The High Price of European Immigration policy

The Price of European Immigration

 
By Fjordman

In his 2008 book Et Delt Folk (“A Nation Divided”), The Danish historian and writer Morten Uhrskov Jensen carefully went through publicly available sources. He demonstrated that the opening up of his country for mass immigration was arranged by just part of the population, sometimes in the face of considerable popular opposition.

Roughly speaking, those representing the political and media establishment and the upper classes were in favor of open borders, whereas those from the lower classes were often opposed. This divide is viewed by those from the upper segments of society as caused mainly by racism, prejudice, ignorance and xenophobia.

Since the educated classes enjoyed a virtual hegemony over public debate, they were able to define all opposition as hate and intolerance, exemplified by people such as Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s Party. The well-to-do themselves rarely lived in areas with many immigrants and could afford to move, at least for a while, if that was needed. They focused on the abstract and allegedly humanitarian aspects of mass migration.

Immigrants are simply referred to as “new countrymen,” who as if by magic always seem to enrich the natives with their presence. In Denmark, multiculturalists have successfully managed to establish the neologism nydansker or “new Danes,” a vibrant new breed of people currently displacing the tired and boring “old Danes.”

For poorer people, immigration was a concrete issue, as immigrants moved into their neighborhoods and went to school with their children. To put it bluntly, for those with money, globalization initially meant that they could travel on holidays to exotic lands and treat the world as their playground. For those who were less well off, it meant that the entire world suddenly moved into their street and took over their children’s local playground.

When the Titanic during her maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean struck an iceberg just before midnight on 14 April 1912, the first people who could see the water pouring in were the third-class passengers who happened to be situated closest to the waterline. Meanwhile, the richest passengers at the top were drinking fine cognac long after the ship had started sinking. They didn’t realize what was going on for quite some time, because they were further removed from the physical problem. The poor passengers still unfortunately suffered the highest fatality rates, because the wealthy benefitted from having privileged access to the lifeboats.

We see the same phenomenon on display today, on a much larger scale. Having Islamophobia in Europe today is just as rational as having icebergophobia on board the Titanic in 1912.

Uhrskov Jensen in 2012 published another book, Indvandringens Pris (“The Price of Immigration”) about how much money non-European mass immigration costs his native Denmark. His conclusion is that this cost is great in terms of welfare payments and rising crime combined with declining efficiency and technological innovation.

He shows through carefully researched statistics that only certain Asian immigrants are able to keep up with northern Europeans in the educational system. A few skilled immigrants from India or elsewhere can compete, but mainly those from East Asia: Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and to some extent Vietnamese. All other non-Western immigrants show lower levels of skill and competence than Europeans, many of them a lot lower.

It should be mentioned here that these numbers correlate quite well with average IQ, where a few other Asians can compete with Europeans, but primarily East Asians. Other ethnic groups cannot do so. Although it has become taboo to say this in the modern Western world, it is well-documented fact that IQ correlates well with economic level, for individuals as well as for nations. The scholar Charles Murray has written much about this.

Former professor Helmuth Nyborg at Aarhus University in Denmark has conducted controversial research on the subject of the genetic inheritance of intelligence. His conclusion is that today’s mass immigration of non-Europeans will lead to an overall marked decline in the average intelligence of the population, and by extension a significant decline in social and economic competence, scientific progress, as well as technological innovation.

For decades Westerners have been told that immigration from less developed Third World countries is “good for the economy” and will “pay for future pensions.” Morten Uhrskov Jensen proves conclusively that this claim is fundamentally wrong, not just regarding Denmark or Scandinavia but for other Western countries, too.

Certain private companies may enjoy short-term benefits by having access to cheap labor and borderless export markets. Socialist parties can cynically import a reliable voter base of backward peoples who overwhelmingly vote for left-wing parties so they can receive generous welfare payments from the high tax payments extracted from the majority population, essentially forcing the white natives to fund their own colonization by foreign peoples.

For the country as a whole, however, non-European mass immigration will in the long run turn out to be an unmitigated social and economic disaster. The direct and indirect costs of today’s immigration policies through rising crime, increased corruption and higher welfare costs plus declining competitiveness, innovation and genetic intelligence add escalating costs to countries already in trouble due to rising deficits and mushrooming debt.

A Danish think tank has estimated that the net cost of immigration is as much as 50 billion kroner every year, and those were cautious estimates. A study from Denmark found that every second immigrant from the Third World – especially from Muslim countries – lacked the qualifications for even the most menial jobs on the labor market.

An ever-growing group of non-Western immigrants in Norway is dependent on welfare. This was the conclusion of a study by Tyra Ekhaugen of the Frisch Centre for Economic Research. Ekhaugen’s research contradicted the common assertion that the labor market depends increasingly on immigrants. The study indicated the reverse.

I have previously written about the costs of mass immigration several times, for instance in the essays When Danes Pay Danegeld:­ The End of the Scandinavian Model or What Does Muslim Immigration Cost Europe?

Yet Erling Lae, a politician for the Conservative Party and then the head of the Oslo city government, warned that the city desperately needs more immigrants and that there would be “complete chaos” without them. In 2005, Trygve G. Nordby, who has worked for the Socialist Left Party, as the director of the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI), claimed that the country needed more unskilled immigrants and should actively seek them out. It later emerged that UDI under Nordby’s rule had virtually run its own private immigration policy in violation of national law in order to give Iraqi immigrants the right to settle in Norway.

Journalist Halvor Tjønn from newspaper Aftenposten, one of the few genuinely critical journalists in Norway who later published a fairly realistic biography of Muhammed, in 2006 cited a report from NHO, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise. NHO warned that the current immigration policies constitute a serious threat to the country’s economy. Norway is one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and natural gas due to its offshore resources in the North Sea and elsewhere. Yet according to NHO, there is a risk that much of the profit Norway earns from selling oil could be spent on paying welfare for its rapidly growing immigrant population.

These warnings were left unheeded by political leaders, yet the problem hasn’t gone away. In 2012, the business daily Dagens Næringsliv reported that researcher Erling Holmøy from Statistics Norway together with senior advisor Birger Strøm studied how immigration affects government budgets. They concluded that in the long run it would prove to be very costly, stating that mass immigration bears certain similarities to a pyramid scheme.

Author Morten Uhrskov Jensen states that the basic trends are identical in Sweden, France, Germany and the USA. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this is, in his view, to stop all non-Western mass immigration. Yet the Western political elites continue to promote such mass immigration, in spite of mounting evidence that this is greatly harmful to their own countries. This dangerous stubbornness could be due to ideological blindness, or may be because the political elites see their positions, prestige and personal privileges tied to maintaining the status quo.

In the end, the historian Uhrskov Jensen fears that only a massive traumatic event or a major shock to the system can change the direction the Western world is currently headed and reestablish reasonable and sensible immigration policies that are in line with the long-term interests of the European majority population.

The Israeli revolution on Immigrants

 

The Israeli revolution

Jun 2012

by Brett Stevens.

As mentioned in a previous blog post, the last 60 years of politics against nationalism are being undone by the people in whose name nationalism was demonized.
Jews in Israel are realizing that like other first-world populations, they have produced a comfortable nation, and now just about everyone else on earth wants to sneak in and set up shop to partake of the wealth. (These people haven’t yet learned that wealth is created, not found. This is in part why they have none in the first place.)
When that happens, these foreigners move into your land and quickly set up shop. They prosper from your wealth and soon outnumber you. At that point, they either gain power through democratic means, or outright seize it. In the process, they interbreed with your people. This means you are no longer what you were. In fact, you’re now a hybrid. The original is gone forever, much like it would be in a genocide.
Under a nationalist order, which was the popular way of doing things until 1945 or so, one nation meant one group by culture, language, heritage and values. Heritage included race, and ethnic group. Thus Germany was for Germans, Israel for Jews, Ethiopia for Ethiopians and Thailand for the Thai. This both protected each unique ethnic group, and also maintained an order that government could not hope to achieve.
With agreement in culture, parity in abilities which are heritable and constitute heritage, and thus shared values and direction, civilizations simply did not need as much government. Everyone did what they needed to in roughly similar ways. The sense of group identity, and the pairing of that identity with values and heritage, meant that a sense of cooperation prevailed over the individualism. People were still individuals, but expressed it through achievement and moral decision-making and not in the surface adornments of possessions, outlandish behavior and bangles like trophy wives and families and adopted political viewpoints.
Theodor Herzl, a famous Jewish writer, pointed out why nationalism was important. In his view, the cause of anti-Semitism was the presence of Jews among majority cultures. The cause was not Jews; it was the presence of Jews, or to genericize it, the presence of a minority among a majority culture. He saw that a minority culture could either attempt to assimilate, and thus adulterate the majority culture, or remain true to their own traditions, and thus always be the exception that forced others to accommodate them. In Herzl’s view, this was a path to constant ethnic conflict, and the solution was a national homeland in Israel.
After almost seventy years of denying nationalism, the government of Israel — an ethnostate created to preserve the Jewish heritage, religion and culture — has affirmed nationalism by ejecting its immigrants and refusing to cater to the Palestinian majority, who with their higher rate of breeding will displace the Jewish people in their own homeland within another five decades.

In the last few weeks, Israeli authorities have shown similar resolve in deporting Africans, who have been sneaking into the country in ever-increasing numbers. With a boldness that every Western country should imitate, the Israelis have mandated expulsion for the explicit purpose of keeping their country Jewish—even for keeping it white. Once the government made up its mind that the Africans had to go, it went into action very quickly.
…There is, to be sure, a cruel double standard. Any American or European who wants an ethnostate of his own is a frothing bigot, whereas Israelis who want the same thing are heroes in their own country and respectable statesmen here. It is entirely understandable that American patriots should be angry about the double standard, but it is more useful to laud the Israeli example than to complain about it. The Israeli government is doing exactly what we would like our government to do. We should point to Israel as a model and encourage our rulers to copy it rather than grouse about others getting away with things we can’t do. We should celebrate this Israeli policy just as we would a similar outbreak of sanity in Canada or Australia. – American Renaissance

Israel has realized that this is a question of genocide.
Immigration is genocide. There are more immigrants than there are people in the first world, and if some come, others will rise up to replace them in their native lands as people reproduce more to ensure a steady supply of workers. The first world will be overrun by people “seeking a better life,” at which point its economies will collapse, then it will politically collapse, and finally it will dissolve into anarchy and criminality as its people starve.
If your nation exists, it should have a purpose. That includes the protection of your people, who are unique and easily destroyed. Viewing the task as one of economics or politics misses the point: this is not an optional issue that can be fiddled with to buy votes or jack up the taxpayer population. It’s a question of exterminating yourselves.
Europe is finally waking up and beginning to follow the European model. The United States will not be far behind. The reason is that these nations are recognizing that multiculturalism produces a do-nothing society where no one has anything in common, and resent their society for that, thus tend to riot, rape, loot, vandalize, assault and steal. The result is a path to a postmodern dystopia: unruly grey cultureless people ruled by a strong police state which also functions as permanent in loco parentis for people too disassociative to figure out the means of their own survival.
Even European leftist parties are snorting themselves to consciousness and declaring that the great multiculturalism experiment is over:

For too long we assumed those who worried about immigration were stuck in the past — unrealistic about how things could be different, even prejudiced.
Britain was experiencing the largest peacetime migration in recent history partly because of global factors like the lower cost of travel but also because the last Labour government severely underestimated the numbers who would come here when the EU expanded.
We were too dazzled by globalisation’s impact on growth and too sanguine about its price. We lost sight of who was benefiting and the people being squeezed in the middle who were losing out. And, to them, Labour was too quick to say: “Like it or lump it.” – VDARE

Multiculturalism, also known by its 1780s-1920s name of internationalism, is part of the leftist drive for absolute equality. The individual alone should be important, and no border should restrain him. Like Communism, a nice plan in the idealized space of “logic” that inhabits idle minds.
Back in the land of thinking about all of the consequences of an event, and not just how pleasing it is as a social meme or talking point, people are realizing that multiculturalism does not work. It’s not just this recession; it’s that societies are falling apart wherever it is tried, and the promise of making life better for (a) European-descended peoples and (b) immigrants has for the most part not materialized.
Instead, what we’re seeing is a destruction of indigenous populations and their replacement with a known quantity. This known quantity is not some adventurous, interesting and genius new race of humankind, but the same old mishmash of people without culture or heritage that we find in most third-world states.
This is why Israel is leading the way in the charge back to nationalism. We can have only one: nationalism or internationalism. Internationalism as it turns out is genocide that destroys societies and makes victims of everyone.
Now that the ice has been broken by the very people our rabid anti-internationalism was designed to protect, expect a domino effect of other countries demanding the same privilege. They’re not doing it from ideology, but from practicality. Their only other option is self-destruction.

the Third World in Europe Makes Europe the Third World

Bring the Third World to Europe Makes Europe the Third World

Posted  June 2012 

When you bring people to Europe from the Third World, do you change the people or do you change Europe?

This was the question asked by Andrew Brons MEP during a debate on the “Roma” or Gypsies of Europe, held in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) last week.

“The Roma seem to move in and out of fashion in the European Parliament. We have not heard of them for some time. I was beginning to get quite worried,” Mr Brons said.

“I feel that the Roma are depersonalised in many documents and speeches. They are spoken about as a people who can have things done to them: discrimination; deprivation; impoverishment.

“They are also people who must have people done for them – provided with EU money.

“They are never credited with having done things for themselves or to themselves. Indeed they are not credited with having the capability of doing either.

“I don’t know how many MEPs ever meet any Roma. Perhaps they occasionally see a picture of one on a chocolate box. I know two in Britain who have done very well for themselves.

“They do sometimes act very well for themselves, as I have mentioned. However, sometimes, they do things to themselves and to each other that are far from beneficial.

“Two years ago, we had a hearing in this Committee LIBE) about the human trafficking of women and girls and we had a representative from Europol.

“I asked him, rather cautiously, whether any population group was disproportionately represented among the traffickers and among the trafficked.

“His answer was clear and unambiguous. He said that the answer to both questions was the Roma. Roma men were trafficking Roma women and girls for prostitution.

“If you doubt that, when you are next in Strasbourg look at the Roma encampments outside the City to the East and you will see only a little down the road Roma girls standing by the side of the road. The authorities have done absolutely nothing about it.

“It was said earlier that the lives of the Roma were more similar to the lives of people in the Third World than to those of people in Europe.

“Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that they come originally from the Third World.

“There is a more general question. When you bring people to Europe from the Third World, do you change the people or do you change Europe?”

The hunted

The hunted

Jun 2012

by Brett Stevens.

Most modern citizens of the West take their society at face value and assume that its intention is what it says its intention is.
In contrast to that, some have found out that society is more of a pleasant covering — a perfume, a drop cloth, a euphemism — for the underlying natural order of predation, parasitism and production.
This order was chosen by life because it requires no context. It works in any situation, provided there is time, space and energy. Evolution is of this nature, as is thought itself.
When we think, some thoughts consume others and some thoughts delay others, prolonging their own lives with the momentum of others. This has the effect of producing a hierarchy: weakness is dragged down by the parasites, and the strong conquer others to rise.
The translation of this order into the physical reality we inhabit is terrifying to us because not only are we potential prey, made of tasty meat, but we are also locked in our large brains which see only the world made of our memories, our judgments, our knowledge and our feelings.
As a result, we tend to deny the underlying order of reality and its predators, parasites and producers. One reason for that is that we, and by that I generalize the Western population in the middle socioeconomic and intellectual bracket, are actually what is hunted by both the predators and parasites in this world.
Predators are those who would take what we have through conquest. These are on the international scale other contenders for superpower status, and at home, competition in business and social pursuits. Some groups want to rise above their social status, others want to immigrate and take control, and still others want to seize us for their religious, economic, political or social agendas. We are their targets.
Even more predatory are those who want to use us as food for their businesses. They want us to be fodder for our products. They wish to infect our heads with illusions, inducing us to buy from them, and to make profit from us.
While this is part of the natural order, it is natural for us to wish to avoid when not advantageous for us. How many times must we hear this tale: product is invented, becomes an underground hit because it’s a better option, then gets sold and the MBAs come out of the woodwork, thus product gets made more cheaply and becomes less effective at the same time it becomes the most popular. We are the target. They hunt us for their nourishment and want to dominate us.
On the other side, the parasites wish to drag down those of us that they can catch being unwary. Unlike a predator, a parasite does not seek to consume. It seeks to cut itself a share of the pie and eat at the table, every day. A successful predator wins by conducting a transaction, but a parasite wins by keeping the transaction open for as long as possible.
The biggest parasites are well-intentioned government programs and special interest groups that demand we subsidize them in exchange for feelings of moral superiority. They actually give us nothing. They program us to think that quibbling over money is lower-class, and that we look like jerks if we don’t support any cause that makes someone somewhere happier or “more empowered.”
The goal of these parasites cannot be taken at face value. They do not intend to fix the problems they describe. Instead they intent to milk them, applying gentle pressure in such a way that induces more of the problem to come to light, so they can achieve their real agenda, which is bleeding away your cash.
Middle class people in the West, who comprise its most productive sector and those who will determine its future with their political power, like to remain in oblivion that they are the hunted. But they are: they are the prize, the real breadwinners of this society and the ones everyone else wants to replace, or else live off of.
Almost all the voices in media deny this because each voice is hoping to cut itself a share of that wholesome middle class pie. But as animals struggling for our own survival, we forget the natural order — no matter how much cloaked in pleasantries — at our peril.

Screw yourself , You Elect Them

Screw yourself

Jun  2012

by Brett Stevens.

The Dunning-Kruger effect tells us that those who are least competent will see themselves as more competent, while those who are more competent will bemoan their failings.
This shows us the radical individualist mindset at work. It is not as simple as ego; ego is in and of itself a decision-maker and a consideration of self as more than raw impulse, thus is a very useful thing. But when the individual devotes himself or herself to radical individualism, the ego becomes a defensive creature.
It is defensive because it has no goal. In fact, its goal is the absence of a goal, so that whims and impulses can rule the mind. This is a blameless state of mind, an eternal present, which at first seems comforting to the individual who has lost his way.
The ego views any part of external reality that competes with these whims as an enemy. The ego wants complete control, so that its whims are more important than its obligations to pay attention to the world around it, and stave off bad consequences. Left purely to its own devices, the ego would create a world of no consequences and no past, so that all that matters would be the present moment and the process of making decisions or expressing whims, feelings, emotions and desires.
Aristocratic societies deny radical individualism and instead operate on the leadership principle. The idea is that a leader must be morally, mentally, spiritually and intellectually disciplined so that he can prevent the impulses of the population from taking over. When impulses rule, commonality of focus on the goal is lost, and all decisions are made as if by committee. The neurotic mind likes this because it conceals its own failings by forcing all activity into a narrow range where very little is truly wrong.
When the Crowd overthrew their leaders, they replaced leadership with the notion of popularity. It didn’t matter if a leader was good; what mattered was that his people found his words compelling. The result has been a series of manipulators who make large promises, deliver very little, blame the opposition and end up millionaires.
Many in the United States and Europe are currently so enraged with their elected leaders that they want to throw them out, or jail them, or worse. What they forget is that these are elected leaders. They managed to get into office by convincing people with their words. But we trust these people to make the right decision. Either these words are witchcraft, and should be banned, or the people made a bad decision. Since it’s unpopular to think the latter, we think the former despite its superstitious and illogical basis.
Conservatism was a historical opposition to this tendency. Instead of focusing on the individual, conservatism focuses on the object to be conserved — nature, the family, heritage, values and wisdom — and thus bypasses and transcends the individual. This annoys the left, who have manufactured surrogate or oppositional issues for all things the right likes to conserve. Instead of conserving nature, we fight for carbon caps; instead of the family, we struggle for birth control; instead of heritage, there’s internationalism; values and wisdom are replaced by political dogma and “science” in the narrowest sense. Conservatism was a backlash against the defensive ego by shifting politics from whim to a derivation of physical reality.
The defensive ego hated that, because the radical individualist impulse is to deny any limitations on the individual, its ego and its whims. It does not see a world of cause and effect, but a static world in which things exist that it may want. As a result, it makes political choices based not on what is likely to occur, but what it wishes will occur; it is blind to any real future, because it only sees the now as it knows it, and the changes it would like to see made to that now.
That type of thinking leads to disasters like the following:

In 1980, a year at a public college cost about 12 percent of median family income; the maximum Pell grant covered 70 percent of that. Today, public colleges cost a staggering 26 percent of family income each year, and Pell grants cover at most a third. Republicans ignore this entirely. Democrats say that without their modest Pell grant boosts, things would be even worse. – “Young Americans Get the Shaft,” The Washington Post

Much as with Congress, there is no one to blame here except the voter. In particular, the young voters are to blame, because it was their demands that made this situation. They saw that college degrees led to good jobs, and declaring reality to be not a zero-sum game, they figured that then everyone could get a college degree and everyone would have a high paying job. A simple study of cause-effect relationships reveals that were that to happen, the value of a college degree would fall in proportion to its commonality. And that is exactly what happened.
The voters have not noticed and are busy trying to find someone to blame. They will probably blame George W. Bush because he seems to be a convenient scapegoat. When the orgy of blame is over, they’re going to look for the next convenient promise that flatters them and makes them think government will do something to allow them to live in the world of whim yet again. They will screw themselves then, as they’ve screwed themselves with education, by engaging in the eternal cycle: see something good, demand it for everyone, and then be shocked and surprised to find that its value — its rarity — has been destroyed.
Products, ideas, trends, memes, communities and even civilizations follow the same cycle. Some good idea breaks free from the pack, and then the pack realizes it wants that idea, so they en masse demand it and in the process, bent it to their ideals. That makes it into the same mundane ideas that were failing before it came along. Now the new idea is equally worthless to the old. This is how humanity destroys itself and the source of its misery.

Union Political Contribution Opt Out Forms - For Non-Labour voters of Unison, Unite, GMB and USDAW

 Please use the links below to opt out of funding the NWO Marxist trade unions

Union Political Contribution Opt Out Forms - For Non-Labour voters of Unison, Unite, GMB and USDAW

Are you a member of a Union, but don't vote Labour?  Do you want to stop your Union, giving your money, to the Labour Party?  Here's a little help:

UNISON Opt out form

UNITE Opt out form

GMB:  A form of exemption notice can be obtained by or on behalf of any member either by application at, or by post from, the Head Office or any Branch Office of the Union or from the:

Certification Office for Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations,
22nd Floor, Euston Tower,

286 Euston Road,

London NW1 3JJ.

This form, when filled in, or a written request in a form to the like effect, should be handed or sent to the Secretary of the Branch to which the member belongs.

USDAW: You must Email them to request opt out. Contact form HERE 

Note: For all other Unions click HERE

IMPORTANT NOTE: Make sure that when you have opted out that you don't have to request a refund - some of these Unions continue to take your money and won't stop until you request a refund.  You may also notice that your opt out may not start until the New Year.  Good Luck!

Leftism Politics and original sin

 

An eternal religion: original sin

Jun , 2012

by Forest Johnson.

Politics goes back a long, long way, as does Leftism.
Indeed, without Leftism, aka Sinisterism, politics could not exist.
The Garden of Eden was the setting for Original Sin, which saw the devil beguiling Adam and Eve into the temptation of equality with God.
For what is temptation, but the promise of an easy route to what is not yours, or that you do not deserve? It is easy to see that temptation equals Leftism.
And so we have the devil, sinister by default, appealing through temptation, to Adam and Eve, to disobey God and eat the apple that would give them equality with God. Which is an easy thing to fall for, if you are human. To want whatever you consider you do not have, in preference for what you do have.
Humans always have a choice. They may decide which route to take. The one that is right and good, natural and life-giving, or the one that breaks all the rules of living, because it looks like the fast route to personal gain. This is the nature of temptation, and the nature of Leftism. Except, as is widely known among those who refuse temptation: the easy route is generally not what it appears to be, at all, and leads, inevitably, to the exact opposite of what it promises to deliver. Along with chaos, preceding final, permanent death.
The first Leftist was the devil himself. God granted life to the first humans, along with every goodness necessary to sustain that life. The devil set about taking that goodness, and life itself, away. Not by honest and direct means, because the sinister is incapable of such action, but by deception and deceit.
If the Left came right out and told it like it was, nobody would buy it.
“Vote for us, and we will progressively destroy everything that sustains you, until finally you, yourself are destroyed. Forever.”
No. That would not be something a Leftist would say. It would be more like:
“Vote for us, and get everything you don’t have, be anything you want to be, behave in any way you want, do no work, and worship nothing except yourself, and do it all at the expense of those who are responsible for your situation.”
And people, being people, are sorely tempted by this.
The devil offers much.
And delivers only death.
There is a right way and a wrong way. One works, but generally involves sacrifice. The other appears to work, but ultimately doesn’t; appears to involve no sacrifice, but sacrifices everything for nothing. The responsible way, and the irresponsible way. The way of life, and the way of death.
Adam and Eve were the eternal innocents. They may as well have been sentient rabbits, nibbling on boundless acres of verdant green. Innocence. This is acceptable in the newly-born, the very young, and in small, furry animals. It is a vulnerable, transitory state, that for survival’s sake, must be soon grown out of.
Men trade innocence for self-discipline. Selfishness for responsibility. Dogma for wisdom. Those who do not, are not men, at all, but babies.
The Religion is not some airy-fairy fireside story.
It tells the way to life. It warns of the way to death.
It promotes a reverence for life, advising against the worship of death.
It recognizes and respects both, but makes no bones about which it prefers.
The next time you encounter a serpent, shun it, but treat it well.
It knows not what it does, nor cares, for it is what it is.
It can not help itself.
If it exists, at all, then it has a purpose.
That purpose is not to become an object of worship.

Albion

• 
• 

Written by Albion

We are preaching to the converted, how many times have you heard that?  Writers post articles like this not necessarily to preach to the converted but rather hoping that people who are drawn to internet sites like the British Resistance and other Patriotic movements that are continually being vilified by the media and National Broadcaster and suspect the government and the establishment are not telling the truth will by reading these articles will have their suspicions confirmed.
We are all horrified at the rape of our country but what is continually being asked is can the people do anything about it?  Can it be reversed?  After finding myself in the wilds of London recently, West Norwood actually, patiently waiting in a bus shelter with about 8 assorted Africans or Caribbeans I was half expecting a voice to enquire of me ‘’Dr Livingstone I presume?’’
Large blocks of Council apartments stood behind me with African children playing around the perimeter of the tower blocks, the passers-by were all from the third world, there were no white people except my wife and me.  I had not deliberately headed to this part of colonised London, the immediate thought was, it is too late this damage is irreversible.  I travelled on 4 buses and 4 trains as BR were working on parts of the rail system.  That day the sights I saw from the window of the bus and train frightened the hell out of me.
I was visiting my sister who has been in a palliative care home for over 25 years with MS and when she was first admitted to this institution West Norwood was predominately White.  I thought to myself this change is irreversible.  I went into the shop next to the bus stop to buy a paper; again it was a Negro shop, so were all the other shops.
Later on in the week I went to a little Kent village close to where I was brought up, Wateringbury.  I went into a shop to buy bread and found it was owned by a Pakistani, or Indian or Sri Lankan or Bangladeshi, God knows who!  But the questions still remain; can anything be done about the dreadful uncharacteristic changes taking place in Our Country?
It will be proved within this century, once the blood has been cleaned away that what European governments and successive British governments have achieved in experimenting with so called ‘Multiculturism’ and ‘Diversity’ amount to blatant human rights violations inflicted on the indigenous European populations and at the same by enacting savage, stifling undemocratic laws curtailing the peoples freedom of speech and expression, freedom to voice genuine concern at the dilution and in our case the destruction of the unique English character, not dissimilar to the atrocities being perpetrated on the indigenous peoples of Tibet by the Chinese, whose culture and traditions are not Tibetan and who are deliberately scattering them to other lands and reshaping the Tibet population.
In this country these experiments have caused terrible social fragmentation and upheaval; ‘No Go’ areas only for the indigenous people in their own land and fear for the safety of their children once out on the streets, especially young females.  It is changing the quintessential English character and appearance of many English cities, towns and even villages with eyesores like Mosques and Minarets and the banshee desert wailings of the call to prayer, schools where none of the pupils have English as their first language.  Strange black apparitions on the street, humans resembling Crows or is that Penguins?  This has not happened by accident but by wilful, criminal design.
The people can rise up but the authorities use the Ideological Police forces that resort to Kettling; shepherding the peasants like the sheep.  Incidentally In March 2012 Kettling was ruled lawful by the European Court of Human Rights following a legal challenge, note not made legal by OUR government but by an illegally formed pseudo government in a foreign country.
We witnessed baton charges against our own people when we saw during the protest march of the Countryside Alliance, or the British Policeman who murdered an innocent man walking past a street protest on his way home.  This is decaying England in the 21st century.  Enlightened people know what has caused this terrible situation but how do we stop it without a democratic election system in this country.
So far what I have written is stating the bleeding obvious; the question still remains how do white people halt their demise and how do we regain self government?
For a start it we must understand this festering edifice that is controlling the borders of Europe, refinancing its debts, arranging austerity packages and threating fines severe if counties do not adhere to the austerity conditions placed upon them by yet another treaty and in the meanwhile looking to expand into North Africa and beyond.
This socialist monster was constructed one agreement at a time, one treaty at a time it cannot be disassembled overnight only by pulling out of one treaty at a time.  Don’t look to the English people for salvation; they have lost heart, their courage over 60 years has been shattered, look to Europe.
We must encourage revolt in Europe, we must encourage countries to take control of their own destinies, and we must encourage them as they have the backing of many people here even though many are too terrified publicly to voice any opinion.
Like Nazi Germany the European Union must be destroyed first by withdrawing from the Schengen treaty which eliminated all border controls within the occupied European states.  I believe the Greek opposition want OUT of this agreement to have more control of their borders to stem the tide of Turks, Tunisians, Libyans, and Moroccans and economic tourists from darkest Africa.
With the epidemic of rape in Norway and Sweden withdrawing from this treaty would go a long way in reducing the numbers of violent rapes in Scandinavia by stemming the tide of illegals.  It is not the E.U that channels blacks into Europe but the United Nations, a truly globalist entity.  The EU just facilitates movement through Europe that much easier.
What terrifies politicians most is the possibility of losing an election and having to work for a living, if enough people complain they have to listen.
If Marine Le Pen were to join a governing coalition in France I would hope she too would look at withdrawing from this mad Schengen Treaty.  Although I believe she wants OUT of the EU totally.  This monster cannot be destroyed overnight its destruction will come by ONE TREATY AT A TIME.
After its destruction perhaps we can see a little clearer and not be bound by another foreign country telling us who we can or cannot deport and most importantly we can immediately seal our borders …IT IS A START.……………………… THERE IS STILL HOPE.

Father’s protest against a left wing pedophile supporter yards from where toddler James Bulger was abducted,

Father’s protest against a left wing pedophile supporter at her place of work just yards from where toddler James Bulger was abducted, abused and murdered.

Posted on June , 2012

Members of the Parents against paedophiles (P.A.P) stormed into the shop where Nikki McDonough was working to challenge the owners of the ‘Cash Shop’ which employed a paedophile supporter. In the early 1990’s toddler James Bulger was abducted and abused, then murdered just across the street in the Strand shopping center in Strand Road Bootle. The angry parents were reacting to the setting up of a counter demonstration by miss McDonough and her union member boyfriend Phil Dickens who works just yards away in the Triad center also in Strand Road Bootle. The pair of hard line left wing anarchists organised a violent demonstration against the people of Liverpool who objected to the abuse of countless young children in Rochdale by 9 convicted paedophiles. The ‘sick’ pair turned up with suspected members of a far left group known as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) who thought paedophilia was ‘normal.’ Phil Dickens has strong links with the Labour Party, and many people wondered why he had not been tracked down earlier. He was spotted by a woman in McDonalds on Strand Road, Bootle Liverpool, after a woman recognised him when she and her husband were confronted by him for protesting against the paedophile gang outside Liverpool Crown Court. They then contacted Parents Against Paedophiles and this website. Two undercover investigators from the Labour25 investigation Wirral base team, went out to observe and found the ‘VILE’ pair working in Strand Road.
A spokesperson for ‘Parents Against Paedophiles commented.. ‘’we can’t thank these people enough for finding this pair of paedophile supporters.’’ ‘’As good members of the public, they have gone well above their call of duty.’’ ‘’The public will now be made aware of these Two.’’ She added, ‘’There is also a case coming forward that Phil Dickens had touched a young lad at his place of work, bruising him and making him nervous.’’ ‘’We are waiting for information and other witnesses to come forward on this issue.’’ The Two have also got Labour links with Labours Harriet Harman once involved in PIE and also Ex Labour MP candidate Peter Tatchell, who said ‘Not all sex involving children is unwanted.’’ During the demonstration, onlookers went crazy at the shop who employed such a person as Nikki McDonough. One woman commented, ‘’What sort of woman would support paedophiles?’’ Another said, ‘’Her boyfriend is hiding up in the Triad center looking out of the window.’’ It was true, Phil Dickens was hiding several stories up but refused to come out even to protect his girlfriend from the angry Bootle crowd that now gathered in mass below. Police arrived and the protesters were given a loud cheer and clap by the paeople of Strand Road Bootle. ‘’There is no place for paedophile supporters in Bootle,’’ a group of young girls added.’’

Follow us on twitter – Labour25 twitter

 

Guilt compulsion tyranny

Jun 2012

by Steve Harris.

There’s nothing in common between our citizens anymore, and the internet shows it. Almost all references to the internet begin with “So I was arguing with this idiot…” The points of view are literally incompatible.
No case in point is more illustrative than a recent exchange on noted internet dropout huddle zone Reddit. One poster told a story about an elementary-school student who was not very popular, and this kid had a birthday party, and no one came.
The poster was hurt and outraged that kids were so “cruel” and used epithets to describe their behavior. But is it really so? As I pointed out, it’s not necessarily that they were cruel. They may have simply not wanted to socialize with the kid. Saying that they then must socialize with him, or be thought cruel, is a type of mental control through guilt. In fact, it’s a bit psycho to judge their behavior in any way. There should be no obligation to go to birthday parties, or the exercise becomes full Soviet and there’s no fun left in it.
In the same way, our citizens should not be forced to socialize with one another. But in the hands of nanny state government however, the same choice will be made as this poster wants to do to birthday parties. It’s not fair if someone has a birthday party that is unattended, he thinks, so we should use guilt and fear of being ostracized to force people to attend. Never mind that then the kid is not merely unpopular, but hated, because he’s an obligation as odious as paying taxes or waiting in line at the DMV.
Our society tosses around words like “cruel” and “oppressive” without even bothering to care what the meaning is. You succeed in this society by being inoffensive and having a spiel that most people find pleasant and complimentary. They like having their heads filled with images of themselves as kind and wise, not cruel and prone to exercise judgment. In their distracted egomaniac stroll through life, they want to be told that no one is more important than anyone else, and that no one can tell anyone else what to do. This lets their distracted suburban-housewife mentality think that everything is peaceful, maan. We’re all cool because we’re all the same. We are one, now have a dreamcatcher and an Ansel Adams print to make you feel profound.
The grim reality of the situation is that it is better for everyone if we are all totally honest instead. Take the unpopular kid for example. If no one in his class wants to go to his birthday party, he should face that truth and then consider his options. The first is one that most people find upsetting, because it requires you to really escape the brainwashing of this era. Who cares if you’re popular? Don’t bother trying to be popular unless it’s important to you. The second option is for people to whom it is important to be popular. If no one wants to come to your birthday party, you have to figure out why and change yourself so that they like you. If they’re all jerks or idiots, you have to be a jerk or idiot like them, but your party will be well attended.
In either case, the unpopular kid has made a choice and adapted. Either he rejects popularity itself or finds a way to win at the game. He would not have these realizations if he were not told by others by their non attendance that he was not popular. When we shield this kid from reality by forcing other kids to go to his party, he never goes through the learning experience and for the rest of his life, goes through life depending on a false notion of how it works.
Our society as a whole is run like a committee. It likes to make everyone play well together. Its leaders like to see peace, order, conformity and most of all a constant need for external validation. People who go through life begging for attention are easy to control. The nanny state comes from this mentality, and thrives by controlling us through its approval, like a manipulative parent. It wants us all to be forced to go to the unpopular kids’ birthday because that keeps the peace, and also breaks our independent will and makes us dependent on how others perceive us.
The scary thing about this state of mind is that it arises from good intentions. No one wants to think about being the kids whose party was a bust. But in the name of that fear, we create a far worse devil. By forcing us to interact with each other, we make our society insincere and manipulative. That effectively destroys all honest emotions, all friendships, all love. But at least the committee is happy.