Our Tradition of Conserving Homogeneity

Our Tradition of Conserving Homogeneity

By David Hamilton

A racial world view is a traditional world view. It goes back to our Anglo-Saxon tribal days. Hitler ventured far beyond that, of course, and fashioned not simply something that held his people together but that excused military aggression. But he was an historical exception.

In fact, many aspects of wanting to conserve or recreate our homogeneity can be traced back deep into our history. Britons have a great and noble tradition of conserving our homogeneity, and, at least until the end of the war, had a better and more pleasant life for being homogenous.

Queen Elizabeth was firmly in the Great Tradition. In 1596, she sent an “open letter” to the Lord Mayor of London, stating:-

“there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie,”

She order that they be deported. A week later, she repeated the treatment:-

“good pleasure to have those kinde of people sent out of the lande.”

And commissioned the merchant Casper van Senden to “take up” certain “blackamoores here in this realme and to transport them into Spaine and Portugall.”

In 1601, she again complained about the:-

“great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which [as she is informed] are crept into this realm … infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel,”

And she had them repatriated.

Edmund Burke offered a definition of a nation which involves a shared identity, history, ancestry, and continuity:-

 As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.

Today we are concerned that “those who are to be born” will be dominated by immigrant populations. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities. The immigrants are human and like us, are subject to the same failings, and are likely to treat us no better than they perceive we treated them.

Then there is the threat of miscegenation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote in Chapter 24 of Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (1852),

The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.

Sir Winston Churchill followed the noble tradition but unfortunately had failing health. Yet he still tried to heal the rupture in our national continuity in 1955 by having a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.”

A hero against mass immigration in the early 1950s was the fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grand son of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendent of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth. He fought his battles in Cabinet. A letter preserved at the National Archive written to Viscount Swinton in 1954, shows his standpoint. Swinton like others only wanted the powers to deport criminals, sick immigrants and charges on the state but Salisbury was deeper and wiser than that and foretold:-

I should not be satisfied with the legislation which you suggest. I feel that it would only be tinkering with what is really becoming a fundamental problem for us all, though it is only beginning to push its ugly head above the surface of politics. The figures which we have been given make it clear that we are faced with a problem which, though at at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon! Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time. We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.

Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants. In a letter to Viscount Swinton, dated 31st March 1954., he wrote:-

    “… if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”

He had a list of all restrictions imposed on Britons by other Commonwealth countries, who refused to accept:-

    … persons who are likely to become a public charge, illiterates, those deemed undesirable, had unsuitable standards or habits of life”. Many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island.”

Thirty-nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.

Only Britain allowed entry to everyone.

Conservative Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth) first tried in 1954 to introduce a bill to control immigration under the 10 minute rule. Before it got to Parliament the Commonwealth Affairs committee had 17 present when 14 spoke and only one supported the bill.

In May 1958, 3 months before the racial battles of Notting Hill and 1922 Committee to consider the consequences of uncontrolled immigration, he broke down and wept. At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) he prophesied:

    “The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.”

Norman Pannell, Conservative member for Liverpool (Kirkdale), served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. had an open door policy and let anyone in:-

    “When I visited Nigeria two years ago as a member of Parliament without ultimate responsibility for the affairs of that country, I was given an entry permit valid for 14 days and renewable subject to good behaviour.”

He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking, who stood outside in the rain handing out off-prints of a letter of his from the morning’s Telegraph. Pannell stated that although Butler had disagreed with limiting numbers and had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes, nothing had been done.

There is the importation of diseases which puts the population at risk. In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Harold Gurden wrote:-

On the health question we find the middle ring of the city(Birmingham), where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country ... We have a duty to our constituents.

In 2007 it has been revealed that we have a record number of cases of TB. This has been imported by our authorities.

When we were homogenous we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed. Now they regularly have to shoot people in the street. We are in a surveillance state, and have totalitarian race laws to oppress us. At a Society For Individual Freedom meeting at Birmingham Town Hall, on 18th April 1968, two days before Enoch’s famous Rivers of Blood speech, Sir Ronald Bell warned of the forthcoming Race Relations Act:-

    “I am profoundly convinced that if this immediate threat is not sharply challenged and then fought with as great a persistence as has been shown over recent years by those who have worked for this engine of oppression, then many further uses of law and of the power of the state for shaping men’s minds will follow.”

To control thought, totalitarians redefine words and change the meaning of legal terms.

K. Harvey Proctor addressed the 1983 Conservative party conference, but no senior party member sat on the platform apart from a glum looking John Biffen who only clapped sparely. Mrs Thatcher was not present. In 1981 Proctor had announced a plan by the Monday club Immigration and Repatriation Committee to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. The forward to the document was by Sir Ronald Bell. At a Monday Club dinner in early 1984, guest of honour Enoch Powell revealed that the Conservative Party had threatened to not speak to Proctor for his belief in repatriation, which would have been the first time in their history they had sent one of their MP’s to Coventry!

In his outstanding book The Unarmed Invasion(1965) Lord Elton wrote:-

    We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.

In his autobiography, the great Rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts he saw while touring Jamaica for immigrants to come here and how clear it was that they were being brought here as cheap labour.

A passage in Edward Gibbon’s masterpiece The Decline and Fall of Rome is prophetic. He pondered what would have befallen us had Muslims won the battle of Poitiers in France in 733. He saw that battle as a major turning point in European history:-

    “… the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”

They are there now because our rulers are on their side against us. The Saudi monarchy are building The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS), founded in 1985. Prince Charles is its honorary patron. It is the biggest Muslim educational centre in the United Kingdom and built as a traditional Oxford college around a central cloistered quadrangle.

The 10,230 sq m four-storey building will feature study and research facilities, a lecture theatre, a large library and an environmentally controlled archive for rare documents; a prayer hall with traditional dome and minaret tower. The centre includes a 108-foot-high minaret and a 75-foot-high dome. It is estimated at £65 million. We must remember that Oxford, the University of Treachery, is pushing us out in favour of overseas students.

Modern prophet: Enoch Powell, MBE

A TV poll marking 40 years since Enochs ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech found most people anticipate racial conflict over the years to come. It is only the unprecedented level of prosperity Europe has enjoyed over recent years that has prevented civil unrest. But we are now heading into recession. In an echo of Enoch’s warnings on racial civil war, The Sunday Times of June 11, 2006 reported that Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists, warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. He said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while North African barbary pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries, a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flight.

We never asked for, nor were we asked if we wanted, the new invasion, not by proud conquering warlords, but by cringing Third World masses who the elites showed favour over us and with whom we have nothing in common. The elites wanted cheap labour and their historic guilt expiated while they lived peacefully in fine areas.

The words of these heroes became reality on 7 July 2005 when 52 innocent people were murdered by Third World immigrants in London. Enoch had told the Southall Chamber of Commerce on 4th November 1971, “Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him possession of his native land.”

The Baggage of the World

 

When sentencing Eric Bikubi and Magalie Bamu to minimum prison terms or 30 years and 25 years respectively, following their conviction for torturing to death a 15 year old boy, whom they had determined was a witch, the judge, David Paget, QC, suggested that the killers were sadists. The Congolese couple have also been described as psychopaths, and Bikubi’s own defence team had claimed in court that he was mentally impaired.

They are, of course, none of these things Bikubi and Bamu, are not mad, they are not especially bad and by the standards of their homeland they are not particularly sadistic. The crime they committed, during which their young victim, Bamu's younger brother Kristy, suffered such extreme and prolonged agony he allegedly begged for death, seems uniquely horrific when seen from the perspective of a Great Britain which still clings to a crumbling vestige of what we once were.  However, throughout central Africa where the killers come from such events are commonplace.

In fact it is believed the abuse of children who are accused of being witches, practising ‘kindoki’ or tribal witchcraft, is growing amongst the African community in Britain, but it has until now been largely covered up and therefore has not yet reached the wider public consciousness.

We now find that the killing of eight year old Victoria Climbié, from the Ivory Coast in Western Africa, who was tortured to death by her aunt and her aunt's boyfriend in February 2000, a crime long held to be a failing by British social services, in fact involved strong elements of witchcraft.  (They certainly kept that information quiet for the last twelve years.)  

Like Kristy Bamu and Victoria Climbié, the five year old African child, whom the police named Adam (now believed to be a Nigerian child called Ikpomwosa) who’s headless and limbless body was found in the Thames, near London Bridge, was not the victim of a psychopath or a sexual sadist.  Instead Adam met his death at the hands of a practitioner of tribal medicine, and his body parts, almost certainly cut from him while he was alive and conscious so as to increase their potency, were then made into medicines and potions.

However, that’s not where ends is it? Adam would not have suffered the terrible death he did were there not a market for the medicine which his tiny body parts became. As Adam died in England, we must assume that market is now in England.  Medicine made from bits of little Adam was almost certainly administered to tens, maybe hundreds of people, here in England.  As muti is no secret in the ex-patriot African community, many, maybe most, will have known exactly what that medicine contained.  
         
We are told that the killing of Adam is the only muti murder ever to have occurred in Europe, however, given that large numbers of immigrant children vanish without trace each year, how can we know that is true? Certainly there are troubling numbers of African children in Britain being abused and terrorised by their families who believe them possessed by demons right now, so how do we know that others are not being sacrificed by sangomas?

We are witnessing things in the year 2012 which this country has not seen in five centuries or more, in the case of Muti killings we are seeing that which we have never seen before.

Our lying media would have have us believe otherwise. In the aftermath of of the Bikubi and Banu trial “experts” - mainly black- appeared on our TV screen to claim that such events occur in all racial and ethnic groups, including, as one claimed earlier this week, “the host community”. Not one journalist was honest or honourable enough to tell him he was a lying little creep.

Lies, have now become what passes for truth, but they are still lies even though none dare call them such.

Dishonest bits of propaganda, like the recent BBC series “Prisoner's wives” may portray a human trafficer as a white man from Essex called Steve, or make the only honourable male character in the entire series a black man loyally serving time in prison for crimes really committed by his ginger haired white girlfriend, but that is fantasyland liberal froth and not the reality of new Britain.

It is the exactly the same with honour killings and forced marriages, that dishonest rag the Daily Mail may try to pretend such things are regular occurrences within our own culture by illustrating an article about forced marriages with a picture of a glum looking blonde woman in a white wedding dress or attempting to equate honour killings, where various Asian family members, usually fathers and brothers, but sometimes also mothers will murder a daughter, or occasionally a son, who has brought dishonour on the family, usually by adopting western values, with “domestic violence”.

It is true that domestic violence effects all sections of society to one degree or another, although for various reasons, including cultural ones it is more common in non-European communities, in America for instance, murder by a domestic partner is the main cause of premature death amongst black women.  However, honour killing, like muti killings, gang rape and female circumcision is a problem which exists almost exclusively amongst the new immigrant community which we have imported into our country. 

The Old Etonian airhead who runs this country tells us that we, the British, could learn from Asian families, presumably he has spent so long with his head buried in the Aristo's guide to speaking PC and Chav that he completely lost track of reality. 

It is not just the killings, there are now acid attacks on the streets of Britain, no different than those seen daily on the streets of Islamabad or Lahore, and I have not even mentioned the abuse of our under aged girls, being passed around like pieces of meat between dozens, and by at least one account “thousands” of men.


This is the problem with multiculturalism and our newly imposed multiracial society, which its fanatical cheerleaders deliberately seek to obscure. Underneath the pretty stuff which tourists and backpackers see, most third world cultures have a very ugly underbelly and when you open your doors to mass migration, that underbelly slithers in behind it.  

It is true that some sections of the native community are adopting these new cultures, but that is only because it is here and promoted, whilst our own culture is disparaged and downgraded. The media, especially the music industry has spent forty years fanatically promoting so called “gangsta” culture, and music so much uglier, crueller and less spiritual than our own.  Is it any wonder that our society has become uglier, more cruel and less spiritual, that our children are now in danger the moment they step onto the streets, and that those same streets periodically explode in fire and rioting.

Dr. David Starkey was correct when he said about last years riots that “whites were adopting black culture”, for, despite the valiant efforts of the media to report only on the white perpetrators, the fact is that black people involved in the rioting were over represented in terms of their numbers within society by over 2,000% , South Asians were over represented by 75% yet whites were under represented by 61% (it didn't look like that on the TV news did it?).  Political correctness may dictate that we call the urban uprisings of 2010 “the English Riots” but it was not native English culture which we saw on display.

A white English underclass were certainly involved in the riots, but as foot soldiers and followers enthusiastically embracing the new culture they have been told is so much cooler than their own, and which has come to dominate the blighted areas where they live.

This was, of course, not how it appeared through the veil of censorship imposed by our now entirely corrupt news media with their carefully selected reporting.  As we should all now know, the real news is habitually suppressed and censored to hide the damage which is being done, until it is too late to resist.

Most of us will recall how we were bombarded with CCTV footage of a Malaysian student who was assaulted and then robbed by a gang who pretended they had come to his aid.  From the carefully edited film, it appeared that those robbing him were white.  However, now that nobody is still looking, and the case has come to court it transpires that most of those involved, including the person who actually assaulted the student, and the ones who pretended to come to his aid were non-white, but it was Reece Donovan, the single feral white "wigger" among the gang on whom the camera had focused.

Wannabe gangstas like Reece Donovan distort the true picture. It was recently revealed that 92% of gang rape suspects in London are non-white, which can be taken to suggest that 8% of the gangs committing rapes in London are white,  not so, in fact those 8% are merely the feral white members of a small proportion of mixed race gangs.         

The political nature of our country has changed as well in that we will almost certainly never again have an election in this country which is entirely free of third world style corruption.  Many ghettos and heavily “colonised” parts of Britain are now as corrupt, if not worse, than any 18th Century Rotten Borough. There are boroughs in places such as London's tower hamlets, Bradford and Birmingham where there are  streets upon streets of one and two bedroom properties with anything up to 30 names registered for postal votes.

Electoral fraud is rife in local government, and it is rumoured that at least one ethnic member of the current Westminster parliament holds their seat as a result of electoral fraud.  

It can only get worse, how long will it before we are as corrupt as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya or Zimbabwe? We are after all importing their culture and their customs, and telling ourselves that they are somehow more worthy than our own.  

One of the great myths of our age is that the alleged benefits of multiculturalism outweigh any downside.  That claim would be laughable if its consequences were not so deadly.

As I have indicated in earlier articles there is a short term benefit for the very rich from an endless flow of easily replaceable cheap labour which forces down wage costs and disempowers the native workforce, who dare not strike or demand rights when they know they can be so easily replaces.  However, even the super rich are now realising the gains are short term.  If there is any satisfaction to be gained from this situation it is contemplating how much money those evil and cynical old men have lost in migrant blighted countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland.

Likewise as the crooked bunch of charlatans in parliament who thought they were importing a loyal new electorate, who would guarantee them permanent power, are beginning to discover in areas like the Islamic state of Tower Hamlets, the new arrivals vote on ethnic lines which is beginning to cost them votes.

As for the rest of us, we were told that immigrants would do the mythical “jobs which folk won't do”, however, we now find ourselves with a million of our youngsters unable to find work and that 56% of young black men are unemployed, which leads one to ask, if they are not doing the jobs white folk wont do, what are they here for?

We are told that immigration boosts our economy, yet our economy is now in the worst state it has ever been in and our once assured status as one of the worlds richest nations is becoming a fading memory as we plummet down the league.

Then there is the great lie that multiculturalism enriches our culture, whereas, in fact we have been impoverished by it.  It has brought intolerance, it has brought fear and division, it has brought violence, abuse and and it has brought ugliness. It has fragmented communities, broken down families, forced us to accept politically correct lies as the new reality, it has taken away our faith, our pride, and for many it has taken away the love our forefathers once felt for this country.        

And what have we gained? Do Calypso, mung beans and curry really compensate for what we have lost or for the many less appealing sides of Multiculturalism with which we are now, day after day, confronted.

In one of the earliest articles I ever wrote for this site I said that Multiculturalism / diversity is not a buffet, you can not wander round the table selecting a few tasty morsels and leaving the less appetising offerings where they are.  Its all or nothing. We can not select which parts of a person's culture, his beliefs and his views he can bring with him when he arrives at Heathrow or Dover, they will all travel with him, they will all stay with him and our community must bear the consequences.

If a man in Rawalpindi considers that women are worth half of a man, or that homosexuals should be executed, why would he think differently merely because he has moved to Rotherham?. If someone in Limpopo believes that medicine made with flesh cut from a live and screaming child will cure him of some ailment what is it about travelling to Liverpool that would change his mind?  In the Congo, from where Eric Bikubi and Magalie Bamu originate children are routinely beaten within an inch of their lives and frequently tortured to death because people genuinely believe they are possessed by evil spirits and large numbers have now brought those beliefs to Britain, together with those practices.

When you welcome the world into your home, the world brings its baggage with it and, as we discover anew each day there are some very nasty contraband lurking in those bags. What we are seeing is just the beginning.         
 

Stephen Lawrence trial - DNA Evidence now in doubt

 

If DNA from a man on trial in Exeter was found on items taken from a rape scene in Manchester, is it really surprising that DNA from Lawrence was found on a very memorable jacket which no witness remembered seeing Gary Dobson wearing?  It seems the firm behind the DNA testing which led to the show trial is now under investigation for "contamination".  More details here

Conservatism and Progressivism by David Hamilton

By David Hamilton

First published at Traditional Britain Group

We must understand the difference between a patriotic way of thinking and that of “Progressives” and “Internationalists.” Their ideological view is often based on a book and people are expected to refer to it and divergence from orthodoxy leads to being denounced or given correctional training. This happened in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cambodia under Pol Pot and in the West now under Political Correctness. This is a Marxist strain but it came in with the New Left under the guise of a new Liberalism. Even now well-meaning liberals promote PC without understanding its totalitarian nature.

This debate is contemporary Metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. It includes the relationship between mind and matter, essence and attribute and fact and value. Metaphysics is the philosophical study of being and knowing. What is real, what is illusion; what is actually happening and what are political myths.

Progressivism encompasses Liberalism through to Marxism: the “isms” that grew out of the French Enlightenment. They believe in abstract universals, we believe in concrete “particulars.” These type of Universals are abstract terms like humanity whereas a specific people is a particular. Abstract universalist thinking leads to intervention in the internal policies of other sovereign states. We concrete particularists are concerned with our own nation. We do believe in substantial universals which I will come to later.

Progressives erect a set of idealisations – what we are becoming, what we should think and how we should behave. Our human nature is fixed in the sense that we inherit genes, which give us our essence, but how we act it out or think is given form by our cultures and communities which themselves grew out of our collective psyches. We can not step outside what we are and where we belong. We are part of it and it is what makes us social beings.

The great Daily Telegraph satirist Michael Wharton aka Peter Simple used fictional figures to satirise this trait in his column. Dr. Heinz Kiosk embodied guilt: ”We are all guilty; Dr Spacely-Trellis “go-ahead” Bishop of Bevindon in the Stretchford Conurbation, progressive’s; Dorothy Dutt-Pauker “the Hampstead thinker,” who lived at Marxmount, embodied Bourgoise Socialism.

Wharton used to enjoy going for a drink in an ordinary pub which is “being” as opposed to “becoming.” It is contentment in one’s culture and community not a constant striving to adopt a role created for us by progressives. We are social beings and it is the everyday pleasures in our communities in which we belong, that give us happiness. This respect for our everyday life leads to our duty to our families and responsibility for them, not to outsiders like the elites.

The word Progressive encapsulates the intellectual movement from the Enlightenment that led to the orthodoxy of the current elite. It has some common dogmas – like change being better than conservation and the belief that we are progressing to a utopian future – The Brotherhood of Man, a classless society etc It originated with the Enlightenment idea of Progress which is related to the classical liberal belief in the “perfectibility of man” and a supposed God-like ability to transcend nature including their own human nature.

We are not evolving to a pre-ordained end, but a wholesome culture does improve people and thus the community whereas contemporary art and popular culture is destroying our higher artistic traditions and is a part of our contemporary descent into decadence. This regression will be made worse with the peak oil crisis which Progressives view this as just a potential hiccup in inevitable progress or “historicism.”

Evolution is not continual progress, it is adaptation, but progressives conflate the two. In fact, what evolutionary pressure there is on humanity is not inevitably leading to the androgenous world of the feminists; the classless society of Marxists or the raceless world of the multi-racialists – all types of progressive teleology which try to try to ignore substance: the material world and the differences in human bodies.

The personal benefit is that the dogma enables progressives to avoid facing reality. Progressives see people coming together in places of disorder and rebellion, and a mural of Israeli tanks in Gaza they see as street art, not a British Muslim threat of war against Jews. They take a superficial view of reality. It is a defence because if they looked deeper they would be frightened and have to face the future. In fact, they like to drive to immigrant areas to sample the way of life with an exotic dance performance or curry. That is like tourism and they are spectators of exotic life until they drive back home! It is a shallow view of what is going on around us

Once luxuriant African states fall into crime and poverty, once prosperous, economically successful Detroit descends in to crime and poverty, even hunger is there now; but progressives pretend we are progressing. Not even New Orleans penetrated their bubbles. They go on holiday to Jamaica where safe areas are sectioned off for tourists, but do not connect that reality with our inner cities which are no-go areas for Whites. Even when Muslims blow up trains and there are almost weekly terror trials going on, they dream that we are all coming together.

In Reality the world is overpopulated and in most places the primary trait for reproductive success is the ability to organize violence, or some sublimation of it, and a determination to produce as many children as possible. Our cities are being colonized by people with grudges against us for humiliating their ancestors with the Empire and a perverse version of the slavery. There are no spontaneous colonies of nice liberal progressives springing up in Nairobi and Beijing. In the future, the advantages are likely to diminish, as six billion people compete for the resources of a planet that can support one billion and we wring our hands while other ethnic groups reach for their guns and come here to plunder us. All kept quiet by the Western media.

Progress, from Latin progressus, “an advance”, is the idea that the world can become better in science, technology, modernization, liberty, democracy, quality of life, etc. Progress is usually associated with the Western notion of monotonic change in a straight, linear fashion, alternative conceptions exist, such as the cyclic theory of eternal return, or the “spiral-shaped” dialectic progress of Hegel, Marx, et al.

We need to eschew this idealistic thinking and face reality. This requires Practical Reason which is to reflect on how life works and how people actually behave and what they are capable of doing to each other. Bertrand Russell regarded practical thinking as philistinism, but that is not what I mean. To bring millions of disparate people together is impractical and unrealistic and the silly metaphor of a melting pot shows how facile the plan is. To think practically about this would be to reflect on what is really happening from examples and, not propagandise people into thinking that wish would happen is happening. It is to consider the consequences of actions and not socially engineer people for a future utopia; it is not to pretend human nature is a social construct, but by accurate assessment of how people really behave to make wise judgements of others. It is a belief in wisdom which comes from living life, rather than learning ideology by rote and mindlessly repeating the right things.

Learning history is a significant part of understanding how people behave from previous examples and of understanding ourselves by knowing our origins. The interpretations vary but the basic facts are consistent. We need to apply the lessons of history to our present circumstances. When aliens are invited in they start to take territory: it is human nature. There are historical precedents to guide us such as when the Anglo Saxons were invited in and then the Normans.

Free Will and Determinism is applied in a biased way. We think we make rational choices based on our own thoughts and feelings but we are largely determined by our genes and community or, political propaganda. Different ethnic groups are treated differently by the progressive elites: they speak of us in the active voice while ethnics are spoken of in the passive voice which avoids naming the responsible parties. “Youths,” did it; but we are active and responsible- “racists”. The classic example is Steven Lawrence; another is the Michelle Gribbons TV propaganda about Black crime. (2) The orthodox view is that ethnic groups can’t help themselves when they riot or mug White people because they are determined by outside forces – our racism or the unhistorical version of the slave trade; conversely, we have free will, and are culpable. This shows the underlying prejudice against us of the elites and their favouritism to ethnic minorities even though they preach equality.

Ideological use of language. Thinking is like a conversation with oneself or an absent other and is done in words. Language is how we convey our thoughts or facts about the shared world to ourselves and others.

There is a deeper difficulty: take those beset by the pathology of schizophrenia or the Schizoid personality. This involves a division between emotion and thinking. A suppression of feeling occurs with alcoholics or drug addicts. They may like or dislike someone but do not realise it because they can not think about it and it is the arranging of feelings into thoughts that brings the feelings into consciousness. The more rational and articulate, the more feelings are understood. The contemporary totalitarian elites are actively suppressing natural feelings and risking a mass break out of negative emotion.

It is possible to feel or be moved by instinct without language, but not understand consciously what one is feeling. It is not possible to explain your thoughts or feelings without language, and reducing vocabulary reduces thought so if the state controls thought and language we are controlled in our ability to think as was demonstrated by the descriptions of Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. They make use of linguistic connotations like “racism” which only applies to “White” or “British”.

The study of language has been important in modern philosophy. Wittgenstein talked about the “bewitchment” of language. This is customary in public relations and advertising but in political propaganda it is manipulation not bewitchment. An example of how the elites try to change our thinking by changing our vocabulary was in The Sun online on January 14th. It reported that the government had published guidelines for the media suggesting some words and stories about non-white crime be dropped. Words to be suppressed: “immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian,” “mixed race,” “half-caste,” “mulatto.” There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality as in the official designation of “Anti-Islamic activity” for Muslim terrorists.

The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of and to perceive reality in the way the cultural elites want them to. It is imbued almost unconsciously, conditioned by the use of words and negative bogey figures: ”If you think differently you are a Nazi!”

Ideological change of meaning passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: Bigot and tolerance are prominent examples. Bigot means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connative word that only applies to “right-wingers”. A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like but is now misused to make indigenous people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants.

Then what are we?

I speak from England but the principle applies to all ethnic groups: this is a substantial universal: Our Englishness is our essence as it is carried in our genes which created our culture which in turn moulds our descendants. Attributes emanate from the essence: Our towns and villages are attributes as they were created by us over generations. British passports, the flag are attributes expressing our essence, what we are. The essence is inherited in our genes – it is substance not form . Attributes can be artificial in that they are separated from the source as when others adopting some like Chris Eubank does by adopting the form of an English gentleman. If it emanates from the essence it is felt as well as being cultural. We are having our identity erased by the elites who falsely claim immigrants share our attributes – “They are as English as you!”

In law we are responsible for our actions. If one has a car the owner is responsible for it and has a duty to it. We have to say to ourselves we have inherited this nation and culture and have a responsibility for it and a duty to it. Immigrants are sojourners. They do not have the same relation to our land. In 1914, people went to war because they thought the country was under threat and it was their duty to defend it. Progressives think we can transcend these deep and strong emotional bonds with our own kin and territory. They can not understand it because in their minds they have separated the two. Progressives think you can train and coerce people into giving up emotional bonding with their nation, community and their land.

Appearance and Reality.

Reality is proved by the appearance. A foreigner does not need to look in the mirror he knows what he is and as his kind try to take our territory off us their children are brought up in their own culture and start to form rival communities to ours. The tradition is the content : events take place in history like Trafalgar or Ombdurman and we respect them and keep them going in celebrations and it becomes the content: it adds to the existing tradition giving us a scaffold as it were to structure our lives and culture. We keep them alive in our minds and they give us strength and confidence. We depend on the appearance to perceive the reality. The idealist notion that reality lies behind the appearance is not accessible to empirical investigation.

A split in the contemporary understanding of appearance and reality is pretending that different types of people are really the same. To keep the illusion going they violate the immigrants attributes as having no essence and being transforming them into natives just like us – “He’s as English as you or me!” But most empirical evidence shows how false this assumption is. Firstly, we did not become like them in their countries and second very few of them have adapted to our ways as anyone can see by going to immigrant areas.

Progressives believe in universal principles and think immigrants will imbibe them and conform to them, but their appearance betokens a different ancestry and they bring their own principles, history and culture with them. Those who hold appearance is an illusion view it is as merely different skin colour.

What is the basis of knowledge?

Bertrand Russell, in The Problems of Philosophy, queried how we know that objects around us exist. His example was a table but in the common sense world we know it exists because if we rise and bump our knee on it hurts; further, it keeps us suspended above the ground and, if removed, we fall down. We know this because experience has taught us this natural law in similar situations and it is therefore predictable.

There is a universal we can accept: Substantial Universals like the basic human nature which is born into all humans - varying degrees of inherited qualities like instinct, intuition, insight, love, hate, jealousy, loyalty etc. A capacity for understanding the world around us and taking in new information. We are not born with wholly formed a priori knowledge but certain qualities that lead us in a direction as we learn. One will like making things, another drawing. We are born into a ready-formed natural world that contains our historical and cultural worlds and this develops us as our ancestors created it to our varying capacities. This human nature is constant otherwise the characters in The Bible and the Classics would be strange to us, but they are not. Their cultures are different but they are recognisably men and women like us. Our common human nature is fulfilled in communities and this is universal as it applies to all racial groups. It is that that causes racial conflict: each group has loyalties and pieties to their own and defines itself in opposition to the other group. This is because the structure of the human mind is similar, but the contents of the minds of these respective groups, those above mentioned qualities, are directed towards their own people.

Mind and Body

The contemporary understanding exemplifies the “Cartesian Duality” between mind and body: the difference between mind and body is exemplified in the contemporary Feminist notion that although our bodies are different in being male or female the minds are the same. This implies a split between mind and body but in fact the two interact as we get to know ourselves we learn that our thoughts and experiences are bound up with our knowledge of our bodies. This is why men and women have different natures. The mind is linked to body or the physical structure of mind, else it could float around and attach itself respectively to other bodies and minds and interact. People of different sizes and disabilities feel differently about the world and act accordingly. The difference between male and female bodies has a similar effect. We treat people by their size or members of the opposite sex differently.

The contemporary western ethos is rooted in the mind-body split and the disregard of the material world. We know it exists because it can hurt as in the case of the table and the misery caused by a tragedy is no illusion. This is the basis of the Western delusion that the material world like people is a social construct but it really exists and is the source of out tragedies and pleasures as it acts on our bodies and our bodies interact with it. Was it a social construct that killed Michael Foucault? It was the consequence of his use of his substantial body, in the substantial material world of homosexual bath houses.

In fact the spurious notion of Equality is based on this and the idea that everyone be treated equally is unjust as we should try to treat people by their characters and merits. In most healthy cases the mind and body are interactive and influence each other. It is unjust that talented people are held back in schools and colleges to make the less able equal. The difference in male and female bodies has a similar effect.

Ethics is thinking about how we should live

It is a system of moral principles that affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy. The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition. Ethics covers the following dilemmas: how to live a good life; our rights and responsibilities, what is right and wrong, what is good and bad?

It is looking for an answer to a question based on our notion of right or wrong. A common approach is for one to pursue self-interest but rationalise it as businessmen do who want freedom to make more money while those at the bottom call for equality. Philosophers disallow this and say there is a moral question. Free-willed acts are a certain sort of moral choice with a moral base. But is it a moral base? If we are determined it is because you are made that way like a dog choosing a bone.

We need no intellectual reasons or underpinnings to justify our allegiance to or emotional bonding with our own kind any more than we have to justify favouring our children over someone else’s. Parents who want other people’s children to do better than their own are perverse and unnatural.

Look at data from the Office of National Statistics (which doesn’t take into account the births to mothers born here) then look at your sons and daughters and ask, ”Am I betraying my own children? Where will they live and work?”

To give favourable treatment to aliens over what the fifth Marquess of Salisbury called “our kith and kin,” is morally evil. We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them. We have a duty to pass on what we have inherited from our forebears to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that.

It is morally wrong to share the inheritance of our descendants with foreigners as the rulers are doing for their own short-term gains through cheap labour. In our everyday lives Ethics are what we do, how we act.

The present Conservative government plans drastic financial cuts for us, but increases in overseas aid! It is immoral to cut our pensioners benefits and community centres while we give overseas aid to other countries. This perverse attitude grew from the Victorian middle class influenced by evangelical Christianity, which believed it was a duty to ‘save’ unchristian natives. It became a preference over the British working class which endures today. Characteristic of this is Mrs Jellyby in Dickens’s Bleak House, whose eyes ‘had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off, as if they could see nothing nearer than Africa’. Like the elites she neglected those around her, including notoriously her own children. Her thoughts were directed instead towards the fictitious African possession of Borrioboola Gha and her idealistic plans for its development.

The material world like our bodies is really there and we know this by sensing it and its impact on us when we get hurt or, with bodies, when we enjoy each others bodies in love. That is interactive: the chemicals cause the mental and emotional feelings of love and the body interacts with these and acts out the feelings. Our contest with the progressive orthodoxy is reality: what is actually happening, what are the real consequences of their unrealistic philosophy and ideas. We have seen through the contemporary wish-fulfilment imitation of reality, now we have to study what is really going on through collating incidents and news reports to derive a more accurate version of reality, to develop our patriotic view of reality.

A Development of Conservatism for our Time and the Future

By David Hamilton

An essay attacking a particular type of Conservatism by Alex Kurtagic was published on alternativeright.com I sent them a response in the interest of a debate. They would not publish it.

There are different types of conservatism and I write of one that is not only relevant but crucial to our survival as a people: a specific type of conservatism that is national Conservatism, not monetarist or free market economics nor neo-Conservatism, and certainly not penalising our poor people - but re-linking with our traditions, history and our ancestors to Conserve ourselves as a people.

When a worldview becomes dominant it marginalises the opposing view and that is what has happened to traditional or national conservatism. Another complication is that new liberalism is different from classical liberalism.

In the 1960s the New Left took over Liberalism but changed the content. For example, and this is profoundly important, individual rights became group rights. This shifted it to totalitarian thinking as group rights gave minority groups (victims) preferential treatment over the host population (oppressors).

I use the term Progressive to cover the ideological outlooks ranging from Liberalism to Marxism which grew out of the Enlightenment. They all believe that change is always better than what is; and that we are ineluctably headed for better world, the brotherhood of man – a Utopia.

Conservatism is opposed to progressivism as it has a respect for our past and traditions and believes that by studying history we are equipped to deal with present crises by applying the lessons of history: how our forebears solved similar situations in the past. It uses practical reasoning not rationalistic thinking; concrete words rather than abstractions and favours the particular over the universal, though it uses substantial universals to describe concrete objects like White men and Whitewomen. Progressives remove the substance from words, we keep it.

A non-ideological worldview

A formal ideology is written down like a "How to book" which tells people how to think and behave. Formal ideology grew out of the Enlightenment to replace religion with a secular programme of thinking and behaving and those who deviate have to be corrected. This began the change in the rulers from an aristocratic class based on blood and land to rule by secular elites united by thinking and saying the right things - an "Ideological Caste."

Ideological thinking starts with first principles and requires underpinnings to support or justify beliefs. This Conservatism is not an ideology but a view of the world that grows out of our emotional bonds with our families and expands outwards through neighbourhood and community to the nation. It emanates out to Europe and the Anglosphere, though weaker. For example, we feel for the South African Boers in these days of their genocide. It is stronger at home and a parent who wishes other children to do better than their own is perverse.

We have a responsibility for our kin, and a duty to them. We have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture and we must honour that.

A people need the numinous things in life – religion, art, culture, a wholesome countryside. The numinous is a feeling of, and a need for, the sacred, the holy, and the transcendent; not just the material and the hedonistic.

The Ideological uses of language.

It is not possible to explain your thoughts or feelings without language, which is why the elites are reducing vocabulary so we can not think the wrong things. When the state controls thought and language we are controlled in our ability to think as was demonstrated by the descriptions of Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. They use linguistic connotations like “racism” which only applies to “White” or “British”. They are also cutting education down so that we don't know our history and where we are from and so that we have less knowledge to argue with.

The elites try to change our thinking by changing our vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggesting certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included “immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian,” “mixed race,” “half-caste,” “mulatto.” There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality as in the official designation of “Anti-Islamic activity” for Muslim terrorists.

The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a “hater”, a “racist”.

In fact, though, Prejudice is traditional wisdom received from our ancestors. It saves us learning the hard way and we would have been spared this dispossession by immigrants if our natural prejudices had been followed after the last war.

Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: bigot and tolerance are prominent examples. Bigot means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to “right-wingers”. A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants.

We need a concrete, definite vocabulary, not vague language like person and humanity, but terms like“Englishman or Englishwoman, Welshman or Welshwoman, Scotsman or Scotswoman or Irishman or Irishwoman”, “boy” and “girl”; land rather than country. They are more specific, convey a solid idea of substance; and get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of our collective loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic.

The great Welsh national anthem“Land of My Fathers” is a is a pertinent example as it makes a clear statement of debt to forebears and suggests the piety necessary to honour what the ancestors have left us and our obligation to hand it on to our descendants. This is embodied in the Fifth Commandment to honour thy mother and father. Unless they are very cruel parents, of course.

Restructuring our Thought

We are in a period of social engineering and traditional ways of thinking are being systematically broken down. A television programme “Gypsy Wars” contrasted a local woman and tinkers who had invaded her land and reversed the roles as we experience them. The intellectual and media elites think our traditional view of the world is pathological and try to correct it for us. They show us or a representative, in the role of what they think are our stereotypes - we are cast as the tinkers - to mould the public's views and change attitudes. No young Gypsy men were shown, because they would be aggressive and the programme makers did not want to show them as a threat; village life was not shown because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when she was the victim. This is Television re-structuring thought in accordance with their Progressive ideology.

Last August the police had to close the largest gypsy camp in Britain at Dale Farm and the biased television news reports once again left gypsy men out of their news reports and documentaries.

For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Bourgoise-Socialist Guardian newspaper to filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes.

A world view to unite us

How do we counter the dominant ideology? The way to develop a new world view is to gather examples from the world around us, of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration, collate it and our version of reality begins to form. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to one another. We also need to consider what gives life meaning and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people, but do not hate other peoples and do not accept the Marxist pejorative term “racist.”

By linking to our Conservative traditions we would give supporters a secure base to argue from with abundant role models like Enoch Powell, the great fifth Marquess of Salisbury who fought against immigration and defended “our kith and Kin” in Rhodesia and Sir Winston Churchill, who tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955 (1), and many others. That and quotes from our history and that would strengthen their conviction and impress their hearers. People follow the dominant elites because they appear stronger and successful; even many who agree with us vote for one of the dominant parties for those reasons. A conviction based on the knowledge that we follow in the steps of great national figures would help counter that disadvantage.

Simple or self-loathing people say "So what?". "It doesn't matter if different people take over!" This shows a failure to understand human nature. They think it will be painless like handing the baton on in a relay race, but examples from history like the Norman invasion, show the oppression the conquered have to endure; other countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe show what will befall our children if the evil elites are not countered.

We are being dehumanised and made a non people. We must abandon this inculcated niceness, this apologetic approach and assert our selves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good. The next generation need to be built up to inherit the responsibility for our life and culture. The media are occupying them with what to wear, how to get their hair done and where to have a tat! It is done to get their money and is morally evil as they are being debauched by temptations and enticements.

We must stress the positive benefits we have to offer our people: preferential treatment in their own country, better education, priority in housing and employment for our children and protection from child-rape by older members of the rival Muslim community. You only need look at the un-British names of graduates from medical and law schools when they are reported in the newspapers to see how our young are being deprived of opportunities that are their birthright. We would offer English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh children more opportunities and a better future without unfair competition from outsiders. This is the natural way and we are finding words to express this and to make our thoughts clearer to ourselves.

-/-

(1) For Churchill on introducing a Bill to control immigration and wanting the Conservatives to fight the 1955 general election behind the slogan Keep England White see

Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957' Macmillan. 2003 p 382

 Patrick J.Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. P404. for the chapter I researched.

(2) http://conservativedemocraticalliance.blogspot.com/2007/09/utopian-idealists-against-our-nation.html

http://davidmartin-hamilton.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-defence-of-natural-society.html

http://buchanan.org/blog/web-exclusive-pjb-nation-or-notion-120

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html
(6)
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/07/we-need-you-to-lead-our-politics.html
(7)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445996/Police-send-police-officers-tackle-boy-11-called-schoolmate-gay.html

Our lost nation and the end of an era

By Mike Wilson

I grieve from a distance for the death of my native country, England. The country that was at the heart of Western Europe during two thousand years of slow secure growth, resulting in a free and democratic society that was the envy of most of Europe.

The country that gave rise to democratic government that has been copied by every other civilized nation. The country that championed free speech and the freedom of the individual. The country that instilled the love of family and family values. The country that tried to educate and foster knowledge in third world bastions of indifference where speed breeding and poverty were and still are the norm. The country where the love of one’s fellow man has led to its own inescapable ruin.

The German philosopher Nietzsche had said in so many words that the Christian ethic of allowing the meek to inherit the earth would in the end undermine the very fabric of society and ultimately bring about its downfall.

We see now that he was so right yet at the time people were unable to comprehend his argument. Another person who was vilified for professing a similar argument albeit on slightly different lines was Enoch Powell and how right was he?

How have we come to this point in time where every freedom we used to take for granted is now questioned and overturned by an authority that is set to deny us that very freedom for which our fathers and forefathers fought and laid down their lives.

There are several reasons, most of them are interlinked in some way and all have been exposed over time yet none of them have been rallied against, fought against, argued against but all have simply been meekly accepted by the population with absolutely stunning apathy and everyone has been led meekly to the slaughter by the men in white coats.

What are these reasons? Well let’s list some of them:-

1. New World Order.

2. Political Correctness.

3. European Union.

These are the three major areas although there are some sub groups that promote too much hostility to comment on at this point.

So let’s look at the New World Order.

This name seems to have started as a post- Cold War scenario in a speech given by George H W Bush to congress in 1990.

He was pushing for an international government to be run by the United Nations. The UN originated out of work done by the Council on Foreign Relations of which Bush was a member. The vision of the UN founders is clearly globalist. It advocates a shift in sovereignty from the state to the international level thereby doing away with nation states. It seeks to have increased authority, security, and judicial powers of an international body with enhanced social and economic interdependence and some significant level of military disarmament of the nation states.

You will all be aware of just how far this has come since this UN plan was put together by the Council on Foreign Relations.

"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." - James Warburg (Rothschild Banking Agent 1950)

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England ... (and) ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." - Carroll Quigley, Professor of History Georgetown University, in his book "Tragedy and Hope".

"The interests behind the Bush administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberg Group have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years." - Dr. Johannes Koeppl (Former official of the German Ministry for Defence and advisor to NATO)

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax exempt foundation (i.e. Rockefeller), and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labour, military, education, and mass communication media, that it should be familiar to every person concerned with good government and with preserving and defending our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation's right-to-know machinery, the news media; usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people,  remain silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities. The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the US from a sovereign Republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship." - Congressman John R. Rarick

The above quotes show that a New World Order is a reality and that the world has changed forever.

More quotes:

It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media/ education are systems for indoctrination.

Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God's image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is just a fancy animal without a divine soul. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. Instead, we are fed an endless diet of trivia and degradation.

So now you know why things are as they are on the world scene and why our situation in England has changed so irrevocably over the last 20 years.

But what about closer to home, what about so called racial intolerance, freedom of speech, overzealous policing, black gangs, raping of white women, mass immigration, free housing for ethnics at the expense of the indigenous population and so on? 

So now we need to look at political correctness.

The was originally viewed as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms , that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s.

Britain today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Parliament is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

1. the creation of racism offences

2. continual change to create confusion

3. the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

4. the undermining of schools and teachers' authority

5. huge immigration to destroy national identity

6. the promotion of excessive drinking

7. emptying the churches

8. an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime

9. dependency on the state or state benefits

10. control and dumbing down of media

11. encouraging the breakdown of the family

Sound all too familiar? Yes - Great Britain 1997 onwards......

(The above excerpts taken from a speech by Bill Lind in February 2000.)

Finally what has the European Union got to do with any of this?

Well, if you think about it the union is simply an extension of the New World order taking its lead from the controllers who manage world affairs. They set up Europe for total control by the commission in Brussels and the commission themselves are controlled in the process.

The European Union is not about cooperation for protecting the best interests of Europeans; it is about turning the entire continent into a Multicultural theme park while the natives get culturally  deconstructed and demographically crushed. The EU is a large-scale social experiment conducted on hundreds of millions of people. It is not about economics of scale, it is about stupidity of scale. The EU system corrupts virtually everybody who comes close to it. It cannot be reformed, it can only be dismantled.

Unfortunately, for our late Great Britain the time has gone when such a dismantling could have occurred.

Now we of the older generation can only look on in dismay as the indoctrination of the younger generation spreads its insidious web throughout the whole of society. The government will only be able to rest easily once we have all gone and the people who take our place will have no knowledge of our glorious past only their own history formed of pre-digested facts fed to them by their masters.

So I can still grieve for what was and what has been lost, but the grief is only mine – and once I am gone and those of my generation who will remember the great nation that we used to be?

South African Farm Murders Continue

Although the year is still young, at least eight South African farmers have so far been murdered in 2012, I say "at least" as these cases are not always widely reported, or reported as what they are.

The latest killing was of 48 year old dairy farmer David Hall on February 19th, in respect of which, I am grateful to HC for the following translation from a report in the Afrikaner language Volksblad.  

DAIRY FARMER MURDERED, WIFE ATTACKED

Fochville

Five intruders overpowered a dairy farmer and his wife on the morning of February 19th whilst they were milking their cows, shooting and killing the farmer.

After the robbers had fled, the couple's dog Caesar, managed to loosen the cord which had been used to tie up the farmer's wife's feet.

Mrs. Bernadette Hall (44) then ran to her husband, David (48) lying in the grass meters from the dairy.  '"He just lay there quietly" a very traumatised Mrs. Hall explained Her husband was attacked and shot in the chest.

The Halls were milking cows at approximately 6:00 when Mrs. Hall saw the men walking across the maize field.  She shouted to her husband that they were coming and had a firearm.  David went outside but the dogs prevented her from going out.  Shortly after that she heard two shots.  The attackers then forced her to the farmhouse a distance away from the dairy.  She hit them with a pipe and her fist.  She was hit with a panga, gun and pipe over the head and body.  One finger needed stitches after she tried to field off the panga.  "They wanted money and guns.  I gave them change and our purses and opened the safe."

The robbers, however, took nothing but fled with the couple's Nissan Almera after tieing Mrs. Hall up in the garage.

After Caesar freed her, she first ran to her husband's body and then called for help on the radio.  Other farmers and police were quickly on the scene.  One farmer said Mrs. Hall was "beside herself".
 

 Family members

Mr. Hall's elderly mother, Joan, and other family members yesterday comforted each other whilst Mr. Hall's body was removed .

"We cannot describe how we feel, it was so unnecessary", Mr. Peter Hall, brother of the murdered farmer, said.  "David used to put food on people's tables and now he has been murdered."

The Halls' two sons and their mother will now continue farming alone.  "The farm was my father's dream and passion", Mr. Bradley Hall (23) said.

The Halls' Almera was found several hours after the murder in the Kokosi township near Fochville, Capt. Mvula Chaka, police spokesperson said.  At time of going to press no-one had been taken into custody.

Mr. Chris Hatting, DA leader in the North West, said yesterday that more than half of the farm murders which have taken place so far this year in South Africa, were in the North West.  "There is a a huge void in rural safety".

TWO MORE FARMERS KILLED 

In addition to the other farm murders reported here in January, the following farmers were killed earlier this year:

66 year old  farmer Frans van Biljon, was murdered while driving between Bronkhorstspruit and Pretoria, he was forced off road, and stabbed 8 times http://www.boerentrepreneur.com/farmitracker/reports/view/2257
 

Avondale farmer Koos Bisschoff, 71, asbestosis sufferer, dies after brutal head-beating by five armed black men http://www.boerentrepreneur.com/farmitracker/reports/view/2250
  

Victim's daughter

Frans van der Linden, 57 was attacked on a small holding he was staying at. Beaten and twice shot by robbers at around 3am, who fled with a purse, cellphone and two watches. His daughter was about to be married http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Angs-in-hangkas-20120123

Michael Stenger, 30 was attacked and killed by four intruders at his small holding on the 22 of January

The way things are .....

Whilst I’ve been away a lot of things have happened in the world which reveal a lot about where we are.

Over the next week or so, in my return to blogging I will look at a few of these:

Part One- an alliance of two evils

There has been yet another deal by the EU ostensibly to “save Greece”.  “Saving Greece” is  an event which appears to be reoccurring with the same regularity as Irish Referendums, Stephen Lawrence trials, and attempts to rehabilitate Lindsay Lohan.

It is also an event which is no less dishonest, at least than the first two.

Greece cannot be saved and neither can most of Europe and North America without reversing the orthodoxies and deconstructing the political, economic and social edifices which our deluded nations have spent the last half century setting in place.  The brave new world which we have created rings the death knell for the unique, western style egalitarian welfare state which is one of our proudest creations.

For this is the nature of the beast we have created.

The only nations which can thrive and grow in a globalised world are those which are currently growing and thriving, Brazil, India and China, countries with societies not that dissimilar to Tsarist Russia or pre-revolutionary France, with tiny, fabulously wealthy and powerful, elites living in palatial and gated exclusion whilst the remaining 95% of the population struggle in levels of poverty and deprivation of the like we have not seen in Europe, or anywhere in the west for centuries.

These brutal, unequal and divided states, all incidentally net exporters of immigration, are the models for success in a globalised world, whereas we, with our aspirations to equality and multicultural obsessions are not.  

Our compassionate, liberal and equal societies can not survive globalisation and they can not survive multiculturalism, it is just not possible as those two malign forces, by their very nature smother and crush those things upon which our societies depend.

That was, of course, the plan, globalisation and multiculturalism are features of a malevolent alliance between the extremes of two seemingly opposing forces, ruthless capitalism and cultural marxism . 

To thrive at its most predatory level capitalism requires a native population, a workforce, to be disempowered, for Marxism to succeed a native population not only needs to be disempowered it needs to be destroyed.  This you see is where those two great evils find a common ground on which to pursue their aims.

Ruthless capitalism of the type espoused by a nationless elite with its global corporations and unremitting calls for more cheap imported labour is the ferocious gale battering against the great and ancient tree which is out nation, whereas Marxism with its joint tools of political correctness and  lying propaganda is the rot gnawing at its roots.

Between them they are draining the power from the nation’s people.

How can Western workers have power, even on a collective basis when we is in competition with people working 15 hour days in unregulated offices for fifty dollars a week or can be replaced tomorrow by people able to work for half his salary because they don’t have a mortgage and are prepared to share a bedroom with five others.

However, not only are our workers competing against cut price workers, our economies are competing against cut price economies and we can’t survive unless we start treating our populations in the same way that the “successful” nations like Brazil and India treat the poor wretches in their slums and sweatshops.

We can not compete freely against such countries while aspiring to pay our people a living wage,  give them a comfortable standard of living, feed them, house them and keep them well.  

Add to that the fact that we are importing tens of millions of people who may benefit the rich by depressing wages and disempowering the workforce and benefit the left by undermining the nation state but who’s contribution to society and the wider economy come nowhere close to equalling the strain they place upon it and it is clear that the West is heading for a melt down which any number of national bail outs can prevent.

Greece is just the first of many and her bail out is the equivalent of being thrown a life line from a sinking ship, they may drag her back on deck for now, but we’ll all go down together in the end. 

Our current rules can not change from the suicidal path they are on, they are either in the pockets of the super rich or infested with Marxist theory.

Unless we replace the current political elite and reverse the madness of globalisation and multiculturalism which has beset our nations for the last two generations, the economic decline of the West will continue until we become like the deeply unequal societies which globalisation serves so well.  As we can see clearly from the various armpits of the world, it is in those hellholes where ruthless capitalism and Marxism make the most comfortable of bedfellows.

This site

I regret that there has been no activity on this site for the last three weeks.  This has been due to personal issue, which I would like to keep private, but which will mean the site will remain largely inactive for another week or so.

I would like to apologise to those people who have written to me, but who have not yet received a reply, I will attempt to catch up with my mail over the next week or two.

I hope to return to blogging again in due course.

Meanwhile I am aware there have been further atrocities in South Africa, I will coordinate the information and make a posting aout these in the next couple of days.

  
Sarah