UK and the EU: Civitas Think Tank Admits That Nationalists Were Right

Britain and the EU: Civitas Think Tank Admits That Nationalists Were Right All Along

Posted at BNP Ideas

In a confession that nationalists were right all along, the influential Civitas think tank has called for Britain to leave the European Union.

In a statement issued to mark the release of a new study paper, Time to Say No, Civitas said that Britain’s continued membership of the EU “holds back [the UK’s] economic recovery.”

The statement said that “Britain must plan exit strategy from failing EU, but should keep trade links” — exactly as nationalists have argued all along.

“As Europe’s leaders gamble their nations’ finances on saving the Euro, a new Civitas report reveals that the European Union is damaging Britain’s economic recovery and sapping job growth. Time to Say No, by Ian Milne, shows that a break with the EU need not represent a drastic break with Europe itself,” the statement continued.

“Instead, it will permit a pragmatic reform of trade and immigration relations. Existing international institutions can achieve this without the current burdens of bureaucracy in the EU. It will also revive democracy at home.”

The report argues that the British must rejoin the 95% of the global population that remain in countries outside the EU, such as the British Commonwealth nations. These countries have far better prospects for growth in the 21st century than many of the tired economies of mainland Europe.

“The EU is in long-term structural demographic and economic decline. It also costs a fortune to belong to. UK withdrawal would result in the British people rejoining the 95 per cent of the world’s population who live in self-governing states and successfully trade with each other-and with the EU-multilaterally,” the new report said.

The report sets out a timetable for an orderly withdrawal from the European Union which begins in June 2014, following a national referendum on membership of the EU.

“After receiving the mandate to return to full sovereignty, the British Government would gradually reduce its contributions to the EU budget over a 24-month period. Milne proposes the temporary creation of a Ministry of EU Transitional Arrangements (META) to manage the process from beginning to end, ensuring that government departments are equipped to take over EU functions,” the report continues.

“From June 2014, disputes between the European Court of Justice and British law would be mediated using an international dispute settlement procedure. At the end of the withdrawal process in 2016, British laws based on EU regulations would remain in place but could be repealed at the will of Parliament.”

According to the Civitas plan, by June 2016, the UK would:

* cease all involvement in the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies

* regain control of immigration policy and be able to secure its borders on its own terms

* cease to be regulated by EU trading regulations but continue trading with the EU-26 using rules already set down in WTO, UN, NATO, OECD agreements and other relevant treaties [pp. 20-21]

Milne sets out a number of alternative arrangements that would allow Britain to continue to co-operate in trade with the EU but on a more equal footing. They include:

* The ‘Norwegian option’. Under this proposal, Britain remains a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which provides for an internal European market but does require adherence to some labour laws, consumer protection and health and safety legislation. Crucially, EEA members make a substantially smaller contribution to European organisations than full EU members:

In 2009 this was seven times smaller, per capita, than the UK gross contribution to “Brussels,” the report says.

Norway is the 7th most prosperous country per head in the world.

* The ‘Swiss option’. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but remains outside both the EEA and the EU. By making only bi-lateral trade agreements, it retains full control over all regulations covered by Swiss-EU FTAs, which can be cancelled at any time. Britain could do the same. This is not an inferior trading relationship but merely one that avoids giving excessive powers to Brussels:

Switzerland [exports to the EU] about three times more goods per capita than the UK.

Switzerland is the 17th most prosperous country per head (the UK ranks 37th).

* Unilateral Free Trade and renewed focus on the Commonwealth. Milne explains there is nothing holding Britain back from establishing an ordinary and productive trading relationship with the EU without an explicit treaty:

“On withdrawal, the EU would continue to trade with the UK. EU-26′s biggest single customer worldwide is the UK, and EU-26 sells far more to the UK than it imports from the UK. Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate ‘free and fair trade’ with non-EU countries,” the report adds.

A looser framework would allow Britain to take the forward-looking approach of establishing closer trade relationships with the Commonwealth:

“In 2050, viewed from the UK, the rest of the Commonwealth will constitute a market nine times greater than that of Continental EU.”

As a result, there is nothing to fear, but a lot to gain, from re-establishing British sovereignty over the United Kingdom, the Civitas statement said.

Who and what is behind the Occupy Wall Street Campaign?

Who is behind the Occupy Wall Street Campaign?

Written by Green Arrow

By now, even the most dopiest of our fellow British Citizens will have been awoken to the fact that the Occupy Wall Street campaign has spread to over 100 countries and now arrived in London - which many knowledgeable people consider to be the heart of the NWO/Banksters evil empire. Now it is true, that the original campaign in Wall Street was kicked off by marxists but it also seemed that those original organisers had been supplanted by individuals and organisations that were genuinely patriotic and sickened by the excess of the Banksters but now I am not so sure. Now it seems that the reds have recognised the anger of the worlds people against these creatures who are intent on enslaving the world and moulding it into something that most people cannot even conceive of. Lenin knew that he did not need to have the political support of the masses to win control, all he needed was the dissatisfaction of those masses and they certainly are dissatisfied and angry. Now whist it is good to see that there are some people in the UK that are aware of the evil of the Banksters, I believe that those people are in the minority at these demonstrations and that the majority of the protesters seem to be made up of a mishmash of Anarchists, Marxists, Trotskyists, Stalinsts and every other ist under the sun, who have managed to harness the concern and fears of decent people. Now by all accounts, the patriotic American Tea Party seem to be gaining control over the protests in America and that is encouraging news and patriotic parties and organisations in the UK should try to do the same with what is happening outside the London Stock Exchange - we must not let the reds gain the upper hand because at the end of the day, communism is just as evil as what the world bankers have planned for us. Well take it away in the comment section and make Corsham really work. Thank you for the video Bertie. For constant updates on what is happening around the world and live data feeds and comments please go here.

David Cameron’s curious Love affair with Homosexuals

David Cameron’s curious Love affair with Homosexuals

Written by Tim Heydon

October 2011

Cameron thinks that Homosexuality is ‘Normal’ What is it with David Cameron and homosexuality? He is really pushing it, isn’t he? Cameron has said that being homosexual is ‘normal’. Most people though continue to think that being homosexual is to be ‘queer,’ ie not normal at all. Homosexuality might be normal in the sense that it is normally to be found in a given population. But then you could say the same about any number of sexual aberrations, including paedophilia. (Homosexuals and paedophiles claim they can’t help it. So should paedophiles get the same favourable treatment claimed by homosexuals on that basis? Watch this space…) Cameron Backs the Right of Homosexuals to Adopt Cameron has also backed the right of gays to adopt. If you believe that homosexuality is normal and to be treated on a par with heterosexuality, that is indeed a natural position to take. But homosexuality plainly isn’t normal, at least in the sense that most people understand the word. It clearly involves a fundamentally disordered psychosexual wiring. Feelings of Repulsion are Normal Whether Cameron likes it or not, the feelings of repulsion that most people have towards homosexual behaviour (If not homosexuals) most of the time are always going to exist, whatever people like him might say. That’s because while no doubt socially reinforced at times, it seems axiomatic that they are not ‘learned’ and so merely ‘bigoted’ but fundamentally instinctive and as much a part of what it is to be human as breathing. Heterosexuals can’t help their repulsion any more than homosexuals say they can’t help themselves and claim favourable treatment on that basis. Heteros can’t help their Repulsion. Axiomatic because if most people didn’t have the feelings of repulsion that they normally do feel towards homosexual behaviour most of the time, we would surely all be at it. This would be inefficient in the business of getting and raising of children. So nature has arranged for these feelings of repulsion to arise in the human animal when homosexual activity looms in order to dissuade us from engaging in this time and energy – wasting activity. To allow the bringing up of children in an atmosphere where the ‘parents’ behaviour is viewed with so much distaste and always will be – overtly or covertly, even at some level by most of those who profess otherwise - this is genuine child abuse. So too is the strong possibility that such an upbringing will militate against a human’s primary purpose as an animal: to propagate its genes by having offspring of its own. Cutting Aid to 93 countries which discriminate against Homosexuals? Then we heard that those countries which ‘persecute’ homosexuals will have their foreign aid subventions curtailed. There are 93 countries in which homosexuality is punished, in many of them for islamic reasons. From Wikipedia we learn ‘Eminent scholars of Islam, such as Sheikh ul-Islam Imam Malik, and Imam Shafi amongst others, ruled that Islam disallowed homosexuality and ordained capital punishment for a person guilty of it.[1] Homosexual activity is a crime and forbidden in most Muslim-majority countries’. In seven of them homosexual acts can attract the death penalty: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Nigeria and Mauritania. Is Cameron seriously going to get up the noses of all 93 never mind the 7?? Not that the oil-rich Saudis or the UAE are going to miss our aid money - it is quite possible in view of Cameron’s largess with our cash that we are giving it to them. No, we need the Saudis more than they need us. In any case, we should mind our own business when it comes to the internal affairs of other countries - and keep our aid money to ourselves. Gay Marriage - A Step too Far At the Conservative Party conference, Cameron announced that he backed Homosexual ‘marriages’. It’s ‘because I am a Conservative’, he said. That should interest many in the Tory Party. If backing Gay ‘marriages’ is part of Conservative Party Doctrine, perhaps these people should continue to ‘consider their position’ as the phrase has it. They want to Destroy Marriage. And Cameron is helping them. How ‘Conservative’ is that? One of the superficially strange aspects of present-day Britain is the way in which some of those who seek to destroy marriage, seeing it as an arena of male ‘oppression’, the means by which traditional values incommensurate with cultural Marxism are passed from generation to generation and a barrier between the individual and the power of the state, are nevertheless eager for homosexuals to have the ability to acquire the legal status of marriage for their relationships as if it were something to be prized. This apparently schizophrenic attitude is in fact all of a piece. On the one hand there is the leftist ideology of statism and ‘equality’ of treatment which is hostile to marriage for the reasons noted above. On the other is the use of the law to undermine the institutions of society in line with this ideology to impose equality by attempting to abolish or ignore the facts of life, such as the differences between men and women. Marriage is to be weakened by obliterating its fundamental character: as a contract between a man and woman for the getting and raising of children with all the responsibilities and costs which that involves even when, as with Paul MacCartney’s recent wedding, there is no real chance of children. The Overriding Consideration is Love? No, it’s Sex It is argued by many who advocate homosexual ‘marriage’, including Christian leaders, that the overriding consideration ought to be love. If two people love each other, it is said, it doesn’t then matter if they are same-sex or not. This argument is fallacious. It is not love which is the determining factor for those who advocate homosexual ‘marriage’ in the search for equality: It is sex. If it were love, why should not (say) brothers & sisters, parents and children or two heterosexual but same sex friends who love each other but not in a sexual way and who live together, ‘marry’ and acquire the legal benefits of the married state? If it’s Sex, why just Homosexuality? So it is sex that is the determining factor. But again, if it is, why should it focus in the way that it does on homosexuality? Why should not (for example) an incestuous relationship between a son and his sister or sexual relations between either of them and a parent not then be dignified by ‘marriage’? The philosopher Peter Singer, highly influential on left / liberal thinking, has argued for the equality of human beings and animals (‘All Animals are Equal’. Animal Rights and Obligations, New Jersey 1989 pp 148-162). He has urged the correctness of humans engaging in sexual relations with chimpanzees. So, continuing to pursue this line of thought, why not then ‘marriage’ between a man and his sheep? Or between a woman and her Labrador? And so on. After all, such relationships would arguably be no more and in some cases possibly less unnatural and repulsive to ordinary humans than homosexual relationships. If it is then said that that the determining factor ought to be not sex or love but both sex and love, ie sexual love, the question arises, ‘Why?’ Why should sexual love be thought of as something special and to be favoured over the non–sexual loving relationships already mentioned? There can be no reasonable answer to that. In any case the ready response of those who indulge in perverse sexual relationships other than homosexuality might say that they do indeed love their ‘partners’. And that this is true even in cases of bestiality. If animals seem actually to enjoy these relationships (and some of them give every indication that they do), what possible argument can there be against them? The Slippery Slope to the Pits We see how once the principle of exclusively male / female marriage is broken on the grounds of the pernicious doctrine of equality at all costs, an extremely slippery slope presents itself which is likely to end in the total debasement of relationships where human worth is levelled down to that of animals, thus destroying not just sexual morality but civilised living itself. Homosexual legal arrangements can never be the moral equivalents of heterosexual marriages because they lack the fundamental moral basis of marriage noted above. Heterosexual marriage which exists primarily for the continuance of society brings together difference and makes a whole which is greater than its parts. ‘Marriage’ between two partners of the same sex brings no such benefits and is apt only to weaken society. It is a perverse travesty of the real thing Who is Cameron trying to Impress ? A Headline in the Daily Mail of 23 September 2011 read, ‘Most Britons still oppose gay marriage.’ The story, quoting results from the Office of National Statistics went on, ‘And they oppose the adoption of children by same sex partner’ more than half the population is against gay marriages and more than two third are opposed to gay adoption. People rightly sympathise with Homosexuals and see their condition as an unfortunate affliction but there are limits to their sympathy. So who is Cameron trying to impress? It can’t be the people of the country (what do they matter). No, it can only be the people who really matter; the Guardianistas in the Political Class; those who control the BBC and the other instruments of ‘opinion formation’ ie oppression of the people. Or does Cameron have other considerations also?

It Should Be the Public Interest, Not the Corporate World’s, That Matters

It’s the Public Interest, Not the Corporate World’s, That Matters

Posted at BNP Ideas Oct 2011

By Clive Wakely.

The European Union’s bias in favour purveyors and against the public interest with respect of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is yet another reason why this country needs to quit that globalist steppingstone to world government.

Who can doubt that the EU’s policy with regards to environmental protection, public health, informed consumer choice and transparency, favours the international biotech industry?

This is something which is not surprising, considering the extent of lobbying undertaken at the behest of the producers by politicians (including diplomats) and the sums of money said to change hands.

Money, as they say, makes the world go round. “Brown envelopes” (or the globalist equivalent) makes the world go round that little bit faster, regardless of the consequences for either mankind or the environment.

Over the past few months, there has been increased conflict within the EU between those who seek to promote GMOs (on humanitarian grounds, you understand – we can’t let the Third World starve) and those who are determined that the precautionary principle be rigorous applied.

This site recently reported on both the anti-GMO pronouncements of one senior Polish politician and the European Court’s sensational (but commonsense) ruling requiring that GMO-contaminated honey be labelled as such.

As the GMO issue rises in prominence, it has required legislators to take a stand on the issue. Either they accept the international biotech industry’s line (that GMOs are good for mankind), or they side with commonsense and the anti-GMO lobby.

Generally speaking, up until now, the EU has favoured the corporate (largely American) interest over (European) public interest, justifying their decisions on the basis of advice proffered by “independent” leaned and expert bodies—which are often funded by the international biotech industry corporations whose products are under evaluation.

The EU, apparently, sees no conflict of interest between those they engage to carry out GMO product evaluation and those elements of the international biotech industry that provide the funding. There have been a number of cases where scientists and laboratories who have expressed themselves in favour of GMO implementation, have been subsequently exposed as being in receipt of biotech industry funding.

It is also often claimed that the evaluation process lacks transparency (now that is something rare in the EU!) and as a result, the basis of all deliberations and findings are unverifiable.

Ultimately it is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that is responsible for taking a stance on potential GMO risks insofar as they relate to public health and the environment.

This body has always found in favour of the GMOs it has evaluated. This is perhaps not surprising when investigations and research have raised doubts concerning this body’s impartiality.

The EFSA’s current GMO licensing procedures actually frustrate (some prefer to use the word “prevents”) truly independent scientific community from verifying their conclusions.

Most alarming of all is that the EFSA has itself declared that it is incapable of evaluating the long-term environmental impact of GMOs.

How this licensing body can give the green light to a product on the basis that it appears to be safe, while simultaneously admitting that it has no idea as to what the long term impact may be, is as baffling as it is irresponsible.

This has proved good news for the international biotech industry, not least because of its previous declared refusal to accept culpability for any “unintended consequences” arising from the use of its products – a declaration that Washington, apparently, endorses.

Perhaps an even bigger indictment of the EFSA is its refusal, on occasion, to respond to appeals by national authorities to consider specific risks pertaining to GMOs.

However it is not all bad news.

In response to growing public anxiety over GMOs, a recent EU regulation gave member states the right to prohibit or limit their cultivation and dissemination.

Unfortunately this is a right that will undoubtedly be influenced by the strength of the relationship between legislators in individual EU-states and the pro-GMO lobby, as recently demonstrated in Bulgaria, where American diplomats were said to be involved.

As GMO pollution recognizes no national boundaries – GM pollen, after all, goes where the wind carries it – it is clear that there has to be a coherent and uniformly enforced EU-wide policy towards GMOs.

Until such times as the international biotech industry can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their products are at least environmentally neutral and pose no threat to public health, then they should not be licensed to be grown within the EU.

The first duty of all EU legislators is to the people they represent, particularly where public health is concerned.

To place corporate interest before public interest is not only a breach of trust but an act demonstrating the perpetrators’ unfitness for public office.

The covert and overt lobbying of the international biotech industry within the EU should be outlawed. Those out to enrich themselves at a potential cost to both the environment and public health, should be removed from public office.

The Sad Tale of the Gay Witches

By Southwest Nationalist.

Hysteria continues as an early learning consultant, Anne O’Connor, who advises authorities on equality and diversity, decides witches wearing black could lead to racism.

It sends a hidden message, giving children a negative attitude about dark colours, which may well lead to racism apparently.

Instead of black, witches should now wear pink. She didn’t think that one through, may well cause negative perceptions of the gay community perhaps?

Cutesy fairies, traditionally clad in whites and paler colours, should now wear darker clothes.

Get this as well, when a teacher is asked their favourite colour, in the interests of good race relations they should be prepared to be economical with the truth – aka lie – and answer black or brown. Best not tell the truth if their favourite colour is white, the PC Gestapo will be there in a shot.

Also gone should be white paper, children need a range of paper and crayons that reflect the diversity of the human race.

What next? Shall we start adding colouring to their milk so that it is black, or give them brown apples in case they feel unable to identify with green? Come on, this is so crazy it would be laughable if it wasn’t our kids being forced to endure it.

Seemingly it is all part of some “anti-bias” approach to young children, involving staff ‘helping’ them to avoid racial bias which can manifest from the age of 2, and which staff have then have to ‘help’ them unlearn.

Sounds exactly like brainwashing to me.

It’s bad enough there is such hysteria and insane dogma to begin with, but attempting to inflict the madness upon our children is a step too far, made even worse by the fact that authorities seemingly listen to such twaddle.

Our kids should not be pawns in some maniac crusade of political correctness and social engineering, they shouldn’t be brainwashed into being the neurotic, equality obsessed standard bearers of a crazed ideology.

It’s these so called experts, obsessed with seeing race in everything, who need re-educating, not the children.

We’re turning into some sterile and barren mass in the quest to become equal, a smothering insanity which aims to stifle all free thought and all difference.

It’s not equality anyway, it cannot be true racial equality in the way its proponents would have us believe if it insists on promoting one colour over another.

Equality carried to its logical conclusion would leave nothing but shades of grey, but the so called equality being forced upon Britain is simply an inequality where all other colours than white must be shown in a positive light.

Society truly has gone insane.

The Demise of the Good Father

from British Freedom

Latest News from British Freedom

The Demise of the Good Father

Posted by: George Whale

By Rebecca Bynum

Until very recently, the role of father was one of great respect in our culture and the image of the good father was a source of societal integration or at least one of widespread social agreement. Mass entertainment, including movies and television, generally supported the idea that to aspire to being a good father, was something noble as well as commonplace and accessible. The father was loved, trusted and revered. The image of the good father was everywhere.

On television we had Father Knows Best, My Three Sons, Make Room For Daddy, Leave It To Beaver, Bonanza and so on. In movies the quintessential good father was often played by Gregory Peck (The Yearling [photo above], To Kill a Mockingbird), but the good father was also found in Westerns (Van Heflin in Shane, Jimmy Stewart in Shenandoah). This began to change during the sixties when, in situation comedies on television, the father of the family became the butt of jokes (Archie Bunker) and this trend has continued ever since with a brief revival of the good father in the 1980s with The Cosby Show. All the while, the image of the bad father was becoming more commonplace (Married with Children) even if it was quite shocking at first (Christopher Walken in At Close Range).

Ed O’Neill as Al Bundy in Married with Children

Today, fathers, like priests, are automatically suspect. Casey Anthony was able to make an allegation of sexual abuse against her father (with no substantiating evidence) and was believed, at least to some extent, by the jury during her murder trial because suspicion of fathers is at an all time high. From Oprah Winfrey’s repressed memories to Kathryn Harrison’s The Kiss to crime dramas in which the innocent-seeming father is often revealed to be the villain, all these images combine to undermine our trust in fathers. Underneath all this is the loss of faith in the ultimate Father, God, and a loss of trust in God’s fatherly nature which was once taken as self-evident. God-knowing souls throughout the ages have repeatedly confirmed that God is not simply like a father, but acts consistently as a father, a good father, even a perfect father in the lives of the faithful.

Common religious understanding allows that the Heavenly Father bids his children to come to him and provides everything needful for us to do so in complete freedom. I think it is safe to say that coercion has no part in our understanding of the divine plan; and in fact, the existence of forced conformity in any belief system may be seen as evidence of its falsity. In truth, we are free at every stage to accept or reject the Father’s leading, in all or in part, to roam away or to return. Every moral decision we make either advances or retards our progress. Human beings may indulge in acts of coercion or forcing conformity on their brethren, but the divine being never does this. The good father respects the free will of his children for the value of our love for him lies in the very freedom of its bestowal. Love is reduced to nothing if it is not freely given.

It is fashionable today to cite the very fact of our freedom as proof of God’s malevolence. (And if God is malevolent, then it becomes incumbent on us to reject him.) The thinking goes that if God loved us, he would not allow the natural outworking that often results from our own free choosing – cruelty, violence, destruction and death. The fact that God allows evil to temporarily flourish, does not mean he creates evil unless our philosophy rejects the idea of free will. For in order to save us from ourselves, the Father would be forced to remove our free will which is the very purpose of our creation, the very thing which makes us valuable and which makes life valuable to us. The fact that God allows the temporary manifestation of evil as the natural result of human freedom, does not mean God is evil.

The question then becomes, would there be value inherent in the life of a will-less computer-minded robot whose value is found only in its function as a cog in the wheel of divine will? An example of this thinking is found in Islam where a man’s value is measured by his conformity to, and function within, the Islamic system. The individual human being has no intrinsic value in himself = the individual is sacrficed to the system. In Islam, Allah may be described as a king or a judge, but he cannot be described as a father, much less a good father.

Faith is rightly defined as trust in God. Implicit in this is not only the idea that God is good, but that God is knowable. One cannot develop trust in an unknowable being. Faith may also be defined as having the belief in one’s own ability to know God. If a person doesn’t believe he can know God, he can have no relationship with God and can therefore never develop faith in God. In Islam God is defined as thoroughly transcendent and unknowable, therefore Islam itself cannot properly be defined as a “faith” in the Western sense of the word.

Faith is the knowledge that God is a father who is properly trusted by his children to lead them from darkness to light, from unknowing animal fear to the peace and security which comes with accepting divine love and trusting in the Father’s goodness, and trusting that his truth, beauty and goodness may be known through experience. Speaking of faith, reason and the Islamic position that God is unknowable, Pope Benedict XVI said:

“In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul, “worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason.” (cf. Rom 12:1) [1].

By constructing an impenetrable wall between man and God, Islam does not increase the divinity of God, but rather dissevers God from his nature (Truth, Beauty and Goodness) and from the reality of man’s experience of God, thus enabling the substitution of the dead law of Islam for the individual experience of God’s love and the individual discovery of his will as greater than our own.

That image of the good father has been a major source of societal integration in the West and yet that image has all but disappeared in the modern world. With what, then, will it be replaced?

——————————————–

[1] Speech at the University of Regensburg Germany, September 12, 2006.

–§–

Rebecca Bynum is an American writer, political analyst and researcher. She currently serves as publisher and senior managing editor for New English Review, and as secretary of the World Encounter Institute. She was formerly a board member and news editor of Jihad Watch.

The Art of Deception

The Art of Deception

Written by The Pilgrim

October 2011

We are surrounded by deception. It can take various forms. Dishonesty is one form, another is concealing facts. When the murder of British citizens by immigrants is reported only in local or maybe regional newspapers, then that is a form of deception. It is only when such murders are reported nationally that the British people begin to realise the grim truth. Sometimes deception can be innocent. This occurred to me when I read about a BBC radio bulletin from 1926. It was a carefully rehearsed spoof news broadcast, which claimed that Britain was in the grip of a Bolshevik revolution. Nevertheless, many people thought it was a genuine news report. A similar situation arose in the USA in 1938, when a radio dramatisation of the novel The War of the Worlds by the British author H G Wells took the form of a simulated news bulletin. The result was widespread panic, followed by a mixture of relief and anger when people realised it was all a spoof. H G Wells had a flair for deception. He discovered that many people would believe a story to be true if it were written in a matter-of-fact way. Perhaps his most mischievous example of this was the short story The Sea Raiders. Take a moment to read it; it isn’t very long. In case marine biology is not your strong point, a cephalopod is any creature of a class which includes octopi and squid, and a cachalot is a sperm whale. If you find this impressive, remember that it is entirely innocent. Wells did not have some grand plan for brainwashing people into believing in non-existent sea monsters. Unfortunately many people nowadays do have grand plans, and we need to be on our guard. The 1995 film Toy Story was an innocent frolic, and introduced millions of people to the wonders of computer animation. However computer animation is a powerful weapon in the war of ideas. Surprising as it may seem, the murder of British student Meredith Kercher was reported as far afield as Taiwan, where one television company went so far as to make a short animated film about it. Take a look. The animation begins at around the twenty second mark. Did you spot the mistakes? The first scene shows Amanda Knox enjoying a drink with Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede in the apartment she shared with Meredith Kercher. If we overlook the facts that Knox and Sollecito deny having been in the apartment on the evening of the murder and that Sollecito denies ever having known Rudy Guede, then the fact remains that they are shown sitting on a three-seater sofa, whereas the apartment had only a two-seater sofa. Try watching it a second time, but first take a look at this detailed plan of the apartment. The next scene is in Meredith’s bedroom, and shows an alleged altercation leading to the murder. The room is shown incorrectly, and that’s putting it mildly. For example, the door is shown in the centre of the wall, and adjacent to a wardrobe. The door was actually in the corner of the room, and the wardrobe was in the opposite corner. The third scene is in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli, which is also shown incorrectly. The fourth scene shows Sollecito and Guede breaking the window of Filomena’s bedroom from the outside, and this is so inaccurate as to make me wonder if the people who made the film did any research whatever. The house in question (number 7 Via della Pergola) is set into a steep hillside, and the window is a long way above ground level. Also, the doors to the left hand side and the bay window to the right hand side are imaginary. I have no doubt however that a lot of Taiwanese people who saw this film when it was first broadcast believed that it depicted what actually happened on that fateful night. I am not suggesting that the people who made this film deliberately intended to misrepresent what happened, but that is not really the point. The point is that computer animation can be used to misrepresent actual events, and that can easily be misused for propaganda purposes. Suppose for example that this animated film had shown Guede as a white man instead of a black man. On a positive note, computer animation is not the hardest skill to master, and the software can be purchased easily at no great cost. Maybe it is time that people in the nationalist community began to look into the possibilities afforded by computer animation. In the right hands it can be used to educate and inspire, rather than to deceive.

Intelligent Response to Cameron's October (2011) Immigration Speech

Response to Cameron's October (2011) Immigration Speech

From: Dr Frank Ellis To: Mr David Cameron, Prime Minister MP Date: 12th October 2011 A.D. Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech on Immigration delivered to the Institute of Government 10th October 2011 Dear Mr Cameron Mass immigration is not a natural disaster akin to some tsunami, drought or earthquake that periodically and unpredictably overwhelms a country. Mass immigration is a purely man-made phenomenon which is encouraged openly or covertly by people who benefit from it economically or by people who for ideological reasons wish to see England looking like some failed Third-World state, Pakistan, for example. Mass immigration, especially mass non-white immigration, poses real dangers for the future of England. The idea that England can survive the mass, continual influx of hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants is hideously naïve. As the white indigenous people of England are relentlessly displaced by the rapid and aggressive breeding of non-whites, the whole texture and nature of our towns and cities will be changed forever, is already changing, and, in some places, Bradford, Birmingham, whole swathes of London, have already changed for the worse. I do not regard these huge, unprecedented changes, changes which were imposed on the white indigenous English without any consultation or any regard for England’s future, with no regard for the links to our past and heritage, as in any way beneficial. In every possible regard they are disastrous. As I have made clear to you before the changes brought about by mass, non-white immigration represent the racial, cultural, physical and psychological dispossession of the white indigenous English. In what way, pray tell, do the indigenous English, especially those left in London, benefit from having their capital, my capital, overrun with non-whites? The short answer is that they do not benefit from being overrun by non-whites. They suffer from overcrowding, reduced quality in public services, noise, freakish behaviour, poor education provision as a consequence of schools overrun with immigrants, exceptionally high levels of crime and corruption and high taxes to pay for foreigners. Moreover, they are daily bombarded with BBC and other state-sponsored propaganda that they should actually be grateful for all these non-white immigrants being here. Furthermore, should the white indigenous English protest about what is happening to their country, they will be vilified as something monstrous when in fact their opposition to being dispossessed is entirely rational and moral, in every way normal. What is not normal, what is perverse, what is most decidedly unnatural is that white politicians such as you Mr Cameron are actively encouraging hordes of non-whites currently resident in England, and others swarming across our borders, to overwhelm our country. Mass, non-white immigration has not delivered a single benefit at all to the white indigenous English. Your portrayal of the immigration debate as one dominated by extremes is itself extreme (and wrong) and designed to show you as the conciliator, the moderate with sensible proposals when in fact you have a long record of colluding with those who have sponsored mass non-white immigration. Some form of immigration subject to exceptionally tough controls is acceptable but the numbers involved should be very small indeed and it should be made clear that employment in England does not in any way imply a right to permanent residence. There are absolutely no benefits to be derived from the mass influx of unemployable Third-World immigrants. One of the main problems, especially with regard to Indian and Pakistani immigrants is the reliability of any qualifications. In the NHS this can literally be a matter of life and death or lead to operations which are bungled because they are carried out by incompetents. Remember Daniel Ubani, the Nigerian with a German passport? Ever heard of the Indian, Manjit Bhamra? One of the weak links in your immigration proposal is that you show no understanding of the race factor. Race and race differences matter and they cannot be made not to matter by government diktat. Nor can endless race relations laws and amendments deny the basic consequences of race and race differences. Large numbers of non-whites in a white country will always be a permanent source of tension and very often violence. We see the evidence for this all over the world. That for most of her history our England has been racially homogenous has been a great blessing. Racial diversity is a curse. As the number of non-whites increases, as it has done grotesquely over the last 30 years, so the racial, social and economic stresses become ever harder to hide or to deny. Blacks engaging in looting and rapine are just obvious and visible examples of how mass, non-white immigration has failed and how the white population bears the costs, economic, cultural and psychological. Immigration is not just about the on-going immigrant threat to England it must also face the problem of those who have come here in large numbers and who have managed to secure a British passport. They have come here and wish to stay because they enjoy a standard of living in a First-World economy that would be impossible in Pakistan or Africa. If the numbers involved were exiguous and all further non-white immigration was almost impossible except for a highly-qualified and suitable few then all the legitimate fears and worries about immigration would disappear. That the rational, logical, healthy and morally reasonable fears of the white English indigenous people with regard to mass, non-white immigration show no sign whatsoever of abating is because the problems associated with mass, non-white immigration – crime, corruption, child abuse, depraved honour killings and forced marriages violence, physical dispossession and overcrowding/overpopulation – are getting worse. On these trends the English will be reduced to a racial minority in their own country some time in this century. Do you really want that outcome for your children Mr Cameron? Immigration policy must therefore deal with two problems: one immediate; the other long term. The threat posed to England by mass, non-white immigration is largely a consequence of immigrants exploiting legal instruments which oblige us to accept them. The obvious first step is to rescind all legislation that prevents or hinders the expulsion of immigrants. Your view, Mr Cameron, that ‘Britain will always be open to those who are seeking asylum from persecution’ is an outrageous proposition and one that has done so much to make it possible for immigrants to enter England under false pretences. It leaves us permanently vulnerable to events in other parts of the world over which we have no control but which when they lead to political collapse mean that we are obliged to permit hordes of so-called asylum seekers (criminals and illegal immigrants) to enter England and “enrich” us. This is something that must change if we are to have any chance of saving England. Leaving the EU must also be a very high priority. The immediate problem is to prevent all further immigration. It must be a matter of the highest priority to hunt down, round up and to deport all illegal immigrants. If they have assets these can be seized to cover the costs of deportation. The next step is make it clear to non-whites currently resident in this country, especially blacks, that they shall not be permitted to enjoy any special status merely because they are non-whites. If large numbers of blacks are incarcerated, having been subjected to the due process of English law then that must be seen as an indication of a black predisposition to commit crime not some insidious racist plot as in the Marxist slander of institutional racism. Again, black educational failure reflects low mean black IQ – well documented – not a white conspiracy. Blacks will have to learn to live with their limitations. Whites are not responsible for black failure and the psychological terror aimed at whites, often by other whites, to make white society feel guilty for black failure should be dismissed out of hand. The next step is to recognise that the welfare state has created a massive parasitic underclass. People who refuse to provide services in return for welfare handouts should be denied any money at all and housed in government hostels where they will receive basic survival provision and no more. This means a bed, basic food and a roof. For those who show willing there will be firmness but fairness and maybe at times some warmth. Those that riot can expect ruthless counter measures to restore order and discipline. Respect, dignity, status, self-esteem, a sense of achievement cannot be donated by charity: they have to be earned. The only politician in England who grasps these facts of life is Frank Field, a very honourable and decent man. Other measures some of which I noted earlier this year can also be taken. First, long term, every effort must be made to encourage large numbers of non-whites to return to their own countries. Generous financial benefits and inducements can be made to encourage repatriation. Second, under no circumstances must there ever be an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Third, under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom. Fourth, the provisions of Sharia are grossly incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of England and shall not be permitted. Fifth, family migration cannot be used as an excuse to bring relatives to this country. People who cannot bear to be separated from their families should not separate themselves from their wife (wives) in Pakistan. That these individuals are allegedly in search of a better life is an irrelevance, an emotional red herring, and imposes no obligation, moral or legal, on England to end this self-induced separation. When you say - ‘immigration is not just about people coming to live here for a while. Some will want to settle and then join us as fellow British citizens…’- you ignore one very important consideration. Do I, as a white Englishman, want these people to join me? What happens when I emphatically do not want these people to join me? How can millions of non-white immigrants just ‘join me’? The answer is they cannot and they must not be encouraged to believe that they are welcome to ‘join us’. I do not want to have to endure the psychologically distressing sight of English cities overrun with immigrants. And it is not just the cities that face invasion. The next attack wave to hit white England, currently being planned by your government, is the calculated destruction and concreting of the countryside, including the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks. The aim here is to impose thousands of non-white immigrants on areas which have so far escaped them. And when your party has managed to tear up the planning laws – not a perfect legal instrument by any means – and given the red light to rapacious developers, what will be the result? The result will be hundreds of thousands of shoddy, high-density, anti-social housing units in the countryside. For the first time there is now the real risk that mosques, hitherto confined to cities, will appear in the countryside. It is a truly dreadful thought. The long term problems will be racial tension, soaring council taxes, more crime, certainly more violent crime and Third-World squalor in England’s ancient shires. And when hordes of blacks imported to Ludlow, Ripon, and why not Witney, as part of government policy, start to engage in a bit of looting and violence, because that is what they do in the hood, the liberals will explain this degenerate behaviour as arising from a lack of opportunities for ‘young black people’ in a market town: the rioters were alienated and misunderstood; it’s not the fault of the ‘young black people’. The final result of permitting the developers to run riot and to build these shanty towns will be the destruction of a priceless asset. So Mr Cameron: it really is time to stop the talking, posing, the endless consulting and act. Yours sincerely Frank Ellis

Tescos, Hoodies, And Cultural Sensitivity

Posted at BNP Ideas on Oct 2011

By Southwest Nationalist. “My main gripe is that after removing my hood a woman I believe to be of Somalian descent, although I cannot confirm the nationality, entered the store with a garment wrapped entirely around her face, disabling clear visibility of any features or likeness” – Dominic Folwell after being asked to remove his hood at Tescos Express on Cathedral Walk, Bristol.

Of course, it’s one rule for one group, another rule for everyone else.

Tesco’s response to Mr Folwells complaint confirms it, with Customer Service Executive Fiona Black saying that “Although I do appreciate it may be infrequently, hoodies can act as a disguise in crime which is why we ask that they are removed so as to avoid the potential cause for alarm. It may appear to be inconsistent that we do not ask someone wearing a veil to take it off, but we wish to show sensitivity to the faith and culture of the individual concerned”.

That old chestnut sensitivity, how often is that one trotted out to excuse what is, in reality, discrimination given a positive sounding spin?

For the benefit of Tescos, we should also point out that numerous armed robberies and other crimes across the UK and the world by people wearing a burka/veil – the first to spring to mind is the robbery of Capri Jewellers in Bury, where one of a gang gained access by wearing a full veil which showed only his eyes.

Another is the knife wielding robber who was dubbed the ‘Burka Bandit’ after robbing several travel agents in Dunstable whilst wearing a burka as a disguise.

Or the case of Mustaf Jama, killer of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, who seemingly donned a burka as a disguise to evade security at Heathrow airport and flee to Somalia.

We speculated on South West Nationalists a few months ago that the burka could well become the new hoody for criminals everywhere – good old sensitivity gives a better than average chance of getting away with any crime, it’s not like the police will ask you to reveal your face unless they are already 100% certain and have you bang to rights anyway.

It’s a minefield for police, they’ll tread softly, officers on the beat know exactly what will happen if they get it wrong and force some innocent Muslim woman to yank off her veil in public/detain her so they can do it in private.

Hoodies can be a disguise, one has to agree with Tescos there. But, so can burkas. And, both can be intimidating, either for security reasons or simply because facial expressions are a fundamental part of social interaction in the West.

Sensitivity is that hideous word which hides hidden depths of meaning. We’ll not apply rules equally because we have to be sensitive to one group, we know if we tried applying the rules to that group there’d be an outcry, we are scared to go near in case accused of racism or intolerance or some other heinous crime.

In the Bristol case above, apparently the security guard who asked Dominic Folwell to take off the hoody has been removed from his job, seemingly over Mr Folwells claim of discrimination.

Am I the only one to feel sorry for the security guard, who was in a lose/lose situation? The outcome would have been the same if he’d asked the ‘Somalian’ woman to remove her facial coverings also, or refused her entry to the shop, you know store bosses would have hung him out to dry the moment that complaint about his ‘lack of sensitivity’ landed on their desk.

All could have been avoided if shops just had a clear policy – if we can’t see your face you don’t come in, or anything goes and it’s up to you. Anything else just panders to minority, and creates situations where discrimination is endorsed.

Dressing things up in the clothes – full faced veil? – called sensitivity doesn’t change the fact that what it really means is that some groups are exempt from rules which will apply to the rest of us, they receive a different and preferential treatment. How is that not discrimination?

Biased BBC Fantasy and the Balkanisation of Britain.

BBC Fantasy and the Balkanisation of Britain.

Written by Tim Heydon

We told them so One of the wonders of our present age is the mysterious manner in which Lefists / Liberals manage to cling on to their belief that mass immigration and multiracialism is working out just fine in our country. The races, they think, or wish us to think, are getting along swimmingly. Thus, as the captive audience of the BBC will be aware, this repository of the pure flame of Cultural Marxism has been running a ‘mixed race’ season presented by their tame Tamil frontsperson, George Alagaiah. Blacks and Asians were, it was indicated by a smiling George, interbreeding with whites in line with the apparent plan to extinguish the evil, hated white race from the face of the earth. ‘Race’ no longer matters much when it comes to picking a partner, indicated our George. Three Children from Three Racially Different Fathers As he said this, the cameras moved immediately to a woman who, we were told, had children by three different fathers, all of them of different races. This female, whose undiscriminating behaviour (in more ways than one) we were invited to approve of, was the very type of the post modern individual favoured by the BBC. ‘I teach my children different religions’ she said, as if the truth or otherwise of them was of no greater importance than who she copulated with. As none of the assorted fathers of these children was in evidence, we may hazard a well-educated guess that it is we the taxpayers who are funding this ‘single mother’s’ ‘lifestyle choice’, about which we are not allowed to be ‘judgemental’ and that it is because her priority is to keep the benefit money flowing that she is so careless as to who she allows herself to be impregnated by on such a regular basis. Phil Mitchell – Racist? Meanwhile back at that source of endless lies about the true nature of race relations and other PC matters in London, ’East Enders’, we were expected to believe that an individual like Phil Mitchell would be distressed by being called a ’racist’. Having lived with and around what might loosely be called East Enders for most of long life, your writer can vouch for the fact that most of them would be indifferent to such an appellation and many would consider it a badge of honour. The greater lie of course is that in the real world most of the Phil Mitchells and their families are living in places like Romford, Dagenham, Barking, Basildon, Southend, Waltham Cross and Enfield, having been ethnically cleansed from the East End by Labour’s housing policy which favoured immigrants. The truth though is that they would have left heavily immigrant areas anyway. There can be few real East Enders who would willingly want to live (for example) along the Mile End Road Aldgate or parts of the A12 into London, which might just as well be Karachi or some other sub-continental city. In the real World, London becomes Johannesburg The truth of race relations in London and elsewhere is to be found in the remarks of David Levin, the apparently Jewish Head Master of the prestigious City of London School. Levin said in a speech at the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference 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. A recent report found that schools in Manchester 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. 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’. The Balkanisation of London shows the Truth. London the Racial and Cultural Melting Pot is a Lie This Balkanisation of London and other cities shows quite clearly that the Left – Liberal dream of our country as a ‘melting pot’ churning out ‘coffee – coloured people by the score’ is a myth, notwithstanding some undoubted miscegenation, mainly among the white underclass. People prefer their own sort as they always have done and will do their best to live and work amongst them if they can manage it. No amount of leftist propaganda to the contrary from the BBC and other cultural Marxist organisations is going to change that, at least, not easily and not for a long, long time. In fact It is probable, if the model of other multiracial societies across the world is anything to go by that eventually Britain will arrange itself socially in the form of a racial hierarchy, split also geographically by race. Brazil: The Racial Social Hierarchy of the ‘Model Multiracial Society’ For example, Brazil is often held up by multiculti enthusiasts as the perfect example of a multiracial society, The Brazilian sociologist Gilberto Freyre said BBC fashion in 1945 (p9) that ‘race relations in Brazil are probably the nearest approach to paradise to be found anywhere in the world’. Other sociologists asserted that Brazil had ‘a non-racist national culture in which ‘racial democracy’ flourished (Winant 1990 p174). However subsequent UNESCO research ‘documented as never before the prevalence of racial discrimination’ (Winant 190 p175) and found that Afro-Brazilians remained overwhelmingly concentrated at the lowest economic level and that negative attitudes to a dark skin were widespread.’ A number of others have noted a socio-economic status hierarchy related to skin colour in Brazil, eg ‘lighter skin colour carries prestige’ (Banton 1967 p265) ‘the higher the job rank, the lighter the skin is likely to be ;’ (Sansone 2000 p152, ) etc etc. The Racial Nature of the Brazilian Socio- Economic is Reflected World- Wide. So why should Britain be different? The socio-economic racial gradation in Brazil reflects the gradation apparent just about everywhere and follows the average IQ gradient of the respective races (Lynn, The Global Bell Curve 2008 pp 63-81). East Orientals (In this case the Japanese) are at the top followed by Europeans, then Mulattos (including mestizos and Amerindians) with Blacks (as always) at the bottom. This is despite the fact that the Japanese arrived in Brazil as indentured farm labourers. ‘Within a generation most of them became owner farmers. They prospered because they were more than eight times as productive as their Brazilian counterparts…. In the second half of the twentieth century ‘Japanese vertical mobility was rapid and most were… able to rise into the middle class in both rural and urban areas,’ (Dwyer and Lovell 1990, p188) Whole cities in Brazil – where much of the increasing wealth of that country is produced – are now largely Japanese. The Moral Case for a Racially, Culturally and Religiously Homogenous State. The great damage done to our society by the influx of immigrants and the multiculturalisation that has followed it in terms of social disintegration and dislocation and the addition of a toxic racial dimension to the socio-economic hierarchies is a surely overwhelmingly powerful argument against these policies. The demonstrable fact that allowed freely to choose and having the financial ability, people will naturally sort themselves racially culturally and religiously in the way that they are doing in London and elsewhere and have done throughout history so far as can be determined, provides a most powerful and positive moral case for a racially, culturally and religiously homogenous state. The case for the division of Britain into ethnic states like the former Yugoslavia is a very strong one which may well be the eventual upshot of the stupid policies pursued by our representatives some time down the line. (The argument that ethnic states cause major wars died with nuclear weapons. In any case we have seen plenty of wars with no racial elements, have we not? ) For who is it who dares tell the population: You must live with these other people, whom you consider aliens, like it or not, because we think it's good for you? Who but an oppressor and a dictator?

Britain First - A personal invitation

Britain First - A personal invitation

Written by Paul Golding - Britain First

October 2011

Fellow Patriot, Are you, like me, heartbroken at the rapid decline of the British patriotic movement from a major political force to a disorganised, disintegrating wreck, plagued with scandals and corruption? Every single day there are more reasons to be heartbroken and worried for our children's future. Just recently, David Cameron signalled his support for the EU to become a 'United States of Europe'. This will bring an effective end to British sovereignty, freedom and independence...Britain would literally cease to exist! I have two great-grandfathers who fought in the Second World War, one was fighting at Dunkirk and the other fought in the Far East. Most British patriots have relatives who fought for Britain in the war. It was OUR families that defended this country! Think right now, about your own family members who braved bullets, bombs, tanks and planes for OUR country. Maybe it was your father, grandfather or great-grandfather? Did they fight for a 'United States of Europe'? No, they fought AGAINST a European super-state where Britain would be gobbled up and made into a subjugated province. When I look around my country today, I am terrified for my child's future, and I am sure you are too . This is why I decided to help launch the Britain First movement, and why I believe YOU, should join our organisation, before it is too late! If our own parents, grandparents and so on, some still with us, some not, were prepared to risk their lives for us, their children and descendents, then we also have a DUTY to future generations of our children and grandchildren. We cannot allow our country to become a multicultural province of an EU empire without fighting back against the traitor politicians. But what can we do ? Most patriotic organisations in Britain are either too small or so discredited and toxic with the public that they are effectively irrelevant. But there is a new, fresh and well-organised patriotic movement in Britain, one which is growing in strength every single day: it is called 'Britain First'. In the several months since we launched, Britain First has come from nothing to being a major organisation, with branches established around the country, a rapidly growing membership, and local meetings being held nationwide. A new movement for a new era...we CAN regain the initiative and begin the march to further successes! If you care about your country , you should join Britain First and as part of such a credible, honest and modern patriotic movement you can join the crusade to win our country back! Britain First intends to AVOID all the mistakes of the past that have traditionally held back our movement from mainstream success. Our future is in our hands, it is as simple as that. Britain First is a dynamic new movement of volunteers - we have no paid staff , all funds go straight into campaigns and activities. We ARE the only line of resistance remaining for our people - we cannot afford to turn our backs on our children's future! Why not join the growing legions of patriotic Britons taking a stand against the betrayal of our country by becoming a Britain First member? Standard membership is only £5 per month (standing order) or a £30 one-off payment. There are rates for unwaged, overseas and also a special Platinum membership. Britain First membership is open to everyone, both in the UK and abroad. By joining Britain First, you will engage with other patriots who care deeply about our country and take part in exciting, well organised and effective campaigns. Upon joining Britain First, you will receive a special Britain First membership card, an annual badge, regular campaign updates, a bi-monthly magazine, and discount entry to Britain First conferences and seminars. But most of all , by joining Britain First you are taking your rightful place in the 'shield wall' to defend this nation and our people. Yours sincerely Paul Golding Campaigns Coordinator PS: If you are unable to join Britain First because of a specific reason , please email me at info@britainfirst.org and let me know why. I look forward to hearing from you

British Taxpayers Will Have to Bail Out Banks Again

British Taxpayers Will Have to Bail Out Banks Again “Before End of the Year”

Posted bat BNP Ideas Oct 2011

British taxpayers will be called upon to bail out at least one High Street bank before the end of this year, a leading banking analyst has warned in the wake of the credit rating downgrade of 12 major banks and building societies.

Ralph Silva, of the Silva Research Network (SRN), famous for his analytical work on the BBC, CNN and financial networks, made the prediction after credit rating agency Moody’s lowered the ratings of Lloyds TSB Bank, Santander UK and Co-Operative Bank by one notch. The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Nationwide Building Society had their ratings lowered by two notches while seven smaller building societies had downgrades of between one and five notches.

The lowering of the credit rating means that Moody’s (a respected financial institution which analyses the ability of borrowers to repay their debts)believes it less likely that the government will bail out the banks should their financial situations worsen.

Mr Silva, however, was quoted in the media as saying that the downgrades were “an over-reaction,” and that the Government “will probably have to provide further support for RBS by the end of the year.”

The Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group are already 82 and 40 per cent owned by the UK government, which makes it even less likely that they will be bailed out once again should the need arise.

The Financial Times quoted an anonymous Treasury source as saying that the Government had already taken steps to inject more cash in to RBS to keep it afloat.

Earlier, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King announced that the current financial crisis was the worst the world had ever seen and was even more dangerous than the Great Depression. Simultaneously, the Bank of England announced that £75 billion more cash is to be pumped into the economy by means of Quantitative Easing (the modern equivalent of printing money).

It is likely that an impending default by the Greek government on its debt will further shake the international financial institutions. Even though Britain is not part of the eurozone, its crisis will affect this country, particularly through exposure to the euro via Ireland.

* The term “credit rating” as used by Moody’s is an assessment of an institution’s financial stability based on creditworthiness and its ability to repay debt. Ratings range from AAA, the safest, down to D. Ratings of BBB- or higher are considered safe.

Immigration Plays Havoc with NHS

Posted by BNP Ideas Oct 2011

The mass Third World invasion of Britain is playing havoc with the National Health Service’s General Practitioner records, with hundreds of thousands of vanished “patients” clogging up the system.

In London, which continues to be the epicentre of the invasion, figures produced by the BBC’s The Politics Show, revealed that there are at least one million “more” people registered with GPs than what the official population is estimated at.

The BBC incorrectly ascribes this to duplication, whereas in realty the extra numbers are more likely to be the result of faulty population estimates.

According to the BBC report, there are around nine million people registered with GPs in London. In July 2010, Greater London had an official population of 7,825,200. In 2009, it was estimated by the London School of Economics that there were at least one million illegal immigrants in Britain, most of them in the capital.

In addition, names are continually pruned off GP lists if they do not respond to two written requests by the practice. Poor English skills are often blamed for a failure to communicate with a surgery, but this only tells a part of the story.

In January 2010, the Tory-Lib-Dem government announced that NHS treatment would be available for failed asylum seekers “to ensure their human rights are honoured” even if they have not left the country.

Meanwhile, tuberculosis rates –caused directly by immigrants from the Third World have increased by 30 per cent last year, and the cost of translation services is proving crippling to many NHS trusts.

Would-be patients must wait seven weeks on average for a hospital bed and at any one time, up to half of all the NHS trusts are in the red.

The problem is exacerbated by government (Labour, Tory and Lib-Dems alike) policy which continually spends money on projects other than its own nation’s interests.

In Germany, by way of comparison, there are 20 intensive care beds for every 100,000 citizens. In Britain, it is three—the lowest ratio in Western Europe.

Yet still the ruling elite seek to invite ever-greater number of Third World immigrants into Britain. The unfolding disaster will only end when the scoundrels and crooks in Westminster are removed from office—by a nationalist government that puts the interests of the British people first.