Tory Party - Islam should become our state religion

Conservative Party - Islam should become our state religion

Written by Green Arrow @ The British Resistance

April 2012

Many years ago, I used to think that the average conservative voter had a few brains and bit more get up and go than some of the sheep people I would watch being shepherded into the voting booths to vote labour by people I knew to be nothing more than charlatans on the make. Clearly I was wrong, your average conservative voter is just a dull stupid blue sheep as opposed to the red sheep of the labour party and the only sheep more cowardly are the yellow sheep of the Liberals. It has been a long, long time since the conservative party's membership was anything like a patriotic party. Now they are just voting fodder for one side of the rotating dictatorship coin that who are themselves no more than puppets of the ZOG controlled New World Order - but whatever you do, do not mention the Jews, they tend to go a bit hysterical when you lift the rock off them and expose them to the truth. You all know that our Ashkenazi Jewish Prime Minister, David Cameron is a great admirer of the moslems and believes that we can learn a lot from these barbaric followers of a dead paedophile. You read here the other day, how the Turkish Immigrant Boris Johnson is crawling in the moslem sewers for their votes. Now read what Conservative Home has to say about the unwanted colonisers of our land: As I have said above, Christians accept the dictats of evidence over intuitive reason, but Islam is the most straightforwardly intuitive religion of all. Its core doctrines make perfect sense: there is one God over all the earth; He is our creator; He commands obedience from us; He will judge us at the end of our lives sending the virtuous to paradise and the wicked to hell. How could it be any more obvious? Islam is also clearly tempting to our Establishment - they admire its disciplines, certainty, self-confidence and clear hierarchies of authority........ Christianity cannot serve that role any longer in Britain, and the notion that it does has become a threat to individual devout Christians - the Establishment's self-hatred becomes manifest in oppression of Christians. The next best alternative is Islam. That would be the best way to go from here. You might remember that it was the treasonous and revolting Conservative Home site that threw a wobbly and wet their silk knickers when I wrote that the Queen was a liar and a traitor to her people. I now add all the stupid people who vote conservative to the list of traitors in Our Country. Come on people WISE up. It is us against them and they are winning.

Ethnic Minorities Now Decide General Elections Say Conservatives

Minorities Now Decide General Elections Say Conservatives

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

If we needed any further proof that the ballot box is now as colonised as our nation, we have it with revelations that Tory ministers and MP's have been told to attend Eid and Diwali celebrations because they can't win the next election without gaining support from Asian voters. Perhaps triggered by the Galloway victory in Bradford, where the power of Islam over the ballot box was demonstrated without question, the Tories are now in a flap that in order to stand a chance of winning at the next general election they need to secure the ethnic minority vote. Think on the implications of that, with a little bit of a reword whilst retaining the same meaning. According to the Conservatives, you cannot win a general election majority without securing the vote of ethnic minorities. That means nothing else than an open admission that ethnic minorities, those who have colonised our land, now hold in their hands the power to decide who governs us. Our electoral process is moot, colonisation is now a fait accompli - the British people have no say in it without winning the votes of our colonisers. Our colonisers are not so stupid as to vote themselves out of Britain, only we were stupid enough to vote ourselves out over the space of decades. That is one scary situation. We now have to, in effect, ask Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or a whole host of other countries people for permission to elect a British government of which they approve. One could indeed say that this means we no longer have a national government, rather an international one which cannot be voted into power unless it wins the approval of a foreign populace who happen to now be resident in the UK. The ramifications of that are truly staggering, one could read further into it that the British people are now no longer a decisive factor at the British ballot box. They have been disenfranchised from the electoral process, and things will only get worse as minority populations increase rapidly. The Conservatives themselves have now said it - at this point in time it is minorities who will be the decisive factor in who governs us and who determines our future. Our future has now been placed in their hands, we are no longer the deciding factor in elections in our own country.

How to build a police state in two very easy steps

How to build a police state in two easy steps

Written by Elite Commander

April 2012

Secret courts – what next? Things are deteriorating rapidly now. It was less than a week ago that Cameron’s government announced its plans to spy on every email, text message, phone call and website visit of everyone in the country. But now the situation is even worse. Now they’re talking about secret courts. A secret court hearing means, obviously, that the trial is unobservable to the public, ostensibly in the interests of protecting intelligence vital to national security. This may well be a legitimate concern. However, the problem arises when this power is abused; when there really is no ‘intelligence’ at risk of disclosure and the secrecy of the court is used to persecute dissidents. Unnecessary government surveillance and secret court hearings are two of the most immediately recognisable features of a police state – along with other things: Arbitrary detention without trial Super-injunction gagging orders, where you’re not even allowed to know there is a gagging order Talk of compulsory ID cards and DNA registration Internet censorship and blocking Labelling political opponents as ‘terrorists’ Snatching of children by the state in secret courtrooms where you are innocent until proven guilty ‘Hate speech’ laws suppressing free speech, prompting the detention of political prisoners Arbitrary extradition to other countries for crimes you may not have committed Beginning to sound familiar? As bad as things seem, however, once again, the comments on the BBC’s Have Your Say section (they really couldn’t find an excuse not to open it up for this article) are highly encouraging. The vast majority of people have no desire for secret courts and governments monitoring their every activity. There was a particularly profound response from one commenter, who said: “An English lady who lived in Nazi Germany talked about it on the World at War series ‘It didn't all happen at once. It happened slowly, in a drip drip drip manner over many years until eventually you found yourself being directly affected by Nazi policies’ Most folk in the UK are too busy either blindy[sic] obeying their masters or watching BGTalent to care what happens Bye bye Britain” This is identical to what will happen to us. As our liberties are eroded bit by bit, our people will not notice what is happening until the very end, when it’s too late. They, except for a small, bright, motivated minority, will do nothing until it is impossible to do anything. So what does the future hold for us? Maybe in a few years it will even be illegal to criticise the main three parties. The establishment has already shown across Europe that it’s willing to ban opposition parties if they start to get too popular. This means we must do something. A few days ago I posted a similar article about the new plans for monitoring laws, and we received an admiral response from patriotic, freedom-cherishing readers who signed the petition – and a less than enthusiastic response from readers who didn’t think it mattered enough. E-petitions may be a red herring but what else are you doing? The ‘Scrap Plans to Monitor all Emails and Web Usage’ e-petition is only at 8,825 signatures at the time of writing. This is not enough to force a Commons debate before May, when the laws are announced. If you haven’t signed it already, please go do so now, then come back. Paul Golding linked me to the 38Degrees site, which also has a petition running, currently with many more signatures. I don’t know if there are rules about signing two different petitions, but here is the link. There seems to be no e-petition on the government website for the secret courts idea. This could be because there already are petitions of a similar nature and ‘duplicates’ are rejected – since these older petitions have very few signatures and much nearer closing dates, I suggest you write to your MP voicing your concerns (it can't hurt). Please comment here and in Action Stations if you have done anything to slow the onslaught of the Democratic Republic of Britain.

Labour Leader Wants to make Wales an Open House for Asylum Seekers

Labour Leader Wants to make Wales an Open House for Asylum Seekers

Written by John of Gwent

April 2012

Those who recall my fifteen minutes of fame making Peter Hain look a bloody fool on live TV might have noticed Ieuan Wyn Jones, then leader of Plaid Curry saying it was important to welcome all and sundry from the 27 EU countries to Wales and the more the merrier. How exactly that works to the advantage of the existing British Passport Holders struggling to find a job there I never quite worked out. Now however it seems the Welsh Labour Leader has decided it is time to chop down the door frames that once held fast the doors which Tony Blair blew of. Over on the decidedly unpatriotic wales online website you will see details of the First Minister's Grand Plan for "Wales To become the first 'nation of sanctuary', and that it must 'blaze a trail in its care for refugees and asylum seekers' If I thought for a moment that this really was an initiative designed to help and assist those who through no fault of their own find the government of their own country desiring their heads on a plate, or at least their bullet riddled corpses left in the street, I might give my blessing to this measure The reality, as every patriot knows, is that this will shine a beacon out to the world in general yelling "illegals welcome here". After all, I never did get a reply from the outgoing Euro-Millions winner Glenys Kinnock when I wrote to her in 2009 to ask for her opinions about a BBC Documentary that showed the reality of illegal immigrants in shite-strewn plastic tent cities carrying out a nightly attempt to break into a lorry so as to "come to england to claim political asylum" as the near-toothless Afghan said whilst gummily grinning into the BBC camera. I did, however, get a reply from Plaid Curry's AM out there paving the way to import the Euro Dosh For The Party's Pet Projects And No Others. She said "it was important that we went out of our way to help these unfortunate people" The laugh is of course all of them are already entitled to kick the door open and walk in because we are a military beliggerent engaging in military operations in their country. Which means under UNHCR rules they have a right to walk in here and swan around at our expense. A right that only continues while we maintain our troops on their soil. At least you can see, if you pop over to the Wales Online site, that the majority of commenters have suggested that the First Minister spend rather more of his time assisting those who are already here in this country rather than those who seek to flock here in droves. Why not spend a moment adding your voice to theirs. But if you do, be polite.

Big Brother Is On The Way To The UK

Big Brother Is On The Way

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

Imagine a world where the government - or government appointed snoops - can monitor, without warrant, every phone call you make, email you send, text message you write, and every website you visit. It's apparently not an April Fools Day joke, it is the future that ConDem is about to usher in for us in Britain - the same future that the Tories and Liberal Democrats vociferously opposed when the previous Labour government attempted the same. Under the new legislation - which would still have to make it through the Commons and Lords - internet companies would be forced to install hardware which would allow GCHQ to monitor everything a user does. Apparently a warrant will be needed to actually view the contents of emails or listen in to phone calls etc, but even without the contents one can imagine how such information may well be used against someone. Just think. That nasty man visits patriotic websites. Oooh, he's occasionally on the phone to other people in patriotic parties. On the watch list, potential extremist, perhaps we'd better warn his employer, maybe hint at the consequences should they continue to employ him and he goes on to get in trouble. Getting a warrant to monitor contents of emails and phonecalls? Well, it could be as simple as just proving that someone visits sites which are considered objectionable by officialdom. Sites like this one no doubt, sites that most of us end up on every day. After all, who would visit these sites if they weren't up to no good? Billed as a measure to protect us against terrorism - most of which now stems from Islam and wouldn't be here if we hadn't have been idiotic enough to let Islam flock to the UK in its millions - it will, as all laws are, soon be used against the innocent whose only crime is to hold opinions which differ from the state mandated ideal. In a nation obsessed with trying to prove the existence of a far right bogeyman, who among us doesn't think such a law will end up used against all of us patriots who dare to peacefully speak out and campaign against what is being done to our country? This is scary stuff. We've racism laws on one side to beat us into submission, and now we're going to face the possibility of everything we do online, or on the phone, going into a government database. Any government would use that as it suits them, ruin a life, threaten someone, attempt to tarnish them, beat opposition into silence. Terrorists will just employ increasingly sophisticated encryption, obfuscation, and so on, to limit the usefulness of monitoring or to circumvent it. This will be a law used against the innocent like ourselves who dare to hold opinions with which the state disagrees. Big Brother truly is about to start watching us all in every single thing we do, and it most certainly isn't with protecting our best interests in mind. Welcome to the dictatorship of thought and association as ushered in by the shill politicians of Lib/Lab/Con and the true enemies of all our freedoms.

The Road to Wigan Pier: A Review from a Nationalist Viewpoint

The Road to Wigan Pier: A Review from a Nationalist Perspective

Posted, 2012

By Andrew Holden.

In a work where there exists a strong expression of partisan support for the ‘Socialism’ of International Marxism; it is natural for those of us well versed in the pernicious reality of that ideology to cast doubts as to the value of this work.

Such doubts on the value of this book as a read however, can be rapidly dispelled when one considers the effectiveness of left wing propaganda in inoculating ignorance into someone of George Orwell’s character and background. With this I refer to the delayed response to reality which afflicts the character of many people imbued with a moralistic sense of purpose that sadly often has a tendency to place abstract ideas before real life practicalities.

Orwell’s descriptions of hardship, misery and further injustices of a liberal capitalist system are a historical document to be treasured in our national literature. Orwell’s vivid descriptions are also a testament to the failures of International Socialism embodied in the Labour Party’s periods in office during the 1920’s. The ‘International Socialism’ of that movement offered a revolution in our national life that would correct the injustices of liberal capitalism in this country; these hopes were betrayed.

The reality of any Socialism, in the correct definition of redistributing the wealth of a community in order to correct extremes of wealth which are considered unjust, is that the driving sense of justice cannot be hazy and abstract. It is impossible for instance to protect the working class of a nation by believing in internationalism. When we consider the different standard of living in different countries, by agitating for ‘equality,’ all that is achieved is that one nation’s working class has its standard of living reduced, all for the pursuit of an impractical dogma that all peoples should be on the same economic level.

Furthermore any political movement that wishes to guarantee a fair economic principle along the lines of what we have discussed; has to in the least accept, and preferably venerate the reality of a distinct community competing for its interest in the world. A common argument by Leftists against Nationalism is that it apparently divides communities and in this sense is a means to compromise the interests of the working class.

This of course is typical Leftist doublespeak (something which the author under review here takes credit for giving literary form). Communities are divided by natural factors such as culture, language, religion and last but not least the instinct to racially discriminate in favour of one’s own community. The idea that these can be rejected or purged is of course a fallacy given the considerable degree of behaviour that is derived from the subconscious and inheritance. Whether such a purge is desirable is of course a question many would answer in the negative, this is why political correctness has adopted such subtle means.

Without understanding these factors that terminate the value of the word Socialist in reference to Marxism, it is impossible to gauge the irrelevance and largely mystical belief that Marxist Socialism has somehow ever had as its end objective the advancement of the working class of a nation.

George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier is ignorant of these realities but this is no means to dismiss him instantly. The propaganda of the far left is very effective in appealing to a pseudo-moralist instinct, something that first had the ascendancy in England with the advent of liberalism in the late eighteenth century.

For example, the left may claim to advance liberty, may claim to advance working class conditions, yet when one has the capacity to observe the practical effects of their ideology and the realist aspect of who financially supports their movements; it is clear to the independent thinker that these are a facade in a ruthless quest for power. This vulnerability for incredulously accepting words and euphemisms for the hard substance of reality is something that has dogged this country for many years.

We only have to look at the justifications of the barbarities of the early Industrial Revolution, the blind belief in pacificism in the 1930’s and today this idea that a multicultural society has this virtue of ‘tolerance’.

Orwell regurgitates the prejudices of the Left when he considers Fascism to be a form of “hysterical nationalism”; as if to say any patriotic attempt at national rule is automatically psychotic and delusional when the reality is to the opposite: International government as ‘liberty’ and ‘peace’ is delusional.

An interesting passage is when Orwell refers to a Fascist takeover of Britain as:

“Not necessarily speaking of Oswald Mosley and his pimpled followers.”

It is unlikely that Orwell could overcome his prejudices, allowing to objectively consider the Guild Socialism promoted by the British Union of Fascists, or perhaps consider Mosley’s heavy involvement with the Labour Party and his reasons for rejecting international socialism.

Mosley’s resignation from the Labour Party indicted the International Socialism of the Left as being ultimately incapable of building a country which the sacrifices of the Great War generation deserved. As such then, Orwell tacitly accepted the genuinely Socialist, according to the theory we have outlined above, principles of what was British Fascism.

This draws us to Orwell’s greatest error in ‘Wigan Pier’ which is his ignorance over the horrendous crimes committed by Marxist Socialism in Russia. In the middle of a sentence he admits to “know nothing” about post-revolutionary Russia and consequently of the barbarities of that regime. Presumably he knows a lot about Italy and Germany and their Fascist regimes which he deplores.

He has no comments about the blood stained floors of the Cheka’s many execution houses, no comments about the millions who died in the concentration camps and the hundreds of thousands who froze to death during the construction of the White Sea canal.

As such at this stage of his literary career (1937) he was in no position to derive a fair judgement of the movements that opposed Marxist internationalism.

Arriving at the merits of the work, it would appear given Orwell’s common aims with what existed as ‘British Fascism’ at that time. Orwell can be said to have had the object of integrating his vision of Socialism within our national identity. Orwell’s view of Socialism is one which the principle of “justice calling for the overthrow of tyranny” predominates over the theoretical haranguing of Marxism.

In other words he rejected Marxism in place of a ‘down to earth’ approach to life, an approach that fully embraces English concepts of justice and taste. This vision of integrating social justice with our values as an organic community is thoroughly Nationalist.

Orwell’s awareness of the twisted nature of many of Marxism’s adherents is an invaluable insight into a major reason why that ideology is often responsible for the worst atrocities and restriction of natural freedoms:

“Sometimes I look at a Socialist- the intellectual, tract writing type of Socialist, with his pullover, his fuzzy hair and his Marxist quotation and wonder what the devil his motive really is. It is difficult to believe it is a love of anybody, especially of the working class from whom he is of all people the most removed.”

Orwell of course, in keeping with the prejudices he has developed from leftist propaganda, fails to realise that the reasons for this general unsoundness of character is the basis of an ideology that rejects human nature. I am not just talking about the obvious suppression of human faculties, but the belief that human history can be ended.

The belief nothing else than economic matters motivates us and that all races have similar values and destinies once everything is reduced solely to economic matters.

Orwell’s understanding of Fascism is that it reflects a reactionary opposition to advancing the interests of the working class.

This of course doesn’t consider that Marxism has always existed as an international capitalist supported dialectic means to worker suppression through the power of the state, a means to use their propaganda of advancing working class interests to suppress those very interests.

The application of Marxist theory into practice requires a process of state centralisation. The consequence is that every means of economic production becomes the property of the state. But who owns the state? Who has supported the advancement of the so-called Marxist Socialist ‘revolutionaries’ into power? An excellent book on this topic has been written by the New Zealander Kerry Bolton: Revolution from Above available from Arktos Media™.

Later on in the book Orwell displays the qualities that would later go on to form the foundation of 1984. Here he refers to the utopia of the Marxian Socialist revolution:

“As for such qualities as loyalty, generosity, etc, in a world where nothing went wrong, they would be not only irrelevant but probably unimaginable.”

This is a sound warning against a totalitarianism that ignores the human aspect to history, an ideology that seeks to kill the historical aspect through simplifying everything to a dimension of economics.

A humorous passage reflects on attacks on William Shakespeare by a writer in The Daily Worker, which when challenged with passages from Karl Marx that supported Shakespeare, were withdrawn as if Marx’s writings were some sort of Gospel of life.

If one considers Orwell’s definition of ‘Fascism’ to be the cruel reality of Marxism which he has ignored, one reads his statements of Socialism to in effect mean a Nationalism that embraces every one of its members to ensure natural principles of justice are enforced; then in The Road to Wigan Pier, Nationalism has yet another ideological forbear with influence in the mainstream.

Nationalists can easily separate the realities from the ideological fantasies, and apportion to ourselves the moralistic blessing which George Orwell has mistakenly bestowed on International Socialism.

* Andrew Holden is the author of Nationalism versus Globalism, the sensational new handbook for British nationalism, further details of which are obtainable here.

Muslim Married at 5 : Sick Multicultural Britain in Action

Married at 5 : Sick Multicultural Britain in Action

Written by Southwest Nationalist

April 2012

Which vile culture or faith would want to marry their children off at just 5 years old? Take a guess, but that's the age of the youngest victim of forced marriage in the UK at least according to the Home Office's Forced Marriage Unit. They don't give us any further details - apparently in order to protect the childs identity - but we find numerous sources stating that forced marriage is particularly prevalent among "Muslims of Pakistani origin". With Muslims of Pakistani origin disproportionately represented in child sex grooming gangs then perhaps there's a recurring theme here, but that's a whole other story. Let's just call the forced marriage of children exactly what it is. It's a form of paedophilia and child abuse. Officialdom wouldn't dare to say that, we can't go offending those enrichers and causing tensions in the community, but that's exactly what it is. Heaven forbid we might stigmatise certain groups, best to just keep it hidden under the carpet. It's not even a crime, it just wouldn't do to see thousands of enrichers up in court for whisking underage girls abroad and marrying them off, that might open peoples eyes. Instead it's a civil matter. You can bet your bottom dollar there'd be no such sensitivity involved were it white British sick enough to marry off their 5 year old children. There'd be social services involved, courts all over it, and child protection/sex offences galore. It is also a problem which never should have been here. We imported it, and now we're left needing a dedicated Forced Marriage Unit to deal with the fallout. The Home Office said its forced marriage unit dealt with 400 cases last year, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. We imported the third world and, as anyone with half a brain could have guessed, we got third world practices that are sickening to us. No shock that they just didn't abandon those practices when they set foot on British soil, that was never going to happen. "Society's shame: The five-year-old girl forced into marriage" the Independent calls it, but it isn't our shame. The shame lies squarely with those whom we have so ignorantly imported and decreed to be just like us. Our only shame is that we allowed it to be here in the first place. This multicultural, diverse nightmare amounts to simply giving the abhorrent practices of the entire world a new home and making them into our countries burden. Britain dealing with 5 year olds getting forced into marriage is just a single strand of that sickening reality.

Liberals, Pasties and Betrayal of Our Christian Heritage

Pasties and Betrayal of Our Christian Heritage

Written by Richard Newman

March 2012

Having seen the photograph printed in the press of the new Islamic Scout dress my utter contempt for the chattering liberal class has now reached new depths. It is clear that this government has an agenda to destroy the traditional institutions of this country, merely following on the work of its predecessors. But the scouting movement has reached a new low with its latest attempt to sell out to Islam. The Scouting movement is involved in charity, yet as the nature of our society is Islamified the Liberal elite who aid this process fail to understand that even in scouting the nature of the beast is different. There are in fact many institutions out there who give to charity, and we should commend private individuals who continue to provide support for those in need. That said, the use of public money for the same purpose is a shocking abuse of tax payers money. Islam too should be commended for its charitable institutions, remembering that charity is one of the five pillars of Islam. Zakat, or the principle of charity giving ensures that Muslims give charity to Muslims. Here of course is the main difference between the Liberal/Christian tradition of charitable giving which gives to all regardless of race, colour or creed, and the Islamic tradition which, with few exceptions gives exclusively to members of Islam. The reader may not believe this, yet you only have to see charity boxes and bins in Muslim areas to see signs proclaiming Muslim Charities Only. Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Oman give $billions each year to Muslims. I for one do not argue against this, because I too believe that charity begins with our own people. Many people remember when we used to give to our people. Harvest Festival was, in my youth an opportunity to give fresh food to the local elderly, and not an excuse to send even more aid to Africa. The same was true of the Scouts, who in keeping with the traditions of the movement helped their local communities and supported local traditional institutions. This tradition continues in most countries throughout the world, again with geographical vagaries like the USA. My knowledge of modern Scouting is vague, having been a Cub then a Scout half a century ago. Yet I remember the founding principles and Lord Baden-Powells reasoning behind the movement. Lord Baden-Powell was an anti-Communist and a patriot, which of course means that many in the Liberal left regard him as a racist and a Nazi! It is worth reappraising the original scouting law published in 1908: 1. A Scouts Honour is to be trusted2. A Scout is loyal 3. A Scouts duty is to be useful and help others 4. A Scout is a friend to all, and a brother to every other scout, no matter to what social class the other belongs 5. A Scout is courteous 6. A Scout is a friend to animals 7. A Scout obeys orders 8. A scout smiles and whistles 9. A scout is thrifty 10. A scout is clean, in thought word and deed. I for one concur with the honourable sentiments stated above, and people understand that the scouting law is applicable to all races colours and creeds. The strength of the law being that the wording from the original text can be changed to suit local traditions and cultures. For those who remember the Scout Promise the original 1908 promise went like this: I will do my duty to God and the King I will do my best to help others whatever it costs me I know the Scout Law and will obey it Again there is nothing wrong with this promise as the promise is adaptable to various locations and social mores around the world. Here however is the looming problem. By changing the standard of dress in Britain to incorporate religious differences you then make difference an issue, the whole point of a uniform is to prevent this. The same is true of school uniform. The adoption of Islamic dress is a violation of this code, and a betrayal of the principles of the scouting movement in this country. The other countries that have embraced scouting and who are not liberal do not even consider changing the uniform for this reason. Although many will see the adoption of a Muslim uniform as a further Islamification of Britain, as indeed it is. It should be viewed as a more serious violation of Scouting Law. In fact there is one body called the International Union of Muslim Scouts, based in Saudi Arabia, which exists to promote Islam within the Scouting movement. They are joined by many other religious bodies since the start of the 21st Century who have sought to promote their own religious dogma within the scouting movement. This can be seen as a reaction for the defence of belief against the ingress of secular anti-religious belief. As a Nationalist and Having no problem with the promotion of the traditional religious belief of a nation, within that nation. The pandering to a religion by the governing body of an institution, any institution at the expense of an established Christian tradition is wrong. It is always Christianity that retreats, and Islam which advances because there is no one in Britain now who is in a position to stand up for our Christian beliefs. Here then is the further malaise and the deeper issue which lies beneath the surface of the dress of a Scout. We live in a time and a place where all our political elite promote no values except those of greed and corruption, where our religious leaders continue to promote Islam and Homosexual while remaining silent on the promotion of traditional Christian values which remain the basis of our own heritage and culture. A society where our head of state betrays her people by her refusal to defend our faith. Where the Liberal/Maxist elite seek to destroy every vestige of our historic cultural traditions. My membership of the 70% Christian, 75% non voting, 100% pasty munching majority already much maligned by the ruling liberal elite has made me an enemy of this Liberal state. If you argue against this madness you are automatically branded racist et al. Works for me as I don't mind being branded a pasty munching 75 per-center. It just means that I am standing up for my traditional heritage and culture, knowing that Muslim Scout dress in this country is a further attack on my culture and religion.

The Rise of Anti-Western Christianity

The Rise of Anti-Western Christianity

The following has been sent to me, and makes interesting reading:

During Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to London this September, Cardinal Walter Kasper noted two things about London: it’s secular and parts of it resemble a Third World country. While the politically correct were quick to condemn Kasper and the Vatican was even quicker to exhibit its pro-Third World, anti-racism bona fides, Kasper’s two statements taken together are noteworthy in that they demonstrate two antagonistic aspects of the modern world. The First World is secular; the Third World is religious.

How can London be both? What happens when you mix First World secularism and Third World religion? In particular, what happens when you import the Third World to the First – as in London? Often, the Third World tries to convert the First, regardless if the evangelizers are Christian or Muslim. While Westerns may be more shocked by Third World Muslims because they expect them to be different, they often are more disoriented by Third World Christians because they are so different from what they expect. The Christianity that the Third World brings to the West is unlike anything ever seen before – just as alien as Islam.

you can read the full article here

The Lefts Hypocrisy and the The Utter Normality Of Ethnonationalism

The Utter Normality Of Ethnonationalism—Except For Whites

Posted March, 2012

By Professor Kevin MacDonald. (Originally published in the VDARE.com site). Jerry Z. Muller’s Foreign Affairs article, Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism (March/April, 2008), is a grim and timely reminder of the power of ethnicity in human affairs. It has explosive implications for the future of the United States and the West.

Muller demonstrates that, over the last 150 years or so, the general trend in Europe and elsewhere has been toward the creation of ethnically-based states—“ethnostates“. This trend did not end with the close of World War II. In Europe, the war was followed by a forced resettlement of peoples—mainly Germans—to create ethnically homogeneous states. Indeed, the high point of ethnic homogenization in Europe was in the two generations in the immediate aftermath of World War II.

Muller writes:

“As a result of this massive process of ethnic unmixing, the ethnonationalist ideal was largely realized: for the most part, each nation in Europe had its own state, and each state was made up almost exclusively of a single ethnic nationality. During the Cold War, the few exceptions to this rule included Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. But these countries’ subsequent fate only demonstrated the ongoing vitality of ethnonationalism.”

This point is crucial. While the recent spreading of the European Union imperium has given rise to a great deal of “post-nation“rhetoric, it has in fact been accompanied by an astonishing multiplication of ethnostates, split out of Yugoslavia and the formerUSSR — not to mention, of course, the Czech/Slovak division

Ethnic conflict is apparent as well throughout the developing world, and will likely lead to more partitioning and nation-creation. As Muller notes: “In areas where that separation has not yet occurred, politics is apt to remain ugly”.

But a huge anomaly has arisen. Recently, Western societies have embarked on a public policy project in which the ethno nationalism of white people is officially proscribed as an unadulterated evil. Multiculturalism only is encouraged and viewed as morally superior. As Muller notes: “Americans … find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally”.

As a social scientist who takes the biological component of ethnicity seriously (although I readily agree that there is a cultural component as well), I can speak from personal experience about the hostility and moral disdain one faces from other academic social scientists when one points to these unfashionable facts.

Although World War II marked the defeat of the ethnonationalist National Socialist movement, Muller is clearly correct that it resulted in a Europe that was more accurately divided into ethnostates than ever. But World War II also saw the triumph of the political and cultural Left. These two cultural facts have been at odds ever since.

German National Socialists remain the bogeyman of the political and cultural Left to this day. The Left is utterly dedicated to eradicating any vestiges of European ethnonationalism. Opponents of immigration are routinely labeled “racists” or “Nazis” for advocating policies that are, in fact, the norm in the rest of the world. Thus Israel favors Jewish immigrants, Spain favors people from its former Latin American Empire, India its “Non-Resident Indians“ (NRIs), China favors the Overseas Chinese.

As Muller notes: “In a global context, it is the [Western]insistence on universalist criteria [for immigration] that seems provincial.”

And, Muller points out, the anomaly whereby Western nations have sought to turn their backs on ethnic homogeneity is quite modern:

“The ethnonationalist view has traditionally dominated through much of Europe and has held its own even in the United States until recently. For substantial stretches of U.S. history, it was believed that only the people of English origin, or those who were Protestant, or white, or hailed from northern Europe were real Americans. It was only in 1965 that the reform of U.S. immigration law abolished the system of national-origin quotas that had been in place for several decades. This system had excluded Asians entirely and radically restricted immigration from southern and eastern Europe.”

In attempting to account for this trend in opposition to ethnonationalism in Western societies, my own writing has emphasized the triumph of the Left and particularly the role of some Jewish intellectual and political movements and certain elements of the organized Jewish community as the vanguard of the left and the most important force in passage of the 1965 immigration law (PDF). As Muller’s essay observes, Jews were major victims of the ethnonationalism of others. Anti-Semitism was a general force throughout Eastern and Central Europe, culminating in the slaughters of World War II. And Muller notes that a prime motivation was that Jews dominated areas of the economy and segments of the social class structure to which others aspired—a principal theme of my book Separation and Its Discontents.

This history of loss as a result of others’ ethnonationalism doubtless goes a long way toward explaining the main thrust of Jewish intellectual and political movements in the 20^th Century—a principal theme of my book The Culture of Critique.

For example, the Jewish opposition to immigration policies favoring the European majority of the US dates back to before the immigration cut-off of the 1920s and spans the entire mainstream Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right, to this day.

However, Jewish opposition to the ethnonationalism of Europeans and European-derived peoples is in remarkable contrast to their unswerving support for the Jewish ethnonationalist state of Israel — a rather glaring double standard, to say the least. There is a rather straightforward analogy of Jews as victims of nascent ethnonationalism in Europe and Palestinians as victims of nascent Jewish ethno nationalism in Israel. (And ex-President Carter, in his recent Peace Not Apartheid, triggered much hysteria by noting the similarities between the policing techniques of Israel and the Afrikaner ethnonationalist state of pre-1990 South Africa.)

As Muller notes: “Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that [ethnonationalism] is a product not of nature but of culture, often deliberately constructed. And ethicists scorn value systems based on narrow group identities rather than cosmopolitanism. But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.” (My emphasis –KM)

Indeed, a mainstay of the intellectual left since Franz Boas and his disciples came to dominate academic anthropology beginning in the 1920s has been a rejection of any theories that allow for biological influences on culture. A corollary is that different peoples and different cultures do not, therefore, have legitimate, biologically-based conflicts of interest.

But the data are quite clear: There are genetic distances between different peoples and different peoples therefore have legitimate conflicts of interest. And: there are deep psychological roots to ethnocentrism that make us attracted to and more trusting of genetically similar others. (PDF)

These biological realities will not simply disappear, no matter how fervently social scientists and other political and cultural elites wish they would.

But that does not mean that these realities cannot be repressed—at least temporarily. The response of the Left has been to entrench a culture of “political correctness” in which expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans are proscribed. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League seek draconian penalties against such expressions by Europeans—and only Europeans. Many European countries and Canada have savage legal penalties that enforce intellectual conformity on these issues. In America the sanctions are more informal—but nevertheless similarly effective.

Whatever the drawbacks to ethnic nationalism (and the most obvious is the bloodshed that sometimes accompanies the creation of ethnostates), it has at least three overriding advantages expressed or implied by Muller:

• As also noted by Frank Salter, because of closer ties of kinship and culture, ethnically homogeneous societies are more likely to be open to redistributive policies such as social welfare.

• Sociologists such as Robert Putnam have also shown that ethnic homogeneity is associated with greater trust of others and greater political participation.

• And finally, as noted also by historians of European modernization, ethnic homogeneity may well be a precondition of political systems characterized by democracy and rule of law.

Political correctness in the West cannot be maintained without constantly ratcheting up the social controls on individual thought and behavior. Western societies will experience increased ethnic conflict. Their governments will increasingly be obliged to enact draconian penalties for deviations from political correctness. And probably also to “correct” ethnic imbalances in social status and political power—much as the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires of old were forced in their declining years to constantly bargain with rising ethnic pressure groups. Democracy, representative government, and freedom will be likely casualties.

Finally, Muller’s essay is interesting in that it highlights how normal ethno national strivings are, even among Europeans.

In a very short period, Europe and European-derived societies, which had achieved an unprecedented level of ethnic homogeneity following World War II, have developed a stifling political correctness, in which any tiny vestige of ethnocentrism on the part of Europeans is crushed with all the power the ruling elites can muster. This is taking place while the rest of the world continues to undergo modernization via the creation of ethno states. Muller’s essay makes one realize that this multicultural fad really may be just a phase—and a backwardly echoing phase at that, recalling the failed multicultural empires of the pre-modern era.

The climate of anti-ethnocentrism in the West is utterly anomalous, and set against the rest of the world. In my own writing, I have emphasized biologically-based European tendencies toward individualism and relative lack of ethnocentrism as flaws that have predisposed European whites to these tactical blunders. And I have emphasized how political correctness works at the psychological level (PDF) to suppress the legitimate ethnic aspirations of Europeans.

However, Muller’s essay reminds us that Europeans have a long history of ethnic conflict. Ethnic nationalism was a precondition of European modernization. It also reminds us that, whatever their tendencies toward individualism, Europeans certainly also have sufficient levels of ethnocentrism to assert their interests and to establish ethnically homogeneous states of their own.

As Muller points out, though, the process is can be ugly. Just ask the Israelis—and the Palestinians.

Finally, as Muller notes, ethnic homogeneity is compatible with—perhaps conducive to—liberal democracy. At a theoretical level, this is because ethnic conflict produces deep, frequently irreconcilable divisions within a society and ultimately, causes group-based competition for resources and political power. These can be very hard to mediate.

The difficulty of establishing democracy and the rule of law in societies divided by ethnic conflict is a major theme of the contemporary world.

So is the campaign to bully European-stock whites, alone of all the world’s groups, to forswear ethnocentric politics and consequently to fatally disable themselves in an unchangingly ethnocentric world.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his website, click here.