterans and youngsters on the streets. It could fund an experimental community charity shop, advice centre and youth training facility in Great Yarmouth, and training events to establish the same sort of thing in other towns. Community advice centres were central to Sinn Fein’s eventual political victory over the moderate nationalist SDLP in working-class areas. They had the advantage of being able to fund theirs with the proceeds of bank robberies. Since we’re not going down that road, we need British nationalists to stop wasting money losing elections and get serious. The money could fund a Judicial Review of anti-indigenous bias by councils, police and courts. It could finance civil actions for damages against rape gang ringleaders. It could seed-fund a lawfare campaign to secure the right of English and other indigenous British people to establish our own charities, for our own people – a right already enjoyed by every other ethnic, cultural and religious group, but not by us. That’s a discrimination domino just waiting to fall – but only if we push it. Mr. Lowe, this isn’t a matter of “could fund one of these things”; it would fund ALL of them. As for the energy of your members and your even larger army of online sympathisers, seeing those things happening would energise them to the extent that a thousand and one other local initiatives would start to happen as well. It would be the kick-start for the physical organisation which now needs to follow on from the psychological tribalisation of our people which was both illustrated and further encouraged by the Raise The Colours phenomenon. In conclusion, I am not asking to be involved in any way, though I would be happy to meet to discuss these ideas further, either strictly privately or in public. I am not asking to be part of the movement I am proposing you create, though I am willing to serve in any capacity for the common good. I am not even asking for recognition or credit for these ideas. The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated, just so I and others can rest assured that you have seen this in person. Even better, however, would be for us to see you taking note and doing things which can make a real difference for good. As you yourself have said and written on a number of occasions, time is running out for this country and its people. Even if you believe that you or a movement your efforts help to create could win a General Election in 2034 or 2039, we know for absolute certain that there is not the faintest possibility of any remotely patriotic party winning in 2029 other than – for all their faults – Reform. Accordingly, I urge you to make a official declaration that you and the true patriots of Britain have much better things to do – and to start doing them. Yours sincerely, Nick Griffin MA (Hons) Cantab. Former Chairman of the British National Party, North West of England MEP 2009-2014. As I believe you will agree, this is a very important issue. Please help to spread aswareness of this Open Letter by Restacking and by sharing on other social media feeds as well. Thank you one and all. Share Invite your friends and earn rewards If you enjoy Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe. Invite Friends   Share

How the lying, contemptuous Home Office completed its betrayal of Crowborough

By Madeleine Gillies 

IT WAS the early hours of Thursday when a large minibus with blackened windows, plus a police escort, made its way into Crowborough army training camp. It was clear that this arrival had been carefully planned, presumably to protect the interests of those in the minibus and of their ‘handlers’ – in this case our government.

The 27 men in the minibus were the first of 540 of male illegal immigrants due to be sent to the camp. As with anything which is long awaited or lengthy in gestation – good or ill – nothing quite prepares for the eventuality.

Ever since the small Sussex town of Crowborough learned of the Home Office plan, it has protested relentlessly. All those concerned have not only had to fight the proposal in principle, but also to battle with the Home Office to get any sort of response to the numerous questions posed and legal approaches put forward by the various interested parties.

The grass-roots organisation Crowborough Shield swiftly raised sufficient funds to instruct lawyers with the aim of instigating a judicial review. The town’s Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani had numerous meetings with Home Office officials. Wealden District Council sought belatedly to raise environmental and planning issues.

All were met with stonewalling, with lapsed deadlines for information and, in the end, with downright lies. As the weeks passed, it became evident that the Home Office was wilfully withholding information and deliberately impeding any legal intervention. Repeated requests for risk assessments – particularly relating to the location of the camp next to a small town – were never responded to, and there was an information vacuum. All planning constraints were overridden by use of Class Q planning regulation.

At the beginning of the process the Home Office director of asylum accommodation apologised for the lack of previous engagement and indicated there would be dialogue with all interested parties. That has never happened.

Until hours before the first arrivals, the Home Office still met any inquiry with the terse response that no decision had been made. People in Crowborough knew this to be untrue as for weeks the camp had been undergoing refurbishment. An employment agency had been advertising security and other posts. Last weekend there was a procession of delivery vans and lorries into the site. It was observed that notices had been placed on various buildings indicating a medical centre, a gym and a meeting point for transport.

In all the media publicity that followed the news of the first arrivals in the camp, there was predictable public outrage at the fact that there would be a 24/7 medical facility. In common with most of the country, Crowborough residents find it extremely difficult to get a timely GP appointment. And how many local people would love to have free access to a gym and free travel facilities to surrounding towns?

Even more to the point, Crowborough residents, unlike those of the camp, are having to pay for their own enhanced security measures.

All of this has been put together by Clearsprings Ready Homes, one of the companies which has made vast profits in recent years from its taxpayer-funded contracts to provide asylum housing.

Crowborough representatives were told from the outset that the camp would be used for just 12 months. Huge doubt is being cast over the veracity of this intention.

In the last few days the town has bristled with police. As independent councillor Andrew Wilson remarked, he has seen more police in the last week than in all the previous 11 years he has lived in the town. Crowborough has only a semi-functioning police station and full detention facilities are some distance away.

It was reported that within 24 hours of their arrival at the camp, three migrants had already left. Given that it has been indicated that 40 per cent of illegal migrants awaiting asylum decisions abscond, that sounds about right. Any implication that an army camp might provide a more controlled environment is completely contradicted by the fact that the residents will be free to come and go at any time of the day or night.

As explained by the director of asylum accommodation at the outset of the process, once ‘asylum seekers’ have disappeared and failed to respond to contact from Home Office officials for just seven days, they are deemed no longer to require accommodation or assistance.

The fact that a majority of such absconders will either be people who are unlikely to be granted asylum and/or who have been trafficked by crime gangs – and are in effect slaves – appears not to trouble the Home Office.

On the very day that local people digested the news regarding the first arrivals in the camp, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood spoke to the press. Even by the standards of this incompetent government, her words were shockingly inept. She said:

‘Illegal migration has been placing immense pressure on communities. That is why we are removing the incentives that draw illegal migrants to Britain, closing asylum hotels that are blighting communities.

‘Crowborough is just the start. I will bring forward site after site until every asylum hotel is closed and returned to local communities.

‘I will not rest until order and control to our borders is restored.’

Where to begin? The first sentence is correct. Uncontrolled immigration is indeed placing huge pressure on communities. In fact it’s causing societal havoc. Ask anybody who lives in run-down northern towns and cities which are full of HMOs [houses in multiple occupation] bought up by landlords to take on lucrative contracts with the Home Office.

Ms Mahmood continues that closing asylum hotels will remove the incentives that draw illegal migrants here. Yes, migrants may enjoy free stays in hotels – particularly if they’re simultaneously working illegally – but they are not the reason they come here. They come here because they can. They come because once they land on our coast and say they want to claim asylum they are ushered in. They, together with their identity documents, must have travelled through a number of safe countries where they either chose not to claim asylum or were refused. The fact that they jettison any form of personal identification before arriving in the UK is the clearest possible indicator that if their true identity and provenance were known, this could potentially inhibit their asylum claim.

Ms Mahmood’s third assertion – delivered with a degree of relish – that ‘Crowborough is just the start’ should send chills down the spines of people throughout the UK. Far from mollifying, this sounded like an out-and-out threat.

What on earth does Shabana Mahmood think the use of Crowborough camp will do to the local community? Will there be something magical about the fact that the migrants are in a different kind of environment from a hotel? Will large groups of single unemployed young males behave better outside the camp? Obviously not.

In the meantime, the Home Secretary promises not to rest until our borders are controlled. On that basis a restless time lies ahead as her government is doing nothing whatsoever to achieve her aim. In the last seven days alone 730 ‘irregular migrants’ crossed the Channel in small boats without permission to enter the UK. Notoriously there have been about 70,000 (known) illegal arrivals since Starmer became Prime Minister.

We have the perfect storm in Crowborough. Not only are we faced with a situation that cannot be viewed with any positivity whatsoever, we are also engaged in a battle with our own government. As the weeks have passed, it has become horribly evident to all those fighting the camp plan that the Home Office has no intention of engaging with the community or of honouring its promises in any way.

It is disorientating and depressing to realise that the country’s government – an entity whose prime responsibility is that of protecting and ensuring the safety of its citizens – shows every sign of reneging on that responsibility. How can the safety of a country’s citizens be guaranteed when every day hundreds of people of unknown background are entering illegally but without hindrance?

It is not the fault of the residents of Crowborough or anywhere else that the government is failing to fulfil its primary duty.

Such behaviour may be partly the result of systemic incompetence but it goes beyond that. The government is clearly determined to impose its will in various ways and it has zero interest in listening to the wishes of the people. As the gulf grows between expectation and delivery, scepticism grows exponentially.

It is now reported that there have been further arrivals at the camp. Meanwhile Crowborough residents are planning to hold their 11th peaceful protest march today. Since the enhanced media attention we have gained considerable public support, including from well-known political figures. It is deeply ironic that our own government fails to share in that support and that, on the contrary, it seems determined to cause untold disruption and dismay in our quiet peaceful town and others.

Conservatism is Dead, Long Live The New King

Conservatism is all but a shell of its old self in the modern West, incubating little more than liberal orthodoxy with civic nationalist characteristics. What does this mean for the loyal men of the West, those who love their lands, tradition and peoples? It seems there are no viable political solutions at present, yet something stirs deep in the heart, too pure for ideological expression, with the power to unite the collective spirit once more. The Sacred Way (Sister Channel):    / @thesacredwayrt4   Substack 👉: https://richardthefourth.substack.com Buy Me a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/richardthefo... Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/RichardTheFou... Twitter/X: https://x.com/RichardTheIIII

THESE are the most-read articles we have published in the past week at TWC

 THESE are the most-read articles we have published in the past week.

1. Don’t trust your doctor . . . and the other lessons covid taught me – Liz Hodgkinson
2. DEI and a stark admission – it’s a war against straight white males – Daniel Jupp
3. My TCW week in review: Nigel Farage is such a bitter disappointment – Kathy Gyngell
4. An open letter to Kemi Badenoch: Your party helped to break Britain – David Hulland
5. Trump’s Greenland gambit: Crazy or art-of-the-deal masterclass? – Bruce Newsome
6. Eva Vlaardingerbroek: The rising star of Dutch politics banned by Starmer – Kathy Gyngell
7. Hate speech, Lucy Connolly and me – Paul Collits
8. It’s got me cancelled, but I’m proud to have praised Tommy Robinson – Howard Cox
9. Why Jenrick’s defection really matters – Andrew Hunt
10. Big Brother is watching your carbon footprint – Dr Shane Fudge

Britain. Afghanistan. Trump. Mouth. Sock. On the President's Comments on NATO Shirkers in Afghanistan

 

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Britain. Afghanistan. Trump. Mouth. Sock. On the President's Comments on NATO Shirkers in Afghanistan By Nick griffin Follow Nick on Substack Follow Nick on X Footage from Wooton Bassett. The return of eight of our dead soldiers in one cortege was most humbling, harrowing and moving commemoration of any sort that I have ever attended. “We will remember them”. Only someone with a serious sense of humour failure, or a slightly over-active humanitarian conscience, can fail to find parts of the Donald J. Trump Show entertaining. His roasting of the Euro elite was a case in point - pure comedy gold. But then he sneered at the way NATO forces”stayed a little back” in Afghanistan, without a caveat exempting British troops, and that was WAY out of order. Put a sock it, Mr. President! Here’s a reminder that Britain lost 457 of her best and bravest sons and daughters fighting in Afghanistan in a wicked and futile war started under entirely false pretences by the masters of the USA. The ones brought back through Wooton Bassett (until the rotten government and pen-pushing scum in the MoD stopped the ceremonies there as they were becoming a focus for patriotic opposition to the disgusting war) were only a small proportion of the casualties. To the dead, one must also add the 2,188 injured - many of them maimed for life. Plus the 14% of soldiers who came back suffering from PTSD, and the oft-forgotten 1,230 (and counting) veterans of the conflict who have since committed suicide. The PTSD is surely accounted for partly by the fact that many of the British soldiers who served in Helmand did front-line tours of duty in which they were under enemy fire for longer continous stretches than those endured by British soldiers even on the Western Front in World War One. The only thing more disgusting that Donald Trump making light of Britain’s contribution is to see Keir Starmer criticising him for it. Starmer - the unspeakable piece of worse-than-shit (for shit at least has a use, being good for fertiliser) whose government has just put elderly veterans of the Northern Ireland conflict back into the legal firing line for a vindictive and sadistic lawfare fest by parasite lawyers who were part of the war effort of the Marxist IRA, and are now part of the sectarianian triumphalism still being waged by their Sinn Fein partners. Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid Become a free subscriber to Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.