Monday, 25 August 2008

A denial of greatness

The number 2012 bus rolled into the Bird's Nest stadium in Beijing and out pored a ramshackle group of people, of varying shades and ethnicities, who proceeded to perform what appeared to be a waddling dance, whilst pretending to wave their rolled umbrellas at the bus. All the diversity quota selected figures from a Common purpose wet dream were there, a black man with dreadlocks, an a Asian in one type of turban and a black woman in another type, hers in a shade of canary yellow only seen on women recently arrived from Lagos, and usually at the front of an NHS queue.

Amongst them were a smattering of white people, but they were clearly there merely to make up the ethnic mix rather than as a representation of the historic, native, population of London, a group whom the Guardianista approved organisers seemed almost embarrassed to acknowledge.

The requisitely diverse dancers were then replaced by a mixed race girl who won the X-factor and went on to have some hits in the USA, who, together with an ageing rocker sang a sanitised version of “Whole Lotta Love”. This was supposed to represent London as we inherit the Olympic torch.

After the show with which the Chinese had just entertained the world, the British performance at the Olympic handover ceremony was cringingly embarrassing, not even redeemed by the village hall amateurishness of its effect, as the politically correct message was obviously deliberate.

The only respite from the grinding awfulness of the show came in the beautiful, if androgynous, form of the worlds second most famous living Briton, David Beckham, who obediently kicked a ball into the politely applauding if perplexed audience. Never was the Essex born Adonis's habitual expression of self effacing embarrassment so fitting, and no doubt so widely shared.

Was that the best we could do? Was that how London, for centuries the greatest city on earth, is now to be portrayed, is it how we, who live here want our city to be portrayed, indeed, as London is the capital of our nation, is that how we, the British, want our nation to be portrayed. Is that really how we want the world to think of us?

It was certainly how the politically correct guardians of our image wish to portray us, in their self hating desire to reinvent everything that was once viewed as British. Who can doubt that at the centre of planning for what one is reluctant to refer to as the "show", was a desire to flick a large 'V' sign at British history, because certainly there was no evidence of British history, or indeed London's history on show in Beijing on Saturday.

What does it say about us as a country? More importantly what future has a nation which has rejected its past?

What was the purpose of Saturday's excruciating performance? Will it attract visitors to Britain? Will it attract investment? I doubt it

Do tourists come to Britain to “embrace our multicultural society” or do they come in search of our heritage and our history.

Apart from the relatively small number who come here for that noisy, crime infested and overcrowded street party going on this weekend, overwhelmingly they come for the later and not the former.

They come looking for a London steeped in white European history, a London of palaces and Christian churches, of Shakespeare's Globe, Tower bridge and a living story richer than almost any other city on Earth. They come to the city which houses the mother of parliaments, the essential birthplace of democracy and the form of law most widely adopted throughout the world.

People from across the word come to visit that capital of a nation from which more that is good and noble and more which has benefited mankind has flowed than any other. They came to the land which was the leader in bringing an end to an international slave trade which had existed for millennia, a land from which was responsible for more advances in medicine, science and human knowledge than almost any other, and to experience a culture which has had more impact on the world than any other, overwhelmingly for the good.

London as a city in its own right and as the capital of our great has given great things to the world, and it is a travesty that the real London was not celebrated this weekend. Gangsta rap and zoo nation do not represent London, they do not represent Britain, they are symbols of what is being done to us, but not of what we are.

Saturday, 23 August 2008

Publicising Paedophilia

As the world's most famous living convicted paedophile Paul Gad, a.k.a the ex-pop star Gary Glitter was pursued by the world's media across half of Asia. At times the cameras focused on his face in such close up, one could almost count the unhappy one time singer's nasal hairs. There is little chance of the press attention letting up, and we can be sure that the faded star's every movement will make newspaper headlines for weeks to come.

The flashbulb frenzy which accompanied Gad's appearances at airports from Vietnam to Bangkok, Hong Kong and finally Heathrow, threw into sharp focus those paedophiles whose activities the press choose to publicise and those they do not.

Some may claim that that Gad's one time celebrity status was responsible for the level of media attention, which clearly is true to a degree, but many otherwise obscure individuals with no famous past will find their faces plastered across the front pages and TV news stories if they are exposed as a paedophile.

In fact, paedophiles do not have to be one time celebrities for their mugshots to head up the evening news, what they do have to be, however, is white.

According to the press reports Paul Gad went to an Asian country and sought out under aged indigenous girls for sex, and as a result it became a major international news story. However, when large numbers of Asian men in British cities and target under aged indigenous girl for sex the news media falls silent.

As we have seen before with the young white boys who are falling unreported victim to the imported crime waves on our streets, the sacrifice of our young girls is also going on beneath the press radar. If the victim is white and the predator is not, it is not news, no matter how young and vulnerable the victim may be.

To kill the killers?

Reading the reports from Boise Idaho whilst the jury deliberate on the fate of convicted paedophile and child murderer Joseph Duncan III, I suspect that most of us, were we to find ourselves on that jury would find it hard not to vote for his execution. The details of the crime are truly horrific. Having bludgeoned their mother, prospective step father and 13 year elder brother to death, Duncan kidnapped two young children and subjected them to weeks of torture and sexual abuse, culminating in the torture and murder of the 9 year old boy in front if his eight year old sister.

The court were left in little doubt of Duncan's guilt, as he had filmed much of the abuse, including scenes of extreme violence where he had screamed at his young victims that he was the devil and that he enjoyed seeing little children suffer.

As the film was played to the weeping jury who are charges with deciding whether he should die, or spend the rest of his life in prison, I suspect that there is little doubt as to what their final verdict will be. However, irrespective of the actual outcome, it is hard to imagine what possible benefit society will gain from keeping someone like Joseph Duncan alive any longer that it takes to ensure that he is made fully aware that he is going to die and that he is going to Hell.

Of course, many would argue Joseph Duncan III is not the example one should consider when judging the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, for he is a man who is unquestionably guilty, and self evidently evil. In the wider context, only a minority of killers fit the monster costume quite so snugly.

There are many reasons why people kill, none are forgivable, but not all killers are as irredeemably damned as Joseph Duncan.

I have long been ambivalent as to the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, not only for the reasons most often given in its opposition, namely the fact that innocent people have been convicted and indeed executed.but also, because I doubt it's effectiveness as a deterrent.

Certainly from my own point of view, were I to be convicted of murder I would consider death only slightly less attractive than spending the rest of my life in prison.

I speak there as a woman, but, were I a man, and looking at the type of existence I would face in a male prison, especially in America , I have little doubt that death would seem a far kinder option.

Another argument against the death penalty is that it is one of those decisions which should never be left to a politician or made for crowd pleasing reasons. America has the death penalty today because of politicians who pandered to public opinion and many believe that if the British public had their way the hangman would be back in business.

However, who would they hang?

Consider for a moment the opinion much of the British public have of Maxine Carr, a woman, in fact guilty only of giving the man she loved, and wrongly believed innocent, a false alibi. However, in the mind of the many, unable to see beyond the image of the two children her lover killed, Carr has become a monster often spoken of in the same breath as Rose West and Myra Hindley.

Were her fate to be left to the Madame Defarges in the public galery it would not be a happy one.

Maxine Carer killed nobody, but what of others who did? Should public opinion have been allowed to decide the fate of the children who tortured and murdered the Liverpool toddler Jamie Bulger? How many could step back from the horror of that killing and see the killers for what they were, two ten year old boys, evil and demonic ten year old boys but ten year old boys all the same.

As the killers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, were taken to court crowds attacked the police vans, and one has to wonder what would have happened had the mob got their hands on those children.

Politics, race and news management play a large part in how we view criminals, it is claimed that in the past black people were likely to be punished more severely for their crimes to placate public opinion. If that is so, then one must condemn it for no life should be taken to satisfy a prejudice. However, one only has to look at the yelling politically motivated crowds mobbing the courts in Philadelphia where three white boys are accused of killing a Hispanic paedophile (whom the US press refuse to call a paedophile on account of his race) or those who picketed North Carolina's Duke University after false rape claims were made against three Lacrosse players in 2006, to know that racist mob justice comes in many shades in the 21st Century.

As society, we must never allow the law of the mob to decide what is justice.

Thou shalt not kill states the commandment and we can not change that by pretending it said “Thou shall not commit murder”. Death is final, and once a man has been executed he can not be brought back to life, mistakes can not be put right.

However, for all my good intentions and all my right sounding words, I look at the picture of Joseph Duncan and that of the 9 year old boy he hung by the neck, whilst beating him with a belt, before “accidentally” eviscerating him, then shooting him in the head and burning his battered little body in front of the child's younger sister, and find it hard to believe a civilised society could keep such a creature alive.

In Britain, Zeeshan Shahid, Imran Shahid and Mohammed Mushtaq, the men who kidnapped and tortured 14 year Kriss Donald before setting him on fire whilst he was still alive remain in prison, fed, clothed and sheltered by the tax payers, still able to see and touch family members in a way that Kriss's mother can not see or touch the son they stole from her. What benefit does society gain from the many thousands already spent, and many more still to be spent in keeping them alive?

If the Tennessee eventually summon up the courage to try those accused of the rape, torture and murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian and if they are found to have done what they are alleged to have done to those two young people, would it be justice to let them live?

I can ask myself these questions in the face of my fine words, but can only answer, I don't know.

Monday, 11 August 2008

Appeal For The 'Heretical Two'

As readers may recall, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle, the 'Heretical Two' are currently in custody in California after appealing for political asylum in the USA.

Their legal team in the UK's main concern at present is to organise an appeal for funds in Britain. Full details of which are published today at the Home of the Green Arrow

I am sure that many will regard this as none of their business, or may feel uncomfortable in supporting people who have been convicted by a court of law. However, we should not forget that Sheppard and Whittle's crime was to express an opinion, in writing on their "heretical" internet site.

In Britain that can be a criminal offense, surely that can not be right.

For that fact alone, I believe these men deserve our support, for without free speech there is no freedom.

Even those who strongly oppose what the Heretical two wrote must surely be concerned by the blanket press silence about this case, it is now almost a month since Sheppard and Whittle fled the country, and since then the only press report I am aware of was in the Yorkshire Post on July 16.

Why? surely the fact that British citizens have applied for asylum to Britain's closest ally is a newsworthy story? Yet, this story is being totally suppressed in both the US and UK media, That form of media censorship is political and it is not something which should happen in a democracy.

The fact that it is happening is something which all of us, whatever our political affiliations, should find very frightening.
‘The enemy of subversive thought is not suppression, but publication: truth has no need to fear the light of day; fallacies wither under it. The unpopular views of today are the commonplaces of tomorrow, and in any case the wise man wants to hear both sides of every question.’ Sir Stanley Unwin

Saturday, 9 August 2008

To blame for Africa

Whatever one may think of French foreign policy and especially their occasional adventures in Africa, which must surely undermine the frequent Gallic attempts to claim the moral high ground in this arena, the latest claims by the Rwandan government that France played an active role in the genocide during the early 1990’s, are troubling, not least because of the wider implications.

There is, of course, a potential for schadenfreude when names such as that of the oleaginous ex French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin and former President, François Mitterrand, neither of whom could lay claim to being friends of Britain, are in the frame. However, such frivolous, if understandable, instincts should not obscure the dishonest and dangerous undercurrents at play here or the potential for mischief which this involves.

There will be many, including those at the incurably politically correct end of the European politics, who will delight at the opportunity to hold a European power accountable for an African genocide. Particularly of one which, in terms of the speed at which the victims were butchered over a short space of time, exceeded the ferocity of even the holocaust.

When such people find an allegation which they want to believe, that allegation invariably grows legs and continues to run even if the original claims are disproved.

Furthermore, can we doubt that, were French involvement to be proven albeit if only to a minor extent, every commentator with a modem will work tirelessly to exaggerate French guilt in the public mind whilst minimising the culpability of those who actually wielded the machetes?.

Although claims that France was aware of the preparation for genocide are unlikely to be proven and the alleged involvement of French troops in the actual killing lacks anything approaching credibility, these opportunist accusations gain credence beyond their true worth because they have been cynically tacked on to the main basis of the claims against the French, which is that they trained the Hutu troops who were the main perpetrators of the 1994 genocide.

Of course, the truth is not as simple as that, prior to 1994 the Hutu were effectively the government of Rwanda, and the Hutu troops whom the French trained were the Rwandan army of the day. In much of Africa, political power often rests with the tribe which is in the ascendant, and that was very much the case in Rwanda, where the civil war was in simplistic terms the result of rivalry between a largely Hutu government and an increasingly ambitious Tutsi tribe, who had previously attempted to overthrow the Government in 1990 in the guise of the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

The tribal system is a reality which governments across the world have to accept when dealing with Africa, however much they might officially seek to distance themselves from it.

On the other side of East Africa, the British army have been training Kenyan troops for many years, which, given the reality of Kenyan politics means that we have been training a Kikuyu dominated army, which as recent events on the Mount Elgon region of Western Kenya, not to mention the outbreak of tribal violence earlier this year demonstrated, can have some problematic outcomes.

Kenya is in the same region of Africa as Rwanda, similar ethnic tensions exist there and have exploded into violence on a number of occasions over the years. The Mau Mau uprising of 1950’s is still sold as resistance to white rule, but largely descended into tribal violence, and even at a conservative estimate the Mau Mau murdered almost 100 Africans for every white person they killed.

Since independence in 1964 ethnic tensions, although bubbling under the surface, were largely kept under control in what was until recently viewed as a rare African success story. However, outbreaks of violence have occurred over the years, and, as we all know, at the beginning of this year, following almost certainly rigged elections, the country exploded into tribal violence resulting in the deaths of some 1,500 and the displacement of around 6000.000 people. As the violence escalated the world held its collective breath fearing that we were witnessing another Rwanda.

It didn’t happen then, but it came close and, sadly, the factors which could have caused all out civil war are still in place and still as potent.

If Kenya 2008 had turned into another Rwanda 1994, or if the still simmering ethnic tensions explode again next week, next month or next year, but this time escalates into genocide, what will be Britain’s position, and, indeed, what will Britain be blamed for?

In fourteen years time will fingers be pointed at us, will the world be reminded that our soldiers trained Kikuyu soldiers and that our government supported a Kikuyu dominated government? Those facts are certainly true on face value, but how would they be interpreted years later following the sort of bloodbath we saw in Rwanda?.

Our troops in Kenya have already been confronted with ludicrous and palpably trumped up charges, which the media has pretended to take seriously out of malice and political correctness, do you think they, or our many enemies at home and abroad would pretend to treat claims of genocide any less seriously?

Our continued activities in Africa are overwhelmingly well intentioned and we seek the best for the people of our ex-colonies, but, as France is the most recent European government to discover, they put us at significant risk.

Britain no longer rules in Africa, we can not control the outcomes, and as life expectancy in places like Kenya plummet, those who remember us with affection are rapidly shrinking in number, to be replaced by generations who know nothing of white rule, except what they have learnt from the radical and politically correct schooling of our age. As such, we are resented and at risk from any number of wild allegations, which those who make them, and much of the world will want to believe, however incredible they may be.

Africa is a land of staggering beauty and unfulfilled promise, for all her horrors, she beguiles on sight and most of those whom she has touched will love her to their graves, yet she is a poison fruit, and one which becomes more lethal by the day.

A century and a half of comparatively benign rule and relative prosperity were forever lost forty years ago in an ill begotten, and premature, wind of change. The chance of a successful future was sacrificed for the sake of ideology and expediency, as a result the speed of Africa's decline is now so rapid that it almost certainly can not be reversed. Soon the dark continent will be as dangerous a place for a European to set foot as it was when the first brave explorers ventured there three or four hundred years ago, it is already that dangerous for many of its own people.

Africa’s fate now seems inevitable, all that remains is the question of who will take the blame. There will be many seeking culprits from outside of Africa because it is not yet acceptable to blame those within. Those counties, such as Britain and France who still feel they have a role to play in Africa, should play that role with caution lest they are held accountable for what Africa now does to herself.

One law for them

(First posted 20/07/2008)

Apparently two Britons, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle, who have been convicted at Leeds Crown Court of publishing race-hate articles on the internet, have skipped bail and flown to America, where they have claimed political asylum

.Given that the first amendment of the US constitution guarantees the right of free speech, such a prosecution would technically be impossible in America, so one might expect the US authorities to view this claim sympathetically. However, in reality, the chances of Sheppard and Whittle receiving a sympathetic hearing in America are remote irrespective of the merits of their claims.

Since the fall of the Berlin wall, very few, if any, white Europeans have benefited from Asylum legislation either here or in the States. Some might argue that most European countries no longer have oppressive governments so their citizens do not qualify for asylum. Others would question that assertion, and in any event how can these two men be considered guilty of anything other than a thought crime and the false belief that the right of free speech existed in Britain?.

These two men have a valid claim for asylum. Indeed it could be argued that the first amendment of the US constitution, was written specifically to protect people like Mr Sheppard and Mr Whittle, however, I suspect that the modern day reality is that they are the wrong colour to benefit from it's protection. I may be being pessimistic but I suspect that the most likely outcome from this case will be that their claim will be rejected and they will be swiftly shipped back to the UK to face sentencing. If so, that will be a shameful day for America, as it will signify the abandonment of any pretence to a belief in Universal civil rights, and expose their Asylum laws as offering protection only for a preferred non white minority. (as many a white South African may soon learn, should their worst fears become reality and they find themselves in need of a safe haven)

Whether or not America shames itself, this case has already shamed Britain, which is exposed again as a land where if you think, say or write something which the state does not approve of you can be subject to a show trial and get sent to prison.

In modern day Britain, telling the truth is no defence against hate crime charges.

The 1976 race relations act is a piece of legislation, amongst others, of which the worst totalitarian state could be proud, because it had the effect of enshrining in law the fact an opinion can be illegal, and that telling the truth can be a criminal act, if it is the wrong truth.Britain calls itself a free country, however, it is many years since it was any such thing.
Some of Sheppard and Whittle's writing remains available on their website, so you can judge for yourselves, they certainly express views I do not agree with, but that is the way with free speech. Free speech and the right to hold an opinion however offensive, are essential to a free society, it is in totalitarian states that these things are suppressed.

09/08/2008 - Update Sheppard and Whittle remain in prison, Anyone wishing to write to them can do so at:

Sheppard, Simon,

0800006404, 4B B2

C/O Santa Ana Jail

PO Box 2200362

Civil Center Plaza

Santa Ana


Sunday, 13 July 2008

Beyond the letter of the law

(originally posted 28 June 2008)

Harriet Harman the, (in the circumstances) somewhat ludicrously titled “Equalities Secretary”, admits that her proposed Bill to enforce equality in the workplace will in fact lead to discrimination against white males saying “You don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward.". However, she fails to admit quite how far this nasty and maliciously motivated piece of legislation will actually push, and what it's true agenda is.

In addition to requiring employers to be transparent regarding pay rates, the new legislation officially now makes it “legal to promote a woman or a black person over a white man if they are equally able”, the same would apply when considering two “equally able” candidates for a new position, where one is a white man and the other is either a woman or a non white person.

Officially the intention is to encourage equality, however, given the woolly manner in which the legislation is drafted, the real intention is clearly to encourage employers to employ woman or black people instead of white males.

Those who cynically drafted the legislation in the way they did, did so in the knowledge that, when it comes to employment legislation, the majority of employers err on the side of caution. They are confident that, once this bill becomes law, human resources departments across the land will adopt a default “If in doubt don't employ the white guy” policy.

The last thing any employer wants is to be sued for discrimination, especially when it is easier and far cheaper to dump on a white man. How many employers are going to risk facing a tribunal and having to prove that the white male whom they employed or promoted was the most able candidate?.

I suspect the answer is very few. It doesn't matter how the law is 'officially worded', it matters how it will be perceived by businesses across the land, who instead of consulting a grand an hour employment lawyer will simply not take the risk. The result will be to force more and more white males out of the work force, which is exactly what Harman and her agenda driven minions want.

We have been here before, governments are very skilled at drafting legislation which will have a more wide ranging effect on society than the letter of the law actually provides for, and the current government is a past master at it. For instance the recent legislation banning violent pornography was officially aimed only at the really extreme material originating from Asia and parts of the old soviet union, in which serious injuries are inflicted or appear to be. However, as a result of the legislation dozens of dirty movie makers specialising in the “grey areas” of consensual S/M and bondage have either upped stakes and moved their operations to Holland and the Czech Republic or simply closed down. Hence, legislation, although officially aimed at a very narrow target, has achieved a more wide ranging social effect than the letter of the law actually permits.

In respect of pornography, many of you may approve of what is happening, however, I take the view that all censorship is dangerous, because you never know where it will end, and we, as a group are, after all no less censored than any dirty film maker. Furthermore, it is another example of legislation achieving an effect through the public perception of it means, which it would never achieve if tested in a court of law.

The most infamous of such laws was the 1976 Race Relations Act the effect if which has gone far wider than the law actually prescribes.

The Act forbids discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services. There is nothing in the 1976 legislation which forbids argued opposition to immigration or the creation of a multi racial society, however, the perception of the legislation has silenced or muted the voices of many thousands of their opponents.

The ban on “Stirring up racial hatred”, has stifled much non-hateful debate, effectively discouraged legitimate criticism of non-whites, and has been abused in attempts to suppress political comment, albeit not always successfully.

The ban on racial discrimination in the work place has unquestionably resulted in black people being promoted beyond their abilities often with disastrous results and to many a blind eye being turned incompetence and bad practice by non-whites, because employers have adopted an “If in doubt don't risk it” default position, which this new legislation will reinforce.

Harriet's law will not result in blacks and woman being treated equally to white men, it will result in more blacks and woman being promoted and less white males irrespective of ability.

As a woman I strive for advancement on my own merit and would be outraged were I to gain it on merely the basis of my gender or race, and I hold in contempt those woman or non-whites who would accept such an unequal advantage as a right. However, many will do so, and many employers will grant them unfair advancement rather that test the law, which is exactly the intention of this invidious legislation.

The 1976 Race Relations act became law because it's relatively modest wording disguised its true intent, however, it has been the main tool of social engineering which has been used to transform the face of Britain, to the significant disadvantage of her citizens, and Harriet's new regulations are in the same mould.
Make no mistake, what ever the media may say about the supposed benefit to women and older workers, the main beneficiaries will be non whites.

The forces of Common Purpose achieve their goals by deception, and this yet another set of regulations which were drafted to achieve more than they appear to. The target again is primarily young white males, because they are the group our enemies resent most, but do not be fooled, we are all in their sights. The programme continues and will do so unless or until the people of Britain wake up and realise what is being done to them.


Saturday, 12 July 2008

Grab 'em while they're young

(originally posted 07 June 2008)

I was recently speaking to a friend of my mother's who was educated in the late 50's and early sixties, partially at a convent school. Speaking of her school days, she recounted one history lesson, given my a middle aged, American nun. The lesson had been about Russian history, specifically the Bolshevik revolution, however, the nun soon strayed from the curriculum and began speaking about events which at the time were quite recent, the uprisings against soviet rule which occurred in Poland and Hungary.

According to my mother's friend, as the nun began describing the Russian response to the uprising in Hungary she became quite flushed, her eyes widened and her skin began to redden as she spoke, becoming more excised as she described the means by which the forces of the Soviet Empire crushed those who had attempted to throw off their rule. Finally the holy sister spoke of a huge mincing machine, which, she claimed, had been wheeled into Heroes Square at the centre of Budapest.

Once the mincing machine was installed in the square, hundreds of live, Hungarians were fed into it leaving the square flowing with blood and minced Magyars.

To an impressionable schoolgirl, the story horrified my mother's friend and was the source of nightmares for some years to come, also, as it was a “fact” she had been taught at school, by an authority figure, she admitted, with some embarrassment, that she had continued to believe well intyo her 20's that the Russians had actually minced Hungarians.

Her story struck a chord with me, as it bore significant similarities to an account I heard in a classroom some twenty years later.

However, by the time I was a schoolgirl, the politics of the classroom had undergone a 180 degree turn around, and few were the teachers who would think to speak ill of the Soviet Union or even Communist China for that matter, whatever, they got up to. The story had been updated and relocated significantly by the time it was told to me by a young male teacher with shoulder length hair, who insisted we address him as Andy. When Andy told us the story, he had replaced the grim faced Soviet troops, with sneering South African security servicemen, the Hungarian mincees' place had been taken by youths from Soweto, and the mincing machine replaced by a wood chipping machine.

Also, Andy was more subtle than the nun had been, or at least story telling techniques had been refined somewhat in the two decades since she had told her story. Unlike in the Holy sister's Budapest fantasy, which limited investigation, even in a pre-internet age could disprove, Andy did not suggest that the dismembering of live Africans took place in a public square, or was openly sanctioned by the Apartheid government, however, he assured us that it was happening daily behind closed doors in prisons across South Africa.

Not unlike my mother's friend had believed the nun twenty years before, I and, no doubt many in class that day, continued to believe what Andy had told us for quite a few years after we left school. For all I know, some of my old classmates may still believe it and that the woodchipping of Soweto residents was deliberately hushed up by South Africa's Truth and reconciliation commission.

Andy's target wasn't just South Africa, he was quite a buff on world affairs. albeit they had little to do with the subject he was supposed to be teaching us, which, as I recall was Biology. He was particularly interested in America, not her constitution or history, you understand, but rather more focused on alleged CIA involvement in Central America, indeed it is likely that some of Andy's ex-students left school believing that the United States defining moment was either the Iran Contra scandal or the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile (and they probably now read at the blog from whence our recent visitors came.).

A number of our other teachers has interests which were closer to home. Margaret Thatcher bestrode the world throughout my teenage years, much to the discomfort of those in the staff room, and it was a rare day which passed when the iniquities of the lady herself, or the her government in general, did not dominate at least one lesson. To this day Thatcher is still a divisive figure, however, we were not taught of a democratically elected leader with conservative social attitudes and stringent economic policies, but instead, those charged with forming our minds invariably portrayed her as if she were a cross between some right wing dictator and a serpent like Catherine De Medici plotting the massacre of St Bartholomew.

If it was, as appeared to be the case, that most of those who taught in schools during the 1980's, felt it their duty to ensure that that their pupils did not become part of Thatcher's constituency, some might ask if it is entirely appropriate for an educator to resort to the sort of political propaganda we saw at that time.

I have to admit that the propaganda seems to have worked on me, Thatcher fought her last election before I could vote for or against her, but ever since I could vote, the idea of voting Tory seems an anathema, and I actually moved straight from voting New Labour in the last three elections, to voting BNP last month, without even considering a flirtation with Mr Cameron.

No longer being a schoolgirl, I can not know for sure whether the classrooms of today are as openly political as they seemed in the 1980's. However as my son recently asked me about a great lost sub-Saharan civilisation which was far ahead of European civilisation in terms of education, health care and philosophy, but which was destroyed by white slave traders, and Voortrekkers, who killed all the great black scholars and claimed all their inventions for the West, I suspect they probably are. (Odd that Andy never taught us about that, but to be fair to him, it probably had not been invented when he was teaching my classmates and I.)

I think it unlikely that schools have become less political in the last twenty years, or that the political ideas being taught to our children are any less left wing. In my experience, the average youngster when leaving school is more open to left wing ideas that they generally are after a couple of years living in the real world.

I may be wrong, but it that is how it seems to me, what makes you think the same thought didn't occur to those panicking Labour MP's currently lobbying to get the voting age reduced from 18 to 16?

As the next election approaches, it may be that we see a growing number of odd looking individuals lurking at the school gates, if so, you need not worry, they are only after your kid's vote!

White boys in the jungle

(originally posted 01 June 2008)

Travelling home by train on Friday evening, I shared a carriage with a group of white teenage boys, probably aged between sixteen and eighteen, no longer children, but not yet men, they were average if quite nice looking boys, wearing street sports clothing and speaking in the acquired “Wot I done” ‘mockney’ accents which youths of their age tend to adopt, having reached that stage in their development where speaking “properly” is thought of as somehow unmanly. Contrary to the hysteria, like most such groups, they seemed essentially pleasant well meaning kids, and whatever the media may try to suggest, quite harmless.

They were however, members of the most vulnerable and at risk section of the community.

All statistics
show that young males are overwhelming the primary victims of violent crime, however, as must be patently clear to all, young white males are not amongst the primary perpetrators, especially not in the environment in which today's youth find themselves.

It is over twenty years since I was the same age as the boys on the train, but the 1980's were a different world to the one which they inhabit, the journey they are embarking on is a far more dangerous one than the boys I dated, danced with and had crushes on had to travel, and, if current trends continue, one which growing numbers of them will not survive.

It can not be easy being a young white male in modern society, these boys have few if any of the privileges earlier generations of white males are alleged to have had, but are held accountable for their grandfather's “sins”, including many, which, if analysed are no more than myths. However, they are myths which are widely claimed as truth, for we live in an age when new superstitions rule, and where new myths are believed as fervently as were any medieval tales of elves and witches. Fifty years of feminist writers have conspired to strip the young male of his once heroic status and cast him as the primary villain and oppressor, whilst other agendas have been at work seeking to narrow that focus onto the white western males who largely built the modern world.

We may no longer inflict corporal punishment on our young men, but in other ways we punish them as severely as in any previous age, and we do so mainly for no other reason than that they are young men. When exploring the way society views the young male, I would recommend to you the Excellent book “The war against boys” by that most enlightened of American feminist writers Christina Hoff Summers, in which she analyses the damage which misguided forms of feminism are having on young males.

However, what the excellent Hoff Summers fails to acknowledge is that, due to political correctness, the main targets of this war are white boys, whilst non whites are excused on account of long ago and often exaggerated or misunderstood injustices. There are sections of our community, mostly white liberals, but also including some people from ethnic communities who's desire to find fault with white boys goes beyond reason, and this phenomenon is an international one.

Anyone who spent time during 2006 and 2007 reading the legion of US message boards relating to false rape allegations made against three white members of the the predominantly white men's Lacrosse team at North Carolina's Duke University by a black stripper, will have been stunned by the visceral and totally irrational hatred revealed by seemingly otherwise intelligent people, who remained desperate to believe the boys guilty, even after their innocence was proven beyond doubt, the allegations shown to be baseless and the prosecutor disbarred for seeking to hide evidence exonerating the boys he had hoped to railroad in furtherance of his career ambitions.

North Carolina's top law officer took the unprecedented step of declaring that the defendants were "innocent", however, to this day hate fuelled message boards remain active providing a sanctuary for those who can not let go of their hatred to exchange bitter notes muttering that “something happened” or scrutinising the reports of the evening to find support for their belief that even if the team didn't rape the stripper, they were flawed human beings. All this whilst impatiently waiting for their tawdry heroine to write her promised book, in which they are sure the truth (their truth) will be told.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a fascinating revelation of the degree to which political correctness and anti-white racism has poisoned American society, and a warning to us as we follow the US down the same road.

Those wishing to know more about the Duke case will find interesting reading on the award winning Durham in Wonderland and Liestoppers blogs, both of which have followed the case since the false allegations were first made in 2006. There are also a number of excellent books on the subject, most notably Professor KC Johnson's much praised “Until Proven Innocent”.

However, Politically correct zealots and anti white racism are not exclusive to America, and who amongst us has not read the “Have your say” comments following the recent articles about the White victims of black crime and all but seen the venom dripping from those responses which bizarrely claim that whites kill more non-whites than blacks kill whites, or implying that the white victims somehow provoked their own deaths.

The comments tend to be more muted when the white victims are female, but when they are boys, the acid really starts to flow. As someone with a lifelong fondness for the male sex, I find that reaction hard to rationalise.

When I first started contributing articles to the Home of the Green Arrow, he (the Green Arrow) would from time to time suggest that I provide reports covering the killings of young white women who fallen victim to that failed social experiment which is HM Government’s immigration policy. The Green Arrow no doubt felt that, as a woman, I would feel an empathy towards female victims. He was certainly correct that I feel great sympathy for women such as Kate Beagley and American Eve Carson, both of whom I have written about in earlier articles.

However, I have always felt deep sympathy for white boys, who are seldom afforded the same degree of protection granted to girls and are frequently assumed to have contributed to their victimisation, irrespective of the evidence, or even more frequently are further victimised by politically motivated misreporting. (for example the disgraceful CNN, who dishonestly insisted in reporting that Harry Potter actor Robert Knox was involved in a “brawl”, rather than that he was was killed protecting his younger brother from an unprovoked and seemingly premeditated attack by a knife wielding black man)

This difference exists largely because society has a somewhat schizophrenic approach to boys, they are condemned if they show aggression, yet any who shy away from a fight are ridiculed and derided. Take for instance male victims of domestic abuse, most studies indicate that men account for around 19% of the victims of such abuse (although I have seen claims that the figure is closer to 30%) and in around half the cases the abuser is female. Although a much lower number than seen in male upon female violence, given that many male victims suffer repeated attacks even at a conservative estimate it means that, each year in the UK, there are around four million separate incidents where men are subject to physical violence by a female partner.

However, in this again, the double standards applied to males can be seen, any time a man complains of such abuse he is ridiculed and branded a “wimp”, that is unless he uses his superior strength to ward off the attack, in which case he usually becomes known as “the accused”.

Generally, within our communities white boys receive less protection than other groups, yet they are held to account far more severely. In our society boys are expected to swim in dangerous waters, where the government is releasing more and more sharks amongst them, but they themselves are portrayed as top predator.

At thirteen, my own beloved son still enjoys the relative safety of childhood pursuits, but in a few short years he will hear the call of the adult world, and I will have to watch him venture into the depths where danger dwells, it is a prospect which terrifies me.

As we see daily, white boys are the primary target of our new countrymen and yet we know that out courts hold their most draconian retribution in reserve for the first white boy to retaliate, because society has decided that whatever evil is done to a white boy, it is a greater evil if he does it back.

I do not seek to claim that there are no bad white boys or that white boy do not maim and kill, but in terms of parity white boys would have had to have amassed 252 teenage victims, in the first five months of this year, to achieve equality with non-whites in terms of head of population. Indeed Britain's streets would resemble those of Baghdad were the native population to start killing their fellow citizens at the same rate as those of foreign origin do. Remember that when some poor, stupid, white kid responds to the provocation and commits the crime which the press vultures are waiting for.

The media demands that white boys share the blame for spiralling lawlessness besetting our land, some pretend that they carry the greater share, indeed most images relating to the recent spate of knife crime on Britain's streets show white hands holding the knives, but, in the real world, it is seldom white hands which are doing the stabbing or firing the guns.

Despite the shrill claims of political correctness, white boys are not the main cause of the bloodshed on out streets, some may be anti-social, they may drink too much, commit acts of vandalism and (actually) get into brawls, but when it comes to the muggings, steaming, car-jacking, drug pushing, gang rapes, stabbings and other gang related murders carrying on all around them, they hardly feature, other than as a percentage of the victims.

Our leaders who should protect our children have placed them at risk and willingly sacrifice growing numbers of them to their cruel and ever demanding god. White boys now inhabit a world where successive governments have stolen their inheritance and forced them to live with a far more dangerous rival who wants to kill them and then blame them for what is done to them. Is it surprising they are confused?

In earlier ages boys were sacrificed in war, in our age they are sacrificed to an ideology, albeit in lower numbers. However, the numbers are growing as the floodgates are pushed wider, and who knows what numbers the establishment would tolerate in furtherance of their aims.

Its a jungle out there, and our boys are forced to live in it.

Broken News

(orriginally posted 27 May 2008)

It has been a violent holiday weekend in London, following the tragic death of budding actor Rob Knox in Sidcup on Friday, two black teenagers were wounded after shootings in Camden and Archway, North London. A 19-year-old man was in a critical condition in hospital after being found stabbed outside East Ham Underground station on Sunday night, and a second man, also aged 19, was arrested after he was found near by with head injuries. In addition, two youths suffered knife wounds after gangs clashed outside a restaurant in Nottingham on Sunday evening, and on Friday night James Graham, 29, was beaten to death in Hendon, north west London.

Then yesterday the badly beaten body of 17 year old Amar Aslam was found in a park in a Dewsbury park, clearly the victim of a violent homicidal attack.

Whatever the circumstances, all such violent deaths are a tragedy and I have the deepest sympathy for young Amar's friends and family.

However, I would like to concentrate on the news coverage following the discovery of Amar's body, particularly on the 24 hour rolling news broadcasts given by BBC News24 and Sky News, because it was very enlightening.

Shortly after the news broke, reports started coming in of earlier racial tension in the Dewsbury area, including alleged clashes between Asians and whites. The effect on the newsrooms was electric, the killing suddenly became the main news story, with bright eyed and flushed reporters gushing excitedly, as they gripped their microphones just that little bit more tightly, that this might be a ..... racially motivated attack.

It was clear the Fourth Estate believed they had their prize, a racial crime with a white perpetrator, which could be used as a counterbalance against the endless stream of street murders and assaults, which have made the news over the last few years, in which the perpetrators have all been so inconveniently non-white.

It has been many long dry years for the media, since the killings of Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker gave them the opportunity to falsely portray race hate crimes as a white on black phenomenon. There are only so many shrines which can be built in the memory of the blessed Stephen, a new totem is required, and press have been growing progressively more disparate for an up to date non-white victim and white villain combo to splash across their front pages and lead their news broadcasts.

Frustratingly for the eager news hounds white thugs have so far been uncooperative, unlike non-whites who have been assaulting all and sundry with gusto in resent years, leaving the media struggling to find new and inventive means of describing the crimes, which did not include the word “racial”, or even mention the race of the attackers.

However, this time it seemed their long wait was over and they would soon be able to say and write those magic words “A racially motivated attack by a white gang” and be actually referring to events in this century. The newsrooms buzzed as Dewsbry residents were interviewed about racial tensions, and indeed one even quoted the legendary “white boy who stabbed an Asian” myth which so often mentioned in these circumstances, and then quietly dropped, when it is found on to be untrue.

But it was not too be, and to the obvious crushing disappointment of anchor men and on sight reporters alike, the show stopping news was revealed by Dewsbury MP, Shahid Malik, that the police had arrested and were questioning non white suspects, at which point one reporter appeared close to tears. The grim expressions in the newsrooms across the airwaves exposed quite clearly what a blow this revelation had been to those newsmen and women who, moments before had truly believed their wait was at an end.

To quote John of Gwent's comment on the Home of the Green Arrow article about this subject: “A fascinating BBC News 24 bulletin not an hour ago revealed that three men have been detained in connection with this and all are Asian. In a half hearted attempt to put out the flames that various sources were wetting themselves after fanning, the BBC News Link Man asked their woman on the spot if she had any comment on the "clearly now discredited" reports that this was a racist murder.

The journo on site suddenly wore a face that suggested a lemon had just materialised in her throat, from thin air, minus its peel. 'Well, such matters are now best left to the police to report on as they continue their investigations' she said. Funny how a white kid whose neck was slashed by a Turk doesn't deserve the truth being told.”

Later, Channel Four News broadcast started by trumpeting accounts of the racial tension, before reluctantly admitting that this murder probably wasn't racially motivated, suggesting that they had prepared the item before news of the arrests broke, and could not quite let the fantasy go.

And so the media's long vigil continues, they carry on waiting, because they know one day their wait will be over, indeed it may be quite soon as tensions continue to rise, one day, maybe tomorrow, next week or next year, a white boy will kill a non white boy, and the press will have their prise.

No matter that they may have to clamber over the bodies of a hundred white boys, or even a thousand, they will grasp their trophy and, as with Johann Nel that in blood spattered centre of black crime South Africa, they will make it the definitive example of a race hate crime, and by constant repartition, use it In the hope of obscuring the daily toll of bloodshed which mass third world immigration has wrought upon our streets. They will use it as they have used Stephen Lawrence for the last fifteen years, and it will be no less of a lie, when they do.

However, the world has moved on, and we are all wiser now, so I wonder, when it happens, as it surely will, will the public buy the same old lie again?

A bloodstained fantasy

(Originally posted 17/05/2008)

I make no apology for returning to the subject of violent, gang related, street crime, as this is a phenomenon which even the most blinkered amongst us must now realise is becoming a bigger and more dangerous threat to our communities by the day. Despite government and police attempts to distort the figures by such tricks as highlighting falls in non-violent crime, redefining certain types of crimes, or simply not reporting others, even they can no longer remain deliberately blind to the bodies of dead and injured children littering our streets, whilst, internationally, London becomes known as Europe's capital of knife crime.

As the nation's eyes gradually begin to open, even some of the most outrageous dissemblers in the media have been forced to allow a small trickle of truth to creep into their writings. In Thursday's London Evening Standard for instance, even that stout standard bearer for the multicultural dream, the honour rejecting poseur, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown came close to admitting who the primary perpetrators of violent crime are when she wrote that today the “absolute injunction against stop-and-search make less and less sense” and that many within the black community are expressing support for more proactive policing of their own children.

However, Yasmin would not be Yasmin without the untruths and one can only marvel at her bare faced dishonesty when she writes “Times have changed. Race is no longer as clear a marker between victim and perpetrator or criminal and law enforcer” It may be true that there are now a small number more non-whites in the police force, however “the racial marker” in respect of the perpetrator's of street crime is now more marked than it ever was.

That the perpetrators now also victimise their own is no consolation their battered hosts and their blooded children.

The truth which dare not speak it's name, for fear of the "r" word, was exposed in all its enriching glory in the Evening Standard on the same day as Yasmin's column, in the front page report on the over 100 stabbings which have occurred in London so far this year and also by the previous day's report from that most enriched of areas, Peckham from which together with any list of the over 200 separate London gangs shows that the problem we face is most certainly not “white boys stabbing white boys”

Recent reports, towards the end of last year, revealed that one in every five crimes in Britain was perpetrated by “foreigners” however, these revelations in themselves were misleading and downplayed the truth about immigrant related crime, particularly that from outside Europe, by excluding from the list of “foreigners” all immigrants who had committed crimes after being granted British citizenship or any British born children of immigrants who commit crime (that is to say the majority of gang members). Can anyone doubt that if figures had been published including those groups, and exposed the true level of immigrant crime, even the most complacent native Briton would be outraged, and terrified, by what is going on.

True as ever to her agenda driven heart, Alibhai-Brown's article also evokes the old spectre of “racist white policemen” using stop and search powers to intimidate innocent black youths, and she urges the authorities to restrain their racist instincts in future. This cant is not only laughable, but it is the deliberate and cynical lie it always was. It was a lie in the 1970's and 80's and it is a lie again today, no less so than the dishonest con trick played on us by the travesty which was the Macphearson report when it invented the ludicrous and much exploited term “institutional racism”.

The entire premise behind the allegations of “institutional racism”, which were thrown at the police force and virtually every other “establishment body” in this country, is flawed and dishonest, not least as it suggests that attitudes, subconscious or otherwise, result from prejudice rather than experience, and the same implication applies to the alleged “discriminatory” use of stop and search.

These claims do not stand up to the minimum of scrutiny. It was not prejudice which led to the setting up of Operation Trident to deal with the growing problem of gun crime in the black community, it was the fact that black men are statistically more likely to carry and use guns. The same applies in relation to carrying knives and committing street crime, hence it is experience and not prejudice which made the police pay extra attention to black youths.

To suggest that they should behave otherwise because some white youths commit street crime is the equivalent of using the 1970's case of Joyce McKinney and her manacled Mormon to argue that the police should devote equal resources to tackling female rapists as they do to male.

Yes, it happens, but considerably less often.

Each crime is unique, and criminals differ so I don't (much)doubt that there are a small number of nuns and old age pensioners who commit acts of vandalism, however, the next time a brick is thrown through you window, I am sure you would expect the police to question the local teenagers before they raid the nearest rest home or convent in a crowd pleasing display of political correctness.

Profiling has been given a bad name, however, that is largely due to politics, and much to the chagrin of those who criticise it, the fact is we have yet to see a Norwegian grandmother, rather than a young Asian male, sitting in the dock at the Old Bailey on terrorism charges.

Despite all evidence, and the growing number of young victims of this predominantly black crime, Alibhai-Brown can still not resist playing politics and repeating the discredited claims about racist policemen targeting innocent black youths, which made it so difficult for the police to do their job, and, as such may have led in some measure to the deaths we have seen.

Yasmin sees no contradiction between admitting that stop and search could save lives, whilst, in the face of so many death which stop and search might have prevented, proudly trumpeting her earlier opposition to it. Likewise, no doubt she sees no connection between the open door immigration policy which she has for so long championed and London's new found status as the knife crime capital of Europe, however, the one led to the other as surely as night follows day.

Alibhai-Brown is by no means uniquely to blame, she is a well known supporter of the campaign to change a white nation into a multicultural social experiment, and by her own admission, hers was one of the voices opposing police efforts to keep our streets safe, but she is just one of the many who's actions brought us to this point.

We now face the bloodstained consequences of a multicultural fantasy for which an entire army of establishment and media have lied and conspired for decades, even though they must have known it would never work. Not only did they open the door and let the beast in, but they took away our defences against it by calling them racist, but it is we, not they who will pay the price.

Those who have done this to us will never admit their guilt but I wonder if they will ever be held to account.


Mogadishu on our streets

(Originally posted 10 May 2008)

Friday's news included two separate, but almost identical, stories regarding the sentencing of the gang member killers of teen aged murder victims. The cases, which were depressingly similar. featured two more of the rapidly growing number of of teenagers murdered on British streets in recent years. The victims, 14 year old Paul Erhahon and 16 year old Kodjo Yenga had a lot in common, they were both much loved young men, who's families claim that they had rejected gang culture and had bright futures, also, in each case five young men were convicted in relation to their deaths. Pictures of the victims and their killers are at the top of this page.

Today's papers are full of quotes from the judge, Christopher Moss QC who sentenced Kodjo Yenga's killers and called the crime “part of the gang culture that casts a dreadful influence over the youth of our cities”meanwhile, whilst sentencing Paul Erhahon's killers, Mr Justice Keith commented that "There is self-evidently a culture among boys of your age to do with the carrying of knives which needs to be changed."

Across the media, commentators continue to bewail this escalating slaughter of youth “society is to blame” they cry, “Our children are killing our children”. To a man, (and woman) the talking heads claim that they want to find the cause of this ongoing teenage massacre, and yet, to a man they persist in pretending that it is a problem which besets wider society rather than one which is restricted to one small section of the community.

The one aspect of these crimes which the newspapers and TV report about them studiously fail to acknowledge is that the one thing, apart from their age and sex, which both victims and all their killers share in common is that they are all non-white.

This fact is no aberration, we need only to look at the list of the victims of gang related murder in London last year, which included Kodjo and Paul, to see that the vast majority were black or Asian. This year we are only into May and already the death toll looks set to exceed 2007, and so far every single London victim is non white.

Furthermore, as each successive trial shows us, all the perpetrators are non-white as well. Even with the cases that have not yet come to trial, following the media volcanic reaction to alleged racial murder of the blessed Stephen of Eltham, given neither the Guardian or Channel four newsrooms have yet been declared slip hazard zones, we can be certain that there are no white boys suspected of killing black boys.

To my knowledge the only white suspects in any gang related killing carried out in Great Britain in either 2007 or 2008 are those charged with the death of Rhys Jones in Liverpool (If anyone knows of any others and writes to the comments section with details, I will correct this statement).

However, the facts clearly demonstrate that, although non-whites make up just over 10% of the population, they account for the vast majority of all victims of gang related murder and almost all the perpetrators, certainly over 90%.

This phenomenon is not unique to Britain, a study of the most violent cities in America show that the highest rates of violent crime occur in those cities which have large black and ethnic populations.

The figures speak for themselves:

Detroit – 81% black
Baltimore - 64% black
New Orleans - 70% black
Washington DC - 60% black
St Louis - 51% black
Atlanta - 59% black
Newark NJ - 53% black
Philadelphia - 43% black
Buffalo NY - 37% black
Oakland Calif - 30% black

I believe that blacks account for 43% of the population of Cincinnati, - No:8 on the list - but could not find a reliable source for that figure)

African Americans make up around 13% of the overall US population, however, in those areas where they make up a larger percentage the level of violent crime inevitably also increases.

Some may argue that one can not compare the situation in America to that here as the two societies are so different, and maybe they have a point, the black community in America has existed for around 300 years and have lived as free men for almost 143 years, or some five generations depending upon one's definition, more than enough time, one would have thought to adopt the culture of their new homeland, however as events following Katrina showed us, culture is more ingrained than that.

Those coming to our shores on the other hand have not had generations to adopt our culture, they have had 40 or 50 years at the very most, and they are coming to us from some of the most dangerous, and crime ridden and unstable places on Earth, Somalia , Jamaica, Pakistan, Kenya, Algeria, and Nigeria to name just a few of the crime and murder hot spots from whence our new next door neighbours hail.

Our government welcomes them and says that they have left their dangerous and violent lands behind them, and that is true, however, it is not a location which causes people to act with violence, it is not soil which creates a propensity for crime, it is culture and mindset and those two travel with the migrant.

If I travel to France I do not instantly become French, I do not lose my Englishness as I alight from the train at Gare De Nord, or leave my culture behind at Charles De Gaul. As we see in British ex-patriots across the world most retain their essential culture and mindset to the bitter end.

The same applies to incoming cultures, they do not undergo colonic irrigation at Heathrow, they arrive as they left Karachi, and they stay that way. The Guardianistas acknowledge that when they claim that new and different cultures enrich ours and that we should embrace them. However, immigrant culture is not just beads and Bollywood, it has an underbelly, and it is naive to express surprise when the culture of Kingston, Johannesburg or Mogadishu appears on our streets.

The spate of Gang related teen aged murders on our streets are not “White boys stabbing white boys” as the dishonest, and thankfully now unemployed, Ken Livingstone tried to claim it is black boys stabbing black boys, Asians stabbing Asians and sometimes either group stabbing white boys if they get in the way.

What we are seeing on our streets is imported, it is a direct result of the uncontrolled immigration which successive governments have encouraged with criminal indifference to the well being of the native population they were elected to protect and serve.We are faced with a situation which was imposed upon us without democratic vote or accountability, it is a situation which is getting worse by the day and with which, we, our children and grandchildren will be dealing with for many years to come, however, we will not be able to deal with it until we call it by its real name.

The Enemy Within

I recall that, as a teenager, during the early 1980's, I, like many others was a huge fan of an American TV series called “V” where malevolent Aliens sought to take over the Earth, and consume its current inhabitants (literally). Initially, these ill intentioned space beings seemed kindly and benevolent, and indeed they looked so like us it was heard to tell who was earthling and who alien.

That was until some accident would rip away a section of their false skin revealing the green reptilian scales beneath, and exposing the invaders true monstrous intentions.

“V” was in a genre of mostly 'B' Horror movies, such as “The invasion of the Body Snatchers” They Live” and “The Thing” where mankind is either threatened or ruled over by creatures which look like men, behave like men but are actually extra terrestrial invaders intent on the destruction of humanity.

It is a compelling and terrifying thought to believe that dreadful beasts walk amongst us disguised as us and indistinguishable from our own, but committed to our demise. Indeed the idea of alien creatures, or different species, taking on the form of humans in order to achieve their wicked aims is an evocative one and exists in many cultures and legends.

More fantastically, the one time sports presenter and sometime, self proclaimed. son of God, David Icke has from time to time taken the legend (or fact?) of The Illuminati quite a few steps further down the evolutionary chain and claimed that the world is ruled by shape shifting reptiles, capable of adopting human form. According to Icke's version of reality, many prominent people, and all world leaders, from George Bush, Hillary Clinton to members of our own dear royal family are, when viewed in their natural form, huge Komodo dragon like lizards.

Why is it I wonder that this same concept is repeated so frequently in our entertainment, our myths and legends and in our conspiracy theories? What attracts us to this much repeated scenario where people who look like us, but who are out to harm us are, in truth, aliens who bear no similarity to us whatsoever physical or otherwise.

Could it be that it is altogether more comfortable to imagine that our foes are scaly green aliens or shape shifting lizards, than it is to accept that there are people within our own community, people who not only look like us, but who are like and yet who are working tirelessly towards the aim of our destruction, and that so many of these people are in positions of power and influence?.

In fact such people now so dominate positions of power and influence, and have such control over the media and of most means of communication, that they can all but silence any dissenting voice. I am sure that many BNP voters were over the moon with delight to see that for almost the first time ever someone they had voted for was allowed a tiny amount of coverage, when Richard Barnbrook won the BNP's first ever seat on the London assembly.

Usually anyone who does not share the politically correct ideology favoured by our masters in the nations newsrooms finds access to any public platform is barred to them, and it is almost impossible to get their message heard.

Don't be fooled, you can be assured that the status quo will be resumed shortly. Our media overlords had no option other than to give Richard air time after Thursday's election, but he would be a fool to believe that aberration will continue, or that he will not shortly find that his speeches, policies and initiatives will join the blooded legion of racially battered white boys in the news exclusion zone.

The media is not alone, all 24 of the other Assembly members have already decided to deny the almost 131,000 Londoners who voted for the BNP the representation to which our democracy allegedly entitles then, by agreeing to “shun” Richard Barnbrook. Which apparently is their idea of democracy!.

It seems that democratic rights extend only to those who voted for politicians with a Common Purpose stamp of approval on their behinds.

Why is the establishment so desperate to silence the voices calling out against mass immigration and for the fair treatment of the native British population?, why do they try and portray BNP voters and members as hate filled, jackbooted, fascists when a single visit to the BNP's website shows that could not be farther than the truth?

If, the BNP's message is so vile, and if, as is often said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” why are they so reluctant to shine any on the BNP and other white nationalist groups, surely if what they say about the Nationalists is true then the more they are exposed for what they are the more the public will reject them.... surely?.

In fact the reverse is true, just like the leaders of North Korea or the old Soviet Union knew that their subject peoples would no longer be so compliant if they learnt the truth about the outside world, the fat controllers who steer public perceptions have no wish for the public to know the truth about alternative viewpoints.

It is a cliché to say that they fear the truth, however, it is also a fact. They fear the truth because the truth would get in the way of the project (or Common Purpose), if the public knew the truth they might be less willing to accept the lies, and that would not suit the purposes of those who control our destiny. This very fact alone exposes their plan for what it is, if to succeed in their aims they must hide the truth from us, then their aims can not be in our best interests, and they know it.

There can be no question that they have defined aims, this is not about conspiracy theory, it is obvious to all that there is a project under way which is determined to change this country and this continent beyond recognition. The native peoples of Britain and mainland Europe are white, however, day by day they become less so, and it is our own governments, our own leaders, cheered on by our home grown press who are doing it, and not one of them has a slimy green scale under their skin (much as some may appear to have)

The only possible outcome from that campaign is that Europe's once proud status as the home of the white race will be gradually diminished and quite probably destroyed.

It is no coincidence that it is only our continent this is being done to, and there are no plans to change Africa's position as the (main) home of the black race, or Asia's much prized racial integrity. Those cultures will be preserved because it is they who are the vehicle of our abolition.

It is only the lands of the white race which are under siege, and it is white politicians who are primarily responsible.

Our establishment are doing this to us only half consciously, they are doing it because they are the product of a radical ideology designed for an entirely different purpose. They and the generation before them were created and indoctrinated by people who hoped to see the West overthrown by a Communist East. Although that purpose no longer exists the mindset has long been fixed, Western Culture must be destroyed, and if the Soviet Union is no longer there to do it, Islam and mixed marriage will work well enough. So, although the aims have changed, they carry the project forward, and indoctrinate new generations because they have been programmed to do so.

Nobody but a fool is ignorant of the threat we face from Islam, and yet, despite playing lip service to a war on terror, our white European leaders cheerfully preside over the, not so gradual, Islamification of Europe and plans are in place to speed up the process as the descendants of the vicious Ottoman empire lurk again at out gates.

We are kept in in ignorance of the truth of the racial violence being inflicted on our own people, and lied to be by politicians and journalists who do not care about their own people, worse, they actively campaign against their own people.

These same people encourage interracial relationships, in the full knowledge of their failure rate and the huge numbers mixed race children living in single families due to the disproportionately high numbers of absent black fathers not to mention the increased risk of violence and the inevitable genetic effect miscegenation has. It is not racist to point out that once a child is born of a mixed race couple, a genetic line is changed irretrievably. Given that the promotion of mixed race unions is just one of a vast series of assaults upon the racial integrity of white Europe, only those deliberately and stubbornly blind to what is going on can not detect a deliberate common purpose.

That purpose is most certainly not the survival of a safe majority white Europe, and again it is our own politicians from our own main stream stream political parties, and not extra terrestrials in human guise, who are behind it.

Like the embattled earthlings in “V” we, as a people, are under threat from people who seek to destroy us and our entire way of life but they are not green skinned aliens or poor David Icke's nine foot lizards, they look like us, because they are like us and hate us for it. They are the enemy within.