The myths behind white guilt Part 2:

EMPIRE

When one time burglar and sometime Rastafarian poet Benjamin Zephaniah turned down the OBE he had been offered, he claimed he did so largely on account of British involvement in the slave trade, and by so doing, the pompous poet he exposed an hypocrisy which few members of the sycophantic media thought to call him on. As a Jamaican, Mr Zephaniah may be able to trace his family back to British owned slaves some two hundred years ago, but as a Rastafarian he acknowledges as godlike The Emperor Haile Selassie and the land of Ethiopia where, as a direct result of not being part of any European Empire, the ownership of slaves was still legal, and an estimated 2 million people lived as slaves within living memory.

As I detailed in an earlier article, Britain and her Empire had a greater role than any other in bringing about the end of slavery in most of the world. Whereas, in Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, the black messiah of the Rastafarian faith, did not get around to ending slavery in the Rastafarian holy land of Ethiopia until 1932, and even then the “Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, King of Kings of Ethiopia and Elect of God” was less motivated by the humanitarian zeal which drove the British abolitionists, but by the somewhat more practical consideration that the league of nations would not let him join if he didn't.

Benny Z may not like the fact, but to be a Rastafarian unless you are extremely stupid, or you have to accept that Africans owned Africans in Addis Ababa, not centuries ago but around the same time as your grandmother was trying on her first pair of T-strap pumps.

To be fair to Zephaniah he may have been lucky that most of the media was too politically correct to ask him how he reconciled rejecting a nation which produced the great abolitionists, and who's navy pursued and attacked slave traders. whilst revering a nation where slaves were openly owned less than 80 years ago, given that the only credible answers were likely to expose a level of instinctive racism which the left like to pretend only exists in reverse.

Of course, when that notoriously racist old hack,Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, proved yet again that the band wagon has not yet started rolling on which she would not be amongst the first to plant her ample haunches, and followed Zephjaniah's lead and sent her own medal back, it became clear not much truth was likely to be told about Britain's imperial past.

That brings us to the question, what is the truth about Empire, is it, as the Zephjaniahs and Alibhai-Browns would have us believe, a reason for feelings of shame and (white) guilt? or, as our grandfather's generation believed, a source of considerable national and patriotic pride? It may not surprise you to know that I have no plans to join Benny and Yasmin on their ramshackle, and heavily painted, bandwagon.

Ours was the greatest empire the world has ever know, it covered a quarter of the Earth's surface, an area which included almost every time zone and over which, as was famously, and often, said the sun never set. However, the Empire's greatness was not only in its size, for, although many politicians, media pundits, and almost all of the agenda driven Marxists, who teach our children would rather die than admit it, it was also one of the most benevolent forces for good in the history of mankind.

Of course it is impossible to ignore the commercial incentives for empire, and it would be disingenuous to deny that we did not briefly join the rest of the in trading slaves, (and, unlike out current national projects , back then we did such things quite efficiently) or indeed the opium trade as a result of which we ended up owning Hong Kong for over 150 years. However, it is also impossible to entirely separate the humanitarian motives from the commercial, certainly after the banning of the slave trade in 1807 leading up to Abolition in the 1830s and then the so called scramble for Africa humanitarianism was a major driving force.

I don't agree with everything John Derbyshire says but but he can sometimes produce some very prescient comments and, to quote from one of his various essays on the British Empire “When the Empire got properly into its stride, humanitarianism was a major driving force. Slavery was abolished throughout Britain's possessions in 1834, and much of the work of the Royal Navy through the middle decades of the 19th century was devoted to the suppression of slave trafficking by peoples of other nations- including this one (the USA). The British colony of Sierra Leone was founded as a refuge for freed slaves, a dozen years before Liberia. The drive to eliminate slavery was fueled by evangelical Christianity, which, in the form of missionary activity, continued to be an important element of the imperial thrust well into the 20th century, especially in Africa.”

Given the bizarre morality and values of our time there are some who try to suggest that very “Christian Missionary zeal” itself was a form of racism or imperial oppression cruelly suppressing local customs and traditions. However, that is all part of that doctrine which seeks find malevolence in all things western, and which attack western style Christianity for no better reason than that it is Western. Furthermore, although I believe passionately in the preservation of various ethnic cultures, I refuse to accept there is a moral equivalence between Christianity and those local customs such as Sati muti thuggee and female genital mutilation which were amongst the traditional which were suppressed. Neither do I feel that we should feel guilt for the fact that by suppressing them, countless thousands were spared the suffering they would otherwise have endured. (albeit in the case of muti and female mutilation, the victims were only spared until we left.)

Furthermore, before attacking Christianity, the proponents of white guilt should not forget that some of the most passionate and devout Christians are black Africans, a group they tend to avoid offending whenever possible.

This is not to deny that some horrors did occur during the four and a half centuries between the day Henry V11 sent John Cabot off to kind a new route to India, and Harold MacMillan's infamous and self serving “Wind of Change” speech in 1960. However, these were true “isolated incidents” usually involving single rogue individuals or nervous young soldiers firing upon aggressive crowds. Furthermore, even the worst outrages, such as the Amritsar (or Jallianwala Bagh) massacre although inexcusable, were extremely rare and resulted in a death toll roughly equivalent to bad 48 hours in Iraq.

Contrary to the anti British propaganda taught in out schools, there was nothing remotely approaching the brutality of other empires, such as the Ottoman empire, let alone the type of officially sanctioned genocide which characterised the great communist empires such as Russia and China regimes so close to the hearts of so many in today's UAF, or certainly their fathers.

In fact the only real example any major atrocity committed by imperial Britain was against the white tribe of Southern Africa, during the Boer war. How odd then that nobody is urging us to accept white Boer asylum seekers as recompense for how badly our great grandparents treated them, despite how desperate their current situation is becoming.

A common accusation against the British is that we “plundered” other countries, however it is surely a strangely British form of plundering, where a world power moves into a country which has no infrastructure, is without health cover, without law, without education, and with a dismally low life expectancy, and, without exception left them with a world renowned system of law, a healthy and educated population, a 20th Century infrastructure, together with functioning industry and agricultural systems enabling them to be potentially self supporting. The fact that the Infrastructure has been destroyed, agriculture devastated and the industrial wealth pillaged, does not change the fact that it was bequeathed to our colonial subjects when we left them.

To quote John Derbyshire again “The British Empire was, in fact, for all its faults and occasional horrors, a net force for good. I cannot think of any place that Britain left worse- less healthy, less prosperous, less well-educated-than she found it.”

That is the truth, not the huge lie now being told to excuse what some ex-colonies have done to their inheritance particularly in Africa, that Colonialism, especially British colonialism was the cause of the dire situations in which some ex-colonial countries now find themselves. A calumny which is easily exposed as the lie it is.

Firstly it is disproved by the fact that it is primarily only the Africa colonies which are suffering, whereas many of those in Asia are booming, India for instance, looks set to become one of the major economies in the 21st Century. The Asians, for all their faults, took what we left them, ran with it and may soon overtake us. Of course, as older readers may have noticed, the advocates of white guilt focus almost exclusively on Africa these days, whilst ignoring the successful ex-colonies in Asia, like India and especially Hong Kong, which as a British protectorate became one the premier financial centres in the world, and remains so over a decade into Chinese rule.

However, if Africa is what our critics want to focus on, I'll take the challenge, lets look to Africa, including those African states such as Ethiopia and Liberia which were never colonised by any European power, are they any better off? ..er..nope! in many ways they are in a worse state than their ex-colonial neighbours.

The tragedy of Africa does not have its roots in Colonialism, indeed you only need to watch as their situations get worse the further they are away from British rule, to see the real causes of Africa's plight. Far from oppressing the people of Africa, Colonial rule may well have been their brief day in the sun, and a day which is sadly over.

There is no comparison between the Kenya we left in 1964 or the Rhodesia before it handed over to Mugabbe in 1980, and the corrupt, crime ridden mega slums they became within a generation of our departure.

Today the average African earns less than they did 50 years ago, when still living under under alleged their cruel white oppressors, life expectancy is plummeting (not only due to AIDS) their infrastructure is crumbling around them, and as we have seen recently in Kenya, tribal violence, which, apart from a brief reappearance during the Mau Mau outrages of the 1950's (long portrayed by our media a a liberation struggle but essentially tribal), had been long suppressed is making a reappearance.

Journalists from the Independent, the Guardian or the New York Times may faint at the suggestion, but it is becoming progressively more common to hear Africans state openly that life was better of under Colonial rule, even the current South African President's brother Moeletsi Mbeki recently admitted that “The average African is worse off now than during the colonial era”and he is certainly not alone

So, tell me again, just why are we supposed to feel guilty?

The nation which played that major and pivotal role in ending the slave trade, not only in the North Atlantic but also driving out the Arab slave traders which had previously plagued Africa and Asia for thousands of years, is, instead of taking well deserved credit for that great achievement, expected to accept primary responsibility for the evils of slavery?

A country which spread law, education, health care and civilization to a quarter of the Earth's population is supposed to feel guilty for oppressing those we were educating, protecting and healing?

A people who built gleaming, 20th century cities, which would stand proud in the centre of Europe, in the African bush and bequeathed them together with fully functional infrastructures and thriving economies to people who have shown themselves incapable of maintaining what was handed to them, let alone building for themselves, are required to meekly accept the allegation that we plundered those countries which we left in so much better condition than that which we found them in?

I think not.

In our schools, two generations of our children have been taught lies by politically motivated liars, whilst our media, our politicians and agenda driven historians present us with a entirely fictionalised version of our history. Yet, the myths behind white guilt, certainly as they apply to Great Britain, do not stand up against even the most cursory of of analysis, in terms of our Imperial past we have very little to feel guilty about.

It is not jingoistic to state that, as a people, we the British have created more good in this world and done more for the benefit of mankind than almost any of the races with whom we share this planet, it is a truth and one easily supported by the facts. Any honest, and unbiased study of our history and our empire, far from justifying guilt, should be the source of tremendous national pride.

-----------------

Link to part one

Lies, damn lies and statistics

If you were to ask a random selection of people in Britain, especially the young or those in the white community who do not live in heavily mixed race areas, which racial groups were the most likely to be the victims of racially motivated crime, in all likelihood the majority would suggest that most victims came from the black or perhaps Asian communities. Very few would guess that most victims came from amongst the indigenous white community.

Indeed, why would they? The media and any number of pressure groups regale us with images and editorials featuring large numbers of ethnic minority victims cowering before gangs of violent, racist, white thugs.

Furthermore, it is not just the media who present this image, it is the official image as presented by our elected government, and has been for at least the last decade and more. Back in 1999, the Home office published official statistics on race crime and stated categorically that “The highest risk was for Pakistani and Bangladeshi people at 4.2 per cent, followed by 3.6 per cent for Indian people and 2.2 per cent for Black people. This compared with 0.3 per cent for White people.”

Well that is what HM Government tells us, so it seems open and shut then .... or does it?

Those percentages are clearly not based on the total number of race crime victims, because, if that was the case, and they only amount to 10.3%, what groups make up the other 89.7%, Mexicans, Eskimos, the poor battered Fijians?

Oh no, these are not percentages based on the total numbers of race crime victims, they are percentages based on the number of each ethnic group who are the victims of hate crimes.

Clearly this is totally misleading, because calculated in this way, if there were only two Mongolians living in Britain, and one of them was the victim of a hate crime, Mongolians would immediately become the highest risk group, because a “staggering” 50% of them had fallen victim to hate crimes.

There can only be one explanation as to why the figures are presented in this bizarre and misleading manner, and that is that they are attempting to hide the truth. The manner in which the percentages are presented are meaningless because they ignore the vast differences in the sizes of various ethnic groups in Britain and how many people the various percentages represent.

According to the 2001 census whites made up almost 91% of the population, a total of approximately 53,462,666 of whom, according to the Home Office figures 0.3% were the victims of hate crimes (assuming the percentages had not changed in the two years since 1999) 0.3% may seem small, but it is actually 160,387 people (you do the maths)

As for Indians they were 1.8% of the population, totalling about 1,053,411 of which 3.6% were victims which amounts to 37,922

The Pakistani / Bangladeshi population was also around 1.8% or 1,030,348 people of which 4.2% or 43,274 people were race crime victims

The total black population in 2001 was 2% of the total 1,148,738 of which 2.2% is 25,276 race crime victims

According to my maths that makes the total 106,445 non-white victims which is 53,942 less than the total number of white victims of race crime.

That is to say that, according to the Home Office's own figures, in 1999 whites were over 90% of the population and yet they made up about 60% of the victims, put the other way round non-whites amounted to less than 10% of the population but were committing 60% of the race crimes (probably considerably more given the number of race crimes involving two different ethnic minorities and no whites.)

A survey of 2002 - 2003 racially motivated crimes, published in 2005, is less specific about white victims (I wonder why) and only refers to whites as being "less than 1%" of victims' to me that suggests that the numbers of white victims may have increased significantly from the 0.3% in 1999, (if the 2003 figure was less than 0.5% or still 0.3% they would certainly say so!!) - the figures for every other ethnic group apart from mixed race - a tiny group statistically - have fallen.

The discrepancy may be even greater given the levels of immigration over the last five years.

What makes these figures even more astounding is the hoops which white victims of black or Asian violence have to jump through (or what horrors they have to suffer ) in order to have the attacks on them treated as racist, whereas an ethnic minority victim only needs to have been attacked by a white person to be treated as the victim of a race crime.

There are various anecdotal accounts of police discouraging white victims from claiming the assaults on them were hate crimes, and there are certainly many cases where the lack of hate crime charges is hard too understand, for instance the hammer attack on Henry Webster or the murder of Christopher Yates in the latter case, can any one imagine a situation where an Asian man was kicked to death by a gang of whites, one of whom had shouted "We have killed the Asian. That will teach Paki to interfere in white business." and not have to face hate crimes charges because they had duffed up a white man, or indeed a white man and a black man, earlier that day?. No neither can I but that was the logic which applied in that trial.

Nick Griffin and the BNP have produced an excellent expose of the horrifying but hidden levels of anti white racial violence in Britain I hope that all of us make huge efforts to publish this as widely as possible, because the truth has been suppressed for far too long.

Osama's call to War

As you have probably noticed, we have received another diatribe from that ludicrous old poser hiding out in the Hindu Kush, this time, in addition to urging his unwashed acolytes on to further savagery in Iraq, the bloodthirsty old monster has accused the west, led by Pope Benedict XVI, of a “new crusade against the Muslims” and supports this hysterical assertion firstly by referencing his Holiness's scholarly speech in Germany, during 2006, when he quoted a series of dialogues between the 14th Century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a learned Persian Muslim about the truth of their respective religions.

Given that political correctness had not gained much of a foothold in 1391, Manuel II made a couple of rather unkind observations about Islam, including expressing the view that it brought only things which were “evil and inhuman”, a sentiment with which many of the victims of the estimated 10,771 Islamic terror attacks which have occurred since 09/11 might feel able to empathise.

Ignoring the fact that the pontiff was quoting from someone who had been dead for around 600 years and that the comment was quoted out of context from a long and thoughtful lecture on faith and reason Sheik Osama, late of the Tora Bora target range, with characteristic (not to mention self serving) Muslim logic, claims that the papal musings are unequivocal proof of poor old Pope Benny's blood thirsty intentions towards innocent Muslims.

In addition, and in case nobody can keep a straight face over that load of old bollocks (“BS” for the sake of our American readers) the disingenuous old Mullah falls back on that fail safe old standard from the lexicon of the perpetually offended, those bloody Danish cartoons.

God give me strength! Have you all seen the cartoons? (no not the fake ones featuring dogs, pigs and paedophiles which were touted around the Middle east to whip up anti western hatred) but the real ones, the ones which are no more offensive than those regularly published in western news papers lampooning politicians, celebrities etc.

With the hypocrisy of a practised propagandist, Islam's answer to Captain Black of the Mysterons, totally ignores the fact that the cartoons' potential to offend pales into insignificance by comparison to the anti Christian and violently anti Semitic cartoons which appear daily in Arab newspapers, (not forgetting outrageous racism in those cartoons which routinely portray US Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice as a monkey, or, in one instance famously as about to give birth one ) claims that a bunch of faintly amusing drawings amount to a warlike assault upon his interminably dyspeptic cult.

Isn't this all getting a bit too familiar, haven't we heard it all before? We are to blame for what they do, it is all our fault because we do not have enough respect for this vicious wife battering, daughter murdering, gay slaughtering , animal torturing and warmongering doctrine they wish to foist upon us.

Of course, when the next bunch of deluded, pimply faced, misfits, from that fabled “tiny minority” of non moderate Muslims, respond to this, or another call, from their ghastly prophet and spill English blood on English streets, some sulky member of that alliterated oxymoron the “Moderate Muslim Majority” will mutter some muted expression of regret before blaming the atrocity on how British Foreign policy effects their Muslim brothers overseas. You know, just like they did after 07/07/2005and every other murderous Islamic slaughter.

What cant, what hypocrisy, what dishonesty.

Did they give a toss when Sadam Hussain was slaughtering their Muslim brothers by the thousand year after year for over two decades?

Did they express the slightest hint of concern whilst the Taliban were abusing their Muslim sisters in Afghanistan?

If they did their cries certainly were not loud enough to be heard over that fuss about Salman Rushdie's little novella which most of them seemed to consider far more important

If Muslim opinion is so deeply influenced by Western foreign policy, why do we never hear a peep from them about the fact that nine years ago, the forces of Western imperialism attacked a sovereign, Christian European nation on behalf of their Muslim brothers, and then only recently stood by, with their weapons cocked, and allowed those Muslims to steal a sizeable chunk of said sovereign nation's land

Or do they only care about those bits of foreign policy they can use as justification for killing people?

Although, come to think of it, what was it about it what was Kenya and Tanzania's foreign policy crime which justified the slaughtering of over 200 of their citizens in 1998?

If Islamic anger at the west was the result of allied the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, why was it they made their first attempt to blow up the New York world trade centre in 1993 and how come they were out on the streets of Islamabad and Karachi, calling for jihad against America within weeks of their successful second attempt in 2001 and well before any attack on Afghanistan let alone Iraq.

I will not be lectured on morality or policy by people who believe that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified. Neither will I surrender the moral high ground to those are more outraged by a few drawings than they are by the fact that night after night people are being tortured to death with electric drills by their beloved Muslim brothers, merely because they belong to the wrong branch of Islam or, if the victims are women, for failing to wear a big enough sack.

Do not be fooled by their cries of outrage and claims of victimhood it is a charade designed to veil their true intentions and an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Islam may declare war on us, many say they already have done so. If so it is a declaration based on hate, blood lust and fanaticism, it is also not a war for which they can claim a moral justification, because they have none. The war for which bin Laden calls is not a defensive war, rather is a war of aggression and one which his followers' violent creed demands they fight.

Losing Paradice

On the other side of the world and on the island of Viti Levu, the largest of the 322 islands in the Fijian archipelago, lies Suva, the faded old colonial capital. Having been the Fijian capital since 1882, Suva, situated on the rainy south of the Island, does not have the glitzy, tourist pleasing, gloss of Nandi or Lautoka, the glamorous resorts in the north which, being situated closer to the international airport end up as the locations of reality TV shows with names like “Love Island”.

In Suva, where less tourists now visit, and where the once magnificent Grand Pacific hotel,the premier hotel in the South Pacific for the first half of the 20th century, fell into dereliction, before recent attempts at restoration, a more traditional Fiji, without Hawaiian style grass skirts, jet skis or Tequila and passion fruit cocktails, can be found.

Although younger women now tend to adopt more western styles of clothing, before venturing into town the older ladies of Suva will don that quintessentially Fijian garment, the sulu, an ankle length cotton, or sometimes silk underskirt, which is worn beneath a more conventional knee length dress. Sometimes, with a final touch of South seas charm, the costume will often be enhanced by a hibiscus, the Fijian national flower, often worn behind the ear. Many Fijian men also often wear sulus , however, the male version extends only to the knee and is usually worn with sandals. The result is surprisingly smart and, as with the Scottish kilt, any unwise comment regarding a man in a skirt could well elicit an unwelcome response from a burly Fijian soldier, policeman or rugby player.

In addition to a somewhat eccentric style of dress, the Fijians have various traditions and ceremonies including that surrounding the drinking of yangona (Kava), Fiji's national drink. There is a strict protocol associated with yaqona drinking, one should clap once, then, clasping the hands, take the cup, and drink the yaqona in a single draft before returning the cup to the bearer, and clapping a further three times.

Another charming feature of Fijian culture, and indeed most Polynesian cultures, is their view of the female sex, apparently that the fatter a woman becomes, the more desirable she is considered. As someone who has fought a long battle against a taste for red wine and white chocolate, in order not to venture beyond the size 12 rack, this strikes me as a particularly attractive national characteristic.

Having reached this point, some may be wondering why I am writing about Fijian culture on a blog about the musings of an Englishwoman.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, one of the main aims of the BNP is that of preserve the indigenous culture of our native island, the Fijians are another Island race with a culture worth preserving, and both of which are cultures which, if they were lost, would result in the world being a poorer place.

British nationalists, which is somethiing I now accept that I am, are routinely accused of hating different cultures and wishing to destroy them, nothing could be further from the truth, we are the ones who passionately want to see different cultures preserved, however, our crime is that we also want to preserve our own unique and beautiful culture.

If multiculturalism means to cherish individual ethnic cultures then it is we who are the true multiculturalists, not the brain dead, fascist, automatons at the UAF who do not understand that cultures only survive if that which makes them different is protected. To love the multitudes of different world cultures is to love them for what they are and for the things which make them unique from each other. Not for us the grim and bleak homogenisation which the thought police at “Searchlight” seek to impose, for that can only destroy the cultural differences which adorn our planet, not enrich them.

We do not travel to Fiji in search of spaghetti and sombreros, but if that is what we find there, then the essential Fiji is lost to us. Will anything emerge from a meting pot in the same form as it went in, or, worse, in any way discernibly different from anything else which came out of it?

People often complain about the homogenisation of our towns and cities, which are progressively loosing their individuality, as identikit branches of SpecSavers, Car phone Warehouses and Starbucks blur each town into an indistinguishable uniformity. Yet why do they applaud the invidious campaign to homogenise humanity?

Nick Griffin was unfairly attacked on TV recently by the deeply unattractive Jabba the Gaunt, when he referred to a “Chocolate coloured sameness” Gaunt's implication being that the term was, in itself, racist, but how can it be when what Griffin described is no more than the obvious and and inevitable result of the sort of racial and cultural mixing so beloved by our opponents?.

His were the words of a man who loves his country and they were also a warning of the dire consequences of this flawed social experiment. They were not the words of the knuckle dragging” Nazi he was compared to. However, in the Bizarro World which is the anti nationalist mindset, truth becomes lies and lies become truth, in the same way as love of country is, in their minds, hate, and homogenisation, to them, means diversity.

I do not want our world to loose the Fijian culture, the Mexican, Scandinavian or Peruvian cultures, nor do I wish the world to lose our white, British, culture, there is no conflict between the two, both are essential to the preservation of our world and they do not mean I hate anyone.

**********************

Another reason for mentioning Fiji is that it provides us with a very good example of of how fragile an indigenous culture is, and how vulnerable an indigenous people can be when faced with an aggressive, or ambitious, immigrant race.

A great damage done to the Fijian people was partly due to a charming if unfortunate national characteristic, namely the total lack of the Puritan work ethic, and also due to one of the very few acts of Empire for which the sometime British Colonial rulers of Fiji could justifiably feel a pang of guilt.

Towards the end of the 19th century, having discovered that the average, culturally laid back Fijian will seldom do today what can be put off until tomorrow, the British imported a number of Asians to Fiji to work in the sugar cane and copra plantations (why does an image of a Pacific Empire Windrush spring to mind?) and set in motion an inevitable chain of events which led to the problems which now beset those troubled Islands.

As we have seen happen elsewhere in the world, not least in Britain, over the ensuing years, the Asian community in Fiji made heroic and spectacularly successful efforts in terms of increasing their numbers and producing a rapidly growing Fijian Asian population, which, according to the 2007 census now amount to almost 37% of the total Fijian population.

In common with their kin folk elsewhere in the world, the Fijian Asians are a very ambitious and industrious race of people, especially by comparison to the less driven Fijians, and consequently by the end of the 1990s, not only did they own and run most of the businesses in Fiji, but Fiji had an Indian prime minister and an Indian dominated parliament. This has led to considerable ethnic tension in Fiji, and has resulted in a series of no less than four coup attempts in the last two decades most famously the one in 2000 led by the charismatic George Speight which attempted to ensure that power remained in the hands of ethnic Fijians.

Ominously, given what we may soon see in Europe, this act of ethnic preservation was viewed as akin to heresy in the politically correct world of the 21st Century. International outcry followed, and Fiji found itself (albeit briefly) expelled from the Commonwealth as punishment for its inexcusable racism. George Speight, a man who, although flawed, had acted in defence of his own people, was (bizarrely) tried for treason and sentenced to death, although that sentence was later commuted. Speight's fate is a warning to national patriots elsewhere in the world that those who love their country and their people face a deadly enemy.

An uncomfortable truce now exists in Fiji whilst a resentful and nervous indigenous population watch helplessly as, month by month, year by year, they lose more and more power within their own land, in the full knowledge that any attempt to prevent the gradual theft of their homeland will instantly result in international condemnation.

This is not how the media have chosen to report events in Fiji, but it is what has actually happened, and we can see parallels to the Fiji experience all over the world, not least in Europe.

We in Britain would do well to note the fate of that tiny Island race, with a unique and vibrant culture , and wonder whether it delivers in a scaled down form, a warning of what could happen to us. The Fijians are black, we are white, but that is where the difference ends, Fiji is their land, Britain is ours and those who seek to deny those truths are liars.

The myths behind white guilt

Part 1: The slave trade

One of the many weapons which our opponents use against us, and also against others of European ancestry, is often termed historical white guilt. Those who hate us point accusingly to our Empire, and to our involvement in the transatlantic slave trade with the implication that we, particularly the British and European Americans, are uniquely guilty of crimes against other races. They believe that, by making us feel guilty about our past, we will be less inclined to object to what is done to us on behalf of our alleged victims.

However, as in so many areas, the truth does not suit their agenda, so, as ever, they resort to their favoured tactic, and lie with the ease and practiced familiarity of an ageing harlot unzipping her client's pants.

In our schools and on our television screens, they teach an entirely false and misleading version of history, and sadly it is one which at least two generations of our children now accept as unquestioned fact. Our empire, the greatest the world has ever known, and something I plan to focus on in a later post, is presented as being a cruel and oppressive force which was primarily concerned with plundering other nations and exploiting their peoples.

The story they tell us about the slave trade is also a lie, it is a lie which they use primarily against Britain and America and it is upon that lie which I will focus in this post.

The lies and myths about slavery are told with the same cynicism as those who voted to ban hunting with hounds in the pretence that they were motivated by animal welfare concerns. So intent are they in presenting slavery as a white against black crime that they actively seek to play down the fact that an estimated 27 million people are living in various forms of slavery right now in the 21st Century, more than twice the number transported to America during the total transatlantic slave trade with the effect that less is done than otherwise would be to help those currently in slavery but are an embarrassment over which a politically correct veil must be drawn.

Moreover they, our enemies, also misrepresent the truth about historical slavery. Transatlantic slavery did not exist in a vacuum, the slave trade was not invented by Americans or Europeans. Slavery had been part of the human condition since the earliest civilisations, look to the Torah, the Old Testament and the Koran, all of which have copious references to slavery written, a millennium or more before America was discovered and whilst the most Europeans lived in tribes and wore woad.

The historical revisionists of the left keep trying to tell us that cradle of civilisation was in North Africa, but they forget to mention that, if it was, it was built by slaves.

Even during the few centuries in which Europe and America were involved in slavery, we were not even the main players. Slavery was being carried out throughout the world, particularly in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The African, Arab and Asian involvement in slavery existed long before the transatlantic slave trade, and continued well after abolition, and involved far greater numbers of people.

A wrong is a wrong whoever commits it, and it is inequitable, and arguably racist, to hold one group more accountable than another on the grounds of pigmentation. I am not stating these facts in order to excuse the transatlantic slave trade, but merely to set it in context, and in perspective. You can not single out one or two nations for unique condemnation, when, in truth they merely, and briefly, got involved in what almost everyone else was doing, and which other nations had been doing for thousands of years.

This is particularly inequitable given that, in 1807, Britain was one of the fist nations on planet earth to abolish the slave trade and then through her Empire brought about the abolition of slavery across a quarter of the earth's surface a mere 26 years later. (a stunning achievement given that the British Empire included many lands where slavery had been a fact of life for thousands of years, and that this huge task was achieved in an age before aeroplanes, helicopters and satellite communications.)

Furthermore throughout most of the 19th Century the Royal Navy was actively involved in combating the slave trade as perpetrated by other nations by so doing we enforced abolition well beyond our own dominions.

Indeed British and other European colonialism itself, far from oppressing our subject nations, played a pivotal role in freeing them from the threat of being captured by Arab slavers, castrated (unlike in America, there are few descendants of those enslaved by Islam) and shipped to Arabia to be worked to death.

If you look to the history of Eastern Africa in the 19th Century, Britain was the major force in ending the Arab slave trade from places like Uganda, Northern Kenya and Zanzibar. We are repeatedly reminded of the slave caves around the coast of Western Africa, used by transatlantic slave traders, however there are similar caves on the east of Africa from whence the cargo travelled north and east, over far more centuries and in far greater numbers.

Another point supporting the fact that European colonialism brought about the end of slavery is that the only African country where it was still legal to own slaves well into the 1920's was Ethiopia, one of the only African nations which was never colonised and even then it was only abolished in order to gain Ethiopia access to the League of Nations.

On the other side of the Atlantic, also in 1807, the US Congress banned the importation of slaves and, 54 years later, well over half a million young, white, Americans died in a war fought partly in order to free the slaves. I am aware of no similar gesture on the part of those Arab, Asian and African states which had owned and traded in slaves for millennia before Britain's comparatively brief, three hundred year, involvement, including those, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Yemen, Oman and Mauritania, which didn't get around to banning slavery until 100 years after the American Civil war (and where some would say forms of slavery continue to this day) or in Mauritania which only imposed a ban last year or Sudan where slavery allegedly still exists.

How odd that we don't hear calls for reparations from those countries where slaves were openly owned within living memory. Of course, silly me, they are not white European nations and can't be held responsible for what they do.

That said, I personally see no justification in holding current generations of Arabs or Africans responsible for the acts of earlier generations (even though those were quite recent generations) Guilt dies with the guilty, inherited or racial guilt is an abstract and unsupportable concept, which is, at its heart racist. However, it is a guilt which we in Europe and North America are expected to carry and acknowledge, despite the fact that the guilt of our forefathers is so much less than the guilt of others and that we have done so much more than others to right a universal wrong.

The staggeringly important fact about the slave trade is not that Britain and America joined in for a while, it is that we, and we alone brought it to an end.

Instead of suffering white guilt over slavery, by comparison with many other nations, we British and our US cousins, have a great deal to be proud of.

------------------

To Part 2

Diversity and the Dodo

I walked through a park the other day, and was passing a large area of thick and tangled woodland when I noticed a sign stating “This area is set aside for biodiversity” indeed it was certainly a diverse mixture of different types of native British vegetation and wild flowers which, doubtless was home to a variety of insect and animal life. As I walked on I passed a school, where I am sure that politically correct teachers would point to such biodiversity and tell their students that this was natures proof of the benefits, and indeed naturalness, of the sort of multicultural diversity they promote.

However, of course such a comparison would be false, an English wood is an area of natural biodiversity, a balanced and mutually supporting ecosystem created over millions of years, with its own food chain, seasonal rotation and pollination. However, despite having been there since long before man walked the Earth, it is now an environment so fragile we have to set areas aside in order to preserve it. It would certainly not survive for long were we to introduce locusts, bison or soldier ants to it.

Nature has survived though a thousand millennia because it has its own balance and its own structure, however, as we see all around us, it can be damaged irreparably when alien species are unnaturally introduced. There are thousands of examples where terrible damage has been caused when unnatural biodiversity has been inflicted on an ecosystem, Japanese Knotweed and the Chinese Mitten Crab to mention but two in Britain, and let us not forget the damage done to the Australian environment by the unwise decision to introduce rabbits there.

However, the damage caused by the introduction of foreign species goes beyond the ecology, history is littered with species devastated when alien species invade their territory. One of the most famous victims is the dodo, a flightless bird, odd looking, but perfectly adapted to its, predator free, Mauritius environment, but then came the ships bringing the rats, and then the pigs, both of which loved the easily accessible Dodo eggs, and, in the case of the rats, Dodo chicks. Within less than a century the poor old dodo became extinct, becoming one of the first and most high profile casualties of unnatural biodiversity.

In Britain various species are currently suffering a similar fate, thirty years ago the water vole was amongst the most common of English fauna, thriving on the river banks, as it had when Boadicea ruled the Iceni and for thousands of years before that. However, then some members of the Animal Liberation movement had the bright idea of attacking mink farms and liberating the farmed mink. This was not good news for the our little friend the water vole, whom the exceptionally vicious and predatory mink view as a particular delicacy.The water vole has now been brought to brink of extinction, whilst the mink work their blood thirsty way through vast swathes of British wildlife, and claiming their new role of one of the top UK predators.

Of course, Mink and water voles are slightly different species, as are dodos and rats however, red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) and grey squirrels (Sciurus Carolinensis) are not, they are merely varieties (different races?) of the same species, yet again we see that the indigenous group suffers at the hand of the imported one.

Beatrix Potter's iconic Squirrel Nutkin was famously a red squirrel, being one of Britain's oldest indigenous natural species, it was native to our land (long before the now widespread rabbit, which was introduced in the middle ages. At the end of the 18th Century red squirrels ranged widely across Britain and were one of the most visible of our wildlife. However, then the bigger and more aggressive grey immigrants arrived, and since then have all but decimated the indigenous reds, dwindling numbers of which are now restricted to ever shrinking areas mostly in Scotland and Wales. Elsewhere the new arrivals have taken over.

Red squirrels still thrive elsewhere in Europe, where the greys have not yet reached, and indeed one of the pleasures of of a visit to the beautiful Czech capital Prague, is to watch the red squirrels play on any of the tree islands in the Vltava. This is a pleasure denied to most in Britain, indeed I doubt that majority of Britons have ever seen a red squirrel in real life, whereas as we all know the pushy little grey variety are everywhere in increasing numbers.

Nature thrives on natural diversity, but as we see across the planet, unnatural, imported, diversity tends to destroy. Those who keep insisting that imported diversity enhances and enriches the host community, should tell that to the embattled red squirrel, after all, they can no longer tell it to the Dodo.

When the American Dream becomes a nightmare

When 22 Year old, University of North Carolina student, Eve Carson set out her successful platform to be elected as Student body President she made a number of pledges as to what she would do to promote diversity.

Amongst other things she promised to make more of a concerted effort to express the ways in the student body were committed to diversity, and extend diversity focused events throughout the year, rather than limiting them to a single “Diversity Week” as had previously been the case. In addition she promised to set additional funds aside specifically for diversity related projects.

Of course as in most US (and UK) Universities a commitment to diversity is all but obligatory for anyone seeking election to any student body, however, as Eve appeared to go out of her way to be photographed with ethnic minority students during her campaign and is understood to have been a supporter of US Presidential hopeful Barrak Obama, whom she can be seen meeting in this recent picture, it seems that Eve Carson's commitment to the cause of diversity was a genuine one.

Sadly, Eve Carson was to pay a high price for the diversity she sought to celebrate and promote, in the same week that we in Britain saw the conviction of Karl Taylor for the murder of Kate Beagley America was horrified by violent deaths of two beautiful female students, in circumstances so similar that some in the press initially speculated as to whether the two crimes were linked. One of those two young women was Eve Carson, the other was 18 year old Auburn University student Lauren Burke, both women had been shot, and both appeared to have been the victims of car-jackings.

Another apparent similarity between the two crimes is the race of the people suspected of their murder, on the same day as 23 year old African American Courtney Larrell Lockheart was charged with the murder of Lauren Burke. Police in Chapel Hill North Carolina issued photographs of the person whom they were seeking in connection with the murder of Eve Carson, the pictures issued by the police clearly showed a young African American male, who was apparently driving Eve Carsons's car and who had allegedly used her AMT card.

The slayings of Eve Carson and Lauren Burke bear a chilling similarity to another awful crime, notorious across the internet, but still largely suppressed by the US media, which happened just over a year ago, the car-jacking and violent rape and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville Tennessee.

Although Eve Carson clearly had some interaction with her killer before her death, and was alive long enough to be forced to reveal her ATM card PIN number, let us hope that neither she nor Lauren Burke suffered the terrible deaths which Channon and Christopher did. Accounts differ as to the degree of the brutality, and whether both suffered sexual mutilation at the hands of their five African American killers, however, the details which are confirmed reveal a horror which no innocent young couple should ever have to suffer.

Christopher was repeatedly raped, in front of Channon, by the four male members of the gang, before being shot and his body set on fire, we can only pray that, unlike our own tragic Kriss Donald, Chris Newson was dead before the flames engulfed his young body.

Channon was kept alive longer than Christopher, being used as a sex slave for four days during which she was repeatedly beaten, sodomised and raped before being forced to drink bleach, after which she was murdered and her body dumped in the garbage.

As I said, the murder of Channon and Christopher are well known across the internet, however, elsewhere, it has only so far been reported in the local Knoxville press. Compare that to the vicious murder of James Byrd Jnr htt. at the hands of three drunken white men. As with Stephen Lawrence in Britain, Byrd's murder became a cause célèbre in America, a hate crime which to this day, ten years later, is repeatedly referred to in the press, on both sides of the Atlantic. Whereas details of the Christian Newsom murder is suppressed, and when it is mentioned said to be motivated by theft rather than hate.

There is a reason for this, for the US media the Byrd case, and the recent case of Megan Williams, allegedly kidnapped, tortured and raped, although not killed, by her hillbilly boyfriend, his mother and some trailer trash neighbours, are the equivalent of an alien space ship crashing into Manhattan, it only has to happen once in order to prove all the alien abduction claims true. The same would have happened with the infamous Duke Lacrosse case if it had not turned out to be a huge hoax. (The US media continues to seek that one single elusive white on black gang rape, which will become the case of record forever used to support the pretence that most most interracial sexual violence is perpetrated by whites, they haven't found it yet, but they keep hoping.)

Just like Britain, crimes committed by whites are the isolated incidents, which the media always claim black on white crimes are, whilst the vast majority of interracial crime, including violence, rape and murder are committed by blacks, and, just like Britain, the media hides the fact and pretend it is the other way round. It is difficult to find an official racial demographic specifically relating to car-jacking, however, I suspect that the US media would be hard pressed to find any incidents where young black women, or black couples had been car-jacked and murdered by whites but I am sure they are trying.

People argue that this is due to greater levels of black deprivation and higher levels of poverty, however, again they will be telling lies with statistics, it is certainly true that a higher percentage of the black community, around 26%, live in relative poverty, compared to around 8% of whites, however, presenting statistics based on individual racial group, is the same trick our government and theirs play with the hate crime figures, as it ignores the fact that blacks only account for 12% of the US population, (approx: 38 million) whereas whites are still over 63% (approx: 237 million) hence in numerical terms there are over twice as many whites living in relative poverty than blacks. Hence, if deprivation were the reason, one would expect to see far higher levels of such crimes being committed by whites than we do.

The big difference between the the US and the UK, however, is in terms of numbers, bad as black on white crime is in Britain, thankfully, so far we have not yet reached levels comparable to those in America. As in South Africa, some refer to the rate of black on white murders as an unspoken genocide, and it has been estimated that if whites murdered blacks at the same rate as blacks murder whites, in ten years there would be over ten thousand more dead blacks than all the US troops who died during the Vietnam war.

The rates of black on black crime, are even worse and it is a little mentioned fact that roughly as many black men were murdered by other black men in 2005 as were lynched by white racists between 1870 and 1965.

It is troubling to note that we are seeing a similar trend in Britain, you only have to look at the pictures of the 26 teenage murder in London alone, to see that they are overwhelmingly black although the media does not say so, we can be sure that none of the black victims were killed by white assailants, because if even one had been our media would most certainly let us know.

The fact that we are seeing similar trends here is reason to be more than concerned, as they say, where America leads Britain will follow, we already share spiralling levels of ethnic crime, together with a government and a media which seeks to hide the true figures. At the moment this is a much safer country than America, partly due to different gun laws, but, as we see daily on our news screens, more and more guns are finding their way onto the streets, and they are being used. With mass immigration that can only increase. How long will it be before we share more with America than a special relationship?.

Bullied by their safe word

Those who indulge in S&M games tend to use what they call a “safe word”, it is a word or sometimes phrase, usually agreed in advance and which the submissive can call out to his mistress to let her know that she is spanking him too hard and that she should now stop. The supporters of mass immigration and multicultural diversity also have a safe word, but it was not agreed in advance, it is a word invented by them, and which they have used to stifle all criticism of even any questioning of what they are imposing upon us. That word is “racist”.

Like the above mentioned submissive, the forces of irrevocable change cry out their safe word as soon as the heat is turned on them, knowing that, following decades of gradual brainwashing and intimidation, in which they have persuaded the tolerant and decent British public that the crime of racism is as heinous as rape or paedophilia, the very mention of the word will both stop their opponents in their tracks whilst simultaneously placing them in the wrong. The safe “R” word, has as many definitions as Paris Hilton has shoes, and it has been used to enable the so called great and good to get away with what what they have done to us, and to prevent us from doing anything to stop them.

The most recent use of the “R” word for its backside covering properties is the case of Lee Jasper, when the media started to ask questions about what had happened to hundreds of thousand of pounds of London taxpayers' money supposedly given to various black or Asian groups. According to Lee Jasper, and many others, including Ken Livingstone, the very act of asking the question was racist, to require accountability, or indeed any proper accounts from black organizations was racist, indeed anyone who did not automatically assume total propriety on the part of black politicians or black companies were self evidently racist.

Instead of answering legitimate questions about the role for which the taxpayer paid him a vast salary, Mr Jasper and his supporters would only chant the mantra that he was “the victim of a racist campaign by racially motivated racists”, their expressions becoming progressively more alarmed at the realisation that, for the first time the magic shield wasn't working.

However, it was not just Lee Jasper, he and not even cleared his desk before the black organisations and public sector serving black and ethnic firms were complaining about this “racist” investigation and claiming that it should not have happened, because it might have a detrimental effect on the public perception of black and ethnic organisations. In effect what they were saying was that back organisations should be exempt from scrutiny or questions about malpractice or dishonesty because to do otherwise is ........ racist. Once again they were evoking the safe word in the hope that we will shut up and not ask questions.

However, we should no forget that the “R” word is a multi-purpose tool and its uses are not just defensive, it is at its most effective when it is used as an offensive weapon with which to bludgeon opponents or as a smear in order to damage the reputation of those who refuse to dance the diversity foxtrot.

For example if you question the unmitigated benefits of multiculturalism you are decried as a racist, if you suggest that any section of the community, other than the white community, might possibly have undesirable behavioural or social characteristics, you are a racist, in fact if you demonstrate anything short of total surrender to the cult of enrichment that in itself will automatically render one at risk of shrill accusations of bigotry, xenophobia, hatred, and of course racism.

So brutalised and intimidated have the British public become by the one word, that they often behave like abused children, denying naughtiness before they are even accused of it, we see this all the time when people are interviewed about immigration on TV when the first thing they always say is "I'm not a racist but ...." or display embarrassment at their failure to embrace all aspects of politically correct orthodoxy. For instance the middle class, middle aged woman I recently saw talking about the impact of immigration, at one point admitting the country had been “totally changed”, however her body language made it obvious she was clearly ashamed and embarrassed to even mention such blasphemy and afraid people would think less of her for saying it.

This phenomenon does not only manifest itself in public, who amongst us, in our own homes, with the windows shut have not noticed guests instinctively lower their voices when expressing a view or mentioning a fact which might displease the zealots at the UAF?. The campaign has been relentless and it has taken over thirty years to reduce a race which once ruled the seas to a state of fear and confusion cowering before a word which they do not fully understand.

Perhaps the most vicious use of the “R” word is reserved for those white people who love their own race and presumes to express that love. Let anyone dare claim that white people have the same right as any other to feel proud of our race and our achievements, that our culture is as valuable and as worth preserving as any other culture, and they will surely feel the wrath of the defenders of the multi-coloured flame.

Let any scholar or academic remind us that Europe and North America were only briefly involved in the international slave trade, compared to the millennia it had existed, but travelling in an Easterly direction and in much greater numbers, or let him or her express the opinion that the British Empire was one of the most benign forces for good in history, which brought benefits to its subjects they had never known, and of which independence has since deprived them, then they will be hunted down. There homes may be targeted, they will be pilloried in the media, and any speaking engagement they attend will be besieged by placard carrying protesters, chanting, like some medieval mob “Racist, racist, burn the witch, racist, racist burn the witch” until the miscreant is silenced.

By the very act of writing this article I am forever condemned as a racist, by the definition of my critics. However, as their definition is forever being rewritten and redefined so that it can apply to every new threat to their ideology, it is hard to avoid such a label. Indeed why avoid it? If it is racist by their definition to love my country and be proud of my race, then I am a racist. If it is racist to demand accountability from a public figures irrespective of their colour, then I am racist. If it is racist to tell the truth about racial crime and the fact that, despite the government misinformation, the home offices own figures show that white people are disproportionately the victims of race crime, and to a staggering degree, then I am a racist.

By their definition I am a racist, and yet I hate nobody, I would not wish to harm a hair on any non-white head, I wish them only happiness and that their lands thrive in peace and prosperity and that we can cohabit as a harmonious and mutually supportive international community. I ache for the people of other nations when I see the horrors inflicted upon them by their own governments and acts of God. I believe totally that third world countries need our aid and our support, I honour and admire many of their national traditions and customs and feel that the world would be a poorer place were they not preserved, in the same way that I honour and love the culture and traditions of my own land, and believe the world would be a poorer place were they to be lost.

I am happy to welcome reasonable numbers of foreigners to my land, but as visitors to my home, not as the new occupiers, if they abide by our laws and accept that they are our guests, then they will receive nothing but friendship and hospitality from me.

By the definition of those who hate me, I am a racist, not because I hate, but because I love too much, because I love my native land in whose earth I can trace my line back a thousand years, for which my ancestors fought and in which their bones are buried. To them, I am a racist because I love my people, a race which has done more to benefit mankind and the greater good than almost any other which has walked the earth.

Let them call me racist I will not renounce my love for my land and my people, even if, as a result I must accept the ugly words my enemies throw at me.

If, as the gay community have embraced the word “queer”, and black rap stars have embraced the words once used to oppress them, I must embrace a word so long used to deride and intimidate me and mine, then so be it, is it not better to embrace a word than it is to be ruled by one?

Am I alone?, is it wishful thinking? or is change in air? have some tectonic plates begun to shift deep within the British psyche, is the veil lifting and the film falling from our nations eyes, have the people of our land begun to awake to what has been done to us and how we have been manipulated?. I hope I am right and that that day is approaching when we as a nation stand up and refuse to ever again be bullied by a word.

A murder the media did not wish to report

By Sarah Maid of Albion

First published at the Home of the Green Arrow: March 05 2008

This was not the news story which the media wanted to bring you, which is most probably why you heard nothing of it until today, when those who bring us the news they want us to hear had no option other than to publish it. It is a sad story, sadder still because it is not the isolated aberration it will inevitably be presented as. A beautiful and successful woman, with so much life and potential ahead of her, has joined the growing ranks of those young men and women who have been sacrificed on the alter of an ideology.

Kate Beagley had only met Karl Taylor in a nightclub a few days before, and it was on their first date, sitting on bench at a beauty spot overlooking the Thames at Richmond, when she died in a frenzied knife attack ,committed by fitness instructor Taylor, who then stuffed her in the boot of her own car before driving across London and callously dumping her lifeless body in a patch of nettles. He later showed off his “new car” and sold Kate's mobile phone to a friend.

Even then Taylor was not finished with assault on Kate Beagly, in court, with no regard for the feelings of his victims grieving family, he produced the bizarre defence that he had dropped the knife, whereupon Kate had snatched it up and launched a violent and suicidal attack on her own face and neck, stabbing herself no less than 31 times. Unsurprisingly the jury treated this defence with the contempt it deserved and convicted him of murder, believing the police when they claimed that Taylor had brought the knife with him, with the intention of committing murder.

Justice decreed that Karl Taylor will spend the next 30 years of his life at the tax payers' expense.

Kate's family speak of her as a loving thoughtful daughter and friend to many, who lived life to the full. However, one has to ask why this intelligent 32 year old career woman felt able to place herself in such a vulnerable position with a man of whom she knew nothing. Could it be that, like so many others she had bought the media lie that interracial relationships between white women and black men are romantic and fashionable or, more invidiously, that rejecting the advances of a black man would be somehow racist, the ultimate sin in 21st Century Britain?.

We can not know what was in Kate Beagly's mind, and I will not presume to suggest otherwise. However, we can look at how the media have treated her death and the trial of her murderer.

The same media, which misses no opportunity to parade celebrity mixed race couples and fashion magazine images of glamorous white super models in the embrace of brooding black men smothered in body oil, which portrays black men as the ultimate sex symbol and the white women who sleep with them as free spirited and rebellious, whilst hiding the numbers of abandoned white single mothers living in poverty raising mixed race children, and those left, battered, broken raped and worse following an ill advised multicultural adventure, embargoed this case behind a frozen wall of silence until they could no longer hide it.

Compare Karl Taylor's trial with that of Mark Dixie the WHITE man who stabbed another beautiful young white girl, Sally Anne Bowman to death. That trial was on the national news every night and on the front pages of of every news paper day after day, whereas with Taylor's trial, until the verdict made publication unavoidable, the news media behaved as if nothing had happened.

What was the difference between Kate Beagley and Sally Anne Bowman?, they were both much loved beautiful young women who met similar violent and untimely deaths. The only difference was the evil men who murdered them, one the media wanted you to know about, and one they did not.

Be assured that those who shout the name of Stephen Lawrence at every opportunity, and yet try to erase the name of Kriss Donald from the public memory, will seek to consign this case and the memory of Kate Beagley to history with all the other white victims of non white violence as soon as they possibly can, we must not let them do so.

..........
Links

Details of this terrible crime have been added to the UK Enrichment News and The Fallen

Diversity is no Buffet

In 2000 Jack Straw, the then Home secretary, made the notorious statement that the English as a race have a “propensity for violence and aggression”. There may be some merit to this claim, it is certainly true that the British soldier has a long and well earned reputation as a ferocious fighter. Furthermore, it would be disingenuous for any English person to deny that a number of our young men, and progressively more of our young women, have a propensity for binge drinking and hooliganism, albeit we are certainly not alone in respect of the latter, as various examples of football violence across Europe demonstrate.

However, ignoring the accuracy, or otherwise of the statement, and the fact that the English are one of the few races on Earth about whom a Western politician would dare make such a comment, it is an unequivocal acknowledgement of the fact that individual racial and cultural characteristics exist, and that some of these characteristics are less than desirable.

This fact that other races might have undesirable characteristics is something which is always ignored by those who sing the benefits of diversity and multiculturalism. Invariably they will highlight the perceived benefits whilst seeking to obscure the disadvantages. This is, of course, somewhat dishonest, a multicultural society is not a buffet table from which you can pick and choose small spoon-fulls of the dishes you prefer, whilst leaving the less appetizing offerings untouched. Diversity does not offer a pick-and-mix option, when you opt for multiculturalism you have to take the whole carcass, including the horns, offal and stomach content.

Although it may not be politically correct for the likes of Jack Straw to make a similarly blunt appraisal of the cultural or racial propensities of other races, it would be ludicrous to claim that the English are the only race on earth to have undesirable characteristics. It follows, therefore, that because of mass immigration, instead of having one cultural problem to deal with we have now imported dozens more. Furthermore, the problems we are importing not only make existing problems worse, but they are introducing us to a whole new range undesirable issues, albeit some quite exotic ones.

This is even more the case in relation to immigration from third world countries, many of which have serious social problems, including high levels of crime, corruption and violence. There are various reasons for those problems, and some could be the result of culture and ideology. If so, only a fool would imagine that people would or could change their culture or ideology by the mere process of getting on a plane and flying to Heathrow, indeed the supporters of diversity would be appalled at such a suggestion, they insist that new cultures and ideologies brought to our shores by the new arrivals, enrich our culture and must be embraced. Unfortunately, we are consequently, obliged to embrace things which damage our communities in addition to those which allegedly enhance them. Let us consider some examples:

The heavy involvement of those of Jamaican and Somali origin in both street and gun crime is not merely anecdotal, the levels are now so overwhelming that even the Community cohesion censors in the media can no longer hide the fact that members of the West Indian and Somali communities feature to a staggeringly disproportionate degree as both the victims and, even more so, as the perpetrators of such crimes. Indeed the very existence of Operation Trident is official acknowledgement of the seriousness of the levels of gun crime within those communities.

As a possible explanation for this it is worth remembering that Jamaica and Somalia are two of the most dangerous countries in the world, with terrifying rates of crime and murder, indeed Somalia is all but a bandit state. If we are to accept that, as Jack Straw tells us, the English have a propensity for violence, is it then racist to wonder if either Jamaicans or Somalis have cultural propensities which might have contributed, in some measure, to the state in which their countries find themselves? Is it further racist to wonder whether, when we welcome them to our land we are welcoming the bad side of their culture as well as the good?

Almost nightly on our TV screens we see horrible scenes of inter-ethnic violence in Africa, in the Middle East or amongst rival groups in Pakistan, do we really imagine that there is something in the water in those countries which makes them behave in the way they do and that as soon as they have drunk a glass of good old Thames water they will suddenly develop moderate western ways?.

From these links to various “isolated incidents” over the last six yours, it seems not. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4989202.stm

http://www.thepressnewspaper.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=1169

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2102470.stm

I know that whenever race riots are mentioned the apologists remind us of Teddy Boys and Rockers fighting in Brighton during the '50s, but did they really use machetes?

This is not to deny that all races have good and bad amongst them, however, just like the English each nation and each race has its own unique cultural problems, so, by tolerating such high levels of immigration as we now do, we are inevitably adding new and diverse problems to our home grown ones.

There have always been indigenous white criminals, who have committed a variety of crimes, but we are now seeing new types of crime, which were not previously common in Britain. Muti murder, female genital mutilation and honour related violence, only effect small sections of the immigrant community, however, other forms of imported crime impact on all of us.

For instance a highly controversial, and long suppressed, Channel 4 documentary during the 1990's revealed how the numbers of gang rapes committed by the indigenous white population was statistically minute, in fact they could find no record of any gang rapes in Britain in the ten years leading up to the programme, which had not been committed by a black or mixed rape gang. Yet the numbers of gang rapes are increasing each year.

Those who remember that programme, may also remember the outcry it caused, not unlike that which happened when they attempted to expose the problem of under aged white girls who being groomed for sex by Asian men. However, once again, the main thrust of the complaint was not that the allegations were untrue, but that making them, was in itself racist, would cause racial tension. (You can be sure that if it were white people committing gang rapes and grooming Asian girls, these same people would be shrieking for its widest possible exposure and community cohesion can go hang.)

The Advertising Standards Authority and The Financial Services Authority issue rules and codes of practice requiring firms to give equal prominence to the disadvantages of the products they advertise as they do to the benefits.

It seems that no such rules are applied to those who wish to promote racial diversity and ever increasing levels of immigration. Whereas although the supposed benefits of inward migration are trumpeted as undisputed fact, any mention of the very many disadvantages is all but prohibited, and as the Bishop of Rochester discovered can result in howls of outrage and death threats.

It is time that those who make the laws which have such impact on our lives, and who have opened our boarders to allcommers, admit that this multicultural social experiment they have inflicted upon us has a downside, because, by the day it is becoming clearer just how deep that downside is, and that, by comparison, the alleged English propensity for violence pales into insignificance.

Marketing Multiculturalism

Marketing Multiculturalism

Subliminal advertising, whereby a message appears on a TV or movie screen for a fleeting instant, too quick for the eye to see, but long enough for it to register on the subconscious, has long been banned in the UK. However, there are many similar tricks used by Marketing and advertising firms to subliminally plant an unspoken message in the subconscious mind of an unwary audience. This seldom more the case than with those in the business of promoting multiculturalism.

We have all long grown used to the TV shows and dramas which show a parallel universe beset by high levels of white crime and innocent ethnic victim-hood. American TV is perhaps the worst, indeed some of the cop shows are hardly worth watching, because you know from the outset that the villain will be the handsome white guy. Admittedly, sometimes they will play with us for the first two acts and allow us to believe that a black character might be guilty, however, you can guarantee that by part three he will be exposed as the innocent patsy of the “real” (meaning white) criminal.

Those who do not wish to have “Law and Order” and “CSI Vegas” ruined for them, should skip this paragraph, but there are various formulas to which the US shows almost always comply, as if the screen writers' guild have issued a set of rules which any studio producing a US cop show is obliged to follow.

Rule One: Whatever the story, a handsome rich white male will be revealed as an unpleasant person at some point.

Rule two: a black male will never guilty be of a serious crime unless

• a) he was led into the crime by a much more morally reprehensible white character,
  b) he committed the crime to pay for his dying daughter's/mother's/grandfather's urgent cancer surgery (or for an equivalent benevolent motive) or
  c) the cop is black. Rule three:

White women are only guilty if

• a) they smoke,
  b) they smoke and the victim is black or female
  c) they are rich and smoke.

Rule four: Black women are never guilty of anything, ever.

Similar rules, together with the “include as many jolly black faces and presenters as possible in every scene” rule are followed in the UK in respect of the TV, Internet and magazine propaganda aimed at our children. However, when marketing multiculturalism to British grown ups the media reluctantly accepts that they are selling their product to a more sophisticated audience than than is generally the case in middle America, and this requires them to take a slightly more subtle approach.

The techniques used by the UK media in hyping “diversity” are less transparent than those used in America, but they are no less dishonest. One of the perhaps less subtle of these techniques is what one might call “racial proportionality weighting”, in this respect it is occasionally possible for an ethnic minority character in a soap opera or drama to be guilty of a crime or even, very occasionally, not be a very nice person. However, this must be offset by greater levels of white guilt and white unpleasantness and accompanied some biting reference to social (i.e. Black) deprivation. In addition any show which includes a guilty or unpleasant person of ethnic minority must also include an equal, or preferably greater, number of honest, upstanding, likeable and altogether admirable characters of similar ethnic heritage.

The racial proportionality technique is a more subtle form of the infamous “tiny minority” lie, which is regularly used, with varying degrees of success, when discussing extremism within the Islamic community.

Another and progressively more frequent technique is the use of the very white black man, that is to say, the employment of actors who look black but act white, just a little sexier. For most actors, acting is a precarious profession, often involving long periods of unemployment, however, this is not so for that small, select, group of clean cut black actors who look good in a blazer, they are never out of work. Such actors are usually presented as action heroes, generally brighter and more athletic/competent than their white counterparts and will invariably end up in a passionate clinch with the beautiful (white) heroine.

This is such a common device that I think many of us would be challenged were we asked to name a recent prime time TV drama or Soap opera which did not have one of the very white men as a central and active cast member. (Do not be fooled by Lenny Henry, ethnic characters are hugely over represented on UK TV, even in costume dramas where Victorian London is often portrayed as almost as racially mixed as modern day Croydon)

We all know that in real life such very white black men would not survive five minutes if their Range Rover broke down in Peckham, and that they probably think gang culture is something grown in a petrie dish, but Hey in the world of multicultural marketing he represents his race, and he ain't changed much since Sidney Poitier came to dinner.

The very white black man is also used, sadly with a lot of success, in the ongoing promotion of interracial sex which has has had such a damaging effect on the lives of so many young white girls, who have led to believe that the very white black man is representative of the majority of black males. However, that is a much larger and more serious issue which I will not address here.

Of the many other techniques used, the last I will focus on here is perhaps as close to subliminal advertising as it is possible to get. It is the use of the unspoken visual message, whereby the images chosen, and the manner in which they are presented, convey a subtle message designed to produce a response or stimulate an opinion on the part of the view.

An excellent example of the is the trailer for the forthcoming BBC series “White”, which supposedly deals with the experience of working class whites in modern Britain. In the trailer all we see is the head of a white male which gradually seems to disappear as words in various different foreign languages and dialects are written across his face. The image and the subject have been carefully chosen and manipulated in order to convey a subliminal message, in addition to the official one. It is clear that the BBC had no intention of presenting whiteness as being an attractive condition, and this is reflected in the choice of model who, with all due respect to the gentleman himself, is singularly unattractive. He is middle aged, he is overweight, he looks unfit, he is balding and he has a face which even a mother would struggle to love. The fact that Britain has produced some of the most famously handsome and attractive men from Carry Grant to Jude Law and David Beckham is ignored, and instead the white British male is presented as a semi obese slob.

Can we doubt for one moment that had the subject been the black community we would have been presented with either a smouldering dude or a beaming jolly Bob Marley look-a-like, or had it been the Asian community we would instead see a dark eyed, sari clad, lovely.

However, it is not just the choice of image, the manner in which it has been presented has also been deliberately manipulated to make whiteness appear even less appealing. The colour saturation has been reduced to the point where it is almost, but not quite, shot in black and white, this, as intended, presents an impression which is bleak, grim and... lacking in .er... colour (you get the message?). The image and, as such, the race is presented as something unappealing, unsatisfactory, incomplete and certainly not something the viewer would aspire to be part of. Can you, for one second, imagine that any other race would be presented in this way?

Were “White” to be instead another hymn to Multiculturalism, you can be assured that vivid and bright colours would be lavishly employed in order to remind the audience that, despite what they see around them, diversity is really a lot of fun.

From the clips we have seen of the series so far it seems that the same harsh, bleak, low saturation filming technique has been used, again presenting white Britain as somewhere nobody would wish to be, and, to stress the point we are promised that one of the programmes “White girl” will follow a young white girl as she escapes from her bleak existence in order to find solace in the warm and enlightened embrace of Islam.

From what we have seen of the “White” series, I am in little doubt that we can expect more of the anti white propaganda with which we are assailed both frontally and subliminally on a daily basis.Sarah:

Maid Of Albion