Monday, 12 December 2011

Some Refutations........

I suppose I have again been neglecting the blogsite lately, but that is not to say I haven't been busy or not writing anything. Besides, I think would rather write something for this site when I feel I have something in particular to say, rather than just produce random output for the sake of keeping it topped up.

Anyway, back to business.....

After quite a leave of absence when it comes to facing down what people these days seem to call "libtards", I thought I would throw my hat into the ring and try and 're-cut my teeth' on providing some come-backs to some of the points and positions they make. 

The primary objective of this, from my point of view, was to throw things out there and see what came back. 

If I ended up being "beaten" and shown to be a complete fool, then I thought I would either have to "take it on the chin" and accept it, change my ways - or try other angles and use the experience to hone some further skills on how to plug up the holes which they had managed to break through.

As it turns out, I did not seem to have much trouble -but that is not to say that the ideas, replies and such I gave out are perfectly correct or should be employed without caution and some basic understanding of the directions I tried to use. 

It reminds me a lot of something which I wanted to get off the ground for the last seven years or so, but never managed to pull it together or find others interested in helping me with the project.....

The focus of the topic that these replies were penned for, stemmed from the Emma West "Tram Lady" issue from earlier this month. Again, just like a spotted several years ago, the opposition groups have a standard set of comebacks, which perhaps only comprise of around ten main focus points. 

For example, slavery, colonisation of America and Australia, doing the jobs we will not do, they pay for our pensions, doctors and nurses we needed, curry and foods, English going to live in Spain,the British Empire 'stealing their wealth', no such thing as English/nation of immigrants/mongrel race etc, how we went to war with Hitler to fight views like ours...... 

That is probably the main set. The others are variations on the same theme or based on egalitarianism and emotional themes of "hurt" and "not judging peoples character by their skin tone" etc.

The idea I had several years ago was to hone a near water-tight refutation of all those standard points, so that they can be used time and time again, instead of wasting so much time reinventing the wheel. 

Even if they could not be honed that well, I hoped that they could at least stall a debate and make our opposition work as hard as we have to work to counter their points.

I am not really one for bothering to engage with this kind of thing any more, but whilst I have been off work on holiday (and off a bit sick, like always happens when I stop working!) I thought I would have a crack at arguing with the opposition. 

They are not perfect replies. Some parts of them are taken from other replies I have seen elsewhere over the years. They are not designed or suitable for "copy and pasting", so watch out for that. 

They are not there to provide "stock" answers. I am providing the following responses for the purposes of providing others with a certain line-of-thought, which they themselves may have either forgotten or not thought about for themselves. 

Use them at your own risk - and use them only if you understand them and can defend them, otherwise you will look pretty silly when you cannot come up with the same standard of reply or continue the type of language being used in them, or cannot back up the thinking behind the points being made.

In an ideal world, I should properly sit down and professionally compile these into a more suitable format (as I had previously intended). But, I think life is too short, especially for me when I am not sure how long I will be bothering to concern myself with Nationalism and the various issues we face. 

I thought you'd better have them now than maybe not at all. I thought they may be better on here, than sat on my computer or sat randomly between another 630 replies on a random website. 

If you want to see the true context of the replies I am responding to, you will find them on the British Resistance website, on the article called "Emma West: Truth or Racial Harassment" - which is currently the highest commented article on the site.

They are in no particular order, and the lengthy 'all encompassing' set of replies to the "sympathiser" were not submitted for publication there, so they are exclusive to being here at the Independent British Nationalist blog. 

Be warned, they are all quite substantial! 

Okay, here it goes: 

Response to an argument about the English going to live in Spain:

Please do not begin with the silly Brits in Spain argument. It does not hold water as an argument against Nationalism and nor does it stand up to an equivalent of what is happening here in this country.

You know what, this may surprise you - but the thing is, many of us do not think it is right for loads of British to try and turn parts of Spain into English enclaves and for them to be insular and gate themselves off from the Spanish people and culture. The same goes for the Han Chinese moving into Tibet, and so on and so forth.

Nor do we support the lager louts and the "Oi! Oi!!! ENG_ERRRR_LAAAAAAND!!!!" type idiots and whatever else goes on over there that embarrasses this country and no doubt annoys the Spanish people.

The other difference is that we are racially and culturally quite similar compared to what is arriving here, largely Christian rooted too. They are European after all, despite the few hundred years of Islamic rule which they fortunately and heroically managed to break free of.

But perhaps the main difference is that the majority of people that have historically gone to Spain from this country have been people who are retired- ie pensioners.

The demographic has largely been "older" - ie, they are not young and they are not going to be having offspring which will render the Spanish people a minority in their own country.

"Ex-Pats" have paid their way, support themselves, often buying their villas, not being on welfare and whatever - after working hard all their lives here in this country in order to afford it.

In our case, however, we are being flooded with a young non-European demographic which is of child rearing age - as can be seen by the bulging birthrate of immigrants at a disproportionate rate to that of the indigenous population.

This is how the ethnic minority make-up of London schools has transformed another 50% rise in a matter of a decade and why they now comprise a majority percentage of secondary school children in the capital and in other cities like Birmingham and Leicester.

I do not believe that Spain's major cities are bursting at the seems with young English children swamping their schools and rendering the Spanish people a minority, receiving houses, welfare, translation services and so on and so forth.......

......and like I say, I would not be happy about it if they were, I would be supporting the rights of the Spanish to close the door! Just like I advocate here for my own people and my own country. The argument you level against us is actually ours, not exclusively yours.

Response to need for immigrant labour in the 50s and 60s

As for the apparent need for immigrant labour -what rubbish. It was often down to the government not wanting the expense to train the public and how they wanted to import workers instead because it was cheaper and because it would keep wages down. Nothing changes on that score does it?!

Take for example the northern cotton mills. It was clear that the industry was on its knees and unable to cope with the rates of pay in India. It was clutching at straws to lower wages in order to increase profit margins upon sale. But it could not be done forever.

However, they and the government imported thousands of workers from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan knowing full well that it could not be sustainable. They lied and said they would "go home" when the work dried up.

They saddled this country with a massive burden, then closed down the factories, sold the machinery off to India and laid off all the white and the Pakistani labourers, who did not return home.

The mill owners and the government did not give a rats ass about the legacy they had made in their short-term and short sited policies - much like large international corporations and big business still like to import cheaper staff, leave us with a demographic legacy and bugger off to cheaper countries as the whim fits.

You seem to support all that, and seem to support asset stripping other nations of their trained people, such as doctors and nurses, whilst our own doctors and nurses cannot find work and are having to head off to Australia and Canada. The whole situation is ludicrous.

What do we have now, via some of their descendants of the mill generation and the chain migration policies for the last 5 decades?

Grooming, drug dealing, mosques and calls of prayer over the Pennine hills, towns which are over 30% Muslim, voter fraud, large unemployment, racial tension and resentment, Islamic fanaticism, terrorist plots, segregated societies and the need to social engineer high schools to prevent violent conflict happening.

I hope those 'workers' you talk about from the 50s and 60s were "worth it" - because I do not think it has been worth it in the slightest. It has been a burden, a drain, a nightmare that is not finished yet.

The same with the descendants of the Africans and Afro Caribbean in London and elsewhere, and continued chain migration etc. What legacy has come from that?

Gang crime, shootings, stabbings, rapes, failing schools, unemployment, fragmented societies, ghetto culture, rumbling resentment on all sides, riots, looting, to name but a few things.

Not all as rosy and smooth as you make out is it?

Response to how we should be shamed and how we faught off "Nazi's" like us, which was "Britain's greatest achievement"

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at how you believe that standing up to Hitler was "our nations greatest achievement".

Seriously? Are you sure you might not be over exaggerating?

Do you not think that anything else we we have created or done throughout our nations history, I don't know, such as ingenious machinery which has changed the world, medical advancements which have changed the world, or how our devised systems of law and order have been mimicked around the world, abolishing slavery (at our great expense, I may add) - etc etc- may surpass that of embroiling ourselves in a relatively short conflict that was firstly none of our business, secondly cost us the British Empire and thirdly helped kill off around 20% of the European racial population of the world including millions of our fellow citizens?

What is truly being disrespectful to our fallen is people like yourself who are using the wartime effort to justify liberal-left social policies, multi-racialism, multiculturalism 'anti-racism' etc - which will eradicate the people of the nation those war hero's went to war to preserve the future of!

That is what is disgusting and immoral behaviour. You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself, not us.

Do you honestly believe that in the 1930s and 1940's the good people of this country went to war in order that their own future generations would be turned into minorities in their own homeland and that we would find ourselves alienated and colonised by other races and all encompassing systems of life like Islam, and so that we could be ruled by unelected transnational treatise and constructs like the European Union? Seriously?! Come on!

So, no doubt according to you, we went to war in order to not be invaded by foreign peoples (Germans) with designs on our country, to defend democracy, and for us to remain a free and sovereign nation.

Well, how is that working out for you?

We have been invaded by much worse foreign peoples, some of them with an extremist ideology to equal or surpass Hitler, we do not really live in a true democracy any more and we are governed by other nations and unelected bureaucrats - ironically, mostly the Germans at this time.

So what did they die for again exactly?.......

The disgrace is what has happened to this country since the war, where, also ironically, foreign metal thieves are ripping the brass plates from our war dead memorials up and down the country.

How proud those war dead must be of our "tolerance" and what we have done to their legacy!

You seem to be under the impression that we are all the same, that we all have the same problems and all problems stem from the same proportions of various communities now loitering in this country. They are not.

Violent crime (such as shootings and stabbings and rapes) are disproportionately carried out by blacks, drug dealing is disproportionately carried out by Asians, prostitution and child trafficking is disproportionately carried out by Eastern Europeans and others from the 3rd world nations.

Grooming of our young teenage children by gangs is disproportionately done by Asians. Postal voting fraud carried out disproportionately by Asians, lack of driving insurance, mostly Asians. Begging and child begging is almost exclusively done by Romanians, Cannabis factories are almost exclusively Vietnamese..... Need I carry on?

Former immigrants and their descendants are disproportionately out of work than the indigenous population, in some cases by a ratio of 3:1 and 4:1.

Illnesses and strains on the NHS are often due to things like the spread of AIDS and TB (both of which almost entirely due to immigration). Add in translation costs, over crowded living conditions, health tourism and shipping tablets out to other nations etc - plus of course various other diseases re-merging which we had once completely eradicated from this country.

Of course our society had and has its "own" problems - but why on earth do you think we needed all these other ones importing too?

You can also add in things like Female Genital Mutilation, disembowelling and limb amputation of children for Voodoo rituals, forced marriages, Islamic terrorism/fanaticism, over crowding, development on greenbelt, community discord, racial riots and so on and so forth.

Was our own relatively TINY amount of social and national problems not quite enough for you or something?!

Is that what you think our forefathers went to war for to let happen to this country?! What a disgrace. Shame on you. You spit on their graves by your passive acceptance of what is going on and rubbishing people (like Nationalists) who seek to preserve and defend this country from destructive forces of cultural Marxism and the problems of mass immigration. 

Of course our own society has bad elements and problems - binge drinking, drug abuse, wife beating and so on and so forth. We Nationalists do not condone them and we despise what often manifests itself as "British Culture" now.

We recognise we are not perfect and we nationalists recognise that we need to deal with the destruction of our nation - our own people included. However, they are our own people at the end of the day - not unwanted interlopers we never asked for.

We quite rightly resent what is happening at their hands and the hands of the governing classes. Our "home grown" and traditional problems are minuscule compared to what has been brought to our table by others.

Most serious British Nationalists and the British National Party have never "blamed" everything on immigrants anyway - they largely blame the Government and the liberal elites which have foisted this disgusting and increasingly degenerate nation upon us.

That is where the true blame lay and where the focus of our condemnation has sought to be aimed towards.

But let us get back to that war for a moment....... do you believe the same old lies that we fought WW2 "to save the Jews" and "defeat fascism and racism" etc, and that is why our brave forefathers signed up and went to war?

.....If so, that is quite frankly nonsense on stilts. I do hope you do not believe those kinds of things.

It was the deep love of our island home which inspired the soaring rhetoric of Winston Churchill, which drove men to fight on the beaches of Normandy and the deserts of north Africa, which compelled exhausted bomber crews to fly on missions for night after night over Germany, and what enabled the British public to survive the Blitz so stoically, etc.

It was due to patriotism, an extension of the natural loyalty we feel to our families, friends and neighbourhood.

Ie, Our kith and kin, our nation, our people, our future.

That is why they did it - for England to remain England, for Britain to remain Britain and comprised of the British people and British way of life.

How is that looking now?

How will that be looking and feeling 25 years from now? 40 Years from now? Do you seriously expect us to believe that the war dead would be looking down upon us and congratulating what has happened to this country and praising us on how "tolerant" and "inclusive" we are being?

The modern liberal narrative has given off the entirely wrong lessons from the Second World War. You seem to have swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Instead of being presented as a magnificent defence of our native land and people against an aggressor, the conflict is now portrayed as a triumph for the forces of political correctness against right-wing extremism.

In this warped narrative, such as the one you seem to believe in your comment above, the Second World War has been transformed into a gigantic crusade against xenophobia, while our soldiers, sailors and airmen are regarded as armed outreach workers in a vast anti- racism project.

The sense of unifying national identity that once motivated millions of Britons to defend their homeland is held to be suspect by a political elite obsessed with cultural diversity.

We are told that opposition to mass immigration is the equivalent of siding with the Nazis, so we therefore must accept it, accept being gradually snuffed out of existence for the whims of international socialism.

By the way, when Germany attacked Poland, Britain did precious little to come to Poland’s aid. It was only after the Nazis advanced through western Europe in May 1940 that Britain, under the new leadership of Winston Churchill, began to fight in earnest. This shows that the war was really about perceived national defence, not an ideological campaign of any kind.

I suggest you get off your fake moral high ground before you try and denigrate the genuine patriots of this country. It is not as 'clear cut' and 'all equal' as you like to believe. I may be being harsh, but I think you need to see it from another perspective for once.  

Response to sympathiser of the above reply, but who supports civic ideas and says we haven't to judge others on "malanin" levels and should treat people all the same, not like Emma West ("Tram Lady") - and asks what do I include as "we" when it comes to indigenous British.

Thank you. It seems that you can appreciate some of the points being made and how they are quite legitimate and justified concerns which, as you say yourself, need to be tackled.

To do justice to the other points you query, I think I need to give you a bit of a run-down on the much deeper issues so that you may be able to appreciate the context of what is going on and what other issues are on our table, from our perspective here.

You may have to “hold on your hat” because I understand how wild and 'extremist' this thesis may sound.

There are major clues in your reply that give me indication that you are missing out a very large piece of understanding what 'drives' some of our objections and positions towards others.

However, I will answer your question starting from the beginning of your reply, about the opposing argument that some people propose, i.e., that the fight against Hitler was 'against racial intolerance and oppression'. The argument has no real merit in fact or in deed, that is why I challenged it.

The war was not fought for that reason, and the other general idea people have in the post-war narrative that Hitler was somehow wanting to eradicate all other races off the face of the Earth or 'had it in for the Jews' simply because they were racially different or deemed 'inferior' is not really correct either in my opinion and in my understanding.

I was told those same kinds of things and I followed those (somewhat simplistic, it has to be said) lines of thought and I believed them for a long time - until I finally became aware of what was really going on and what the issues are.

But I am not here to support Hitler (because I do not) and I am not really here to debate aspects of that point in history either - because the whole WW2 situation has little to do with British Nationalism, or true Nationalism at all.

The kind of argument that tends to go around that the British National Party and Nationalists in general are "far right" and "fascists" and "race haters" has no real basis in the truth. Some of the representatives may be cretins at times, we may often reduce things to ‘short bursts’ at times, such is life, but that is not what we are about or founded for.

The British National Party is neither "far right" by manifesto policy, "neo Nazi" by deed or indeed "fascist" by true definition either - nor do proper nationalists "hate" other races of the world for their existence on the planet, or do we really deem ourselves as being of "more worth" or "better" – but of course we can proudly trumpet what good things we have brought to the table, just like anybody else.

That is why it gets so boring and so predictable when opponents of nationalism throw up Hitler, WW2, Fascism, "racial intolerance" - it is a lazy, lazy, canard primarily used to uphold and usher in liberal-left immigration policies, cultural Marxism, international socialism.

That is why these people who repeat them so blindly are what the orchestrator's of this themselves called "Useful Idiots".

They are tools being used to serve a purpose that they are not even aware of. You may want to look up the School of Frankfurt objectives and the method of Critical Theory etc. for this kind of issue if you are not aware of what I am talking about.

In short (and this is a basic list of their objectives) they aimed to achieve the following things in order to later achieve their true goals:

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

Go through that list, and honestly ask yourself whether those objectives and ambitions have been fulfilled.....I think all of them can be ticked off. If you believe we have got to where we are organically and ‘by accident’ I believe that you may need to learn about how our civilisation has been purposefully under attack by means other than warfare.


When it comes to your other question, I am proudly an ethno-centric British Nationalist and when I speak of my people, "Britons", I refer explicitly to Caucasians and the ethnic indigenous people of Britain whose homeland this is.

The indigenous people of Europe and Britain are white, which is a simple matter of fact which cannot be escaped from. It is not because they are "white" which brings me here, it is because they are indigenous and this is our continent and our homeland and these are my people, my kith and kin, my extended family.

If the shoe was on the other foot and Europe was indigenously Black, and I was thus black, I would be here for the exact same reasons, much like I support Tibetan people to remain so, and Black people in their homelands to remain so.

Nationalism and being proud of your race and identity is for all people, only it seems you can be seen to be proud to be black, proud to be Asian, proud to be Chinese......but say you are 'proud to be white' and proud of our white ethnic heritage and you are deemed evil and full of hate! Either that, or condemned as a complete idiot.

Why should that be so? Why the double standard? Find out about the agenda being waged and I think you will come to appreciate why this is the case and why it is seemingly only applicable to Western civilisation (ergo “White” civilisation).

Nationhood by traditional definition is steeped in racial roots, ancestry, shared history, shared ethnicity, values and customs. The noted concept of Jus Sanguinis, for example, stretches right back to Romans and Greeks. Many nation states still operate a repatriation law based on this, where automatic or rapid citizenship is given to members of Diasporas of their own dominant ethnic group.

"Nation" itself is an English word too often misused or taken for granted, with its real meaning ignored or obscured.

Nation does not refer to a governmental entity officially recognised by the UN, nor even to a plot of land with specified borders. Nation, from the Latin nasci ("to be born"), means a race, a people that shares a common experience, tradition, and, most important, ancestry.

We believe we have a right to self preservation of our homeland and for our indigenous people to remain intact and in permanent majority in our own homeland. It has always been a right of nations, which is why nations have always fended off threats and invasions – yes, including from some of our ancestors at times.

It is even charted in modern terms by the UN declaration on human rights and indigenous peoples - only, for some strange reason, it only seems to apply to non-white people and nations!

It is recorded fact that in 1951 this nation was officially 99.8% indigenous "white". A previous churn of 0.2% “others” when spread out extremely randomly throughout Britain never posed any problem at all and nobody, not even the most hardened "white supremacist" would suggest it was a problem.

By 2051 though, just 100 years later, we are due to be a minority in nearly every major town and in every major city of this nation - and virtually going extinct by the end of the century. 100 years! That's all! If it was happening elsewhere in the world, I am pretty sure there would be uproar by the stereotypical 'guardian' reading masses.

Surely, even if you do not care about these issues, you can appreciate that the pace and scale of this is unprecedented and that we are in a unique position of not being able to defend ourselves by physically fighting off this threat - and unique in that we are now happily surrendering our land to other races and religions without so much as a bad word being able to be said, even being told to welcome it and congratulate it as a huge benefit!!!

This is not an exaggeration or "scaremongering" either. It is already forecast by serious academics and demographers, and the process is, if anything, speeding up thanks to what Labour *purposefully* did to this country whilst it was last in office.

Most past predictions were based on the 1991 and 2001 census and trends, and millions of people have arrived since then, going from a migration of some 50,000 per year to that of over 250,000 per year throughout this period up to 2011!


This terminal decline of our ethnicity is going to be happening because it will be impossible for us to recover and survive intact within these borders when presented with the demographic reality of what is already here - never mind what is still coming every single year.

It is the same situation for Germany, France, Denmark, Italy etc. As a whole, we are being picked off one by one.

When it comes to "white" people around the world, it is important to remember that before the Second World War we were somewhere around 30% of the world demographic. After the war losses we dropped to around 15%, and now at this very moment in time we are just below 8% and due to tuck down below 6% in a matter of a few years time.

(Yes, this included all 'white' people of Europe, America, Australia, Canada and anywhere else).

It is no exaggeration to say that "white" people are being slowly eradicated from the planet via means of carefully orchestrated measures designed to break apart Western Civilisation, by structures that stem the capacity to have/afford children (for example), whilst simultaneously promoting mass migration of non European peoples into our homelands, promoting and encouraging racial intermixing etc.

These kinds of measures are given as examples of being those in order to commit genocide, under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That they are not waving guns in our faces or forcibly stopping us having lots of children (for example) is not important, the effects of their actions are having the same end result. They know full what is happening and what is likely to happen as a result of their policies. They are therefore complicit.

Like most other people around the world, I happen to care for my people, my race, and my ethnicity and find it a great tragedy that this situation is taking place.

I extend the same for other races and cultures around the world and I defend their rights to have their homelands and fend off transformations that would prove fatal to their continuance. I am an upholder of true diversity, not an eradicator or opponent of it.

What we are seeing today, via increased "diversity" *within* nations is an eradication of diversity *between* nations and eventually there will be little diversity at all, all controlled and under the Koch of world governance as little more than cash cows and consumers.

You may be selfish and not particularly care beyond your own lifespan/surroundings and you may not care about upholding diversity in this way or protecting the integrity of your own racial group from this fate - as is your right - but some of us do care and do recognise why it is important, and surely it is an odd situation where it is those who "do not care" who get to set and seal the fate of those who do care and who have only ever sought simple measures to defend ourselves!

When it comes to simple continuance, it takes a white mother and a white father to make a white child, no other option can do that. Now that we are only 8% of the world demographic, it unfortunately means that only around 2% of the worlds demographic are white women capable of child bearing.

That is the world context, which I feel is important to bear in mind to put you in the bigger picture, but of course Britain is a portion of that and like many other nations we are being deluged to the point we cannot carry on and survive as we have done since the thawing of the Ice Age (from which around 80% of the indigenous people of this country can trace their DNA origins).

If we were not being so threatened inside our own borders by these trends, the ebb and flow of demographic "Total Fertility Rate" (TFR) would not really matter too much. It would correct itself up and down as what has normally happened before.

This is the basic reality of demographics:-

Our indigenous ethnic T.F.R is currently around 1.4 and has been for a long time. To have basic self-replacement takes 2.1.

A "T.F.R" of less than 1.3 halves the population within 45 years, creating a falling-off-a-cliff effect from which it would be nearly impossible to recover. No civilisation of people has survived such a drop before.

Pakistani mothers, Bangladeshi mothers and Somali mothers in this country have had a T.F.R of around 4.2 and 3.5. Muslims in particular are practising traditional "Fecundity" agendas for the text book definition of their obligatory duty that is entwined in their “culture”.


People expect that it would take hundreds and hundreds of years to tip the balance, and thus find this whole argument of a risk to self survival preposterous - but in reality, it can take little more than two generations to tip that balance so that it is 'even', then, due to age structure, it quickly shifts the opposite way in under half the time.

For example, we typically now have an (ageing) structure of 4 grandparents, 2 parents, 1 grandchild. There are of course exceptions, but bear with me on the average.

To take a conservative figure of “immigrant origin” TFR at even 3.0, they could typically have 4 grandparents, 6 parents, 18 grandchildren. Those 18 Children become the grandparents......and so on and so forth.

Therefore, in the space of that simple time frame......we are left with *1* child (perhaps 2) whereas the ethnic family has amounted *18*. This process does not have to go on for very long before the balance tips, and it has already been going on for decades now.

This is also bearing in factors such as a non static and decreasing T.F.R rate for these groups, which would be okay if they were here in small numbers, were declining, spread out and 'evening out' with the host population, and without further mass migration and population change taking place.

But that is not the case, is it.....

It is already the case that ethnic minorities now comprise over 33% of the under 5 age group in England and Wales. (This was revealed in official ONS statistics based on records from the year 2005 and has been reported in the press).

Leicester and Birmingham are already "Plural" cities where indigenous people are a minority, London is to follow shortly, and places like Blackburn (even according to BBC supplied figures) are 33% Asian/Muslim at the moment, again, the majority of which are young.

“Well? So what?!”, you may say - as it is often said that we are a "nation of immigrants" and that what is taking place now is no different to before. But that is a complete lie. The British were one of the most homogeneous and racially intact peoples on the planet.

The whole “Saxons, Normans, Huguenots” 'mongrel-breed' line people take is quite absurd when you consider that all of the above are the same racial people from the same part of north west of Europe, all pretty similar in culture, language, customs and heritage, that the migration was minuscule in proportion to the whole (i.e., less than 2% over the span of centuries) and that, for example, when it comes to the so called "Jewish waves" only around 50,000 Jewish people had moved here in the space of hundreds of years. Many of them later left for the United States.

There are a lot of unfounded cliché’s that do the rounds. One is that we are a “nation of immigrants”, another is that “diversity is a great strength”, another is that “lazy British do not work and scrounge welfare”, another is that we “need immigrants to pay for our pensions” and throughout the Labour years the claim was that they “benefitted the economy”.

On all counts, they are lies and do not stand up to evidence or scrutiny.

Please bear all this information in mind when it comes to making a judgement upon us and what we stand for, even if you do not agree to uphold it yourself.


I say this because, in your reply, you seem to think that our argument is about "prejudice" and "not judging people on the colour of their skin" and how "the degree of melanin in their skin does nothing to define their personality" etc.......your words.

As you may now see (?) - It has nothing really to do with any of that. We are bitter and angry about what has happened, what is currently happening and what will be coming in the future. I think we have just cause to be angry and bitter too.

I would happily treat any racial or religious minority (as an individual) on a mutual and friendly basis, I do not believe all Muslims are suicide bombers (or predisposed that way!) or that all blacks are rapists and gang members etc.

I do understand general racial differences though (race is not just melanin levels or skin colour, by the way!) because I am a race-realist. I have studied the topic and as such I understand why various societies in this world are the way they are and why we are facing a complete nightmare for the future here in Britain and Europe (which is a deep subject) - but of course - I will treat any person with common decency if they are doing likewise to me. (This is why it jars a to see the Tram video clip, because the individual targets and focus points are wrong).

However, that does not mean that the situation going on is right or acceptable, that I welcome it or welcome them here (on that basis) and all the rest of it. Far from it - I would like a halt and a reversal as much as possible.

But I do not "hate" other races; I do not "hate" other religions. I want to simply preserve and protect the integrity of my own people in my own homeland, and when it comes to a potential religious and sharia law aspect gathering momentum in the future as their particular numbers grow (an aspect on top of all the others!), I do not want to allow this country to eventually become an Islamic state or partitioned off at some point down the line.

It is not about being "against" others, it is being "for" ourselves and our future.

Since the days of the 1948 nationality act, through Enoch Powell in 1968, up to now, all we have ever wanted is rational and humane controls to avert the very problems and situations we see today. But no, they were denied to us - and are effectively still denied to us!

It is also a bit rich to say that people should not be judged on their skin colour, when white people suffer eternal collective guilt for all the perceived sins of our forefathers and sins of other regimes like Hitler who we happened to actually fight against!

We are judged and "put upon" for our skin colour all the time, in a way which endangers our very collective future.

Parliament is apparently "too pale, male and stale", the BBC termed itself "hideously white", I think it was the arch bishop of Canterbury who was (a few years ago) doing some slavery march in shackles to atone for historic sins of “our” slavery days (of which we were not alone, nor the first, but the ones who abolished it!).

The applicable examples of things of anti-white racism and “collective guilt” are endless.


When it comes to the Tram Lady, Emma West, I am at odds with many on this site on this issue. I said that she does not really speak for me, or represent me and my argument. That is still the case, for me. I cannot really say I would clap and cheer if I was in the carriage, not least because I do not see how it could ever be helpful other than venting a bit of anger and having a “you tell ‘em!” trophy moment.

Whilst I can understand her frustration and alienation - and will 100% defend her right to say whatever she likes about any subject or group of people in this country (aside from calling for their deaths!) - I personally do not want to hold her up as a great asset or ambassador of our cause. I do not believe she is a “nationalist” like I am.

I get the impression that she is just an ordinary woman who is sick and tired of what is happening to this country, was obviously provoked in some way before the film started rolling, and it just flew out of her mouth in the only way she probably knows how.

She knows the whole situation we are in is 'wrong' somehow, but I do not think she has had the right tools to express it or understand it, not least because giving people understanding of the subjects has been avoided and has been avoided for over 60 years.

I am not going to throw her to the lions, wash my hands and denounce her – but nor would I put her on a pedestal either. I know that will annoy many other people here, but that is how I feel about it.

The equal hysteria over her by the press, the transport people, the police and "anti racist" bodies is insane too. It smacks of a “witch hunt” for heresy against orthodox opinion. People who have stabbed passengers to death do not receive this kind of frenzied coverage.

What has apparently happened to her since being ‘found’ by the authorities is a true disgrace in a so called free society. It is more disgusting and frightening than anything that she could have said – and they are, after all, only words and an opinion. The implications of what has happened are alarming, and this is perhaps the only area in which I can now lend complete support to her.

My earlier posts surmised a general viewpoint on matters which have to be addressed - as you also admitted yourself.

This set of posts may explain a further and much deeper set of positions to those - even though I do not expect you to automatically subscribe to them or accept them.

I merely ask you to think about them and bear them in mind when these kinds of topics cross your lap in the future.

Current levels of immigration to this country raises questions not only about numbers and racial survival in the long term, but also about integration in the medium term - and we nationalists simply acknowledge that the second is related to the first.

As stated earlier, until the mid part of the 20th Century, the immigrant population comprised only a very small proportion of the total population, less than 1%, which meant that in order to flourish they had to adapt to the prevailing culture and integrate and be assimilated in *all* ways eventually.

Nationalists (and probably most sane people) believe that this gave Britain an enviable record of social harmony and a good, safe society - which always tends to accompany near-homogeneous nations.

However, the presence of large ethnic communities after 1948, for some of whom integration with the host culture is not really an aim (such as Islamic peoples who have their own system of life to adhere to), is threatening this social harmony.

We are people who cherish our race, our nation, our ancestry and we are people who cherish Britain's comparative stability, freedom, and tolerance.

We feel we cannot afford to ignore the potential threat that is posed to it all by the large-scale changes in its demographic composition – something that is now taking place as a result of recent large-scale immigration in combination with declining fertility among its indigenous population.

I believe society will always find it harder to reproduce its political culture and to maintain its traditions the less deeply rooted its members become in it both historically and ethnographically, especially when it is so rapidly changing. It is human nature.


Infrastructure, housing, schools, jobs, traffic, health care, energy resources, food resources, societal problems and increased crime are all reasons in themselves why things are not going well and should be stopped.

Add to it all these other “deeper” factors too, and in my opinion it lends extra weight to the argument of how we need to stop and reverse some of these trends.

I hope you can see that it is not about "race hate", "Paki's smell", "Chinese eat dogs", "prejudice" "bigotry" etc. etc., which is the kind of un-thinking 'knuckle dragging' image so often applied to us.

It can be seen on this websites comment section that there is some extreme hate coming from the opposite side - who find no problem in gloating about “serves you right” “empire strikes back!” “We are taking over, you are not superior anymore!” etc and have a belligerent and hate fuelled view of this country and its people.

They have been trained and programmed to hate their host.

The resentment and hatred is bubbling in them and they quietly (and not so quietly) express their group self interest and take pleasure at our situation.

If we are doing things in their interest, being passive, being quiet, then they are fine and expressing the “all equal” tone. Cut a little deeper, resist their demands, apportion some blame where it is due, and they are quick to plunge that knife in and reveal themselves for what lurks beneath.

When we are confronted with those obnoxious and arrogant attitudes from ethnic minorities (and self-hating white liberals), you will have to forgive us when we become just as obnoxious, nasty, “short-hand” and 'racist' back!!! Personally, I would not hesitate to have all such people thrown out on their ear tomorrow. They are invaders and forgo their right to be accepted into our fold.



Response to a cry-baby African youth saying "we stole his country and resources" and now he suffers racism here, and is hurt and crying, because Black people do everything for us etc.

Here's an idea - rather than bitching and moaning how hard done to you all are here, allegedly wiping our behinds (unasked) - why don't you all save yourselves a LOAD of misery and hardship that WE never asked you undergo, and PISS OFF back to Africa and go and make something of the place?

Hows that for an idea?! If you don't want to be "persecuted" and "suffer discrimination" and want to stop generally moaning and crying about life here, LEAVE!!!. Don't expect any gratitude from me.

Don't even get going on the "we stole your resources" bull either. You may have had oil and diamonds and gold, but you know what, they would STILL be sat under the ground whilst you numb nuts wouldn't know what use or purpose it had!!! No use to you then, is it?!

Who is raping your backside now? The Chinese! Why? Because AFRICANS cannot do ANYTHING for themselves! They could not organise a slaughter in a village.....oh, hang on! Yes they could!

We have given that black hole £BILLIONS and £BILLIONS and £BILLIONS in our foreign AID money - we built up HUGE parts of your non-existent infrastructure, gave you medicines, electricity, roads and rail and EDUCATED you in OUR founded Universities, such as those built in Nigeria and elsewhere, including South Africa.

Don't come crying to us about how we have done NOTHING but "do-you-over", you ungrateful parasites. Nor visit the deeds of the forefather onto the child, which is against UN law. We here are NOT responsible, we owe you NOTHING.

Name me just ONE, JUST ONE SAFE and DECENT BLACK country to live in? ANY answers? No? You cannot blame it on us that you cannot either! Your fellow folk have been self ruling and self managing yourselves for the best part of a hundred years!!! Look at what happened to 'Rhodesia' when we left that one last century! How proud you must be!

What has happened since our involvement over there?! (which we nationalists DO NOT support, by the way!)

You have degenerated into what it was like BEFORE we ever came and the Chinese are now stealing your natural resources!!! Dear God! Have you no sense of shame or embarrassment?

I suggest you start a movement to get all you "hard working" and "dynamic" black folk right across Britain and Europe to head back there and work your MAGIC to really show us what you can do!!!

What's that? You'd rather stay here in the comfortable and relatively safe and organised WHITE world? Oh dear.......

Stick your "financial burden" up your backside. You invading hordes are OUR "financial burden". Only we pay for you HERE and we STILL pay for your kind back in Africa too!!

Sling your hook, if you want to "get your own back" on us and think you lot are so marvellous and helping "build" our civilisation here, why not DEPRIVE us of this wonderful generosity? That would really show us!

What a laugh.

Sub-response to a melodramatic and gushing retort made to the above response:

Spare us the over-emotional melodramatics. We are not interested. It has no relevance to fact or any relevance the magnitude of this situation going on.

We should not have to take his age into consideration either - which is yet another ridiculous liberal premise that has crept into society in the last six or seven years. "Ooooh people are demonising the youth....the youth are a discriminated minority too!.." "we must shield criticism and soften up the harsh truth from them".......

Get a grip.

He is clearly old enough to claim to understand world affairs, old enough to try and tell us our own history and imply why we should snuff ourselves out as a people and civilisation, and clearly old enough to type on a computer. He is therefore not an infant.

He deserves no special treatment what so ever, for any reason, including his alleged tears - which are only included there for yet more emotional blackmail and melodramatics. He had his say, then I kicked him to the curb because I am not at all interested. It is bigger than him and his alleged sobbing, or me, or you. End of story.

For all we know he is yet another white upper middle class Che Guevara/Hammer and Sickle supporting hippy that has never grown up and who is yanking our chain. It is not as though we are not used to seeing them turn up. Not that it makes any difference.

I know about globalisation and shifting powers, I am not an imbecile. Being a nationalist it should go without saying that I am therefore not a globalist, and know full well what the situation is with that as well as all its other facets and implications.

But that was not even the point I was making in regards to Africa and the Africans - yet I suspect you would not be able to wrap that concept around your liberal fuddled head because it breaks too many taboos all at once.

I have no doubt that you "mean well" and think you are doing the "correct thing" and "feel good" about being "righteous" and "caring" - but you need to wake up and smell the coffee, especially if you are white. You will then have to challenge your brainwashed notions. Then you will come to understand why we are here.

If you are not indigenous to this land, not white, then you have no legitimacy telling us what our fate as a people should be, especially in our own homeland, whether you were born here or not. 

Response to same poster, saying I sound like an angry old man who has nothing better to do than put down young people and people who are different to me and what I know. 

Okay, here is a slightly less hostile reply.

Yes, you are right that I am angry. I am not alone.

I am angry about what has been done to this nation and angry about what it will lead to in the future. I think I have legitimate right to be extremely angry and bitter, although in truth I am at a stage way beyond anger and bitterness. So are many other people here.

That is why I have little patience for most of the usual melodramatic liberal blowhards who come along here with their incessant flurry of misinformed claptrap, and why I am therefore used to serving things both-barrel without care or consideration.

At least you seem to be here "giving it a go" in a more patient fashion and not being as completely moronic or name-calling as some of the other contenders we have to put up with!

You would not believe the people who come in going on about gas chambers, nazi's, knuckledraggers, fascists, bigots, haters, rhyming off all the usual dogmas and excuses for letting this situation continue.

When you have been involved with this truth and reality as long as I have, the pleasantries and patience tend to have to take a back seat - because this is not a nice topic, it is not a pleasant issue, it is not an easy ride, and it has few easy solutions. It is cold, it is hard and brutal. That is the way it has to be by its very nature.

That is why we good people are angrier even more, because we have been denied and denied the most simplest and humane ways of preventing this country getting the way it has now got - and thus prevented us from halting how it will result in the future.

We are backed into a corner, and that is never a good option to create.

This is done via the same kind of fools who perpetuate the same flawed ideologies and who push and promote the same old agendas.

It is pumped through the TV, the radio, magazines, through all main parties in politics, through the Church, through think tanks, schools, universities, charities and celebrities.

It is a stitch up from top to bottom, hermetically sealed from any other viewpoint, and especially from any action being taken. I hope you can appreciate what I am saying there.

We are therefore heretics. We are a resistance movement. We are annoyed at this situation, annoyed at the people who have let it happen and continue to let it happen.

It is most often not about 'individuals' who have come here or were born here. We do not know them from Adam.

Our focus is not really with them, or anything at all to do with "judging them" or "judging their character on melanin levels” and all the other bizarre misconceptions people have. It is the "scenario", the outcomes, the country we have to live in, the whole picture.

On this, our patience wears increasingly thin. It is a nightmare, which for the indigenous population can only get worse and worse. Do you understand?

Then there are, of course, 'particular' examples which make a total mockery of this country, and I am sure you can imagine those kinds of examples. They just add to the other annoyances.

Ie, People from Africa coming in and being put in 1.2 Million pound houses to house their 7 offspring. Rapists and thieves who cannot be deported because they will be tried for crimes they have committed in their own country - and would face tough penalties if they were returned.

Muslims taking delight in turning ancient church buildings and public houses into mosques, and we being told by politicians and the elite to 'celebrate the diversity' of this and "understand" how it is good for our future.

It is absurd. Surely you can see that from our perspective?!

Then there are things like the "attitude problem" riddled Pakistani grooming gangs that are raping our womenfolk like they are trash. Drug dealers who are peddling their poison and rotting our societies as they enrich themselves and advance their status. People who are butchering children for voodoo rituals and FGM. Shootings, stabbings, beatings, robberies and general violence which is almost all imported to this country.

We do not want it. We do not want them. We do not want to have a country like this, which gets that way "organically" by sheer volumes of people, to the point it degenerates to third world status.

It is no "one persons" fault. See what I mean? It cannot be dealt with in that way.

In those publicised cases, it *is* individuals and much more "specific" -one thing at a time, one case at a time.

But although they are specific cases and specific causes of resentment, they lay *on-top* of the overall situation of our general displacement! It would not be "welcome" or "right" even if they were all law abiding etc.

It therefore blends and blurs into the general situation of what our country is turning into, without our consent or permission. That is how this situation rolls. 

Some of the less articulate members of society who do not have the skills to understand what is truly going on (who are not Nationalists, but who are aware that it is not a welcome change or a right change) will obviously lash out in the only ways they know how.

Such as - shouting abuse at foreigners, making silly jokes about burkhas, and all the usual rubbish which litters this kind of debate.

It is unfortunate for a few reasons.

One reason is because they do not particularly "speak for" us or represent us Nationalists, so they can often damage us by implied association - and the other reason is how it is unfortunate for the unsuspecting ethnic member of the public, who are minding their own business, then are suddenly being the butt of the joke or the remarks. It is not their personal fault we have all this.

Emma West was not even so coarse as to use racial epithets, she was just expressing an opinion without any epithets whatsoever. I do not particularly agree with what she did, I wouldn't have done it. But I absolutely defend her right to say it and say whatever she wants, in any way she wants, in her own country.

I strongly oppose what has been done to her as a result of having an opinion and simply expressing herself. It is Orwellian or something akin to Stalin's Russia. That is one of the main reasons why she gets my support on this.

Regarding your reply to mine though, I cannot help but notice that you reply to me once again with 'emotion' based themes and personal attack rather than logical or factual ones.

It is a common theme of those who try and oppose us, because fact , truth and logic is most frequently on our side when you get right down to the nuts and bolts.

Ad-hominem come-backs, name calling, saying how "offensive" it is, and so on and so forth is no sufficient response for people to give. Most often when people do that, they have either no idea what they are talking about or cannot win the argument.

Trying to turn it into a "respecting the youth" thing is not really any better. I see it for what it is, because it is just a side-circus designed to make me look like a "monster" whereas you can be seen as being all petals and roses, "caring and compassionate".

In my view, logic always beats emotion, in the same way that "the pathway to hell is often paved with good intentions".

You see, "not hurting somebodies feelings" is no reason for us ignoring the situation going on, and nor is this a problem which can really be dealt with on a "one to one" individual emotional basis - asking what everyone thinks and feels about it 'one at a time' and having a "discussion" like it is some show on the BBC's "Big Questions".

(They never do come away with a conclusion, do they?!)

Dealing with this matter on that level is not an option. Not any more.

As such, I am not going to really care one jot what some Somali family may feel about the situation of my not wanting them here, for example, or what they think about colonialism, or about anything else.

I do not care about silly topics of head scarves and their supposed "empowerment", or all the other garbage that goes around, and around and around as part of this absurd "multicultural" debate every year.

Their view does not change our fate, are often not even legitimate in this context, and are far too insignificant in the bigger picture to really warrant serious attention.

Whilst we all go around in circles, our situation deteriorates; things move on and get worse and worse.

I am not, for example, going to cease or stop just because some alleged "youth" here turns on the water-works and tries to emotionally blackmail us into submission, especially when I am being served with a huge slice of liberal "guilt trip" pie about our so called sins which were not even mine or anybody alive today. (As did the person above).

Nor am I really going to go easy on people who defend such things and defend such a premise, because they are in effect, condoning what is going on and hammering nails into our collective coffin.

This situation for the very survival of my people and my homeland is something bigger than his emotions, it is irrelevant to me what he thinks about it or what you may think as mere individuals. It cannot be dealt with in this way.

That means that some people are going to be offended, upset, "hurt" emotionally - but if that is the only thing that can happen to them in order to get the message, then it is a very little price to have to pay.

They will get over it in the long run. My people will not.

Therefore, I am not going to hold back or lend tissues to wipe away those alleged tears - because, really, it has gone way past the point of me giving a rats ass. I am not the slightest bit bothered how rude, insensitive or 'hard nosed' it may be. 

Attitudes are hardening up, people are getting annoyed and angry, even exasperated.

The liberals have added all the ingredients required for an extremely bloody conflict one day, although, of course, I would hope it does not come to that.

The one-hit-wonder who posted above is a victim of their meddling. He is a victim who in an ideal world would not even be here in this country and would be in his own country, with his own people, making something of that place and being happy and content there.

But it seems everybody wants to flock to white countries, and Africans (and others) cannot wait to get away from other Africans and the societies they build for themselves, then go on to slowly turn our countries into the same problematic heaps they fled from, then tell us that they are improving it and that we should be thankful for it.

We are not thankful for it.

It is not our role, duty, or responsibility to submerge ourselves for the sake of importing them here for a "better life". We do not owe them or anybody else a "better life", nor can we afford or physically fit them all here if we did.

The problem of 3rd world nightmares cannot be solved by transplanting the people that created it into the west. That is partly what the lunatics have been doing. Looking at those puppy-dog-eyes and throwing the gates wide open, putting emotion and hippy international socialist ideals before logic.

Third world countries are going to account for 98% of the world population growth in the next 50 years, for heavens sake. Whilst we cannot afford to have large families, because we are "responsible people", the irresponsible are breeding like it is going out of fashion and we idiotically support them instead of ourselves - and let them take over our homelands too!.

It really is insane.

That is why, if he finds life so awful, unjust, "racist" and hard here, then he can leave, along with the rest of his family.

We never asked for him to arrive, we "ordinary" British people never asked for the Windrush to arrive, the Pakistani mill workers in the 60's, or anybody else. Just like we never asked to go to war with Serbia, establish an independent Kosovo, engage in the "Arab Spring" or go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whose name do they do all things in? Apparently it is ours. Yet, did you vote for any of it? We certainly didn't! Did we get any say in the matter? No!

Then the morons come at us Nationalists and say: "Serves you right for meddling in world affairs!" "Serves you right for going to Afghanistan!" "Serves you right for........"

.......Hold on! Hold on! It was not us!

Much like we are not wanting engagement with Iran, which seems to be being weaved at the moment. Iranians are holding up signs saying the British are the devils etc.

Whoa! Nothing to do with me! I voted for the only party that would keep out of the entire lot!!! It was not us nationalists who butchered millions of Muslims in the middle east, and we {allegedly} "hate" Muslims right?!! Only we don't hate the Muslims or the Muslim world, we only hate the facilitation of and slow Islamisation of OUR country. We have a right and a duty to resist this!

The same can be said of many other issues we are hated for around the world.

So, I am not going to see my own people wiped out before the end of the century (and live in perpetually increasing violence, corruption and chaos in the meantime) simply because some black youth posting here had a bad day or somebody said some bad words to him once and that he is having a little (fake) sob about it.

I am not going to say "there, there, have a tissue, and seeing as it is *you*, seeing as I now know that *you* personally have been troubled - and seeing as you are a little bit upset, I think we should let you and all your family stay here and even invite more of you over to make you feel better, generally abandon all that is right and all that I believe in"......

No. No. No. That is national suicide. It is not an option.

The time for niceties is coming to a close. I am personally way past that point already.

To you, I sound like an angry old man. But alas, unless you call early/mid 30's being an old man, I think I have some way to go before I reach that status!

God forbid what I will be like when I am over 64 eh! lol ;) 

Response to foreign students picking up the slack for lazy British, who cited loads of charts about increases in foreign students, and "discrimination" in finding employment.

The traditional role and duty of any government is to provide adequate jobs and education for the citizens which it represents. They are supposed to be there to represent us - the electorate who elect them into office - and to look after our interests, including the integrity of the people, our freedom, self determination and defence of the realm.

This is surely the basic role of any government. We do not, or at least should not, have them be there to look after everybody else's interests BUT our own.

It has not been in our interests, for example, to have our wages suppressed, our towns and cities transformed, or to have us fight in wars and globe-trot around the world ushering in 'regime change' which is none of our business or concern.

It has not been in our interest to have high unemployment of people already residing here - be they black or white - whilst more and more people come to the country. There is a problem with the system that, in our view, has been purposefully set up to allow this to happen for ideological and vested interests. These are, essentially International Socialism /Cultural Marxism and Corporate Fascism.

That is where our true concern lay, NOT with individuals who have come to take advantage of it. You can keep your "prejudice" jibes to yourself, because you know little about what we are here for. You are "prejudiced" yourself, and quite ignorant of what our positions are.

Whilst our unemployed and near unemployable languish on welfare it costs this country a fortune - which, if our representatives in office had any sense would have realised a more protectionist model of looking after our affairs would have been to the betterment of everybody.

It is arguably better for us to be industrious and working so that we can export manufactured goods and sell goods to our own citizens (even at a slightly higher price) than it is to perpetuate this unemployment and welfare model and have a "race to the bottom" of globalisation.

I believe this is what the old trade unions used to support as well, before they became international socialists. They were once against immigration for the same sort of reasons too.

It has been reported that over 95% of all jobs created under Labour went to foreign nationals. Many British people have been put out of work, are looking for work, but cannot find work because immigrants are getting the jobs.

Some companies have even laid off staff and then employed 'cheaper' staff by the back door, some have had the sheer nerve to get the existing staff to train their replacements before they go.

This situation is often due to the fact that they are working for agencies, many of whom effectively exploit those workers and effectively undercut the viability of companies to employ indigenous citizens. It suits them both, but does not suit the indigenous people of the country.

If you work for an agency, which companies like because they do not have to pay them holidays or health insurance and can sack them off and employ more at their whim, you can often find that they can be paid up to £2 per hour less than indigenous workers. This is especially the case on production lines and in factories where they need not speak the language or speak to anybody else.

They will just work, and work, and work, in some cases without toilet breaks. 

For example, an inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found evidence of there being shocking abuse in factories supplying major supermarkets, where some staff were working up to 90 hours a week in degrading conditions.

A fifth of workers questioned said they had been pushed, kicked or had things thrown at them, while a third had witnessed or been on the receiving end of verbal abuse.

Complaints included:

Line managers throwing frozen burgers at staff;

Pregnant women ended up miscarrying because they were told they would be sacked if they did not do heavy lifting or stand for long periods;

Workers forced to urinate on themselves because they were not allowed toilet breaks;

Working every day of the week with no days off, regularly totalling 90 hours with shifts lasting up to 18 hours;

Agency staff going around to workers' homes to make them come in on their day off.

The EHRC said some examples, such as forcing workers to do double shifts when ill or tired, were against the law and others were 'a clear affront to respect and dignity'.

Most of the mistreated workers - in firms supplying processed food to supermarkets - were migrants but British employees also suffered serious abuse.

THIS is NOT in OUR name OR with our BLESSING or CONSENT.

This is not even including the kinds of 'gang masters' that make people live "on site" in caravans in order to pick vegetables (which could be mechanised like in other more advanced countries) and rip them off, or the kinds of labour that led to the death of cockle pickers in Morecambe, Lancashire.

Surely you do not expect the British people to have to put up with sliding downwards to such situations too to make a living, because they would others be “lazy” and “unwilling to do the work that immigrants do”? Shame on you!

But, that extent aside, why are some of the indigenous people not prepared to do some of the work?

It is quite possibly because it is not worth their while to do so when they can, in some cases, get more by not working.

Some of our own people ARE idle- and we nationalists do NOT excuse them or support them. But, what about those who are NOT depictive of the TV show “Shameless”?

Who in their right mind would bust a gut in a hard environment for what could amount to perhaps another £50 per week? Factoring in things such as petrol costs, running a car, having to pay child care, and so on and so forth.

Child care costs are astronomical in this country, and I know from experience that it in some cases it has to be a conscious decision to "pursue" a career that makes some women return to the workplace because the near entirety of their pay packet is spent on nursery and child care fees.

Again, when it comes to furtherance and continuance of the indigenous British people – how is it possibly beneficial for us to have this situation where people forgo families for careers and trying to keep a basic to decent standard of living? Have you ever seen the introduction to the film “Idiocracy”?! 

When it comes to the so called "work ethic" of foreign people, especially the much touted Eastern Europeans, it has to be remembered that the majority of these people have been receiving wages which are anywhere up to quadruple that they would have had in their country of origin.

They have to "make it" here in order to continue this, so naturally they will do what they can and 'put themselves out' doing whatever they can to remain. That is the "drive".

The money that they do earn though largely goes OUT of the country and back to theirs. How can this be good for the country here or in the interests of British people?

Why are we employing people from other countries to do work we often do not need, putting pressure on the infrastructure and having our own people out of work and then at the end of the day the revenue gained from it going abroad?

Why are we indigenous people, for theoretical example, importing a Somali family, one of whom might eventually get work in a Muslim Sari clothing shop, which has been built or furnished by Polish labour, who all went to the local Kebab/Fast Food place for their dinners whilst on construction?

How does this make sense for the future of the hosting indigenous British people?

It helps the Somali jump a standard of living by seven-fold over night and gives the family welfare and a roof, it helps the sari shop sell more Islamic garb to the increasing Islamic population of the area, keeps the corporate firms employing cheaper Polish staff happy, keeps their agencies happy, and the Somali and the Poles send excess money to another nation via Money Transfer Unions, often populated by foreign staff whose only business it is to remove money from this country.

Where do the British people fit in? Nowhere, as far as I can see it. We do not need ANY of it.

Immigrants come to the country, so they obviously do not own houses, do not have a mortgage, or all the other overheads we have. They often live 7 or more to a house and split the costs in a way which the indigenous worker could never compete with without lowering their standard of living to a degree which is not acceptable. How can you support this race to the bottom which will eventually put people out of their houses and working for a bowl of rice a week?

Numerous studies, most tellingly perhaps the House of Lords report on the matter, found that the supposed "financial benefit" to this country from immigration was next to zero. For anyone to say that immigration is boosting our economy or "paying for our pensions" is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Again, given this as being the case, how is it in the interests of the indigenous population?

Although we have had mass migration, it is a factual statement to say that the indigenous British are still proportionately the most productive and most employed sector of society. You even state yourself, in your own figures that 48% of black people, 31% of Asians etc are not in work.

Therefore, for whatever reason you care to ascribe to it - "racism" being a pretty pathetic one - it is the white indigenous population who are carrying the can and pulling the weight, and, as a result, paying for their own demise and own debasement from their own country.

Whilst we are doing this, we are even impoverishing ourselves and working so hard that we support African nations too, plus sending £Billions to India, Pakistan, and hundreds of others.

To say that, on the whole, the indigenous people are "lazy" and sat around on welfare is clearly idiotic therefore.

It is past waves of immigrants and their descendants who are not working - and in the case of some religious groups like Muslims, up to 40% of the women are not working and woefully uneducated.

But this case is not down to "racism" or "prejudice" - it is down to the fact that they are culturally different, more family oriented, more fecund and are at home looking after broods of children, often over 4 children.

This again, is not in the interests of the indigenous British people for obvious reasons - that they will eventually establish more Islamic featured societies and will slowly ethnically supplant the indigenous British from their own country, whilst we, in effect, pay for it to happen too. 

When it comes to colleges and universities, it is a known fact that they charge more for foreign placements.

This is why many British people could not get into Universities, because it was making much more sense for the Universities to populate it with foreign students than our own. In Bristol’s chemistry department for example, non-EU students pay £14,750 a year compared with the £3,225 charged to British.

Institutions including Bristol, Edinburgh, Nottingham and Surrey are just a few of those Universities which are exploiting a government policy which puts no restrictions on the lucrative international student market, while imposing strict caps on British numbers. They are being allowed to advertise places in clearing as being available only to non-European Union students.

Large numbers of British students with good A-levels can’t get a place even while the universities are recruiting more from abroad than ever.

In the case of EU students, it was revealed this year that more than £250million a year of British taxpayers’ cash is blown on university education for students from other EU countries. Yes, whilst we cannot get places for umpteen reasons, we are then paying for other students to come!! Leftwing liberal students who like to moan and whine must have “kick-me” painted on their ignorant backsides.

All in all, it is therefore a bit ridiculous of you to cite the FALL in British applicants and the RISE in NON-EU students as being that the British -who are of ALL backgrounds - were "not up to it" or "too lazy".

I suggest you get your facts right and see the agendas being waged before you keep ignorantly mouthing off.

Plus, I would imagine that many of the people cited as officially "studying" in this country have never seen the inside of a college or university. A vast majority of so called "foreign students" on the government books are bogus and facilitated through bogus colleges.

Nobody denies, especially not racially aware Nationalists, that the Chinese and Japanese are, on the whole, diligent and dedicated students who value education and hard work.

They have, on average, a much higher IQ than that of whites, much like we have an average IQ higher to that of Blacks. That is why they tend to have much more successful societies, with lower crime rates and more honesty. Good for them!

One other thing to bear in mind is that you are generally talking to Nationalists here - NOT 'gutter racists', not imperialists, not colonialists, or anything else. You should learn the difference.

We believe that the education system in this country is, on the whole, woefully inadequate and that it has been purposefully destroyed in order to facilitate the kinds of changes we are seeing today.

It is a sad indictment, surely, that a nation which was once (rightly or wrongly) leading the world in educational attainment (and ruling over vast proportions of it), is now churning out a population – primarily thanks to liberal agendas and the “long march through the institutions” - who are not deemed properly educated or deemed fit for work.

It is not OUR fault, as nationalists, that this has happened, is it? Have we been in charge? Have we been influential in policy making? No.

The government and other institutions have failed in their duties, despite throwing billions of pounds at raising standards. Unfortunately, most of it went to crackpot liberalist agendas and throwing it away on PFI schemes. Bricks and mortar do not give a better education.

They have not been properly educating the public OR have they been adequately providing training and apprentice schemes to GIVE people the skills to be employed.

Why would a firm employ an apprentice, when they can get a cheaper immigrant whose home country has paid the price of their training? Why should they, from their perspective, give our folk day release to college and universities?  

But what of that supposed lack of educational attainment? Are we not told that students are working harder than ever, are brighter than ever, and that with every year that passes we see more “A” and “A*” grades?

This has been happening for decades, according to the government........yet........we keep being told that we just do not have the education or skills, we do not have the basics of English, Maths or Science to get work and that immigrant workers are "needed"!

So which one is it? The liberal teaching methods since the 1960s has produced a highly educated British youth for the modern age, or that we are all dunces and we need to be replaced by the third world, who apparently must have better education and educational standards than this "first world" nation?

It cannot be BOTH at the same time. Well, not unless we indigenous people are being shafted up the backside at BOTH ends of the picture, which no doubt we are. Again, this is not in our interest is it?

I do not know what you expect us to say!

That we support general idleness and under education of the nation? That we support the reduction of our wages? That we should support the changing make-up of this country racially, culturally and religiously? That we support rampant globalism and meddling in other people's affairs? That we support exploitation of staff and the generation of a new "underclass" of foreigners that was wholly unnecessary and NOT welcomed by the general British people OR done in THEIR interests? That we should support “British Jobs for Non-British Workers”?

How ridiculous.

Have you any idea at all about what we are here for, other than your no doubt ridiculous assertions and assumptions that we are all "haters" of other races and "prejudiced on the basis melanin levels" and generally sat around on our arses swilling lager and watching Jeremy Kyle?

Get a clue, you anti-white racist.


Response to slavery "within" Britain and by the British Empire.

This is Britain, not America. Fortunately, we did not saddle ourselves with the same slave problems as the united states by importing slaves into Britain.

We were not waited on hand and foot by blacks in this country, we did not have them working down the mines or on the fields, or anywhere else. It was our own people, often working in slave conditions, who built this country up. Nobody else.

In fact, we had virtually no Blacks here at all. The idea people seem to have that we had loads of slaves and general multi-racialism in this country is absurd.

The few "ethnic minorities" we did have knocking about were often not even proper residents, they were primarily stationed in the ports and docks as part of international trading companies passing through and waiting for ships and transport to return.

Some of them did linger on and stay, but a very tiny fraction. Even then, their limited presence was not wanted and it caused a few riots in the early late 19th and early 20th century.

The British people of the time would just not have put up with a mass presence of Blacks here, and nor were the vast majority of society here all chomping at the bit to support and partake in slavery.

As an example of the general reluctance to have non-whites in the land, the Queen of England in 1601 issued orders to expel all the non-whites who had "crept into the realme" - even though they were only thought to number a couple of hundred.

She said "there are of late blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are all ready here to manie”.

She said that it would be “good pleasure to have those kinde of people sent out of the lande” - and issued orders to "transport them into Spaine and Portugall.”

A year or so later, when it became apparent that some of them had still remained, she again complained about the "numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which have crept into this realm …” and firmly had virtually all them rounded up and repatriated.

This was because "they are here to the great annoyance of [the queen’s] own liege people, that want the relief, which those people consume.”

It is false for anyone to claim that we had swathes of black slaves here, and the burden of providing evidence falls on yourself, not us.

We are not here to fall into the liberal trick of having to scratch around for hours and hours to try and provide evidence for somebody who is neither interested nor ever going to be willing to change their mind on our situation because of their own ethnic heritage circumstances.

The entity of the 'British Empire' may well have been involved in slavery, but the everyday populace of this country were not involved and nor were we deluged with slaves and partaking in slavery on these shores.

There may have been one or two very rare exceptions where rich aristocrats and former colonial settlers brought a few staff back as servants, but it would have been extremely rare indeed.

If you think about it, surely if we had any great legacy of blacks and slaves within this country over the span of hundreds of years, it would be obvious that the country would not have still been 99.8% white British in 1951.

Now that is a fact which you can look up in any serious demographical records and census records.

Many thousands on non-whites came to Britain soon after the war and especially after the 1948 Nationality Act. In 1951, just three years later, the estimated total of non-whites (of all types) was totalling 94,500. This in itself was causing a commotion. It was unprecedented.

The total demographic in 1951 was around 50 Million people. That therefore makes them around 0.18% of the populace. Say 0.2% to be fair. Britain was, as such, 99.8% white British. Essentially, near perfect homogeneous.

Now, we are less than 83% - where in the under five age group "ethnic minorities" in England and Wales are over 35% of the population. That is exactly the kind of trend which brings us here, just like it would for people in any other nation undergoing the same kind of situation. 

When it comes back to slavery, Jewish traders were highly involved with the Transatlantic slave trade (I do not see much condemnation or self flagellation of them!), but I would say that the real historical slavers were predominantly Arabs/Muslims and black people themselves, slaving each other within their own lands and selling their own people off to be slaved elsewhere.

They were doing it centuries before we ever got there, and continued it long after we abolished it in the west and through the Empire. In that period alone, they were enslaving far greater numbers of people than "whites" ever did before they abolished it.

When it comes to their societies, the Arabs were so disgusted at the idea of there being mass interbreeding with the blacks and thus creating a demographic problem in the future because of their presence in their countries as slaves, that they used to castrate them or work them literally to death.

They were far more barbaric and inhumane than "we" ever were.

Slavery did not exist in a vacuum, the slave trade was not invented by Americans or Europeans. Even during the short period in which Europe and America were involved in slavery, they were not even the main players.

It is therefore certainly inequitable, and arguably racist, to hold one group more accountable than another on the grounds of their race. It is positively wicked to do this in order to help usher in ethnocidal mass immigration -which you and others here seem to be doing on a repeated basis.

You can not single out one or two nations for unique condemnation, when, in truth they merely, and briefly, got involved in what almost everyone else was doing, and which other nations had been doing for thousands of years.

This is particularly inequitable given that, in 1807, Britain was one of the fist nations on planet earth to abolish the slave trade and then (through the Empire) brought about the abolition of slavery across a quarter of the earth's surface by a mere 26 years later.

This is a stunning achievement, given that the British Empire included many lands where slavery had been a fact of life for thousands of years, and that this huge task was achieved in an age before aeroplanes, helicopters and satellite communications. It cost this country a fortune to abolish slavery, more than we had ever supposedly gained from it.

It is time to put this whole "slavery" guilt trip to bed.

People pull it out like it is some kind of liberal Kryptonite to make us wither away - but we are immune to it!

There is nothing you, or anybody else can say about slavery which will excuse what is going on today, or make it right in any way

Response to economic collapse not being about race in any way etc.

Amber, unfortunately you do not seem to understand the point which was being made about the global recession.

DuskRelic is (rightly) talking about the multi-racialism, multiculturalism, "political correctness" and the 'strong-arming' of the lunatics in the "race industry" which triggered off the actual collapse, because of their flawed beliefs and dogmatic agenda.

It not unsurprising that you do not seem to know about this though, because you are not likely to ever, ever hear it discussed or pointed out on the BBC or other British media outlets, because they are notoriously biased both in their output and (often more importantly) what they do not include as their output.

Therefore, he is not saying that the "recession is about brown people!", he is not "generalising" or saying the affect of the economy has not hit all sectors of society.

Sadly, that is the typical kind of "knee jerk" and "ignorant" liberal reaction which people have been trained to express, because the horse blinkers are placed on their eyes and they therefore cannot seem to appreciate that it may not be our "ignorance" which lay behind some of our statements and positions, but their own.

People who do it are a product of the system; it is not all their own fault. They live inside a manufactured bubble, like the sci-fi film The Matrix.

As they often do not "understand" what we are talking about and what our positions are, they will naturally see "no sense" in them.

They then go on to project from their own ignorance that the people who hold such views as ours are therefore the "ignorant" ones that "make no sense" and that we must therefore be simple "bigots", "racists" and "haters" with "small minds" etc.

Despite being quite ironic, it can be both infuriating and hilarious at times too.

What he is talking about is relating to the factors (and insane liberal 'circular thinking') which brought the collapse in the first place. I shall try and explain.

Okay, I will try and fill you in and give you some examples, starting with a parallel from our own Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats and how his sort of thinking has been causing so many problems in most of the white western world.

Nick Clegg, only recently, was discussing the "racist" discrepancy in lending to some BME groups and how there needed to be changes in society and regulations to stamp this "discriminatory" discrepancy out, amongst other things. He talked about an "iron fist" being needed.

He said that the “next frontier for race equality” is opening up economic opportunities to ethnic minorities. An inquiry into bank lending, led by Andrew Stunell and Lynne Featherstone, was said to be a start.

"Well, what is wrong with that?" you may ask, right?

Well......let us head off to America, to hear some words from president Obama when he was discussing the "Occupy Wall Street Movement" in recent weeks.

Obama complained that the Occupy Wall Street protests showed a “broad-based frustration” among Americans with the financial sector - and how they were "seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place,”

Again, you might say "What is wrong with that?" - It sounds like your normal politician speak, doesn't it? Because, of course, there was a whole cross section of people borrowing too much and banks were irresponsibly lending out money at ridiculous rates of repayment, like you say yourself.

But what if some sectors of society were borrowing more than others? What if banks started to get reckless because they were eventually happily cooking the books for this end, because they were 'making money' out of debt and foreclosures?

What if, just like Nick Clegg's two dimensional and circular thinking, the pandering and the agenda of "equality" and "race relations" caused a catastrophe?

What if the U.S Government and political liberal elite encouraged, even invented, those “abusive practices” they are now claiming to condemn? 

In 1994, President Clinton's federal government declared war on an enemy. This was the "racist" lender—who officials claimed was to blame for differences in home ownership rate. As a result, they launched what would prove to be the costliest "social engineering" crusade in the history of the United States.

(Clinton, by the way, despite being white, is an avowed anti-white racist - but I will leave that to one side for now).

Under Clinton’s direction, 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity of being labelled "racists".

They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties. All this was done to "end racism", "end discrimination", to make things "fair". All the same kind of socialist garbage platitudes we hear all the time.

The threat issued to lenders was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending.

Clinton set up this little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown.

The edict— which has been completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media—was signed by then U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

The whole thing was predicated on a Boston Fed (The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston) study showing that mortgage lenders were rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites.

The author of the 1992 study, (**who was hired by the Clinton White House**), claimed it was down to racial “discrimination.” But it was simply good underwriting.

It did not take private analysts (as well as at least one Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation economist) a lot of time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed, including finding embarrassing mistakes in the data.

They concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower’s credit history—such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards—explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.

The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants’ net worth, debt burden and their employment record either.

Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis.

It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a co-signer and even the loan amount.

When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate and sound business decisions, *NOT* racism. 

Still, even though this was pointed out (although not particularly publicised in the media because it is fraught with difficulty due to racial truths) - the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards which was the root cause of the mortgage crisis that caused the financial collapse.

Banks that failed to throw open their lending to these minorities were denied expansion plans by the Federal Reserve. They were threatened with being shunned from key aspects of operating their services. The Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as "racists" in the press.

A "witch-hunt" of this kind can be seen all the time, can it not?

The banks were warned that even unintentional discrimination was against the law, and that they should be proactive in making “multicultural” loans.

Now, when confronted with the combined force of 10 federal regulators, lenders naturally toed the line, and were soon aggressively marketing "sub-prime" mortgages in "BME" areas.

It took a little more than a decade for the negative (and compounding) effects to be felt.

In 2006, the shaky sub-prime mortgages began to default. In 2008, the bubble exploded. This is when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and a few others) collapsed, causing a chain reaction not only in America, but around the world.

The "left" went on a crusade of "equality" for their ideological ends. The banks, though at first reluctant, were fed into this system and became hooked on it. This is because money was being generated from debt. They "magic" the money out of nowhere and it ends up on the computer screen as assets. It made them look good.

Some account executives within banks earned a commission seven times higher from sub-prime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So, they purposefully looked for less savvy borrowers—those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English—and nudged them toward subprime loans. They ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes.

In a way, although I doubt it was colluded in this instance - It is perhaps yet another example of Cultural Marxism working with Corporate Fascism. One does it for one reason; the other does it for another.

We nationalists object to both.  


Reply to somebody who thought the Tram Lady should be locked up for what she said, because Racism should not be tolerated, and how it is racist to say indigenous British people are white.

So you think people should be locked away in prison for merely having and expressing a different opinion and viewpoint to yours.........well, errm, how "tolerant" and "liberal" you are!

Well done! You must be very proud!

What's next? That they should be shot in the back or starved to death like Stalin’s regime murdered 7 million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps for not having the right outlooks and opinions for his international communist and "equal" society aims and ambitions?

Then you clap and cheer the ethnocide of your own people from their own homeland and idiotically deny they even exist. Wow. Such hatred and wickedness in your heart.

How does it feel to help promote genocide and be a general racial and cultural nihilist?

If you want to look at who is the wickedest, I suggest you therefore find yourself a mirror.

Do you extend this hatred and nihilistic tendencies for all ethnic groups and all nations, or just our own?

Does "any" group in the world "exist" or have the right to self determination and ethnic continuation in your view?

I am just curious, because you do seem like the very kind of anti-white racist who would only apply this concept to white nations and cry blue murder if it was happening the other way around to anybody else.

The indigenous people of Europe are Caucasians. That means white.

The indigenous people of Britain are therefore white, no ifs, no buts or maybe. It is not "racist" to state such an obvious fact. The British, the Britons, composite of England, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, etc are therefore white.

Others who have come since the formation of the individual nations (and the political union of them known as Britain) are only "British Citizens", simply because they RESIDE in Britain. Learn the difference. Nobody denies they are British "citizens" and nobody denies them the same rights and protection as anybody else on that basis.

I bet you even subscribe to the idea that we are a "mongrel race" and a "mongrel nation" and that "race is a societal construct anyway" or "just skin tone and melanin levels" - lol - such is the usual type of ignorance from these types of responses.

As for the word and accusation of being "racist" - a common theme throughout these replies - do you even know where it came from in its most influential form, and for what ends it was manufactured and used?

Let me fill you in, because it appears that you do not know. Or perhaps you do know and are just being coy because you support that very same agenda!

It was a tool and a concept coined by Leon Davidovich Bronstein - otherwise known as Leon Trotsky - one of the principal architects of the 74-year Soviet nightmare and the founder and first leader of the infamous Red Army in 1930 that butchered multiple millions of people.

He used it to destroy the first people who were in his way of creating his utopian visions. People who he called the "Slavophiles". (A bit similar to we "Anglophiles" in your view then, I suppose!)

These Slavophiles were a group of traditionalist Slavs who valued greatly their native culture and way of life, and simply wanted to protect it.

Trotsky on the other hand saw them (and others like them) as an impediment to his internationalist communist plans for the world. He didn't give a damn about the Slavic Russians whom he supposedly served.

To him, Slavophiles, i.e. Slavs that committed the "crime" of loving their own people and trying to protect their traditional ways were simply "backward", and others like them were simply "racists" and "bigots".

Is this sounding at all familiar?

The left-liberal version of the story is that the word was coined legitimately to identify people who were just plain bigoted against certain racial groups, and that the word was essential for good liberals to use to protect the racial minorities from the bigots.

However, the actual concept behind the word was that ethnocentric "backwardness" must take a back seat to "enlightened" internationalism.

Therefore it was often used by Commissar Trotsky as a rallying cry for good Red Army communists to embark upon murderous rampages against peoples who resisted having their traditional way of life paved over and replaced with an alien system.

Any of this sounding even more familiar to our situation yet? It should be.

It probably is, and you are probably a willing participant in it, like most of the Red trolls rocking up here!

The same thing is therefore still happening now, the only differences are that the word's targets have expanded from just Slavs who won't submit to the Marxist internationalist plan to uproot and destroy their culture and traditional way of life, to all white people, Slavic or otherwise, who won't submit to that same vile Marxist plan.

This plan is as intended by the School of Frankfurt to destroy Western civilisation from within. One of their first ambitions was enact "racism" offences and silence dissent.

Also, the difference is that those who now arm themselves with the word have expanded from a handful of communists to the entire liberal and neo-conservative establishment in nations all across the Western world, including "useful idiots" like yourself - a description used by them, to define you and what you are doing.

Leon Trotsky has done more damage to the West than Stalin could ever hope for, because he invented a word that would empower the most rotten, traitorous weasels within the West to redefine those who are loyal to their people, their cultural traditions and way of life as the worst evil - and to send the government, the education system, and the mass media on an absolute royal crusade to expunge themselves, their civilisation and their people.

When bolstered with constant revisionist history that is fabricated by more of the same kind of rotten weasels who falsely portray the white man as the sole perpetrator of slavery and genocide in the world, they desired it would go on until the West would submit (via demoralisation and fracture) to the entire Trotskyist internationalist agenda without a single shot being fired.

We resist this, and resist your ignorance which is furthering a sick and twisted agenda that masquerades as being "good" and "righteous".

Emma West, the EDL and that sort of more crude and 'basic' reaction to this are products of YOUR kind of agenda. They are only there, existing and doing what they do because of what has happened to this country at the hands of liberal fools like yourself!

I am not of the EDL, and I am not like Emma West. But is their annoyance and frustration sometimes justified and understandable? I think it is. It is not what I would do, but an action is bound to have a counter-reaction like this at some point.


Possibly to be continued........


  1. To a libtard you need to say one thing and one thing only, whether they mention slavery, Stephen Lawrence, or restaurants..

    Here it is.

    "And what school do you send your own children to? Is it one that is enriched by diversity, or is it as white as you could find?"

  2. I think vehement 'libtards' are trapped inside the bubble that has been manufactured and do not tend to grasp what is lurking on the outside.

    We are on the outside, having once been on the inside, and know what is on both sides of the divide. We therefore issue them a warning, but they think they are safe inside their world and as a result, they do not want to hear what we have to say.

    I have long since ceased to believe that we can "win over" such people though. I think it is a bit of a waste of time.

    However, in certain occasions and venues I think it is important to challenge their world view and get them thinking and "understanding" where we might be coming from.

    It is obviously the 'middle' people that we are going to have the most luck with. Those who are not fixated and dogmatic to "libtard-dom", those who can be swayed and convinced.

    Battling with "the reds" and other fierce opponents, in my view, is a complete waste of Nationalist time.

    Many nationalists seem to do this, spending their lives trying to 'score witty points' against our most ardent opponents. Meanwhile, the country is being lost.

    I think our role is to reach the lurkers, the curious, the watchers who come along and can be swayed to our viewpoints and arguments. Calm, sensible, rational points that are reasonable and common sense.

    I say let the 'libtards' watch on in horror as they lose the comfort zone security of (supposedly) being in the majority!

    When/if the mood of wider opinion clearly swings against their narrative, they will suffer self doubt and it may help cause the collapse of their grip over society.

  3. I copied pasted this article and it came to 40 pages in PDF...very impressive. Hard to believe Britain used to be 99.8% white. I've always wondered how liberals and non-whites will attempt to rewrite history and cover up who built the UK and America.

  4. Thanks Anonymous. 40 pages?! Blimey. I suppose I do have a tendency to write far too much when I get going!

    The process of re-writing history is already going on I suppose.

    For example, people are saying with increasing frequency that there has been a "black British" presence since the Romans invaded - citing how a few of their combatants would have been from Northern Africa.

    Not only do I find that rather dubious to claim, but I am also led to believe that the regions of the area in question (at the time) were not ethnically the same as they are today.

    Not that there is much solid evidence which suggests they ever came in large numbers, if at all - or even stayed, either.

    It is a bit like how people like to cite how St George, of St George's Day, came from Turkey - giving the impression that he is somehow a Turk (as what we know today as being a Turk) but Turkey was not ethnically or religiously the same at that point in history.

    These are the kinds of liberal glib quibbles and chess pieces that get trotted out and need to be check-mated, if only to make further readers of the spat self doubt their own liberal spoon fed opinions.

    Every non-white in our history is seemingly wheeled out as being "evidence" of a "multiracial nation" as against a homogeneous one. It gets pretty tiresome.

    I think a nation that is/was over 99.8% white British is pretty damned near perfect homogeneous. A Multiracial/"mongrel"/"proposition nation" we are certainly not!

    Another thing that seems to crop up is revisionist history - people delving back to find something that may point to some black identity or "achievement" here.

    A recent example in the mainstream media was how a researcher had discovered that one of the characters in Oliver Twist must have been black.

    This was because the writer of the novel often based his stories off some real life characters of the time (such as news clippings), and one had noted a "copper coloured boy", and this led to how Fagin must have been Black, although he was allegedly switched to being Jewish for the novel.

    It may well be true - but again, I doubt it.

    Even if it was true, the proportion of Blacks (and Jews) must have been insanely small. Even then, according to the same article, both groups were apparently labelled as being problematic and troublemakers by the indigenous folk!

    For all we know, the "copper coloured boy" description could have been relating to polished copper, such as a fiery ginger haired child with pale skin, flushed face and lots of freckles.

    People seem desperate to make history "fit" the narrative.

    When/if the blacks take over, they will have been imbibed that this country was always populated with Blacks, that they helped make it, that, by reading the papers of today (in the future) that our institutions like the NHS would have "collapsed" without their help, and that it is just "business as usual" for this country.

    I think we already have statues of people like Nelson Mandela knocking around. Some street names are being changed to reflect black history.

    Leading appointed figures in the Church and House of Lords are often black now, - like Labour and Conservatives want to "write future history" for this country by placing people into such roles.

    I can imagine how, piece my piece, a new 'history' of Britain will be written.

  5. (cont'd)

    Memories will probably fade, what remains of our own people will not know or be taught what went before (a process already taking place!) - although them being in the minority in this fictional scenario, it would be a futile and pointless argument for them to make anyway.

    When/if the Muslims take over, our history will probably slowly be erased and transplanted with a new version of it too.

    When there is nobody left to contest any different, I suspect Muslims would have suddenly arrived a hundred years or so before they actually did(easy to fudge in the mists of time), that their skills for mathematics etc helped invent the combustion engine etc and how they really pull this country out of the 'dark ages' and into 'enlightenment' of Islam.

    In our 'gratitude', the country no doubt "willingly" congratulated and accepted the superiority of Islam and let them build mosques everywhere etc until the nation embraced Islam as the official system of life.

    Looking at what we are letting happen by both groups, it would not take them much effort to make it up would it?!

    I am cynical though.......!