British Gangs? Asian? Let's Be Honest and say the M(uslim) Word About Child Sex Grooming Gangs

British Gangs? Asian? Let's Be Honest and say the M(uslim) Word About Child Sex Grooming Gangs

Written by Southwest Nationalist

Some days (okay, all days) you really have to loathe the Daily Mail.  The effort on Nazir Afzal speaking about grooming gangs - and it can be partly attributed to his lamentable comments - is laughable.

You've just got to take a look at the URL and rss feed info to start with.

The URL is : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156296/British-gangs-raping-sexually-exploiting-vulnerable-white-young-girls-Asian-problem-Crown-prosecutor-admits.html

British gangs?  They are not British, a piece of paper slapped in their hands saying that they are does not make them so, and I think the vast majority of Britain would agree there.
They're Pakistani, Afghan, other nationalities, and almost all Muslim.

Nazir Afzal notes in that Mail article "that the perpetrators were Asian and the victims were not".

Not a mention is made - leaving a general race aside - of how many perpetrators were Muslim, and how many victims were not.

It's not Sikhs and Hindus out there in their thousands raping and abusing white girls, one can bloody well understand why they are annoyed that the "Asian" label is applied time after time.

Whether those Sikhs and Hindus should be here or not is another matter, we nationalists are at least honest and don't seek to tar them with a brush which they don't deserve.

Though, most of us writers, like myself, without huge salaries, expenses, and the resources of a national paper, end up stuck with having to say "Asian" because we aren't given the information from police and mass media to say otherwise.

We'd be jumped on if we said Muslim when someone wasn't, and that would be used to discredit us in the 99% of other cases where saying Muslim would be spot on.

We can reduce child sex grooming gangs to a simple sentence though : It's predominantly Muslim, and of those Muslims a very large amount are Pakistani.

As we saw looking towards Luton recently, Sikh's find their children a victim to Muslim grooming and sexual exploitation as well.

The media and officialdom just won't tell the truth though - it is about race, and it is about culture, but the primary common factor between offenders is religion.

The common factor with victims, most of whom are white, is that they do not belong to that religion.

That religion is Islam.

The press and officialdom now fasten on to the issues of race and culture - because they had no choice, the cat is out of the bag.  They aren't speaking now for our benefit, it's just because their backs were against the wall and they had to say something because the lie was unravelling.

However, it is partially a diversionary tactic.  Look at how many Muslims, Asians, and so on, are now trotted out to point out there is an "Asian" or a "cultural" or occasionally a "Pakistani" problem.

Many as there may be, none of them dare say the Islam word.

Some victims say it - one Toni-Marie Redfern, who gave evidence against Abid Mohammed Siddique and Mohammed Liaqat, who groomed white girls in Derby, commented that :

"I was a white girl who he wanted to control and prove that he could convert to Islam.  I saw him and the gang tell non-Muslim girls they were 'slags'.  I believe it was the religion and culture of these men that made them act like that."

It is about race.  It is about culture.  And it is about religion.

Victims are singled out because they don't belong to any of the same groups as the perpetrators, and then they are raped, and abused, and subjected to every indignity under the sun.

There is very much a 'superiority' aspect - those not of the race and religion are inferior, there to be used and abused.

Whilst the media and officialdom focuses on culture and race (or clamour to deny either plays a part as Keith Vaz has argued, or just attempt to avoid it altogether with idiotic statements like "most paedophiles are white" as many are wont to do), religion - Islam - and the role it plays, is utterly sidelined and ignored.

Perhaps instead of solely referring to offenders as "Asian", police and media should tell the truth and tell us all whether they are Muslim/non-Muslim.

That would surely open a few eyes.

But no, they'll ignore it, even now things are at boiling point they still seek sideshows of blaming a broader group such as "Asians", instead of daring to say the I(slam) or M(uslim) words.

Liberal democracy And its Failings

Liberal democracy

Jun  2012

by Brett Stevens.

Francis Fukuyama’s famous The End of History and the Last Man hypothesized that history had ended, meaning that human society was in the final stage of its evolution. That stage was something called liberal democracy.
Liberal democratic is democracy plus the application of the democratic principle to social questions. In all democracies, decisions are made by a vote by the population either as a whole or as selected groups. In liberal democracies, the principle of the equality of vote is extended to the population for all of its choices, something that James Kalb calls “equal validity.”
In a liberal democracy, all decisions are the same because all outcomes are guaranteed success by the social unit and the socialistic aspects of the society behind it. If you want to eat only bran and worship the gods of the pit, society will make it illegal to discriminate you — and if you’re dysfunctional, you’ll get a subsidy since you can’t work.
The furthest extremes of this notion are places like Canada and Sweden. They bend over backward to accomodate people’s odd lifestyle choices. Their overriding principle is total equality, between social classes, genders, races, ethnic groups, religions, even ability levels. They often give rewards not to the best person in any category, but to the person who achieved the result closest to the average.
Democracies are religious — no, fanatical, fundamentalist, extremist, delusional — about these ideas, because the one idea that holds liberal democracies together is that everyone is equal. Each person gets one vote equal to that of any other person, no matter if one person is retarded and the other a genius. Each person has the “right” (a concept not existing in nature) to pursue any lifestyle they choose, and have no natural or social consequences come crashing down on their heads.
Why this mania for equality? It is a form of entropy, where any decision is as good as any other. The presumption is that elimination of competition, hierarchy, stress, supremacy and even right answers makes everyone accepted and thus eliminates the strife that tears societies apart. This ignores the fact that most people when creating strife don’t care if it’s rational. They’re acting out a personal vendetta against life itself, or simply being manipulative opportunists, parasites or sociopaths.
Democracy is even more ancient than the Greeks. It probably occurred on the first day humans had to decide in a group what path to take through the forest. I have a feeling it also died that first day when the groups that survived figured out that leadership by committee resulted consistently in stupid decisions, while leadership by exceptional people, despite having greater potential for catastrophic error, usually turned out to be more insightful.
The democratic idea has been infesting the west for millennia but only during the last 220 years or so has it really flowered. Since the French Revolution, our fortunes in the West have taken a decidedly negative turn. Except for technology, everything is going badly. People aren’t reproducing, a sign that they hate their origins and don’t have faith in their lifestyles. Our art and culture are novelty garbage or brain-dead mass culture. Our leaders are liars. No one trusts anyone else, or any institution, and so almost all are treating society like a host that must be parasitized. There’s no future in this way.
Luckily, some are waking up and using their cynicism as a weapon. People are starting to make fun of the failure of multiculturalism, the tick-like consistency of the welfare state, the blatant hunger for illusion of the voters, and so on. It’s clear that the roles have shifted, and now “new” liberalism and the “progressive” invention of liberal democracy are old, failed, calcified and passing into history. Like other superstitions, liberal democracy has failed the reality test, by not achieving its goals and leaving a trail of wreckage in its place, no matter how we tweak it to try to make it work.
As this movement gains momentum, it’s important we don’t do what the forces of destruction among us — laziness, stupidity, cowardice, sociopathy, parasitism — want us to do. They want us to rebel against the current order by demanding a better version of it. In their view, our only problem is that we don’t have enough freedom, enough socialistic welfare, or enough equality. But any step down that path leads to the same debacle that has ensnared us so far.
Liberal democracy was a huge misstep. Even if we choose democracy for our future, we should avoid its social system counterpart. But as we’re seeing 200+ years of disaster fully ripen, we should reconsider every assumption we’ve ever made, and carefully cut out the ones that fail our reality test.

What the West Should Know

A TRUE ENGLISHMAN, TO GO ON HUNGER STRIKE OVER THE BETRAYAL OF OUR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE

Hunger strike

by tinypatriot

MIKE JAMES, A TRUE ENGLISHMAN, TO GO ON HUNGER STRIKE OVER THE BETRAYAL OF OUR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE


Unless the British government concedes to the popular demands of the British and, in particular, the English people, to hold a referendum on the immediate withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the illegal and unlawful European Union, this writer, a Freeborn Englishman subject not to the laws of unelected parasitic elites in Brussels, will be dead by means of starvation in the name of a Free-Sate England within 60 days, probably less, for, being naturally skinny and having endured an uncompensated vaccine injury in 1993, I have always weighed less than 45 kilos (seven stone).
I am largely untrained in the use of firearms, and, in common with all of my fellow Englishmen, have been denied the right to use force in determining the future of a nation oppressed and crippled by social engineering, multiculturalism and draconian laws that defy all humanity and common sense. There is only one option left open to me as a man who loves his own people and who cares for their welfare and civil liberties.
I, Michael James, born just before midnight on 20 December 1959 in the Danesfield Maternity Home, Jarrow, as a Free Englishman endowed with the Natural God-given Rights of a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, hereby give notice that, as from this very day, Sunday, 27 May 2012, I shall desist from the consumption of all food other than glucose and water until my people are granted their popular demand for a referendum on whether or not to remain within the Soviet European Union.
Mr Cameron, ostensibly the First Minister of the British Crown, an entity established to protect the rights of speculators and war profiteers based in the City of London, and who yet was also purportedly elected by the people of my nation to protect their interests against all enemies, both domestic and foreign, will have to answer to God Almighty and the English People should my death yield no concessions to the outrage against the undemocratic and monstrous intrusions on the British way of life by a universally despised Soviet-style bureaucracy that has robbed my people of their freedoms, their prosperity, their unique culture and their civil liberties.
Under Federal German Law, I cannot be detained or force-fed against my will should my decision to go on a hunger strike for freedom is informed by reasonable political conscientious objection. From the illegal Maastricht Treaty to the abhorrent and undemocratic Lisbon Treaty, both of which transformed, against the will of all the people of Europe, a free trade area formerly known as the EEC into what has become a hideously oppressive and unnatural political “project” known as the “European Union”, the Free People of the British Isles have become as slaves.
For the last twenty years I have been working and living in Germany. Yet I am proud to call myself a patriotic, true-bred Englishman, a member of one of the greatest races of men and women to grace this planet. All of my rights, freedoms, liberties and responsibilities were, in common with all born in the loving image of our Father, granted to me as a gift from God through his Son, Jesus Christ, not to be transgressed or abridged by the demonic machinations of men in suits, are sacred and inviolable.
Nobody has the right to rob natural-born indigenous Englishmen or Englishwomen of their God-given liberties, for every Englishman is a King, every Englishwoman a Queen. To this cause I am willing to lay down my life.
I am therefore appealing to you, dear reader, whatever your nationality or culture, to disseminate and publicise my stated aims as widely as possible, for I am hated, ignored and pilloried by the mainstream media as a dangerous “alternative thinker.” I shall soon be too weak to muster the strength sufficient to the task of writing to just one newspaper editor or government official. I thus implore you to make my case known to the world. Without your support, the pains yet to afflict me will be for nought. Please e-mail, fax or copy this article to as many news outlets and government officials as possible.
This I do for you, no matter who you are, whether you are rich or poor, black or white, Muslim or Christian, Jewish or Hindu. This I do in the name of all Mankind, for the destruction of the illegal and Satanic European Union and everything for which it stands is imperative to all of us in bringing to an end the sheer evils of the globalist New World Order, its fascist military wing, NATO, and its long-term Malthusian designs that seek to both dehumanise and then depopulate the world of all but half a billion human beings.
Yesterday, mindful of the Wall Street and Deutsche Bank seduction, pillage and rape of the people of Greece, I ate my last meal, constituting a small amount of rice and Gyros. In my heart, I know it shall be my last, for I see no circumstances under which the British Crown will allow my people the right to self-determination.
But if my death, no matter how demeaned, ridiculed and slandered I am by the mainstrean media, lights just one spark of hope in those yearning for Freedom from the tyranny of the Soviet European Union and the Military-Corporatist control of all my fellow human beings, then my passing shall not be in vain.
Let that spark light a bonfire of Liberty that can be seen in the hearts of all men and women sickening under the strictures of a corporate-fascist world order that seeks to make of the Children of God mere slaves to Mammon.
Then, like me, you shall be free, my friend. You shall be free.

Nationalism, The White Knight

Written by Albion

There is a dark cloud covering Europe.  A land mass that was once home to a proud, innovative people who once ruled mini Empires; Holland, France, Austria, Spain, Belgium, Germany and of course Great Britain who ruled the greatest empire since the Romans, now this land mass festers with social discontent, bankruptcy, unemployment and fear of fragmentation by greedy bankers, traitorous politicians and an unrelenting tsunami of migrants from primitive lands and cultures, the very lands they once ruled.
The cement that held these advanced European countries together was national pride, pride in their achievements and strength of purpose, but when national pride is removed by the deliberate diluting of its people as is happening throughout Europe, so signals the death of national unity and identity, any complaint is dealt with harshly by laws enacted solely for this purpose.  This is a dark, Satanic, rabid Socialism masquerading as a democratic system doing what it does best.
The world thought its head was cut off after WW2 but it morphed into another shape, a multi headed Hydra, a poisonous combination of Communist, fascist, Socialist and Fabianist, the socialist society that laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party, and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, especially India.  Its evil lair now resides in Brussels.
We are discussing the destruction of National pride by the combined forces of the socialist left.  The same forces that were directly responsible for the deaths of millions of ordinary Russian people, the same forces that triggered WW1 and WW2.  It was NATIONALISM that defeated Hitler’s National ‘Socialism’ and again it will be Nationalism that will be again required to sacrifice many lives to defeat far left Socialism and Islamic Fascism and lift the dark cloud again threatening Europe.
It is not difficult to destroy a county, you remove their currency, their borders, the people’s divine right to say this in MY homeland, their right of free speech, dilute their ethnic identity by encouraging miscegenation by the use of televised subliminal images and messages, knowingly corrupt a system of democratic election by the widespread abuse of postal voting, and removing the voice of political parties they deem a threat.  The final insult to injury is when the aim of the unwanted cultures attacking your shores intend one day to replace your system of government and law with their own and at the same time shame the host nation into offering their own people political appointments in European parliaments by accusations of racial discrimination, and laws still continue to be enacted to stop the people complaining about losing their lands they intend to conquer by the womb.
The problems confronting Europe are serious and the far left are horrified at the rise of European Nationalist parties, the true voice of the people whose strangled voices for decades that have been stifled by the use of National Broadcasters who broadcast negative comments and images, governments using draconian laws to neutralise any resentment of what is in truth ‘ Genocide without the use of bullets’ of a European people aided by the Orwellian behaviour of the Ideological Police forces throughout Europe.  The people are finally waking up to the fact they have been duped.  They sold their birth-right and legacy without as much as a whimper.
Be very proud to be a Nationalist, it was your kin who fought and died for a free Europe and won, not the cowardly, limp wristed, mealy mouthed Liberalist whose moral consciousness is on a far lower level than his supposed enemy.  Those hundreds and thousands of defenders that died would be aghast why Nationalism is now a dirty word.  Nationalism was the identity, the uniform, Nationalists fought the Nazi’s.  Nationalism was the carrot used by governments to encourage the people to fight and die for freedom, and when freedom had been won the socialist politicians now crawl from their corners, smear, and slander and defame the Nationalist and Patriots in an attempt to reshape the world again.  As Orwell wrote it is a continuing war.

The forces of evil are on the march again and Nationalist's will be called on again to fight the multi-headed Hydra.  Europe is waking first, will Great ‘Briton’ follow?

Share this post

The war is over

The war is over

Jun 5th, 2012

by Brett Stevens.

Wars are the foamy crests of waves, curling across the surface on top of a vast muscle of colliding water below.
The lowest part of the wave, sucking the cold water from the sea bottom and thrusting it upward in a roiling tempest, is culture. Cultural change drives political and social change. Above that a milder current rises to just below the surface and getting swept up in the momentum, is economics, which follows the will of the people as expressed in culture. Finally in the water warmed by the sun at the top is politics, which translates those forces into vectors of manipulation that keep the population motivated.
War is properly viewed as a continuation of politics, not its cessation. Life is constructed so that struggle is a constant, and the threat of war is the real weapon; when diplomacy is no longer possible, war is used to manipulate the opposition into a position where the original political aims are achievable. This is why it is possible to win battles, but lose the war, or lose the war and yet win the peace or the political war.
Most people now acknowledge that the Cold War wars (Korea, Viet Nam) were extensions of the power balance left over when the fighting stopped in WWII. They even recognize that WWII is probably best viewed as a continuation of WWI, itself a continuation of the Nation-State wars of the previous 75 years. What sparked these wars? Two generations before that, the French and American revolutions overthrew the old world order and instituted a new one, comprised of egalitarianism and internationalism.
Egalitarianism is the idea that each person is politically equal and must be considered a contender for any task, based on nothing more than their success in our economic and social systems. With equality, if a student gets good grades, he’s the man for the job, even if his character is lacking or he wants underlying wisdom. There would no longer be hereditary roles in which social elites, formed from a preservation and nurturing of the wisest and boldest, maintained society. Instead, it was a vast flat hierarchy that offered all a chance to rise by obediently jumping through its hoops and/or becoming popular.
This shakeup overthrew the order of Europe, but it took centuries to shake out. In the meantime, nations based on heritage were re-arranged into nation-states, or political groupings based on geography and ideology. This was a settling of affairs designed to preserve some power structures intact so that social chaos did not take over. Since that time, our societies have undergone gradual change in which conflicts arise and are answered with the liberal principle. Whatever enables more individualistic action, and breaks down more barriers, is good; anything else is bad.
We really got into hot water in the 1930s, when the post-WWI economic collapse coupled with shakeout from the social changes of the nihilistic 20s saw a leftward shift in Europe and the USA. For many it finally became clear that if we dip our toes in the water of moderate or even mild leftism, eventually the whole body will be drawn in. This is because leftism is an absolutist ideology; it sees only one way — progress, more individualism, fewer borders — against everything else. It opposes culture, because it rewards some for complex understandings of nuanced organic rules, and thus is hierarchical. It opposes national boundaries, race, class, gender and any other distinctions. It will only be happy when all people are equal in ability and thus no possible tension can exist between them.
WWII became a battle waged by the “free world” against the nationalist powers of Italy, Germany and Japan. The free world was all nation-states, based on a geographical idea and not heritage and culture. The nationalist states used that older but more natural measurement. As a result, this was not so much a war of states as a war of systems of government. It ended in defeat for the Axis powers, who fought bravely but recklessly, and with revelations of the Holocaust which rapidly became a rallying cry against racism. It thus mirrored the Anglo-American struggle of the previous century which eventually caused vast class instability in Great Britain and a disastrous Civil War in the United States.
For this reason, the dogma of the French Revolution can be seen as a snowball. Its original concept of equality caused the revolutionaries to distrust national boundaries and racial or class distinctions; mixed in with the pro-”freedom” dogma of the American revolution and then American Civil War, the snowball expanded the reach of liberal policies to oppose any distinctions made by heritage. When this political juggernaut ran into the nationalists, it quickly became a rallying cry that the idea of identity, of race, of heritage and of the nation as anything but a mixed-race, mixed-class, genderless political entity was oppression like that of Hitler.
This new view merged liberal democracy with the socialist state, because both capitalism/consumerism and welfare benefits supported the right of individuals to be equal and free of consequences. It was such a final, perfected total state that Francis Fukuyama called it “the end of history” and claimed no further development would exist, although somewhat wistfully. Others saw its dark side: Vaclav Havel noted how the best systems of control were invisible and based on group allegiance, Aldous Huxley saw how a distracted population became the weapon of control itself, and William S. Burroughs saw how economics and social isolation were bigger threats that a police state could muster.
Intellectuals in the West adopted this idea because it seemed like a good thing to do. I was one, once. We thought that if we extended the liberal concepts of equality and fraternity to mean internationalism and multiculturalism, and added a strong welfare state and consumerist component to make society a facilitator of the dreams of individuals, everyone would be fairly treated. Thus no conflict would exist. Thus we would move to pacifism, progress and new levels of equality and equal respect.
The one problem with this vision is that it was the opposite of what it said it was. Anti-fashion is after all a fashion, and anti-hierarchy naturally creates a hierarchy. Anti-oppression and anti-intolerance require strong forces to administer those absolute rules forcibly. In fact, liberalism was an identical version of what the worst tyrant king might administer, except that its goals were universal and political and not localized to one community.
Starting in the early 2000s, cynicism about this vision began to rise. People pointed out that for 200 years, we had been proceeding in a single direction with only a question of degree changing over the years. They pointed out that we too were heading in the direction of the Soviets, where ideology became more important than results in reality. It was also noted that for those past 200 years since the French Revolution, no one had considered any really different path from a liberal system. When things went wrong, we assumed that our methods were wrong. With the global economic and social implosion of the 2000s, it became clear that our goals were wrong. Liberalism was indeed in for a penny, in for a pound, and the moment it was adopted the path toward a Soviet-style system was undertaken.
Even more importantly, in 2008 the United States elected its first black president. In fact, that’s about all anyone knew about the campaign. The aging and incoherent John McCain seemed like a symbol for an old white male order that was dying. Barack Obama brought a violation of everything that order had ever stood for: Muslim name, African heritage, Socialist leanings and identification with popular culture. He was The People’s Candidate, and since the 1965 immigration act that opened the immigration roster to the third world, he resembled a lot of these new voters more than the old white guys who build the West.
But as the happy feelings faded away, people began to see the grim reality: all leftist systems operate by sacrificing everything else at the altar of equality, which can only be achieved by hobbling the above-equal with regulations while simultaneously empowering the below-equal with welfare, subsidies, quotas and other “well-intentioned” social justice programs. LBJ’s “great society” ideas were re-created time and again in American and European social programs. The defining moment of the Barack Obama presidency was his decision to slash funding for space exploration so that social benefits, including healthcare, could be promoted in the name of our poorest, non-whitest, and least vested citizens.
At this moment, the wisdom of the old order began to shine through. People started to see how diversity itself was the problem. One group will be richer than others, and under a leftist regime, wealth will be transferred and enmity both ways will result. Without culture, all that holds a nation together is a government and its nanny state police force. But most of all, when we have no values in common, we’re going to cut out everything but programs to help the poorest or least-majority, because it’s considered impolite and hateful to not support those.
In contrast, under an organic order the nation is composed of people with more in common than not, genetically. They share a heritage in addition to a culture and the values, customs, rituals, events and sayings that go with it. It’s not a political choice, but a way of life, and this cultural mandate does what no amount of police officers can do: it keeps people mostly in line by making them want the estimation of their neighbors. Of course, it’s less “free” than a semi-anarchic welfare-nanny state. You can’t just do anything and still get a welfare check or be unable to be fired from your make-work job. But you do have a social role, a place and clarity about what to do to be rewarded.
The one obstacle to adopting this program was the opposition to anything reeking of nationalism by not only our elites, but our average citizens. They had grown up on a steady diet of the Civil War, the Holocaust and the fight against vicious Klan racists in the American South. In their minds, nationalism meant racism. This was convenient because most of these people already opposed anything but a liberal system of equality, because they feared being found less-equal and being penalized.
Luckily two events have changed that. First, as the world recession deepens, we see that following government programs, hiring diversity directors, measuring success by how many women you hire, and building a system on what the masses want to do to entertain themselves instead of building solid products is a clear path to economic, political and social irrelevance. When the USA killed its space program, the true cost of liberalism was revealed. You can be equal, but in doing so, you have removed the desire for supremacy of results that made your nation great and replaced it with complacency and narcissism.
Second, the poster children for the horrors of inequality and racism, the Jewish people, have found themselves in the role they thought was reserved for the Germans. Much like pre-war Germany, Israel is comprised of a whiter and wealthier population and a darker and poorer one. The state founded for the preservation of the Jewish people, as a religion, culture and race, finds itself having to exclude these darker people so they don’t outbreed the whiter population and replace it, effectively committing genocide through outbreeding. As a result, Israel has adopted a form of natonalism called Zionism which essentially insists on “one race, one nation.” The former enemies of nationalism are now advocating it as a solution to racial intolerance, genocide and bigotry.
As a result, Israel has become a leading voice for renewing nationalism — in effect, going back to the order that the losing side wanted in WWI and WWII. Without nationalism, Jews get replaced by those who want to share the wealth of Israel. Without nationalism, Europeans get replaced by those who want to share the wealth of Europe. Without nationalism, Americans and Canadians become an unruly mob of indeterminate heritage and no shared values, resulting in a third-world society.
World Wars I and II are finally over thanks to this change. History has decided what the wars did not: Israel for Jews, Germany for Germans. The end of equality and internationalism. White power equals black power equals Zionism equals the only world order that will make a society we want to live in. The conflict that divided us for two world wars is now over. We can let go of those wars, bury the dead, shed the last tears, purge the guilt and move on to new challenges.
The new is the old now and the old is the new. It’s hard to see because it’s still on the horizon but coming fast. The era just changed while we were barely watching. History isn’t over; it’s just begun.

A Tribute to Emma West - My Tram Experience

Downgrade of the West

 

Downgrade

Jun 3rd, 2012

by Brett Stevens.

Recent news from the West (US, UK and Western Europe) has not been encouraging. The level of weirdness is up, and a strange silence has fallen over the biggest issues.
Part of this is the election year, some of it is Euro-zone collapse jitters, but underneath all of these surface manifestations there’s a darker fear. That fear is that our nations have undergone
Across the industrialized West, there’s a sensation that this recession is not a momentary blip but a permanent adjustment by which our economies shrink in size and value. We fear that our futures will never be as bright as they were before 2009.
2009 showed us the culmination of the policies of the past two centuries and possibly longer, since what happened in the last two centuries took millennia to distill to a focal point as happened in 1789. But with the egalitarian revolution in Europe, based on the idea that all people and their choices have equal validity in rejection of natural selection and consequences of our actions being important, we embarked upon a new course in the West.
This course went through many permutations. At first, it was regulated with strong leadership and capitalism, but starting in the 1930s, it hybridized right and left to make a new people’s party that embraced both consumerism and a welfare state. This was its perfected form, like the final stage of a deep and fatal infection.
However, as of this decade, we have run out of ways to modify our new beast. We can go communist, try the Swedish social welfare model, or try to go right, but these options are known and not inspiring. We’re out of maneuvering room. This is why 2009 is the year when we recognized that the structure of liberalism, and not just the methods we were using to achieve it, was unstable.
In the meantime however the damage is done. Our economies are not worth what they once were, and our national standings are no longer what they could have been. In addition, we’ve depleted our standing with the following policies:

• Entitlement spending: conservative economics emphasizes putting money into motion in the economy at levels where it can be spread quickly, such as in the hands of the middle classes who disproportionately own small businesses and can jump-start local economies. The new logic is instead to give this money to end-use consumers, like the poor or retired, who spend it on a narrow range of services in which there is not much competition, thus an economic dead end.
• The sexual revolution: thanks to the wonders of The Pill, women are having more sexual partners, getting more burnt out, and “settling” for marriage later in life and having fewer kids. This is a subset of the “Me generation” outlook on life as a whole, where people no longer act in a way that is sensible according to social norms, but take their equally-valid perspective on it as fundamentalist gospel and do whatever seems to them to be personally most desirable. As a result the West is in demographic free-fall.
• Population replacement: as a result, our nations have started importing a random mix of people from the third world. The ethnic groups and races are not the problem, but (a) diversity itself and (b) third-world status are. Diversity divides a society against itself by preventing any cultural consensus from forming, which leaves only mass commerce and a strong government in control. Also, third world countries tend to be burned-out remnants of once-great civilizations. The people there are by definition, with a few exceptions, not the ones who can help make a great society. In addition, this mixing destroys our sense of self and clarity about shared purpose, and to others makes us look like a random shopping mall instead of powerful nations with proud histories and culture.
• No goals: where we were once empires, we are now facilitative states that hope to be places where individuals can make their dreams come true. The problem is that individual dreams are often selfish, and lead to a society constantly fighting itself over how permissive it should be. To outsiders, it looks like brats fighting over who got the imperceptibly bigger or smaller slice of cake.
• We don’t make stuff: our new economy is a circular one, in which we develop products to sell to ourselves and hope this will magically make value. This reshuffling of the deck, and re-making of our economy into a market for the re-sale and re-configuration of existing properties instead of invention and creation of new ones, doesn’t look like a good investment to others. Are Facebook and Google really products, or just services that are temporarily so overvalued that they are created an apocalyptic hole in our economy? Did anyone feel this way about all those great ARM loans we forced our banks to make available to minorities to boost our statistics on home ownership?
• Instability: from looking at our public debates, outsiders see a society of relatively rich people who are squabbling over how they look in public. People try to outdo each other with the outlandish, vying for attention. Others try to compete on the basis of how much they give away, especially of other peoples’ money. The voters sit in the middle, generally inert but easily manipulated with promies of free things.

When we talk about a permanent downgrade, this is the nature of the beast: a society that was once worth real money because it had its act together and was going somewhere, thanks to two centuries of liberalism, now is worth less because it has no goal other than infighting, internal plunder and eventual collapse.
The People(tm) were for centuries happy to be bought off with bread and circuses. Now the bill is due, and it has converted liberalism from “the fresh new way” into the old, calcified, unresponsive and cancerous order that drags us into the past.
For this reason, although the downgrade is painful, it serves a positive purpose. We know what did not work, and we know that we need to cut ourselves free from it if we are to ever gain altitude again.

The UK Labour Party Paedophile Lord Mayors Club

The Labour Party Paedophile Lord Mayors Club

Posted  2012 at Labour 25

The dangers of having a Labour Lord Mayor in the establishment of your local area is deadly to children. The Last Four North West Labour Party Lord Mayors were CONVICTED Paedophile’s which ranged from the child sex crimes of Child rape, Child Abuse, Child blackmail sex attacks and Images of sexual abuse of children in Shackles being abused and distributed over the internet.
Labour Lord Mayor No.1
Sam Chaudry, was the first Muslim Lord Mayor. When he won his local Lord Mayor Election for the Labour Party in Lancashire, just before he was about to put on the Mayoral robes, Police raided his home and arrested him. He was convicted and jailed for 12 years for Raping a child under 6 years old, Abuse of another child under 10 and the Rape of another child aged 8years old.
Labour Lord Mayor No.2
Nicholas Green (Zionist) woke up one morning to have police drag him from his bed in Westhoughton Lancashire. He was dragged off to the police station and charged with raping numerous children under the age of 10 years old. One victim had been abused by Labour Lord Mayor Nicholas Green since she was a child, and was blackmailed by him, ‘silence for more sex.’ On the day of her wedding, he pulled her into a room and threatened to tell all the guests unless she had sex with him… He raped her in her wedding dress on her wedding day. He was sentenced to 8 years.
Labour Party Lord Mayor No.3
 was supposed to be a ‘Pillar of the community’ in his Labour constituency of Halton Cheshire. One day, A man went to see the Labour Lord
Mayor unkowing he was a paedophile, he took his daughter with him. While Liam Temple was talking to the little girl’s father, he said to her ‘Go in my office and play the computer games on the computer.’ The child went in and played on the games, the father wanted to leave but the child wanted to finnish the game so the Labour Party Lord Mayor Liam Temple said ‘She’ll be ok, call back later for her.’’ BIG MISTAKE… Labour Lord Mayor Liam Temple sat next to her and said.. ‘ Name your price, you can have anything’ ‘£5 if you let me see your breasts, £10 if you let me see down there.’’ He was found guilty in front of his family who were disgusted, at the Cheshire Crown Court. He also had to sign the sex offender’s register.
Labour Lord Mayor N0.4
Stewart Brown, The Labour Party’s well dressed Lord Mayor from Hebden Royd near Hebbden Bridge was sitting in the bath when the police knocked at the door. In a posh towelled robe he was immediately put under arrest. The police and special child protection units gathered Paedophile Labour Party Lord Mayor Stewart Brown’s computer, Cd’s and other hardware to be examined by the special forensics team. Neighbours were wondering where Stewart Brown had dissapeared too, they had seen the arrest but not been able to put Two and Two together… until the local newspaper dropped onto the doormat. Labour Party lord Mayor stewart Brown had been downloading child pornography material from the internet of a severe nature including a child in Bondage and Shackles. He had been sharing the images with other predatory child sex beast paedophiles all over the internet and possibly the world. The images were horriffic said the judge, but he escaped with a suspended sentence and has been made to sign the sex offender’s register for the rest of his life.
NO MORE LABOUR PARTY LORD MAYOR’S ! 

Follow us on twitter – Labour25 twitter

A MUSICAL JUBILEE MESSAGE 2012

BY IVE COOPER
THE TRAITOR ELIZABETH THE 2ND SO CALLED QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND , IS THE ONLY MONARCH TO HAVE BROKEN ALL HER CORONATION OATHS!
SHE HAS ALLOWED HER CHURCH, HER PEOPLE, HER COUNTRY TO BETRAYED BY TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT , ONE PUBLIC WORD FROM HER COULD HAVE STOPPED THE BETRAYAL OF THIS NATION AND IT,S PEOPLE. BUT NO SHE HAS ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN.
CONCLUSION: SHE MUST BE A PART OF THE BETRAYAL!
 SO YOUR MAJESTY ONCE WE THE WHITE WORKING CLASS , ONCE YOUR GREATEST SUPPORTERS ARE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED , WHO? IS GOING TO PROTECT YOU FROM THE INVADERS! 
SO AS IT SAYS IN THE SONG . NO FUTURE FOR YOU!
MAY I ALSO AT THE SAME RENOUNCE ALL LOYALTY TO YOU AND YOUR HEIRS FOREVER !
 

Thought) Crime and Punishment

South West Nationalist

(Thought) Crime and Punishment

Written by Southwest Nationalist

As Jacqueline Woodhouse is handed 21 weeks in prison for committing the ultimate sin of speaking a few drunken words that the state considers to be racist, it may be an opportune time to look at sentencing in some other recent cases.

A lot about a societies priorities, who and what it values, and what it deems to be most important, can be read into the gravity with which it considers, and punishes, various crimes.

With Emma West in court soon, Jacqueline Woodhouse already handed 21 weeks inside, and Liam Stacey jailed for 56 days for his Twitter comments, let's just have a look and see some recent offences seemingly deemed less worthy of punishment.
Killing a puppy?  20 year old Serdar Bosnak threw a Staffordshire Bull Terrier puppy against a wall, killing it.  He received 14 weeks jail.

Sexually abuse a girl repeatedly when she's aged between 5 and 8?  After being convicted of four indecent assaults, four gross indecencies, four sexual assaults, and four charges of inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, David Reed received a 12 months suspended sentence.

Breaking a toddlers arms and legs?  Emma Cartwright and Neil Gleaves did just that.  They'll not do a day in prison.  36 weeks suspended sentence, and a bit of community service.

Stealing £50,000 of lead from a church roof?  Florin Stan, Vergil Stan, and Nicolae Birsan, all Romanian, were given 12 month community orders and 55 hours of unpaid work for stealing the lead from a church roof in Hinckley.

Brutally attack a woman, beat her, and rub pizza in her face?  Kalee Powell, 18, and Precious Gordon, 19, carried out just such an assault on legal secretary Daniela Holischeck.  They received community orders, and were told to pay £300 compensation.

Possess nearly 5,000 vile images of child pornography?  Despite having previously been jailed for child porn offences, Nigel Hannibal was given a 3 year community order and told to take part in a sex offenders program.

Stalk schoolgirls, quiz them about sex, show a 13 year old a picture of your genitals, and then sexually assault a disabled woman?  That's a 2 year community order for Andrew Jackson after a judge took pity on his lack of sex life.

Swindle £14,000 of benefits and get convicted of fraud after pleading not guilty?  Mohammed Hossein Gholamy, failed asylum seeker, discovered to his joy that ripping off the British taxpayer to the tune of £14,212.87 only results in a 60 days suspended prison sentence and 200 hours community work.

We could go on and on, but the message is clear.

So called racism will be punished severely.  Animal cruelty, child abuse, child neglect, child pornography, sexual assault, violent attacks, theft, benefits fraud, and many other offences can attract lesser penalties than uttering (or typing) a few words deemed as racist.

Racism has been elevated to criminal offence number one, with Draconian laws and heavy punishments being used to silence a society increasingly angry at the multicultural nightmare.  Dissent will be stifled, society will be shaped by force.

In a so called free and democratic society we now have a system of thought and speech crime, severely punished, that many dictatorships of old would have been proud of.

Perverts, child abusers, fraudsters, thieves, violent attackers, all can walk free.  Any words not in praise of the enriching minorities who are colonising our nation will be met with severe retribution and incarceration.

That should really tell us something about the priorities of those running this nation, and those administering 'justice'.  We are in an era of thought crimes, a time when the frenzied gestapo of speech and conscience have free rein.  The cardinal crime in our nation today is to be named as racist.

Share this post

ARE WE MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN SYRIA?

ARE WE MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN SYRIA?

The carnage in Syria carries on.
Last week Cameron said he would possibly send British troops to that country and now Hollande of France says his country could take military action.

Let's step back a bit away from all the politicing and take an impartial look at the situation.

The Assad regime is and has been notorious for suppressing dissent but in that multicultural society a firm hand could have been necessary to stop civil war.
Free speech is suppressed and the people yearn to be free.

In that aspect Syria is similar to our supposedly democratic country.
We have been invaded  by aliens with the collusion of our governments of both the main parties. We do not wish to see our town's streets infested with these people, let alone paying taxes to support them.

Ah yes you could say, we have the freedom of the vote and free speech.
Do we? What choice have we? The major parties have similar policies on immigration and free speech so we have no choice there.
But we have a free press you may say.

NO. The press is controlled by the same Common Purpose dictatorship which rules the political parties.
New or smaller parties who oppose their anti democratic cabal are routinely vilified in the media, their policies distorted and supporters forced to hold their tongues in order to keep their jobs.
Only today a woman was sentenced to 21 week's jail for saying WHAT MILLIONS THINK.

AND THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY A FREE COUNTRY with freedom of speach.

SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRITAIN AND SYRIA?

NONE.

There is a rebellion in Syria against a tyranny. Could it happen here?
Well no, or not yet.
An interesting aspect of the Syrian rebellion is the relative impotence of that government to silence the rebels. Our police and army would have gone through a rebellion like a dose of salt.
This means the rebels are armed, so the question must be, by whom?
Foreign influence is obvious here as is a supply of arms to the rebels. It suits the globalists to ferment trouble in Syria to overcome the present regime.

Russia and China have until now acted as a brake on precipitate action by that poodle of the globalists, the UN. These two countries realise that if they grant legitimacy to foreign intervention into internal affairs this could legitimise interference in their own country's affairs and so will not play ball.
Another interesting aspect of this crisis is the relitive absence of concern of countries supposedly liberated in the "Arab Spring", in fact the only Arab countries helping the rebels are such "democracies" as Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states.Turkey is standing by, waiting to pick up some spoils after the fall of the Assad regime.

Now I accept atrocities have been committed by that regime but am sure as the Russians say both sides have done the same.
It is obvious that an international cabal under the UN is determined to destabilise and overthrow Assad. Who is behind that we can only have a GOOD guess at.

The point is that the rebellion is an internal one for Syria and none of our business. We should keep our noses out and certainly not risk the lives of any more of our troops.

BUT AT LEAST THE SYRIAN REBELS HAVE A CHANCE OF OVERTHROWING THEIR UNDEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP, with the help of foreign powers with ulterior motives.

BUT WHAT CHANCE HAVE WE of ridding ourselves of the equally undemocratic system we now have?

NONE.
On the pretext of avoiding gun crime (that's a laugh) British citizens have been disarmed and we are now powerless and in the clutches of international globalist capitalists.
We are mere units of production to be used to further the agenda,softened up by television trash shows to keep us temporarily subdued. Our pubs and clubs have been systematically destroyed by big business interests and with them our sense of community so that our virility and power to resist, replaced by propaganda stuffed in our face by the television.

Bread and circuses they called it in the past.

Revolutions start in tap rooms, and that is why the government is destroying pubs.

If you put all the things happening, at home and internationally and think about it I believe it is impossible to miss a sinister plan by those in power.
For further details read 1984.

And in our "free" country you can desecrate our cenotaph and get a slap on the wrist but tell aliens you don't like them here when drunk you get 21 weeks.

Justice and freedom?

Equality & Diversity. Enoch Powell’s ‘whip hand’ prophecy made reality

• 
• 

Equality & Diversity. Enoch Powell’s ‘whip hand’ prophecy made reality

Written by Lecturer2

Equality & Diversity; Enoch Powell’s ‘whip hand’ prophecy made reality

A Nationalist Teachers Perspective.

It has been clear for some time that the horrors of multiculturalism are being injected like a narcotic into every aspect of our British society. A debilitating drug that is very much as dangerous as heroin, but state induced.
The majority of this article is set around a compulsory training session arranged by a college in the West of England.
Rather than having the governments desired effect, most staff regarded it as a warning as to just how much danger Britain is in from this frankly criminal piece of legislation.
Imagine if you will; A lecture theatre with around 150 plus white middle class lecturers being read the riot act by a Mr Mohammed Patel, a small bespectacled Muslim man complete with uniform beard, verifying the fact that E&D can only be administered by someone of an ethnic background. This is Enoch Powells ‘whip hand over the white man’ in action. It’s here already. Ethnic minorities now have dominion over us.
Mr Mohammed Patel is the head of equality and diversity at Petroc College Devon and from there spreads his vile racism. He was quick to refer to the Public Sector Equality Duty – PSED Race Relations act amendment 2001, that instructs teachers that they have a Promotional duty to enforce E&D, in his own words; “as you have been getting away with murder”!

And of course while this man was talking about murder the subject of Steven Lawrence raised its well worn head and was talked about at length, but with no mention of the vile racist attacks that are committed on the Indigenous white British community which occur on an almost daily basis. No margin given to the fact that racism in this country cuts both ways and it is actually more prevalent against white people than the ethnic minorities. He believes that it never happens the other way round. The truth is most of us are too scared to even look at the enrichers these days.

Mr Patel never said it, but his intention was clear to us. It is you white people in your comfy little Cotswold towns that are racists. Racist, because white majorities haven’t actively gone out and dragged ethnic minorities into Gloucestershire, to make it less ‘hideously white’ to quote one Labour MP.

He then talked enthusiastically about the coming power shift and cited Leicester as a GOOD example of how ‘we’ would like to see the United Kingdom in the very near future. Do we want that?

At the opening of the Christmas market in Morton in Marsh there was a stand for the local scouting group. A banner advertising scouting had three Muslim girls complete with hijab head scarves showed how the scouting organisation of Great Britain now sees itself. Morton in Marsh is a quaint little Cotswold market town with a 99.9% white majority. It’s not down town Mumbai, its not Leicester, Birmingham or even Coventry, but this is the way that these organisations are being forced to present themselves even if it is not representative of the population it is appealing to.

Leicester has fallen, 51/52% of people there are not of Indigenous British origin, more if you include other European countries. London is falling, Birmingham is falling and other towns and cities are not far behind.

It wasn’t long before the E&D man couldn’t resist having a knock at Enoch Powell. He referred to Powell’s inspired piece of oratory as Enoch Powell’s “infamous’ speech”, He said; “Powell was generalising, so take it with a pinch of salt”.

Enoch Powell’s speech was a warning that has come true a hundred fold in the light of the race riots last August. If it was a generalisation, it is now a statement of fact!

Mr Patel made a series of statements in his lecture to support Equality and Diversity in the classroom to which all teachers must adhere to, and they are important and need to be analysed individually:

1) Advised us to ‘enjoy’ rather than ‘celebrate’ diversity.

No one would doubt that a certain amount of taking in of other cultures is in fact a healthy thing to engage in. After all the British Empire was built on the study and enjoyment of the cultures of the countries lucky enough to be part of the worlds largest and most prestigious Empire in human history (the liberal elite are hopelessly embarrassed by the Empire and wish to make amends by destroying all vestiges of pride in it).
But like all healthy enjoyment it should be at the behest of the individual to make up their mind as to who, what, when and where the individual studies or enjoys other cultures. It is not and should not be a mandatory requirement to show that you have purposefully entered into the study and absorbed other cultures as a matter of law. If there is one culture in this country that it should be law to study then it should be British culture.
We are at a crossroads where we have put the study of Indian, Chinese and Muslim cultures before our own. And when British history is taught it is always taught from the angle that the British culture could not have done it or even survived without the support of a tiny number of none British people.
For example; at the RAF museum at Cosford there are now information boards promoting the achievements of non British indigenous people involved in the Second World War, but the way this is displayed gives an incorrect impression that ethnic minorities had a more important role than the native British majority.
Their treacherous aim is to teach our children that we were not the great nation that we once undoubtedly were, and are, and will be again. Their aim is to blatantly tell lies and to rewrite history in the same abominable way Hollywood does.
2) Mr Patel said; Catalyst was Race driven and plays the pivotal role.
The question has to be asked why? Why race driven? Surely equality and diversity is about inclusion, which is about everyone, all people. Disabled people, old people, young people, poor people, rich people all pulling on an equal rope.

But it’s not equality and inclusion, its equality and DIVERSITY!

The diversity of race, and sexual orientation which is the agenda of its champions who are largely the criminals in Westminster. It is easy to accuse patriots of being racists, when it is the leftist liberals who are forcing us down a blind alley that are the real racists.
Racists who claim quite legally that there is ‘no such thing as an indigenous British people’ when they know that there has been an indigenous people here for thousands of years.

3) The white British are failing ethnic groups.

The only time the British nation failed ethnic groups is when we embarked on two World Wars that did not need to be fought, thus bankrupting the nation and forcing us to withdraw from our colonies. That is our failing.

The fact that we were neither asked or indeed wanted mass immigration does not mean that even if they are here now do we owe them any special consideration. Assimilate! Come and join in with our game or go away! That’s real equality.

4) Equality & Diversity is as important as health and safety

This is such an unintelligent remark to make to anyone let alone academics especially when it is said by an alleged academic. Making sure Abdul feels like he’s got as much or more chance as James is not as important as making sure Abdul and James don’t get their heads cut off in some industrial accident!

Leave it to the bleeding heart liberals and it won’t be an industrial accident that cuts James' head off!

5) The Koran does not preach killing, (except where it preaches killing!)

Interesting that Mr Patel had to single out his religion as not being intolerant, when he had equal opportunity to talk about Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Christianity. Christianity has had its moments in the past; however this is not the past. Its today! Christianity has moved on, developed, become liberal; too liberal. Islam remains the same. The same incarnation of 1300 years ago, with the same aims and objectives: ‘Kill the infidel’.

6) Educate by guilt trips.

Children are now being monitored for anything that could be construed as a racist remark;-it has to be recorded and so a profile is built up on this child which is branded a ‘risk’ to the multicultural state project. But of course it doesn’t stop there as it must be factored in that this so called dangerous thinking must be coming from somewhere, so the parents and family are also put under suspicion.
This is Stasi state oppression. Challenging the utterance of so called ‘inappropriate language’ is one thing, but this monitoring of private conversations at home so the dossiers of suspected unbelievers grow and grow until enough evidence for ‘gagging’ is collected.

All parents should now as a matter of course question their children as to what they have been doing at school and what their teachers have been asking them. Those who are familiar with the work of Brian Gerrish will be aware of the worrying trends in education and the potentially lethal use of NLP in schools, so that they as parents can act to undo some of the brain washing that is going on.

7) Peoples behaviour is down to good teaching of parents!

This statement claims that the current parental generation were incorrectly educated, that we need re-educating; corrective education. Like the corrective institutions set up by the Communists to re-educate wrong thinkers that did not appreciate what the party was doing for them.

8) Minorities first – majority second.

This was reminiscent of the pol pot regime and the ‘tall poppy syndrome; One poppy is standing taller than the rest, so you ‘snip’ it down so all are the same.
We must all suffer for the welfare of the ethnic minorities that are flooding our shores, because the liberal elite insist that we are responsible for their plight and that our old people must freeze this winter so that they can be warm. It is the liberal elite that are responsible for it, for they have created this problem. The ‘so called’ wars of regime change and introduction of ‘their’ kind of capitalist democracy have been responsible for killing more civilians in the name of ‘saving civilians from being killed by they own government’. Thus a conflict that has had nothing to do with us, has been made ten times worse, by the elite and made the inevitable migration of refugees from the conflict even greater.
9) We are not being flooded by immigrants.
Anyone can see with their own eyes if they wish to see that our towns and cities have changed beyond recognition. Standing in the centre of Banbury you will struggle to hear English being spoken, and this is the same in every major conurbation. It is clear that teachers are required to swallow all that they are fed. A lie is a lie.
10) Political correctness fault of, and driven by media; all negativity of PC stories are fabrications, everything is alright’
The fact of the matter is this:It’s actually much worse that the ridiculous stories peddled by the leftist state controlled media. The stories that are let through are often doctored complete fabrications to give an idea that the government is aware of the situation and engaged in combating it, or on the other hand take any credence from patriotic organisations. I refer to Jack Straws unbelievable admission to the fact that Muslim paedophile gangs are operating almost freely in the UK. And Cameron’s recent statement that immigration is bad for this country. We know! We’ve been saying this for years, but if a patriot publicly states this then the government will try to imprison him for it.
The Straw’s and the Cameron’s didn’t mean it, they never mean it and will never, ever do anything about it, but to be seen and heard to speak out against it means the man on the street will think it’s being tackled and nationalism's message is now defunct and pointless. Make no mistake, the Lliblabcon don’t care about the British people. The globalists of the Liblabcon think that Britain is a puddle they can just step out of. That the British people are cheap, they are a commodity to be exploited, in just the same way they think the economic migrants are. However they have underestimated the long term goals of the growing Islamic population. Jim Dowson’s iron law of repopulation sits uncomfortably with us all.
11) E&D should be a moral exultation rather than legal obligation.
Teachers are expected to feel guilty again. What about the moral obligation to your own people, our people who have never, ever been asked whether we wanted mass immigration and our neighbourhoods, cities, towns and soon our villages and countryside changed beyond all recognition into third world shanty towns.
12) Mr Patel has been given a large budget to promote gypsies alone.

Mohammed Patel gives no quarter to the financial preservation of green belt that is now under attack from gypsy colonisation groups that use legal aid financed by our taxes to cut around and find loop holes, or even cheat the system to build ugly and unhygienic shanty towns in the Cotswold's and other areas of protected natural beauty. But no local authority dares take them on because the law, government and liberal apologists are on the side of the criminal Gypsies gangs that rip off and intimidate decent and law abiding citizens. Criminal, you know it, the states, knows it and of course they know it. But there is nothing the people can do about it. New Labour brought in around ten E&D laws in their death throws in 2010, purely aimed at gagging the majority.
13) Ethnic groups should not go to you, YOU should go to them.
If they wanted to join our society then join it they must. Our society and land do not need enriching by them and especially their cultures. They need, and should be enriched by us and our society. Any person whether ethnic minority, immigrant, of European decent, French, German etc, white or even indigenous British who does not like the way this country is or looks, or conducts itself can leave.
These are the sort of policies that are being imposed in our educational institutions, but it gets worse.

Limiting grade if schools and colleges do not satisfy E&D for OFSTED.
There is the case of an art teacher being given feed back after an OFSTED class inspection. A life drawing class was judged to be outstanding, but would only be given a grade three (‘one’ being best and ‘four’ being fail) because the observer regarded the attention to E&D as ‘purely tokenistic’. The teacher replied that it was purely tokenistic, as how on earth does one get Equality and diversity into drawing a piece of fruit!
The truth of this maybe that this inspector doesn’t believe in E&D anymore than any decent man on the street, however the fact is that this inspector along with every other decent teacher in this land knows that if they put a foot wrong with this, then there will be a ‘tremor in the web’, their careers could well be on the line and they are scared.
Scared, to be marked with Trevor Phillips red hot racist branding iron and be cast into the pit with rest of the decent British work force.
Scared, to stand and stand apart and say; ‘I do not agree with this’! They cannot speak out against a state that is built on the fear of being cast out of society as an evil patriot. Patriots are all too aware of these chains that bind them more and more, but the job they have to do is relay this to other people who are ignorant or choose to ignore the dangers. The treatment of Emma West, the ‘Tram Lady’ (no matter what you think of her as a person) by the police state and the state controlled media is just one of the recent examples of the results of speaking up for yourself. She was thrown into prison for expressing her views while at the same time a group of violent Muslim racists who nearly kicked a white girl to death while shouting ‘kill the white slag’ walked free.
Equality and diversity and the ‘so called’ human rights act will in time rob the British people not only of their right to the freedom of expression, but the entirety of their identity.

It goes without saying that to be a nationalist in working education at this point in history is becoming intolerable. How much longer a patriotic and Christian set of ethic’s and morals will allow real teachers to continue working with whining liberals who want to brainwash children with Marxist ideals containing national, patriotic, religious and family hatred. Each day becomes more and more complex for our teachers with more and more propaganda and policies to implement with ideals that they just do not believe in and find morally repugnant

Share this post

The Means versus the Ends

 

Means versus ends

May 27th, 2012

by Brett Stevens.

This year is a good year to re-assess your political viewpoint. Across the globe power structures appear to be readying for a change.
One amazing fact of politics is that very few people systematically analyze the question of politics and form their own political inclination to match what they know to be true. Instead, an alarmingly large number of them adopt political viewpoints based on vague emotional associations, social groups, or perceived social status gained from having the “right” opinions (this varies with where and you who are).
As a result, across the spectrum of writers on the right, there has been a re-assessment of what it is to be right-wing. On Amerika, we have presented the simplest possible formulation of rightism: consequentialism, or a concern for ends (results, goals and reality) over means (methods, socialization and how we treat others). The reason for this tendency in rightism is that we believe there is an order to life itself, whether inherent or chosen for its optimal results, that is larger than the individual and the feelings, desires and social impulses of that individual.
In other words, we believe in objective reality. Out there between all of us is a world where dropped rocks always fall, and our actions always have consequences. In fact, these consequences are consistent between similar actions, so we can often predict the results of an action before we even do it. Some even believe that the study of action (means) and consequences (ends) can reveal the nature of our world and universe, much like scientific study or reading history.
On the other side is the left, which is a spectrum of beliefs from anarchism to socialism to communism. They believe that interpersonal relationships, and how we treat others, are most important. That means that it’s better to fail while behaving well than to succeed while behaving badly. What emerges from that statement is that the question of “goal” is removed entirely. To a conservative, the goal of your actions is what determines whether your behavior is good or bad. To a liberal, how you go about achieving your goal is what determines whether your actions are good or bad. The liberal formulation removes an assessment of the goal itself, as if wanting to remove intention entirely from the picture. Conveniently, this enables all goals to be equal, since they are unconsidered. This avoids troublesome separations that mark some people as having far-reaching vision and a responsible outlook, and others as simply passing time with whatever distractions they can muster.
The left will use any adornment to dress up their basic approach. They may say boldly and self-abashedly that it’s better to fail while acting in the “right” way, than to succeed while acting in another way. They may talk about morality, fairness, justice, equality and other pleasant-sounding terms. But at the end of the day, what they are masking is a hostility to goals. If you spend all of your energy of thinking in trying to ensure that your goal is a fair one, and will result in a better situation than another course of action, your methods are for the most part irrelevant. This can be taken too far and result in utter barbarism, but that’s rare, and even so, consider the two cases:

• Achieving what is necessary through utter barbarism.
• Not achieving what is necessary.

If those are your two choices, which is logical to choose? Assuming the goal is necessary, the second option is suicidal. Even if it requires barbarism to accomplish a necessary goal, its necessity makes it immoral to consider any option but accomplishing the goal. We frequently encounter this moral question through hypothetical scenarios: if a nuclear bomb is about to go off in a major city, and a bad guy knows where it is, do you torture him to find out where the bomb is so that you can save the people in the city? You either torture him (bad means) or you allow a fusion holocaust (bad ends). Or the question of the zombie outbreak in a small city. If you quarantine the area, you condemn the un-infected people in the city to a horrible death. But if you don’t quarantine, you could lose the entire continent or more. Another option is the runaway train scenario: you are steering a runaway train that is approaching a fork in the road. If you take the left branch, you’ll run over a family of three. If you take the right branch, you’ll run into a tanker car filled with nerve gas that could rupture and wipe out the ten million people. Collateral damage is bad, but creating a situation where the stability of society itself is threatened is much worse.
The means-over-ends calculus will always be more popular. First, it allows people to posture and claim moral superiority. “I would never treat someone that way, no matter what the cost,” they say. Second, it removes the question of goals, and thus makes behavior equally accessible. It takes someone with leadership intelligence to figure out a decent goal, but it takes very little intelligence to apply a series of basic behavioral codes. Third, means-over-ends is paralytic. It means that if any person is injured by a potential act, it cannot be done, since by the means calculus, that act is then immoral. We cannot torture people, create collateral damage or in any way treat people unequally. That eliminates most decisions, which puts society on auto-pilot as we avoid making choices and then accept whatever inertia renders unto us over time.
People don’t like to think this way, because it’s somewhat cold-blooded, but the ends-over-means calculus is the only thought process that works in any situation. You first determine what is the correct goal, which is a type of morality based on results and not methods, and then you apply whatever methods you need to do to get to that goal. This way looks toward the future and considers the whole, lessening the value of the individual but instead avoiding a collapse of social order which affects all individuals.
Smarter people tend to be more emotional and to have a hard-wired need to do the right thing. They are as a result easily subverted by changing “do the right thing” from achieving the right results, to acting in a way that looks as if it’s a result in itself. Which is more moral, achieving a morally necessary goal, or failing to achieve that goal while acting morally on inconsequential methods? If you nobly and honorably avoid torturing a terrorist, and his nuclear bomb vaporizes the whole city, was that a more moral outcome? The West has been subverted by a sleight of hand that holds that a dishonorable result achieved with honor is better than an honorable result achieved through trickery.
We are not the first generation in history to confront this issue. The Odyssey, written thousands of years ago, confronts this question as its underlying theme. Odysseus is forced by necessity to lie, cheat, steal, deceive, murder and even abandon those who are close to him. He must keep his eye on the goal, which is to return home, and ultimately he achieves it. If he used a means-over-ends analysis, he would be lost still. Further, his wife who is beset by suitors also uses an ends-over-means analysis, deceiving these suitors so that she can hold out hope that her husband will return. The Odyssey was passed on through the centuries with this important message. Homer and the wise bards who re-told that epic poem knew that Greeks, like the Europeans to follow, were smarter than average and thus disproportionately susceptible to the sleight-of-hand that replaces honorable ends with dishonorable ends and “honorable” means. As a result, they wove consequentialism throughout the story.
As the people in the West who still have functional minds awaken from the two-thousand year jaunt into a Utopian dream, they are re-discovering this old lesson. If you use a means-over-ends analysis, you will be unable to make long-term decisions or in fact make any decisions until the crisis is upon you. As a result your society will die a “death of a thousand cuts,” with each successive slash draining more of its lifeblood until eventually it collapses. On the other hand, if your civilization re-discovers an ends-over-means analysis, the central question of that civilization becomes the study of what goals are moral, and thus the civilization becomes forward-looking and aims toward optimal choices instead of simply expedient ones.