by David Hamilton

We are led to believe that mass immigration is a blessing to us, and that only Enoch Powell and a few narrow-minded and prejudiced people have ever seen danger in it. All decent folk of good will, we are told, have embraced this break in our national continuity as a sign of enlightenment progressing to a higher state of civilisation - that of a one-world utopia made up of coffee-coloured persons. It also has been presented as an ideological battle between left and right.  But actually it is between people of common sense and, at best, utopian idealists.

Most ordinary people relate to the world by common sense.  So the impracticable dream of a multi-racial utopia has had to be socially engineered, which requires totalitarian methods. The Utopians see immigrants as essentially good, and if we are nice to them they will be nice to us.

This utopianism does not engage with human nature, and does not need to.  Actually, we find people being brought in as cheap labour, with all the idealism a mere smokescreen. If the high-minded ones are so benevolent and moral, why have their plans been underhand ... and why public infamy for those who foresaw the danger in just letting it happen?

Multi-Racialism follows on from the French Enlightenment in trying to create a society on rationalist principles and ignoring human nature as was the Soviet Union too. Those who wished to preserve our traditional way of life knew how human nature works from their experience of how people treat each other and what they are capable of doing to each other. They learnt from history how different ethnic groups have vied with each other for power and territory and looking at the world around them see that in practice immigration is not assimilation, but the colonisation of our territory. Conversely, Multi-Racialists never describe reality but appeal to a vague future utopia, not facing that if we have been cruel to them in the past then these newcomers could be cruel to us in the future. Further, people from all walks of life have now given warning of the practical consequences which shows the British people as essentially conservative. Some have made crude remarks but most bring common sense to an irresponsible series of idealists who just let things happen with no control. All have suffered and some have been openly persecuted.

Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 west Indians, J.D.Murray and ten other Labour MP’s wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx. Atlee replied, that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” There had been racial battles in 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff Lord Milner wrote a Memorandum of June 23rd “On the Repatriation of Coloured Men.” ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…” ( Panikos Paranyi (ed) “Racial Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth Century.” (Leicester University.1996).

READ MORE...

Due to treaty violations by the United States government and now United Nations support for indigenous peoples Lakota Nationalists are seceding parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. 

They appear to be falling prey to the pan-“American” identity—which denies the enormous genetic gradients between northern plains peoples and Mestizos—genetic distances which, according to Frank Salter’s “On Genetic Interests” represent the greatest genetic gradient with geographic distance in the world.  Hence they are relying on recognition from South American countries like Bolivia for support of their legitimacy.

Adding to that the fact that they are preparing to place liens on real estate transactions throughout the 5 state region, there is a potential for imminent and serious conflict with the US Federal government.

With such dangers to their cultural, genetic and territorial integrity they need a more realistic approach to maintaining their territory—and such an approach may be offered by the following negotiated settlement between Lakota Nationalists and White Nationalists:

READ MORE...

I work here at the Wikimedia Foundation in St. Petersburg, Florida. I moved down in March of 2006 from Washington, DC to become the Chief Operating Officer of Wikipedia.

I’ve got a rap sheet that looks like I worked for Upgraydd inside the beltway back when gravity hadn’t caught up with me, if you get my drift.  One of my greatest achievements during my inside-the-beltway days was shooting a guy who then asked me to marry him. The rumors that I turned him down because I owed Upgraydd too much money are, of course, preposterous.

Tonight, far from showing any signs of weakening, the BNP rebels have issued an expanded list of demands to Nick Griffin:-

1. The five sacked personnel to be reinstated and the nullification of the resignations tendered by dozens of local, regional and national office holders.

2. The removal of David Hannam and Mark Collett from their positions.

3. Nick Griffin to remain as political leader of the Party.

4. The creation of a formal management system separating external political matters from internal management issues, enshrined in a redrafted constitution.

5. To make further progress on the implementation of the Voting Member structure, together with the retention of the Advisory Council.

Meanwhile, Griffin made his peace gesture some days ago in the form of a weak-tea reshuffle and, in a local party meeting in Bradford, a proposal to reinstate Sadie Graham and Kenny Smith to the party – a proposal seconded by Mark Collett.

Since the failure of this manoeuvre Griffin and Co have moved on to make serious allegations of financial impropriety and spying against Graham and Smith.  This appears only to have seriously weakened Griffins position with the rebel half of the party (and it is that big).

So, how will it all end?  I see absolutely no sign that this Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again.  These people are not going to trust one another, not going to be willing to work together.  What has been done cannot be undone.

So here are three of many possible futures for nationalism in Britain:-

READ MORE...

This is the first in what I hope will be a series of postings translated by Fred Scrooby from Robert Steuckers’ interesting and important Synergies Européennes site.

GW

Slavic languages specialist Barbara de Munnynck, who is Flemish, devotes two full pages in the Flemish newspaper De Standaard (December 8, 2006) to enthusiastically paying homage to Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn.  She retraces and analyses his whole body of work and writes this very fitting conclusion:

Solzhenitsyn is no longer in fashion.  It’s because of the recent political upheavals.  Simply put, this man by his nature stands apart from all fashion.  Though known as a political writer, he’s closer to a religion-inspired moralist.  He critiqued the Soviet dicatorship from a spiritual point of view, not in the name of an alternative political ideology.  Measured against the yardstick of Solzhenitsyn’s ethical criteria, neither the West nor the New Russia has any worth.  For these reasons Solzhenitsyn might be considered merely a grumpy old man or a perennial dissident.  No matter:  his attitude toward life, one of coherence, commands respect.  It was forged under trying circumstances and has certain things in common with the Christian humanism of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Edmund Burke.  Solzhenitsyn is a venerable prophet whose message exists beyond the passage of time.  The enthusiasm for him personally during the Cold War was as strange as the disinterest in him today.

READ MORE...

Bottom line according to before and after screenshots of the official Ron Paul site:

$17,980,156.71 - $11,551,156.57 = $6.43M

From The Guardian

Miracle on Merseyside - Liverpool remakes the nativity

The Virgin Mary comes from Knotty Ash, one of the angels used to be in Brookside, and Herod is a woman.

This version of the Christmas story, to be played out on the streets in the centre of Liverpool and broadcast live on BBC3 tomorrow night, has a cast of 300, including the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, a technical crew of 150 and is produced by the BBC team responsible for last year’s Manchester Passion.

... After discussions with the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones, the script’s writer Mark Davies Markham has modernised the traditional story. Mary, lacking both the traditional blue robe and halo, wipes tables in a Seaforth cafe. Joseph is an asylum seeker commanded to go to Liverpool to renew his visa. Herod is a woman and the shepherds are both homeless and sheepless. But there will still be a star and three magi for the show.

“The traditional story is so familiar that it can just wash over you,” said Markham. “I wanted it still to be familiar but to help people look at it in a different way. If they see it in terms of hope for humanity, that would be good.”

... Mary (Jodie McNee), a virgin who has been saving herself for when the time is right, is a bit surprised but tells Joseph (Kenny Thompson) “it’s the Lord’s baby, it’s sent by the Holy Spirit”. Joseph is unimpressed and angry.

“You’re just having a bit of a domestic,” explains director Noreen Kershaw as Joseph launches into There She Goes by The La’s.

Joseph heads across the river to the passport office. Mary follows on to the ferry and they sing Comedy from The Shack’s 1999 album HMS Fable. When Jesus is born, they duet on Beautiful Boy, written originally for the son of John Lennon rather than the Son of God.

“It’s a brilliant story to tell,” said McNee, whose previous Christmas performances include a role as a turkey in a school play. “It’s about community and loving generosity and about accepting people.”

The man’s a spiritual chav*.

But wait ... from a blog named Stuart’s Short Trousers (with thanks to Troy Southgate for the link):-

READ MORE...

The Eurosceptic UK national dailies have been banging on today about Gordon Brown signing away our control of immigration.  “Buried in the Treaty’s small print is a ruling that gives new rights to EU leaders to overturn decisions made by Britain’s Immigration and Asylum Tribunal,” claims the Daily Mail.

Here, drawn from the Draft Treaty dated 3rd December 2007 (pdf) are the significant references to immigration:-

ARTICLE 63

1. The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties.

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures for a common European asylum system comprising:

(a) a uniform status of asylum for nationals of third countries, valid throughout the Union;
(b) a uniform status of subsidiary protection for nationals of third countries who, without obtaining European asylum, are in need of international protection;
(c) a common system of temporary protection for displaced persons in the event of a massive inflow;
(d) common procedures for the granting and withdrawing of uniform asylum or subsidiary protection status;

ARTICLE 63a

1. The Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings.

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures in the following areas:

... (c) illegal immigration and unauthorised residence, including removal and repatriation of persons residing without authorisation;

And from the Protocols section:

Article 9

PROTOCOL ON ASYLUM FOR NATIONALS OF THE UNION

22) The Protocol on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union shall be amended as follows:

(a) the preamble shall be amended as follows:

(i) the first recital shall be replaced by the following:

“WHEREAS, in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights”;

(ii) the following new second recital shall be inserted:

“WHEREAS pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, constitute part of the Union’s law as general principles;”;

There follow some abstruse substitutions in former treaties, the meaning of which is totally open-ended from our lay perspective.

It is, I think, clear both that the competence of the European Court of Human Rights has been extended to immigration and asylum, and the common policies which will flow from the Treaty will supercede member countries’ immigration and asylum laws.  The usual rain of Brussels directives will fall upon this new ground.

One should not be surprised.  The elite cult of internationalism abhors nation - and nationalism, of course.  Europe’s nations are not intended to survive.  It is not too dramatic to say the same for Europe’s peoples.