Have Nationalists been deceived by The EDL and about Nick Griffin MEP,

Have Nationalists been deceived by The EDL and about Nick Griffin MEP,

Looking at this video of an excellent and mind opening speech by Nick Griffin MEP, I am beginning to believe that the recent setback of the British National Party could have been engineered by out side forces, please watch and make your mind up. I am beginning to conclude myself that Mr Griffin could have been the victim of a massive smear campaign. 

RACIAL REALITY AND THE LIBERAL DENIAL

The Reality of Race

RACE, n. [L. radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, &c.]

1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely … Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.

2. A generation; a family of descendants …

3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of sheep.

Of such a race no matter who is king. ~Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Strange days are these.  I say they are strange because the current socio-religious climate has degenerated to the point where we now have need of a reassertion and clarification of matters which were, from a Christian vantage, regarded as the most elementary facts of life, even as recently as sixty years ago.  It is this strangeness of the current milieu which now compels me, as a Christian, to render an apologetic for the reality of race.  To start with, it’s rather difficult to discuss the reality of race without examining the conceptual paradigm which has ostensibly outlawed it — the relatively new term of “racism.” As Craig Bodeker has so adroitly shown, “racism” is defined in ways so numerous and mutually contradictory as to render it a useless term.  If it means everything in general, it means nothing in particular.
But in no way tarnishing Mr. Bodeker’s work, I here treat only two major trends of definition: namely, the two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive perspectives to which White and non-White “anti-racists” have rallied themselves. Racism, according to non-Whites,  is “prejudice plus power,” and in that paradigm they go on to identify power strictly with Whiteness. Since it is acknowledged that everyone has prejudices, this definition implies that a racist is nothing more than your average White person. Liberal Whites, on the other hand, have opted for an entirely different definition of the term: they tend to define it as “the belief that race is real and meaningful.” It is this liberal White point of view, in particular, which this article addresses. But before proving racial realism, let us reflect on precisely what these two mutually exclusive definitions do in conjunction with one another: the non-Whites’ definition of racism — the belief that all Whites are and only Whites can be racists by way of “prejudice plus power” — actually marks themselves as racists in the eyes of liberal Whites! And the liberal Whites’ definition of racism — the belief that race be a meaningful concept — only heaps upon themselves yet more adamant charges of racism from non-Whites, because non-Whites perceive their definition as, first, an absurd and obvious denial of reality, and second, an attempt on the part of Whites to evade any corporate guilt for the storied crimes of the White race. To Blacks and other non-Whites, the liberal Whites’ sudden denial of the existence of the White race is analogous to the devil’s greatest trick — convincing the world that he never really existed in the first place.
Now, the perceptive reader will have guessed the next twist in the saga — even a liberal White cannot forever evade the reality that it is predominantly non-Whites who insist that his a-racial view evidences him as a particularly virulent brand of racist himself, a covert racist. And when he finally comes face-to-face with that reality, he must immediately condemn himself for even perceiving his accusers’ generally non-White makeup! In the balance then, he can do nothing to escape his racism. Either he is a racist for accepting the reality of race or he is a racist for denying it.  It may at first sound overstated, but when you step back and consider the implications of the matter, it really is the existential crisis of our time. The liberal White denial of race is one of the greatest impediments to real peace amongst the races.
The “anti-racist” agenda embarked upon by every Western government in the last sixty years is driven by fuzzy, and even downright self-contradictory, ideological commitments. And as thinking Christians, we are charged by the Almighty Himself to both extol truth and bring low all that is a lie (2 Cor.10:5; Eph.5:11). If we do not, God assures us that He will visit the out-workings of our sin upon our heads and the heads of our posterity (Obad.1:15). Or, as Richard Weaver so succinctly stated it, “Ideas have consequences.” With the charge of these realities in mind, I ask the reader to restrain any trained knee-jerk reaction so as to make room for a little truth. All truth is God’s Truth, after all.
Let’s begin.
Bob Whitaker has famously pointed out the contemporary cognitive dissonance at play in the fact that forensic anthropologists are routinely called upon by the American court system to identify the races of cadavers recovered from crime scenes. For the purpose of conclusive victim-identification, these experts are asked to testify under oath that they can definitively ascertain the race of a corpse from said remains. Then, astoundingly, for the presumed purposes of not engendering prejudice in a given jury, they are directed in a gross contradiction of their previous testimony to swear that modern science has concluded that races do not really exist at all. Though race is universally accepted as a sufficiently tangible reality for the purposes of forensically identifying victims and perpetrators, the courts have mandated blatant perjury on the issue. But, of course, this institutionalized contradiction is merely an attempt at continuity with, and standardization of, the Marxist monkeyshines of an occupied academia.
Even the most committed liberals are unable to wish away the evidentiary avalanche.  At the risk of regurgitating some well-worn facts, I will briefly outline the burgeoning assemblage of crime and IQ statistics which so transparently demonstrates differences beyond physical appearance.  We could pick any two races and find real, demonstrable differences. However, for ease of illustration and familiarity, we will contrast Europeans (Whites) and Africans (Blacks).
Blacks in America have been proven redundantly by every conceived standard of measure to possess an average IQ of 85.  That’s 20 points, or two standard deviations, lower than the Euro-American average of 105.¹  When I say “every conceived standard,” I mean just that: liberals constantly tweak the tests to favor Black culture, providing extra programs, tutors, and cash prizes to inspire better performance in Blacks.  In some cases, they even mandate the addition of extra points based upon race — the beneficiaries of which are always Blacks and Mestizos.  But even when the tests are rigged to favor Black and/or Mestizo cultures, the gap still remains.
Now, while 85 is admittedly a better average than the 70-point average found among Blacks in Africa², it still leaves a broad breadth of Black men unaccountable for their actions by way of the fact that the Western world regards an IQ of 70 to be,  technically speaking, the line of demarcation for mental retardation. In keeping with that resolve, the American justice system officially regards anyone demonstrating a 70-point or lower IQ to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or comprehending the ramifications of their actions; this means that the courts will not sentence Blacks in a manner befitting their crimes. This results in an absurd under-representation of Blacks on death row and a continual recirculation of the most vicious monsters back into society.
Think on these realities:

• 68% of all violent crime arrests are of Blacks.
• 60% of young adult Black males are armed with a weapon at all times.
• Blacks commit 8 times as many assaults as Whites.
• Blacks commit 14 times as many murders as Whites.
• Blacks commit 19 times as many armed robberies as Whites.³

All categories of violent crime considered, Blacks are found to be 50 times more violent than Whites. Now, in order to understand the enormity of that discrepancy, one need only translate it into a percentage:  Blacks are 5,000% more violent than their White counterparts.  If a neighborhood is only 8% Black, the average White victim of violent crime  in that area will still almost certainly identify his or her assailant as Black — and for that matter, so will the Black, Brown, and Yellow victims.  While Blacks make up roughly 14% of the American populace, half are women, and another margin is made up of the very old and the very young, so the egregiously offending demographic (Black males, age 13-35) make up about 3% of the U.S. population.  Incredibly, that 3% of the population is responsible for more violence than all other people in the country combined.⁴
To the endless chagrin of liberals, these figures aren’t compiled by any dismissible  right-wing source, as so many might wish. They are compiled by the federal government, various universities, and the seemingly endless armadas of liberal “think tanks” and ‘”action committees” living off of government endowments.  The ideological partisanship is real enough, but it all runs rigidly against the  grudgingly inescapable findings.  The evidence is just too monumental to be effectively suppressed or explained away.  And though the economic materialist construes this disparity as the result of poverty in the Black communities, this Marxist perspective is entirely undone by the reality that America’s rural areas, despite being quite poor by national standards, do not exhibit any sort of parity of criminal behavior with Black communities. The distinguishing factor, of course, is their White population.  No matter where they are — be it America, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, or any of the countries of Europe — and no matter how poor they happen to be, the worst White community is a more moral and safer place than the best Black community. What’s more, this maxim crosses over boundaries of faith by virtue of the fact that the least Christian White neighborhood is still a many times more moral place than the most Christian Black neighborhood.  One may object to these realities, but they remain realities nonetheless. The fact that this sociological law remains to date unnamed is unacceptable. Let the Christian-Newsom Constant be added to the American lexicon.
But propositionalists and egalitarians within the Church will undoubtedly quip: “… but that’s only because the European has been steeped in the Gospel so much longer  than the African!”  But this too is wholly untrue.  St. Philip’s ministry to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-39) marked the first-century inauguration of the Abyssinian church and the  institution of the Ethiopic See.  African Christianity began contemporaneously with European Christianity, but even where the African’s perspectival expressions of the faith have most approached something which we might regard as orthodox, their spirituality has remained in numerous ways so distinct from our own that we have  historically had great difficulty even identifying their expressions of the faith as Christian in the most basic sense.  For instance, we find that the African conception of the Christian family has typically been a matriarch, overseen by her mother (a grand-matriarch, if you will), and a male blood relative (usually the lesser matriarch’s brother), together rearing the offspring of several different men. Generally, the children are considered the property not of one family alone, but of the village communally. Hillary Clinton notoriously tried to sell this African model to Americans with the phrase, “It takes a village.” This phrase quickly became a byword with which to mock liberals, but Blacks took immediate offense at this because they understood American Whites to actually be mocking African-”Christian” values.  The predilection for this type of familial organization has proven so strong in the African that every colonial society of Blacks in the world has quite unconsciously returned to this model as soon as the grip of European paternalism is loosened.  There are admittedly exceptions to this pattern. The Masai tribe is one: the men take multiple wives, and in order to support their tenuous patriarchy, they perform “circumcision” on all their women to better ensure the fidelity of their wives. Meanwhile, the men still remain gratuitous philanderers.  But the exceptions actually prove the rule as well, do they not?
No matter how long Whites have spent trying to imbue them with the idea of the Christian family, Christianized Black societies shed the institution as soon as Whites yield control back to Blacks. Hence, Blacks in America, despite claiming Christianity at a higher ratio than Whites, popularly conclude that “marriage is for White people.”⁵  Consider also that in the year of our Lord 2011, African Christians still routinely burn their children and their elderly alive for suspicion of being witches.⁶  But of course, Whites used to do the same, didn’t they?  No, not exactly. European Christians executed witches, to be sure.  But most of the accused were actually guilty of witchcraft.  The only real question of propriety arose regarding the matter of “spectral evidence”, i.e., witches appearing in a person’s dreams or as an apparition.  Such were at the time legitimate questions of jurisprudence in need of definitive interpretation and resolution.  It was the Salem Witch Trials in America which eventually settled these matters, resolving that spectral evidence could not meet the biblical bar for an eyewitness.  That was some 300 years ago. Once American courts arrived at this conclusion, the insight was universally embraced across the entirety of the European-stock Western world.  Albeit, the hate crime (or more aptly termed “thought crime”) laws of the post-civil rights era have actually shoved modern jurisprudence into a far more primitive state than that of the pre-Salem days — but that’s an issue for another article in itself.
What, then, do African Christians today cite as reasons for suspicion of witchcraft?  Typically, they connect bad weather and a child’s profusion (or lack) of talkativeness as indications of witchcraft.  The irony of the matter is that while they burn toddlers and grandmothers for their suspected leagues with spirits, even the average “Reformed” African church service features blood sacrifice of animals, trances, necromancy (speaking with and asking favors of the dead), and various incantations commanding nature to do their bidding — all in Jesus’ name, of course.  Basically, the most devout Christians among them are themselves ostensibly guilty of witchcraft, more so than their mute babies, that’s for certain.⁷⁸⁹  Add to that the fact that they are yet to make any substantial effort to eradicate their peoples’ grievous and ongoing cultural practices of gang-rape, child-rape, and cannibalism.¹⁰

According to the 2008 National Census, 85.5% of the [Liberian] population practice Christianity … Liberia is considered a de facto Christian state. Public schools offer biblical studies, though parents may opt out their children. Commerce is prohibited by law on Sundays and major Christian Holidays.¹¹

Liberia is, on paper at least, one of the most theonomic countries in the world, but it remains a living hell-on-earth nonetheless. The same goes for every other African-Christian land. The question must be asked — why?
Even after two millennia of European missions to and discipleship of the African, White Christians yet find the church environment fostered by Africans difficult to differentiate from the grossest expressions of paganism.¹²  One such ethno-cultural handicap seems central to the entire discussion of the African’s interaction with the faith: many a White missionary, explorer, and Bible translator blanched to learn that, prior to colonialism, Blacks were found to possess no corollary in any native dialect for the words “promise,” “bond,” “oath,” “dedication,” “contract,” or “covenant.” And it wasn’t just that they lacked the words; no, they lacked the very concepts.¹³ That conceptual vacancy bespoke a uniquely impaired psychology and spiritual condition back of it.  Since this continuum of ideas was understood as so indispensable to Christian family, vocation, religion, and civilization, Europeans were compelled to coin like terms on behalf of the African by splicing pre-existing words of the native dialects together in hopes of approximating the needed concepts. The result was that, after the Europeans created written forms to parallel the natives’ vocalizations, African Bibles were translated, and the Gospel sown, using terms like “chained-to,” ‘tied-down,” “tethered,” and so on to communicate the covenantal concepts.   Of course, these sorts of ad hoc translations still fell short of the true meaning of our European equivalents, so many thought the African would better understand Christianity if he were only made literate in a European tongue.  But this approach of teaching them in English that they are “contracted to their employer” has fared no better than teaching them in a Congolese dialect that they are “chained-to their master.”  In fact, a strong case can be made that the former strategy has yielded less fruit than the latter. No, more than a strong case — it’s just a fact.
It wasn’t long ago that Christians were honest about these things. Here is the collective attestation of the United Christian Missions to Africa as relayed by their congressional secretary in 1899:

The sterility and unprogressiveness of negro civilizations, negro states, are as much due to the paralyzing death grip of Islam as to nature’s foreclosure of his intellectual powers when she mortgages the growth of his brain after puberty. [p.71] . . . Africa is home to the most man-like apes and the most ape-like men. [p.164] . . . The Negro has an animal-look . . . skin as rancid as a goat’s . . . and inherent mental inferiority. [p.166] . . . The negro is unmoral . . . an overgrown child. [p.167] . . . . His animal spirits are irrepressible and the mothers do all the parenting. [p.168] . . . Anarchy is the dominant chord of the Hamite. [p.169] . . . The lost churches of Abyssinia . . . Africa was a land of death shades . . . Darkness covered the earth and gross darkness her peoples.  [p.178] . . . Ethiopic Christianity shows the utmost amount of superstition that can overwhelm a church without killing it . . . acceptance of this view [that they are truly Christians] strains our view of Christianity and the Church almost to breaking . . . whatever extravagant ritualism . . . and fatal divorce between ethics and religion disfigures oriental Christianity reveals itself most hideously in Abyssinia. [p.192] . . . Negro theology, when eliminated of superstition retains little religion.¹⁴

Black Africans, unlike Europeans or Asians, have no ruins of past civilization, no archeological, written, nor even oral history of which to speak. They never created any written languages. Nor did they smelt metals of any kind, invent bricks, or even produce the wheel. As incredible as it may be to contemplate, as a race, they have barely harnessed fire.  Aside from the importation and subsidization of all of these on the part of Europeans or Arabs to a lesser degree, Africans would still today be living in pre-paleolithic conditions. For such reasons, Africa was in more Christian times known at once as “The Lost Continent,” “The Pariah Continent,” and most ubiquitously, “The Dark Continent.”  “Africa stood for mystery and symbolism in religious thought. The very name has by etymology been interpreted as meaning sealed, secret, or separated.”¹⁵
Now, I fully sympathize with the likely reaction of a sensitive reader to balk at all of this focus on the African’s pitiable condition as uncouth or even cruel, but I beg the reader’s forbearance here: this author does not intend to needlessly denigrate or insult anyone, only to make plain the contrast between races which are categorically dismissed in the public square today — because this denial of race, and of the racial distinction between Blacks and Whites in particular, has, is, and will yet still lead to catastrophic violence on our own children if not otherwise addressed.  Truth be told, the levels of rape, murder, and mayhem suffered by Whites in close proximity to the Black race are otherwise found nowhere but in theaters of actual war. Plainly put, the cost of denying the reality of race is carnage and death. Truly, in the end, this benefits no one.  And as regards Africans in particular, the Scripture itself demands we reckon with the fact that they are “a nation [lit. ethnicity] scattered and peeled . . . a people [lit. race] terrible from their beginning onward” (Isa.18:2, 7). Again, I know these words may seem shocking to the modern Christian, but the Scripture forthrightly distinguishes between peoples, and oftentimes even makes declarative value judgments of whole ethnic groups.
It is on this basis that St. Paul could say, “‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true” (Tit.1:12-13). No matter how one slices it, the apostle and the prophet (with God back of them) do distinguish between peoples as peoples.  God even addresses particulars of ethnic taxonomy such as skin color when He  asks rhetorically by the pen of Jeremiah, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jer.13:23)  So, too, do we find numerous flattering references to Israelites as “white and ruddy” (1 Sam.16:12; 17:42; Song of Solomon 5:10; Lam.4:7).  The fact that the context of the passage in Jeremiah is all about “soiled” coverings intimates that the prophet’s invocation of the African’s color is less than complimentary, to say the least. Contrary to what the 501(c)3 preachers say today, God is obviously not colorblind.
Not without reason, then, does contemporary experience follow suit as babies’ reaction to races is proven to be innate.¹⁶  Our endemic reactions to racial morphology stem from pre-programmed neuro-chemical reactions in the brain.¹⁷  This means that prior to any “racist” programming or “colorblind” indoctrination, children perceive race as real and make certain reflexive value judgments about it as well. The reactions are patterned, consistent, testable, and reproducible. These reactions are endemic to the point of being autonomic, like squinting in the sunlight, or shivering in the cold. They are nothing less than a candid and reflexive apprehension of and reaction to creation.  Though children’s reaction to light and dark complexion is marked, it isn’t a matter of color alone.  There are other morphological-aesthetic matters at issue as well, but babies’ most negative responses are nonetheless connected to the darkest (Hamitic) faces while their most positive responses are reserved for the lightest (Japhethic) faces.
The conservative luminary Edmund Burke, known to our forefathers simply as “the Christian Statesman,” reached the same conclusion long ago in his famous essay on beauty:

It is very hard to imagine, that the effect of any idea so universally terrible in all times and in all countries, as darkness, could possibly have been owing to a set of idle stories, or to any cause of a nature so trivial, and of an operation so precarious . . . blackness and darkness are in some degree painful by their natural operation, independent of any association whatsoever. . . . [There is] the story of a boy, who had been born blind . . . [by an operation] he received his sight . . . and upon accidentally seeing a negro woman, he was struck with great horror at the sight. The horror in this case, can scarcely be supposed to arise from any association. They had . . . their effects from their natural operation.

Christians, having been steeped in the Marxist social theory of the cultural revolution, have recently begun trying to dismiss these innate reactions as resulting from the noetic corruption of our sin nature, but this line of reasoning actually indicts the Holy Spirit Himself by the fact that the Scripture speaks ubiquitously in terms of this very same light/good, dark/bad  paradigm (Job 24:13,17; Dan.2:22; John 3:19-21; 12:46; etc.).  This metaphysic of light and dark are so delineated in Scripture because “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen.1:4). Are we saying then that the Hamitic race is not made in the image of God?  Certainly not.  We are saying, as the Scripture does, that “darkness hides Him” (Psa.18:11).  The usual markers which reveal the image of God in men are distinctly veiled in the African’s constitution, both inwardly and outwardly.
This state of having the image of God veiled by darkness is not exclusive to the African.  All races of men actually share in this condition to a lesser degree as God forms them in the wombs of their mothers: the unborn child cannot reason as we do, or level coherent arguments, or do many other things. Darkness covers him, mind and body. While the secularist deduces from this nascent state that the child lacks personhood, the Christian says, instead, that the child’s humanity is merely veiled or hidden. As with the unborn child then, so too with the African in some respects; it is in no way a denial of the African’s full humanity and right to ethical treatment to be honest about his intellectual and moral capacities.  Many are tempted to dismiss this understanding of the African’s condition as “hateful,” but doing so would likewise undermine the pro-life position regarding the unborn as well. If it is a loving position to acknowledge the full humanity but cognitive deficiencies of babies, how could we call it hateful in regard to Blacks? To accept such a resolve for the former and reject it in regard to the latter is to argue that Blacks are actually of greater ontological value, or that they are more human than babies, or that it is otherwise immoral to say any criticism about them — an untenable position, indeed. It would grant the secularists’ argument in toto.
But again, this isn’t about the reality of the African race in particular so much as the reality of race in general. The mapping of the human genome has provided a scientific “amen” in natural  revelation unto special revelation (i.e., Scripture) by confirming the identifiability of certain gene clusters which accord precisely with the conventionally perceived and biblically delineated ethnic groups. Now, with nothing more than a swabbing from one’s mouth, geneticists can identify not just the race of an individual, but his country of origin; and in many cases they can even identify with extreme precision the very towns and mountain ranges through which a person’s family line advanced millennia ago. If race were not a reality, all of this would be completely impossible, but, far from an impossibility, people have it done all the time now.¹⁸¹⁹  And it dare not be forgotten that professor James Watson, the Nobel Prize winner heralded as the “greatest scientist of our age” for his cracking the DNA code, was publicly flogged in the press for telling the obvious truth about race.²⁰²¹  Bear that in mind the next time someone tells you that “science has proven that race doesn’t exist”: when the greatest living expert on genetics said otherwise, he was immediately shunned by all of the the government-sponsored think tanks and stripped of his funding. The law of political correctness dictates that science is not allowed to draw such conclusions.
But we don’t really even need to delve into the DNA to accept what is plain to our senses: The ability to identify race at a glance has actually proven more accurate than the ability to identify gender.²²  Clearly then, any argument which portrays race as arbitrary due to any rare difficulty in distinguishing one sort from another would all the more undermine the existence of gender.  Again, ideas do indeed have consequences: as goes race, so goes gender.  To whatever extent we deny the existence of the former, we would be compelled to deny the latter even more emphatically.  This a Christian can never do.
Even twins’ studies have proven redundantly that nature accounts for the majority of our behaviors, tastes, and predilections.²³  Clearly, the nurture aspect of culture is significant, but not to the extent that it overrides one’s nature.  As one would expect if genetics were indeed significant in the constitution of human societies, ethnic similarity in marriage is found to result in greater fertility.²⁴  Then, there’s the issue of xenotransplantation, i.e. heterogeneous organ, blood, marrow, or tissue transplantation. Even radical leftist Louis Stokes, while decrying what he sees as a thoroughly racist system of selection for organ transplantation, grudgingly admits that “disparity is due to biological matching problems.”²⁵  What Mr. Stokes objects to, then, is not merely some arbitrary or unjust policy of discrimination, but creation itself. His war is with reality, and the God of reality who is behind these things.  As the American Society of Transplantation attests, the transfusion of blood, bone marrow, and organs is possible heterogeneously (cross-race) only through “the development of drugs that suppress the immune system.”  This immunosuppression generally destroys a patient’s immune system for good.²⁶  Yes, legal minds are in a frenzy to somehow undo these natural distinctions; they war against these undeniable and indelible realities because they run contra their egalitarian dreams:

Disparities in access to transplantable organs can be attributed to the strong preference for antigen matching promulgated by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).  The more similar the donor and the recipient are genetically, the more likely the chances that the antigens will match. Thus kidneys from white donors will most likely be given to white recipients, even where African-Americans, and other individuals with slightly distinct genetic make-up have waited longer on the same recipient list.²⁷

Given the organ transplant issue, the experts can a fortiori say:

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. . . . the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system’s cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.²⁸

Plainly then, multiracial societies exacerbate transplantation problems in every way, and no amount of politically correct platitudes or liberal indignation can undo what God hath wrought. The anti-racialism with which liberal Whites are so enamored does not come cheap. It costs many, many lives. Every year. Every day. And in many different ways. Even the unfortunate mixed-race offspring resulting from the forced integration imposed upon us by the social engineers demonstrate markedly elevated levels of antisocial behavior by comparison to their mono-racial counterparts.²⁹³⁰  That’s really saying something when you consider the crime and pathology statistics generated by Blacks and, to a lesser degree, Hispanics (Latin-American-Indians) as well.
While we’re still on the topic of medicine, it should be mentioned that Blacks are uniquely susceptible to rickets, hypertension, kidney disease, diabetes, heart disease, glaucoma, sickle cell anemia, the contraction of HIV, the progression from HIV to AIDS, sociopathy, schizophrenia, psychopathy, and many other anti-social behaviors besides.  Black children are prone to shorter gestation periods (a full week shorter than Caucasians)³¹, low birth weight, SIDS (crib death), ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, and congenital retardation.  Meanwhile, they are also prone to above-average testosterone, higher ratios of fast-twitch muscle fiber, thicker skulls and tooth enamel, denser bones, longer limbs, high VO max, and resistance to UV (sunlight) exposure — all of which is to say that their peculiar handicaps are somewhat offset by their collective gifts, just as is the case with every other race.
In the case of Whites, for example, we are more prone to skin cancer, lupus, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as many allergies.  (Like Blacks, we Whites too have our own distinguishing gifts, which, for both brevity’s and discretion’s sake, I shall entrust to the reflections of the reader.) Every medical facility and individual health provider is constrained by these facts of biology. As much as they may disdain it, they are forced to gather certain ethnic/racial information in order to provide effective care, because said data bears critically on matters of health. Not all treatments work the same on all races — because race is indeed real.
But this brings us to the crux of the anti-racialist argument — their assertion (in the face of all observation) that difficulty in identifying the ethnicity of any one individual actually invalidates the notion of meaningful categorization in all cases.   In other words, if an African-European hybrid is neither an African nor an European, then both categories are invalid concepts. These blurry, in-between categories disprove the existence of race in toto. So they allege.
But this is a textbook expression of the logical fallacy known as Loki’s Wager.  I think the best analogy fit for the issue is that of the seashore — though we may have difficulty discerning where the land ends and the sea begins, it in no way nullifies the existence of either category. On the contrary, the blurry edges actually serve to define said categories: the exceptions prove the rule. As with sea and shore, so too with the various races of men; the blurry examples solidify our apprehension that there are real racial distinctions. And, ironically enough, even the charge of racism presupposes the existence of race. Otherwise, the anti-racist wouldn’t even be able to recognize the existence of “oppressed” ethnic minorities as minorities, which is to say that the a-racialist/anti-racist is actually just as guilty of racism as the one whom he condemns for racism.  The logical conclusion of the liberal White definition of racism is that racism is an inescapable constant for everyone, the anti-racist included. Worse than useless, their perspective can only precipitate endless litigation, covetousness, guilt, enmity, violence, mayhem, and ultimately death. The dream of equality proves a shallow grave for us all.
Of course, in order to be consistent, the anti-racialist would have to demand that Indian tribal holdings undergo “civil rights reappropriations” (read: legalized theft), just as our own communities have, because Indians, like the White race, are merely a social construct with no basis in reality. When the Indians began evicting all the Whites from their reservations last year on the basis that these Whites could not, by definition, qualify as Indians, nary a word was uttered in protest by anyone. In fact, Whites applauded them for taking a stand to protect and preserve their people from encroachment by Whites. It seemed as if the anti-racial dogma had been laid aside, at least in regard to the Indian. The Indian did in fact exist.  This year, the Cherokee Nation began evicting Blacks from their sovereign tribal lands on the same legal, moral, and logical grounds on which Whites had been evicted the year prior.  But this time, it would not be allowed. Discrimination against Whites as Whites was acceptable, but discrimination against Blacks was — you guessed it — “racist.”  So, once again, we return to absurdity: race is apparently acknowledged as real if it preserves the Indian against White encroachment, but race is declared fictional when the Indians seek to protect themselves against encroachment from Blacks.  Everyone knows it’s absurd, perhaps none more so than the Indian.³² This entails that no one can begin to live according to the anti-racialists’ standard, because it indicts the anti-racialist as much as it does the racialist.  Even if they’re right, they’re wrong.
Moreover, it is the Scripture which gives us one of the most clearly expressed refutations of the a-racial/anti-racial view, in that the text everywhere presupposes the  legitimate, lawful, and ontological reality of races and ethnic groups.  Specific terms are used redundantly throughout, such as Gentiles and nations (Heb. goyim/Grk. ethnos), which mean, just as the Greek hints, “ethnicities.” Similarly, the term peoples (Grk. genos) is the root of “genes,” “genetics,” “genealogy,” etc., and is generally translated by linguists forthrightly as “races.” There are even many words used in Scripture which denote taxonomical, lineal, and legal exclusion from a race: for instance, the term which appears as “other peoples” (Grk. allogenes) is the composite of two Greek words, allos (“other”) and genos (“races”). And the term rendered “illegitimate” or “bastard” (Heb. mamzer/Grk. nothos) in Deuteronomy 23:2 is candidly understood by linguists to mean “mixed-race, mongrel,” as is proven by its translation in Zechariah 9:6, which says “a mongrel race shall dwell in Ashdod.”³³  These are not controversial matters to language experts, only to modern theologians who desperately seek to obfuscate the plain meaning of the text in favor of an egalitarian sociology. Wherever the text speaks in these overtly ethnic categories (which is virtually everywhere), moderns are compelled by the spirit of our liberal age, perhaps unwittingly, to spiritualize all said references.  Even the word which is often rendered as “pagan” (Heb. zuwr) in the Old Testament of our English Bibles literally means “alien or foreign.” Any religious connotation assumed when one sees the word “pagan” in those texts is but an anachronistic eisegetical (misinterpretive) imposition made by translators. It is patently a racial or tribal term.
The revelation of Jesus Christ through His holy Word, the Bible, and His atoning work for mankind rests upon His irrefutable status as the pure-blood claimant to the throne of Israel — as the “genealogy of Jesus Christ” (Grk. Christogenea)  referenced in the Gospels literally means “the racial history of the Christ.” If we deny the meaningfulness of lineal descent and race, Christ could not then be royalty of the race of Shem, Abraham, and David; nor then would He be the holy Seed promised to come through them as Saviour to all the tribes of men. Such a view is the immediate denial of the Gospel itself. A Christian can have none of it. By definition, then, the anti-racialism which has so recently come to ascendence in the churches is plainly self-contradictory and can be squared neither with Scripture nor with reason. Albeit a pretty lie, it is an obvious lie nonetheless.

The Poison of Multiculturalism

The Poison of Multiculturalism

GuestAuthor

Dr. Michael Hill, League of the South President

Eventually, amnesty for millions of non-white illegal aliens will become reality. Many think this is the beginning of the end of Western Christian civilization in North America. Why have the elites sold us out? Why are they committed to the destruction of the West by the promotion of multiculturalism? And why is multiculturalism the poison that will ultimately prove fatal to Western Christian civilization unless an antidote is quickly administered? Unless we understand exactly what we are dealing with when we bring up the subject of multiculturalism, The League of the South and our allies can never hope to successfully combat the enemies who are sworn to our – white Southerners–destruction as a people.
What exactly is multiculturalism (which, for short, I will simply call MC)? Its advocates cast it in innocuous terms, claiming that it is merely justice and the recognition and celebration within the borders of the West of non-Western peoples and cultures. A proposition based on simple fairness, they say. Moreover, the MC crowd claims the superior moral mantle of anti-racism (which is really only a coded term for “anti-white”). The white, Christian West, they posit, bears much guilt for having built its prosperity and civilization on the backs of the poor, dark-skinned races of the world. It is only just, then, that the West share its wealth – including its land and produce – with its myriad poor brothers and sisters from the Third World. Pity and sympathy have become their most potent weapons turned against a West that has lost its ability to think correctly about the question of its very survival.
In our day, virtually every Western institution – church, government, the academy, the media, big business – mimics the cry of left-wing utopian humanism. From the Civil Rights movement in America to the Universal Rights of Man, the demand is the same: “Western man, give up your ill-gotten Kingdom for the good of all.” We Westerners are browbeaten in the name of MC to take in millions from the Third World in order that we not only might share our wealth and way of life with them but also to prove that we are not “racists.” In short, we are asked to sacrifice all we have at the altar of egalitarianism.
But MC is really not about ushering in equality among all races, religions, and cultures; rather, it is about destroying Western Christian civilization, the world’s premier unmitigated evil. And because the South is the strongest enclave of this civilization, it finds itself square in the crosshairs of the MC crowd. Why do you think the Feds are not willing to lift a hand to stop our dispossession by a floodtide of illegal immigrants? It is the continuation of Reconstruction to the ultimate degree. We are being replaced as a people.
Any attempt by Western man to defend himself and his civilization is called “racism,” and is designed to paralyze him completely (even when no malice is shown toward any other group). This agenda points up the fact that the proponents of MC seek not fairness, justice, or equality but demonization and destruction of the white, Christian West. Only whites, and white Southerners in particular, are not allowed to have a country all their own. Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, but no South for white Southerners!
All indications point to the success of the MC agenda of paralyzing the West through guilt manipulation. Though we never had any sort of debate about whether we wanted to be a MC polity, it has been forced upon us anyway. Anyone who protests is silenced by the usual epithets. Even opposition to illegal immigration is enough to get you called a “racist” or a “xenophobe.” If you don’t believe me, check out the Southern Poverty Law Center’s rants on the subject.
Why do we allow this to happen? I suppose the bigger question is: why are we voluntarily swallowing the poison of MC and committing suicide? Former President Bill Clinton was effusive in his praise for the coming day – around the year 2050–when whites of European descent would become a minority in North America. Well, if getting rid of the white majority is such a good thing, why wait until 2050? Why not just drop all pretence of enforcing immigration law and roll out the red carpet for the Third World? If all men are brothers and America is indeed a Proposition Nation, then what are we waiting for?
If the scenario of the South (and the rest of America) being overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants does not appeal to you, then how is this disaster to be averted? By the people who oppose it rising up against their traitorous elite masters and their misanthropic rule. But to do this we must first rid ourselves of the fear of being called “racists” and the other meaningless epithets they use against us. What is really meant by the MC advocates when they peg us as “racists” is that we adhere to ethnocentrism, which is a natural affection for one’s own kind. This is both healthy and Biblical. I am not ashamed to say that I prefer my own kind and my own culture. Others can have theirs; I have mine. No group can survive for long if its members do not prefer their own over others.
If the South – the most important remaining bastion of Western Christian civilization – is to survive the MC onslaught, then it must fight doggedly against everything that threatens its existence. If we cannot do this, it is proof that we are a dying civilization. To live, we must re-cultivate our common cultural bonds that historically have made us a distinct people, repent of our sins, and pray to God that he will spare us for ever letting things get this bad in the first place.
J. Michael Hill
Killen, Alabama

Fascist Labour-run Sunderland Council approves new mosque, ignores hundreds of local protestors

Labour-run Sunderland Council approves new mosque, ignores hundreds of local protestors

Sunderland’s Labour Council has approved plans for a new mosque despite huge public opposition to its construction.

The conversion of a transport depot on St Mark’s Road, Millfield, into a mosque attracted 671 letters of objection and a 1,462-signature petition, as well as large street demonstrations.

But that was all ignored by councillors, who gave the proposals the go-ahead at a meeting in the civic centre, eliciting cries of outrage from more than 20 objectors in the public gallery.

The plans involve the demolition of single-storey offices, the erection of parapet walls and two brick-faced domed columns.

Some neighbours, who also spoke at the meeting, objected because they believed the development would result in an increase in noise and traffic.

But Labour Council leader Paul Watson brushed aside residents’ concerns, saying: ‘We need to decide on the facts that are presented to us, not about what may or may not happen or the fears people have.’

The application, which was submitted by the Pakistan Islamic Centre, attracted hundreds of complaints on the Council’s website.

There is already a 345-capacity mosque (Sunderland Masjid) in Millfield, and another 195-capacity mosque (Masjid ibn Taymeeyah) close by on Chester Road.

Thanks to Sunderland’s gullible Labour voters, there will now be one more.

Reds , The Modern Liberal,

 

Reds

Aug 4th, 2012

by Brett Stevens.

It is no longer de rigeur (French for “trendy”) to laughingly dismiss leftists as a bunch of Reds, but the idea lingers with us because like most stereotypes, there is truth to it.
Our modern liberals may not be Communists, but they act like them.
Even if they have mixed capitalism, Christ and strong national defense into their egalitarian class warfare agenda, today’s liberals have the same obsessive ideological mania as communists.
Their doctrinaire dictum: be pure in the ways of our ideology, or you’re the problem with our society, and you must be destroyed.
Not content with tolerance, they demand a norming of all things formerly deviant. When the extremes are OK, all are accepted, so we the normal must adopt the extremes. For ideology!
Beneath these layers of ideographic hocus-pocus however, the leftist like the Communist before him has a very basic psychological demand. If everyone is equal, no one can tell me “no.”
The essence of all leftism is the same. Equality creates a lowest common denominator standard and makes it illegal for others to discriminate against the poor behavior of others. That makes all behavior accepted.
The neurotic, criminal, perverse or underconfident individual likes this. It’s a law that forces social acceptance of all individuals, thus naturally including them. The fear of the individual creates a snowball of fear, and soon people are afraid to not join.
The mob picks up momentum. Inevitably it creates such dysfunction that totalitarianism is called for, to protect the ideology. But the ideology itself replaces all systems of values, so soon the totalitarian impulse replaces all else.
We can see this same Communist-like mania in our modern liberals. Pornographic videos in schools. Speech codes that are bigoted double standards. Hatred, gnashing of teeth and resentful vengeance against all that is normaly, healthy or hopeful.
They get what they wanted. Their ideology neutralizes others by removing their ability to criticize the behavior or abilities of the leftist. This makes a paradise for parasites: competence and goodness are irrelevant, and society owes them a living!
A typical leftist likes this because it allows him to run whatever small scams and evasions he has going without a chance of getting caught. It allows him to be as narcissistic, pompous, self-important and overblown as possible without a chance of public criticism.
It is not the powerful characters who like this. It is the embittered and cornered. Every ghetto has its pimps, every blighted railroad town its corrupt sadistic sheriffs, every trailer park its thuggish loan sharks. These are the ones who feast from liberalism.
No matter what our leaders do, it is a pittance compared to the everyday graft, sabotage and incompetence of such people — average people, including all those whose minds have been replaced by lbieralism — and far less pervasive.
When a society it is healthy, it has regulated its people to keep out the insane. The healthy grow up innocent, brave, honest, curious and proud. Their pride is their identity, their honor, and their reason for wanting to excel.
Communism seeks to smash all those things. Curiously, so does modern liberalism, no matter how “neoconservative” it seems. Are these people Reds? It doesn’t matter; they act enough like them that we avoid them with the same wary paranoia that marked the end of the Soviet Union.

Do liberals lack masculine instincts or pervert them?

Do liberals lack masculine instincts or pervert them?

 

By Oz conservative

 

Perhaps the core masculine instinct is to form the outer wall behind which a family or a community can flourish in security and prosperity.

Liberal men don't follow this instinct. They leave communities and families without any such protective wall. So what happened to the masculine instincts of these men?

No doubt some of the more radical of liberal men are too alienated from family and community life to want to take up a protective role; they are rancorous and want to tear things down in the belief that something better will then fill the space.

And no doubt too there are left-liberal men who explain inequality as being a result of patriarchy or whiteness and who therefore believe that families and white communities are too morally stained to deserve protection.

But I think as well that there might be another reason, which is that the protective instinct is channelled to different ends. It's still there, but it's not directed toward the same objects. I'm speculating, but it's possible that some liberal men believe that the important thing in life is not the community or the family but the unfettered individual in pursuit of personal ambitions (especially career or lifestyle aims). 

If that is your mental horizon, then perhaps you'll believe that you are serving people (protecting their interests) by focusing on removing impediments (whatever is thought to impede "opportunity" - discrimination, inequality, traditional social roles etc) to the pursuit of individual ambitions.

The problem is that career and lifestyle aims are only one part of what goes to make up a human life. Going out to work, shopping and entertainments can't be all of what matters to us. After all, these are not goods which touch deeply on issues of identity, or which create a sense of connectedness, or which form objects of love and affection, or which create a sense of what is spiritually meaningful in life. 

The liberal mental horizon is too narrowly focused: it sees the individual man and woman in his or her daily routine, but not the man and woman deriving identity within a family and a tradition of their own, or the typical loves and attachments which sustain a life, or the sense of meaning that is found from being connected to something that exists outside of our own selves.

Better for us to return to that traditional understanding of the core masculine instinct, in which men work together to protect the larger structures - the families and communities - within which our individual lives are most fully expressed.

Hurrah for the Olympics

Hurrah for the Olympics

• 
• 

JUL

2012

Written by Southwest Nationalist

Well, it's Olympics time.  Hurrah.  We can see the Zion logo plastered on 50 channels at a time, and watch Africans - who are just as British as us! - throw spe...err javelins and run like a lion was hot on their backside drooling for dinner.

Bet you all can't wait.

We've had it hyped for months that there's a strong chance of terrorism occurring - be it false flag, or genuine, in reality no sensible person would want to be within ten miles of the damn Olympics.

Then again no sensible person would want to be near them anyway, with or without every single media outlet screaming that something will happen.

For most countries (at least the ones in the West) it's no longer about national teams competing against other nations teams, it's about grab an enricher who can run fast and say they are now of the same nation as us.

Already the first few African athletes have claimed asylum, one fetching up in a Leeds police station to register his claim.  Those buggers sure can run, they just imagine a DSS office at the finishing line.

Gay groups have encouraged those athletes and staff from 'oppressive regimes' - aka those who object to such joys as buggery and rimming as being promoted as normal - to use the chance of being in Britain to claim asylum.  Watch for a spike in HIV cases a while down the line, African and gay combine the two highest risk groups.

Some sources estimate that 2% of all athletes, officials, and supporters, coming here will try and stay.  It will probably be higher.

Lucky us, once the circus is gone we'll still be left with an additonal army of demanding enrichers.  Bet they beat the 100 metre sprint record when someone waves a giro at them, and long jump straight to the front of the housing lists.

Greek athlete Voula Papachristou has been booted out of her team for a post on Twitter and her support of the Golden Dawn.

"With so many Africans in Greece, at least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!" reads the offending Tweet.

Can't fault it for accuracy, but when did the thought police ever care about that?

Apparently it goes against the spirit of the Olympics though - she should have saidall Africans are brilliant, only whites commit crime, she was ashamed to be white, and all whites are racist.  She'd have been fine then, would probably have got a pay rise and a job on TV.

Funny that it's not against the spirit of the games to have all kinds of oppressive regimes field teams.

I can't remember his name, but there was a black athlete (Jamaican I think) who said that blacks are better than whites at various events.  That's surely racist, but he's not on a plane home - he can say it without a care, it only matters when whitey says something.  That's equality for you.

It's all a bloody farce and it hasn't even started yet - still, there's some delicious irony in the hype accorded to the Olympic flame considering its origins.

More Africans staying here, more foreign criminals descending on the crowds, TV saturation coverage telling us how great it is, the thought police unleashed, and surface to air missiles on rooftops.  What a celebration of sporting triumph for 2012.

Whoever made that Zion logo must be wetting themselves with glee as the sheep lap it up. 

Hurrah for the Olympics, somehow it seems truly fitting of the sorry state Britain has been reduced to today.

SO CALLED DEMOCRACY TAKES BRITAIN TOWARDS EU OBLIVION

SO CALLED DEMOCRACY TAKES BRITAIN TOWARDS OBLIVION.

 

By Mike Wilson

 The Greeks apparently invented it and in Britain democracy has been installed since the time of Cromwell.  Democracy is supposed to be government elected by the people to run and organize the state for the benefit of the people. At least that is how most of us see it although the pragmatists will probably define it in a way that says the same thing but using language that most people don’t understand. However we define it, democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people of the state. Britain has fought wars to defend democracy and to help others to do the same. So why do we still talk about a democratic government of the UK when it is blindingly obvious that such a government does not exist?

There is no democratic government in the UK and the will of the people has been usurped by foreign interests whose sole intent is to radicalize the country so that it becomes subservient to the will of a foreign power i.e. the European Union of socialist states. Democracy cannot exist when the will of the people is ignored and when the elected government embraces foreign laws to the detriment of the majority of the electorate. Politicians supposedly looking after the interests of the British taxpayer are too busy reaping the rewards of being in office and as a result very few have the interest of the average Briton at heart.

We all remember the fiasco of politicians claiming expenses for things which were undeniably absurd yet such practices are condoned and even encouraged by the mob in Brussels because it keeps those people in positions in order to maintain control over the electorate. Whether someone voted liberal, conservative, labour or anything else it mattered not a jot as the end result was a politician busy buttering his bread at the expense of those who elected him. It is quite obvious to most people that democracy has had its day and that in order to save Britain something else and someone else must come to the fore.

So called democracy has been the downfall of this once great country and the traitors who arranged the alliance with the European Union knew that the majority of people simply did not understand the ramifications of such an event and therefore the people did not voice a strong democratic argument against the proposal. That was then and today it is too late. In fact several years too late as the sixth and final EU treaty formally replaced Britain with the European Union on 1st January 2009. The Treaty "takes primacy" over the British Constitution which it thereby abolished, and with it the nations of Britain and England; it gives the EU the power to close our Westminster Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty was our Anschluss - It took 4 years for the founder of the EEC, Adolf Hitler, to turn Austria into a full police state after he annexed it. Similarly it will take the EU 3-4 years to consolidate its power, and it will then be impossible to get out.

The Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dem parties pass EU treaties, EU laws, EU regulations and EU policy; over 80% of its legislation and policy is the EU's. Our five party leaderships take their orders from the EU, not from the voters, which is why your vote makes no difference, and the reason your wishes are ignored.  Democracy is dead in Britain.

Westminster has passed over 300 major laws, like the Civil Contingencies Act, to "harmonise" our laws with the EU's. The loss of freedoms and emerging police state is the result.

They have also passed 120,000 EU regulations; the 10% enforced so far have closed scores of thousands of businesses, from village petrol stations, to big industries like the Rover Car Co, to post offices (EC-9767). When fully enforced most of Britain’s 4.5 million small businesses will have closed, and most of their 13.5 million workers will be unemployed.

Yes, the EU will cause abject poverty, but in Britain alone. These 120,000 regulations do not apply in other EU countries. Nearly all the new "daft" rules, from dustbin over-enforcement to the Intercept Modernisation Bill (spying on our mail, email, phones; EU directive 2006/24/EC; see the Interception Communications Commissioner) to the complete removal of the public's wishes from local planning permission, stem from EU legislation.

The leaderships of the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP and BNP parties are run by placemen loyal to the EU. There is only one British political party - the EU party - we already live in a one party state.

So when you thought that your country was still at the cutting edge of freedom and democracy in this turbulent world, you were wrong. The democracy you thought you had just simply does not exist. You have lost the right to free speech, your towns and cities are filled with rainbow people and those in power have consolidated their position by ensuring that any person speaking out is deluged under the epithet ‘Racist’.  The EU is busy determining where in Britain they will build the new slum tenements and towns to house the hundreds of thousands of ethnic persons who will be encouraged to come to do the jobs that the average Britain will not do. You cannot speak out about it because under the ‘ New Democracy’ you will be charged with inciting racial hatred.  Yes, it is true, democracy no longer exists in Britain, like most things it is just a distant memory of what we had in the past so forget about voting for your favourite politician and instead go to the pub. The results will be just the same.

The myths behind white guilt Part 2: EMPIRE

The myths behind white guilt Part 2:

EMPIRE

When one time burglar and sometime Rastafarian poet Benjamin Zephaniah turned down the OBE he had been offered, he claimed he did so largely on account of British involvement in the slave trade, and by so doing, the pompous poet he exposed an hypocrisy which few members of the sycophantic media thought to call him on. As a Jamaican, Mr Zephaniah may be able to trace his family back to British owned slaves some two hundred years ago, but as a Rastafarian he acknowledges as godlike The Emperor Haile Selassie and the land of Ethiopia where, as a direct result of not being part of any European Empire, the ownership of slaves was still legal, and an estimated 2 million people lived as slaves within living memory.

As I detailed in an earlier article, Britain and her Empire had a greater role than any other in bringing about the end of slavery in most of the world. Whereas, in Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, the black messiah of the Rastafarian faith, did not get around to ending slavery in the Rastafarian holy land of Ethiopia until 1932, and even then the “Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, King of Kings of Ethiopia and Elect of God” was less motivated by the humanitarian zeal which drove the British abolitionists, but by the somewhat more practical consideration that the league of nations would not let him join if he didn't.

Benny Z may not like the fact, but to be a Rastafarian unless you are extremely stupid, or you have to accept that Africans owned Africans in Addis Ababa, not centuries ago but around the same time as your grandmother was trying on her first pair of T-strap pumps.

To be fair to Zephaniah he may have been lucky that most of the media was too politically correct to ask him how he reconciled rejecting a nation which produced the great abolitionists, and who's navy pursued and attacked slave traders. whilst revering a nation where slaves were openly owned less than 80 years ago, given that the only credible answers were likely to expose a level of instinctive racism which the left like to pretend only exists in reverse.

Of course, when that notoriously racist old hack,Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, proved yet again that the band wagon has not yet started rolling on which she would not be amongst the first to plant her ample haunches, and followed Zephjaniah's lead and sent her own medal back, it became clear not much truth was likely to be told about Britain's imperial past.

That brings us to the question, what is the truth about Empire, is it, as the Zephjaniahs and Alibhai-Browns would have us believe, a reason for feelings of shame and (white) guilt? or, as our grandfather's generation believed, a source of considerable national and patriotic pride? It may not surprise you to know that I have no plans to join Benny and Yasmin on their ramshackle, and heavily painted, bandwagon.

Ours was the greatest empire the world has ever know, it covered a quarter of the Earth's surface, an area which included almost every time zone and over which, as was famously, and often, said the sun never set. However, the Empire's greatness was not only in its size, for, although many politicians, media pundits, and almost all of the agenda driven Marxists, who teach our children would rather die than admit it, it was also one of the most benevolent forces for good in the history of mankind.

Of course it is impossible to ignore the commercial incentives for empire, and it would be disingenuous to deny that we did not briefly join the rest of the in trading slaves, (and, unlike out current national projects , back then we did such things quite efficiently) or indeed the opium trade as a result of which we ended up owning Hong Kong for over 150 years. However, it is also impossible to entirely separate the humanitarian motives from the commercial, certainly after the banning of the slave trade in 1807 leading up to Abolition in the 1830s and then the so called scramble for Africa humanitarianism was a major driving force.

I don't agree with everything John Derbyshire says but but he can sometimes produce some very prescient comments and, to quote from one of his various essays on the British Empire “When the Empire got properly into its stride, humanitarianism was a major driving force. Slavery was abolished throughout Britain's possessions in 1834, and much of the work of the Royal Navy through the middle decades of the 19th century was devoted to the suppression of slave trafficking by peoples of other nations- including this one (the USA). The British colony of Sierra Leone was founded as a refuge for freed slaves, a dozen years before Liberia. The drive to eliminate slavery was fueled by evangelical Christianity, which, in the form of missionary activity, continued to be an important element of the imperial thrust well into the 20th century, especially in Africa.”

Given the bizarre morality and values of our time there are some who try to suggest that very “Christian Missionary zeal” itself was a form of racism or imperial oppression cruelly suppressing local customs and traditions. However, that is all part of that doctrine which seeks find malevolence in all things western, and which attack western style Christianity for no better reason than that it is Western. Furthermore, although I believe passionately in the preservation of various ethnic cultures, I refuse to accept there is a moral equivalence between Christianity and those local customs such as Sati muti thuggee and female genital mutilation which were amongst the traditional which were suppressed. Neither do I feel that we should feel guilt for the fact that by suppressing them, countless thousands were spared the suffering they would otherwise have endured. (albeit in the case of muti and female mutilation, the victims were only spared until we left.)

Furthermore, before attacking Christianity, the proponents of white guilt should not forget that some of the most passionate and devout Christians are black Africans, a group they tend to avoid offending whenever possible.

This is not to deny that some horrors did occur during the four and a half centuries between the day Henry V11 sent John Cabot off to kind a new route to India, and Harold MacMillan's infamous and self serving “Wind of Change” speech in 1960. However, these were true “isolated incidents” usually involving single rogue individuals or nervous young soldiers firing upon aggressive crowds. Furthermore, even the worst outrages, such as the Amritsar (or Jallianwala Bagh) massacre although inexcusable, were extremely rare and resulted in a death toll roughly equivalent to bad 48 hours in Iraq.

Contrary to the anti British propaganda taught in out schools, there was nothing remotely approaching the brutality of other empires, such as the Ottoman empire, let alone the type of officially sanctioned genocide which characterised the great communist empires such as Russia and China regimes so close to the hearts of so many in today's UAF, or certainly their fathers.

In fact the only real example any major atrocity committed by imperial Britain was against the white tribe of Southern Africa, during the Boer war. How odd then that nobody is urging us to accept white Boer asylum seekers as recompense for how badly our great grandparents treated them, despite how desperate their current situation is becoming.

A common accusation against the British is that we “plundered” other countries, however it is surely a strangely British form of plundering, where a world power moves into a country which has no infrastructure, is without health cover, without law, without education, and with a dismally low life expectancy, and, without exception left them with a world renowned system of law, a healthy and educated population, a 20th Century infrastructure, together with functioning industry and agricultural systems enabling them to be potentially self supporting. The fact that the Infrastructure has been destroyed, agriculture devastated and the industrial wealth pillaged, does not change the fact that it was bequeathed to our colonial subjects when we left them.

To quote John Derbyshire again “The British Empire was, in fact, for all its faults and occasional horrors, a net force for good. I cannot think of any place that Britain left worse- less healthy, less prosperous, less well-educated-than she found it.”

That is the truth, not the huge lie now being told to excuse what some ex-colonies have done to their inheritance particularly in Africa, that Colonialism, especially British colonialism was the cause of the dire situations in which some ex-colonial countries now find themselves. A calumny which is easily exposed as the lie it is.

Firstly it is disproved by the fact that it is primarily only the Africa colonies which are suffering, whereas many of those in Asia are booming, India for instance, looks set to become one of the major economies in the 21st Century. The Asians, for all their faults, took what we left them, ran with it and may soon overtake us. Of course, as older readers may have noticed, the advocates of white guilt focus almost exclusively on Africa these days, whilst ignoring the successful ex-colonies in Asia, like India and especially Hong Kong, which as a British protectorate became one the premier financial centres in the world, and remains so over a decade into Chinese rule.

However, if Africa is what our critics want to focus on, I'll take the challenge, lets look to Africa, including those African states such as Ethiopia and Liberia which were never colonised by any European power, are they any better off? ..er..nope! in many ways they are in a worse state than their ex-colonial neighbours.

The tragedy of Africa does not have its roots in Colonialism, indeed you only need to watch as their situations get worse the further they are away from British rule, to see the real causes of Africa's plight. Far from oppressing the people of Africa, Colonial rule may well have been their brief day in the sun, and a day which is sadly over.

There is no comparison between the Kenya we left in 1964 or the Rhodesia before it handed over to Mugabbe in 1980, and the corrupt, crime ridden mega slums they became within a generation of our departure.

Today the average African earns less than they did 50 years ago, when still living under under alleged their cruel white oppressors, life expectancy is plummeting (not only due to AIDS) their infrastructure is crumbling around them, and as we have seen recently in Kenya, tribal violence, which, apart from a brief reappearance during the Mau Mau outrages of the 1950's (long portrayed by our media a a liberation struggle but essentially tribal), had been long suppressed is making a reappearance.

Journalists from the Independent, the Guardian or the New York Times may faint at the suggestion, but it is becoming progressively more common to hear Africans state openly that life was better of under Colonial rule, even the current South African President's brother Moeletsi Mbeki recently admitted that “The average African is worse off now than during the colonial era”and he is certainly not alone

So, tell me again, just why are we supposed to feel guilty?

The nation which played that major and pivotal role in ending the slave trade, not only in the North Atlantic but also driving out the Arab slave traders which had previously plagued Africa and Asia for thousands of years, is, instead of taking well deserved credit for that great achievement, expected to accept primary responsibility for the evils of slavery?

A country which spread law, education, health care and civilization to a quarter of the Earth's population is supposed to feel guilty for oppressing those we were educating, protecting and healing?

A people who built gleaming, 20th century cities, which would stand proud in the centre of Europe, in the African bush and bequeathed them together with fully functional infrastructures and thriving economies to people who have shown themselves incapable of maintaining what was handed to them, let alone building for themselves, are required to meekly accept the allegation that we plundered those countries which we left in so much better condition than that which we found them in?

I think not.

In our schools, two generations of our children have been taught lies by politically motivated liars, whilst our media, our politicians and agenda driven historians present us with a entirely fictionalised version of our history. Yet, the myths behind white guilt, certainly as they apply to Great Britain, do not stand up against even the most cursory of of analysis, in terms of our Imperial past we have very little to feel guilty about.

It is not jingoistic to state that, as a people, we the British have created more good in this world and done more for the benefit of mankind than almost any of the races with whom we share this planet, it is a truth and one easily supported by the facts. Any honest, and unbiased study of our history and our empire, far from justifying guilt, should be the source of tremendous national pride.

-----------------
Link to part one