I am a Racist

The following article appeared on South Africa's News 24 last week, however, much of it could apply equally to Britain, America or really any current western nation:

I am a Racist  

A South African artist called Brett Murray has been causing a huge stir since his painting of South Africa’s president titled The Spear was put up in  a local gallery. The ANC have worked themselves up into a total frothy about the painting and their biggest issue with it - It’s racist. ???????

Disrespectful, maybe. Rude, maybe. But racist???

That little word that has become the political whip with which the ANC work the masses up into angry mobs and riots anytime something happens that they don’t like. And it’s becoming really really tiring.

In South Africa, the word racist has lost it’s original meaning and now only get’s used to describe a white person doing something a black person doesn’t like. You never hear it used in any other context. You can’t say to a black CEO that he is racist because he won’t hire white people, no - he’s just making sure that only blacks get hired because of BEE. You can’t call a university racist because they won’t accept an application from a white student with straight A’s for 8 subjects - instead taking on a black student who barely passed matric. Nope, they’re not racist, they’re just correcting the wrongs of the past. But god forbid you do hire the white person or you do admit the white student, you’ll be branded racist by the government quicker that you can say “colour shouldn’t be the issue here” because how dare you choose a white person over a black person in a democratic South Africa.

Most of the time when you are a white person and you call your fellow countrymen to be held accountable for their unacceptable words and actions such as corruption, nepotism, fraud, theft, you’ll be branded a racist. 

Continue reading 

_____________
Hat Tip: Dina, Tinus and Laager

Is Racism Natural?

Click here to view the series of videos on this subject

________________
Hat Tip: Mister Fox

_________________________________

Some definitions of racism :

RACISM (N)

1. Any attempt by members of the white race to stop an immigrant invasion and takeover of their nations, whether by word or deed.

2. Ideology in which whites object to being made third class citizens in the countries their own ancestors founded.

3. Any words spoken by a white person that fail to venerate and praise non-white persons as culturally superior and ethnically  unique.

4. A belief system in which whites fail to hate their own race, usually accompanied by failure of whites to worship non-whites and failure to providefree money, medical care, and pretty young white breeding partners for non-whites.

5. A sick and twisted belief system in which evil whites believe that they have just as much right to preserve their race and culture as the other races.

6. Failure of the white race to submit to their own extermination and displacement from their own nations.

7. Any attempt by members of the white race to stop non-whites from gang-raping or otherwise despoiling and assaulting young white women.

Racism can only be committed by whites. When non-whites murder white men and women, this can never be racist. What is truly racist is for whites to dare to oppose the murder and enslavement of their own race.
_ 

Hat Tip Alan O'Reilly

Oakland Blacks react to BART verdict

Discarded pictures of shooting victim Oscar Grant lie in the street next to a pair of trainers dropped by a fleeing looter

Click here to watch film of the black community of Oakland California reacting to an earlier jury verdict whereby a police officer had been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in a contentious trial.

The violence was actively incited by "new" (sic) sources such as CNN who reported the case such provocative statements such as:

A former police officer who is white was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter Thursday in the killing of an unarmed black man

and:

Members of the jury, which included no African-Americans, said they were unanimous in their decision.

They got the reaction they were hoping for with the violent riots which followed the verdict, but then, in accordance with their standard practice, proceeded not to report the looting which always accompanies black protests, leaving this to the local and the foreign media.

I will not go into the rights and wrongs of the specific case, the policeman claimed he had intended to use a teaser on the victim but accidentally drew his gun, the jury believed him, the crowd wanted the blood of a white man and would have rioted whatever the verdict.

However the hypocrisy is shocking. Week after week we read of horrific acts of violence against white people, often policemen. 90 US policemen have died in the line of duty so far in this year alone (up from 70 in the same period last year) overwhelmingly they are white, and overwhelmingly their killers are black.

The media go to great lengths to hide the race of non-white criminals and even when they can't hide it the fact that the victim is white and the perpetrator black is hardly commented on. More white Americans have been murdered by black Americans since the Civil Rights period than the total number if US soldiers killed in Korea, but where are the protests? where are the angry editorials? where is the looting?.

To add insult to injury, we now here that the US Attorney General Eric Racebaiter, (pictured above) plans to carry out a federal investigation into the trial presumably because he and his boss do not consider the sentence severe enough. Of course, they would rather stick red hot needles into their eyes than they would investigate a "too lenient" sentence in a black perpetrator / white victim case.

this happens just after it has been revealed that under Racebaiter's control, the US Department of Justice will not be pursuing civil rights cases against blacks where the victims are white.

The current US Administration now no longer cares how obvious its blatant racism has become, it believes that nobody will dare even mention it.

Modern American Racists

Members of the New Black Panthers intimidating voters during the 2008 US Presidential Election

When film appeared following the 2008 US election day vote clearly showing members of the black supremacist New Black Panthers threatening voters outside a Philadelphia polling station, there appeared to be very compelling evidence of voter intimidation which is a criminal offense. The outgoing Bush administration certainly thought so, as they launched a prosecution.

Many were surprised, therefore, when the new US Attorney general Eric Holder (pictured above) announced that current US administration had dropped that prosecution.

When J Christian Adams, an Official at the US Department of Justice resigned earlier this year, accusing the administration of dropping the case as a result of racial bias it will have added to the growing suspicions many people now have about the racist attitudes of those currently running the United States of America.

These suspicious are shared by black Conservative commentator Eric Rush, who's excellent article on the subject I have pasted below:
__________________________________________

Barack Obama: Racist in chief

For months, Americans have been treated to wanton accusations of racism in the public square regarding our wish to secure our border with Mexico and misgivings vis-à-vis the Obama administration's handling of the Islamic terrorist threat, to name just two.

Now, we bear witness to an instance of racism and racial double standard on the part of this president and his administration that surpasses the surreal: This week, former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the administration ordered attorneys in the Civil Rights Division to ignore cases involving black defendants and white victims. Adams further asserted that the department, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, contrived to drop charges against members of the New Black Panther Party stemming from an incident of voter intimidation in 2008, a slam-dunk case over which Adams ultimately quit in disgust.

To American progressives and the establishment press (which has been complicit in every seditious machination devised by Barack Obama and his minions) the contention that our president and this administration are racists is practically incomprehensible – but that is precisely where I am going. Although it still eludes those who are either dedicated Obamanoids or profoundly dim, our president's antiwhite, anti-Christian, anti-American and anti-Semitic sentiments have been painfully evident for some time. The New Black Panther Party case is just the cherry on the topping.

Erik Rush's brand-new book is bold, daring and needed: "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession"

While Justice contended that the Civil Rights Division determined that "the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims" in the New Black Panther case, and that it is "not uncommon for attorneys with the department to have good-faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action" in certain cases, Adams' claims and aggregate testimony bear out as well as clarify the tenor of the Holder Justice Department. This retrograde, black-nationalist comportment is the worst sort of policy held to by an administration since the days of segregation.

In short, it is abject racism.

Although this is part and parcel of the perverse racial sensibilities advanced by the political Left over the last several decades, its expanse and depth of insinuation have become nothing short of astounding. I have asserted previously that Obama gets a pass on account of this because he is black, but even astute observers didn't expect it to go this far. There is not one traditional national news outlet that is covering this atrocity, and, if they are forced to, there's little doubt that they will brand Adams a shill for the GOP and Fox News.

I suppose that such odious standards ought not be surprising coming from a man who spent 20 years listening to the bigoted ranting of a racist, anti-American pastor (in the personage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright), but the absolute refusal of the establishment press to acknowledge this phenomenon indicates that we have a larger long-term problem with them than we do with Obama. His decades-long dedication to radically subverting the very idea of America has manifested in congruent deeds. His actions (and inactions), which have exacerbated every difficulty that has presented itself, his racism, appeasement of our enemies and de facto abdication of his constitutional duties should have between 75 percent and 90 percent of Americans taking to the streets, screaming for his impeachment. Yet, they are not, largely because the Fourth Estate has become the fifth column.

One thing at a time, however.

I am quite certain that there will be a great deal of resistance, even on the part of Obama detractors, to pursue this issue to its logical conclusion. Even if the press is compelled to do its job regarding the Justice Department's criminal conduct, it is unlikely that the ripples will reach the White House. There are two reasons for this. One: That is the way this administration operates. Attorney General Holder will be sacrificed before Obama is implicated, even though it is evident that this administration is rife with racist, anti-American communists all the way to the top.

Two is that there are too many forces in play who are terrified of our president crashing and burning, even among those who detest him. If he is voted out in 2012, that's one thing, but if our celebrated "first black president" is forced to resign in shame – that is a completely different matter. Not only would every far-left faction mobilize en masse, but even more moderate rank-and-file black Obama supporters would be enraged. It would be perceived as the final "racist affront" of a white establishment that has already been demonized to the degree that many blacks perceive America to be as institutionally racist as it was five decades ago.

The long and short? We're stuck with a racist president. Well, we've survived those before; it's Obama's intention to transform our nation into a cross between China and Venezuela that I'm more concerned about.

________
Source

Diane on the Spot

After building a career on accusing everyone else (and British Society in general) of racism, it is good to see labour leadership candidate (and would be Prime Minister) Diane Abbott taste her own medicine.

Click the image or here to watch the interview on YouTube

__________
Hat Tip Alanorei and Mister Fox

First Time Ever BBC Mentions White Murder Victims Is to Attack BNP

BBC reporter Michelle Gribbon accuses BNP of exploiting her cousin's racially motivated murder and then exploits her cousin's racially motivated murder in order to attack the BNP

Click here to read the report on the BBC's distorted and politically exploitative report at the Home the Home of the Green Arrow

_______________________
Related Link:

Racism Cuts Both Ways

Responding to a PC heckler

Click here to comment at YouTube

The Death of Free Speech in Europe? - More disturbing news from Finland

Entrance to Finland - the iconic main railway station in Helsinki

NOTE: The following article was posted to me, I have checked it out and it appears to be accurate. It should be noted that the author Henrik Holappa is an alleged neo-Nazi who recently unsuccessfully sought political asylum in the USA. However, as I say, from my own research the facts he describes appear to be accurate. I am, therefore, publishing the article because of its implications in relation to Free Speech.

Sarah: Maid of Albion does not necessarily endorse all views expressed in the following article.

______________________________

Finland Continues to Suppress the Freedom of Speech

By Henrik Holappa

19.01.2010

The Finnish Department of Justice is planning on suppressing the freedom of speech in Finland – now even more. The special legal group of the Department of Justice is now planning the new blueprints of the law that would especially focus on so called “Internet Racism”.

The major newspaper in Finland, Helsingin Sanomat, reported of the suggested plan on their websites w3hich can be read by clicking here. (Ed: as the article is in Finnish, a rough Google translation has been posted here . Sarah)

According to the new law suggestion, just clicking yourself on the alleged “racist” or “white supremacist” website (whether it is David Duke's, the Resistance Movement's websites or any other prominent white's civil rights movement's website) that would be enough to sentence a Finnish citizen to 4 years in prison. I emphasize – just visiting a racist website would be enough to sentence someone to 4 years in prison.

According to the Department of Justice – this new law would tremendously prevent racism in Finland, as it was mentioned, especially on Internet.

Probably one reason behind the new law suggestion leads to the shooting rampage in Espoo, a city near Helsinki, that took place on the New Year's eve. The suspected shooter, Ibrahim Shkupolli, - originated from Kosovo, shot 4 at the shopping mall and later on that day Shkupolli shot himself. Before the shooting took place at the shopping mall, he had shot his former Finnish girlfriend. The event stimulated among the Finnish citizens the discussion about the uncontrolled mass-immigration, which the Finnish government considered racist.

The special legal group of the Finnish government's Department of Justice would like to add a new paragraph to the law in their struggle against the racism. The law would carry a name of “Aggravated incitement for Racial Hatred”, and the maximum sentence of the crime would be 4 years in prison. The law could be used in various cases – as an additional charge – such as; “incitement for mass-destruction” and for a slaying made on a terrorist purpose.

One can only guess what “incitement for mass-destruction” may really mean. In Spain, for example, just denying the Holocaust – or simply questioning it – it is considered as “incitement for mass-destruction.” The Holocaust denial law does not exist in Finland, but several other existing anti-racist laws could be used in a way that an individual could be sentenced of an alleged Holocaust denial.*

The current law of incitement for racial hatred allows a person to be sentenced to maximum of 2 years in prison. Of course the government and the legal system may use both legal paragraphs – incitement for racial hatred and aggravated incitement for racial hatred – to sentence an individual to a maximum sentence of 6 years in prison, including using several other legal paragraphs – such as violation of freedom of speech and in some cases even aggravated defamation - combined together in one sentence.

However, if the law is being executed as such, it would literally mean the following; an individual visits on a racist website and leaves a comment on the discussion board – he has already committed two serious crimes; incitement for racial hatred and possibly violation of freedom
of speech.

However, always when a foreigner is being a victim of any crime, the police investigation leaves from the allegation it was racially motivated crime. This explains the statistical growth of the racist crimes in Finland, but it does not prove that all crimes in which a foreign individual has been a victim of a crime would have been committed on a racist purpose.

The new law would also make it possible to punish certain groups of individuals that may share a common racialist view, whether they share it publicly or in different discussion forums on Internet. If the law would be taken in use in that way, it may possibly mean the arrests and convictions of hundreds or even thousands of Finns in the near future.

The Freedom of Speech in Finland would be tremendously restricted, just in a next few months. This would force the Finnish nationals to be silent about the harms of the multicultural society. That what will be the new definition of racism, may only be guessed, but the every-day racism, violence and even deaths committed against the Finns will not probably be recognized by the new law exchange.

_______________________
Hat Tip Soloman

* The views of this blog in relation to prosecution of Holocaust denial can be read by clicking here

Breaking their own people down for dispossession.

By Mister Fox

(Article first posted at the BNP site )

In his review of “The Memoirs of Granville Sharp” in The Edinburgh Review, “Capital Punishments”, of July 1821, William Hazlitt rehearsed an anecdote about Prince Naimbanna: “If a man should try to kill me, or should try to sell me and my family for slaves, he would do an injury to as many as he might kill or sell; but if any one takes away the character of Black people, that man injures Black people all over the world; and when he has once taken away their character, there is nothing that he may not do to Black people ever after. That man, for instance, will beat Black people and, and say “Oh, it is only a Black man, why should I not beat him?” That man will make slaves of Black people; for when he has taken away their character, he will say,” Oh, they are only Black people, why should I not make them slaves?”

The word which is used to dehumanise us is “racists”, with today’s teacher trainees being told that “only whites can be racist.” It is not to make us slaves as the prince feared for his people, but is a way of excusing the importation of cheap labour or allowing Muslims to take over our country.

In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, did that which had so alarmed Prince Naimbanna. He “took away the character” of white people by describing nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 till 3rd November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. The report on the inquiry was given in March 2005. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.” There his prejudice was laid bare.

When the Establishment attack those they hate, they generalize, but when corruption is widespread amongst the Establishment parties as with the expenses scandals, they treat it as an individual matter. Although it is clear that the expenses scandal affects the parties as a whole, the media focus on individuals.

In an article entitled “Why Sir Ian Blair was right in his fight against racism,” in The First Post 3rd December 2008, novelist William Self repeated mindless ideology and slandered a whole people: “The outgoing Metropolitan Police commissioner had the courage to call wider society out on its more revolting prejudices … he confesses to regretting two or three things that he said to the press, his infamous remarks concerning the Soham murders are not among them. According to Blair, his contention that he couldn’t see what ‘all the fuss was about’ — referring to the media circus that got going in the aftermath of Holly and Jessica’s deaths — is something he’s determined to stand by.

“What Blair meant by this — and he was happy to elaborate — was that a disproportionate amount of attention was paid to these particular murders because the victims were young, white girl children, while the media are considerably less exercised by the death of young, black males.”

Has Self not heard of Stephen Lawrence or Damilola Taylor? Well, more than he has Kriss Donald. When it comes to the unfashionable issues, these writers talk in mindless clichés. There is no creativity, no pushing back boundaries when it comes to the Establishment ideology, just robotic repetition.

As for Blair — you would expect that sort of talk from a psychopath who would have an excuse, but these media elites have none. Ian Huntley’s murder of two young girls is not as bad as the imaginary prejudice against ethnics by whites! The elites are prejudiced against whites but that is not “disgusting”? Police Chief Colin Cramphorn once said concerning Muslim child-rape of young white girls that we must learn to live with it! These comments show the underlying hatred the elites have for white people.

The Telegraph of 10th November 2008 shows how these base minded people prop each other up. Sir Ian Blair will receive a pay-off worth up to £400,000 when he stands down as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in three weeks’ time. The additional sum is on top of the estimated £3.5 million pension pot, worth £160,000 a year, which he is set to receive after 30 years’ service as a policeman.
The traditional elites: the Archbishop of Canterbury, Judge Butler-Sloss and Stephan Hickman, QC, are calling for the introduction of Sharia Law. Consider that we’re told that Islam is a ‘Religion of Peace’ — both Tony Blair and Boris Johnson have asserted as much. If you care about the future for women under Islam in the west look up The Despatches programme filmed inside mosques.
A sick judge sentenced Stuart Wood, with previous convictions for violence and indecent assault on young girls, to just seven years for a vicious rape, then praised him for converting to Islam: “You have turned to Islam and this promises well for your future, particularly as you are now an adherent of a religion which respects women and self-discipline.”

Under Sharia Law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience, are taken as confessing to having sex.

A consequence of the Macpherson Report is the reduction in legal protection for those under suspicion. Ostensibly, the repeal of Double Jeopardy in 2005 followed a marathon campaign by Ann Ming after her daughter was murdered in 1989. This was a convenient case to use because the removal of Double Jeopardy was a recommendation of the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and would enable the state to repeatedly try “racists” until they can get a conviction.

Many Labour ministers have extremist links and pasts but the media cover that up. If the media had wanted, they could have exposed Labour, but because they share the same idealogy, they did not. Don’t blindly trust the media but question every statement and look things up for yourselves in search engines.

The Times, in 1954, gives evidence that even then we were being cleansed from our communities. There were 200 a month arriving without work or accommodation which was causing concern in London, Liverpool and Birmingham.

“On Merseyside, where 121 disembarked on Tuesday from the liner Ascania, there is a coloured population of about 10,000. It is estimated that 2,000 of them are receiving public assistance … all the Government departments concerned say they have no means of assessing how many of the immigrants from the West Indies and to a small extent from the African colonies, are drawing welfare allowances. This is because all the immigrants are recorded as British subjects, and have equal claims.”

When public figures make the usual biased pronouncements on us and racial issues, research their hidden agendas. On Radio Four, Simon Hughes stated that they would have to start exposing the BNP’s argument such as exploding their ‘myth’ that asylum seekers get new houses, etc. He claimed this was not true. Not only is it true, but ‘asylum seekers’ get massively preferential treatment. Hughes was deceiving the public and behind his apparently reasonable words wants to submit us to Islam.

Andrew Marr tells us what he thinks should be done to Britons if we object to being dispossessed: “Only people who understand the economic forces changing their world, threatening them but also creating new opportunities, have a chance of being immune to the old tribal chants.

“And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain ‘natural’ beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too.”

Marr is advocating fascism and “ethnocide.” The present bunch of elites are the most selfish crowd of beggars on horseback ever to attain influence. They browbeat ordinary people into having their communities taken off them but keep asylum centres out of their countryside paradises! David Dimbleby's home was recently described as”palatial” by an interviewer who was only allowed into the converted barn.

Where do Paxman and Andrews Neill and Marr live? Not in the middle of Southall or Brixton! Sometimes they do when they are young like Billy Bragg but when it comes to bringing their children up they move to nice areas.

Balancing Prosecutions – Part 2 – Rape, lies and Academia

Duke University Campus, Durham North Carolina

In part one of this essay, I looked at various of the balancing criminal prosecutions which have been taking place in Britain so as to protect our leaders' fated dreams of a successful multi-racial society. These include legitimate criminal prosecutions, where actual evidence of guilt exists, but which are afforded excessive prominence and press coverage on account of the race of the alleged perpetrator, so as to overshadow the numerically greater number of similar crimes committed by members of a more politically popular race.

The example I gave was that of the dozens of gang related child killings which occurred in Britain during 2007, 26 in London alone, the one which received the greatest publicity was the only case where the perpetrator, and other members of his gang. could be clearly identified as white.

Another example of a balancing prosecution I gave was where a case relating to a crime usually associated with one racial group (non-whites) is brought against members of a different race (whites). These cases are often brought on the basis of very questionable evidence merely because the level of publicity it will generate will mitigate against similar, genuine, prosecutions against members of other races, thus producing a balancing effect. If handled skilfully enough it can even tip the balance of perception far enough so that the wider public come to believe that the second racial group (whites) are primarily guilty, of what is in truth a majority non-white crime.

The prosecutors (including the establishment, the CPS and the controlled media, who all play a part in these cases) accept that, in most cases the trials will collapse or end in acquittals, however, before that happens they will, at least, have had the effect of producing a perception in the public mind that “white people do it too”. There is also the possibility that a particularly biased, brainwashed or ethnically stacked jury will come back with a conviction, which is clearly a huge and very useful bonus, albeit not for the innocent men who have been convicted of a fake crime.

Balancing prosecutions are, in effect show trials, either by design or presentation intended to produce a false picture to the public, so as to disguise the huge problems which the psychotic importation of a plethora of alien third world cultures into a western democracy has caused.

In part two, I will focus on the second type, and on a planned show trial in America. It is a case which never actually got to court, but which stands as a frightening example of the threat faced by young white males, in societies which are intent on holding them responsible for other people's crimes, and which view them as the single remaining legitimate target for racial hatred. It is a case which became widely known as the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax, and became one of the most high profile and talked about crimes which never happened in American history.

To understand why the Duke lacrosse case had the effect that it did you have to understand the context. The first thing to note is that the allegations in the Duke Lacrosse case involved gang rape. As I explained in part one, gang rape is not a crime commonly committed by white men of European origin. Certainly in Britain, it has been grudgingly acknowledged that most gang rapes are committed by exclusively non-white or mixed race gangs, in fact researchers have struggled to identify any examples of gang rapes being committed by gangs consisting exclusively of native whites.

Elsewhere in the world however, the picture is very different, in Africa for instance gang rape by the indigenous population has reached epidemic proportions. This phenomenon is not just happening in war zones. The problem has reached massive proportions in peace-time South Africa. In Johannesburg South Africa, surveillance studies of women attending medico-legal clinics following a rape found that one-third of the cases had been gang rapes [1].

Gang rape is also rife in many Islamic countries where it is, in fact often used as a means of punishing women.

With immigration and globalisation this scourge has moved westwards, into democracies in Europe and North America where it was previously very rare. In Europe, the word tournante is a French adjective meaning "turning" and is used as a slang term to mean a gang rape. According to the testimony of numerous victims, local women who stray from traditional conduct in the immigrant neighborhoods, such as behaving and dressing like a westerner, wanting to live as Europeans or refusing to wear traditional clothes have been targeted for tournantes. According to a CNN interview, there was a trial in Lille regarding a 13-year-old girl who had allegedly been gang-raped by as many as 80 men.

National data on rape and sexual assault in the United States reveal that about 1 out of 10 sexual assaults involve multiple perpetrators. Most of these assaults are committed by people unknown to their victims [2]. This pattern, though, differs from that in South Africa where boyfriends are often involved in gang rapes. In America, the phenomenon was historically confined to black street gangs, and the victims primarily young black women, but, as far as the victims are concerned, this is changing.

The second fact to note about the Duke Lacrosse case was that it allegedly involved the rape of a black woman by a group of white males, and it was this, added to the “gang” connotation which provided the dynamite beneath the hoax.

Interracial rape does occur in America, but it is overwhelmingly an act of black aggression against a white victim, the main victims by far being young white males in US prison, but outside prison most victims are white females. The rape of a black woman by a white man is almost unheard of. Statistics from the US Department of justice show that, in 2005, over 37,000 white women were raped by black men, whilst in the same period, less than 10 black women were raped by white men.

This does not fit the picture which the media, and particularly the academics in Collages and Universities, responsible for teaching the next generation of young Americans, want to present, and , in fact it is not the picture they present.

As in Britain, the truth about interracial rape, and racial violence in general, is totally disregarded and, in most cases, suppressed. Were you to visit the libraries of virtually any of the Universities in North America you would find academic studies, text books and pamphlets which declare, in what appears to be all seriousness, that sexual violence including gang rape is primarily perpetrated by white men, that when such allegations are made against black men they are “racist lies” probably told to protect a guilty white man, and that the overwhelming majority of interracial rapes are acts of white racism, committed by white aggressors against black victims.

These claims have no basis in truth, in fact they are the diametric opposite of the truth. The most generous description is they are academic fairy tales, made up to bolster a false prospectus and to support a political agenda for which the distortion of truth is essential.

Many of these studies, which often go on to praise the gentleness and tolerance of black men, are written by so called feminists, for whom the protection of women was clearly not a priority. To protect oneself, one has first to be in possession of the true facts, however, any woman believing such writing would be as safe as if she were sent on safari in the belief that zebra were dangerous but that lions were harmless and could generally be petted.

Such disinformation appears regularly in the media, it is the likes of Newsweek and CNN's stock in trade, and it is taught daily, face to face in classrooms across America. They are lies, but they are lies believed by many students, and possibly even by some of those telling them.

The third important feature to the Duke Lacrosse case was the fact that the accused white males were from affluent middle class families, yet the black woman they were accused of gang raping was a poor, single mother, struggling to make do by what we can call “erotic dancing”. This fact elevated the claims the Holy Trinity of liberal fantasies, combining race, gender and class dynamics in exactly the way they dream of them, rather than in the inconvenient way that such chips tend to fall in real life. The news must have been received with pure ecstasy by academia and the media when they first head it.

To them it must have seemed that the Duke lacrosse case was sent to them by God, except that few of such people would actually have believed in Him. To sustain belief in a lie it is not enough to rely forever on undocumented historical legends and conspiracy cover ups. Faith will only take a disciple so far, to hook them for life you need an example, or as those teachers and professors seeking to guide young minds to the new Utopia might put it, you need a teachable moment.

This was a teachable moment equipped with bells, neon lights and a hoopla stall.

The Duke lacrosse case was, for liberal media and the denizens of white male hating academia, the equivalent of an alien space ship crashing on Manhattan, it only ever has to happen once to prove all alien abduction stories true.

If the lacrosse players were found guilty that in itself would prove true every lie they had ever told about white men. No wonder they dived onto it like a pack of hungry wild dogs on a wounded gazelle. Those boys would be guilty, no matter what.


To be continued ..

____________________________________

[1] Swart L et al. Rape surveillance through district surgeons’ offices in Johannesburg, 1996–1998: findings, evaluation and prevention implications. South African Journal of Psychology,

[2] Greenfeld LA. Sex offences and offenders: an analysis of data on rape and sexual assault . Washington, DC, United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (NCJ 163392).

A window into dark souls

"The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists." Noel Ignatiev: American history professor Harvard and the Massachusetts college of Art

Here is some interesting and cautionary reading matter for a Sunday:

Hating Whites

We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot and so on. What do they mean by this?

And what is their long-term goal? "The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists." So says former Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, whose magazine is called "Race Traitor."

Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev does.

Continue reading at Western Voices
____________________________________

Harvard Hates the White Race?

Is the multicultural campaign really about diversity? Or is it about stamping out Western civilization and the “white race” itself?

Continue reading this 2002 article at V Dare

Praising the melting pot

Anyone who takes an interest in the comments posted by readers at this blog, will notice that we have recently received a few praising the alleged evolutionary benefits of interracial sex, including the one from a lady who ended her contribution by calling me a “bigoted, bored Nazi housewife, racist, bimbo” . (Gosh, it's over a week since I was called any of those, and even longer since they were all in one sentence)

These posters, ignore the fact that Europeans have done pretty damn well mating with other Europeans for thousands of years, as indeed have, Africans, Asians, Arabs and Orientals. Instead they tell us that, at this point in mankind's development, the best means for the species to survive is by the enthusiastic mixing of ethnic genes, which they suggest will create a more healthy, efficient, and, presumably to their mind, “ideal” specimen.

Lets disregard for a moment the fact that they are seeking to use my blog and my belief in free speech in order to further spread the sort of propaganda which can be found across the internet, in a way which they would never allow ideas such as mine to be spread on their ideologically pure little blogs and websites, and, for the sake of argument, actually give some consideration to their argument and take it to its natural conclusion.

A candidate for interbreeding?

Let us, for instance, apply this argument to other species, and, where better to start than with cats. Why on Earth do we need all these different breeds?, especially when they all seem to have their own unique weaknesses. Persian cats, as an example, tend to suffer from kidney problems, whilst their flat faces mean they are often martyrs to catarrh, and, of course, their hair is a nightmare to vacuum, the solution, according to our correspondents would apparently be to get rid of the thoroughbred breed of cat and create a longer nosed, shorter haired creature, called a “prabby” perhaps.

Many other breeds of cat could also benefit from the same treatment, Siamese tend to have that awful irritating high pitched Meow, Burmese can be grumpy, and as for Sphinx cats and the Cornish Rex, well they are just plain ugly. (Tabbies, of course, are so much prettier and healthier, albeit a little boring after a while.)

All these problems, it seems, would be solved by interbreeding, think about it, cats breed more rapidly than we do, given the same degree of dedication which has been applied to the colonisation of Europe, within a few decades we could rid ourselves of all the diverse breeds, with all their inconvenient breed related foibles, and create a single mono-breed, multi-purpose, cat. Perhaps we could call it a mogg.

Why stop at cats? Dog breeds are equally problematic, corgis snap, labradors go to fat, spaniels shed, and Afghans are totally useless when it comes to guarding your house. Surely the way ahead for the survival of the species is through the creation of the mono-breed mutt.

According to the logic of proposing interracial mixing as an evolutionary solution, amalgamating all the different cat and dog breeds into single homogenised moggs and mutts, with all the irritating weaknesses and hair loss problems bred out, would be for the betterment of both species. It would certainly make the process of choosing pets less complicated, albeit perhaps a little less interesting.

Beyond domestic pets, mass interbreeding within the animal kingdom would solve any number of problems, and think of the time it would save conservationists. Those currently fretting over that rare and endangered species of Saharan cheetahs, are clearly missing the obvious solution of importing a few thousand of the sub-Saharan breed and “Viola!” (its not as if there isn't a template).

Indeed for the sake of diversity (albeit, it would not be diverse for long) they could try bringing in some leopards, certainly a more hardy type of big cat. Who knows maybe leopards and cheetahs would mate successfully and they could produce, healthier and more efficient “Cheetards”, which would not only be better at climbing trees, but they would do it a damn sight quicker. (Not terribly useful in the Sahara, but, hey you can't have everything)

Sumatran tigers under threat? Just send down an Empire Windrush full of Bengal or Siberian tigers, problem sorted!

I accept that leopards and cheetahs are different species of big cat, and there is quite a a difference between Siberian tiger and a Sumatran one, but then again, unlike mules, which, as one pro mixing blogger by the name of Liliput kindly reminded me, can not breed, ligers and tigons can do so, albeit, as yet, without great success, so the scenario might not be so absurd.

However, more prosaically, when it comes to two breeds of cheetah , the differences are much less marked and they should mate with little difficulty. Surely those seeking to preserve genetic differences dating back thousands, or even millions, of years are being over sentimental, or even “racist” aren't they? - scarily such allegations are already being made.

“Woah!” I can hear the race mixing enthusiasts shout “We were not talking about animals, it is only different coloured people we want chucked in the melting pot!”

Ah yes maybe that's true, maybe it is only human beings who they want to intermix, indeed, in reality, their target is even narrower than that, they only want their meting pots in Europe or North America, but certainly no-where else.

It is only in the lands where there is still an indigenous or majority white populations where they want to set up their meting pots. As we all know, a desire for ethnic preservation is only a sin when white people do it, amongst any other group it is viewed as both admirable and indeed a basic human right.

I will, therefore, restrict the comments to human beings. However, for the sake of fairness, let us, for once ignore Europe and North America where the unquestioned dogma espousing the “benefits” of sex with other races have been preached to the point of indoctrination, and turn the spotlight on those races and nationalities who are never told they are racist if they wish to stick to their own, and who are not endlessly encouraged to jump between the sheets with the first foreigner they encounter.

I can not see why anyone would object, surely if there are such great evolutionary advantages to race mixing for white people, other races would doubtless also benefit from mixing their genes with those from other ethnic groups.

Most races have cultural issues, some might call them flaws (certainly the likes of Jack Straw do when referring to the English) maybe, like with white people. some of these “issues” are genetic, and can be improved by mixing in a few exotic genes. It is worth considering, after all, we are constantly told how good it is for us.

Lets look at Africa, where there certainly do appear to be some cultural problems, which are hindering development and which arguably put their long term futures at risk. It has been suggested, in the same way as the English are alleged to have a propensity for binge drinking and anti-social behaviour, the African character lacks drive and industry, and is prone to acts of irrational violence (recent events in Kenya and South Africa would seem to bear this out). If this is true, then the solution is obvious, they should import as many Chinese as possible (its already happening) and, in a few generations of Afro/Oriental amour we might see a new industrious and driven Africa, with a very rational approach to violence.

A long term solution to the Middle East might be to encourage the hot blooded young men there to become romantically involved with Melanesians and Australian Aborigines. Who can tell, if the benefits of race mixing are what we are told they are, the desire for jihad may fade as they discover the pleasures of making love and getting pi............

Hold on, what's that high pitched shrieking sound I hear?!! ... Oh. Its the fans of interracial sex, objecting to what I am saying. What's that they say?, (its so hard to hear them over John Cruddas's flatulence, and Lily Allen being sick) ..... “racism?” they shout .... “racial stereotypes?” they cry.... “sounds like eugenics?” ...... they gasp .

Of course they are right, it does sound racist, what I am saying in the paragraphs above does rely on racial stereotypes to argue its case and, if I was being serious, it would sound far too much like eugenics for comfort. Then again it sounded exactly like that when they said exactly the same thing to us. The only difference being that we were called Nazis when we objected.

The Redeeming of Miss Goody

On Sunday, as anyone resident in the United Kingdom will know, the reality TV star and terminal cancer victim, Jade Goody married her handsome, if troubled, younger lover Jack Tweed in a no-expenses spared ceremony and reception, with the setting provided by rock superstar Elton John and the gown donated free by Harrods owner Mohamed al Fayed.

With the national media crowding around, straining for the chance to catch a glimpse of the nation's latest favourite celebrity couple, the proceedings took place behind closed doors, this being due to the fact that the publication rights have been sold to OK Magazine and the "Living" TV channel, as the dying star seeks to earn enough money in her final months to support her two young sons, by a previous younger lover, after her death

In the course of what it seems will be a tragically short life, Jade Goody has, within her homeland, joined that tiny group of celebrities instantly known by a single Christian name. If you mention "Kate" a any number of possibilities spring to mind, Kate Winslet's Oscar triumph notwithstanding. However, mention "Jade" in Britain and everyone knows who you mean.

The degree to which this young woman's plight has touched the nation's heart is demonstrated not only the fact that her photograph no adorns on the front pages of even our more serious newspapers, but the Justice minister has seen fit to waive the 7:00 PM curfew requirements of her grooms parole conditions, enabling him to spend his wedding night with his new bride.

There is speculation that Jade may agree to allow her final moments to be filmed, in order to further secure her children's future, and if she does, the purchaser can be assured of a large and tearful audience for the end of what must be, by any standards, a truly bizarre life.

It is even more bizarre when one considers that it is only two short years since these same newspapers now gushing with praise for Jade's courage and paying a fortune for a single photograph of her, were indulging in a hate campaign targeted at the destruction of this same young woman, who, to a hack, they referred to as "Britain's most hated woman".

For it was then, in 2007, what that same media declared Jade guilty of one of the greatest crimes of our age.

Appearing on that year's Celebrity Big Brother, Jade, the then nineteen year old Jack Tweed, who, together with her mother, had accompanied Jade into the house, and two other young female contestants of a similar socio-economic background decided to take exception to a fourth female contestant, from a different socio-economic background, whom they apparently considered to be, false, "stuck-up" and altogether too pleased with herself.

As any fan of reality TV will know, this is not an uncommon occurrance in such an artificial and claustrophobic situation, where personal likes and dislikes become exaggerated in an environment which is uniquely conducive to conflict and the taking of sides. It was certainly not the first time that such a antagonism has arisen on Big Brother.

However, what made this conflict different in the eyes of the media, and the ever vigilant guardians of social cohesion, was that whilst Jade, Tweed and their two companions were white, the contestant whom they had taken against was the strikingly beautiful, but clearly rather pleased with herself, Bollywood star Shilpha Shetty.

To the media and assorted zealots this automatically meant that, rather than a conflict of characters or classes, the bickering took on an entirely different and more sinister element. To them, this was unquestionably racially motivated bullying, and as Jade was the most outspoken (and famous) of the four, she was viewed as racist in chief, as such she was singled out for special criticism.

Unaware of the controversy swirling outside "the house" which had now taken on international proportions, the bickering and bitcing continued, at one point descending into a shouting march, which was repeatedly re-broadcast over the following days, carefully edited to highlight Jade's role as victimiser and Shilpha as victim.

To the obvious irritation to the forces of multicultural purity there was a marked lack of racist language involved in the conflict, except from fellow contestant Jermaine Jackson, who referred to Jade and her friends as white trash, although he was immediately excused on account of being black. Muttered allegations were made that Jack Tweed had used a "word" in a conversation which had not been broadcast, but, despite 24 hour filming, footage never appeared, and it was eventually admitted that the word, although offensive, was not racist, in any event Jack Tweed was not a celebrity in his own right, he had no careeer to destroy and was, therefore, not the target the press were aiming at.

Yet, for all her famed lack of education or sophistication, for days Jade failed to utter a syllable which event the most committed UAF zealot could construe as racist. Then, at last, those crowding round the scaffold got what they had been waiting for, when, in an angry outburst, well out of Shilpha Shetty's hearing, Jade blurted out the "P" word. …uh? … no not THAT "P" word. In a moment of anger, Jade referred to Ms Shetty as "Shilpha Poppadom" and the forces of racial outrage exploded.

Across the nation, television screens were alive with people explaining how offensive this reference to a quick fried, flatbread, wafer was. Indeed, I recall seeing one particular Asian lady puffing out her ample bosom and asking in a decidedly Lady Bracknell like tone, "Would they call her Jade Fish and Chips?"

To which the obvious answer would be "probably not, but who'd give a toss if they did?", but in Britain in 2007, such an answer would be unthinkable.

As a result Jade became a pariah, her later tearful attempts to make amends were scorned, and she became the first Celebrity big Brother contestant who's departure from the house was filmed in silence, without the usual cheering or catcalling crowd, so fearful were the programme makers that the public reaction to her might actually be violent.

Now officially the most hated woman in Britain, a title previously only bestowed on child murderers and Margaret Thatcher, Jade's career was in ruins, and was hurting into that dark void where fallen stars, broken on the wheel of political correctness are consigned.

Having uttered the word "Poppadom", Jade was cast as a villain, guilty of an unforgivable sin. All but unemployable, her celebrity endorsement income drying up and the once thriving sales of her personal brand of perfume non-existent, Jade had to look overseas to earn a living for herself an her children, her every appearance dogged by recriminations and the ghost of Big Brother.

She was still walking the march of shame when, whilst appearing on the Mumbai version of Big Brother again with Shilpa Shetty in an attempt to show how non-racist she was, she received news of the positive cancer diagnosis which will eventually kill her. Again, as with so much in her life the news was relayed on live TV.

With the news of that diagnosis, Jade's career underwent its second major reversal, from scorned pariah one moment, she went to much loved national icon the next, with a far larger fan base even than she had before. As I said in an earlier article realities can change and Jade's reality again changed overnight, It seems certain that when, in the next few months she loses her battle against the ravaging disease which is rapidly overwhelming her, she will die as a larger
than life and well loved star.

Does the short life of Jade Goody tell us anything valuable about the world we now live in? A creature of the celebrity age, without any perceptible talent, she became rich and famous, merely by being herself, then it was being herself which all but destroyed her, before, by being physically destroyed herself, she has found some form of salvation.

And what of those who shrilly screamed for her ruin, who wanted her broken to make an example of her because she had dared to dislike someone whom society requires her to embrace. How do they feel now, watching her as she plays out her final scenes in the public spotlight, do they feel any qualms for what they tried to do to her? I doubt it.

Sadly, perhaps all it does teach us is that in the distorted and unnatural world we currently inhabit, when you are accused of racism, whether those claims have merit or not, it will take a death sentence to redeem you.

_____________________

Transitory realities

A subject which I had planned to write about last week, resulted from a discussion on BBC2's Newsnight, hosted by Kirsty Walk, between a columnist from the Spectator and someone who had previously held a high ranking position in the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The discussion focused on the recent news story regarding Prince Harry who, as I mentioned in a couple of recent posts, has been required to undergo re-education, due to a perceived failure to pay sufficient homage to the modern day dogmas of multiculturalism and the unquestioned benefits of ethnic diversity.

The guy from the CRE was naturally firmly in favour Harry's punishment, whereas the Spectator columnist was less enthusiastic, and indeed expressed a healthy scepticism for the diversity worship which is now an essential qualification for holding down a position within the mainstream media. As such, I doubt we will see or hear much more from him.

However, the debate itself, and indeed those debating, are of less relevance than was the parting shot by the bigwig from the Campaign for Racial Engulfment, who, just as Kirsty was terminating the discussion, turned to his adversary and smugly announced that a multi-cultural society was “the reality of modern Britain”.

This, of course is a statement we are hearing more and more, as the party faithful, who have worked so feverishly to undermine our national soul, flaunt what they consider to be their victory, and seek to trump our hand with the apparent fait accompli that what they sought so hard to achieve, has come to pass.

Of course, they are correct that multiculturalism is a reality of of today's Britain, in the same way that communism was the reality of Czechoslovakia in the 1960's, warfare is the reality of the Congo and Afghanistan, whist bankruptcy is the increasing reality of Zimbabwe, and it is no more wholesome or welcome.

The multiracial “reality” of our country has been achieved by deception, by intimidation and bullying, by bribery, corruption, propaganda and lies, it was however not achieved by either consent or democracy.

At no stage during the last fifty years, whilst they were laying the foundations of the monster they have created, did any mainstream party stand for election with a manifesto which even admitted that they would encourage increased immigration, let alone facilitate the creation of a multiracial society, especially not when another mainstream party stood on a manifesto promising that they wouldn't do so. When it came to elections, none of the main parties acknowledged the “reality” of unchecked immigration, therefore “NO” was never an option on offer, and when one party, the BNP, did stand up and say “NO” it was vilified and lied about in a manner which continues to this very day.

When those who hate us brag of the reality they forced upon us, they are no better than the rapist who taunts his victim with the reality of her rape, for that too was taken without consent.

On first reading that may seem an extreme analogy, but before you dismiss it consider the parallels.

The multicultural “reality” was achieved first through lies and deception “Your safe, ... it wont happen” and by seduction “its cool, its exotic .... love that Burundi beat.. feel the rhythm .... you know you want it” but, when that only worked with a few airhead bimbos, then came the fear, the intimidation, the bullying and, of course, the allegations .. “if you don't let me you are a racist! ... racist! ....racist!!”.

That one word became the WMD, which they used against us relentlessly.

To speak out against the creation of a multicultural society, or to mention any potential downside was to be a racist. Name one person who has dared speak out against the shrieking gods of diversity, or pointed out that nothing is enriched by being changed beyond recognition, who has not been labeled with that multi purpose word, which we have been brainwashed, beyond reason, to dread being called.

However, to submit through fear or because of fraud is not to consent, and no matter how many times our abusers tell us we were asking for it, the truth is we were not. As a nation we never consented to what has been done to us, we were merely never permitted to say NO.

The reality of a violation does not make the act any less wrong or mean that what was done can not be put right, and victims, no natter how wounded, can move in to a new reality, where they are no longer victims.

Realities live within a time frame, they are not inevitably eternal and many one time realities have gone on to become historical anachronisms. The brave Czechs fought hard and finally shook off the yoke of Communism, they are now a free nation and their president is one of the few great statesmen and defenders of freedom left in Europe. The Czech reality has changed, and surely we all hope that the Congo, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe will also, in time, find new realities.

Britain has lived through prior realities which have passed into the history books, we were, after all one of the early European republics, and no doubt those living under drab Cromwellian rule believed their reality had changed forever.

The belief that the present is forever and can never be changed is the friend of demagogues and abusers, it is a lie designed to enslave us. Don't get me wrong, I know how convincing that lie can be, given that so much of what we see and read is designed to promote that lie. However, we must not be deceived by, for instance. the diversity worship we see daily on our TV screens, that is nothing but the Western equivalent of the little flower girl singing to the Dear Leader, it is state sponsored propaganda and no more proof of permanence than she is.

Today's “reality” exists only for so long as it is permitted to. History shows us that one time realities fade and new ones take their place. Today's reality may seem ugly and depressing, but it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Our enemies can flaunt today's victories, as Hitler might have flaunted Dunkirk, but that should not stop us fighting for a better tomorrow.

The truth is that, for all their bragging, our enemies were never so weak as they are today, and it is at times like this that realities can change.

__________________________

Ignoring the cracks

When a great structure or edifice begins to crumble, be it a towering rock face, a mighty building or a huge and imposing statue, the early warnings of imminent disaster are often small, and easy to miss or to ignore. A distant rumble, a shifting rock or a small cascade of pebbles are ominous signs of what is to come, but frequently only spotted by those who are truly prepared to look. Thus it can be for a sovereign nation state, and is how it has been with Britain.

Those who wish to undermine a society are most effective when they embark on their campaign of sabotage in small ways, so that their dark work remains undetected for as long as possible by those they seek to destroy, until the foundation upon which they stand is so weakened that it cannot withstand the final push which will send all which it once supported hurtling to oblivion.

Some have been warning us for years that there are forces within this land which are committed to destroying everything which is great about Great Britain. For a long time they were lonely voices calling to deaf ears, although more recently others, including one time New Labour voters, such as myself, have begun to see the truth in what they are have been telling us, and to appreciate the growing threat which we, as a nation, face.

However, for many the erosion of our culture has been so gradual and piecemeal that, even many of those who suspect that something is happening, do not yet realise how far it has gone and how narrow are the remaining planks on which they stand.

Commenting at the Green Arrow blog on an earlier post of mine which focused on the recent protests against the employment of foreign workers, a very aptly named blogger calling himself “Not my Granddad's Labour party” wrote:

The reason that this dispute has woken the British people is because it's a sudden change rather than a gradual, almost imperceptible attrition. If you look at the way that 'enrichment' has been implemented up to now, it has been a gradual destruction of our way of life - a death by a thousand cuts.

Each cut has been a minor annoyance, but not enough to bring people out on the streets.

- Nobody's actually rioted about the banning of 'Three Little Pigs' or crucifixes.

- People haven't been willing to die in a ditch about the gradual extension of the definition of Politically Incorrect speech.

- Nobody has taken to the barricades when the Union Jack and Flag of St George were deemed 'inappropriate'.

- Families have just had to grin and bear it when they've been pushed to the back of housing waiting-lists to make way for vibrant fast-breeders and their multiple wives.

But losing your job, and then inevitably your house, is hardly a minor annoyance. The EUrabians have made a major tactical error here. They have awoken a sleeping giant.

Not My Granddad's Labour is correct that the average Briton is less likely to fully grasp what they are loosing if it is chopped away gradually and by stealth, especially when there are so many deliberate and carefully placed distractions put in his way.

The enemy has, of course, been less cautious where they are unobserved, or, more accurately observed only by the innocent, be in little doubt that were hidden cameras secreted in many classrooms, and people were able to see the lies, disinformation, historical inaccuracies and blatant propaganda being fed to our children they would at last grasp what is being done. Of course, a corrupt media own the cameras, and they would not tell us the truth, so away from the public gaze, the next generation continue to receive an education which is little more than multicultural propaganda, hate and lies.

I wonder though whether the terrorists amongst us do believe them made a tactical error over the foreign workers dispute, or whether they believe that their work has been so successful that they no longer need to hide and that their years of work have brought our society to the point where a final push will send what remains of a once great culture tumbling into the historical void.

If they did think that, it would be hard to fault their logic, for look at where we are, and look at where we came from.

It is hard to think of another culture which has become quite as diminished as ours has and which has done so quite so rapidly. With our culture, our once rich language has been reduced to dumbed down politically correct mush. Words and phrases which tripped off the tongues of our mother's generation, and many before, have been condemned and silenced for fear that they might offend cultures which a hundred years ago struggled to master the wheel.

Members of a legitimate political party are banned from working in our police force, and now in our churches, but nobody dares to say “Hey this is what happened in East Germany in the 1960 's (or indeed Nazi Germany in the 1930's)”.

Pictures of the Boxing day crowds in Oxford street, appear in the news papers and on TV, and nobody has the courage to point out that there is not an indigenous, white, face amongst them.

Day after day we see clear evidence of the totally disproportionate levels of murder, rape, and mayhem committed against us by ethnic minorities, yet we remain silent when our lying media and politicians tell us that they, the ethnic minorities, are our victims.

The moment a single European voice, such as Geert Wilders' is raised against what is being done to us and our European brothers across our continent, he is banned from our shores (albeit that may be reversed if in dawns on David Silly-Bland that was a tactical error). Yet a days before a Muslim Peer makes a totally undemocratic threat and our legislators fawningly and instantly submit.

Earlier generations of Britons would have died fighting before they allowed this to happen, but we cringe and submit to it like beaten mutts. Yet, what is it we cringe before? A bunch of ill educated or hate filled communists, a dishonest media and a regiment of alleged human rights lawyers, who defend only the human rights of a selected few, together with a few lying, soul selling, politicians and above all the terrorism of a single word. We cringe because if we do otherwise we might be called “racists” or we might offend people from cultures, where wife beating, infanticide, honour killing, female genital mutilation, gang-rape, homophobia, murder, torture and corruption are endemic, - some indeed where ritual killing, cannibalism and slavery still occur, - and people we have granted sanctuary to and yet whom we are taught to feel indebted – and often inferior - to.

How have we, the British, come to this?

We have reached this point through the gradual, drip, drip, drip erosion of our culture and or national self esteem. In many ways Briton has come to resemble the brave soldier who would once have taken on and bettered any foe, but who now submits, childlike, to his hectoring wife, because after years of nagging, she has broken his spirit.

That analogy, albeit sexist (there are many men who nag their wives) sums up quite well how this has been achieved. By a process of first making us feel uncomfortable, then guilty, followed by telling us repeatedly that we are in the wrong, they have brought us to a point where what they say is the commonly accepted truth and what tell us has become the dogma of the state.

Is it any surprise that our enemies believe that we are vanquished, that they have won and as such no longer have to take their time and stealthily kill us by a thousand cuts?. That they have become bolder and more blatant and have moved to the next phase. You need not take my word for it, look around you and you will see it happening.

It is not over, but my God we have left it late to fight back, and there will be damage which can not be repaired. However, much can still be saved, if we decide to save it. In the dark days of World War II it looked as if all was lost, but it was not. A few hundred years before that the enemy appeared set to breach the walls of Vienna, but they were forced back. We have come back from the edge before, and we can do so again, but the window will not remain open forever.

The edifice crumbles slowly and can be repaired, but there comes a point where the fall will be fast and inevitable. Let us as a people awake before we reach that point.