Lee John Barnes, the plucky, slightly off-the-wall character who fields some of the legal issues of the BNP and whose blog proclaims itself 21st Century British Nationalism, has corrected last week’s pretty surprising piece by porn-goy Larry Flynt at Huffington Post.

Flynt appears to be picking-up the late Aaron Russo’s populist baton.  He succinctly explained the lie of the land, so to speak, to the Huffington readership.  It wasn’t a question of left vs right, he said, but of the globalist class vs the people of America.  Then he called for campaign finance reform and for a date to be set for a 24-hour national strike.  Forty-eight pages of approving comments followed.

This was interesting because it shows that the evisceration of the global elite is not, as Lee maintains, a purely nationalist interest but extends to all corners.  Of course, it’s true that the Huffington commentariat obediently profess all the positions on white American and European dispossession and racial dissolution that characterise the elite’s drive for global political hegemony.  But that’s because for the most part they are weak and suggestible conformists, not because they really hold those or any other political positions free and clear of external pressure.  In a different political culture they would conform to whatever ideology was dominant.  C’est la vie.

Lee helpfully lists the categories of elites that strangely elude Flynt, making the point that the Huffington liberals are part of the problem too:

The US Shadow Government of the Military Industrial Bloc
The Corporate Media
The Federal Reserve
The International Bankers and the international banking cartels
AIPAC and the Zionists
Liberals and Leftist Globalists
The Big Oil Corporations
The Global Corporations
The Globalist Institutions - UN, WTO, EU, NATO, Bilderbergers, Round Table Groups, Tri-Lateral Commission, etc.

I think he only left out the big political whores of the right.

Now we wait to find out if Larry Flynt has what it takes to talk revenge to the masses, and make something happen.  He describes himself as a free speech activist - the “free speech” in question being his right under the Constitution to “communicate” his business to the American public.  He clearly has the self-image of a hammer of the devout and the shocked.  Taking on the demonic elites, however …

The last Kennedy brother is dead but their legacy lives on.

From the VDARE article “So Much for Promises - Quotes Re 1965 Immigration Act”:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)

“Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.”(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)

Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY)

“In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States. … Total quota immigration is now 156,782; under the proposed bill, it would rise to 164,482. Even if all these immigrants came from Italy, for example, the net effect would be to increase the number of Italo-Americans by one-tenth of 1 percent of our population this year, and less as our population increases. Americans of Italian extraction now constitute about 4 percent of our population; at this rate, considering our own natural increase, it would take until the year 2000 to increase that proportion to 6 percent. Of course, S.500 would make no such radical change. Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total-16,500-with the possible exception of the two countries now sending more than that number, Great Britain and Germany. But the extreme case should set to rest any fears that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic makeup of the United States. … [w]e bar immigration by those individuals who would compete for jobs for which the supply of labor is adequate for the demand … we bar immigration by individuals who have demonstrated that they do not hold such allegiance [to our fundamental precepts of political freedom and democratic government]. … If it is true that those from northern Europe, as individuals, can make greater contributions to this country than can others, then this legislation will bring them here. If the legislation does not bring them here, then the assumptions on which defenders of the present system rely are wholly false. … [S.500] will facilitate the entry of skilled specialists … the level of immigration now proposed is far less than that thought ‘assimilable’ by the most restrictionist Congress [1924] in our history. … As far as the quota system, it [S.500] increases it about 9,000 and as far as a practical matter, it increases it about 50,000. It is not a large number.”(Senate Part 1, Book 2, pp.216-218, 226, 242)

So, you think the Citizen’s Dividend is politically impractical?  You won’t hunt down and terminate the leadership of the BNP and the EU New Right until those parties have leadership that will immediately support the Citizen’s Dividend?

Fine… 

Fine…

What fine kidneys you have!

by Bo Sears, director, ResistingDefamation

A disturbing meme was recently re-introduced to the debate on the future of our people by Prof Kevin MacDonald.  A hero to many among the diverse white American peoples, he claimed that we lack the capacity or opportunity to make our case for a particular white political or social identity.  His statement was dated 8/20/09 and appeared on The Occidental Observer in an essay titled, Fundraising Appeal: Why support The Occidental Observer.

Western societies have become cauldrons of competing ethnic groups where only one group — White people of European descent — cannot be heard. Where only one group cannot even articulate its interests. Where only one group seems to think that self-destruction and abdication of political power are moral imperatives.

Whilst it is true that The Occidental Observer has done a good job and earned its financial support from European Americans or Euro-Americans, not every syllable Prof MacDonald or The Occidental Observer is helpful or even true.  The above three-sentence statement is a case in point.  There are so many errors and flawed assumptions in it that unpacking the statement is no easy matter.  But it’s not impossible.

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

The UAF should be classed as a terrorist organisation. People who support them like David Cameron and Sir Teddy Taylor must be denounced as supporters of terrorism.  The UAF modus operandum is to frighten and intimidate people away from certain political parties and from holding certain views, these views being always spoken of negatively, not as protecting the interests of one’s own people but in a nightmare scenario of old-fashioned imagery and imagined violence.  The only reason UAF is not classified as a terrorist organisation is that it is used by the state to intimidate rival elites.

The Battle of Birmingham of 8th August 2009 has changed people’s understanding of race relations and how the elites manipulate the public’s perceptions, because although it became clear that in this Battle innocent “white” people were physically attacked just for being white yet, the Establishment media tried to slot it into their standard propaganda that the guilty parties were “far-right” thugs.  The guilty parties were, in fact, their pets Muslims and Blacks racially attacking “Whites.”

A letter in the Birmingham post from a protester who was appalled at UAF incited violence gives the inside story:

“Dear Editor, I would like to start by apologising to the people of Birmingham for the events of Saturday evening which I am highly ashamed to have been a part of. However, as a moderate who took part in the UAF protest I would like to set the record straight.

I, like the vast majority of people in Birmingham love the fact that our city is so diverse and vibrant. I felt that this was worth defending, especially from a bunch of trouble makers many of whom were from outside the city.

Unfortunately it turned out the UAF were no more interested in our community than the racists many of us turned out to oppose!

The young Muslims who rampaged through the city streets were incited to violence by UAF activists. I was near the front of the rally in Rotunda Square and I saw how they worked and I saw how it got out of hand.

The UAF should have switched rhetoric when they saw that the young Muslims were getting restless and angry. Instead what they did was get increasingly aggressive speakers to talk about ‘smashing the BNP’ (who not directly involved with the protest) whilst sending agitators into the crowd, with megaphones, to whip up anger there.

Only a few members of the Socialist Workers party, some trade unionists and a few moderate Muslim blokes who had been recruited as marshals on the day, remained to help the Police calm the riot.

I would like to commend the West Midlands Police Force for their sensitive handling of the protest and us protesters during what was a very difficult situation.

However, the ten or so members of the Muslim community who stayed with the protest whilst it was settled are the true unsung heroes of the sad event.

I never got to know their names, however, I am very proud to have worked with them in defusing the tensions that built up between rioters and Police. A true example of why our city is great.

As to the UAF well, I don’t mind announcing that I will never join one of their protests again. Once again I can only say how sorry I am that it all got so out of hand. If we had known how it would turn out then I’m sure a lot of protesters would have stayed home.
The UAF has achieved nothing except to create racial tensions were non existed before.
Yours in penance,

Josh Allen, Bournville

READ MORE...

I invited and received from Prozium a response on the subject of the utility of Michael O’Meara’s TOQ article on the mythicisation of a white American republic.  Here, I am just going to make a very few remarks about the reply and set down a few principles to clarify the terms of debate.  I will not be posting on this subject a third time, except to comment on the thread if required.

My previous post argued that mythicisation had not been employed to move public will in either of the two historically most recent attempts at nation-building by Europeans (Manifest Destiny and lebensraum).  Prozium disagrees but offers very little beyond post-facto romanticisations to indicate what inhabited the minds of the people of the time.  His sole concrete attempt to demonstrate a mythicisation process at work in Manifest Destiny is Thomas Jefferson’s dream “of an empire of liberty in Transappalachia and the Louisiana Territory.”  Let us be clear that Jefferson’s plan did not constitute myth, and very likely had no influence whatsoever over the men and women who walked and rode westward all those years later.  It probably had some incremental role in the politics of expansion.  But I think it would be a hell of a stretch to make more of it than that.

Prozium’s other justifications for the mythic cause (DW Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, and “Gone with the Wind” and “Roots”) are just puzzling to me.  They testify to the appetites of cinema and TV audiences in their respective eras.  But I have no idea what they are doing in this particular conversation, standing as they do at decades remove from the event in question.  Further, they demonstrate a resounding lack of interest in what myth is, and is not.

So let’s think about that, because until we know what myth is there is very little point in batting opinions back and forth.

READ MORE...

The following video graphically demonstrates the consequence of ignoring total fertility rate.  It does not make any strong arguments for a course of action, but merely calls for action.  The course of action is the next layer of taboo after breaking the sound barrier of merely talking about the consequences of differential fertility rates.

by David Hamilton
                               
The contribution of the British judiciary to the attack on our people and way of life has two main planks: undermining us through the culture and promoting Muslim extremism.  Here are some of the judges and the judgements that have made the law an instrument in the war against our culture, traditions and mores.

Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference, of all things, that she supported gay adoption, the legal recognition gay partnerships, enhanced legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit, and the removal of fault from divorce law.  This is an ideological statement and shows that there will be no impartiality if this aspect of “the Culture Wars” comes about.  She has said beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values and will take sides in any case.

Lord Judge’s predecessor, Lord Bingham, expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities.  It is, he said:

“intrinsically counter-majoritarian ... [it] should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.”

Well, I don’t know about that, but he was admitting that he is a radical who is against us.  For him, we the majority are always wrong but the minorities never are.

In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives.  Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt.  She was a leading family judge.  Lord Bingham, in answering a question, responded that the law needed to “keep in touch with changing social attitudes.”  In one case heard in his court Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family. His opinion that “family” need mean neither marriage nor blood relationship shows beyond any doubt that the judiciary is seeking to reform families for the New Utopia.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against local planning law must be allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.”  This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are required to obey.  That was a court legally encouraging law breaking.

Human rights law is the reforming judiciary’s principal weapon.  The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the propostrous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that gender at birth was what he/she now claimed it was and agreed by a panel of experts. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born.  Therefore their birth certificate is now deemed a lie!

READ MORE...