The enemies amongst us

The enemies amongst us

Sarah maid of Albion

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through...all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC

-/-

Those words, first spoken more that twenty one centuries ago have been quoted often during the ensuing millennia, and are repeated frequently by nationalists in our own time. We need not question their longevity, for they remain as relevant and as apt today as they did when Cicero spoke them in the first century BC. In fact they are words never more pertinent than today, for our modern society has so blurred the line between honour and betrayal, between truth and between lies that traitors can move more freely, can spread their poison more widely and can have a more devastating effect than at almost any previous time in our history.

It was the traitor who told us we must question our old certainties, but he did so not for the sake of enlightenment but to undermine the bedrock and mortar which maintained our unity and our resolve. With those certainties went our beliefs and our values leaving us adrift and exposed to the dark shapes circling around us, and it was then that the traitor began his real work.

I speak of “the traitor” but he is, in fact legion and has swiftly infected almost every corner of our once great societies.  He comes in many forms, ranging from the true believer determined to destroy Western man for the sake of an ever evolving ideology, they are fanatics yet capable of changing their modus but not their aims following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  At the other end of the scale are effectively, drones, brainwashed into doing what they have been taught to believe is right.  

Between those two extremes are the cynics including politicians and the very rich who gain short term material gain from the joint enterprise, the third world racists who are doing it out of hate, and the white inverted racists, whom Pat Buchanan refers to as "ethno-masochist", people who delight in inflicting harm on their own ethnic group so as to earn what they view as moral credits.     

They are in our police forces, they proliferate in our judiciary and in our institutions, they sit in parliament and they dominate our schools and places of education where they teach lies and half truths in place of history and tell our children to feel shame for their race.

In this article I plan to focus of one of their most deadly manifestations the manner in which they have captured and transformed the Western media and imposed their deformed narrative upon all mainstream sources of information to the point where the media in all its mainstream forms has become one of the most deadly enemies of the West.  Deadly because it is they who inject the poisons and administer the sedatives which render us unable and unwilling to resist what is being done to use.

They are with us twenty four hours a day, creating false realities, forming out opinions and telling us what to think, whilst stealthily terrorizing and intimidating us until we become ashamed and frightened of our natural instincts and progressively secret views and anything which, in another age would have given us courage and prompted us to resist their campaign against us.

Our news men have long ago given up reporting the facts with anything approaching balance , they no longer inform, they indoctrinate.  They have ceased to be reporters and have become propagandists and even more so they have become censors.  Facts and events which if reported could undermine the official message are suppressed, silenced and hurled into the great silent shredder where uncomfortable truths now go to die.

Those events which can not be buried and hidden away are presented as something other than what they are, as with the true nature of the so called Arab “spring” the real ethnic make up of the “English” rioters or the reality of underage sexual grooming in Britain.

A few generations before our own, journalism could still be viewed as an honourable trade, when reporter still viewed their roles as seekers of truth and exposers of wrong doing. There is now no honour left in their murky trade. The truth is now the very last thing they seek and facts are not exposed, they are spun to suit an agenda or to act as modern fables essential to the ongoing indoctrination.

It has reached the point that there is no benefit to be gained from watching a television news broadcast or reading a newspaper unless you accept that a significant part of what is being laid before you is pure fiction and the rest, unless it is ideologically neutral, which very little is, will feature half truths and distortions.  

Briefly we are seeing a shadow of these liars true nature.  This very week the Leveson Inquiry into abuses by the media are beginning to expose the total contempt and disregard for the public endemic within the culture of our newsrooms, however, this is only scratching at the surface of the true iniquity and inherent treachery within the fourth estate.   

The inquiry will not go further than exposing phone hacking and lying about individual victims, it will not examine the role of these creatures in what has been done to our society.  We are only able to read about it because one section of the media are enjoying undermining Rupert Murdoch, who's Fox News organisation is likely to be the only section of the US media to oppose Obama's reelection in 2012.   In any event news reporting is only part of the brainwashing, and in many ways not the most insidious.

Although the vast majority of those reading at this site take an interest in news and current affairs, and many of us spend hours tracking down the truth behind news stories we are a tiny minority. Most of the public, especially the young, take little if any interest in “the news”, however, the media have other and far more powerful means of lying to them, through entertainment and popular drama.

Through TV screens, cinemas, DVDs even the music they listen to and the “popular” internet sites they visit an alternative reality is projected to them which complements and bolsters the fake reality which was taught to them in school.

The alternative reality is effectively a reverse reality where multicultural diversity is cool, desirable and benign, whereas nationalism and any opposition to the third world colonisation of the West is evil, malevolent and ugly.

Non-whites are eternally intelligent. honourable and desirable, or the innocent victims of European prejudice.  If they are not victims they doctors, teachers, scientists, policemen or in other ways heroic, whereas all paedophiles, rapists, serial killers bigots and, of course, all racists are white.

Then we have advertising which is beginning to take on a surreal element reminiscent of 1930’s style soviet Union style propaganda. For instance when happy white families spread Clover butter substitute on their sandwiches while gleefully applauding benign and elderly black musicians and when virtually every commercial for beauty products shampoo or slimming aids, as if by mandate have to feature three females “best friends” of politically correct differing ethnic shades, how do these differ from the images of happy peasants waving their scythes and sickles over a plentiful harvest, which were used by Russian propagandist to disguise a very different and far less attractive reality?.     

Beyond brainwashing the media has a more sinister role in spreading terror and encouraging obedience they do this by ensuring that any transgressors, and any who dare question the new orthodoxy are punished severely, humiliatingly and in public.  When the modern media exposes alleged “ra##ists” like Tiger Woods ex-caddy, or, they hope, John Terry, they are performing the same function as the stocks in medieval town squares, or the show trials behind the old Iron Curtain, their purpose being to scare the public into acquiescence.

To a monumental degree they have been extraordinarily successful in their malevolent scheme.

It has long been clear that the western media are among the greatest enemies of Western society, they are the traitors within our walls, it is they who are beaming their poison and their lies into our homes day after days, brainwashing, and terrorizing us, creating a false reality and hiding the truth from us.

Mass media has the means to create great good, however, it is being use to achieve great evil.

It is the agent which has brought us to where we are and it is the poison which will kill us.  We will not succeed, we will not survive unless be can break its deadly grip on our crippled and dying countries and expose the monsters lurking behind the toxic smokescreen they have created.   

Liberal Filmmaker sees the real Islam; wakes up

Video: Liberal Filmmaker sees the real Islam; wakes up

By July, 2012

These kinds of stories are very refreshing but exceedingly rare. It isn’t often that leftists come face to face with the truth and admit they were wrong but it does happen occasionally. The latest example comes courtesy of liberal filmmaker Erick Allen Bell.
Bell went to Tennessee to do a documentary about how right-wing extremists were preventing the construction of a mosque. What he found was a truth that was so fundamentally different from his preconceptions. Bell should be congratulated for having the intellectual honesty and courage to admit what the left, in general, refuses to. Be sure to watch as Allen explains how differently the liberal media treated him before and after his realization.
Via MediaIte:

Sir Cheif Constable Norman Bettison - Excuses on Grooming and Race

Sir Norman Bettison - Excuses on Grooming and Race

Chief Constable of Yorkshire, Sir Norman Bettison, has chosen this week to chime in about the grooming of children for sex and exploitation.

"I believe there is a problem that is very widespread, not just in Yorkshire, not just within the Muslim or Asian community, but there are girls who are vulnerable and those vulnerabilities are more and more often these days exploited" he said at a summit with 'community leaders'. You all know which community.

Bringing race into it himself - but it's only whites, he doesn't have to be PC about them - he said that some young white men see young girls as "easy meat" and that it was not "a faith or a race issue".

That skirts the issue entirely though.

White British = British, lock them up if they're perverts. But the fact is they're a British problem.

All these Pakistani and Afghan perverts, not British, and shouldn't be here to be our problem.

Just because we have homegrown perverts, that's no cause to be importing more.

And if we look to the victims of child abuse by grooming gangs, how many Muslim children are there sexually abused by non-Muslims? Please officialdom, no trite answer about we don't know because they keep it hidden to avoid bringing shame on their families or some similar banality.

Many whites probably never report it, or don't get taken seriously by police, so the figures for whites are probably far lower than reality and it would thus make for a fair comparison.

Apparently Bettison is happy at the "determination and willingness of the religious leadership to be involved in preventing exploitation in the future and sending a powerful message to Muslim communities that this is abhorrent behaviour that should be stamped upon" though.

So - Muslims create the problem. Police, politicians, social workers, and the Muslims, do their best to ignore it for years. Then, when it can no longer be kept silent, Muslims are determined to be involved in preventing exploitation in the future.

We're supposed to be grateful for that, or consider it in any way a reassurance? People knew this was going on years ago, where were the Muslim communities then?

Of course, police like Bettison have to mention white perverts - funny if a white commits a crime against a minority the police never feel the need to point out there are Pakistani perverts too. Wonder why that is?

It's all the same old attempt to diffuse the issue, spread blame around, and ignore the facts.

Had these perverts never been imported, would countless British children have avoided being sexually abused? Yes.

Is multiculturalism worth the countless victims left used and abused in its wake? No.

Simple, but the powers that be will never admit to either, it's all spin, coverups, and praise the minorities from whose community the problem originates.

The truth is simple - countless children have been, and are, being betrayed by those who should have been looking out for them. Multiculturalism isn't worth one victim, let alone the huge amount of victims we see all around us.

You don't get to be Chief Constable, or a Sir, for being honest about such matters though - it's just not the done thing.

Posted at  Southwest Nationalist 

Smashing and Destruction

Smashing

Jul  2012

by Brett Stevens.

Nature gives us warning signs about people as clearly as it puts stripes on bees or hourglass figures on spiders. These are signals that the creature we face is toxic and ready to destroy.
Among the advanced simians with car keys that populate our cities, the warning signs generally center around a lack of stability or purpose. You see them for example when you drive down an unknown street and see people just hanging out on their balconies, porches and lawns, with no clear purpose. Or when you find some person who is evasive about personal details or their reason for being somewhere. Even someone overly friendly and helpful can be a sign of a scam, if there’s no reason for them to be so.
Another warning sign is subtler, but it’s this: many people never escape the mode of outrage at their upbringing, heritage and society. They are programmed to destroy because they are filled with rage, fueled by a sense of hurt, and sustained by a low self-esteem that requires an external target or it will turn on itself.
Their mentality is one of smashing. They do not construct; they do not have enough love for life, or themselves (and the two require one another), to do construct anything. All they know is their pain, and since they have not replaced it with success or honest enjoyment of life, they can only smash and destroy and hope that somehow they will purge the poison that torments them.
The only glitch with this plan is of course that their torment is within. Even if what happened to them was external and bad, their reaction is within, and like the swelling of a wound, it can be more fatal than the injury itself if not stopped. But they feed it, because it has become an identity. They are no longer normal, like the others. They are different, exiled from happiness, and filled with a desire for revenge.
Desires of this nature are so penetrating that they form the core of the personality. This process starts with a few simple decisions, such as those to be a deliberate outsider and reject the rules of the herd. These are usually innocent errors, throwing the baby out with the bathwater and condemning society because you hate your parents.
These then accelerate when self-pity becomes involve. It is at first a gentle invitation, as if from Satan, to pursue a mentally easier path. Soon it becomes a crutch. As with all addictions, the first one is free.
Finally it becomes an identity after years of alienation cement the role. The original injury long gone is replaced by an ongoing process of self-injury, by which the person keeps resentment alive because it explains their lives to this point in a handy narrative. It also allocates the blame elsewhere. Even if the blame originally belonged elsewhere, at some point the burden has been assumed by the individual. But like most addictions, this is not made explicit and the person lulls themselves into thinking that others have done this to them.
The result is a compulsive need to smash that can only briefly be sated, and then will need recharging again. Mouths dripping (metaphorical) blood, they rush from one beautiful thing to another, motivated only to disable, subvert, poison, besmirch, pollute and eradicate. They learn early on to do this with substitutes. If you find a work of beauty, replace it with a work of neurotic hatred, and a 200-page document explaining why your work is profound and insightful because it addresses pain and not beauty. Pain, after all, is how we relate to others who are suffering.
People who have a need to smash eventually lose the ability to stop themselves. The personality has entirely been replaced by the impulse to destroy, which is routed not in a lack of belief, but in a belief in the self as all which crowds out everything else. That self then must consider it injured, even when it is not, to justify its ongoing plunder.
Smashing their way through lives, these people eventually find themselves in a void, as they have removed all that is challenging — repeating the pattern of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, they destroyed adversity alongside their tormentors. Instance replaces essence. Values are forgotten, and instead a person exists who reacts radically to any imposition on their autonomy.
The West is inundated in people who are addicted to smashing. The process snowballs: for each broken home, more are made. They reinforce each other and congregate wherever discontent can be found. Together, they form a mob that uses all possible simian cleverness to justify its underlying agenda of destruction, which it will never admit.
If left unchecked, such people drag civilizations down to a third world level. They sabotage, vandalize and steal so that any who rise above their level of mediocrity are brought right back down. Those who are not infected with the smashing virus are always caught by surprise, as it doesn’t occur to them to want to destroy, even as they are destroyed.
The long-term enemy of the smasher is the accumulation of information. These people fear the connection between different pieces of data more than anything else, and seek to deconstruct them. They fear these chains of clear thought because in those can be found the antidote to smashing: making sense of what is wrong, and putting it below what is right.
You would think they might embrace that type of solution. But they do not, because they are addicted to smashing. It feels good to them, in their misery. As the years go by, it becomes clearer how infested with such people we are, and how much better our fortunes would be if we left them elsewhere.

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!