Love That Dare Not Stop Shouting Its Name (Homosexuals) Wins Lottery

Love That Dare Not Stop Shouting Its Name Wins Lottery

Written by Southwest Nationalist

March 2012

Researching earlier for a story about a gay rhino in Birmingham - yes, taxpayers are footing most of the bill - the National Lottery fund got mentioned several times and seemed worthy of a further look. Charities focusing on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) issues seem to do pretty well every time we buy a lottery ticket. Just searching the lottery.culture.gov site for any funding projects with "lgbt" in their project description turns up £6,278,800 of funding. That's more than most jackpots pay out if you get 6 numbers these days. Seven projects are listed as receiving over £400,000 in funding each, with three of those just a few quid shy of £500,000. 98 Projects in total are shown as funded on just that search of "lgbt". We have, for example, The Metro Centre Ltd getting £499,648 to "research the difficulties faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people and those questioning their sexuality, and their access to relevant services. Specifically, it will compare the situation of LGBTQ young adults to the Childrens Plan 2020 and Every Child Matters (ECM) goals and targets to inform the development of policy and services based on systematic, up-to-date evidence" LBGTQ? Queer surely can't be a term of abuse then, it can win lottery funding? Of course they'll claim it means questioning, or - like ni**er - it depends who dares to speak the word. There's £50,000 for a group named Rukus! Federation to undertake a project called Sharing Tongues : Black LGBT Oral Testimonies. No sensible person is Googling anything involving Black LGBT Oral and the sharing of tongues to find out what on earth that might be about. Compared to "lgbt", "marriage" turned up £6,388,362 of spending - with all the big grants over £200,000 bar one going either abroad or to ethnic minority concerns such as Asian women, or BME women at risk of violence. Searching "heterosexual" returned 4 results and spending of £779,656. Two were to do with AIDS, one domestic abuse, and one ran by Stonewall. "Gay" gave 386 grants totalling £19,748,902. "Lesbian" returned 279 grants and a spend of £14,951,714 (admittedly some of these will cross over, a number contain both lesbian and gay in their description). "Straight" couldn't really be searched fairly since it includes all kinds of other things like poly tunnels and the construction of a straight lane athletics track, but even so it only returned 39 grants with a value of £10,133,163. So far as could be seen none of the grants had anything to do with sexual orientation. Perhaps it's time they started printing those lotto tickets on rainbow coloured paper, it seems the LGBT minority are doing remarkably well out of it and get to win just by filling out a grant application form. Something to remember when we're queueing up to by a ticket in the forlorn hope of getting rich at any rate. Someone waving a rainbow is certainly doing pretty well out of our wasted £1.

When the terror is the British state

When the terror is the state

Written by Sarah Albion

March 2012 14:05

A young man was sent to prison yesterday. He has been locked away for eight weeks, not a lifetime in itself, but he now has a criminal record, which will blight his life for years to come. The unforgiving zealots at the university where he had been studying have kicked him out, so his career plans are wrecked so probably his life is too, after all his picture, and his name were published in every national newspaper and on every TV news bulletin in the nation. He was not a hero, but a broken boy who cried as he was led away into state incarceration where he will spend the next two months. But let us not judge his tears, would the strongest of us be able to withstand the bile and venom poured upon him by a morally outraged media and the blood baying Twitter nazis who now dictate how people are to think. And what was his crime? He did not steal, he did not defraud anyone, he did not rape or kill, he did not draw blood, he did not bruise, he did not lay a finger on anyone. His only crime was to say things which we are not supposed to say, and which offended those who passionately seek offence. For that he must be punished, shamed, humiliated and held up weeping before the nation as an example of what will happen to those who, even when drunk, as he was, dare to misspeak. Elsewhere a young mother awaits trial for the transgression of daring to say “You're not British, you're black!” There was a time when what we found most frightening about states such as those beneath the totalitarian fist of Soviet Russia or which were tin pot dictatorships, run by brutal despots, was that people could be locked away because of what they said. We now live under such terror. More chilling still are the shrill cheers of those who support the prosecution. To merely read the approving comments beneath the news report of the young man's trial is to hear echoes from another darker place we once thought had disappeared long ago. “Finally the sentence fits the crime!” Snarls brain dead Olivia from Swindon “hahahahhahahahhahaha i love it..... u vile rascist little pig ” crowed Arshad from Worster – (clearly enjoying seeing a white man brought low) “Good, scum like this should have the book thrown at them. ….. He made racist comments” squeaked Anthony from London, the sort of person who, in another life would have sold his mother to the Stasi for misspeaking. As would Denise from Chelmsford who shrieked with the pride of a Khmer Rouge guerrilla with a baby on her bayonet “The racial comments were disgusting. I'm glad that I was one of the many people who reported him to the police.” How low has our country sunk that the likes of Olivia, Arshad, Denise and Anthony now tell us how to think. We are told that this is a free country, that is a joke, we are becoming the terrorist state of which others once warned us, and most frightening is the fact that there are many who welcome it. _______________________________ Post Script: It is ironic that one of those who reported the offending speech was black footballer Stan Collymore, who said there must be “zero tolerance for racism”, luckily for Stan it appears that intolerance does not extend to black footballers who beat up their girlfriends or go dogging on Cannock Chase. I guess Stan thinks that doing stuff is not as bad as saying it.

Oxford Child Rape - Arrested Men Named, You've Guessed It....Right ?

Oxford Child Rape - Arrested Men Named, You've Guessed It....

Written by Southwest Nationalist

March 2012

In the vile case of child sexual exploitation in Oxford most of us suspected what was coming next. We were nearly certain when the police had community reassurance patrols out on the streets, were at pains to tell us it's a small minority but sadly present in every community, and refused to reveal the ethnicity of the suspects. After appearing in court today three of the (alleged) perverts are now identified. Akhtar Dogar faces three charges of rape, one of conspiring to rape a child, one of threats to kill, three of arranging prostitution of a child, and one of trafficking. His brother Anjum Dogar faces charges of conspiring to rape a child, trafficking a child, and arranging the prostitution of a child. Kamar Jamil faces four charges of rape, two of arranging the prostitution of a child, a threat to kill charge and a charge of supplying cocaine. Those three were remanded into custody to appear at Aylesbury Crown Court on March 30. Details of the other three who appeared before magistrates today will be available soon. This is who (allegedly) raped children in the UK, sold them into prostitution, and exploited them in every way they could. This is why the police wanted to keep a lid on it. This is Britain today and heaven help the children here. The state puts community cohesion and diversity ahead of our children. How many more of Britain's children will be subjected to this before we say that enough is enough? *Update, the other 3 in court today are now named. Zeshan Ahmed, charged with ten counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child. Mohammed Karrar, charged with two counts of conspiracy to rape a child, and supplying cocaine. Bassan Karrar, brother to Mohammed, charged with a single count of rape. Any bets on who the other 7 may be once they are named?

25% of Young People in Europe Unemployed: So Why Do They Want More Immigration?

25% of Young People in Europe Unemployed: So Why Do They Want More Immigration?

Posted by BNP Ideas , 2012

The leftist delusion that “more immigration” is needed to solve Europe’s “labour shortage” has been inadvertently shattered by none other than establishment Tory grandee David Cameron at the Davos World Economic Summit this year.

During his keynote address, the Tory leader said that “decisive action” (perhaps akin to his “muscular liberalism”) was needed to address “European economic issues.”

At the beginning of his speech, he outlined the bleak economic circumstances facing Europe, and told his audience that “in more than half of EU Member States, a fifth of all young people are now out of work. So this is not a moment to try and pretend there isn’t a problem. Nor is it a moment to allow the fear of failure to hold us back. This is a time to show the leadership our people are demanding. Tinkering here and there and hoping we’ll drift to a solution simply won’t cut it any more. This is a time for boldness not caution,” he said.

Yet in September last year, Cecilia Malmström, the leftist EU commissioner for home affairs announced that even more immigration from outside Europe was vital to “meet present and future challenges in the labour market.”

In an article written on the EurActiv website titled “The EU needs more labour migration,” the increasingly bizarre Ms Malmström said that “Contrary to existing misconceptions, migrants do not damage national labour markets in terms of lowering wages or increasing unemployment among national workers.

“We will need workers from outside Europe. Increased labour immigration is one of the instruments we can use in our efforts to prevent labour shortages in the short and long term,” Ms Malmström claimed.

The obvious question arises: if there is already a 25 percent unemployment rate amongst young people in Europe, why on earth do these mad people in charge of the EU think that even more immigration is going to solve the problem?

This is especially so when it is considered that Third World immigrant populations already in Europe have, across the board, the highest unemployment levels.

What Ms Malmström and her colleagues want is the importation of even more unemployed and unemployables, which will not foster economic growth but simply add to the already impossible-to-bear welfare burden.

And as for Mr Cameron? His slavish adherence to the European Union’s ideals and his already proven lies and inconsistencies on all manner of topics, make him as unreliable and as politically deviant as Ms Malmström.

“Decisive action?” What is needed across Europe is a clean break from the old failed model and the institution of national governments which put the interests of their own people, the white European people, first.

Geert Wilders' book "Marked For Death; Islam's War Against The West and Me" will be officially launched on May 1st, 2012

Geert Wilders' book "Marked For Death; Islam's War Against The West and Me" will be officially launched on May 1st, 2012.

The book, with a foreword by Mark Steyn, is currently being printed.

Marked For Death tells the story of Geert Wilders' fight for the right to speak what he believes: namely that Islam is not just a religion but primarily a dangerous ideology which is a threat to Western freedoms.

Because he has made his opinion of Islam known, Geert Wilders has become a political prisoner - living in hiding, surrounded by security 24 hours a day, banned from entering certain countries and has even been dragged to court.

In his book Geert Wilders tells his personal story and explains his views about Islam and how to stop the Islamization process.

The book can be ordered on Amazon

Thatcher , The Betrayal Of Britain

Thatcher & The Betrayal Of Britain

An old woman stumbles into the shop of an Asian grocer and peers quizzically at the price of milk. Indian music blares from the speakers as a large African smirks with the usual blend of contempt and hostility at the white slag fumbling with her pence at the counter. She shuffles home through the dirty streets, passing dull-eyed denizens of the metropolis, and complains to her husband about rising prices as they sit to a modest breakfast. Only after another woman enters the kitchen do we discover that Lady Thatcher is talking to herself, a prisoner in her own home and of her own memories. Like Britain herself, she has been buried alive.

The Iron Lady is a film about the ghosts of people, issues, and a nation long since vanished. It has little to do with Margaret Thatcher's accomplishments, beliefs, or time in office. Instead, most of the movie is spent watching an old demented woman scurry about her modest quarters in conversation with the shade of her dead husband. Occasionally, it shifts from clumsily executed biopic to outright horror. In one particularly disturbing scene, Lady Thatcher frantically turns on all the appliances in her house to drown out the hectoring of her dead husband. Denis Thatcher stares at his wife's back from within a mirror, as Lady Thatcher desperately pleads with herself to turn away from madness. The camera zooms in and out with one wild cut after another. Such a mood fits The Exorcism of Emily Rose or Paranormal Activity. So much for those who came to the theater to see a movie about the Conservative Party.

As a portrayal of a living woman, it is sickening and without excuse. Obviously, this kind of treatment is limited only to someone who is right of center. Can anyone imagine a biopic focusing on a senile Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? To ask the question is to answer it. Even as the issues Thatcher championed have faded, as "New Labour" and other left-wing parties reconciled themselves to a diminished role for the unions, the rage against the Iron Lady is constant and enduring and the controversy about her continues. Websites have been set up to commemorate her death with a party, the comment boards on videos and articles about her are filled with furious vulgarity and loathing directed at woman who hasn't been in power for 20 years, and even the Conservative Party has backed away from “Thatcherism,” as much as they can, even to the point of changing the Party's logo from a flaming torch to a tree seemingly drawn by a child.



Out with the old, in with the green.

The result is that in some way, the portrait of a defeated and dying woman is the only kind of tribute the Kali Yuga can pay to a figure of importance who came from the wrong side. Meryl Streep (whose mimicry is skilled, but what of it?) sets the tone with the usual comment along the lines of "of course, I don't agree with her evil politics, but this portrayal makes her sympathetic." Similarly, the chattering class of Britain in the press and online have come to terms with this portrayal of Thatcher precisely because it shows the Iron Lady at her lowest point. Thatcher is, of course, racist, a traitor to woman, an enemy of workers, a woman who made people starve and completely destroyed Britain. As a human being, however, she is sympathetic because she is dying. In a culture where the highest value is self-loathing, this is perhaps the most a conservative can hope for.

The movie also does its best to turn Thatcher into a symbol of identity politics. The young Thatcher lectures her husband (just after he has proposed no less) that "one's life must matter...beyond the cooking and the cleaning and the children, one's life must mean more than that." A young Thatcher dressed in bright blue and heels enters Parliament for the first time and is contrasted with the stereotypically stern aristocratic British men in dark suits who just strolled over from being evil in The King's Speech. All gaze at her in astonishment, although the first woman in Parliament had already taken her seat 30 years before. Ominously, the "Members" room has urinals, while the "Lady Members" room contains an iron. Obviously, we are supposed to think Lady Thatcher should have forgotten all this silliness about the collapsing economy and championed the sitzpinkler movement. As Steep herself observes, what is important about Thatcher is not anything she did (which was all evil) but that a woman was elected in "gender biased, homophobic, class-ridden England." Movement conservatives, of course, don't believe the movie is feminist enough.

What did Margaret Thatcher do? Well, we really never really find out. She confronted the unions...but why this matters or what was the outcome is never really explained. We know it is incredibly controversial but the military-style planning Thatcher used to humble the trade unions is ignored and the entire subject simply peters out. Then we jump straight into the Falklands War, which gives Thatcher the popularity needed to carry out the rest of her program. However, again, why the decision was difficult, why there was opposition, and why Thatcher made the difference as opposed to anyone else being in charge is not explained.

After the Falklands, prosperity magically comes to Britain (again, no explanation why) and Thatcher rules for a lengthy period of time—during which nothing apparently happens. There is a shot of perhaps three seconds of Margaret Thatcher dancing with a tuxedoed Ronald Reagan, but that's all the mention the "second most important man in my life" will get. Just them dancing around somehow causes the Berlin Wall to crumble. Rather than a tour through history, we are a treated to a montage out of Rocky IV...or maybe even Team America: World Police. Even Thatcher's collapse is reduced to the petty and the personal, as her colleagues seemingly betray her because she yelled at them, not because of any policy differences. Thatcher's warnings about increasing European centralization and fiscal union, a subject as timely as ever, is all but ignored aside from a brief comment about the UK not being "ready for it."

Such a treatment is perhaps inevitable because the issues that motivated Thatcher have become all but irrelevant. The best that can be said of Thatcher is that she confronted, and to some extent defeated, the primary challenge of her time by frustrating the British Left's attempt to turn the sceptered isle into a grim Airstrip One of Brezhnev bureaucracy and overwhelming state ownership of the economy. The Iron Lady contains one notable scene of an enraptured Thatcher watching her father speak of the virtue of a "nation of shopkeepers"; later, Thatcher speaks of the small businessman's proud rejection of noblesse oblige. Of course, Thatcher's libertarian rhetoric about there being “no such thing as society" belied her electoral dependence on a British traditionalism she did not identify with. Despite the fact that she in large partowed her rise to power to a thinly veiled critique of non-White immigration (and spoke even more frankly about the subject in private), Thatcher did precious little to stop the demographic transformation of the United Kingdom, the transformation of the British Empire into a mere satrap of the United States (or even worse, the European Union), and the eradication of the culture and identity of the British people.

Just as American conservatism of even the Russell Kirk variety was gradually replaced with a deracinated defense of "values," so did Thatcher ground her politics in abstractions rather than in a sense of British identity. When Enoch Powell commented to her that he would fight for Britain even if it were under a Communist government and that values "can not be fought for, nor destroyed" because they exist beyond space and time, Thatcher was literally rendered speechless. Thatcher represented the “Americanization” not just of the British economy but of conservative politics, and the result was inevitable retreat and failure on cultural issues, as in the United States.

Even her economic reforms can be seen with the advantage of hindsight as, at best, a rearguard action. While outright state control over the economy may have been blunted, the fall of trade-union power may have been inevitable. The larger concern is that as with the "Reagan Revolution" and later "Republican Revolution" within the United States, Thatcher's Conservatives failed to cut the growth of government or the ever increasing share of government spending that went to the welfare state. By saving British socialism from itself but ceding to the hard Left control of the commanding heights of the culture by defining conservatism purely as economic, Thatcher made "Cool Britannia" and its all encompassing political correctness possible.

Even victory in the Falklands may have simply postponed the inevitable, as Britain's military position has seriously declined and Argentina is simply biding its time to reclaim the Malvinas. Viewing contemporary debates over a national army for an independent Scotland and the Union Jack condemned as controversial because Blacks think it's racist, Thatcher's call to make "Great Britain great again" seems almost tragic. As London is no longer an English city and the governments of the West are girded for seemingly permanent economic decline, it is hard not to view Thatcher's story as irrelevant.

One can imagine an alternate British history with Enoch Powell as Prime Minister laying the foundation for a sustainable traditionalist Right that would preserve the long-term existence of British identity, culture, and economic power. Instead, we had the transformation of Toryism to American classical liberalism, and therefore its inevitable (and perhaps intended) defeat. With Thatcher's accomplishments alternatively co-opted or undone with the passage of time, what is left? To the emerging post-Britain, she'll be linked to the evil racist past, a bump on the road to Equality, her policies bluntly summarized as supporting the "rich people."

To the official conservatism of the rump Britain, she'll be a symbol of the Good Old Days of Conservative victories against unsympathetic statist enemies, with troubling questions about immigration, culture, and the long-term impact of her policies abstracted away and easily avoided. Of course, to official opinion, even harmless nostalgia can not be tolerated. Would that there was a real British Right to come to the same conclusion!

Road Privatisation. The Stealth of gradualism

Road Privatisation. The Stealth of gradualism

Written by Rex

March 2012

THIS TIME, Cameron, Clegg and Osborne absolutely have to be unseated and stopped. Clearly they are following Letwin’s book “Privatising the World”. SO JUST WHEN ARE WE ALL GOING TO STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING? Some of us have already started but it needs the entire country to join in. Our roads must not be privatised. Else Britain will come to a most expensive grinding halt. In South Africa, it is far cheaper to fly there than go by (all the) toll-roads. Do you not think this is another step toward pricing us off the roads? And with privatisation of the police, what level of policing will we see on our roads? Draconian? Think about it. The Coalition are not working for our benefit. What has privatisation done for Britain so far? With accountability only to shareholders, who cares what happens to those who need to use the services run for commercial gain above all other interests? We end up paying far more for a worse service. Is that what you want? This is the thin end of the wedge. Beginning with “Only new roads” as we are carefully told, you know as well as I do it will not be long before all roads are privatised. What will that mean for the beleaguered motorist or more crucially, our transport businesses? Our nation survives on the ability to travel by road. What about the quality of our roads (Yes, I know many are already poor quality) but do you honestly think they’re going to marvellously improve under privatisation? Privatisation is for commercial (and shareholders’) gain. NOT OURS. We pay the money, endure worse conditions and others profit. Mark my words, privatisation will very soon bring blanket road pricing using the satnav that many have most conveniently had installed in their cars while Government gleefully rub their hands knowing full well that once most people have satnav, if it can tell a car where it is, it will also tell the government where the car is too (over the whole journey) and what speed it is doing. That way they’ve got you both ways. Double billing as distance and speed are toted up for the bill that comes through your front door. And if you don’t pay, they’ll find a way of preventing your car starting via direct satellite instructions to the car by some piece of legislated software demanded under the MOT procedure. If road pricing is to prevent congestion (as are congestion charges) isn’t it most convenient that traffic lights (primarily) and many other “traffic management measures” (aka, built-in baulking devices) actually cause the congestion we find so impenetrable, costly and unavoidable. "So here’s what we should do. Yes, move passengers and heavy goods on to rail". David Cameron There IS a better way. Remove many of them and allow drivers to exercise that overlooked inbuilt ability called initiative. They will work it out for themselves without waiting to be told exactly what to do and when to do it. Left to their own devices, drivers will by nature go more carefully because nobody sets out to have an accident and if there is nothing to tell them what to do, they have to think for themselves. This is not about getting Britain out of the recession that Government (Gordon Brown) deliberately got us into, it is part of the greater ploy to impoverish us into economic slavery. Think I’m joking? Look it up. It is all there to be read online. There are very many websites that explain just what is going on secretly behind our backs. Immense sums of money could be far better used for the benefit of our own country including sorting out our road systems instead of throwing it into the bottomless EU pit and the other countries that are in fact better off than we are. But they are all sacrosanct. So long as Cameron and Clegg are in place, they will fight “tooth and nail” to keep us in our worsening impoverishment. That is their role in the new order of things. So a few of us are working for the arrest of Cameron and Clegg. If only the rest of the country (as they say they would be keen to see it) would join in, it’d be happening next week. Do SOMETHING.

A French Lesson for British & UK Nationalists

A French Lesson for British Nationalists

Posted at Nationalist Unity forum on March 2012

By William Spearshake. Dateline: 7th March 2012. From the heights of David Cameron to the rank-and-file of the divided and scattered nationalists of Britain, the people of our country are being given a big lesson in How It Should Be Done!

Seeing himself being backed into a corner in this year’s Presidential election, no less a person than current French President Nicolas Sarkozy has now finally been compelled to publically admit the truth to his bruised and culturally raped nation.

During a pre-election debate on French television, the French President (himself the son of an immigrant from Eastern Europe) has stated that France has too many foreigners!

He also revealed the fact that there is no working system for integrating immigrants into French society and culture and that all attempts to accomplish this are on the point of breakdown.

On public television, he has revealed his Great New Idea, seemingly designed as a desperation measure to win back haemorrhaging voters, which is to grasp the poisonous political nettle of immigration and promise to his country that, if he wins next month’s election, he will attempt to almost halve the number of (legally identified) arriving immigrants, admitting that the French immigration control system is at risk of collapse, and also – wait for it! – he will create much tighter control on immigrant’s entitlement to welfare benefits.

Already, M. Sarkozy has introduced new laws enabling France to deport Roma gypsies. As recently as 6th March, Sarkozy’s Prime Minister Francois Fillon stated that the slaughter of animals according to “religious requirements” was an “out of date” concept – the French government’s knee-jerk reaction to a documentary on French television channel France 2 in which it was shown that every single abattoir in the Paris region exclusively produces nothing but halal meat!

Now, one cannot help but wonder what has prompted this change of attitude in a leading component of the “Drown European Cultures With Immigrants” conspiracy? A change of attitude so sudden and so dramatic as to almost produce a screech of brakes and the smell of burning tyre rubber as the French government swerves wildly and crunches its gears into reverse!

The answer to this puzzling political about-turn is not hard to find. Voters are flocking to M. Sarkozy’s two main political rivals for the Presidency, Francois Hollande the Socialist candidate, and Marine Le Pen of the National Front.

Since taking the place of her father (who actually came second in 2002’s Presidential elections) as leader of the National Front, Marine Le Pen has accomplished what has been described as a “de-toxifying” of the image of the party. As a result, recent opinion polls have shown that she is now actually the most popular politician in France, although the Socialist M. Hollande is generally expected to win the presidency.

With great significance, this new recognition of the forward political position of the National Front as a potential government that can save France from cultural extinction is growing most rapidly not amongst embittered and nostalgic over-40s but, rather, amongst the housewives, young people and students of France, a semi-crippled country which currently imports 203,000 immigrants a year!

Under Marie Le Pen the National Front’s main political message is one which has immense appeal amongst the ordinary French population, anti-globalisation, anti-European Union, anti-Islamification of France and the restoration of French sovereignty. In addition, Mlle. Le Pen and the party are opposed to the single European currency – the Euro – which she categorizes as a concept that has now proved its obsolescence.

The general trend – the “word on the street” – regarding the gathering momentum of the ordinary French person to favour the National Front can be gauged by a radio report from Abbeville by the BBC’s Paris correspondent Christian Fraser, which can be accessed on their website here.

The general overview of the increasingly marketable French National Front as an essential and acceptable political party for restoring sanity to the French homeland unfortunately stands in very bleak contrast to the situation here in Britain.

In Britain, the main nationalist party has previously been the BNP, which is incapable of evolving into acceptability with “middle-of-the road” voters by cleaning-up its own act. Like the nationalist Dutch Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, the French National Front has recognized the overriding necessity of re-branding itself as a populist party, which no longer wishes to be tarred by the epithet “far-right”.

As a result, in the Netherlands and in France there is not only steadily increasing reason to hope for nationalist party election wins, but also and very importantly, there is already mounting political weight from the nationalist parties by which even non-nationalist governments and presidents can be pressurized into admitting that what are, essentially, nationalist policies are more appropriate for the future of their countries than the “Let’s Smile While We Destroy Our Civilisation” policies of liberalism and the far left.

Unfortunately, in Britain the BNP is now nothing but a lurching, lumbering, evolution-proof dinosaur, its body larger than its miniscule brain, and like the fictional dinosaurs in Conan Doyle’s classic novel “The Lost World”, it is doomed by its own political evolutionary inflexibility to cling to an aberrant ghoul-like survival only within the national cemetery of what is fast becoming the Lost World of Britain, whilst across the sea in Europe, nationalism is evolving ever more rapidly towards even higher stages of evolution and victory.

British nationalists indeed need a French lesson!

Our lost nation and the end of an era

Our lost nation and the end of an era

By Mike Wilson

I grieve from a distance for the death of my native country, England. The country that was at the heart of Western Europe during two thousand years of slow secure growth, resulting in a free and democratic society that was the envy of most of Europe.

The country that gave rise to democratic government that has been copied by every other civilized nation. The country that championed free speech and the freedom of the individual. The country that instilled the love of family and family values. The country that tried to educate and foster knowledge in third world bastions of indifference where speed breeding and poverty were and still are the norm. The country where the love of one’s fellow man has led to its own inescapable ruin.

The German philosopher Nietzsche had said in so many words that the Christian ethic of allowing the meek to inherit the earth would in the end undermine the very fabric of society and ultimately bring about its downfall.

We see now that he was so right yet at the time people were unable to comprehend his argument. Another person who was vilified for professing a similar argument albeit on slightly different lines was Enoch Powell and how right was he?

How have we come to this point in time where every freedom we used to take for granted is now questioned and overturned by an authority that is set to deny us that very freedom for which our fathers and forefathers fought and laid down their lives.

There are several reasons, most of them are interlinked in some way and all have been exposed over time yet none of them have been rallied against, fought against, argued against but all have simply been meekly accepted by the population with absolutely stunning apathy and everyone has been led meekly to the slaughter by the men in white coats.

What are these reasons? Well let’s list some of them:-

1. New World Order.

2. Political Correctness.

3. European Union.

These are the three major areas although there are some sub groups that promote too much hostility to comment on at this point.

So let’s look at the New World Order.

This name seems to have started as a post- Cold War scenario in a speech given by George H W Bush to congress in 1990.

He was pushing for an international government to be run by the United Nations. The UN originated out of work done by the Council on Foreign Relations of which Bush was a member. The vision of the UN founders is clearly globalist. It advocates a shift in sovereignty from the state to the international level thereby doing away with nation states. It seeks to have increased authority, security, and judicial powers of an international body with enhanced social and economic interdependence and some significant level of military disarmament of the nation states.

You will all be aware of just how far this has come since this UN plan was put together by the Council on Foreign Relations.

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." - James Warburg (Rothschild Banking Agent 1950)

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England ... (and) ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." - Carroll Quigley, Professor of History Georgetown University, in his book "Tragedy and Hope".

"The interests behind the Bush administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberg Group have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years." - Dr. Johannes Koeppl (Former official of the German Ministry for Defence and advisor to NATO)

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax exempt foundation (i.e. Rockefeller), and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labour, military, education, and mass communication media, that it should be familiar to every person concerned with good government and with preserving and defending our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation's right-to-know machinery, the news media; usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities. The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the US from a sovereign Republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship." - Congressman John R. Rarick

The above quotes show that a New World Order is a reality and that the world has changed forever.

More quotes:

It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media/ education are systems for indoctrination.

Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God's image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is just a fancy animal without a divine soul. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. Instead, we are fed an endless diet of trivia and degradation.

So now you know why things are as they are on the world scene and why our situation in England has changed so irrevocably over the last 20 years.

But what about closer to home, what about so called racial intolerance, freedom of speech, overzealous policing, black gangs, raping of white women, mass immigration, free housing for ethnics at the expense of the indigenous population and so on?

So now we need to look at political correctness.

The was originally viewed as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms , that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s.

Britain today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Parliament is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

1. the creation of racism offences

2. continual change to create confusion

3. the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority

5. huge immigration to destroy national identity

6. the promotion of excessive drinking

7. emptying the churches

8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime

9. dependency on the state or state benefits

10. control and dumbing down of media

11. encouraging the breakdown of the family

Sound all too familiar? Yes - Great Britain 1997 onwards......

(The above excerpts taken from a speech by Bill Lind in February 2000.)

Finally what has the European Union got to do with any of this?

Well, if you think about it the union is simply an extension of the New World order taking its lead from the controllers who manage world affairs. They set up Europe for total control by the commission in Brussels and the commission themselves are controlled in the process.

The European Union is not about cooperation for protecting the best interests of Europeans; it is about turning the entire continent into a Multicultural theme park while the natives get culturally deconstructed and demographically crushed. The EU is a large-scale social experiment conducted on hundreds of millions of people. It is not about economics of scale, it is about stupidity of scale. The EU system corrupts virtually everybody who comes close to it. It cannot be reformed, it can only be dismantled.

Unfortunately, for our late Great Britain the time has gone when such a dismantling could have occurred.

Now we of the older generation can only look on in dismay as the indoctrination of the younger generation spreads its insidious web throughout the whole of society. The government will only be able to rest easily once we have all gone and the people who take our place will have no knowledge of our glorious past only their own history formed of pre-digested facts fed to them by their masters.

So I can still grieve for what was and what has been lost, but the grief is only mine – and once I am gone and those of my generation who will remember the great nation that we used to be?

A Development of Conservatism for our Time and the Future

A Development of Conservatism for our Time and the Future

Written by David Hamilton

March 2012

An essay attacking a particular type of Conservatism by Alex Kurtagic was published on alternativeright.com. I sent them a response in the interest of a debate. They would not publish it. There are different types of conservatism and I write of one that is not only relevant but crucial to our survival as a people: a specific type of conservatism that is national Conservatism, not monetarist or free market economics nor neo-Conservatism, and certainly not penalising our poor people - but re-linking with our traditions, history and our ancestors to Conserve ourselves as a people. When a worldview becomes dominant it marginalises the opposing view and that is what has happened to traditional or national conservatism. Another complication is that new liberalism is different from classical liberalism. In the 1960s the New Left took over Liberalism but changed the content. For example, and this is profoundly important, individual rights became group rights. This shifted it to totalitarian thinking as group rights gave minority groups (victims) preferential treatment over the host population (oppressors). I use the term Progressive to cover the ideological outlooks ranging from Liberalism to Marxism which grew out of the Enlightenment. They all believe that change is always better than what is; and that we are ineluctably headed for better world, the brotherhood of man – a Utopia. Conservatism is opposed to progressivism as it has a respect for our past and traditions and believes that by studying history we are equipped to deal with present crises by applying the lessons of history: how our forebears solved similar situations in the past. It uses practical reasoning not rationalistic thinking; concrete words rather than abstractions and favours the particular over the universal, though it uses substantial universals to describe concrete objects like White men and White women. Progressives remove the substance from words, we keep it. A non-ideological worldview A formal ideology is written down like a "How to book" which tells people how to think and behave. Formal ideology grew out of the Enlightenment to replace religion with a secular programme of thinking and behaving and those who deviate have to be corrected. This began the change in the rulers from an aristocratic class based on blood and land to rule by secular elites united by thinking and saying the right things - an "Ideological Caste." Ideological thinking starts with first principles and requires underpinnings to support or justify beliefs. This Conservatism is not an ideology but a view of the world that grows out of our emotional bonds with our families and expands outwards through neighbourhood and community to the nation. It emanates out to Europe and the Anglosphere, though weaker. For example, we feel for the South African Boers in these days of their genocide. It is stronger at home and a parent who wishes other children to do better than their own is perverse. We have a responsibility for our kin, and a duty to them. We have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture and we must honour that. A people need the numinous things in life – religion, art, culture, a wholesome countryside. The numinous is a feeling of, and a need for, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent; not just the material and the hedonistic. The Ideological uses of language. It is not possible to explain your thoughts or feelings without language, which is why the elites are reducing vocabulary so we can not think the wrong things. When the state controls thought and language we are controlled in our ability to think as was demonstrated by the descriptions of Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. They use linguistic connotations like “racism” which only applies to “White” or “British”. They are also cutting education down so that we don't know our history and where we are from and so that we have less knowledge to argue with. The elites try to change our thinking by changing our vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggesting certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included “immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian,” “mixed race,” “half-caste,” “mulatto.” There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality as in the official designation of “Anti-Islamic activity” for Muslim terrorists. The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a “hater”, a “racist”. In fact, though, Prejudice is traditional wisdom received from our ancestors. It saves us learning the hard way and we would have been spared this dispossession by immigrants if our natural prejudices had been followed after the last war. Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: bigot and tolerance are prominent examples. Bigot means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to “right-wingers”. A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants. We need a concrete, definite vocabulary, not vague language like person and humanity, but terms like“Englishman or Englishwoman, Welshman or Welshwoman, Scotsman or Scotswoman or Irishman or Irishwoman”, “boy” and “girl”; land rather than country. They are more specific, convey a solid idea of substance; and get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of our collective loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic. The great Welsh national anthem “Land of My Fathers” is a is a pertinent example as it makes a clear statement of debt to forebears and suggests the piety necessary to honour what the ancestors have left us and our obligation to hand it on to our descendants. This is embodied in the Fifth Commandment to honour thy mother and father. Unless they are very cruel parents, of course. Restructuring our Thought We are in a period of social engineering and traditional ways of thinking are being systematically broken down. A television programme “Gypsy Wars” contrasted a local woman and tinkers who had invaded her land and reversed the roles as we experience them. The intellectual and media elites think our traditional view of the world is pathological and try to correct it for us. They show us or a representative, in the role of what they think are our stereotypes - we are cast as the tinkers - to mould the public's views and change attitudes. No young Gypsy men were shown, because they would be aggressive and the programme makers did not want to show them as a threat; village life was not shown because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when she was the victim. This is Television re-structuring thought in accordance with their Progressive ideology. Last August the police had to close the largest gypsy camp in Britain at Dale Farm and the biased television news reports once again left gypsy men out of their news reports and documentaries. For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Bourgoise-Socialist Guardian newspaper to filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes. A world view to unite us How do we counter the dominant ideology? The way to develop a new world view is to gather examples from the world around us, of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration, collate it and our version of reality begins to form. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to one another. We also need to consider what gives life meaning and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people, but do not hate other peoples and do not accept the Marxist pejorative term “racist.” By linking to our Conservative traditions we would give supporters a secure base to argue from with abundant role models like Enoch Powell, the great fifth Marquess of Salisbury who fought against immigration and defended “our kith and Kin” in Rhodesia and Sir Winston Churchill, who tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955 (1), and many others. That and quotes from our history and that would strengthen their conviction and impress their hearers. People follow the dominant elites because they appear stronger and successful; even many who agree with us vote for one of the dominant parties for those reasons. A conviction based on the knowledge that we follow in the steps of great national figures would help counter that disadvantage. Simple or self-loathing people say "So what?". "It doesn't matter if different people take over!" This shows a failure to understand human nature. They think it will be painless like handing the baton on in a relay race, but examples from history like the Norman invasion, show the oppression the conquered have to endure; other countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe show what will befall our children if the evil elites are not countered. We are being dehumanised and made a non people. We must abandon this inculcated niceness, this apologetic approach and assert our selves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good. The next generation need to be built up to inherit the responsibility for our life and culture. The media are occupying them with what to wear, how to get their hair done and where to have a tat! It is done to get their money and is morally evil as they are being debauched by temptations and enticements. We must stress the positive benefits we have to offer our people: preferential treatment in their own country, better education, priority in housing and employment for our children and protection from child-rape by older members of the rival Muslim community. You only need look at the un-British names of graduates from medical and law schools when they are reported in the newspapers to see how our young are being deprived of opportunities that are their birthright. We would offer English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh children more opportunities and a better future without unfair competition from outsiders. This is the natural way and we are finding words to express this and to make our thoughts clearer to ourselves. Click here for the reference notes for this essay

Coherent Nationalism in Action

Coherent Nationalism in Action

Posted @ Nationalist Unity Forum March 2012

By Peter Mills.

Geert Wilders’ Dutch Freedom Party (Partij voor de Vrijheid or PVV)) is now showing that it is capable of flexing its political muscles, as confirmed in the Telegraph here.

While nationalism in Backwater Britain struggles to find a new political identity and direction for itself after years of refusing to accept that it should change into a less toxic format, in Europe the various nationalist parties are doing rather better at coping with realities and turning them to their advantage, and the Dutch are a good example of this new brand of nationalism – “new” because it is successful.

Already, the Dutch Freedom Party (founded in its present form as recently as 2005) has shown that by re-branding nationalism into a de-toxified populist political format it is perfectly possible to bring nationalism into parliament, and even into government, in which the PVV now has an actual foothold.

The Dutch National Party won 9 seats in the general election of 2006, the year following its formation, a victory which left it the fifth largest party in parliament. However, in the 2009 elections to the European Parliament, the PVV came second by winning 4 out of 25 seats, which was topped by its tremendous success in the 2010 general election – you remember, that was the year the BNP did not win a single seat and promptly collapsed from the rot of internal corruption and incompetence – when Geert Wilders’ nationalist party won no less than 24 seats, promoting it to 3rd largest party.

This is equivalent to the BNP doing better than the Lib-Dems in the 2010 general election! At least somebody got it right, but it was not British nationalism, it was Dutch. If nationalists in Britain had come third instead of the Lib-Dems, David Cameron and his Tories would have either had to swallow their misplaced pride and form a coalition with nationalists, or else blow David Cameron’s chance of being Prime Minister out of the water.

In the Netherlands, though, the Conservative/Liberal party led by Mark Rutte was neither so snooty nor so bigoted as Britain’s fossilised Tories and obsolescent Labourites. Rutte, though his party had not won a clear majority in the Dutch House of Representatives, saw his opportunity to form a government by entering into a coalition with the Dutch Freedom Party, the nationalists.

This coalition is interesting for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that Mark Rutte, who gained power with the agreement and cooperation of the nationalist party, is hailed as being the first Dutch Liberal Prime Minister for 92 years! This amounts to a nationalist image re-branding of atomic proportion.

Dutch Nationalist leader Geert Wilders is now able to bring nationalist policies and ideology into the councils of the wise on equal terms with other politicians. At present, he is speaking out against the Netherlands remaining in the European Single Currency and advocating a return to its own currency the Guilder, and he has extremely cogent reasons for urging this – a damning report from the Lombard Street Research economic consultancy (downloadable here) in which the forthcoming total collapse of the Euro and Eurozone is mapped out in meticulous unavoidable detail.

From the point of view of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is concerned that since the start of the European Monetary Union (“Eurozone”) the non-Euro countries Switzerland and Sweden have overtaken the Netherlands while the Dutch growth rate has fallen from 3% to a mere 1.25%. Wilders has announced from his prominent political platform that the Euro “…is not in the interests of the Dutch people,” adding that the facts revealed by the report “…go against everything we are told in the media and by the left-wing elite…”

The liberalistic government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte needs the support of the Dutch Freedom Party in order to command a majority and get its legislation passed in parliament. It is reported (in the Telegraph and other sources) that Geert Wilders and Mark Rutte have been in talks together to discuss the current urgent financial catastrophe, especially the horrific 16 billion Euros’ worth of new “austerity cuts” which, like those imposed upon Greece, are now required by Europe in the Netherlands economy to prevent a 4.5% budget deficit.

The interesting thing from the viewpoint of British nationalists looking in from outside is that, as the European crisis gathers impact like a slow-motion avalanche, the de-toxified and re-branded Dutch nationalist party is in there with the top politicians, holding conferences with the Prime Minister and not only being taken seriously, but in addition, looking increasingly fitter for government themselves on a daily basis.

The Dutch nationalist party stands a very good chance of so impressing the general population that increased votes are likely in forthcoming elections, and especially so if the nationalist leader is part of the political team that can rescue the Netherlands from the predicted impending collapse of the Eurozone and, thereby, save the Dutch economy and population from the same kind of ruination and squalor now inflicted upon the Euro’s Greek victims.

The vital question nationalists in Britain need to ask themselves is this: can anyone picture in their mind’s eye a scenario in which Nick Griffin is asked by David Cameron to attend a meeting to discuss economic affairs? I rather expect I am not alone in finding it easier to imagine such an invitation being made to Kermit the Frog.

This underlines the simple fact that, unless nationalism in Britain can get it’s act together, de-toxify its image, appoint honest management, re-brand itself and become a populist political party that can successfully win increasing votes from ordinary voters, not only is British nationalism doomed to abject failure and ridicule, but Britain itself, as we have known and loved it, is also doomed to continue to be nothing but the handy offshore garbage dump of Europe.

British nationalism desperately needs a new direction and a new image, and it also needs a sweeping “house-clearing” of all the crooks, traitors, con-tricksters, get-rich-quick merchants, semi-illiterate writers and speakers, petulant psychopaths, buffoons and Muppets who have become its traditional entrenched leadership, advisors, commentators and management.

This is why Nationalist Unity is vitally important, and this is why we need the Nationalist Unity Forum. It may not itself be the answer to the problem, but it is certainly providing the research team that will find that answer.a

Jailing People for Political Opinions is Not Civilized

Jailing People for Political Opinions is Not Civilized, Andrew Brons Tells Hypocritical Liberals

Posted at BNP Ideas

European Union member countries who jail people just for expressing political opinions are not civilized, Andrew Brons MEP told shocked liberals in the EU Parliament yesterday.

Speaking to a meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), Mr Brons said that a “common area of Justice is a fine ideal—an area in which Justice prevails throughout.

“However, that does not mean that there should be harmonisation of law or legal systems,” he said.

“Law can vary from country to country, whilst all might achieve Justice by different routes and channels. Furthermore, harmonisation is not a sufficient condition for Justice; it is not a guarantor of Justice.

“However, we cannot be complacent. Countries—and I mean countries in the European Union which that seek to gaol people for expressing political opinions, or which ban political parties that pursue their aims by peaceful means, or which seek to prescribe and proscribe different opinions about what happened in Armenia in 1915, are not civilised countries that subscribe to any ideal of Justice.

“History should be left to historians. The only politicians that impose views of history are totalitarian politicians,” Mr Brons said.

“Before we try to impose a common template on twenty-seven—soon to be twenty-eight—different countries, we must, at the very least ensure that the template is itself just and that the countries, from which the template is drawn, practise justice.

“Attempts to build complementary legal devices, like the European Arrest Warrant, have not served the interests of Justice.

“This device has facilitated people being extradited and gaoled, pending trial, without the court in the extraditing country being able to judge the strength or weakness of the case.

“These attempts to harmonise and make complementary, different legal systems are not motivated by service of Justice but by building EU competence, brick by brick.

“Spending money works wonders for the conscience but it does not guarantee the achievement of Justice, any more than the sale of indulgences, in the Middle Ages, guaranteed the achievement of Virtue.”

The Danger of MAINSTREAM ,Islamic Takeover in Britain

The Danger of MAINSTREAM

Written by Rev West at the Christian Council of Britain|

Islamic Takeover in Britain

There can be little doubt that the growing presence of large numbers of Muslims in the West - Britain, Europe [not just the EU], North America and the Antipodes - is a great problem posing a considerable danger to our faith, our society and its values, and to each of those countries of the Western world which have so much in common with ourselves, based as all of them are, on broadly Judeao-Christian, liberal, and democratic values. The immense privileges which we have gained over the long centuries of Christendom are now in danger by the presence of so large and growing a Mohammedan following. We need to be clear about the nature of that following, why it poses so considerable a threat to us, and what its methods are which it is even now currently using to bring the danger to pass. It is no exaggeration to say that, just as we had to see down the Nazis between 1933 and 1945, and the Communists between 1917 and 1991, so we will have to see down this new threat, though in historical terms it is a lot older.

Mainstream Islamic Threat to Christianity

The presence of well-organised Mohammedans among us is a grave threat, though not often recognised, to our Christian faith. The Mohammedans, following their prophet Mohammed or Mahomet (570-632AD), believe that God is simply one and not the Trinity-in-Unity, the Three-in-One. They deny that Jesus is the Son of God and also that He died for our sins being crucified upon the cross. But the Bible says that the one undivided God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost; that the Son is equal in honour to the Father (Jn 5: 22-23); that we must believe in the Son (Jn 8: 24) - and what He did for us men and our salvation - if we are to be saved (1 Cor 15: 3, 4). Mohammed did not like any of this and forbad his followers from believing this, charging them to stop others proclaiming it. In faithfulness to Mohammed, not Christ, his followers now oppose and persecute, sometimes to death, any who bring these glad tidings of great joy which should be to all people. We see increasing Muslim violence against Christians almost everywhere; and it will, sooner or later, come to Britain if it is not here already. There is an issue here of freedom of religious expression and propagation; indeed a question of the freedom to publish and proclaim this good news to all, including to the followers of Mohammed. Wherever Mohammedanism is in power it stops the freedom which is needed to proclaim the gospel. But the gospel of Christ, and the Christian values that flow from it, are something that we all benefit from, even when considering only the good things that it brings in this life. This is because Christianity is the root of a very fruitful tree; and the fruits of Christianity will not long survive where the freedom-constricting and belief-restraining laws of the Mosque prevail. God is indeed great as the Muslims often affirm, and gracious which they tend to ignore; but the Son of God is equally as great and gracious (Jn 17:5; 1 Jn 5: 11, 12). And if we do not have the Son then we do not have the Father either (1 Jn 2: 23).

Mainstream Islamic Threat to the Jews

The Jews also tend to suffer a great deal where large numbers of Mohammedans are able to influence law-making, policy-making and the general social, political, media and educational culture. Islam not only has a problem with the existence of the State of Israel, and the consequent loss of most of Muslim Palestine (which Islam sees as a major affront to its claim to supremacy everywhere), and the treatment that is meted out to the enemies of the State of Israel in the Middle East; Islam also has a problem with the Jewish nation itself whether in the land of Israel or in the Diaspora. Mohammed and his followers conceived a kind of eternal hatred against the Jews because the Jews, and not the Islamic ummah, according to the Old Testament or Talmud, which Mohammed revered, are the chosen nation (Gen 12: 3). Mohammed wanted his own followers to feel that they were the ones who were specially chosen by Allah. Mohammed sought the approval of both the Jews and the Christians, the peoples of the Book, and when this was not given he turned in great bitterness against both. As a result his followers have a great hatred not only for Christianity but also for the nationality of the Jews; the Muslims have a kind of eternal enmity against the Jews for this reason, known as Al-Yahud. It is in the Arab and the Mohammedan world, especially, that copies of Hitler’s Mein Kamph are circulated and propagated with approval and where the fact of the Nazi race-genocide against the Jews, between 1941-1945, is most vehemently denied. The Mufti of Jerusalem visited Hitler during World War II because of the common racial hatred of the Jews which they both shared; and, in Europe, Bosnian Mohammedans joined Hitler’s SS Hansa division as a means of carrying on their eternal war against the people God really did choose. In the New Testament Jesus said that salvation was of the Jews (Jn 4: 22) and the apostle Paul laid down in Romans chapters 9-11 the awful story of the partial rejection of the Jews in God’s plan in order to bring the Gentiles into the true Church - those who have faith in the true God.

The New Testament and the Christian View of the Jews

The special status and love of the Israelite is a little known part, but an important part, of the New Testament Christian faith; and it is a part of the Christian faith, along with the Trinity and the Godhood of Christ (and the death of Christ to atone for our sins) that the followers of Mohammed have an especial dislike for. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has threatened to wipe the State of Israel off of the map, such is the racial (and religious) hatred of the Muslim for the Jew; and yet we are allowing increasing numbers of these adherents into the whole of the West: something which ought to betoken an increasing level of fear to the Jew and instability to ourselves. Yet our foolish governments continue to allow it to happen.

It is important to be clear what the New Testament, which is part of our Christian faith, says of the Jew. I have already said a lot, elsewhere, about what the whole of the Bible says about nations, nationhood and national homelands. You must not be surprised, therefore, that the New Testament, the especially Christian part of the Bible, has something to say about the chosen nation even though they are, now, very largely in unbelief; a state of affairs that is indeed alluded to in the New Testament. The apostle Paul says that ‘if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,” which it was, ‘what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead” (Roms 11: 15). He goes on to say ‘that blindness is in part happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.” (Roms 11: 25.) We are living in that time-frame where blindness in part is come to the Jew; but note well they are still the chosen race, collectively, for the sake of the fathers. In Roms 11: 21 Paul refers to them as the ‘natural branches” and, in Roms 9: 3 he refers to them as his ‘kinsmen by race” (Revised Standard Version) ‘kinsman according to the flesh’ in the Authorised Version, and how, though he was the apostle to the Gentiles (Roms 11: 13; Gals 2: 7-9), he could wish himself accursed and cut off from Christ for their sakes. All the blessings of the covenant belong to them pre-eminently - the sonship, the glory, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. Islam - at its inception, being a kind of religious form of extreme Arab nationalism - resented all of this because the Arabs descended from Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman, not Isaac and Jacob in whom Abraham’s privileges shall belong and be transmitted (Gals 4:22-3; Roms 9: 7-13). It is a question of sour grapes, as with so much related to the attitude and outlook of Mohammed.

So we have seen that Mohammedanism dislikes both Christianity and the nation of the Jews intensely for reasons which are deeply religious and historical, and for reasons which to the secular mind may seem almost incomprehensible and unbelievable; but our Christian faith upholds all these points and, as Christians, we must be faithful to them, acknowledging, at the same time, that it is only by individual faith and repentance that anyone can come to Jesus, be they Jew or Gentile: for we are all to seek, by faith only, that righteousness which comes to us by what Christ has done for us, and not by our own efforts and works of the law (Roms 10: 3, 6, 10, 17).

Mainstream Islamic Threat to our Parliamentary Democracy

But why is the presence of large numbers of the followers of Mohammed among us so great a threat to our liberal and national democracy? It is due to the nature of Islam itself and not to the alleged extremism of some radicals within it. By our standards all of Islam is extreme. The roots of Islamic terror indeed go back to Mohammed and only too faithfully repeat what he commanded, practised and enjoined. When the so-called radicals emulate him, they are only being faithful to what he taught and practised; and yet when the so-called moderates try to play this down, they too are, also, only being faithful to doctrines and practices - of patience, stealth and dissimulation - which he also practised and avowed in tandem, depending on the situation which he found himself in: but always with an eye as to which of the conflicting approaches would best achieve the most suitable outcome for the furtherance of his own religion and its ultimate goal of dominating, bit by bit, the whole world.

The object of Islam is extreme: to dominate all. There will be no freedom of religion, no freedom to leave Islam, and no freedom to critique it: the leaving of Islam is seen as apostasy and under the Islamic sharia (or pathway) it carries the death penalty; the criticising of Islam is deemed blasphemy and likewise, under the sharia, carries severe penalties. Islam means submission or surrender and has no concept of individual freedom of choice or lack of compulsion in religion once you are within the faith yourself or if you dwell in the Abode of Islam, the Dar al Islam, where the Mohammedans are in the majority and the laws of the state back-up and support the rule of the Imam and the Mosque.

But in the Abode of War, the Dar al Harb, where Mohammedans are not in the majority, or where Islam has not yet established near total ascendancy, more subtlety or trickery is required to fool the ‘infidels’ into believing that they are safe, until… … the moment comes when they can either be subdued or ‘persuaded’ to submit ‘voluntarily.’ If the latter, all well and good; but if the former then Allah has at least been merciful in giving them time and opportunity to surrender and convert. You may not regard that as very fair or tolerant but you are not coming to it from the perspective of Allah’s apostle; and in any case in the things of Allah their prophet was clear that there could not be, nor would it in principle be right for there to be, any leeway or toleration for what they see as rebellion and apostasy against the one true God. The idea of belief being from the heart and freely given is a Judeao-Christian one, found in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, not in the Koran, which sees outward conformity or submission as being of the essence of the faith of the whole community.

Jihad not simply confined to Violence

The means used to secure the domination of the whole world, country by country, are often overlooked; but they have become more and more exposed by Islam-scholars and by individuals who have been converted to Christ out of the pit of Mohammedanism. The Rev Dr Patrick Sookhdeo has written a number of books on Islam and is an expert on its terrorist networks and their methods. But works on Muslim terror only deal with the radicals and overlook the greater danger of an Islamic takeover by stealth, as promoted by the comparatively more moderate, but really more slippery and cunning mainstream. We must not be fooled. In particular Dr Sam Solomon and others have written on this. It is mainstream Mohammedanism, not the radicals, which drives the war, or struggle (known in Arabic as jihad), against the non-Islamic world, the unbeliever, the infidel or kaffir - kufr meaning unbelief; and it does so by these other means which often fall short of violence but which may threaten violence against the kaffir, and will certainly use all kinds of pressure - legal, propaganda, cultural, and financial - to bring about either the kaffir’s total submission by conversion to Islam, or his reduction to the status of dhimmitude. This is what Christians and Jews in particular are to be reduced to: it involves establishing an Islamic protectorate over them by which they are made wards of Islam and have to pay a jizya, a humiliating tax for their ‘protection,’ and where they lose equal rights in a Muslim-dominated state and society. This jihad, or struggle, is an ongoing and systematic programme to take over the non-Islamic states in terms of Islam’s own ideology as founded upon the Koran, the Sunnah (trodden path), the hadiths (the written traditions); and the sharia (the Islamic religious laws), as propounded by their scholars (the ulema) from time to time; especially in the early days of the religion but also in current fatwas to meet situations which have not arisen before for which there is no guiding precedent. Jihad can also include terrorism, assassinations, kidnaps, beatings-up, holy war - all in the name of Allah and His apostle - but it is by no means confined to such actual or threatened violence. The whole of the West, as part of the Abode of War, the Dar Al Harb, is currently being subjected to an organised and well-directed institutional, legal, educational and cultural jihad, from Mohammedan pressure to have school girls wear the hijab and “dress modestly”, to pressure on Tescos to sell halal meat, and on the banks to deal in sharia-compliant financial services.

Immigration and Swamping is another means of Jihad

One main way of promoting this kind of jihad is by hirja: migration or swamping. Following the precedent of Mohammed’s flight or migration to Medina from Mecca, his followers have historically been bidden, likewise, to migrate to further the struggle and spread the faith. It can be within one country, such as from Leicester to Peterborough, or Peterborough to Boston, or it can be between countries, from Morocco to England or Libya to Scotland; but though it may be presented as all kinds of things, its object and its effect is to keep the migrating community of Mohammed’s followers together so that they can then dominate a locality and spread the Middle East. Fleeing from it? They are bringing it with them; that is the whole point! Hirja or migration is one of the main ways now being pursued to subject the West to Islam and to turn Europe, especially, into Eurabia.

“Islam Means Peace” is another means of Jihad by Takiyya or Deception.

Another way of ensuring that this kind of jihad-promotion is protected is by means of takiyya (deception) - Koranic injunctions for a “viable survival through deception” where the Muslims are still in the minority and may yet be vulnerable. Takiyya, which means deception, is the most irreligious of doctrines for it countenances and enjoins lying for the cause - in other words doing evil that ‘good’ may come (Roms 3: 8). That is what they think of you as an ‘infidel’, a non-Muslim. It is practised at the personal level and at the community level through its leaders and institutions and it is used by arrogant and evil Muslims even under oath, backed up often by their Mosques, to falsely accuse Christians, and Jews, either for personal gain or to wage jihad against their communities. In the media these Mohammedans constantly trot out the lie that Islam is a peaceful religion. No it is not: it is one of the most vile, violent and depraved religions that have cursed the Earth and which has held back large areas of mankind in servitude, sexual debasement and depravity, and intellectual backwardness for centuries.

Thus Islamic jihad, both the violent and the non-violent varieties, are all of a piece in the struggle of Mohammed, and his followers, against all who have not yet submitted to the crescent god. Mohammedanism, in all its forms and in all the ways it is being promoted, is thus one of several great threats that the West, broadly defined, is now facing, and which it must defeat if its way of life is to be preserved and prosper. As we fought Hitler and the followers of Lenin and Marx so we must take on the false prophet of Allah who even now, from the grave, seeks to destroy us. And of one thing we can be certain: Christ, the Lord God and the Son of God shall prevail.

All scripture quotations are from the King James Authorised Version (1611) unless otherwise stated. The Revised Standard Version has been quoted in one place where it is helpful (Roms 9:3) though it is generally unreliable, especially on Christology and on its underlying text of the New Testament.

© The Revd RMB West Dip. Th.