Nationalism is not racism

Aug 29th, 2011

by Brett Stevens.

Regrettably, this has to be one of those silly articles that opens with a dictionary citation:

racism, n.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. – Random House Dictionary

I find this aesthetically unappealing. Dictionaries should be for finding the definitions of precise language, not trying to build an argument about what a political concept is. It’s just silly and underperforming to use one, but most will agree we need a standard definition
Yet if we don’t standardize on the simplest and clearest-worded standard possible, we’re going to be liable to “definition creep.” The left loves this: first, it’s racist to join the Klan; then, it’s racist to not embrace the diversity parade and have at least 11 black friends.
So let’s look at another definition:

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.
It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a state-focused nationalism.
Nationalism has long been ignored as a topic in political philosophy, written off as a relic from bygone times. It came into the focus of philosophical debate two decades ago, in the nineties, partly in consequence of rather spectacular and troubling nationalist clashes, such as those in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet republics. The surge of nationalism usually presents a morally ambivalent, and for this reason often fascinating, picture. – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This definition comes from an excellent source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. While Wikipedia and other social networks have been beating their chests and bleating about how they’re the “new way,” the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has, with almost no funding and only a few academics, quietly provided a top-notch resource that far exceeds what Wikipedia and social networks can provide.
The point is that nationalism and racism are not the same:

• Racism is the idea that there are differences between races, and that one race is superior or inferior to the others. For racism to really be abolished, we must all become one race with one global government to enforce anti-racism.
• Nationalism is the idea that for the best of humanity, we should divide ourselves by heritage (a biological record of culture) so that each nation has its own values system and self-rule. It does not address the question of superior/inferior, but is opposed to one world government for any reason.

These two are radically different, and only one part of the picture.
Racism hopes to blame problems on a racial scapegoat. If the Hutus have a bad crop, it must have been Tutsi eating up the seed corn, or something.
Nationalism says that our most basic form of political order is advanced tribalism: people are united by culture, heritage, language, customs and values — instead of being united by political dogma, like “capitalist democracy” versus “socialist authoritarianism,” as they are in the nation-state, which is a political State pretending to be a nation.
Nationalism is a sane order for everyone on earth, as every ethnic group can adopt it to their advantage.
As a basis for future political orders, it lets people achieve a standard in common. They desire certain values; they want to reward certain behaviors. Those two methods are more powerful than even authoritarian governments, as the 20th century showed us. Empires come and empires fall, but culture keeps providing good things.
Culture is, in other words, the ultimate decentralized order.

In the five months since a devastating earthquake struck, Japanese police say they’ve received $78 million in missing cash and valuables that citizens have found in the rubble and promptly turned in.
Thousands of missing wallets contained $48 million in cash, and nearly 6,000 more safes turned in by volunteers contained an extra $30 million, the Japanese Police Agency told ABC News’ Akiko Fujita. Most of the found money has been returned to its owners, after police used identifying documents in the safes to track them down.
“The fact that these safes were washed away meant the homes were washed away too,” Koetsu Saiki of the Miyagi Prefectural police force told ABC News. “We had to first determine if the owners were alive, then find where they had evacuated to.”
Some wallets and safes were most likely pocketed, but the scale of honesty in the wake of disaster is still striking. – Yahoo!

In this life, you’re either a realist or a sentimentalist (I stole this idea from Laeeth Isharc, who communicates with a vocabulary change what most people do in 8-10 single-spaced pages).
The sentimentalist cares about what they are feeling, how things appear, what others think, what effects thinking certain things will have on themselves, etc.
The realist cares about consequences. To the realist, the salient fact about life is that it is consistent. If you do a certain act a certain way, you get a certain result — every time. Amazing as that is, it allows us to plan for the future: when we know what we want, all we have to do is look at how people achieved similar results, and avoid the actions they took that achieved contrary results.
Not rocket science, is it?
A realist would look at this situation and say: “Ethnic homogeneity, strong cultural values, a strong bio-cultural identity, and a population with a high average IQ — these things make for a happy nation.”
A racist would look at this event and say, “That didn’t happen with Katrina, so the problem must be black people.”
The realist would respond:

“That may be how it seems to you right now, but reality is more complex than that.
It seems to me that the lack of a social standard, brought on by multiculturalism and nation-state politics, obliterated your method of having a cultural standard like the Japanese did, so you don’t get ethnic homogeneity, strong cultural values, and a strong bio-cultural identity.
You don’t even get a population with a high average IQ, since unless you have a standard you cannot have exemplary members that you promote above others, encouraging the smarter to breed.
In short, you could have had a center to your society based on ideas everyone agrees is important, but you thought that was too limiting, so you depended on government to enforce ‘rules’ instead. That breaks down not only in big storms, but over time. Good luck with that.”

Nationalism is forming a society around a central idea or ideas that constitute a value standard. This standard is encoded in culture, stored in the genes through heritage, and passed on through the centuries.
We see this most clearly in ethnically homogenous places like Israel, Japan and Finland. Israel in particular was created to preserve the Jewish people, a group formed of the intersection of religion, culture and an ethnic group with two major branches.
Most people are going to complain about Israel outlawing miscegenation, driving out Palestinians and refusing to allow just anyone to show up, sing Hava Nagila and get admitted.
But what Israel is doing is created a better world order. Each ethnic group rules itself, and takes care of itself. No one is to blame for anyone else’s misfortunes. We each do what we must in our own terrain, and if people need world culture, they can get it through TV and take-out food (which is as close as most people come to “diversity”).
Contrast this to societies with mixed-race populations, where one group is always on top for whatever reason, and thus is hated by the other, and so a constant minority-majority class war begins.

For almost a year, police departments in several cities around the country, most noticeably in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Chicago, are investigating “flash mob”-generated violence, in which packs of dozens or even hundreds of youths, organized through social media sites, appear seemingly out of nowhere to commit assaults, robberies, and other crimes against innocent bystanders.
But here is the dirty little secret that PC media has been tiptoeing around all summer—the perpetrators are African-American and the victims are mostly white.
Another layer to this saga that the PC media wishes to ignore is the mounting evidence that the flash mobs could be racially motivated. In other words, black teens may be targeting non-blacks.
Authorities in Wisconsin say they are investigating 11 new allegations of race-based assaults near the state fairgrounds in which the alleged perpetrators were all African-American and the victims were either white or Hispanic. – Erik Uliasz

We don’t like to admit it, either, but the recent riots in the UK were also racially motivated: non-whites against whites and far-east Asians.
Do we blame non-whiteness, as a racist would?
Do we blame whiteness, and the success of white people in business and culture that hasn’t magically spread around the world, as a racist would?
Or do we just point out that in this world, success as a nation comes from having a strong culture, and in order to do that, you must be ethnically homogenous?

Culturally Enriched Into The Grave

Enriched Into The Grave

Written by Southwest Nationalist

This is the face of 67 year old Victor Parsons.
He was savagely beaten with a lump of wood, punched, kicked, and left to die in London's Alexandra Park on the 5th of January last year.  He died of his injuries seven weeks later.
Also killed by the same attacker was Keith Needell, 84, beaten to death.  This attack took place at Queen's Wood, and Mr Needell was discovered with a fractured skull and severe facial fractures.  He died from his injuries six months later.
Another five men - although police believe there may be more victims who have yet to come forward - survived savage attacks by the same individual.
There was no motive of robbery, it was "violence for violence sake, committed by the same man, in the same geographical area" to use the words of the prosecution.
Now facing life imprisonment after being convicted of both murders, and five other attacks in which the victims survived, is one Ali Koc.
"There can be no doubt that Koc is a highly dangerous and predatory individual who derived some warped sense of gratification from carrying out these abhorrent attacks" said Detective Chief Inspector Tim Duffield.
Koc, aged 30, is of Turkish origin, and came to the UK with his family when he was in his early teens.
Before these attacks he was well known to police.  He'd been jailed for possessing a knife in 2008, and for burglary in 2007.  His long criminal record also includes theft, possession of cannabis, ABH, assault.
Yet...he was still in the country after this huge catalogue of offences to go on and commit murder in 2011.
It gets worse.  Koc survived off of benefits, and was known for being aggressive to Job Centre staff.
Not only did we import a violent Turkish psychopath who rewarded Britain by committing an array of crimes which finally culminated in the brutal murder of two defenceless pensioners, we were paying for him to be here.
From funding this wretched creatures existence via the benefits system, we'll now go on to fund another large amount of years in a five star prison - or, perhaps most likely, an even more costly and luxurious secure psychiatric unit.
Either way, Koc will get his 3 hot meals a day, a warm bed, TV, and ne'er a worry about doing a days work or having to make ends meet.  He'll probably get a council flat and a giro on his doorstep every week if/when he's released.
Meanwhile, two pensioners have been enriched into the grave.  Just another episode among many in the new, multicultural hellhole called Britain - it's enough to make anyone break down and cry.

Share this post

A Modern Heresy

Heresy

May 2012

by Brett Stevens.

How do you rebel against a society with no standards?
We live in a time of unprecedented permissiveness. The individual is our highest goal, and thus whatever that individual chooses to do is near sacred in our modern lexicon. We may not agree with what they say and do, but we’ll fight to the death to protect it.
Behaviors that fifty years ago would have resulted in criminal charges are now normal. This seems to be a disease of first world societies; in parts of the world where they still perceive that they have a lot to lose, standards are more circumspect.
You can do anything as a rebel. Although drugs are still illegal, they’re de facto legal enough that you can purchase them and stand a good chance of never going to jail. You can tattoo yourself, burn scars into your flesh, have sex with 500 people at once or have 14 kids and live on welfare.
There are no consequences. You may stand in line a bit more for insurance and benefits, but you’ll get there. And be as freaky as you want to be.
This permissiveness makes us easy to control. Distracted with small pleasures, we become oblivious to the world beyond ourselves. This is why traditional religions and conservative ethics hold that permissiveness is a bad idea. It keeps your mind off the task of life itself.
Back in the 1950s, we had conservatives to rebel against. They even got outraged by smoking cigarettes in the bathrooms of our high schools! Now people get raped and smoke meth in those rooms. How do you top that, for rebellion?
Even if you shoot up your high school and leave a trail of bodies, you are most likely to find yourself in an insane asylum, writing checks to your lawyers from a government loan.
The only rebellion, heresy and “acting out” that’s left is to rebel against permissiveness.
Instead, you have standards. Get a career in which you can do not just well but do good, get married to someone chaste and loving, spend your Saturday nights reading, listen to classical music and have a reverent and religious attitude toward the world. Viewing it as a gift for sober enjoyment deep in the soul, not through consumption.
We have no rebels. They’re all antiheroes repeating the tired game that was played out in the 1960s and now is another cliche like you’d find in a television commercial. Their rebellion is hollow, and only affirms the need for equally fake “heroes” to rebel against.
Even more, it seems like the idea of rebellion was played out, all along. To be a rebel, you must find an authority figure to rebel against. You each need the other as much as yourself. You aren’t leading, you’re following, just in a negative way.
But people thirst for easy answers, and so the mythos of the rebel lives on. James Dean will spend more time on expensive posters in angry teenage bedrooms than he ever spent onscreen. Jim Morrison will re-live his drama of flagging ambition over and over again in the eyes of angry would-be rebels.
Our politicians endorse revolutions and rebellions as positive things. They encourage permissiveness and profit from it. They will send tanks and planes to destroy anyone who does not agree.
Rebellion is played. The only heresy left is to drop out of the yes/no gave of the rebel and authority figure, and instead to look hard at reality, and pick the best life possible given that constraint. If nothing else, it’s the only truly independent course of action that remains.

 

Equality is a Muslim God

Mar , 2012

by Avery Morrow.

Equality is not a god that accepts and ministers to failure, like Christ, nor a god that prefers moderation, like Siddartha’s dharma. Nor is it a god satisfied by material offerings, like the ancient spirits of the world.
Equality is a god that demands perfection, punishes weakness, and calls for the destruction of unbelievers. It is heretical to claim there are “different paths to Equality”, for there is only one, unquestionable path, that has many pillars which must all be followed. Its holy warriors must always be pure, must work twice as hard to cleanse themselves if any flaw is detected, and are always open to any practice that could improve their purity. It rewards those who fight for its cause, although its adherents argue over whether violence is an acceptable form of battle. Yes, Equality is a Muslim God.
Many things are evil in the eyes of equality. Equality implies the elimination of any discrimination between levels of ability, worth, or desire– that is to say, any judgment of a thing whatsoever, except for determining its equalness. For example: Force is evil, for its sole use is to dominate other people, which is unequal. Strength is evil for the same reason. Leadership is evil, for it implies following. Mutual exchange (“capitalism”) is evil, because extensive research has proven that this involves inequality. Beauty is evil, for it implies ugliness, and judging people or things in this way makes them unequal. Chastity is evil, for it implies that loose morals are bad, etc. Pride in one’s own heritage is evil, because it implies that there are Others and that they are not as good as you. These evils are given different names by adherents, that is classism, racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, speciesism etc. To an unbeliever, being accused of one of these things should be treated like an accusation of shirk or dhanb, but the forces of Equality are strong.
It should go without saying that obedience to anything besides equality is evil, for there is no God but Equality. However, the recognition of this evil is not widespread but takes stages. Obedience to the state, the state being the dominant power system of the 21st century, is the first to go for equalists; and for the most part, this is their most noticeable trait. For the more fervent, obedience to one’s superiors at work is also abandoned, and the true extremists find that obedience to a religion, to one’s parents, or to anything else besides equality itself is unacceptable.
Now you may ask, what is good in the eyes of the equalists? This is simple, as simple as it is for the Muslims. What makes people more equal is good. This is not a faith that allows moderation, or a variety of different virtues. There is only the one scale of righteousness, which has at its top Equality and at its bottom something called “hatred”, bizarrely so for such an all-hating faith. There is no halfway, since complete Equality is desired, and if we agree that there is nothing bad about things that we once judged, we can bring human beings closer to this divine perfection. Therefore, celebrating disorder, disobedience, weakness, ugliness, sluttiness, and so on are all good things. For the covert unbeliever, this has the discomfiting effect that celebrating respect, tradition, beauty, etc. will get you eyed with suspicion. But this is nothing compared to condemning disrespect or disorder; these things will quickly mark you as a heretic, and you will have a fatwa placed upon you. As with Islam, defection from Equality is the most heinous possible crime.
It’s the radicals you need to worry about, and many of them have gathered on the Internet, waiting to stone to death anyone who dares to mock Equality. It is these radical extremists who remain in the Occupy movement itself long after it has lost its critical mass. They will excuse any rape or theft as a necessary sacrifice on the way to Equality. Like extremists of every stripe, they are dangerous and can be pushed to violence and murder. Like Islamic terrorists, they will even burn down public buildings at the expense of their own lives.
But most of those who vote for the left-leaning parties are what we ought to call moderate equalists. They may do some of the rituals, they will certainly speak highly of equality when they hear it mentioned, but they have not yet been educated about the full extent of the faith. Their awareness, so to speak, has not been raised. Some of them, Equality help them, may even condone unequal relationships between themselves and others, through thoughtlessness of course. They are all inspired by the selfless jihadis, the Occupiers who are fighting fiercely against the vague menace of inequality. If you ask them whether they condone violence in the name of their god, they might outright deny it, or they might hem and haw. “Violence was good sometimes, you know. Like when the Nazis were threatening us with inequality, we beat them and showed them that equality was good… although, I sometimes wish we had beaten the Nazis as a gender-neutral, non-hierarchical autonomous collective…”
Because Equality is a jealous god (and is indeed the favored god of the jealous), it proclaims that all institutions either seek it or lack it, and does not admit the complexity of the world. The world is full of diverse cultures and endless social situations. People are not always fighting “for equality” or “against equality”, and in fact that is more the exception than the rule, although Marx’s command to rewrite history has obscured this fact. Adherents of the mature religions, those authorities written on tattered parchment and ancient stone, understand that human beings have endless motivations which cannot all be answered with “more equality”. In the 20th century Equality was a good leader to us; in the 21st it will not prove so helpful, and people shall abandon it for a stronger god.
Most of the Right is engaged in simple religious struggle against Equality. Although they might not realize the nature of their enemy, they see the single-minded, intolerant, Muslim nature of Equality and they know that it is a false god. Their gods are indeed more merciful than Equality, and although the equalists celebrate every teenage defection with raucous applause, the private defections by adults to the side of Tradition are just as common. We in the New Right are in a more precarious state. We have the insecurity of atheists, and like Evola, we may be constantly searching for a truly powerful Tradition that can provide us secure refuge from the tyranny of equality. But in the meantime, we have the logical upper hand of atheists as well.
For the New Right, at least, the process to refute a believer is simple: tell them to make a list of all the gods they don’t believe in. Then add just one more: Equality. Now they may see the consistency of your position.

Posted in: Globalism.

The Peaceful muslims pay There Respects to The Austrailian war Dead

Our Government of traitors helped put these in to power, in the so called Arab spring. Even under Gaddafi,s regime our war graves were treated with respect and maintained , but just look at the this , which also shows what future lies for the graves of our dead even in our civilian cemeteries.

The BBC White Girl and the Truth

White Girl and the Truth

Imagine if I were to hire a black model or actor, selecting an overweight, middle aged man chosen specifically as an unattractive example of his ethnic group. Imagine I then place this flabby black chap in front of a camera, whereupon a number of white hands were to appear on screen and begin to write words from the bible perhaps, or maybe more aptly Mein Kampf,  in white paint across his face until his blackness was hidden completely by the white paint.

Were I then to show the resulting film on TV, I would, of course be condemned as a racist, and my film reviled as being hateful.

However, when the BBC reverse the colours, as they did in their so called “White Season” in 2008 few if any dared to point out how hateful their actions were, albeit one shudders still to imagine how ferocious the hatreds were which combined to develop such a visual concept.

Another glob of hatred which dribbled out of the white Season was a play by Abi Morgan (Famous for plays such as Sex Traffic, the screen play of Brick Lane and Shame) entitled White Girl, a story following a young white girl called Holly, who after her family escape an abusive relationship (with a white man – what a surprise!!!!!!) and move to a heavily colonised area of Bradford, dons a hijab joins a mosque and discovers “refuge, calm and safety” in Islam.

Of course as we all now know Holly’s experience as portrayed in White Girl bears scant similarity to what is experienced by most young white girls from their first encounter with Islam.

Either that, or the BBC, who just recently in the series “Prisoner's Wives” brought us a human trafficker in the guise of a white guy from Essex called Steve, must have decided to cut the scene where Holly was plied with alcohol and passed around by 20 ugly old men.

Also strangely missing from White Girl was the scene where Holly was beaten up and called a slapper for refusing to service the guy from the crescent Moon Taxi rank.

Of course, like so much more of the propaganda spewed out by our national broadcasters this was the entire reverse of the truth.  As is becoming clear with each trial far from “refuge, calm and safety” what most young white girls find when caught by Islam is violence, danger and degradation. 

Setting the make believe of  plays like White Girl against the reality of Rochdale, Oxford or (coming to a town near you) reveals what fanciful exercise in liberal wish fulfilment that nasty little drama together with the whole hate fuelled White season, and most of what passes for TV drama in this country, truly are.   

Biased BBC Question Time on Islamic Sexual Grooming of British Children

Question Time on Grooming

published at the BNP website

On a recent episode of Question Time, on the 10th May, the subject of Muslim grooming gangs was to be discussed; of course, we all know that had they really wanted to properly discuss this epidemic, they would have invited a representative from the BNP on, especially as it was filmed in Oldham, the very town that gave us the final votes that got Nick Griffin elected as an MEP!

Instead we were treated to the Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman MP - who famously paid for her nanny on expenses; Chris Bryant MP - the Labour MP who posted a picture of himself on the internet in his Y-fronts; Lord Oakeshitt - a Liberal Democrat peer; Mary Beard - Professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge; and the Daily Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne.

While 'discussing' the issue of grooming (from 11:07 minutes into the programme), Peter Oborne said the victims had "accepted the advances" of their attackers and blamed modern social decline. He added "What does it tell us about what's happened to our society that we have 12 year old girls, 13 year old girls, who are happy to give up their affection and their beauty to men in exchange for a packet of crisps or a bit of credit on their mobile phone?"

Then a man from Heywood, a man of the cloth no less, sat in the front row of the hand-picked audience, said that young girls in Rochdale "go out dressed as if they are looking for that sort of issue to take place".

The abuse by this gang in Rochdale was first reported by the girls a decade ago, but nothing was done.

It was also revealed that when one abused young teen was lured away from her care home and bullied into sleeping with up to 25 men in one night, the social workers looking after her just sent her a text message asking when she was coming back.

One of the victims, Victoria Agoglia, ran away from her care home 21 times in two months, was found by the police five times, and on the same night she was picked up from the care home by a gang of men in a car she died from a heroin overdose. Heartbreakingly, she was just 15 years old.

There are suggestions another four of those girls have died since. This news just serves to highlight what is still a taboo subject within the news of the Muslim grooming gangs; Muslim Narco Jihad.

There are 65,000 children in care in the UK today - how many of them are perfectly safe? The 'homes' where many of these children end up are anything but safe; Often they are either run on a shoestring by a local authority or a private business, and they don't get the money required to properly take care of these most vulnerable children.

These homes are being run in our name, with our money, and, like the media who hush up the Muslim grooming gangs, and the police who have failed for years to take action against the same gangs, they are failing our children.

The following blog; http://naman-astitva.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/power-of-love-jihad.html is also important reading, as it shows the power of Love Jihad, and shows how Islam threatens us all.

Conquest An American View

 

Conquest

May  2012

by Brett Stevens.

It’s hard to believe that leftists are as adamant about race as they seem to be. The primary point of doubt is that so few of them practice what they preach.
A typical leftist use of race as an issue seems to be to silence the opposition, prove his own compassion and altruism, and finally, to ignore it as he drives home to his white-with-a-few-token-well-behaved-others urban loft or suburban row.
Race is a potent weapon. If not applied with a strictly non-judgmental view, the notion of race itself threatens the ideal of modern liberalism, which is that society is composed of sovereign individuals and the highest goal is for the society to be facilitative, or enable them to act as they find fulfilling, independent of consequences.
As the consequences of 200 years of leftist policy slowly gut our country, the leftists are sensing that their conquest is near complete. Their ideas are so pervasive that few dare challenge them, and those are quickly shouted down.
However, the real conquest here will belong to nature and natural law, which over the course of centuries methodically sorts of the response to our acts as a species, and just now is able to show us the consequences of the prior generations of liberalism.
We can sense a little bit of this in the continued failure of liberal programs. The war on poverty produced more impoverished people; the war on racial inequality produced more racism on all sides; the great crusade for universal acceptance has result in greater divisions within our society.
As a result, the ideological brainwashing has reached its peak. It is impossible to make any public advocacy of a plan without re-iterating its commitment to equality (the poor, civil rights, race, gender equality and sexual preference agnosticism). Media and social sources alike seem to emphasize the same ideas as absolutely true.

“Even in Hitler’s Germany the infatuation for medals, titles and uniforms never reached the peak it has in the proletariat’s promised land. On the kolkhozy (collective farms), a visitor is apt to meet a Znatnaya Doyarka (Distinguished Cow Milking Woman). One of the latest additions to the new Soviet aristocracy is Honourable Coal Miner E. P. Baryshnikov.” – Time Magazine

We have reached a stage like the late Soviet Union, in which ideology matters more than reality, and we have taken our ideology to ludicrous lengths to ensure that we drown out any mention of the Emperor’s New Clothes being non-existent.
What is most non-existent is a plan for the future beyond enforcing the ideology. Our entire system rests on the idea that if we achieve our ideological goals, through magic a paradise will result. We have experienced “progress.”
The problem is that in order to achieve our liberal ideological goals, we must first deny reality by insisting that not only are people politically equal, but that they are actually physically equal.
The two are connected. Political equality is a dubious concept because it means the vote of an idiot is equal to that of a genius. Because the bell curve that applies to intelligence distribution through all populations tends to place most people in the middle, we figure that voting cancels out the idiots and geniuses and gives us a good representation of what should be done. The problem is that right in the middle of that bell curve is a cut-off point below which people cannot generally understand the issues they’re voting on, and most of the voters are beneath that line.
As a result, we are forced into manic denial of the physical inequality of voters in order to avoid having to deny the political inequality of voters. And yet:

Brain size and smarts are, to some extent, genetic — and now, a team of more than 200 researchers has uncovered specific genes that are linked to both brain volume and IQ.
Though scientists have suggested bigger brains are “smarter,” this study is the strongest case yet for a genetic connection to brain size and to IQ. Of course, brain size is not 100 percent correlated with a person’s intelligence, and other factors, including connections between brain cells and even a person’s experiences, play roles.
“We found fairly unequivocal proof supporting a genetic link to brain function and intelligence. For the first time, we have watertight evidence of how these genes affect the brain,” said lead researcher Paul Thompson, a neurologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine. – Live Science

It’s immensely unpopular to admit any positive trait is hereditary. That makes the assembled group of voters feel bad, because that means if you don’t have it, you never will. It’s not in the cards. (They have no problem with negative traits being heritable, however, because it allows them to imply that those they dislike are broken at the most basic level.)
The result is a mania that has no stop point. The conquest that liberals want isn’t a conquest at all because it has no goal. It is only an eternal ideological war, against tinier and tinier details that imply differences between individuals or (bite your tongue) groups of any kind.
Like most religious fervors this trend did not originate under a revivalist’s tent but it might as well have because it is just as fanatical, and just as invested with confirmation-bias-style reasoning, in which any new data is crammed into the existing outlook, which itself is never reconsidered:

If you claim that you are not a racist person…then you must believe that people are fundamentally born equal. If that’s true…[race] should have no effect on anyone’s success. Right? And therefore, if you really believe that all people are created equal, then when you see that drastic racial inequalities exist in the real world, the only thing that you could possibly conclude is that some external force is holding certain people back. Like…racism. Right? So congratulations! You believe in racism! Unless you don’t actually think that people are born equal. And if you don’t believe that people are born equal, then you’re a racist. – Jezebel

Liberalism is at the peak of its conquest now, but only because the second act has not yet begun. The first act was liberals promising a paradise if their ideology was followed, and the second act will be a long series of systematic failures of those liberal ideological crusades.
Perhaps on some level liberals know this, which explains their fanatical desire to “close the gap” and force us all into mental conformity before the cracks in the system become more visible. But that didn’t work for the Soviets, either.

Britain and the Future under Islam

Written by Tim Heydon

So what will the multicultural, multiracial Britain of the future be like – if the native people of the country don’t wake up to what’s happening to them?
There are those who think that race / ethnicity doesn’t matter in this country any more.  They think this, one supposes, because they imagine that race doesn’t matter to them and impute their own apparent feelings to others, seeing what they want to see.  But although the native British get along with other races to a remarkable degree, their deeper feelings are manifest in where and with whom they want to live.
Here is the truth of the matter:-
Whole Areas are becoming dominated by different Ethnicities
Whole towns and cities are becoming dominated by certain ethnicities.  Leicester is now a majority Asian / Moslem city (51% Asian and growing).  About 20% of the population of the Bradford area is muslim and there are significant and rapidly expanding Asian and other ethnic populations in towns and cities across the country.
Ethnic Populations are becoming so large that they are increasingly self-contained
To an increasing extent, these populations are self-contained.  The Bury Park area of Luton for example has a mosque (one of 10 or more in the town) which is a social focus as well as a religious centre.  Many businesses in the area are run by and for Asians.  Asian children attend Asian – majority state schools (Some schools are 95% Asian) and religious schools where little is taught but the Qur’an.  Asians have their own radio and TV channels, newspapers and film shows.  This pattern is repeated elsewhere.  In Manchester for example, a recent report found that schools were largely split on racial lines.  More than 8 in 10 Pakistani or Bangladeshi pupils attend school where fewer than 20 per cent of children are white.
Britain is heading for Balkanisation
This self-containing process, encouraged in the first instance by the doctrine of multiculturalism, is proceeding under its own steam and consolidating as these communities grow. David Levin, the apparently Jewish Head Master of the Prestigious City of London School said in a speech at the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference recently that Britain was becoming a ‘silo society’ as many young people never leave their own housing estate or mix with children from different racial or religious backgrounds.  Levin went on that he grew up in South Africa ‘where apartheid was imposed and people had to live in different areas.  Increasingly I am alarmed at the way London is divided into ghettos….I think London is sleepwalking towards Johannesburg, the ghettoisation of the community.’
As Ethnics arrive, Whites leave
It isn’t of course just the growth of ethnic populations in an area.  It’s also the flight of the original white population.  As their areas are transformed overnight into somewhere from the West Indies, Africa or the East, can you blame them?  One woman in Luton said of the call to prayer from the mosque, ‘I’d like to pull the plug on that caterwauling.  I go to work, and I have two small children.  It’s just not fair on non-moslem families around here.’  The local shopping area, Dunstable Road, is full of Asian food shops, Halal butchers, clothing stores specialising in Saris and so forth.  Few ordinary native Britons would want to live in such an area if they could avoid it.
Your writer acts as a voluntary driver for the local hospice on the edge of London.  Almost every passenger – usually terminally ill – will talk about how he or she moved out of a now-immigrant area in more central London which is now unrecognisable from when they were brought up in it.  Sometimes they will say how glad they are that they will soon be dead and will not see the complete destruction of the country they loved.  Only this week, a passenger mentioned how she refused to allow her grandchildren to attend a school in Forest Gate where they would be in a tiny minority of whites and is struggling to get the family moved nearer to her home.
And the natural inclination of whites to live amongst their own kind – the same impulse which creates areas like Bury Park and Forest Gate - is sometimes encouraged not just by the increasingly alien nature of their neighbourhoods but by the overt hostility of their neighbours.  In the period Nov 2007 - Feb 2008 there were 18 attacks on 5 non-Muslim properties in the Bury Park area.
Trevor Phillips agrees.
At a conference in 2006 organised by the Commission for Racial Equality, its Chairman, Trevor Phillips, spoke of a crisis as white minorities bolt from ethnic areas, and warned of the emergence of separate and isolated communities.
It’s not just working class Whites who want to flee ethnic Areas
Those self-congratulatory middle-class liberals who imagine that it is only untermensch working class whites who don’t want to live in areas dominated by other ethnicities should reflect on the attitude of the writer George Steiner, an Extraordinary Fellow of Cambridge University.  Steiner, a Jew born in Paris, was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 1st September 2008 as saying that he would not be able to tolerate living next door to Jamaican neighbours ‘playing reggae all day.’  Steiner said he believed racism was inherent in everyone and that racial tolerance was merely skin deep.
English People are happiest in mostly white and English Areas.  So why wouldn’t whites in the unhappiest places want to move there if they could?
A study by the property website Rightmove (telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9080965/People-are-happier-up-north-study-finds.) revealed that the happiest places in Britain are the also the whitest.
Top 10 happiest places:
1. Carlisle
2. York
3. Huddersfield
4. Harrogate
5. Chester
6. Llandudno
7. Norwich
8. Derby
9. Dorchester
10. Exeter
The unhappiest places are the blackest and brownest
Top 10 unhappiest places:
1. East London
2. Ilford
3. South east London
4. Luton
5. Romford
6. Oldham
7. Enfield
8. North London
9. West London
10. Harrow
What do the Trends foretell?
We have seen the trends.  So what do they foretell about our country?  It seems very clear that Britain is being carved up along ethnic lines.  There also seems to be no good reason why this process should not continue. Furthermore it is likely to gather momentum as the numbers of moslems and other ethnicities rapidly grow.  According to Jim Dowson, their projected numbers at the current rate of increase are:-
·    2013 - 3 million Muslims in the UK.
·    2018 - 4 million Muslims in the UK.
·    2021 - 5 million Muslims in the UK.
·    2024 - 6 million Muslims in the UK.
·    2026 - 7 million Muslims in the UK.
·    2029 - 8 million Muslims in the UK.
·    2031 - 9 million Muslims in the UK.
·    2032 - 10 million Muslims in the UK
·    2039 - The Muslim population will be increasing by 1 million per annum at this point.
Will the present rate of increase slacken off in the next twenty years?  Perhaps, but if it does it will be slowly.  The drives are still there; arranged marriages with relatives back home in the sub-continent and a continuing high birthrate.  It is very probable therefore that the above projection up to the key period around 2035 which will see a moslem population of around 11millions,  or some 15.4% of a population estimated at 71.5 millions, is likely to be more or less correct.
By the 2035 point, even if the rate of increase has slowed down somewhat, the average age of the moslem population will be much less than that of the native population and their breeding potential will be that much greater.  After this date, the replacement of the native population by the immigrant-descended will proceed apace. Although any projected figures are likely to be a good deal less reliable it is probable that our grandchildren will find themselves a diminishing  racial and religious minority in their own country.
So we have three dynamics:-
Against a background of a diminishing white population
1)  The increasing division of the country into areas dominated by one or other of the ethnicities.
2)  The huge expansion of the immigrant-descended population.
3)  The increasing self-contained character of ethnic areas.
The Native British squeezed into ever smaller Enclaves
The net result would seem to be a scenario where large numbers of the native British effectively abandon swathes of their homeland and find themselves progressively squeezed into ever smaller areas.  The areas largely abandoned will include their capital, London (already 30% non-white, vastly more in inner areas), and other major cities and their environs.  The whole of the West Midlands may become Asian, moslem territory to the extent that a white travelling through it will feel that he or she is in a foreign country right down to there being different languages spoken throughout.  Whites may find themselves living mostly in smaller towns and villages while places such as the South West, North Wales and East Anglia may become known as white areas.
The Political Arrangements
What will the political arrangements of this divided country be?  Only a fool would imagine that they will be unaltered from what they are now.  For example, will a majority moslem population want to put up with a white Monarch with all the trappings of Christianity that go with the Monarchy?  Hardly.  Will they want to run things to suit themselves when they have the power?  In the areas where at first they dominate and then the country, certainly, regardless of the state of play of the EU.  Will the native population object to this?  Probably.
All this being the case, various scenarios, all of them meaning the complete obliteration of the country as we have known it present themselves.  The first is that the country will eventually divide itself into self-governing ethnic areas like the Balkans.  Another is that it will continue to group together in some kind of federation of self-governing ethnic areas, like Switzerland.  A worst case scenario is that it will be another Lebanon or Northern Ireland – united but with a fragile sharing of power; one ethnic group forever trying to assert itself against the others, sometimes bloodily.
Islam will assert itself more and more
Whatever the future holds, it will not be the homogenised, peaceable Britain  imagined by the leftist social engineers or their fellow –travellers, the libertarian right.  As the moslem population grows in numbers so it will grow in assertiveness.
Already, Muslim attitudes and lifestyles are inflicting themselves on the way the British do things - Halal meat in the shops and restaurants, being just one example.
But there are many others.  In Dewsbury, Imams petitioned Mid Yorkshire Hospital NHS Trust to request nurses to turn the beds of sick muslims to face Mecca five times a day.  In Reading, a Muslim shop assistant refused to touch a book of childrens’ Bible stories because it was ‘unclean’.  In hospitals, female Muslim surgeons have refused to follow hygiene guidelines which require the scrubbing up of bare arms.  In Oxford, the imam of the new central mosque requested amplified calls to prayer, prompting clergy to predict white flight from a city of many minarets.  When and where islam is in control, all of these measures and many more like them will be taken for granted.
Let us never forget that there is nothing Politically Correct about Islam or moslems.  Political Correctness is a perverted development through Marxism of Christianity and Protestantism in particular.
Islam does not have the strains of doctrine that have led to PC.  And while most moslems may want only a quiet, islamic life, it is the radicals who set the agenda.  One has only to reflect on developments in Britain with the onset of political correctness to realise that.
The outlook for the native population of Britain is grim indeed.  Is it time to think about emigrating?

Share this post

The Legal Fiction - How They Control Us

Article By Roger Hayes

Throughout the ages mankind’s ingenuity has allowed one group of people to control others. The creation of the ‘legal fiction’ is a superb example – it is the very foundation of how we are controlled today and yet the knowledge of its existence eludes all but a tiny few of us.

Judges know how the ‘legal fiction’ applies to each of us, but barristers, solicitors, Magistrates and politicians mostly do not – it is a closely guarded secret. Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom.

So What Is The Legal Fiction & How Does It Impact On Our Lives?

If you tried to explain the concept of the ‘legal fiction’ to the average individual in the context of how it applies to them, there is a high degree of probability that they would stare back at you as though you were quite mad... explanation rarely attracts a demand to know more, which it should, generally people find comprehension beyond their scope of understanding and they prefer therefore to dismiss it as an absurdity. The creators of the legal fiction knew this and have used our own ignorance to further their aims to control and dominate us, their ultimate weapon being ‘plausible deniability.’ But suddenly we are waking up to what is really going on and as we do the shackles of control are starting to loosen.
Imagine having a conversation in the 10th century in which you were describing a mobile telephone to an audience... they would to a man and woman think you were a complete lunatic... despite being able to explain the science behind it, and so it is with trying to explain the ‘legal fiction’ today.  Fortunately, thanks to people like John Harris, Winston Shrout, Robert Arthur Menard and others, the secret of the ‘legal fiction’ also known as the ‘strawman’ has been laid bare and as a consequence those of us who are prepared to learn are now able to take advantage of this very important knowledge.
But bear in mind this... the ‘powers-that-be’ have a vested interest in us not knowing how they effect their control over us... and this translates into them being adamant that you must not know of the existence of the legal fiction, never mind understand it.  So if you are thinking about writing to the government and asking them to confirm the existence of the legal fiction, may I suggest that your time would be better spent writing to the mafia and asking them to confirm in writing that they are indeed engaged in organised crime. Please let us know if you get a reply.
The legal fiction is described briefly as ‘a means by which something can be done in law, which, without the legal fiction, would not be possible.’ Look it up in a law dictionary. There are many applications of the legal fiction concept and only through study will you get to grips with the extent of its functions. It is not complicated, just confusing and understanding it requires that you resist the urge to dismiss it as a nonsense. Because we have limited understanding of the origins of the universe, that does not mean that it does not exist - and so it is with the legal fiction.

A Company Is A Legal Fiction

If we assume that your name is Roger Hayes... you could create a legal fiction called ‘ROGER HAYES LIMITED’ which you could own lock, stock and barrel. You could lend the company money and it in turn could buy and own plant, machinery and stock and build up an array of assets and wealth through trade - all of which would then belong to the company... but not you. Yes you would own the company, but the company would own the assets. If on behalf of the company you sold some stock, you would be required to put the proceeds into the company’s bank account and not your own private account. The company would be obliged to pay back the money that you lent it, but apart from that the only way that you could take any benefit from the company would be if it paid you a wage as a manager or a dividend as a shareholder and if the company went bust with net liabilities, you would not be liable for its debts.
It is easy to see then how despite you being the only owner and thus the controller of the legal fiction ‘ROGER HAYES LIMITED’ that it remains an entirely separate entity to you.  You could sell the company and somebody else would then control it, despite it keeping your name. Now to deliberately confuse you... this entity was also given the generic name ’person’  and yes, it is meant to confuse you. In legalese (the language of law) the word ‘person’ means company or corporation; it does not mean man or woman. In an ordinary dictionary ‘person’ is described as an individual human being. In a law dictionary ‘human being’ is described as a monster. Do you think they were trying to bring clarity to the meaning of words or do you think they were trying to create confusion? Obviously it was the latter and it was both deliberate and calculated.
When you were born (still assuming that your name is Roger Hayes) and your parents registered your birth, the government set up a company which they called ROGER HAYES. If you look at all your official documents you will see that they are all represented with capital letters as a means of distinction. It is important to remember, that as it was the government that created this company, it is they that own and control it – despite it having your name. The deceit was in the fact that they did not tell you, nor did they want you to know, that they would use this company (person) as a tool to attach liabilities to the real you.
Thus, ROGER HAYES the company was created and existed alongside Roger Hayes the flesh and blood boy created and named by your parents. But in the absence of the knowledge of the existence of the former everybody was led to believe that everything applied to the latter – as devious a plan surely as selling land on the sun to the unsuspecting.
When officialdom then asks the question ‘Are you Roger Hayes?’ What they are really asking is ‘Do you accept the liabilities for ROGER HAYES the company (i.e. the person)?’ and when you say YES – you are unwittingly accepting the liabilities placed upon the ‘person’ (company) that they own and through which they establish their authority over you . How very clever and devious is that?
Roger Hayes is a flesh and blood man. ROGER HAYES is a person (company) – and they are separate entities. You control you, they control the person, if you accept the liability of the person – then they control you.
All Acts of Parliament are applied to the ‘person’ (the company), and not the man or the woman. This is self-evident in that the words man or women are never used in Acts of Parliament. So Acts do not therefore apply to the flesh and blood man or woman, if they did, they would say so. Acts of Parliament extend to you the man or woman only if and when (through your ignorance) you accept the responsibility and liability of the ‘person.’ When a policeman or a judge asks you for your name – they are tricking you into accepting their authority over you, because you have unwittingly assumed responsibility for the legal fiction (despite them also being ignorant of this fact) and the fact is that they must get you to acknowledge ‘the name’ i.e. ‘the person’ i.e. the ‘legal fiction’  ‘ROGER HAYES’ before they can assume their authority over you.  When you say YES my name is ROGER HAYES, you are submitting/consenting to their authority, and conversely if you deny the liability of the corporate entity then you deny them the control that they need to enforce their penalty charge notices upon you. Denial of consent is denial of authority which means no penalties. It is as simple as that.
So now you know - government secures its authority over you by simply asking your name, or by getting you to fill in one of their forms. If you understand this then you can start to adjust the way in which you respond to their demands. Learn how to respond to this deceitful tyranny and your life will change; you will become freer in mind, in spirit and in reality. And the more of us pushing them back the faster we will take back control of our nation.
By denying the control that the legal fiction creates, you will be making an enormous stride in securing your freedom.
The fact remains that the Government and its institutions, i.e. the police, the courts, the taxman have authority over you by virtue of you unwittingly giving them your consent. But, whilst statutes (Acts of Parliament) apply only to the legal fiction – common law most definitely applies to YOU - the flesh and blood man or women. Be very careful to understand the difference. Common law which the police monitor as peace officers (constables) protects our natural rights, common law are the rules that govern how we behave towards our fellow men in order that we can all to live in peace and harmony with others without the threat of harm or loss.
So speeding, parking, council tax, VAT, PAYE etc all apply to the ‘legal fiction’ which you have an absolute right to reject if you so choose, but if standing up for your rights is too much trouble, you can chose to continue to remain compliant and obedient. Take your choice.
I have no objection to paying my fair share towards running a system of which we are all beneficiaries, but I will not be dictated to. If refusing to pay my council tax, speeding and parking fines is the way to bring about change that will benefit us all, then that is what I am going to do. Hopefully many more people will start thinking and acting like free men and women, the sooner we do then the sooner we will close down the tyranny and the sooner our lives will start to improve.
BUT...   and there’s always a but, the ‘legal fiction’ has benefits as well as liabilities. The NHS, schooling, child benefits, land and home ownership, bank accounts etc, all come to you courtesy of the ‘legal fiction.’ If you want to dump the liabilities, you are potentially going to have to dump all the benefits as well. So you have to have a clear understanding on what it is you are letting yourself in for before you start messing with the system.
Dear reader, our controllers are not stupid... they have been working their scheme for a long time. They have devised a system that gives as well as it takes and it has been a careful balance of both of these that has allowed them to maintain their control. So if there are benefits as well as liabilities and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water, where do we go from here?
The answer to that dilemma is simple. The system can be used for our overall benefit. The bad guys have taken control of it and they are quite deliberately using it for their benefit at our expense. They are using it to fine us excessively and needlessly to feed their greed, to tax and persecute us; keeping us on a tread mill of servitude and making our lives a misery in the process. We have a right to take the benefits and reject the liabilities when the balance has been distorted to our detriment – which clearly it is.
The writer has been in court (on numerous occasions) denying the liabilities of the legal fiction – to date 100% successfully. There have been some feisty moments - it has been an interesting journey during which compliant servants of the system have watched in bewilderment (and ignorance) as we (many friends and activists) have turned up at court and said NO... we do not accept your authority. The shock to authority is palpable; they respond by shouting, barking orders for us to obey, they use threats, intimidation and occasionally they call their security guards and the police to try and force us into submission – all to no avail. We have stood our ground and witnessed the weakening of their resolve and have watched as they have instead slowly started to submit to our authority. In court now, we ask the questions and they do the responding. They become particularly more compliant when we remind them that the courts belong to the people... not them.
The flesh and blood man is considerably more powerful than their legal fiction controls; it is just a matter of discovering how it is that we can demonstrate our authority over them. It has been and will continue to be a bumpy ride, made smoother with the support of those who attend courts as witnesses. The British Constitution Group is pushing the tide of tyranny back slowly but surely, we do it with the knowledge that we are right and they are wrong as evidenced by their gradual submission to our demands.  But we still have a long way to go. The more of us that join the fight, the faster we will take back control. We do not need elections or referendums or any other controlled mechanism to free ourselves from corrupt government be it in the UK or in Brussels, we just need the spirit, determination and courage to stand up and say NO.
We, the British people have right to govern ourselves, we have a natural instinct to want to preserve our sovereignty and our independence... but we have been lulled into thinking that we need the permission of a powerful elite to secure it... we do not.
We have become confused about our identity and our nationhood -  we no longer understand the purpose of our constitution and the rule-of-law. Some of us have been fooled into thinking of ourselves as European, a universal description with as much meaning as calling ourselves earthlings. We are British – English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. We have amongst us people from every country on earth, here to share in what is unique to these islands and the British people  – a nation of tolerance, compassion, fortitude, fair play and justice. We have taken these values to the world – and it seems that the time has come to do so again.
Our future will not be determined by a political party, it will not be determined by puppets like Clegg, Cameron or Brown (remember him?)... our future will be forged by those amongst us who find the courage to stand up for our rights and declare them to the world.
The tyranny that has been build up around us will crumble when we stand up and defend ourselves. This is a game of numbers... when there are more of us than there are of them... the job will be done.

About the Author

Roger Hayes

A final glimmer of Britain

A final glimmer of Britain 

By Sarah Maid of Albion

I began writing this article a few weeks back shortly after the local government elections on May the 5th . As everyone in Britain knows, those were elections which saw significant success for the Tories and some success for Labour too, except in Scotland, where a Scottish party, calling themselves “Nationalist”, but which welcomes multiculturalism to the point where it will surely destroy all dreams of a true Scotland, scored a massive and unexpected triumph. 

All other parties suffered varying degrees of defeat. 

  

In the wake of that further affirmation of what seemed like a national death wish, I sat down and wrote the following:

____________

When was it I wonder the English stopped loving their children? when did we become one of the very first people in history, who do not care a damn what future our offspring will face? 

There are many, I am sure, who would claim to take offence at what I have just written, and who would angrily insist they are entirely devoted to their children.  But how can I believe them in the face of overwhelming evidence that they must be lying?

As the mother of son's I quake at the thought of what they will face when they become part of an ethnic minority in their homeland, an event likely to occur much sooner than we once thought. Recent figures suggest the tipping point, when non-whites become a majority in Britain, could be as soon 2043, thirty two years from now, not 2060 as previously thought. 

Ethnic minorities do not fare well in third world countries, but that's the future my sons will face when they are still young men.  Other mothers' sons and daughters face the same fate, but, unlike me, it seems those mothers, and those fathers simply do not care.

How can they love that which they would so lightly sacrifice to such a hell?  

The British people embraced their death again on May the 5th, how many more chances will they have before it is too late, assuming it has not already past that point?

Seemingly without a care they meander forward towards a dark place which will be terrible to see, complicit in their own destruction,they are the stained handed murderers of their children's dreams. 

Most suicidal of all were those of the white working class, who voted for Labour, a party  which despises them and has for at least four decades been conspiring for their destruction.  A party which has already engineered the ethnic cleansing of  working class communities from Bradford to Bristol and from Leeds to Lancashire, and which has transformed our ancient capital into a majority non-white city, driving, amongst others, London’s Cockneys into Essex and into history.

We all mocked those American teenagers a few weeks back when then tweeted onto Twitter “who is Bin Laden and why’s it good he’s dead?”, but are they really dumber than those who still believe the old lie that “Labour is for the Common Man”. Not if that common man is white they’re not, at least they haven't been since the 1950’s.

Like livestock voting for the horrors of halal, working class Britons went in their millions to put their crosses next the poison rose which spells their doom. Should I really pity such stupidity?

Even less deserving of pity are Liberal Democrat supporters, whether they voted for the party or, horrified by the realities of power voted  Labour, they are equally suicidal. However, given it is now quite clear Liberal Democrats are not grown up, they deserve little more than our contempt.

In some ways, of course, those who voted Tory are the most shameful, in their hearts the average Tory voter knows the truth but they dare not face it and would sacrifice their children before they do.

I look upon them and I wonder, do they deserve what is coming to them, these stupid. immature and cowardly people who flocked to sign their death warrants in polling booths across the land, do they want to be saved and are they in fact beyond saving?

Other races have died before and other civilisations have fallen, is it our turn to follow the Aztecs, the Minoans, Incas and the Babylonians into the echoing void of history?  Is our great civilisation, surely the greatest the world has ever seen, set to follow Rome and Ancient Egypt into defeat, destruction and decay, our crumbling monuments, magnificent ruins, the only evidence of what went before?

Do our people know their death awaits, surely they too can see what is plain to me, and if they do, can it be they really do not care? Is there nothing left of the Britain that we were? Has our blood run cold?         

Within one hundred years the descendants of those immensely brave Britons who celebrated VE day in 1945 on the streets of London will have been driven from that city.  They are already a minority there.

Did it take just sixty short years for our race to come to this?  We are not the same people our forefathers were.  We spring for the loins of greatness but have forgotten how to be great.

____________

I stopped writing then, and put the article aside.  I wondered if what I had written was of any benefit, and if anything was to be gained from exposing one woman's despair at a nation wilfully engaged in writing its own epilogue.

It was then that I watched a TV programme called “Wooten Bassett the town which remembers”.  As the world now knows Wooten Bassett is the Wiltshire Market town which lies between RAF Lyneham, the Royal Air Force's principal transport hub, and Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital.  It is therefore the route which the hearses have to take when transporting fallen soldiers when they are brought home from Afghanistan.

The people of Wooton Bassett have taken to welcoming those brave young men home, standing along the roadside in silent tribute and comforting the families of the dead.  Over the months and years more and more have travelled to join them until the repatriations have become a sombre, but hugely well attended and symbolic event.  Those who come do not do it for the cameras, or or the bemused and patronising journalists who turn up to record what is to them a bizarre spectacle. Way out of sight of the cameras, along the roadside and in the lay-bys they stand silently and they salute, as the tragic cavalcade goes by, carrying those they have come to mourn.

The people of Wooton Bassett were interviewed and they were a rare sight, they are a type of people, although legion in our land, who are not usually welcome on our TV screens. They were not the dissembling creeps who claim to represent us in Parliament, the chattering classes who usually dominate the airways or the mockney accented public schoolboys who pose as entertainers. They were not the slimy treacherous judges or avaricious white hating lawyers who administer what passes for justice in this land, or the broadcasters who learnt to hate us on their Stalin praising fathers' knees. They were the reality of England, a people motivated and filled with love of their country who come to honour the brave and beautiful young men, sacrificed in illegal wars by the crooks and monsters who currently rule over us.                     

They were also anything but multicultural, certainly not in any way which would be permissible now in any staged media event.  As the cameras scanned the crowd anxiously attempting to light on an ethnic face amongst the mass homogeneous whiteness, they could have been the scene of any British city of forty years ago, or indeed the myriad British towns which they do still represent.

Then I thought of another event in recent weeks, the Royal Wedding, and the million strong crowd  thronging the streets, a crowd not ethnically mixed, as our dishonest media claimed they were, but massively, overwhelmingly, white.  The chattering commentators expressed their horror at the almost total whiteness of the congregation, but dared not admit that same whiteness extended to crowds outside.  Where would that leave, inclusive, integrated multicultural Britain?

However, multicultural Britain was no more on show on the streets surrounding Westminster abbey on the day of the Royal Wedding than it is on the streets of Wooton Bassett at each repatriation.

Whatever you may think of the current Royal family (and I personally an cautiously optimistic about the two princes) one could not help but marvel at the massive crowds of English men and women crowding the streets of our capital, as they have done for 1,000 years, their hearts swelling with an innate sense of their heritage and cheering for even the least impressive of our nation's monarchs.

As I considered those two events, I began to realise how wrong I was in what I wrote at the beginning of this article.  Britain is still out there, our people still exist, there are merely hidden from us by the gaudy pallet screen which the media places before us, and, of course, before them.

Although it may not seem that way from what we see on out TV screens and on many city streets, native Britons are still by far the majority in this country and they can still be saved.  The majority of native Britons never voted for multiculturalism and are deeply suspicious of it, they resent and oppose mass immigration and they are seriously concerned about the rise of Islam.  They also worry deeply about the sort of country their children will inherit.

They have not expressed those views because they have been taught to feel guilty about them  by a tiny minority with monopoly access to the communications media, and they have never yet voted in support of those views because they have never yet been offered a viable Nationalist alternative.

Those who say “they could have voted BNP” are fooling themselves.  The BNP have never yet found a means of disproving the media lies about them.  In fact, in many ways despite the herculean efforts of many activists, too many BNP members (and their leaders)  have done everything in their power to prove the liars right              

There are actually BNP members and supporters who appear to believe that, for instance, if they make “funny” Nazi salutes at cameras or are filmed giving their child a gollywog, the public will perceive these as ironically humorous gestures. 

The BNP has politicians who indulge in fisticuffs in front of the national media because an Asian spits at them (what do you think the spitting Asian wanted you to do when he spat?). It employs security guards who stick their fingers up the noses of unfriendly journalists when they forcibly eject them from meetings in front of a blaze of flash bulbs, whilst adopting facial expressions not unlike that of a particularly malevolent pit-bull.

Nationalists climb over each other so as to get into debates or write articles expressing moral and sexual attitudes which would sit more comfortably in down town, Islamabad than they would in a modern British household, and when doing so use language Jim Davidson might consider a tad off colour.  (If you want to go on a moral crusade, go on a moral crusade, but get out of our way, we are trying to save our race.)

Much has already been said about the quality of people appointed to positions of power.  However, if the party is seriously considering replacing one non-telegenic leader with a criminal record and a history of Holocaust denial with an equally non-photogenic (and older) leader with a criminal record and a history of Holocaust denial, they will need to work out:

a)  how they are going to sell him to modern Britain    
b)  how he might come across on Question Time

(Yes I know the convictions are establishment imposed war wounds, but such nuances matter more to history and to the party faithful than they do to the wider public)

Across Europe, Nationalism is in the ascendency, in Britain it seems to have stalled, and although many Nationalists have worked tirelessly, many others have to accept their responsibility for that.  Too many British Nationalists have spent the last 43 years since Enoch Powell warned us what was happening, squabbling amongst ourselves, sniping at other nationalists and indulging their own particular prejudices, issues and hang-ups rather than presenting the public with a party they feel comfortable in voting for.

It is true that Nationalist parties are subject to constant smears from the media, but in honesty, many Nationalists have made it very easy for them to smear us.

I am sure we all reach the point which I did when I started writing this article, and it is true that, in many ways the circumstances are dire.  However, there is nothing to be achieved in bemoaning a situation when we are part of the problem. 

We should be better placed, Our enemies have overplayed their hand, in particular the New Labour open door immigration policy was a spectacular own goal, which the country is starting to wake up to. The non-white population of Britain has grown by 40% in the last eight years, if that rate continues, and why wouldn't it?, at a conservative total of 9.1 million, not including another 1 million of mixed race, that total will grow to almost 35 million by 2043 (you do the maths).  If the Nationalist movement can not advance on the strength of that fact alone, we do not deserve to.

In many ways the situation is as dark as I described at the beginning of this article, but it is always darkest before the dawn, and everything is still to play for. If, after over four decades of self indulgence, squabbling, gaffes and pure stupidity, we can finally get out act together, there is a chance, faint but still viable, that we could save this country.

Our people are still out there, we only have to reach them.

States Which Have the Word “Democratic” in Their Names, Generally Are Not

States Which Have the Word “Democratic” in Their Names, Generally Aren’t

Posted by Unity Forum on May, 2012 

“Proclamations about freedom of expression are a bit like the word ‘democratic’ in the title of a state. It appears most prominently in the titles of states in which it is suppressed most obviously,” Andrew Brons MEP said last week in the European Parliament.

Speaking during a debate on the EU’s Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Brons said that “both the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights provide that people have or should have freedom of expression.

“In several EU countries and signatories of the Convention, people can be, and are, gaoled for heretical opinions on academic subjects and for political opinions that are disapproved of by the Political Class.

“Perhaps the worst example is the country in which we are now, France,” he continued.

“France, only this year, passed a law prescribing a description of the killing of Armenians in 1915 backed up by criminal penalties.

“Furthermore, people have been prosecuted for the careless use of a word such as ‘debate’ to refer to an historical event,” Mr Brons added, referring to a leading French Front National figure, Bruno Gollnisch, who made that remark about the Holocaust.

“It really doesn’t matter whether or not one dishonest document is judged by the standards of another dishonest document,” Mr Brons continued, referring to the European Union with its document, the Charter of Fundamental Rights: and the Council of Europe with its document, the European Convention on Human Rights.

Speaking later, Mr Brons explained further: “The issue here is whether or not one organisation, the European Union, complies with its obligation under Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty, and becomes a member of the second organisation, the Council of Europe, and thereby signs up to the Council of Europe’s document, the European Convention on Human Rights.

“When the European Union signs up to the Council of Europe and to its European Convention on Human Rights, there might be a succession of ‘compatibility’ court rulings.

“It might have to be decided whether the national law of a member country is consistent with EU law (if the national law is within an area of EU competence); or it might have to be decided (ultimately by the EU’s Court of Justice) whether the EU law is consistent with the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

“It might hen have to be decided whether the judgment of the EU’s Court of Justice and the (EU’s) Charter of Fundamental Rights are consistent with the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights,” Mr Brons said, pointing out that it was all very confusing.