Wednesday, 10 February 2010

Understanding Racial British Nationalism (Re-published) - Part Two of Two

To the uninitiated who may be reading parts one and two of this series of articles, I am sure you're probably thinking that talking about this ethnic replacement at all is silly anyway, because ‘we are all immigrants’ and ‘we have always had immigration’, that we have 'always been a multiracial society' and that this turn of events we are witnessing is 'nothing new' and a continuation of what has always previously been taking place.

Well, Nationalists take issue with those who trivialise the threat posed to us by laying this claim that the situation is nothing new; that we are a 'mongrel nation'; and that, in the words of the Commission on Racial Equality (Now the Equality and Human Rights Commission) , 'everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant'.

Why do we take issue with these arguments? The simple answer is because they are not true or accurate statements. They are (in the majority) lies and propaganda peddled out to the masses to ensure the current 'race replacement' process goes without objection, so that people don't have to think too hard or deeply about the tricky and emotional topics of race, nationhood, civilisation and future trends. As the saying goes ‘If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it’.

Of course, these matters are never an exact science and there are grey areas to have, but generally speaking, those kinds of topics tend to have a nasty habit of getting in the way of peoples cosy little lives, so they are politely avoided from thought, let alone open discussion. Nobody wants to feel bad, to feel guilty or feel to be against what they are told as being prevailing ‘progressive’ opinion. Politicians are trapped into repeating this world view now, so as to not cause offence or upset to substantial minority populations now here - or because they fear some hysteria led witch hunt for their scalp on a plate. Mostly though, they refuse to acknowledge the issue at all and would prefer to fall for their own lies and self delusions.

Therefore, I'm sure (especially to the non-Nationalists reading this) that you will have all heard MP's, Councillors, the media and other people in various groups and bodies, charities, businesses and such, say that we are a nation of immigrants and rhyme off the Normans, Saxons, Celts, Huguenots etc in an attempt to show it is nothing new. It’s a catchy little line and very easy to repeat on these discussions isn't it? - And that is the desired plan behind its usage. People take it at face value without understanding it or investigating it, and then they repeat it to others as some sort of justification of the monumental transformation that is taking place today.

This repetition of "prevailing" views is something that is easily done, after all. I'm sure we have all done similar at various points in our lives with different things, be it with sports or latest crazes which we don’t really understand but observe superficially from the 'outside' to be seen to fit in. We all like to point score in this fashion, we all like to look intellectual and well informed and we often like to support what is the perceived common consensus by using these catchy hooks and lines. Another example is the pensions/immigration argument for example, which has been totally proven to be unworkable umpteen times over by anyone seriously studying the implications of it. Yet despite the facts not adding up, it is more comfortable and easy to confuse and obfuscate issues by repeating these kinds of lines anyway. Watch any edition of Question Time (or similar political outlet programme) and ministers or other advocates of open borders will slip these commonly peddled sound bites into their arguments. The public tend to quietly absorb this superficiality  and distortion of reality and react  like Pavlovian trained animals to the sound of a clanging bell. It has become so familiar to them it has become "truth" with no further thought required. The role of ethnicity in relation to the history of this country and its 'waves' of immigration is especially obfuscated for the public.

As a result, not many of these people seem to realise that most of these previous "waves" of invasions and immigrations came from the same parts of the European continent and that over many thousands of years (throughout all these events of invasions and settlements) the genetic mix of the Island was only altered by about 4-5%, or that immigration and invasion never amounted to more than a few percent of the population over this entire vast time span. Caucasian (“European”) people have clearly been settled here since the days of the first hunter gatherers after the thawing of the Ice Age.

Technically speaking, due to the fact that there were no fully embedded political institutions and settled ways of life that entirely constituted a nation for immigrants to migrate into before the reign of Edward the Confessor who reigned until 1066, if somebody wanted to be picky, the Norman {'white'} invaders of 1066 could be construed as the first true wave of immigrants coming to an  already established and defined country. However, even they were small in number. Only about ten thousand Frenchman arrived with William the Conqueror, representing approximately one per cent of the population. The total number settling in England never exceeded five per cent of the population, although their long term cultural influence was undoubtedly out of proportion to their numbers.

French Protestants {again 'white'} fleeing religious persecution, known as Huguenots, arrived in Britain’s East End of London in the 16th century for a very short period, and also came after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. However, their overall numbers cannot have exceeded 50,000, representing just less than one per cent of the population at that time. The 'wave' of Jews who began to arrive in London towards the end of the nineteenth century represented an even smaller percentage. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century there were 155,811 Jewish immigrants, and even if we include immigration between the two world wars their numbers would not have been much over 225,000 - representing about 0.5% of the population. It is these kinds of tiny proportions over massive time scales which we have historically seen.

Immigration into this country alone in recent history however, has been adding at least 2% to the population every 2 years - not hundreds of years. Compared with earlier waves of immigration like the Normans, Huguenots and the Jews, it is clear that we are in an unprecedented situation. Immigration was large enough when Idi Amin started hacking to death those with Asian roots in the 1970’s which resulted in large numbers coming to this country, yet the current rate of immigration is equivalent to that two-year movement from Uganda, every single month.

Britain's enviable record of social harmony and stability is born from its historically homogeneous nature and its ability to take in tiny fractional percentages of other peoples (who by today's standards were culturally and ethnically similar in customs and nature) over a long period of time, to the point they amalgamated entirely with the indigenous population and became completely indistinguishable. We no longer have that situation. We have the reverse happening. We are going to be absorbed into them. We are in a process of colonisation, Islamification, and ethnic replacement.

The presence of large ethnic communities (especially those where integration with the host culture is not an aim or desire) is threatening this social harmony, the overall peace and advancement of our country which we have previously enjoyed at the envy of many other nations, whilst at the same time presenting us with the displeasure of slowly being wiped to one side as a rightful ethnic group of this land in the future.

Those who cherish Britain's ancestry, their own racial roots (of which everybody else seems to be able to enjoy and advocate except ourselves), the distinct civilisation which has been brought about by those peoples' temperament and achievements before us, the innovations, the inventions of our civilisation, and the advancement of humankind (which can only properly occur in the stability and freedom accredited to homogeneity) cannot afford to ignore the potential threat that is posed to it by large-scale changes in  demographic composition that has been brought about by large scale immigration from the third world , higher birthrates of these third world immigrants combined with the declining fertility amongst the indigenous population.

This situation, to my knowledge, has ever happened before. No other country in the world seems to have done this to itself at any time of history, never mind one with such a glorious and worthy heritage like ours that has given disproportionately so much to the world. Members of a nation state, to my knowledge, have never previously deliberately set about eradicating their own people both genetically and culturally, and actually started harassing those people who resist it. There isn’t even a word for this phenomenon because it is so unique, but I suppose it could be described a mass self inflicted genocide.

Contrary to popular opinion of our history being one of "tolerance" and "welcoming" immigration, we have never previously been a “tolerant” country at all when it came to these issues either. On every occasion we have either defended ourselves from would-be invaders, fought off battles in the high seas to keep our sovereignty and freedom from slavery, and rioted in the streets as far back as the early 20th century at the presence of other (then minuscule) ethnic groups residing in pockets of busy ports here who were perceived to be not conducive to society. Even the monarchy decided to expel such people from the realm, despite numbers being extremely tiny – under 80 people. The people who we have taken in, who we have welcomed and whom we have blended into our own over the centuries are primarily the ones who were the most like us, and they had no choice but to be blended in.

Resisting mass immigration to Europe is not about “white supremacy”, “master races” or the desire to eradicate others. It is rather more mundanely about our simple continued physical existence. We now live in a world that’s demographically (and economically) dominated by Asians and there is a never ending leakage of surplus populations from the failed continent of Africa (and elsewhere) into European lands. Don’t the White inhabitants have a right to exist and organise themselves for their interests too? Not even in their own homelands? It seems the prevailing answer out there is a firm "NO", even though no other grouping or country would so readily accept the same fate happening to them as what's happening to us.

Numerous studies and world events have demonstrated that people tend to prefer their own ethnic group above others. For example, an international poll which was republished by the Washington Times in 2007 showed that 90 percent of the inhabitants in Egypt, Indonesia and India believed that each country should guard their innate culture and lifestyle, and it revealed that immigration concerned people in 44 out of the 47 countries polled. Guarding your identity both racially and culturally is thus a universal human trait, not just a white trait, yet white nations today are in fact the only ones in the world who are reversing this trend.

Only white nations cling onto the idea of universalism whilst everybody else sticks with their own ethnic group and protects their lands so that they can shape their own destiny - rather than have it altered and dictated to without their consent. In white nations it has even become a state-sponsored ideology to “celebrate diversity,” despite the fact that all available evidence from history indicates that more diversity always leads to violent conflict. This is conflict and violence is especially manifest in the cases where Islam has been thrown into the mix, even within single racial ethnic groupings never mind multi racial societies.

We are now in this explosive cake mixture that’s wreaked havoc around the world – after protecting ourselves from it for so long through our wiser forefathers. Yet strangely, instead of making some firm decisions that are perfectly humane and rational, people have preferred to pretend that it’s going to be different to the experiences of everybody else this time, relying on a cocktail of “hope” and selfishness that if anything happens it will probably be after their own lifespan and as such 'not their problem'.

I was not brought up in a “racist” environment; I certainly did not pick anything up from my parents or my social peers. I still don’t think ethnicity or race does mean absolutely everything in this world, but I can no longer say it means absolutely nothing at all, and if it means more than nothing, then I feel it needs to be taken into account. I don’t think this is an unreasonable thing. This is the grey area, in which every individual will have their own threshold.

What seems truly bizarre with all this though (irrespective of a threshold), is that the change of demographic has been conducted without any real debate, and brought about upon the nation solely with propaganda coupled with censorship of discussion. The greatest social experiment the population of this country has ever been subjected to was never decided democratically by the people. That in itself is quite a feat. The very suggestion that such drastic levels would live here in the future were mocked as alarmist fantasies, but now it is factual and we have been psychologically moulded to celebrate this instead.

The native majority population were never allowed to have a say about whether they wanted to change the country and their destiny forever - and nor were they listened to in 1968 when Enoch Powell warned of the dangers of it, which he had seen first-hand around the world. At that point in 1968, over 80% of the country wanted to stop immigration entirely and they backed Enoch Powell. Ever since then, the overwhelming majority have polled 75 to 80% in favour of drastically limiting immigration year after year.

Yet the opposite of the majority held view has occurred, and immigration has increased year on year. The scale of it has been hidden, denied, and persistently deemed temporary at every wave in an attempt to quell the fears and subdue the population enough not to riot or revolt. They are still at it today, with the publication of views that half of the EU migrants had 'gone home' in the recession, only for it to be revealed a matter of just 6 months later that they had not gone anywhere in fact, and it was all  speculative nonsense designed to quell public disquiet at that moment in time. Time and time again, month in month out, these types of lies and distortions are put forward. It is especially so in the months just prior to elections.

 Even when the Conservatives took up the issues of the National Front in 1978 (which saw Margaret Thatcher come into office on the ‘swamped’ speech) it was still the same. Nothing was done about it; nothing has ever been done about it, despite the wishes of the people being so stark on a repeated basis throughout successive Labour and Conservative governments. Labour are particularly notable for this, as it was the Labour party who opened the gates in their previous reign and it is the New Labour party again that set into motion (during early doors of getting into office) measures to dramatically increase immigration. There is a reason for this.

You don’t get mass immigration for decades unless somebody with power allows this and desires for it to happen. Let’s be under no illusion here either - it is not an accident, an error, an over sight, incompetence of border control or foolishness. This has happened through purposeful and planned ideological measures to bring about a world change, or as some would say, a ‘New World Order’ - something which means abolishing nationhood, along with the structures, the perceptions and the people who classically defined them.

Without going deeply into it, this action serves a purpose both ideologically and financially. Together - between these ideologists and big business interests that have gain to make from this – collusion has taken place to achieve the aims of both interested parties. Also, to construct a new "vision" for the country and the world, it means the removal of the prevailing systems and attitudes. To sow chaos into the country is one method of introducing "solutions" to those self inflicted problems, solutions which help transform society and the country even further in the future. In the mix, we are told lies, we are given false concepts of "celebrating diversity" and being "enriched" etc, excuses about why things are changing, why people are coming, lies on figures, lies on impacts, and no mechanism given to us to stop it. 

There is a crucial point to make here about the disingenuous nature of the values they claim to be upholding and what they have pumped into being the mainstream view. The backers of this pro immigration, pro multiracial, pro multicultural ideology ironically tell everyone that they should “celebrate diversity” within our nations, whilst they are actually actively working to destroy the diversity between nations. They contradict themselves. If you knock enough edges and corners off a cube, at some point in the future it is going to look round. This process of 'rounding' is taking part all over Europe's  nation states. Couple that with multinational conglomerates and their need for endless interchangeable workers and consumers and you may start to see where things are heading.

With immigration in normal terms, there is no doubting that small ethnic additions can occasionally enrich a culture, such as what happened under the Norman invasion - but the question of scale is crucial, and as we know, the pace and scale is off the chart. If it continues, this unfettered mass immigration into Europe would simply stir all the different nations into one indistinguishable global melting pot – at the primary expense of the European peoples who are undoubtedly the Petri-dish of choice. Yet this end result is very much the desire of the people who bring it on. The 'celebration of diversity' which they encourage others to pursue means the exact opposite of what they will in fact achieve long term for the world. Take some time to think about that, as it is important.

This whole 'Nationalism' thing isn’t about being “against” other people or other things in this world. For example, I like the diversity of world cuisine, architecture, customs, and I personally appreciate the Metric system over that of Imperial weights and measures etc, but that does not extend to a wishing to fling open my country’s borders for everybody else around the world to settle here and displace my own people. Britain would no longer be Britain if millions of Indians, Chinese and Africans suddenly arrived on the doorstep. Yet, slowly, this is what has been happening in a steady trickle that’s turned into a flood. It is a weapon-less colonisation by passport, by plane, by lorry, and by womb. No individual one of these people are at fault, but it is happening all the same.

The 'New World Order', Islamic ideology, Communism and why this is being done to us is a much larger issue that will be discussed at a further time, because I'm sure many would be itching to ask "why?", i.e. ‘why this has been set into motion?’, ‘for what purpose?’, and ‘how is it being done?’..... There are explanations for all of this which are perfectly rational and well documented. It is not a "conspiracy theory" either, purely because it is most definitely a fully fledged conspiracy actually in action. Only the degree to which one takes it becomes subject to debate.

The ideology driven orchestrator's and backers of it are really quite horrible and nasty people that need to be challenged by any right thinking person. What is sad, and a tragedy, is that millions of people happily go along with it believing they are morally superior and upholding good deeds when in fact they are being used as gullible pawns in a giant game of chess that is destroying lives, destroying freedoms, and destroying the very diversity they so often claim to support.

Nationalists have been slandered as ignorant fascists, hate fuelled racists, bigots, xenophobes (irrational hatred of other peoples), knuckle draggers, Nazi's, etc for decades simply because they do not subscribe to what is taking place and choose to resist it. But Nationalists are not always borne from ignorance and hatred (as the stereotype suggests) but are instead borne from deep understanding, reading, intelligence, love and care for their own extended family of kith and kin – all signs of a healthy society.

The game has changed, we are in a dire predicament, and we face an ideology (or two, counting Islam) which has severe malice and intent to subdue. Nationalists have known what's going on for decades, yet are still completely misunderstood about just "why" they reject the system, why parties won’t accept members of other races, why they feel the need to be so “obnoxious” and bitter (as they are occasionally seen to be from the outside perspective). Of course there have been some people who have tagged along who have had the complete wrong idea and tainted us all by association, but we cannot be responsible for the idiocy of society at large and those individuals who do bear an unfathomable hostility against others around this world  no matter where they are, for no apparent reason other than they are different to themselves. They and their idiotic actions do not speak for us.

It is long past time to look beyond such idiocy and find out what's taking place higher up the food chain. The only things most Nationalist people "hate" is the process that's occurring, those who bring it on and those who deny the ability to allow people to apply the brakes and reverse the trends. We love diversity, we enjoy that there are other races and cultures, and we can respect them as equals and as partners in the world on a one to one basis. In that respect, we are the exact opposite of what everybody who is against us believes us to be. All we ask for is a different trajectory and different structure of enjoying this so that we can protect ourselves.

Intellectuals have been talking about these topics of race, demographics and culture for a long time. It is not something new, although a new strain is at last emerging from the mysterious shadow that’s dogged Nationalism's past. Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, discussed the threat that comes from the advocates of mass migrations, the multiculturalists and their cultural relativity ideologies (expressed though the "Global Melting Pot" concept) at his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize. 
This is an extract of what he said:

“In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilisation. I do not agree with this opinion...the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”

When coupled with the ideology behind the New World Order globalisation process, Islamification problems, when brought into context of the huge ramifications we are witnessing throughout all the implementations of this process here in this country, and when race is accounted for in rational world context of percentages and indigenous natures, it should hopefully be clear to most people that there is some merit and intellectual debate around ethnocentric aspects of Nationalism, and why parties like the BNP exist in the first place. It is an ideology, a principle, an outlook that is worthy, noble and justified in many respects. Those who would brush such a deep and complex outlook to one side as simpleton driven “prejudice” or “hatred” that’s due to “ignorance” do themselves a great disservice and do the world no favour in perpetuating this nonsense.

Some people do not understand why nationalist parties exist, what drives them, what they are thinking about......yet feel perfectly able to shout their opponents down as being almost ‘hillbilly’ ignoramuses, ill informed hatemonger’s and supremacists that have some crazy genetic purity fetishist desire to take over the world. The irony of such people using the words ‘ignorant’ and ‘ill informed’ etc doesn't bypass me. If people immersed themselves into a voyage of discovery and truly understood the issues going on with these emotive topics and why Nationalists reject the current trends, and if those same people still reject any form of Nationalist principles, I would have at least some respect for them. To not know, or to dismiss it all out of hand as being "silly" because they themselves do not care about anything beyond their own surroundings, their own wallet and their own life-span, shows both their great disrespect and their selfishness as a custodian of the planet. It should not be the people who do not care what happens that get to make all the decisions. 

Not every nationalist is the same, not every nationalist is perfect, not every nationalist party is perfect, but at the moment the British National party is one representation of Nationalism that's been heading in the right direction and speaking up about some of the very tricky and very significant issues taking place that affects the future. These are things which no other party will even admit to be genuine issues to begin with, because they can no longer do so even if they wished – it is too late for them.

I, for one, am glad the British National Party is there to speak out. I wish them success in elections and likewise to all similar European nationalist parties who have their native peoples’ interest at heart.

Well there you go, an insight into racial British Nationalism. Was that really so bad, evil or outlandish?

At no time during writing this article did I feel any urge to sieg heil, don a German WW2 outfit, or eat any babies – something which will no doubt stun much of the establishment media and commentators!


  1. Well said British Activism! Nationalism is the true friend of cultural and ethnic diversity. One thing I do know is that before WWII anthropologists were predominantly of the opinion that races existed, whereas since that conflict the anthropological orthodoxy has been that races are non-existent 'social constructs'. The science didn’t change during these few short years, but the political context did. I know which of these positions I side with.

    The Chinese currently favour the multi-regional hypothesis with respect to the origins of the major racial groups (Caucasian, East Asian and sub-Saharan African) whereas here in the West we are supposed to rigidly adhere to the 'Out of Africa' theory which sees all of the current races (sorry, ‘racial social constructs’) of Homo Sapiens as descending from a small population which left Africa circa 80,000 to 60,000 years ago. Western palaeo-anthropologists tend to (at least publicly) stick to the notion that “we are all the same under the skin”, but we are not and modern genetics is readily attesting to this fact.

    Recent discoveries in palaeo-anthropology have yielded fascinating insights into the ancient diversity of human species and sub-species. Witness the discovery of Homo Floresiensis, which in many respects resembles a dwarfed variant of Homo Erectus yet survived until at least 13,000 years ago on is southeast Asian island home, and the recent analysis of a finger bone found in Denisova cave in Russia’s Altai region proved that between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago there was another hitherto unknown human species living at the same time as anatomically modern humans and the Neanderthals. Furthermore, research published in the last month illustrates that traces of Neanderthal DNA were found in European and East Asian samples, whereas those taken from sub-Saharan Africans contained no such DNA. It is interesting to note that the average cranial capacity of Neanderthals was larger than that of modern humans. Might this not provide at least a partial explanation for the demonstrably greater technological and cultural achievements of Caucasians and East Asians compared to sub-Saharans?

  2. This is the key fact about all pre-1948 waves of immigration (a handful of Somali sailors excepted): complete assimilation to the host culture. Such assimilation is not possible today owing to: the sheer volume of numbers; easy travel between the UK and the external ethnic homeland; satellite television; the internet and multiculturalism. All of these factors militate against successful integration, acculturation and assimilation. The only true assimilation that can take place is when a native Briton marries a foreigner who loves British culture and they bring their children up in a British cultural milieu. I do have a friend who has married such a woman, and their children are paragons of politeness and completely assimilated, although they are also able to speak their literal ‘mother tongue’ (as second choice). Such matches though need to take place with individuals from compatible cultures, or at least those that are not hostile. If the children of such a match then marry native Britons, their offspring (providing they think of themselves as such) have in my opinion become effectively British. If you differ with my opinion, I will understand. I was astonished to learn that Iain Duncan-Smith is one eighth Japanese!

    Of course, in order for a nation and a culture to survive, the amount of intermarriage with outsiders needs to be on not so large a scale as to threaten its overall genetic character. However, I have nothing against a limited amount of intermixing. Personally, I prefer Caucasian women. Some East Asians I find attractive, but sub-Saharans just don’t do it for me. Somewhat paradoxically, many east European women possess values which more closely resemble traditional British values than our more educated young women who despise the idea of having children and who have fallen hook line and sinker for trash consumerist culture.

  3. Now, I’m not saying that a member of one race is necessarily superior to one of any other, for this is manifestly not the case. There are, after all, a worryingly large number of stupid and wilfully ignorant people of Caucasian descent. However, this might well account for the widespread differences detected in average intelligence between the different groups. I am willing to entertain the idea that East Asians may on average be slightly more intelligent than Caucasians. Then again, they may not be. We cannot draw any solid conclusions vis-à-vis these matters as investigation into such subjects is effectively prohibited.

    Your article’s observation with respect to the difference in scale between historical immigration and the current wave is spot on. Furthermore, those who arrived in the past, such as the Huguenots, willingly sought to integrate and were neither accorded special ethno-communal rights nor sought them. In a very short time they had become English: indistinguishable from and merged with the indigenous population. Defoe may to an extent have been right in calling us a ‘mongrel nation’ insofar as that we are descended from a mixture of Britons, Romans, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Normans, but what binds us is the fact that we (with the exception of a small number of aristocrats) cannot trace any straight line of descent from any one of these groups. We do not have ‘Jutish’, ‘Saxon’ or ‘Danish’ communities demanding ethnocultural rights and privileges. We are one people.