Christian Nationalism is more tolerant than Left-Liberalism

Christian Nationalism is more tolerant than Left-Liberalism

Written by Tim Heydon

April 2012

The emphasis in the current era amongst the political / chattering classes is on ‘Equality’.  Equality of esteem is necessary for an ‘individualistic’ society and the ‘celebration of diversity’.  Equality-linked individualism can be summed up in the words; ‘do your own thing and don’t be judgemental’.  Of course, this ideal is completely impractical in the real world.  A society cannot survive without shared standards of morality and ways of life.  Without these it ceases to be a society in all but name.  Furthermore, people have a natural tendency to wish to associate with others who share these things; who are like themselves in this and in other ways. ‘Individualists’ are Conformists Even those who pride themselves on their individualism tend to be individualistic in the same way.  They wear the same kinds of clothes, listen to the same kinds of music, watch the same TV shows, read the same kinds of magazines and books, have the same kinds of attitudes to  culture, even live in the same kind of areas along with others of the same ilk (Notting Hill, for example, or Hampstead, Islington and Camden); and so on.  All this is so obvious that it should be scarcely worth saying.  But apparently it needs to be said.  For those in power want us to be similar only in our individualism - a piece of sophistry which will escape most people. Equality of Esteem must be enforced In order to bring about this impossible dream of an extreme individualistic ’society’ (a contradiction in terms), our left-liberal masters have tried to enforce strict equality of esteem on all and everything.  For this to succeed, they have to ensure that there is a general realisation of actual equality.  Thus what is stressed in the cultures are not their differences in achievements in human flourishing but their supposed equal ‘value’ to those within them.  The religions are all equal in their falsity; there being no spiritual dimension to life.  And so on.  But most important of all; perceived differences in the races are illusory; they are ‘social constructs’. Indifference, not Tolerance This attitude is called being tolerant.  In fact it is merely the intolerant requirement on the part of an ideology of nothingness to numb the critical sense and to abandon the search for objective truth.  If this scheme works at all it is because it succeeds in bringing about attitudes of indifference, not tolerance. Indifference because it is argued, nothing is thought ultimately to be very important, since there is no truth except what one makes for one’s self.  But if ever there was a recipe for the debasement of civilised living, the pursuit at best of mediocrity and the destruction of community, it is the attitude that nothing, other than perhaps immediate personal relations and consumerism (getting status or power, food, goods and sex) is important.  These are the attitudes of the traditional slum. The Realisation of actual Inequality is Death to Left-Liberalism As well as being an end in itself for leftists, the enforcement of equality of esteem is key to the project of extreme liberal individualism.  That is why left-liberals are so terrified of any suggestion that religions, sexualities and so on, but especially races, might objectively be less than equal when measured against others and standards of what it takes to be successful in the context of advanced societies. That is why they denigrate research into race differences in areas like IQ and vilify and marginalise or expel from their posts those academics who dare to engage in such research.  That is why they adopt fawning attitudes to barbaric cultural and religious attitudes, for example closing their eyes to or denying the real nature of islam.  The idea of ‘Equality’ cannot survive without repression.  This is the great contradiction of extreme individualism.  Unfortunately for the liberal project, everyday observation and experience alone denies the claim that all ‘communities,’ religions and cultures are of equal worth in the sense that they are equally conducive to human flourishing. Left Liberalism cannot tolerate the Heresy of Race Difference But especially, and backed by a mounting corpus of scientific research which leftist / liberals are going to find more and more difficult to ignore and suppress, it denies the claim that the races are identical in every important respect.  The enforced view that the races are equal  has reached the hysterical, McCarthyite pitch that if one were for example to point out the blinding obvious; that blacks excel at sprint racing and are responsible for most violent crime in London, one will find oneself vilified as a ’racist’.  The left liberal cult of equality cannot tolerate the heresy of race difference.  If race differences were to be admitted, its ideology would immediately begin to crumble. Christianity reconciles Difference and Equality Here is where Christianity comes in.  Christianity accepts difference as real.  But while individuals and groups are not equal in their abilities or achievements or in their relationship to a flourishing society, thought of as a Christian society, people are all equally valuable as being equally loved children of God.  Thus Christianity reconciles difference and equality in a way impossible for left liberalism. Christianity as practiced in the past centuries which involved sometimes vicious intolerance, is long gone. It is because it recognises difference and the problems that differences bring that Christianity offers a way forward for a civilised nationalism.  Contrary to what is sometimes thought and preached under the influence of leftist ideology, its universalism does not preclude nation states.  Why should it?  Jesus was himself a Jew who lived and moved amongst his own people. Christianity is necessary for a Civilised Society There are those of course who will say that religion isn’t necessary for civilised behaviour.  The Gulags and the Concentration Camps say otherwise.  When religion is abandoned history shows that there is a drift towards the diminution of human worth and consequently towards tyranny of one sort or another.  We can see this process in our own country where individualism has brought about a ‘woman’s right to choose’ abortion on demand and the old are beginning to come into a position where they may find themselves under pressure to have themselves euthanased as being useless and a burden. So let us set forth on a path of Christian nationalism, not thinking of ourselves as a ‘chosen’ people (that is very dangerous as well as false) but recognising our own undoubted merits as a people and the contribution that Christianity has brought to our historic successes as well as to the spiritual lives of so many of our illustrious forebears and to believers today. Let us at the same time in Christian fashion tolerantly recognise the rights of other nations to live their lives peaceably and without threat, letting them work out their own salvation as best they may. for more articles visit  http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/

London Mayoral Elections May 2012

Mayoral Elections May 2012

By Musings of a Durotrigan

Understandably, when it comes to the forthcoming mayoral elections the gaze of the media has thus far largely been directed towards London, the place where the concept of a directly elected mayor was put to the test for the first time in 2000. It is and will be a contest dominated by the personalities of Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone, the only men to have held the office to date. Already it has proven to be an exceptionally bad tempered race, with personal animosity boiling over into the well-publicised “fucking liar” incident in which Johnson lost his rag with Livingstone during a live radio debate. Although Johnson is a rich man, the subsequent publication of his personal earnings and tax details for the past three years, when compared to Livingstone’s, shows that he has paid his way whereas Livingstone, thanks to a little creative accounting, most certainly has not. Johnson’s fury therefore possessed some justification.

Livingstone was a trailblazer of divisive multiculturalist identity politics, helping to create an ethnically and culturally fragmented capital that whilst in our country is largely no longer of it; a city defined by geography rather than by people and community. Having nurtured the emergence of distinctive self-conscious ethnic blocs, it is to them that he now largely appeals, championing ‘minorities’ over the indigenous population. Andrew Gilligan and others have noted Livingstone’s poisonous embrace of Islamists in recent years, as well as a succession of remarks that indicate an apparent antipathy towards Jews. Having witnessed Galloway’s successful mobilisation of the Muslim bloc vote in Bradford West, it is a certainty that Livingstone will tap into this same demographic in London, appealing to the electors of Tower Hamlets and other such areas, using the Islamic Forum of Europe to help deliver the “community” votes that he requires. Galloway’s victory was to a considerable extent founded upon the willingness of Muslims to vote and the apathy of the non-Muslim indigenous population. Given that neither Johnson nor Livingstone enjoys a commanding lead in the opinion polls, Livingstone’s ability to tap into the growing Muslim bloc vote could provide him with the advantage that he requires to edge ahead of Johnson. This is the ugly political reality that characterises our capital today.

For all of the metropolitan media’s obsession with London, life and politics do exist outside of the capital, and mayoral elections also will be taking place elsewhere on 3 May, notably in Liverpool and Salford. Doncaster, which produced something of a surprise in its mayoral election of 2009 by returning the English Democrat Peter Davies (quite why a man would praise the Taliban for their “family values” is puzzling), will be holding a referendum over whether it should retain or abolish the office of elected mayor. With none of the mainstream political parties igniting voter enthusiasm, the time would seem to be ripe for other parties to make a breakthrough, so perhaps either of these elections might produce a surprise result. However, the personality and background of each of the candidates is as likely to be just as influential as any party label.

In Liverpool a mayoral debate will take place on Thursday 19 April, with the opportunity being open for all candidates to contribute. However, given their antipathy towards free speech and democracy, the self-styled “Liverpool Antifascists” have stated that their supporters are planning to hold a demonstration outside of the debate’s venue – Mountford Hall – because they claim that “three fascist candidates” will be present, with one from each of the following parties: “the British National Party, English Democrats and National Front.” The recent demise of the BNP has resulted in groups and campaigns describing themselves as “antifascist” seeking to find new targets for their activities so as to justify their ongoing existence, and it is thus unfortunate for the English Democrats that they are but the latest to be singled out for stigmatisation by Liverpool Antifascists, Hope Not Hate and UAF.

Contemporary politics, in England in particular, has grown stale and offers prospective voters no real choice. This fact is reflected in the dismal approval ratings of the leaders of the main political parties and low voter turnout. Clearly, there is room for a new party that seeks to provide a credible and moderate nationalist programme aimed at improving the lot of our citizenry as a whole, and our people in particular. Although such a party does not yet exist, a decision has been taken to bring it into existence, and work is currently underway with respect to its organisation, structure, constitution and policy. A team is being brought into being and an announcement regarding its launch will be made within the next couple of months. The next set of local and mayoral elections therefore, should be rather more interesting than those scheduled for this May

CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM AND IT,S INFLUENCE

Foreword by Horwich Nationalist, Although I believe this article has some theological errors on the origins of Christ ,as Christ was descended only on his mothers side in the flesh, otherwise being begotten by Gods power, it is quite clear in the Gospel that Christ was descended from Abraham the founder of the Jewish People, as stated quite clearly in the 1st chapters of the Gospels. But the article in all fairness has some quite interesting points , and in the quest to an open and free debate, is the reason I would publish it. CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM

Written by Stone Turner

April 2012 08:50

The debate raging within the patriotic movement over religion - and especially Christianity - has attracted many contributions from various personages. It has been a fascinating, eye-opening experience – if we can say one thing for certain, the debate has ‘shaken the tree’, figuratively speaking. Please don’t think for one moment that this article is “anti-pagan” – it is not. I have the greatest respect and reverence for the ancient beliefs of our ancestors (I find them fascinating), but I also believe these beliefs matured and developed into British Christianity, which then held sway until the present day. I was, until quite recently, a confirmed atheist with no appreciation or faith whatsoever in the ‘supernatural’. This was until I opened my mind and actually looked at the story of Jesus Christ and Christianity, and started to read the Bible, and I discovered that there was a gigantic discrepancy between my old bigotries against Christianity and the real thing. It occurred to me that as I was condemning Christianity I really didn’t know anything about it. Can you ask yourself honestly, right now, do you know what it is all about? Honestly? I didn’t, and as an inquisitive strong-minded young Englishman, I decided to study the whole subject and find out the truth for myself. Some have said that Christianity is “unnatural, egalitarian, universalist and pacifist” (to use an actual quote from the British Resistance website). Christianity is entirely natural: it promotes breeding (“go forth and multiply”, in fact, almost the whole of Man’s Christian existence is based on marriage with the aim of breeding), love for your own kind (“love thy neighbour as thyself”), is nationalistic (read the Bible, it speaks many times about “the nations”) and, especially in the Old Testament, the whole book is an endless catalogue of punishments inflicted by God on the ancient Hebrews for race-mixing and copying/assimilating the ways and traditions of other nations (God was enraged with this multicultural approach). If you don’t believe me, read the Old Testament, it’s all there in black and white. The Bible says that God has made us all different, and that’s the end of it. Speaking of heaven, the Bible says that “The nations shall walk by its light…The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it.” “Christianity and Patriotism are synonymous terms,” said evangelist Billy Sunday, “and hell and traitors are synonymous.” According to Rowland Croucher: “There is now a clearer understanding that when the Bible speaks of ‘nations’ it is primarily referring to people groups defined not so much by artificial political boundaries, as by ethnic origin, language, group loyalty, custom and religion.” In fact, the nationalistic aspects of Christianity is what made our European civilisation so nationalistic and patriotic in previous times. Christianity in its traditional (pre-liberalisation) format was so violently nationalistic that Adolf Hitler actually called the Old Testament “The Book of Hate”. Christianity is definitely not pacifist in any way shape or form (“Don’t think I have come to bring peace” said Jesus). Jesus was no pussy footed liberal, and all you have to do is read the New Testament and this fact is blindingly obvious. Millions of Christians have been man and women enough to defy the greatest powers on earth and die by the millions for their beliefs. Jesus was, to use the words of Adolf Hitler, a “fighter”. For example, Jesus invaded the Jewish Temple and drove out (with violence) all the Jewish corrupt money lenders. Jesus hated Judaism, in fact, the entire story of Jesus was a rebellion against Judaism and the Jewish state of that time. He was so successful in his mission that the Jewish elders ensnared him and had him crucified by threatening the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, with their influence in Rome (“you are not Caesar’s friend”). Scared stiff of their influence in Rome, Pilate consented to their demands to have the Galilean upstart crucified. Was Jesus a Jew? Based on the evidence I have seen, no. Judaism, for the last two thousand years, has violently repudiated the claim that Jesus was “one of them”. The idea that Jesus was a Jew was invented in the Middle Ages to try to insulate the Jews from Christian persecution, for if Jesus was a Jew, and people believed it, then surely the Europeans/Christians wouldn’t treat the Jews so severely, went the rationale. So what was Jesus Christ in ethnic and racial terms? In my opinion, based on the evidence, Jesus Christ was a European Celt. We already know from works such as ‘March of the Titans’ that white European migrations stretched to the furthest corners of the Earth. One of these migrations from the old Black Sea basin homeland was a white European tribe called the Galatians, who settled in modern day Turkey (Anatolia). Part of this white European tribe broke off and migrated further south, settling in northern Palestine. This new break-away tribe was called the Galileans, and yes, Jesus Christ was a Galilean. I want you to stop reading this now and watch this video before returning to the article. Jesus Christ was a European Celtic anti-Jewish activist, who led a spiritual revolt against Judaism and the Jewish state during Roman times, and countered the Judaist message of intolerance, hatred and false religion with a (more European) message of decency, true faith, love and honour (I say “honour”, because Jesus Christ was crucified for his beliefs, how European is that). Jesus Christ, in my opinion, as a European Celtic anti-Jewish activist, was right in the fault line of a battle between European values and Jewish values, right in the midst of the friction point between European civilisation and Middle Eastern civilisation (if you can even call it a “civilisation”). Once the dust had settled, the Middle East (still clouded in Judaism) rejected Jesus Christ, whilst the message of Christ was adopted and implemented in Europe, as it suited our innate sense of values. Some have said that Christianity resembles Marxism or liberalism, but this is, in my opinion, ludicrous in the extreme. Where’s the proof for such assertions? Where’s the documentation or evidence to back up such claims? In my experience, Christianity is the diametric opposite of liberalism/Marxism. You probably think that just because Jesus Christ preached love and compassion, that it resembles liberalism. But no, because nationalism also preaches love and compassion. Nationalism, you could say, is “universalist”, because it is a creed that can be adopted and applied by all races and nations. After all, all nations could be nationalist, couldn’t they? If you read the Bible, you will see that Christianity is so far removed from our modern, Church of England idiots, that it is impossible to actually call them Christians. They are not Christians, do not follow real Christianity and its values or beliefs, they do not reflect the traditions of Christianity, and so on. It’s like people assuming that nationalism itself is corrupt, grasping and morally bankrupt just because Nick Griffin is. That would be unfair wouldn’t it? To tar a whole Cause just because someone corrupts it and misrepresents it. Elizabeth 1st, Walsingham, Cromwell, Duke of Marlborough, Wellington, Nelson, and on and on and on, in fact, every single one of our greatest warlords and leaders for the last three hundred years, have been true and deeply serious Christians and would look with utter contempt at the present day totally corrupted Church of England tree-hugging morons. Try telling Cromwell, or Wellington, etc, that Christianity is an “unnatural, egalitarian, universalist and pacifist” religion/belief system and they would react with utter amazement and confusion. Can anyone provide any evidence that Christianity is liberal? Christianity wants to separate gender roles. If you go to a strong Christian area like Ulster you will see: men are men and women are women, and enjoy traditional life roles. Using an extreme example, look at the Amish in America, who are peaceful, decent, moral and dedicated to large families and rearing the next generation. All these things also constitute the essence, values and principles of political nationalism. Christianity has a strong warrior tradition, stretching from the first great knights of the Middle Ages (who defended the whole of Europe against Islam) and then the great generals and soldiers of the age of Empire and colonialism (all Christians, read about them). Christianity definitely has a racial and ethnic perspective - all you have to do is read the Bible and its diatribes against the liberalism of the ancient Hebrews. In fact, the only true remaining “nationalist” areas of the western world are in fact Christian areas. Northern Ireland’s loyalist community is entirely Christian: if you speak to loyalist (and republican) paramilitaries and also church leaders in Ulster, you will discover that it is the martial, aggressive features of true Christianity that inspired both the loyalist and republican causes to active, military resistance against each other. Many, if not most, of the nationalist youth movements of Russia, France, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Bulgaria , Hungary etc have a strong Christian ethos. Check them out for yourself. Some say that “Christianity is dead in the West” but this assertion leaves me gobsmasked. You could also argue, using a cursory glance, that patriotism is dead in the west, as is nationhood, racial consciousness, decency, honour, and so on. Yes, a lot of things are dead or on the backfoot, but Christianity is by no means dead, as there are still five million Christians who go to church in Britain and Christianity is a common thread amongst virtually all nationalist European youth movements in Europe and especially in the USA. Just because the media hides it from you (in the same way they censor all politically incorrect stuff) doesn’t mean it is “dead”. As Jim Dowson explained in his articles, Christianity features heavily in virtually all European nationalist movements, everywhere in fact, except Britain (which has the greatest record of failure and impotence). The only organisation to utilise symbols of our 1,300 year Christian heritage is the English Defence League (EDL), which found (temporary) stunning success. Do you want to know where the whole cranky, paganistic style nationalism originates from? It’s simple: Heinrich Himmler. Virtually all the leaders of the Third Reich were ‘Christians’, including Hitler himself. This is from Wikipedia: “In public statements, especially at the beginning of his rule, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, and his belief in an Aryan Christ. Before his ascension to power, Hitler stated before a crowd in Munich: ‘My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.’” In a proclamation to the German people on February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "It [the NSDAP] regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.” On March 23, 1933, Hitler addressed the Reichstag, saying: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions [i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism] as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." Albert Speer said of Hitler: “He carried within himself its [Christianity’s] teaching that the Jew was the killer of God.” This is taken from Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [Jesus Christ]." This is also from Wikipedia: “For a time Hitler advocated positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which emphasized Christ as an active preacher, organizer, and fighter who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day.” Older literature on Hitler states that he had no intention of instituting worship of the ancient Germanic gods in contrast to the beliefs of some other high-ranking National Socialist officials (primarily Himmler). In Hitler's ‘Table Talk’ one can find this quote: "It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. Here we come to the crux of the matter: the only leader of the Third Reich to take paganism seriously was Himmler, and he was mocked and ridiculed by Hitler and the others on this particular issue. But, seizing upon a chance to demonize the Third Reich, post-war leftwing propagandists elevated Himmler and the pagan stuff (primarily within the SS) to prominence, and made them a main focus for anti-nationalist propaganda, and then, like lemmings off a cliff, post-war nationalists fall into the trap of thinking that National Socialism was pagan. It’s all a great misunderstanding engineered by post-war Bolshevik propagandists. The positive influence of Christianity is far reaching especially in the rich history and culture of Western Civilization, despite a long standing ignorance or adamant denial of its contributions. The Bible itself is responsible for much of the language, literature, and fine arts we enjoy today as our artists and composers were heavily influenced by its writings. Paul Maier, in writing the forward to the book ‘How Christianity Changed the World’ by Alvin J. Schmidt, says the following about the profound impact Christianity has had on the development of Western Civilization: “No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done. Its shortcomings, clearly conceded by this author, are nevertheless heavily outweighed by its benefits to all mankind.” Contrary to the biased liberal treatment of the subject, Christian influence on values, beliefs, and practices in Western culture are abundant and well ingrained into the flourishing society of today. Alvin J. Schmidt wrote the following regarding liberty and justice as enjoyed by today’s Western civilisation: “The liberty and justice that are enjoyed by humans in Western societies and in some non-Western countries are increasingly seen as the products of a benevolent, secular government that is the provider of all things. There seems to be no awareness that the liberties and rights that are currently operative in free societies of the West are to a great degree the result of Christianity’s influence. History is replete with examples of individuals who acted as a law unto themselves often curtailing, even obliterating the natural rights and freedoms of the country’s citizens. Christianity’s influence, however, set into motion the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of status. More than one thousand years before the birth of Christ the biblical requirement given by Moses comprised an essential component of the principle that no man is above the law.” Magna Carta served as a courageous precedent some 800 years ago to the American patriots in the creation of the unique government of the United States. The charter, signed in 1215, at Runnymede by King John, granted a number of rights never held before this historic occasion including that “(1) justice could no longer be sold or denied to freeman who were under authority of barons; (2) no taxes could be levied without representation; (3) no one would be imprisoned without a trial; and (4) property could not be taken from the owner without just compensation.” Magna Carta had important Christian ties as demonstrated by its preamble that began, “John, by the grace of God…,” and stated that the charter was formulated out of “reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honour of God and the exaltation of Holy Church and the reform of our realm, on the advice of our reverend [church] fathers.” This document also followed the precedent established in 325 at the Council of Nicaea in which Christian bishops wrote and adopted a formal code of fundamental beliefs to which all Christians were expected to adhere. Magna Carta displayed what its formulators as Christians expected of the king and his subjects regarding civic liberties. Christianity’s influence on language, literature, and the arts is often overlooked and even taken for granted. Without the Bible much of what we enjoy today would be non-existent. The English language incorporates many words and phrases taken from the Bible when first translated. In 1380 John Wycliffe translated the Scriptures in its entirety and from it appears many of the words we still use today including the words adoption, ambitious, cucumber, liberty, and scapegoat among others. William Tyndale was responsible for the first English translation from the original Bible texts. A gifted linguist skilled in eight languages with impeccable insights into Hebrew and Greek, Tyndale was eager to translate the Bible so even “the boy that drives the plow” could know the Bible. The influence of Tyndale on the English language was solidified in the publication of the 1611 King James Bible which retained about 94 percent of Tyndale’s work. A renowned scholar on the literature of the Bible, Alistair McGrath, notes, “Without the King James Bible, there would have been no Paradise Lost, no Pilgrim’s Progress, no Handel’s Messiah, no Negro spirituals, and no Gettysburg Address.” Despite the hostility and persecution towards the Christians in the early centuries under Nero and Domitian and later under the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation, the Scriptures were meticulously copied by the priests and monks which in later years were translated into the languages of the common people even under threat of punishment. Tyndale first worked in secret and when later betrayed and about to be burnt at the stake he called out, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” Within a year King Henry allowed English Bibles to be distributed. Two million English Bibles were distributed throughout a country of just over six million nearly seventy-five years after Tyndale’s death. Writers, artists, and musicians over the centuries have been greatly influenced by the Bible: from Dante to Milton to Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the words and themes found in the Scriptures have made their way into much of the literature we study and enjoy today. Other great Christian writers in the history of Western Civilization include Chaucer, William Shakespeare, John Donne, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, William Blake, T.S. Eliot, and William Faulkner, to name a few. Art depicting biblical scenes was made popular especially during the Renaissance with artists such as Raphael, Michelangelo, and Rembrandt. Johann Sebastian Bach, one of the most famous composers, was greatly influenced by the Scriptures. Most forms of music began as psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and the outgrowth from there progressed as the monks and churches spread throughout the ages. The works of Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, and Mendelssohn among others have greatly been influenced by the words of the Bible. With the publishing of Andrew Dickson White’s ‘A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom’ in 1896, the idea that Christianity was responsible for the arrival of science has largely been pushed out of the minds of the people, especially in academic circles. In the field of astronomy great advances were made under devout Christian men Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo. In physics we encounter Christians such as Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), Blaise Pascal (1623-62), Alessandro Volta (1745-1827), Georg Simon Ohm (1787-1854), Andre Ampere (1775-1836), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), and William Thompson Kelvin (1824-1907). These men held to a strong Christian faith as evidenced by their writings. Before he died, Kepler was asked by an attending Lutheran pastor where he placed his faith. Kepler replied, “Solely and alone in the work of our redeemer Jesus Christ.” Kepler, who only tried “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” died with the Christian faith planted firmly in his mind and heart. History books are filled with the rich details of men and women whose lives were changed by Jesus Christ and impacted the world through ideas found in Scripture in a wide array of disciplines. To deny the influence of Christianity on Western Civilization is to deny history altogether. Although at certain times there loomed dark areas in church history by those who deviated from the faith, the overall positive contributions far outweigh the negative. There is no mistaking the fact that Christianity has changed the world for the better. The truth about what Christians achieved in pursuit of knowledge, theology, philosophy, science, arts, music, education and their contributions to the progress of humanity (in the Middle Ages especially) has been hidden by our politically correct educational system. In fact, the bias and prejudice exhibited by leftwing teachers helped undermine and ridicule the Christian faith which undoubtedly caused the history and development of modern Europe. The term “Dark Ages” in which supposedly related with Christian corruption in the medieval Europe is very misleading. There weren’t any so-called Dark Ages and if there was one it was Christianity that brought light upon it. The idea of a ‘Dark Age’ is pure myth and an oft-repeated fabrication produced by prejudiced anti-Christian leftists - not a single unbiased historian believes this lie. Historical books on how Christianity built Western civilization and why it survived and how it accumulated knowledge (Greek philosophies, mathematics etc) and other disciplines in is suppressed by modern secular politically correctness. The historian, Bruce L. Shelly wrote: “Europe owes more to the Christian faith than most people realize. When the barbarians destroyed the Roman Empire in the West, it was the Christian church that put together a new order called Europe. The church took the lead in rule by law, the pursuit of knowledge, and the expressions of culture. The under lying concept was Christendom, which united empire and church.” There are other highly significant contributions from Christianity that have been ignored by liberal biased historians, especially in the fields of agriculture, architecture, charity, printing, health care, higher learning and education, nursing, law, justice, morality, science, arts, and on and on. Leftwing myth states that during the ‘Age of Faith’ in the Middle Ages, people lived in deep ignorance, superstition and intellectual repression. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to a historian, Thomas E. Woods, Jr, it is to the Middle Ages that we owe one of Western civilization’s greatest – unique – intellectual contributions to the world: the university system. Most of the present universities in Europe, for instance, Oxford, Paris, Cambridge, Heidelberg, and Basel, had Christian origins, not to mention other famous universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, in the United States, have their Christian forbears. The notion that the Christian faith replaced knowledge and reason with faith and superstition in the Middle Ages exists in the mind of bigoted historians and their research doesn’t hold water. The development of modern science should be attributed to Christians in the medieval era who were advocates of scientific knowledge. Great scientists and thinkers of the Middle Ages include Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), Roger Bacon (1214-94 - known as the father of modern science), William Of Occham (1285-1347), Jean Buridan (1300-1358), Nicholas of Oresme (1320-82), Nicholas Copernicus (1474-1543), and so on. Again, the mythology that the Middle Ages was an era of intellectual slumber is a propaganda fiction that has no support among real historians of Western civilization. The myth that the Christian church in general and Christians in particular were intellectual backwards during the “Dark Ages” is nothing but pure leftwing fabrication designed to turn modern generations against Christianity. Christians had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes, and microscopes, magnetism, optics, and electricity. These are no small, insignificant achievements but mighty contributions to civilization and to science. Britain, in contrast to all the other nations of Europe, has a flag that is made up entirely of Christian crosses. England has the St. George cross, Scotland has the Saltire Cross and Northern Ireland has the cross of St. Patrick – all completely Christian in origin and nature. We must always, as British patriots, honour the legacy of sacrifice of the tens of thousands of Christian knights of the Middle Ages who defended Europe, Christendom and Britain from the encroachment of Islam. Without Christianity, the common religion of the whole of Europe, it is doubtful whether the cohesion needed to stop the onslaught of Islam would have been present, and Europe would have been lost. Thankfully, Christianity provided the common pan-European bond needed to present a relatively united front, and European Christian armies turned back the Islamic hordes on the plain of Poitiers, the gates of Vienna and finally driving them out of the Iberian peninsula. This rich anti-Islamic, Christian heritage of the Middle Ages will provide immense moral guidance for European youth of the future as they struggle once again against the followers of Mohammed, as their ancestors did. To finish this article, I implore you to set aside an hour and watch the following program. It will really help with your understanding of the true nature of Britain and our history. Please watch it and you will understand the true mighty engine that drove this small nation to build the modern world: How God Made The English Thank you for taking the time to read through this article.

Tory Party - Islam should become our state religion

Conservative Party - Islam should become our state religion

Written by Green Arrow @ The British Resistance

April 2012

Many years ago, I used to think that the average conservative voter had a few brains and bit more get up and go than some of the sheep people I would watch being shepherded into the voting booths to vote labour by people I knew to be nothing more than charlatans on the make. Clearly I was wrong, your average conservative voter is just a dull stupid blue sheep as opposed to the red sheep of the labour party and the only sheep more cowardly are the yellow sheep of the Liberals. It has been a long, long time since the conservative party's membership was anything like a patriotic party. Now they are just voting fodder for one side of the rotating dictatorship coin that who are themselves no more than puppets of the ZOG controlled New World Order - but whatever you do, do not mention the Jews, they tend to go a bit hysterical when you lift the rock off them and expose them to the truth. You all know that our Ashkenazi Jewish Prime Minister, David Cameron is a great admirer of the moslems and believes that we can learn a lot from these barbaric followers of a dead paedophile. You read here the other day, how the Turkish Immigrant Boris Johnson is crawling in the moslem sewers for their votes. Now read what Conservative Home has to say about the unwanted colonisers of our land: As I have said above, Christians accept the dictats of evidence over intuitive reason, but Islam is the most straightforwardly intuitive religion of all. Its core doctrines make perfect sense: there is one God over all the earth; He is our creator; He commands obedience from us; He will judge us at the end of our lives sending the virtuous to paradise and the wicked to hell. How could it be any more obvious? Islam is also clearly tempting to our Establishment - they admire its disciplines, certainty, self-confidence and clear hierarchies of authority........ Christianity cannot serve that role any longer in Britain, and the notion that it does has become a threat to individual devout Christians - the Establishment's self-hatred becomes manifest in oppression of Christians. The next best alternative is Islam. That would be the best way to go from here. You might remember that it was the treasonous and revolting Conservative Home site that threw a wobbly and wet their silk knickers when I wrote that the Queen was a liar and a traitor to her people. I now add all the stupid people who vote conservative to the list of traitors in Our Country. Come on people WISE up. It is us against them and they are winning.

Ethnic Minorities Now Decide General Elections Say Conservatives

Minorities Now Decide General Elections Say Conservatives

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

If we needed any further proof that the ballot box is now as colonised as our nation, we have it with revelations that Tory ministers and MP's have been told to attend Eid and Diwali celebrations because they can't win the next election without gaining support from Asian voters. Perhaps triggered by the Galloway victory in Bradford, where the power of Islam over the ballot box was demonstrated without question, the Tories are now in a flap that in order to stand a chance of winning at the next general election they need to secure the ethnic minority vote. Think on the implications of that, with a little bit of a reword whilst retaining the same meaning. According to the Conservatives, you cannot win a general election majority without securing the vote of ethnic minorities. That means nothing else than an open admission that ethnic minorities, those who have colonised our land, now hold in their hands the power to decide who governs us. Our electoral process is moot, colonisation is now a fait accompli - the British people have no say in it without winning the votes of our colonisers. Our colonisers are not so stupid as to vote themselves out of Britain, only we were stupid enough to vote ourselves out over the space of decades. That is one scary situation. We now have to, in effect, ask Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or a whole host of other countries people for permission to elect a British government of which they approve. One could indeed say that this means we no longer have a national government, rather an international one which cannot be voted into power unless it wins the approval of a foreign populace who happen to now be resident in the UK. The ramifications of that are truly staggering, one could read further into it that the British people are now no longer a decisive factor at the British ballot box. They have been disenfranchised from the electoral process, and things will only get worse as minority populations increase rapidly. The Conservatives themselves have now said it - at this point in time it is minorities who will be the decisive factor in who governs us and who determines our future. Our future has now been placed in their hands, we are no longer the deciding factor in elections in our own country.

How to build a police state in two very easy steps

How to build a police state in two easy steps

Written by Elite Commander

April 2012

Secret courts – what next? Things are deteriorating rapidly now. It was less than a week ago that Cameron’s government announced its plans to spy on every email, text message, phone call and website visit of everyone in the country. But now the situation is even worse. Now they’re talking about secret courts. A secret court hearing means, obviously, that the trial is unobservable to the public, ostensibly in the interests of protecting intelligence vital to national security. This may well be a legitimate concern. However, the problem arises when this power is abused; when there really is no ‘intelligence’ at risk of disclosure and the secrecy of the court is used to persecute dissidents. Unnecessary government surveillance and secret court hearings are two of the most immediately recognisable features of a police state – along with other things: Arbitrary detention without trial Super-injunction gagging orders, where you’re not even allowed to know there is a gagging order Talk of compulsory ID cards and DNA registration Internet censorship and blocking Labelling political opponents as ‘terrorists’ Snatching of children by the state in secret courtrooms where you are innocent until proven guilty ‘Hate speech’ laws suppressing free speech, prompting the detention of political prisoners Arbitrary extradition to other countries for crimes you may not have committed Beginning to sound familiar? As bad as things seem, however, once again, the comments on the BBC’s Have Your Say section (they really couldn’t find an excuse not to open it up for this article) are highly encouraging. The vast majority of people have no desire for secret courts and governments monitoring their every activity. There was a particularly profound response from one commenter, who said: “An English lady who lived in Nazi Germany talked about it on the World at War series ‘It didn't all happen at once. It happened slowly, in a drip drip drip manner over many years until eventually you found yourself being directly affected by Nazi policies’ Most folk in the UK are too busy either blindy[sic] obeying their masters or watching BGTalent to care what happens Bye bye Britain” This is identical to what will happen to us. As our liberties are eroded bit by bit, our people will not notice what is happening until the very end, when it’s too late. They, except for a small, bright, motivated minority, will do nothing until it is impossible to do anything. So what does the future hold for us? Maybe in a few years it will even be illegal to criticise the main three parties. The establishment has already shown across Europe that it’s willing to ban opposition parties if they start to get too popular. This means we must do something. A few days ago I posted a similar article about the new plans for monitoring laws, and we received an admiral response from patriotic, freedom-cherishing readers who signed the petition – and a less than enthusiastic response from readers who didn’t think it mattered enough. E-petitions may be a red herring but what else are you doing? The ‘Scrap Plans to Monitor all Emails and Web Usage’ e-petition is only at 8,825 signatures at the time of writing. This is not enough to force a Commons debate before May, when the laws are announced. If you haven’t signed it already, please go do so now, then come back. Paul Golding linked me to the 38Degrees site, which also has a petition running, currently with many more signatures. I don’t know if there are rules about signing two different petitions, but here is the link. There seems to be no e-petition on the government website for the secret courts idea. This could be because there already are petitions of a similar nature and ‘duplicates’ are rejected – since these older petitions have very few signatures and much nearer closing dates, I suggest you write to your MP voicing your concerns (it can't hurt). Please comment here and in Action Stations if you have done anything to slow the onslaught of the Democratic Republic of Britain.

Labour Leader Wants to make Wales an Open House for Asylum Seekers

Labour Leader Wants to make Wales an Open House for Asylum Seekers

Written by John of Gwent

April 2012

Those who recall my fifteen minutes of fame making Peter Hain look a bloody fool on live TV might have noticed Ieuan Wyn Jones, then leader of Plaid Curry saying it was important to welcome all and sundry from the 27 EU countries to Wales and the more the merrier. How exactly that works to the advantage of the existing British Passport Holders struggling to find a job there I never quite worked out. Now however it seems the Welsh Labour Leader has decided it is time to chop down the door frames that once held fast the doors which Tony Blair blew of. Over on the decidedly unpatriotic wales online website you will see details of the First Minister's Grand Plan for "Wales To become the first 'nation of sanctuary', and that it must 'blaze a trail in its care for refugees and asylum seekers' If I thought for a moment that this really was an initiative designed to help and assist those who through no fault of their own find the government of their own country desiring their heads on a plate, or at least their bullet riddled corpses left in the street, I might give my blessing to this measure The reality, as every patriot knows, is that this will shine a beacon out to the world in general yelling "illegals welcome here". After all, I never did get a reply from the outgoing Euro-Millions winner Glenys Kinnock when I wrote to her in 2009 to ask for her opinions about a BBC Documentary that showed the reality of illegal immigrants in shite-strewn plastic tent cities carrying out a nightly attempt to break into a lorry so as to "come to england to claim political asylum" as the near-toothless Afghan said whilst gummily grinning into the BBC camera. I did, however, get a reply from Plaid Curry's AM out there paving the way to import the Euro Dosh For The Party's Pet Projects And No Others. She said "it was important that we went out of our way to help these unfortunate people" The laugh is of course all of them are already entitled to kick the door open and walk in because we are a military beliggerent engaging in military operations in their country. Which means under UNHCR rules they have a right to walk in here and swan around at our expense. A right that only continues while we maintain our troops on their soil. At least you can see, if you pop over to the Wales Online site, that the majority of commenters have suggested that the First Minister spend rather more of his time assisting those who are already here in this country rather than those who seek to flock here in droves. Why not spend a moment adding your voice to theirs. But if you do, be polite.

Big Brother Is On The Way To The UK

Big Brother Is On The Way

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

Imagine a world where the government - or government appointed snoops - can monitor, without warrant, every phone call you make, email you send, text message you write, and every website you visit. It's apparently not an April Fools Day joke, it is the future that ConDem is about to usher in for us in Britain - the same future that the Tories and Liberal Democrats vociferously opposed when the previous Labour government attempted the same. Under the new legislation - which would still have to make it through the Commons and Lords - internet companies would be forced to install hardware which would allow GCHQ to monitor everything a user does. Apparently a warrant will be needed to actually view the contents of emails or listen in to phone calls etc, but even without the contents one can imagine how such information may well be used against someone. Just think. That nasty man visits patriotic websites. Oooh, he's occasionally on the phone to other people in patriotic parties. On the watch list, potential extremist, perhaps we'd better warn his employer, maybe hint at the consequences should they continue to employ him and he goes on to get in trouble. Getting a warrant to monitor contents of emails and phonecalls? Well, it could be as simple as just proving that someone visits sites which are considered objectionable by officialdom. Sites like this one no doubt, sites that most of us end up on every day. After all, who would visit these sites if they weren't up to no good? Billed as a measure to protect us against terrorism - most of which now stems from Islam and wouldn't be here if we hadn't have been idiotic enough to let Islam flock to the UK in its millions - it will, as all laws are, soon be used against the innocent whose only crime is to hold opinions which differ from the state mandated ideal. In a nation obsessed with trying to prove the existence of a far right bogeyman, who among us doesn't think such a law will end up used against all of us patriots who dare to peacefully speak out and campaign against what is being done to our country? This is scary stuff. We've racism laws on one side to beat us into submission, and now we're going to face the possibility of everything we do online, or on the phone, going into a government database. Any government would use that as it suits them, ruin a life, threaten someone, attempt to tarnish them, beat opposition into silence. Terrorists will just employ increasingly sophisticated encryption, obfuscation, and so on, to limit the usefulness of monitoring or to circumvent it. This will be a law used against the innocent like ourselves who dare to hold opinions with which the state disagrees. Big Brother truly is about to start watching us all in every single thing we do, and it most certainly isn't with protecting our best interests in mind. Welcome to the dictatorship of thought and association as ushered in by the shill politicians of Lib/Lab/Con and the true enemies of all our freedoms.

The Road to Wigan Pier: A Review from a Nationalist Viewpoint

The Road to Wigan Pier: A Review from a Nationalist Perspective

Posted, 2012

By Andrew Holden.

In a work where there exists a strong expression of partisan support for the ‘Socialism’ of International Marxism; it is natural for those of us well versed in the pernicious reality of that ideology to cast doubts as to the value of this work.

Such doubts on the value of this book as a read however, can be rapidly dispelled when one considers the effectiveness of left wing propaganda in inoculating ignorance into someone of George Orwell’s character and background. With this I refer to the delayed response to reality which afflicts the character of many people imbued with a moralistic sense of purpose that sadly often has a tendency to place abstract ideas before real life practicalities.

Orwell’s descriptions of hardship, misery and further injustices of a liberal capitalist system are a historical document to be treasured in our national literature. Orwell’s vivid descriptions are also a testament to the failures of International Socialism embodied in the Labour Party’s periods in office during the 1920’s. The ‘International Socialism’ of that movement offered a revolution in our national life that would correct the injustices of liberal capitalism in this country; these hopes were betrayed.

The reality of any Socialism, in the correct definition of redistributing the wealth of a community in order to correct extremes of wealth which are considered unjust, is that the driving sense of justice cannot be hazy and abstract. It is impossible for instance to protect the working class of a nation by believing in internationalism. When we consider the different standard of living in different countries, by agitating for ‘equality,’ all that is achieved is that one nation’s working class has its standard of living reduced, all for the pursuit of an impractical dogma that all peoples should be on the same economic level.

Furthermore any political movement that wishes to guarantee a fair economic principle along the lines of what we have discussed; has to in the least accept, and preferably venerate the reality of a distinct community competing for its interest in the world. A common argument by Leftists against Nationalism is that it apparently divides communities and in this sense is a means to compromise the interests of the working class.

This of course is typical Leftist doublespeak (something which the author under review here takes credit for giving literary form). Communities are divided by natural factors such as culture, language, religion and last but not least the instinct to racially discriminate in favour of one’s own community. The idea that these can be rejected or purged is of course a fallacy given the considerable degree of behaviour that is derived from the subconscious and inheritance. Whether such a purge is desirable is of course a question many would answer in the negative, this is why political correctness has adopted such subtle means.

Without understanding these factors that terminate the value of the word Socialist in reference to Marxism, it is impossible to gauge the irrelevance and largely mystical belief that Marxist Socialism has somehow ever had as its end objective the advancement of the working class of a nation.

George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier is ignorant of these realities but this is no means to dismiss him instantly. The propaganda of the far left is very effective in appealing to a pseudo-moralist instinct, something that first had the ascendancy in England with the advent of liberalism in the late eighteenth century.

For example, the left may claim to advance liberty, may claim to advance working class conditions, yet when one has the capacity to observe the practical effects of their ideology and the realist aspect of who financially supports their movements; it is clear to the independent thinker that these are a facade in a ruthless quest for power. This vulnerability for incredulously accepting words and euphemisms for the hard substance of reality is something that has dogged this country for many years.

We only have to look at the justifications of the barbarities of the early Industrial Revolution, the blind belief in pacificism in the 1930’s and today this idea that a multicultural society has this virtue of ‘tolerance’.

Orwell regurgitates the prejudices of the Left when he considers Fascism to be a form of “hysterical nationalism”; as if to say any patriotic attempt at national rule is automatically psychotic and delusional when the reality is to the opposite: International government as ‘liberty’ and ‘peace’ is delusional.

An interesting passage is when Orwell refers to a Fascist takeover of Britain as:

“Not necessarily speaking of Oswald Mosley and his pimpled followers.”

It is unlikely that Orwell could overcome his prejudices, allowing to objectively consider the Guild Socialism promoted by the British Union of Fascists, or perhaps consider Mosley’s heavy involvement with the Labour Party and his reasons for rejecting international socialism.

Mosley’s resignation from the Labour Party indicted the International Socialism of the Left as being ultimately incapable of building a country which the sacrifices of the Great War generation deserved. As such then, Orwell tacitly accepted the genuinely Socialist, according to the theory we have outlined above, principles of what was British Fascism.

This draws us to Orwell’s greatest error in ‘Wigan Pier’ which is his ignorance over the horrendous crimes committed by Marxist Socialism in Russia. In the middle of a sentence he admits to “know nothing” about post-revolutionary Russia and consequently of the barbarities of that regime. Presumably he knows a lot about Italy and Germany and their Fascist regimes which he deplores.

He has no comments about the blood stained floors of the Cheka’s many execution houses, no comments about the millions who died in the concentration camps and the hundreds of thousands who froze to death during the construction of the White Sea canal.

As such at this stage of his literary career (1937) he was in no position to derive a fair judgement of the movements that opposed Marxist internationalism.

Arriving at the merits of the work, it would appear given Orwell’s common aims with what existed as ‘British Fascism’ at that time. Orwell can be said to have had the object of integrating his vision of Socialism within our national identity. Orwell’s view of Socialism is one which the principle of “justice calling for the overthrow of tyranny” predominates over the theoretical haranguing of Marxism.

In other words he rejected Marxism in place of a ‘down to earth’ approach to life, an approach that fully embraces English concepts of justice and taste. This vision of integrating social justice with our values as an organic community is thoroughly Nationalist.

Orwell’s awareness of the twisted nature of many of Marxism’s adherents is an invaluable insight into a major reason why that ideology is often responsible for the worst atrocities and restriction of natural freedoms:

“Sometimes I look at a Socialist- the intellectual, tract writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair and his Marxist quotation and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is difficult to believe it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class from whom he is of all people the most removed.”

Orwell of course, in keeping with the prejudices he has developed from leftist propaganda, fails to realise that the reasons for this general unsoundness of character is the basis of an ideology that rejects human nature. I am not just talking about the obvious suppression of human faculties, but the belief that human history can be ended.

The belief nothing else than economic matters motivates us and that all races have similar values and destinies once everything is reduced solely to economic matters.

Orwell’s understanding of Fascism is that it reflects a reactionary opposition to advancing the interests of the working class.

This of course doesn’t consider that Marxism has always existed as an international capitalist supported dialectic means to worker suppression through the power of the state, a means to use their propaganda of advancing working class interests to suppress those very interests.

The application of Marxist theory into practice requires a process of state centralisation. The consequence is that every means of economic production becomes the property of the state. But who owns the state? Who has supported the advancement of the so-called Marxist Socialist ‘revolutionaries’ into power? An excellent book on this topic has been written by the New Zealander Kerry Bolton: Revolution from Above available from Arktos Media™.

Later on in the book Orwell displays the qualities that would later go on to form the foundation of 1984. Here he refers to the utopia of the Marxian Socialist revolution:

“As for such qualities as loyalty, generosity, etc, in a world where nothing went wrong, they would be not only irrelevant but probably unimaginable.”

This is a sound warning against a totalitarianism that ignores the human aspect to history, an ideology that seeks to kill the historical aspect through simplifying everything to a dimension of economics.

A humorous passage reflects on attacks on William Shakespeare by a writer in The Daily Worker, which when challenged with passages from Karl Marx that supported Shakespeare, were withdrawn as if Marx’s writings were some sort of Gospel of life.

If one considers Orwell’s definition of ‘Fascism’ to be the cruel reality of Marxism which he has ignored, one reads his statements of Socialism to in effect mean a Nationalism that embraces every one of its members to ensure natural principles of justice are enforced; then in The Road to Wigan Pier, Nationalism has yet another ideological forbear with influence in the mainstream.

Nationalists can easily separate the realities from the ideological fantasies, and apportion to ourselves the moralistic blessing which George Orwell has mistakenly bestowed on International Socialism.

* Andrew Holden is the author of Nationalism versus Globalism, the sensational new handbook for British nationalism, further details of which are obtainable here.

Muslim Married at 5 : Sick Multicultural Britain in Action

Married at 5 : Sick Multicultural Britain in Action

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

Which vile culture or faith would want to marry their children off at just 5 years old? Take a guess, but that's the age of the youngest victim of forced marriage in the UK at least according to the Home Office's Forced Marriage Unit. They don't give us any further details - apparently in order to protect the childs identity - but we find numerous sources stating that forced marriage is particularly prevalent among "Muslims of Pakistani origin". With Muslims of Pakistani origin disproportionately represented in child sex grooming gangs then perhaps there's a recurring theme here, but that's a whole other story. Let's just call the forced marriage of children exactly what it is. It's a form of paedophilia and child abuse. Officialdom wouldn't dare to say that, we can't go offending those enrichers and causing tensions in the community, but that's exactly what it is. Heaven forbid we might stigmatise certain groups, best to just keep it hidden under the carpet. It's not even a crime, it just wouldn't do to see thousands of enrichers up in court for whisking underage girls abroad and marrying them off, that might open peoples eyes. Instead it's a civil matter. You can bet your bottom dollar there'd be no such sensitivity involved were it white British sick enough to marry off their 5 year old children. There'd be social services involved, courts all over it, and child protection/sex offences galore. It is also a problem which never should have been here. We imported it, and now we're left needing a dedicated Forced Marriage Unit to deal with the fallout. The Home Office said its forced marriage unit dealt with 400 cases last year, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. We imported the third world and, as anyone with half a brain could have guessed, we got third world practices that are sickening to us. No shock that they just didn't abandon those practices when they set foot on British soil, that was never going to happen. "Society's shame: The five-year-old girl forced into marriage" the Independent calls it, but it isn't our shame. The shame lies squarely with those whom we have so ignorantly imported and decreed to be just like us. Our only shame is that we allowed it to be here in the first place. This multicultural, diverse nightmare amounts to simply giving the abhorrent practices of the entire world a new home and making them into our countries burden. Britain dealing with 5 year olds getting forced into marriage is just a single strand of that sickening reality.