Saturday, 30 July 2016

The End is Nigh

Dear Reader,

It is over five years since I wrote the last published piece for this blog. A lot has happened during that time: the unprecedented rioting in England which was attributed to poverty, but which somehow Glasgow avoided despite having the most impoverished areas in the UK; the Scottish independence referendum; the EU referendum, though I'm not convinced the UK will secede from the EU; the relative electoral success of the 'the far-right' in continental Europe; Islamic State and the rise of Islamic terrorist atrocities in Europe - most notably the beheading of Lee Rigby, the Charlie Hebdo killings, and the massacres in Paris and Nice; the disclosure by Edward Snowden that the US and British governments have been spying on their citizens, which forced him to seek refuge in Russia; the instability in the Middle East, largely a result of US foreign policy which itself is centred around the Wolfowitz Doctrine; and finally the worsening racial divide in the US, which has recently manifested itself in the murder of several policeman and spawned the Black Lives Matter movement.

There is so much I could write about all these occurrences, and many other things which I haven't mentioned, too. However in contrast to the world, which is apparently becoming more volatile and unstable, I have found peace and serenity in God. I know what you are probably thinking...that I'm a superstitious fool, mad even...that I have lost the plot. Perhaps you are right. What I can tell you is that I feel a lot happier now than I did five years ago. Escapism? Maybe. I have to admit that I have worked hard to develop my faith, though God has answered my prayers and showed me the way.

I have now essentially become apolitical. Whilst I don't regret having held the political opinions I have expressed in this blog, which were sincere and motivated by genuine concerns for the future, I am of the opinion that the world is governed by satanic entities and the end times prophesied in scripture are inevitable. Salvation lies within each of us, not by changing the outside world (Luke 17:21).

Much has been written on the internet about the 'hidden hand' which is trying to establish the New World Order, and I devoted quite some time to investigating it; years in fact. Ultimately I determined that it was satanic, and whilst I do appreciate that many people will see this as a ridiculous assertion and conclude that I have gone mad, I would politely suggest that if you feel this way you might wish to consider whether you have been indoctrinated into accepting the anti-Christian, materialist doctrine that's been promoted both overtly and subtly now for generations.

Unfortunately, I believe that we are rapidly approaching the end times. I wish you well, and may God bless you!

Saturday, 4 June 2011

Suggested Links

(Updated 07/03/2013)

As many of you will be aware, I have ceased updating this blog. My farewell post explaining my beliefs and the reasoning behind them can be found here. However, I do still visit many nationalist websites from time to time, and the following is an exclusive list of my favourites. Many more links can be found on the right-hand-side of the page as you scroll down.

[Please note: I do not necessarily endorse all of the views or contents expressed at the links below.]

Irish Savant - often humorous, sometimes poignant and frequently controversial, Savant's blog is extremely popular despite being censored by Google's search engine.

Occidental Observer - this website hosts an array of fascinating and erudite articles relating to European peoples and their plight.

Occidental Quarterly - similar to the Occidental Observer (see above).

Nationalist Unity Forum - 'The ideological website of Andrew Brons MEP'. As the site's name suggests, it has been designed as a forum for British Nationalists of all persuasions to discuss the way forward.

The British Resistance - The site contains articles and topical discussion on issues affecting domestic politics, Occidental society and, occasionally, conspiracy theory. Inspired by The Green Arrow's blog, it is frequently updated by a number of nationalist commentators.

Sarah Maid of Albion - Sarah's site is now one of the most widely read, respected and longstanding nationalist blogs, and over the past four years she has published many cogent and well-researched articles.

Independent British Nationalist - a thoughtful and intelligent chap, who I have corresponded with for several years. He and I share remarkably similar views and scored almost identical results when taking the political compass test.

I am an Englishman - A truly heretical website that seeks to expose the nefarious plot to subvert and destroy our society and people. The author, Ironwand, is a gifted writer and his essays, though sometimes difficult to locate due to the site's poor navigation, tell of intrigue and treachery that almost makes one shudder. Visitors are welcomed with the following message: 'If you are one of those who would rather live a comfortable lie than have to face an uncomfortable truth, this website is not for you.'

Why not follow Ironwand on Twitter?

Gates of Vienna  - this blog focuses on the perceived threat to European society posed by the exponential growth of Islam and the third world demographic within Europe.

Musings of a Durotrigan - though this blogger flirts with ethnonationalism, his essays primarily focus upon the Islamification of the West. Always articulate and usually interesting, this site is well worth a visit.

British Nationalist - topical and insightful, but never inciteful. His forte is economic affairs.

Majority Rights - A website dedicated to discussing and promoting the preservation of the indigenous European peoples.

Alternative Right - A symposium concerned with forging a 'new, independent intellectual Right'.

American Renaissance - In their own words: "the Internet’s premier race-realist site. Every weekday we publish articles and news items from a world-wide race-realist perspective."

Counter Currents - An Identitarian, New Right website.

VDare - An American White Advocacy website.

Western Spring - A refreshing look at contemporary British Nationalism.

Britain's Winds of Change, by British Activism (authour of Independent British Nationalism):

Sunday, 8 May 2011


Dear Reader,

After some deliberation I have decided to close this blog. I am still a nationalist and I will always be one, my political convictions are indelible and are not merely the result of reading and thinking, but arise from my heart, and from my soul. This is perhaps why I find it so painful to write about the irreversible and sinister changes that have taken place and which will, eventually, blot out our culture, history and ultimately our people. To the uninitiated my last sentence may appear hysterical, however in this last post I will attempt to demonstrate that it is not.

Indigenous Population

One common myth perpetuated by the media is that nobody is truly British, or rather English, because there were immigrants to these shores from mainland Europe a thousand years ago. Whilst this is true, most immigration was the result of bloody invasions rather than them settling with the consent of the original inhabitants. Many English counties derived from the peoples that created England - like The Kingdom of Essex (or Kingdom of the East Saxons), similarly there's Wessex (Kingdom of the West Saxons), Sussex and even Middlesex. East Anglia was the Kingdom of the East Angles - which split into Norfolk and Suffolk or 'northern folk' and 'southern folk'.

However, by 927 AD the English kingdoms of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex and Wessex were unified under the crown of King Athelstan. By 1066 the English fought as a single country, succumbing to the Normans led by William the Conqueror, and that was the last real wave of immigration.

Since then the various northern European peoples mingled and became indistinguishable from one another. The expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, who were later readmitted by Cromwell, and the Blackamoors (black people) in 1596 prove that the English were not particularly tolerant of foreigners - we knew who we were, and we knew who we weren't!

Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University, tested the DNA of 10,000 people from across the British Isles. He determined that the vast majority of the genes were from the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, the first settlers to these islands, arriving 10,000 years ago when the ice age retreated! You can purchase his book Blood of the Isles from Amazon.

The Changing Demographics

Should current demographic trends continue unabated then it is simply inevitable that the indigenous population will be an ethnic minority before the end of this century. The article below was published in 2000, prior to the massive increase in immigration under the latter years of the Labour government, hence my belief that the prediction is optimistic:

Whites will be an ethnic minority in Britain by the end of the century. Analysis of official figures indicate that, at current fertility rates and levels of immigration, there will be more non-whites than whites by 2100.

It would be the first time in history that a major indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease. Whites will be a minority in London by 2010.

In the early 1950s there were only a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the UK. By 1991 that had risen to 3 million - 6 per cent of the population. The population of ethnic minorities has been growing at between 2 and 4 per cent a year. Net immigration has been running at record levels, with 185,000 newcomers last year.

Government forecasts suggest that immigration on its own will be responsible for half the growth of the British population over the next couple of decades.

The Observer, Sunday 3 September 2000; by Anthony Browne

My belief is substantiated by a more recent study which predicts white Britons will be a minority by 2066. The fact that after just ten years the prediction has been revised so considerably, highlights the massive demographic transformation Britain has undergone under Labour:

White Britons to become minority by 2066

White Britons will be outnumbered by 2066 if the rate of immigration continues, researchers have claimed.

The white British-born community (defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens) will fall to less than half of the overall population in just over 50 years.

The warning from Professor David Coleman, from Oxford University, comes ahead of an announcement today by the Migration Advisory Board of its recommendation for the proposed immigration cap for people outside the EU.

Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that if immigration remains at a long-term rate of around 180,000 a year the proportion of the white British-born population will fall from 80 per cent to 59 per cent by 2051.

The Daily Telegraph; 18 Nov 2010; by Laura Roberts

As one can see from the graph below, immigration almost doubled under the Labour administration:

The above graph is from the website, and is accompanied by the following analysis of migration in 2009:

An estimated 567,000 people arrived to live in the UK in 2009, which is consistent with levels seen since 2004 and compares with 590,000 in 2008. Non-British citizens accounted for 83 per cent of all immigrants; a third of these were from EU countries.

There are already substantial ethnic enclaves in all the major English cities, as well as many large towns, and some are touted to become 'plural cities', i.e. cities in which the native population no longer comprises the majority, within a decade or so. Due to higher birthrates and continued immigration the demographic change will increase exponentially.

The Environment

One of the biggest threats to the planet is overpopulation. The burgeoning human population will, like locusts, strip the earth of its assets and destroy the environment, if current trends continue unabated. What's more, the rapid industrialization of India and China is accelerating the depletion of resources and pollution of our planet.

It is not just globally that overpopulation is a problem, The Optimum Population Trust states the following on their website:

The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century, and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million. Given that, the net migration figures (posted above) for the United Kingdom should be a cause for concern.
Consider the environmental impact of vast numbers of people coming to Britain -building on green belt land destroys natural habitats and CO2 absorbing foliage. Additionally, Immigrants from the Third World will massively increase their carbon footprint by coming to the UK where they will consume food which travels hundreds of miles and is wrapped in plastic, drive a car, visit their homeland (air travel), use far more electricity, etc, etc. Even if one doubts climate change is anthropogenic, one should still appreciate that the Earth's resources are not infinite. The following extract originally published in The Independent, back in 2005, shows the extent of the environmental impact population growth has:

The UK population is now rising faster than at any time since the baby-boom years of the mid-20th century. Figures published last month suggest that some 300,000 new Britons appeared in our midst last year, equivalent to a city the size of Cardiff -- equivalent also, at present rates, to some 125,000 new houses, over 150,000 vehicles, a lake nearly a third the size of Windermere in annual water abstractions, and roughly 1.6 million hectares (over four Hampshires) in terms of global ecological footprint.

David Nicholson Lord: The green issue that dare not speak its name; The Independent; Monday, 20 June 2005

Social Change

In the 1950s Britain was a homogenous and harmonious society. Though people may have been materially worse off, a man's wage was enough to support his whole family and there was still a sense of community. Alex Ferguson grew up in a tough, deprived area of Glasgow, yet he still had this to say of his childhood:

"There was a real sense of community because we all lived so close together. You hear it said that you never locked your door but it's true."


"You didn't have a lot but I never call it poverty because I don't think it was poverty. You always had your meals, you never missed school, you were always clean and tidy.

"We didn't have a bathroom but we did have a big zinc bath and you'd have your bath once a week and be scrubbed clean.

"People shared with each other. There was a common cause to help each other, far more than you get today.

"You knew all your neighbours and probably worked with half of them. Today, I don't know half my neighbours."

The Daily Record; May 23 2009; by John Ferguson

Social Cohesion

It has been suggested that far from integrating, communities are living parallel lives. The riots in Oldham and Bradford were surely symptomatic of what lies ahead. Again one must appreciate that the statistics quoted are based on data prior to the significant increase in immigration, so are likely to be optimistic:

Fears of racial time bomb in riot-hit towns

The Asian populations of northern English towns hit by racial unrest this summer will see explosive growth in the next decade, raising fears of a social crisis unless problems of racism and deprivation are effectively tackled.

A report presented to Oldham council last week showed that by 2011 the white population of the town will have decreased by 9 per cent, whilst the Bangladeshi population will have grown by 112 per cent and the Pakistani population by 88 per cent.

Similar reports drawn up by other councils in Burnley, which has also suffered a race riot, and Rochdale, also revealed Asian communities growing far faster than their white counterparts. By 2011 Rochdale's Asian community will have grown from 9 per cent to 13 per cent.

The key reasons behind the projected growth of the Asian population is a higher birth rate, continued migration from the Asian sub-continent and a much younger population than the white community.

The Guardian; 5 August 2001; by Paul Harris

It's not just potential riots and racial violence that is a problem, however:

People in mixed-race areas 'feel isolated'

People in ethnically mixed areas are less trusting of their neighbours and live a more isolated existence, research from a New Labour "guru" has found.

The greater the diversity, the looser the community bonds and the more withdrawn local residents become, says Robert Putnam, an American academic based at Harvard.

Prof Putnam's research shows that people who live in such areas retreat into their shells. They spend more time watching television, volunteer less and take little part in community activity.

But where "social capital" is greater, children grow up healthier, safer and better educated. People in more homogeneous communities also have longer, happier lives and democracy and the economy work better.

The Daily Telegraph; 19 Jun 2007; by Philip Johnston


Frank Field wrote the following in an article published in the Telegraph:

In my constituency of Birkenhead, there are now more violent crimes against the person than there were in the whole country 50 years ago.

Daily Telegraph; 01 Oct 2009

That's quite an amazing statistic when one considers there are 650 Westminster constituencies! Here are some more amazing statistics:

The data provide a breakdown of the ethnicity of the 18,091 men and boys who police took action against for a range of violent and sexual offences in London in 2009-10.

They show that among those proceeded against for street crimes, 54 per cent were black; for robbery, 59 per cent; and for gun crimes, 67 per cent. Street crimes include muggings, assault with intent to rob and snatching property.

Just over 12 per cent of London’s 7.5 million population is black, including those of mixed black and white parentage, while 69 per cent is white, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The Sunday Telegraph; 26 Jun 2010; by Andrew Alderson

The statistics quoted above are compelling, and imply that blacks are inordinately responsible for street crime, something which is substantiated by criminal trends in the United States. Now I'm certainly not suggesting that violent crime is solely a result of immigration, there are a myriad of factors, I'm sure. In fact I personally believe that most street crime can be attributed to drugs. However, one cannot simply ignore the above statistics, which imply demographic change has certainly been a contributory factor.


The most frequently used reason for justifying immigration is that "they do the jobs that lazy Britons don't want to do". Conversely, however, this doesn't seem to be the case:

Above: One in five black men out of a job figures reveal, and worse to come; Guardian; 14th October, 2009.

Unemployment by religion paints a similar picture:

Accompanying the graph above was the following analysis:

In 2004, Muslims had the highest male unemployment rate in Great Britain, at 13 per cent. This was about three times the rate for Christian men (4 per cent). Unemployment rates for men in the other religious groups were between 3 and 8 per cent.

The unemployment rate for Muslim women at 18 per cent was about four times the rate for Christian and Jewish women (4 per cent in each case). Unemployment rates for women in the other religious groups were between 6 per cent and 9 per cent.

Again, these are statistics collated by people hostile to the British Nationalism. For a more detailed look at why the economic reasons for immigration are spurious, visit Guardian Cockups.


Many people blame Thatcher for the decline in our manufacturing industry, when they should be blaming both the unions for resisting innovation and, more importantly, globalism. Most of our manufactured goods come from China, where people work for a pittance in terrible conditions. How can the British manufacturing industry possibly compete with Chinese and Indian manufacturers without tariffs or reducing wages to pitiful levels? Also how is it environmentally friendly to have products transported half way around the globe, just to keep labour costs down?

The National Health Service (NHS) is said to depend upon third world immigrants for staff. However, if a doctor comes to England from Somalia to work for the NHS to enable our government to keep taxes low, whilst in his own country there are sick people who desperately need him, is that not a terrible and wicked thing? Are we not depriving the most disadvantaged peoples on the planet of their brightest and best and, more importantly, those that can save their lives?

Globalism is NOT a good thing, in my humble opinion.

Electoral Fraud

Immigration has adversely affected our society in a number of different ways, and has even potentially undermined our electoral system:

Lady Warsi has blamed electoral fraud for the Tories' failure to secure an overall majority at this May's election – and claimed that Labour "absolutely" benefited from the alleged fraud.

The Tory chairman told tomorrow's New Statesman: "[There were] at least three seats where we lost, where we didn't gain the seat, based on electoral fraud. Now, could we have planned for that in the campaign? Absolutely not … "It is predominantly within the Asian community. I have to look back and say we didn't do well in those communities, but was there something over and above that we could have done? Well, actually not, if there is going to be voter fraud."

The Guardian; 29 September 2010; by Paul Owen

Indeed one QC stated that the extent of electoral fraud would 'disgrace a banana republic':

A Judge has delivered a devastating indictment of the postal voting system championed by ministers as he found six Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud. He said checks against corruption were "hopelessly insecure" and accused the Government of being in denial about the risks to democracy.


Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an electoral commissioner in Birmingham, found "overwhelming" evidence of fraud in last year's city council elections that would "disgrace a banana republic". The elections, where several Labour candidates bucked the trend to win, were dogged by claims of intimidation, bribery, "vote-buying', impersonation and even the creation of a "vote-forging factory".

The Independent on Sunday; Tuesday, 5 April 2005; by Nigel Morris

Imperfect Information

So why haven't British people rejected multiculturalism and mass-immigration? Well poll after poll suggests the majority have. However, I believe that many have never taken a real stance against it because they have been cowed, indoctrinated and have had the truth concealed from them.

In economics the term perfect information is used to describe the condition where 'consumers know all things, about all products, at all times, and therefore always make the best decision regarding purchase'. (Wikipedia)

You see, when you go and look at a car from Larry's Car Lot, you almost certainly wouldn't purchase it if you realised it was a 'cut and shut' and the mileage had been doctored. But if Larry could conceal this from you, you may be tempted to buy it, in which case your decision will be made based on imperfect information.

Unfortunately, we in Britain and every other Occidental country are indoctrinated daily by a pervasive and ubiquitous media that promotes multiculturalism, miscegenation and globalisation and essentially demonises those who oppose it, take Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, for example. Enoch Powell knew this well:

Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see.

Even quoting the crime statistics above is likely to invite scorn and accusations of racism. This is what Orwell meant when he wrote that 'Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four', it's the ability to tell the truth.

Enoch Powell was a highly intelligent man, he graduated from Cambridge with a double starred first and when war broke out he was the youngest professor in the Commonwealth, but resigned to enlist as a private in the army. Besides being an academic, poet, linguist and scholar, Powell was a man of integrity and a patriot. Yet following his outspoken condemnation of immigration, Powell was sacked from the shadow cabinet, and vilified by the media, as he himself said: "No imputation or innuendo has been too vile or scurrilous for supposedly reputable journals to invent or repeat."

Political Correctness

What Powell referred to has become known as Political Correctness or, more accurately in my opinion, Cultural Marxism. It is unquestionably a nefarious term - if you think about it logically, it essentially states that one's political opinions are either correct or incorrect, with the government, or ruling elite as the arbitrator. This is essentially totalitarianism.

The punishment for not adhering to the 'correct' politics or language endorsed by the ruling elite varies, but in today's Britain one may face disciplinary action in the work place or even criminal charges. In addition, and arguably more effective, is the social stigma attached to using the incorrect terminology - fear of ostracism, for example, may lead to people modifying their behaviour in order to comply with the promoted ideology.

In my humble opinion, free speech is inversely related to multiculturalism. The more culturally diverse a society, the more people will be 'offended' and antagonised and thus the greater the propensity for civil disorder - thus legislation is used to restrict freedom.

This has led to debate being effectively stifled, for example people are often afraid to speak out against immigration for fear of being labelled a 'racist'. Of course once free debate has been curbed a society will begin to stagnate and decline - and here we are in modern Britain!

Welfare and Popular Culture

It's not simply immigration that is the problem. There are good and bad people of all races and belonging to all religions, but I think mass-immigration has had a negative impact upon our society as I have demonstrated. However, besides Social Marxism, the two most nefarious factors contributing to our decline are drugs and the Welfare State.

Drug use has been promoted by the media for several decades. Since the 1960s many popular musical artists have endorsed drug use, indeed The Beatles' Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is said to be about an acid trip (the first letter of each noun also spells LSD). Many, if not most, of the greatest music artists have subtly promoted drug use, or at least have had their drug-fuelled antics publicised by the mass media in terms that make them appear rebellious and fashionable.

Gossip magazines and tabloid newspapers extol the lifestyles of vacuous and inane celebrities, detailing all aspects of their vulgarity, which is emulated to some degree by the readership. The Beckhams and Wayne Rooney are role models for millions of school children. Meanwhile films are ever more sexual and violent.

For decades now, our welfare state has encouraged an underclass of people that have no intention of working, but believe the state is obligated to feed, clothe and house them. By taking away peoples' responsibility for themselves and their children, we have nurtured people who lack basic social values and who contribute nothing of value to our society. Whilst I am in favour of a welfare state that supports people when they fall on hard times, I do not believe in one that permits parasites to languish on benefits from cradle to grave.


It is my belief that our education system has been systematically undermined since the 1960s. The loss of grammar schools, progressive teaching methods, changes to the curriculum and the lack of discipline in the classroom coupled with the aforementioned social issues has led to a vast deterioration in the quality of education provided in state schools. The following article indicates that employers are recognising this, too:

Leading companies complain of graduates' literacy skills

More than half of Britain's leading graduate employers are concerned about a lack of basic skills such as reading and writing among university recruits, according to new research.

A survey of more than 200 employers by the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) observed a "striking level of concern" about the literacy of graduates.

A majority (56.4 per cent) expressed concern about a lack writing skills, while 55 per cent said an inability to communicate effectively was posing a serious problem for their business.

A significant proportion were also worried about low levels of knowledge in mathematics (27.7 per cent).

The Daily Telegraph; 07 Jul 2008; by Tom Peterkin

Now consider the above refers to graduates, our brightest and best, it is a shocking indictment of our education system. However, despite the fact that many of our graduates cannot read and write their own language properly after 16 years of education, A Level results have continually improved since the 1970s, which to me implies they are less rigorous than they once were:

The second image shows the percentage of A Level candidates who passed their exams, i.e. were awarded an A Level.

Besides the obvious deterioration of our education system, the Parekh Report commissioned by the last government, concluded that Britain should 'rethink the national story' in a bid to make it more inclusive. How Orwellian sounding is that? Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. This is why history has been distorted in an attempt to lend support to politically correct values and ideas.

It is my contention that our education system is used to indoctrinate children and inculcate the correct psyche. Furthermore a population lacking the required standard of English will be reluctant to read classic books, like Dickens and Dostoevsky, as they will find them too highbrow and strenuous and thus receive little enlightenment.

Peak Oil

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. The concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time appears to grow exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines, sometimes rapidly, until the field is depleted. It has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. It is important to note that peak oil is not about running out of oil, but the peaking and subsequent decline of the production rate of oil.

What this essentially means is that oil will become scarcer, demand for oil will exceed supply and the price will rise rapidly. The implications are frightening, as oil is used to produce plastics and pesticides, as well as transport goods and food! As of 2002, approximately ten calories of fossil fuels were used to produce every single calorie eaten, so you see just how dependent we in the West are on oil.

As I look ahead I am filled with foreboding

I believe that given our nation's current trajectory the future is very frightening indeed. Considering the government's budget deficit, our national debt, the depleting North Sea oil and our virtually non-existent manufacturing industry, I think our current standards of living are unsustainable, as will be the welfare state. Globally, Peak Oil, the rise of militant Islam and overpopulation are going to cause catastrophic resource wars.

I envisage unprecedented rioting and violence, especially in the large cities, which are basically just the aggregate of many mutually antagonistic and hostile communities. Where once we may well have been able to unite and endure together a crisis, as was the case during the Blitz, we face the problem of what Enoch Powell called the 'uniform of colour':

The uniform of colour, because it is involuntary and irremovable, becomes an irresistible force for dominating and disciplining those who wear it. They are literally marked people, expected to rally to whatever is designated as their cause and treated as manifest traitors if they fail to do so. When one has witnessed how the invisible uniform of religion enables the IRA to exert over the mass of peaceful and law-abiding Roman Catholic citizens in Northern Ireland a terror and compulsion far severer than that under which their Protestant fellow citizens live, one can form some idea of the consolidating potential of the visible uniform of color. Finally, colour polarizes, and reinforces differentiation and segregation, because the individual, however much, as an individual, he may become, and wish to become, assimilated to the host population, is firmly identified, and thus eventually obliged to identify himself, with the minority to which he belongs. Colour is a recruiting sergeant, and a recruiting sergeant for officer material.

My adversaries will no doubt accuse me of 'racism' and 'hatred' for daring to express such heretical opinions. However, one should ask not whether what I have written is 'racist', but whether it is true. If it is, then surely it shouldn't be suppressed? Isn't that the whole essence of what Orwell was trying to convey in his novel 1984?

Unfortunately however, following what amounts to the destruction of the British National Party, the British people no longer have a political vehicle by which we can attempt to implement change. This has been the crucial element in my determining to cease writing this blog. It saddens me to write this, but it appears that nationalists are going to be mere spectators, watching from the sidelines as our nation ebbs away.

Best Wishes,

Unrepentant British Nationalist

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

An abridged version of Enoch's famous Rivers of Blood Speech

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

[By] the year 2000...Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. [There are] areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?"

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow.

All who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination". The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.


The full speech can be found here.

Saturday, 30 April 2011

Dear Reader

I will shortly be posting my farewell message, in which I will explain why I remain an unrepentant British Nationalist, but why I can no longer carry on with this blog.

Edit: Unfortunately this may not appear until May 8th

Saturday, 12 March 2011

Multiculturalism's Threat To Freedom

I happened upon the following article written by the Daily Express's political commentator, Chris Roycroft-Davis, and was so utterly appalled at what I was reading I felt it necessary to vent my spleen. So what follows are extracts from his article, with my annotations in red:


THIS is a hard column to write because if I say what most of us really think about the Muslim who burned poppies on Remembrance Day I’ll probably be charged with inciting racial and religious hatred. But curbing our tongues, respecting others and showing tolerance is the price we pay for the privilege of living in freedom in a country we love.

What utter contradictory nonsense! How can he claim to live 'in freedom' when he himself admits that he is unable to convey his true feelings for fear of prosecution? Free speech is not a 'privilege', either. It is our right, and it has been stolen from us.

Of course he then actually implies that by 'curbing our tongues' we are somehow noble, and justifies this with the usual platitudes - 'respect' and 'tolerance'.

That concept is alien to Emdadur Choudhury, who although born here despises everything that Britain stands for and prays to Allah that our soldiers will burn in hell. All he cares about is the freedom to pour vile abuse on the memory of our war dead – and the freedom to live in a council flat at the taxpayers’ expense and draw £800 a month in benefits. His actions disgust me.

Emdadur may despise everything British, but that's because he's not really British, despite having been born here. His primary allegiance is to Islam, and thus, due to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, he sees the British state and our armed forces as an enemy.

But for all that I still defend his right to hold whatever religious beliefs he wishes because that freedom is what millions of men and women have died for. To say his mode of worship should have no place in our society would be to make worthless that ultimate sacrifice. I just wish this wicked man would stop spouting such offensive claptrap wrapped up in the cloak of Islam.

Here Mr Roycroft-Davies is being a little disingenuous. Have millions of our British soldiers really died for the right of immigrants to establish Muslim ghettos, or 'communities' as they are more politely referred to, in our cities and towns? Did they die fighting for their descendants to be displaced, their own kith and kin? I don't think they did. Churchill himself a former soldier, and scourge of the Nazis, advocated the slogan 'Keep England white'.

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - A. K. Chesterton

I imagine the vast majority of those who died fighting for Britain were Christians, and wanted our country to remain Christian.

Just as fervently I wish our courts would stop letting people like him get away with it. Imagine if we had a group of militant Methodists preaching hatred against Muslims, invoking death and carnage in the name of Christ. They’d be locked up as a danger to society and the key would be thrown away.But what happens to Choudhury? A paltry £50 fine plus a £15 “victim surcharge”. The man mocks the court (no surprise when it’s handing out slaps on the wrist with a feather) by not turning up to hear the verdict.

Of course sixty years ago, something like this would never have happened. Back then we were a homogenous nation, bound together by shared history, culture and blood. Now, having been 'enriched' by the likes of Choudhury we are faced with a very unpleasant dilemma.

I loathed Choudhury's actions more than most, but is he not entitled to hold a view that others - including myself - find objectionable? Those calling for new laws and stronger sentences are just asking for further restrictions on what we can say and do, in a society in which people are already afraid to speak and write candidly.

The fact is we are in this mess because people, the masses, have 'curbed their tongues' and, like sheep, tolerated our politicians' lies and deceit. Meanwhile our silence has emboldened the likes of Choudhury to the extent that they feel comfortable brazenly disrespecting our hospitality.

Sunday, 27 February 2011

How 'Right-Wing' Is The BNP?

The British National Party is often referred to as 'right-wing' or even 'far-right', but is this actually the case?

The former cabinet minister, Lord Tebbit, certainly believes the term 'right-wing' is erroneously applied to the BNP. The following letter was published in The Daily Telegraph's letters page on the 21st April 2006:

Left-wing BNP

Sir - It is of some comfort that the Labour Party at least, even if not yet the Tories, has woken up to the threat posed by the BNP, because it has ceased to understand or listen to its own supporters when they express their concerns about multiculturalism, the levels of immigration and lack of integration that are affecting our great cities.

However, it remains of concern that even The Daily Telegraph (Comment, April 18) persists in so misunderstanding the BNP as to describe it as "an extreme Right-wing party". I have carefully re-read the BNP manifesto of 2005 and am unable to find evidence of Right-wing tendencies.

On the other hand, there is plenty of anti-capitalism, opposition to free trade, commitments to "use all non-destructive means to reduce income inequality", to institute worker ownership, to favour workers' co-operatives, to return parts of the railways to state ownership, to nationalise the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and to withdraw from NATO. That sounds pretty Left-wing to me.

Certainly the BNP poses as a patriotic party opposed to multiculturalism, and it has racist overtones, but there is no lack of patriotic Left-wing regimes; opposition to multiculturalism is now mainstream and racialism was not unknown even in the Soviet Union.

So what is "extreme Right-wing" about the BNP?

Lord Tebbit, London SW1


Lord Tebbit is correct, at least in terms of the BNP's economic policies. This is evident from even a cursory glance at the party's website which endores the 'renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services', it elaborates:

The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism, which means that British workers must compete against those in China and India who work for as little as a pound a day. Oriental countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore have managed their economies to combine private enterprise competition with the national good, and these are the models the BNP would emulate.

In a world in which irreplaceable natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate we have a duty to our children and future generations to move towards economic growth which is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable in the long-term, rather than the present ‘boom and bust’ policies.


I imagine that many people will say that the BNP are 'right-wing' because of the party's opposition to immigration. Conversely, I would argue that importing unskilled labour to artificially suppress wages is itself fundamentally 'right-wing'. The fact is that politicians have, for years, brazenly stated that 'immigrants do the jobs which Britons are too lazy to do'. The reality is that the wages offered are below the market-clearing equilibrium or, more likely, that the benefit system interferes with the labour market.

Importing labour is only a temporary solution, and one that has huge social and economic consequences - as it maintains unemployment, rather than addressing the problem of why there are unfilled vacancies. Furthermore the imported work force may well become dependent on the benefit system themselves, especially in times of high unemployment.

With regard to skilled labour, is it 'left-wing' to poach the third world's most able citizens? Surely the most impoverished people need their doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs more than we do? The reality is that if the NHS paid its staff a decent wage, it wouldn't be dependent on foreign doctors and nurses in the first place! Is maintaining low taxes at the expense of the most desperate and poverty-stricken peoples in the world 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'?


The BNP is clearly opposed to globalism, as one would expect from an ethno-nationalist party. However, is that indicative of a 'right-wing' or a 'left-wing' ideology?

The biggest beneficiaries of globalism are the multinational corporations and the international finance houses. They would like to sweep away borders which they see as impediments to the free movement of labour, capital and commodities, as well as the inconvenience of having to negotiate different legal systems and currencies. This is why the European peoples have had little say in their countries' integration into a European supranational state - the European Union. Is pandering to multinationals 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'?

Law and Order

The BNP is, of course, in favour of the restitution of capital and corporal punishment. Now this is widely considered to be 'right-wing', yet China executes more criminals than any other other country, yet is ostensibly Communist! The old pre-war Labour Party was not committed to abolishing hanging, either, yet it would be considered a proper 'left-wing' party by most people, unlike New Labour.


Personally, I feel that the terms 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' are antiquated and simply not applicable to modern politics. Take, for example, the English Defence League, who are also castigated by the media as being 'far-right' - despite the fact they have Sikh, Jewish and gay 'divisions'. Excluding their opposition to Islamic extremism, they are exponents of multiculturalism. Yet, if one looks at extremist Islamic societies like Somalia, in which a teenage rape victim was stoned to death for adultery, one has to wonder why opposition to such an illiberal ideology is considered 'far-right'? The answer is that it is simply a slur used to stigmatise those groups that are a threat to the status quo.