Unrepentant British Nationalism

Farewell!

2011-05-08T14:39:00.003+01:00

Dear Reader,

After some deliberation I have decided to close this blog. I am still a nationalist and I will always be one, my political convictions are indelible and are not merely the result of reading and thinking, but arise from my heart, and from my soul. This is perhaps why I find it so painful to write about the irreversible and sinister changes that have taken place and which will, eventually, blot out our culture, history and ultimately our people. To the uninitiated my last sentence may appear hysterical, however in this last post I will attempt to demonstrate that it is not.

Indigenous Population

One common myth perpetuated by the media is that nobody is truly British, or rather English, because there were immigrants to these shores from mainland Europe a thousand years ago. Whilst this is true, most immigration was the result of bloody invasions rather than them settling with the consent of the original inhabitants. Many English counties derived from the peoples that created England - like The Kingdom of Essex (or Kingdom of the East Saxons), similarly there's Wessex (Kingdom of the West Saxons), Sussex and even Middlesex. East Anglia was the Kingdom of the East Angles - which split into Norfolk and Suffolk or 'northern folk' and 'southern folk'.

However, by 927 AD the English kingdoms of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex and Wessex were unified under the crown of King Athelstan. By 1066 the English fought as a single country, succumbing to the Normans led by William the Conqueror, and that was the last real wave of immigration.

Since then the various northern European peoples mingled and became indistinguishable from one another. The expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, who were later readmitted by Cromwell, and the Blackamoors (black people) in 1596 prove that the English were not particularly tolerant of foreigners - we knew who we were, and we knew who we weren't!

Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University, tested the DNA of 10,000 people from across the British Isles. He determined that the vast majority of the genes were from the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, the first settlers to these islands, arriving 10,000 years ago when the ice age retreated! You can purchase his book Blood of the Isles from Amazon.

The Changing Demographics

Should current demographic trends continue unabated then it is simply inevitable that the indigenous population will be an ethnic minority before the end of this century. The article below was published in 2000, prior to the massive increase in immigration under the latter years of the Labour government, hence my belief that the prediction is optimistic:

Whites will be an ethnic minority in Britain by the end of the century. Analysis of official figures indicate that, at current fertility rates and levels of immigration, there will be more non-whites than whites by 2100.

It would be the first time in history that a major indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease. Whites will be a minority in London by 2010.

In the early 1950s there were only a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the UK. By 1991 that had risen to 3 million - 6 per cent of the population. The population of ethnic minorities has been growing at between 2 and 4 per cent a year. Net immigration has been running at record levels, with 185,000 newcomers last year.

Government forecasts suggest that immigration on its own will be responsible for half the growth of the British population over the next couple of decades.

The Observer, Sunday 3 September 2000; by Anthony Browne

My belief is substantiated by a more recent study which predicts white Britons will be a minority by 2066. The fact that after just ten years the prediction has been revised so considerably, highlights the massive demographic transformation Britain has undergone under Labour:

White Britons to become minority by 2066

White Britons will be outnumbered by 2066 if the rate of immigration continues, researchers have claimed.

The white British-born community (defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens) will fall to less than half of the overall population in just over 50 years.

The warning from Professor David Coleman, from Oxford University, comes ahead of an announcement today by the Migration Advisory Board of its recommendation for the proposed immigration cap for people outside the EU.

Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that if immigration remains at a long-term rate of around 180,000 a year the proportion of the white British-born population will fall from 80 per cent to 59 per cent by 2051.

The Daily Telegraph; 18 Nov 2010; by Laura Roberts

As one can see from the graph below, immigration almost doubled under the Labour administration:

The above graph is from the statistics.gov.uk website, and is accompanied by the following analysis of migration in 2009:

An estimated 567,000 people arrived to live in the UK in 2009, which is consistent with levels seen since 2004 and compares with 590,000 in 2008. Non-British citizens accounted for 83 per cent of all immigrants; a third of these were from EU countries.

There are already substantial ethnic enclaves in all the major English cities, as well as many large towns, and some are touted to become 'plural cities', i.e. cities in which the native population no longer comprises the majority, within a decade or so. Due to higher birthrates and continued immigration the demographic change will increase exponentially.

The Environment

One of the biggest threats to the planet is overpopulation. The burgeoning human population will, like locusts, strip the earth of its assets and destroy the environment, if current trends continue unabated. What's more, the rapid industrialization of India and China is accelerating the depletion of resources and pollution of our planet.

It is not just globally that overpopulation is a problem, The Optimum Population Trust states the following on their website:

The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century, and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million. Given that, the net migration figures (posted above) for the United Kingdom should be a cause for concern.

Consider the environmental impact of vast numbers of people coming to Britain -building on green belt land destroys natural habitats and CO2 absorbing foliage. Additionally, Immigrants from the Third World will massively increase their carbon footprint by coming to the UK where they will consume food which travels hundreds of miles and is wrapped in plastic, drive a car, visit their homeland (air travel), use far more electricity, etc, etc. Even if one doubts climate change is anthropogenic, one should still appreciate that the Earth's resources are not infinite. The following extract originally published in The Independent, back in 2005, shows the extent of the environmental impact population growth has:

The UK population is now rising faster than at any time since the baby-boom years of the mid-20th century. Figures published last month suggest that some 300,000 new Britons appeared in our midst last year, equivalent to a city the size of Cardiff -- equivalent also, at present rates, to some 125,000 new houses, over 150,000 vehicles, a lake nearly a third the size of Windermere in annual water abstractions, and roughly 1.6 million hectares (over four Hampshires) in terms of global ecological footprint.

David Nicholson Lord: The green issue that dare not speak its name; The Independent; Monday, 20 June 2005

Social Change

In the 1950s Britain was a homogenous and harmonious society. Though people may have been materially worse off, a man's wage was enough to support his whole family and there was still a sense of community. Alex Ferguson grew up in a tough, deprived area of Glasgow, yet he still had this to say of his childhood:

"There was a real sense of community because we all lived so close together. You hear it said that you never locked your door but it's true."

(...)

"You didn't have a lot but I never call it poverty because I don't think it was poverty. You always had your meals, you never missed school, you were always clean and tidy.

"We didn't have a bathroom but we did have a big zinc bath and you'd have your bath once a week and be scrubbed clean.

"People shared with each other. There was a common cause to help each other, far more than you get today.

"You knew all your neighbours and probably worked with half of them. Today, I don't know half my neighbours."

The Daily Record; May 23 2009; by John Ferguson

Social Cohesion

It has been suggested that far from integrating, communities are living parallel lives. The riots in Oldham and Bradford were surely symptomatic of what lies ahead. Again one must appreciate that the statistics quoted are based on data prior to the significant increase in immigration, so are likely to be optimistic:

Fears of racial time bomb in riot-hit towns

The Asian populations of northern English towns hit by racial unrest this summer will see explosive growth in the next decade, raising fears of a social crisis unless problems of racism and deprivation are effectively tackled.

A report presented to Oldham council last week showed that by 2011 the white population of the town will have decreased by 9 per cent, whilst the Bangladeshi population will have grown by 112 per cent and the Pakistani population by 88 per cent.

Similar reports drawn up by other councils in Burnley, which has also suffered a race riot, and Rochdale, also revealed Asian communities growing far faster than their white counterparts. By 2011 Rochdale's Asian community will have grown from 9 per cent to 13 per cent.

The key reasons behind the projected growth of the Asian population is a higher birth rate, continued migration from the Asian sub-continent and a much younger population than the white community.

The Guardian; 5 August 2001; by Paul Harris

It's not just potential riots and racial violence that is a problem, however:

People in mixed-race areas 'feel isolated'

People in ethnically mixed areas are less trusting of their neighbours and live a more isolated existence, research from a New Labour "guru" has found.

The greater the diversity, the looser the community bonds and the more withdrawn local residents become, says Robert Putnam, an American academic based at Harvard.

Prof Putnam's research shows that people who live in such areas retreat into their shells. They spend more time watching television, volunteer less and take little part in community activity.

But where "social capital" is greater, children grow up healthier, safer and better educated. People in more homogeneous communities also have longer, happier lives and democracy and the economy work better.

The Daily Telegraph; 19 Jun 2007; by Philip Johnston

Crime

Frank Field wrote the following in an article published in the Telegraph:

In my constituency of Birkenhead, there are now more violent crimes against the person than there were in the whole country 50 years ago.

Daily Telegraph; 01 Oct 2009

That's quite an amazing statistic when one considers there are 650 Westminster constituencies! Here are some more amazing statistics:

The data provide a breakdown of the ethnicity of the 18,091 men and boys who police took action against for a range of violent and sexual offences in London in 2009-10.

They show that among those proceeded against for street crimes, 54 per cent were black; for robbery, 59 per cent; and for gun crimes, 67 per cent. Street crimes include muggings, assault with intent to rob and snatching property.

Just over 12 per cent of London’s 7.5 million population is black, including those of mixed black and white parentage, while 69 per cent is white, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The Sunday Telegraph; 26 Jun 2010; by Andrew Alderson

The statistics quoted above are compelling, and imply that blacks are inordinately responsible for street crime, something which is substantiated by criminal trends in the United States. Now I'm certainly not suggesting that violent crime is solely a result of immigration, there are a myriad of factors, I'm sure. In fact I personally believe that most street crime can be attributed to drugs. However, one cannot simply ignore the above statistics, which imply demographic change has certainly been a contributory factor.

Economics

The most frequently used reason for justifying immigration is that "they do the jobs that lazy Britons don't want to do". Conversely, however, this doesn't seem to be the case:

Above: One in five black men out of a job figures reveal, and worse to come; Guardian; 14th October, 2009.

Unemployment by religion paints a similar picture:

Accompanying the graph above was the following analysis:

In 2004, Muslims had the highest male unemployment rate in Great Britain, at 13 per cent. This was about three times the rate for Christian men (4 per cent). Unemployment rates for men in the other religious groups were between 3 and 8 per cent.

The unemployment rate for Muslim women at 18 per cent was about four times the rate for Christian and Jewish women (4 per cent in each case). Unemployment rates for women in the other religious groups were between 6 per cent and 9 per cent.

Again, these are statistics collated by people hostile to the British Nationalism. For a more detailed look at why the economic reasons for immigration are spurious, visit Guardian Cockups.

Globalism

Many people blame Thatcher for the decline in our manufacturing industry, when they should be blaming both the unions for resisting innovation and, more importantly, globalism. Most of our manufactured goods come from China, where people work for a pittance in terrible conditions. How can the British manufacturing industry possibly compete with Chinese and Indian manufacturers without tariffs or reducing wages to pitiful levels? Also how is it environmentally friendly to have products transported half way around the globe, just to keep labour costs down?

The National Health Service (NHS) is said to depend upon third world immigrants for staff. However, if a doctor comes to England from Somalia to work for the NHS to enable our government to keep taxes low, whilst in his own country there are sick people who desperately need him, is that not a terrible and wicked thing? Are we not depriving the most disadvantaged peoples on the planet of their brightest and best and, more importantly, those that can save their lives?

Globalism is NOT a good thing, in my humble opinion.

Electoral Fraud

Immigration has adversely affected our society in a number of different ways, and has even potentially undermined our electoral system:

Lady Warsi has blamed electoral fraud for the Tories' failure to secure an overall majority at this May's election – and claimed that Labour "absolutely" benefited from the alleged fraud.

The Tory chairman told tomorrow's New Statesman: "[There were] at least three seats where we lost, where we didn't gain the seat, based on electoral fraud. Now, could we have planned for that in the campaign? Absolutely not … "It is predominantly within the Asian community. I have to look back and say we didn't do well in those communities, but was there something over and above that we could have done? Well, actually not, if there is going to be voter fraud."

The Guardian; 29 September 2010; by Paul Owen

Indeed one QC stated that the extent of electoral fraud would 'disgrace a banana republic':

A Judge has delivered a devastating indictment of the postal voting system championed by ministers as he found six Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud. He said checks against corruption were "hopelessly insecure" and accused the Government of being in denial about the risks to democracy.

(...)

Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an electoral commissioner in Birmingham, found "overwhelming" evidence of fraud in last year's city council elections that would "disgrace a banana republic". The elections, where several Labour candidates bucked the trend to win, were dogged by claims of intimidation, bribery, "vote-buying', impersonation and even the creation of a "vote-forging factory".

The Independent on Sunday; Tuesday, 5 April 2005; by Nigel Morris

Imperfect Information

So why haven't British people rejected multiculturalism and mass-immigration? Well poll after poll suggests the majority have. However, I believe that many have never taken a real stance against it because they have been cowed, indoctrinated and have had the truth concealed from them.

In economics the term perfect information is used to describe the condition where 'consumers know all things, about all products, at all times, and therefore always make the best decision regarding purchase'. (Wikipedia)

You see, when you go and look at a car from Larry's Car Lot, you almost certainly wouldn't purchase it if you realised it was a 'cut and shut' and the mileage had been doctored. But if Larry could conceal this from you, you may be tempted to buy it, in which case your decision will be made based on imperfect information.

Unfortunately, we in Britain and every other Occidental country are indoctrinated daily by a pervasive and ubiquitous media that promotes multiculturalism, miscegenation and globalisation and essentially demonises those who oppose it, take Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, for example. Enoch Powell knew this well:

Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see.

Even quoting the crime statistics above is likely to invite scorn and accusations of racism. This is what Orwell meant when he wrote that 'Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four', it's the ability to tell the truth.

Enoch Powell was a highly intelligent man, he graduated from Cambridge with a double starred first and when war broke out he was the youngest professor in the Commonwealth, but resigned to enlist as a private in the army. Besides being an academic, poet, linguist and scholar, Powell was a man of integrity and a patriot. Yet following his outspoken condemnation of immigration, Powell was sacked from the shadow cabinet, and vilified by the media, as he himself said: "No imputation or innuendo has been too vile or scurrilous for supposedly reputable journals to invent or repeat."

Political Correctness

What Powell referred to has become known as Political Correctness or, more accurately in my opinion, Cultural Marxism. It is unquestionably a nefarious term - if you think about it logically, it essentially states that one's political opinions are either correct or incorrect, with the government, or ruling elite as the arbitrator. This is essentially totalitarianism.

The punishment for not adhering to the 'correct' politics or language endorsed by the ruling elite varies, but in today's Britain one may face disciplinary action in the work place or even criminal charges. In addition, and arguably more effective, is the social stigma attached to using the incorrect terminology - fear of ostracism, for example, may lead to people modifying their behaviour in order to comply with the promoted ideology.

In my humble opinion, free speech is inversely related to multiculturalism. The more culturally diverse a society, the more people will be 'offended' and antagonised and thus the greater the propensity for civil disorder - thus legislation is used to restrict freedom.

This has led to debate being effectively stifled, for example people are often afraid to speak out against immigration for fear of being labelled a 'racist'. Of course once free debate has been curbed a society will begin to stagnate and decline - and here we are in modern Britain!

Welfare and Popular Culture

It's not simply immigration that is the problem. There are good and bad people of all races and belonging to all religions, but I think mass-immigration has had a negative impact upon our society as I have demonstrated. However, besides Social Marxism, the two most nefarious factors contributing to our decline are drugs and the Welfare State.

Drug use has been promoted by the media for several decades. Since the 1960s many popular musical artists have endorsed drug use, indeed The Beatles' Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is said to be about an acid trip (the first letter of each noun also spells LSD). Many, if not most, of the greatest music artists have subtly promoted drug use, or at least have had their drug-fuelled antics publicised by the mass media in terms that make them appear rebellious and fashionable.

Gossip magazines and tabloid newspapers extol the lifestyles of vacuous and inane celebrities, detailing all aspects of their vulgarity, which is emulated to some degree by the readership. The Beckhams and Wayne Rooney are role models for millions of school children. Meanwhile films are ever more sexual and violent.

For decades now, our welfare state has encouraged an underclass of people that have no intention of working, but believe the state is obligated to feed, clothe and house them. By taking away peoples' responsibility for themselves and their children, we have nurtured people who lack basic social values and who contribute nothing of value to our society. Whilst I am in favour of a welfare state that supports people when they fall on hard times, I do not believe in one that permits parasites to languish on benefits from cradle to grave.

Education

It is my belief that our education system has been systematically undermined since the 1960s. The loss of grammar schools, progressive teaching methods, changes to the curriculum and the lack of discipline in the classroom coupled with the aforementioned social issues has led to a vast deterioration in the quality of education provided in state schools. The following article indicates that employers are recognising this, too:

Leading companies complain of graduates' literacy skills

More than half of Britain's leading graduate employers are concerned about a lack of basic skills such as reading and writing among university recruits, according to new research.

A survey of more than 200 employers by the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) observed a "striking level of concern" about the literacy of graduates.

A majority (56.4 per cent) expressed concern about a lack writing skills, while 55 per cent said an inability to communicate effectively was posing a serious problem for their business.

A significant proportion were also worried about low levels of knowledge in mathematics (27.7 per cent).

The Daily Telegraph; 07 Jul 2008; by Tom Peterkin

Now consider the above refers to graduates, our brightest and best, it is a shocking indictment of our education system. However, despite the fact that many of our graduates cannot read and write their own language properly after 16 years of education, A Level results have continually improved since the 1970s, which to me implies they are less rigorous than they once were:

The second image shows the percentage of A Level candidates who passed their exams, i.e. were awarded an A Level.

Besides the obvious deterioration of our education system, the Parekh Report commissioned by the last government, concluded that Britain should 'rethink the national story' in a bid to make it more inclusive. How Orwellian sounding is that? Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. This is why history has been distorted in an attempt to lend support to politically correct values and ideas.

It is my contention that our education system is used to indoctrinate children and inculcate the correct psyche. Furthermore a population lacking the required standard of English will be reluctant to read classic books, like Dickens and Dostoevsky, as they will find them too highbrow and strenuous and thus receive little enlightenment.

Peak Oil

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. The concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time appears to grow exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines, sometimes rapidly, until the field is depleted. It has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. It is important to note that peak oil is not about running out of oil, but the peaking and subsequent decline of the production rate of oil.

What this essentially means is that oil will become scarcer, demand for oil will exceed supply and the price will rise rapidly. The implications are frightening, as oil is used to produce plastics and pesticides, as well as transport goods and food! As of 2002, approximately ten calories of fossil fuels were used to produce every single calorie eaten, so you see just how dependent we in the West are on oil.

As I look ahead I am filled with foreboding

I believe that given our nation's current trajectory the future is very frightening indeed. Considering the government's budget deficit, our national debt, the depleting North Sea oil and our virtually non-existent manufacturing industry, I think our current standards of living are unsustainable, as will be the welfare state. Globally, Peak Oil, the rise of militant Islam and overpopulation are going to cause catastrophic resource wars.

I envisage unprecedented rioting and violence, especially in the large cities, which are basically just the aggregate of many mutually antagonistic and hostile communities. Where once we may well have been able to unite and endure together a crisis, as was the case during the Blitz, we face the problem of what Enoch Powell called the 'uniform of colour':

The uniform of colour, because it is involuntary and irremovable, becomes an irresistible force for dominating and disciplining those who wear it. They are literally marked people, expected to rally to whatever is designated as their cause and treated as manifest traitors if they fail to do so. When one has witnessed how the invisible uniform of religion enables the IRA to exert over the mass of peaceful and law-abiding Roman Catholic citizens in Northern Ireland a terror and compulsion far severer than that under which their Protestant fellow citizens live, one can form some idea of the consolidating potential of the visible uniform of color. Finally, colour polarizes, and reinforces differentiation and segregation, because the individual, however much, as an individual, he may become, and wish to become, assimilated to the host population, is firmly identified, and thus eventually obliged to identify himself, with the minority to which he belongs. Colour is a recruiting sergeant, and a recruiting sergeant for officer material.

My adversaries will no doubt accuse me of 'racism' and 'hatred' for daring to express such heretical opinions. However, one should ask not whether what I have written is 'racist', but whether it is true. If it is, then surely it shouldn't be suppressed? Isn't that the whole essence of what Orwell was trying to convey in his novel 1984?

Unfortunately however, following what amounts to the destruction of the British National Party, the British people no longer have a political vehicle by which we can attempt to implement change. This has been the crucial element in my determining to cease writing this blog. It saddens me to write this, but it appears that nationalists are going to be mere spectators, watching from the sidelines as our nation ebbs away.

Best Wishes,

Unrepentant British Nationalist

An abridged version of Enoch's famous Rivers of Blood Speech

2011-05-04T22:34:00.001+01:00

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

[By] the year 2000...Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. [There are] areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?"

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow.

All who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination". The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

-------

The full speech can be found here.

Dear Reader

2011-04-30T16:50:00.001+01:00

I will shortly be posting my farewell message, in which I will explain why I remain an unrepentant British Nationalist, but why I can no longer carry on with this blog.

Edit: Unfortunately this may not appear until May 8th

Multiculturalism's Threat To Freedom

2011-03-12T13:52:00.006Z

I happened upon the following article written by the Daily Express's political commentator, Chris Roycroft-Davis, and was so utterly appalled at what I was reading I felt it necessary to vent my spleen. So what follows are extracts from his article, with my annotations in red:

WANT TO KNOW WHAT I REALLY THINK ABOUT THE POPPY BURNER?

THIS is a hard column to write because if I say what most of us really think about the Muslim who burned poppies on Remembrance Day I’ll probably be charged with inciting racial and religious hatred. But curbing our tongues, respecting others and showing tolerance is the price we pay for the privilege of living in freedom in a country we love.

What utter contradictory nonsense! How can he claim to live 'in freedom' when he himself admits that he is unable to convey his true feelings for fear of prosecution? Free speech is not a 'privilege', either. It is our right, and it has been stolen from us.

Of course he then actually implies that by 'curbing our tongues' we are somehow noble, and justifies this with the usual platitudes - 'respect' and 'tolerance'.

That concept is alien to Emdadur Choudhury, who although born here despises everything that Britain stands for and prays to Allah that our soldiers will burn in hell. All he cares about is the freedom to pour vile abuse on the memory of our war dead – and the freedom to live in a council flat at the taxpayers’ expense and draw £800 a month in benefits. His actions disgust me.

Emdadur may despise everything British, but that's because he's not really British, despite having been born here. His primary allegiance is to Islam, and thus, due to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, he sees the British state and our armed forces as an enemy.

But for all that I still defend his right to hold whatever religious beliefs he wishes because that freedom is what millions of men and women have died for. To say his mode of worship should have no place in our society would be to make worthless that ultimate sacrifice. I just wish this wicked man would stop spouting such offensive claptrap wrapped up in the cloak of Islam.

Here Mr Roycroft-Davies is being a little disingenuous. Have millions of our British soldiers really died for the right of immigrants to establish Muslim ghettos, or 'communities' as they are more politely referred to, in our cities and towns? Did they die fighting for their descendants to be displaced, their own kith and kin? I don't think they did. Churchill himself a former soldier, and scourge of the Nazis, advocated the slogan 'Keep England white'.

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - A. K. Chesterton

I imagine the vast majority of those who died fighting for Britain were Christians, and wanted our country to remain Christian.

Just as fervently I wish our courts would stop letting people like him get away with it. Imagine if we had a group of militant Methodists preaching hatred against Muslims, invoking death and carnage in the name of Christ. They’d be locked up as a danger to society and the key would be thrown away.But what happens to Choudhury? A paltry £50 fine plus a £15 “victim surcharge”. The man mocks the court (no surprise when it’s handing out slaps on the wrist with a feather) by not turning up to hear the verdict.

Of course sixty years ago, something like this would never have happened. Back then we were a homogenous nation, bound together by shared history, culture and blood. Now, having been 'enriched' by the likes of Choudhury we are faced with a very unpleasant dilemma.

I loathed Choudhury's actions more than most, but is he not entitled to hold a view that others - including myself - find objectionable? Those calling for new laws and stronger sentences are just asking for further restrictions on what we can say and do, in a society in which people are already afraid to speak and write candidly.

The fact is we are in this mess because people, the masses, have 'curbed their tongues' and, like sheep, tolerated our politicians' lies and deceit. Meanwhile our silence has emboldened the likes of Choudhury to the extent that they feel comfortable brazenly disrespecting our hospitality.

How 'Right-Wing' Is The BNP?

2011-02-27T16:39:00.006Z

The British National Party is often referred to as 'right-wing' or even 'far-right', but is this actually the case?

The former cabinet minister, Lord Tebbit, certainly believes the term 'right-wing' is erroneously applied to the BNP. The following letter was published in The Daily Telegraph's letters page on the 21st April 2006:

Left-wing BNP

Sir - It is of some comfort that the Labour Party at least, even if not yet the Tories, has woken up to the threat posed by the BNP, because it has ceased to understand or listen to its own supporters when they express their concerns about multiculturalism, the levels of immigration and lack of integration that are affecting our great cities.

However, it remains of concern that even The Daily Telegraph (Comment, April 18) persists in so misunderstanding the BNP as to describe it as "an extreme Right-wing party". I have carefully re-read the BNP manifesto of 2005 and am unable to find evidence of Right-wing tendencies.

On the other hand, there is plenty of anti-capitalism, opposition to free trade, commitments to "use all non-destructive means to reduce income inequality", to institute worker ownership, to favour workers' co-operatives, to return parts of the railways to state ownership, to nationalise the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and to withdraw from NATO. That sounds pretty Left-wing to me.

Certainly the BNP poses as a patriotic party opposed to multiculturalism, and it has racist overtones, but there is no lack of patriotic Left-wing regimes; opposition to multiculturalism is now mainstream and racialism was not unknown even in the Soviet Union.

So what is "extreme Right-wing" about the BNP?

Lord Tebbit, London SW1

Economics

Lord Tebbit is correct, at least in terms of the BNP's economic policies. This is evident from even a cursory glance at the party's website which endores the 'renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services', it elaborates:

The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism, which means that British workers must compete against those in China and India who work for as little as a pound a day. Oriental countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore have managed their economies to combine private enterprise competition with the national good, and these are the models the BNP would emulate.

In a world in which irreplaceable natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate we have a duty to our children and future generations to move towards economic growth which is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable in the long-term, rather than the present ‘boom and bust’ policies.

Immigration

I imagine that many people will say that the BNP are 'right-wing' because of the party's opposition to immigration. Conversely, I would argue that importing unskilled labour to artificially suppress wages is itself fundamentally 'right-wing'. The fact is that politicians have, for years, brazenly stated that 'immigrants do the jobs which Britons are too lazy to do'. The reality is that the wages offered are below the market-clearing equilibrium or, more likely, that the benefit system interferes with the labour market.

Importing labour is only a temporary solution, and one that has huge social and economic consequences - as it maintains unemployment, rather than addressing the problem of why there are unfilled vacancies. Furthermore the imported work force may well become dependent on the benefit system themselves, especially in times of high unemployment.

With regard to skilled labour, is it 'left-wing' to poach the third world's most able citizens? Surely the most impoverished people need their doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs more than we do? The reality is that if the NHS paid its staff a decent wage, it wouldn't be dependent on foreign doctors and nurses in the first place! Is maintaining low taxes at the expense of the most desperate and poverty-stricken peoples in the world 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'?

Globalism

The BNP is clearly opposed to globalism, as one would expect from an ethno-nationalist party. However, is that indicative of a 'right-wing' or a 'left-wing' ideology?

The biggest beneficiaries of globalism are the multinational corporations and the international finance houses. They would like to sweep away borders which they see as impediments to the free movement of labour, capital and commodities, as well as the inconvenience of having to negotiate different legal systems and currencies. This is why the European peoples have had little say in their countries' integration into a European supranational state - the European Union. Is pandering to multinationals 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'?

Law and Order

The BNP is, of course, in favour of the restitution of capital and corporal punishment. Now this is widely considered to be 'right-wing', yet China executes more criminals than any other other country, yet is ostensibly Communist! The old pre-war Labour Party was not committed to abolishing hanging, either, yet it would be considered a proper 'left-wing' party by most people, unlike New Labour.

Conclusion

Personally, I feel that the terms 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' are antiquated and simply not applicable to modern politics. Take, for example, the English Defence League, who are also castigated by the media as being 'far-right' - despite the fact they have Sikh, Jewish and gay 'divisions'. Excluding their opposition to Islamic extremism, they are exponents of multiculturalism. Yet, if one looks at extremist Islamic societies like Somalia, in which a teenage rape victim was stoned to death for adultery, one has to wonder why opposition to such an illiberal ideology is considered 'far-right'? The answer is that it is simply a slur used to stigmatise those groups that are a threat to the status quo.

The Rothschilds - The British Empire and the Fifth Man

2011-01-05T01:55:00.002Z

Regular readers of this blog may recall that I have previously written about the Rothschilds, an international banking family whose wealth is said to be measured in the trillions of dollars. Intrigued by what I had discovered about this powerful dynasty, I investigated further and discovered that Lord Victor Rothschild was thought to be the unidentified fifth member of the Cambridge Spy known by the KGB as the 'magnificent five'.

Whilst writing his book The Fifth Man, Roland Perry interviewed scientists, politicians, businessmen and intelligence agents from the CIA, the KGB and British Intelligence.

Extracts from The Fifth Man:

According to two MI5 sources, in 1942 Victor Rothschild became MI5's security inspector, which allowed him into every major research centre. He knew in detail about all British (and often US) weapons developments. Under the guise of the inspector who was checking facilities to see if they were vulnerable to Nazi spying, the Fifth Man became the espionage agent.

British scientific heads of facilities were apprehensive when the respected young lord - the Government's security man - would ring at short notice and make an appointment to check on a laboratory. His imperious demeanour, high intelligence and diligent determination to understand every development in detail, put all who came under his scrutiny in awe and admiration of him. On occasions he actually stole equipment, examined it and sent it back by special messenger to the research centre concerned, with a warning that security should be tightened. Sir Mark Oliphant, one of the great scientists of the era, told me in an interview in January 1994 he experienced this late in 1942 when Rothschild secretly removed a piece of radar equipment from his Birmingham University laboratory.

Each project director lived in fear that MI5's inspector would put in a bad report and that this would lead to a sacking or a budget cut. The thought that he might be spying on them could not have been further from the minds of the scientists with whom he was in contact. (As far as is known Rothschild never reported any one. He simply sent written warnings and reported in general that security was slack.)

Again Colonel 'F' and Colonel 'B' said that late in 1942 or early in 1943, the KGB received radar technology. They claimed that this information from the Fifth was assembled in the form of photos, diagrams and written explanations by him and Blunt...The clarity and visually descriptive nature of the technical data supplied by the Fifth was a trademark of his. By comparison, Rothschild demonstrated in his book, Meditations of a Broomstick, how he took great pride in all areas of his work for MI5 in supplying exact illustrations.

(...)

Rothschild, acting as the security man once more, made several visits in 1943 to Professor G.P. Thompson's laboratory at London's Imperial College. He absorbed the then new alternative method of making the bomb - using plutonium as fuel rather than trying to collect the rare U-235 element of uranium.

Rothschild was again the only person suspected of being the Fifth Man, who had knowledge about this breakthrough area and fitted the other criteria concerning the double agent.

(...)

There was never any attempt by KGB interviewees to conceal Rothschild's links to these scientists or that he was on a short list of ten for recruitment. They were all well aware of him, and those who had been stationed in London, such as Modin, admitted to having known him personally.

(...)

In 1940, Blunt and Burgess were living in Rothschild's leased three-storey maisonette as was his assistant at MI5, Tess Mayor, whom he later married, and Patricia Parry...both left-wing Cambridge graduates. Blunt was important here. Apart from his direct espionage work for the Soviets, he became a key middle-man in passing on data from the Fifth Man and sub-agents, such as Leo Long, to their Soviet Controls.

[The Fifth Man; Roland Perry; pp. xxii-xxv; Prologue]

As you can see, the book makes a compelling case against Lord Victor Rothschild, whom I believe was never formally uncovered because of his family's massive wealth and influence. Having read the book however, one is left with little doubt that Rothschild was the Fifth Man. He was held in such high esteem in fact, that Churchill entrusted him with testing all his food before it was consumed! Thus he was privy to all sorts of information that was simply unaccessible to other potential spies.

You may be wondering what it is I am postulating, and I shall indeed attempt to explain. In my previous article on the Rothschilds, I quoted from a story published in a British newspaper which asserted that the family had financed both Britain and France during the latter stages of the Napoleonic Wars. The same piece also quoted Nathan Rothschild thus:

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."

The Independent; The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty; Friday, 16 April 2004

Indeed, Victor's great-grandfather, Lionel de Rothschild, lent £4,000,000 to Disraeli's government in order to buy a stake in the Suez Canal Company, in 1875. In fact it made Britain the controlling shareholder. This led in turn to Britain and France (a partner) to effectively colonise Egypt, taking control of the country's finances, which led to an uprising:

In 1881, Arabi Pasha who inspired the Egyptian middle classes, led the nationalist rebellion. Gladstone's Liberals had long been against what they believed to be the many wrongs of colonialism. They really wanted nothing to do with expansionism in the Middle East. But Gladstone did not rule the Empire. The money market ruled and the banks wanted immediate action to protect their investments. In 1882, the army under Sir Garnet Wolseley defeated Arabi Pasha's national Islamic uprising at Tel-el-Kebir.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/empire/episodes/episode_63.shtml]

In other words, the bankers (Rothschilds) wanted a British military presence in Egypt, one which would ultimately prove very useful in defeating the Ottomans and taking Palestine under British control, when the former threatened Britain's communications with India in 1915.

With Britain looking increasingly likely to secure possession of Palestine, it paved the way for the Balfour Declaration of 1917, a letter addressed to Victor's uncle, Lionel Walter Rothschild, which promised that His Majesty's government would do their utmost to establish 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine. It was a 'declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations', and ultimately led to the creation of Israel. Today Balfour Day is celebrated there on November 2nd.

Arthur Koestler described the Balfour Declaration as a letter in which "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." Many people believe that the territory was part of a deal in which the Rothschilds, in return, used their influence to bring the United States into the Great War, though of course that is conjecture.

Given the information I have produced thus far, I think it is fair to surmise that the Rothschilds' allegiance was not to Britain, but rather to furthering their own interests, and the Zionist cause. The latter is certainly something Victor did, at least according to Roland Perry:

Since late 1947, Rothschild had also helped persuade the Soviets to sell arms to Israel and was able to specify sources, particularly in Czechoslovakia where he had discovered the abandoned supplies at the end of the war.

The cost to the Jewish military was low. It was a buyer's market with war surplus material cached in about twenty countries. Until Rothschild interceded, the only buyers not allowed into the market were Zionists. Czech rifles, machine-guns and ammunition were bought and smuggled into Palestine in March by merchant ships despite a naval blockade.

[The Fifth Man; Roland Perry; pp 177-178]

Perry goes on to assert that Victor was instrumental in getting Israel the bomb:

The dream of an Israeli bomb was ambitious indeed, but it spurred Rothschild to keep abreast of all things nuclear so he could pass on the data to the Weizmann Institute, which was planning a nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev Desert.

Rothschild was not a technician...He could not create the weaponry for Israel. But he could inform its Intelligence leaders (with whom he was very close as an important, secret member of Mossad) which scientists might be helpful, where the available technology might be and how it might be obtained and funded.

[The Fifth Man; Roland Perry; pp 222-223]

The author goes on to allege Israel acquired the necessary knowledge and materials to build a bomb from France, in payment for their help in the 1956 Suez Canal crisis.

Having read this, it may surprise you to learn that I am not anti-Zionist. I believe that ideally every people on Earth should have their own homeland, a place where they can dwell in harmony and practice their customs and values in peace. That's what ethno-nationalism is about, and despite Israel's conception, it is now a Jewish homeland.

However, I also believe that the Rothschilds, who have demonstrably used their wealth and power, with great cunning and guile, to achieve their Zionist objectives, are also using it for other purposes. The fact that we have invaded Iraq under a false pretext and are seemingly poised to invade Iran, suggests to me that the same forces are at work.

Have you ever wondered why most people when polled are opposed to mass-immigration, multiculturalism and the European Union, yet all three of our mainstream parties are exponents of them all? Borders and nations are simply an inconvenience to these people.

The nineteenth century prime minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote several novels. One, Coningsby, who unsurprisingly is the protagonist, contains a character called Sidonia, who is described thus:

He was a man without affections. it would be harsh to say he had no heart, for he was susceptible of deep emotions, but not for individuals...Woman was to him a toy, man a machine.

(...)

There was not an adventurer in Europe with whom he was not familiar. No minister of state had such communications with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia...His extensive travels, his knowledge of languages, his daring and adventurous disposition, and his unlimited means, had given him opportunities of becoming acquainted with these characters...To these sources he owed that knowledge of strange and hidden things which often startled those who listened to him. Nor was it easy, scarcely possible, to deceive him. Information reached him from so many, and such contrary quarters...The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive, with the public pretext, of transactions.

pp Coningsby; Benjamin Disraeli; Nonsuch Classics; pp. 208-210

It is often alleged, that the financier, Sidonia's character was based upon Nathan Mayer Rothschild. One would expect him to have been cold, calculating and slightly sinister - I shall ignore the implied esoteric knowledge. Two descriptions from Wikipedia (both sourced as: Morton, Frederic. (1962). The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait. London: Secker & Warburg. pp 69–70) describe him thus:

"he leaned against the 'Rothschild Pillar' [...], hung his heavy hands into his pockets, and began to release silent, motionless, implacable cunning"

and

"Eyes are usually called the windows of the soul. But in Rothschild's case you would conclude that the windows are false ones, or that there was no soul to look out of them. There comes not one pencil of light from the interior, neither is there one gleam of that which comes from without reflected in any direction. The whole puts you in mind of an empty skin, and you wonder why it stands upright without at least something in it. By and by another figure comes up to it. It then steps two paces aside, and the most inquisitive glance that you ever saw, and more inquisitive than you would ever have thought of, is drawn out of those fixed and leaden eyes, as if one were drawing a sword from a scabbard. The visiting figure, which has the appearance of coming by accident and not by design, stops just a second or two, in the course of which looks are exchanged which, though you cannot translate, you feel must be of most important meaning. After this, the eyes are sheathed up again, and the figure resumes its stony posture. During the morning, numbers of visitors come, all of whom meet with a similar reception and vanish in a similar manner. Last of all the figure itself vanishes, leaving you utterly at a loss..."

So was Disraeli's novel intended purely as a work of fiction? Well his dedication would suggest otherwise:

In these pages I have endeavoured to...scatter some suggestions that may tend to elevate the tone of public life, ascertain the the true character of political parties, and induce us for the future more carefully to distinguish between facts, phrases, realities and phantoms...

The most chilling and well known quote of all from the book?

"So you see, my Dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."

Quantitative Easing, Inflation and Civil Unrest

2010-11-21T18:23:00.002Z

I have written before about the convergence of crises that threatens not just our prosperity as a nation, but global prosperity - peak oil, global jihad, overpopulation, and resource wars. However, more imminent is the prospect of great economic instability, with the Irish banks an obvious reminder that we are unlikely to see an economic recovery any time soon.

The coalition's ruthless cuts will needlessly impoverish many of the poorest people in society, which will undoubtedly create resentment and possibly even social unrest. However, this would pale in comparison to the prospect of high inflation coupled with stagnant household income which would thrust many millions into real poverty. You may think this is an unlikely scenario, but the reality is this may well be the result of 'quantitative easing'. The following extracts are from an article published in The Daily Telegraph back in July:

Ebay is offering a well-thumbed volume of "Dying of Money: Lessons of the Great German and American Inflations" at a starting bid of $699 (shipping free.. thanks a lot).

The crucial passage comes in Chapter 17 entitled "Velocity". Each big inflation -- whether the early 1920s in Germany, or the Korean and Vietnam wars in the US -- starts with a passive expansion of the quantity money. This sits inert for a surprisingly long time. Asset prices may go up, but latent price inflation is disguised. The effect is much like lighter fuel on a camp fire before the match is struck.

People’s willingness to hold money can change suddenly for a "psychological and spontaneous reason" , causing a spike in the velocity of money. It can occur at lightning speed, over a few weeks. The shift invariably catches economists by surprise. They wait too long to drain the excess money.

"Velocity took an almost right-angle turn upward in the summer of 1922," said Mr O Parsson. Reichsbank officials were baffled. They could not fathom why the German people had started to behave differently almost two years after the bank had already boosted the money supply. He contends that public patience snapped abruptly once people lost trust and began to "smell a government rat".

Interestingly, The Bank of England has introduced £200 billion into our economy this year in a process now known as quantitative easing. Over in the United States the monetary base has risen from $871bn to $2,024bn!

The article continues with a description of the horrors that hyper-inflation created in the Weimar Republic:

Near civil war between town and country was a pervasive feature of this break-down in social order. Large mobs of half-starved and vindictive townsmen descended on villages to seize food from farmers accused of hoarding. The diary of one young woman described the scene at her cousin’s farm.

"In the cart I saw three slaughtered pigs. The cowshed was drenched in blood. One cow had been slaughtered where it stood and the meat torn from its bones. The monsters had slit the udder of the finest milch cow, so that she had to be put out of her misery immediately. In the granary, a rag soaked with petrol was still smouldering to show what these beasts had intended," she wrote.

Grand pianos became a currency or sorts as pauperized members of the civil service elites traded the symbols of their old status for a sack of potatoes and a side of bacon. There is a harrowing moment when each middle-class families first starts to undertand that its gilt-edged securities and War Loan will never recover. Irreversible ruin lies ahead. Elderly couples gassed themselves in their apartments.

Foreigners with dollars, pounds, Swiss francs, or Czech crowns lived in opulence. They were hated. "Times made us cynical. Everybody saw an enemy in everybody else," said Erna von Pustau, daughter of a Hamburg fish merchant.

The Death of Paper Money; The Daily Telegraph; by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard; 25 Jul 2010

We are living in interesting times.

Sectarianism, Celtic FC and the Forgotten Irish Soldiers of World War I

2010-11-14T18:13:00.004Z

Most people who are familiar with Glasgow will understand that it is a city divided, like Belfast, along sectarian lines which are arguably political, religious and even ethnic. This is the legacy of mass-immigration into Scotland from Ireland - even after generations there's still hostility between the Protestant and Catholic communities:

IN August 1999, one man caused a storm by suggesting that bigotry ran throughout Scottish society. In a lecture entitled Scotland's Shame, James MacMillan said he was embarrassed by his own country because of its widespread anti-Catholic tendencies and ''sleep-walking bigotry''. Some said Mr MacMillan was brave to put his head above the parapet. Others said he had gone too far. There was no argument, however, that the acclaimed composer had exposed a running sore in society.

Valerie Hannah; The Herald; 2002

This lecture inspired Scotland's then First Minister, Jack McConnell, to do what Labour always do if they perceive there to be a social problem - enact legislation which criminalises behaviour they deem to be offensive. So over the last few years I have witnessed the bizarre spectacle of Rangers supporters being arrested for singing football songs!

The fact of the matter is that the sectarian problem has been created by Irish immigration to Scotland en masse. Of course the establishment of the two Glasgow footballing giants - Rangers and Celtic - have helped ensure that the (largely) bloodless feud has continued into the 21st century, but the problem is also partly attributable to an abundance of Catholic schools and the reluctance of the Irish descended population to relinquish their ties to their ancestral land.

This is not something unique to Glasgow, Liverpool elected an Irish Nationalist MP, T.P. O'Connor, in 1885. Many Irish Nationalist councillors were elected up until the 1920s, too, and Liverpool's unique Scouse accent and culture has been influenced by Irish immigration. But the sectarian divide is far more obvious in Glasgow.

The Celtic FC

Celtic were founded by an Irish catholic monk, Brother Walfrid, in 1888 as a means of raising funds for the deprived of Glasgow's east end which hosted the majority of the city's Irish immigrant population.

Alongside the Archbishop of Glasgow, the first patron of the Celtic Football Club was former Fenian and founder of the National League (1879), Michael Davitt, who was elected patron 'with acclaim' at the annual general meeting of 1889. Davitt, one of the most popular of the nationalist leaders, was invited to lay the first sod of 'real Irish shamrocks' at the new Celtic Park in 1892.

(...)

Celtic directors had been the chief contributors to every Irish and catholic fund in the city...'they were instrumental in sending a handsome donation from Glasgow toward the Irish Parliamentary Fund. Who else could boast of this?'

The Old Firm, Sectarianism, Sport and Society in Scotland; Bill Murray; 1994; John Donald Publishers Ltd; Page 70

As one can tell, the club has been associated with Irish Nationalism since its conception. Many of the songs that sections of the club's support sing are supportive of the Irish Republican Army (IRA):

CELTIC fans were blasted last night for allegedly singing pro-IRA chants during their 2-0 win over Hearts yesterday.

Punters watching the Tynecastle match on TV claimed a section of the support sang IRA anthem 'The Boys of the Old Brigade' and "Ooh Ah Up the 'RA".

IRA Songs Storm; The Scottish Sun; 03 Nov 2008

Therefore last weekend's protest by Celtic supporters against the club's decision to have a poppy embroidered on their shirt didn't really surprise me a great deal:

The banners read: "Your deeds would shame all the devils in Hell. Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan. No bloostained (sic) poppy on our Hoops."

Unfortunately, like it or not, the simple truth of the matter is that even after generations many Irish-Scots resent the British state and the British military. The implication of course is that the Irish immigrants have failed to assimilate, which to me begs the question:

If a white, Christian people from another part of the British Isles have failed to assimilate after several generations, how on earth will we assimilate, for example, the millions of Muslims who have come to these shores?

Appalling Behaviour

Whilst I unreservedly support the Celtic fans' right to protest - and I was appalled by The Scottish Express' comment this week suggesting that this should have been a police matter - I nevertheless wholeheartedly condemn their actions.

I personally do not support the war in Afghanistan, and I am outraged that our armed forces are being forced to risk their lives for a conflict that is not in our interests. However, in hard times such as these, many young men from deprived backgrounds join the military out of necessity - in search of a trade and an opportunity to see the world - not that I am doubting that many are also inspired by a sense of patriotic duty. After the 7/7 attacks and the attempt on Glasgow Airport many more, I imagine, genuinely believe that they are making the world a better place by fighting Muslim fanatics, too. So why take it out on them?

It is the likes of the current Celtic chairman, John Reid (a former member of the Communist Party), who are responsible for the Afghanistan conflict, not our loyal service personnel. Scum like Reid, Blair and the rest of that treacherous rabble have no respect for our troops. Whilst they spent billions of pounds every year on foreign aid, our troops were not even provided with adequate kit:

The British Army is operating with "woefully inadequate" resources in Afghanistan that are putting soldiers' lives in danger, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Despite Tony Blair's promise last year that the Army would be furnished with whatever equipment it needed there are still glaring and dangerous gaps in what is being delivered on the ground.

'Woeful' shortages put soldiers' lives at risk; The Daily Telegraph; By Thomas Harding in Helmand province; 16 Jun 2007

The Forgotten Irish Soldiers

Sadly, thanks largely to the Republican mindset hating all things British, the southern Irish fallen are often neglected when it comes to Remembrance Day. As the BBC's history site remarks (my annotations are in red):

In all, about 210,000* Irishmen served in the British forces during World War One. Since there was no conscription, about 140,000 of these joined during the war as volunteers. Some 35,000 Irish died. Irishmen enlisted for the war effort for a variety of reasons.

*This statistic includes Loyalist volunteers from Ulster, who comprised approximately half the total. Additionally, the Waterford County Museum claims that 350,000 Irishmen fought, the discrepancy may be because of Irishmen living on mainland Britain not being included in the BBC's stats.

(...)

Nationalists, for whom the establishment of an Irish 'home rule' parliament in Dublin had been the principal political aim for most of the 19th century, were committed to the war effort by their leader, John Redmond, in September 1914.

Notice that up until the Easter Rising, the majority of Nationalists had pursued 'home rule' (i.e. a devolved government, like Scotland has today) and not full independence.

This was on the grounds that the necessary legislation had been passed (though in fact it was suspended for the duration of the war), and that the 'freedom of small nations' (such as Belgium or Serbia) was that of Ireland as well. The plight of gallant, Catholic little Belgium, invaded by a militaristic aggressor, was disadvantageously compared with Ireland, achieving freedom (so Redmond argued) within the British Empire, rather like Canada or Australia.

(...)

For others there was an economic motive. James Connolly, the socialist revolutionary, said that employment opportunities were so bad in Ireland that men had no choice but to enlist. It was, he asserted, 'economic conscription'. Certainly an unskilled worker might more than double his pay by joining up. By some accounts, Francis Ledwidge, poet, nationalist and trade union organiser, enlisted on the rebound from an unhappy love affair. And yet others, as the historian Philip Orr has argued, may have been borne along on 'a surge of naive patriotism'.

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/ireland_wwone_01.shtml

The following is a list of southern Irish regiments that fought in World War I:

-The Royal Irish Regiment (formerly 18th Regiment of Foot)

-The Connaught Rangers (formerly 88th Regiment of Foot and 94th Regiment of Foot)

-The Prince of Wales's Leinster Regiment (Royal Canadians) (formerly 100th Regiment of Foot and 109th Regiment of Foot)

-The Royal Munster Fusiliers (formerly 101st Regiment of Foot and 104th Regiment of Foot)

-The Royal Dublin Fusiliers (formerly 102nd Regiment of Foot and 103rd Regiment of Foot)

To give one example of the sacrifice Irishmen, and indeed Irish nationalists, made during World War I, consider William Redmond, MP and brother of the Irish Nationalist leader:

Willie Redmond's death was particularly poignant. Although over 50 years old, he had insisted both on joining up and on serving in the front line. 'I can't stand asking fellows to go and not offer myself,' he wrote.

Compare that man with Blair, or Reid!

LEST WE FORGET!

The Days After The Glasgow Terrorist Attack

2010-10-17T15:55:00.013+01:00

The following footage is of a BBC report shortly after the Islamic terror attack on Glasgow Airport that took place on the 30th June, 2007. It begins with a racist attack that some may find distressing:

What occurred to me about the footage is that the attack wasn't reported, as acknowledged by the narrator, and it made me wonder how frequent attacks of this nature are, particularly in Glasgow. After all, this is the city in which Kriss Donald was abducted, tortured and murdered. Mike Liddell, a former Strathclyde Police chief inspector, stated after the boy's murder that:

In my view, crime within Glasgow's Asian community has been allowed to grow unfettered for years. Why? Because the police have been afraid to fight it in case they are accused of racism.

Why Police Are Afraid To Tackle Asian Crime; Scottish Daily Mail
Friday, November 19, 2004

This, I imagine, is something that is endemic in all police forces up and down the United Kingdom, particularly since the publication of the Macpherson report.

The other thing that struck me about the footage, is that there was little real condemnation of the terrorist attack by the Asians who were interviewed. Instead, they bleated that they felt they were being victimised as a result of it. The report states that there had been eight incidents reported that weekend, which were directly linked to the terrorist attack and that "most of these, in fact all of these have not been serious in nature" ie. probably verbal. To put this into perspective, the Strathclyde Police force serves a population of nearly 2.2 million people - hardly a vitriolic backlash. It is just typical that after a weekend in which a couple of Muslims attempt to kill many ordinary Glaswegians, the focus is on the suffering of the Muslim community, who were merely subjected to abuse that was not considered serious in nature.

Glasgow BNP's Stall Attacked

2010-09-19T09:36:00.010+01:00

Yesterday a team comprising activists from Glasgow and The Lothians held a stall in Glasgow city centre. After a few successful hours, however, they were attacked by a deranged mob, determined to deny them their right to freedom of speech and expression. For a more detailed account of the day's events, plus a link to some footage, click here.

Those chaps are very brave. Watching the second video elicited in me the kind of anger that first inspired me to join the party. Those protesters are complete and utter scum, in my eyes. To attack a peaceful political group, intent only on distributing literature and speaking to the general public, with such violence and venom is despicable. It's something about the mob mentality that is both vile and frightening, especially when directed, as it is, against what amounts to the only real opposition our electoral system affords us. It has connotations of Orwell's Two Minutes' Hate. Vacuous plebs who, having been subjected to a lifetime of state propaganda, are conditioned like Pavlov's dog, to scream at and violently suppress those who dare to question the globalist ideology. They are the useful idiots Lenin referred to.

Governments seek to modify our behaviour through coercion on the one hand, and persuasion on the other, and the lesson is that governments can and do change the way people think and behave.

- Hazel Blears

Source

UPDATE:

This image was posted on the Scottish Socialist Youth website:

Scum!

The Power Of The Media

2010-07-25T14:16:00.009+01:00

I found the following tale on a nationalist website some time ago, and thought it was rather good:

The Stranger

A few months before I was born, back in the early 1960s, my Dad met a stranger who was new to our small town. From the beginning, Dad was fascinated with this enchanting newcomer, and soon invited him to live with our family. The stranger was quickly accepted and was around to welcome me into the world a few months later. As I grew up, I never questioned his place in our family. Mum taught me to love the Word of God, and Dad taught me to obey it. But the stranger was our storyteller.

He could weave the most fascinating tales. Adventures, mysteries, and comedies were daily conversations. He could hold our whole family spellbound for hours each evening. He was like a friend to the whole family. He took Dad, my brother, and me to our first major league football game. He was always encouraging us to see the films and he even made arrangements to introduce us to several stars. The stranger was an incessant talker. Dad didn’t seem to mind, but sometimes Mum would quietly get up - while the rest of us were enthralled with one of his stories of faraway places - go to her room, read the Bible, and pray. I wonder now if she ever prayed that the stranger would leave?

You see, my Dad ruled our household with certain moral convictions. But this stranger never felt an obligation to honour them. Profanity, for example, was not allowed in our house - not from us, from our friends, or from adults. Yet, our longtime visitor, however, used occasional four letter words that burned my ears and made Dad squirm. To my knowledge the stranger was never confronted.

My Dad was a teetotaler who didn’t permit alcohol in his home - not even for cooking. But the stranger felt like we needed exposure and enlightened us to other ways of life. He offered us beer and other alcoholic beverages often. He made cigarettes look tasty, cigars manly, and pipes distinguished. He talked freely about sex. His comments were sometimes blatant, sometimes suggestive, and generally embarrassing. He spoke of homosexuality and other sexual deviances as though they were totally acceptable, to him affairs and divorce were the norm. He encouraged race-mixing and communism, even when those things were looked upon with disgust by most Whites, even the most liberal. I know now that the stranger influenced my early concepts of the man/woman, black/white relationship.

As I look back, I believe it was the grace of God that the stranger did not influence us more. Time after time, he opposed the values of parents, yet he was seldom rebuked and never asked to leave. Nearly forty years have passed since the stranger moved in with us, but if I were to walk into my parent’s home today, I would still see him sitting there waiting for someone to listen to his stories and watch him draw his pictures.

His name?.......We just called him TV.

source: aryanunity.com/stranger.html

This story made me think about our recent history and how our society has changed over the last sixty years. Many of the values that were commonly held then have been turned on their head, thanks to political correctness (social Marxism), to the extent that one can now be arrested for expressing them openly.

It occurred to me that since the 1950s/60s people have had a box in their front room that has, in many cases, for hours every day, influenced the way people think and behave. It has indoctrinated them evening after evening. It is the media, particularly television, that has precipitated the social revolution. It simply would not have been possible without it.

The change has been incremental, but over the years it has fundamentally altered the psyche of our people. We have been taught to be ashamed of our history, and to accept mass-immigration and the promotion of alien cultures at the expense of our own. We have become a people happy to embrace our own destruction.

I will end with a quote from Herbert Marcuse, the 'father of the New Left':

The means of... communication..., the irresistible output of the entertainment and information industry carry with them prescribed attitudes and habits, certain intellectual and emotional reactions which bind the consumers... to the producers and, through the latter to the whole [social system]. The products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood... Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behaviour. (Marcuse, cited in Bennett 1982: 43).

source: aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism08.html

Let's Dispel A Myth

2010-06-23T18:38:00.011+01:00

(Updated: 26/06/10)

The following was published in today's Daily Mail:

As a society that values justice and fairness, we are accustomed to the idea of compensating victims of crime or, where third-party liability can be established, loss or injury suffered. In England the practice dates back at least to Anglo-Saxon times, in the form of weregeld.

During the last few decades, however, we have imported a litigation culture from the United States, which has been enshrined in law thanks to the 1999 Access to Justice Act (another example of Labour's malignant governance). This has had the effect of making victim status desirable as it can ultimately prove lucrative. However, since the 1960s, it is not just individual parties that have seen the merit in portraying themselves as victims.

Following prominent civil rights campaigns in the United States, South Africa and Northern Ireland, it seems we live in a society in which minority groups are continuously claiming to be persecuted. Just like individuals who claim to have suffered as the result of the negligent/malicious actions of a third party, I believe these minorities are also seeking compensation of some sort, too - if not a tangible reward then special treatment.

You may recall a previous article of mine, in which I highlighted the case of a couple who felt aggrieved that they had been described as a 'black couple'. In fact the article I quoted stated that they were 'furious':

Above: the offending receipt.

Above: Mr Abraham and Ms Duhur at the crime scene.

Now in the case of the couple above, who presumably find the national census offensive, the motivation was probably that they would receive some sort of tangible benefit - vouchers, the entitlement to dine free or even cash. However, I believe that there may be a latent motive which is far more sinister, though perhaps not conscious in some of the 'aggrieved'.

GROUP STRATEGY

This couple no doubt contacted the papers in order to publicise their grievance, and thus shame the company into compensating them. However, the latent effect of this publicity is that it permeates throughout British society the message that ethnic minorities must be treated sensitively, and failure to do so may result in adverse publicity and perhaps disciplinary action taken against the offending staff. The result, therefore will be a cowed British public who will ingratiate themselves towards minorities in order to avoid any repercussions.

Of course this is nothing new. The Macpherson Report into the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry branded the Metropolitan Police Service 'institutionally racist'. Now if you were a Metropolitan Policeman, how would you deal with black suspects? Bearing in mind your superiors are now desperate to relinquish the 'service' of the 'institutional racist' tag, I think you would treat them more leniently and with more respect than white suspects.

The letter published at the top of this post, refers to an article in the Daily Mail in which Obama's 'Granny Sarah' recounts how Obama's grandfather was tortured by the British. The letter implies that her account of the details have been, if not entirely manufactured, then embellished and exaggerated. What possible motivation would she have to do this? Well aside from the likelihood that her husband has lied to her in order to make himself appear as some sort of martyr, I believe this is an example of a ploy used to inculcate guilt in the white European.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that when an individual or group has been wronged, they believe they are now entitled to something to compensate them. Just like with individuals, these groups are likely to exaggerate their suffering in order to increase sympathy and the compensation due to them. Guilt is used to extort money or goods and services, and in the case of minorities...our land, our children's futures.

Please also see: http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-solution-to-racial-disparities.html

Wanted: Book Recommendations

2010-06-13T13:34:00.009+01:00

I am always keen to read more about British Nationalism, race and science and particularly conspiratorial history. With respect to the latter, I'm not interested in outlandish and ridiculous theories like those peddled by David Icke, but rather those that can be substantiated to some degree and which perhaps provide an insight into the destruction of the Occidental world.

I recently purchased a copy of Nesta Webster's World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilisation. This is a perfect example of the type of book I am seeking.

James Gibb Stuart's Hidden Menace and Anthony Sutton's books are other examples of the kind of material I am looking for. So if you can recommend any similar books I would be very grateful.

Bankers - The Root Of All Evil

2010-05-24T21:12:00.009+01:00

Michael Moore's new film Capitalism: A Love Story premiered on British television last week. To be fair it did go some way to expose the iniquity, corruption and avarice that has impoverished many Americans, but the criticism of the banksters was tame and ultimately limited to the events surrounding the recent financial crisis in the United States. Moore neglected to inform his viewers how, historically, international bankers have in fact done far worse. I shall attempt to remedy that:

The Rothschilds

The House of Rothschild is an international banking dynasty of German Jewish origin that have used their power and influence to shape history, both for their own interests and for the Zionist cause. Legend has it that it was Nathan Rothschild who ensured the bank's prominence, thanks to his ruthless manipulation of the stock market.

By the early 1800s the Rothschilds had established a very quick and reliable communication network, so that members of the family, who were dispersed across Europe - in Prussia, Vienna, Naples, Paris and London - could relay messages to one another. Indeed it is said the system was so efficient, that it could even communicate news faster than the courier systems employed by Europe's monarchs, and this would prove very profitable indeed.

In 1815, the Battle of Waterloo was to prove fundamental in shaping the continent, as if Wellington could defeat Napoleon, it would ensure the British held the balance of power in Europe. Vast sums of money would be made, or lost, based upon the outcome of the battle, and Nathan Rothschild seeing an opportunity to make a fortune, had observers close by, ready to convey news of the outcome.

So it was that Nathan Rothschild, was the first to hear of Napoleon's defeat, and put his crafty plan in operation. He immediately began to furiously sell British government bonds and other stock, and word soon got round that Wellington had been defeated at Waterloo. The price of bonds soon began to fall, as those who observed Rothschild tried desperately to divest themselves of assets they believed to be next to worthless, before official news arrived. Soon word spread and the price of the bonds tumbled to a small fraction of its value in a matter of hours. This is of course what Rothschild had anticipated, and he swiftly bought the entire market of government bonds for pennies in the pound! Or so the story goes.

The following is a quote attributed to Nathan Rothschild:

"I care not what puppet is placed on
the throne of England to rule the Empire...
The man that controls Britain's money
supply controls the British Empire.
And I control the money supply."

The Secrets of the Federal Reserve; Eustace Mullins, Chapter 5, The House of Rothschild

It seems that some historians, probably most, reject the version of events related above as apocryphal. However, the following was reported in the Independent:

The news that the bankers Rothschild are to withdraw from the gold market, in which they have been a major player for two centuries, has been hailed as the end of an era.

In one sense, of course, it is. This was the company that smuggled gold coins across the English Channel to finance the Duke of Wellington's advance through France to his final triumph at Waterloo over Napoleon (who, it turned out, had also borrowed money from the Rothschilds).

The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty; Independent; Paul Vallely; 16th April 2004

The same article continues thus:

But in another way it marks out the continuation of an even older tradition - the ability of the family which has founded one of the world's largest private banking dynasties to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family.

Secrecy has been a hallmark of the Rothschilds from the outset. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of an itinerant money lender and goldsmith who settled in the Jewish ghetto in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1744, specialised not just in clever accounting practices but also kept secret books and subterranean vaults which he ensured were never the privy of auditor, lawyer or taxman.

(...)

Certainly, for all the family motto of Concordia, Integritas, Industria (Unity, Integrity, Industry), Nathan's ability to depress stock prices by using the network of agents to spread rumours, true or false, and then buy the stock up after people panicked, was legendary.

More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

The Rothschilds and the Balfour Declaration
By the early 1900s, the Rothschild's power was awesome. Proof of the family's wealth and influence is manifest from The Balfour Declaration. From The BBC:

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the first significant declaration by a world power in favour of a Jewish "national home" in what was known as Palestine.

Historians disagree as to what the then British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, intended by his declaration. The letter has no mention of the word "state", and insists that nothing should be done "which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

The letter was addressed to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the Jewish community in Britain. It became an important arm of the movement to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

The letter:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,
Arthur James Balfour

Now, given the power of the House of Rothschild, I would suggest The Balfour Declaration was payment for their services. This is of course purely conjecture on my part, but Britain was embroiled in the First World War at the time. Wars, of course, need to be financed, and I imagine in 1917 the British government was desperate for funds which the Rothschilds could supply, alternatively it may be that the Rothschilds and other Zionists used their influence to bring the US into the war. I can think of no other conceivable reason why, in 1917, in the midst of the greatest ever war, our government would have been interested in finding a 'national home for the Jewish people'.

Anthony Sutton

Anthony Sutton was a British born historian, who published some very controversial books, including: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. As the titles suggest, Sutton believed that Wall Street - or rather bankers - had financed both the Bolshevik Revolution and the Communist regimes that followed, as well as Hitler's Nazi party. The following is from his website:

Antony Sutton has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state's technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet's large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance.

Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future (Simon & Schuster;1984): "In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology . . . [Antony] Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored."

Now, I shall reiterate a passage I quoted earlier:

This was the company that smuggled gold coins across the English Channel to finance the Duke of Wellington's advance through France to his final triumph at Waterloo over Napoleon (who, it turned out, had also borrowed money from the Rothschilds).

As I stated earlier, the above quote came from The Independent, a mainstream newspaper. Of course, the controlled media would never lend credence to Anthony Sutton's findings - The House of Rothschild and their ilk would never allow it. Ask yourself, if such people are able to buy themselves nation states, and engineer wars, who do you think is pushing European integration and mass-immigration?

There were devious intelligences at least a hundred years ago who had already anticipated a state of affairs under which potential power seekers would manipulate the masses by bringing control all organs of the popular press under their own effective control.

The purpose? It had to be some drastic restructuring of society which would be rejected out of hand by free peoples if the issues were fairly and honestly presented.

James Gibb-Stuart, The Hidden Menace

I sincerely believe they are engineering a World State, or as is more commonly known, a New World Order.

Labour's Legacy

2010-05-18T23:41:00.002+01:00

It remains to be seen whether the new government will be any better than the previous one, however I am cautiously optimistic. Despite the new image, the Tories have retained some of their values, manifest from their pledges to scrap ID cards and limit immigration to "tens of thousands" a year.

Thirteen years of Labour governance have certainly taken their toll. Andrew Neather's revelation that Ministers had deliberately encouraged immigration in order to "rub the Right's nose in diversity" and for a "political purpose" proved what many people like myself had strongly suspected - that immigration wasn't about economics, but social engineering and the destruction of Britain. Around 2.3 million immigrants have entered the United Kingdom legally under Labour's administration, that's more than a 50% increase on the ethnic minority population residing in the UK in 2001/02, according to the Office of National Statistics' figures:

Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/meg1202.pdf

The Labour government have transformed our society, especially the inner cities, through this mass-importation of mostly third world immigrants. That is the most obvious and nefarious element of Labour's legacy, as it will be very, very difficult to reverse.

Equally sinister, however, is Labour's attempt at building the apparatus and enacting the legislation required to monitor and control the population. We currently have the largest DNA database in the world, which includes the DNA of many people who were never convicted of any offence! Additionally, Labour have overseen:

- the first crown court criminal trial to be held without a jury in England and Wales for more than 350 years. (BBC)

- the abolition of the 'double jeopardy' law, which has existed for around 800 years. (BBC)

- an attempt, effectively, to abolish habeas corpus, which guarantees an individual the right to a trial. It is believed to date back to the Magna Carta. The government wanted to hold 'terror' suspects for up to 90 days without trial. (Independent)

- the creation of over 4,300 new criminal offences. (The Times)

To think that all these fundamental civil liberties, which have existed for hundreds of years, have come under attack in the last thirteen years is simply shocking.

In addition to the unparalleled immigration, and the assault on our civil liberties, Blair led us into two Middle Eastern conflicts, both under false pretexts. These wars have cost us the lives of hundreds of soldiers, made Britons a target for Islamic terrorists and cost the taxpayer billions of pounds.

Finally, Labour have all but bankrupted Britain:

Officially the National Debt is £890 billion (that's right - BILLION). You might regard that as rather a lot – even if your share is divided by 60 million of your fellow British citizens. But there is evidence it is more than twice as much. Private Finance Initiatives add £130 billion and Public Pensions Liabilities add £1,200 billion, so instead of a trillion pounds, maybe it is two trillion pounds.

Honesty is the best policy on painful economic truth; Daily Mail; 18th May 2010

Under Labour we have suffered the longest recession on record, less than a decade after chancellor Brown bragged that he had eliminated 'boom and bust'! Perhaps he genuinely believed his own hype, after all Labour ran a budget deficit during even the more prosperous years. However a cynic may be forgiven for believing Labour's mismanagement of the country has been deliberate. This is an observation Simon Heffer made just over two years ago, when he wrote an article entitled Labour is malignant, not incompetent:

When we say, as we should often feel the temptation to do, that the Labour administration that has governed us for the past 11 years is incompetent, we should be aware also that we are saying the following: that, but for its administrative and technical failings, it would have done well.

I do not believe this to be true. Despite the sheen of reason that Gordon Brown and, before him, Tony Blair and their chums have sought to put on all they do, this Government has had dark motives from the start.

It has followed policies deliberately that have enabled it to pursue its own political agenda...and irrespective of some of the dire consequences that might flow from those policies.

Labour has pursued policies, be they social or economic, for ideological reasons: and when they fail, as so many have, it has not been because of slipshod administration. It is because that was how things were always going to work out.

Labour is malignant, not incompetent; Simon Heffer; Telegraph; April 2nd, 2008

Indeed!

Why Banning The Burqa Is Bad For Us All

2010-03-25T21:16:00.010Z

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has promised to ban the veil - at least according to The Telegraph:

France to ban veil says Nicolas Sarkozy

Nicolas Sarkozy has said that France will ban the full Muslim veil.

The move would protect the dignity of women, the president added.

“The full veil is contrary to the dignity of women,” he said. “The response is to ban it. The Government will table a draft law prohibiting it.”

The president gave no further details during his address to the nation following a heavy defeat in regional elections for his ruling Union for a Popular Movement party.

Speaking from the Elysee Palace Mr Sarkozy gave no indication as to how an outright ban would be imposed and policed.

France is home to six million Muslims.

No doubt this will prove popular with the public, who quite rightly perceive Islam as a threat to their traditional French values and culture. They perhaps believe that banning the veil will help thwart the growth of the most orthodox strain of what is an aggressive and oppressive religion, in their country. It is my belief that such legislation would be equally welcome in the United Kingdom, too, and Jack Straw's remark back in 2006, that the veil is a "visible statement of separation and of difference", suggests this is something our government may also consider.

To be perfectly honest I find this quite frightening, and not because I believe this is simply a cynical ploy by Sarkozy to win back some of his previous supporters who deserted him in favour of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has recently done very well in the elections in France. No, it is because in my opinion there are other far-reaching implications of such intrusive legislation, which I shall attempt to explain.

Personally, I believe that banning the veil (burqa) is not in the interests of the British people. The most fundamental reason being that the government should not be able to dictate how one dresses, for that would spell the loss of one of our most basic freedoms of expression.

Just suppose a bill is proposed in Westminster, which would 'ban the veil', would it be so narrow that it fails to preclude alternative attire that can conceal the face, for example a balaclava? I don't think it would be. Firstly, because some Muslim women would simply wear such clothing instead of the burqa, and secondly because it would be seen as discriminatory. Therefore any legislation would be broad and would essentially criminalise the covering of one's face in public, and of course that would mean that the authorities would find it far easier to identify and monitor people using CCTV. It's my belief that this is simply another step towards a surveillance state.

The argument proposed by 'liberals' for banning the burqa is that it oppresses Muslim women. Whilst I'm sure some are forced to wear it by the familial patriarch, it is equally true to say that many hookers are probably forced to wear short skirts by their pimps, should they be banned too? Of course they shouldn't. The fact is that some Muslim women probably do want to wear the burqa, so why should they be denied the fundamental right to dress in the fashion that they choose? What if Mohammed down at the local halal butchers is a lecherous old git, and a young Muslim girl feels more comfortable visiting the shop dressed in a burqa? The argument is spurious because whilst it may be 'liberating' some women, it is curtailing the freedom of others, and more importantly, of us all.

The Tyndall Diaries - Part Two

2010-01-17T10:14:00.012Z

More Left-wing Violence, Combat 18 and Possible State Involvement in Both

The other distinguishing feature of this period of our progress was a series of violent incidents in which our members were the victims. In the run-up towards the 1994 local government elections, one candidate, Michael Davidson, was attacked by a red mob in the street when canvassing and so severely beaten that he lost the sight in one eye. It was an inspiring, and also humbling, experience to be told by him when visiting him in hospital the next day: "This is not going to stop me!" It didn't, and he came close to getting elected. In the same period, another member was injured by a letter-bomb when opening a postal packet delivered to the party's headquarters PO Box, and our press officer at the time, Michael Newland, was savagely attacked and beaten up by three men who gained entry to his home on the pretence that they were pest inspectors from the local council. Though news of these three incidents was passed to the media, with one or two exceptions strangely little was reported about them. A comical aspect of this affair (though not so to the victims) was that on election day a 'civil rights' group calling itself Liberty stationed monitors outside the polling station in Millwall Ward so as to ensure that we did not intimidate people going in to vote!

The mob which made the attack on Michael Davidson had been patrolling the area in a motor vehicle just looking for BNP activists to beat up. Whether this particular patrol was initiated by some far-left group or in quarters elsewhere we will probably never know. The other two attacks - in particular the one on Michael Newland - had something about them suggestive of origins higher up. In the Newland attack the men had with them a motor van with a painted sign indicating their 'pest control' function. They were wearing overalls of a style which tended to back up this pretence. The incident had the flavour of professionalism. Yet the men's voices just did not seem to the victim like those of either normal left-wing militants or hired thugs. Also of interest was the complete ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation. Did people in high places order this attack, and did they then ensure that the attackers would not be brought to justice? Again, we will probably never know, but other experiences of ours, which I shall duly relate, give grounds for thinking that these are not mere paranoid fantasies.

One violent incident that I will suggest was engineered 'higher up' was an attack made some while later, in September 1997, on my wife and me. This was on an occasion when we were walking from our car to a party meeting in Stratford, East London. Our security was slack this time - something for which I hold myself entirely to blame. A left-wing mob of some thirty or forty people were in the vicinity, having know about the meeting and arrived with the intention of disrupting it. We walked right into them. Not being satisfied with venting their hatred and fury on me, they hurled my wife to the ground, whereupon several of them kicked her about the head and body as I stood over her, desperately but mostly unsuccessfully trying to protect her from their blows. We were fortunate that the incident took place in a busy public place on a Saturday afternoon. Seeing onlookers gather, and fearing that they might later be identified by witnesses, the mobsters withdrew after having inflicted a few superficial injuries on me about the face and head. The head wounds that my wife suffered still troubled her some months afterwards. In our experience we were lucky compared with some of our colleagues, but my memory of the despicable assault by these animals on my wife remains with me. Were I ever to confront any of them agains, I could not ensure to act with 'moderation' or 'restraint'. Yet of course the media continue to persist in their subtle linkage between the BNP and violence without giving the slightest hint of these conditions under which we have had to operate. No mention of the kicking my wife received was ever made in the mainstream press - an omission which we can be quite sure would never have occurred had the BNP members been the guilty ones and their opponents the victims.

In a number of books and newspaper articles, and in one or two TV documentaries, evidence has been produced indicating that governments in Britain have authorised the creation of special units for the purpose of 'direct action' against known terrorists in Northern Ireland - a policy which in that context I do not consider unjustified. Could the same kinds of units be used in similar 'direct action' against political dissenters on the mainland, in our case operating absolutely lawfully and in persuit of patriotic objectives? Mr. & Mrs. Ordinary Citizen, sleeping comfortably in their beds in the certainty that such things only happen under dictators in remote foreign parts, would not countenance such an idea. We have reasons to be less smug.

There was another revealing feature of this period in our progress - perhaps not unrelated. The victory at Millwall in September 1993 might have been expected to usher in a time when morale and a spirit of optimism and togetherness in our party reached their highest peak. This result vindicated the policy of contesting elections and affirmed that the party leadership and the political strategies it had adopted had been proven right. Yet strangely the occasion gave rise to a most unwelcome outbreak of grumbling - and nowhere more so than East London, where the triumph had occurred. For a time this baffled us.

It was then that my attention began to be drawn to the activities of a group of people known as 'Combat 18'. I had heard of it previously but nothing had happened to induce me to take any special notice of it. Groups on the fringe of the BNP, sometimes causing it embarrassment by their ill-conceived propaganda and activities, had existed for years and probably always would exist. But evidence began to accumulate that this particular group was severely damaging our party, not only by its public behaviour but by its actions in inciting demoralisation and disloyalty among our members.

I convened a meeting of leading party officers to discuss this new phenomenon. The unanimous conclusion of this meeting was that Combat 18 was a device that was being put to use in a deliberate attempt to harm the BNP just at a time when our party looked to be on the crest of a wave of success and growth. And if this diagnosis was correct, the question that had to be asked was: who then was behind Combat 18? Was it more than just a lunatic-fringe organisation consisting of political illiterates and adolescents? Did it have a covert agenda of more sinister origins?

By this time, evidence had begun to pile up pointing to a number of illegal activities involving Combat 18, including the storage of weapons and a series of violent attacks on people, including not only political opponents but even fellow nationalists, among whom were some of my own colleagues. Yet up to that time no prosecutions had been made against members of this group. Why not?

By now I had become convinced that Combat 18 was an organisation of agents provocateurs controlled by the authorities in Britain for nefarious purposes of their own - all of which pointed towards an attempt to infiltrate, disrupt, divide and damage the BNP, and that failure to prosecute those responsible for its illegal activities derived from a policy determined in high places to leave alone those who were rendering valuable services to the powers that be by causing harm and havoc within our own party. In September 1995 I wrote an article expounding this view in Spearhead magazine. At the time it was not universally well received in nationalist circles, and some accused me of making unwarranted attacks on 'fellow nationalists'.

Of course, the vast majority of those who had become involved with this group were no more than gullible tools, although the group did undoubtedly include a criminal element. Its effectiveness as a means of damaging the BNP has now run its course, and these days it causes us little trouble. There is no doubt, however, that at a crucial time beginning around 1993 and continuing till about 1996 its activities and its insidious campaign of poison and disruption did weaken us considerably. The timing of this 'scam' is important. It hit us just at the moment when we were poised to capitalise on our first election victory. I regard this as no accident...

Source: The Eleventh Hour; John Tyndall; Albion Press; 1998; pp. 499-502

Does this not bring to your mind a certain organization? The EDL?

The Tyndall Diaries - Part One

2010-01-10T13:40:00.009Z

Having recently completed John Tyndall's biography, it is apparent that he was undoubtedly a brave and extraordinary man, and whilst I do not agree with many of his views, a politician of integrity. Thus I feel compelled to share some of his words. In fact there is so much of note, that I will need to serialise the excerpts over the following weeks.

Millwall, Welling, Left-wing Violence and Electoral Fraud

Just a month after our election victory at Millwall, we became the target of another outbreak of left-wing violence. This was when a coalition of red mobsters operating under the umbrella of the self-styled 'Anti-Nazi League' got together to march on our shop premises in Welling. A huge crowd assembled for this jamboree, having been recruited from all over Britain and beyond. They had been incited beforehand by one of their organisers to tear the building down "brick by brick". A massive police presence prevented this happening, and so the mob turned on the police, as well as attacking local property belonging to people who had nothing to do with the BNP. The area became a battleground for several hours. A good many police were injured, including one black constable whom these 'anti-racists' made a special target because they thought he should have been helping them in their rioting rather than trying to stop it!

Writing about this affair afterwards in Spearhead magazine, I drew attention to the Public Order Act, under which I and others had been convicted and punished 31 years earlier for the mere supposition that we might be planning to do what this mob actually did at Welling on the 16th October 1993 and had likewise done a month earlier in the East End of London: use physical force in the promotion of a political object. There were quite adequate powers under the act, I said, to convict those who had been responsible for organising these acts of violence. Yet no prosecutions were ever taken out against these people. Why not - unless such decisions were being dictated by politics rather than normal considerations of justice.

Footage of this demonstration can be seen below:

Left-wing violence against the BNP reached a peak in the mid-1990s. In later years there have been some signs that this has lessened, and this could be a symptom of a general decline of the far-left - at least in terms of its ability to mobilise street mobs. This does not mean that we should underestimate its malignant influence in other sectors - a subject I have touched upon in an earlier chapter.

In the aftermath of this turmoil, we prepared to contest the scheduled local government elections in May 1994 with high hopes of retaining the East London seat that we won, and adding yet more seats to it. As I have indicated, our opponents simultaneously started planning to thwart our efforts. In this, they enlisted the mass media (naturally!); the trade unions, which began by attempting to organise a strike of council workers in the area where our councillor had been elected; Labour Party experts assigned by the party's headquarters descend upon the area to mastermind its anti-BNP campaign for the election; and the curiously named 'Anti-Nazi League', who for a while discarded their customary violent tactics to carry out an extensive canvass of local voters to persuade them not to vote BNP a second time. From the media point of view, the good white electors of Millwall became the subject of an extensive psycho-analysis aimed at divining what mental disorder had induced them on the 16th September 1993 to support a party that had been on the 'forbidden' list, instead of tamely voting for the parties for which they had been instructed to vote.

At the same time, as the poll approached, a massive operation was mounted by Labour to mobilise the Asian voters in the two boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham, where the BNP was standing several candidates who were considered to have a chance of repeating its Millwall success of the previous September.

On the day, we lost our Millwall seat, though our overall results across the two boroughs were impressive and enormously encouraging, with one or two bringing us very close to winning further seats. An investigation of what happened in Millwall gave us strong grounds for suspecting a number of irregularities in the way in which the election had been conducted. Large numbers of Asians appeared on the electoral roll who had not been there on the previous occasion - suggesting that many of them had been registered illegally. Our election helpers at the polling stations identified some Asians turning up to vote more than once. These were stopped after protests to the poll officers, but how many did vote a second or even a third time after not being spotted is anyone's guess. In one polling district where we had especially rock-solid support someone bore witness to the switching of boxes of voting papers but for personal reasons was unprepared to testify to this effect in the event of an inquiry.

As to the latter, at one time we had actually made the first moves in putting in an application to that effect, but this was later abandoned. At the end of it all, we were faced with the prospect of a legal bill of many thousands at a time when the party's election efforts had left it financially drained - and with no certainty of a verdict in its favour. The institutionalised corruption that had made the rigging of the election possible could well continue into the enquiry itself. At the same time, we could not be absolutely sure that this was the only factor that had cost us the Millwall seat. The anti-BNP propaganda drive, together with a skillful campaign fought by Labour, could have tipped the scales against us. We decided to cut our losses and look forward rather than backward, glad that we had established that the BNP could win an election - something which people had previously thought inconceivable. This portended well for the future, though not necessarily the immediate future.

To be continued...

Source: The Eleventh Hour; John Tyndall; Albion Press; 1998; pp. 497-499

Diversity Destroys Freedom

2010-01-02T17:44:00.006Z

It is my sincere belief that as British society becomes more racially and religiously disparate, and thus less cohesive, freedom of speech and expression will be gradually diminished. In fact, this has already occurred over the last four decades. The following passages are from the BBC and demonstrate how, incrementally, our freedom of speech and liberty has been eroded:

The 1965 Race Relations Act was a limited piece of legislation pushed through by a Labour government in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives.

It made it unlawful to refuse access to anyone on racial grounds to public places such as hotels, restaurants, pubs, cinemas or public transport.

Refusing to rent accommodation to people because of their race was also no longer allowed and stirring up racial hatred -'incitement' - became a criminal offence.

Superficially, this may seem reasonable. However, it violates the right of, for example, a publican to determine whom he wishes to admit into his premises. Ultimately he is running a business, and if he chooses to forego the custom of certain people because of his prejudice, then that's his decision to make.

Furthermore this legislation would have criminalised an old lady who runs a boarding house, but didn't want to let rooms to foreigners. She may well have not felt safe having people whose culture is completely alien to her living in her home. But this law meant she would have been compelled to accept such boarders or close her business.

Finally, 'incitement to racial hatred' became a crime. This rather nebulous term was used as a cosh to silence the British people from objecting too strongly to mass-immigration - after Enoch Powell made his 'Rivers of Blood' speech 'Jeremy Thorpe, the Liberal leader, felt there might be a prima facie case against Powell for incitement; and Ted Leadbitter, a Labour MP, said he would refer the speech to the Director of Public Prosecutions.' (1)

The Act was amended in 1968, outlawing 'discrimination in areas such as employment and providing goods and services' (2), and this was again strengthened by the Race Relations Act 1976 , which 'made both direct and indirect discrimination an offence and gave those affected by discrimination redress through employment tribunals and the courts.' (3)

There have been many more amendments and additions to race relations legislation, and one can read about the history of it here. Those who champion equality, however, should be disgusted to learn that Harriet Harman's 'Equality Bill' will actually permit employers to discriminate based upon gender and skin colour:

The Bill will make it legal for employers to choose a black or female candidate above a white man, as long as they have the same qualifications.

It is designed to thrust more women and minority applicants into senior posts.

Harman's equality law 'will hurt white male jobseekers'; 03rd December 2009

This is not just social engineering, it is plain hypocrisy. It reminds me of Animal Farm: 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.' Ultimately white men are to officially become second class citizens in their ancestral lands.

Whilst Harman's Equality Bill seeks to empower ethnic minorities and disadvantage white males, the process of transforming society does not stop with 'racial equality'. After two trials, Nick Griffin was eventually cleared of 'inciting racial hatred' at Leeds Crown Court. However this was the response of The Muslim Council of Britain, who were agitating for laws criminalising those who denounce Islam:

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) commended the BBC investigation.

Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: "The BNP have long been exploiting a loophole in our current legislation which outlaws incitement to racial hatred but does not forbid incitement to religious hatred.

"This documentary provides additional evidence of the immense harm this is doing to community relations in our country."

BNP leader repeats Islam attack; BBC; Friday, 16 July 2004

In Ireland it appears that their agitation has paid dividends, as the following report demonstrates:

Secular campaigners in the Irish Republic defied a strict new blasphemy law which came into force today by publishing a series of anti-religious quotations online and promising to fight the legislation in court.

The new law, which was passed in July, means that blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 (£22,000).

It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.

Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws; The Guardian; Friday 1 January 2010

If the Irish government is doing this to demonstrate their commitment to 'equality' and 'diversity', then why not simply repeal the blasphemy law? That would augment freedom of speech and expression, which is surely a good thing? I am a Christian and I can tolerate criticism of my faith, as can most Christians if you look at our reactions over the years to The Life of Brian, Jerry Springer The Opera and a publicly funded exhibition 'encouraging people to deface the Bible in the name of art' (4) in Scotland, the results of which can be seen below.

Ask yourself, would Muslims tolerate the Koran being defaced in a similar manner? Would MPs not be totally outraged at such provocation, were it directed towards Islam instead of Christianity? One only has to recall the response by Muslims to Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and the Danish Cartoons to understand just what sort of a reaction such an act would elicit. Regarding the Danish Cartoons, it would appear that the fatwah imposed upon the cartoonist has not been forgotten:

Danish police have shot and wounded a man at the home of Kurt Westergaard, whose cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad sparked an international row.

Mr Westergaard scrambled into a panic room at his home in Aarhus after a man wielding an axe and a knife broke in.

This is just another incident which exposes this alien religion's intolerance to criticism. The fact that Mr Westergaard saw it necessary to have a panic room fitted in his home speaks volumes about the nature of the threats he has received. Remember his 'crime' is merely having the audacity to draw cartoons mocking the 'Prophet' Mohammed! But he is quite right to be frightened, and should remember the fate of Theo Van Gogh:

Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film about Islamic culture, has been stabbed and shot dead in Amsterdam, Dutch police say.

Police arrested a man in a nearby park after an exchange of gunfire. The man, aged 26, had joint Dutch and Moroccan nationality, they said.
(...)

The film Submission told the story of a Muslim woman forced into an arranged marriage who is abused by her husband and raped by her uncle. It triggered an outcry from Dutch Muslims.

In one scene the film showed an actress in see-through garments with Koranic script written on her body, which also bore whip marks.

The Netherlands is home to nearly one million Muslims or 5.5% of the population.

One of the film maker's colleagues at the film production company said Van Gogh had received death threats "but he never took them quite seriously".

Gunman kills Dutch film director; BBC; Tuesday, 2 November, 2004

The manner in which he was murdered was truly horrific:

In the course of being shot repeatedly, Van Gogh beseeched his killer, "Don't do it. Don't do it. Have mercy. Have mercy!" Then the killer stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another, nearly decapitating van Gogh. (5)

Again this demonstrates the type of fanaticsim typical amongst the adherents of Islam. Across Europe there have been Islamic attacks in London, Glasgow and Madrid. In Paris there are frequently large-scale riots that are attributed to 'marginalised' Muslim youths, the same was true in the North of England in 2001, and additionally there are the two incidents highlighted above. It is my belief that as Muslims intimidate those who speak out against their religion with violence and rioting, our treacherous and feeble ruling elites will seek to pacify them by introducing more rigorous legislation preventing 'religious intolerance'. Additionally, governments will justify ever greater intrusion into our lives in order to socially engineer a 'tolerant' and 'egalitarian' society. The article below is a shocking example of government interference with education:

Top schools risk being branded inadequate by Government inspectors for failing to promote race relations, gender equality and human rights, it has been disclosed.
They could be plunged into "special measures" by Ofsted under new rules that place equality on a par with exam results and child safety for the first time.

In official guidance, inspectors are told to be aware of “gender imbalances” in upper-ability sets and ensure after-school sport is not dominated by pupils belonging to one ethnic group.
Some local councils are also warning schools to make sure staff and volunteers reflect the ethnic make-up of local communities and feature people with disabilities to provide good role models for pupils.
Race rules could brand top schools failures; The Telegraph; 31 Dec 2009
Hat tip: Dowlish

I believe that Britain will be a very scary place in a few decades' time. I see two likely future scenarios, and I am not sure which I fear most. The first is a balkanised Britain - the result of failed immigration and multiculturalist policies imposed on us by the ruling elite - a collection of mutually antagonistic communities, with the propensity for ethnic conflict on a huge scale (think peace walls and paramilitaries). The second is an authoritarian society, one that in a desperate bid to make multiculturalism work has taken control of all aspects of society - think political correctness distilled, and coupled with the latest surveillance technology. Both are dystopian nightmares, but I sincerely believe both are plausible. Our last chance is The British National Party - the only party seriously opposed to Political Correctness (Cultural Marxism).

References:

1. Like The Roman, The Life of Enoch Powell; Simon Heffer; Pg 457

2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4510062.stm

3. Ibid.

4. Gallery’s invitation to deface the Bible brings obscene response; The Times; July 23, 2009

5. http://www.danielpipes.org/2218/theo-van-gogh-and-education-by-murder-in-holland

"This is gonna be Pakistan! Not England, Pakistan!"

2009-12-22T09:07:00.007Z

The following video is a clip from one of Darcus Howe's documentaries, originally broadcast some years ago. It features an arrogant Asian youth who, aware that he is being filmed, brazenly predicts England will become Pakistan: "think twenty years ahead", he says, "...fuck knows man, this is gonna be Pakistan! Not England, Pakistan man. They're all fucking shipping over, no what I mean? Fake passports..."

See it for yourself!

When I first saw this broadcast six or seven years ago, I felt the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. In his mind he is a colonist. They are colonists, and they are arriving in such vast numbers that in a few decades they will have colonised our cities and large towns. That's what he is saying. He can see it, but thanks to the media, millions of Britons apparently cannot.

The Future Of Africa Looks Bleak

2009-12-20T16:51:00.043Z

It always amazes me that people are so easily swayed by media propaganda into believing that race isn't an important factor in determining the success of a society. Just look at the following two maps:

CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Above: World map showing Countries Above and Below the World Average GDP (PPP) Per Capita.

Above: World map showing Top 10 Countries with High Standards of Living

Is it merely a coincidence that nine of the top ten countries with the highest standards of living are Occidental nations? The only non-Western country, Japan, had her economy rebuilt after the Second World War and was forced to accept democracy by the Allies.

It is my contention that a country's culture is determined by the people that inhabit that land rather than by environmental factors, though of course the latter is an influential factor. Thus when Europeans migrated to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA, they brought with them their culture, one that was entirely different to those of the indigenous inhabitants, and democracy. Today these countries are successful and desirable places to live, despite the climate often being very different to Europe and Occidental countries in general are a magnet for people from the rest of the world.

It is true that Asian countries are developing fast, in fact China is on course to become the world's economic powerhouse this century, and this despite decades of retardation due to Communism (it should be remembered that less than fifty years ago 30 million Chinese starved thanks to the Great Sparrow Campaign). However, sub-Saharan Africa is showing no sign that it's developing, on the contrary it appears its people are condemned to many, many more decades of abject poverty.

When during an interview the African born author (click on image below), Wilbur Smith, was asked whether he was optimistic about the future of Africa, he replied that he was a "qualified optimist...They will work out their own destiny there and return it to what it was before the European nations intruded: a more tribalised system, a dictatorial rather than democratic system. It's what Africans are comfortable with."

That Africans are uncomfortable with democracy would certainly be a plausible explanation for the continent's poverty. Africa has no shortage of despots, and even where they have democratically elected governments, it seems that they are not adverse to squandering obscene amounts of money on expenses that would dwarf this year's Westminster scandal:

Kenya's cabinet 'soaks up 80pc of the budget'

Kenya's expanded new government will spend 80 per cent of the entire national budget on luxury vehicles, inflated salaries for ministers and general running costs, a local anti-corruption group claimed on Wednesday.

Of Kenya's annual budget of £5.4 billion, more than £4.3 billion will go on 93 ministers and their government's general running costs. Only £1.3 billion will be left for roads, schools and hospitals for Kenya's 38 million people.

Incredible! This is why Africa will remain impoverished. The article concludes thus:

Of the 222 MPs, almost half now have government jobs. Cabinet members benefit from annual salaries exceeding £83,000 and numerous perks, including official cars and "entertainment" allowances of £600 per month.

Almost half of all Kenyans survive on less than 50p a day.

Kenya's cabinet 'soaks up 80pc of the budget'; The Telegraph; 17 Apr 2008

Indeed Africa's leaders seem inherently disposed towards corruption, violence and avarice. Even Nelson Mandela, who according to the BBC could possibly be the greatest leader the world has known, is alleged to have 'signed off' a bombing which killed 16 people and injured a further 130. Furthermore his wife, Winnie, was involved in the brutal murder of many people. From the BBC:

The following five years were increasingly controversial. In 1986 she made a speech in which she talked about achieving liberation from apartheid by using "necklaces" - a reference to the brutal murder of suspected collaborators by putting tyres round their necks and setting them alight. There was also the matter of an opulent £125,000 house built in one of the poorest areas in the country.

The most serious allegations, however, stemmed from the activities of her personal bodyguards, the so-called Mandela United Football Club. Reports of their brutality were commonplace in Soweto and her house was attacked in 1988 by local people who had had enough.

What a great man! Of course our media, celebrities and politicians nearly fall over each other in fawning admiration for him. But remember Mugabe was knighted and awarded an honourary degree by Edinburgh University...and Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, despite committing an extra 30,000 troops to the Afghanistan conflict just weeks before. The common denominator of course, is that all three are black.

Of course the current leader of South Africa, is one Jacob Zuma (pictured below), who opens and closes his rallies with the chant "Bring me my machine gun".

A traditionalist Zulu polygamist, the politician has been acquitted of rape and twice had corruption charges against him dropped on legal technicalities, leaving the way clear for his inauguration as head of state after the elections.

Mandela smiles as Zuma calls for his machine gun; The Telegraph; 20th April 3009

AIDS is of course a major problem for sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in South Africa where an estimated 5.2 million people infected with the HIV virus (source). However the prevalence of the virus must in part be attributed to government policy, considering the former president, Mr Mbeki doubted that the HIV virus was the cause of AIDS:

Mr Mbeki questioned whether HIV causes AIDS, despite scientific evidence. His health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang promoted the use of vegetables above anti-retrovirals which she said were toxic while hundreds of thousands died without access to treatment.

S Africa death rate doubled in decade; Australian Daily Telegraph; November 11, 2009

Given this is the calibre of leader selected by sub-Saharan Africa's most prosperous and advanced nation, one has to wonder what hope there is for the future of the continent. A couple of years ago James Watson the Nobel Prize winning scientist was embroiled in a race row and lambasted by the press when he offered his own opinion as to why he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa"

"all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners; The Independent; October 2007

Richard Lynn, Ph.D. Cambridge and lecturer in psychology, has his own theory as to why Africa has not developed to the extent of first world countries:

In 1991 I extended my work on race differences in intelligence to other races. I concluded that the average IQ of blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 70. It has long been known that the average IQ of blacks in the United States is approximately 85. The explanation for the higher IQ of American blacks is that they have about 25 per cent of Caucasian genes and a better environment.

The theory I have advanced to explain these race differences in IQ is that when early humans migrated from Africa into Eurasia they encountered the difficulty of survival during cold winters. This problem was especially severe during the ice ages. Plant foods were not available for much of the year and survival required the hunting and dismembering of large animals for food and the ability to make tools, weapons and clothing, to build shelters and make fires. These problems required higher intelligence and exerted selection pressure for enhanced intelligence, particularly on the Orientals.

Richard Lynn's hypothesis is controversial, but nevertheless sustained by his research and leads me to the conclusion that Occidental peoples have created societies that are relatively prosperous precisely because they have been engineered by European peoples. I believe that a significant change in the racial demographics of these countries will be to their detriment, and possibly irreversible. I am in no way an imperialist, and it is my view that Westerners should not intervene in African affairs, however, I also believe that European countries should remain overwhelmingly European in terms of demographics.

BNPea

2009-12-13T19:58:00.009Z

Sometimes I have to laugh at the abuse directed at us. In this case because it is undeniably funny!

CLICK ON ALL IMAGES TO ENLARGE!

In case any fellow members are offended by this, just consider the sprout's reaction! The above is from the Christmas addition of Viz, an adult comic I have been reading for years. The sprout reminded me of a Student Grant strip from years ago:

The last caption makes me think of the adverts I have seen when visiting RevLeft (a forum for the Revolutionary Left), for thechestore.com which sells them all their 'revolutionary needs'!

A Wise Man Once Said...

2009-11-08T12:30:00.018Z

"The whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see."

Another week has gone by, and as usual there are several stories which relate how the insidious destruction of Britain is ongoing, and any opposition to it is 'racist', 'vicious' and 'nasty'.

'Spot The White Man' Film

The following story appeared in yesterday's Daily Star:

FURY OVER BNP 'SPOT THE WHITE MAN' FILM
7th November 2009
By Emma Wall

A RACE row erupted last night over a BNP-backed political film that shows a British borough without a white person in sight.

The film sees a cameraman walk the streets of the Del Boy territ-ory of Peckham, south London.

He passes hundred of shoppers, workers and other people, but every one of them is black, Asian or from other ethnic communities.

The 10-minute clip urges people to vote for the far right BNP, claiming the area is a “multicultural hellhole”.

Racist messages pop up on the film, which has been posted on YouTube, including: “Spot the white man – immigration invasion.”

Having seen the film I can assert that the above report is fairly accurate, though I'd dispute the use of the adjective 'racist'. The film lasts for nearly ten minutes and is of a pedestrian filming a Peckham high street. As the report describes, of the hundreds of people captured in the footage virtually none are white. The comments mentioned are fairly benign, and either refer to the shocking reality, that the British people have been displaced from the area, or are satirical in nature. No racial slurs are used. Bearing this in mind, the article concludes thus:

Anti-fascist groups last night demanded it be removed from the website as it was branded one of the nastiest party political messages of all time. Unite Against Fascism called for a ban on the “horrible racist video”.

Joint secretary Weyman Bennett raged: “This is proof, if anybody needed it, that the BNP are lying when they say they are not racist.

“The BNP are always trying to incite racism. This video pours hatred against black people and Asians.”

The film’s vicious commentary asks: “Ever felt like a foreigner in your own country?”

A speech bubble has an Asian man saying: “Please don’t film me – I’m illegal and I’m working for cash in hand, innit.”

The party denied the clip is an official BNP film but deputy leader Simon Darby said: “It’s a hard-hitting, topical thing that people will find funny. We are linking to it on our website.”

The suggestions that the film 'pours hatred against black people and Asians', or that it is 'one of the nastiest party political messages of all time' are obscenely hysterical. I imagine most Daily Star readers will see them as such, too.

Their hysteria is not surprising, though, as there is no mesage more powerful for the BNP than exposing the stark reality of what mass-immigration is doing to our country. Many people who have not visited such areas of our major cities will be stunned and appalled, and that scares Weyman Bennett, et al, hence their desperate, pathetic plea to have the truth censored.

Sadly, this is Socially Marxist Britain and YouTube has adhered to their request. At the time of writing, however, video has reappeared here.

When Saying Black Is Black Is Wrong

Meanwhile, whilst the indigenous people are apparently wrong to feel aggrieved about being dispossessed of their country...

A student and his girlfriend are furious after being called a 'black couple' on their receipt by staff at a pub.

Johnson Abraham, 24, and Roxanne Duhur, 21, claim they were the only couple dining when they received their bill at the Slug And Lettuce in Islington Green, North London.
(...)
When they went to pay for the meal the comment 'upstairs blk couple' was printed on the bill.

Mr Abraham said: 'I was outraged. They wouldn't have written "white couple".

'They could have found another way to describe us. I don't feel it's appropriate.

Pub apologises after calling couple 'black' on their bill - when they were the only customers dining; Dail Mail; 3rd November 2009

Above: the offending receipt.

Above: Mr Abraham and Ms Duhur at the crime scene.

Hat Tip: Dowlish

Could it be that black people consider it offensive to be reminded they're black because they feel inferior and that their people have achieved nothing of merit in terms of culture, literature or technology? It certainly seems that way much of the time.

Unless of course it is politically expedient to cast yourself as black eg. the 'black' president who happens to be half-white and was brought up by his white family.

Of course the reality is that the couple imagined they'd get some compensation for their 'humiliation' and they were aided and abbetted by a media controlled by people who desire a mulitcultural and racially plural Britain. The object is to cow and silence white people by ensuring that any reference to the ethnicity of a racial minority is tabboo.

BNP Making Ground In Glasgow

From today's Independent:

Senior politicians from all the main parties have conceded that the BNP could make the significant advance of saving its deposit in the Glasgow North East by-election, on Thursday.

However, Labour Party officials campaigning in the constituency warned yesterday that the BNP could even come third, as part of a "protest vote" against the number of asylum-seekers living in the area.

Although Scotland has not had a significant problem with issues of race and immigration in the past, Glasgow North East has one of the highest percentages of asylum-seekers in the country. The BNP has targeted the asylum issue with a campaign pledge to end "mass immigration".

BNP set to advance in ex-Speaker Martin's Glasgow seat; The Independent On Sunday; Sunday, 8 November 2009

The Scotsman On Sunday is also reporting on the BNP's election campaign:

There is enough anecdotal evidence from the constituency to suggest the BNP's message of intolerance, ignorance and fear has found a ready echo among a minority of Glasgow voters. Friends of mine who have spent time in the constituency in recent weeks – some as journalists, some as canvassers – have been taken aback at the nakedly racist comments they have heard in the streets and on the doorsteps.

Wow! I'm shocked! You'd think, listening to our ruling elite, that these people would be overjoyed with the 'enrichment' their area has received, and the SNP and Labour candidates would be campaigning on a policy of further enriching their area. But it seems the reality is quite different - maybe they saw the Peckham footage! The author's nauseating pro-multicultural spiel contiues thus:

Those of us who adhere to a noble concept of Scotland as "a mongrel nation", inclusive and welcoming, where regardless of colour or creed or sexual preference we're all Jock Tamson's bairns, are sometimes too easily lulled into believing this is a truth. It isn't. It's an aspiration requiring a constant process of persuasion against deep prejudice. The mistake too often made by well-meaning people – those in charge of housing asylum seekers in Glasgow, to use one pertinent example – is that everyone shares this feeling of generosity and munificence. Many do. Many don't. This shouldn't be a surprise.

Scotland On Sunday; Kenny Farquharson: No room for complacency

But what of those who don't? I wonder if the article's author, like Andrew Marr, believes the answer to be 'the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress'?

I very much doubt the author lives on an impoverished housing scheme along with hindreds of Third World refugees who, attracted by our lucrative benefit system, have most likely travelled through many safe countries to get here. 'Asylum seekers' who can't speak the language, who due to their rampant breeding habits are prioritised for social housing, and who receive many other perks including free bus travel. The author probably doesn't understand the pressure that a large influx of such parasitical people put on local resources like schools and health centres, yet he'll still smugly comment on the attitudes of those afflicted from the comfort of his home, which knowing Scotland I imagine is somewhere comfortably middle-class and ethnically homogenous.

Of course there is inevitably a vitriolic attack on the BNP and those who symapthise with them:
I've no truck with the commentators who argue that BNP supporters are just ordinary decent people who have simply become disillusioned with the political process, as if this somehow explained or even excused their behaviour. Nonsense. They're bigots and racists, and no amount of disconnect with mainstream politics can justify or excuse their hateful white supremacist tosh.

I wonder how much longer the media can deceive the people? As I have previously stated there are a lot of people who will always abide by the acceptable parameters of the zeitgeist. Anything tabboo they will shun, and thus the threat of being labelled 'a racist' makes them quake with fear. It reminds me of the character Parsons from Orwell's 1984:

'What are you in for?' said Winston.

'Thoughtcrime!' said Parsons, almost blubbering. The tone of his voice implied at once a complete admission of his guilt and a sort of incredulous horror that such a word could be applied to himself.

Farquharson's sanctimonious drivel continues here.

The Fallout From Question Time

2009-10-25T10:42:00.013Z

Until now I have refrained from commenting on the programme, as I believe one needs to let the dust settle before determining whether or not it was positive for the party.

Nick was subjected to a trial, in which he had to defend himself in front of a baying mob, four hostile panellists and a biased host. He was not allowed to elaborate when answering the questions posed, and was constantly interrupted, therefore he was always going to appear badly.

My interpretation of the public's reaction to the programme is that many people have now been innoculated against the poisonous lies the media tell, and are perhaps now more sympathetic to the party's message. In that sense at least, we have won. Just look at a sample of yestreday's headlines:

The following is from The Sunday Mail, and succinctly illustrates public feeling:

ONE in five voters would consider backing the BNP in an election, a survey taken after Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time found.

About 22 per cent of those who took part said they would "seriously consider" voting BNP.

Four per cent said they would "definitely" consider backing the party, three per cent would "probably" consider it and 15 per cent said "possibly".

(...)

More than half polled by YouGov thought the party "had a point" in wishing to "speak up for the interests of the indigenous, white British people".

The last paragraph is particularly interesting, as it palpably demonstrates the existence of a 'silent majority' who do not feel that mainstream politicians represent them.

Winston Churchill

The press have been hysterical in condemning Nick for stating that Winston Churchill would today be a member of the BNP. I'll let you be the judge of that:

CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

It would appear that Winston Churchill wanted to "keep England white".

Suggested reading:

http://davidmartin-hamilton.blogspot.com/2009/03/sir-winston-churchill-keep-england.html

Another Day of Lies, Bias And Vitriol

2009-10-21T19:58:00.006+01:00

First, is today's Sun newspaper. In a bid to appeal to patriotic readers, specifically young working class white males who hold the SAS in high esteem, The Sun published the article below:

CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

and this is their editorial comment:

Still on the subject of Churchill is the following article published in today's Express:

I intend to debunk the spurious assertions that Churchill would reject the BNP's policies and values in a future article.

Finally, this rambling diatribe was published in today's Herald:

In my humble opinion, this idiot is very subtly inciting violence against BNP members, hence his last paragraph. Also, he obviously hasn't read our manifesto, otherwise he'd understand we are fundamentally a democratic party.

http://bnp.org.uk/policies/democracy/

The British National Party is proud to be in possession of some of the most modern and progressive concepts of democracy which are firmly at odds with the other parties’ increasing totalitarianism.

The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a politically correct elite which thinks it knows best.

On immigration, on capital punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems conspire in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on such vital issues.

The BNP exists to give the British people that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, at national, regional and local levels.

Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them.

We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years.

We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people.

We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.

In addition, the BNP’s policy is to:

- Abolish “anti-discrimination” laws which prevent people from making a free choice;

- Abolish the “Human Rights Act” which has been imposed on this country through the European Union, and which is nothing but an excuse to prevent British laws stopping the scroungers of the world parasiting off this nation;

- Abolish all restrictions on traditional free speech; common law provisions against incitement to violence are the only proper limits in a free society;

- Reject ID cards, intrusive surveillance and the retention of DNA samples of the innocent;

- Introduce an English parliament within the United Kingdom;

- Introduce citizen-initiated referenda whose outcome is binding on Parliament.

The BNP – Britain’s most democratic party.

Ian Bell is clearly an obnoxious, mendacious lackey of the establishment.

"The whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see." Enoch Powell

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown Pleads: 'Censor the BNP!'

2009-10-14T20:20:00.015+01:00

The BNP do not deserve a place in this debate
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

London Evening Standard; 14.10.09

Tell me it is a bad joke, please. The BBC, bastion of ethical values, has invited into its bed the British National Party, an avowedly racist organisation with a fascist pedigree.

I have written an article previously which addresses the hackneyed adjective 'fascist' which is used by our adversaries to describe, or more precisely smear, the BNP. As I pointed out, even George Orwell found it difficult to define fascism.

As for the trite term 'racist', the BNP aspire to a homeland for the ethnic British people. Something that if current demographic trends continue will be denied us.

BNP leader Nick Griffin will appear on Question Time next week alongside Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Lib-Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne and black playwright Bonnie Greer. The Conservatives have yet to nominate a politician to appear.

This is a thousand times worse than racist spats set up by the wily producers of Big Brother to attract prurient interest.

The sensationalised 'racist' spats on Big Brother were, as she acknowledged, probably contrived by the producers of Big Brother. However the BNP's appearance on Question Time has been endorsed by nearly one million voters - 6% of the electorate who voted in the European elections, many of whom, I imagine, contribute towards the TV licence fund.

Even in our lax world, where right and wrong are but canapés on a tray of many choices, this decision should produce revulsion.

The excuse used is that more than 900,000 people voted for the party during June's European elections and the bulldoggish Griffin is now an MEP.It's not an excuse, it's a right. Any other political party with such elected officials would be entitled to the same.

True, the party now cleverly wears the disguise of patriotism and insinuates itself into the hearts and minds of depressed and credulous citizens who want to blame immigrants for their ills. That doesn't make it acceptable or respectable.

I am neither 'depressed', nor 'credulous'. I like to think that my blog is testimony to the fact I justify my thoughts and beliefs based upon research and facts. I am far from depressed, because all the signs are that this failed experiment is approaching its twilight years, and the nightmare may soon be over.

BNP leaders may not any more talk or walk like the Gestapo but where we can't see them, they affirm white supremacy and reveal hatred for Jews, Muslims, black, Arab and Asian Britons, mixed-race couples and children and dark-skinned immigrants.

From extensive research of the BNP manifesto, I cannot find any reference to 'white supremacy'. I will be the first to admit that blacks are, on the whole, better athletes. But also, most black dominated states are impoverished, which is precisely why Africans are desperate to come to Europe. As are Pakistanis and Indians - they seek to live in societies built by whites.

Those of us in the public eye have experienced dark terror when targeted by such extremists.

It is quite probable that she has experienced hostility, precisely because many indigenous Britons are less than delighted to be dispossessed of their country.

Yet this week two young BNP officials - who were allowed by the BBC to remain anonymous and unidentified as such - were brought on to Radio 1 to racially insult the footballer Ashley Cole - and they were not challenged once.

From the transcript, it is apparent they were challenged. However the words 'racist' and 'fascist' were not used, which is presumably what upsets her.

What is behind this sordid affair between the corporation and the sicko party? Maybe the BBC wants to be seen as valiantly un-PC.

If so, it shows itself to be criminally irresponsible and lacking in any sense of history.

Or perhaps the BBC is trying to be politically neutral? Obviously this distresses our racially foreign commentator.

Democracy, is it? To open the most respected TV programme in the land to those who would deny millions of us our democratic rights? Throw the BNP to John Humphrys or Nicky Campbell if you must, but this honour stains the good name of Question Time.It is indeed a fundamental principle of democracy that all politcal views are aired so that the public can decide which party they wish to endorse. If they cannot hear opinions from all political spectrums, how are they to make an informed decision?

The BNP's manifesto endorses democracy, so that is merely a blatant lie from an individual who is frightened by truth and fair debate. As for lessening the respect held for Question Time, surely that would be induced from censoring democratically elected representatives. The clue is in the word 'representative' - these MEPs represent a section of the public, to silence them effectively silences those who voted for them. Sorry, but that's how democracy works.

Jack Straw, Chris Huhne and Bonnie Greer should not have agreed to appear with any BNP representative on the show.

We all want to get on to Question Time - but there are limits. These panellists will help to normalise those who should be pariahs.

Until very recently, BNP policies were essentially the norm, at least the ones she opposes.

For rational and reasonable arguments with bigots are wasted breath. I tried last Friday to argue passionately on BBC Radio 2 with UKIP's Godfrey Bloom, who cheerfully calls his Asian contacts "Pakis" and couldn't understand the fuss about Anton Du Beke calling Laila Rouass that name on Strictly Come Dancing.

This implies she was unconvincing and her cries of 'racsim' fell on deaf ears.

Many decent people were appalled - but most of my mail after that encounter came from racists heaping abuse on me.

The 'decent people' she refers to perhaps doesn't include the white working class.

Former Cabinet minister Peter Hain, to his credit, has lambasted the Question Time decision. He, like me, grew up in Africa, where the BBC was and is a symbol of truth and integrity.

To quote the Independent (and Peter Sissons):

But Peter Sissons, a former chairman of Question Time, attacked the Labour minister yesterday: "Instead of bleating to the BBC Trust, why doesn't the great campaigner offer to go on the programme and dismantle the BNP's policies himself?"

Hain to complain to BBC over BNP on 'Question Time'; Independent; 11 October 2009

She continues her rant:

Today it abandons its priceless reputation. Who next to debate with the great and good? A Ku Klux Klan leader? Holocaust denier David Irving? It would make a terrifically edgy programme.

Stuff morality: ratings, my dear, are all that matter nowadays.

If Irving or the KKK ever attract nearly one million votes, then yes, of course they should appear on Question Time. That's what it is about - elected politians answering questions from the general public.

Perhaps it is the third world mindset, but it is clear that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown doesn't seem happy with, or understand, the concept of democracy. Her arguments are exactly why we should be concerned about demographic change, because if the likes of her become a majority, we can say goodbye to democracy...and a homeland.

Conformity, Media Smears and Nationalism

2009-10-10T14:48:00.008+01:00

Think back to when you were a child, did you not desire to fit in? Did you not follow popular trends, for example clothes and music? Even if later you rebelled against conformity, was it not just fashionable to do so amongst your peers, or your group of friends? The truth is, human beings are social animals, we are primates who have evolved over millions of years to hunt and live in groups and thus have developed an inherent desire to conform, as isolation could have proved deadly in the wild.

Solomon Asch - Conformity

If you doubt the ability of human beings to conform, consider the following experiment by Solomom Asch:

Every day we try to fit in. We may like to think we're individual but most of the time we don't actually want to stand out too much. It's this idea of conformity that the American social psychologist Solomon Asch studied in the 1950s, using nothing more complex than straight black lines drawn on pieces of card - it's one of the classic experiments in psychology.

Asch believed people wouldn't go along with the crowd; he set up his experiment to prove that people would stand up against group pressure. Unknown to his subjects, the rest of the group were stooges or plants, who'd been instructed to say A was longer than B, even though it patently wasn't. Contrary to his expectations, Asch discovered that a third of people went along with the group, even when it contradicted the evidence of their own eyes.

Can you believe that? One third of people would say that A is longer than B, just because they believed everybody else thought that it was! This implies one third of people will do and say whatever they believe the overwhelming majority say and do - even if there's no real pressure to conform, no real disincentive for dissent.

Stanley Milgram - Obedience

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale, conducted a study of obedience to authority.

He employed 'teachers', who unknown to him/her were the subject of the experiment, and a 'learner' who was in fact an actor. Milgram informed his subjects (the 'teachers') that the objective of the experiment was to explore the link between punishment and learning, however in reality it was to determine how people responded to an authoritative figure instructing them to do something immoral. The experiment was conducted as follows:

The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confidant. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.

The result? Sixty percent of the 'teachers' obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts! In other words, people will obey an authoritative figure, even if what they are being told to do is immoral.

One of Milgram's interpretations was, according to Wikipedia, thus:

the theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch's work, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.

In other words, the fact that the experimenter wore a grey technician's coat, was enough to convince the subjects to continue shocking the 'learner'. They imagined that he was some sort of scientist, and as he seemed to think it was okay to continue to 'shock' the victim, it must be alright. Ultimately, people are prepared to defer responsibility or decision making to those who are more suitably qualified.

Of course this has important implications. Thanks to our poor education system and constant media 'entertainment', we have a populace that is largely ignorant about important matters and thus if a newspaper columnist in The Sun states that, for example, immigration is vital to the economy, it is likely to be accepted as fact by his readership. After all, the author has presumably been employed because he knows about these things.

The Power Of The Media

So if people will, metaphorically, say black is white in order to conform when there is no real pressure to do so; and will accept the opinions of, and obey, those they believe are more knowledgeable than them, even if they feel uncomfortable doing so, surely the influence of the all-pervasive media and eleven years' state indoctrination is far more potent?

Consider now the power of the media. In the UK, tobacco companies have been banned from advertising their products on television, such is the potency of TV adverts, so they have instead used other mediums of advertising:

During the period September 2001 to August 2002, tobacco advertising expenditure in the UK amounted to £25 million, excluding sponsorship and indirect advertising. The companies spent £11 million on press advertising; £13.2 million on outdoor (billboards); £714,550 on radio advertising; and £106,253 on direct mail. [8] Tobacco companies have traditionally invested heavily in the sponsorship of sport to promote their brands. In the UK, the tobacco industry was spending an estimated £8m a year on the sponsorship of sport (excluding Formula One) and a further £70m on Formula One in the UK.
http://old.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact19.html

That's a lot of money! Tobacco companies wouldn't spend this unless they thought it worthwhile, which demonstrates that even their brand name on a racing car is an effective, though presumably subliminal, method of advertising. So imagine if every mainstream television channel, newspaper and radio station is constantly conveying propaganda endorsing multiculturalism, miscegenation and racial diversity! Sometimes the message is subtle, as in soap operas, other times it will be blatant, for example fictional dramas that portray nationalists as venomous, wicked yobs.

The Portrayal of 'Racists'

Since the 1960s, the media have portrayed 'racists' as either stupid and socially inept, or vicious and evil (usually stupid, too). The former was usually portrayed in sitcoms such as Alf Garnett in Till Death Us Do Part and Rigsby in Rising Damp. Interestingly both programmes were successful in the 1970s, and the motive appears to have been to gently stigmatise 'racist' behaviour.

Rising Damp: Starting from a play and ending with a film, it told the story of a miserly, mean-spirited, cynical landlord of a run-down boarding house, and the tenants who have to suffer his opinions, lasciviousness and total disregard for privacy, but who enjoy preying on his gullibility and vulnerability. The landlord, Rupert Rigsby, was a character to despise, but in the skillful hands of Leonard Rossiter, he was instead adored by millions and Rising Damp became compulsive viewing
http://www.leonardrossiter.com/risingdamp/StoryIntro.html

One of Rigsby's tenants was a suave, intelligent African medical student called Phillip, who was something of a success with women. In other words he was the antithesis of Rigsby, who was constantly spurned by the unattractive Miss Jones. The message was ultimately that stereotyping and prejudice is wrong, but delivered in a comical fashion it was lapped up by the public.

Unlike Rigsby who was basically a jocular chauvinist, Alf Garnett's character was guilty of rank bigotry. The following description of him comes from Wikipedia:

Alf was reactionary, mean-spirited, selfish, bigoted, racist, misogynistic and anti-Semitic. Warren Mitchell himself is in fact Jewish.

The article goes on to state that 'Writer Johnny Speight often commented that the character was supposed to be a figure of ridicule, but admitted that not all viewers saw the satiric elements of the character'. I need not comment further.

The second caricature, briefly mentioned above, was the evil, vicious thug. This is usually reserved for those that are politically opposed to multiculturalism ie. nationalists. Of course during the late seventies and throughout the eighties, nationalism embraced the skinhead scene or, more likely, vice versa. As mass-immigration became a real concern many working class skins were drawn to the nationalist movement, something the media were keen to sensationalise. In reality, National Front demonstrations began like this:

But after a while, peaceful National Front demonstrations were attacked, viciously! It culminated in the Battle of Lewisham in 1977:

The above picture clearly tells its own story. One can clearly see what appears to be the National Front marching peacefully, with the police concerned about what are presumably a group of 'anti-fascists'. Notice the debris directly in front of the police, I can only imagine these are missiles aimed at the National Front. Some of the policemen look as though they are trying to shield themselves, too.

After Lewisham, many decent, ordinary supporters of the National Front were no longer prepared to march in support of them. Conversely, and lamentably, many skinhead thuggish types got involved as it was an opportunity for a fight. This gave the media all the ammunition they needed, and a relentless campaign against nationalism began.

One also has to wonder whether art imitates life or life imitates art, too. The fact that these films portrayed nationalists as knuckle-draggers may well have attracted neanderthals to the cause. The following are films, or television dramas depicting nationalists:

Made In Britain (1982):

Romper Stomper (1992):

This is England (2006):

There was also American History X and The 51st State, which used similar caricatures, but I think you have got the idea. This is blatant propaganda and stereotyping by the media, and due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public have never met a member of the BNP, this is who many of them believe they would be voting for. This is the perception they have of rank and file members, and this is why deceitful worms like David Cameron and others have called us "thugs in suits", he is trying to perpetuate that stereotype in voters' minds.

Essentially, the media will always portray us in the worst possible light, and that will always make things pretty hard for us. People are easily manipulated as the psychology experiments I highlighted illustrate, and unfortunately the media is a very powerful influence that will make it very hard to win back our country. However the British National Party has metamorphosised under Nick Griffin's leadership, and the party is proving electable. The media will find it increasingly difficult to malign the party, and as the stigma subsides, the sheeple, looking for a genuine alternative may just come flocking.

The Fox's Prophecy

2009-09-08T22:27:00.008+01:00

The following is an abridged version of this marvellous poem by D. W. Nash. Unfortunately it is far too long to publish in its entirety, and although it is beautifully written and evokes memories of a crisp autumnal morning, the first dozen or so paragraphs are not strictly relevant to British Nationalism. The rest of it certainly is, however.

When one considers this was written in 1870, then the author's prescience is as mystifying as it is astounding. The protagonist is one Tom Hill, a huntsman, who gets split up from the rest of the hunt, and encounters an old, grey fox. As the title suggests, he's rather a prophetic one, too:

And thus the huntsman he addressed,
In tones distinct and clear,
Who heard as they who in a dream
The fairies' music hear.

"Huntsman" he said - a sudden thrill
Through all the listeners ran,
To hear a creature of the wood
Speak like a Christian man -

"Last of my race, to me' tis given
The future to unfold,
To speak the words which never yet
Spake fox of mortal mould.

"Then print my words upon your heart
And stamp them on your brain,
That you to others may impart
My prophecy again.

"For not upon these hills alone
The doom of sport shall fall;
O'er the broad face of England creeps
The shadow on the wall.

"The years roll on: old manors change,
Old customs lose their sway;
New fashions rule; the grandsire's garb
Moves ridicule to-day.

"The woodlands where my race has bred
Unto the axe shall yield;
Hedgerow and copse shall cease to shade
The ever widening field.

"The manly sports of England
Shall vanish one by one;
The manly blood of England
In weaker veins shall run.

"Degenerate sons of manlier sires
To lower joys shall fall;
The faithless lore of Germany,
The gilded vice of Gaul.

"The sports of their forefathers
To baser tastes shall yield;
The vices of the town displace
The pleasures of the field.

"For swiftly o'er the level shore
The waves of progress ride;
The ancient landmarks one by one
Shall sink beneath the tide.

"Time honoured creeds and ancient faith,
The Alter and the Crown,
Lordship's hereditary right,
Before that tide go down.

"Base churls shall mock the mighty names
Writ on the roll of time;
Religion shall be held a jest,
And loyalty a crime.

"No word of prayer, no hymn of praise
Sound in the village school;
The people's education
Utilitarians rule.

"In England's ancient pulpits
Lay orators shall preach
New creeds, and free religions
Self made apostles teach.

"The peasants to their daily tasks
In surly silence fall;
No kindly hospitalities
In farmhouse nor in hall.

"Nor harvest feast nor Christmas tide
Shall farm or manor hold;
Science alone can plenty give,
The only God is gold.

"The homes where love and peace should dwell
Fierce politics shall vex,
And unsexed woman strive to prove
Herself the coarser sex.

"Mechanics in their workshops
Affairs of state decide;
Honour and truth - old fashioned words -
The noisy mob deride.

"The statesman that should rule the realm
Coarse demagogues displace;
The glory of a thousand years
Shall end in foul disgrace.

The honour of old England,
Cotton shall buy and sell,
And hardware manufacturers
Cry "Peace - lo, all is well".

Trade shall be held the only good
And gain the sole device;
The statesman's maxim shall be peace,
and peace at any price.

"The footsteps of th' invader,
Then England's shore shall know,
While home-bred traitors give the hand
To England's every foe.

"Disarmed, before the foreigner,
The knee shall humbly bend,
And yield the treasures that she lacked
The wisdom to defend.

"But not for aye - yet once again,
When purged by fire and sword,
The land her freedom shall regain,
To manlier thoughts restored.

"Taught wisdom by disaster,
England shall learn to know,
That trade is not the only gain
Heaven gives to man below.

"The greed for gold departed
The golden calf cast down,
Old England's sons shall raise again
The Alter and the Crown.

"The blood of the invader
Her pastures shall manure,
His bones unburied on her fields
For monuments to endure.

"Again in hall and homestead,
Shall joy and peace be seen,
And smiling children raise again
The maypole on the green.

"Again the hospitable board
Shall groan with Christmas cheer,
And mutual service bind again
The peasant and the peer.

"Again the smiling hedgerow
Shall field from field divide;
Again among the woodlands
The scarlet troop shall ride."

Again it seemed that aged fox,
More prophecies would say,
When sudden came upon the wind,
"Hark forrard, gone away".

The listener started from his trance -
He sat there all alone;
That well-known cry had burst the spell,
The aged fox was gone.

The huntsman turned,
He spurred his steed,
And to the cry he sped;
And when he thought upon that fox,
Said naught, but shook his head.

Let's hope that the English really will be 'taught wisdom from disaster'!

Will South Africa Be The Next Zimbabwe?

2009-08-30T17:22:00.006+01:00

The following passages are extracts from an article written by Peter Hitchens, back in April, about South Africa's new President, Jacob Zuma. It is both illuminating and frightening. He describes how he opens and closes his rallies with a song called Bring Me My Machine Gun and has been investigated for serious crimes such as fraud, racketeering and rape!

Imagine how you would react if Gordon Brown opened and closed his election rallies by bursting into a song called Bring Me My Machine Gun, swaying and jigging to the hypnotic chorus of this menacing ditty.

And how would you feel if the Prime Minister were alleged to be taking campaign money from Colonel Gaddafi; faced 783 counts of fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and corruption which somehow never came to court; and had been acquitted of rape while his fearsome supporters mobbed the courthouse?
.
.
.
All the soppy admirers of Nelson Mandela - especially the BBC - gave the new South Africa a free pass when apartheid ended 15 years ago.

They wanted to believe this complicated and important nation had become a sort of heaven on Earth where all tears were dried and all problems solved.

Mr Mandela himself, personally decent but politically ineffectual and naive, served as both figurehead and figleaf for the new order. The world ignored or forgave his continuing friendships with the world's worst despots, and the fraudulent bungling that surrounded him.

Now, looking frail, bemused and ancient, he recently had to be helped on to the stage by his suspect would-be successor, to endorse the grotesque rabble who seek to succeed him.

Once, South Africa dominated the nightly news for weeks on end. Now the liberal media barely mention it. Why not? Because post-apartheid South Africa is a failure.

You don't hear about the terrifying crime. You don't hear about the pestilence of corruption, or the absurd purchase of needless submarines and aircraft for a country with no serious enemies except its own elite.

There is a little about AIDS, but nothing like as much as there should be, given the acres of graves that commemorate the government's moronic policies, of denial and folk remedies (including beetroot).

Violent xenophobic rage against uncontrolled mass immigration was played down both in South Africa and abroad because it did not fit the smiley picture beloved by the Mandela worshippers. And little is said about the unstoppable spread of shanty towns, far outstripping state attempts to build proper houses for the poor.

Electricity blackouts - the invariable sign of a country on the slide - are now frequent. The ill-run nuclear power station inherited from the apartheid regime's atom bomb programme is beginning to judder and fail, raising fears of an African Chernobyl.

Then there are the overstretched water supply, the railway system fraying at the edges and the unguarded borders open to migrants and refugees from every destitute nation in Africa.
.
.
.
Zuma is wholly African. He has at least four wives and 18 children. He has for years avoided standing trial on fraud and corruption charges. Nobody seriously believes he ever will: his approaching election is already spreading fear in South Africa's legal establishment.

Mr Zuma joined the Communist Party in 1962 (he only left a few years ago), and has a dark and inadequately examined past as a much-feared intelligence chief in the ANC's ruthless armed wing, Spear of the Nation. He underwent 'military training' in the old Soviet Union in 1978, when the KGB was very much in charge of such things.

On April 22 he will become President of one of the world's most important countries.

Comrade Zuma, as his supporters know him, certainly is not dull. And South Africa will not be dull either when he takes over.

Many fear it will rapidly become a lawless kleptocracy when he comes to power, which he will do after a hopelessly one-sided and rather crooked election.

Zimbabwe was once known as the breadbasket of Africa, now it is a basket case run by a despot who likes to sport a Hitler 'tache.

Under Ian Smith, Rhodesia, as it was then known, was a prosperous country that exported food, today Zimbabwe relies upon food aid. The standard of living enjoyed by the average Zimbabwean was far higher than other African countries, and despite an embargo (or perhaps because of it), Rhodesia had a thriving manufacturing sector.
However, because of Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence, the UN "declared an international embargo on 90% of Rhodesia's exports, forbade the U.N.'s 122-member nations to sell oil, arms, motor vehicles or airplanes to the rebel territory or to provide it with any form of ‘financial or other economic aid.’” (source: Time magazine; Sanctions Against Rhodesia; 23/11/1966).
Ian Smith didn't believe that black majority rule would work and that, like so many other African nations, it would degenerate into a failed state. He was proved correct. The following is an extract from The Telegraph:

Until his last days, Smith was brimming with opinions on current affairs and obsessed with criticising Mr Mugabe, who he branded a "mentally unstable gangster running a one-party Communist dictatorship".

Smith accused Mr Mugabe of "ruining a wonderful country" and forcing "ordinary black children" to "go to bed hungry".

Under his rule, by contrast, Smith claimed that Rhodesia had displayed the "happiest black faces in the world".

I think these are the words of a man who genuinely cared for the people he once led, a colonial ideologue who has been villified for his paternalistic attitude towards the native Rhodesians - people he thought were incapable of running their country satisfactorily. For that he was portrayed in the West as a wicked, evil racist. Conversely, Mugabe was seen as a hero and had prestigious honours bestowed upon him including a knighthood and an honourary degree from Edinburgh University!

Mugabe was championed by the left, and it is they who succeeded in toppling Ian Smith's regime. Their legacy is one of massacres, starvation and hyper-inflation.
Further Reading:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556417/Mugabes-inflation-police-raid-shopkeepers.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3167379/Zimbabwe-inflation-hits-231-million-per-cent.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7509715.stm
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/07/79-year-old-south-african-farmer-shot.html

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/08/elderly-south-african-farmer-tied-up.html
http://www.zasucks.com/?p=2464

Why I Love Loyal Ulster

2009-03-12T20:35:00.011Z

Throughout history our politicians have betrayed the Northern Irish people - from Gladstone's Home Rule Bills, a cynical attempt to curry the favour of the Irish Nationalist Party and form a majority government, to Blair's negotiations with the the terrorists of Sinn Fein, who were not even representative of the majority of the republican people, being electorally inferior to the SDLP. The latter betrayal was particularly atrocious, as not only did it propel Sinn Fein to the forefront of Northern Irish politics, it also, in the eyes of many, rewarded the years of bloodshed they waged on the British people. In the words of Enoch Powell:

It is of the nature of all internecine violence that it lives on hope. Violence feeds upon the hope of success... violence will not continue indefinitely where the objects which it proposes to itself appear to be unattainable, or at any rate unattainable within a predictable future. The Government in Northern Ireland and the Government in this country actually assist violence and strengthen it in so far as they appear to act and appear to reform under the pressure of violence...[The Government should ensure that] neither by word nor deed do we treat the membership of the Six Counties in the United Kingdom as negotiable. Every word or act which holds out the prospect that their unity with the rest of the United Kingdom might be negotiable is itself, consciously or unconsciously, a contributory cause to the continuation of violence in Northern Ireland.

Above: The murals reflect the deep pride loyal Ulstermen still have for the sacrifices their ancestors made in the Great War. The 36th Ulster Division were fierce and brave soldiers, and uniquely in Britain, were volunteers as there was no conscription in Ireland due to the fears of provoking a nationalist rebellion. Wikipedia quotes military historian, Martin Middlebrook, thus:

The leading battalions (of the 36th (Ulster) Division) had been ordered out from the wood just before 7.30am and laid down near the German trenches ... At zero hour the British barrage lifted. Bugles blew the "Advance". Up sprang the Ulstermen and, without forming up in the waves adopted by other divisions, they rushed the German front line ..... By a combination of sensible tactics and Ulster dash, the prize that eluded so many, the capture of a long section of the German front line, had been accomplished.

However it was not Ulster's gallant history and loyalty for which I nearly wept, when I visited Belfast recently. It had nothing to do with the fact this brave "wee country" is seemingly the last bastion of Britishness - the only part of the UK where Christianity isn't held in jest, or where the people are proud to be British patriots, where children can still benefit from a grammar school education and the true British community spirit flourishes, even in the face of adversity. No! It was the sight of a primary school languishing beneath a wall of steel and bricks, an unfortunate necessity, required to keep its young pupils safe from republican violence.

When visiting the north of the city I saw another 'interface', and again felt moved, only this time it was seeing the rows and rows of CCTV cameras, each one perched on top of a pole twenty metres high. It was explained to me that north Belfast's population was just 52% Protestant, and thus the republican community believe it to be an area where they can make demographical gains and form the majority, this is of course faster when the loyalist population are hounded from their homes through subjection to sustained periods of violence. I have scoured the 'net for statistics to support the claims made by my guide, and sure enough the first website I came across - one which celebrates the 'unsung heroes of the peace process' - substantiated his account of the demographics (see below). The rest was obvious from the situation of the cameras in relation to the nearby peace wall. Apparently, Sinn Fein had objected to the installation of the cameras!

Seeing these sights for myself, and knowing how corrupt and inept our politicians are, I couldn't help but understand why there is still widespread support amongst large sections of the loyalist communities for the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association, not that I endorse or condone their past activities. However, if the Police Service of Northern Ireland are unable to effectively police some areas of the country, how can they be expected to guarantee the safety of Unionists? The following is an extract from the BBC's website:

Derry City Council is to employ a private security firm to open and close security gates around the city walls.

The decision was taken after the police said it was too dangerous for their officers due to an increased dissident republican threat.

After the recent shootings over there, I couldn't help recall the words of a taxi driver after I asked him if The Troubles were over for good. "These bastards will never let it lie", he said, "not until they've got their Irish Republic". Rather prescient, or more likely obvious, considering today's (13th March '09) statement by the Real IRA's political wing:

The Real IRA's political wing has warned its "conflict" will not end unless Britain renounces its claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland.

The 32-County Sovereignty Movement issued the statement after the Real IRA murdered two soldiers at Massereene barracks in Antrim last Saturday.

Shortly preceding the Battle of the Boyne, was the Siege of Londonderry in which the Catholic King James II and his army encircled the city's walls and called on the inhabitants to surrender the city to him. He was rebuffed and so the city was beseiged for 105 days, which led to the deaths of around half the city, some 4,000 people! It is said the others survived by eating rats, dogs, horses, and legend has it, that one relatively plump citizen was frightened to leave his dwelling for fear of being eaten! Yet the people refused to succumb, their cry was "No Surrender!"

The Siege of Londonderry is a fitting analogy for the loyalist people of Ulster today, a people who are beseiged by hostile foes, yet will not surrender.

Enrichment News

2009-03-02T18:16:00.015Z

There have been a few news reports and articles published over the last couple of days that I think are deserving of comment. I'll begin with today's Daily Mail, which featured the headline 'Minority groups to get extra Government help to protect them from the recession'. Work and Pensions Secretary, James Purnell, is quoted thus:

"In the past too many were left behind in bad times. Ethnic minority workers suffered most in the Tory recessions...Employment levels amongst ethnic minority workers fell by 10 percentage points in the 1990s recession - much worse than rest of the country...Just think of the waste of human potential. Whole communities were abandoned, families where no one then worked for generations."

According to the Mail, he launched an initiative to ensure ethnic minorities are not 'left behind' at Labour's Black Asian and Minority Ethnic annual general meeting.

I found this interesting as I recall politicians and other apologists for mass-immigration, justify it by claiming these people perform essential services that the lazy Brits can't be bothered doing. This seems to be contradicted by the quote above, in which Mr Purnell claims that there are ethnic minority families in which 'no one...worked for generations'! So which is it?

The following graphs come from the government's statistics website:

As you can see the above graphs indicate that ethnic minorities were more likely to be unemployed during periods of economic prosperity (both graphs represent data collected in 2004). I feel the pertinent question here is: if there is such high unemployment amongst immigrants and their descendants, are they really such a benefit to the economy?

Moving on, I noticed The Daily Star Sunday published an article entitled 'BNP STOKE SUMMER OF DISCONTENT' in which is written the following:

POLICE fear race riots could erupt again in northern hotspots this summer due to a BNP credit crunch campaign.

AS poverty and unemployment rise, a Daily Star Sunday investigation found activists from the far-right group are highlighting race issues in several troubled towns and cities.

In Bradford, Burnley and Oldham – all hit by violent riots eight years ago – BNP members have been “preying on” the unemployed and recently redundant.

The article quotes a Burnley BNP councillor thus:

“There has been discontent in Burnley for years...People see money going to Asian wards and they are not happy about it.”

That can't be true can it? Surely politicians would never direct extra funds towards ethnic minority communities?!

Joking aside, what I always feel is quite amazing about this sort of article is how the BNP are portrayed as glib, manipulative and articulate. Let's face it, if somebody came and knocked on your door, what would they have to say or do to make you go out and riot on the street? Their argument would have to be pretty compelling wouldn't it? That is unless you were already very unhappy with the large ethnic community on your doorstep and really didn't feel that they were enriching you life, town or local economy that much...

Let's not forget that the Oldham Riots in 2001 were nothing at all to do with the economic climate, after all this was only four years after Brown promised us "no more boom and bust" and the affected towns can't be too bad, as the following extracts from The Guardian in 2001 indicate:

The Asian populations of northern English towns hit by racial unrest this summer will see explosive growth in the next decade, raising fears of a social crisis unless problems of racism and deprivation are effectively tackled.

A report presented to Oldham council last week showed that by 2011 the white population of the town will have decreased by 9 per cent, whilst the Bangladeshi population will have grown by 112 per cent and the Pakistani population by 88 per cent.

Similar reports drawn up by other councils in Burnley, which has also suffered a race riot, and Rochdale, also revealed Asian communities growing far faster than their white counterparts. By 2011 Rochdale's Asian community will have grown from 9 per cent to 13 per cent.

This implies that the towns are either a magnet for immigrant settlers from Pakistan and Bangladesh (presumably arriving to do the jobs the lazy Brits don't want), or that the asian community is affluent enough to support large families - after all these 'enrichers' wouldn't be burdening our health service and welfare system with children they couldn't provide for, would they?

I tend to think that our 'mainstream' politicians view the working class white inhabitants of these towns as 'chav scum', uneducated ingrates who don't appreciate the cultural benefits their local asian communities bring to their towns. They have ignored their pleas to restrict immigration as a consequence of having watched their communities transformed against their wishes. Now they wonder why they are angry, and can only assume it is the mendacious BNP knocking on their doors and brainwashing them with their popularist rhetoric.

The reality is, of course, quite different. Take Bradford, for example, and the grooming of young girls for prostitution, the following is from the BBC's website:

Channel 4 has pulled a documentary about social workers in Bradford from its schedule after police warned it could increase racial tension.

Due to be broadcast on Thursday, Edge of the City followed social workers and clients, including young white girls who had been abused by Asian men.

West Yorkshire Police feared it would increase community tension in Bradford ahead of local and European elections.

As a BNP supporter the last bit makes interesting reading, could it the police feared the 'increased community tension' could manifest itself as BNP votes?

Whilst on the subject of 'community tension',this comes from the Yorkshire Post:

Protection plea as race tension divides school

Published Date: 26 February 2009
By Jeni Harvey
PARENTS at a South Yorkshire school are demanding protection for their children after two Asian teenagers were seriously injured in an allegedly racially motivated attack.
Riot police were called into Sheffield Park Academy, in the city's Manor Park estate, when up to 100 adults gathered outside the school for a planned demonstration.

One person was arrested for a public order offence.

The parents decided to hold the protest on Tuesday after the two teenagers, named by friends as Shumon Ghurri and Ibrahim Ali, were attacked near the school the previous day.

I don't condone violence at all, but an asian gentleman is reported as saying this is a result of 'tit-for-tat' violence between asian and white children, thus it seems rather extreme for a hundred of the parents to come out and demonstrate. As the extract quoted below states, relations between the two communities appear to be quite strained:

"This is the latest in a series of tit-for-tat incidents between white and Asian students - they have been going on for months," said a member of Shumon's family.

"The feeling in the community is this sort of thing just keeps happening and nothing is done, so people then talk about reprisals. We want the school, the police and councillors to get together to sort things out."

Babul Miah, a solicitor representing the Ali family, said: "There was trouble of a similar kind last year which saw pupils eventually being bussed into school for their own protection.The academy needs to build much better relationships within its own school community.

The Sheffield Telegraph throws more light on the situation:

POLICE patrols are being stepped and "key individuals" targeted near Sheffield Park Academy as part of a seven-point strategy.
A multi-agency approach was agreed to try to quell the trouble that has broken out on the streets over three days, with some parents saying they are keeping their children away from the Manor school until effective action is taken.

Two teenagers were taken to hospital on Monday and, as feelings ran high the next day, police riot vans were called as up to 100 adults demonstrated outside the former Waltheof School.

On Wednesday, up to 50 Asian youths stormed through the nearby Littledale estate in Darnall after classes at Park, forcing pupils and parents who were leaving Acres Hill Primary School to take refuge until police arrived.

I find myself wondering whether the one hundred asian adults who turned up to demonstrate are members of the boys' families, or is it that the asian community came out to show their anger that one (or in this case two) of their own had been attacked?

Oh how privileged we are to be enriched!

Don't Be Conned By The Conservatives

2009-02-22T12:00:00.015Z

There was once a time when the Conservative and Unionist Party was quasi-nationalist. Enoch Powell, famous for his Rivers of Blood speech and warnings against mass-immigration, was of course a prominent member, as of course was Winston Churchill who back in the 1950s suggested "keep England white" as an electoral slogan. As recently as 1978, Margaret Thatcher said, during a TV interview, that "people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture" and that the number of immigrants admitted "must be very much less" than 45,000 per year - a statement that effectively destroyed the National Front.

Blue Labour

Since being elected leader, David Cameron has attempted to rebrand the Conservatives, in order to shed their image as the 'nasty party'. The former PR man has courted publicity by making very brash statements that are at odds with the party's traditional values. Who can forget his 'hug a hoodie' speech, in which he appealed for people to be more "understanding" of delinquents, something rather incongruous with their old 'tough on crime' approach?

Additionally, Cameron has pandered and ingratiated himself to ethnic minorities. Writing for the Observer he even goes as far as to state that 'it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.'

So desperate has he been to emphasise how the party has changed, he even went as far as to replace the party's torch logo with that of an oak tree and the motto 'It's Time For Change'.

If the Conservative Party was about conserving British identity and culture, it is now nothing of the sort. The party is pro-EU, pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism and a vote for them now is merely endorsing the new party and entrenching the party's new image.

After twelve years of Nu Labour a lot of damage has been done to this country, and there's little left to conserve. Sadly, all hope in the Tories has been extinguished - just like their torch. We need a nationalist government.

The Break Up of the United Kingdom - Another Labour Legacy?

2009-02-08T15:00:00.020Z

The Labour government provided the vehicle for Scots Nationalists to accomplish their objective, of full independence, by establishing a devolved government in Holyrood. Consequently there is a very real possibility that Scotland could secede from the Union. Some predicted this a long time ago - indeed Wikipedia maintains that 'When Labour won the 1997 General Election, Powell told his wife that the electorate had voted to break up the United Kingdom' - however I didn't believe it was a genuine threat until the start of the economic slump.

When people are actually impoverished by the current regime they are tempted by radical solutions. People will generally be less likely to gamble on significant change when they are reasonably affluent and able to watch their soaps on a big TV, enjoy takeaway food, go boozing and shopping and spend a fortnight in Spain each year. Once their quality of life begins to seriously deteriorate, however, their attitude will change and they will be more likely to seek alternatives to the status quo.

The press are already frantic about the possibility the BNP will take advantage of the government's ineptitude south of the border, however in Scotland it is the pseudo-nationalist SNP who will benefit from discontented voters. The proof being the loss of the East Glasgow parliamentary seat to the SNP last year, a seat which Labour had held for the previous 86 years. Here are the results in full:

John Mason, SNP - 11,277
Margaret Curran, Labour - 10,912
Davena Rankin, Conservative - 1,639
Ian Robertson, Lib Dem - 915
Frances Curran, Scottish Socialist Party - 555
Tricia McLeish, Solidarity - 512
Dr Eileen Duke, Scottish Greens - 232
Chris Creighton, Independent - 67
Hamish Howitt, Freedom 4 Choice - 65

Clearly the SNP were the only party to challenge Labour, and this is the case in many constituencies in Scotland. In Holyrood, the 'nationalists' are currently the largest party and together with the Lib Dems and the Greens actually form the government. It is only the fact they currently don't have an overall majority that prevents them from holding a referendum on independence.

Now, assuming that the economic slump worsens over the next couple of years, thus fuelling further resentment towards Nu Labour, the SNP may well form a majority government in Holyrood. This, coupled with a Conservative victory at the next general election, may be enough to convince the Scottish electorate to support independence, especially if the SNP evoke memories of Thatcher, the Poll Tax and remind the Scottish public just how much they despise the Tories.

Nu Labour's legacy may well be the destruction of Britain as a political entity. Devolution has opened a can of worms, the West Lothian Question has stirred the English, spawning parties such as The English Democrats. The following passage comes from their website:

The fact is there is no political party putting the interests of England first. All three major parties are “unionist” in outlook. This means that they see themselves representing the interests of all three nations in the UK, irrespective of whether policies that support Wales and Scotland disadvantage England. England has over 55 million people, we need our own distinct voice, no unionist party will put England first – we will.

Above: An example of how anti-Scottish sentiment has grown thanks to Nu Labour

Simon Heffer has recently written about the predominance of Scots in government at Westminster, in a rather abrasive article entitled 'Scots have brought Britain to its knees', in which he writes the following:

Some of my dear readers have observed – indeed, are observing with creeping ferocity – that the English have been the victims of a plot by Scots to destroy the auld enemy. I prefer to think it is a cock-up. The little berk who is the only Tory MP in Scotland (and therefore shadow Scottish secretary – it's lucky for him a sheep didn't get elected too), David Mundell, has demanded that English retailers be forced to accept Scottish banknotes. What a good idea: let's see if we can drive a few more small businesses out of existence. After all, the way RBS is going, its notes will soon be worth less than the paper they are printed on.

The sooner the bunch of Scots who govern us are booted into history the better. I don't say that the English would be any better, but at least we would be paying for our own mistakes rather than someone else's. Never has the case for English independence from the Scots been so overwhelming. Sadly, I suspect that in the present state of penury England will be saddled with them for another 302 years of high-end welfarism at least.

In another article entitled 'The Union of England and Scotland is over' he likens the Union to the demise of the Empire:

Back in the 1950s, in the two or three years before Suez, there was a strong constituency in the Tory party that blathered on about the need to maintain the British Empire: the Suez Group was the main focus of this. They were absurd, because the empire had ceased to exist in 1947 when India went. Once the jewel in the crown was lost, the rest of the structure would fall apart inevitably. So it is now with some in the Labour Party. The Union is over, morally at least. When Scotland voted for devolution in 1997 the Union fell into a coma. When Alex Salmond's SNP administration was elected in May the last rites were read, and the final process of sundering got under way. All that remains is for the Scots, in a referendum, to vote to stick the coffin in the grave, with the Union flag still on it, and pile on the earth.

The dissolution of the Union could potentially have disastrous effects. What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8? What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales? Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords? Would we each be more dependent on the EU? Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted?

Personally, I can't see any benefits to be had from the break up of the Union. United we stand, divided we fall!

The future of America looks dark

2008-11-08T20:24:00.011Z

The media hysteria regarding Obama's election has begun to subside and, after a period of reflection, I too felt compelled to commit my thoughts to text. My feelings are somewhat ambivalent, if I am honest.

In the context of America's past, it has to be seen as a good thing. Historically blacks have been treated as second class citizens in the United States, and only in recent decades have black people truly been afforded the same opportunities as their white compatriots. This may sound surprising, in light of the fact that I am a big, bad member of the BNP, but the situation in the United States is not comparable to ours in the United Kingdom. Most of America's black population are the descendants of slaves who were, after all, transported across the Atlantic against their will, their labour helped build America, and thus their ancestors have a legitimate stake in the country. In the UK, the vast majority of blacks are descended from recent immigrants, many were asylum seekers and overall their contribution to our society has been negligible, if (net) anything.

However, I have also felt sickened by the hypocrisy of the television presenters and celebrities swooning over Obama's victory. Apparently this was a 'momentous occasion', because the new President-elect is black! How does this accord with the following extract from Martin Luther King Jr's speech?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I suppose this is a momentous occasion in the history of the black race. In fact, arguably, it is the pinnacle of black achievement: a half-caste in the White House. A man brought up by his white mother, educated in white schools, and whose quick advancement through the political ranks is purely due to political correctness and a desire to break with tradition and elect somebody other than a white, male president.

So, in order to judge the man by the content of his character, it is important to examine his past. What do we know about Barack Hussein Obama? The following revelations come from this article from the London Evening Standard:

...with lots of cash Obama has outspent McCain 20-1 on television advertising...

So clearly he has either many wealthy supporters or he is very adept at fundraising.

Obama's original birth certificate has not been released. His records at Occidental College, where he started college, are not available. His records from Columbia University, where he was a student in the 1980s, are sealed. His Selective Service Registration? Not released.

If he wrote anything when head of the Harvard Law Review, it has yet to turn up. During his 12-year stint teaching law at the University of Chicago, he published no scholarly work. His list of law clients? Not released.

His past has been obscured by secrecy, and the media have done a very poor job in shedding light on it.

Then there are Obama's friends and associates. There's Bill Ayers, for example. As a member of the Weather Underground, Ayers was responsible for some 20 bombs at government buildings and banks in the 1970s. When asked about Ayers, Obama said that he was just "a guy in the neighbourhood". But his first political fundraiser, in 1995, was held in Ayers's living room. Obama was chairman of the board of a foundation that Ayers's started and guided. For a decade, they worked hand in glove on several Left-wing initiatives in Chicago.

It strikes me as rather bizarre that the media have not made far more of the above allegation. This man will become Commander-in-Chief of the US military, yet he is said to have associated with a known terrorist.

Above all, he is (at least in part) black. What better receptacle for the hopes and dreams of liberal, guilt-infatuated America? What prodigies of expiation might be accomplished were this young, charismatic, half-black apostle of egalitarian change elected President of the United States?

I don't really need to comment further, here.

And how might a President Barack Obama govern? The media has trodden gingerly, but we've had some clues. At a rally a couple of months ago, Obama called for the creation of "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military. That bit is not in the official transcript, but you can hear it on the video clip.

This sounds rather ominous. What would be the purpose of such a force?

Then there is his famous off-hand comment to "Joe the Plumber". His tax plan, Obama said, wasn't intended to stifle ambition, it was merely meant to "spread the wealth around". Lest there be any doubt about what that might mean, a radio interview from 2001 surfaced a week ago in which Obama advocated breaking free "from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution" in order to address "issues of the redistribution of wealth". Because he regards the American people as essentially "selfish" (a sentiment memorably reinforced by Michelle Obama when she described America as "just downright mean"), Obama cannot help regarding success as a form of failure.

The bottom line is that, on domestic issues, Obama would govern as the Nanny-in-Chief, enforcing a Left-wing, politically correct, big-government agenda on everything from health care and energy to free speech and welfare policy.

The above leads me to draw the conclusion that he is a crypto-Marxist. Worse still, he obviously does not see the Constitution as sacred. Will he meddle with the gun laws, and introduce draconian 'hate speech' legislation?

Of course any fundamental changes to the gun laws will be resisted. However, the resistance will be attributed to 'racist gun nuts', and provide the perfect excuse to criminalise 'hate speech'. Have you seen Michael Moore's film, Bowling For Columbine? Well it includes this cartoon which ostensibly summarises America's history. Unsurprisingly given Moore's political bias it implies Americans are inherently racist and that the National Rifle Association was established to replace the KKK, after the latter group had been criminalised.

For those of you not familiar with the cartoon, I suggest you watch the link I have provided, it lasts about three minutes and is incontrovertible proof of the brainwashing that Americans have been subjected to. Michael Moore was becoming popular when I was at university - Stupid White Men was really popular in my final year. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, it includes a chapter entitled Don't Marry Whitey, in which he advocates miscegenation.

Moore's propaganda is indicative of the way Americans have been primed to elect a black president. The fact that he outspent his political adversary twentyfold, to me indicates that the Puppet Masters wanted an Obama victory. McCain lacked charisma, he was old and uninspiring, whilst Obama is relatively young and a fine orator. This wasn't a genuine contest.

Catholic clergyman calls for censorship

2008-10-12T18:15:00.001+01:00

I was shocked and appalled to read a Catholic clergyman extol the virtues of censorship on his blog. Having heard a rumour in his local pub that the BNP's Chairman, Nick Griffin, was to appear on the BBC's Question Time, Fr Peter Weatherby wrote the following:

Shouting 'fire' in a crowded room is not the excercise of free speech, and preaching race hatred, especially in a city which knows such relative deprivation and has remarkably harmonious and wide racial diversity, should not be protected as a right, but clearly seen for what it is, vindictive and malicious poison.

Now there are already laws in existence that proscribe the preaching of race hatred, and it is true that the BBC in collaboration with the Crown Prosecution Service sought to convict the BNP Chairman of transgressing the already established legal parameters. Twice in 2006, Nick was hauled into the dock, only for a jury of his peers to clear him of any wrongdoing. Clearly they didn't think the BNP was spreading 'vindictive and malicious poison', then.

Naturally this gentlemen is entitled to his view. However, those of us who, like Winston Churchill and Enoch Powell, desire to preserve Britain's racial integrity as well as prevent our island from becoming a collection of mutually antagonistic communities, with the propensity for ethnic conflict on a huge scale, are also surely deserving of the right to articulate and broadcast our grave concerns?

I suppose this is nothing new, however, the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for daring to suggest the Earth orbited the Sun after all. No, but what did sicken me, was the vitriolic tone of his article. He used all the old smears that are perpetuated by the likes of Searchlight, an organization established for the sole purpose of attacking nationalist parties, and funded by the government. This is hardly befitting of a man of the cloth!

The mystery guest, I learnt - though I should add that I cannot confirm this, is to be Nick Griffin, of the British National Party, the racist, neo-nazi group which has had significant success in local elections in Stoke on Trent and has several local councillors. It has been involved in agitation locally, most recently organising a national rally in the city. Its criminal activities, convictions of its activists and financial irregularities are well documented

Thus, I left the following comment on his blog:

Hello!

I am a BNP supporter, and consider myself to be a nationalist, not a neo-Nazi. There is a difference! Were you aware that Winston Churchill once suggested the Tories use the slogan "Keep England white"? Google it if you do not believe me.

What policies of the BNP are you particularly opposed to? Is it voluntary repatriation? Sarkozy's France has recently adopted such a policy, is he a neo-Nazi?

Yes there may have been people in the BNP who have done bad things, but there are people in the Catholic Church who have done bad things, too. Very bad things indeed. Surely you would not tar us all with the same brush? That doesn't sound very Christian to me.

By silencing all opposition to immigration and multiculturalism, you are stifling debate and are guilty of censorship. Many people simply feel that they are being dispossessed of their birthright, and want an end to immigration. They want to ensure that the land and culture we have cultivated over centuries is passed on to the next generation. What gives you the right to deny them a voice?

The fact is this country is overcrowded as it is, multiculturalism has failed, a fact even Trevor Phillips admits, and people are angry that they are not being listened to. Balkanised Britain will be a nightmare of a place to live, and will have the propensity to tear itself apart, much like Yugoslavia. As Enoch Powell once said "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."...to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal."

God Bless.

My comment remained visible for some time, along with a few others which were equally cordial, by virtue of the fact that comment moderation hadn't been enabled. However, they suddenly disappeared, only to be replaced with the following message:

COMMENTS CAN NO LONGER BE LEFT ON THIS POST as many of those received have been threatening, abusive and have caused anxiety and distress to friends and family members. I do not however, intend removing the post itself, as- notwithstanding the speculation about the invitation in question - what is published here is clearly verifiable.

Now I was monitoring the blog in anticipation of a reply, and just fifteen minutes prior to seeing the above message, ten comments were visible. None of them were threatening, none of them contained profanity, but all of them disappeared.

At least this clergyman practices what he preaches!

Some things never change!

Here is a link to the article in question.

Unrepentant British Nationalism

Suggested Links

Farewell!

An abridged version of Enoch's famous Rivers of Blood Speech

Dear Reader

Multiculturalism's Threat To Freedom

How 'Right-Wing' Is The BNP?

The Rothschilds - The British Empire and the Fifth Man

Quantitative Easing, Inflation and Civil Unrest

Sectarianism, Celtic FC and the Forgotten Irish Soldiers of World War I

The Days After The Glasgow Terrorist Attack

Glasgow BNP's Stall Attacked

The Power Of The Media

Let's Dispel A Myth

Wanted: Book Recommendations

Bankers - The Root Of All Evil

Labour's Legacy

Why Banning The Burqa Is Bad For Us All

The Tyndall Diaries - Part Two

The Tyndall Diaries - Part One

Diversity Destroys Freedom

"This is gonna be Pakistan! Not England, Pakistan!"

The Future Of Africa Looks Bleak

BNPea

A Wise Man Once Said...

The Fallout From Question Time

Another Day of Lies, Bias And Vitriol

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown Pleads: 'Censor the BNP!'

Conformity, Media Smears and Nationalism

The Fox's Prophecy

Will South Africa Be The Next Zimbabwe?

Why I Love Loyal Ulster

Enrichment News

Don't Be Conned By The Conservatives

The Break Up of the United Kingdom - Another Labour Legacy?

The future of America looks dark

Catholic clergyman calls for censorship