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?

The Baggage of the World , African Witchcraft in UK

The Baggage of the World

Written by Sarah Albion

March 2012

When sentencing Eric Bikubi and Magalie Bamu to minimum prison terms or 30 years and 25 years respectively, following their conviction for torturing to death a 15 year old boy, whom they had determined was a witch, the judge David Paget, QC suggested that the killers were sadists. The Congolese couple have also been described as psychopaths, and Bikubi’s own defence team had claimed in court that he was mentally impaired. They are, of course, none of these things Bikubi and Bamu, are not mad, they are not especially bad and by the standards of their homeland they are not particularly sadistic. The crime they committed, during which their young victim, Bamu's younger brother Kristy, suffered such extreme and prolonged agony he allegedly begged for death seems uniquely horrific when seen from the perspective of a Great Britain which still clings to a crumbling vestige of what we once were. However, throughout central Africa where the killers come from such events are commonplace. In fact it is believed the abuse of children who are accused of being witches, practising ‘kindoki’, or tribal witchcraft, is growing amongst the African community in Britain, but it has until now been largely covered up and therefore has not yet reached the wider public consciousness. We now find that the killing of eight year old Victoria Climbié, from the Ivory Coast in Western Africa, who was tortured to death by her aunt and her aunt's boyfriend in February 2000, a crime long held to be a failing by British social services, in fact involved strong elements of witchcraft. (They certainly kept that information quiet for the last twelve years.) Like Kristy Bamu and Victoria Climbié, the five year old African child, whom the police named Adam (now believed to be a Nigerian child called Ikpomwosa) who’s headless and limbless body was found in the Thames, near London Bridge, was not the victim of a psychopath or a sexual sadist. Instead Adam met his death at the hands of a practitioner of tribal medicine, and his body parts, almost certainly cut from him while he was alive and conscious, so as to increase its potency, were then made into medicines and potions. However, that’s not where ends is it? Adam would not have suffered the terrible death he did were there not a market for the medicine which his tiny body parts became. As Adam died in England, we must assume that market is now in England. Medicine made from bits of little Adam was almost certainly administered to tens, maybe hundreds of people, here in England. As muti is no secret in the ex-patriot African community, many, maybe most, will have known exactly what that medicine contained. We are told that the killing of Adam is the only muti murder ever to have occurred in Europe, however, given that large numbers of immigrant children vanish without trace each year, how can we know that is true? Certainly there are troubling numbers of African children in Britain being abused and terrorised by their families who believe them possessed by demons right now, how do we know that others are not being sacrificed by sangomas? We are witnessing things in the year 2012 which this country has not seen in five centuries or more, in the case of Muti killings we are seeing that which we have never seen before. Our lying media would have have us believe otherwise. In the aftermath of the Bikubi and Banu trial “experts” - mainly black - appeared on our TV screen to claim that such events occur in all racial and ethnic groups, including, as one claimed earlier this week, “the host community”. Not one journalist was honest or honourable enough to tell him he was a lying little creep. Lies, have now become what passes for truth, but they are still lies even though none dare call them such. Dishonest bits of propaganda, like the recent BBC series “Prisoner's wives” may portray a human trafficker as a white man from Essex called Steve, or make the only honourable male character in the entire series a black man loyally serving time in prison for crimes really committed by his ginger haired white girlfriend, but that is fantasyland liberal froth and not the reality of new Britain. It is the exactly the same with honour killings and forced marriages, that dishonest rag the Daily Mail may try to pretend such things are regular occurrences within our own culture by illustrating an article about forced marriages with a picture of a glum looking blonde woman in a white wedding dress or attempting to equate honour killings, where various Asian family members, usually fathers and brothers, but sometimes also mothers will murder a daughter, or occasionally a son, who has brought dishonour on the family, usually by adopting western values, with “domestic violence”. It is true that domestic violence effects all sections of society to one degree or another, although for various reasons, including cultural ones it is more common in non-European communities, in America for instance, murder by a domestic partner is the main cause of premature death amongst black women. However, honour killing, like muti killings, gang rape and female circumcision is a problem which exists almost exclusively amongst the new immigrant community which we have imported into our country. The Old Etonian airhead who runs this country tells us that we, the British, could learn from Asian families, presumably he has spent so long with his head buried in the Aristo's guide to speaking PC and Chav that he completely lost track of reality. It is not just the killings, there are now acid attacks on the streets of Britain, no different than those seen daily on the streets of Islamabad or Lahore, and I have not even mentioned the abuse of our under aged girls, being passed around like pieces of meat between dozens, and by at least one account “thousands” of men. This is the problem with multiculturalism and our newly imposed multiracial society, which its fanatical cheerleaders deliberately seek to obscure. Underneath the pretty stuff which tourists and backpackers see, most third world cultures have a very ugly underbelly and when you open your doors to mass migration, that underbelly slithers in behind it. It is true that some sections of the native community are adopting these new cultures, but that is only because it is here and promoted, whilst our own culture is disparaged and downgraded. The media, especially the music industry has spent forty years fanatically promoting so called “gangsta” culture, and music so much uglier, crueller and less spiritual than our own. Is it any wonder that our society has become uglier and less spiritual, that our children are now in danger the moment they step onto the streets, and that those same streets periodically explode in fire and rioting. David Starkey was correct when he said about last years riots that “whites were adopting black culture”, for, despite the valiant efforts of the media to report only on the white perpetrators, the fact is that black people involved in the rioting were over represented in terms of their numbers within society by over 2,000% , South Asians were over represented by 75% yet whites were under represented by 61% (it didn't look like that on the TV news did it?). Political correctness may dictate that we call the urban uprisings of 2010 “the English Riots” but it was not native English culture which we saw on display. A white English underclass were certainly involved in the riots, but as foot soldiers and followers enthusiastically embracing the new culture they have been told is so much cooler than their own, and which has come to dominate the blighted areas where they live. This was, of course, not how it appeared through the veil of censorship imposed by our now entirely corrupt news media with their carefully selected reporting. As we should all now know, the real news is habitually suppressed and censored to hide the damage which is being done, until it is too late to resist. Most of us will recall how we were bombarded with CCTV footage of a Malaysian student who was assaulted and then robbed by a gang who pretended they had come to his aid. From the carefully edited film, it appeared that those robbing him were white. However, now that nobody is still looking, and the case has come to court it transpires that most of those involved, including the person who actually assaulted the student, and the ones who pretended to come to his aid were non-white, but it was Reece Donovan, the single feral white "wigger" among the gang on whom the camera had focused. Wannabe gangstas like Reece Donovan distort the true picture. It was recently revealed that 92% of gang rape suspects in London are non-white, which can be taken to suggest that 8% of the gangs committing rapes in London are white, not so, in fact those 8% are merely the feral white members of a small proportion of mixed race gangs. The political nature of our country has changed as well in that we will almost certainly never again have an election in this country which is entirely free of third world style corruption. Many ghettos and heavily “colonised” parts of Britain are now as corrupt, if not worse, than any 18th Century Rotten Borough. There are boroughs in places such as London's tower hamlets, Bradford and Birmingham where there are streets upon streets of one and two bedroom properties with anything up to 30 names registered for postal votes. Electoral fraud is rife in local government, and it is rumoured that at least one ethnic member of the current Westminster parliament holds their seat as a result of electoral fraud. It can only get worse, how long will it before we are as corrupt as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya or Zimbabwe? We are after all importing their culture and their customs, and telling ourselves that they are somehow more worthy than our own. One of the great myths of our age is that the alleged benefits of multiculturalism outweigh any downside. That claim would be laughable if its consequences were not so deadly. As I have indicated in earlier articles there is a short term benefit for the very rich from an endless flow of easily replaceable cheap labour which forces down wage costs and disempowers the native workforce, who dare not strike or demand rights when they know they can be so easily replaces. However, even the super rich are now realising the gains are short term. If there is any satisfaction to be gained from this situation it is contemplating how much money those evil and cynical old men have lost in migrant blighted countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Likewise as the crooked bunch of charlatans in parliament who thought they were importing a loyal new electorate, who would guarantee them permanent power, are beginning to discover in areas like the Islamic state of Tower Hamlets, the new arrivals vote on ethnic lines which is beginning to cost them votes. As for the rest of us, we were told that immigrants would do the mythical “jobs which folk won't do”, however, we now find ourselves with a million of our youngsters unable to find work and that 56% of young black men are unemployed, which leads one to ask, if they are not doing the jobs white folk wont do, what are they here for? We are told that immigration boosts our economy, yet our economy is now in the worst state it has ever been in and our once assured status as one of the worlds richest nations is becoming a fading memory as we plummet down the league. Then there is the great lie that multiculturalism enriches our culture, whereas, in fact we have been impoverished by it. It has brought intolerance, it has brought fear and division, it has brought violence, abuse and and it has brought ugliness. It has fragmented communities, broken down families, forced us to accept politically correct lies as the new reality, it has taken away our faith, our pride, and for many it has taken away the love our forefathers once felt for this country. And what have we gained? Do Calypso, mung beans and curry really compensate for what we have lost or for the many less appealing sides of Multiculturalism with which we are now, day after day, confronted. In one of the earliest articles I ever wrote for the old Home of the Green Arrow site I said that Multiculturalism / diversity is not a buffet, you can not wander round the table selecting a few tasty morsels and leaving the less appetising offerings where they are. Its all or nothing. We can not select which parts of a person's culture, his beliefs and his views he can bring with him when he arrives at Heathrow or Dover, they will all travel with him, they will all stay with him and our community must bear the consequences. If a man in Rawalpindi considers that women are worth half of a man, or that homosexuals should be executed, why would he think differently merely because he has moved to Rotherham?. If someone in Limpopo believes that medicine made with flesh cut from a live a screaming child will cure him of some ailment what is it about travelling to Liverpool that would change his mind? In the Congo, from where Eric Bikubi and Magalie Bamu originate children are routinely beaten within an inch of their lives and frequently tortured to death because people genuinely believe they are possessed by evil spirits and large numbers have now brought those beliefs to Britain, together with those practices. When you welcome the world into your home, the world brings its baggage with it and, as we discover anew each day there are some very nasty contraband lurking in those bags. What we are seeing is just the beginning.

Stephen Lawrence - DNA Evidence now in doubt

Stephen Lawrence - DNA Evidence now in doubt

Written by Green Arrow

March 2012

I for one, wondered about the validity of the DNA evidence that they used to get a guilty verdict against the men who the establishment say, killed the black drug dealer Stephen Lawrence - who has gone from being a street yob to a Saint since his death. Now it seem that convictions for murder and rape are to be reviewed, because of a "mistake" at the forensics laboratory that handled the DNA evidence in the Stephen Lawrence case. The parents of the dead teenager have been informed about this new development, in one of the longest cases of persecution I have ever seen. One would hope that they did not get priority treatment in this matter. Personally I never believed that the DNA evidence in this case was genuine, as we have seen the lengths to which the evil establishment will go to to get the results they want, be it illegal wars, silencing whistle blowers or fabricating evidence.

The Basis of a Lie , The EU

The Basis of a Lie

Written by Richard Newman

March 2012

Steering away from arguments about morality, and religion. I believe that safer ground can be found on the subject of the European Union. It is interesting to observe peoples thoughts on our entry and the events after our entry into the trading zone, which most people believed they were joining. On the BBC website they have a large amount of research material, part of which includes comments by Steve Johnson, on his mother receiving vote yes material in her wage packet during the referendum of 1975. The material stated: A YES vote would ensure no more wars for my generation A YES vote would guarantee prosperity for jobs and the future We know of course that by joining the EEC we betrayed our own Commonwealth by destroying their export market overnight. Edward Heath and his gang of traitors knew this, just as they knew that the ultimate goal was the destruction of Britain and the emergence of the European Superstate. For the younger readers, it is worth noting that it was the Conservative government of the traitor Edward Heath who passed legislation to enter the EEC in 1973. The first large referendum to decide on continued membership took place as stated in 1975, as a result of an election promise by Labours Harold Wilson. The YES campaign was supported by the Media and the Banksters, with every household in Britain receiving a leaflet supporting the yes campaign. This YES campaign was of course massively over funded, in line with other campaigns that have occurred since. Even with this funding avalanche just under one third voted against membership. We have been promised a referendum, but so far NO main stream political organisation has allowed the people a say on the EU. Back to those promises - No more wars! Well with the exception of the Balkans there has not been a major war in Europe since 1945. The world of the 21st Century continues to be beset by war and civil strife, so yes they lied. We have been involved in at least five major wars since. Economic prosperity and jobs? In 1975 we were rated and had the following unemployment figures; Unemployment peaked at over 10% or just over 3 million in 1986, using government figures. Economically our tax burden in 1975 was 54%, it has now risen to 57%. However, the main change was in borrowing set at 43% of GDP in 1975. It has now risen to over 68% according to treasury figures. The unemployment figure now is 8.4% (Dec 2011), before we entered Europe it was 3.4%. So thanks to EU membership our unemployment has increased by at least 5%. In December 2011 national public debt was set at 64% of GDP. However, the unadjusted measure of public sector net debt is 148% of GDP or £2266.3 billion, a staggering sum. No wonder over 50% of the electorate do not vote, the lies of our political elite have cost us jobs and money. Many ordinary people now believe that at some stage in the near future, because of the financial hardships caused by government policy and membership of the EU empire, civil war will be inevitable.

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

Dr Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury: Marxism posing as Christianity

Dr Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

Written by Tim Heydon

March 2012

Dr Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury: Leftism posing as Christianity ‘We must Love the whole World like our own Family’. So says the Archbishop of Canterbury. Coming from him, it’s one of those leftist / liberal ideals about universal equality and benevolence that seem Christian at first sight (‘equality’ of ethnic / sex representation in the workplace or in the universities or indeed in the country as a whole is another) but are actually anti-human and anti-christian because they are psychologically or practically impossible and actually personally and socially harmful. But they are important because they have such a strong influence on public policy in this country. What if your Mother is Drowning? Let’s take a brief look at what it would mean to love the whole world like your own family. Suppose you and your mother were (for example) involved in a shipwreck. Your mother is in the water, drowning. She is calling for help. But someone else’s mother, also drowning and calling for help, is closer. You can only save one of them. It would be a better bet when it comes to try to saving life if you were to go to the aid of this nearer stranger rather than to your own mother. On the basis that you ought to love the stranger as much as your own mother, you should forget about your mother and save this other woman instead. What if your Daughter is suffering Psychologically? Or your daughter is suffering from a facial disfigurement which is crippling her psychologically and will wreck her life chances but which is not life-threatening or even otherwise disabling. You have a certain amount of money which will pay for plastic surgery to reconstruct her face. Meantime, in Africa, children are dying in an epidemic. You should throw away your child’s only chance of surgery and give your money to save the life of someone in Africa whom you have never met, since you are supposed to love this unknown stranger as much as your own daughter. What if your Family is starving? Or your family is starving and so is the family next door. You have a certain amount of food. It is just enough to keep your own family alive but you should share it equally with the family next door as equal love demands, even though it means that all of you will eventually die. What if your People are struck by Famine? Again, a famine strikes your entire area or country. You have personal resources which can rectify the situation but only for a certain number. Equal love means that you should allocate these resources to all equally to postpone disaster for everyone, even when your area or country contains many people from alien countries and cultures with whom you have no affinities and if you allocated resources only to those of your own ethnic ‘family’ or group it would save their lives indefinitely. Asking the Psychologically Impossible From the examples above it will readily be seen that the requirement to love the whole world as your own family is psychologically impossible and therefore anti-human. It is also highly undesirable. If it were capable of being carried out it would be a certain recipe for destroying families and communities and wrecking people emotionally. Universal Benevolence in the name of Equality undermines Character Thomas Malthus (1766 - 1834) - he of the population / resources theory - was possibly the first to note that rather than relieving poverty within a parish as they were designed to do, the Poor Laws actually increased poverty overall. He concluded that; ‘Widespread poverty cannot be relieved from the outside world and therefore can be relieved (if at all), only by the industry, self-reliance and pride of the poor themselves.’ (Quoted by Patrick Keeney, The Quarterly Review Winter 2011 / 2012). ‘The trouble with benevolence, then,’ Keeney goes on, ‘is that it has triumphed at the expense of precisely those virtues and character traits – industry, thrift, self-reliance – most needed to lift the poor out of their impoverished state.’ What is true of the Parish Poor is also true of Third World Aid and Mass Immigration What is true of universal benevolence towards the parish poor is also true of third world aid which actually undermines the efforts of those countries receiving it to lift themselves up out of poverty and leads to corruption of the giver as well as the receiver. Quantities of David Cameron’s £1 Billion ’Peanut’ aid to India, designed at public expense to show that the Tory Party is ‘caring’, is ’misspent’. And what is true of third world aid is true of all the other aspects of universal benevolence, including opening up our country to mass immigration which is leading to the disintegration of what was one of the most settled societies on earth. What does Christianity teach about Family responsibilities? Which brings us to what Jesus actually taught. Yes, we are told to ‘be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matt 5:48) and since God is universally loving then so it appears must we be. But it’s not possible for us to be perfect like God and to love universally. So how are we to interpret Christ's injunction, which cannot be taken literally? Jesus and the Practicalities of Everyday Living As well as his demand that we be perfect like God, Jesus was concerned with the practicalities of everyday living. So, for example, even in the times when he was inaugurating the New Covenant there were some calls to radical forms of discipleship and the apostles were called to 'abnormal service', they were never free to neglect their responsibilities to their families. In some cases, people whose lives were touched by Jesus wanted to leave family and travel with him, but he instructed them to go back and minister to their responsibilities, as he did himself on the Cross (Seeing his mother standing with ‘The Beloved Disciple’, he commended her into his care). The Apostles, including St Peter travelled with their wives during their itinerant ministries (I Cor 9.5). No one was given the option of not providing for the needs of those left behind. As St Paul remarked: ‘If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Timothy 5-8) A moral 'Platonic Form' So we may conclude that Jesus’ call to universal love is not the egalitarian leftism of the Archbishop. It is a kind of moral Platonic Form, a perfect version to be found only in God. Jesus knows that in our humanness we can never reach the perfection which loves all equally but he commands that we must try, subject to the limits of our natures. His example and that of the Apostles shows that this means that he does not ask the impossible of us; to treat the whole world as our own family as the Archbishop apparently does. His demand combines the personal and the universal. Those closest to us, our own family and those we love best come first, as for us they must. Then, we must turn our attention to others. That is what the Good Samaritan did. He gave personal aid to a Jew, a member of a hostile ethnic group, out of his own resources only when it was truly necessary. He did this out of pity, not because of some ideology of equality and the need for the equal distribution of resources. When he took the mugged Jew to an inn, he left him there and (presumably) returned to his own family, as did the Jew when he recovered. One’s own family comes first. So much for Families. What about Nations or Ethnic Groups? Enough has been said, surely, to show that Christianity asks us to put our own families first. What about nations? Here again we find that Christian universal benevolence involves both the particular and the universal. One can do no better than to set out the views of the Russian Orthodox Church which expresses sense and humanity in a way the Archbishop of Canterbury has so signally failed to do. Whilst warning against the excesses that national or ethnic feeling can lead to, the Church states: 'II. 2. The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions…. Christians, aware of being citizens of the heavenly homeland, should not forget about their earthly homeland. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Divine Founder of the Church, had no shelter on earth (Mt. 8:20) and pointed that the teaching He brought was not local or national in nature: «the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father» (Jn. 4:21). Nevertheless, He identified Himself with the people to whom He belonged by birth. Talking to the Samaritan woman, He stressed His belonging to the Jewish nation: «Ye worship ye know what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews» (Jn. 4:22). Jesus was a loyal subject of the Roman Empire and paid taxes in favour of Caesar (Mt. 22-16-21). St. Paul, in his letters teaching on the supranational nature of the Church of Christ, did not forget that by birth he was «an Hebrew of the Hebrews» (Phil. 3:5), though a Roman by citizenship (Acts 22:25-29). 1.3. Christian patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regard to a nation as an ethnic community and as a community of its citizens. The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live anywhere in the world.....' -(‘Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church’, Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 13-16 August 2000, pp 4-7) The Archbishop and Leftist Philosophy together in Error Interestingly, the ethical requirement advocated by the Archbishop of Canterbury illustrated above is exactly the position taken by the atheistic philosopher Peter Singer, who is a favourite of the left. Singer doesn’t talk about love or equality but equality is at the root of his thought. In its practicalities, he arrives at the same ethical destination as the Archbishop on the basis, not that we are special beings equally valuable to a loving God, but on the contrary, on the basis that there is nothing special or valuable about human beings because there is no God. Human Beings are simply animals. The urge to favour those who are most closely allied to you by blood; your relatives and ethnic group and the morality associated with this urge are primitive relics of our evolution and should, he argues be rejected, because mankind has ‘moved on’ as ‘progress’ demands. The question arises with Singer: if there is no God and we are merely animals, the products of a blind and meaningless evolution, why should we do anything for anyone other than the promptings of our 'animal' nature? He can have no satisfactory answer to that because there isn't one. So much for ‘Progress’ Well, so much for leftist ‘progress’ which would radically dehumanise us and lead to a cold hell of emotional atrophy and nazi and marxist-like diminution of human worth. Human flourishing requires the love and individual attention that is best provided by the family and it requires identity as against the mass that is best provided by extended 'families'; unforced collectivities of natural affinities such as ethnic nations. Traditional Christianity as expressed by the Russian Orthodox Church recognises this but Leftism, obsessed by false ‘equality’, does not. That the same conclusion is arrived at by two seemingly completely opposed approaches demonstrates merely that both are wrong and have the same anti-humanity at heart.