[Majorityrights Central] Three possible forms of a Ukrainian victory ... and a Russian defeat Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 16 April 2026 16:36.
[Majorityrights Central] Empires, the Chinese Mind, a theoretical nationalism of ethnicity Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 14 February 2026 01:54.
[Majorityrights News] Moscow Times: Valdai residents report no sign of drones attacking Putin residence Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 30 December 2025 11:33.
[Majorityrights Central] Thoughts on Mark Collett’s strategy for nationalism in the British future Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 24 October 2025 15:01.
[Majorityrights Central] Principles, parts, processes of ethnic nationalism, Part 1: inflection? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 31 July 2025 12:03.
John Bolton spearheading P.N.A.C. and going to show that even (((1/8th))) can be toxic.
Journalist Explains John Bolton’s Push For ‘Aggressive Use’ Of American Power
NPR, 2 May 2019: New Yorker writer Dexter Filkins says President Trump’s current national security adviser is a hawk who sees America as “a colossus operating anywhere it wants.”
TERRY GROSS, HOST: This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. President Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton is known as a tough-talking hawk. A new article about him in The New Yorker is titled “John Bolton On The Warpath.” My guest is the author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dexter Filkins, who’s a staff writer for the magazine. He’s joined us many times on the show, dating back to when he covered the war in Iraq.
Bolton is President Trump’s third national security adviser, after Generals Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Trump was familiar with Bolton’s views because Bolton had made hundreds of appearances on Fox News as a guest, and then as a paid commentator. On Fox, he’d advocated for military strikes on Iranian training camps and for forced regime change in North Korea. Earlier in Bolton’s career, he served in the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs and as U.N. ambassador. He advocated for the invasion of Iraq and told Filkins he still thinks the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was correct.
Dexter Filkins, welcome back to FRESH AIR. So as you point out in the piece, the Trump administration has no permanent secretary of defense, no secretary of homeland security, no ambassador to the U.N. What does it mean in terms of the power John Bolton has now in his role as national security adviser?
DEXTER FILKINS: Well, the national security adviser, just by virtue of the geography of that job - it’s in the West Wing. It’s right down the hall from the Oval Office. It’s an incredibly powerful position. You know, Bolton sees the president every morning. He sees him or he talks to him in the evening. It’s just, the proximity of that job to the presidency gives the occupant of that job just an enormous amount of power. So just on its face, you know, you’re in the pole position there. But I think in this administration because, you know, it’s a revolving door in the rest of the government pretty much all the time - Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, he’s gone. There hasn’t been - no replacement has been named so there’s an acting secretary of defense. There’s no ambassador to the United Nations. There’s no secretary for homeland security.
So it’s just kind of a big vacuum. I think it’s fair to say that makes his job even bigger and gives him even more influence than you would ordinarily have. So I think in that administration, when you’re talking about foreign policy, you’re basically talking about John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, and that’s it.
GROSS: And are they on the same page on most things, Pompeo and Bolton?
FILKINS: I think so. I had a funny conversation about Pompeo and Bolton together with an unnamed Western diplomat who knows them both. And they said, look, you know, Pompeo is really only interested in what Trump is interested in. So you can’t really sit down and talk about the world with him. Bolton, on the other hand, you can talk about anything. You can talk about aid programs in Africa, and he’s well-briefed. He knows about it. But Pompeo has a much more political outlook.
GROSS: So you’re saying Pompeo is there to amplify Trump’s views. Bolton has very strong views of his own.
FILKINS: Yes, he does.
GROSS: So the title of your piece is “John Bolton On The Warpath.” I know he’s a hawk. Does the piece imply that he’s going to lead us into war?
FILKINS: No, but I think it fairly raises a lot of questions. And I think the basis of the piece is this, which I was kind of surprised to find - this divergence of world views between Bolton, on the one hand, who’s been a hawk his whole life. He’s for aggressive use of American power. He’s advocated bombing North Korea. He’s advocated bombing Iran. And then on the other hand, to the extent that President Trump has a world view, it is he wants to stay home. It’s America first. He’s pretty close to being an isolationist. He doesn’t want to - you know, he doesn’t want to partake in this kind of entire international architecture that was set up after the Second World War, whether it’s the World Trade Organization, or NATO or EU. He doesn’t want to pay for any of that stuff, and he doesn’t want to get involved.
So Trump, I think it’s fair to say, doesn’t really want to launch new military operations. They do not see eye to eye on things. I tried to kind of, you know, figure out what it is they talk about when they get together (laughter) for that reason.
GROSS: If Trump and Bolton have such opposing world views when it comes to the possibility of military intervention or war, why would Trump choose him? Why did he choose him?
FILKINS: Well, I think there’s - that’s a really good question. I think there’s two reasons for that. One is that, you know, I think he’s, Bolton, is kind of emotionally appealing to Trump. You know, Bolton was a very highly paid analyst on Fox News. He was on there few times a week. One of the revelations is - for me was I got to look at Mr. Bolton’s financial disclosure, which you’re required to submit for a job like that. And yeah, there was lots of stuff in there. So I think he was being paid $600,000 a year - this is just part of his income, but - $600,000 a year to be on Fox. And so every night, he’s banging away, talking tough. And I think that appeals emotionally to Trump. He’s like, he’s a tough guy. Plus he just sees him all the time. ‘Cause they didn’t really know each other very well.
I think the other reason is there were - H.R. McMaster had been the national security adviser before John Bolton. And there was a kind of a pretty large group of Trump allies who had decided that McMaster had to go. They didn’t like him. They thought he wasn’t supportive enough of Israel and of, you know, the current leadership there. And so they pushed him out. I mean, I think it’s fair to say they lobbied very hard to get him out, and they worked pretty hard to get Bolton in. So I think it was a confluence of those two things.
GROSS: What did Bolton advocate for as a highly paid commentator on Fox News?
FILKINS: (Laughter). Well, he, as I mentioned, he - and I went through a lot of stuff that he said on the air. And, you know, I think he’s finding - I should say, before I answer that question - I think he’s finding, you know, it’s a little different when you’re in power, as opposed to being out of power. But on Fox, talking tough - strike North Korea, if necessary, before they acquire an ICBM capability. Strike Iran in various, you know, various ways and in various contexts. That’s, like, at a minimum. And support Israel in its kind of what I think is a covert or actually pretty hot war that’s going on with Iran and Syria.
So really aggressive use of American power. But I think even more than that, not just - you know, not just dropping bombs. I think that Bolton’s worldview is he’s extremely skeptical of international agreements, whether they’re treaties or, again, the whole kind of architecture that was built by the United States over the past 70 years. You know, whether it’s NATO, or the EU, or the U.N. or the World Trade Organization, all those things which, you know, that’s the world we live in. And he is - and these are, you know, treaties and commitments, and bilateral agreements, multilateral agreements. He’s deeply skeptical of all those things. And he says, essentially, in - he has said this on Fox News, but he’s been very articulate about it in his writing, which is, every time you sign a treaty or a multilateral agreement, you give up a little bit of your sovereignty. And so I think he sees - his view of America is as a kind of colossus operating unilaterally wherever it wants. And, you know, if you pick up friends along the way, great. But they’re not going to be your friends for long. ‘Cause there’s no such things as friends in the international system. There’s only interests. And only interests endure. And so don’t get sentimental about it. Just carry on. And I think that it’s a very unsentimental view of the world that he OK. But Trump fell in love with…
Daniel Sperglord and Mangina-in-black enjoy pounding each other’s gay asses!
DanielS:
Captainchaos, while you are trying to deride mancinblack as effeminate for supporting me and MR, why don’t you instead question the wisdom of those who expect Whites to drop all concerns for every other antagonism to our system and attack the ‘pathogen’ ....markedly, it is not going to help us to separate and achieve autonomy from the pathogen if we do not also address our naive susceptibility to the pathogen or deliberate, traitorous introduction of it to our system that happens typically through vulnerabilities and entry by liberal/right wing thin or even pseudo warranted objectivism; also typically a reaction to the contradictory language games that YKW are playing in order to keep our people associated with the right, its rational blindness, mystification, confusion, short shrift of social accountability (viz. even to our people) and with it, disruption of our social systemic homeostasis? - obviously one of the chief aims of the pathogen is to break through systemic defense. Thus, it is obviously valid and important to look at our system and its vulnerabilities.
In short, it is going to be hard to take-on an enemy full throttle while you’ve got people confused, thinking you’re doing wrong, or naively “clearly” thinking that you are wrong because they are abiding by right wing/liberal (their lefts are our liberalism, rupturing our unionization when pitted against our bounds) language games, or outright stabbing us in the back because right wing pseudo objectivity serves to “excuse” why it is that they take the liberties or pay-offs afforded, and “why” we are getting destroyed in their abiding language games as “just a fact of nature” that they have no part in aiding and abetting.
I’ve been looking at this problem since the early 90s, and started to bring it to a double entry with the YKW as the chief problems to our social systemic homeostasis in 2009 ..and have been cultivating it since.
Now, regarding “pathological altruism” (the Taylor, MacDonald thing, circa, what? 2011? I never paid much attention to it) I only suggested that it may have been their naive attempt, even a misdirected attempt to look at our part, as it would likely be (misdirected), still caught up in right wing objectivism by its very means of “description and diagnosis”, but to suggest that I was part of misdirection and not taking the YKW seriously enough because I also believe it is necessary to address vulnerabilities and other antagonism (which will usually lead to their being organized to imposition upon us by YKW, true), and the fact that I recognize serious errors in Hitler’s philosophy and regime (misdirected and misdirecting headlong into disaster for Europeans, as his right wing premises would), are things that I, and Majorityrights, deserve credit for in service of European peoples, not harassment and denunciation.
And isn’t it a perfect example, wouldn’t Trump’s vanity just have him lap-up objectivist flattery and have the YKW walk right into his system, knocking his daughter up, directing his campaign to undo the Iran Deal, get him elected, and move right into Oval Office meetings to set his administration’s agenda?
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 10 April 2019 05:00.
László Bogár reminds us that we are not alone.
Full House Judiciary Committee Hearing on ‘Hate Crimes’ and the Rise of ‘White Nationalism’
‘White Nationalism’ is placed in scare quotes as the enemies of White people take the liberty to render pejorative, defaming and indicting mis-definitions of White Nationalism, notably, as being synonymous with ‘supremacism’, despite the fact that White Nationalists just about always reject supremacism and define White Nationalism as we do here, as a designation for the Nationalist sovereignty of European nations and peoples; therefore, governed separatism, a means for peaceful co-existence, the multicultural diversity of human and pervasive ecology, not supremacism, imperialism, exploitation or violence.
“Many White Extremist Killers Were Inspired by Earlier Attacks” chart via New York Times
Here’s what you need to know
The attack in Christchurch, New Zealand did not happen in a vacuum. It was part of an overall increase in white nationalist violence that’s been legitimized through public officials’ extreme rhetoric in government, and effectively allowed to wreak havoc in society. In partnership with organizations such as Bend the Arc, we have been raising the red flag on the need to reject white nationalism for years. We’ve called on Congress to conduct a hearing on white nationalism. We’ve called on tech companies to do a better job of enforcing their hate speech policies online. We’ve also constantly called on the Trump administration and other elected officials to cease their extreme rhetoric as it continues to marginalize communities. Congress will be holding a hearing on Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism and we’ll be there, bringing you updates from the front lines.
Here are the details
It’s been over three weeks since a man opened fire in two mosques and killed 50 innocent Muslim worshippers. Since then, there’s been an increase in related hate violence, both here at home and abroad. In California, there was an attempted arson attack where graffiti referenced the New Zealand attack. In Britain, there has been a 600% increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes of almost 600%. The vast majority of those were incidents linked to the Christchurch attacks.
The increase in white nationalism has been legitimized in our government by President Trump. His long-standing affinity for white nationalist rhetoric, leaders and movements is well documented. Administration officials and members of Congress, often feign opposition of the President’s rhetoric. Yet, they continue to see through a policy agenda which is inspired by this ideology. We’ve seen white nationalists organize on social media platforms. In 2017, The Guardian released a report detailing how Facebook’s community standards allow harmful content and white supremacist ideology a space to live and escalate.
Along with national civil rights groups, we pushed tech companies to change their community guidelines. We’ve been pushing them to enforce their hate speech policies more effectively. Facebook has announced that they will ban posts, photos and other content that references white nationalism and white separatism. Still, it should not take a massacre to force a simple conversation over how to deal with these issues.
When attacks similar to Christchurch, Pittsburgh or Oak Creek occur, our message has been clear. Any response to these incidences, and to the forces which led to them, must come as part of a reaffirmation that America aspires to be pluralistic and unified. To achieve, we have to ensure any legislative or political response does not deepen already existing divides.
Here’s what we’re doing
As the first step in moving a path forward, together we have called on Congress to conduct a hearing on white nationalism. We need to have an understanding of white nationalism and its impact on communities. We need Congress to call white nationalism what it is: a threat to our domestic and national security.
We thank Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee, for his bold leadership hosting today’s hearing. Follow us on social media and join the conversation as we cover this important hearing.
Red Ice’s commentary: House Judiciary committee Hearing on Criminalizing Nationalism for White People.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 06 April 2019 09:19.
Matteo Salvini and Marine Le Pen had a cordial meeting earlier this week, in which they discussed their ‘common sense revolution’ to overtake the EU for native European nationalist purposes.
The leaders are thinking about holding a joint rally to close the campaign for the European elections and “announce the start of a new Europe”, according to the sources
The great American poet TS Elliot (pictured) began his epic poem, “The Waste Land” with the words “April is the cruellest month”; further on he states, “London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down”. Unfortunately, only Greg Johnson knows what Elliot was talking about.
This April will be cruel for those who were looking forward to Britain leaving the European Union. But having waited 46 years to ‘get our country back’, another two months is not so bad.
The Brexiteers are obsessed with the idea of nationality, but we Britons are Europeans by blood, culture. If we leave the EU we will probably rejoin in a few year’s time. It’s not a perfect institution but it’s a step in the right direction - towards European unity.
Ten Points for Action
In 1973 Action Party (Union Movement) published its manifesto “Ten Points For Action”.
1. Action to Build Houses
We want Action to solve the housing problem. It should be taken out of the hands of local authorities and entrusted to Government leadership, with powers to mass produce houses and flats like an “operation of war”, turning out homes as arms and munitions were mass-produced in time of war.
2. Stop The Land and Rent Rackets
Give the Government powers to acquire land at pre-boom prices and to finance housing by low-interest charges on all non-essential and luxury buildings. Such action would bring down house prices and rents and at last provide good but cheap housing for all.
3. Stop Immigration - Start Repatriation
We want Action to ease the pressure on housing and other social problems (like the reintroduction of diseases unknown in Britain for hundreds of years) by stopping all further immigration and by repatriating all post-war immigrants to good jobs and conditions in their homelands to which prosperity has been restored by using the surplus wealth and production of united Europe. But Britain could make a start now before the complete union of Europe is achieved.
Remember that we have been advocating this policy since 1952, long before any of those now saying the same sort of thing - without the means to carry it out.
4. A Choice in Education and Health
We want Action to build good schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, just as we would mass produce houses and flats. Parents should have a choice of schools for their children. We should not be taxed to provide those health services we will never use (maternity benefits for confirmed bachelors!) but free to pay in proportion to our requirements.
5. Free Speech - Law and Order
We want Action to ensure freedom of speech for everyone, guaranteed by the Government, which has a duty to maintain law and order in the State and to take effective action against mob violence, which today denies freedom of expression to any views of which its agitators disapprove. Let us maintain local police forces with their local knowledge and experience but let us supplement them with a highly-trained, well-equipped, mobile national police force, to put down organised crime and to maintain public order.
We would ensure freedom of the Press for both newspapers and the public. Any man who felt himself misrepresented in the Press should be guaranteed (by law) equal space to reply in the newspaper concerned. This would free the public of the expense of seeking justice through costly libel action and free the newspapers from the legal blackmail of a threatened libel action by some unscrupulous racketeer.
6. Capital Punishment
The death penalty should be restored to the statute book, to be used sparingly in the case of premeditated murder. The Court of Appeal should have a solemn duty to recommend a reprieve if in any doubt. The sentence should be carried out not by hanging but by a quick and painless injection, or by some other humane method.
7. Action in Europe
To put these policies into practice Britain must advance beyond the concept of a so-called united Europe and Common Market to which the Conservative Party has at last been converted and which the Labour Party still opposes. We must advance quickly to ‘Europe a Nation’, which we have advocated since 1948. We stand for a union of all Europe. our former white Dominions and southern Africa, a great “third force” in the world, independent of both America and Russia.
This “third force” should have a central government for its defence, the economy, finance and scientific development, with power to raise wages and control prices as production increases for a guaranteed market, insulated against unfair competition from the rest of the world.
We need a European army, equipped with the most modern weapons, to defend our continent against attack from any quarter. This should be financed on a European budget instead of each small country straining its economy to finance its own defence.
8. National and Regional Governments
There should be independent national and regional governments for each European country and the main regions. This would enable England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and other European countries and regions to have their own parliaments for internal affairs and for the preservation of their national and regional cultures.
9. The Irish Problem
The ultimate solution to the Irish problem is the union of that country within a united Europe. But the bloodshed must first be brought to an end by a free vote on a county basis in each of the Six Counties and a subsequent rearrangement of the border. The bulk of the Catholic population in the North would then be ruled (as is their wish) from Dublin, with a lessening of present tensions, the IRA would lose its bases in the North and the British Army would have a much shorter border to patrol against infiltration from the South. In this improved situation, agreement could more easily be reached on the eventual union of Ireland, with the rights of the then Protestant minority protected and guaranteed by European government.
10. Government of National Union
We stand for a government of national union and effective action, drawn from the whole nation; from the professions and the trade unions, arts and science, the law, and the armed forces. Government elected by the whole people alone should govern. It should have power to lead the economy, raising wages and controlling prices as science increased production. Then we will have cooperation instead of conflict in industry.
We want Action to halt the ‘brain drain’ and to arouse a new spirit of national service in our British people, by relating all reward directly to skill, effort, initiative and responsibility. There should be “great reward for great service”, crowned by higher pensions drawn from the wealth of the new economic system, as the reward in old age for those who had loyally served the nation throughout their lives.
Nearly fifty years later, many of these problems and their solutions remain the same, but some things have changed. The mass repatriation of immigrants is no longer possible because there are far too many of them; the old Dominions have found new markets; peace has been established in Ireland by the Good Friday Agreement; taxation has been modernised, and the Brexit fiasco has shown that a Government of National Unity is more relevant than ever. Oswald Mosley died in 1980 and the last issue of his newspaper ‘Action’ was issued in 1992. But his books are still in print and the ideology of Union Movement is propagated by the Friends of Mosley website: http://www.oswaldmosley.com
Science to the Rescue
We are trashing our environment at such a rate that some scientists think that it’s already too late to save the planet. The latest warning concerns the insects on which we rely to fertilise our crops. Most of the world’s leaders now accept that something has to be done but the leader of the so-called Free World, Donald Trump, is reopening coal mines and drilling for gas and oil. He wants the coalminer’s votes and he doesn’t care about the consequences of pollution.
President Donald Trump will not be around when our planet is turned into a desert. But our children and our children’s children will inherit seas full of plastic waste and land contaminated with chemicals. Trump will not be president forever. He may win the next election with his tax cuts and promises to stop immigration, but the founders of the United States had the good sense to limit a president to two terms.
Politicians have never been much good. It has always been the scientists and engineers who have saved us in times of trouble. Politicians did nothing about the unsanitary conditions that existed in the nineteenth century. Contaminated water spread diseases until the great engineer Joseph Bazalgette (pictured) provided clean water and efficient sewage.
It was scientists, not politicians, who gave us the Industrial Revolution, improved agricultural output and discovered modern medicines including antibiotics. And it was engineers who built the railways, conquered the oceans and the skies and eventually got us to the Moon. This resulted in pollution but it wasn’t until the Fifties that governments have started to protect the environment.
If our World is to be saved it will be by scientists, not politicians. In fact, we may even develop computers that will consign parliaments to the scrapheap. Government by algorithm may seem far-fetched but it couldn’t be worse than the shambles of Westminster. Computer programs driven by data are not prejudiced, they are not lazy, they cannot be bribed, and they always do their best.
The Things They Say
British prime ministers are great liars. Harold Wilson devalued the pound but said that it would not effect “the pound in your pocket”. He knew perfectly well that it would directly effect everyone but his calm, pipe smoking image was reassuring. Margaret Thatcher said that she understood peoples fears of being “swamped” by immigration. Tony Blair warned us of “weapons of mass destruction”. And Theresa May starts every statement with the words “let me make this very clear, before deliberately confusing us.
Another trick is to damn us with faint praise. Before criticising the National Health Service, Nigel Farage paid tribute to the dedication of the medical staff. He would probably like to privatize the entire service but he dare not say so.
The Good Friday Agreement is another source of mendacity. Most people are thankful that peace has reigned for twenty years but there is a twisted minority that hates the Irish. They say that they want no borders in Ireland but given the chance, they would bring back border posts, guard dogs, and armed soldiers patrolling the streets.
Immigration is another subject that turns men and women into liars. When they say that they value the contribution made by immigrants, they really mean that they would like to round them up and throw them out of the country. But such a statement would never be made.
They have twisted the truth so much that nobody knows what they are talking about. Dedicated racists masquerade as liberals and lifelong pro-Europeans, like Theresa May, pretend to be Brexiteers. If they were selling soap powder instead of policies they would be charged under the Trade Description Act. Unfortunately, it doesn’t cover politicians.
In South America, in the good old days, they used to shoot lying politicians at regular intervals. This kept them on their toes until the next revolution. We are far too enlightened to follow their example but we must find a way of getting our representatives to tell the truth.
Opinions
Every month I invite those wishing to get off my mailing list to reply with the word ‘delete’. This is a requirement of the Data Protection Act, So far, less than 10% have asked to be deleted. I thank the 90% who are interested in my opinions.
Those who unsubscribe usually object to my allegedly liberal views. I am opposed to non-European immigration, but I am not obsessed by Race and I reject the Jewish conspiracy theory. The Deleted are usually patriots who have been radicalised by writers such as AK Chesterton (pictured). The following paragraph is from an essay he wrote for the British Union Journal in 1936 entitled “The Apotheosis of the Jew”.
“It is now that the Jew stands on the verge of world domination. Accepted by society in its decadence he is able to move among highly placed people and pull political strings for the international financiers; in return, he can conspire with his fellow radicals all over the world to pull financial strings for the politicians. So long as his essential “Jewishness” is concealed there is no mischief which he cannot encompass by the subtle exercise of his power; no market he cannot ‘rig’, no government he cannot crash, no foreign relationship he cannot foul, and with skill and patience no war he cannot engineer. The whole world stretches before him as his promised land.”
AK Chesterton was right about the Jews being powerful in the USA and Europe but they hardly figure in Asia. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malaysian and Indian businessmen are as greedy as their Western counterparts, but none of them is Jewish. AK would have appreciated the story about the two Jews who were passing a Church. A large notice said: “Convert to Christianity and get £100. Abe went into the Church leaving Saul outside. When he returned, Saul asked him if he had converted. He said “yes, I am now a baptised Christian. “So what about the £100”. “Money, money, money”, said Abe, “that’s all you Jews think about.”
Of course, there are some readers that I don’t want. Brenton Tarrant, the Australian terrorists who killed fifty worshippers in New Zealand, is not a White Nationalist hero, he is a psychopathic killer and a suspected Mossad agent.
Alan Welfare RIP
Alan Welfare, a Former Union Movement member and lifelong Mosley supporter, died of a stroke at Weston-Super-Mare on February 28th. Here he is seen, in the background, at another funeral. He will be sadly missed by his comrades.
Jeff Wallder writes
Alan joined the Movement as a teenager in the 1960s and was an active member. He was always good company, great sense of humour and a gentleman. He did his best to prevent the decline of the country he loved and remained loyal to Mosley and to Europe until the very end. To him, we extend the full arm salute.
Terry Wilson writes
Alan was a dear friend and former neighbour who helped rejuvenate the League of St George. He had a great sense of humour and was loyal to Mosley, UM, the LSG and the vision of Europe a Nation. At demos when the reds shouted at him “Nazi”, he would calmly reply: “I am not a Nazi, I am a Fascist.” A true and loyal comrade. Our thoughts go out to Debbie, Tristan and Mikela.
Nation Revisited
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: “We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people.”
Comments
Use the facility at the end of this blog to leave a comment and read what others have to say.
John Bolton spearheading P.N.A.C. and going to show that even (((1/8th))) can be toxic.
László Bogár reminds us that we are not alone.
