Saturday, 3 September 2011

British Nationalism - Part Two -

(The introduction to this article can be found here )
(The first part of the series can be found here )

I think it is reasonably fair to state that both today's liberal and conservative orthodoxies hold the opposite beliefs to the 'controversial' ones that we tend to hold as British nationalists. This is of course notoriously the case regarding the issue and role of race, and the impacts of multi racialism in society. 

I also believe I would be on safe ground to suggest that both the liberal and conservative viewpoint today is that all racial groups are equal in all regards of abilities and cultures, and that no matter how different people are, at the bottom of it all we are all basically alike and equally interchangeable. 

To push it to its extreme, they seem to believe that if you import people from Africa to replace people in Yorkshire, Yorkshire will not really become any different, other than the presence of new dark-skinned Yorkshiremen.

They might argue that no real loss has transpired - or if change has occurred, that it has "enhanced" and "enriched" the host community in some particular way which is beyond the capacity of the original inhabitants, to give it more "dynamism" and "vibrancy" (and other common buzz words which tend to get used but tend to evaporate on their meaning, when scrutinised).

What exactly is dynamism in this kind of context anyway? What is vibrancy? Do we need it? What value does it have? What does it cost? How is it measured? People are that used to hearing and saying it, they go along with it without ever really knowing what it is!

This interchangeability theme is also bit like the "Balanced Migration" groups basis, which seeks to ensure migration is balanced in order to offset any strain on our infrastructure.

In their basis of thinking, it seems that if 500,000 indigenous British leave Britain and 500,000 people arrive from a mixture of Nigeria, Somalia, Turkey, Vietnam, Lithuania, no actual immigration impact has occurred at all. The 'net migration' will be zero and in their opinion will therefore have no (or marginal) impact worth mentioning.

To all of them (including UKIP and the English Democrats),  it is more about jobs, resources, management of people, infrastructure and of course, trying to ensure things do not escalate into violence. All valid points, but as Andrew Brons (MEP, BNP) once quipped - "they only care about the house, they do not care about who occupies the house".

Neither the Balanced Migration group, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour are likely to point out that it will lead to the dispossession and eventual eradication of indigenous people. They do not acknowledge this factor, and will never work on the basis of this factor - not least because they are hamstrung and embedded into the aforementioned interchangeable and "race blind" viewpoint of the current political and social hegemony.

Their belief in these things invariably leads to the notion that any actual differences in achievement and any associated 'tensions' must be due to discrimination and racism, which must be overcome by all sorts of programmes and schemes such as  "positive discrimination" - which, I believe, is now an enshrined under the "Equalities Act" that was hurriedly brought in at the tail end of the last Labour term in office, like a naughty school child dropping a stink-bomb before they exit the classroom for half term.

It has been this view (that everybody is assimilable and that race does not matter) which has led to the mass importation of different races from all around the world to the point where the original homeland of the receiving population is being transformed out of all recognition, from an all white nation to a majority non-white nation. 

In addition to the process of this, we are told that we are the "racists" for objecting and we are imbibed with a narrative that minority groups have "grievance rights" against us for perceived sins of our forefathers - so called sins that are not actually ours and were not done with our consent anyway.

This 'white guilt' attitude is also imbibed within the minority groups themselves, often via the left-wing groups, which stokes up a sense of racial resentment and racial solidarity amongst minority groups in order for them to be seeking retribution against white people.

I have lost count of the times I have heard "the empire strikes back" bitterness and hostility. These people are clearly racially conscious and are acting in their racial /ethnic/religious interests, often gloating about the situation in which indigenous people find themselves - again a phenomena that can be replicated around the world, such as 'Le Raza' in California - but it is forbidden for white people to have a similar sense of self and be racially conscious to their group rights.

Whites who believe that we will be treated as well as we have treated non-whites in our country and will be afforded the same rights as current ethnic minorities, are in for a rude awakening one day.

We are already demonised and silenced, ignored in politics and polls and surveys, told our country is a blank canvas on which others can paint a new future, that our heritage is ungrounded, illegitimate and bigoted, shameful, obstructive to a 'better world' - basically just something to be generally dismantled and replaced as soon as possible.

As Britain becomes less indigenous, everything we think of as being the British culture and identity is either censored (so not to offend or be inconvenient), squeezed out or transformed into something else.

The response of establishment Conservatives (who apparently once used to actually 'Conserve') is to say the problems we see around us today are not created by mass immigration and it's effects on society, but the general decay of our society brought on through misguided liberals (and their pathway to hell that they try and pave with good intentions).

Whilst I believe that this is somewhat true, I think it is naive to not take all factors into account as to why things are not working out and why we are being presented with a whole host of problems that our society did not have to contend with before.

For a quick sample of what I mean, think of forced marriages, voodoo, female genital mutilation, once eradicated diseases re-emerging, Islamic extremism, 'honour killings', people trafficking, drug dealing networks, stabbings, shootings, gang rapes, drug turf wars, having to think about national dress codes (ie banning face coverings ) - and various other things which are indicators of how the country is changing in ways many of us are not happy about.

I doubt many of us would be suggesting that all society's ills are down to immigration, race or religion - but they are important factors in the "change" we are seeing already and (perhaps more importantly) the process of change that will be further taking place in the future.

When the failures and "challenges" of this "changing process" happen along the way, as mentioned in part one of this series of articles, it is often blamed on the white society, or society itself, rather than the concept of multiracialism, multiculturalism and the wisdom of allowing these things to take hold in the first place.

The irony of the situation is never spotted - how it has been the admission of non-whites to society in such numbers (in pursuit of showing how non-racist and egalitarian society is) that has led to more racism and more inequality in society.

Everywhere they look, the champions of this form of society seem to find more and more evidence of racism going on - yet whenever they are challenged on the very founding notion of what is taking place, they inform us that everything is in fact fine, and that there are no problems aside from a "small handful" of irrational people. They tailor their argument to best suit the pro-multiracial narrative at all times.

It is without doubt a rather simplistic argument to make - but we would not have such antagonisms and undercurrents of racial and religious strife bubbling were it not for the fact that we have had a multiracial and multi-religious society imposed upon us.

It negatively affects all sides involved, and could potentially lead to some horrific consequences - civil warfare, ethnic cleansing, partitioning of countries, terrorism - of which there are many examples around the world to cite. Why on Earth are we risking these things and allowing such a risky cocktail to be brewed here?

Well, I suppose one answer is that we have not exactly welcomed it - we have had very little say in the matter. When we have had a say, it has been sidelined, sidetracked, morphed, ignored, brushed off. The process has driven on relentlessly and with no regard to the wishes of the public.

However, there has been a flaw in this drive to push this change of society through (by both Conservatives and Labour). Their agenda - coupled with their admirable but flawed racial blindness and egalitarianism - has inadvertently led to much more race consciousness, identity politics, Islamism, perceived inequality and so on and so forth than they would have liked to have seen.

Now that things are beginning to fracture on fault lines, some of them have concluded that the only way to overcome those problems is to assimilate, race mix, blend all the cultures and races into one. This has long been the dream of radicals on the left wing of politics, but increasingly the Conservatives have taken such steps too.

One side seems to have done it for social 'we are the world' reasons of a race-less utopia, the other for practicality and the financial  mechanisms of globalism. Cultural Marxism has fused with 'Corporate Fascism' - and both the Labour party and Conservative Party operate on very similar lines when it comes to the fundamentals. Now that they have smashed us apart, they seek to rebuild all the jumbled pieces back into a whole.

Once again, Britain is not alone in this. After the much trumpeted announcement that "Multiculturalism" has failed, countries like France have officially appealed for unification of the population into a new form of being "French" - just like there are noises in this country to 'take stock' and "redefine Britishness".

It was even happening before David Cameron's Conservatives were in government and made the announcement; both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (and Jack Straw ) were keen to tell us who we now were and what our identity is now supposed to be.

We already have (had?) an identity, thank you very much!

When the rampant open borders process of mass migration started here (just like it did in America after the 1965 immigration amendments), some people were warning of a racial dilution taking hold. America had already seen racial conflict troubles mounting up, and Enoch Powell certainly took note of their experiences (as well as his own experiences in other nations where religious and ethnic strife were causing serious problems).

Just like it was in America, and when Enoch Powell gave his prophesy about the future during his Birmingham speech in 1968, those people warning of such racial dilution and strife were screamed down as extreme lunatics with wacky far fetched ideas about what may happen.

However, here we are today - where we are not only seeing dilution of our national integrity as indigenous people, but seeing the kind of people who once slurred Enoch Powell tell us that we should not be the slightest bit bothered that Leicester, Birmingham, Blackburn, London, Luton, etc are going to be majority non white (some already are) and now propose not only the dilution of our people but give support to racial inter mixture and yet further immigration - which would result in our complete annihilation.

They have certainly changed their tune and their arguments, just as can be seen by other negative results of policies and viewpoints which were imposed on the masses as "just" being this, or "just" being that, and how "silly" and "irrational" any opposition is to their line of thought.

Either the liberal "law of unintended consequences" bites them on the backside and they "positive spin it" into a great asset for us, or they are manifestly working further upon something what was desired by them all along, having been in full knowledge of where they were seeking to drive things. This is not new in "progressive" politics and world shaping strategies of sleight of hand.

For example, if some obstacle is in the way to their goal, they will remove the obstacle by obfuscating their intentions as they wreck it or push it out of the way. This can be seen from all sorts of angles, such as criminal law and punishment reform, abortion and the decriminalising of homosexuality.

Whilst there are arguments to be had about the rights and wrong of all these things, the point I seek to make here is that, for example, on decriminalising homosexuality, the public would not have allowed such a policy to take place if they knew that it was in fact the pathway to gay marriage, gay adoptions, disputes over cottaging sites being protected from developers, gay pride marches, the police service giving school children gay essay competitions and so on and so forth.

Whilst many may have been persuaded that locking people up, or hanging them for being gay was not the right way - society of the time would have recoiled in shock and horror at the idea of these things that are going on around us today. The idea of the church blessing same-sex marriages would be like telling them Martians have landed, they would not believe it or comprehend it.

Those who may have prophesied such things in their opposition to decriminalisation, would no doubt have been cast as lunatics and "fear mongers" about things which would "never happen" - with the reformers saying that it is "just" this and "just" that.

The process of this has been on repeat, for all topics, including race and immigration. The latter is particularly vicious, because the damage is near irreversible. Race blind ideology has led directly to the most race conscious - and indeed genocidal - proposal in the history of the world.

This is what results from uncritically accepting the idea that race does not matter, and the moral paralysis of whites in the face of immigration comes from the terror or distaste they they feel at saying that race does matter.

This is also tied to the inability of whites to face the fact that they are a civilisationally distinct group  - comprising around 8% of the worlds population - that is demographically threatened by the rest of the world's desire to live in the uniquely attractive societies that whites have created.

If whites continue to be open to non-whites as their race-blind moralism tells them they must, their societies will cease to exist (think of large parts of this country which have already gone that way, and the types of problems which now curse them); yet if they exclude them or disengage from this process we are trapped into, that will require them to be "harsh" and "unkind", "mean spirited".

It will require them to say that they do care about the society they are in, how they want it to be, that they care about the survival of their race and those of other races.

Yet, as nationalists, we do have to realise that with the contemporary Briton it is an uphill slog to even broach this topic never mind get people to act on it. It is seen as utterly evil and totally unacceptable, backed up with over half a century of carefully constructed bombardment to reinforce that notion.

The tragic thing is, there is really nothing evil or horrible about it at all. It turns out to be the most reasonable and commonsensical thing in the world.

Who does not want their children to look like they do? Who does not want to live in a society with people like themselves {which has its profound benefits, but I will come to that at a later date} and in a society that feels at home and attuned to their natural sense of self? Who thinks it is a wonderful idea to eradicate an entire ethnic group (and then racial group) from the planet in the bizarre name of "diversity"?!

It is the current genocidal and race-blind ideology that is truly insane.

So before we all recoil in horror or embarrassment from speaking explicitly about these things, let us remember that Britain's current politics is already a race-conscious politics - only it is a process based on lies and deceit about race.

It is a process which is unfortunately geared towards the marginalisation of whites and their civilisation - and the process is in motion no matter where it is found in the world. It pretends that it is not about race at all, that it is race neutral and universal, but the impact it is having is unforgivable.

It is perhaps time that some truths were brought into the equation of politics, rather than sweeping them under the carpet. Perhaps we need to at least propose the following:

1) Long term harmonious relations between a racial majority (indigenous) and racial minorities are possible only when the minorities are spread out and do not exceed a certain percentage of the population. This is certainly the case for Britain.

2) While individuals of different races can get along in the same society, on a basis of equality and mutual recognition, entire races, sharing the same society, cannot. In the right circumstances, individuals or small groups can be assimilated into a host culture of a different people, but that there are limits to such assimilation.

3) If the entire people associated with the host culture is displaced and swamped by multitudes of others, the host culture and people will disappear. The destiny and path of the indigenous population is de-railed and transformed into something else, something which means the original destiny and pathways cannot survive because it is infused with a multiracial and multicultural state.

These propositions are not anything to do with 'race hatred' or 'race worship' of my own (as none of us are perfect and white people have their flaws too) but more of a recognition that humans are not perfect, will never be perfect, will always fight and war, and that we do not possess some "God like" ability to create a perfect world where everybody is equal in all aspects and that any differences won't matter. The "arrogance" is not on our shoulders, but that of the liberal left who believe they have such powers over human nature.

White people, indigenous Europeans like the British, need to assert themselves and secure a future for themselves and their descendants.  We seem to be scared stiff that any form of repelling this situation will lead to non-whites hating us and then lead on to a race war - but perhaps the irony is that we may gain much more respect if we were to slap some of the "upstarts" and "race hustlers" back down into their place.

Minorities, be it racial or religious (like Islam) do not seem to respect the indigenous population  - probably because we have allowed ourselves to be defined as nothing, whilst some of us still cling on to our self interests. This makes us look weak, pathetic, a door-mat to be walked over, hypocritical, despicable - and thus we let them keep moving into the vacuum left by white surrender.  

We are having a nervous breakdown and they are making themselves at home whilst our guard is down.  

Perhaps when the indigenous population can muster up the effort and will to assert its right to survive - not in a hateful way, but in a calm, intelligent and informative way, the immigrant descended population may begin to see us not as oppressors (as touted by left liberal dogma), but human beings who have the same basic instincts, interests and concerns for their people and culture that the minorities have for theirs.

We have to remain somewhat hopeful that an appeal to justice, the unacceptability of what is transpiring and the endless double-standards will become obvious to any person of good will when it is pointed out.


  1. A good article BA. I agree in the main with what you say. However, people have to be brought around gradually to such a way of thinking, for as you are all too aware, the entirety of our popular and political cultures is steeped in the ideologies of 'anti-racism' and forcible miscegenation using the typical black man/white woman pairing so beloved of diversity-compliant advertisers. Civic nationalism thus may be a staging post for such people, for I do not believe for a moment that many within the English Democrats for example take the view that ethnicity and race bear no relation to nationality, and that they only seek 'balanced' migration in terms of numbers, irrespective of the biological and cultural characteristics of the people who end up residing here.

    To confront non-nationalists directly and immediately with your fully-thought through conclusions without allowing them time to make the mental journey themselves and making the necessary logical links along the way, runs the risk of scaring them half out of their wits and thus backfiring badly (as I have learned through bitter personal experience). To launch a successful bid to overthrow the existing hegemonic mode of thinking is no straightforward matter, and it is, in my opinion, more fruitful to stick to your principles whilst thinking strategically about how best they might be realised. This implies tailoring your lexicon to your target audience, whilst ensuring that the content of your message, and the goals that you are driving at, remain in place. People can be brought around gradually, for suggestions can be planted and examples given which allow the seeds of doubt to germinate in their own good time.

    On a related matter, have you read Guillaume Faye's 'Archeofuturism'? If not, it's worth reading.

  2. Please read this -

    We must find a British Nationalist who can speak/write like Geert Wilders.

    But more importantly, look at the Party for Freedom's recent achivements in the Dutch coalition and their road map for the future -

    We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the face-covering Islamic burkas and the niqabs!

    We will restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years!

    We are going to strip criminals who have a double nationality and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality!

    The Party for Freedom is bringing a message of hope to the Netherlands.

    The new policies will place more demands on immigrants.

    Integration will not be tailored to different groups anymore.

    There will be a tougher approach to immigrants who disobey the law.

    Those who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress, will see their access to welfare payments diminished.

    We have also achieved that anti-Israeli activities will no longer be funded with Dutch taxes.

    So-called humanitarian aid organizations that directly or indirectly support anti-Israel boycotts, divestments and sanctions and that deny Israel’s right to exist will no longer get government funding.

    The Dutch government will boycott the United Nation’s Durban III meeting against racial discrimination because it has been transformed into a tribunal for accusations against Israel.

    The government will strengthen our political and economic relations with Israel. Investment rather than divestment will be our policies towards Israel.

    We stand with Israel. We love Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is part of our civilization.

    The Party for Freedom is bringing a message of hope to the Netherlands. Who does the same on behalf of the English ? Note the United Kingdom is not mentioned throughout the whole speech. Does Geert Wilders dimiss the United Kingdom as a lost cause ?

    Beautifully written, both of you.


    Mike O.

  3. Durotrigan and Mike, thanks for your replies. I know that both part of the series are quite long, so I appreciate the time taken to wade through.

    Durotrigan, naturally, I know exactly what you are driving at and to some degree I do agree with what you are saying.

    I have always sought to be careful and non-too provocative with my views and portrayals, not least because I have sought to keep things pretty clean and tidy here for the purposes of smashing the stereotype of what we supposedly think and act like.

    However, that being said, I cannot support the English Democrats, pursuing Civic Nationalism routes or the idea of playing too much 'Realpolitik' (ie lying) in order to implement some tougher than expected policies (against the wishes of the public) that would be required to be undertook to steer the ship away from the rocks.

    There have been many avenues that I try and keep restraint on, for I am not in the slightest bit in support of any form of crude (nasty) racism, I am not into the deeper white supremacist/white-power lines, and I try and keep on the straight and narrow when it comes to the whole Zionist/Jewish/New World Order side of things.

    Recently, I have thought about massing together some arguments and sentiments that may provoke a bit of racial identity back into the mixture - and hopefully try and explain some of the thinking and reasoning which lay behind why we run contrary to the manufactured norms of society.

    The thinking, rightly or wrongly, is that we have to stop running away from the discourse parameters set by the opposition and that it is perhaps time to set about explaining ourselves, so that we can - at the very least - be better understood even if they come away not agreeing.

    The seed is being sown anyway, even though it may be years down the track before they come to change their mind.

    If people do not understand why we take the positions we do, then I think they will continue to be woefully ignorant and continue to call us ignorant because they have such little idea of what brought us to these conclusions.

    Whilst I may have been a tad more explicit and forthright in this series so far, I hope that it has not been too shocking or dramatic. Sometimes it is easy to lose track of what is shocking, when you literally live and breathe this stuff and are absorbed in the internet world.

    I noted that you state you "agree in the main"....which of course leads me to question which parts you may have found "too much" or otherwise invalid.

    Some of it is perhaps 'reaching' to make a case of point, I will admit that (as it is part of the course of providing an alternative view to mainstream) - but yeah, I would be interested to hear which bits you think are actually wrong and unfounded so that I can perhaps re-word it or otherwise clarify or quantify what I meant.

  4. (continued)

    The series of articles in this instance is not only to try and explain how I see the situation to new people, but I hope that others who are already on side can take up some of the points or positions being made when they are trying to fight their own battles within this unsavoury arena we find ourselves in.

    I have been trying, in my own deluded way (lol) to "bring people on side" for nigh on 12 years now. Especially so since 2004 when I became much less of a rookie.

    I can only hope that I have brought a few people on side in this time - but there is perhaps only so much you can write when it is aimed at treading water and not pushing a boundary or two from time to time. We do not seem to be going anywhere.

    Perhaps it is a temporary thing for me - but things are not getting much better out there, or within Nationalism, and I get the sense that the time for pussy-footing around is ever more quickly coming to an end.

    I am also questioning how much longer I will carry on living my life this way and writing here at this desk.

    On that score, I know I have a few things to get through before I (potentially) close up the shutters and confine it to the storage warehouse that is the archive of my life story.

    One of the things is to try and write some 'timeless' pieces which are not bound by current affairs and current moods.

    Another is to perhaps make another two documentaries and get my full archive of material on-line somehow so that others can use it when I have ceased to be around.

    It is perhaps a tidying up process.....but leaving the door open to remain involved, because I don't quite know how things are going to pan out.

    In terms of the civic approach, I would be very grateful if you read the (typically long) comment I made here:

    ....which was going to be rewritten as "A reply to ideological reformists part 2" but I never got around to it.

    It took me quite a while to think out that reply to a certain Mr Manxman (with whom I have sparred before) - but I know that you may not be on the same branch of the tree as himself.

    However, I see to recall it going through some of the thought processes that led me to resist this persistent call for 'pragmatism' and "civic nationalism" - and I hope that once you have read it you can let me know what you think......(hopefully without being too abusive! LOL.).

    I hope that - if nothing else - you may come away from that link with something to think about, even if you do not really agree with it at the end of the day.

    Regarding the planned series of articles here, I am not too sure where they may head in the future. I have a little more to cover on white-identity rights, but I foresee it covering things from Islam to self sustainability.

    I will try and keep in mind your observations and concerns though. I do not seek to frighten off or alienate an audience (presuming I actually have a wider one!).

    All the best,
    British Activism

  5. Mike. I have just read through the Mr Wilders speech that you have linked to.

    As usual it is pretty good and stirring stuff. I have always admired Mr Wilders for taking a stand and manufacturing something in terms of change - especially when it has such a detrimental effect on his life.

    That being said.....there are numerous parts which I sadly cannot agree on. Not surprisingly it is the avoidance of certain driving factors which have brought this situation about in the first place, and secondly, his race-blind statements which bolt onto the kind of 'muscular liberalism' approaches of "defending values" rather than the actual integrity of the people which uniquely made those values in the first place.

    However, it is generally a good piece. Below is a summary of clips from it which most reverberated with me and my desires for this country.

    It actually ties in a little bit to the divide of approach between myself and durotrigan (and Manxman on the link above).

    Ideally, I would like to see the success of Mr Wilders set on a background of a well packaged political party that remained proudly ethno-centric.

    I am still (perhaps delusionally) convinced that there is a certain way to get the balance right and that Nationalism can seriously "buck up it's ideas" to be much more professional and articulate than we have been.

    I have been impressed with the BNPideas website of Andrew Brons - which seems to set the balance right between self preservation of our people and a professional tone to a whole host of matters from energy supply, self sufficiency, NHS, environment etc.

    I think the Cultural Nationalism model is flawed, I think the Britain First "campaigning" method is flawed, I think a solid "white nationalism" method like the NF etc is flawed. The tone of the BNP in recent years, and that of Andrew Brons's BNPideas site is the closest I get to staying true to my ideals.

    If the BNP was not surround and populated with such cretins and liabilities, we may have been able to expand on the unique balancing act of subtle enthonationalism (properly argued).

    It was perhaps a long shot - but for me, it was the party that was flawed, not really it's platform threshold.

    All the above flawed models have their unique positive sides too, and I would ideally like to see various elements of them (strategy) all combine - including some of the success of Mr Wilders.

    Perhaps Mr Wilders deliberately omitted England/Britain because we have fared so badly. We seem to be the lepers of the emerging European vanguard. Even UKIP has failed to rise to the occasion of being some equal faux nationalist party like True Finns and Wilder's PVV.

    If he is seeking to give a sense of hope and's probably wise not to mention Britain!

    Mind you, I seem to recall that their elections and such differ to ours - and that, under the same scenario, we may have scored a few MP's ourselves in the last four years. Not too sure on that though.

    But yes, apply a certain uncompromising ethno self survival tinge to the following abbreviation of his speech, and we may be onto a winner.

    Perhaps the two things are unfortunately opposing polarities though.....but I am reluctant to give further ground, that's all, and I spot dangers with a wholly civic approach at this late stage of the game. (Which I hopefully put across in the above BNPideas site link to the comment I made there).

  6. (These are the main bits of Geerts Speech I resonated with, in terms of what I seek to emulate here in Britain).

    Much has happened since my last visit. In the Netherlands we were able to achieve many amazing things. We have successfully started to roll back the process of Islamization in the Netherlands.

    We have done so in a peaceful way and through the democratic process. {...} We fight with the force of our conviction, but we never use violence. Our commitment to truth, human dignity and a just and honourable defence of the West does not allow us to use violence nor to give in to cynicism and despair.

    The truth is that Islam can be successfully fought with democratic means. We do so in the Netherlands. You can do so, too, in Germany!

    Let me tell you what we have achieved in the Netherlands since my last visit to Berlin, less than one year ago. It will encourage you. What can be done in the Netherlands can also be done in Germany.

    My party, the Party for Freedom, which has 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament, supports a minority government of Liberals and Christian-Democrats. We do this in return for measures to restrict immigration, roll back crime, counter cultural relativism, and restore our traditional Western freedoms, such as freedom of speech.

    The Party for Freedom has been in this position for less than a year, but we are achieving great things.

    We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the face-covering Islamic burkas and the niqabs!

    We will restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years!

    We are going to strip criminals who have a double nationality and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality!

    Indeed, why should you Germans not enjoy the same rights as the Dutch! If peaceful and democratic resistance to Islamization is not a crime in the Netherlands, it should not be a crime in Germany either.

    So, here is my message to you: Continue your fight for freedom and freedom of speech! Do not let your politicians and judges grant you fewer rights than the Dutch! Do not let yourselves be intimidated by Islamic or leftist opponents who shriek and yell. Do not let yourselves be intimidated by media who claim that a murderer who has lost his belief in the democratic process has anyhow been influenced by us.

    My friends, when I visited you last year, even in my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that we would have been able to influence government policies in the way we have done.

    That is why I tell you: Never give in to the bullies! Never give up hope. Never despair! You can still turn the tide! One can always turn the tide!

    When I was here last year, Thilo Sarrazin had just published his book “Deutschland schafft sich ab.” Sarrazin’s book was a bestseller. It hit a nerve. It sold over one-and-a-half million copies. This shows that German society is ripe for change.

    But politically Sarrazin’s book has changed nothing yet. On the contrary, the German political elite raised the speed of Islamization in Germany.

    Bundespresident Wulff said “Islam is a part of Germany.” Chancellor Merkel said that multiculturalism is an absolute failure, but she continues to defend Turkey’s entry into the EU. The spread of Islam continues unabated in the German class rooms, on Germany’s streets, through the construction of new mosques, etcetera, etcetera.

    Your situation has worsened because you do not have a party — yet — with enough electoral support to influence German politics for the better.

  7. (Geert continued, abbreviated)

    We must all stand for the survival of our nation-states because our nation-station states embody the democratic liberties which we enjoy.

    Without the nation-state there can be no real national political freedom. That is why we must be good patriots. Patriotism is often branded as fascism. But patriotism is no fascism. On the contrary.

    Every democrat and defender of freedom must by definition be a patriot. A soul needs a body. The spirit of political liberty cannot flourish outside the body of the nation-state. The nation-state is the political body in which we live.

    That is why we must preserve and cherish the nation-state. So that we can pass on the liberty and the democracy which we enjoy to our children.

    Without a nation-state, without self-governance, without self-determination there can be no security for a people nor preservation of its identity.

    Dear friends, we urgently need a new blossoming of the German spirit. For decades, the Germans have been ashamed of themselves. They preferred to be Europeans rather than Germans. And they have paid a heavy price for it. We have all paid a heavy price for it.

    Europe is not a nation; it is a cluster of nations. The strength of Europe is its diversity. We are one family but we live in different bodies. Our cultures are branches of a common Judeo-Christian and humanist culture, but we have different national cultural identities. That is how it should be.

    Uniformity is a characteristic of Islam, but not of Europe. Islam eradicated the national identities of the peoples it conquered. The Coptic identity of Egypt, the Indian identity of Pakistan, the Assyrian identity of Iraq, the Persian identity of Iran, they were all wiped away, cracked down upon, or discriminated against until this very day.

    Islam wants all nations replaced by the so-called Ummah, the common identity of the Nation of Islam to which all have to be subservient and into which all national identities have to vanish.

    Islam tried to conquer Europe, but never succeeded so far. That is why we Europeans were able to develop our different identities as nation-states. If we want to hold on to these we must stand together against the forces which threaten our identities.

    When I was here last year, I spoke a length about the threat of Islam. Today, I want to draw your attention to the threat of Europeanization. By Europeanization I mean the ideology which posits that our sovereign nation-states have to submerge in a pan-European superstate.

    Small units should have a large degree of local sovereignty. The individual citizen should be given a direct democratic say over his own fate and that of his community.

    Instead, the peoples of Europe were robbed of their sovereignty, which was transferred to far-away Brussels. Decisions are now being taken behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats. This is not the kind of government we want!

    We want less bureaucracy! We want more democracy!

    We want less Europe! We want to hold on to our sovereignty. We want home rule! We want to remain independent and free! We want to be the masters in our own house!

    My friends, we need to give political power back to the nation-state, in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom, in the name of human dignity.

    By defending the nation-states we defend our own identity. By defending our identity we defend our liberties. By defending our liberty we defend our dignity.