Death of Johannesburg

Click the image, or here to view the death of what was once ine of the world's great modern and cosmopolitan  cities

An Open letter from Dr. Frank Ellis to the Times Higher Education

From: Dr Frank Ellis

To: Times Higher Education

Date: 4^th June 2011, A.D.

Re: My Response to the Open Letter Published in the Times Higher Education 2ndJune 2011 signed by Alvergne et al in which Dr Satoshi Kanazawa is attacked for allegedly Sub-standard Research.

The signatories to this circular-letter to the Times Higher Education make much of the fact that Dr Kanazawa refuses to address criticism of his work and that he will not engage with his critics. There are two problems here. First, why is Dr Kanazawa expected to become involved in lengthy and time-consuming correspondence with people who object to his published work? If he wishes to do so that is a matter for him. If, however, he decides that his time can be more profitably spent by doing his research, rather than talking about it that is also a matter for him. I should also point out that when I challenged Bhikhu Parekh to provide sources for his claim, made in The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (2000) that ‘Race, as is now widely acknowledged, is a social and political construct, not a biological or genetic fact. It cannot be used scientifically to account for the wide range of differences among peoples’ (Parekh, para 5.10, p.63), he just ignored me.

Second, the signatories begin their letter by referring to hostile comments made about Dr Kanazawa’s article (‘Why are Black Women Less Physically Attractive than other Women?’) in various fora. At no stage do they address the assertions and arguments of the article. Even if Dr Kanazawa’s question reflects some racial bias against blacks that itself does not automatically disqualify the search for an answer to a question that arises from bias against blacks. All research begins with a bias: the bias of interest. In any case, I thought that the pursuit of knowledge and ideas for its own sake was one of the founding principles of a university and other institutions of higher learning. Or am I to understand that this principle must be jettisoned when dealing with race?

Moreover, how can it be the case that Dr Kanazawa ‘rarely engages with his scientific critics’ if he submits articles for publication in journals? In the politically correct world of what purports to be higher education any researcher who submits an article in which he uses low mean black IQ to explain black failure is most emphatically engaging with his scientific critics: he serves notice that he rejects the current explanations for black failure (white racism, the legacy of colonialism and so on). Nor does Dr Kanazawa sin against academic convention, as asserted, when he has not published ‘corrections to the papers for which doubt has been cast on his conclusions’. In the academic world today, one which is dominated by various multiracial/multicultural orthodoxies, any researcher who concludes that low mean IQ can explain a great of black failure will have his conclusions subjected to ‘doubt’. Doubt does not constitute evidence of hard error. In fact ‘doubt’ is too polite a word. Any academic who rejects the cosy, sentimental assumptions of the left regarding race and racism can expect to be subjected to vicious ad hominem attacks. I experienced such attacks at Leeds University in 2006. Members of the faculty who agreed with me in private nevertheless maintained a cowardly public silence.

An answer to the question posed by Dr Kanazawa on the lack of black female attractiveness may have implications for understanding the weak family structures of blacks, their greater sexual promiscuity (the implications for the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are obvious) and the high levels of black on white rape. Far more threateningly, the premise of Dr Kanazawa’s question implicitly posits the view that skin colour or any other visible racial characteristic is or may be a primary criterion in any hierarchy of racial beauty. In other words, Dr Kanazawa’s article is a direct challenge to the fallacious view that race is a social and political construct and that desirable qualities, such as sexual attractiveness and high IQ are uniformly and equally distributed among and between populations or that these evolutionary valuable assets should be so distributed. Is it this that provokes the hatred of what the signatories call ‘the evolutionary behavioural science community’ instead of a reasoned response? By ignoring the challenge thrown down by Dr Kanazawa the signatories to this letter are guilty of the very thing of which they accuse Dr Kanazawa: silence in the face of his trenchant criticism. They remain silent because they are frightened of race (as a genetic and biological reality) and they know that if they argue for or against Dr Kanazawa’s assertions they enter into the forbidden realm that race is in fact a genetic and biological reality.

The signatories then warn: ‘we feel compelled to state publicly that Kanazawa’s research should not be taken as representative of the evolutionary behavioural science community’. Well, I am compelled to state publicly that many scientific discoveries, inventions, technological advances and intellectual shifts in the status quo were not representative of any established community or group when they were first made. Innovation, discovery and invention are by their very nature outside the known and the expected and typically the work of individuals who are, happily for them, not part of any collective or ‘community’. Discoveries great and small, shock, offend or inspire awe, precisely because they are unknown, unexpected and often challenge reputations and powerful vested interests: they dislocate our expectations of the world about us. Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Heraclitus Kepler, Galileo, Darwin, Mendel, Leibnitz, Heisenberg, Einstein, Nietzsche, Rand, Solzhenitsyn, and the greatest mind of them all - Sir Isaac Newton – exemplify the historical trend, the path away from obscurantism towards knowledge and this elusive thing called Truth.

The signatories make much of the fact that the London School of Economics (LSE) will host a debate under the heading of ‘Is Evolutionary Psychology Racist?’ In the West, anything that challenges or undermines multiculturalism is deemed to be racist. For example, the following assertions are deemed to be racist in British universities: (i). race is a genetic and biological reality; (ii). all races and cultures are not equal; and (iii). mean black IQ is lower that mean white IQ (in the case of Sub-Saharan blacks, significantly lower), and this discrepancy has major consequences for real-existing multiculturalism in First-World states with large non-white populations.

The signatories to this letter betray their politically-correct credentials and their agenda when they write that a great deal of the research in the field of evolutionary psychology is ‘nuanced’ and ‘culturally-sensitive’. In plain English, if one regards low mean black IQ as a powerful and consistent explanation of black failure worldwide one is not demonstrating a ‘nuanced’ or ‘culturally-sensitive’ interpretation of the data if one makes those points. Ad hoc, ‘culturally- sensitive’ explanations have to be provided – colonialism, white racism, capitalism, multinationals, or in the case of Macpherson, institutional racism – anything will suffice, provided that it is not directly attributable to blacks and the way they behave.

When it comes to peer-reviewed articles in journals the critics of Dr Kanazawa want it both ways. Articles by Dr Kanazawa in peer-reviewed journals are deemed to be suspect yet articles in peer-reviewed journals which attack Dr Kanazawa are somehow above reproach. In fact the signatories admit as much when they write: ‘The peer review process is not perfect and appears to have failed when dealing with Kanazawa’s poor quality work’. Did anyone review the letter to the Times Higher Education attacking Dr Kanazawa?

The attacks on Dr Kanazawa reveal something of a war between journals. So: ‘Those of us who have reviewed his papers have had experiences where we have rejected papers of his for certain journals on scientific grounds, only to see the papers appear virtually unaltered in print in other journals, despite the detailed critiques of the papers given to Kanazawa by the reviewers and editors of the journals that rejected his papers’. Could it be that the scientific grounds alone, on which the signatories claim the reviewers rejected Dr Kanazawa’s articles, were not accepted by the editors of the journals in which the original unaltered articles were eventually published? One editor of a journal rejects an article for publication; another accepts the article. That an article is rejected by one journal (with reasons for rejection) does not mean that the author of the rejected article has to make changes before he submits the article to another journal. I thought diversity of scientific opinion was supposed to be a good thing. I hope that the editors of the journals in which Dr Kanazawa’s work has been published, editors who are now being criticised, will respond robustly to these accusations of academic incompetence.

It is a rule that the author of an article should not know the names of those who review his article; yet here we have signatories to an open letter to the Times Higher Education who claim to have reviewed Dr Kanazawa’s articles and found them to be inadequate on scientific grounds alone (of course) and are now openly violating the ethical code which requires that their assessment of an academic’s work be kept private. They publicly violate the ethical code required in the peer-review process by informing the world that they had earlier found Dr Kanazawa’s articles to be inadequate on scientific grounds (of course), and now, having violated that ethical code to attack Dr Kanazawa, they exploit the anonymity of the code so as to hide among a list of names. Who are these people that claimed to have reviewed Dr Kanazawa’s work? Why do they hide among others, protected by ‘we’? This blatant violation of the ethical code that governs peer review and which now serves as the basis for mounting these scurrilous attacks on Dr Kanazawa may well be actionable.

Highlighted here is that the whole process of peer review is wide open to abuse, and will be abused in areas such as global warming, race and IQ and sex differences. Another massive potential for abuse arises from the fact that nepotism and cliques are rife. If there is money, status and media adulation to be derived from telling the world that black failure is not due to low mean IQ but is caused by white racism then those who dissent from these evasions can expect to be ostracised and denied publication in the relevant journals. They also run the risk of losing their posts. The signatories to this letter know these outcomes full well. In the USA and in the UK there are countless examples of academics’ being harassed and threatened with loss of employment for attacking the cult of multiculturalism.

That the signatories to the letter attacking Kanazawa signal their support for academic freedom is, in this instance, cynical and tactically opportunistic on two counts. First, they write: ‘Academics who publish work that may be unpopular with some sections of the media or general public should not be condemned on those grounds’. The trouble with this is that it rather conveniently arrogates a special status to academic opinion, the much-vaunted peer-review process, as being decisive in rejecting Dr Kanazawa’s work. This process is massively flawed and wide open to abuse. Second, in writing this letter to the Times Higher Education the authors are manifestly reacting to the attention of the electronic and broadcast media, ignorant student activists, black special-interest groups and some members of the general public. The masses, as it were, having created an atmosphere of outrage against Dr Kanazawa, have prepared the way for the authors who now judge that the time is right for them to inflict the coup de grâce on the hapless and isolated Dr Kanazawa.

The timing of the letter to the Times Higher Education in which Dr Kanazawa is attacked in this way is also rather convenient. Dr Kanazawa is, we are informed, currently the subject of an internal LSE investigation. The letter to the Times Higher Education, alongside the provisional findings of the investigation, could be used by some in the LSE as justification for suspending Dr Kanazawa pending an internal inquiry. Suspension at this stage would create the impression among the gullible that Dr Kanazawa is not being suspended for challenging the anti-intellectual orthodoxies mandated by political correctness in British universities - and so there can be no question that academic freedom and the institution of free speech are being violated – but because he has transgressed the conventions and codes of rigorous scientific method, as defined by the signatories to the letter to the Times Higher Education. According to this view he would be an impostor who should be expelled from ‘the evolutionary behavioural science community’ and lose his post at LSE. The LSE must not permit itself to be influenced by external rivalries and feuds.

I have no doubt that should Dr Kanazawa be suspended the delay between his suspension and any internal hearing will be used to examine all his published work with a view to citing any errors against him in the hearing. His work will be subjected to a level of scrutiny and criticism beyond that used in peer-review and will also be expected to meet higher standards of evidence than that used in the original peer-review process. Were this to happen it would amount to an academic version of double jeopardy and would represent a clear violation of due process. The signatories to this letter and other critics should ask themselves whether their own published work would survive full, open, heightened and post-publication scrutiny.

None of these attacks would have been made on Dr Kanazawa were he black or brown. Black or brown academics are able to make nonsensical, bizarre and often virulently anti-white racist statements without any sanction at all yet whites (and now Japanese) can expect to be chastised for anything that violates multicultural orthodoxy and especially for dissenting from the view that all races and cultures are the same. The evidence for a double standard here, a clear and obvious violation of scientific method, never mind the hypocrisy, is overwhelming and well documented.

As I have indicated in an earlier email to Professor Rees, the director of LSE, if Dr Kanazawa is suspended pending an internal hearing, others and I will offer our services and expertise as witnesses for the defence.

Frank Ellis

Mladic - an alternative view

Julia Gorin gives a different perspective to the conflict in the Balkans that the official one.  Click here to read her article at Republican Riot.

Geert Wilders Final Words at The Amsterdam Trial - English Subtitles

English transcript:

Mister President, members of the Court,

 

I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I.

I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.

All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.

Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.

We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted.

Mister President, members of the Court, I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.

Every day the armoured cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the "Manifesto of True Freedom" and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: "I have acted honourably and piously as a good patriot." Those words are also mine.

I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain.

I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts.

Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial.

This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents.

My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun.

Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands

Franz Kafka said: "one sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark."

Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands.

Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation.

Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society.

Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen.

Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands. That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. 

That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms, I say: "Here I stand, I can do no other."

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilisation.

Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian regime. "Freedom," said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, "has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die."

Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.

I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty - I cannot do otherwise - to continue to speak.

Thank you.

Why Africa Will Never Succeed

The following article is attributed to Graham Allardice Project Manager MPED South Africa, I don't know if that is true, but nevertheless it is an interesting and thought provoking read.  Thanks to Laager for bringing it to my attention:

__________________

Why Africa Will Never Succeed

I expect, like me, you are aware that there has never been a prosperous black led country, but perhaps just blamed their “bad luck”, or whatever, for that uncontradictable fact.

Take Haiti as an example. Before the black slaves revolted and killed all the whites and half castes Haiti had a GNP greater than most of what is now the USA. It supplied 60% of all the sugar used in Europe.

Today it is a wasteland. Apparently if you Google Earth the place it is a sere, brown colour compared to the neighbouring Dominican Republic which is green and verdant.

Twice the USA has occupied Haiti, building roads, ports, hospitals and schools while putting in a functional society,

The moment the Americans left they reverted to dictatorship, voodoo, witchcraft, corruption and barbarism.

  

Continue reading at South of the Zambezi

Interview with David Hamilton of the Nationalist Conservatives

Click here to read an interview with our own David Hamilton at the Amerika website

The Lib Dems and the Question of National Identity

By Tim Heydon

Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne are Lib Dem because they don’t know who they are

‘I think I’m English, therefore  I am’ ?

Nick Clegg describes himself as the “Son of a Dutch mother and half-Russian father”.  He thinks he’s ‘English’ by virtue of having been born and having been raised in England. Is he?  Clegg is certainly British because he possesses a British passport.

But English? He isn’t simply by thinking that he is. Clegg’s confusion arises because he denies the natural rights of blood inheritance and asserts rights solely by virtue of environment.  The English are English, he is saying in effect, because of the purely contingent facts that they were born and raised in England.  Therefore he is English (he deduces) because he was born and raised there.

England was named after the English; not vice - versa

This of course begs the question as to why the strip of territory named England was called that in the first place.  In fact, rather than the English being so-called because they lived in England, England was so-called because it was the home of the English or the ‘Angles,’ ie an ethnicity. The country was named after its people, not vice- versa.  It follows that you do not become English simply by living in the country, any more than you are Welsh or Scots or Irish simply by living in the appropriate country.

To be a Member of an Ethnicity is a two-way Acceptance

So one is not English simply because one is born in England and thinks one is.  One is not a member of a family (and an ethnic nation like the English is an extended family) simply by saying that you are. You must be accepted by the bulk of other members of that ethnic family.  If the bulk of the ethnically English do accept you, it will be first and foremost on grounds of close ethnic affinity.

If Clegg is accepted as English by most it is because he looks and behaves English

Now it may be the case that most English people do accept Clegg as English because he looks  English, ie he conforms to the racial characteristics  of the English and appears to conduct himself like a certain type of Englishman.  But would all these people still accept him as English if they knew his background, which (I am guessing) they don’t?  I suggest not.  At the back of their minds of many  of them at least there would always lurk the knowledge of his foreign background which would to a greater or lesser degree colour their attitudes to him.

 

Clegg knows he is not English

Clegg surely knows this. While at one level he asserts his Englishness, and even though most English people accept him as such, at another level he is uncertain of it, because he understands  that the acceptance of the English depends to a certain degree at least on their ignorance of his foreign background and his ways of thinking which I suggest must derive  from it.  His mostly foreign background  must have  been a key  theme of his childhood, home life and his feelings about who he is;  one that is not on public display.  He might for example not even have spoken English as first language when with his family  and relations, or used other languages interchangeably.

This Knowledge is why he is a LIb Dem

That, fundamentally, is the reason why  Clegg is a Lib Dem who is at pains to try to deny and destroy the English people as an ethnicity. It is to rid himself of the insecurity of the uncertainty of truly belonging. Thus the English must suffer mass immigration; they must be made to feel like strangers in their own country, because the personal psychology of selfishness of Nick Clegg and his like  -  all the other  ethnically insecure people such as the Jewish Jack Straw and Mark Damazer, the Asian Mishal Husain, the Liverpool  Irish Cheri Blair; her Scottish husband, etc  etc  - demands that England  be drowned in non-English  like themselves so that they personally can feel more secure there.

 What about Chris Huhne?

The same remarks could very well be made of Chris Huhne,   Clegg's rival (if he survives the present scandal).  Huhne’s full name is actually Christopher Murray Paul - Huhne.  Now ‘Huhne’ is a very strange name. It certainly isn’t English. ‘Huhn’ mean’s ‘chicken’ in German. Is Huhne of German or Jewish descent?  It seems one or the other or both  is very likely.  ‘Paul’ certainly  certainly occurs among  Jews as a surname  but ‘Christopher’  comes from  the late Greek name Χριστοφορος (Christophoros) meaning "bearing Christ’’.   It seems unlikely that Jewish people would give this name to their son. (Unlikely but not impossible -many people are ignorant of its meaning).  And he doesn’t look Jewish.  But you never know.  Perhaps like David Cameron he has Jews among his forebears.

But in any case, he is probably not English in any sense acceptable to those who are.  He keeps very quiet about his antecedents. Whatever those who imagine that being English purely a matter of having been born and been brought up here  (as Huhne was) might think, clearly Huhne thinks his background matters.

And he’s right.

2,000 EDL protestors march in Blackpool

Click here for the news report and video

English Defence League website

Open Letter to David Cameron Concerning the Removal of Parachute Pay from Members of the Parachute Regiment and Airborne Forces

From: Dr Frank Ellis

To: Prime Minister, David Cameron MP
Date: 27th May 2011 AD
Re: Open Letter to David Cameron Concerning the Removal of Parachute Pay from Members of the Parachute Regiment and Airborne Forces

Armed forces that can transport highly trained troops over long distances and insert them by parachute enjoy a level of tactical surprise and flexibility that is still essential for a modern army. The Parachute Regiment is an absolute élite regiment which time and time again, from World War Two, through Suez, Radfan, Aden, Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq and, currently, to Afghanistan, has demonstrated a remarkable ability to generate violence and to kill Britain’s enemies. Moreover, its élite status is not based on money, class or privilege. A wealthy parent can buy his son a place at Eaton, Harrow and Ampleforth: he cannot secure his son a place in the Parachute Regiment by waving his cheque book. The right to wear the maroon beret, the wings, and when I served in the Parachute Regiment, the right to wear the iconic airborne jump smock has to be earned not bought.

In the light of the Parachute Regiment’s demonstrated record as a battle-winning, tactically flexible asset, the decision to remove the additional pay for being parachute-trained and part of an airborne unit is not merely short sighted it is also spiteful, even treacherous. It is no way to treat soldiers who have just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan and who are due to return in the near future.

Savings do have to be made but targeting our best soldiers is not the proper way to behave. If you seek to make savings then here are some suggestions:

(i). Serve compulsory redundancy notices on selected generals, admirals and air marshals;

(ii). Stop all foreign aid to Third World states with immediate effect. If Pakistan has sufficient money to buy atomic weapons, it has sufficient money to feed its teeming and seething population. The same shall apply to India and, above all, to sexually delinquent Africans. Foreign aid to Africa merely encourages reckless and destructive breeding. Let Malthus rule;

(iii). Cease all attacks on Libya. Libyans can solve their own problems and if that means slaughtering one another, they are free to do so. It is none of our business;

(iv). Begin an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. There are no vital British interests in Afghanistan;

(v). Expel all illegal immigrants from Britain;

(vi). Call an immediate referendum on UK withdrawal from the European Union;

(vii). Urge the Scottish National Party (SNP) to call a referendum on Scottish independence as soon as possible so that England can be free;

(viii). Declare that Britain shall make no payments to any bail out for EU states;

(ix). Cut spending on the National Health Service, abolish National Insurance Contributions and let people provide for their own medical care (this would not apply to service personnel who have sustained injury in the Armed Forces);

(x). Abolish all polytechnics that masquerade as universities and deny state funding for all universities that insist on teaching gender studies; black studies and other charlatan subjects (to this end draw up a list of bogus subjects that are to be terminated). Remove all state funding from universities. This could be phased in over a specified period to permit universities to secure other funding;

(xi). Launch a coordinated attack on the welfare state and the parasitism it engenders: all prisoners to work on public maintenance projects; sterilise serial criminals; deny all state benefits to the long-term unemployed and unemployable apart from bare subsistence in state-controlled hostels located in urban areas (easy to maintain surveillance and deploy the police and military in the event of any resistance); and review sickness benefit which is wide open to abuse. Publish a full list of all people receiving any and all public benefits (Internet). Once they cease to receive state benefits their names can be removed;

(xii). Abolish the BBC license fee so getting rid of a massive parasitic stratum.

(xiii). Abolish universal child benefit;

(xiv). Tackle the problem of overpopulation and unsustainable breeding in the UK before we are overwhelmed. Act now.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, his Research and the Call for his Dismissal - An open letter from Dr Frank Ellis

From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: Professor Rees, London School of Economics (LSE) v.mizgailo@lse.ac.uk
Date: 27th May 2011 AD
Re: Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, his Research and the Call for his Dismissal.

The quality of arguments deployed against Dr Satoshi Kanazawa for his article on the theme of black female attractiveness does not inspire confidence in the intellectual calibre of the authors. I suppose this is just one consequence of applying a policy of affirmative action for students and faculty who do not have to meet the same standards as whites. Too many black students and faculty do not seem to grasp the abstract concept of free speech and the role of academic freedom in the pursuit of truth and the eradication of error. Black hostility to free speech and academic freedom is not surprising, since blacks have shown themselves to be quite incapable of creating advanced societies or sustaining any kind of intellectual milieu in which the right to dissent is enshrined in law and custom. At times we whites find it a strain in dealing with white dissenters: for blacks with their generally less developed capacity for abstract thinking it is an impossible burden.

Unable to grasp the abstract nature of free speech and its essential role in scientific and technological progress blacks perceive the exercise of free speech by non-blacks, especially as it concerns the discussion of low mean black IQ, black educational failure, appalling levels of black crime in First and Third World states, incompetence, unbelievable savagery and the pitiful state of sub-Saharan Africa and, of course, Islamic terrorism, as racism. This is always at all times, in all places, the default position for blacks and their white manipulators when confronted with evidence of black failure. This is the reason that blacks, encouraged by whites who should know better, are attacking Dr Satoshi Kanazawa and demanding he be sacked. I have read articles by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa and I have found them to be well researched, clearly written and very interesting.

Despite all the accusations of “scientific racism” and the associations of Kanazawa’s research with Jim Crow, Apartheid, the Holocaust and the slave trade, the genetic, psychometric and historical data demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the mean intellectual and cultural achievements of blacks are way below those of whites. The only conclusion – and it is not a happy one for blacks and their white, xenophiliac manipulators – is that intellectually and culturally blacks are, as judged by the objective, unforgiving measure of achievements, not by sentimental, emotional, ad hoc evasions and multicultural propaganda, inferior to whites, Jews and north-east Asians. Denouncing Kanazawa as some version of a racist does nothing to change this state of affairs. It merely encourages blacks and their white manipulators always to scream racism when unpleasant truths emerge or are posited.

Behind the public debate of this matter I have no doubt that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has already demanded that LSE take some form of action against Dr Satoshi Kanazawa. In the first instance this will mean that Dr Kanazawa is expected to withdraw his research and issue a suitably grovelling apology. I can only hope that Dr Kanazawa will resist any such demand. He has said or written nothing for which he should apologise.

In the event that Dr Kanazawa refuses to grovel the EHRC will threaten LSE with a diversity audit, arguing that by failing to take action against Dr Kanazawa, the LSE is violating its obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. At this stage, in order to propitiate blacks, their white manipulators and to remove the threat of a diversity audit, the LSE will move to suspend Dr Kanazawa and seek to secure his dismissal through an internal hearing. As far as LSE is concerned, this has the advantage of immediately reducing the negative publicity for LSE and creates the impression that LSE has responded in a politically correct manner to the clamour of so-called anti-racists. The threat by EHRC to carry out a diversity audit will be made behind the scenes so as to avoid the impression that LSE is being placed under any pressure to act from outside the institution. I urge LSE to stand up to the bullies, the ignorant, the plain gullible and above all the viciously anti-white racist EHRC.

In 2006, when teaching at Leeds University, I was subjected to the same sort of treatment when I highlighted the complete failure of multiculturalism. I was profoundly shocked by the despicable cowardice of administrators and faculty members. I argued then, and I argue now, that for all the words in their charters on academic freedom and free speech, universities on the themes of multiculturalism, feminism, non-white immigration, race and IQ are craven and corrupt. I hope that LSE proves me wrong. For all the unpleasantness, I nevertheless learned a great deal. Be advised that should LSE succumb to the temptation to suspend Dr Kanazawa and initiate an internal hearing with the aim of securing his dismissal, I and others shall contact Dr Kanazawa and offer our experience and services as witnesses for the defence. Please, do the decent thing and reject the mob and the hideous EHRC and all its works.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis

Yes, of course Richard Barnbrook is a nationalist!

By Richard Barnbrook

The posting which has just been put up on the internet, ‘Richard Barnbrook a nationalist?’ raises some interesting points, but basically, it’s simply an attempt to avoid discussing the crucial issue that I am trying to get all genuine, concerned nationalist sympathisers to focus on. The question is, how can we best move forward to become a force to be reckoned with in British politics? The answer is, by joining forces and burying our differences.

It’s because I’m a sincere nationalist that I care about the country’s future. We can’t carry on as we are any longer. We have to look upwards and outwards, and for some, especially our leaders, think the unthinkable. We have to formulate a way to harness the talents, support, activism and goodwill of every man and woman in the land that can already see just what a con the Con-Lib/Lab conspiracy really is!

I realise that I may have upset some activists last year resigning the BNP whip. I did it because I felt I had to make a stand on a question of principal, and it was the only way I could think of to get the concerns across. Since then, I have been expelled from the Party. And I have been denied the opportunity to appeal against my expulsion. I don’t see why I should resign my seat because I never resigned from the Party; my political views remain the same. Unfortunately, I was chucked out just for speaking out. And that’s why I’m where I am.

I have been the victim of many smears, and there is far more that I could say on the matter but to do so would embarrass individual fellow nationalists and not help the cause. There are always two sides to every story, and unfortunately I have been sadly let down by a number of people who perhaps should have known better. However, far too much mud has been slung already and to throw yet more would simply be doing our enemies’ work for them.

What is important to me now, is the issue of unity. I cannot stress it enough, ‘unity, unity, unity!’ The biggest problem we face today comes from within. We have to find a way to resolve our differences. To build on what we all agree on. To nurture what we hold in common.

If any nationalist party is to succeed in London at the GLA next year, there has to be action now, and there has to be unity. We need to let the opposition and the media know we mean business. If we could formulate a unified nationalist party during the summer, I would be only too glad to return the seat to the nationalist fold under a united banner.

If the campaign for London does not start in September, with the BNP, the English Democrats, UKIP and all nationalist political parties, along with other supporters united, there will be NO nationalist representative on the London Assembly in 2012, for certain. It will be a repeat of the Welsh Assembly result this month- NO seats for any nationalists.

I’m trying to get the ball rolling. We need to get everyone who shares the same values to work together. We need to be strong and united.

Yes, of course I’m a nationalist! I always have been and I always will be. Because I care about the future of our nation. If we, who say we care, can’t unite and resolve our differences for the good of all, then the future of our nation is doomed!

It really makes no difference who makes a suggestion if it’s a good one. And I’m sure that this one really is a winner, if only we have the strength and largess of heart to work together to make it work.
 

A final glimmer of Britain

I began writing this article a few weeks back shortly after the local government elections on May the 5th . As everyone in Britain knows, those were elections which saw significant success for the Tories and some success for Labour too, except in Scotland, where a Scottish party, calling themselves “Nationalist”, but which welcomes multiculturalism to the point where it will surely destroy all dreams of a true Scotland, scored a massive and unexpected triumph. 

All other parties suffered varying degrees of defeat. 

  

In the wake of that further affirmation of what seemed like a national death wish, I sat down and wrote the following:

____________

When was it I wonder the English stopped loving their children? when did we become one of the very first people in history, who do not care a damn what future our offspring will face? 

There are many, I am sure, who would claim to take offence at what I have just written, and who would angrily insist they are entirely devoted to their children.  But how can I believe them in the face of overwhelming evidence that they must be lying?

As the mother of son's I quake at the thought of what they will face when they become part of an ethnic minority in their homeland, an event likely to occur much sooner than we once thought. Recent figures suggest the tipping point, when non-whites become a majority in Britain, could be as soon 2043, thirty two years from now, not 2060 as previously thought. 

Ethnic minorities do not fare well in third world countries, but that's the future my sons will face when they are still young men.  Other mothers' sons and daughters face the same fate, but, unlike me, it seems those mothers, and those fathers simply do not care.

How can they love that which they would so lightly sacrifice to such a hell?  

The British people embraced their death again on May the 5th, how many more chances will they have before it is too late, assuming it has not already past that point?

Seemingly without a care they meander forward towards a dark place which will be terrible to see, complicit in their own destruction,they are the stained handed murderers of their children's dreams. 

Most suicidal of all were those of the white working class, who voted for Labour, a party  which despises them and has for at least four decades been conspiring for their destruction.  A party which has already engineered the ethnic cleansing of  working class communities from Bradford to Bristol and from Leeds to Lancashire, and which has transformed our ancient capital into a majority non-white city, driving, amongst others, London’s Cockneys into Essex and into history.

We all mocked those American teenagers a few weeks back when then tweeted onto Twitter “who is Bin Laden and why’s it good he’s dead?”, but are they really dumber than those who still believe the old lie that “Labour is for the Common Man”. Not if that common man is white they’re not, at least they haven't been since the 1950’s.

Like livestock voting for the horrors of halal, working class Britons went in their millions to put their crosses next the poison rose which spells their doom. Should I really pity such stupidity?

Even less deserving of pity are Liberal Democrat supporters, whether they voted for the party or, horrified by the realities of power voted  Labour, they are equally suicidal. However, given it is now quite clear Liberal Democrats are not grown up, they deserve little more than our contempt.

In some ways, of course, those who voted Tory are the most shameful, in their hearts the average Tory voter knows the truth but they dare not face it and would sacrifice their children before they do.

I look upon them and I wonder, do they deserve what is coming to them, these stupid. immature and cowardly people who flocked to sign their death warrants in polling booths across the land, do they want to be saved and are they in fact beyond saving?

Other races have died before and other civilisations have fallen, is it our turn to follow the Aztecs, the Minoans, Incas and the Babylonians into the echoing void of history?  Is our great civilisation, surely the greatest the world has ever seen, set to follow Rome and Ancient Egypt into defeat, destruction and decay, our crumbling monuments, magnificent ruins, the only evidence of what went before?

Do our people know their death awaits, surely they too can see what is plain to me, and if they do, can it be they really do not care? Is there nothing left of the Britain that we were? Has our blood run cold?         

Within one hundred years the descendants of those immensely brave Britons who celebrated VE day in 1945 on the streets of London will have been driven from that city.  They are already a minority there.

Did it take just sixty short years for our race to come to this?  We are not the same people our forefathers were.  We spring for the loins of greatness but have forgotten how to be great.

____________

I stopped writing then, and put the article aside.  I wondered if what I had written was of any benefit, and if anything was to be gained from exposing one woman's despair at a nation wilfully engaged in writing its own epilogue.

It was then that I watched a TV programme called “Wooten Bassett the town which remembers”.  As the world now knows Wooten Bassett is the Wiltshire Market town which lies between RAF Lyneham, the Royal Air Force's principal transport hub, and Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital.  It is therefore the route which the hearses have to take when transporting fallen soldiers when they are brought home from Afghanistan.

The people of Wooton Bassett have taken to welcoming those brave young men home, standing along the roadside in silent tribute and comforting the families of the dead.  Over the months and years more and more have travelled to join them until the repatriations have become a sombre, but hugely well attended and symbolic event.  Those who come do not do it for the cameras, or or the bemused and patronising journalists who turn up to record what is to them a bizarre spectacle. Way out of sight of the cameras, along the roadside and in the lay-bys they stand silently and they salute, as the tragic cavalcade goes by, carrying those they have come to mourn.

The people of Wooton Bassett were interviewed and they were a rare sight, they are a type of people, although legion in our land, who are not usually welcome on our TV screens. They were not the dissembling creeps who claim to represent us in Parliament, the chattering classes who usually dominate the airways or the mockney accented public schoolboys who pose as entertainers. They were not the slimy treacherous judges or avaricious white hating lawyers who administer what passes for justice in this land, or the broadcasters who learnt to hate us on their Stalin praising fathers' knees. They were the reality of England, a people motivated and filled with love of their country who come to honour the brave and beautiful young men, sacrificed in illegal wars by the crooks and monsters who currently rule over us.                     

They were also anything but multicultural, certainly not in any way which would be permissible now in any staged media event.  As the cameras scanned the crowd anxiously attempting to light on an ethnic face amongst the mass homogeneous whiteness, they could have been the scene of any British city of forty years ago, or indeed the myriad British towns which they do still represent.

Then I thought of another event in recent weeks, the Royal Wedding, and the million strong crowd  thronging the streets, a crowd not ethnically mixed, as our dishonest media claimed they were, but massively, overwhelmingly, white.  The chattering commentators expressed their horror at the almost total whiteness of the congregation, but dared not admit that same whiteness extended to crowds outside.  Where would that leave, inclusive, integrated multicultural Britain?

However, multicultural Britain was no more on show on the streets surrounding Westminster abbey on the day of the Royal Wedding than it is on the streets of Wooton Bassett at each repatriation.

Whatever you may think of the current Royal family (and I personally an cautiously optimistic about the two princes) one could not help but marvel at the massive crowds of English men and women crowding the streets of our capital, as they have done for 1,000 years, their hearts swelling with an innate sense of their heritage and cheering for even the least impressive of our nation's monarchs.

As I considered those two events, I began to realise how wrong I was in what I wrote at the beginning of this article.  Britain is still out there, our people still exist, there are merely hidden from us by the gaudy pallet screen which the media places before us, and, of course, before them.

Although it may not seem that way from what we see on out TV screens and on many city streets, native Britons are still by far the majority in this country and they can still be saved.  The majority of native Britons never voted for multiculturalism and are deeply suspicious of it, they resent and oppose mass immigration and they are seriously concerned about the rise of Islam.  They also worry deeply about the sort of country their children will inherit.

They have not expressed those views because they have been taught to feel guilty about them  by a tiny minority with monopoly access to the communications media, and they have never yet voted in support of those views because they have never yet been offered a viable Nationalist alternative.

Those who say “they could have voted BNP” are fooling themselves.  The BNP have never yet found a means of disproving the media lies about them.  In fact, in many ways despite the herculean efforts of many activists, too many BNP members (and their leaders)  have done everything in their power to prove the liars right              

There are actually BNP members and supporters who appear to believe that, for instance, if they make “funny” Nazi salutes at cameras or are filmed giving their child a gollywog, the public will perceive these as ironically humorous gestures. 

The BNP has politicians who indulge in fisticuffs in front of the national media because an Asian spits at them (what do you think the spitting Asian wanted you to do when he spat?). It employs security guards who stick their fingers up the noses of unfriendly journalists when they forcibly eject them from meetings in front of a blaze of flash bulbs, whilst adopting facial expressions not unlike that of a particularly malevolent pit-bull.

Nationalists climb over each other so as to get into debates or write articles expressing moral and sexual attitudes which would sit more comfortably in down town, Islamabad than they would in a modern British household, and when doing so use language Jim Davidson might consider a tad off colour.  (If you want to go on a moral crusade, go on a moral crusade, but get out of our way, we are trying to save our race.)

Much has already been said about the quality of people appointed to positions of power.  However, if the party is seriously considering replacing one non-telegenic leader with a criminal record and a history of Holocaust denial with an equally non-photogenic (and older) leader with a criminal record and a history of Holocaust denial, they will need to work out:

a)  how they are going to sell him to modern Britain    
b)  how he might come across on Question Time

(Yes I know the convictions are establishment imposed war wounds, but such nuances matter more to history and to the party faithful than they do to the wider public)

Across Europe, Nationalism is in the ascendency, in Britain it seems to have stalled, and although many Nationalists have worked tirelessly, many others have to accept their responsibility for that.  Too many British Nationalists have spent the last 43 years since Enoch Powell warned us what was happening, squabbling amongst ourselves, sniping at other nationalists and indulging their own particular prejudices, issues and hang-ups rather than presenting the public with a party they feel comfortable in voting for.

It is true that Nationalist parties are subject to constant smears from the media, but in honesty, many Nationalists have made it very easy for them to smear us.

I am sure we all reach the point which I did when I started writing this article, and it is true that, in many ways the circumstances are dire.  However, there is nothing to be achieved in bemoaning a situation when we are part of the problem. 

We should be better placed, Our enemies have overplayed their hand, in particular the New Labour open door immigration policy was a spectacular own goal, which the country is starting to wake up to. The non-white population of Britain has grown by 40% in the last eight years, if that rate continues, and why wouldn't it?, at a conservative total of 9.1 million, not including another 1 million of mixed race, that total will grow to almost 35 million by 2043 (you do the maths).  If the Nationalist movement can not advance on the strength of that fact alone, we do not deserve to.

In many ways the situation is as dark as I described at the beginning of this article, but it is always darkest before the dawn, and everything is still to play for. If, after over four decades of self indulgence, squabbling, gaffes and pure stupidity, we can finally get out act together, there is a chance, faint but still viable, that we could save this country.

Our people are still out there, we only have to reach them.

Terrorist killings - Church Street Anniversary

Yesterday (20th May) was the 24th anniversary of the Church Street bombing in Pretoria, carried out by ANC terrorists acting under the authority and approval. Adriana Stuijt, has published an account of the atrocity, which can be read here.  Warning the report includes some very gruesome images.

 "In his book  Long Walk to Freedom Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism

Floods, Tides and Pools

By August Pointneuf

Floods, Tides and Pools.

Prologue: Human communities have spread and retreated since pre-history, often into the domiciles of other humans, for shorter or longer periods. That is their nature. These migrations have often been resisted by warfare. The outcomes have depended upon battleground success, together with factors such as distance from the migrant’s base as logistic access became progressively more difficult.

The results of such migration have, at times, caused one group, (and therefore that culture) to overlap the pre-existing culture with varying degrees of smothering. At other times, the invading forces have withdrawn leaving very little residue, as demonstrated by the Roman invasion of Britain and to a lesser extent the Norman invasion of Britain. On other occasions the invasions have been no more than short forays, as in the Franco-Prussian War, with prompt retreat and very little residual cultural or genetic trace.

These extensive conquests of lands, which could be considered as "tides" and comparable to floods. Like water, these eventually subsided either by absorption into the land, drainage back from whence the tide originated or spilling over into other drainage areas.

Of the many tides that have occurred within the historic area, four stand out in relation to European history:

First Tide: the Roman Empire. This ultimately failed because of loss of central control and political failure, ending in a combination of retreat and absorption.
The Roman Empire was destroyed by Barbarian invasions. "Barbarian" was a general term, and included a variety of people from different origins such as the Angles, Burgundians, Franks, Goths, Huns, Lombards, and Vandals, to quote a few.

The Roman Empire was in economic decline, primarily because it had lost its empire. The corn it consumed had previously been supplied as a tribute (for that read tax) from Africa and Sicily. As the empire was eroded, payment for corn was demanded from the Barbarian-controlled North Africa. Rome did not produce manufactured goods and the population lapsed into enjoying the bread, wine and circuses. Its chief trade was money-lending. The emperors struggled to pay the army. The easiest, but disastrous, solution taken was to debase the coinage. The value of the denarius fell in 150 years to one 40th of its original value. The prudent invested in land, which produces an agricultural return, and so countered the inflation.

In Rome the state continued with its social handouts, distributing bread, wine, oil and pork, either free or at nominal prices.

The Roman armies became infiltrated with Barbarians and became relatively impotent in their role of protecting the Empire. Sidonius Apollinaris recorded the "heavy burden of hospitality" which he had to provide for the infiltrating Barbarians. He disliked their language, their songs and their smell and his house was invaded.

The Roman citizens shut their eyes to the immensity of the changes about them. They could not fail to realise that they were living in a time of crisis, but they could, if they chose, ignore the extent and permanence of the barbarisation that had already taken place. Various factors kept the Barbarians apart from the Romans; at once they were both outsiders and intruders. Amongst these two factors were religion and law. The Barbarian Law differed significantly from the Roman law and eventually the law ceased to be territorial, and instead was divided amongst the Barbarians. The Franks lived by Frankish law; Visigoths lived by Visigothic law and so on, while the Romans continued to live by Roman law. The situation of law became intensely complicated as happened when one group went to law against another and this doctrine of "personal law" was disastrous for the Empire. Ultimately Roman law ceased to have any real meaning when rival systems of law jostled with each other within the frontiers of the Empire.

Because the Barbarian invasions were gradual it was possible for many Roman citizens to ignore their significance. Although they bewailed the fact that times were not as good as they once had been, they tried to go on living as if nothing had changed. But every now and again a sudden shock would wake them up to reality and force them to acknowledge the extent of what had already decayed or been destroyed. It was only the more insightful, like Salvian, who insisted on reminding everyone that the Barbarians were not no longer at the gates but were within them. Most people tried to imagine that things were not as bad as they seemed. Nevertheless it was necessary for everyone to adjust to a new circumstance. Many people reacted without any coordinative response. St Augustus wrestled with the central problem of his time, which was why God had allowed the Roman Empire to fall. The pagans were convinced that the Empire had been destroyed because it had deserted the pagan gods and become Christian.

The Romans were forced to admit that military power had passed to the Barbarians, and Rome "the unconquerable" was sacked by the Goths and then the Vandals. If the Romans were to save anything of their civilisation, the Barbarians would have to be absorbed into Roman society and educated. This could only be a practical policy if the Barbarians wanted to educate themselves and discipline themselves according to the rule of law.

The most dramatic penetration into the Roman Empire was by the Visigoths (376 A.D.) who had implored Rome to offer them asylum from the Huns. The Roman Emperor Valens granted this asylum. Unfortunately the imperial authorities found the task of regulating and feeding these refugees beyond their resources. Because of the failure of the Romans to deliver, the Visigoths took to arms. The emperor’s army was defeated and Valens was killed (378 A.D.).

The Barbarians moved to the cities while the wealthy Romans sought refuge in their country villas. As a result there was unemployment in the towns which began to shrink. An aggravating factor was that the total population of the Empire was declining.i Instability began. There was a series of revolutions in the Roman State.

Odovacar (434-493) probably entered Italy about 465, became the first barbarian ruler in Italy and eventually gained possession of Italy in 476 A.D., this ending the Western Roman Empire. Although he appears not to have wished to destroy the civilisation of Italy, he had done nothing to save it.
Theodoric, an Ostrogoth, marched into Italy in 488 A.D. and within two years another barbarian had won control over most of the country.

It was useless for the Italians to try and repel the Barbarians. Ultimately the vast barbarian population caused the barbarisation of the Romans.

By the end of the 5th century the infrastructure of Italy could not be maintained. Bushes and trees grew in the aqueducts and the water supply to Rome began to fail. The Coliseum and the theatres were in ruins. Great blocks of stone fell from decrepit buildings, obstructing the streets. Bands of thieves stole bronze statues that adorned the city to melt them for the metal. Whilst the Romans had the skill and education required by the civilisation, the Goths lacked all these.

By this time Roman laws were being replaced by barbaric laws which were regarded by the Barbarians as their birthright, resting on notions of kinship and a whole complex of values which were totally foreign to the Romans. The varied religions, apparently a policy of toleration, was in effect a policy of racial segregation, founded on the assumption that all Romans would be Catholics and, for example, all Goths would be Arins.1ii

So began the “Dark Ages” when established cultures, as they then existed, disappeared.iii

Second Tide: The Muslim Conquest. The Muslims advanced through the Mediterranean, conquering vast swathes of land, and usurping the civilisations of parts of Southern Europe and the Maghreb. Long and costly struggles to remove the Muslims followed, marked by epic sieges and battles, land and sea. Christians hoped that the sea-battle at Lepanto would mark the end of Muslim intrusion and domination. However the Crusaders, a multinational armed force - the European Union of its time - began to squabble amongst themselves and failed to follow that resounding victory with pursuit and elimination of the enemy. The Muslims regrouped and began invading Europe once more. The Europeans lost vast lands, abandoned to Muslim control, which Muslims retain to this day.

Third Tide: The European Colonial Empires. This was the greatest tide, if measured by land area and people incorporated. This began in the 1500s and spread slowly in many directions. This tide was unique because of its slow, and entrenching, colonisation. Steady advances were systematically consolidated. The Empires increased incrementally over the colonised lands by chain and array. At each stage the colonists established themselves on what they expected to be a permanent basis. Because of this they grouted in their civilisation, establishing churches, schools, health care and communications, patterns of behaviour and supportive law as well as much more. Their belief was that this would be permanent, and for the betterment of the colonised lands, and the world as a whole. Most of this spread was over sparse and uninhabited, never cultivated, fallow lands. Because of its slow pace forward, it sculpted a stable society and a stable expression of European culture. There was repeated reinforcement from Europe with movements of Europeans back and forth to Europe. However the colonists considered themselves as residents in the new lands.

Some have chosen to debate the benefits to the lands so colonised with the amnesia of senile hindsight. Much of this denialism has been designed by the politician to placate their international political peers. However, when viewed objectively there seems little ground for dispute that by most parameters the European – and notably the British -colonisation  was beneficial to the lands which were colonised. Peoples previously living a Stone Age existence were brought forward into educational and other systems. The Europeans hoped that the natives would now aspire towards the standards which the Europeans had set themselves in Europe. The Europeans sought to donate their capacities to the indigenous peoples of the colonised lands. Law was applied where previously custom only, not law, had existed. Communication produced dramatic changes in lands where the wheel and the horse were unknown. This tide slowly moved forward for at least 400 years. In doing so huge tracks, which had previously been uninhabitable were made inhabitable and productive. This tide produced a remarkable, widespread social equilibrium characterised by greater safety of the populations. Orderliness by finely tuned legal mechanisms and sophisticated systems of justice and policing was introduced.

It was the greatest empire ever for another reason. It brought with it the technical and administrative mechanics by which humans were able to forcefully combat the circumstances and chance which entropic nature inflicts upon humans. Humans became better sheltered, warmer, better fed, better protected, safer and healthier than ever in history, as these European empire builders evolved and disseminated their capabilities. So desirable was this that the colonists were often invited into other lands once the existing inhabitants recognised the benefits of being colonised, in order that those lands could also could also benefit from European civilisation.

However, this civilisation began to fail. There was too great a central control of the colonies. Political ineptitude and insufficiency was associated with extraordinary attitude changes. Societal integrity began to fragment. Politicians, with pretentious delusions of capability, began to engineer society. The needs of individuals began to be considered superior to those of an integrated society. European apathy descended. Productivity declined, and money-lending replaced industry as Britain’s chief trade. The populations interested themselves in food, alcohol, material possessions and sport. A cabal of politicians (called the “United Politicians of the World”, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), motivated by the fantasy philosophy of “Globalisation”, allowed the Empire to be suffocated by the next great tide:

Fourth Tide: The African spread out of Africa. This began in the middle of the 19th century.

The mechanics of this were complex. There were many contributing factors to the sycophantic surrender of the Europeans in the Northern Hemisphere to the invasion. An initial exuberant triumphalism after the Second War led eventually to intoxication with materialism. The focus of concern now rested on the possession of ostentatious dwellings and motor vehicles and “leisure and travel”. Socialist politicians unjustifiably claimed that they would nurture and protect their populations. This tainted their populations with the contentment and trust and belief in political promises. The former prudence, caution and guarded concern were abandoned.  Nothing was perceived to be able to go wrong, nothing could perturb the population. The British had seen themselves as the “conquers of the world”. Fear of intruders into their nations ceased to exist. Indeed such was the arrogance that, with the grandiose gestures of hedonistic millionaires, their heritage was blissfully cast aside, and the European nations appeared to thrive on a misplaced, fallaciously magnanimous and spendthrift scattering away of their control of their land.

The early movement of the Fourth Tide, in comparatively small numbers, was by tribal capture of adversaries and the sale of these slaves in a variety of directions, but primarily to the East.


The main regulating force of large-scale human movements, from time immemorial, was the restriction by poverty. The windfall of hydrocarbon energy, and mechanisms to translate this into travel (which originated in the European Industrial Revolution) allowed expansive migration on a grand scale. Very rapidly, and often without the opportunity to consolidate, this Tide out of Africa became an unregulated flood which spread over the top of the European civilisations.  It spread over the erstwhile European colonies of the Caribbean and into and over North America as well as large tracts of South America. Apart from direct invasion, there were complex turbulent eddies and retrograde flows which also spilled back into Europe. Stagnant pools now remain in the slums of all the large cities of the erstwhile European world, such as Detroit and Bradford, and in every large European city, as derelict ghettos.

Unskilled aliens from failed lands were not only invited into Britain, but paid to do so with employment assured even before arrival. Much of any wealth created by these immigrants did not remain in Europe, but was fed back to disappear into the impoverished regions from which the immigrants came. The political mantra, that “immigration was needed to make Europe economically powerful” has not been supported by objective assessment. Instead the reverse seems to be the case.

The loosening of the ties of poverty allowed not only more invited Africans into lands which promised a cosseted existence, but equally gave lease to marauding bands, some referred to euphemistically as “illegal immigrants”, but which should include the pirates and desperados who now rampage throughout the continents and oceans of the world, lead by “war-lords” and “freedom fighters” with a variety of denominations. The previously colonised, “liberated”, nations failed.iv

The effect of this flood out of Africa was to drown most of the constructs of the European Empire, degrading the economics, and social structures in both hemispheres.2 The European colonists retreated, leaving once magnificent cities to become the bones of the rotting corpses of passed civilisations. Nations once highly prosperous, such as Haiti or Madagascar, became derelict.

Intermingling with the flood out of African was the Muslim flood into the West, not initially confrontational, not so easily visible, and reversing the long-past partial victory over the Second Tide. There is no need for obvious confrontation as this invasion has been invited and encouraged by European politicians. Instead there is a slow, irreversible insinuation of the Muslim into every aspect of European society to include the political, judicial, administrative and military frames.

Epilogue: Floods of water by typhoons, tsunamis and hurricanes draw rapid and immediate attention, and their disastrous effects recorded instantly and graphically. However, these physical calamities, even when they affect hundreds of thousands of people, have had nothing like the destructive effect on so many millions of people as has the emigrant flood out of Africa as it has degraded the great civilisation of Europe and their culture and colonisation. It is improbable now that humans will ever again be as well protected from nature’s vicissitudes as they were at the height on the European Colonising Empire. It is unlikely that there has ever been such a dramatic and comprehensive loss of the benefits of human endeavour and the destruction of human creativity in the history of mankind. The rapidity of this collapse, within a century and a half, is evidence of the power of this destructive force. Progressive erosive excoriation of the relatively small remaining European population, now reduced to 7% of the world population, seems likely to continue. It should be expected that European civilisation will be expunged within the next half century.