8th December 15
In this article the term “infrastructure” has a very broad meaning and besides physical assets, such as roads, buildings and machinery, is taken to include knowledge, skills and traditions.
Some infrastructure is owned by the state, some by companies and some, like knowledge and skills, are in free circulation.
Every baby born in the United Kingdom automatically takes a share of the UK infrastructure. This is entirely separate from any inheritance that the child gets from its parents or relations.
It is not possible to put a monetary figure for the value of the United Kingdom infrastructure, particularly when the non-physical assets are to be included. However, the figure must be very large – or was.
Over the last 40 years or so, the UK Governments have sold off many of the country’s basic assets and these assets are now in the hands of foreigners, such as French, German and Chinese companies. UK citizens no longer have a share in the companies that, for example, supply water and gas. Citizens are being forced to pay for facilities that they once owned. Where did the money go that was raised by selling the citizens’ assets?
It is a matter of opinion what should be owned publicly. On this point nationalists differ from the internationalists. Nationalists believe that the main utilities and services, such as, hospitals and railways should be publicly owned.
Young people should be provided with homes and not have to buy properties via a crippling mortgage.
It needs to be pointed out that foreigners coming to settle (we hope temporarily) in the UK get all the benefits of UK infrastructure but bring nothing with them. This means that they are taking a share of the infrastructure that rightly belongs to genuine UK citizens.
It should be noted that this matter is entirely separate from the damage done by these foreigners to our traditional way of life and possible future genetic damage.
16th June 15
‘ETHNICS' = INVADERS
Ethnics* now make up one third of primary school intake, yet UN Commissar says the United kingdom must take in even more migrants.
Peter Sutherland, the UN’s unelected special representative on international migration, says that Britain must take in more migrants fleeing from the conflict in Syria and the Middle East. Sutherland, who is also chairman of Goldman Sachs and a member the Bilderberg Group steering committee, additionally berated the UK government for not extolling, even more than usual, the ‘benefits’ of immigration.
Three years ago he infamously declared that, “the EU should do its best to undermine the homogeneity of its member states”, and that the future success of Europe depended on it becoming multicultural.
Sutherland is a former Attorney General of Ireland, a former Director General of the WTO (World Trade Organisation), and a former member of the European Commission. He is also chairman of the LSE (London School of Economics).
Meanwhile, the Department of Education has just published its schools census report. This shows that primary school pupils from ethnic minorities now make up 30.4% of the total intake. In the inner London boroughs the figure is 81%, and is highest of all in Newham where it reaches a staggering 94%.
The number of children in primary schools increased by 94,000 this year, of which 71% was attributable to ethnic minorities.
Nationalists have long maintained that mass immigration has not come about through accident or incompetence. The global elite have long sought to abolish nations and mix up races to fit in with its one world agenda. Sutherland is one of its creatures.
*This is an example of the use of an innocuous word by our Nation's enemies instead of the proper, accurate word = FOREIGNERS. There are many such of these euphemisms, examples are: immigrant, asylum seeker, refugee. These words are used to hide the fact that the Country is being invaded.
11th January 2015
HUMBUG, HYPOCRISY & CANT
OUR VERDICT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT REACTION TO THE SHOOTINGS IN FRANCE
The shootings in France by Moslem fanatics have left at least 17 dead.
The response of the Establishment - on both sides of the Channel - to these shocking events has been all too predictable; they simply cannot, or will not, accept that what happened in Paris was the inevitable by-product of decades of mass immigration, multi-culturalism and political correctness, which has fragmented our society and rendered it dysfunctional. The whole exacerbated by the bombing of Molsem countries.
And to add insult to injury, the politicians appear more concerned about an impending ‘Islamophobic’ backlash than in protecting the public. With bombs on trains and buses, beheadings of soldiers, and now this, the public have something to be ‘Islamophobic’ about!
Charlie Hebdo is – or was – a left wing satirical magazine, a sort of French version of Private Eye. It claimed to be anti-Establishment, but in reality it was one part of the Establishment slagging off another.
The Bolshevik literati that composed its writers and cartoonists endorsed mass immigration, multi-culturalism and anti-White racism. They were spoilt brats who enjoyed special favours and protection. How ironic then that they should have been gunned down by Moslem fanatics.
We wondered how much toleration they would have got had they lampooned and ridiculed Jews in the same vituperative way as they had Moslems; or had they – Heaven forbid – poked fun at the most sacred political holy cow of them all – namely the “Holocaust”.
Very little, we suspect.
And had the gunmen stormed into the HQ of the Front National and mown down its leaders in cold blood, would they have got the same gushing effusions of sympathy from the political elite as the staff of Charlie Hebdo? Would Cameron be jetting over for Le Pen’s funeral?
What this all demonstrates is the sheer hypocrisy of the liberal elite – be they politicians or journalists. The fact is, freedom of speech is even more savagely curtailed in France than it is in Britain. ‘Holocaust denial’ there could land you in gaol, and French ‘hate’ laws are some of the most oppressive found anywhere.
Nowadays, there’s only freedom of speech if you believe in what 'liberals' believe in. If not, you’re a modern day heretic and must expect instant denouncement and excommunication.
That’s the reality of ‘free speech’ today.
16th October 2014
UKIP: A flash in the pan?
There are two ways of looking at the recent UKIP by-election breakthrough: The good news is that the Establishment parties got a sound and well-deserved kicking; it shows that an outside party can get candidates elected despite the first-past-the-post system; also, that the electorate can no longer taken for granted and herded into the same old sheep pens.
The bad news, however, is that UKIP is a political dead end going nowhere. Despite all its populist rhetoric, UKIP is just another Establishment party – albeit masquerading as an anti-Establishment one -bankrolled by Establishment money and given maximum exposure by the Establishment media. We now learn that the red carpet is to be rolled out so that Nigel Farage can go head-to-head with the other party leaders at election time. What next?
UKIP is more Tory than the Tories and more Thatcherite than Thatcher. It is led by City slickers, opportunists and egotists, who have no ideology, no agenda and no principles. One should always be suspicious of 40/50/60 year olds who suddenly ‘discover’ that immigration is a ‘problem’. It begs the obvious question - what where these individuals been doing previously? Supporting the very politicians who caused the problem in the first place! That’s what!
The National Front – and it forebears – opposed mass immigration right from the start in 1948, and the EU likewise since 1973. But UKIPers – who previously backed Heath, Thatcher & Major –have cynically jumped on the anti-immigration bandwagon to exploit the issue for their own personal advantage. They are political parasites of the worst sort.
UKIP won’t repatriate a single immigrant, and actually favours MORE not less immigration. How many UKIP voters know that? The truth is that UKIP is a pseudo-nationalist outfit whose primary function is to neuter and neutralise nationalism and divert support away from REAL nationalist groups like the National Front. It’s what the late John Tyndall would have described as ‘controlled opposition’.
One good thing to say about UKIP though is that immigration is now firmly on the political agenda. However, it has raised expectations that it simply can’t possibly deliver: As UKIP goes from strength to strength it will come under increasing pressure to ‘moderate’ its already wishy-washy moderate policies. UKIPers will wriggle about like worms in a can to demonstrate how ‘non racist’ and ‘anti-racist’ they are, etc, especially as ‘respectability’ is more important to these weaklings than anything else. At the same time, many of their supporters will discover they have been short -changed; they are likely to be very angry and will be looking round for a REAL nationalist party to support.
The National Front is a real nationalist party!
Meanwhile, we have to be patient and let events unfold at their own pace. The UKIP circus is currently in full swing and we have to wait till the curtain comes down on the last act. Hopefully, that won’t be too long, as the pseudo-nationalist stage has to come and go before real nationalism is recognised and flourishes.
When that day eventually dawns, it will wipe away the fatuous grin from Farage’s face. UKIP may steal the show today but its act will be short lived.
12th September 2014
Taxation – Children and the “The three child rule”.
(This article, besides its specific point, illustrates the difference between duty to one’s self and family, and one’s ultimate duty to the nation: that is for a man to be a soldier in defence of the Nation and for a woman to be a mother and thus ensure the continuance of the Nation. This is in stark contrast to LibLabCon policy of encouraging people to just think of 'self' without regard to the effect on the Nation.)
For a nation, it’s axiomatic that over any period of time the number of newborn children must, at least, equal the number of deaths if the nation is to survive. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the UK and the strength of our Nation is rapidly decreasing.
It has been calculated that each married couple needs to have 2.4 children if the nation is to remain at its current size. In practice this gives rise to the “Three child rule”.
Each newborn child should automatically benefit from the infrastructure of the UK and the accumulated knowledge and skills of its ancestors. (The invading foreigners also benefit from this infrastructure but bring nothing). An important part of the infrastructure is housing. The sole reason for the housing shortage is that foreigners are inhabiting houses that should go to members of our Nation. Over the last 25 years, governments have sold off much of the publicly owned infrastructure into private hands and also taken on a huge public debt. Further under the current system of taxation, married couples pay tax on virtually an equal basis to the unmarried and the childless. The heavy burden of taxation on the young means that marriage and the ‘production’ of children are severely inhibited. In fact, it is probably only strong instinct rather than logic that today makes for marriage and children.
The current system is rapidly leading to a crisis. There are now too few children to support the massive number of retirees and the massive and growing public debt.
The following is an outline of a policy that could reverse this situation.
The weight of taxation will be moved from the young to the old and to the non-breeders.
Each newly married couple will receive a loan from the state that will enable them to buy a house. Note this is unlike the ‘Council House’ system as the couple would own their house and the scheme would be open to all citizens. The loan would be interest free and repayable on death of the couple.
Unmarried people and people in later life would be subject to increased taxation and death duties would increase markedly.
The above system allows couples to marry much younger than at present (our fathers and mothers married in their early twenties, now it is frequent for marriage to be postponed until the thirties). Couples would not have their life dominated by the need to save for, and then service, a mortgage. Money would be available to bring up children and for a decent social life.
Conversely, ‘unmarrieds’ would pay markedly increased taxes to compensate for their inability (or perhaps selfishness) that prevents them having children.
19th August 14.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our Head of State made a similar speech!
President Vladimir Putin declared: Russians need to engage, but have no confrontation with wider world.
Russians must consolidate and develop their country, neither sliding into isolationism nor sacrificing their dignity for the sake of pleasing anyone.
“We have to develop our country with calm, dignity and efficiency, without barricading ourselves from the outer world or breaking ties with partners, but also without allowing anyone to treat us with disrespect,” he told Russian MPs in Yalta, Crimea.
He called on a consolidation of the people, “not for the sake of any wars or conflict,” but “for an industrious labor force for Russia and in Russia's name.”
Whatever the foreign relations of Russia are, “our focus now is on domestic affairs, on the goals and tasks which the people of Russia challenge us with,” he added.
This abbreviated article taken from Russia Today.
4th June 14.
Analysis: UKIPism is Globalism masquerading as Nationalism.
Now the dust has finally settled, it’s time to take stock of the recent election results.
The only surprising thing about UKIP’s strong showing is that anyone should have found it surprising at all: Nigel Farage, the Establishment’s pet Nationalist, has been wined, dined and given free, unlimited media coverage by the very liberal elite he purports to despise! Farage is not even a civic Nationalist; he is a reactionary right-wing Tory who hero worships the late Mrs T. He is a populist without an ideology or an agenda, and his stance is entirely a reactive, not a proactive one.
Farage’s comments on welcoming immigrants and stopping the BNP are a matter of public record. While REAL nationalists have opposed the EU from the very start, UKIPers have jumped on a bandwagon set in motion by the hard work of others. Likewise, they have cynically milked the anti-immigration card for all it’s worth (having never raised the subject previously). UKIP is a political magpie; it steals the slogans and policies of long-founded Nationalist parties then reaps rewards it doesn’t deserve.
UKIP would take us out of the EU frying pan only to throw us into the Globalist fire; the only antidote to Internationalism is Nationalism – not another form of Internationalism. UKIPism is Globalism masquerading as Nationalism; it’s just a more subtle and less obvious form (albeit one cloaked in pseudo-Nationalist rhetoric).
The only good thing to be said about UKIP is that the party is preferable to the other three.
What these results do prove, however, is the enormous potential that exists out there for REAL Nationalists to tap into – if only they can get their act together. UKIP only triumphed because we failed. It shows that an independent party can ‘break the mould’, even with the first past the post system.
However, UKIP has raised expectations that it cannot possibly deliver: Millions of UKIP voters have been conned into thinking the party ‘will do something about immigration’, but they are going to be bitterly disappointed – and angry - when this fails to materialise. That presents REAL Nationalists with a great opportunity to stage a come back; something we must prepare for.
In the past, Nationalist leaders won public support only to lose it subsequently because they lost their nerve and backtracked on core beliefs. That is a mistake which must not happen again.
Stopping/curbing immigration is no longer enough; the process has to be reversed if Britain is to remain a British nation. Our national survival demands nothing less; there is no other option. That’s the central message which needs ramming home. However, it’s a point that neither UKIP, nor the BNP, will accept.
Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy the fun: Cowardly UKIP will capitulate and crumble as it comes under ever increasing pressure from the liberal elite to demonstrate how politically-correct it is; UKIPers will bend over backwards, perform somersaults and jump through every kind of hoop just to prove how ‘anti-racist’ they are, and how much they much they abhor ‘racists’ and ‘racism’ of all kinds, etc. They will be bullied into accepting multiculturalism – which they don’t want anymore than anyone else - because they simply haven’t got the backbone to stand up to the forces promoting it.
When the UKIP bubble finally bursts – and burst it inevitably will – the NF, with its policy of phased, humane repatriation, must be around to win over their disaffected and disillusioned supporters; UKIP’s demise could turn out to be our salvation.
17th March 14
Uncompromising, vigorous and determined.
The National Front is just one of many parties calling themselves, ‘nationalist’. Why are there many parties? Why don’t they amalgamate? Why isn’t one party successful at the expense of the others?
There are several reasons:
1. There have been a series of ineffective, and/or crooked, leaders.
2. Following on this there has been no attempt at setting up a proper administrative structure.
3. Worst of all there has been no understanding of the basic reason for our belief in ‘nationalism’. It is belonging to a successful nation that ensures our day-to-day survival and that of our families. (Note the concept of our children inheriting the country is not the primary reason for being a nationalist.)
4. There is a complete failure to understand the forces trying to destroy our nation. For the purposes of this article it doesn’t matter whether you call these forces, ‘communism’, Judaism, Molochism, or any other ism. The aim of our enemy is simply to destroy us step by step. Everything is done by the enemy to weaken our nation whether physically or morally.
It is hard for a normal healthy mind to understand that the enemy ‘worships’ death, destruction and perversion. Our enemy’s mind works in the opposite way to that of a normal person.
Returning to the current UK situation, it does not seem to be quite understood how skilled the enemy are in the use of words and argument. Consequently, one of the weaknesses of nationalists is that they have been lured into believing that they are in some way ‘extreme’ and that to counter the enemy some of whom describe themselves as ‘left-wing’ that they must therefore be ‘right-wing’.
Again, it is a particular strategy of the enemy that he engineers situations whereby one faction, or side is set against another in such a way that the strength of that body is dissipated. Catholics v Protestants weakening the Christian church; Conservatives v Labour both running the country down; young v old, men v women and so on. Currently, a very good example is that of Sunni Moslems fighting Shia Moslems in Syria and Iraq resulting in plenty of death, destruction and misery.
So much damage has been done to our nation that much requires to be put right, however, this does not imply extremism. We should say, for example, ‘We are uncompromising in our belief that humane repatriation is the only solution’, or ‘We will vigorously rebuild the moral stature of our nation’. We are determined bring back our traditional laws.
It is absolutely essential that nationalists henceforth understand that they are normal and balanced and that they should promote themselves as such. Terms such as ‘radical’ and ‘extreme right-wing’ should be rigorously weeded out from nationalist literature and speech. Nationalists should complain if the media use these terms. It is normal and balanced to react strongly when attacked!
How does the above bring the many parts of the nationalist movement together and make one effective whole?
Let’s look at two extreme examples! We have one or more groups that are fascinated by the National Socialist doctrines of the NSDAP. We have another group that believes that we cannot repatriate the foreigners who have been born in the UK.
To the first group I would say that they must understand that in the thirties, by and large, national socialist doctrines were just used as a way to get into power. Once in power, national socialism morphed into a military dictatorship that eventually ruined the German nation. So by all means study national socialism but do so with the clear understanding that UK nationalism will not lead to militarism.
To the second, mentally weak, group I would say quite simply that all foreigners must leave the country. If they remain in our country, it is no longer our country. This group must overcome its weakness and become mentally tough.
Both groups need to learn that if they are really nationalists that they need to work together. This is what nationalism is about. It is about working together even when the individual has no immediate benefit from the association.
We in the National Front can have no illusion that there will be a sudden amalgamation but what we can do is to intensify our efforts on items 2,3 and 4 above. We can do this now.
(Item 1, of course, will then solve itself.)
Please note that the above does not propose any change to the political programme. What is proposed is a dramatic change in presentation and attitude.
Mentally tough, determined and uncompromising.
2nd January 2014
“A long and happy retirement.”
This article is particularly “avant guard” and must not be taken as an indication of current practical nationalist policy. The reason for this article is to ask the question, “What is the purpose to the nation of retirees?” This is a question ignored in our current society.
There is an underlying belief in today’s society that there is an entitlement to ‘a long and happy retirement’. But, of course, there is no basis for this supposition, which can be regarded as a secular version of the Christian concept of going to heaven for eternal life. Be a good Christian and the reward is eternal life. Be a good worker and the reward is a long and happy retirement.
What benefit does the nation get from supporting retirees who give nothing to the nation but take the nation’s resources?
Here is the dilemma! What is good for the individual is not good for the nation.
How should this dilemma be solved or at least mitigated?
15th October 2013
"Our children’s children" - "14 words" - "Survival of White Children".
These expressions are often regarded as the ultimate, or rather the principal nationalist aim. But are they?
The expression "14 words" comes from the USA. What does "white" mean to an American? Northern European? Southern European? Hispanic? Mexican?
What does "white" mean to a UK nationalist? Perhaps it means German, or Norwegian but definitely not southern Europeans, Bosnians, Ukrainians.
By emphasising the aim of the survival of one’s descendents to inherit our land, the real immediate aim of nationalists is lost.
The immediate purpose of nationalists is their and their families’ survival NOW. Without parents there would be no children!
What should be emphasised is the extreme fragility of our society, and the fact that without the support of our fellow countrymen, we would rapidly die. Put another way, we cannot exist as individuals. We are animals that need to operate in a group to survive and the nation is the minimum group that can support our very complicated lifestyle.
An individual, therefore, has a duty to the nation. That duty may, in fact, work against his or her individual benefit. Two examples are: a soldier fighting to protect the nation and a woman spending part of her life tending children.
A person that only takes the benefits of the nation and gives nothing in return is a ‘spiv’.
A nation is very like a living organism, in that parts are growing, parts are functioning and parts are dying. Consequently, anything that inhibits this natural state of affairs must be seen to be wrong.
6th September 2013.
The War of Words: Societalism and Molochism.
The meaning of words can drift with time, or be deliberately distorted.
Socialism should merely mean the relationship between the individuals within groups of people without any political inference. This is the meaning Nationalists understand. That is the individual members of the nation are reliant on the services provided by the other members of the nation for their well being and very survival.
However the word “Socialism” has been, on one hand, hijacked by the Marxists of the Labour Party, and the other, used by the military dictatorship of Hitler in “National Socialism”. The word Socialism is thus tainted.
Anthropologists have coined the word “Societalism” to describe the interaction of members of a nation or group devoid of any political meaning. Perhaps, therefore, UK nationalists should describe themselves as “National Societalists”.
To nationalists, and indeed, probably the majority of people, it is a puzzle why certain politicians and groups seem to have urge to destroy normal moral rules, promote perversion, death and destruction. It is as if they have become acolytes of an anti-religion. Consequently, they can accurately be described as “Molochists” and their philosophy as “Molochism”. (Moloch was the Biblical god who devoured his children.)
8th August 2013.
Defence of the Realm – He hadn’t the faintest idea.
General Sir David Richards has just retired as the Chief of Defence Staff, that is the most senior professional military person in our Armed Forces.
The following quotation is taken from the Daily Telegraph*.
‘I see myself as a moral soldier. I do not associate the military with wars and bloodshed in a narrow sense. I actually associate the military with doing good, with bringing down tyrants, with releasing people’s ambitions for their children’.
The following is from a leaflet issued by Kent Nationalist in 1988:
What are the Armed Forces for? Surely they there to defend us - the people of the United Kingdom - our territory, or a combination of both?
If this is so then, since 1945, our Armed forces have failed in their task. Over 10 million foreigners have invaded these islands and now the government is surrendering our nationhood to the 'Common Market" without a word from the Armed Forces let alone a shot being fired!
The Armed Forces have sunk into being little more than a job club for a few thousand 'professionals' who fight the occasional foreign war to suit the interests of the reigning party at Westminster. Army officers, for example, seem more concerned with the loss of regimental identity than with the fundamental question of national defence.
If the UK were attacked today, the Armed Forces could not defend this country effectively, as the civilian population has no shelter and would not know what to do in an emergency. Nor has it the training and equipment to resupply the fighting man, or to rebuild after attack. Worst of all, much of the population does not have the will to win.
Currently defence policy is decided by a party political minister in Parliament, (At this time, the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, Con.) who only holds the position for a short time, and usually decides defence policy for the short term benefit of his party, rather than the long term benefit of the Nation.
The Armed Forces must see themselves as a 'Great National Institution' ranking in importance alongside Parliament and the Judiciary. As the 'Great National Institution' concerned with defence, they must take the lead in initiating and promoting public debate concerning the proper defence of the United Kingdom.
We would hope that the incoming Chief of Staff had a better idea of the job, but as the Chief of the Defence Staff is not appointed by the military, but by the Queen on the Prime Minster’s recommendation, it is very unlikely!
*Daily Telegraph 18th July 2013
19th July 2013
Britain needs 7 MILLION more immigrants* over the next 50 years says OBR.
An Establishment report – from the Office of Budget Responsibility§ –argues we need to bring in 140,000 immigrants every year over the next five decades to pay for Britain’s ageing population.
We’ve heard these arguments umpteen times before, and they are totally bogus. Leaving aside the fact that we already have millions of British workers on the dole, whose prospects of obtaining work would be diminished even further by the competition of the immigrants, it begs the obvious question of who will support these immigrants when they become old themselves? By bringing in yet more immigrants, presumably? Who in turn will need supporting by another lot of immigrants when their time is due... and so on.
You might be forgiven for thinking this was the economics of the madhouse. However, it’s nothing to do with economics at all, but everything to do with politics. Mass immigration is being used by the ruling liberal elites to transform white nations into non white ones, and to replace western culture with a non western one.
And for no other reason.
There’s no economic or any other case for immigration, and for politicians and ‘experts’ to say so is a provocation and an insult to the intelligence of the British people. Especially in the current economic climate.
What it all shows, however, is the lengths to which the Establishment – the three main parties (LibLabCon) the media, the City of London, etc – will go to in imposing their New World Order. Globalisation requires the destruction of ethnically homogeneous self governing states like the United Kingdom, and history shows that mass migration is a far more effective method for achieving this than military occupation.
Publication of this report blows sky high all government talk about curbing immigration. The civil servants have let the cat out of the bag. For that we should at least be grateful.
The blatant anti-British bias of the Report can be summed up in the following single sentence: ‘It seems probable that immigrants will make a more positive contribution to the UK public finances over their lifetimes than natives.’
If any other ethnic group had been maligned in this fashion the authors would have been prosecuted by the Race Gestapo.
§Fiscal sustainability report - July 2013.
*(Editor’s note. "Immigrant" is the word used by LibLabCon who want these people to stay permanently in the UK. Nationalists see these people not as immigrants but as FOREIGN INVADERS.)
19th June 2013.
Open letter to Tory Party Constituency Chairmen.
With a General Election gradually creeping up, now is the time that you will be considering selecting, or reselecting your candidate. Many of you will pretend to your members that you have a free choice to select as a candidate someone who will fearlessly vote for the good of the constituency.
However, you know, or should know, that by law, since the passing of the Elections and Referendums Act 2000 setting up the Electoral Commission, no-one can stand for a political party without the endorsement of that party’s nominating officer. The nominating officer must be registered with the Electoral Commission. The Tory Party nominating officer will not endorse a candidate unless that candidate has been approved by Central Office. Part of the approval process involves the potential candidate agreeing to obey the Party whip on all occasions.
The consequence of the above process is that, in effect, a local association is just selecting a ‘dummy’ who will sit in a bar at Westminster until called upon to vote as the whips direct.
One of the most striking examples of the effect of this was when the Tory Party as a whole voted for David Davis (An Englishman with proven all round ability) to lead the Party but the Parliamentary Party voted for the non-entity, David Cameron, whose sole qualification for the job appears to be that he is complaisant with the wishes of the shadowy anti-British people who control the Tory Party and also as he is descended from a Jewish banker he fits in with the likes of Miliband and Bercow.
Nationalists defeat this pernicious system by making the rule that their nominating officer must endorse the local choice. In effect, a nationalist candidate is an independent candidate, who acts as a representative of his constituents and votes as they direct, rather than a delegate, who votes as he personally thinks fit, or as directed by the whips.
18th May 2013
Shocking Admission by ex-Labour Minister – ‘Immigrant invasion’ was planned.
‘Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work,’ the Mail Online reports (14 May 13).
- Former cabinet minister, Peter Mandelson, admits Labour deliberately engineered mass immigration.
- Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain totalled 2.2million.
Mandelson’s comments confirm remarks made three years ago by leading Blair adviser, Andrew Neather, (but repeatedly denied by Labour politicians), that
‘...there was a driving political purpose. Mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multi-racial ... and to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.’
Nationalists have long maintained that mass immigration has not come about through accident or incompetence - there had to be an ulterior motive. If you want to destroy a country, the best way to do it is to replace the indigenous population with another one. Here is the proof at last. We have been vindicated. What further evidence is needed?
The Mail was probably too polite (or timid) to add that Mandelson is (a) Jewish, (b) homosexual & (c) an ex Communist Party organiser - and what else?
Source: Mail Online, Tuesday, 14 May 2013
(Editor’s note. “Immigrant” is the word used by LibLabCon who want these people to stay permanently in the UK. Nationalists see these people not as immigrants but as FOREIGN INVADERS.)
19th April 2013
Why can’t we talk about Racial Nationalism?
The following is an extract from a longer article.
The longer article can been seen at: LINK
“However, the idea of Racial Nationalism seems to be well founded and is supported by science. Defence of one’s homeland and concern that the individuals of the nation remain healthy and happy are normal reasonable human desires. It was the perversion by Hitler of this ideal, and the use he made of it to run a warlike totalitarian state, that has for the last 70 years prevented the discussion of Racial Nationalism and its promotion.”
9th April 13
Mrs Thatcher – Brilliant Actress.
Mrs Thatcher was MP for Finchley, which probably says it all. John Tyndall’s witticism was that she was an “honorary Jewess”.
Mrs Thatcher made a great pretence of being patriotic but was she?
Her favourite remark was: “I tell you most sincerely,” said with fluttering eyelids and slightly inclined head when in fact she was telling an enormous whopper.
Mrs Thatcher won the 1979 general election by pretending to sympathise with people who thought the country was being swamped with foreigners. However, as soon as she was safely elected, she allowed in the Hong Kong Chinese and the invading flood continued unchecked.
It was Mrs Thatcher’s governments that started selling off the country’s assets, for example, Telephones, BP, Water and Gas. This gave an illusory boost to the budget. (Now these assets are mainly foreign owned and we are paying interest on these squandered assets.) (Harold MacMillan likened it to “Selling the family silver”.)
Mrs Thatcher destroyed the coal industry so that we now have to import gas to run our power stations.
It was during the so-called patriotic Mrs Thatcher’s government that the Single European Act was passed, which was the key to the hand over of power from our Parliament at Westminster to the European Union.
Mrs Thatcher was indeed a brilliant actress who managed all of the above whilst fooling many of the electorate that she was a patriot.
Since Mrs Thatcher, the ‘Finchleyisation’ of the Tory party has continued so that we now have a Prime Minister who is descended from a Jewish banker and 80% of Tory MPs are “Friends of Israel”.
The Tory Party is controlled by a foreign power.