The way things are .....

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

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

Part One- an alliance of two evils

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article for Rule Britannia

I have written an article for the Rule Britannia site which can be read by clicking here.

In the wake of the scenes overnight in Tottenham, an essay entitled "The flawed Ideology destroying the West" may seem quite apt, however, in this instance I have focused on the economic damage being done to the West rather than the very obvious social damage which is also taking place. 

Losing things of value

Often pleasure can be gained from the simplest of things. A weekend breakfast treat I have enjoyed for most of my life is a soft boiled egg together with, what most people refer to as “soldiers”, but which my mother always called “dip fingers”, that is to say buttered toast, or sometimes bread, cut into finger like strips which can be dipped into the soft yellow yolk.

Personally I find the best results are achieved if you part boil the egg and then coddle it in hot water. To do this I bring the water to the boil, carefully drop the egg in to it, and leave it to to boil at full heat for one minute, before turning the heat off and allowing the egg to rest (coddle) in the hot water for between five and eight minutes depending upon the size of the egg and how runny or not one likes the yoke to be.  For my taste a five minutes and ten second coddle produces a perfect egg, whereas my husband, who I suspect, as a teenager, may have been scared by Edwina Currie prefers a firmer yolk, so his eggs receive a seven minute coddle.

One of the simplest breakfast dishes possible, certainly one of the simplest ways to cook an egg, but one which, for those of us who like eggs, is unfailingly a pleasure to eat.

Boiled eggs are, of course, eaten all over the world, in Singapore, soft boiled eggs are known as “half boiled eggs” but they are eaten in a very different way, tipped out of their shell's into bowls and mixed with Soy sauce.  The Swedish on the other hand cook their eggs until they are hard and serve them with “kalles kaviar” - otherwise known as cod's roe.

However, a boiled egg served in its shell, with the top sliced off, sitting in a china egg cup, and served with buttered toast soldiers strikes one as being quintessentially English. Certainly it is a breakfast dish which has been served to British children, and secretly enjoyed by British adults, for many decades, maybe centuries, and has signified the breaking of the night fast in Britain and in every corner of what was once her Empire for generations.

Egg and soldiers, buttered scones, Yorkshire pudding, crumble, custard roast beef or muffins. The simple pleasure of such simple treats, enjoyed before us by generations of English men and women is something we can share with those who went before us, even if was are no longer permitted to share their certainty of their role within the world or their pride in what we are as a people.

However, much has changed, not only in the way we are required to perceive ourselves, but also in how we view our food.

Although, in recent years, some of the better chefs began to rediscover the forgotten glory of English cuisine, in the last forty years or so it has become fashionable to mock English food and and portray it as amounting to little more than a dried up pork chop served with soggy cabbage and boiled potato. Of course, the reality is in fact very different, even if  we ignore some of the delicious regional dishes which food critics are beginning to revisit and enjoy, but concentrate upon the most derided of British recipes they include some of the most ultimately successful comfort food ever invented.

Created in a world before central heating when for nine months out of twelve a family needed warmth and substance to sustain them, there is little in the world as comforting and appetising as food like Shepard's pie, steak and kidney (or steak and ale if you prefer), rhubarb crumble or bangers and mash.  Such food may now be viewed as “heavy” but in a different time, before cars and sedentary lifestyles, that is what was required, in the same way the more exotic flavours from far away places such as Asia or Mexico were designed to hide the taste of putrid meat, much of British food was designed to get one through a British winter, and were massively successful in doing so.

Traditional British food can be as appetising as any nations, with flavours and ingredients which can easily adapt to a health conscious, centrally heated modern life style, but it is not "cool" to say so.  

Multicultural zealots crow that the British now love curry, the subliminal propaganda in their message being that curry is a benefit only possible due to mass immigration, an assertion which ignores the fact Britain was a nation of tea drinkers for centuries before we thought it necessary to import the half the Indian sub-continent to live amongst us.  Furthermore, do the same fanatics ever suggest that the international popularity of hamburgers and Coca-cola means that America should invade the world?

The denigration of simple English food is but a part of a far larger and more sinister campaign, to downgrade all things traditionally viewed as British, or even European, whilst promoting all things imported.  It is a malevolent campaign which exploits the natural instinct to enjoy the exotic, with the implicit suggestion that the “the other”, the foreign and the exotic is “better”.

When it comes to music, for instance, we are told that music which appeals to the baser instincts is somehow more democratic and less elitist than that which touches other instincts, which are less easy to define.  For centuries European musicians and composers have strived to appeal to the heart and to touch the soul, yet in this age their music has been eclipsed by rhythms which caresses gyrating loins and lyrics which worship the posturing, gangster, aggressions of other cultures.   

Even songs of love are now viewed as being of less value than those which celebrate other emotions.

It is of course easier to teach the lazy and the stupid to enjoy what pleasures their groin rather than their soul, but is it better?

In few areas has beauty been so starkly rejected in favour of ugliness as it has in art. When we look at the great art of our forebears what are the feelings and emotions the images create? Are they similar in any way to the feelings and emotions evoked by paintings made with dung, crucifixes in urine, unmade beds or animal corpses in formaldehyde? I don't think so.

Why is beauty no longer considered appropriate to art?.

The same applies to our architecture. In a thousand years from now will people flock to view the glass, steel and plastic architecture of our age as we still flock to view the great cathedrals of Rome the triumphal Viennese palaces  or the stately homes and castles of England?

Are any of these changes really for the better, and is that really the point? Is the whole purpose to create something new or is the destruction of what went before what its really all about?

Like our heritage, so much within our culture is now actively denied.  Speak of British culture and some baying moron will jump in with some mocking sarcastic quip about morris dancing or cheese rolling.  To hear them speak is as if Tallis and Elgar never existed, as if English choirs never sang as if Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dickens and Austin never wrote and as if haunting folk songs never echoed along our coasts.

To respect other cultures it is not necessary to disrespect or deny our own, but that is what is happening, so maybe respecting other cultures is not the point at all.

The point is to so devalue our culture in our eyes that we will not care what happens to it.  After all, a man will only fight to defend that which he loves whilst he still loves it, if he ceases to love it why would he fight for it? Of course, if he is never taught what he has he will not miss it when its taken from him, and if he's never seen the stars he will never know their beauty and will not care if they cease to be.

You can only miss what you know, or what you can remember.  If I was never allowed another boiled egg on Sunday morning, I would miss them, but if I had never had one I would not know what I missed, and it I was told that they were nasty, why wouldn't I believe it? On a more mundane level if instead of boiling my egg, I had broken it into an omelet and mixed it with fried onions, pepper herbs and spices, it might be nice, but it wouldn't be the same.

That may sound a tiny issue, but there are a million different different experiences, feelings thoughts and objects which come together to create a national identity, we can lose them one by one until we lose them all.  

Our enemies seek to take away what we value by changing how we view it. The louder they play the music the less easy it is to hear the words and the spicier they make our food the less we realise what we are really being fed.

As the music around us gets louder and our food is more exotic, we are told that its better, but it isn't better, its merely different.  However, if it carries on long enough we won't know that any more.

The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide by Geert Wilders

Speech Geert Wilders, Rome, 25 March 2011

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization – the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”

My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.

Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.

The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.

It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.

Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.

In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.

Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.

At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.

The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote – I quote – “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.

Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.

This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

• The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said – I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.
• Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said – I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”
• Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that – I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”
• Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said – I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.

• In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said – I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.
• Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.

Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.

However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.

Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote – I quote – a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.

Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.

Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – End of quote.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned

In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to – I quote – “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.

Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”

Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures – it is plain common sense.

Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.

Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.

My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.

Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” – End of quote.

Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” – End of quote.

In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.

Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.

Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.

This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.

The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.

Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.

I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.

Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.

Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of – I quote – “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.

And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.

Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.

Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.

The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.

It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.

While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”

For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.

The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.

Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.

While today – at last – our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.

There are a few things which we can do in this regard.

One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.

Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says – I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”

A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.

National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.

I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and – what an ironic coincidence – on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”

Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.

The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.

On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.

The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.

Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.

In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must – I quote – “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” – end of quote.

In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that – I quote – “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” – end of quote.

This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.

The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.

We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.

My friends,

Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally – better late than never – come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.

Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.

Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.

Let me end with a final – and a positive – remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.

I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.

Thank you very much.

______________
Source - Atlas Shrugs

A Response to Cameron by Dr. Frank Ellis

From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP
Date: 9th February 2011 A.D.

Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech at the Munich Security Conference February 2011 Concerning the Threat to Western Liberal Democracies by Islam and Islamic-Sponsored Terrorism

Dear Mr Cameron

I am writing to you in connection with the speech you delivered at the Munich Security Conference last week since its subject matter pertains not just to the security of the United Kingdom and other Western European states but also to the long-term survival of the indigenous population of this country itself: the ultimate security question.

You begin your speech by seeking to reassure fellow member NATO states that despite the dire condition of the UK economy Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% defence-spending target. In general terms that is good. However, the standard government line notwithstanding – Labour as well as Tory – Britain is not made safer nor is our national security enhanced by the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan. The NATO presence in Afghanistan has, I believe, more to do with the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

Now, you begin your discussion of the terrorist threat in the UK by saying that some of these attacks are carried out ‘by our own citizens’ and that the perpetrators, Muslims, ‘are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens’ (my emphasis). But these Muslim terrorists do not regard me, us, as ‘their fellow citizens’. Indeed, they are correct: I am not one of ‘their fellow citizens’. Nor do I wish to be. Formally these people may have acquired a British passport but in what way can these people be regarded as ‘our own citizens’ when they live in parallel societies paid for by the white indigenous population and are at best indifferent to, and at worst murderously hostile, to the interests of the host indigenous population? If I went to live in Munich and started to make demands of indigenous Germans that they adapt to my folkways, habits and customs and threatened to kill them, would Germans regard me as one of their own? I doubt it.

True, Europe has suffered from terrorism before the arrival of Al Qaeda and its imitators. The key difference is however that groups such as The Angry Brigade (England) IRA (Northern Ireland), The Red Brigades (Italy), Direct Action (France) and Baader-Meinhof & RAF (West Germany) were all home-grown groups. People who were active in the IRA belong to the tribes of the British Isles. Muslims have no such claim. They are alien. Islamic terrorism would not be a problem in the United Kingdom had we maintained strict control over our borders and not permitted the huge influx of immigrants from Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Somalia. This was and remains a direct consequence of the cult of multiculturalism, a cult that preaches the poisonous view that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans have as much right to live in Britain as the white indigenous population.

You say that: ‘Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries’. Who exactly needs to wake up? Millions of people throughout Europe who over the last 40 years have seen their cities turned into Third World slums, who have witnessed, and suffered from, the relentless influx of immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, who have seen their institutions – police, armed forces, health services – corrupted by multiculturalism, who have seen their primary and secondary schools and universities turned into centres of politically correct indoctrination, where to be white, middle class, heterosexual and Christian is to suffer a constant stream of insults and barely concealed hatred, where, on the other hand, to be black or non-white is to enjoy special, protected-species status since non-whites are supposed to be bearers of some wonderful gift (referred to as diversity) and a source of great wisdom. Those of us all over Europe need no lectures from you Mr Cameron on what has been happening. If they are not exceptionally wealthy and have no choice but to endure the daily grind of commuting into our large cities or may actually have to live there, white people are confronted every day of their lives with the consequences of ‘vibrant multicultural diversity’ and have been for a long time. Take it from me they hate it and where possible they will avoid it all costs (white flight). If they work in the public sector and have large mortgages they will endure the consequences of the cult in silence, confiding their fears only to a trusted few.

All over Europe an unaccountable class of political-functionaries has sought to impose the alien cult of multiculturalism on the white indigenous populations. Your call that we need to stand up to Muslims - and it is not just Muslims – comes far too late and is, in any case, thoroughly dishonest. The danger to the white indigenous population posed by mass non-white immigration has been evident for a long time and politicians of all parties have either encouraged this process of dispossession or have been too cowardly to speak out in public. When, in his famous speech, Enoch Powell warned of what was to come he was mocked, derided and abandoned by people like you. The damage done to the indigenous population, its history, culture and future may now be irreversible. I pray to God that I am wrong; that it is not too late to save our nation.

Your attempts to distinguish between Islam as a religion of peace and Islamic terrorism are doomed to failure. Such is the overwhelming collectivist ethos of Islam and the complete absence of any respect for the dissenting individual that Muslims resident in this country who do not take part in acts of terrorism are not going to break ranks with the extremists. For Muslims the rule of law, free speech and liberal democracy are alien Western abstractions that mean very little. Given the choice between the rule of law, free speech and the civil society and Islam - in any shape or form - Muslims resident in this country will support the cause of Islam. There is no love for the British: we are just a source of welfare payments and material provision that would be impossible in Pakistan and Somalia (the reason immigrants come here).

You state the following: ‘It is vital that we make the distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again people equate the two’. Again, your attempt to separate religion from ideology is doomed to failure for the obvious reason that Islam, the ideology-religion, recognises no lay principle: it is all or nothing; it is Islam for the believers; Dhimmitude for the rest. Consequently, whatever action Western governments take to neutralise what they believe to be the purely political, ideological aspect of Islam, will always be interpreted as an attack on Islam as a whole. Indeed, such measures will be an attack on Islam as a whole since Islam does not recognise the division between state and civil society; the right of the individual to resist its collectivist ethos (just like communism incidentally).

The other factor that makes Islam a threat to the Christian West is the birth rate among Islamic immigrants resident in the West. The huge increase in the Muslim population throughout the West may well turn out to be the decisive factor that overwhelms the white indigenous population in their ancient lands, reducing them to a suppressed minority. In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.

You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: ‘hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy’. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt’s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.

Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of “we” does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of ‘we’ refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population ‘to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong’. If, according to you, the ‘we’ failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this ‘vision’? If they have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of ‘vision of society’.

You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that ‘instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone’. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is ‘open to everyone’ is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult’s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others. Do Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Zulus want to share their national identity with me? Of course not: and why should they? It is their exclusive property.

Nor do immigrants wish to share their identity with white Europeans. When, in 2008, he addressed a large Turkish audience in Cologne, the Turkish Prime Minister, Reccep Erdogan was quite clear by what he understood on the question of integration. He told his audience: ‘I understand the sensitivity you show towards the question of assimilation. Nobody can expect that you tolerate assimilation. Nobody can expect that you submit yourself to assimilation. Then assimilation is a crime against humanity.’ Erdogan’s vision of how he expects Turks to behave in Europe is just one of a number of reasons why a Muslim non-European state such as Turkey can have no place at all in the EU.

You argue that Muslims are attracted to extremism from a sense of not belonging. Again you claim that this is the failure of ‘the wider society’. You might like to ask yourself why indigenous Britons - ‘the wider society’ - do not wish to engage with Muslims. Here are some of the reasons why indigenous, white Christian (or heathen) Britons want nothing to do with Islam: Tuesday 11th September 2001; Thursday 7th July 2005; suicide-homicide bombers; sharia; jihad; the obscene practice of female circumcision; so-called honour killings; stoning women to death; polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls; extreme censorship; hatred of free speech; welfare parasitism; mosques; continuing, active terroristic hatred of white European host societies; and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey).

I am not convinced that you are serious about combatting the damage done by multiculturalism. If you are then the following measures should be taken:

(i). in the interests of clarity and in order to remove any remaining ambiguities you shall publicly state that multiculturalism has failed in the United Kingdom and that it shall no longer be promoted as policy, above all in education, so that white indigenous children are not denied their history, culture and national pride to which they are entitled and that where such subjects are taught they are not taught in away that denigrates the great achievements of Britain across the entire spectrum of human endeavour;

(ii). the government shall acknowledge that the Macpherson Report (1999) has had a disastrous effect on policing especially in large cities with large black populations and shall publicly disown the report’s central conclusions and recommendations;

(iii). the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 shall be repealed along with all other legislation which aims to stifle free speech under the banner of preventing ‘hate speech’ and which leads to the persecution of white critics of multiculturalism;

(iv). the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the successor body to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), shall be disbanded immediately;

(v). the government shall set a limit on the number of immigrants skilled or otherwise, who are permitted to work in this country. The option of working in this country implies no right to citizenship;

(vi). the government shall make it clear in a statement that there shall be no amnesty for illegal immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom;

(vii). the government shall issue a personal apology to Mr Ray Honeyford, the former Bradford headmaster who warned of the dangers of multiculturalism in1982 and who for his honesty and professional decency was vilified by xenophile extremists and abandoned;

(viii). with immediate effect the government shall ensure that efficient and relentless border control and surveillance (entry and departure) shall be implemented. Such measures will include the explicit use of racial profiling;

(ix). the government shall take all necessary measures to ensure that illegal immigrants are hunted down, rounded up and immediately deported. Where possible the government shall aggressively seek to recover the costs associated with the deportation from the illegal immigrants themselves: property, bank accounts, valuable metals (gold, platinum), cars and so on;

(x). those employers who employ illegal immigrants shall be subject to severe financial penalties and where judged appropriate terms of imprisonment;

(xi). the government shall remove all welfare payments from the huge underclass so that the recipients of state benefits are obliged to work (this removes or weakens the incentive from employers to hire illegal immigrants);

(xii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom;

(xiii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that the provisions of Sharia are incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of the United Kingdom and that the exercise of Sharia shall not be permitted within the United Kingdom and that any of judgements as may be made by Sharia courts shall enjoy no legal or special cultural status;

(xiv) the government shall initiate an International Church and Mosque Comparison Study (ICMCS). The aim of ICMCS shall be to ascertain the status of Christian churches, artifacts and believers in all Muslim states and the degree to which Christians endure persecution and terror. ICMCS will pay very close attention to the status of Christianity in those states that provide the main Muslim immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom. A key part of ICMCS will be to ascertain whether the number of mosques existing or planned in the United Kingdom is too high relative to the number of immigrants themselves and whether the number of Christian churches in the immigrant homelands is too low.

Finally, I challenge the Prime Minister David Cameron MP or a senior member of the government to debate multiculturalism and the challenge posed by Islam, immigration and related problems with me on prime time live television. The terms and conditions of any debate (time, format, audience selection; lighting, citing of cameras, among other things) shall be a matter of discussion and formal written agreement between Ellis, Cameron and the television broadcaster.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis

BBC ‘East Enders’ Lies. Cultural Marxism and Black / White Sexual Relations

The multi coloured Jackson family from Eastenders

By Tim Haydon

The BBC soap ‘East Enders’ deliberately propagates lies about the frequency of white / black sexual relations and the general tension-free wonderfulness of the multicultural, multiracial ‘community’ that is Albert Square.

It does this in order to further the BBC’s Marxist agenda of racial obliteration of the white British. But perhaps unwittingly or because of the social setting of ‘East Enders’ it correctly focuses that on the whole those whites who do pair with blacks tend to be lower class women. This article attempts to answer the questions:-

(1) Why is it on the whole white working class women but not white women from higher social groups who to a limited extent pair with black men?

(2) Why don’t white men pair with black women to the same degree?

How the BBC propagandises its Marxist Agenda

The BBC continues its drive to expunge the British from the face of the earth. This agenda can be seen in action through the BBC drive to eliminate British and specifically English identity through miscegenation. Here is an analysis of the racial character of the ’love interest‘of just one family, that of Bianca in ‘East Enders’ (No doubt your writer will be corrected on the details if necessary):-

Bianca: Bianca has a mixed race son, Morgan.

Carol : (Bianca’s mum) – Married a black man Alan Jackson and had a mixed race son, Billy. Carol has shared a black boyfriend (Connor) with Bianca’s adopted daughter, the perennial victim

Whitney: Shared a black boyfriend with Carol (see above).

Thus three generations of this one English BBC TV family have had or are having sexual relationships with blacks. (The concentration on blacks arises from the Cultural Marxist position that as historically the most primitive and most ‘oppressed’ of races, the negro most requires to be shown as on the same socio-economic level as the ‘oppressing’ whites).

Some major points arise: although the East Enders’ depiction of reality is grossly perverted through the deliberate, ridiculous exaggeration of the frequency of mixed–race liaisons which is a device for encouraging them, there is a certain amount of truth in it:-

1) Black/ White Liaisons do indeed happen.
Given racial genetic interests and fitness theory (see eg ; Frank Salter ‘On Genetic Interests’ ) and human assortative mating revealed by facial resemblance (‘Computer simulations suggested that sex among genetically complex organisms requires mate choice strategies for its evolutionary maintenance, to reduce excessive genetic variance produced by out-crossing) why do these inter–racial liaisons occur at all?

The answer must be that racial preference / fitness etc are tendencies only which can be overridden by other tendencies given the right circumstances. Much academic work needs to be done on this subject (in the present political climate this is unlikely to be a priority in the academy) but here are a few tentative suggestions:-

a) BBC and other propaganda for miscegenation (such as the numerous depictions of mixed – race couples in Advertisements, the attack on white history in our schools and the parallel celebration of other races /cultures) must be having an effect on some individuals. Indeed given the intensity of this propaganda, it is perhaps remarkable that there is not more miscegenation than there is.

b) Popular ‘culture’ is now in large part a celebration of black or black-derived music. The star status of black or mixed race entertainers encourages miscegenation. During the run of the X-Factor the BBC and some elements of the print media publicised the assertion that because of the success of mixed race contestants, ‘mixed race’ was now fashionable. (Can you imagine the BBC at any time suggesting that it was fashionable to be white?).

2) Black/ White liaisons tend to happen at the level of society depicted by East Enders.

It is a fact that the white females who pair with blacks tend to be lower class. You can see evidence of this outside schools, most shopping malls and elsewhere where single mums congregate with their mixed –race offspring, often having a fag –at public expense. Why is this?

Lower Class Individuals are more influenced by Black – Based Popular Culture

a) One reason must be that individuals at this level of society tend to be more influenced by black-based popular culture and political-class indoctrination than those at higher levels.

We look for Mates in the same IQ levels as Ourselves

b) Connected with a) above, it is known that as a general rule we tend to look for our partners in the same intelligence levels as ourselves. Blacks in Britain have an average IQ of 86 (almost exactly the same as Blacks in the USA) (Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve p88).

This level of IQ is mirrored in those white women who pair with blacks. The lower class have on average the lowest level of IQ among whites. This fact ought to be readily accepted since it accords with everyday common-sense observation. It was accepted in many University Psychology Departments in pre-PC days as a result of the studies but thanks to ideology and not to empirical observation it is now treated in much the same way that evidence for the low inherited average IQs of blacks is. Bruce Charlton, a Newcastle University evolutionary psychiatrist, was met with hostility from the usual suspects when he made this point in connection with working class entrance to the better universities in 2008.

Mating with Individuals in the same socio-economic Class as Ourselves

urthermore, people tend to mate with partners who are of the same socio-economic class (When the partnership is a committed one, women tend to ‘marry up’, or used to, but many of these inter-racial liaisons are not likely to be committed to the point of marriage). As Charlton indicated, notwithstanding the attacks on it, IQ, which measures intelligence and is 50% heritable very accurately predicts real-life success. ‘‘ ‘The Bell Curve’ showed that IQ predicts success in education, jobs and training. Low IQ predicts child abuse, crime and delinquency, health, accident proneness, having a child out of wedlock, getting a divorce after 5 years’ marriage and even smoking during pregnancy.’’ (J Philippe Rushton: ‘Race Evolution and Behaviour’ (Abridged Edition P48).

Foreign born Afro –Caribbean males who work in London have the lowest socio-economic status as measured by the International Index (ISIE). They score 37 with white males scoring 47.4. (South Asians score 46.6 and Chinese 45.6). (Overall in the UK, whites earned an average of £332 in 2001. For blacks it was £225 while for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (ie moslems) it was £182. The Chinese had average weekly earnings of £342 in 1995). ( Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve P101/ 102).

The Low Physical Attractiveness of Lower Class white Women

Another factor which might enter into the equation is the fact that as studies have shown, we tend to mate with those whom we consider to be on the same level of physical attractiveness as ourselves. It will be remembered from above that we also tend to mate with individuals in the same intelligence levels as ourselves. A recent study by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, (Report Daily Telegraph 17 Jan 2011) shows that the best looking among us have an IQ 12.4 points higher than the less attractive. This seems to help confirm your writer’s admittedly personal observation that low-IQ underclass white women tend also to come low down on the scale of attractiveness.

It seems likely then that matching low IQs, social status and physical unattractiveness are reasons why these females rather than more attractive white women higher up the socio-economic scale are the more likely to mate with blacks, who to this English male eye at least, are (generally speaking) physically very ugly. The better –looking ones are those with a lot of white blood. That your writer should think this is of course ethnic preference and linked aesthetic conditioning talking rather than any objective standard of attractiveness.

3) Black /White couples do usually comprise a black Man and a white Female

Admittedly from personal observation, as ‘East Enders’ and advertisements show, mixed –race couples do tend to comprise a black (negro) male and white female. The ratio of such pairings to the whole seems to be as high as 75% - 90%. This imbalance is quite remarkable. What is the reason for this phenomenon? There is clearly limited space for what requires a major study, but here are a few suggestions:-

More black Men than Women?

One reason for it could be that there are simply more available black males than black females around. But even if true, that would not be enough to explain the huge imbalance as it does nothing on its own to explain why white females would want to pair with these blacks when there are enough white men.

Black Men find white Women more attractive than black Women?

It could be argued of course that black men find white women more attractive than their own black women. However, while It may be the case that in a mainly white society, white standards of beauty influence blacks, it seems unlikely that black men brought up among blacks with mainly black standards of physical attractiveness for women and taking into account ethnic preference would consider white women in general more attractive than their own women - quite the contrary.

The ‘Trophy’ Syndrome?

There is though the ‘trophy‘ syndrome in black /white pairings. The women involved are often blonds, even when bleached – ie as white as possible. White women, belonging to the majority, dominant racial group are seen as prizes which confirm their racial ‘equality’ and as visible sign of achievement for black men. The ‘trophy’ syndrome is instantly recognisable among successful blacks such as Trevor Phillips and Obama’s Father and celebrities such as Chris Eubank and Ashley Cole who have all sported attractive white women as partners.

One attraction for the white women involved with black celebrities; wealth and reflected celebrity or public exposure, is obvious. The attraction for the majority of white women pairing with blacks remains to be explained.
(There is a curious reverse flow with a few white celebrities such as Jon Snow the TV presenter and the Historian Niall Ferguson marrying black women (In the same socio-economic class). Here, one suspects at least part of the attraction for the men involved is the highly public confirmation their marriages give to their left-liberal, right-on credentials which is useful to them in their careers).

A suggested Explanation:

What white Men find attractive in Women

One explanation could be that men and women have different priorities when selecting mates. Yes, IQ and socio-economic class is very important but so too is physical attractiveness. But what constitutes physical attractiveness?

For men, it boils down to the signals which announce a woman as healthy, fertile and ready to mate. Hence the cosmetics women don: the eternal search for youth –enhancing potions; slimming regimes which define the hip /waist ratios which signal child bearing properties, the blusher, lipstick and so on which mimic sexual readiness, all of which accentuate these factors. European men can read the signals very easily in women of their own race, but it is more difficult in women of other races, especially those racially farthest apart from ourselves such as negroes.

White Male Standards of Female Beauty

Then there are standards of beauty, strongly linked to the sexual signals mentioned above which go hand in hand with ethnic preference and fitness.

There are pure blood black woman who are very striking and attractive up to a point. But beautiful, or even very pretty? Your writer has never seen a black woman who fitted this description. The (by white standards) coke –like hair, the large and coarse features, the thick and (to him) repellently everted lips, the proportions of the body, and yes; the sheer blackness and coarseness of the skin, so at variance with the delicacy and fragility, the blushing, pink- and white fineness of an ‘English Rose,’ the standard of English female beauty, all militate against it.

There are plenty of mixed –race women who can be described as pretty, but even then, Like Naomi Campbell, they would be prettier still although perhaps less striking to European eyes if they had more white blood in them.

This is not ‘racism,’ meaning a bigoted attitude born of sheer prejudice towards other races. It is a function of racial genetic preference / fitness which does not deny that Chinese and Japanese women, especially those from the North with small, delicate features far removed from the ape, slender limbs, fine complexions and skins whiter than most Europeans, can be very pretty and extremely attractive physically.

So too can women of other races such as the paler, slim and doll-like Indians and South -East Asians. Like their men, some light-skinned Afghan women can be very handsome with their strong, high cheek - boned features, normally covered up by moslem drapings.

White Female Standards of Male Attractiveness

For women in differing degrees ( apparently more so than men for women), what constitutes physical attractiveness need not be what is handsome only or even at all but what is male, including personality. (Phil Mitchell is no oil –painting). This is probably the case throughout the social spectrum. At the lower end of the social scale however, thanks to the other factors touched on above, white female affinity for pure maleness of over looks and ethnic preference / fitness can come to the fore so far as blacks are concerned. According to J Philippe Rushton,

‘the races differ in testosterone level which helps to explain men’s behavior’….While levels even up somewhat in older men, ‘ In a study of university students, Black Americans had 10% to 15% higher levels than White students …..Testosterone acts as a ’master switch’. It affects things like self-concept, aggression, altruism, crime and sexuality, not just in men but in women too. Testosterone also controls things like muscle mass and the deepening of the voice in teenage years’ (Race and Evolution p40).

Black Male Sexuality is More So

Blacks are sexually active at an earlier age than Whites and have sex more frequently than they do. Their male sexual apparatus is larger (although according to John Baker (Race) it is no larger when engorged).

Whites in turn are higher up the scales than Orientals. The same hierarchy is found in sexual permissiveness, thinking about sex, and even in levels of sex guilt.

What has been said above surely goes a long way to explaining the phenomenon of the white lower class female / black male imbalance. There is much that remains to be said about the pairings between other racial groups, or the absence of them. But this essay is already long enough and that exploration will have to wait until a later date.

A developing Class Structure based on Race

Suffice it to say that, as elsewhere the world, what seems to be developing very slowly but spurred on by the BBC and its marxist like is a class system in Britain structured on racial lines with whites and orientals at the top; south asians and mixed–race individuals mostly in the middle and those with the most negro blood at the bottom. In short, the complete antithesis of the racially and culturally egalitarian, multiracial nirvana envisaged by the leftists who are engineering it all.

As Robert Burns put it;
‘The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley….’

Multiculturalism Hits The Wall

Sadly I fear the following article may be a tad optimistic. I doubt our leaders are anywhere near giving up their totalitarian dreams to achieve which Multiculturalism is so vital. However, it is an excellent read and the author makes some very valuable and valid points, which may be very useful to us in the struggle ahead.

Multiculturalism Hits The Wall

By J.R. Dunn

As year ten of the long war looms, the "multicultural" paradigm for defense against terrorism has slammed into a brick wall.

Recent developments reveal a policy in terminal disarray. The public revolt against the TSA, the ridiculous and humiliating Ghailani verdict, the still-simmering Financial District victory mosque controversy, and even the unmasking of the false Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour in Afghanistan have highlighted the absurdity of attempting to meld the "multicultural" worldview with any serious effort against jihadi terrorism. And yet, government officials directly responsible for the defense of the country, from Obama, Holder, and Napolitano on down, insist on maintaining the "multicultural" paradigm despite undeniable evidence of its failure.

Multiculturalism has effectively controlled American security policy as regards terrorism from the very beginning. Islam, we were assured by no less a figure than George W. Bush, was "a religion of peace." Critical resources were invested in curtailing any "backlash" against American Muslims by the evil-minded white Christian majority. Organizations of dubious provenance, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), were appointed official representatives of American Muslims.

What did these attempts to bend over backward under the prompting of an abstract academic intellectual construct accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Bush was excoriated both here and overseas by the very people he was working to protect. The great anti-Muslim backlash never happened (as Jonathan Tobin reminds us). The advocacy groups have all been revealed as fronts for Hamas. Few policies, official or unofficial, have such a pristine record of failure. Few have hung on more tenaciously.

Multiculturalism is the most recent, and perhaps the final, expression of the late 20th-century left-wing ascendancy. It is a completely synthetic doctrine, formulated without reference to any perceptible element of the quotidian world. Although derived in format and rhetoric from the civil rights movement, it has no relationship with the ideas or hopes expressed by King, Abernathy, Rustin, or any other legitimate civil rights leader. While the civil rights movement was founded in opposition to the odious practice of legal racial segregation, multiculturalism had no such concrete agenda. It was based almost completely on abstract academic theories derived in equal part from black racial extremism and Marxism, purporting to define the relationship between the dominant "white" race and all other races.

According to multicultural theory, the "white" race (never further defined) forms a privileged oppressor class, forever and completely at odds with members of other races. The relationship between races is presented only in terms of power, in which the oppressed races became in effect a proletariat awaiting liberation through revolutionary activity. Under these terms, every action taken by the white oppressors is illegitimate, while those taken by the "subaltern" races are justified, no matter what their evident nature and intent. As a global theory, multiculturalism possesses universal applicability under all circumstances. Every aspect of racial and ethnic relations must be seen through the multicultural lens.

It would be difficult to find a theory to beat multiculturalism for sheer vacuity. It ignores the fact that numerous groups among the "oppressor" race, such as the Irish and Jews, have been historical victims, while the "oppressed" races have often victimized in their turn when they have occupied the top slot. (Arab treatment of sub-Saharan Africans marks only one instance.) For these reasons among others, multiculturalism gained no greater a foothold with the American public than its political models, socialism and Marxism. Although the left attempted throughout the late '80s and '90s to force multiculturalism on the country through its activist PC component, the effort went nowhere. Americans as a whole rejected the doctrine as yet another bizarre fixation of the intellectual class.

There were two exceptions -- the academy, whence multiculturalism arose, and the government bureaucracy. On campus, multiculturalism remained one of the weird things that academics believe. In the bureaucracy, it became another expression of bureaucratic stupidity and intransigence, which did not prevent it from having an impact, limited but malignant, on the country as a whole.

That was the status quo in September 2001. After 9/11, the response of the country's intellectual leadership was straightforward: to react exactly as set forth by multicultural doctrine. The U.S., as a white European oppressor state, was obviously at fault. The Islamist jihadis, all members of an oppressed subaltern race, were victims, no matter what appearances might otherwise suggest. The belief system was up and running; all it needed was factoids to be plugged in.

All the same, the response of the left was muted in the immediate wake of the attacks. Only a handful of left-wingers spoke up in their accustomed manner, to scuttle back into the shade and damp when public agreement was not forthcoming. The most notorious of these comments was Michael Moore's posting characterizing the jihadis as "minutemen ... and they will win." A near match came from a nameless, forgotten California pol who asked, "America -- what have you done?"

An angry and disdainful public response momentarily shut down such sentiments. But these comments did speak for tens of thousands of silent true believers. The atrocity was explicable in familiar multicultural terms -- it was "whitey" (America) that was actually to blame for the attack, while the jihadis, far from being murderous thugs, were in truth romantic rebels, so many adorable Ches gazing off into the radiant multicultural future. The left kept its counsel and waited.

CLICK HERE to read the whole article at American Thinker

England's Humiliation - the video

It is hardly surprising that England was so roundly defeated in its bit to host the FIFA World Cup 2018. The judges obviously became totally confused by the official England bid presentation video and couldn't work out what country it was for. They could certainly be forgiven for thinking it was the Brazil entry, or maybe even Mozambique.

Readers who wish to view the streaming pile of multicultural effluent will have to do so by clicking here and viewing it at YouTube, as I refuse to embed the garbage at my blog.

I do not believe that bribes, corruption or the Russian mafia played any part in the decision, why on earth would FIFA wish to award the World Cup to a country so obviously deeply ashamed of its own culture it sought to smother it beneath every other culture?.

The bid was shameful, embarrassing and totally deserved the humiliation it received.