Saturday, 27 August 2011

British Nationalism - Part One -

(The introduction to this article can be found here )

There is an old saying in this country that goes "when you are in a hole, stop digging". Another old saying is "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". Add these to a common quotation of 'madness being the act of repeatedly doing the same things and expecting different results' and we have a basis for an article concerning multi-racialism, multiculturalism, race realism and white identity rights.

From our nationalistic perspective the nation is in a hole and we need to stop digging, the country was not broken (and it did not need 'fixing') and we are all living the definition of madness which is being inflicted upon us by the globalists, multiculturalists, liberals, or whatever other description people may want to attribute to them.

The latter group in particular show no signs of ceasing to dig our graves, show no sign of stopping the attempts to fix their self inflicted problems and continue to show all the signs of madness by trying to frame the situation in the same disastrous way using the same disastrous languages and prescribing the same disastrous measures in the hope that it will yield different results. 

Rather than assess the things they believe in and question themselves why it does not work, they would rather dig deeper, try and fix things by pushing them even further (via more liberalism) and thus persist in what is clearly a crazy situation. "It is not working" they muse, so in their view it must mean they have not yet gone far enough with their attempts.

I do not think it would be too much of an exaggeration to say that this country - as in America - has invested more moral energy in the fight against "racism" than any other national undertaking since the second world war. 

Taking the 1948 Nationalities Act and the landing of the Empire Windrush as being the pivotal moment of change, 62 years later the liberal-left and immigrant "struggle" is still being waged on what they see as a "racist" society of prejudice and bigotry, inequality, disadvantage and all the other buzz words of their toolbox which imply 'racism' and white society to be the fault. 

From inner cities such as London and Birmingham (including medium burgeoning cities like Blackburn), right through to smaller towns in Northern England like Burnley, the British people still tend to separate themselves by race, religion and culture.  Residential neighbourhoods - as noted by the Cantle Report after the spate of racial rioting in 2001 - are just as separated as they were in the 1960's and in some cases are much more polarised. 

White flight is still an issue, although people tend to cite the symptoms of change (such as increased crime, litter, filth, house prices lowering, etc) rather than the actual drivers of such change. Up until the local schools were forcibly integrated by the state, I can contest from my own experiences that (for the most part) generation after generation of school children had chosen to self segregate themselves in school canteens and classrooms. 

Now many have no choice even if they wanted to do, and if they do not associate with ethnic groups other than their own they are now suspected of being right wing extremists or in need of psychiatric help.

The same phenomena of society could (and still can) be seen in Britain as well as Australia, Canada, America - as well as Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany (as documented in this video - the full original has been removed from youtube, but I do have a full copy somewhere in German).

Whilst the enforcers of white dispossession are pushing harder and harder to shape impressionable young minds (and having some degree of success through a cultureless and meaningless societal identity for whites), up until quite recently mixing was unusual and usually a conscious act.

In many cases, the situation of losing identity and assimilating is now reversed - it is the indigenous white youths, who through lack of knowing any different and through lack of options, are the ones that now trail along like lost puppies with those who now dominate their locality and their classrooms.

In Black areas they pick up a black culture and black outlook to life (including mannerisms and language traits) - and in Pakistani Muslim areas they pick up their own peculiar brand of 'youth' culture (which is half modelled on 'gangsta rap' and Islamic doctrine) and are unfortunately at risk of becoming Muslim themselves.

The reality television documentary for Channel Four's 'Cutting Edge' titled "The Last White Kids" is a prime example of this taking place - and for many British nationalists, watching that programme is like having a knife plunged into their heart.

I wish I could get hold of a copy, but unfortunately, despite Channel Four having an archive - that documentary is missing. Peter Hitchens did a very thought provoking article on this documentary which can still be found here, although you really do need to watch it to feel the real impact of where things are heading for this country in that particular regard.

However, in the meantime to such situations (where our people are engulfed by such transformation), we are in a varied spectrum ranging from that of 'our' integration with ethnic minorities - to full separation of our own choice, whether it be conscious or unconscious (such as those involved with Emo and Goth culture not tending to evolve their lives around black and Muslim youths).

American children are still failing the "lunch room test" by sitting with their own race, and all over the the occidental world the prevailing normality has remained to be that (when they can do so) people of all races and cultures generally like to live their lives amongst people who are like themselves. Even multiracialists like Trevor Phillips have attested so :

Interviewed on The Happiness Formula, the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips accepts that people are happier if they are with people like themselves.

"We've done work here which shows that people, frankly, when there aren't other pressures, like to live within a comfort zone which is defined by racial sameness. "People feel happier if they're with people who are like themselves".

Politics and the national discourse promoted by the "progressive" forces of liberalism over the last half century has placed much emphasis on "improving race relations" and reinforcing multiculturalism as being a thing of undoubted benefit which we must continue to try and get right. 

These outbursts were often spiked to heightened prominence by spasmodic rioting and unrest through the decades, from the early Notting Hill Riots, Toxteth riots in the 1980's, the 2001 riots in northern mill towns and at present the (as yet officially indescribable) looting and rioting sparked by the shooting of a Black criminal in Tottenham by the police - who were investigating Black gun crime via their specialist Trident unit. 

Politicians of all parties in the last 50 years have pursued platforms and policies in order to wrestle some semblance of  "One Britain" back from a country and a society that they have purposefully smashed apart. (Also see here for a commentary).

This pursuit of re-framing society probably first started in the 1960s when it was clear that the attempt of assimilating Blacks and (often illiterate) Pakistanis into being 'just as English as the rest of society' was just not going to happen. 

Rather than change their minds about the issue of immigration on such a scale, the liberal-left would not admit their failure and decided to shift the blame onto the white indigenous population. The onus used to be on the immigrants to shed their ways of life and fit in seamlessly to ours - but seeing as this was failing dramatically (and that so many were arriving they were forming ghettos), the idea of "Multiculturalism" was established. 

This new idea was meant to create a new "inclusive" Britain where it is the duty of the host to accommodate and accept differences - rather than the other way around. Ever since then, it has been the fault of the indigenous society when things have failed. The further absurdity is that nobody even wanted this to be happening and were certainly not asked about it, then they get punished and vilified for not accommodating the unwanted others.

This poisonous debasement of our racial and national identity has remained virtually unchallenged for nigh on fifty years and in the mean time we have seen the mass immigration continue year after year, to the point we are -without question - going to lose our country and our indigenous ethnic grouping unless something quite drastic starts to happen.

Taken as an average, we have found ourselves in a country where those aged under twenty-five know of no other society to the one that manifested itself in the recent looting spree - and where those under the age of five now have classmates comprising over thirty-three percent ethnic minority.

The idea that we were once 99.8% white as a nation as little ago as 1951 would no doubt seem strange to all of them, be they black or white. This itself is testament to the pace, scale and vigour of a pervasive societal discourse being waged.

Politicians are still as slippery as ever - and in the face of serious voids opening up in European society (especially after the wake up call of Islamic fundamentalism from "home grown" citizens) they have now declared one after the other that the model of "Multiculturalism" has failed and is no basis for forming a society. But it is not multiculturalism alone. Multiculturalism is often a more polite way of saying multi-racialism.

Interestingly enough, this official denunciation of multiculturalism included France, which to my knowledge never actually applied an official "multiculturalism" system and instead stuck with the assumed "assimilation model" of  "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". They expected their citizens to become French in all possible ways. 

The annual bonfire of hundreds of cars in the French suburbs is just one indication of this failing. Street after street of Muslims praying in the street - which I do not believe is legally allowed in France - is perhaps another.

Recent analysis states that when it comes to religion, Islam is overtaking Catholicism in France. Here in Britain, we can clearly see the same kinds of effects taking a grip because of general decline in Christianity amongst the native population and the massive burst of Muslim demographics. The title of one of the linked articles speaks volumes about what lay ahead:

"Christians should learn from Muslims how to exist as a “minority” culture in British cities that are increasingly dominated by immigrant communities, a Church of England bishop has said".

Assimilation, clearly, is not at any risk of happening when it comes to this particular side-show of religion in combination to that of race.

Thus, a cohesive society of disparate peoples has proved illusive regardless of whether the focus has been on assimilation or multiculturalism. It has been a disastrous failure that needs constant reassurance and propping up. At the very best we are pretty much just rumbling along together and making the best of it.
All over Europe it is the same story and very recently there has been quite some disquiet by the liberal establishment over the rise of so called "far right" or "populist" parties. They are quite rightly getting concerned that a tide may be turning, despite their best efforts to enforce the contrary.

In Britain, the latest wheeze in community relations has been "muscular liberalism". However, the holes are still being dug and just like the hundreds of other race initiatives, outreach programmes, commissions, panels, charities and investigations it is - and always will be - a futile exhalation of hot air. Muscular liberalism will fail like all the rest because it is no basis on which to form a nation or form an identity.

Mr Cameron cited that multiculturalism had failed because there had not been enough "muscular liberalism". He explained that limits and responsibilities had to be set within the multicultural model in order to create a cohesive society.

As a result he mentioned reassessing the funding for groups and schemes, during  his speech in Germany which seemed to be picking up on the unease at which the majority of the European population view the advancement of the Islamic agenda, especially so in England:
“Let’s properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights … Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy…?

“These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations.”
The cited aim of David Cameron, Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy is to reaffirm a new sense of nationhood, togetherness, assimilation into "western values".

“Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality,” Cameron said, would provide “a clear sense of national identity that is open to everyone,”

To the vast majority of the public these things will seem to make sense - after all, how many people expect cohesion to happen if societies have different values and different agendas to one another? Why should the government be allowing and funding unfettered "multiculturalism" and watching from the sidelines as more fruitier Islamic groups are building a state within a state.

The trouble is - they fail to see that muscular liberalism and the much touted 'western values' make no sense at all. People (including Mr. Cameron and his advisers it seems) cannot see how liberalism, universalism, and egalitarianism cannot eventually do anything but naturally result in a multicultural society.

Would they even spot the oxymoron of a "clear sense of national identity that is open to everyone"? I seriously doubt it, to be honest. Then of course there is the oxymoron of "free speech" - as long as you limit yourself to the state approved discourse! Cameron's 'western values' may very well include "freedom of speech" - but how does this accord with a liberal media and the leader of an opposition party twice being put on trial for things he said? It is a den of gross injustice and self contradiction.

A sincere belief in universal human rights and equality before the law makes it impossible to exclude from a society the kind of immigrants who are incompatible with a strong national identity. 
  • It makes it impossible to deny them entry on the basis of their ethnic background.  
  • It makes it impossible to deny them access to employment.  
  • It makes it impossible to deny them access to citizenship.
  • It makes it impossible to deny them access to public office.
It is therefore impossible in the long run to prevent them from changing their hosts’ indigenous culture and society until these very 'values' are fractured by fundamental differences on the issues that are most important to each group’s most committed members.

A strong national identity is unavoidably traditionalist, particularist, and inegalitarian. It is dependent on localisation, specificity, and uniqueness. It is this, stabilised into a tradition over many generations, that differentiates the indigenous from the alien, then native from the foreigner.

A strong national identity, therefore, implies that what is indigenous takes priority over what is alien. It is incompatible with multiculturalism or diversity. Muscular liberalism demands we swallow the same medicine of replacing what was local, specific, and unique, with globalist, vague, and generic abstractions.

If we are to build a 'nationhood' on globalist, universal rights and things like "tolerance" and "abiding by the rule of law" then surely it is no real nation at all. After all, what if a Somalian believed in all these rights and responsibilities - does that make him a British citizen? Why can't any citizen around the world who holds those same values be called "British?"  The whole idea of it as a basis for 'nationhood' is absurd.

Yet as we are aware, the traditional sources of identity based on race and religion have been thrown aside as unutterable horrors for decades, whilst they have simultaneously been substituted with abstractions that have rendered Western societies defenceless against invasion by every other people on Earth.

The ties that truly bind are the ones that plug into our evolved psychology—our ethnocultural roots built around a healthy ingroup/outgroup psychology attuned to differences in race and religion. Abstractions like freedom and democracy just don’t 'cut the mustard' at the emotional level.

Once again, taking the recent spate of looting and arson in England as an example, despite what the media tried to portray, the community did not "come together" in defiance of the criminals - they actually separated into their distinct ethnic and religious groups.

The Turks defended their shops, the Asians defended theirs, the Sikhs defended their temples and their community whilst the white community grouped together to protect theirs. The Blacks were not out there protecting the Asian Muslims or Sikhs, the Whites were not out there protecting the Blacks or the Turks or Asian shops, and nor were the Sikhs and Hindus. When it came to it - each group knew exactly what was 'their own' and naturally served to protect it.

This is where such nonsense as "Muscular Liberalism" and universal values masquerading as identity will always fail. Racial (ethnic) identity and geographic locality is the cornerstone of defining a nation - and homogeneity is the bedrock of a safe and stable nation. The more "diverse" we have become, the more unstable and full of unnecessary problems we have become.

Just think how wonderful it could have been to actually progress our civilisation forward as pioneers.  Just think how much safer, cohesive, unified, trustful and psychologically enthusiastic we would be as a nation without all this unasked for (and unnecessary) strife that we are now loaded down with and which is costing us billions in monetary terms and  millions of man hours trying to maintain order.

Our culture, race, civilisation is now being retarded - not propelled on the trajectory of our forebears.

Yet here we still are, heading towards oblivion with the liberal lunatics behind the steering wheel. We have become trapped into their hegemony, like the Soviet Union and its desire for a classless utopia which became the official national goal even though very few thought it was possible.

Many may have set about dismantling our racial integrity with the best of intentions (such as some utopian 'brotherhood of man' ideal) but they are as mistaken and as corrupting as Marxist economics. Nations cannot be built in pursuit of unobtainable goals and on principles in which people mouth the rhetoric but nobody really believes or practices.

If we are not going to keep making the same mistakes, we must accept that the fundamentals are flawed and that the following propositions need to be examined:

1) Race is an important factor in society and an important aspect of individual and collective identity.

2) Most people have strong feelings of racial loyalty and prefer the culture, company and way of life associated with their race - even if they are not conscious of their natural actions.

3) When people of different races come into contact there is friction and usually violence.

These propositions are universally true and are only controversial in a society which has been designed (and is determined) to ignore the obvious.

Races are not identical or interchangeable, they are not equal in terms of average ability and capacity for high civilisation - and any society that expects these things and expects an equal outcome by differing races are asking and seeking the impossible.

The trouble is, the liberal left hold doggedly to the notion that we are all the same and it is possible -and thus role out more excuses for its failure and more plans to force it to happen.

However, a paradox has now resulted which cannot be erased no matter how hard they try, well, not without considerable turmoil and strife. The country cannot become "more ethnic" without harming (and alarming) the people who liked things as they were - and it cannot become "less ethnic" without harming those who want it to become more ethnic because they are themselves ethnic and see no wrong in advancing their group rights. 

Is it really unreasonable or immoral for those who are indigenous to the country, whose ancestors built and shaped the country over many centuries, to prefer that it reflect their own heritage and to prefer to keep it for their own children rather than turn it over to strangers? I do not think so.

It is our belief as nationalists that whites have the right to resist displacement by people unlike themselves. As nationalists, it is a right which we also apply to others and other nations that are not white. We are the upholders and saviours of true global diversity, not the destructor of it. (This is a point which I intend to touch on later in the series of articles).

However, it seems that it is only white nations who are expected to act as though their dispossession is something to be celebrated and that it is a great privilege for us to share our land with aliens who arrive and expand in ever greater numbers, transforming everything that they find.

This displacement is the group equivalent of death. White nations and white people will only see their race, cultures and ways of life slip away if they continue to let their homelands fill up with immigrants of other races.

Like with 'white flight' - where on an individual level whites show their discomfort by moving away when their neighbourhood starts to transform beyond a threshold they can tolerate - why should they then welcome it at the national level?

The time is coming when we cannot run and hide, where there will be no "somewhere better". This is OUR homeland, the only one we have. We have no heritage elsewhere - this is ours and we seek to keep it, just like anybody else would in this circumstance.

Globally, European descendant peoples are a mere eight percent of the demographic. The population of white females capable of reproduction is somewhere in the region of two percent of the global demographic. Without homogeneous nations and homelands for ourselves, we cannot survive. It is an impossibility.

Seeing as every white nation is being affected by this onslaught at the same time, we are in serious, serious trouble.

If we do not assert ourselves on racial lines and assert our rights to survival very soon, if we continue to do nothing, if we let ourselves become minorities then our destiny will be taken irreversibly out of our hands.

We will be at the mercy - in the meantime to that - of identities, races, religions, who have no qualms at all about asserting their collective rights. It is already happening - albeit on a more micro-level. The liberal-left, in their pursuit of overturning the traditional world order are happy to allow such erosion take place and use the ethnic minorities as a tool for doing just that.

The same processes are occurring all over the white world, and by either accident or by design (I strongly suggest design) we have taken a serious wrong turn. The consequences of multiracialism are clear to see whether it be America, Australia, Europe, Britain. Everywhere it has been attempted racial integration has produced resentment and friction on all sides.

Unless whites collectively re-find their racial consciousness and understand what is at stake, unless whites shake off the teachings of racial orthodoxy they will cease to exist as a distinct people with a culture of their own.

History, morality, biology and generations of common sense justify our desire to see that our children walk in the ways of their own people, be heirs to the culture and civilisation of Europe - that their lives be shaped by their own history rather than by the history and demands of people unlike themselves. To have a (traditionally) free, quasi-libertarian society which is free from tyranny and the kind of dictatorship which is required to suppress and keep control of such a society we have built and are further building for ourselves.

This future is remaining to be curtailed by those who wish to see a new world in their own image. Their hatred for whites, either consciously or unconsciously, flows naturally from the pool of racial egalitarianism they swim in.

So long as the mainstream denies racial differences and the right of our self preservation, and so long as they insist that group differences in society are caused by the most wickedest crime they can think of ("racism") there will be anti-racist fanatics who will stop and nothing to eradicate this evil.

That is, ultimately, white people and white civilisation itself.

No comments:

Post a Comment