Thursday, 29 August 2013

We Are The White Working Class and We Have Had Enough.

We are the White working class of Britain and we have had enough:

Enough of your failed anti-white Multicultural agenda. Enough of your brainwashing controlled media conditioning our young to embrace their own ethnic and cultural demise. Enough of your Cultural Marxist education system brainwashing our children into becoming subservient foot soldiers of your enforced Multicultural state.

Enough of political traitors using our military to fight wars for foreign namely Israeli interests. Enough of the controlled media and dumbing down of our people. Enough of the lies of the traitors that govern us. Enough of the never ending assault on our ethnic and cultural heritage to facilitate your 'world with no borders' ideology.

Enough of our young being groomed by Muslims and our police and scum politicians being to scared to bring it to the publics attention for fear of being labelled racist. Enough of our local councils facilitating the Islamification of British towns and cities. Enough of Political Correctness and ridiculous hate laws created to shut us up for exerting our right to freedom of speech and expression, after all it is our country not the politicians or the judges or the medias.

Enough of Eastenders type miscegenation propaganda by the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.

Enough of our police being used as a political force to enforce the anti British political will of the globalist politicians. Enough of black history month and no White history month. Enough of the Mobos and no Mowos. Enough of positive discrimination against Whites. Enough of anti White racism ignored by the media and government. Enough of the farce you call a democracy which is no more than tyranny dressed up to appear to be leading the way, yet is a closed door 'democracy' favouring only the 3 established parties who are no different and all serve the same globalist agenda.

Enough of government and media lies about a need for diversity and Multiculturalism and enrichment. Enough of militant homosexuality. Enough of anti Christian sentiments being pushed through all British institutions. Enough of Cultural Marxism. Enough of the anti British anti White UAF, SWP, and other assorted so called 'anti racist' groups who are in reality anti white.

Enough of our universities being used to allow the spread of Communism/cultural marxism dressed up under various guises but Communism/cultural marxism nevertheless. Enough of Zionist manipulation of foreign policy, banking, media, entertainment and education.

Enough of far left groups campaigning against the interests of the white working class. Enough of the far left unions deceiving us saying that they stand for our rights when they stand for everything that is damaging to the indigenous people of this country and the nation itself. Enough of seeing our country being socially engineered, enough of being forced to accept, and our children being brainwashed, to accept their own demographic genocide that serves only the globalist agenda of both the far left and the 'elite.'

Enough of political and media attacks against the indigenous British people, enough of the lies about the need for immigration. Enough of the undercutting of our tradesmen by cheap imported foreign labour. Enough of not having our voices heard. Enough of political parties that stand up for the interests of whites being demonised by media and the established and corrupt political system.

Enough of creative history, enough of being force fed a version of history that is false. Enough of being told we have white privilege. Enough of being told our history is one of evil. Enough of being told whites were responsible for slavery when whites were the first to be enslaved.

Enough of the never ending assault on our people, nation, history and culture.

Enough of the agenda that by 2066 will see us as the minority in our own nation.

We the White working class reject all of the above. We want our country to be governed by people with the interests of the indigenous British people first and foremost.

We reject Multiculturalism, we reject political correctness, we reject the lies of the Communist 'working class struggle'. The Communist left wing lunatics idea of working class struggle is detrimental to the White working class. It is the enemy of the White working class and favours and pursues a world with no National borders, they would put the rights of foreign workers arriving today on a par with you, your children your family who have lived and worked here all your lives as have generations of your family.

Time and again we hear the cries of 'racist' 'fascist' and 'Nazi' by these people who despise the White European ethnic and cultural identity of our people, their aim is to eradicate what they see as white privilege and 'white' power structure. Since when has the White working class been privileged, we have been the work horse of the greatest Nation ever to have existed and we wish to reclaim our Nation from those who have used and abused it for personal profit and for an ideology that has always sought to undermine the Nation in order to destroy it.

We the White working class say reject Communism/cultural marxism and its lies, reject the failed political system and its lies, reject Multiculturalism and its lies, reject the media and its lies, reject the education system and its lies, reject creative history and its lies, reject 'anti racism' and its lies.

Anti Racist is a code word for Anti White. Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White countries for everyone. We all know that this is true despite the lefties and politicians lies to claim otherwise. So just how is this enforced 'diversity' and enforced 'enrichment' good for the White working class? IT ISN'T.

The media tells you it is, the education system tells you it is, your government tells you it is, the Marxists tell you it is, the judges tell you it is, your TV programmes tell you it is, so ask yourself why it is all about forcing the White working class to accept what the traitors amongst us have created. Why should we the White working class stand for this any longer. It is time to stand up and be counted, to use your vote wisely and reject the currently corrupt political system. To educate your children about the evils of brainwashing media, education and entertainment.

To educate yourselves about the truth surrounding the Multicultural agenda. To wake up out of your slumber and fight for our childrens and grandchildrens future. Take the time to consider the truth, because truth is treason in the empire of lies and that is why we are shackled and naively accept what is happening to Britain. We the White working class hold the key to the resurrection of our Nation. We are the victims of traitors in government who have sold us and our people out. We do not need Multiculturalism, we do not need political correctness, we do not need diversity we do not need enrichment and we don't need Zionist control of our media, government and banking.

It is we, the white working class that are being discriminated against, it is we who are being demographically replaced. It is the white working class having to suffer the impact of forced multiculturalism in our communities. The white working class are the true minority in terms of global populations, as an ethnic group we are a global minority yet we are being told that mass immigration, multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance are 'good for us' who in their right mind would fall for such lies.

It will be our children that will suffer in the decades ahead, once again how is anything that the left, the government and media do or say, any good for our childrens future.

Lastly, we may be working class but we are white, and no matter what class you are apart from those traitors involved at the very top we are all having our nations and ethnic identity destroyed, if we don't recognise the precarious position of our ethnic and cultural identity then we are doomed to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

The Idea that races don't exist is in itself a Social Construct..

The term often used that 'race is a social construct' is in fact a Jewish construct straight out of the Boasian anthropological psudeo-science, and parroted by their useful idiots on the far left.

Race of course seems to exist when it comes to validating Jewish dna and attacking 'white' people as inherently evil racists. Just read what Boas' fellow Jew Noel Ignatiev has to say about "abolishing the white race." Regardless of whether people believe the Jews to be a racial group with specific jewish dna or not, they themselves believe themselves to be a racial group and believe themselves to be 'the chosen ones.'

Boasian anthropology is a term given to those who subscribe to the so called findings of the Jew, Franz Boas, his 'findings' were proven to be lies as were the 'findings' of his students most notably Margaret Mead. Unsurprisingly, Boasian anthropology is heavily made up of Jewish students, tutors and 'scientists.'

Franz Boas – Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud

By Sam Francis on October 14, 2002 at 1:00am

Two of the major superstitions of our time are the notion that man is merely a  blank slate whose behavior is merely the product of the social environment and its sister, that  race doesn't exist. Yet one by one, the pseudo-scientific sources of these myths are being discredited by serious scientists, and last week, one of the biggest sources of all took a nose dive.

Franz Boas, often called the grandfather of modern anthropology and a pioneer pusher of the idea that race is not a  very meaningful concept, merely a  "social construct" not found in nature, probably ranks with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud as one of the most influential thinkers of the modern age. As a Columbia professor from 1899 to 1942, he virtually created modern anthropology, and the students he trained among them, Margaret Mead and some of the most famous names in the field dominated the discipline until only a few years ago.
One of Boas' favorite targets was so-called "scientific racism," and much of his own writing was intended to combat what he saw sometimes rightly as unscientific or simply false thinking about race.

But it now turns out that Boas himself was guilty of no small degree of unscientific blunder and maybe even fraud.

In 1912, Boas published what became a classic study that claimed to show that the skull shapes ("cranial forms") of the descendants of European immigrants to the United States altered from those of the original immigrants. Boas offered no explanation for why the changes took place, but if they were real, his finding pretty much wiped out the idea that different racial and ethnic types differ in fixed physical characteristics.

Boas's study, write Abram Kardiner and Edward Preble in their popular history of anthropology, They Studied Man,

"did much to establish the notion in human genetics that what are transmitted in the germ plasm are not fixed characters but potentialities ... dependent upon the environment for the particular form they will assume. The 'nature-nurture' controversy was largely obviated by this alternative."

In political terms, if human beings have few or no "fixed characters" and are shaped by the social environment, then what we know as modern liberalism is in business. So is communism, which also assumes that human beings can be transformed by manipulating the social environment.

It's no accident that Boas was a lifelong sympathizer of Marxism.

Unfortunately, for the social and human engineers, the study has now been shown to be invalid. Last week in the New York Times Science section, science reporter Nicholas Wade reported on an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard L. Jantz that took another look at Boas's study and methods. The effects of the new environment on the skulls of the immigrants' descendants, they found, are "insignificant," and the difference between the European and American born children were "negligible in comparison to the differentiation between ethnic groups." ["A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race"  By Nicholas Wade, NYT.Oct 8, 2002]

Moreover, as Dr. Jantz told the Times, Boas

"was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it come out that way."

In other words, Boas decided what his conclusions would be before he finished the research and then "shaded" i.e., cheated on the data to make them support the conclusion he wanted.

This is not science; it's  fraud and modern liberalism is founded on it.

It doesn't mean that the "scientific racism" Boas wanted to destroy is valid, but then again, as Dr. Jantz, says, it also "doesn't mean cranial morphology [the classification of skulls by race] is meaningless either."

Yet Boas was by far not the worst offender when it came to twisting data to support politically desired conclusions. His student  Margaret Mead has been shown to have outright fabricated much of her data on Samoan sex life in the 1920s, and the claims about the lack of genetic influence on IQ of several other scientists trained or influenced by Boas have also been challenged by later research.

Anthropologist  David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, tells the Times

"once we anthropologists said race doesn't exist, we have ignored it since then,"

but now, the reappraisal of Boas' work

"really does have far-reaching ramifications."

You can say that again.

Not only has a giant of modern social science and a pillar of modern liberalism tumbled from his pedestal, but the dogma that man is merely a blank slate, on which state bureaucrats and social engineers may scribble whatever ideologies they please, has toppled with him.

If that dogma really can be killed, then much of the tyranny and chaos it has helped create will die with it.

The Boasians taught race egalitarianism, and although they didn't outright deny the existence of races, they downplayed their biological basis (although Montagu later went on to deny them). According to Boas, environment is the deciding factor in understanding racial and cultural difference. In Boasian pseudo-anthropology, unlike real (or traditional) anthropology, racial research is essentially irrelevant because racial differences are considered to be trivial. Boasianism also places societies of non-European derivation as essentially peaceful. When these non-European societies engage in conflict it is because of their exposure to European civilizations. This inter-ethnic conflict was commonly ascribed to European colonial oppression and interference. Lax sexual mores and loose pair bonding and are of significant importance in Boasian theories; European societies have traditionally been in strict opposition to such practices. Boasian pseudo-anthropology also comes to the conclusion that Western peoples must learn and adapt to these non-European values and structures.

"What race realists find most infuriating about the liberalism of the last half century is not just that it has lost its instinctive appreciation for the culture and people of the West but actively, viciously attacks them. Whites are doing something no other people have ever done in human history. Our rulers and elites welcome replacement by aliens, they vilify our ancestors and their own, they sacrifice our interests to those of favored minorities, and they treat the entire history of the West as if it were a global plague of rapine and exploitation. This is a disease that is killing us, and we must fight it head on."
— Jared Taylor, July 4, 2008

Wednesday, 28 August 2013

The real purpose of the gay agenda.

A Christian photographer who declined to shoot a same-sex ‘commitment ceremony’ has been told by a US Supreme Court that she must “compromise” her beliefs to accommodate other views.

In 2006 Vanessa Willock approached Elane Photography, owned by Elane and Jonathan Huguenin, to request that they photograph a ‘commitment ceremony’ between herself and another woman.

But Mrs Huguenin turned the job down saying it conflicted with her and her husband’s Christian beliefs.

Miss Willock found a different photographer for her ceremony but still filed a complaint against Elane Photography.

The case has made its way to the highest court in New Mexico where it has ruled against Elane Photography ordering Mr and Mrs Huguenin to compromise their beliefs and photograph same-sex ceremonies.

Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote: “At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others”.

He added: “That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people”.

“In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship”, he said.

Representing Elane Photography, the Christian legal organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said: “Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country. This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free”.

The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling from a lower court.

Earlier this month a Christian bakery hit the headlines after being put under investigation by state officials because it declined to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple in Oregon, USA.

The owners of “Sweet Cakes”, Aaron and Melissa Klein, said they were trying to protect their religious conscience when they refused to sell a cake to Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer for their gay wedding.

Mr and Mrs Klein have received death threats, hate mail and have lost half of their customers since the incident in January.

* * * * * * *
Like  we say in here, the gay agenda has nothing to do with what gays really want. The purpose of the gay agenda is to silence conservattives by proxy. Leftists know they can't handle informed traditionalists/conservatives/Christians/whites, so they send someone else to do their dirty job. After that job is done, leftists get rid of all those useful idiots.

Tuesday, 27 August 2013

Elsyium is an Anti-White Open Borders Propaganda Farce

Elysium is an Anti-White Open Borders Propaganda Farce:

Posted by  Matthew Heimbach

Sometimes you just want to be able to sit down and watch a movie; I didn’t think that was so much to ask.

The hints and whiffs of social justice and anti-white themes were in the trailer for Elysium when I watched them in theaters, but I always try not to jump to conclusions. Without a doubt, our media is organized to systematically shame whites, break down ethnic and cultural ties between different classes, and promote an agenda so far Left that it would have made Marx blush, but I try not to see anti-Tradition behind every corner. If I go down the rabbit hole of looking for symbolism in every horror or sci-fi film then I would lose it. So headed into Elysium I told myself that I would just try to enjoy the movie for the science fiction and explosions, nothing more . . . I couldn’t do it.

I tried, I swear, but Elysium was almost as blatant as a Soviet era propaganda film, . . . perhaps an understatement. Within this film, however, are surprising nuggets of truth and a look at our race and culture’s future if we don’t win.

Tradition is present in everything simply because the Left cannot tell a heroic story or social commentary without at least having Tradition as a villain. The Tradition of our ancestors beats in every heart of the white race, even in those who have betrayed us in favor of destroying everything our ancestors built. That shines through in Elysium. At the very least, director Neill Blomkamp has created a glimpse of the future that Traditionalists can be inspired to fight against.

The film kicks off with our introduction to the future of the world. We land in Los Angeles in 2154 AD, and boy, did the neighborhood get a lot less friendly. The entire globe has been poisoned, looted, and raped by the capitalists, our likely future if current trends continue. The former First World has been overrun with Third World immigrants and now even the former City of Angels has become the city of crime, poverty, and multiculturalism (basically undeniably what Los Angeles will become in about a generation or so.) Part Mad Max, part Mexican barrio, and a slice of Rust Belt all add together to create the global picture that we are presented with.

It may be too optimistic to think that this system will take until 2154 to collapse, as Pat Buchanan asked in his latest book, “Will America survive to 2025?” Social services have collapsed, unemployment is sky high, the few people with jobs work in decaying factories with no labor protections, wages are miniscule, health care is restricted to the few elites with the money to pay for it while the rest of us deal with increasingly limited medical resources, and of course, the genocide of the white race through miscegenation (promoted in the film) and immigration; to say the future is bleak is an understatement.

There are no more nations, only Earthlings versus the elites who have walled themselves off into the space citadel of Elysium. Just as in the present, the elites wish to destroy nations and racial identity as a way to create a permanent slave class that can fill their coffers. Any organized resistance could be based around Faith, folk, or Fatherland, that is why these things must be destroyed. Elysium is just what victory for the elites looks like. Miscegenation, immigration, and destruction of Tradition will result in the world of Elysium, the present course of the entire Occident if we don’t stop the insidious plots of the elites. The main character is romantically involved with a Hispanic, but it didn’t even anger me; I cannot recall seeing a white woman in all of the scenes in Los Angeles. Without societal controls, Tradition, or racial identity, our race will be extinct outside of the gated walls of the elites.

In the modern era, when rich white liberals and Jews are done sucking an area dry, they move into gated communities to allow the pilfering to continue from the protection of gates and guards. In the world of Elysium, the elites have simply decided that instead of building a gated community, they should just build their own space station. While leaving the white world to be enveloped by the brown hordes, the elites jet set from dinner party to croquet match, anything to enjoy their riches built off the sweat and blood of those underneath them.

Our main character Max, played by Leftist Matt Damon, is shown to us as a small child. Surrounded by the misery of a Third World city he is an orphan who is being raised by a group of nuns. In the midst of turmoil and untold suffering we see that the Church is trying its best but that the majority of the people are simply wallowing in their misery. Max and a young girl named Frey become inseparable friends and Max promises his Mexican chiquita that he will one day get the both of them to Elysium. With hope in his eyes, young Max decides he is going to take on the world and join the ranks of the privileged few due to hard work and dedication. If you want to know the result then ask any coal miner’s son from Appalachia, Southern farmer, or factory worker from the Rust Belt: hard work doesn’t get you anywhere when the game is rigged from the very start.

We join Max when he is middle-aged, a multiple felon, and working a dead-end job in a dangerous factory. Outside of his humble home are gangs of roving Mexican criminals and endless lines of poor and sick individuals. Robot police officers and robot parole officers are all part of a system that dehumanizes “the system.” The biggest problem with soldiers and police is that many of them have a conscience, a human empathy for their fellow man which prevents them from following all of the orders of the elites. In order to circumvent this, the elites create robot warriors to do their bidding for them. Drones and robot foot soldiers are everywhere, not beholden to any sort of legal protections for the citizenry. In the age of NDAA, no knock warrants, and Guantanamo Bay, Elysium again provides a very likely future of America in which the government uses militarized robots who have a license to kill anyone who is a “threat” to the Establishment.

We are introduced to government official Jessica Delacourt, whose job it is to prevent Earthbound refugees from setting foot on Elysium. I wish that white countries had the sort of immigration policy that Ms. Delacourt put in place. Refugees were warned, and if they did not abort their attempt to infiltrate Elysium, they were then shot out of the sky or detained and instantly sent back. While I am no fan of the workings of the capitalist elites, when whites create our new Homeland we must ensure our immigration policy is as strident as the policy of the elites in Elysium.

If we truly are compassionate then we must ensure the safety of our families and our folk. When white countries were sovereign we were able to take care of our own and then take our inventions and medical advancements to the rest of the globe to help alleviate untold amounts of suffering and death. The only Christian and loving thing to do is to ensure the purity of white nations and then with a kind and compassionate heart venture into the wilderness to help care for those who cannot take care of themselves. Just as too many people in a lifeboat will capsize it, allowing the Third World into white nations is not compassion for refugees, it is simply assuring that our children and grandchildren will be denied a safe place to grow up and a prosperous society to live in.

Throughout the course of the film we deal with traitorous and evil South African mercenaries (even a generation after apartheid nothing says evil in Hollywood like a white South African), valiant black and Hispanic heroes, and one pissed off Matt Damon.

It quickly becomes clear that the film is made to insult white privilege, mock non-whites who are “Uncle Toms,” and heavily work towards the Leftist view of amnesty for non-white illegal invaders in America and Europe. The Leftist social justice mantra is poured on so thick that it could easily cover a plate of IHOP’s best pancakes. Towards the end of the film, one of the Hispanic protagonists declares that Elysium is for everyone, a not-so-subtle nod to the belief of the Left that all white countries belong to the globe, not the indigenous population and its children. The people of Elysium at first come off as being modern liberals and elitists but quickly they become a group I sympathize with.

Sitting and thinking in the film I realized the classic bait and switch performed by the director and Hollywood. Success and privilege are always synonyms for whiteness. This film was not being critical of capitalism (I would have no problem with that), it simply was a run of the mill anti-white diatribe. I grew disappointed as the minutes ticked by and it became clearer and clearer that the director thought he was a lot smarter than he actually was. Instead of some profound and subtle propaganda, the film became nothing more than advocating for unchecked immigration and whites joining alongside the races of the Earth to destroy their own people, as well as a commentary on the mindset of the Jewish Hollywood elite. I felt let down once again by Hollywood. I prefer my propaganda more subtle; Elysium just started bashing the hammer of multiculturalism and white genocide over my head so hard that by the end of the film my ears were ringing.

The narrative of rich elites is simply one used by the various Reds (as they do in modern times) as a codeword for being at war with the white race. Elysium is increasingly put into perspective as being the last white outpost in the universe. The reason why the residents of Elysium don’t want immigrants is because of the fact that resources are so limited. The harshness with which they maintain their borders is due to the fact that any laxity would swamp and destroy everything that they have worked to protect. Citizenship must be limited in order to protect the citizenry in the face of limited resources. The biggest problem with the film is that the director refuses to acknowledge that supplies are not unlimited. When the multicultural alliance defeats the evil white racists, medical supplies and food are shipped to Earth to help the poor Third World of the entire globe. Earth is still broken, agriculture is still destroyed, the environment is poison; giving these people all of the resources of Elysium has only doomed the people of Earth to a slower death and then cast the children of Elysium into the same slow decline.

The film concludes with Matt Damon giving his life as some pathetic white Savior so that every Third Worlder is given citizenship to Elysium. With a smile the Hispanic protagonist proclaiming, “Elysium belongs to us,” and the white enclave is inevitably overrun and destroyed.

Elysium is propaganda at its worst. Leaving the screening I was at, one of the male viewers of the film remarked, “I still don’t want amnesty for the Mexicans.” Every day white Americans see how heavy handed the Left has become in advocating for our genocide and cultural destruction. The awakening is beginning. I hope more films like this are trotted out, further alienating white America. The goal of white advocates must be the creation of our own Elysium. A white enclave, for us, by us, and a home that we are willing to die for and kill for. Elysium is a dream that I hope we can achieve within my lifetime, not among the stars but right here in North America. If not, I will strive to give it to future generations. Our people deserve a safe home to exist in, away from the Third World invaders. Elysium, here we come.




I have to admit I am yet to see this film but after reading this excellent review I think its one we all should watch. Once I have seen this I will add my own thoughts on it.

Police probe guard for barring trans man from female toilets

Police probe guard for barring trans man from female toilets

Police have started a hate crime investigation after a security guard prevented a transsexual man from using the female toilets in an Edinburgh shopping centre.

River Song, 18, claims a security guard at the St James Centre said, “You are a male and always will be” after being asked to show ID.

River Song, who has not had a sex change yet, complained to the Police about the comments.

He said the guard stopped him outside the female toilets and asked why he was using them.

A spokesman for Police Scotland said: “Police in Edinburgh attended a shopping centre in the city centre on Monday following reports of offensive comments made by a security guard towards an individual within the complex.

They confirmed that enquires about the incident were ongoing.

In America, a transexual man was allowed to use a female changing room at a college which was also used by children.

The 45-year-old had been living as a woman since 2009, and said he believed children need to be ‘educated’ over the issue.

But because of anti-discrimination laws, a Police report showed that charges were unlikely to be brought.

In the US state of California, a controversial Bill allowing transexual students to access bathrooms and changing rooms of the gender they have chosen, was signed into law earlier this month.

Politicians have argued that the new law could be exploited.

Monday, 26 August 2013

MTV the Bastion of Jewish created Decadence Designed for Gentile Consumption

Is this what you want your childrens 'idols' and role models to behave like?

These images are of Miley Cyrus'  performance at the MTV video music awards in New York. This is how MTV impacts on your childrens minds especially young girls who 'aspire' to be like her, because they perceive this as normal and consider Cyrus 'cool' and view MTV as representative of how we are to be and how we should want our society to be.

Miley Cyrus was an icon among young girls when she played the character of Hannah Montana which was a very popular childrens programme aired all across the West.

Young children have grown up following her from that programme to what she does now. An already accepted and famous figure who had the minds and hearts of the young as the likeable and innocent Hannah Montana, has morphed into what you see presented here. This is the standard of MTV and the messages they purposefully send out to each young generation watching their garbage.

Who owns MTV? Sumner Murray Redstone (born Sumner Murray Rothstein; May 27, 1923) he is a media magnate. He is the majority owner and Chairman of the Board of the National Amusements theater chain. Through National Amusements, Sumner Redstone and his family are majority owners of CBS Corporation, Viacom, MTV Networks, BET, and the film studio Paramount Pictures he estimated to be worth over $4 billion. So many Jews changing their names, maybe they are encouraged to do so as the Jewish Encyclopedia tells them to do so, and lets be honest, he is one of many who do this to conceal their identity.

Look at MTV as a whole, it is full of this kind of material. It pushes the miscegenation agenda aimed at young white girls. It shows black 'rap' music that is full of anti-white hate. Killing whites, sex and violence are the hallmarks of MTV and it is poisoning your childrens minds and implanting images and behaviours in their heads that are aimed at corrupting them and turning them into self destructive pawns in the overall game.

MTV and the 'entertainment' industry create these people like Cyrus, pay them well, and in turn they literally sell their souls to the devil in pushing this agenda.

We need to teach our children about this, and help them to break free of the chains that will, if we dont stop it, enslave them in the world of destruction that has been created for them.

Friday, 23 August 2013

Cultural Marxist Conformity - No Freedom of Speech for Non-Conformists

Yelena Isinbayeva Condemned For Supporting Russia's Anti-Gay Legislation:

There is growing pressure on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to remove pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva from her ambassadorial role after the Russian supported the country's anti-gay legislation.

Isinbayeva, 31, criticised high jumper Emma Green-Tregaro for opposing Russia's new law, which makes it illegal to give under-18s information about homosexuality.

"It's disrespectful to our country, disrespectful to our citizens because we are Russians," Isinbayeva, speaking in English, said at the Moscow World Championships.

Maybe we are different than European people and people from different lands.

"We have our law which everyone has to respect. When we go to different countries, we try to follow their rules. We are not trying to set our rules over there. We are just trying to be respectful.

"We consider ourselves, like normal, standard people, we just live boys with women, girls with boys... it comes from the history."


Why is she being 'condemned' again? Oh yes, she supports a law banning the promotion of homosexuality to minors. Is that worthy of condemnation? No it is not. Does she not have the right to freedom of speech? Does she not reserve the right to support the banning of homosexual propaganda being forced onto young Russians?

This is how it works, if you do not conform to the cultural marxist agenda in all its forms you are to become a social outcast, demonised in the media, removed from any positions you might hold, and nationally your country will be 'condemned' by other nations drowning in cultural marxism. Only conformity is allowed in the cultural marxist world. The very people who preach tolerance of thoughts and speech do not tolerate different thought and speech if it does not fit the narrative of the zeitgeist.

The most important thing to remember about this law is that it is basically banning the indoctrination of children, which if allowed only furthers the militant gay agenda as it is doing in Western countries. What person in their right mind wants children exposed to homosexuality? Why do homosexuals and their 'supporters' want or need to indoctrinate your children using the state to do so via the education system and 'entertainment' industry? Shouldn't we all want the indoctrination of our children banned and made illegal?

All the talk of equality and tolerance is deceptive, just as it is when applied to multiculturalism and 'diversity.' It is about empowerment of an anti-Western destructive agenda that is cultural marxism, it is not about tolerance or 'equality' it is about criticising, undermining and destroying.

These are the aims of cultural marxism and as you can see all have largely been achieved and especially number 3 in relation to this issue.

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of school and teachers authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy National identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking.
7. The emptying of the churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against the victims of crimes.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of family.

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963 states quite clearly the aim with its 17th and 26th goals:
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

These goals dont just apply to America.

Then we had the 'Gay Liberation Front' and their 1970s 'manifesto' whos stated aim was:

"We must aim at the abolition of the family."

The document (manifesto), lists the so called institutions of 'oppression.' Top of the list is the family, "The very form of the family [dad, mum, kids]  works against homosexuality." Next, schools which reinforce the idea that boys and girls are different, using sinister instruments of repression like "competitive sports".

Then it's the church which advances "irrational teachings" about "the family and marriage". The media is next in line, owned by rich men peddling "society's image of 'normal' man and woman". Then comes people's vocabulary, followed by employment and the law.

The above could be straight out of the communist manifesto.

An excellent summary of it in a nutshell is: 'Gay marriage isn't about bringing the ideology of marriage to the sexual radicals. It's about bringing the ideology of the sexual radicals to marriage in order to destroy it.'

The manifesto states:
'Gay liberation does not just mean reforms. It means a revolutionary change in our whole society. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society's most basic institution-the Patriarchal Family. Yet although this struggle will be hard, and our victories not easily won, we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family.'

To understand their agenda read it:

Also read...

Lesbian Admits Marriage Equality Is A Lie:

Friday, 16 August 2013

Tim Wise - An Open Letter to White People.

Tim Wise An Open Letter to White people

Timothy Jacob Wise (born 4 October 1968) better known as Tim Wise, is a Jewish Europhobic agitator and cultural Marxist propagandist involved in the pseudoacademic school of critical race theory.

Among with his co-tribalist, Noel Ignatiev, he is one of the main  propagandists openly avocating the genocide of ethnic Europeans (which he dresses up as attacking so-called "white privilege").

He is an anti White pusher of the 'White Privilege' myth and whiteness studies. He has spoken at over 600 college campuses in the US and his anti White rhetoric has had a far reaching affect across Western nations and has permeated most of our educational institutions. The vast majority of White and non White students have been taken in by his blatant anti White agenda. The education system is a never ending cycle of this kind of propaganda.

As one of the cultural-Marxists who helped to successfully push the ultra-PC concepts of "white privilege" and "institutional racism", Wise became well-known to friends and foes alike. Wise's efforts at demonising whites were complemented by his vigorous defenses of racial preferences for blacks ("affirmative action").

Some of his written anti White propaganda include:

•White Like Me
•Great White Hoax
•Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White
•Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections from an Angry White Male

The titles of these are enough to establish exactly what the agenda of this individual is. He is a dedicated liar and manipulator of public opinion among Whites who are his primary target. The lunacy of the 'White Privilege' lie should make White people reject this anti White, iv said it before but it needs saying again. When you look in the mirror as a working class White man or woman do you see youself as privileged because of the fact you are White.

Do you as a parent of White children see your children as being privileged because they are White, i do in a sense because im proud of who i am and who they are but for them to succeed in life, will be a result of thier own hard work and not the leftist interpretation of privilege. Do you look at every White person in the street and see this mythical White Privilege. And do any of you White people feel some sort of ridiculous guilt for this supposed White Privilege. If you do then it is because you have been lied too and brainwashed into thinking it because of the anti White agenda that is behind it.

Why would anybody allow thier hard work, dedication, intelligence and ambition to be called a 'privilege' based on your race, and further allow it to be become a tool to turn them against thier own people. Somehow I dont think too many White working class people across the West see themselves as privileged standing in the dole queue or relying on food banks to feed them and thier families. No, the White privilege lie is aimed at further undermining the White race so it becomes passive to its ongoing decimation.

Furthermore, how can White people be privileged in society compared to non Whites, when our homelands are historically ethnically White, built by our forefathers and defended by them for centuries. Should we allow ourselves to become under 'privileged' in our own ancestral homelands just to appease the egalitarian anti White fantasy. It seems this is the case as Whites continually fall for the deceit thrown at them, it is being achieved via a sophisticated network of subversion.

People like Tim Wise like to speak of 'equality' 'tolerance' 'diversity' and 'anti racism', and while many of us see right through these subversive words, unfortunately many Whites do not. As is always the case, the real agenda of people like this is never far behind the socially 'acceptable' catchphrases that they like to hide behind.

Mr Wise recently let the cat out of the bag. On November 3rd, 2010, Tim Wise published a vitriolic hate-filled rant, targetted at whites. In it, he openly mocked and demonised whites, and gloated about their impending minority status.

The title of the article is An Open Letter to the White Right...On the Occasion of Your Temper Tantrum

Whatever the case, and whatever your economic station, know this… You need to drink up. And quickly. And heavily. Because your time is limited. Real damned limited. So party while you can, but mind the increasingly loud clock ticking away in the corners of your consciousness. The clock that reminds you how little time you and yours have left. Not much more now. Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick. Tock.

Your kind mostly older white folks beholden to an absurd, inaccurate, nostalgic fantasy of what America used to be like — are dying. You’re like the bad guy in every horror movie ever made, who gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass — even if it takes four sequels to make it happen — but who in the meantime keeps coming back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were finally dead this time.

And in the pantheon of American history, conservative old white people have pretty much always been the bad guys ... Unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.
And [Leftists] know how to regroup, and plot, and plan, and they are planning even now — we are — your destruction.

Do you hear it? The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently? Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.

No charges for hate crimes or incitement to genocide have yet been filed.

A very interesting debate between Jared Taylor and the anti White Tim Jacob Wise on the "merits of racial diversity".


A Critique of The Political Movements Demanding Same Sex Marriage

A Critique of the Political Movements Demanding Same Sex Marriage

Executive Summary

The political movements driving the demand for same sex marriage are based on totalitarian ideologies injurious to western democratic principles and practice.

Personal Details

Alan Williams is a contributor to Anglican Mainstream on the same sex marriage campaign and the Frankfurt School - MA - Philosophical and Psychological Problems in Education - Counselling - Dissertation on Self Concept and Self Esteem - Book reviewer

Campaign Critique - Summary

1. Two cultural/political movements underpin demand for Same Sex Marriage (SSM)

a. Gay Rights Movement. b. Neo-Marxist Counter Culture Movement (Frankfurt School)

2. Lenin/Mȕnzenberg - seduction of West's intellectuals - Lukacs - Sex 'Ed' for children

3. Lenin's concept of 'political correctness' used by elite for both movements.

4. Marcuse - Cultural Marxist- Critical Theory - attacks western democratic cultural traditions of family, Church and patriotism. Aim to replace capitalism with neo-Marxism.

5. Gramsci - Neo-Marxist ideologue urges activists to make alliances with 'victim' anti-establishment groups & infiltrate institutions. Change and control language.

6. Alfred Kinsey - Self appointed 'sexologist' - scientific fraud - Kinsey Institute - homosexuality as 'life style' - Forms of homosexuality - Sexual anarchy advocates

7. Homosexuality and the Law - Decriminalisation - Stonewall - political action groups - removal from list of psychological disorders - removal of Clause 28 - Civil Partnerships - Diversity and Equality legislation

8. HIV/AIDS threat to gay rights movement. - compassion for AIDS sufferers - initiative regained - After the Ball - propaganda campaign for homosexual equality - media strategy Desensitisation - Silencing critics with homophobia accusations (Jamming) - Conversion

 9. Narcissistic nature of homosexual relationships. Gay 'marriage' a legal fiction.

10. Longer term consequences - sexual anarchy - social disorder - demands for 'strong' totalitarian government - loss of democratic freedoms - Huxley's vision

1. The demand for Same Sex Marriage (SSM) shocks many who believe that the establishment of Civil Partnerships for homosexuals was the end of their demands for legal recognition as couples. When supporters of natural heterosexual marriage contemplate the social implications of SSM they are greatly disturbed to discover that SSM legally:

· validates the false concept that children do not need both a mother and a father

· treats parenting roles as wholly interchangeable

· renders marital complementarity irrelevant

· contradicts the clear differences in biology and reproductive roles of males and females

· denies the right of any child born via IVF for same sex couples to know and be cared for by their biological parents as established by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child  [1]

2. Many landmarks of western civilisation are being swept away in a riptide of radical social and political movements. The most obvious one is the Gay Rights Movement which has made increasingly strident demands for special legal rights and protections. This international political movement is organised through six major organisations; the Human Rights Campaign (HRC); the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF); Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG); the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) and Stonewall. The movement is well funded with very powerful political connections. It claims the credit for UK homosexual rights legislation being passed after the year 2000.

3. The other movement, less obvious and less well known but even more influential than the Gay Rights Movement is the Counter Culture led by ideologues influenced by the neo-Marxist/neo-Freudian Frankfurt School. Tasked with covertly undermining western democratic capitalism the School was set up in the early 1920s in conjunction with Frankfurt University as the Institute for Social Research (ISR) [2] . It is the ISR which has given us Lenin's concept of 'political correctness' invented to control the Bolsheviks.  [3]

4. After WWI Lenin realised the West's workers were not going to rise up against their capitalist overlords and install communism, so he decided to find other people to do it. Identifying the family, the Church, democracy and patriotism as the main points of resistance to international communism, he chose to seduce the West's political elite, the most gullible of whom came to be known as the 'useful idiots,' into betraying their civilisation. Two key players in this enterprise to make western civilisation 'stink' were Willi Mȕnzenberg [4]  and Georg Lukacs. Mȕnzenberg recruited the 'idiots' into what he called his 'Innocents Clubs, manipulating them into promoting the foreign policy of the USSR and undermining their patriotism. [5]  To destroy the natural traditional family Lukacs, the first Frankfurt School director, forged premature sex 'education' to young children to stimulate sexual experimentation and promiscuity. When Sheffield parents recently discovered their children were being given the same 'education' it caused a storm of protest. [6]  Lukacs also encouraged easier divorce and access to contraception, pornography and 'free' love. Abortion on demand was legalised in the USSR in 1920. (With a Russian population crash forecast Putin is now supporting larger Russian families. He has also banned Americans from adopting any more Russian children because of the pro-homosexual adoption laws in some states.)

5. Berlin by 1930 was a byword for decadence. But in 1933 the Scholars had to move because Hitler had come to power and most of the academics, like Herbert Marcuse, were Jewish and Marxist. Eventually finding a new home in New York's Columbia University courtesy of communist sympathizer and leading educationalist John Dewey, they quickly became the highly influential gatekeepers of American academe and culture. Columbia played a leading role in educating America's public school teachers and this gave the Frankfurt School, now known as the International Institute of Social Research, prime access to them. [7]  Here America's young elite learned Critical Theory. While posing as intellectual criticism of their culture, it was in fact cultural Marxism. They learned to attack the western cultural traditions which supported marriage and family life, respected the Christian Churches, protected democratic freedoms and encouraged patriotism. So when graduates entered the professions they were saturated with the values of 'Critical Theory.' Unwittingly they had become ambassadors for cultural Marxism.

6. It was during the 1930s that Antonio Gramsci, a highly intelligent Italian neo-Marxist, produced what came to be known as his Prison Notebooks. Smuggled out of prison they detailed how his followers could change the West's culture from being led by Christian tradition into one led by neo-Marxism. A key idea was for them to acquire 'soft power' by forming alliances with anti-establishment groups who saw themselves as 'victims' of prejudice and discrimination by society at large. These alliances were to last as long as they were useful. Activists were also encouraged to infiltrate institutions like the Law, the Trade Unions, the mass media, Education and the Church, to establish left leaning policies when they could. Gramsci also advocated the use of politically correct language claiming it was the way to abolish prejudice. Few know about its Marxist-Leninist assumptions.

7. In the 1940s and early 1950s Alfred Kinsey, a well respected zoologist, became a self designated 'sexologist.' But he had an undeclared agenda. He wanted to destroy Christian sexual morals. He was a sexual anarchist, who believed that orgasm, obtained in any way other than rape, was self justified. His father, a Christian, was overbearing and very demanding of him. And Kinsey hated him for it. Kinsey believed that if he could show that human beings were just like animals so far as sex was concerned, then he would free himself from any criticism of his own perverse practices and 'liberate' what he regarded as the prudish attitudes of his fellow Americans. So he 'cooked' the research he published in 1947 and 1954 on male and female human sexual behaviour. By selecting candidates who fitted his desired profile he was able to demonstrate by this ' statistical research' that people were just like animals when it came to sex. Criticised by other academics for his 'poor' methodology, the FBI wanted to arrest him for corrupting America's youth but they didn't know how to handle him or his 'statistics.' He died in 1956 believing he had failed. How wrong he was. His research wasn't thoroughly discredited until 1990 by Dr Judith Reisman et al. [8]

8. Unfortunately in the meanwhile Hugh Hefner, acknowledging his debt to Kinsey, had popularized the essence of Kinsey's heavy 'academic' tomes through Playboy magazine delivering a message every adolescent male wanted to hear; you don't have to be married to have sex! [9]  And the same message has been delivered by other highly respected figures like anthropologist Margaret Mead, who also produced false findings in her seminal research, [10]  and Helen Gurley Brown whose autobiographical Sex and the Single Girl (1964) inspired Sex in the City. Gurley Brown also edited Cosmopolitan. Before the 60s sexual revolution there were two major venereal diseases, today there are over two dozen! Tragically the Kinsey Institute became the world's leading authority on sex and how to educate children about it! Kinsey himself endorsed consensual homosexual behaviour as legitimate along with paedophilia and bestiality.

9. But Kinsey was not a psychologist. His idea that sexual polarity was like shoe sizes, with most people's sexual orientation being potentially bi-sexual and rightly placed near the centre of a Bell Distribution Curve is simply nonsense. Bi-sexuals are rare. Homosexuals are less so. Featuring disproportionately in the media gives a false impression of greater numbers. Some do have a high public profile. Nevertheless about 97% of people are heterosexual. A psychologist specializing in treating people with unwanted homosexual desire sees male homosexuality, for example, in two ways. Firstly, it is a psychological disorder, originating in childhood trauma, and secondly as opportunistic in the absence of women, hence its appearance in single sex institutions, and disappearance outside them. [11]  Also Kinsey's estimate of the prevalence of homosexuality as 10% was a complete fabrication. Very large and well publicised surveys since carried out put it at 1.5 - 3.00%. And in any event prevalence does not justify it as a sexual practice, as Kinsey implied, just as a high proportion of murderers would not justify murder. Lastly homosexuality is not a personally benign feature like being left handed. While radical, it is not a fixed trait and renders practitioners very vulnerable to illness and disease. Those unhappily involved in homosexual practices can stop with the right help and begin a heterosexual life. [12]

10. Until 1967 homosexual acts were illegal in the UK. Since then homosexuals have gained more and more legal rights and now demand the right to 'marry.' There are some countries around the world which have endorsed same sex marriage but there are also others like Honduras and Latvia which have specifically banned it. Recently the Russian government has taken a very hard line against Gay Pride and the promotion of homosexuality. Not to be put off gay activists continue trying to 'make the whole world 'gay.' [13]  In the UK they have achieved the removal of Section 28 which specifically forbade the promotion of homosexuality in schools; the introduction of Civil Partnerships and Sexual Orientation Regulations granting rights to services secured through the Equality Act, and other Parliamentary Acts favouring homosexuals. But by far the most important change in the social/political status of homosexuality was made by the world leading American Psychiatric Association (APA). In 1973 it was manipulated and intimidated by activists aided by Kinsey Institute personnel into removing homosexuality from its Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III). [14]  After that decision almost every professional psychiatric, psychological and health organisation in the West followed suit. Along with Diversity and Equality Legislation, which includes the new category of Sexual Orientation, homosexuals have the legal tools to trump any challenge to them obtaining their new 'rights.'

11. And all of this despite the emergence of a disease killing tens of thousands and incubated and spread so widely by homosexual activity that initially it was popularly referred to as the gay plague. Indeed so dominated were the first casualty lists by homosexuals that it was officially called the Gay Related Immunity Deficiency Syndrome or GRIDS. But gay rights activists were having none of it; because bi-sexuals and heterosexuals also became infected they insisted it be called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) to remove any reference to homosexuality; and they got their way. But even today, and in spite of the safe sex message, most diagnoses in today's renewed epidemic are very much found in men who have sex with men (MSM). [15]  So with this massive backlash by nature itself against homosexual activity how did the gay rights movement manage to stay on the rails?

12. It nearly didn't. Ironically public compassion for film stars like Rock Hudson, who millions saw virtually dying on TV, saved the day for the gay rights movement. Driven to do something by the crisis activists had a conference in 1988. The following year a plan of action was set out in After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90s. Written by gay activists, Kirk & Madsen, they described exactly how the mass media could be used to carry gay propaganda and capitalise on the public's compassion. They also set out to capture the mass media itself to control what the public knew about homosexual matters. Any negative item was to be squashed, anything positive was to be widely published. The success of the campaign surpassed their wildest dreams.

13. In the introduction they write, "AIDS gives us a chance…to establish ourselves as a victimized minority.. deserving … special.. care… "The campaign….of unabashed propaganda, (is) firmly grounded in.. principles of psychology and advertising." [16] Kirk was a neuroscientist and he knew similar propaganda had worked in communist China in the 1950s. After demanding that activists stop confronting the public with narcissistic displays, they proposed a three part strategy for what they called their "Waging Peace" campaign as they re-opened their front in the Culture War.

The Strategy

a. Desensitisation. Supported by gay entertainers and media professionals activists were urged to talk about homosexuality at every opportunity and claim equal civil rights. On no account was intimate homosexual behaviour to be shown, certainly in the early stages. Instead homosexuals were to be depicted as harmless, average young people from loving families. (NAMBLA The North American Man Boy Love Association was to be kept completely out of the picture.)

b. Jamming. Objectors were to be silenced using a special psychological technique used in totalitarian societies. They were to be accused of having a socially unacceptable attitude; 'homophobia.' (This rare psychological disorder actually describes an irrational fear of sameness or monotony - reminted the word means to have a bigoted hatred of homosexuals.) As no-one wants a reputation as a prejudiced bigot their silence avoids it.

c. Conversion. Lenin believed that films were vital in the making or the breaking of a nation's culture. [17]  And by using films the emotions of susceptible people can be conditioned into actually liking homosexuals by stimulating their desire to protect innocent 'victims,' and by always associating homosexuals with them. Films like Philadelphia and Broke Back Mountain are Oscar winning examples. Also a myriad of today's TV soaps, sitcoms, drama series and even adverts selling beds, desensitise viewers further by showing homosexuals as unthreatening and normal just like everyone else.

This strategy is reinforced by activists being urged to use the following eight tactics.

 i. Don't just express yourself; claim that gays deserve special protection.

ii. Appeal to the Ambivalent Skeptics.

iii. Keep talking about gayness.

iv. Keep the message focused; the issue is homosexuality.

v. Portray gays as victims not as aggressive challengers

vi. Give potential protectors a good cause.

vii. Make gays look good.

viii. Make the victimizers look bad. [18]

14. For the propaganda campaign to work the public had to accept that homosexuals are victims of circumstance because they are born gay. But the campaigners themselves knew this was false. As they write, "We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay - even though sexual orientation, for most humans seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and adolescence." [19]

15. If homosexuals are not born gay then what is it that drives homosexual activists into demanding absurd things like gay 'marriage' and that their relationships be beyond criticism? Kirk & Madsen had the answer to this too but applied it only to certain 'sick' gays. It is a combination of histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders. As Kirk & Madsen write it is often associated with a homosexual arousal pattern … and such patients have a grandiose sense of self importance …fantasies of unlimited ability, power, wealth, brilliance, beauty or ideal love …are exploitative …have irrational, angry outbursts …tantrums…extreme self-centredness …exploitative … outright lying. And these few symptomatic behaviours are from a very long list. Contradicting themselves Kirk and Madsen make it clear that these characteristics don't just apply to certain 'sick' gays they are very common amongst homosexuals.  [20]

16. If same sex marriage is legalised it will be an endorsement of an essentially narcissistic, disordered and sterile relationship in which the lover sees him/herself perfectly reflected in the beloved. As with Narcissus this vision is an illusion. So same sex marriage is not a relationship which can qualify as equal to heterosexual marriage in which the husband and wife complement each other in a potentially procreative union. Also whereas faithful heterosexual couples without previous sexual relations are not vulnerable to physiological damage and disease. So called 'faithful' homosexual couples are highly vulnerable, in part because in homosexual culture 'faithful' does not mean completely exclusive. [21]  Homosexual marriage would be a legal fiction with no intelligible meaning and become the focus for social friction if its supporters attempt to force those who deny its legitimacy to accept it; and/or vice versa. [22]

17. In the longer term it would inevitably encourage those who wish to have their poly sexual relationships legally recognised too. [23]  Such recognition will not be for the public good but it would be logically impossible to deny once the natural definition is rejected. This would encourage an increase in the level of sexual anarchy we suffer already and eventually more social unrest. Such a future would almost certainly lead to demands for 'strong' government to control the streets. And for that government to take any draconian action it would need totalitarian powers. So same sex 'marriage,' rather than strengthening heterosexual marriage as some would have us believe, could play a part in ending the democratic freedoms for which our forbears fought and died. As Aldous Huxley stated, in such a society people will come to 'love their servitude' [24] … and at least 60 percent 'would be drones existing in a miasma of unrestrained sex' [25]  with maybe millions in Gulags.


Wednesday, 14 August 2013

The Lies, Hypocrisy and Deceit of the Left.

Whenever we hear leftists speak about workers rights, social justice, tolerance and diversity, we have to remember that these people are traitors, and what they say and what they mean are two very different things. What they say, sounds to many as 'righteous' but to those who can see behind the mask we know that their true agenda is as far removed from righteous as anybody can get. So for those who are misled and duped by left wing arguments, this is a look into what lies behind the mask of leftist groups.

These people often call themselves 'anti-racists' and socialists, but what they are is communists, internationalists who believe in the communist slogan 'Workers of the world unite.' This basically means that they see socialism/communism, as an ideology that is supportive of a world with no borders. They despise the nation state, they despise the culture, the majority ethnic group and what they will tell you is the oppressive class ie the capitalists, bankers and corporations. And now since the emergence of cultural marxism, it is whites, Christianity and Western culture that have joined the list of oppressive groups exerting power and influence over all others.

The left see themselves as neo-revolutionaries who use communist rhetoric in softer terms, but wish for the same outcome that the  communists in 1917 Russia had. They still campaign on workers rights issues, but it is no longer just workers of the world unite, but whites and minorities in ONLY white countries unite. It is cultural marxism using minorities to achieve what the workers of the West rejected ie communist revolution. If a communist revolution were to happen tomorrow in your country, you can guarantee that all of the leftist groups would be actively involved and supporting it, and would rejoice in the communist takeover of your country.

The neo-revolutionaries, groups such as the far left unions, 'anti-racist' groups and anarchists etc will tell you that we should all 'unite' against our oppressors, war mongers, banks and corporations no matter our race or religion. They will tell you that our oppressors aim, is to set race against race and to divide us. And to a degree that is true, but not in the way they would have you believe.

The only racial group that has been divided and almost conquered are the indigenous people of this country and all other ethnically European countries. And it is that, which was always the aim, and these neo-revolutionaries aid them in doing that. As we have said, they are the useful idiots who do the groundwork of the people they say they oppose, and are that stupid that they cannot see that, or of course know exactly what they are doing.

Those they speak of as oppressors, are the same ones implementing conditions onto white Western nations that weaken them and ultimately make them less likely to rise up for their people and nation. Look at your country, do you honestly believe that all of the mass immigration and pro multicultural propaganda has been a natural occurrence? By falling for this leftist propaganda of all races uniting to defeat a common enemy, we would be facilitating the downfall of our own people as they have planned.

None of what leftists say is in the national interest, nor is it in the interests of the indigenous people of that nation. Their intent is the eradication of the nation state in the long run, just as it is the aim of Jewish globalism, the people who control the banks and the corporations. An open minded look into who has been behind mass immigration into white countries will show you who has designed the West to be as it is today, and that it has not been a natural occurrence but social and ethnic engineering on an unprecedented scale.

A good starting point would be who was behind the Open Immigration Act of 1965 in America, the AJC American Jewish Committee and other powerful Jewish lobbying groups, and Barbara Spectres quote on the jewish role in immigration into Sweden and the rest of Europe, you will soon get the picture if you are not so stupid that you cannot see what is right before your eyes. Another good source of information on it is Dr Kevin MacDonald's book 'Culture of Critique - An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.'

The neo-revolutionaries of the left are proponents of cultural marxism, they attempt to justify their hatred of the nation state and hatred of our history and culture with the cultural marxist narrative that we the white race of different nations colonised the world, according to them we raped and pillaged all non European continents, and oppressed everybody we came into contact with.

We they say, are responsible for slavery and we apparently are the ones who are behind the current series of wars in the middle East, and by we I mean what they perceive to be a 'white' power structure. They use this narrative and repeat it often, as an excuse to empower non-whites, along with other minority 'victim' groups who became their new revolutionary tool to deconstruct and destroy from within ethnically European nations.

This is the tactic that has long been employed by Jewish globalists to undermine and destroy culturally and ethnically homogeneous European peoples, who would, if not under the spell of globalist media indoctrination, stop them in their tracks. And the hilarity of it all, is that the same globalist groups who the left oppose are the ones financing them, not because they believe in what the left say, but simply because what the left say and do aids globalism in its annihilation of the homogeneity of the West, what was that saying again? Useful idiots?

Basically, those who have always sought an end to white European and Christian nations have tapped into the stupidity and naivety of wannabe revolutionary leftist groups and use them as a tool of deconstruction. Just as during the Bolshevik revolution, Jewish capitalists and Bankers financed the Red Army led by Jews to bring down the Russian Czar, the Russian people and nation. So the rhetoric of fighting an economically oppressive system was nothing but a myth perpetuated by those who really wanted Russia destroyed, the Jewish bankers and globalists. And so it is today, different era same agenda, and same tactic employed.

Leftist groups are the foot soldiers of globalism, aiding in the destruction of the nation state and homogeneous European nations. Can anybody with an ounce of common sense, not see that the lefts support of immigration, multiculturalism and of 'diversity' is nothing but a continuation of their desire for an end to our nations as homelands for the indigenous people. What other purpose does it serve for them? Does it benefit the white working class? Does it benefit your children? What about future generations of our people?

When a leftist group such as the Uaf hold a rally in London for example, in support of multiculturalism and 'diversity' then stop for a minute and think about what they are really saying. Look at London, a capital city in a once white European country, were whites are now in the minority. Is that what they support, of course it is, that is what they have always wanted and that is what globalism always wanted. When you see groups such as the Uaf come out in support of illegal immigrants then ask yourself why are they really supporting them, it is not out of any compassion for their plight, it is because illegal immigration further destroys the ethnic and cultural make up of the nation state and dominant ethnic and cultural group.

After taking a step back and thinking about it in a different way to what they tell you, ask yourself how any of what they say is beneficial to you as an indigenous person to your country, ask yourself is it beneficial to your childrens future. The answer to any right minded individual is that no it is far from beneficial to you or your children, it is severely damaging. Then you may understand the true nature and agenda of leftist groups. For an ideology that supposedly campaigns and fights for the working class people of this country, they do a great job in doing everything they can to support everything that is detrimental to the indigenous working class and to the benefit of outside groups.


The key component of communistic style thinking is the oppressed group and the oppressor group, without it communism has no fuel for its fire, similarly with cultural marxism. The communism of old spoke of an oppressive economic system, it said that it would appropriate the wealth, land and property of the middle and upper classes and demolish the oppressive class system that saw the proletariat (working class) at the bottom of the pile working to provide wealth for the upper classes. As we all now know, this was another lie, as the wealth, land and property was appropriated (stolen) and was in control of the select few and mass murder and orchestrated mass famines ensued.

Cultural Marxism works on the same basis, the oppressors now according to them, are Western culture, the white race, the family (communism also wanted to abolish the family) the father, heterosexuals, Christianity and men. Our freedom of speech, our homelands, the minds of our people, our culture, our identity, our families and morality have been appropriated by stealth, and as with communism it has all been done to achieve certain goals contrary to what they tell you.

They tell you that we have no right to be against mass immigration because 'we colonised them in the past and treated them badly', what goes around comes around they say. They always fail to mention that every race, culture and nation has done something historically that they shouldn't have, but the emphasis is always on white Western civilisation and European Empires and in particular the British Empire. The left never tell you that the Turkish Empire was one of the longest lasting, largest and most brutal empires in the world. Do you see Turks being so stupid as to fall for all the self hate that is common among many Europeans? No. Do you see anybody using the history of the Ottoman Empire to flood Turkey with tens of millions of non-Turks? No. So why then, is this agenda seemingly only pushed onto white people?

Another thing the left always fail to mention is that whites were the first people to be enslaved by North Africans aswel as Arabs. They dont mention the Jewish role in the African slave trade or the Arab role in it, they perpetuate a creative history in which whites alone were the only ones who were involved in slavery, not that whites have been enslaved also and if anything slavery is an economic evil and nothing to do with race as its made out to be. Do we see Jews or Arabs being induced with false guilt for their roles in slavery? No.

Why do they never tell you that blacks enslaved themselves long before any European showed up, and that blacks sold blacks long before and long after whites brought about the abolition of slavery? So much they fail to tell you because it does not fit their anti-white agenda.

They will tell you that multiculturalism and 'diversity' are enriching and beneficial, they will tell you that race does not exist and we all come from some black tribe in Africa, and therefore we are all the same and so if whites become a minority, it doesn't matter because we are all the same just with different skin tones, and so it goes on. They try and tell you men oppress women and that the family is authoritarian and oppresses women and children. Homosexuality they say, is normal and anybody who disagrees is a 'homophobic bigot.'

They deny that gender roles exist naturally, and they tell us men and women are 100% exactly the same. They tell us that children do not need a mother and father, and that a father and a father is just as natural and normal. I could go on and on, but all of this is nonsense to anybody not brainwashed by it. The end goal of this school of thought is the same as what old school communists wanted. In Russia they wanted an end to Russia as it was, it had nothing to do with opposing capitalism, and had everything to do with Jewish hatred of Russia and the creation of an ideology that they hoped would sweep across the West, but which failed outside of Russia..... enter Cultural Marxism.

In the West, they wanted an end to the cultural traditions and norms of ethnically European people because of an historical hatred and fear of them, and they use these idiotic arguments as a strategy to achieve it. It has got nothing to do with wanting 'equality' 'diversity' and 'social justice' but it has everything to do with how best they can destroy Western civilisation and the white race to achive their communist 'utopia' which in reality will be the New World Order in which the useful idiots having served their purpose will disappear in the night.

The difference between communism and cultural marxism besides the perceived oppressive group, is the tactics. Cultural Marxism is slow, gradual revolution based on subversion and infiltration, whereas communism was revolution based on instant violent overthrow of nations. And it is cultural marxism that the left subscribe too knowingly or not today. They still see themselves as Trotskyists, Leninist or Stalinist but most of them are also supporters of Gramsci, Marcuse, Adorno and Freud etc.

Another way to look at it, and to see that everything the left stand for is to destroy the nation state is to see how many national flags you can see on leftist demonstrations, you wont find one, they hate the national flag of every country. They hate all national, cultural and ethnic identity and they hate pride in any of them even more.

What you will see on their demonstrations and rallies are many red flags, symbolising communism. You will see Che Guevara flags, you will see flags of the international marxist brigades who fought in the Spanish civil war. You will see anarcho-communist and anarchist flags, you will see trade union banners and flags but what you will never see is national flags or patriotic banners. Why is that? Could it be because their true agenda is and always has been to work against the best interests of the nation state and its indigenous people to further their world without borders ideology ie communism.

The Left and Islam/Multiculturalism:

Perhaps the most hypocritical example of leftist strategy is its support for Islam. Again, this has to be seriously considered when anybody is trying to understand the mentality of the left. Everything the left say they oppose is commonplace in Islam, oppression of women, of homosexuals, strong family values, religion etc. So why would the left support Islam in that case, but be opposed to it if it were displayed by white Western Christians? And i dont mean oppression of women but all of the other examples. If a Christian says he is against homosexuality then he is an intolerant homophobe who is using an outdated religious teaching to force people to conform to something that doesn't exist, there is no moral code, who are we to say who can do what etc. If a Muslim says it, then its part of his religion and we should respect his opinions and everybody has the right to religious freedom.

The lefts support of alien religions, cultures, and peoples is simply because they are drastically changing the face of European countries that the left want destroyed. It is an alliance of destructive intent, and your country, religion, culture and people are its target.

The major differences between the left and those who the left oppose politically, ie nationalists, is that nationalists do not support the current political or economic system in place either, but we do not seek the destruction of the nation state or our people to achieve change, the change we seek IS in the best interests of the nation and its people.

We dont hold our history, culture and people in contempt and we certainly dont blame them for the state of our nations today. We recognise that we have a corrupt political and economic system that is controlled by people who also want the demise of nation states, and we recognise that the left are pawns in that same nation destroying game.

We know our enemies, we know that globalism and far left politics are two hands of the same beast. We see the hypocrisy of the left and their treachery. We see through the historical lies of the cultural marxists, we know why and how the left use these lies to further their own ideological aims. We know who funded and founded communism and who has been behind the mass murder of hundreds of millions. We know that to be called racists for defending our country and people is the accusation of the schoolyard.

We know where the term originates from and how it is used to silence people. When the left call you a racist, a bigot, a fascist or a nazi then they have resorted to name calling and in doing so have lost any argument they think they may of had and employ the schoolyard tactic of 'im telling the teacher off you.'

The only way to revive our nations and to respect and embrace our history and culture is to reject the lefts lies, understand their true agenda, recognise them for what they are. We also have to understand that those in power are not running our country in your best interests as they were entrusted to do. We have to understand that those in power and those who pull the strings behind the scenes, are the ones who have opened our borders, who have forced multiculturalism onto us, who have lied to us about diversity being 'enriching.'

We have to understand that everything bad in our nations was designed to be that way, it did not happen by accident it has been for a driving political purpose and ideological agenda. We have to understand that our precarious financial situations as nations is no accident, that our own personal financial enslavement is no accident either. We have to understand that the wars we are now embroiled in are not in the best interests of our nations but in the best interests of Jewish globalism. Support our troops but dont support our treacherous politicians who send them to war based on lies for another country's interest.

Understanding all of this will lead to the recognition that multiculturalism, mass immigration, the left, wars in the middle East and financial enslavement are all linked to one thing, the march of Jewish globalism that has always sought the end of white nation states and through communism/cultural marxism and mass immigration supported by the left it is achieving it, what is mass immigration and multiculturalism if not to erode national, ethnic and cultural identity? Achieve that then what is left of the nation?

Through financial control of nations and banking systems it is achieving it, through globalist media it is achieving it, through their useful idiots of the left they are achieving it, through your apathy they are achieving it.

When the left say we should all unite no matter our race or religion, just remember that in doing so you are aiding in the continuing destruction of your people and nation and serving the agenda of those who are behind it. That doesn't mean you have to hate other people, loving your own people and country does not mean hatred for others, understanding what is really going on is going to bring you to an uncomfortable conclusion, but one that cannot be ignored.

Mass Immigration and forced Multiculturalism along with financial enslavement and war in the middle East via control of our governments is Jewish globalisms way of achieving global dominance without opposition, the left may aswel have Kosher mop handles stuck up their backsides because thats all they are, tools to be used to mop up the last of the European people's resistance.

Some people argue against nationalism saying it is in itself a collectivist ideology. They go off in all directions detailing why they believe nationalism is as bad communism. Without going into it all, nationalism is in no way the same, or as bad as communism. Nationalism believes in the indigenous people of the nation coming together for the good of the nation, with both the people and nation working together for the betterment of each other whilst at the same time honouring our ancestors and their sacrifices in accomplishing what they entrusted to us.

Nationalism does not betray the nation to internationalism, nationalism seeks to take control of the nations assests not to hand over to treacherous politicians working on behalf of globalism, but to ensure that the nations assets are used for the people of the nation and not subject to the abuse of international globalism masquerading as your government. Nationalism does not give the country away and destroy the ethnic and cultural make up of the nation for the deceitful myth of 'enriching' diversity.

The people of any given nation do not have to give up their individualism, but in times of need and to better themselves and their nation it requires a coming together as in times of war for example when people come to together to defeat an enemy.

Nationalism is not the problem nor is it the enemy, the collectivist ideology of communism is nothing like a nation coming together. Communist collectivism is about national destruction, nationalist collectivism when required is about defending and preserving the nation and warding off all potential threats to the nation, like a family, it has a collectivist attitude within its own environment, or in the nations case borders. The family would not open up their home to the whole community, they work collectively to the betterment of the people close to them within their family, the same as the nation should do. The family does not shun the outside world, but at the end of the day they close their door and enjoy the hard earned comforts of their hard work, the same should apply to the nation.

In the world in which we are living, do we really have anything to lose by putting our faith in nationalism.

So to summarise, the left are an enemy within. Either through sheer naivety or through an active understanding of what they are doing, they represent an enemy fifth column that is being used to strike at the heart of our people and nations. The next time you hear them talking about 'social justice' 'diversity' 'multiculturalism' and 'anti racism' just consider what their true agenda is, if you talk to one of them and chip away at the external mask, what you will find inside is what has been detailed in this post. And that is a deep rooted hatred of the nation, the culture and of morality. They are racial and cultural nihilists. They are the ones who say they are anti-racist when what they are is anti-white.

Monday, 12 August 2013

John Tyndall examines some popular nonsense about national identity

(Note) This post is obviously from a British point of view, but can be applied to all nations who's ethnic and cultural identity are under attack.

It seems to be the silly season for defining who we are, but at least there is one good omen in the current debate about what Britishness means: the press and TV would not be focusing on the subject in the way they are presently doing were they not sensitive to underlying currents of public concern that Britain's national identity is under threat, as indeed it is.

A few weeks ago we were treated to the unedifying public spectacle of a West Indian immigrant with the usual impeccable left-wing credentials taking us on a tour of Britain in which, with the aid of numerous carefully picked ‘spokespeople’, he informed us that the country our parents knew was gone for ever and that we had better get used to it because there was nothing - absolutely nothing - we could do about it. This prompted an article in these columns in which I attempted to define what Britishness meant in a way our dusky tour guide and his co-participants in the programme totally failed to do. But the media will not allow the issue to go away. It emerged again in a feature in the Daily Mail on the 30th March entitled ‘True Brit ’ in which, to use the paper's words, it asked six very different Britons how they define themselves.

Sri Lankan Briton:

It was clear of course from the start how the Daily Mail defined them, for among these ‘Britons’ were Shyama Perera, a Sri Lankan, who was given first call, and Mihir Bose, the Indian sports writer. Two out of six from the ethnic minorities is apparently that paper's idea of a representative debate about our country and its identity. However, let Mrs. Perera have her say. She, she said, arrived in London in 1962 but held on to her Sri Lankan citizenship for 25 years until she went back to the Indian sub-continent on her honeymoon and noticed how no-one respected traffic lights and everyone wanted to barge in on everyone else's conversation. This was the decider:

"I couldn't bear the chaos and intrusion, so I applied for my British passport. I'd always known that, spiritually, I am British through and through.

"It's nothing to do with district nurses on bicycles or bobbies on the beat. It's about Britishness as a state of being: an underlying emperance, a social tolerance.

"You see it in the polite queues outside post offices and in banks when cashiers go to lunch at the busiest moment. London can come to a standstill while a lorry unloads scaffolding - not one driver will toot their horn."

This and other attractive features of human behaviour resolved Mrs. Perera that Britain was the best place to be. Very conveniently, however, she failed to address the question of why people, according to her own account, behave so differently in the Indian sub-continent. Could it have anything to do with national character and temperament? That would seem to be a question fraught with danger because it might lead us to a discussion of that taboo subject of race. Mrs. Perera would of course repudiate this by saying that she, having integrated herself into a British environment, has acquired British habits and attitudes on such matters as queuing, and that therefore everyone else can do so. But national identity is not about how the odd individual thinks and behaves; it is about how people in the mass, the average do so. A great many people of Afro-Caribbean origin have been brought up in the same British environment as Mrs. Perera. Some individuals amongst them have adapted to that environment and taken on British modes of behaviour but an uncomfortable number have not, as is easily demonstrable to anyone who cares to observe.

Subject of the Crown:

Next in order to define being British was Sir Roy Strong. What made him British, he said, was being a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. What did that mean? Well, said Sir Roy, the Crown holds its diverse peoples in unity, one symbolised by a flag, the Union Jack. United we stand, divided we fall, and... "We have warded off every threatened invasion from without, including the might of Napoleon and Hitler."

But wait a minute! All the threatened invasions from without of which Sir Roy was speaking belong to ages before the huge influx of non-white races into Britain which began in the 1950s. Yes, at such times the country was united precisely because its people had a sense of belonging together, of being a single national entity, albeit with some minor variations as between English, Scots, Welsh, etc., and variations among those tribal groups. The British broadly looked the same, thought the same, shared an overall common culture and felt a sense of common loyalty to one another. That enabled their armed forces, responsible for national defence, to feel and act as one with London cockneys identifying themselves proudly with Scottish Highland and Yorkshire regiments and not infrequently serving in them. Within the British armed forces, as my own experience testifies, there was constant joking and leg-pulling between those of different regional backgounds, but nothing approaching the bitterly hostile ‘racism’ which now, apparently, causes deep divisions among serving men and women on the frank admission of the Ministry of Defence.

Would Britain, in a future war, be united and able to stand, or divided and prone to fall, with armed forces made up of the chaotic ethnic mix of which it is now composed? And would British citizens on the Home Front be able to behave in the calm, stoical and community-orientated way they did at the time of the Blitz in the early 1940s? Perhaps Sir Roy prefers not to consider such uncomfortable questions.

What is an invasion?

But there was another glaring oversight in Sir Roy's analysis obvious except to the purblind liberal. He spoke of invasions being ‘warded off’, but are the only invasions military ones? Is not any massive influx of foreign people over our borders, which portends huge and permanent changes in our national state of being, an invasion, quite regardless of whether it occurs by means of armed force or not? Elsewhere in this issue we shall focus on the threatened secession of the main part of America's south western area due to the encroachment of Hispanic immigrants over the past three or four decades. Had the same process occurred by means of an armed attack by the army of Mexico and the annexation by that country of the south western states of the US, no-one would think of describing it by any word other than invasion. Yet if these states are lost to the US by demographic conquest and a subsequent political ‘opting out’ by an Hispanic majority, the result would be no different. It seems futile to point out out to the likes of Sir Roy Strong that the same rule would apply to Britain; even if areas conquered and colonised by non British immigrants did not actually secede politically from the United Kingdom, but remained within it so that their people could continue to claim welfare benefits and other rights, they would cease to all intents and purposes to be British in the sense that we know the term. They would, in effect, have been invaded.

Sir Roy went on to speak of the rich cultural ‘heritage' which British people share, and alluded to Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Robert Burns and Dylan Thomas. He said that the British identity was one which he, as an Englishman, could share, not only with the Scots and the Welsh, "but others who have come to these shores, from Jews to Jamaicans..."

Frankly, this is pure drivel. Whatever one's individual preferences concerning writers like Wilde and Thomas, their works do belong to the authentic Anglo-Celtic-European cultural soil. But was Sir Roy seriously suggesting that there could ever have been a Jamaican Shakespeare, or for that matter a Jamaican Elgar, Turner or Christopher Wren? If he is, why have such immortal geniuses never emerged from that or any other Caribbean environment - or from out of the hundreds of millions who populate Black Africa or the Indian sub-continent from which Mrs. Perera has come?

Sir Roy concluded by speaking of his pride in his British identity, "an identity which it has taken centuries to forge and one which should not now be thrown away but rediscovered in all its pride of collective achievement."

Excellent sentiments! But where lies the danger of our identity now being thrown away? I suggest that it lies, not only in the political correctness of Tony Blair Cool Britannia culture, but also in the vast changes in our population that are now taking place through immigration of peoples culturally a whole world removed from us, and from the prolific birth rate of those of them already here. Yes, Sir Roy, our identity has taken centuries to forge; and what has forged it has been the merging and development of closely related North European peoples with only very minor ethnic variations between them. This identity will most surely be thrown away through similar merging between the native British and the mostly alien newcomers of the post-1945 period - just as prize dairy stocks will be destroyed by the interbreeding of them with stocks of wholly different origins and type. These truths are elementary to any farmer, and neglect of them would soon lead to ruin, but apparently when it comes to applying them to human species the subject is unfit even for decent discussion!

Life in the country:

To Val Hennessy, another contributer, "the essence of Britishness is found where I live, in rural Britain." Miss Hennessy went on to speak of: "Woods carpeted with bluebells, ringing with birdsong... you can't beat the beauty of our countryside, a pair of wellies, a pub lunch and walking the dog in a land of people who love dogs."

And there was more of the same: ancient churches; National Trust gardens; village stores; cream teas; coffee mornings; the singing of Handel's Messiah. Miss Hennessy expressed her infuriation that in Blair's Britain these things were scarcely understood, and I, for one, would not argue with her on that point.

But how do these images come to be regarded as intrinsic to Britain? Apart from the natural beauty of the countryside - which many nations, and indeed races, can claim of their native habitats - they are products of our own traditions and culture, which stem in turn from the type of people we are. Those who note with satisfaction that the British love dogs ought to go and see how dogs are treated in, for instance, India. Ancient churches? Yes, well, one will find churches of great beauty over most of Europe, though the beauty is often of a different kind. But what of Africa or the West Indies? Any churches of similar quality to be found in such places are certain to have been designed, and their construction overseen, by Whites. National Trust gardens? Another art form in which we British are unexcelled. Again, beautiful gardens may also be found in Continental Europe and lands overseas colonised and built up by Europeans. But where, except when created by white expatriates, are they to be found in the lands from which most recent migrants have come? Handel? Well, he was German but nonetheless European. Is there a West Indian Handel, or an Asian one? If so, I have yet to hear of him!

And if the red guards of multi-culturalism and multi-racialism have their way, Miss Hennessy may not for very much longer be hearing the Messiah in her village hall but may find that it has been replaced by gangsta rap, or some such new British musical idiom. I suspect that already that stirring sound can be heard across the local garden hedges by means of walkmans or in the pubs in response to the debased demand of the growing legions of morons who patronise such ports of call.

Inventors of cricket:

Mihir Bose, by his own account, came to Britain as a young student. After his studies he had three choices: he could have gone to America, returned to India or stayed here. "I chose to stay here," he affirmed, "and have never regretted it."

That I would not doubt. A return to his homeland would not have been likely to enhance Mr. Bos's pay packet and living standards, so it was a case of Britain or the United States. Maybe his fondness for cricket ruled out the latter country. Anyway, Mr. Bose was very proud of being British, he said. But his pride was not in the great wars the country has won, or the nationalism that can so often turn to jingoism and violence. It is, he said, "in the cultural and scientific riches of this country and its sheer humanity."

All this deserves a little closer analysis. Pride in victorious wars cannot, to any intelligent person, go to make up the be all and end all of patriotism and a sense of national identity; but in the case of a country like Britain at least, it should form quite an important part. An element of our self-respect demands that when our courage has been put to the supreme test it has not been found wanting. Only the bully goes looking for war as an end in itself, but history demonstrates that armed struggle is a recurring feature of the lives of most nations, and it is no more than human to gain satisfaction from struggles in which we or our ancestors have performed well.

But of course, quite regardless of arguments as to how important military prowess is in the folklore of any nation, British military prowess and achievement are not part of Mr. Bose's folklore, no matter how he may protest to the contrary. That he should seek patriotic inspiration in the martial deeds of is own forebears, whatever they may be, would be understandable. But one can hardly expect him to gain any such inspiration from those of our forebears - especially when some of them were at the expense of his.

As for cultural and scientific riches, those of Britain may indeed be admired by the likes of Mr. Bose, but I find it difficult to see how he can be ‘proud’ of them. I might as well settle among Australian Aborigines and proclaim that I am ‘proud’ of their having invented the boomerang! It all gets us nowhere in defining national identity.


Sheer humanity? It is at this point that we have to be careful, for what is happening is that we are being flattered. Native Britons, I am afraid to say, have an almost fatal weakness for this kind of compliment. It adds to our feel-good reserves just when we are most in need of them. Mrs. Perera knows that too, as she has demonstrated in her talk of an underlying temperance, a social tolerance. It is of course vital to those from outside who want our gates to remain open to them that Britons should be laid-back as to who comes through the gates. Of such a laid-back attitude all sorts of descriptions might apply: lazy, apathetic, cowardly, stupid, wishy-washy, unvigilant, unpatriotic, lacking in duty towards posterity - the list is extensive. But tell British people that they are these things and they might not like it. How much more comforting it is to their consciences to put it all down to their ‘humanity’ and their ‘underlying temperance’. In that way they can enjoy a little glow of self-righteousness instead of reproaching themselves for their failure to defend their frontiers and their heritage!

All this having been said, it is true that there is a certain humanity and temperance in Britons (and other Northern Europeans). Those things can be our strength or our weakness depending on circumstances. They are a strength when the need is for social cohension, respect for the law, polite behaviour, care for the very old and very young and other needy folk amongst us all civic virtues in times of national security and calm. On the other hand, when not carefully rationed and regulated this very same humanity and temperance can be a grave weakness in times of danger, when our national survival is under threat and we are beset by enemies who wish us ill. Prudent politics demand that we should not get carried away by slushy sentiment and dazzled by words when such things come into the equation but should know where the brake needs to be applied to them.

But this is not to say that when faced by enemies we have not usually displayed great humanity and temperance towards them. The British when victorious in war have generally taken their enemies prisoner and provided them with food, warmth and as humane conditions as circumstances have permitted a much kinder treatment than scalping them or putting them in the stewing pot. But this is the way we British are as a people. It stems from something in the race. Take away that racial ingredient, and there is no certainty that our captives would not have been subjected to much more barbaric practices.
For the future, we should endeavour to maintain the same standards of humanity in our dealings with other races, but this is very different from allowing them to walk all over us and take away our country.

Contradictory attitudes:

Malcolm Bradbury, another writer, clearly wants it both ways, which might be because he wants to appeal to opposite sections of his reading public at the same time. His sense of Britishness, he said...

‘...derives from both sides in this political debate. I want, as a writer, to live in a cosmopolitan and creative nation, active in the energetic cultural life of the 21st century world.

‘But that surely means sustaining much that is distinctive about Britain: its peculiar traffic between tradition and change, elitism and democracy, the strength of its countryside and the traces of past human history. It means not letting our urgency to live in the electronic present destroy continuity with the Britain of the past.

‘Britishness for me is not being quite American, not being European. It means not over-emphasising the tradition, yet not discarding the past. Above all, it means hoping that the result of our growing energy and diversity is a society comfortable with, and optimistic about, itself.’

The amount of waffle in all this leaves one breathless, but there are a few things which call for comment. There is nothing uniquely British about the problem of reconciling tradition with the modernisation essential to national efficiency; every nation has to grapple with that, but some do it better than others. Wise statesmanship is most certainly needed here, and wise statesmanship is something which we in contemporary Britain have not got. The climate of dripping liberalism almost everywhere results in our constantly sacrificing the best of our traditions in pursuit of an efficiency which we seldom seem to achieve. It is the innate silliness of the liberal consensus which dictates that efficiency and tradition must inherently be in conflict with one another, whereas in more adult and mature cultures that is rarely so. Just what has the downgrading of Shakespeare in favour of Rasta poetry got to do with getting British industry and public services to run better?

Mr. Bradbury seems to feel that, as a writer, he needs to live in a nation that is cosmopolitan and creative, as if both those things hung essentially together. They do not. Perhaps the most culturally creative period in English history was the Elizabethan period, not one noted for being cosmopolitan. It is true, of course, that the greatest fertility of European culture has come from the influences of one highly developed national culture bearing upon another; but that is not the same thing as cosmopolitanism. Great European writers, poets, artists, musicians and architects have enriched their output through contact with the works of others of different nationality but within a framework of common race; and virtually all the great art of Europe bears the imprint of such contact. But how much has European culture been enriched by contact with that of Asia? Not a lot. And with Africa? Not at all. Nevertheless, when Mr. Bradbury spoke of cosmopolitanism he clearly meant multi-racialism, not the mere cross-fertilisation of European national cultures that has been taking place for centuries.

And what of Mr. Bradbury's reference to "the energetic cultural life of the 21st century world?" Here, it seems, he was confusing energy with deafening noise, lurid illustration, literary shock and outrage and mere architectural bigness.

But he also wanted, so he said, to sustain much that is distinctive about Britain. What does this mean in his language? Not being ‘quite American’, not being European in other words, being more American than European. Just how this tallies with British distinctiveness is not explained, but we must not be unfair to Mr. Bradbury. By this time he was running out of space.

The passage about a society being comfortable with... itself seems to come right out of the phrasebook of John Major. But is it an ideal to be aspired to? It all sounds too much to me like smugness, stagnation and contentedness with the second-rate and the inferior. A nation comfortable with itself seems to be one not disposed to strive to eliminate the rottenness within, to reach after new and expanding horizons, to excel. It all evokes the image of old age, when great ambitions have been renounced and a cosy chair by the fireside is the highest aim - not a state to be disparaged in individuals who get to that stage of life but hardly an ideal for nations which, to survive, must submit themselves to a constant process of renewal.

Light amid the fog:

By far the most sensible contribution to the subject of Britishness came from Alan Massie. "I am British," he said, "because I am Scottish." And he continued:-

‘Some may see this as a paradox. It isn't. It is a fact of history. Likewise, William Hague is British because he is English. We are what we are as a consequence of centuries of history.

‘Some may resent this fact. But their resentment makes no difference...

‘My eight great-grandparents were all born, and lived all their lives, in Aberdeenshire. This reinforces my sense of Britishness because they, too, were inextricably British Scots...

‘Then I am a child of the Empire, which was always the British Empire, never the English or, indeed, Scottish Empire. At the age of 19 my father went out to be assistant manager of a rubber estate in Malaya...

‘I am British because I recognise how, over three centuries at least, Scotsmen and Englishmen have influenced each other.

‘The Romantic Movement, which in the early 19th century produced the finest flowering of English poetry since the Elizabethan Age, had its roots in Scotland.

‘The greatest moral force in Victorian England was a Dumfriesshire peasant's son, Thomas Carlyle. We have helped form each other, Scots and English; and what we have formed is British.’

Nowhere here, of course, is there mention of the dreaded word race, but one gets the feeling that it was not far from Mr. Massie's mind when he wrote the words. He is British because he belongs, ethnically, to one of the most vital and valuable components of the British Nation and ipso facto to the British ethnic Nation as a whole. At last we were getting somewhere near the core of the matter, even if Mr Massie, as a professional journalist, had to be a bit careful about his choice of words.

He spoke of the British being "a consequence of centuries of history." That is of course true, though it is not the whole truth. The American people are the consequence of their (fewer) centuries of history, and in their case that is nearly the whole truth. But in the case of us British the historical process happened to jell with ethnic homogeneity and compatibility - and was in fact primarily a consequence of those things. This makes our identity all the stronger, if only we rediscover the will to assert it.

Definitions absurd:

So, out of six definitions published by a national newspaper of what Britishness means we have just one which makes a bit of sense, and out of the other five we get two provided by people who by no stretch of imagination are British. O tempora, O mores!

All of this just illustrates the world of fantasy in which the media dwell, but to some extent even the media are the victims of concepts of Britain which would seem absurd even to Continentals, most of whom know the meaning of nationality quite clearly.

Go to most parts of Europe and you will find refreshingly commonsense and down to earth definitions of what a nation is: it is, according to such definitions, a community of people distinguished by an ethnic identity, that is to say people belonging to a particular biological type, recognisable by physical characteristics, mentality, language, culture and norms of behaviour. Of these things, the last three can be acquired through environmental influences - but only within the boundaries imposed by the first two. These are truths that can, and should, be accepted whatever one's political views about the race issue may be. In former Yugoslavia, for instance, it is well understood that a Albanian Kosovan does not become a Serb merely by living in Serbia and learning the Serbo-Croat tongue. These two nationalities are also distinct races. It is not considered beyond the realms of polite conversation to state the fact.

Even in Britain we were not always so daft about this matter. My main dictionary is Chambers's Twentieth Century, published in 1934 but not much changed since the first edition of it appeared in 1896. There nation is described as what it is: "a body of people born of the same stock", and later: ‘a race.’

By this definition, Britons can be Scots - as is Alan Massie, English - as is William Hague, or Anglo-Irish with a bit of Scots as I am. They can be these things because the stocks in question are close enough to be considered as of the same racial family. They cannot, remotely, be Sri Lankans, Indians, Jamaicans or people of any other stock hundreds of centuries removed, in anthropological and evolutionary terms, from the peoples of Europe. This is not to ‘hate’ them. It is not to suggest ill-treating them. It is only to recognise difference.

We therefore return to the definition of Britishness which I ventured in these columns two months ago: We British are the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...