tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21270521894362184832024-03-19T01:19:50.306-07:00Sarah Maid of Albion - IISarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-43512917875180236362011-08-26T10:37:00.000-07:002011-08-26T10:42:23.837-07:00Richard Barnbrook: “If only they’d listened ….”<div style="text-align: justify;">From what was once a total of over 100 councillors, the BNP now only has a meagre 9. And from having been in credit to the sum of some £2.3 million, the Party is said have debts of £700 000. Sad to say, back as far as the autumn of 2006, I saw that there were problems which eventually led to the difficulties that are now besetting the Party and that have resulted in its regression.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But be warned, this is not just a brief write-up but a good 30-minute read! I’m putting it up, because we need to look at what went wrong for the good of our country, so that we can hopefully put things right. But above all, we need to forge a new way forward involving all nationalist/patriotic groups. Because there are so many like-thinkers out there, from all colours of the political spectrum- disaffected Labour supporters, Conservatives and others- nationalists who need to find a voice.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 1999 when I first joined the Party it was due to Nick Griffin winning the leadership challenge. At the time he had the charisma, the flair and the vision.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I had left the Labour Party in 1986 because under Kinnock, the values that I then adhered to were saying nothing to a new Britain, a Britain where education had become worthless, a Britain where the health system was overloaded and already showing signs of cracking and inability to cope with an increased population. At the same time, there was a decline in Britain’s economic and fiscal soundness. It was a nation that not even Enoch Powell could have predicted would have emerged with such velocity and speed. This was the mid 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had started to bring the incompetence of the unions, with their lack of vision, under control which I give her credit for. But she widened the doors to the immigration crisis and sealed our fate with the cheap gimmick of clawing back pennies from Europe, rather than expelling the Brussells bureaucrats from our shores. She should have kicked the EEC out of Britain when she had the chance. Because the majority of the problems we face today, together with the inability to do anything to counteract them, stem from our accursed membership of the EU.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Having left the Labour Party, I then decided to go about the continuation of my career both in the arts and education. While in the secondary education system of London, working on short-term contracts in failing schools, I was brought into schools across London as a trouble-fixer prior to OFSTED inspections, in such areas as Greenwich, Lewisham, Bexleyheath, Newham, Neasden and Tower Hamlets amongst others.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It wasn’t until 1997 and the election of a Labour government that I saw within the following three years a total desperation and despondency amongst the communities in London that felt dejected and let down by seeing their desires and aspirations being dashed once again. I thus felt I had to take up the political cudgel. It took me three years to determine where best my voice could be heard by representation through a political party. After several attempts and deep deliberation, I finally got in contact with the BNP of the nearest branch and group to where I lived in Lewisham, which was the Bexley branch. The reason I finally decided to go to the BNP meeting was that Nick Griffin had won the leadership challenge. Marching through the streets of London was not the way forward at that time.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">At that meeting I put forward comments and proposals for development and electioneering. The Chair of the meeting requested that I stayed behind to meet a fellow nationalist who knew about the potential for Downham ward, in south Lewisham. I met the bus driver and he said to me ‘Right, if you’re that keen are you free to leaflet Downham, tomorrow?’ Over the next four weeks, the two of us leafleted every single house in Downham! I wasn’t even a member! But right from the start, I showed the commitment and hands-on perspective that I would lead from.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Four weeks later I was asked to meet Nick Griffin in Blackheath. I explained my position and background as an artist and a teacher.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then I was asked to help out in a by-election in Northend in Slade Green where I started canvassing. I still had not yet received my membership card.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In early 2000, Nick appointed me as the Lewisham and Bromley Organiser and several weeks later I was issued with my membership card. By the end of the year we had 80 members in Lewisham, and an additional 40 in Bromley! I then spearheaded the parliamentary election campaign in Lewisham East where the BNP candidate attained 1005 votes which was an unprecedented result for south east London. And that was the start of patriots coming from across the country to assist in election campaigns. What is more important is that at that stage, the whole design of leaflets changed. I made sure that the wordiness went and the visuals came in.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is quite clear that the approach that I was taking was being recognised as a valuable campaign strategy for others to emulate: that it’s not sufficient to rely on just leafleting and marching through the streets of Britain. What was needed was a more structured and solid campaigning approach involving interaction door-to-door with the electorate and general public, dealing head-on with issues that related to local communities ward by ward, rather than just pushing a ‘one size fits all’ national programme. I should say that this was also the approach used in the campaign which won the Party’s first council seat the early 1990s in the Isle of Dogs.</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">But my enthusiasm and persistence in getting things resolved and chasing people up when the work they undertook was not carried out, made waves. Also, some decided that once the good seeds had been sewn they wanted to take it over themselves. Granted, I used to make telephone calls to branch administrators late at night, which may have caused irritation, but I saw that the fate of our nation was at stake and in politics there can be no 9-5 approach to the job. Consequently I was removed as Lewisham and Bromley Organiser and the position was passed on to somebody else. Three years on from there, the branch membership collapsed. Under my watch we had rocketed straight to branch status without ever having been a just a group. Today, Lewisham and Bromley is barely a group.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2002 I continued with leafleting and canvassing throughout south east London and occasionally helping in other areas of the capital, but I spent a great deal of my time dealing with my career in education as well as national Queen’s Golden Jubilee projects.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2003 I was asked by the then national organiser to start giving speeches nationwide and at the Red White and Blue festival and also to assist in the canvassing at by-elections and elections across the country. I was also having an input into the basic design of the Party’s new leafleting strategy. At the end of 2003 I was made the co-ordinating officer for London. By this time I was also part of a think-tank, visiting the Chairman at his country retreat and then created ‘Special Projects’ which was set up to enhance the public’s perception of the Party by way of working on frontline community activities. It was at this time that I suggested that the Party create a small booklet containing a summary of our manifesto for members of the public and it was eventually produced… four years later! I also asked for an activists’ handbook and this again came out some four years later, but on-line only. Also an elections handbook that still hasn’t materialised. I suggested that there be a manual for councillors as well, to give guidance and an outline of good practice, but as far as I am aware this hasn’t as yet been produced either.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2004 I was made London Organiser, and was involved in the majority of the activities across London and played a major part in co-ordinating the 2004 GLA campaign, where we achieved an unprecedented 4.71% of the London vote, only missing a GLA seat by just 0.29%!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, at this stage, the opposition started to attack me both in the press, verbally, and also daubed the front door of my house in Blackheath. Not having a driving licence, I travelled across London and up and down the whole country using public transport, with no security and one year into wearing my beige suit, fully aware that I was sticking out like a sore thumb. That same year, I won the coveted George Flaxton Memorial Award as activist of the year, and gave speeches and video recordings across the nation, getting by on a salary of just £600 per month. At this stage, I had given up teaching to put all my efforts, 7 days a week, into the nationalist cause.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The irony behind my giving up teaching is that each time it became known that I was standing for election, the teaching agencies informed me that there were ‘no positions at present’. And yet a month or so after my not being elected, they would call me requesting I took on a position at a then failing academy prior to OFSTED being called in. I was somewhat bemused at these sudden changes of circumstances and said that my politics had not altered and asked why I was wanted back. The answer was that it was because parents and staff believed I did an outstanding job in correcting failing classes and pupils.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2004 I was made Barking and Dagenham Branch Organiser, working alongside the then National Elections Officer. That year, there were three by-elections in Barking and Dagenham. The results achieved were as follows and the figures speak for themselves:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>15 July: Valence 31.5% BNP SECOND</b><br />
<span style="color: maroon;"><b>16.Sept: Goresbrook 51.9% BNP FIRST!</b></span><br />
<b>7 October: Village 38.5% BNP SECOND</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Following the momentous Goresbrook victory, I was the secretary and events organiser for the wining Goresbrook councillor and assisted him with his daily activities after he was elected.</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">During 2004, the Chairman requested me to have a private meeting with the founder of the Party offering him the position of life-long president. He refused it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2005 it was as a member of the Advisory Council, that I started to notice, after the nation-wide success of councillors being elected in parish, town and borough, the start of the frustrations and discontent (which later became apparent at the 2005 Red White and Blue). Prior to the RWB there was a conference of the Regional Organisers and Advisory Council. The then head of security had made statements that were deemed to be too innovative and above his station to the Chairman and some of longstanding Head Office officials. Several months later, he was removed from his position.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2005 I stood for the<b> parliamentary seat of Barking</b> against Labour’s sitting MP, Margaret Hodge and <b>I received 17 % and achieved third place</b>, only missing second place, which was taken by the Tories, by a mere 28 votes! <b>This was and is still the highest nationalist vote for a parliamentary seat ever achieved in this country.</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">At an AC meeting in Wales I brought to the Chairman’s attention the fact that the National Elections Officer and the then National Organiser were putting in place parallel systems and appointing officers into positions in London without informing me what they were doing. This was consequently interfering with my role as London Organiser and the development of London, because it meant that there were two separate London operations in place, one effectively being carried out without my knowledge. This was the first sign of the hole in the heart of the BNP, where cohesion, communication and continuity did not exist. I was concerned too that there were also key locations in the south of London that needed assistance and some possible financial help, and that these were being neglected. This led to a confrontation between the Leader of the Party and myself in the summer of 2005. Subsequently, the Leader displayed poor judgement by taking the line of least resistance in undermining my position. He sacked me as London Organiser, basically for being too pro-active, and attaining positive results! It clearly was a case of nepotism over ability.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Prior to the RWB in 2005, one national organiser had been replaced by another and from then on started the true problems. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the RWB I went past one tent that contained certain high ranking individuals who were conniving to undermine both the Party and the Chairman. (Indeed, some were kicked out of the Party later for being alleged infiltrators). They asked me to join them but I refused. The following day I informed the Chairman and said that we had to bring in a polygraph test to filter out infiltrators, for those at regional organiser level and above. (Remember that at this point, I had been sacked as the London Organiser). Some time earlier I had had a conversation with an ex SAS information officer who said that he would have been more than happy to carry them out at £1000 per test. Nicks’ reply was that it wasn’t practical at that time.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I also told the Chairman that chain of command was falling apart due to poor communications. And that the public’s perception of the Party was all important and that every effort had to be made to improve it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then, a month after the RWB, I was asked to resign my position as Barking and Dagenham Organiser. The excuse given to me by the Chairman was that I needed a rest!! Of course, I refused- and so I was sacked! This was my third sacking! The position was given to one of the 2004 Barking and Dagenham candidates who after only two months stated that he could not do the job and asked me to take over from him. So I did, but without the authority or knowledge of Head Office. Because I couldn’t just stand back and watch things stagnate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2006, I was continuing my work on the ground in Barking and Dagenham. I pushed ahead, making sure that the BNP were there for the people where the problems were. We went out in hi-viz vests, collecting rubbish and clearing up graffiti. Because of the efforts of individual BNP activists at ground level, Barking and Dagenham was becoming a visibly better place.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2006, due to my input, a new professional format for leaflets was brought in. The design was upgraded and combined with the selection of a striking and forceful message, in A3 full-colour finish. And at the same time as canvassing we were continuing to work away in the parks, cleaning graffiti, picking up litter and clearing brooks, leaving the perception in people’s minds that we had already been elected and were going about our council work.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I was eventually formally asked by Head Office to take control of the forthcoming borough elections of 2006; by that time I had already put things in motion anyway! Of course, I agreed and was given back the membership list of Barking and Dagenham and then started a national assistance strategy, which we now know as the national and regional Days of Action.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Between myself and just three key activists in Barking and Dagenham, we began the election campaign that led to the BNP’s ground-breaking result in the council elections. Come submission of nominations time, we had 21 candidates. Due to the thorough vetting and appropriate analysing of the candidates it was deemed that four were unsuitable and 13 were chosen. A further four were by one means or another indebted to the council due to disability which would have left them out of pocket if elected, which was too much of a burden to expect individuals to shoulder. Hence only 13 candidates stood and as is well known, 12 of them were elected.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, it was at about this time I was told by the National Elections Officer to ‘forget Barking and Dagenham because at best you will only get four or five elected.’ If we had had a full slate of candidates, I’m sure now that every one of them would have been elected! If I hadn’t been sacked as the Barking and Dagenham Organiser and also as London Organiser, I would have had a fighting chance of getting the 51 candidates that we needed. But with just five months left to the elections, we could only get 13 together. Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham, said that if we had fielded a full slate of BNP candidates, we would have taken the whole council. That was after Margaret Hodge, the sitting Labour MP, had made comments that inadvertently promoted the progress of the BNP, not only in Barking and Dagenham and London, but nation-wide.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The scale of the unprecedented victory in Barking and Dagenham was achieved by hard work, tenacity and a deliberate decision to act contrary to the view of the then National Elections Officer. Twelve out of thirteen councillors were duly elected which made us ‘the official opposition’ to the Labour-run council. This was the first time ever that such a thing had happened, and all from a standing-start of zero councillors! This unprecedented success led to my winning two awards:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>2006 Best Campaign Organiser </i><br />
<i></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>2006 Most New Councillors (Barking and Dagenham)</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Following the success at Barking and Dagenham, it was deemed appropriate by Head Office to bring me back on to the Advisory Council as Councillors’ Liaison Officer, as I was now the leader of the Barking and Dagenham Council official opposition. But plots were fermenting prior to the RWB 2006, as I was approached by four leading officers of the Party and asked to stand against the Chairman on isues of bad management and financial improprieties. I refused and had a lengthy conversation with the Chairman at the RWB, again emphasising the need for stronger security checks for key officers, including and above the position of regional organiser. I also brought to the Chairman’s attention that it would be a wise move for him to distance himself from any involvement with financial matters and suggested that he should consider introducing the process of electing regional organisers, rather than undemocratically appointing them. It was also by this time that certain key people who were coming up from the south, south west and south east, were suddenly disappearing, while at the same time yes-men were being kept in place over and above those who displayed obvious talent.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Also, as the Councillors’ Liaison Officer, I was seeing at first hand the disillusionment at coal face, with sole councillors in particular not being supported. Councillors were promised an internet set-up where they could debate and contact each other and share knowledge, (so they did not have to use their councils’ internet systems), but it was constantly being put off by Head Office. This meant that having worked hard to get councillors elected, once in post, they were steadily being demotivated by the lack of resources and assistance given to them, leaving individuals in an isolated, vulnerable position, and causing them in many cases to stand down through disillusionment and lack of support. Even in my own council of Barking and Dagenham, with some of the less able councillors, it was difficult to keep them up to speed, causing our stronger councillors to battle with the extra case-studies and mountains of bureaucracy in a struggle to make sure we did not look incompetent.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As leader of the opposition I was at this time on a gross salary of £14 000 for which I was working 7 days a week.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In a private meeting in 2007, I mentioned to Head Office that there were problems. My prediction was that we would possibly get the GLA seat the following year, and if sufficient work and electioneering took place there was a good likelihood we would get a European seat in 2009, but my concerns were that if we kept running ahead too fast without supporting the existing elected councillors, we would look back over our shoulders and see the basic foundations crumbling. Unfortunately this has now come to pass as we have lost all the ground-work it took to get win our 100 plus council seats at county, borough, district, town and parish levels.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2007 saw the sacking, for one reason or another, of key members who questioned Head Office or the leadership on its financial irregularities, poor judgements on national campaigns and faux pas to the media. Also the accounts were being submitted late to the Electoral Commission. The bigger the Party became, the more Head Office tightened its control. Yes-men were continuing to be appointed at the expense of those with ability. Councillors, especially sole councillors were becoming despondent. It was more and more difficult to keep up the momentum, given that the grass roots were being starved of resources. And there was still no Party back-up provided to councillors. Councillors started resigning due to the pressure and lack of support.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the end of 2007 I did not put my name forward again for the Advisory Council as Councillors’ Liaison Officer. My requests for assistance for councillors had fallen on deaf ears, so I decided instead to focus my efforts on the following year’s GLA/mayoral election campaign. <br />
It was in 2007 that I received the Party’s award:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Best Councillor of the Year (runner-up)</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2008 saw the GLA elections. A staggering one million leaflets were delivered by hand all over London, comprising of 600 000 full colour A3 and 500 000 black and white A4, which were double dropped in some key areas. This was an unprecedented campaign in nationalist politics which I co-ordinated and managed with just seven other key London activists, together with the support of the majority of London activists as well as hundreds of others from across the nation. But it wasn’t until the last six weeks of a nine month campaign that the National Elections Officer and the National Secretary felt the need to exert themselves! Throughout the months preceding the elections, I was working flat-out, seven days a week, which took a toll on my health and my domestic circumstances. The press were still attacking me and the door of my house was vandalised. A lot of the time I was travelling across London on public transport with no security (and in many cases having to carry the maps).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">During the London campaign there were also other frustrations going on, as organisers from the south east were having problems with Head Office and were therefore reluctant to come across and work on the west side of the London campaign. The decision had to be made to focus all key efforts on London, which was the only high profile election that was taking place at that time. London was winnable and so deserved the best possible resources. But it wasn’t until the last months of the GLA election campaign that money started coming in thick and fast from the then National Fundraiser. However, with or without this increase in finances, the GLA seat still would have been won.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">On the day of the election, when it came to the count, many of the boxes had been tampered with, and the new electronic counting system had glitches. Three hours prior to the results being declared, I asked one of the key officers of London Elects what percentage we were at, regards the PR London-wide vote and he said that the BNP was at around 7.5%. I then asked him where this percentage would ultimately level out at, and he said ‘7-7.1%’. This would have resulted in a contest between the Greens getting two seats and the BNP achieving two seats. In fact, we ended up with only 5.3% or 130 000 votes for the top-up candidacy! So what was the explanation? At least I was elected- another BNP first! But to drop from a predicted 7% plus to 5%plus seems somewhat inexplicable! So much for electronic counting systems…</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I was at the same time also the mayoral candidate for London and won 198 000 votes. I had been out every single day- canvassing, leafleting, attending hustings, as well as spearheading the campaign, while at the same time still acting as the Leader of the Opposition of Barking and Dagenham Council which was also a seven day a week job. This put inevitable pressure on my domestic life. In spite of all this frenetic activity for the Party, it transpired recently that the closer it came to the elections and the more likely it seemed that we would win a seat, Head Office were having second thoughts about my being the candidate!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yes, I like a drink at the end of a long hard day but I’ve never drunk to excess or allowed it to affect my judgement. However, the Left don’t miss a trick at our expense, and saw this as a stick to beat me with. I would like to make clear I have never sought assistance from any AA group, nor have I needed to. Having a drink has never affected my work or professionalism. For those of you who feel that my speeches are somewhat ‘poetic’, that is just my character. Having said this, it has secured every success I have achieved for the Party, for my own area and across the nation both at branch meetings and at the RWB and throughout the country in canvassing campaigns.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">When elected to the GLA it was agreed that I would give 10% of my net earnings to the Party. However, I decided voluntarily to donate all of my net wage from Barking and Dagenham council which was £500 a month. This was in fact over £100 per month more than 10% of my GLA salary and this money went directly into the Party treasury with the intention for it to be used for the Party’s development.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Success inevitably attracts attention and opposition. During 2008, having been elected to the GLA and while also a councillor in Barking and Dagenham, I was constantly under attack, both having my house damaged again and being brought before the Standards Board through complaints initiated by Labour councillors. After I was elected as a member of the GLA, I passed the leadership of Barking and Dagenham BNP councillors on to the deputy leader of the opposition and became the deputy myself. By this time I was dealing with not only my own ward but with several other wards, as well as representing London on the GLA.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The elections of 2006 and 2008 were run on what was actually a pittance, (compared to the vast amounts spent by the main parties), of £50 000. With all the big money that has come in to the Party subsequently, I ask the simple question, where did it all go?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the end of 2008, any campaign strategy had fallen through the floor, with people permitted to contest seats that were clearly not winnable. This includes unlikely areas such as Camden, Tower Hamlets and Hampstead. These no-hope campaigns were run at the expense of winnable seats like Hainault. Here again, Head Office had lost the plot. The subsequent poor results demoralised individuals, and brought down our national average, which gave ammunition to the press and achieved nothing beneficial.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was also in 2008 that they stopped the annual awards for achievement and thus turned the RWB into a low key non-celebratory non-event. Yet this was at a time when the Party needed to praise and encourage individuals for achieving things beyond the normal expectations of any main-stream political activists. Unlike the other parties, the BNP was the only political entity that was being attacked from all directions, every day of the week. As tangible, positive recognition within such a negative political climate, people valued those awards so much. And the more successful we were, the more our opponents turned up the heat and the more difficult it became. But of course, as with everything else, Head Office knew best!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was at about the end of 2008 that people began to have growing concerns about money. I told the Chairman repeatedly that he should distance himself from the financial affairs of the Party and also that he had to get an independent auditor. I also pointed out that the begging letters, which were coming from Northern Ireland at an almost indecent rate, had to balanced out with letters requesting practical help and activity from those who could not afford to pay. The response to this was that ‘people should be embarrassed into feeling that they should pay up’!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Also at this time, on a monthly basis, key leading activists and administrators were complaining to me about issues that I could clearly see that were arising within the structure of the Party, and were asking me to bring them to the Chairman’s attention on the basis that I could not be sacked from my position and that they could! I duly did so and the result was that I was sacked as Barking and Dagenham Organiser- again!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">From that point on, support at meetings in Barking and Dagenham started to dwindle. And not only was attendance at branch meetings falling off, but the number of ward news letters going out was diminishing. As early as late 2008, the overall picture in Barking and Dagenham was that the borough was starting to slip away. And Head Office was becoming ever more remote.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The decline slowly continued. The then Barking and Dagenham Organiser had too much to do. Some councillors were struggling with personal attacks, not to mention the mounting pressure of the bureaucratic side of council work coupled with their ward work, and still there was no support from Head Office, and no let-up in sight. And this was happening UK-wide. Yet the money was still coming in thick and fast to Head Office. No doubt it was all going into the Northern Ireland set-up.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2009 saw more complications in the working structure of Head Office. Even though more finance was coming in to the Party than ever before, we were losing seats we had won previously and even more discontent was being passed on to me by grass-roots activists to pass on to the Chairman. This was becoming more and more frustrating because he clearly wasn’t listening! No doubt he was basking in the success of the European elections which saw two MEPs successfully elected.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yorkshire and Humberside had been seen as a secondary consideration and yet Andrew Brons got a higher vote than the Chairman. But Head Office was more concerned with getting money into seats where key officers were candidates, rather than looking at where the most votes were likely to come from! By this time we were into an annual income of something like £2 million and yet branches and groups had to give up money to finance the European elections. Head Office should have paid for it and left the branches and the groups to conserve their finances for local elections. The Party had lost the plot with its misjudged priority of pumping millions into the Northern Ireland office. It was if we were about to be a key player in government. And yet we hadn’t won over-all control of a single council- or even a parish.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In mid 2009 I said to the Deputy Chairman that things had to change because key activists’ complaints were falling on deaf ears and if this continued I would have difficulty in retaining the whip at the GLA, because these issues had to be addressed. At the same time, rumours were passing around that I would be deselected to stand for the Barking parliamentary seat. As it turned out, the rumours proved true, and it came to light in the winter of 2009 that I would not be selected to stand for the constituency of Barking again and that some one would be parachuted in from outside London. This approach was also to take place in Stoke, Thurrock and other key strongholds, with local activist candidate hopefuls being replaced by outsiders with no links or affiliation with the constituencies in which they were to stand. Yet another ingredient was being stirred in to the mix in the recipe for disaster!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2009, with the stagnation of activities in Barking and Dagenham, I asked the Chairman to reinstate me as the Barking and Dagenham Organiser. Even so, it took an unbelievable five months of time wasting and petty discussions for me to be given the post again! I formulated a campaign which this time had the necessary number of candidates that would allow for two thirds coverage which would have given us control of the council had they been elected. Notwithstanding, this was all left to the last minute, because I didn’t have access to the Barking and Dagenham membership list and previous election canvassing sheets. The campaign was run in only five months! In this time we had to leaflet the whole borough five times over and partially canvass it. Having said that, the glitches in the campaign itself made no difference, because what I did not predict was the amount of corruption that went on during the election with each Labour councillor getting an additional 1000 or more votes on top of what they had attained 2006!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Just look at these figures and draw your own conclusions:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrgCLNYlOtacfjlV1Y_EYnFlR5mvGuikNvGpH6QKmNoi2M1eQJFywQS0CH1N8HpQx2cRLqUXeIejJpt7bwu74pGtVTYvYon5YE3hpxRhivAdrc2Li6o_lwzd17ws_ZfyZMqKIlwE0GAghc/s1600/Election_chart_Richard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrgCLNYlOtacfjlV1Y_EYnFlR5mvGuikNvGpH6QKmNoi2M1eQJFywQS0CH1N8HpQx2cRLqUXeIejJpt7bwu74pGtVTYvYon5YE3hpxRhivAdrc2Li6o_lwzd17ws_ZfyZMqKIlwE0GAghc/s400/Election_chart_Richard.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Whereas the BNP vote largely held up to what it had been in 2006, the Labour vote consistently more or less doubled! Even those former Labour councillors who had been deselected and had stood as independent candidates were complaining to us about what had been going on. These were individuals who had worked hard and been popular within the wards that they had represented- people we thought that we would have found it difficult to beat. Following the election, we made door to door enquires, knocking on doors of houses with multiple voters listed on the electoral roll, only to be told in many cases by neighbours that in fact only one or two people lived there. But by this time the entire activist team was totally exhausted; we just didn’t have the resources or the energy it would have needed to launch a full scale investigation. We reported our concerns to both the police and the Electoral Commission but nothing came of it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">After the elections of 2010, where we lost everything on the council and got a derisory vote in the both the parliamentary seats of Barking, and Dagenham & Rainham, it transpired that the then National Elections Officer, the Chairman and possibly other key national head office officers had made the decision to deselect me from Barking, not for my alleged ‘drinking’ nor for dyslexia, but because they could not allow someone of my high profile to take the possibly only parliamentary seat in the country. In other words they didn’t want me to become the number one person in nationalism in the Britain. Pathetic!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">During the last 3 months of the Barking and Dagenham campaign, otherwise known as the Battle for Barking, there were massive splits in campaign team. Certain people who supported the Chairman would not work in a team with the sacked National Elections Officer! Maybe it’s time to look back to former times in Barking and Dagenham, to see how the situation had degenerated:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">During the second weekend in March in 2005 we had 85 people leafleting and canvassing throughout the borough.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2006 in the council elections in the same weekend in March we had around 150-160.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2008 in the GLA and Mayoral elections in the same weekend, we had 240 people out in the borough of Barking and Dagenham.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But in the same weekend in March 2010 we had a pitiful 60-70 people turn out.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, in 2010, we were over the £2 000 000 fundraising mark. I had myself donated £1000 to the national elections. And at the same time paid out £500 for lifelong membership. Yet parliamentary campaigns across the country were being paid for by branches and individuals and not by Head Office. Granted, I have to say with some humility that Barking and Dagenham, primarily Barking, had all its funds supplied by Head Office- after all, it was where the Chairman was standing. But what is also very concerning is that branches and groups had to donate a large percentage of their hard earned reserves to fund the national campaign. So once again, I have to ask, what became of the £2 million? Who’s been eating into the pie?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Following hard on the heels of the 2010 elections, came the Goresbrook by-election in July. This came about because a Labour councillor did not declare that she was working for the council which disqualified her from standing. I fought long and hard to get Labour to concede the point, which eventually led to the councillor resigning, thus forcing a by-election. But these efforts were all in vain, because when it came to the campaign for that by-election, hardly anyone turned up- maybe 3 or 4 canvassers a day! There were again massive splits between those who supported the National Organiser who had been given control of the campaign by Head Office, and those who followed the ex-National Elections Officer. Both factions would have nothing to do with each other and would even not be seen canvassing in the same road! The situation was so bad that it led to us losing the seat again, only this time we polled even fewer votes than we had in the preceding month- this in Goresbrook, the once flagship ward which had previously polled some 52%!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was more than clear to me then that in-fighting and personal ambitions had started to take precedence over the good of the Cause itself and the situation was getting seriously out of control, so much so that it was detrimentally affecting our election outcomes. Goresbrook was a seat which we should have been able to win back easily! However at the time I myself was totally exhausted by the effects of the election campaign and the subsequent wipe-out, support was dwindling in all directions, factionalism had distracted and split the activists and supporters, members were not re-joining and morale was at rock bottom. Also the RWB annual event had been abandoned.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Since then, it’s been one tale of unmitigated woe for the Party, due to the horrendous mismanagement of the finances by Head Office, resulting in outstanding printing bills, numerous and largely avoidable court cases, changes to the constitution, mass expulsions… dissatisfaction was becoming so bad that many councillors were resigning the whip in despair.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">At this point, I had come to the conclusion that something had to be done; the Chairman had to be replaced. I attended a meeting with the ex-National Elections Officer to decide which of us would mount a leadership challenge and which would be seconder. The vast majority of the activists at the meeting were in favour of the ex-National Elections Officer. However it subsequently transpired that the meeting had been loaded in favour of the then ex-National Elections Officer; also that derisory comments had been made about me, behind my back at that meeting. I therefore then decided to distance myself from the challenge in disgust at the antics of the number one challenger. It wasn’t until some weeks later that a collection of independent national activists requested that I stood, as in their view, neither the Chairman nor the number one challenger was able to take the party forward. I would like to make it quite clear that I was not asked to stand by the Chairman.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The situation which led to my resignation of the whip has been well documented elsewhere on my blog. Suffice it to say here that following the leadership contest in summer 2010, in which the Chairman was successful, I could see clearly that after his re-election, the Chairman was unlikely to implement any of the changes that I and so many others had been calling for. So I reluctantly resigned the BNP whip at the GLA by way of protest. But instead of taking my concerns on board and formulating a plan for acting on then and thereby saving the Party from disaster, Head Office took the opportunity to expel me! (Please note, I have never resigned from the Party). Maybe it was because I had been seen as a thorn in the leadership’s side. After all, with my previous success record for getting things done and achieving groundbreaking results, perhaps I was seen as being just too pro-active, like all those others who had been culled over the years just because they showed too much ability. Perhaps given the number of times I’ve been sacked for no good reason, I should have seen it coming! But hindsight is a wonderful thing!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Having been expelled, I wrote to Head Office requesting an appeal hearing, which I was entitled to. At least I would then have had the chance to put my case. But even this was denied to me. In fact the reason that I was given for my expulsion was that having resigned the whip I had in effect resigned from the Party, which is utter nonsense. But it seems that they were determined to get rid of me once and for all, come what may.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Looking back, 2010 was a horrendous year for me personally. I received numerous death threats, had my bike damaged and wheels slashed on a number of occasions. I was physically attacked in the streets when wearing my suit, had liquids thrown over me and was punched in the face. No police action was taken, even though I reported each incident. And then there was that altercation with Billy Bragg where at least I managed to get him to concede that Labour wasn’t representing interests and concerns of the people of Barking and Dagenham. There was certainly never a dull moment!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 2011 the Party started attacking me publicly with inflammatory and libellous statements. It also subsequently came to my knowledge that the Chairman had intended to falsify information with intent to bankrupt me in an attempt to evict me from the GLA. There remains the possibility that I may face legal proceedings over unpaid printing bills relating the Barking and Daghenham elections and incurred by Head Office, which I had been specifically led believe had been paid and consequently signed off in good faith as party agent. All this is hardly the sort of behaviour one would expect from the leadership of a national party which is supposed stand for the principles of honesty and integrity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the end of 2010 I attended two English Defence League meetings to see how the organisation could be incorporated within a political party and to look at its political intentions for the future. In January 2011 I attended a meeting of the English Democrats council in order to discuss possible affiliation and to talk over their manifesto and political aims. Neither of these avenues progressed further. In April, I wrote to all four leaders of the main nationalist/patriotic parities and group, suggesting unification.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now you tell me if you don’t think I’ve tried to do my best for the Party and the country over the last decade?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So that’s why I’m where I am today. I still wear the beige suit- it has become a trademark. Because of it, wherever I am, people know exactly who I am and what I have done to assist this country. Let’s hope I don’t have to hang up the beige suit for good in the near future, but who knows?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>So where to we go from here?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The BNP is no longer fit for purpose.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Party has to be dismantled and re-named, while at the same time it should work towards unification with the other patriotic/nationalist parties and groups. This would ideally include UKIP and the English Democrats, and also the English Defence League, as well as other smaller groups where feasible, reaching out to all British/English patriots right across the political spectrum of nationalism to establish a single unified fighting force fit to take on the corrupt political establishment in today’s Britain.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The new party has to be restructured as soon as possible. And in order to progress unification with other like-minded organisations, all the key officers of the nationalist parties should be invited to come together for a conference to bring this about.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Joining together would give us sufficient power and resources to make the new united party of nationalism a real force to be reckoned with in the 21st century. Some may call it a ‘new model army’, working together to overthrow the tyranny of the British liberal elite.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We have been sliding backwards for long enough. Now is the time to move forwards.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
Having foreseen the problems within the Party, readers may well ask what I did to try and resolve them. Well, I didn’t just sit on my hands - I did my best to point them out. Here is some of the correspondence I sent to Head Office in an attempt to persuade them to change their ways. Unfortunately my petitioning fell on deaf ears:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">June 2010</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Dear Nick</i><br />
<br />
<i>I am to say the least, like everyone else, extremely disappointed by the results in Barking and Dagenham. But I hope that this will afford the Party the chance to turn a corner, because there are some things which need to be said, and unless these matters are sorted out now, once and for all, I do not see that the Party is going to progress; indeed its implosion is inevitable.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Firstly, to say I saw it coming would be untrue, but in hindsight, we were up against an unprecedentedly hostile and well-resourced campaign from our opponents. In the light of this, some facts have to be faced by the present leadership.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I have been saying for a long time that there needs to be far more support and resources given to the grass roots from HQ. At the moment things seem to be operating in the opposite direction. HQ should be there to assist the ground forces and not the other way around. I made this clear in a letter I sent to you Nick about a year ago and my advice has only just begun to be heeded. We have to move forward in this area as a priority.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Also, the Party finances have to be sorted out now, once and for all. Public perception is the big issue here. The employment of any individual on a six figure salary is wholly unacceptable. You could get at least 3 good people for this figure! It would be bad enough if this salary were being funded from investments, but no, this money is coming directly from donations- and as we all know, the Party gets its money from supporters who are either elderly or working class. No rich bankers or businessmen are forking out to help the BNP, I’m afraid. So although donations might well be up as a direct result of an individual’s efforts which on the face of it might be said to justify this level of remuneration, the salary is coming directly from our supporters and unfortunately there has been proven to be such a thing as ‘donation fatigue.’ Once we lose the memberships goodwill, the income flow will dry up and it will be very hard, if not impossible to restore it.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Again, it’s a fact of life that it’s the public perception that matters. What sort of message does this put out? -the fact that we can afford to pay a single individual this much? Also, I would have thought that one of the tests of loyalty of any employee of the Party is that they are prepared to come and work for us at less than the going rate! The situation has to tackled, and it has to be addressed as a priority, if not by the Leader than by the AC. To spell it out clearly, the national fund-raiser’s position has to be radically pruned. Because until this happens, questions will continue to raised throughout the rank and file about the Party’s finances which need to be far more transparent.</i><br />
<br />
<i>The question of European expenses is another bugbear that needs to be taken in hand. I hate to sound self-congratulatory, but I have never taken any of the expenses that I have been entitled to whilst on the GLA or the Council, with the exception of a travel card. I don’t take taxis, I don’t go on foreign jollies, I hardly take what I’m entitled to so there’s absolutely no chance of anyone ever being able to accuse me of swinging the lead. This has paid off dividends in the form of peaceful nights’ sleep while the MPs’ expense scandal was raging. We must not allow ourselves to be put in the position of attracting criticism. So I strongly suggest that the European expenses have to be cut right back.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I have to say that at times like this, with all this conflict over the leadership, words fail me. The secondary blogs, like ‘Butler Exposed’ and comments like ‘Barnbrook’s gay,’ have to stop! The lack of principle and individual loyalty in this Party is horrifying. I stand aghast as I watch all around me people putting themselves and their petty grievances, personal ambition and naked gain before the good of the Party and the country. This is not why I joined the BNP. We have to be the people of principle. We will only succeed through decency, sincerity, honour and self sacrifice.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I am wondering where I go from here. I can’t bear all this bickering, sniping and back-stabbing. At its best, it’s galling and at its worst it’s interfering and wrecking our ability to fight a decent campaign here in Goresbrook. All hands should be concentrating on winning back the seat and I shouldn’t have to waste my time in writing this. Believe it or not, and it’s incredible but true, I had to try to attempt tp mediate between the 2 factions of supporters whilst running the campaign! One lot of activists support the ex-national elections officer and the others under the national organiser, are loyal to you. So I was going to have to keep them separate in east and west Goresbrook which would have left me on my own canvassing in the middle of the ward so that the two groups didn’t meet!! In the end, only 4 people bothered to turn up! This cost me my 4 day holiday and remember, I have not had a break since well before elections. THE PARTY NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IN INPUT FOR THE GORESBROOK CAMPAIGN. WE NEED TO RETAKE GORESBROOK IN ORDER TO PARTIALLY REDRESS OUR RECENT FAILURES. And yet people are putting their petty grievances before the Party- as usual. This is such a lamentable state of affairs, because indications up until now show that we are on course for a win, but we have to put the work in.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Nick, I’ve followed you to date without question, so much so, that I moved aside for you in Barking, but now I want to see some action on the points I’ve raised not just for your own good as leader, but for the good of the Party and the country.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Unless there are some significant changes along the lines I’ve mentioned, I think that it’s regrettably quite clear that the 2000 signatures needed for an election challenge will be forthcoming.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<i>Believe me, I have always and continue to have the good of the Party and the cause at heart. We have to move forward now, otherwise we are simply doing the enemies’ work for them. I’m making these points for your own good as well as everybody else’s. You have to look for a successor that is not tied or tainted by the existing set-up. The Party cannot be led by ‘yes-men,’</i><br />
<br />
<i>Nick, I would like a response to this if not today then tomorrow, and then maybe we could talk.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Yours</i><br />
<i>Richard</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">-----------------------------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Dear Richard</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Many thanks for your long and carefully considered letter. My apologies for not replying sooner, but there was no time with a parliamentary session combined with party-running work and the very significant time currently being taken up with major staff restructuring and forward-planning (much of which, incidentally, is intended to deal with several failings that you rightly raise).</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Anyway, I am now in a position to reply, so will do so one issue at a time in the order raised by you:</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">1) You state that HQ should assist our "ground forces, not other way around." In principle, I agree, and action is being taken on this. For example, starting on July 1st, for the first time in the history of British nationalism, local units will be allowed to keep every penny of every new membership they sign up. This will be for an experimental period of three months, but as long as it produces the major increase in recruitment that such an incentive should, I would hope to extend it.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">But, and here's the point, this is only affordable because we (or, more precisely, Jim Dowson) set up a proper call centre, which allows the party centre to work on upgrading new members, which is what will make this financially possible. Your belief that our contract with Mr. Dowson is some kind of problem that should be brought to an end could not be further from the mark.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">That said, I am mindful of the point you raise the perception can matter almost as much as substance. You will therefore be pleased to learn that Jim is now working on the next phase of the plan we designed for the party’s radical organisational upgrade, and that this involves a co-ordinated effort to raise our game at regional and local level. The aim of this is to help our front-line become more effective at recruiting and fund-raising, in order to provide sustainable funding for local staffing and campaigning.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Additionally, there is much of what has been done centrally over the last two years which, having got things right there, can now be used to provide the support for the front-line that you rightly point out is needed. Crucially, our Elections </span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Department will over the coming months be rolling out the knowledge and software needed by our frontline to run effective voter contact and databasing campaigns. Here too, we would be unable to make this absolutely vital step forward were it not for what Mr. Dowson has already done for the party centrally.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">2) I agree that central support for local elections, and our councillors, has been woefully weak in the past. Our Elections Department, for example, promised to produce an elections handbook for six or seven years, but never did so. Clive Jefferson will have one (covering far more innovative and advanced techniques than have ever been used before) by the end of the summer.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">As already pointed out above, we are also working on creating for the BNP the voter targeting database and online campaign support mechanisms that the other parties started to develop years ago. This will be a huge step forward and it is indeed overdue. Here too, I refuse to accept lectures on past failings here which originate with the man who was in charge of our election machine and is overwhelmingly to blame for its lack of drive and ambition. My fault is not having replaced him earlier.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">What I do promise is that your well-founded concerns about past lack of emphasis in this field is already agreed with and being acted upon, and will be seen to have been addressed in the very near future.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">3) On the related question of councillor support, I likewise have to say that I have never turned down a single, concrete, realistic proposal for training events, newsletters, online support or similar, from any one of the several individuals who have been elected as Councillors' Representatives to the AC. I created the post to encourage initiative and progress in that area, so again, my fault is not having taken action to remedy the omissions of others, but I am not super-human, and I try to avoid being a control-freak.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Some of what Clive's team are looking at will help to fill this gap, but overall this will remain a weak point for a little while until a group of current and especially former councillors step forward with proposals I can back to sort it out. That said, Cllr. James North is doing more in this field than any of his predecessors, so if you have any concrete proposals, he's the man to contact.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">4) From a big picture point of view, when I decided to take Jim Dowson on at the end of 2008, we concluded very early that the organisational improvement side of his work would have to start at the party centre, on the basis that until that was sorted out and updated from amateur shambles to professional level, any significant growth from below would overwhelm our ramshackle system completely.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">The downside was that having to put so much attention and investment into the centre has inevitably led to the perception that the volunteer base has been neglected. Well, since the centre is essentially full-time, I cannot see how it would have been right to leave it pottering along, wasting members' money and holding things up, while pressing our volunteer rank-and-file to work harder and (especially) smarter.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">As discussed above, that part of the process is now just beginning, starting with a significant upgrade in the amount of practical and back-up support we will from now on be giving to ROs and their regional teams.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">5) Thus far, I imagine you will have been generally pleased with what I've had to say. That will not be the case with the next point.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Jim Dowson is not on a six figure salary. He has never been paid that much. He is well paid, although please note that when one hires an independent contractor such as his operation, his bill includes services provided by other people he brings in to advise. Over the last two years I have seen this in action time and time again, as Jim has bounced organisational problems of ours on to experienced contacts of his, and come back with answers that work. This has been a good investment.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">As for value for money, not only has Jim raised a huge amount more than he has charged us, his cost-cutting efforts on everything from print jobs to mobile phone contracts have literally saved more than we have paid him. Meanwhile, the call centre makes a profit every single month, as well as making our members feel they belong (it is one of the things that has reduced our membership turnover loss from 70% to 17%, do you really want to go backwards on such things?)</span></i><br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: #3366ff;">6) You suggest that we shouldn't raise funds from appeals. I have to ask, what alternative do you propose? A machine the size of the BNP costs huge sums of money to run. Our surplus income from memberships, subscriptions and unsolicited donations wouldn't begin to cover the costs of running the party's essential services.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">If we stopped running appeals, what should we cut? Who should we sack from our paid staff? Which offices should we shut? Which publications or services should we scrap? How much should we increase membership fees?</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">You are right that there is a risk of donor fatigue among some, which is why Jim Dowson has taught us the importance of collecting and approaching the largest possible number of new names and addresses. It is why he, more than anyone else, is pressing ahead with measures designed to help us get to the 20,000 member financial take-off point.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Basically, a party of 2,000 members can be run on a largely voluntary basis, but one of 10,000 cannot. But a party of 20,000 can be run with the same infrastructure as a party of 10,000, which is why we - having got the central infrastructure right - we are now moving on to concentrate more on the membership growth that is the only thing that will allow us to scale back on the intensity of our appeals operation.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">7) To move to your next point, you suggest that Mr. Dowson should work for us for less than the going rate. Well, firstly, he does. For the amount and effectiveness of his work, he is actually a bargain.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Secondly, if you would care to go out and find us a fund-raiser, a despatch centre chief, a management consultant, a budgetary control advisor and a skilled trainer, then if you can find those skills in a person or group of people who will perform those duties for the BNP - standing up to all the hate from Searchlight, the mass media and the time-servers and petty crooks who they expose and deal with - then when Mr. Dowson's contract expires I will consider taking on your fortuitous find. Do you have any suggestions to start with?</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">8) You say that finances need to be more transparent. The reality is that the BNP's internal systems are now, thanks to Jim Dowson's advice, full of checks and balances to prevent funds being stolen or misapplied. We are audited to the same level as a multi-national company. Any member of the A.C. (and please do not insult its members by even hinting that they are all 'yes-men') is at liberty to inspect any aspect of our accounting system and to ask any questions they wish. Then everything is checked by the hostile bureaucrats of the Electoral Commission - a second audit carried out by Establishment placemen. Where is the weak point?</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">You cannot call for more transparency without pointing out what it is at present that is not transparent. Nor can you do so without proposing sensible, workable and troublemaker-proof proposals to make further improvements. The ball is in your court, Jim and I have spent the last two years working on getting our accounting systems up to the required standard (not easy with a turn-over rising so fast, and lack of experienced staff), so we would be delighted if someone else would come up with some even better ideas to bolt on to what we have already achieved.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">9) Still on money, we come to the question of European expenses. As I have already pointed out to you, I am at a disadvantage here, because despite my asking for it last week, you still haven't given me a shred of detail as to what is supposed to be wrong.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Are Andrew Brons and I accused of stealing? Of living high on the hog? Or of not breaking the law by ripping off the taxpayers to subsidise the BNP? Of employing too many staff? Or too few? Of using parts of our office and communications budgets? Or of not yet using them all? </span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">You say there is a bugbear, but where is it, and what does it look like? And what. expenses do you think should be cut back? The District Line doesn't go to Brussels or Strasbourg and we don't get Oystercards like you anyway. Should we hitch-hike, or continue to drive, thus enabling us to take assistants and security with us at no extra cost to the taxpayer or to the party?</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Should cut our Attendance Allowance payments by not bothering to attend, thus allowing the media to characterise us as 'do-nothings', losing our right to find and expose the sort of injustices and dangers which we are now uncovering frequently, and incidentally depriving our Community Funds of thousands of pounds of extra income, donated by us from our own money?</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Should we stop using our £40,000 a year Communications Allowances to put out huge numbers of constituency newsletters or for postage for direct mail to constituents from their MEPs? All the other parties use every penny, should the BNP alone give the money back to the EU?</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Should we stop using our £40,000 a year Office Expenses budgets to rent and equip our offices? All the other parties use every penny, should the BNP alone give the money back to the EU?</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Or should we refuse to hire staff with the £180,000 a year we each get for that purpose? Should you close your offices at the GLA, stop employing your staff and give the money back to Boris? I ask, because those are the only measures that would reduce the amount of what our enemies and the ignorant call our "expenses claims".</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for even listening to the recycled Searchlight smears that Butler and his little gang of cronies keep coming out with on this issue.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">10) I am, however, very much more sympathetic to your request that the party take responsibility for the Goresbrook by-election. Indeed, as you know by now Clive Jefferson has done just that. The whole of the Election Department is at his and your disposal. Every effort will be made to roll out our early experiments in telephone canvassing and other improved electioneering techniques.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">So there are your answers. I hope that you like some of them and appreciate the facts and plain speaking in the others. Now I strongly recommend that you simply tell the smear-mongers to go away and leave you unmolested, and that you get on with Goresbrook and then your GLA duties, and leave the worries and cares of running the party to me.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Yours sincerely</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="color: #3366ff;">Nick</span></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
29th June 2010<br />
<i>Dear Nick</i><br />
<br />
<i>Thank you for your long and detailed letter which I have now had the chance to read over carefully. It must have taken you a considerable amount of time and effort and I am grateful for the frankness of your answers.</i><br />
<br />
<i>In the light of all you have said, and given your over-all perspective as leader, it now seems clear to me that you know best. At least, I’m prepared to accept that you do. I have taken on board your comments about the National Fundraiser. Save with the proviso, that when all the focus is on financial considerations and marketing tools, there is inevitably a tendency for the personal side of things to suffer. I mentioned to you in a letter of over a year ago now, that the mail shots asking for donations should be alternated with requests for activists. Because not everyone can afford to keep giving donations and I feel that many people may find this aggressive repetitive badgering for money unwelcome and off-putting. Our party has to be seen as not only different from, but superior to all the rest, both in terms of principle and idealism On this point, I recall that Lee Barnes made an interesting comment a couple of years back when he suggested ways to re-invigorate the nationalist working class consciousness by organising outings and educational events as a means of cementing new members to the Party by social activities. It’s this human side of things that I feel may well get neglected as I have an almost Luddite revulsion to such new-speak terminology as performance indicators, targets, achievable and measurable aims and objectives and the new nonsensical vocabulary which is the pride of the paper-pushing MBAs which have done so much to cripple businesses and wreck this country with their money grabbing, one-size-fits-all methodology. So what I am asking for is that we do not lose sight of the doorstep activism side of things. Because what really matters above all is the personal touch.</i><br />
<br />
<i>With regard to European expenses, again it is the public perception that matters, as you rightly agree. What I have heard, and no doubt you will castigate me for having listened to anti-party propaganda, but what I have heard is that you attend in order to claim the attendance allowance and then beat a hasty retreat back home again. Somewhat reminiscent of what has been going on the House of Lords. Apparently they get over £300 for just turning up, sign in and then attend to their London business outside the House. If you have not been guilty of this sort of thing, then what it does show is that you need to be far more aggressive in rebutting all the whispering and lies that are in the ether and indeed, promoting your virtues.</i><br />
<br />
<i>After the Goresbrook by-election, which I hope will be successful, and I don’t necessarily think that it’s a foregone conclusion that it will be, given the huge lack of support and activity that I have received from across London, no doubt because they are all siding with Eddy and I have resolutely refused to nail my colours to the mast until I had spoken with you, you need to come down here and speak to all the London organisers and key members with your vision for the future to try and get them back on board. I think that if I win Goresbrook, your job may be a little easier. But you will need to confront them, nevertheless.</i><br />
<br />
<i>The only thing that keeps me going in the midst of all this misery and disappointment is that my intentions are sincere and that it is not so much the end result, but the quality of the fight that matters. Because that is ultimately what we as individuals will be judged on. At least I can console myself with having fought a good fight for the last 6 years with Barking and Dagenham consistently returning the highest national percentages, and I have done this for what I feel are all the right reasons.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Sincerely yours,</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Richard</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
29th June 2010</div><div style="text-align: justify;">No further communication from the Chairman led to:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Press statement 13th August</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>PRESS STATEMENT</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u><b>Official Statement From Richard Barnbrook AM.</b></u></div><u> </u><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Over the last few months allegations of serious wrong doing concerning senior British National Party officials have been spread both within and outside the British National Party.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I do not know the truth or otherwise of these allegations.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>These allegations have the potential to cause major political damage to the party’s future electoral prospects unless they are investigated and revealed to be false.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I was elected as a London Wide Member to serve the constituencies of Londoners who feel that the establishment political parties do not represent them or their interests.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I have a duty to put their interests and the interests of the British National Party first.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>For over a decade I have been a loyal member of the British National Party.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>This is why I have decided to take this course of action.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>The serious nature of these allegations are such that they must be the subject of an internal independent and transparent BNP investigation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I have decided therefore that until these allegations are investigated fully by an independent panel of British National Party officers and members and are revealed as either true or false, that I cannot continue to represent the BNP in the Greater London Assembly.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I am therefore resigning the BNP whip with immediate effect and will now sit as an independent member of the London Assembly. </i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I am not resigning my British National Party membership.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I remain a loyal British National Party member and continue to serve the party and its members that I hold so dear to my heart.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Once this internal and independent British National Party investigation reports back its findings, and I can go back to my constituents and fellow party members and report that the allegations are not true, then I will immediately recommence representing the British National Party on the GLA.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I will not be making any public comment on the nature of these allegations to the media as they relate to legal issues that must remain confidential in order not to compromise the investigation. </i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I still am one of the most loyal and dedicated members of the British National Party.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I will not be making any further comments to the media on this issue, or any issues related to the investigation, until the independent and fully transparent internal BNP investigation has reported back its findings.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<i>Richard Barnbrook AM. </i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Independent member of the Great London Authority. </i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">13th August. 2010<br />
11.00</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Why</b> <b>I resigned the Party Whip:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b><br />
</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>The inescapable issues that must be addressed</b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sent to the Chairman prior to publication on my blog 17th August 2010</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The leadership challenge gave Nick Griffin a clear and decisive mandate; hopefully the Party will be able to move forward. But in order for this to happen, concerns that came to light in the course of the campaign must be addressed. We cannot progress as a party if things are simply swept under the proverbial carpet.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have spent over a decade working the streets of London and across the nation, to support the principles and ideals of this Party, while at the same time, working tirelessly as most of you know, getting our members elected to local and regional levels of government. I am a nationalist, heart and soul, and always will remain so. I have not made the decision to resign the Party whip lightly. Nor have I produced this document with the intention of having a go at head office, the leadership or indeed, any individual. Any retribution is for the membership to determine and not me.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I honour my membership and respect the position that I was elected to. I deeply appreciate the work of those members of this party whose tireless efforts enabled my election, and am grateful to every individual that voted for me. It is only because of this that I feel that I have a duty to now speak out and hope that the wisdom and good sense of the Party’s management will be able to rectify these problems within the next two months. I am not prepared to allow things to drag on any longer than that because the damage could be irreversible. Those who have been active members for as long as I have will recognise that this cannot be allowed to happen.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We have gone, apparently, from £2.3 million in the black to owing something in the region £600 000. Nick himself admitted publicly on the night of the leadership challenge that the Party is £500 000 in the red. The Party’s books, therefore, need to be looked into by a small group to see what has gone wrong and where and how this can be remedied. I would suggest no more than 4 individuals- two from within the Party hierarchy who can offer explanations and two members with an accounting/investigative background, who can be relied on to be totally independent and fair. The findings need to be published.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Leading on from this, we were late again submitting the books to the Electoral Commission and the Party was fined as a result. This should not have happened as it could have been avoided and has cost the Party money. It is another indication that the accounting side of things needs scrutiny and overhaul.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The large scale sackings and suspensions have to stop. In particular, the individuals sacked from the Advisory Council should at least be given reasons for their dismissal. Those members suspended over the past few weeks ‘pending investigation’ should be re-admitted if there is no good reason for their exclusion. The investigation itself should be made by independent assessors and not by party officers. We cannot afford to lose good people. The effect on morale of these unexplained exclusions is devastating. If individuals need to be disciplined then so be it. But the procedure needs to be clear, transparent, and above all fair.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Once affairs are back on the straight and narrow and in order to ensure that matters do not regress, I would like consideration to be given to implementing the following measures:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Polygraph tests for anyone at Regional Organiser level or above, which includes non members These tests are expensive but very effective at rooting out infiltrators and they have to be prioritised. We cannot afford to let in any more moles into positions of authority from which they can wreck our Party’s future. The tests should be undertaken compulsorily, from the Leader downwards.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A new internal party structure needs to be set up to protect employment rights of BNP staff members. This committee would be required to check and authorise suspensions before they are issued.<br />
This would ensure that sackings are fair and lawful and the Party is not left open to defending expensive legal proceedings.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Regional Organisers should be elected by the members of that region eligible to vote and should only be dismissed from office by the voting regional members, or by their peers on the Advisory Council.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The whole communications mechanism and accountancy and recruiting departments must be removed from Northern Ireland and brought back to the mainland. The present location is inaccessible and therefore not cost effective or practical.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As I have said, these issues have to be addressed within the next two months, before the political scene hots up again at the end of September. We cannot allow them fester any longer, because they are pulling this Party apart from top to bottom. When they have been resolved, I will resume my position as a BNP representative of the GLA. Until that time, my position will technically remain as independent, but rest assured that my political views have not changed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Richard Barnbrook, BNP Member</div><div style="text-align: justify;">London Assembly Member</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
25th August 2010</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<b>Changes that have to take place</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have always maintained impartial over the recent months after the elections, if not all the way through my political career with the BNP. Maybe the term impartiality should be replaced with that of professionalism.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yes, I did stand for the leadership and yes, I did shake hands with Eddy Butler. That was before I saw what a moronic level this party and its structure has descended into, all crying out in the name of Britain and in the name of the BNP. What a fool I have been! It has now come to my attention that old friends, the first that I ever met when I joined the Party in 1999, that do not hold any status other than that of true activists, have been bullied and threatened not to work with me in any capacity. I may have resigned the whip, but for good reason. I am still a loyal member of THE PARTY. Managements come and go, as do leaders, but the stakeholders always remain the same.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have never attacked anybody personally or made statements </div><div style="text-align: justify;">to undermine the party, let alone its ability to function. While I am still a member of the GLA I will do my damndest to make sure that a member of the party that I belong to will be re-elected to the GLA in 2012, but that is a long shot at this moment in time with these divisions and factions taking place. As I said before I will resume the whip once the perceived current problems have been tackled This is not a selfish act or reprisal, it is simply what the party has to do now in order to survive.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Clarity, Communication, Cohesion and Continuity:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It’s due to the perception of a total collapse of communication from Head Office down, along with possible improprieties in the financial governance of our party that has caused the discontent of recent months We need an overhaul. Once again, this is what I suggest:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1)Our Chairman, Nick Griffin, MEP, be made life-long president of the party, a similar position that was offered to John Tyndall.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2)That Nick Griffin, MEP, be given all necessary resources to fight to regain his seat in future European elections.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3)That all expenditures over £500 are made open to party scrutiny in addition to that of the Electoral Commission.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">4)That auditing and accounting functions are carried out by a scrutiny committee of 2 independent party members as well as independent professionals who have had to tender for the contract in order to secure the most competitive rate for Party</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">5)That all communications and activities based in Northern Ireland be brought to the mainland immediately and downsized to fit within the Party’s realistic structural capability and budget.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">6)A full explanation of why the Party has gone from being £2.3 million in credit to a deficit of £600 000 in the past year.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">7)All Regional Organisers and above, including national management, to undergo a polygraph lie detector test within the next 6 months.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">8)All Regional Organisers to stand down and be elected by the regional members and to be paid £1000 per month, plus travelling expenses and communications. This is based on getting our donations and membership fees up again.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">9)A Cabinet should be set up to include the Chairman, and Deputy Chairman. The Treasurer and the other 3 members to be chosen by the Advisory Council from among themselves.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">10)All day to day decision making should be discussed and voted on by the Cabinet.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">11)Regional Organisers can only be dismissed by the members of that region, or by the Advisory Council.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">--------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Dear Richard</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>A loyal member of the party would not let down our activists and voters by resigning the party whip. Nor use the patently absurd black propaganda put out by a group of over ambitious egotists, crooks and plants as the opportunity to try to blackmail the party into giving you another five years in a job in which you have failed. </i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>You do at least have the sad distinction of being the most hated man in the BNP, since both the Butler clique and party loyalists now detest you. If you continue on your present course any longer your situation will be totally unfixable.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>All you need to do, howver, is to stop kidding yourself that your walking away has or will achieve anything other than giving you a threadbare excuse to renege on your pledge to give 10% of your salary to the party in London. Knowing that you are, at heart, a good and an honourable man, I cannot imagine that you really take any pleasure in the assorted addictive substances that you are buying with that stolen money.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Please, please, take a deep breath and get back in touch with our man from Alcoholics Anonymous. There is still time to save yourself from two years more guilty excess followed by a short lifetime of unemployable dereliction in the gutter. We still could sort something out that would give you the chance of a job in the Cause after someone else is elected in your stead (as now has to be the case) in 2012.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>I am sorry to have to be so blunt, but the time for misplaced politeness has passed. You are a sick man. Your sickness has hurt many close to you and it has damaged the Cause for which you have sacrificed a great deal. But the others and especially the Cause will go along without you. It is you that you are killing.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Your genuine friend</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Nick</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
From: Richard Barnbrook]<br />
Sent: Wed 8/25/2010 4:39 PM<br />
To: GRIFFIN Nick; BNP North West<br />
Subject: 2012 GLA Elections</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Here is the email I said I would send you. There will be another following, either today or tomorrow.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Regards</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Richard</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>GLA ELECIONS 2012: LONDON CALLING!</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>The internal difficulties which are dogging our party should not and cannot be allowed to affect our election chances for the Greater London Assembly here in London in 2012. It is imperative that we all start working towards this campaign now!</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I realise that many of you are feeling demoralised. And the 2012 elections may seem to be a long way off. But, the one thing I do know is how to run a successful GLA campaign. And make no mistake, if we are to have any chance in getting a BNP assembly member in to the GLA in 2012, we have to start our action now!</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I may have resigned the party whip, but I am still a member of the BNP and I intend to remain so. Indeed, once the issues of concern have been ironed out, I will be more than happy to return to the fold. I am also fully committed to getting a person (whoever it may be that is eventually nominated), and hopefully more than one, elected on to the Assembly. But to do this, we have to create a forceful nationalist presence in London. We have to get the message out to the voters. WE HAVE TO PUT OUT A MILLION LEAFLETS JUST TO EQUAL OUR EFFORTS IN 2008. This is a huge feat in itself. Hopefully, we can better it. BUT IF WE SIT BACK AND WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR IN THE HOPE THAT BY THEN, EVERYTHING WILL HAVE SETTLED DOWN AGAIN, IT WILL BE TOO LATE!</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>WE HAVE TO START NOW OR LONDON WILL BE LOST TO US!</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Nick Griffin is now the London Organiser. But Nick is also MEP for the North West with an office in Brussels and a home in Wales. He can’t be everywhere at once.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>All I want is the success of this Party. I will not sit back and surrender London or the South East. I, along with other longstanding activists, have the experience and the public profile to lead this campaign. But to do it, we need your help.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Forget all the gripes and the infighting. Let the party big-wigs play their power games if they want to. The future of this country is the only thing that matters.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>If you can help, please contact me:</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Subject: RE: 2012 GLA Elections</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:05:31 +0200</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>From: nick.griffin</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>To: richardbarnbrook</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Dear Richard</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Since you have let all our voters and activists down by resigning the whip, no-one either wants or needs to hear from you. London BNP will be out and active in a big way on and from 18th September with the Bring Our Boys Home campaign. If you want to take part please contact me to discuss coming back into the fold. Our door will remain open for a little longer.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>N</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>To: Richard Barnbrook,</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>From: Clive Jefferson,</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>British National Party</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>26th September 2010</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Dear Mr. Barnbrook,</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>When you resigned the Party whip in August it was decided to give you time to understand that such an action was disloyal and unacceptable. Our Party wanted to give you every opportunity to consider the significance and effect of your actions and to do the right thing by all the Londoners who voted for the British National Party, and the activists who worked so hard to get you elected, either by resigning your seat and so letting another British National Party list member represent the party in the GLA or by reapplying for the Party whip and rejoining the struggle.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>You have in fact done neither. It is now clear that your break with us is final and that you feel no obligation to BNP activists or voters. A Party list seat, as you are fully aware Richard, is not a seat you yourself won, people voted for the British National Party not for Richard Barnbrook.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Even before you left the Party there were concerns about your increasingly erratic behavior. In fact we intended to offer you help and counseling as we were concerned for your mental and physical wellbeing. Many members have urged us, on the basis of your behavior, not to allow you to retake the whip even if you requested this.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Sadly I am now left with no alternative but to assume that you have resigned from the Party. Alternatively, if you maintain that you have not, I hereby notify you that, under Section 9.8 of the British National Party Constitution, you are expelled from membership of the British National Party. The reason for this is that by resigning the Party whip and issuing statements to the media relating to this action you contravened Section 4 of the Code of Conduct.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>If you indicate to me in writing within fourteen days that you have not resigned your membership and wish to contest your expulsion a disciplinary tribunal will be arranged for you.</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Yours sincerely,</i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>Clive Jefferson</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #3366ff;"><i>National Organiser.</i></span> <br />
----------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Dear Mr Jefferson</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Thank you for your communication.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Please take notice that I have not resigned my membership of the BNP and I have no intention of doing so.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I will of course be appealing the matter.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>This hotmail account has been corrupted and this the first time I have been able to access it over the last fortnight. .</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>PLEASE THEREFORE SEND ALL FURTHER AND FUTURE COMMUNICATION TO:</i><br />
<i>RICHARD BARNBROOK AM</i><br />
<i>GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY</i><br />
<i>CITY HALL</i><br />
<i>THE QUEEN'S WALK</i><br />
<i>LONDON SE1 2AA</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Yours sincerely</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Richard Barnbrook AM</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
From: richardbarnbrook</div><div style="text-align: justify;">To: elections<br />
Subject: RE: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.<br />
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:29:27 +0100</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Dear Mr Jefferson</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Further to my e-mail informing you of my intention to appeal against my expulsion, I look forward to hearing from you in writing, addressed to me at City Hall, information as to the following:</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Who will decide who will be sitting on the appeal panel?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Who will be on the appeal panel?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>When is the hearing likely to take place?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>What the procedure for the hearing will be?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Yours sincerely</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Richard Barnbrook AM</i><br />
<i>GLA</i><br />
<i>City Hall</i><br />
<i>The Queen's Walk</i><br />
<i>London SE1 2AA</i><br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
From: richardbarnbrook<br />
To: elections<br />
Subject: FW: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.<br />
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:51:42 +0100</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Dear Mr Jefferson</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I have not had a response from you to the e-mail below either by e-mail or to my GLA address.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I am forwarding you a letter by post to the Spennymore PO. I would be grateful if you would confirm safe receipt and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Yours sincerely</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Richard Barnbrook AM</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">7th October</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Dear Mr Jefferson</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>To date, I have not received a reply to any of my e-mails, nor to my letter dated 6th October.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I would be grateful for an immediate reply, informing me of the proposed arrangements for my appeal hearing.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>If I do not have a response by the end of this week, I will be forced to assume that you are deliberately prevaricating with the specific intention of denying me my entitlement, and will consequently be seeking legal advice.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Yours sincerely</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Richard Barnbrook AM</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------</i><br />
<i>From: richardbarnbrook</i><br />
<i>To: elections</i><br />
<i>Subject: FW: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.</i><br />
<i>Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:26:49 +0100</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Dear Mr Jefferseon</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>I have still not had any response from you, either on this account or at the GLA.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Please reply to the GLA in writing by post as a matter of urgency.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>RB</i><br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------</div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-50100234120550522902011-06-26T07:33:00.000-07:002011-06-26T07:34:35.913-07:00TRYING TO PULL IT ALL TOGETHER.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg25f0Mnh2HV5JuFMnDkzgAR8Si4Q6-k36O_wsx1b4IxD-mFzS9d_K9MJNhSgDCEe0uatv83OMk_P8B5OSVOEQ7cWosamk8HMW137J44teMzg5HZEg6MzDI0kW-8US_28jaTbfk4drM9Xwl/s1600/protocols-zion-elders.n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg25f0Mnh2HV5JuFMnDkzgAR8Si4Q6-k36O_wsx1b4IxD-mFzS9d_K9MJNhSgDCEe0uatv83OMk_P8B5OSVOEQ7cWosamk8HMW137J44teMzg5HZEg6MzDI0kW-8US_28jaTbfk4drM9Xwl/s320/protocols-zion-elders.n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
An essay by <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/search/label/Poetry.%20Mike%20Wilson"><u><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Mike Wilson</b></span></u></a> <br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Well, where do I begin to try and unravel all the different facets of world control, world economy, Muslim incursion and the current state of unrest running through the Middle East, Europe and America?<br />
<br />
Each one of these seemingly disconnected issues are actually strung together like a chain built link by link by faceless unknown overseers watching mankind’s progress down through the ages.<br />
<br />
I was not aware of any grand design as I idly surfed the internet several years ago but then I became interested in what several commentators were saying with regard to ‘New World Order’.<br />
<br />
In fact there were and still are many sites talking about this very topic and I became interested in a way that took me to many other sites in order to try and research as much as I could about what was happening in our world. At first I thought that a good many of these web sites were being run by people who had a touch of the sun but as I progressed in my search I started to see familiar patterns and designs and realized that what I had erroneously supposed were simply people having other people on were starting to add up in a way that made a great deal of sense, even though it left me with a very uncomfortable feeling that my previously ordered world was nothing of the sort.<br />
<br />
I had to increase my research on this topic and looked into the books of Douglas Reed, Captain Ramsay , William Pelley, Jackie Patru and many others.<br />
<br />
The overriding evidence of control going back for hundreds of years was starting to emerge but with the daily expansion of the internet more and more evidence was emerging that what had been scoffed at in the past was and is now incontrovertible fact. There is a world control that is only starting to be seen by people like me who have time on their hands to be able to research it.<br />
<br />
Once I had established in my own mind that such indeed is the case then I began to look at other events that were seemingly disconnected from each other but now suddenly started to make sense.<br />
It is hard to make rational sense of things which just seem to be irrational and isolated incidents but now in retrospect most of these things have a rational explanation which in some cases defies belief.<br />
Some researchers have spent a great deal of time doing the background research on many of these topics with a great deal of scholarship investigating the origins of many of these disparate facts which in my mind have now started to come together.<br />
<br />
Some of these researchers have come up with different origins for the same end result and I don’t propose to delve too much into each and every one. What I am going to do is to outline what has evolved and how it has affected each one of us in different ways but with one end result – world control.<br />
<br />
The starting point.<br />
<br />
As a child I accepted the voice of authority whether it was my parents or teachers or community leaders and as I grew older I carried on accepting this authority, mainly without question and listened to elected officials and politicians as they shaped the world around me. If I had to disagree I did so at the ballot box in concert with everyone else. This was democracy at work or so I thought and in general everyone else thought the same.<br />
<br />
Now with the benefit of time to explore on my side I realize how much I have taken for granted and how much has been robbed from us. Most of us still believe that we live in a well ordered society and go about our lives leaving the day to day running of local governments and national politics to those elected officials who maintain the smooth running of the engine of society by taking appropriate action as and when necessary.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately this ‘ fools’ paradise’ and democratization of the rights of man has been totally usurped from outside sources with a hidden agenda of which very few people are aware. So our well-ordered society is in fact something quite different from what we believe we have and one doesn’t have to look very far to find it.<br />
<br />
How many people have asked themselves just what it is that is happening to Britain and Europe generally? Why is it that vast numbers of immigrants from different cultures and races are being allowed into these European bastions of rational thought and democracy?<br />
<br />
The answer ties in completely to what I referred to in my opening remarks about a New World Order and if you follow the argument you will see how this is all developing.<br />
<br />
In my search for information I came across a reference to a book which had been banned for over a hundred years. That book is called “The Protocols of the Learned elders of Zion”.<br />
<br />
This book surfaced in the 1920’s and was immediately condemned by international Jewry as being a fake and they tried in many ways to denigrate it and to make out that it was the utterances of a long forgotten sect that had no current purpose. By the way, the person who brought the book into the light of day died in very mysterious circumstances. This is an ongoing situation in that when someone discusses or leaks important information relating to these matters they somehow end up dead’. Back to the ‘Protocols.<br />
<br />
These protocols are a set of 24 instructions which sets out to tell Jews how to dominate and control the world. I know that sounds a bit farfetched and I thought so too but as I looked at events over the last 100 years or so I became convinced that what was set out in these protocols has happened and is continuing to happen right up to this day.<br />
<br />
I don’t propose to go into each one of these instructions but let me take you through some of them.<br />
<br />
<b>Protocol No 1.</b><br />
<br />
“Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men whom we wanted we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man: and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of man to the disposition of him who has bought their activities. <br />
<br />
The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country, and that steward may be replaced like a worn out glove”.<br />
<br />
<b>Protocol no 2.</b><br />
<br />
“In the hands of the States of today there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the press is to keep pointing out requirements supposed to be indispensible, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the Goyim ( non-Jewish) states have not known how to make use of this force: and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining invisible”.<br />
<br />
<b>Protocol no 3.</b><br />
<br />
“Today I may tell you that our goal is now only a few steps off. There remains a small space to cross and the whole long path we have trodden is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolize our people. When this ring closes, all the states of Europe will be locked in its coil as in a powerful vice.<br />
<br />
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium .But the pivots-the kings on their thrones- are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power”.<br />
<br />
<b>Protocol no 5.</b><br />
<br />
“Moreover the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbiage, by regulations of life in common and all sorts of other quirks, in all of which the goyim understand nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain”(Control of Britain from Brussels).<br />
<br />
“We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgencies and liberties which have been permitted by the Goyim, and our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any Goyim who oppose us by deed or word”. <br />
<br />
Here again you have the spectre of the EU government controlling every aspect of life in the previously independent countries of Europe.<br />
<br />
<b>Protocol no 7. </b><br />
<br />
“ In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the Goyim in Europe in check we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us. We shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan”. Does any of this seem familiar in light of recent events?<br />
<u><b><br />
</b></u><b>Protocol no 21.</b><br />
<br />
This protocol covers in detail how these faceless men manipulate and control the money markets of the world. This section finishes with the following paragraph.<br />
<br />
“We shall replace the money markets by grandiose government credit institutions the object of which will be to fix the price of industrial values in accordance with government views. These institutions will be in a position to fling upon the market five hundred millions of industrial paper in one day, or to buy up for the same amount. In this way all industrial undertakings will come into dependence on us. You may imagine for yourselves what immense power we shall thereby secure for ourselves”.<br />
<br />
The 24 protocols cover most aspects of our lives from religion to freedom of expression and includes control of universities. This in order to change the way we think and act in accordance with the overseers mind control over the general population. <br />
<br />
The obvious question at this point is who are these faceless overseers who through these protocols have described every aspect of world history for the last one hundred and fifty years? Well the short answer is international Zionism. That is not to say international Jews since only a very few Jews are Zionists but every Zionist is a Jew. These Protocols were set down in the mid eighteen hundreds and many attempts to bring them to the notice of ordinary people resulted in the deaths of those attempting it or as happened in America the complete banning of the book by the Jewish controlled press. That was almost a hundred years ago and you can imagine just how much further their control is today.<br />
<br />
I recently submitted a poem called “World Control” and it ended with a reference to Harold Wallace Rosenthal. He was a Jewish Zionist who was interviewed by an American investigative reporter and he confirmed that what has happened in America was as a result of this Zionist conspiracy and told how the banks, press and America at large was all controlled by the Zionist group in accordance with the principles of the Protocols laid down over a hundred years ago. As a result of this interview he was later killed, another result of people speaking out of turn.<br />
<br />
This Jewish Zionist thread runs throughout our recent history and the most famous family connected with it are of course the Rothschilds whose vast banking empire encircles the globe and controls its economy.<br />
<br />
I said earlier that I would try to pull together all the disparate situations affecting the world currently and it can clearly be seen that this Zionist global conspiracy is behind everything. Why for example are America and Nato flying missions into Libya, to help the people?<br />
<br />
No of course not, it is to help the bankers keep their control of the world economy by fomenting insurrection and then working with both sides in order to wage ongoing wars that no one ends up winning except the global conspirators who protect their empire.<br />
We have seen this with the war against Iraq and currently in Afghanistan. Both sides are funded by the same faceless nameless people who end up with an altered world over which they have more control.<br />
<br />
The Europe dominated by a government in Brussels is a good case in point. The Protocols pushed for a union of Europe and now that it is a reality guess who controls it?<br />
Zionist conspirators are behind everything we do and we have been brainwashed into accepting their world instead of standing up and demanding changes from our politicians whilst we still (just only) have a voice. <br />
<br />
Why do you think we have a Europe overrun with Muslims, blacks and rainbow people?<br />
<br />
It is an orchestrated plot designed to reduce the voice of native born British and European peoples so that their opinion becomes absolutely diluted with foreigners and therefore is of no account in determining <br />
their own fate. <br />
<br />
Whether there is still time to change things I doubt very much as the Zionist influence controls every aspect of our lives from what we see on TV to the films we watch produced by Zionist studios in America. A very covert way of changing our lives and accepting values that were once considered anathema to the normal person. Unfortunately we now have generations exposed to this mass brain washing to the extent now that the older generation seem to be out of step with the rest of humanity.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that the current economic climate has been typically engineered by Zionists but unfortunately there are so few people to react against it that we have just accepted that these events happen and we try to get on with our own lives.<br />
<br />
I wonder what sort of utopia we would have had had the Zionist influence not infiltrated the very core of our society and changed it to their own design. Perhaps a society where old fashioned values of peaceful co-existence and harmony went hand in hand with religious wonder and freedom of expression?<br />
<br />
Who knows?</div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-86039677353178760342011-04-15T10:37:00.000-07:002011-04-15T11:16:46.017-07:007th July 2005<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuHO0anB4OJKKRMGpw-_Lopbqi78jT8o0rLBkLs0kltmpt_YXTT-e9TIKHbe_xuqAC_FMlpWYcjAyknNOEQtuoP7Bo8pgkjGSJ18zA5lajM1TMJ13vzhNmtwD5vCAWQfmzwA_zhKOUFhE0/s1600/7_July_bombings.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 267px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuHO0anB4OJKKRMGpw-_Lopbqi78jT8o0rLBkLs0kltmpt_YXTT-e9TIKHbe_xuqAC_FMlpWYcjAyknNOEQtuoP7Bo8pgkjGSJ18zA5lajM1TMJ13vzhNmtwD5vCAWQfmzwA_zhKOUFhE0/s400/7_July_bombings.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5595867360668726562" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Thursday 7th July 2005</span><br /><br /><br />© Frank Ellis 2005<br /></div><br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">M</span></span>y immediate reaction to the news that Islamic terrorists had carried out a series of atrocities in London was to hurl politically-incorrect abuse at the radio, followed by traditional Anglo-Saxon expletives and a period of sustained two-fingered gestures. Fortunately, the Home Office has not implemented recommendation 39<span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:78%;" >(1)</span> of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Macpherson Report</span>, otherwise MI5 would have been bugging my house and yours truly would have been dragged off to prison as an “enemy of the people”. When I calmed down I realised that while my reaction towards the devils who had murdered some 55 people in London was entirely wholesome and normal, others deserve loathing and contempt as well.<br /><br />The real culprits here are the multicultural extremists, who over the last thirty years or more have peddled their hatred of the West and white people, so preparing the way for acts of terrorism. These are the same people who have been responsible for the Soviet-style rewriting of our history, the corrupting effects of “anti-racism” and feminism on our language and the multiple failures to deal with the immigrant invasion. They have consistently sought to undermine our ability psychologically, morally and intellectually to resist the tyranny of multiculturalism.<br /><br />It started with trifling things: banning golliwogs on jars; blackboards became chalkboards; teachers proscribed the singing of ba-ba black sheep; whites had to face up to their colonial past (I have, Africans should stop whining and be grateful). Our great heroes have been systematically and viciously denigrated; Third-World non-entities and gangsters are lauded. As a consequence, children and adults who know nothing of their own history - and ours is a very great one indeed - are ill-prepared to understand and to resist the ideologically-driven rewriting of history and what it means for the present. Looking to the past can be a great source of comfort, steeling our hearts in adversity and danger. Yet, today, too many adults can derive no succour from their past: it has been stolen from them or trampled underfoot.<br /><br />The education establishment generally, and the universities particularly, have inspired and manipulated this Neo-Marxist pestilence. Consider that nearly all the repressive, anti-white racist measures we associate with political correctness and multiculturalism started life in a university. The most disturbing thing here is the extent to which academics whose very professional existence depends on the institution of free speech and challenging ideas have colluded with those who want to turn the university into a People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment. If the West does fall, future historians (will there be any historians?) may well regard the corruption of our universities, their willingness to embrace the revolution of anti-thought, as one of the decisive factors.<br /><br />Our political classes have also lost the will to act. This lack of will and a steadfast denial about what has been happening in Britain can be seen in the way in which conservative politicians now queue up to spit at Enoch Powell. Just after the terrorist attacks Boris Johnson tried to persuade readers of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Daily Telegraph</span> that Powell’s ‘catastrophic 1968 tirade’ made it impossible for politicians to talk about immigration and a multiracial society.<span style="font-size:78%;">(2)</span> This is pure evasion. What stops politicians from talking about immigration and a multiracial society is that too many of them - perhaps these days all of them - lack the courage to stand up and be counted.<br /><br />All three main parties are full of people who either want to impose the multicultural nightmare on Britain, or who harbour reservations, but keep their mouths shut for fear of damaging their careers. They have an obligation to speak out and they are not doing it. Johnson’s swipe at Powell is especially disgusting because when the out-going Tory MP, John Townend, attacked multiculturalism during the 2001 general election campaign, it was Boris Johnson, slavishly following the example of Hague, Dorrell and Maude who attacked Townend. The attacks on Britishness, the cause which Johnson now, belatedly, wishes to espouse, were well under way in 2001. Townend’s justified criticism of multiculturalism provided Johnson with the ideal opportunity to make his own opposition known and stand alongside Townend. Politically, Johnson found it more expedient to lay into Townend. Thus Johnson’s blaming Powell is despicable, and his call for reasserting Britishness utterly dishonest, given that he has made his own contribution to undermining Britishness by staying silent when he could have spoken out, and then attacked someone who did speak out. The time for highlighting the threat of multiculturalism to the integrity of the United Kingdom was not in the aftermath of terrorist attacks - that’s the easy jump-on-the-emotional-bandwagon option - but when the corrosive effects of multiculturalism were demonstrably obvious; and they there for all to see long before 7th July 2005. Far from being responsible for erecting any taboo on race, it was Enoch Powell who broke the cosy establishment conspiracy of silence regarding race and the consequences of immigrants flooding into this country. Powell warned what would happen and since the time when Powell issued his warning every attempt has been made to silence and to vilify any opposition to multiculturalism.<br /><br />The Islamic terrorist atrocities in London are further evidence that beyond a certain threshold it is simply not possible to accommodate large numbers of immigrants <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> to preserve the British way of life. Yes, it can be done, after a fashion, but it means the systematic destruction of what we hold dear - our ancient freedoms and customs, monarchy, the-way-we-do-things - so as <span style="font-style: italic;">to</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">compel</span> the white indigenous majority population to accept something that most of us reject. The only people in Britain who tell you that “diversity is our strength” all live in Cornwall, the Somerset levels, Hay-on-Wye, Suffolk and Perthshire, a million miles away, in other words, from all that enriching “diversity”. Like we say, “Enoch was right” and that is why the left and a “Conservative” party, which increasingly resembles a social-democratic rabble, hate him and fear his memory and legacy so much. The turning point for getting utterly ruthless with the cult of multiculturalism should have been immediately after Tuesday 11th September 2001, not Thursday 7th July 2005. How many more people will have to die in Islamic terrorist atrocities, how many more generations of British schoolchildren are going to be denied access to their nation’s history, and how many more British institutions will have to be broken and maimed by the People’s Commissariat for Racial Equality before Johnson and his spineless party stop denying the ugly realities of multiculturalism and start fighting back, behaving, in other words, like a loyal opposition, and not frightened lemmings?<br /><br />Denial regarding multiculturalism takes many forms. One approach, Niall Ferguson is an advocate, is to argue that the demographic shifts associated with multiculturalism are inevitable; that they are “the tides of history”. Now multiculturalism is not some immutable law of history to which the indigenous white populations of Northern Europe must submit. Let us recall that the ravings of Marx and Lenin about communism’s triumph were once accorded the same status of historical inevitability; that socialism was the wave of the future. This was precisely the Marxist planning fantasy that Friedrich Hayek dissected and exposed as incoherent and inherently totalitarian in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Road to Serfdom</span> (1944). What, I wonder, would Ferguson, surveying Europe in the aftermath of Dunkirk, have told the readers of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Daily Telegraph</span>; that Hitler and National Socialism were “the tides of history”; that we had better do a deal with the Führer whether we liked it or not? There were some who would have done a deal with Hitler, but the Great Man told them to go to hell. We fought a just war and we won. Churchill, like Powell after him, had a sense of history. We resisted Spain, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin and Stalin’s successors. Resistance to multiculturalism requires the same determination. We must address the questions openly, fearlessly, honestly and rationally, and that means that we must refuse to allow ourselves to be intimidated by accusations of racism from white-hating multiculturalists - the real Neo-Nazis among us - and then we must act, not submit to the self-defeating fatalism articulated by Ferguson and other fainthearts. The response to the threat of multiculturalism is, in essence, one of political will and the belief that Britain, our great country, warts and all, is worth fighting for. Our political classes either support the cult of multiculturalism or derive benefits from supporting it. These people will never suffer from the policies they inflict on the rest of us. Moreover, I predict that the moment the joys of multiculturalism start to impinge on Ferguson’s life he will abandon his fatalism and start very actively to resist “the tides of history”. In America where Ferguson works this resistance to “the tides of history” is known, among other things, as white flight.<br /><br />The Islamic terrorist attacks should also herald the formal and total rejection by the Home Office of the Soviet-style <span style="font-style: italic;">Macpherson Report</span>. Macpherson’s recommendations have demonstrably hampered an aggressive pursuit of black and Asian criminals and severely damaged police morale. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks we heard Sir Ian Blair talking tough, yet what happened on 7th July 2005 has, for the time being, conveniently diverted attention from Blair’s persecution of three police officers. A race inquiry, which has dragged on for nearly six years, was initiated in the Metropolitan Police Service after a female police officer, a one Shabnam Chaudhri, complained that Detective Constable Tom Hassell mispronounced the word Shi’ites, as “Shitties”, and that he compared Muslim headgear to tea cosies. She then went on to complain about his remark that he would not want to be “that lot”, a reference to Muslims’ abstaining from sex and food during the month of Ramadan. In an echo of the Soviet crime of <span style="font-style: italic;">nedonositel’stvo</span> (failing to denounce an “enemy of the people”) she accused the other two officers, who were present, Detective Sergeant Colin Lockwood and Detective Inspector Paul Whatmore of failing to intervene. Even the employment tribunal concluded that Blair’s main aim was to make an example of the three men so as to parade his anti-racist credentials. The effects of this internal persecution on police morale can only be deeply damaging. Nor is Blair the only senior police officer who bends the knee to the cult of multiculturalism. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick insists that ‘Islamic and terrorist are two words that do not go together’. Something is horribly wrong with the Macphersonised Metropolitan Police Service.<br /><br />Enoch Powell was not the only one who sounded the alarm. In the 1980s, based on his own direct professional experience as a headmaster of an inner-city school in Bradford, another fine Englishman warned us what to expect. In a ground-breaking article first published in <span style="font-style: italic;">The Salisbury Review</span> Ray Honeyford concluded with the following words: ‘And I am no longer convinced that the British genius for compromise, for muddling through, and for good-natured tolerance will be sufficient to resolve the inevitable tensions’. On 7th July 2005 we were handsomely rewarded for our tolerance and punished for our failure to keep out the hordes of immigrants who came to this country with murder in their ugly black hearts. Macpherson and his flunkeys in the Macphersonised Met, Trevor Phillips, Bhikhu Parekh and the lesser known race bureaucrats and well-meaning mediocrities owe the sage of Lancashire an unreserved and grovelling apology. Like we say, “Enoch was right, so was Ray”.<br /><br />What further outrages and assaults await us? Here is a prediction. At some stage - I do not know when - the self-appointed leaders of what is referred to as the “Muslim community” will demand an independent Muslim state on the territory of the United Kingdom. They will justify this demand by arguing that Britain is so hostile to Islam, so riddled with “Islamophobia”; that only in their own self-governing territory will Muslims feel secure and be able to lead their lives according to the rules of Islam. This demand would be coupled with a barely-concealed threat of widespread terrorism, the use of suicide-homicide bombers, shootings, kidnappings, executions and murders, as we have seen in Gaza, Israel and Iraq. In the same way that the Israelis have had to trade land for peace so our politicians will be expected to make territorial concessions to buy peace in the United Kingdom. The fact that there may be a peace deal in the Middle East - eventually - would be the ideal time for Muslims in Britain to press these demands. Let us hope that this remains a far-fetched scenario, but if something like this happens, we should not bank on Blair’s successor, or whatever loser happens to be running the Tories, finding the resolve to reject any such demands out of hand, or pointing out the very obvious, that if these Muslims find life in Britain so utterly intolerable, they are free to return whence they came.<br /><br />Perversely, terrorist attacks help this long-term aim. The more attacks we experience, the more resentment against Muslims in Britain in all its forms will come out into the open. The provisions of the Soviet-inspired<span style="font-style: italic;"> Racial and Religious Hatred Bill</span> will count for nothing, and Macpherson will be dumped. Given that very few Muslims will follow the sound advice of Lord Ahmed of Rotheram: “buy into what it means to be British or go”, then the temptation to grant political autonomy to specified regions would seem quite attractive. It would, of course, be an utterly disastrous concession: paying Danegeld never works. Moreover, any kind of self-governing status granted to Muslims in Britain, based on the main concentrations of the Muslim population, would spell the end of the United Kingdom forever. For that reason, the EU can be expected to encourage such measures. Inter-racial and inter-ethnic strife would increase dramatically.<br /><br />And let’s be clear that this means much more than the riots that took place in Bradford, Burnley, Leeds and Oldham in 2001. If Islamic terror groups can organise carefully coordinated bomb attacks, there is no reason why they cannot organise large-scale attacks on the police, luring them into pre-planned killing zones, using small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. If some three quarters of a million illegals can get into this country, then smuggling in sufficient numbers of weapons presents no problem at all for determined groups. In any case Britain is already awash with illegal small arms. There is also the distinct possibility that not all members of the indigenous population will be content just to watch as the sceptred isle is turned into a war zone and torn to pieces. They will organise themselves, acquire weapons and learn how to use them and then they will fight back. If the security services fail to crush what has all the makings of a full-blown intifada, and thus prevent a violent counter reaction, things will be bleak indeed. For the time being the indigenous population of Britain is on the defensive, but it would be a grave error on the part of the government and the Islamic terror groups and their white Quisling apologists to believe that all Britons will just submit indefinitely to the cultural and physical terror engendered by multicultural extremists. At no stage were white Britons asked or consulted about whether they wished to see their country turned into another Yugoslavia. And that is where we are heading, maybe much faster than most of us realise.<br /><br />__________________<br /><p class="sdfootnote-western" style="margin-bottom: 0.42cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span lang="en-US">(1) ‘That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span lang="en-GB">offences</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span lang="en-US"> involving racist language or </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span lang="en-GB">behaviour</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span lang="en-US"> involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place’ </span></span></span> </p> <p class="sdfootnote-western" style="margin-bottom: 0.42cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span lang="en-US">(2) Boris Johnson, ‘This is a turning point: we have to fly the flag for Britishness again’, </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span lang="en-US"><i>The Daily Telegraph</i></span></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span lang="en-US">, 14th July 2005, p.28.</span></span></span></p> <p class="sdfootnote-western" style="margin-bottom: 0.42cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><br />___________________</p><p class="sdfootnote-western" style="margin-bottom: 0.42cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Click here </span></a>to return to the main Sarah: Maid of Albion blog</p><p class="sdfootnote-western" style="margin-bottom: 0.42cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <a href="http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Click here</span></a> to return to the British Resistance</p><p class="sdfootnote-western" style="margin-bottom: 0.42cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p><br /></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-85305495897406390502011-03-30T11:35:00.000-07:002011-03-30T11:53:46.633-07:00Eric Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century - A review by Dr. Frank Ellis<p face="arial" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY">Eric Kaufmann, <i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century</i>, Profile Books, London, 2010, pp. xxii + pp.269 + Notes & Index, ISBN 978 1 84668 144 8</p><br /><p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY"> The purpose of the whole evolution of a nation, in every people and at every period of its existence, is solely the pursuit of God, their God, their very own God, and faith in Him as in the only true one. God is the synthetic personality of the whole people, taken from its beginning to its end. It has never happened that all or many peoples should have one common God, but every people has always had its own special one […] If a great people does not believe that truth resides in it alone (in itself alone and in it exclusively), if it does not believe that it alone is able and has been chosen to raise up and save everything by its own truth, it is at once transformed into ethnographical material, and not into a great people.<br /></p><div style="text-align: left; font-family: arial;"> <br />Fyodor Dostoevsky, <i>The Devils</i> (1871-1872)</div> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="CENTER"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="CENTER">© Frank Ellis 2011<br /></p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="CENTER"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="float: left;font-size:300%;" >T</span>he main theme of <i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i> consists in the empirical fact that the religious are having more children than the non-religious, the secular, and that, if this trend continues, the religious shall inherit the Earth. To quote Kaufmann: ‘Simply put, this book argues that religious fundamentalists are on course to take over the world through demography’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a></sup> All the religious groups studied by him – Christians, Amish, Jews and Muslims – are having large families demonstrating an immunity to the temptations of secularism. In Israel, the rise of the ultra-Orthodox or Haredim is a remarkable and moving story in view of the fact that so many perished in the Holocaust. Kaufmann also reports that the Amish, a very impressive religious denomination, members of whom this reviewer has had the privilege to meet, are also thriving.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">According to Kaufmann, ‘The most visible aspect of today’s demographic revolution is the changing ethnic composition of Western populations’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a></sup> This is certainly a revolution: more accurately it is an invasion. Kaufmann’s use of ‘Western populations’ as in - ‘the changing ethnic composition of Western populations’ - is misleading since it implicitly accepts millions of Somalis, Arabs and Sub-Saharan Africans who have entered the states of Western Europe legally or in most cases illegally as belonging to Western populations. In any political, economic, cultural, racial, religious, intellectual and moral context Somalis and Arabs are not part of Western populations even if they live in Western states. Indeed, how can they be part of Western populations, when courtesy of Western taxpayers – the secular infidels whom they despise as the godless ones - they live in parallel worlds so as to isolate themselves from the white indigenous population? </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">At every opportunity in this book Kaufmann attempts to deny whites their natural and legal status as the rightful owners of their lands. For example, he goes out of his way to avoid using ‘indigenous’ when talking about Britain and uses ‘native’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a></sup> Another evasion is ‘dominant majorities’<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote4sym"><sup>4</sup></a></sup> or ‘dominant group’<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote5sym"><sup>5</sup></a></sup> instead of indigenous. The use of ‘dominant’ obscures and denies the fact that whites are dominant not because they have suppressed blacks in Europe but because Europe is the land which in evolutionary and historical terms created whites. Europe is <i>white</i> not black. The use of ‘dominant majority’ also implicitly concedes that if whites are replaced as the ‘dominant majority’ a new non-white ‘dominant majority’ will emerge and whites will have to accept it. If in this scenario ‘dominant majority’ is replaced with ‘indigenous population’ the notion that the ‘indigenous population’ should just accept this fact is revealed for what it is: the racial, cultural and physical dispossession of the indigenous population. To allay the fears of the white indigenous population Kaufmann tells us that the Normans fitted in and adapted after 1066. Well yes, they did but the Normans were fellow North-West Europeans. Pat Buchanan made a similar point a few years ago when he asked who would adapt better to modern Virginia: a million Englishmen or a million Zulus. Whatever happened after 1066 and regardless of their genetic propinquity with our Anglo-Saxons ancestors, the Normans still invaded England. I prefer not to be invaded even by my close relatives. The generation of my father and mother felt the same way in the summer of 1940.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">Kaufmann speculates on how the struggle between secularists and religious fundamentalists might end: ‘And while fundamentalists can be smashed by Soviet or Nazi-style repression, this contradicts liberalism’s very own principles’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote6sym"><sup>6</sup></a></sup> I wonder where Kaufmann has been living for the last twenty years. Where exactly is this liberalism that does not act in a manner that contradicts its very own principles? Is it buried in the vaults of the BBC or written in code in secret protocols annexed to the charters of universities and accessible only to a select group? That, to which Kaufmann refers as liberalism, is, judged by its behaviour, a form of soft totalitarianism. So far liberalism has not used concentration camps and tanks to repress opponents yet it has exploited Soviet-style methods of repression in order to silence opponents. Speech codes in American universities, affirmative action, attacks on free speech in both the USA and UK under the heading of combating what liberals call ‘hate crime’, virulent and sustained attacks on white history, culture and achievements, censorship and political correctness (a Soviet term) all bear witness to the fact that behind the mask of ‘we-love-you-all liberalism’ lurks a readiness to use Nazi and Soviet-style methods of repression, above all in the fields of culture and language. And why do Kaufmann’s liberals remain silent about the ANC-sponsored murder, rape and torture of whites in South Africa? There is nothing at all liberal about contemporary liberalism: it is new variant totalitarianism.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">Despite the well documented Soviet-style measures adopted by liberalism in pursuit of its goals, Kaufmann nevertheless argues that the great danger comes from religious fundamentalists: ‘from the gradual seepage of puritanical mores into society: restrictions on freedom of expression, science, recreation, the rights of women, minorities, heretics, gays and converts – even a return to barbaric punishments’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote7sym"><sup>7</sup></a></sup> Bear in mind that all the restrictions on free speech that have emerged over the last twenty years have been based on the liberal agenda and introduced by liberals, measures which are intended to silence and to criminalise any criticism of liberal fundamentalism and its multicultural agenda. Kaufmann’s complaint about fundamentalist puritanism would be more convincing if, for example, he acknowledged the damage inflicted by feminism. Feminism is a creed based on hatred of men. It would not have been so bad if feminists had just seeped into the North Sea but they have unfortunately seeped - to borrow Kaufmann’s term - into every facet of our lives, corrupting and poisoning everything they touch: marriage; love; divorce; education; law and order and the military.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">Throughout much of history populations have, Kaufmann notes, stayed stable (the better off had more children who survived). After 1900 increasingly generous welfare provision ensured that more children from the less well off survived. In 2011 this clearly relates to the demography of immigrants from the Third World in First World states. Desperate to avoid any association with eugenics, Kaufmann, in a nice example of attempted neutralisation by clear statement, instructs us that: ‘We do not have to accept the alarmist tropes of eugenicists to see that this has demographic implications both within the developed world and between the wealthy West and poor global South’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote8anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote8sym"><sup>8</sup></a></sup> So, does Kaufmann find this reversal of man’s evolution alarming, and if not, why not? And if he is alarmed just whose tropes is he using? It was after all eugenicists such as Francis Galton and Charles Darwin who noted that the less responsible and the low-IQ were having more children than the more affluent. They sounded the alarm. Kaufmann’s use of ‘demographic implications’ is a just a politically correct way of saying that this <i>is</i> alarming without giving any credit or recognition to eugenicists who have got it right. When Kaufmann notes that if the rate of population growth in Africa ‘goes unchecked, there will come a time when death and starvation readjust the world’s population to its carrying capacity’<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote9anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote9sym"><sup>9</sup></a></sup>, it should be pointed out that eugenicists and others warned about this long ago: Thomas Malthus for example. The danger for the West is that it will continue to waste billions of dollars and euros (if the currency survives) and pounds sterling on top of billions already wasted trying to stop natural, 4-horsemen solutions to population growth in the Third World. As Kaufmann observes, ‘Demographically pressured populations are not free to move, but will fight to do so’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote10anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote10sym"><sup>10</sup></a></sup> True, but the West has an army. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">Throughout this book Kaufmann repeatedly plays down the nature of Islam and its complete incompatibility with the West. He recognises the totalitarian nature of Islamic societies, especially if you are not a Muslim, yet asserts:</p><br /><p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY"> Some argue that fundamentalism is merely another wonderful colour in the multicultural rainbow of liberal society. In the West, they are largely correct, but the argument only holds as long as fundamentalists do not become a plurality or a majority that can restrict the liberties of others.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote11anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote11sym"><sup>11</sup></a></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">How is Islamic fundamentalism ‘another wonderful colour in the multicultural rainbow of liberal society’? Muslims in the West live in parallel societies funded by unbeliever taxpayers; Muslims are hostile to the West and its institutions and too many Muslims preach hatred and support terrorism. Moreover, as part of their contribution to the paintwork of liberal society they bring with them colourful forms of behaviour such as female circumcision, cruel forms of animal slaughter, crime, honour killings, arranged marriages (with all the medical problems) and terrorism. In Norway and Sweden Islamic immigrants are responsible for the huge increase in brutal and exceptionally violent rapes of indigenous girls. How do these forms of violent, culturally hostile and revolting behaviour possibly enrich Western societies? The question we have to ask here is that if the indigenous population is enduring all these problems now what will things be like when aggressive Islamic breeding, supported by the generous welfare and the superior health provision of Western states provides Islamic immigrants with a large electoral majority? Kaufmann is aware of the political implications of out-of-control Islamic population growth but lacks the intellectual honesty to admit that these problems, present and future, have been caused by a complete failure to police our borders. It is entirely possible that as the Muslim population grows, and forces what is currently the white indigenous majority population into minority status, that Muslims will have their Damascus moment and abandon all the nasty cultural baggage, preferring Burke, Locke and Mill to the ravings of clerics (just don’t bet on it). </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">Especially revealing in Kaufmann’s assessment of Islamic fundamentalism in the West as another wonderful colour and his reaction to its becoming a majority is a clear example of the totalitarian impulses that are part of modern liberalism. Kaufmann’s point is that as long as Islamic fundamentalists remain an electoral minority – liberals pretend not to see the baggage – they are a wonderful colour. However if their numbers grow and this translates into real power such that Islamic fundamentalists can impose their will on the unbelievers, they lose their wonderful-colour status. Islamic fundamentalists could argue – they will argue – that if they have the electoral mandate of the believers to impose Sharia and much else on the unbelievers they can: and they will do it. Kaufmann’s concerns about the demographic rise of Islam underlines the hypocrisy of modern liberalism: free speech is wonderful (provided it is not used to attack multiculturalism and to highlight low mean black IQ and black crime); and free and fair elections are wonderful (provided the electorate votes for policies approved by liberals. If they do not the result is null and void, illegitimate). Liberals, and this includes a great many so-called conservatives, for all the talk of rights and tolerance are just as intolerant and hostile to individual freedoms as Islamic fundamentalism. The key difference is that Islamic fundamentalism is honest about its goals and aspirations and undoubtedly will impose Islamic totalitarianism on the unbelievers if it can, whereas liberalism preaches tolerance for its chosen causes – multiculturalism, feminism, black-by-popular demand and mass immigration – yet uses censorship, legal and administrative terror, secondary violence and media and legal harassment to impose its totalitarian agenda. Home-grown liberal fundamentalism with its barely concealed hatred of its own indigenous population and its avowed anti-white racism and Islamic fundamentalism are both enemies of Britain. There are some striking parallels here with National Socialism and Soviet Communism, our two main enemies in the last century.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">Kaufmann’s explanation for why Muslims in Britain stick to Islam is also far from convincing and betrays a clear refusal to face the empirical reality of Islam all over Europe:</p><br /><p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY"> Second-generation Muslims are detached from their ethnic roots but also feel spurned by the white majorities in their nation states. This condition of existential purgatory makes the option of Muslim identity more enticing.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote12anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote12sym"><sup>12</sup></a></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">Second-generation Muslins do not have to remain detached from <i>their</i> ethnic (racial) roots. These Muslims may feel spurned but the nation states in which they are resident are not <i>their nation states</i>. They are free any time to leave Britain and recover their ethnic (racial) roots. Nor do Muslim immigrants have to endure ‘existential purgatory’ in Britain when they are only a five hour flight removed from Pakistan. Why do they exercise the option of remaining in a white, north-west European country if they feel detached from the land and culture of their origin? The answer is that given the choice of remaining detached and enjoying all the benefits of a First World economy or returning to the corrupt and backward Third World slums whence they came, they prefer to remain in a state of affluent, second-generation detachment. Again, why do these second-generation Muslims feel spurned by the white, indigenous majority population? It is surely related to the many bizarre and cruel customs which the Muslim immigrants have brought with them, quite apart from their active, terroristic hatred of unbelievers and striving to make Britain part of some slave state (Eurabia). </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">On the clear and present danger posed by Muslims in Britain and the rest of Europe Kaufmann is thoroughly evasive and unable to face the threat:</p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY"> The principal reason that most Europeans worry about the growing Muslim population has less to with sharia and jihad than old-fashioned ethnic nationalism – the wish to see the dominant ethnic majority remain congruent with the nation state. We shouldn’t exhibit the presentist myopia that views Muslim immigration as a greater challenge because Islam is more exotic or conservative than Catholicism.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote13anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote13sym"><sup>13</sup></a></sup> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">First, what is wrong with ‘old-fashioned ethnic nationalism’? The wish of Europeans (<i>ipso facto</i> white) to see their countries remain European and the wish that the white indigenous majority populations remain totally dominant is perfectly rational and wholesome. Why should Europeans want it any other way? Kaufmann provides no answer. He just begs the question: it is bad because it is bad because it is bad because Kaufmann says so. Would the Japanese welcome their being culturally and racially dispossessed in the Land of the Rising Sun or the Chinese in the Ancient Kingdom? No chance. Even Kaufmann concedes that: ‘Global demographic change cannot affect states unless they open themselves up to it’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote14anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote14sym"><sup>14</sup></a></sup> The Japanese and the Chinese want none of it. They are not interested in multicultural babble and the menace of diversity. So why should Europeans be expected to welcome their own racial, cultural and physical dispossession; their being targeted for displacement and elimination in their ancient homelands by aliens? Only a person with a cultural, racial death wish would welcome the Islamic invasion – for that is what it is – of white, Christian Europe or pretend that it is something beneficial for whites when it heralds their elimination. Second, given that sharia and jihad and all the other non-European baggage represent the behavioural, cultural, psychological and intellectual manifestations of distinct, non-white racial groups – Turks, Africans, Arabs and Pakistanis – the conflation of Europeans’ fears about the racial origins of the invader-immigrants and the fears that they, Europeans, will be displaced as the rightful majority are logical and fully justified. Europeans are the rightful majority precisely because whites are the indigenous population with effective possession of their lands sanctioned by millennia of occupation. Third, it is not ‘presentist myopia’ for Europeans to worry about the threat posed by Islam to Europe. On the contrary, it demonstrates a sense of the past – recall Charles Martel at Poitiers – and a sense of the future; an awareness that if this invasion succeeds, it is the end of Europe. Fourth, Kaufmann’s evasive assertion that we should not worry about Islam because it is ‘more exotic or conservative than Catholicism’ misses the point (or ignores the point). It is the nature of Islamic exoticism and conservatism that worries Europeans: suicide-homicide bombers, sharia, jihad, the obscene practice of female circumcision, honour killings, stoning women to death, polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls, extreme censorship, hatred of free speech, hatred of white European host societies and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey). Catholicism, with all its faults and demonstrable historical sins, is, for better or for worse, part of Europe’s heritage: Islam’s incursions and invasions have always been unwelcome and rejected as something utterly alien. They remain alien and rejected.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">The basic plot of <i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i> is undoubtedly compelling. When Kaufmann confines himself to the rise of various religious groups in their relevant societies and how they might succeed in inheriting the Earth he adds a great deal to our understanding of major historical shifts and even cyclical changes. For this he is to be applauded. The fatal weakness of this book however is the author’s endless willingness to make concessions to non-Europeans and to refuse to acknowledge the indefeasible rights, history and culture of the white indigenous population. Why should Englishmen tolerate being dictated to by aliens, such as, Trevor Phillips, Bhikhu Parekh, Baroness Warsi, John Sentamu, Andrew Marr and Gisela Stuart who come with a hostile agenda and do not have England’s best interests in their hearts and souls? Parekh and other members of the cult never address the obvious question: why should the English permit England to be invaded and overrun by immigrants? Whenever Kaufmann attempts to integrate the alien Muslim narrative into the narrative of the white indigenous population, he sacrifices the legitimate interests of the white indigenous majority, above all the English, in order to appease Muslim immigrants, so imposing a liberal fundamentalist gloss over much which is very nasty. This means that the full truth, short and long term, remains hidden or only hinted at. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-family: arial;" align="JUSTIFY">Kaufmann is historically naïve in his interpretation of religious groups making common cause against secularists on issues such as abortion, as if this heralds some kind of permanent rapprochement. This is a mere tactical solution, something analogous to the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. Once the seculars have been defeated or marginalised then the real business of determining which religion shall rule the Earth can begin in earnest. This question has exercised the minds of men since they invented or received religion and it will not be resolved in endless synods, commissions about the lack of ‘community cohesion’ (the reasons for which are obvious) and the publication of more anti-white tracts along the lines of the <i>Macpherson Report</i> (1999), <i>The Parekh Report</i> (2000) and <i>Our Shared Future</i> (2007). These publications are little more than government-sponsored propaganda assaults which are intended to destroy the morale and to weaken the legitimate status of the white indigenous population, primarily the English. No, war, as always, will be the final arbiter in determining who shall inherit and rule the Earth. </p> <div id="sdfootnote1"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote1anc">1</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Kaufmann, </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;">, p.ix.</span></span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote2"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote2anc">2</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.xix.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote3"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote3anc">3</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.68.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote4"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote4anc">4</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.68.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote5"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote5anc">5</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.69.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote6"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote6anc">6</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.xx.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote7"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote7anc">7</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.xxi.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote8"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote8sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote8anc">8</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.47.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote9"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote9sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote9anc">9</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.47.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote10"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote10sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote10anc">10</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.47.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote11"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote11sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote11anc">11</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.118.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote12"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote12sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote12anc">12</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.178.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote13"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote13sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote13anc">13</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.183.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote14"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote14sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8530549589740639050#sdfootnote14anc">14</a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kaufmann, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, p.62.</span></p> </div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-80386633904075866162011-03-19T10:42:00.000-07:002011-03-30T11:51:43.688-07:00The Russian Idea, Lenin and the Origins of the Totalitarian State in Vasilii Grossman’s Forever Flowing<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>The Russian Idea, Lenin and the Origins of the Totalitarian State</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>in Vasilii Grossman’s </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><b>Forever Flowing</b></i></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-size:100%;">© Frank Ellis 2009</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">The real significance of the Lenin revolution is to be seen in the fact that it was the bursting forth of the principle of unrestricted violence and oppression. It was the negation of all the political ideals that had for three thousand years guided the evolution of Western civilization</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">Ludwig von </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Mises,</span></p><p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Die Gemeinwirtschaft: Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (1922)</span></p><br /><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>Introduction</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="float: left;font-size:300%;" ></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >E</span>ven by the standards of Gorbachev’s policy of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>glasnost’</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, the publication of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> in June 1989 was a remarkable event. It still seems that way. The long list of dreadful suffering and ghastly cruelty which unfold in the pages of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, overshadowed by the presence of Lenin and Stalin, and accompanied and illuminated by the lives and fates of countless other characters, make </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, because of Grossman’s refusal to accept any ideological preconditions, one of the most morally and intellectually inspiring works of the twentieth century. Now Grossman may be wrong when he argues that Lenin was the primary source of Soviet totalitarianism and, indeed, of twentieth-century totalitarianism generally - I shall consider some of the counter arguments in due course – but his arguments are historically based and are consistent with what happened rather than with what </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>ought</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> to have happened or might have happened in some parallel, ideologically-pristine, socialist universe. Moreover, and remarkably for a writer who was initially seduced by Marxism-Leninism, they are based on a great insight which eluded Marx, Engels, Lenin and their Western admirers: </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>individual</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> freedom - that great ineffable and elusively definable - matters. Where individual freedoms have the chance to grow, they can, over time and with a fair wind, set limits to the power of the state - the collective, the party, the commune - to dispose of people as another raw material. Such a political evolutionary path shall most certainly not fashion paradise on earth but there is a good chance it might prevent something infernal and that the beast of arbitrary and tyrannical rule can be contained. In this world man can expect no more.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>The Russian Idea</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">When a nation or an emerging nation attains a certain critical mass in population, wealth, success in war or finds or encounters some unexpected and compelling new expression of religious destiny the effect can transform the way that nation (or eventually empire) sees its place in the world. It acquires a sense of mission: it can believe that it has divine sanction to forge the world anew in its own image and, given this blessing, that it has the right, the obligation, to resort to the sword as well as exhortation in order to accomplish this goal. Rome, the rise of Islam, the Crusades, the Spanish and British empires, Napoleonic France, the Soviet experiment, the empire of the American Republic, and in the early twenty-first century China rising, underline the tenacious appeal and seductions of imperial prestige. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Russia’s history shows that she has not been immune to the follies and temptations of imperial preference and the sense of intellectual and moral exclusivity. When </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US">Philotheus of Pskov presented Russians with the </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">doctrine of the Third Rome, he gave them a reason to believe that Russia – Muscovy – was God’s favourite. Rome and Byzantium had succumbed to apostasy. Philotheus interpreted this as a shift in political and religious power and influence. As he famously noted: ‘</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US">two Romes have fallen, the Third Rome stands and a fourth Rome there shall not be’. If Moscow fell into apostasy there would be no fourth Rome. Heresy now assumed a sin of barely imaginable proportions and was punished mercilessly. Russia was certainly not unique in the zeal with which heretics were executed and exiled but, and this may be crucial for Grossman’s thoughts on the evolution of </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US"><i>nesvoboda</i></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US">, the zeal to punish religious dissenters, and in the twentieth century ideological ones, has never been seriously challenged or ameliorated by Western ideas that individual rights and freedoms matter.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US">Russia’s collision with the West in the nineteenth century provoked an acute identity crisis in Russian thought and letters, a cultural and intellectual schizophrenia that has been well documented in the </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US">writings of Pushkin, Turgenev, Goncharov, Gogol and Dostoevsky. Gogol and Dostoevsky are two famous exponents of the idea that Russian has a special mission to save the world by an example of spiritual excellence and purity. Whereas Gogol’s thoughts on Russia’s sacred mission strike this author as bitter-sweet flights of entertaining hyperbole and imagination running riot, Dostoevsky approaches his subject with deadly seriousness and conviction. In </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US"><i>The Devils</i></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="en-US">, Shatov sets out his vision of Russia’s special mission and the place of God therein: </span></span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; text-indent: -1.27cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;"> The purpose of the whole evolution of nation, in every people and at every period of its existence, is solely the pursuit of God, their God, their very own God, and faith in Him as in the only true one. God is the synthetic personality of the whole people, taken from its beginning to its end.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> […] If a great people does not believe that truth resides in it alone (in itself alone and in it exclusively), if it does not believe that it alone is able and has been chosen to raise up and save everything by its own truth, it is at once transformed into ethnographical material, and not into a great people.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Grossman proceeds to the question of the ‘myth of the national Russian character’</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote4sym"><sup>4</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> and, arguably, to the most bitterly disputed part of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> in chapter 22 appropriately placed between a merciless analysis of Lenin (chapter 21) and the rise of Stalin (chapter 23). Taken to task are the nineteenth-century prophets of Russia’s brave new world, among them, Chaadaev, Belinsky, Gogol and Dostoevsky, who, according to Grossman, failed to realise that ‘the peculiarities of the Russian soul had not been born in freedom; that the Russian soul – was a thousand-year-old slave’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote5sym"><sup>5</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> This harsh judgement derives from Grossman’s belief that there exists a crucial difference between Western and Russian notions of freedom. Western notions of freedom enter the Russian body politic as something alien and artificial. They are, to use Grossman’s word, ‘</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>imported</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">’</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote6sym"><sup>6</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> (emphasis added). On the all-important question of freedom any similarities between Russia and the West are superficial and in typically relentless fashion Grossman explains why this is so: ‘This chasm consisted in the fact that the West’s development was impregnated by the growth of freedom, whereas Russia’s development was nurtured by the growth of slavery’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote7sym"><sup>7</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> The only time in Russia’s history, Grossman suggests, when the evolution of Russian slavery appeared to have been weakened was the abolition of serfdom in 1861: </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">Russia’s revolutionary thinkers failed to evaluate the significance of the emancipation of the serfs carried out in the nineteenth century. This event, as the following hundred years showed, was more revolutionary than The Great October Revolution. The emancipation shook the thousand-year-old foundations of Russia, foundations which neither Peter nor Lenin touched: the dependence of Russia’s development on Russian slavery.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote8anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote8sym"><sup>8</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span> </p> <p style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">In his discussion of the origins of the Russian soul and its origins in slavery, Grossman concedes that the physical and topographical conditions of Russia have contributed to the myth and, moreover, had the same conditions that obtained in Russian existed for the Germans, the French and the English, the political outcomes would have been the same. Grossman is right to make this point but ignores the not inconsiderable fact that conditions for the Germans, the French and the English </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>were not the same</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. Here, I suggest, Grossman succumbs to the fallacious reasoning adopted by some of his critics, who have argued that he is wrong to see any link between Stalinism and Lenin – so blaming the latter for preparing the ground for Stalinism - because Leninism was not the same as Stalinism and had Lenin survived things would have turned out differently and the devastation of Stalinism would have been avoided. We have no way of knowing this at all. All we are left with is what </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>did happen</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> and on that basis an attempt can be made, as Grossman does, to offer an explanation.</span></p> <p style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Nevertheless, when seeking answers to Russian’s political evolution Grossman touches upon something very important, when he refers to Russia’s ‘tragic vastness’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote9anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote9sym"><sup>9</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> Implicit in this observation is the possibility that Russia’s very vastness has contributed to the conditions which have led to the curse of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>nesvoboda</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. In </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Property and Freedom</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (1999), the American historian Richard Pipes explores the relationship between freedom and property over the centuries. What makes this study so eminently relevant for Russia and Grossman is that Pipes uses his analysis of Russia and England to argue that the institution of private property is the bedrock of other freedoms. When Pipes considers the size of a state and how this size determines its political and cultural institutions, especially the relationship between ruler and ruled, he offers some substantial support for Grossman’s view that Russia’s ‘tragic vastness’ has contributed to the state of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>nesvoboda</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. </span> </p> <p style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">In synopsis, when a state covers a vast area and the bulk of the land and its assets are owned by a tsar and a small group of retainers, there is no need to have extensive laws to protect property rights. Conflict and disputes can be avoided by moving somewhere else. Or the tsar adopts the simple expedient of seizing the property and exiling or executing the offending retainer. Clearly, English monarchs, Henry VIII prominent among them, rather liked seizing the property of offending noblemen and removing their heads as well, but they never enjoyed the unfettered powers of Russian tsars and were compelled to seek consensus where in similar circumstances a tsar would have placed his own interests first. The smaller the domain, the greater the need for peaceful ways of resolving property disputes. In a country such as England, in which, over the centuries from </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Magna Carta</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> onwards a vast corpus of legal wisdom dealing with property has accumulated, the power of monarchs and their successors to behave arbitrarily towards the property of their subjects (citizens) is, unlike in Russia past and present, severely limited and subject to careful scrutiny by the courts. It can also be noted that property rights stimulate, and indeed require, a legal system that is independent of the monarch, so further weakening the options for monarchical privilege and intervention in the property rights of the citizenry. During a broadcast on British radio in March 1976 Solzhenitsyn referred with approval to the English saw, an Englishman’s home is his castle.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote10anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote10sym"><sup>10</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> The other great freedom that starts to emerge alongside private property is free speech. It is the exercise of free speech which leads to Ivan Grigorevich’s arrest and his long journey through the Soviet gulag system. A man who is secure in his property and his livelihood possesses the confidence to challenge authority. Independence in property predisposes towards an independence of mind or an indifference towards state ideology and propaganda. The state is not seen as the sole repository of political wisdom. All these developments are moves away from the collectivist, authoritarian and eventually the totalitarian ethos of Russian culture and history. They mark the first steps towards a genuine representative democracy with all its well documented strengths </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>and</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> weaknesses.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote11anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote11sym"><sup>11</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The view of history enunciated by Engels is thus a move away from the role of freedom in human affairs. To quote Grossman: </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">Mankind’s history is the history of its freedom. The growth of man’s power is expressed first and foremost in the growth of freedom. Freedom is not, as Engels believed, perceived necessity. Freedom is directly opposite to necessity. Freedom is necessity surmounted. At its most fundamental progress is the progress of human freedom. Indeed, you see, life itself is freedom. The evolution of life is the evolution of freedom.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote12anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote12sym"><sup>12</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The view that freedom, according to Engels, is </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>ocoznannaia neobkhodimost’ </i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">implies that freedom is something that we deem to be necessary but that it is something that we can create through party political plans and blueprints. Grossman argues that freedom is opposed to this because freedom is not something that can be created by decree or revolution. Freedom exists of itself. When Grossman says that ‘freedom is necessity surmounted’ (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>svoboda est’ preodelennaia neobkhodimost’</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">), I interpret him to mean that freedom goes beyond the necessity of political programmes and ideology because freedom comes, and </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>must come</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, before ideology and not after. If that is granted, then the twin abominations of Kolyma and Auschwitz cannot be built. If I have interpreted this all-important passage in Grossman correctly, then there is much in common with the central thesis of Friedrich Hayek’s </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>The Road to Serfdom</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (1944): one cannot plan for freedom. And it is certainly impossible to build freedom on the basis of terror, censorship, genocide, famine, secret police, spies and concentration camps. </span> </p><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><br />Lenin</b></span> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Consolidating the attacks on Stalin and Stalinism which were made in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Life and Fate</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, Grossman then takes the logical but utterly heretical step of subjecting the Lenin cult to the same critical appraisal to which Stalin had earlier been subjected. In fact, this was always implicit in the open and public discussions of Stalin taking place from the mid-1980s onwards. Sooner or later, someone was going to go beyond Stalin and examine the role of Lenin in the October Revolution. In a series of chapters and digressions Grossman shows Lenin as the destroyer of freedom, the man who orchestrated the extermination of so many of Russia’s finest and best and who established the operational principle, never abandoned by the party throughout the Soviet period, that terror, mass terror to begin with, and selective thereafter, was perfectly acceptable when dealing with so-called enemies of the people. Grossman’s truly shocking and - for some - monstrous contribution is to attribute to Lenin the unchallenged status as the founder of twentieth-century totalitarianism. Moreover, if this was not bad enough, Grossman accommodates Lenin and then Stalin firmly within his articulated tradition of Russia’s serfdom and lack of freedom (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>nesvoboda</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">), so alienating those who venerated Lenin </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>and</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> those who regarded Lenin and the Bolsheviks as an utter aberration from Russia’s spiritual, cultural and historical norms.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The revolutionary ethos of Lenin that leads him to 1917 and which emerges in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> is remarkably consistent with the ideals of underground terrorist groups, such as </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Zemlia i volia</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Land and Freedom</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">) and then </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Narodnaia volia</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>The People’s Will</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">). </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> abounds in references to revolutionary figures. Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), Nikolai Chernyshevskii (1828-1889), Nikolai Kibal’chich (1853-1881), Petr Lavrov (1823-1900), Timofei Mikhailov (1859-1881), Sergei Nechaev (1847-1882), Sof’ia Perovskaia (1853-1881) and Andrei Zheliabov (1850-1881) all add to the portrait of Lenin offered by Grossman. Impatient for change and scornful of the democratic process, these figures accepted the need for violence to further their goals. Revolutionaries were men and women apart. The call of History demanded the expedience of revolutionary violence which was immune to the demands of bourgeois morality. In keeping with the late nineteenth-century revolutionary tradition, Lenin combines this abstract love of the people with fanaticism, and contempt for the suffering of others and a willingness to bow down before abstract ideological principles. Grossman’s vignette of Lenin the revolutionary places the Bolshevik leader firmly in the insurrectionist and terrorist tradition of Nechaev and the members of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Narodnaia volia</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">Lenin’s impatience, the unshakeable striving for the goal, the contempt for freedom, the cruelty in relation to dissenters and the ability, without any hesitation, to wipe from the face of the earth not only fortresses but also administrative districts and provinces which contested his orthodox truth – all these features did not come to the fore in Lenin after the October Revolution. These features were innate to Volodia Ul’ianov. And these features have deep roots.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote13anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote13sym"><sup>13</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Directed at class enemies, revolutionary violence is an essential weapon of class struggle. The willingness to use violence, the belief that it is justified by the revolution, is something that Lenin imbibed totally and acted on after the seizure of power in 1917. In the words of Grossman: ‘The surgeon’s knife is the great theoretician, the philosophical leader of the twentieth century’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote14anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote14sym"><sup>14</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> Lenin, of course, was </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>the</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> ‘great theoretician’ of the Bolshevik cause, who in arguments with political opponents, as Grossman observes, ‘did not seek the truth but victory’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote15anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote15sym"><sup>15</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Lenin’s eristic method of argument and his mode of writing and explication had three profound consequences for political rivals and political discourse in the Soviet Union. First, they justified the creation of a truly unique censorship apparatus, already adumbrated in Lenin’s hatred and fear of the institution of free speech in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Chto delat’?</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>What is to be Done?</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, 1902) and his deep suspicion of the pecuniary motive in writing, set out in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Partiinaia organizatsiia i partiinaia literatura</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Party Organisation and Party Literature</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, 1905). This censorship apparatus which eventually assumed gargantuan proportions and which disfigured all intellectual endeavour in the Soviet Union, lasted until it was formally abolished in 1990. Second, the method of disputation pioneered by Lenin meant that truth now becomes the exclusive property of the party and so the moral compass and wisdom of the centuries, imperfect to be sure, were rendered useless, null and void. Third, critically and murderously for what came after 1917, Lenin created an ideological climate in which all arguments could only be </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>won</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> or </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>lost</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, often with fatal consequences for those deemed to have lost. Marxism-Leninism made no provision for the fact that there are not always clear cut answers to political problems and that compromise will be required. This win-or-lose approach to political and economic problems could possibly be seen as an advantage in the underground phase where it produced a sense of unity and cohesion under pressure from tsarist enemies. With power seized, a revolutionary ethos that saw the world through the distorted prism of class struggle and History’s mandate, and, indeed, where the fear of heresy and collectivism that had earlier left their marks on Russian history, and which now surfaced in the assertion of virulent party orthodoxies, such as </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>demokraticheskii tsentralism</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (‘democratic centralism’, ‘</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>partiinaia pravota</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">’ (‘party truth’) and ‘</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>revoliutsionnaia printsipial’nost</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">’’ (‘revolutionary principles’), intra-party struggles were just as likely to follow the murderous precedents set in the French experience of 1789. In fact, they exceeded them by many orders of magnitude that would have left even the French regicides and </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>sans culotterrie</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> aghast. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Courier New,monospace;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">The depth of Grossman’s perception regarding the power and insidious influence of class struggle and the way it mesmerised otherwise intelligent people stupefying their critical faculties is one of his most significant contributions to our understanding of the Lenin/Stalin state. Class struggle dehumanises the enemy. The danger lies not merely in the fact that the enemy is collectively referred to as a </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>kulak</i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">, counter-revolutionary, </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>fashist</i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> or any of the countless other names and slogans coined by the Soviet media but rather in the fact that the enemy, whoever he is deemed to be, in losing any obvious signs of recognizable humanity, becomes something abstract. Thus his extermination becomes all the easier to justify. The corrupting effect of conceptualising individuals in terms of class war, so as to justify their physical extermination, is demonstrably evident in Robert Conquest’s account of the genocide by starvation that took place in Ukraine and which claimed 6,000,000 lives. Conquest cites a character from </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Vtoroi den’ </i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">(</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>The Second </i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Day, 1934), a novel by Ilia Erenberg on the nature of so-called class guilt: ‘Not one of them was guilty of anything; but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything’.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote16anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote16sym"><sup>16</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> Likewise, in his memoir, </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Sydney Hook recalls a discussion with Bertolt Brecht about the Stalin show trials. Talking of Zinoviev and Kamenev, Brecht commented: ‘As for them, the more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot’. Hook asked him to repeat what he had said and Brecht replied in German: ‘</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Je mehr unschuldig, desto mehr verdienen sie erschossen zu werden</i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">’.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote17anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote17sym"><sup>17</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">It may well be that when Marx and Engels talked of class struggle that they saw struggle in exclusively economic terms (though the draconian provisions of </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>The Manifesto of the Communist Party</i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> suggest otherwise). Lenin – and Stalin – had no such doubts. If the class war were lost the proletarian revolution would be defeated. Enemies were massing to destroy the nascent workers’ state: mercy was a bourgeois prejudice, a form of treachery. </span></span></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Grossman examines the consequences of real-existing ideological war through the party’s genocidal campaign to collectivise agriculture in the early 1930s. In harrowing details, Grossman uncovers the party’s policy of grain seizures and the mass starvation which followed through the eyes of Anna Sergeevna, the former party activist. She describes people as being ‘bewitched’ (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>okoldovannye</i></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote18anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote18sym"><sup>18</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;">). The party speaks of the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>kulaks</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> as if they were animals, beasts and bloodsuckers, as something degenerate and poisonous. For her part, Anna Sergeevna admits that she was bewitched by the party propaganda; that she is ready to believe anything bad about the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>kulaks</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">And these words started to have an effect on me, still only a child really, and at meetings and in special instruction and radio broadcasts, at the cinema and writers wrote and Stalin himself, all said the same thing: the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>kulaks</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> are parasites, they are burning grain and killing children. And it was declared directly: incite the fury of the masses against them, exterminate them as a class, these damned </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>kulaks</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. I started to feel bewitched as well and it seemed that all misfortune was caused by the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>kulaks</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> and that were they exterminated, a time of happiness would ensue for the peasantry.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote19anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote19sym"><sup>19</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Where the party is the sole provider of information and physically prevents all attempts to break its monopoly of information dissemination by censorship and incarceration, superior intelligence or education will not automatically prevent people from believing what the party-controlled agitation and propaganda apparatus tell them. During the campaign to expose the so-called Doctors’ plot Grossman notes that people who should have known better were only too willing to believe the lies and slander. The disturbing realisation is that under the right conditions one’s critical faculties can be neutralised and hysteria induced. Then anything becomes possible. Rational explanations for what is happening fall away and vague, supernatural forces seem to be all too plausible an explanation. Anna Sergeevna’s recollections of the Terror Famine suggest the end of the world: </span><span style="font-size:100%;">‘And people became somehow confused, and the animals became wild, frightened, bellowed, moaning and at night the dogs howled. And the earth started to crack […] ‘Mothers looked at their children and started to scream from fear. They screamed as if a snake had crawled into the house. And that snake was death, starvation’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote20anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote20sym"><sup>20</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> ‘The countryside started to wail, it saw its death’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote21anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote21sym"><sup>21</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">As portrayed in Platonov’s </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Kotlovan</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>The Foundation Pit</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, 1987), collectivization is not only a war waged by the party against so-called enemies of the people: it is a war against the land, the fields, the totality of rural life, against mother Earth herself. In his </span><span style="font-size:100%;">portrayal of the Ukrainian genocide Grossman makes an explicit comparison between the extermination of the peasants, dehumanised in conditions of a totalitarian media monopoly, and the fate of the Jews in the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Vernichtungslager</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. Anticipating their national-socialist colleagues by a decade, Soviet communist party killers demonised, dehumanised, deceived, isolated and then exterminated their victims, the peasants.</span></p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>Responses to </b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><b>Forever Flowing</b></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b> and Grossman</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> launches a sustained assault on three vested interests. First, Grossman pays scant regard to the sensibilities of those who loathe Lenin and Stalin and see both as an aberration from Russia’s true path. Second, Grossman highlights the fact that large numbers of Soviet sympathizers in the West, Western politicians, historians and others who made a living from studying the former Soviet Union colluded in the suppression of the truth and so played their part in the denial of Stalin’s crimes. Third, by attacking Lenin he denies the possibility of holding Stalin solely to account for what occurred after the founder’s death as a consequence of which Lenin and the Leninist project are indicted </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>ab ovo</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Generally sympathetic to much of what Grossman covers in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, especially the author’s depiction of the Terror Famine, Arkadii Stolypin is however not impressed by Grossman’s vision of Russia as a thousand-year slave. ‘If Russia’, he asks, ‘is an eternal slave and is fit for nothing other than the condition of a slave, then perhaps no other system other than a totalitarian one is possible in our country? Is there any point in struggling against the contemporary system?’</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote22anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote22sym"><sup>22</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> The first and most depressing answer to Stolypin’s question is that some form of rule on a spectrum oscillating between authoritarian and totalitarian may indeed be Russia’s political lot. It is a Western conceit that every nation and state aspires to some form of liberal democracy, even if Russia can produce individuals of the calibre of Grossman, Vasil’ Bykov, Boris Pasternak and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. That Grossman, isolated from the West, and subjected to all the immense ideological and collectivist pressures of Soviet society can arrive at a conception of individual freedom in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing </i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">which recognizably has so much in common with Western thought, and is so diametrically opposed to what was ideologically correct in the Soviet Union, is inspiring. It suggests to this author that Grossman’s ‘tragic loneliness’, to use Stolypin’s words, had a liberating effect on Grossman. It enabled him to see more clearly and fearlessly. Moreover, the freedoms that citizens in Western liberal democracies take for granted were not found ready made. They have evolved over many centuries, and Russia, assuming her people aspire to something similar, will also have to pass through its own unique time of trials. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Writing in the Soviet journal, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Nash sovremennik</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, just after </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Life and Fate</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> was published in 1988, and discussing the novel, A. Kazintsev was also far from impressed by the vision of Russia that has known nothing but slavery for over a thousand years.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote23anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote23sym"><sup>23</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> He points out that there was a strong free-trading tradition in Tver and Novogorod for a long time and one which stimulated and supported various freedoms. Unfortunately, it was also the case that Ivan IV destroyed forever the privileges and prerogatives of these cities, because they were independent and, among other things, served as conduit for Western ideas.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Martin Malia’s observations on the growth of totalitarianism are also an explicit rejection of the Grossman thesis. Malia notes:</span></p><br /><p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">The totalitarian nature of Communism is not to be explained as the prolongation of traditional Russian authoritarianism or Oriental despotism; nor is the collectivist nature of Soviet society to be construed as the continuation of traditional Russian communal and servile relations. It is difficult to find any such agencies of transmission from the old to the new Russia in the actual policies pursued by the Bolsheviks after 1917, but it is very easy to find the origins of these policies in the socialist purposes of the Leninist party.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote24anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote24sym"><sup>24</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The agencies of transmission are not required to survive the transition from Tsarist to Soviet in order to create a totalitarian state. It is the historical, cultural, psychological and political norms (or the absence of the latter in any Western sense) and precedents that are crucial. They survived 1917 and Marxism-Leninism was grafted on to them. I suggest that Malia concedes this point when he argues that ‘What traditional Russia contributed to the Leninist project was a lack of social and cultural antibodies sufficiently strong to resist it’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote25anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote25sym"><sup>25</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> And the lack of ‘social and cultural antibodies’ was a direct consequence of the long history of an authoritarian state which after 1917 no longer had the moderating influence of the Church.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">In chapter 14 of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">,</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i> </i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Anna Sergeevna recalls, among the many horrors, the Potemkin villages set up for the French politician, who went away and declared that he had seen no starvation in the countryside. Robert Conquest suggests that this was the French radical, Edouard Herriot.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote26anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote26sym"><sup>26</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> This incident hints at something which even now, many years after the genocide, should be, but is almost certainly not, a cause for great shame among Western academics, politicians and writers. Genuine ignorance is not a crime, but a perverse willingness to ignore the truth, a refusal to ask hard-headed questions in the presence of strong circumstantial evidence, or knowingly suppressing the truth most certainly is. </span><span style="font-size:100%;">One of the worst of the many Terror-Famine deniers, possibly the worst, was Walter Duranty, the Sovietophile foreign correspondent of the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>New York Times</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, who knew that the death toll ran into millions yet lied about it in his dispatches. In 1932 Duranty was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. In spite of demands in 2002, the seventieth anniversary of the Terror-Famine, that the award be withdrawn, the Pulitzer board took no action against Duranty. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The scale of the Terror Famine is truly daunting. In Ukraine, six million people were quite deliberately starved to death, possibly another four-five million died en route to Siberia, in Siberia and in mass shootings and in the camps. Moreover, this happened ten years before Heydrich and Eichmann convened the Wannsee conference to plan </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Die Endlösung der Judenfrage</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. As the indefatigable Robert Conquest has pointed out, the famine was covered extensively in some of Europe’s most famous papers: </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Manchester Guardian</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Daily Telegraph</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Le Matin</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Le Figaro</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Neue Züricher Zeitung</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>La Stampa</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> and Austria’s </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Reichpost</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. Even today, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Ukrainian genocide seems curiously and deliberately ignored. With some 11,000,000 murdered, Stalin’s Terror Famine confirms the genocidal nature of socialism, be it national-socialism or the allegedly more internationalist versions of Stalin and Mao. The people who deny the Holocaust and the scale of Stalin’s Terror Famine belong to one another. They are Molotov and Ribbentrop celebrating the odious Non-Aggression Pact: they are joined together in lies and wickedness.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The publication of the first Russian-language edition of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> in 1970, with the English translation in 1972 failed to make the impact that a work of this importance should have made. Again, the reasons may be in Grossman’s relentless exposure of Soviet crimes at a time when may Westerners in the academy were still willing to ignore Lenin’s and Stalin’s crimes and were even sympathetically disposed towards the Soviet state. Again, intellectual fashions, especially a growing acceptance among Western academics and intellectuals that the Soviet state did not merit being considered “totalitarian”, and that truth was relative or even that there is no such thing as truth, cannot have produced a climate in which Grossman, who was obsessed with the truth, as only people who have lived in the Land of the Lie can be, would be given a fair hearing. In such circumstances it is far better to ignore the troublesome messenger or misrepresent his warning. A striking example of the attempt to kill </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> by omissions and misrepresentations can be seen in a review published in of all places the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Times Literary Supplement</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> in 1973. The anonymous reviewer completely ignored Grossman’s analysis of Lenin and his role in the creation of the Soviet totalitarian state and Grossman’s thoughts on the nature of freedom.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote27anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote27sym"><sup>27</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> An attempt by the author of this article who wrote to the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Times Literary Supplement </i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">in order to ascertain the identity of the reviewer met with no success.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">That publication of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> in 1989 was accompanied by an exceptionally long article</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote28anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote28sym"><sup>28</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;">, written by G. Vodolazov, a senior Soviet academician, suggests that Grossman’s views on Lenin, Stalin and the course of Russian history inspired a mixture of fear and loathing among a certain segment of the soon-to-be-rendered redundant, Soviet literary and party establishment. It is a reasonable assumption that Vodolazov’s accompanying article was the necessary concession demanded of the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Oktiabr’</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> editorial board were </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> to see the light of day in the Soviet Union. The main task of Vodolazov’s article was to explain the nature of Grossman’s ideologically incorrect thoughts for the benefit of the Soviet reader and so blunt the full force of Grossman’s analysis of Lenin and his role in the creation of the Soviet state. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Vodolazov begins by trying to justify the need for such a long article (implicit recognition of just how dangerous Grossman’s ideas were still regarded in 1989) and while he acknowledges that </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> is - ‘magnificent, veracious and merciless’</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote29anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote29sym"><sup>29</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> – he objects to Grossman’s analysis of the causes, reasons and roots of Stalinism and rejects Grossman’s identification of Stalin with Lenin and Leninism with Stalinism. Above all, he, Vodolazov, intends to defend Lenin from Grossman. One contemporary consideration for this defence of Lenin in 1989 is to be found in the late </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>perestroika</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> slogan of ‘socialist pluralism’. The ideological inspiration for this is seen to be Lenin and so Lenin must be defended from Grossman’s uncompromising assault. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The problem is not pluralism </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>per se</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, but </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>socialist</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> pluralism. By its very wording socialist pluralism is self-limiting, as in Lenin’s infamous example of “democratic centralism”. Vodolazov cites other nouns whose essential meaning and therefore the range of permitted responses to them is drastically changed by converting them into socialist categories: ‘socialist realism’; ‘socialist humanism’; ‘socialist internationalism’; ‘socialist democracy’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote30anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote30sym"><sup>30</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> Vodolazov’s style remains loyal to the man he wishes to defend: socialism, asserts Vodolazov, is democracy taken to the end. Unfortunately, we are not instructed by Vodolazov on how any impasse between those who desire socialist democracy and those who do not want socialism (with or without any preceding adjectives) is to be resolved. Are the advocates of socialist pluralism/socialist democracy deemed to possess superior, decisive wisdom to which the ideologically ignorant masses must defer, or is the matter to be decided by a free and secret ballot? </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">By socialism Vodolazov means universal equality in all spheres of human behaviour:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> “<span style="font-size:100%;">To the end” – that is to the actual equality of people not only in the political-legal area (the foundation of this was laid by the great French Revolution of the 18</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;">th</span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> century), but also in the economic, cultural and scientific spheres – that is to equality in relation to the means of production of material goods and control, to cultural wealth, to the means of the production of scientific knowledge.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote31anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote31sym"><sup>31</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">In other words, at this stage in his defence of Lenin, Vodolazov implies, later he is quite explicit, that socialism envisaged by Lenin was the pure form of socialism that was corrupted by Stalin who created the world’s first totalitarian state. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The goals which Vodolazov sees as being crucial for socialism are to be achieved on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production. Equality throughout the areas noted by Vodolazov cannot be achieved when human beings, who are not all equally endowed with intellectual, physical and moral faculties, are left to pursue happiness in their own way and without trespassing on the rights of others, as envisaged by the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. This can only mean that the goals of socialism (without adjectives), as envisaged by Vodolazov, can only be achieved by coercion (compulsory socialism). It is at this point that the socialist enterprise takes its first steps to the Lenin/Stalin state described by Grossman. Sentimental appeals to the “common good” will, inevitably, fail to achieve the Brotherhood of Man. At some point, the socialist ideologues and planners will have no choice but to use the coercive powers of the state to </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>impose</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> their objectives; or they must abandon their attempt to create some socialist commonwealth. It is possible, the example of Britain in 1945 bears witness to this, that electorates will select a government which openly proclaims its intention to secure the common ownership of the means of production. But what happens when those who voted for socialism change their minds and want to remove a government committed to the foundation of a socialist state? Marx provides no mechanism for the proletariat to get rid of such a government and Lenin, like Hitler after him, had no intention of relinquishing the levers of power seized in a </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>coup d’etat</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> in 1917. Lenin, Vodolazov’s unsullied leader, simply crushed Russia’s incipient democracy. Those who had doubts about socialism after 1917, even if it was just confined to Lenin’s version, were declared “enemies of the people”. For example, in an article published in 1918, Lenin denounced Karl Kautskii (1854-1938), the German social democrat, as a renegade for criticising the Bolshevik Revolution.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote32anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote32sym"><sup>32</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Vodolazov’s attempts to postulate ‘socialism as democracy taken to its conclusion’ and to differentiate it from “socialist” democracy, a Stalinist aberration, are far from convincing. Vodolazov describes the Stalinist aberration thus:</span></p><br /><p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> “<span style="font-size:100%;">Socialist” democracy frequently signified not that democracy which is higher, broader and deeper than the non-socialist and pre-socialist (“bourgeois”, “feudal” and so on) but that, which is narrower, which is “not for all” and which led, as a result, to the creation of “man-as-cog-in-the-machine”, which easily accommodated itself with the destruction of the peasantry, the crushing of the intelligentsia and the deification of an omnipotent Leader.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote33anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote33sym"><sup>33</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The question that is so clearly begged by Vodolazov (and many others) is that Stalinism </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>must be </i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">an aberration because “true”, “genuine”, “real”, “proper” or “correct” socialism would never lead to the extermination of 11,000,000 peasants who resisted the party’s attempts to steal their land and property; it would never reduce the workers to cogs in the machine; it would never lead to a totalitarian state, control by an unaccountable party, sham elections, a ubiquitous secret police and labour and death camps for dissenters (real or mainly imagined). Only violation of socialism, it is claimed, could lead to these things. And because “real” socialism never leads to anything like Stalinism, Stalinism cannot have anything in common with socialism. What Vodolazov fails to consider, or possibly cannot bring himself to consider, is that the basic assumptions of Marx, Engels and Lenin, encapsulated in the common ownership of the means of production, may be, are, deeply flawed and that the attempt to build the socialist commonwealth based on them is the cause of all the genocide, penury and human misery that has always resulted whenever the socialist experiment has implemented. </span><span style="font-size:100%;">This point is dealt with by the heroine of Ayn Rand’s novel, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>We the Living</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, set in Russia immediately after Lenin’s seizure of power, who asserts her right to be intellectually and morally free. She tells a party activist why she hates his socialist ideals:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">For one reason, mainly, chiefly and eternally, no matter how much your party promises to accomplish, no matter what paradise it plans to bring mankind. Whatever your other claims may be, there’s one you can’t avoid, one that will turn your paradise into the most unspeakable hell: your claim that man must live for the state.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote34anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote34sym"><sup>34</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Again, the Vodolazov assertion that - ‘The Marxist slogan: the working class, in liberating itself, liberates everyone. The liberation of mankind – that is the highest imperative of Marxism’</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote35anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote35sym"><sup>35</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> – simply ignores the countless examples of where states built on some form of socialism, above all in the absence of any liberal-democratic tradition, create some version of hell for everyone including the workers in whose name the middle-class revolutionaries have seized power.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Whenever Vodolazov uses the term “objective truth” you suspect that what he means that this “objective truth” must be congenial towards the “Leninist tradition” otherwise it cannot be considered to be the “objective truth”. What he cannot accept is the overwhelming evidence that “objective truth” is not necessarily – and frequently never – the same as the “Leninist tradition” or “socialist pluralism”. Despite all the attempts to argue for a free discussion, one can note Vodolazov’s attempt to site that discussion within a framework that will be implicitly friendly to socialist pluralism (Note that he completely ignores Lenin’s hatred of free speech and the fact that Lenin introduced a vicious censorship) </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">Only in such a free atmosphere - which is limited by nothing (apart from perhaps the requirements of democratic legislation) – of discussion can the true (that is those which are consistent with the objective logic of history and the interests of the overwhelming majority of people) judgments be formed (although not immediately and not without a struggle).</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote36anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote36sym"><sup>36</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">If by the “objective logic of history” and “the overwhelming majority of people”, Vodolazov means, respectively, Marxism and the working class, then what happens to arguments which are inconsistent with the “objective logic of history”? And what, in any case, does Vodolazov mean by the “objective logic of history”? </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Vodolazov tries to discredit Grossman by arguing that he gets details about Lenin wrong. For example, Lenin, according to Vodolazov, did not order a search of Plekhanov’s house at the time he was dying. According to Vodolazov this was done without Lenin’s permission and he was angered by the search. The other comments are too trifling to be taken seriously.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote37anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote37sym"><sup>37</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> Note, too, the following remarks by Vodolazov concerning Ivan which are wide of the mark:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">Well, indeed the author of the diary, the same Ivan Grigor’evich, who returns after many years of Stalinist hard labour, does he really admire “God’s world”, which runs past the window of the train, is he really concerned by the small joys of God’s world (and in actual fact a world without God), by means of which his fellow travellers in the carriage live? How sullen he is, how one-sided he is thinking about one and the same thing, this Ivan Grigor’evich! And in the diary there is nothing about rivers, about birds, not a word: it’s all about Ul’ianov and Dzhugashvili. A proper monster and not a person!</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote38anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote38sym"><sup>38</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">This is a wholly inadequate riposte from Vodolazov. It ignores the desperately moving fate of Masha, Anna Sergeevna and the genocide of the peasants. If a man has had his life blighted by Leninism and Stalinism, is he not entitled to ponder their origins? According to Vodolazov, ‘Grossman’s story and all its pages are not a scientific treatise, but an artistic work and must be perceived and evaluated in accordance with the canons of art’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote39anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote39sym"><sup>39</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> If that is granted, then why does Vodolazov devote such a vast amount of space and effort in an attempt to detoxify Grossman’s ideas? In fact, his whole article is a desperate ideological package designed to rescue Lenin from Grossman’s truly devastating analysis and, therefore, explicit recognition, despite his attempt to relegate and to confine any discussion of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Vse techet</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> to its artistic merits, of the immense power of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Vse techet</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> and its historical, philosophical themes and, ultimately the deadly threat it poses to Leninist hagiography and the state he founded. In this regard, note the equally clumsy attack to weaken Ivan’s observations by arguing that Ivan has spent his life ‘a long way from the archives and the special stacks of libraries’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote40anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote40sym"><sup>40</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> Ivan is a living archive, a repository of knowledge about the Leninist-Stalinist state. That Soviet libraries had a </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>spetskhran</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (introduced in the 1920s and fully in accordance with Lenin’s banning of the free press) merely underlines the scale of the censorship. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Vodolazov informs us that the </span><span style="font-size:100%;">first attempts to come to terms with Stalin were killed by censorship. Indeed they were: but who founded Soviet censorship? By stating the obvious – neutralisation by clear statement - Vodolazov once again tries to give the impression that Grossman has failed to do what Vodolazov claims must be done:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">It is misleading to see the main cause of our social deformations in some specific views, in Stalin’s specific theoretical constructs. For what purpose do we deceive ourselves by mythologizing Stalin and his cause? One needs to dig deeper. A critical analysis must address “our theoretical foundations”, “the initial drafts”, so as to explain “the doctrinal causes of deformation”. There, in “the foundations”, in “the doctrines” we will find the sources of the terrible illness.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote41anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote41sym"><sup>41</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">But Grossman does </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>not</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> mythologize Stalin and his cause and he most definitely and demonstrably </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>does</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> examine the theoretical foundations of what led to Stalin, so finding the cause of the illness. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Vodolazov then moves to attack Grossman’s view that Stalin created a state based on Leninist foundations; that people were reduced to cogs; that the party promoted itself as an elite order of sword bearers; that the closer the state moved towards socialism, the more the class struggle would intensify. Vodolazov maintains that:</span></p> <p style="margin: 0.42cm 1cm 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">For the classics of Marxism [Marx, Engels and Lenin] the essence, the meaning, the main aims of socialism were repeatedly connected with putting an end to the idea that man is a silent, helpless cog of the economic and political machine and that he would be transformed into a sovereign, free, universally and many-sided developed being. Socialism, in their conceptions, is the result of creativity, the historical independent activity of the masses and each person.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote42anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote42sym"><sup>42</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span> </p> <p style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Again, we note the question-begging: because these were the conceptions of the classics the fact that real-existing socialism did not lead to these conceptions being implemented can only mean that Stalin and Stalinism were deviations, deformations and ultimately had nothing to do with socialism. Vodolazov fails to consider the possibility that socialism, conceived by Marx, Engels and Lenin, contains within itself the seeds that lead to genocide, penury </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>et al</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">; that the Marxist-Leninist view of history as class struggle is wrong and leads to hell on earth. It is the theory of socialism that is the problem. Grossman’s claim that the party was “an order of sword bearers” is essentially correct. The CPSU had a view of itself as an elite organisation dedicated to a special mission. In this regard one can make comparisons with the SS, Nazi Party and any number of twentieth-century terrorist groups. In fact, the special sense of purpose is a feature of the Russian terrorist groups </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Zemlia i volia </i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">and </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Narodnaia volia</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. </span> </p> <p style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">In offering us what he believes is Grossman’s rhetorical view of the party, in order to highlight Grossman’s false depiction of it as ‘a closed medieval order, a privileged caste which dominates the people and decides all questions concerning the fate of the people in secret’</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote43anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote43sym"><sup>43</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;">, Vodolazov describes what is all too obvious: the party was indeed all those things and the rhetorical device merely confirms what Grossman has correctly described. Vodolazov then invites the reader to consider that the party was in actual fact ‘an open, democratic organisation, which voluntarily assumed the obligation to carry out the will of the people and to be accountable to, and controlled by, the people at every step’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote44anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote44sym"><sup>44</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> Such an assessment of Communist Party behaviour underlines the immense and unbridgeable gulf which separates Grossman from party apologists. Given what, by 1989, was known about the CPSU, Vodolazov’s assessment is not merely wrong but mendacious and perverse. </span> </p> <p style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">When Vodolazov tries to discredit Grossman’s portrayal of the party-state under Stalin his rhetorical attacks paint an accurate picture of what existed. Grossman’s observations on socialism are confirmed not just by what existed in the former Soviet Union but also in other parts of the world which copied the Soviet model.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote45anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote45sym"><sup>45</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> Vodolazov has no understanding of the vital differences between socialism and the market economy. He ignores the fact that it was Lenin who introduced censorship and the censorship apparatus survived intact until it was dissolved by Gorbachev’s Press Law.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote46anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote46sym"><sup>46</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> He would have the reader believe that Lenin was well aware that the conditions for socialism did not exist in Russia. So can it be that the use of terror, censorship and executions were intended to prepare the ground for socialism? One of Grossman’s most important insights in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Vse techet</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">, namely the all-important link between economic freedom and other freedoms (free speech </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>et al</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">) remains completely disregarded by Vodolazov.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">In a section headed ‘Concerning the Essence and Roots of Stalinism’ Vodolazov turns to the nature of Stalinism:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-size:100%;">Mature, developed Stalinism, which had been formed by the middle of the 1930s, can be seen as the anti-humanistic, voluntarist ideology of a bureaucratic elite which glorified violence and took it to the highest degree in all its underlying structures. That was its ideological essence. And as for Stalinism as a system of social-political relations it was a bureaucratic dictatorship and, one, moreover, in its most barbaric and in its most terroristic forms.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote47anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote47sym"><sup>47</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">Stalinism did not just appear from nowhere. Grossman sees it as being part of Russia’s long history, the lack of any rights accorded to the individual: the state is everything. Vodolazov’s attempt to brush Stalin and Stalinism off as some kind of deformation is unconvincing. He asserts: ‘The most difficult - and of course the most important – thing is to understand the sources of this shift from the norm to a deformation’.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote48anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote48sym"><sup>48</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> Again, we have returned to the begged question that since socialism is noble </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>et al</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> the problem lies not with socialism itself. Could it be that socialism itself is the deformation from which all else follows? Terror against so-called “enemies of the people” was sanctioned by Lenin. Stalin merely continued the tradition.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote49anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote49sym"><sup>49</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">The most striking thing about Vodolazov’s long article is the lack of any detailed discussion based on </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">. Not only does Vodolazov fail convincingly to account for the rise of Stalin – in the absence of any explanation based on what Marx and Lenin contributed - the rise of Stalin becomes removed from Soviet and Russian history, acquiring the status of some supernatural event, but he also ignores the demonstrable parallels with other totalitarian socialist states in Eastern Europe and China. If, ‘Stalinism is, in its essence, against the people’</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote50anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote50sym"><sup>50</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;">, what is Leninism? The growth of a massive, all-pervasive state bureaucracy is unavoidable when all non-state institutions are destroyed. He then tries to excuse the growth of the state bureaucracy by arguing that the peasants lacked education. They may well have done at the start of Soviet power but the brutal truth is that the no matter how educated the peasants were they would never have been welcomed as equals in the running of the country. Vodolazov concedes that the bureaucracy was inevitable but that Stalinism was a terroristic bureaucracy. This ignores the fact that organisations such as the VChK and the OGPU, both based on the use of police terror, had emerged and were preparing the way for the NKVD and its successors while Lenin was still alive. Vodolazov’s case against Grossman fails, in my opinion, to withstand scrutiny, whereas Grossman’s case against Lenin is upheld: Lenin is guilty as charged.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> and the earlier </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Life and Fate</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> belong to a select group of books which are indispensable reading for any student of Soviet and Russian history and letters seeking some of the answers to Russia’s apocalyptic twentieth century. The most striking feature of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> is Grossman’s relentless honesty and his willingness to confront the nature of the Soviet state and its origins: the deification of Lenin and his role in preparing the totalitarian state; the failure to grasp the nature of human freedom; the rise of Stalin; and the consummation of the Soviet project initiated in 1917. Had Grossman confined himself and his wide-ranging analysis in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing </i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">to Russia’s twentieth-century woes, instead of describing a historical trajectory which explained the course of Russian history in terms of the evolution of slavery (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>nesvoboda</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;">) and which explicitly rejected the view of so many nineteenth-century Russian thinkers that Russia was destined to carry out a special mission (easily co-opted by Lenin), Grossman, today, in the opinion of this author, would be more deeply embedded in the Russian national consciousness. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-size:100%;">If </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Forever Flowing</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> is uncomfortable, at times, even shocking reading for Russians, it should also be seen as a warning to the West. If, according to Grossman, the difference between the political evolution of the West and Russia, lies in the way freedom has evolved in the former and been ruthlessly sacrificed first to the prerogatives of the Tsars and then to the ideological programme of Marxism-Leninism in the latter, then it is a proper question to ask whether freedoms, once won, can be lost. Can the historical and intellectual evolution of the centuries towards what we take for granted as inviolable and inalienable freedoms be reversed? In the presence of evil and those who would deny truth any special status individual freedom can never be secure. Nor can any society survive that accepts the notion that good and evil are outdated religious prejudices. Good and evil are eternal, at the very heart of man’s nature. Each age must confront them anew.</span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote51anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote51sym"><sup>51</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"> I suggest that this is implicit in the very last word of the novel which, evoking the title, Grossman uses to describe Ivan Grigorevich, his soldier in truth: </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>neizmennyi</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> (unchanged). Everything flows but the constant, the irreducible in all ages and in all times is freedom: its duties, its burdens - its sacrifices.</span></p>________________<br /><div id="sdfootnote1"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote1anc">1</a> This article is based on a paper that I presented at the second conference in Turin which was dedicated to the life and work of Vasilii Grossman. The conference – <i>Vita e Destino: Vasilij Grossman: tra ideologie e domande eterne</i> – was organised by the Centro Culturale Pier Giorgio Frassati.<b> </b>I would like to thank the conference organisers for having invited me, the superb organisation and the generous and warm hospitality that was extended to all the participants.</p></div><div id="sdfootnote2"><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote2anc">2</a> Fedor Dostoevsky,<i> The Devils</i>, trans., David Magarshack, Penguin, Harmondsworth, England, 1982, p.256.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote3"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote3anc">3</a> <i>The Devils</i>, p.258.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote4"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote4anc">4</a> Vasilii Grossman, <i>Vse techet</i>, Possev-Verlag, 2<sup>nd</sup> edition, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, 1974, p.173.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote5"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote5anc">5</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.175.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote6"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote6anc">6</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.175.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote7"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote7anc">7</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p. 178.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote8"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote8sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote8anc">8</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.179.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote9"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote9sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote9anc">9</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.182.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote10"> <p class="sdfootnote" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote10sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote10anc">10</a> The broadcast was made on 24<sup>th</sup> March 1976 and was published in Alexander Solzhenitsyn, <i>Warning to the Western World</i>, The Bodley Head and BBC London, 1976, p.43.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote11"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote11sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote11anc">11</a> In chapter 10, Ivan realises that economic freedom and free speech go together: ‘Earlier, I used to think that freedom was freedom of speech, the press and conscience. But freedom, well, it is the entire life of all people. It is the freedom to sow what you want, to make shoes, coats, bake grain which you have sown, sell it or don’t sell it; and the metal worker, the steel worker and artist work, live as you please and don’t be ordered about. And there’s no freedom either for those who write books or among those who sow corn and make boots’, <i>Vse techet,</i> p.85.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote12"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote12sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote12anc">12</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.178.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote13"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote13sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote13anc">13</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.169.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote14"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote14sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote14anc">14</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.167</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote15"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote15sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote15anc">15</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.169.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote16"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family:Courier New,monospace;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote16sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote16anc">16</a> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Robert Conquest, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"><i>The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">, Hutchinson, London, 1986, p.143.</span></span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote17"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote17sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote17anc">17</a> Sydney Hook, <i>Out of Step: An Unquiet Life in the 20</i><sup><i>th</i></sup><i> Century</i>, Harper & Row, New York, 1987, p.493.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote18"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote18sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote18anc">18</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.117.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote19"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote19sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote19anc">19</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, pp.117-118.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote20"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote20sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote20anc">20</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.124.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote21"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote21sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote21anc">21</a> <i>Vse techet</i>, p.128.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote22"> <p class="sdfootnote" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote22sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote22anc">22</a> Arkadii Stolypin, ‘Oshibochnaia istoricheskaia kontseptsiia Vasiliia Grossmana’, <i>Grani</i>, № 80, 1971, p.217.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote23"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote23sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote23anc">23</a> See A. Kazintsev, ‘Istoriia – ob’’ediniashchaia ili razobshchaiiushchaia’, <i>Nash Sovremennik</i>, 11, 1988, pp.163-184. Kazintsev is responding to the remarks made by Chernetsov (see chapter 70, part 1 of <i>Life and Fate</i>, Sovetskii pisatel’, Moscow, 1990, p.228) and Mad’iarov (see chapter 66, Part 1, <i>Life and Fate</i>, p.214). At the end of his article Kazintsev notes that the editorial board of <i>Oktiabr’</i> intends to publish <i>Vse techet</i> the following year (1989) and various extracts from <i>Vse techet</i> on the theme of the Russian soul and freedom are cited (chapter 22). Kazintsev’s response to the impending publication of <i>Vse techet</i> is worth noting: ‘It goes without saying that the journal <i>Oktiabr’</i> is free to print everything it considers to be topical. I would merely question how the extracts cited can be reconciled with the principles of international brotherhood?’ Kazintsev, p.184. In response to Grossman’s assertion that the growth of the West has been impregnated with the ideas of freedom and that Russia’s growth has been characterised by the growth of slavery, Kazintsev asks whether this means that Russia is excluded from the history of mankind (p.184).</p></div><div id="sdfootnote24"><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote24sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote24anc">24</a> Martin Malia, <i>The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991</i>, The Free Press, New York, 1994, p.134.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote25"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote25sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote25anc">25</a> Martin Malia, <i>The Soviet Tragedy</i>, p.134.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote26"> <p class="sdfootnote" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote26sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote26anc">26</a> Robert Conquest, <i>The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine</i>, Hutchinson, London, 1986, p.<span style="font-size:100%;"> </span>315.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote27"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote27sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote27anc">27</a> <span lang="en-US">‘Synthesis with Slaves’, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Times Literary Supplement</i></span><span lang="en-US"> 23rd February 1973, 197. </span> </p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote28"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote28sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote28anc">28</a> G. Vodolazov, ‘Lenin i Stalin: filosofsko-sotsiologicheskii kommentarii k povesti V. Grossmana <i>Vse techet</i>’, <i>Oktiabr’</i>, 6, 1989, pp.3-29.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote29"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote29sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote29anc">29</a> Vodolazov, p.3.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote30"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote30sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote30anc">30</a> Vodolazov, p.4.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote31"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote31sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote31anc">31</a> Vodolazov, p.5.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote32"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote32sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote32anc">32</a> V.I.Lenin, ‘Proletarskaia revoliutsiia i renegat Kautskii’, (1918), <i>Sochineniia</i>, vol 28, 4th edition, OGIZ, Moscow., 1950, pp.207-302.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote33"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote33sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote33anc">33</a> Vodolazov, p.4.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote34"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote34sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote34anc">34</a> Ayn Rand, <i>We the Living</i> (1936) Signet, New York, 1983, p.80.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote35"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote35sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote35anc">35</a> Vodolazov, pp.4-5.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote36"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote36sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote36anc">36</a> Vodolazov, p.6.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote37"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote37sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote37anc">37</a> Vodolazov, p.7.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote38"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote38sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote38anc">38</a> Vodolazov, p.7.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote39"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote39sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote39anc">39</a> Vodolazov, p.9.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote40"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote40sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote40anc">40</a> Vodolazov, p.9.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote41"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote41sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote41anc">41</a> Vodolazov, p.11.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote42"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote42sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote42anc">42</a> Vodolazov, p.11.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote43"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote43sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote43anc">43</a> Vodolazov, p.12.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote44"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote44sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote44anc">44</a> Vodolazov, p.12.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote45"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote45sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote45anc">45</a> See, apart from anything else, Viktor Kravchenko, <i>I Chose Freedom: The Personal and Political Life of a Soviet Official</i> (1946), Czesław Miłosz, <i>The Captive Mind</i> (1953) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, <i>The Gulag Archipelago</i> (1973-1975-1978) and subsequent to the publication of Vodolazov’s article, Harry Wu, <i>Bitter Winds: A Memoir of My Years in China’s Gulag</i> (1994) and <i>The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression</i> (1999). Nor is there any reference to <i>Life and Fate</i> where the beginnings of Grossman’s unravelling of the Lenin cult can be sen.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote46"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote46sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote46anc">46</a> The law - <i>Zakon o pechati i drugikh sredstvakh massovoi informatsii</i> - was signed by Gorbachev on 12<sup>th</sup> June 1990 and took effect on 1st August 1990. </p></div><div id="sdfootnote47"><p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote47sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote47anc">47</a> Vodolazov, p.16.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote48"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote48sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote48anc">48</a> Vodolazov, p.17</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote49"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote49sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote49anc">49</a> Vodolazov, p.19.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote50"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote50sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote50anc">50</a> Vodolazov, p.22.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote51"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote51sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8038663390407586616#sdfootnote51anc">51</a> Solzhenitsyn identifies another failing on the part of the West: ‘How is it that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find strength in themselves to rise up and free themselves – first in spirit and then in body – while those soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly lose the taste of freedom, lose the will to defend it, and, hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery? <i>Warning to the Western World</i>, pp.28-29.</p> <p class="sdfootnote">______________</p><p class="sdfootnote"><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Click here to return to Sarah: Maid of Albion</span></a><br /></p> </div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-18232934936260668982011-03-11T03:23:00.000-08:002011-04-30T02:21:38.055-07:00A few of my older articles, which I hope you will take time to read<ul><li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/03/hate-crime-six-years-on.html"></a><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/03/hate-crime-six-years-on.html">A Hate Crime Seven Years On</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/03/ehrc-controlled-media-release.html">EHRC Controlled Media Release </a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/old-evil-still-craving-blood.html">An old evil still craving blood </a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/purging-non-believers.html">Purging non-believers </a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion2.blogspot.com/2011/03/genocide-by-stealth-parts-1-to-4.html">Genocide by Stealth - Parts 1 to 4</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/03/sheep-voting-for-mint-sauce.html">Sheep Voting for Mint Sause</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-truth-becomes-crime.html">When the Truth becomes the crime</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/09/reality-of-september-11th.html">The Reality of September 11th</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/09/blurring-truth-part-1.html">Blurring the Truth Parts 1 and 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/08/lies-of-political-correctness.html">The Lies of Political Correctness</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/07/sacrifice-betrayed.html">Sacrifice betrayed</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/07/ever-closer-to-edge.html">Ever Closer to the Edge</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/06/bloody-liars.html">Bloody Liars</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/05/victims-of-silence.html">Victims of the Silence</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/05/echoes-from-different-world.html">Echoes from a Different world</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/05/culture-shock.html">Culture Shock</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/04/eugenics-2010.html">Eugenics 2010</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/02/deadly-dream-of-uhuru.html">The Deadly dream of Uhuru</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/01/hear-this-you-of-england.html">Here this you of England</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/01/lies-of-frightened-men.html">The lies of frightened men</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/01/vanishing-ladies.html">Vanishing Ladies</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-cusp-of-history.html">On the Cusp of History</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/12/selective-justice.html">Selective Justice</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/12/switzerland-under-pressure.html">Switzerland Under Pressure</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/11/hate-by-any-other-name.html">Hate by Any Other Name</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/11/somebodys-daughter.html">Somebody's Daughter</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/11/lies-told-often-enough.html">Lies Told Often Enough</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/11/salute-to-brave-warriors.html">A Salute to Brave Warriors</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/11/flexibility-of-word.html">The Flexibility of the Word</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-be-fooled-again.html">Don't Get Fooled Again</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/11/delusions-of-demagogues.html">The Delusions of Demagogues</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/10/crime-less-easy-to-disguise.html">A Crime Less Easy to Disguise</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/10/revalations-from-bear-pit-part-one.html">Question time - Revalations from a Bear Pit - Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/10/revelations-from-bear-pit-part-two-of.html">Question time - Revalations from a Bear Pit - Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/10/revelations-from-bear-pit-part-three.html">Question Time - Revalations from a Bear Pit - Part 3</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/10/california-dreaming-to-destruction.html">California: Dreaming to Destruction</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/10/anyone-have-recipe-for-curried-parakeet.html">As Curried as a Parakeet</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/guess-those-missing-words.html">Guess Those Missing Words</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/balancing-prosecutions-part-1-equality.html">Balancing Prosecutions Part 1 - Equality in Crime</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/balancing-prosecutions-part-2-rape-lies.html">Balancing Prosecutions Part 2 - Rape, Lies and Academia</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/balancing-prosecutions-part-3.html">Balancing Prosecutions Part 3 - Revisiting Duke Lacrosse</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/remembering-vices-past.html">Remembering Vices Past</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/flawed-prosecution-for-sake-of-balance.html">For the sake of balance</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/truths-too-big-to-hide.html">Truths too Big to Hide</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/disinformation-news.html">Disinformation News</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/british-in-name-only.html">British in Name Only</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/08/that-last-refuge-in-shires.html">That last refuge in the Shires</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/08/letter-to-tory-england.html">A letter to Tory England</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/07/update-on-one-day-in-britain.html">One day in Britain</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/07/another-change-they-can-believe-in.html">Another Change they can believe in</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/07/affirmative-history.html">Affirmative history</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/06/truths-we-are-not-supposed-to-tell.html">Truths we are not supposed to tell</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/06/battle-has-been-won-but-enemy-has-not.html">A battle has been won, but the enemy has not gone away</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/05/future-they-have-in-store.html">The future they have in store</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/05/stages-on-ideological-journey.html">Stages on an ideological journey</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/05/oppression-of-word.html">The oppression of the word</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/05/guilt-of-silent.html">The guilt of the silent</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/05/forgotten-victims-of-lie.html">The forgotten victims of a lie</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/04/call-to-action-but-is-anyone-listening.html">A call to action, but is anyone listening?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-casualties.html">The first casualties</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-president-didnt-say.html">What the President didn't say</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/praising-melting-pot.html">Praising the melting pot</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/transitory-realities.html">Transitory realities</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-in-england.html">A week in England</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/ignoring-cracks.html">Ignoring the cracks</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/10/when-english-rose-became-common-ragwort.html">When the English Rose became the Common Ragwort</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/08/dangerous-liaisons.html">Dangerous Liaisons</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/08/to-blame-for-africa.html">To blame for Africa</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/06/beyond-letter-of-law.html">Beyond the letter of the law</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion2.blogspot.com/2008/06/mandela-legend-and-legacy.html">Mandela - the legend and the legacy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/06/grab-em-while-theyre-young.html">Grab 'em while they're young</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/06/white-boys-in-jungle.html">White boys in the jungle</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/broken-news.html">Broken news</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/bloodstained-fantasy.html">A bloodstained fantasy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/mogadishu-on-our-streets.html">Mogadishu on our streets</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/enemy-within.html">The enemy within</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/vote-against-liars.html">A vote against the liars</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/persecuting-truth-silencing-of-icon.html">Persecuting the truth - the silencing of an icon</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hoary-old-stereotype-sold-to-us-as-new.html">A hoary old stereotype - sold to us as "new"</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/lost-boys.html">The lost boys</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/politically-correct-racism-bbc-approved.html">Politically correct racism (BBC approved)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/ripped-from-headlines-and-ethnically.html">Ripped from the headlines and ethncally cleansed</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html">Lies, damn lies and statistics</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/osamas-call-to-war.html">Osama's call to war</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/losing-paradice.html">Losing Paradice</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/diversity-and-dodo.html">Diversity and the Dodo</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/diversity-is-no-buffet.html">Diversity is no buffet</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/myths-behind-white-guilt-part-2.html">The myths behind white guilt (2) - Empire</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/myths-behind-white-guilt.html">The myths behind white guilt (1) - the slave trade</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/when-american-drem-becomes-nightmare.html">When the American dream becomes a nightmare</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/bullied-by-their-safe-word.html">Bullied by their safe word</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/marketing-multiculturalism.html">Marketing Multiculturalism</a></li>
</ul>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-8720767437223119142011-03-10T08:39:00.000-08:002012-01-06T10:33:26.686-08:00Genocide by Stealth<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsqbnAjOzPBWv2y0VH_1G7L8y-93YPNTDI-SFXyxivx_zbjGbPi6_GOFJNRa6n7-BHH03n8XP2TgOdxzphYvI5H3RfNyXqWMlmu_l28o0hu3OC27ZVohkF8N1ZpqVcr7dWpnFQj1LSym3N/s1600/mist_on_lake.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582492604023809538" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsqbnAjOzPBWv2y0VH_1G7L8y-93YPNTDI-SFXyxivx_zbjGbPi6_GOFJNRa6n7-BHH03n8XP2TgOdxzphYvI5H3RfNyXqWMlmu_l28o0hu3OC27ZVohkF8N1ZpqVcr7dWpnFQj1LSym3N/s400/mist_on_lake.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 266px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 400px;" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">Part One</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
If one were to set out to destroy a race or ethnic group, history offers a selection of options as to how this can be achieved.<br />
<br />
You can starve them to death in their millions, as Stalin did, and as Lenin had before him. You can force them to march through the desert until they drop dead through hunger and exhaustion as was the Turks' preferred method of dispatching some one and a half million Armenians, whilst the world was distracted by the first World War. Alternatively if you wish to speed up the process you can shoot them, bomb them, gas them as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds, or merely hack them to bits with machetes, by which means the Rwandans slaughtered 800,000 people in a mere 100 days during 1994.<br />
<br />
The problem with all those tried and tested means of eradicating large groups of people, is that it is almost impossible to hide what you have done from a world community, which, in the main, considers most forms of genocide to be morally unacceptable and a breach of international law.<br />
<br />
The exception, of course, is the ANC government in South Africa, who have, so far quite effectively, managed to portray the racially motivated slaughter of members of an ethnic minority as being merely “crime related”, painting repeated acts of genocide as an unending series of “botched burglaries” or multiple “car-jackings gone wrong” . However, their success in hiding their own brand of blood stained ethnic cleansing, has been dependant upon the very special set of circumstances relating to South Africa, and, crucially, upon an outside world not wishing to know the truth.<br />
<br />
As such the South African model is unlikely to translate as successfully beyond the dark continent's southern region, and the violent slaughter of a selected ethnic group in any other part of the world, particularly the West, would be less easy to conceal.<br />
<br />
However, although there is effectively only one word for genocide, it can come in many forms. To commit genocide, it is not always necessary to perpetrate acts of violence, or indeed murder. There are many definitions of genocide, all equally effective, albeit not all as speedy as the ones chosen in Rwanda.<br />
<br />
If one was prepared to take time and if one was sufficiently ideologically committed to embark upon a genocidal enterprise, the conclusion of which one might personally not live to see, then it is entirely possible to achieve the gradual genocide by stealth of a vast target group without the perpetrators ever having to reveal their blood stained hands.<br />
<br />
One need only create the conditions in which the target group will cooperate with its own destruction, and, with any luck, not awake to what is happening until too late.<br />
<br />
Travel with me now gentle reader and I will explain to you why some believe that the greatest act of genocide in human history is currently being attempted, and how that act may already well on its way to being achieved.<br />
<br />
First we need to understand what genocide is. Amongst the United Nations definitions of Acts of Genocide <span style="font-size: 85%;">(1)</span> you will find along with the acts of war and violence, the following two definitions which also constitute genocide:</div><blockquote>Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the targeted group<br />
<br />
Deliberately inflicting on the targeted group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Bearing the points above in mind I invite you to consider where we, the native peoples of Europe have been brought to, in particular over the 65 years since the guns fell silent at the end of a war which our grandfathers were told they were fighting in order to save the future for their children.<br />
<br />
Far from saving the future for their children, I would suggest to you that, since World War II, conditions of life have been introduced by those who hold power over us which are calculated to bring about the destruction, at the very least in part, of those very children, the native people of Europe. Meanwhile measures have been introduced intended to significantly reduce the number of Native European births.<br />
<br />
Seen in isolation, much of what has happened appears quite harmless, in some instances even beneficial, however, when viewed all together a far darker picture begins to emerge:<br />
<br />
A victim will the more willingly drink his poison if it's made to taste sweet, and what was sweeter than a sexual revolution without the inconvenience of pregnancy. Forms of contraception have existed with varying degrees of effectiveness for hundreds of years, but never before has it been so easy to avoid getting pregnant. Many will argue that the avoidance of an unwanted pregnancy is beneficial, they will point to the shame and social exclusion of unwed mothers in the past, to prematurely aged women brought to early graves by repeated child bearing, to the financial burden which large families can cause and of course they are correct in some degree, albeit certainly not in the numbers they inevitably claim.<br />
<br />
I will not deny that effective, and easily accessible, contraception has benefits for individuals, however, millions of indigenous European children, whom nature intended to be conceived, have not been conceived as a direct result of the contraceptive pill, and the benefits, if any, of that loss to us collectively as European people are less easy to quantify.<br />
<br />
As I type this I can already hear the shrill squawks of derision from the trolls and intellectual pygmies at forums such as <a href="http://www.fstdt.net/"><span style="color: #ff99ff;">fstdt.net</span></a>, who monitor this blog from time to time, and, no doubt, some more grown up readers will raise a sceptical eye-brow at the linkage of oral contraception to genocide. However, I would ask you to put your prejudice to one side and consider these things in context. This is but one aspect of many and, when so many coincidences lead in one direction it is hard to ignore a design.<br />
<br />
The contraceptive pill, initially available to married women as a means of family planning, is now celebrated as a weapon of female liberation and heavily promoted within white western nations. It is, of course, also a means of not having children in the numbers which any race needs in order to survive.<br />
<br />
Even when the pill fails, it is now, for the first time in history, easy and, in almost every western nation, legal to terminate unwanted pregnancies. As a result of laws passed at the same time that the contraceptive pill was being made widely available, across the West millions upon millions of unborn children have been killed, mainly, to a huge degree, for reasons of convenience rather than medical necessity (including what might be called the “dump the boyfriend, kill the kid” scenario)<br />
<br />
Again as with contraception, abortion is portrayed as both a right and a further means of liberating women, in fact it is implied that to be opposed to abortion is to be anti-women. Indeed, popular culture regularly depicts those who are pro-life as being evil or unbalanced, meanwhile, people who are pro-choice/pro-death are portrayed as decent, rational and even rather heroic. As we all know when the media resort to propaganda, they have an agenda.<br />
<br />
Is it just coincidence that the two greatest social changes, affecting human reproduction, in the second half of the 20th Century resulted in tens of millions of western children not being born? If so, then here is another coincidence.<br />
<br />
There are, of course, other, less obvious ways of preventing births than merely preventing conception or by killing foetuses, you need only create an environment which discourages the target group from reproducing. As a result of successive deliberate economic policies during exactly the same historical period during which the changes described above were taking place, the vast majority of women are now forced to work, rather than stay at home and raise families.<br />
<br />
They are, of course, told that being away from home anything up to twelve or more hours a day (and for most of us remote linking or bringing work home at night) is liberating, whereas, in fact, they have no option.<br />
<br />
What has changed? It has far less to do with social attitudes than it has with the new economic reality. As recently as the 1960's the average man's take home pay was sufficient to support his home and his family, which was, on average, larger than a modern western family. That is no longer possible for anyone under executive level and only then if the husband commutes for hours each day.<br />
<br />
This didn't happen by accident, it didn't happen due to natural progression, it was the result of deliberate political acts and government policy.<br />
<br />
For instance, one of the reasons why men's wages have not kept pace with the cost of maintaining a home and family is mass immigration, which has been cynically used to depress wages.<br />
<br />
A recent study <span style="font-size: 85%;">(2)</span> in America estimated that by pushing down wages, immigration triggers a substantial redistribution of income from native-born workers to native-born owners of capital. It was calculated that this redistribution amounts to about 2 percent of GDP, or a whopping $250 billion annually at current levels. And it is the native elites who gain this sum at the expense of native workers, whose wages are kept artificially low.<br />
<br />
A similar figure will certainly apply to Europe, where mass immigration is also forcing down wages. Consequently, most men can no longer support their families single handedly. As a direct result most woman now work, and most working woman put off having children and have less children than previous generations. I repeat, it is a lie to say women now have the “choice” to work, they have no choice, they have no option but to work. That is not liberation.<br />
<br />
Whatever your views on contraceptives, abortion and working woman (I am certainly in favour of women being free to choose to work) it is impossible to deny that, as described above, whether deliberately or otherwise, measures, resulting from deliberate government policy, have been put in place in every Western Nation all of which have drastically reduced the birth rate amongst native Europeans. None of it occurred naturally, and none of it was unavoidable.<br />
<br />
That sounds very much like one of the UN's definitions of genocide to me. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Western governments pump billions of dollars each year into aid programmes designed to increase the birth rate non-European countries. The same ministers who promote abortion at home celebrate reductions in child mortality in third world countries, is this not a double standard?<br />
<br />
Whilst our population ages and our birth rate falls, the non-European population of the world is increasing to unsustainable levels<br />
<br />
At the time of the Live Aid appeal in 1984, the population of Ethiopia was 42 million, it is now almost 81 million and projected to reach 145 million by 2050, and that is all Ethiopians (there is not much immigration into Ethiopia).<br />
<br />
Zimbabwe apart, similar examples apply in almost every third world country. In 1950 the population of Pakistan, another recipient of significant European aid and a net exporter of immigrants, was 40 Million, it is now 169 million and expected to reach 295 million by 2050 <span style="font-size: 85%;">(3)</span>.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile the native population of Europe is plummeting and in both respects the cause of the demographic change can be traced to the deliberate acts of Western governments.<br />
<br />
Siren voices whisper moral blackmail into our Western ears “We must reduce our population further to save the planet” but this propaganda is only aimed at us, the white west, the only single group on the planet which desperately needs to increase its population in order to survive.<br />
<br />
Why? Is it not obvious to anyone with the ability still to think that, if our overlords are deliberately pursuing policies designed to reduce the population of Group A whilst massively increasing the population of Group B, they have an agenda?<br />
<br />
Our shrinking birth rate, which our governments have arguably conspired to create, is the excuse they then give for importing millions upon millions, upon million, upon millions of immigrants into our homelands in order to replace what we have not produced, that is to say, in order to replace us.<br />
<br />
And this brings us to the second of the two definitions of genocide the deliberate infliction on the targeted group of conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It is that second act of genocide which I will address in part 2 of this essay<br />
<br />
_________________<br />
<br />
<br />
(1)1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2<br />
(2) <a href="http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/costofdiversity.pdf">http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/costofdiversity.pdf</a><br />
(3) <a href="http://www.prcdc.org/globalpopulation/Population_Projections/">http://www.prcdc.org/globalpopulation/Population_Projections/</a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">________________________</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Part Two</span><br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/12/genocide-by-stealth-part-1.html">first part</a> of this essay I argued that vast social changes resulting from deliberate acts by the governments of Europe and all other, one time white, Western nations have succeeded in meeting at least one of the United Nations definitions of what constitutes an act of genocide against an ethnic group.<br />
<br />
Easy, free, and officially encouraged access to oral contraception, the legalisation of abortion, effectively on demand, and changes to the economic structure which have forced the average family unit to cease consisting of one breadwinner and one child carer, but instead to become formed of two breadwinners, have resulted directly in a catastrophic reduction in the birth rate among whites of native European origin.<br />
<br />
All three changes have resulted directly from deliberate social or economic engineering on the part of post war governments, and it is impossible to argue that a reduction in births was not a primary aim, at least of the first two or that a reduction in births has been a direct result of the third.<br />
<br />
Therefore, I would submit for your consideration the fact that, whether through ill will or otherwise, measures have been put in place intended to prevent births within the targeted group. That targeted group being white native Europeans. This means of Genocide is clearly defined in Article 2 of <a href="http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html">the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide</a><br />
<br />
Meanwhile, as I argued in part one, during the same period, monumental efforts have been made, by those same western governments to increase the birth rate amongst other races and ethnic groups.<br />
<br />
Some may argue that counter measures, such as welfare benefits, and, indeed child benefit itself, have been put in place which actively encourage childbirth. However, as the figures clearly demonstrate, they have not had this effect, at least, they have not done so amongst the target group. White wage earners may welcome child benefit, but it is only those whites at the very lowest social levels who might consider welfare benefits an incentive to breed.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, given that the welfare state in Britain and similar welfare arrangements Europe are among of the primary incentives for mass inward migration and that it is primarily amongst immigrant families in receipt of welfare and child benefits that a significant growth in birth rates has been seen, far from counterbalancing that damaging effect of other policies, this has, if anything, in fact added to the damage done to the native European people.<br />
<br />
That is because, the inward migration honey pot created by a free for all Welfare state is one of the many ways by which a further act fitting the description of genocide has been committed. That is the deliberate infliction on the targeted group of conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.<br />
<br />
I would contend that the mass third world immigration into every single Western nation has created conditions which will lead to the destruction of the native European peoples, at very least in part.<br />
<br />
How do you destroy a people if not by starving them, shooting them or marching them to death? There are many ways, but you can start by outnumbering them and forcing them out of their homelands. When it happens to other races in other places we call it ethnic cleansing, it is only when it happens to us, here that we call it progress.<br />
<br />
Whatever you call it, it is happening, even the media have now been forced to admit that the native white population of Britain will have become an ethnic minority in their ancestral homeland by 2066. Many suspect that estimate is a conservative one, and that is likely to be much sooner than that, in much of England it most certainly will be sooner.<br />
<br />
We should not forget that the annual “net” immigration figure, which the government publishes, does not take into account how many of those leaving the country are indigenous Britons who are replaced by immigrants, and the numbers classified as British born who are of foreign ancestry. As a consequence the official figure seriously underestimates the overall demographic change.<br />
<br />
London only remains a majority white city if you include the furthest outer suburbs and the fact that non-Europeans are less likely to register on census forms. There is compelling evidence that in reality London has already passed the tipping point and that the native population are already a minority. Whether that is true or not it is certain that it soon will be and that without a shadow of a doubt, with one hundred years of the end of World War II, the descendants of those, the blitz generation, who flocked the streets to celebrate VE day, will be a racial minority in the city they fought to defend.<br />
<br />
This will have resulted from a deliberate policy, which was never put to a vote. How is this not ethnic cleansing? How does this not equate to the other great displacements which history now condemns?.<br />
<br />
In Birmingham, a city with one of the smallest remaining white majorities in Britain, the change may come even sooner. Certainly the native population have long ago been driven out of vast swathes of that city, as they have in many UK cities, including London.<br />
<br />
It is often lamented that the sparrows are vanishing from London, but who dare admit so are the Cockneys?.<br />
<br />
If the indigenous population of any other region of the word were being deliberately replaced, the word “genocide” would be on the tofu stained lips of every liberal. The UN security council would be in session and Hoxton high street would echo to the shrieks of horror, as Giles and Penelope recounted tales of vacations in Cairo or Bangkok where the locals had been forced out and replaced by people from Porthcawl and Billericay. However, as it is the people of European origin who are being supplanted it's considered acceptable.<br />
<br />
The same situation extends across the Western World. In fact European nations, such as Sweden, which have smaller native populations may well become majority non-white before we do. Even in the larger countries the problems associated with mass immigration are becoming obvious, however, their leaders do not see the solution to the problem as stopping immigration, but rather by getting rid of a homogeneous native population. This was made clear by French President Nicolas Sarkozy when he said "the only way to stop the violence and hatred of a multicultural society is through inter breeding between the races", what else was he calling for other than the irradication of the original French people?<br />
<br />
This view echoed those expressed by so many of the social elite, and those who see themselves as opinion formers, such as journalist, political commentator and over-paid television personality Andrew Marr when, in a 1999 Guardian article, he encouraged "widespread and vigorous miscegenation”, or race mixing, to make the British public to accept the multicultural 'Utopia' he, and his kind are seeking to force upon us. Marr admitted that this might be “tricky to achieve as public policy”, however, the fact that he viewed miscegenation as the “best option” reveals a great deal about the attitudes of such people. (1)<br />
<br />
There is a vast difference between a free society permitting interracial sex and the active promotion of mass miscegenation for a political aim, yet Sarkozy, Marr and the other mixed race proselytisers are too blinded by ideology to that what they are in fact advocating is ethnic cleansing. Or am I being to generous to them?<br />
<br />
So, what caused this attitude? A view which would have been so alien to every generation before the 1960's? Why is it considered as acceptable to do to us what would cause shock and outcry were it done to anyone else? The reason is clear, Europeans have been taught to think differently about themselves, and make no mistake, they have been deliberately taught to view themselves in the way they now do.<br />
<br />
It may sound bizarre to claim that our media and our educators have created a fake history and then set about brainwashing us into feeling guilt about things which never happened, or which did not happen in the manner in which our children, and indeed most of the post 1960 generations are taught, but that is actually what is happening.<br />
<br />
What our children are being taught in school about our history and our society are lies, pure and simple, and that has been the case now for decades.<br />
<br />
This is accompanied throughout childhood and into adulthood by a constant barrage of propaganda forced upon us day and night through our entertainment and news media. Not only are we relentlessly confronted with depictions of the same fake history with which our children are being indoctrinated, but also a fake present, depicted in popular drama, entertainment and through the heavily sanitised and selective spin which now passes for news.<br />
<br />
The news is arguably more shameful even than the drama, because it pretends to be objective and truthful when it is the exact reverse. Anything which can be spun to support the fantasy of a multicultural Utopia, the perpetual narrative of non-white victimhood or intrinsic white badness is highlighted with great prominence. Meanwhile anything which could undermine the multicultural dream, reveals whites as victims or exposes badness amongst non-whites is distorted, lied about or suppressed altogether.<br />
<br />
I could go into great detail on this aspect, but wish to avoid this article becoming overly long, however, it is a subject I have addressed frequently, with numerous articles in previous posting which can be found in the blog archives. However, I have added links to a number of my previous posting on the subject of media propaganda and misinformation at the bottom of this article (2).<br />
<br />
Once one appreciates what is happening you are confronted with it relentlessly, but sadly very few actually realise what is happening, it is, after all, what they have always known and what they have been taught to believe. They hardly even notice when they see themselves being replaced, not least in TV commercials, where progressively the average Briton is portrayed not by a white person, or indeed a black person, but by someone of mixed race, with the subliminal message that this is the new reality they should aspire to.<br />
<br />
The outcome is the a flabby, bovine, nation of people who care only for trivia and possessions, who actively believe that the history of their race is shameful, that their country owes a debt of guilt to other nations, and crucially, who do not care if their people were to vanish from the face of the earth.<br />
<br />
Worse than that, for many, something in their subconscious tells them it might even be racist to care.<br />
<br />
And here I have mentioned the word which has become one of the most deadly weapons used against the European race and the most poisonous agent of their destruction.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #ff6666; font-weight: bold;">"Racist"</span>, that dishonest, multi-purpose, multiple application little word has been used to bully, intimidate and hector our people for decades now as a means of forcing a cynical political agenda upon us which they would never have achieved democratically. We, the most tolerant and benevolent race on Earth, the people least guilty of racial, tribal or xenophobic animus on the planet, have, exclusively, been so terrorised by that little word to the point where we would rather see our own race destroyed than dare be called it.<br />
<br />
If any of us do overcome the terror and speak out against the lies, then laws have been set in place enabling the authorities to hunt them down and prosecute them, cheered on by a baying controlled media.<br />
<br />
In Britain, and elsewhere in Europe it has now been established in law that telling the truth can be a criminal offence (and we laughably still call ourselves a free society)<br />
<br />
It is all now stacked against us. We are the victims of hate don't you see, we are not, and have never been the main perpetrators.<br />
<br />
This is a huge subject, and there is so much more to say. We are assailed on all sides by so many different forces, all seemingly calculated to undermine us as a homogeneous race of people. I could continue for a dozen more postings and still not have covered all issues.<br />
<br />
However, I hope that, in these two postings I have been able to demonstrate that over the last half century, measures have been imposed upon the native people of Europe, and, worldwide, upon those of European origin, which fit the internationally accepted definitions of genocide, and which are inextricably leading to the destruction of us as a race. (In some areas, such as South Africa, as I have explained in previous postings we are even further down the blood stained road)<br />
<br />
As pointed out in part one of this essay those definitions of genocide are:</div><ul style="text-align: justify;"><li>Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the targeted group</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: justify;">As I have stated, deliberate measures have been put in place intended to prevent births amongst us, and which have successfully prevented many millions of births amongst our people. At the same time, deliberate measures, taken by the same governments, have increased the birthrate of non-Europeans by billions (four billion since 1950).<br />
<br />
Whilst their numbers grow, ours are shrinking, taken across the western world this has led to the loss of potential lives among those of European origin greater than any previous world war and previous natural disaster other than possibly the black death in the 14th Century, and certainly greater than any previous genocide.</div><ul style="text-align: justify;"><li>Deliberately inflicting on the targeted group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. </li>
</ul><div style="text-align: justify;">Mass immigration, never in any state agreed to by democratic vote, is replacing the native peoples of Europe and those of European origin across the planet. Britain and North America are predicted to become majority non-white states at some point between 2050 and 2066, and the same will apply to the rest of Europe, with the possible exception of northern Russia, by the end of the century.<br />
<br />
Some would argue that the very replacement of one race or culture with another is an act of genocide in itself. However, in addition, the inevitable mass displacement and interbreeding which is already occurring will further undermine Europeans as a homogeneous ethnic group. (an outcome, some so brainwashed and mired in their foetid ideology actually view as a desirable outcome)<br />
<br />
Furthermore, given the evidence that significant numbers of immigrants are actively hostile to the native population and its culture, the effect on the native population when those groups become a majority can only be guessed at .<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, for decades now our people have been subject to unremitting indoctrination, propaganda and, many would argue, brainwashing. They have been fed lies and disinformation designed to undermine their sense of identity, their pride in their identity, and ultimately their will to survive as a people.<br />
<br />
By means of the above, and many other examples I could point to, conditions have been inflicted upon us which can not fail to bring about our destruction in whole or in part, and, in fact are already doing so.<br />
<br />
It is happening, that cannot be denied. I have not made any of this up, I have merely laid the facts before you and the conclusion screams its own name without any prompting from me.<br />
<br />
Only two questions remain:<br />
<br />
why is it happening? To be truly genocide there needs to be intent. Is there really a mass conspiracy by evil people determined to destroy the white race? The acts are deliberate, but is their inevitable outcome their purpose? Or are there other factors, other agendas and other motives which have brought us to where we are?<br />
<br />
It makes little difference to us of course, if you are killed by murder or by manslaughter you are still dead. However, it does change how one judges the perpetrators.<br />
<br />
And the most difficult question, what, if anything can be done to change course on what appears to the inevitable road to our destruction?.<br />
<br />
I will seek to explore these two questions in the third and final part of this essay. <br />
<br />
____________________<br />
<br />
(1) <a href="http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Uk/uk.politics.misc/2008-07/msg00247.pdf">http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Uk/uk.politics.misc/2008-07/msg00247.pdf</a><br />
<br />
(2) Prior articles touching on media lies, disinformation and propaganda<br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/ripped-from-headlines-and-ethnically.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/ripped-from-headlines-and-ethnically.html</a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/broken-news.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/broken-news.html </a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/09/age-of-disinformation.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/09/age-of-disinformation.html </a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hoary-old-stereotype-sold-to-us-as-new.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hoary-old-stereotype-sold-to-us-as-new.html</a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/disinformation-news.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/disinformation-news.html</a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/guess-those-missing-words.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/guess-those-missing-words.html</a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/08/lies-of-political-correctness.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/08/lies-of-political-correctness.html</a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/06/bloody-liars.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/06/bloody-liars.html</a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html</a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/03/claims-reported-as-facts-again.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/03/claims-reported-as-facts-again.html</a><br />
<br />
_______________<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Part three</span></span><br />
<br />
In the first two parts of this essay I set out to demonstrate that acts have been committed against the white European race, over the last half century or more, which meet at least two of the definitions of genocide as laid out under Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide<br />
<br />
Measures have been put in place intended to prevent births amongst white Europeans and which have resulted in the termination or prevention of the birth of, at the very least, tens of millions of white children. Taken altogether across the western world, the number of potential births amongst our ethnic group which have been prevented either by chemical means or by active physical intervention is in the hundreds of millions.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, conditions of life have been inflicted upon us which are already leading to our destruction, at least in part.<br />
<br />
That these acts have been committed, that they were deliberate and are resulting in the outcomes I described in parts one and two is self evidently true. Furthermore, the fact that, in combination theses acts, measures and policies have brought us to the brink of a tipping point beyond which, we cannot, as a people, recover, is also beyond question. They have.<br />
<br />
It also can not be denied that, although as a people we, native Europeans, have faced war, famine pestilence and catastrophe we have never before come so close to our own annihilation.<br />
<br />
What is, however, open to question is why is it happening, who is doing it and what they are actually seeking to achieve.<br />
<br />
Up until now I have laid facts before you, however, in an attempt to make sense of those facts I can now only give you my own view, my analysis if you prefer, of what has happened and why.<br />
<br />
To the question “Is there a conspiracy to destroy the white race?”, I have to say in my view the answer is considerably more complex than some of my fellow travellers would like to believe. What we face is not a single malevolent conspiracy, but a many headed hydra formed of any number aims ambitions, hatreds and ideologies, all of differing degrees of malevolence, which have come together, on the coat tails of a historical conspiracy, to attack us at a time when we are at the least able to defend ourselves.<br />
<br />
Not all which has been done has been with malevolent intent, I rather placed my credibility on the line by linking the contraceptive pill to genocide in an earlier part of this essay, and I know that, on at least one of the other sites where my earlier articles have been republished, some people who have not done what I asked, and viewed these things in context, have mocked me for it. I do not necessarily believe that, in isolation, the pill was developed or legalised with the deliberate intention of damaging the native European race. However, I submit that it has done so, and as I stated previously, its introduction on the scene coincided with other factors which in combination have been unremittingly negative.<br />
<br />
The pill, together with abortion, and what one might call “breeding unfriendly” changes to the economic model, have not only speeded up the pace of our decline but they have provided succour to attitudes which were most certainly encouraged with malevolent intent. The pill has been used far less to regulate the size of families as it has been used to put off childbirth, often altogether, and that has been of inestimable damage to us, collectively, as a people.<br />
<br />
Some of my critics may wish to argue that the decline of the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen is a worthwhile sacrifice in order to enable a rapidly reducing number of individuals to enjoy the transitory pleasures of a child free lifestyle. However, it is for them to make that case, but at this point I do not buy it.<br />
<br />
However, in other areas there is no doubt as to the malevolence of the forces ranged against us. Some of the most savagely malign of those forces exist within the arts and academia, where many do not even attempt to disguise their genocidal intent. Who can forget the words of Harvard Professor <a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/harvard_genocide.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Noel Ignatiev</span></a>, <span style="font-size: 78%;">(1)</span> author of “When the Irish became White” and co-editor of the “Race Traitor” magazine, when he said: “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.” or “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.” and of course: “we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed--not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”<br />
<br />
Ignatiev is not alone, his brand of poison pervades learning institutions throughout the West. Anyone who followed the attempts to rail-road <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/balancing-prosecutions-part-3.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">three innocent lacrosse players</span></a> at North Carolina's Duke University, following the false rape claims of black “exotic dancer” in 2006 as closely as I did, could not fail to be shocked by the levels of mindless, visceral hatred towards white males which exists within American academia. It would be hard to exaggerate how passionately so many eminent members of the Duke faculty, journalists, media talking heads and so called “community organisers” wanted those boys to be guilty. For many, guilt or innocence was not an issue, they simply craved blood in order to slake their hatred.<br />
<br />
However, how is it that the views of such unattractive and ideologically diseased individuals such as Noel Ignatiev and so many members of the Duke faculty have gained such purchase and become so all pervading within Western culture? To find an answer to that question we need to go back a century and a half, or even more, and there we do find a conspiracy.<br />
<br />
The conspiracy against Western Christian / capitalist society began in the 19th Century, if not before. It did not start as a conscious attack on white, Europeans, however, it inevitably became one, initially for no other reason than that Western society was white, European, society.<br />
<br />
It is at this point in the narrative that I must nod in the direction of those of my critics who accuse me of being an apologist for Zionism, and admit that it is impossible to ignore the Jewish role in the early efforts to undermine Western Society. Jews featured disproportionately amongst those who took Marxist theory forward and set up the great and deadly Communist monoliths which crushed vast sections of humanity, throughout the twentieth century. A significant majority of those who formed the subversive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Frankfurt School </span></a>of thinking in the 1930's, those who developed <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">critical theory</span></a> and that most evil and damaging of all ideologies, <a href="http://www.politicallyincorrect.me.uk/index.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">political correctness</span></a> were Jewish academics and Jewish political thinkers.<br />
<br />
It was by no means exclusively Jewish, but it was overwhelmingly so. It is also impossible to dismiss the current role of Jews within academia not to mention the Jewish anti-white propagandists within the media and, of course Hollywood.<br />
<br />
However, although it would be ignorant and dishonest to dismiss the role Jews played in the early efforts to undermine Western society and the role which many eminent Jews still play within the massed ranks ranged against us, it is also possible to overestimate their role. When those within the Nationalist community blame all the attacks on the white European race on the Jews and on some vast Zionist conspiracy they are addressing a single, historical and rapidly shrinking foe, while ignoring many far more vicious and, now more dangerous adversaries.<br />
<br />
Marxism is at the root of all our problems and it was those early Marxists, Trotskyites, Stalinists, Maoists and sundry Socialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in general certainly who set the great ball of anti-white genocide in motion when they set out to destroy Western Capitalism. However, we are certainly not, today, where they once planned to take us.<br />
<br />
I would liken the early communist conspirators, malevolent as they may have been, to a deluded scientist who created a faulty chemical weapon, which once injected into its victim takes on a life of its own, driven on mindlessly by the flaws within its design and independent of the plans of its designer.<br />
<br />
Those, including many Jews who conspired against our grandfathers imagined that we would today be living under universal Marxist rule, not that we would be facing the prospect of a Universal Islamic caliphate.<br />
<br />
I suspect that were those who first sowed the seeds of our destruction alive today, they would look on in horror at the monster they have created, for it will devour them, and their plans no less ravenously than it will destroy us. At the risk of reigniting the anger of my critics against me, I would argue that, whatever, past difference there may have been, now is the time for Jews, together with gays and true feminists to join with White Nationalists, for it is we, not what is coming to ensure their protection, freedom and very existence.<br />
<br />
As I say, the aim was to destroy Western capitalism, but with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989"><span style="font-weight: bold;">the demise of what was intended to replace it</span></a>, the agenda has morphed into the destruction of the European race, and without any other ambition, the destruction has become the purpose rather than merely the agent of change.<br />
<br />
Before the fall of the Soviet Union the Marxist cause had made huge advances. Nobody living in the 1950's or 1960's would have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist had they claimed that there were people within our society working for its destruction, because there were. Communism made no secret of its sworn aim to dominate the world and, unlike with Islam today, there were no politically correct scruples against acknowledging it.<br />
<br />
Marxist theory exercises a powerful pull on the hearts and minds of elite Western Intellectuals. Through their compliance over the decades the Soviet system's tentacles gradually infiltrated the West, gaining control within many of our most powerful institutions, most spectacularly within the media and within education, two areas in which they correctly assessed they could do the most damage to the system they were seeking to overthrow.<br />
<br />
Having gained control within the two most powerful means of forming opinion, they set about, first gradually, but later more rapidly, indoctrinating the western public with the aim of making them less willing or able to resist their eventual overthrow, whilst simultaneously removing anyone within the targeted organisation who did not share the approved ideology.<br />
<br />
The indoctrination was aimed at undermining senses of patriotism and national identity essential to preserving a culture and it took many forms such as the debasing and re-writing of European history, the debasing and trivialising of our culture.<br />
<br />
As first this was viewed as a form of class war, where the original targets were the middle and upper classes who would be annihilated when the workers rose against them, as occurred in Russia.<br />
<br />
However, outside Russia the class war was abandoned when the white working classes failed to play the role allotted to them and joined the middle classes as targets for destruction. Race became the new weapon in undermining a culture through national guilt. Anti-racism aimed exclusively at the target race and intent upon instilling a sense of shame and guilt for a past which had, in fact never taken place, exploited a weakness within a tolerant and benevolent people always anxious to do the right thing and protect the underdog. As a consequence, the dishonest drum beat of “white oppressor”, “black victim” accompanied by the altogether more sensuous “black sexy”, “white surrender” became the constant theme music behind popular culture, throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's.<br />
<br />
This was an even more deadly poison, our enemies knew from history that nothing undermines a society as effectively as does multiculturalism. Hence they cynically recast the melting pot as grail of our age.<br />
<br />
Other “isms” were deployed, such as a deceptive form of feminism designed, in the guise of “liberation”, to undermine the family whilst imposing a new sexualised slavery upon women, which sold us aspirations which could only be achieved spread legged and child free. At the same time siren voices convinced young women that a life of unnaturally induced sterility, with abortion as a back up, offered the means of achieving fulfilment. It was in this way that developments such as oral contraception, abortion and social change began to become instruments of genocide.<br />
<br />
In few areas has the indoctrination designed at the destruction of Western Society been more cruelly effective than what it has done to women. In a few generations a sex which once valued honour, virtue and motherhood, now finds themselves either grasping at the Muslim veil of their own subjugation or, tragically with some merit, viewed as “easy meat” by our nations new colonisers, leaving many of the most vulnerable in huge danger.<br />
<br />
The damage done to the white male was perhaps even crueler, however, I have addressed that subject often in my previous writing, links to which I will add at the bottom of this posting. <span style="font-size: 78%;">(2)</span><br />
<br />
Enemies of the West also infiltrated various other areas, such as the law, politics and the security services, but it was within education and within the popular media that they seized their most powerful weapons, and they have used them against us relentlessly for at least half a century<br />
<br />
The people responsible for this did not go away when Communism fell, the aim of overthrowing the West and replacing it with a soviet style utopia was no longer an option, but that did not change the aim of overthrowing the West. Indeed, as the years had past a new more anarchistic breed had joined the old Stalinist, for whom the destruction of the West was more important than any subsequent reconstruction.<br />
<br />
They had been well schooled in the belief that the West was evil and needed to be destroyed and they saw nothing within the demise of communism to change that belief.<br />
<br />
Hence they have continued with their mission of undermining our culture, indoctrinating our people and nurturing new generations of indoctrinators. However, the emphasis had changed, Western society could no longer be destroyed by soviet communism, so anti-racism, multiculturalism and immigration, tools so long used as a means of softening up the culture for its eventual take over, would now become the means of its destruction.<br />
<br />
However, we have still but touched on half the picture, acts have consequences which are not always anticipated. A one hundred and fifty year old conspiracy aimed at the converting the capitalist West to Marxism had developed into an exercise of ethnic and cultural cleansing.<br />
<br />
In the process Western society's resolve and sense of its own identity had become so undermined that other groups with other even less wholesome aims and agendas began to smell blood in the water, and they in turn began to close in on a weakening prey.<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
I had intended this to be the final part of this essay, but I find that I have so much more to say, hence, I will post the final part, together with my conclusions later this week.<br />
__________<br />
(1)<br />
<a href="http://www.vdare.com/roberts/harvard_genocide.htm">Harvard hates the white race (VDare)</a><br />
(2)<br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/06/white-boys-in-jungle.html">White boys in the Jungle</a><br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/lost-boys.html">The Lost Boys</a><br />
<br />
____________________<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Part four</span><br />
<br />
I am sorry I have taken so long to return to this subject, this is partly because other things, the stuff of everyday life, have got in the way but to a far greater degree the delay was because this is a much bigger subject than even I had imagined. Hence, I as the writer have struggled to express the magnitude of my subject.<br />
<br />
Describing a crime so vast is ugly work, to open this ghastly casket is to expose a massive rank and sulphurous morass of tangled conspiracies, lies and plots, some dating back two centuries or more, mingling with others which are far more recent. There are many half formed, ill conceived which have been long abandoned, but others, chilling in their cold hearted and deliberate brilliance, still gnaw away at the substance and foundations of the common and ancient prey. To look too deeply into what is taking place is to glimpse an evil in the souls of our fellow men which is not easy or comfortable to contemplate, and it for that reason too that I have chosen to put this subject to one side for a while.<br />
<br />
When I started writing this essay I had not fully appreciated quite how complex it would be or quite how much there was to say. The more one peels away at the various layers, schemes, lies and agendas, it becomes frighteningly clear quite how all consuming the assault upon the white race has been, quite how many enemies we have and how long they have been at work.<br />
<br />
Here I must, again, repeat the warning I have given before. We make a fatal mistake if we only see one enemy amongst the legion closing in around us. Yes there were Zionist Jews amongst them, and there certainly still are some, but they are not alone, and in truth they never have been. We will die by many other swords if chose to only fight against a single foe, especially as there are now far greater dangers than those still posed, or maybe ever posed, by Zion.<br />
<br />
We have many other enemies, and amongst them some, the most deadly, hate us mostly for the good that we have done.<br />
<br />
We are paying the penalty for having been the most successful, the richest, the most creative, the most powerful and, indeed the most benevolent civilisation to have ever bestrode our Earth. We are unmatched in history, and I suspect that we will never be equalled. We are resented not, as some would have it for the alleged crimes of our race, but for what we are, for what we have achieved, for the good we have brought to the world, and there are many who can never forgive us for it.<br />
<br />
Our enemies point to wars and weapons, but ignore our role in spreading education, justice, health care, technology, benevolence and humanity to the darkest corners of our planet. They blame us for crimes, such as slavery, which every other people also committed but which we alone are honest enough to acknowledge, and which we alone fought to bring to an end.<br />
<br />
We are also paying for our good nature, we are accused of sins which the rest of the world commit with far more ferocity than we do. If you wish to see prejudice and discrimination go to Asia, the Indian sub-continent in particular and you will find it in every street in every village. For cruelty and bigotry go to the middle east. For homophobia and hate crimes the options start before Iran and end beyond Angola to the south and Malaysia to the east. For racism, in its most blood thirsty of forms try anywhere in black ruled Africa and you will find it there far more ancient and at least as cruel as anything ever seen in Europe.<br />
<br />
Yet it is we who, though our good will carry guilt for that of which we are no more guilty than any other and for which, in many cases, we are the least to blame.<br />
<br />
We allow this to happen in some measure because a flaw in our racial character whereby we are more modest and generous than is good for us. However, in greater part we carry that guilt because we have been taught to do so through the decades of indoctrination which I described earlier, in part three of this essay.<br />
<br />
Initially that indoctrination, together with so much else was aimed at undermining our society, however, over the years the aims have metamorphosed into something far more based on animus and iconoclasm than it is on ideology. The aim is no longer merely the destruction of our society and has become the destruction of us as a people.<br />
<br />
As a people we have been worn down and weakened to the point where we have allowed others who hate us to come amongst and some now mingle amongst those who rule us and have been granted positions of power. Black and Asian racists have become journalists, commentators, politicians and lawyers, they sit in parliament, on Quangos, governmental bodies within our courts, our education system, within the plethora of so called human rights organisations or as political agitators. They have their own agendas, and I challenge you to point to any who work for the well being of the indigenous white population.<br />
<br />
If anyone reading this truly believes that the likes of Trevor Philips, Diane Abbot, Keith Vaz, Darcus Howe, Bonnie Greer, Tariq Ali, Weyman Bennett, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, or even the sainted Shami Chakrabarti, care for the future of the native British people and have not used their privileged positions within our society to advance the interests of their own races over those of our race, I really suggest you are perhaps to naïve to be abroad unchaperoned at this most deadly of times.<br />
<br />
The elevation of such people for the sake of diversity has not improved our country, it has further undermined it, for they are, quite naturally working in the interests of their own races, which is something we, as Europeans, are no longer permitted to do.<br />
<br />
However, there are some amongst them and among the legion of our treacherous white enemies who are working to advance a cause far more malign and infinitely more deadly than anything which has threatened Europe in almost four hundred years.<br />
<br />
Islam, the blood thirsty and repressive ideology which has threatened Western Civilisation for fourteen hundred years is back in the ascendant after a period of relative calm, and it is as poisonous now as it ever was.<br />
<br />
The latest rise of Islam came quickly, coinciding with the fall of the last great threat to the west, the cold war, a coincidence among many which we ignore at our peril.<br />
<br />
Of course, Islam has threatened us before, many times, but this time it is different, this time the enemy is not at the gate it is already living within the castle walls. This time they are amongst us and we will not be fighting them at our borders, but on our streets.<br />
<br />
And we have allowed it. We are the first civilisation in history who have meekly opened our gates and permitted those who actively call for our demise to come amongst us, and in many areas moved without resistance when they drove us from our homes.<br />
<br />
The race which gave the world so much is now so meek, so broken, so deluded it has ushered its assassins into its own home, whilst all but handing them the weapons with which to dispatch us. So brainwashed are we now that we would first condemn those of us who warn of the danger before we face the threat.<br />
<br />
I fear we are not the West we were, no longer those who fought World War II, and that we may not the same people. Unfortunately for us, the east is still the same east which fought our Crusaders nine hundred years ago, but better armed and better placed.<br />
<br />
Islam it seems is now in a better position to deliver the final blows of our destruction than even the old soviet union ever was. Our ancient adversary has been imported back by our modern foes to deliver the coup de grâce when we are at our lowest, our numbers diminished, our spirit broken, our history lost and our lands invaded.<br />
<br />
Is there any hope for us, what can we do? is there any way back?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Salvation can we save our race and how?</span></span><br />
<br />
Some look to the future and see a civil war, but that is not the answer, certainly its not the answer now. The time may come when war is inevitable, it will be imposed upon us and by then it may be too late. Before then, with all that is ranged against us we could not win a civil war fought now. Violence is not the answer and all those who have tried it so far have failed and have merely made our situation worse.<br />
<br />
It would be nice to think that democracy held our a chance of salvation, and it would if it was possible to get elected, however, the controlled media make that almost impossible. Were any nationalist to stand the remotest chance of winning a national election, the press would turn on him or her in a manner which would make the assault on Sarah Palin in 2008 look positively gentle, and the lies would be even more outrageous.<br />
<br />
Media lies continue to hamper the BNP's efforts to get elected, and the corrupt media would bury any individual nationalist who appeared capable of overcoming that barrier in a landslide of lies.<br />
<br />
We have not had an honest media in the west for decades, every news reporter lies constantly and with the accustomed ease of an aged harlot relieving a drunken businessman of his wallet. Every presenter or dramatist has become a propagandist and every commentator an advocate. Even those who are secretly sympathetic to our cause must deny us and lie about us for they would never work again if they did not.<br />
<br />
This is the barrier we must overcome to succeed. If we could achieve that we might be granted one last grasp at our salvation. For it is in breaching the shark infested moat of lies that we find both our answer and also our greatest dilemma.<br />
<br />
The potentially most fatal blow ever struck against the white European race was when our advocates lost control of the main means of mass communication to our enemies, and is only by winning that control back that we can effectively start to fight back.<br />
<br />
It is through the mass media and what currently passes for education that our enemies are waging their war against us and it is because of their total control of both that they are winning. When the left gained control of the means of broadcasting news, and, in many ways more crucially, broadcasting entertainment, they gained control of the most powerful weapon known to man, a weapon which enabled them to change attitudes, form views and beliefs and create new truths.<br />
<br />
For over 50 years the left have controlled what we know and equally what we don't know. The have told us their truth about history, about Communism, their truth about Viet Nam, about crime, about race and right now we are being told their truth about the uprisings in the Middle East.<br />
<br />
Far more deadly even than the ability to distort news coverage has been the overwhelming control which the left have over entertainment, drama, culture and the visual depiction of history, it is through these medium that the last two generations have been taught what to think and what to believe.<br />
<br />
The left make TV shows, we don't, the left make movies, we don't, they tell teenagers what music to like and adults what books to read, and whilst we do not do these things, they, our enemies, have a huge, and deadly, advantage over us.<br />
<br />
The only mass communication means we have of getting our message out is via the internet, but, valuable tool as it is, we have restricted ourselves to serious political sites, forums and blogs where we debate serious issues amongst ourselves. We don't go where the young folk go, and when we try, we get thrown out because we don't know how to behave.<br />
<br />
That is not to say that people are not doing great things via the internet, <a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/what-they-really-think-about-us/">the latest exposé</a> (1) of NPR (US National Public Radio) by James O'Keefe is a further example of brilliant investigative journalism by a man, who in an honest world be in line for a major journalism award, however, because the left control what people are allowed to know, only a tiny number of people ever get to see his work.<br />
<br />
We must take back the media or find a new means of mass communication, and we must learn how to communicate in a way that people beyond the narrow sphere of nationalism understand respond to and enjoy. These are our enemy's weapons and we must learn to use them against them.<br />
<br />
We must rediscover the power of ridicule, the lampoon brought down the Bourbon kings and the Romanov tzars. In our own time, mockery became Sarah Palin's greatest liability, but it, could have done the same to Obama had the Right known how to deploy it, sadly we didn't.<br />
<br />
To the more high minded reader it may seem bizarre to suggest fighting genocide with humour or through entertainment, yet these are the tools which our adversaries have used so effectively. We need to get the truth out, and sadly a joke or a wacky video will get to far more people, and will be responded to by far more people, than any number of serious articles like this one. That's how the left do it.<br />
<br />
Being able to communicate with the wider public directly is vital, after all what is the point to anything we do if either nobody knows about it, or if those who report it lie?.<br />
<br />
Before they can save themselves the European people need to realise what is being done to them, and they will not awake until they hear our voice.<br />
<br />
We must find a means of communication which enables us to break though the iron curtain of lies which the corrupt media and our equally corrupt leaders have spent the last fifty years constructing and expose the truth to the wider world. How we can break our enemy's grasp on the communications media I do not know, but I know we must find a way, for it may be our last chance of salvation.<br />
<br />
I believe it will happen, who would have thought even ten years ago that, sitting in my own home, I could write something, press a button and reach thousands of people in an instant. Now we need to take it a step further.<br />
<br />
It must happen soon. The destruction of our race is well advanced, we are not yet at the eleventh hour, but we are close to ten and the time grows short.<br />
<br />
In the meantime there is something we can all do and that is to enlighten someone, even if you only awaken one person to the truth, then there are two of you, and that way leads to thousands. We do not need a majority to change the world, only enough to be heard, and then we'll have a majority.<br />
<br />
If you do not have the words yourself use other people's words, there are great writers whose words we must spread to those who remain blind to what is happening. On this blog we have Mister Fox, August Pointneuf, Robin Hind, Reconquista (how I wish I could convince him to start writing again) Tim Hayden, Dr. D, Alan O'Reilly and others, please spread their words.<br />
<br />
We also have the great Frank Ellis, not only a brilliant academic and a superb writer but a man with the authority to command attention he is a man able to change minds. For instance, Frank's outstanding letter to David Cameron, published here last month, briefly went viral on the internet, it can do so again and it can get to a wider audience. Copy it, link to it, send it on, people need to read his words. This is something we can all do. Here is the link from this blog<br />
<a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-to-cameron-by-dr-frank-ellis.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-to-cameron-by-dr-frank-ellis.html</a><br />
and from the British Resistance<br />
<a href="http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/guest-writers/675-a-response-to-cameron-by-dr-frank-ellis">http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/guest-writers/675-a-response-to-cameron-by-dr-frank-ellis </a><br />
<br />
We must also stop bickering and fighting among ourselves, it is unity, never diversity, which is our strength, and together there is nothing we can not do.<br />
<br />
We are the descendants of the greatest achievers, the greatest thinkers, the greatest scientists and the greatest pioneers this world has ever seen. We share the genes of the greatest writers, the greatest artists, musicians and inventors. Our forefathers spread knowledge, technology and enlightenment to the most benighted corners of this planet.<br />
<br />
We alone ended slavery, we alone reached the moon, we discovered the cures for many of the great plagues and diseases which have blighted mankind for millennia and are working with others now to eradicate more.<br />
<br />
At the root of 99% of all the great inventions from which the world now benefits you will find a person of European blood. We conquered the sea, the sky, outer space and the very airways.<br />
<br />
For every bomb we built we made ten million pills to cure twenty thousand diseases. We are the most benevolent race on earth, the main givers to charity, the majority of all fund raisers, aid workers and philanthropists.<br />
<br />
Our race has done more good in this word than any other yet born, and we must not die, we shall not die.<br />
<br />
Against the most vicious enemies and the most terrifying odds we can find a way to save our race, we have the ingenuity, we have the ability, if only we can make our people see the truth.<br />
__________<br />
(1) <a href="http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/what-they-really-think-about-us/">http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/what-they-really-think-about-us/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO SARAH MAID OF ALBION</span><br />
</a>or<br />
<a href="http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE BRITISH RESISTANCE</span><br />
</a></div><br />
</div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-19577360311395092402011-01-03T04:26:00.000-08:002011-01-03T04:32:26.479-08:00Postings touching on Media lies and disinformation<div style="text-align: center;">Prior articles touching on media propaganda<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Ripped from the Headlines and Ethnically Cleansed<br /></div></div><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/ripped-from-headlines-and-ethnically.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/ripped-from-headlines-and-ethnically.html</a><br /><br />Broken News<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/broken-news.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/broken-news.html </a><br /><br />The Age of Disinformation<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/09/age-of-disinformation.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/09/age-of-disinformation.html </a> <br /><br />A Hoary old stereotype sold to us as news<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hoary-old-stereotype-sold-to-us-as-new.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hoary-old-stereotype-sold-to-us-as-new.html</a><br /><br />Disinformation News<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/disinformation-news.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/disinformation-news.html</a><br /><br />Guess those Missing Words<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/guess-those-missing-words.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/guess-those-missing-words.html</a><br /><br />The Lies of Political Correctness<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/08/lies-of-political-correctness.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/08/lies-of-political-correctness.html</a><br /><br />Bloody Liars<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/06/bloody-liars.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/06/bloody-liars.html</a><br /><br />Lies, damn Lies and statistics<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html</a><br /><br />Claims Reported as Facts<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/03/claims-reported-as-facts-again.html">http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/03/claims-reported-as-facts-again.html</a><br /> <div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1"><span class="post-author vcard"> </span><span class="post-icons"><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-1843594904"><a href="post-edit.g?blogID=3373165199675890724&postID=5745695646890871032" title="Edit Post"><br /></a><a href="post-edit.g?blogID=3373165199675890724&postID=5745695646890871032" title="Edit Post"> </a> </span> </span> </div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-67905368497855453842010-12-03T09:53:00.000-08:002010-12-03T10:12:07.149-08:00A Review Essay with Analysis, Commentary and Selected Translations from the German of Thilo Sarrazin’s, Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Lan<span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE"><i></i></span></span><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE"><i></i></span></span><blockquote><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE"><i>Mut is der Wind, der zu fernen Küsten treibt, der Schlüssel zu allen Schätzen, der Hammer, der gro</i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>β</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE"><i>e Reiche schmiedet, der Schild, ohne den keine Kultur besteht [...] Zum Teufel mit einer Zeit, die uns den Mut und die Männer nehmen will!</i></span></span> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Ernst Jünger</span></p></blockquote><p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER" lang="de-DE"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">© Frank Ellis 2010</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER" lang="de-DE"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Introduction to the Reviewer’s Commentary and Analysis </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="float: left; font-size: 300%;">P</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">ublication in Germany earlier this year of Thilo Sarrazin’s </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion: How we are Putting Our Country at Risk</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">) has made it possible for Germans to talk openly for the first time about themes which have been publicly censored in Germany over the last five decades. Having read this work very closely, I have no doubt that </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> may well be the book that finally smashes taboos about race, immigration and integration which have exerted such an insidious influence on German intellectual life since the end of World War Two. In fact, the influence of Sarrazin’s book will extend way beyond Germany. This book is not just about the future and fate of Germany: it is about the very survival of Europe.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Concerns over the magnitude and speed of population growth, as well as the racial and cultural changes brought about by mass immigration are nothing new. What is new is the manner in which the political establishments of virtually all Western states have abandoned, with complete disregard for the legitimate fears and well being of their own indigenous populations, any form of immigration controls. In the USA and Western Europe, a very large proportion of the political class have tried to justify this mass influx of foreigners with the claim that we need the labour, skilled or otherwise; that the mass movement of people is a necessary part of a globalised economy; that in some vague, sentimental way the prosperous nations of the north have an obligation to throw open their doors to the surplus populations of the Third World. Until quite recently, this mass movement of the unemployed and unemployable from the slums of the Middle East, Africa and the Indian sub-continent, with a fair proportion of actual and would-be terrorists among them, used to be justified by the obviously preposterous claim that the white indigenous populations of northern Europe would somehow benefit from the influx of millions of foreigners into their countries. Indeed, we were told – though not so much these days – that immigrants were bearers of the remarkable gift of diversity; that their presence enriched us. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">In common with other Western states, Germany has suffered from the combination of a duplicitous and negligent political class, one which has relentlessly harried its citizens to accept what they instinctively feel and know to be wrong, and from waves of immigrants who, the evidence quite clearly shows, have no intention of integrating. Third World immigrants are attracted to Germany not by abstract concepts of free speech, the rule of law, liberal democracy and personal freedom but by the higher standard of living they can enjoy at the expense of the German taxpayer. In part because of the Nazi period, the pressure on Germans to conform to the United Nations-sponsored ideology of multiculturalism has been immense, much worse than anything we have experienced in the United Kingdom. History matters: the Nazi past will remain an integral part of Germany’s history but no other nation has submitted itself to such soul-searching and public flagellation in order to face up to its past and to make amends. However, one of the downsides of Germany’s laudable, post-1945 </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Vergangenheitsbewältigung </i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(coming to terms with the past) has been to treat any assertion of national German pride as a manifestation of Neo-Nazi tendencies, as something hideously offensive and shameful when it is, in fact, the normal, emotional </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>and rational</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> pride in, and commitment to, one’s country of origin, to one’s </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Vaterland</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">, to use that beautifully evocative German word. Germany’s reaction to its past stands in striking contrast to Turkey. The Turkish government will not tolerate any discussion of the genocide of 1.5,000,000 – 2,000,000 Armenians perpetrated by Turks in 1915, and those who highlight the genocide in Turkey can expect to be censored and subjected to other harsh sanctions. Moreover, the Turkish government demands that Turkey be treated as a modern </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>European </i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">state, which Turkey emphatically is not, and does not hesitate to pass comment on German immigration policy, as it affects Turks. By exploiting the presence of Turks in Germany for its own ends, as a club with which to belabour Germany, and to exact concessions, the Turkish government behaves in exactly the same way as the Hitler regime did towards Czechoslovakia before World War Two (see below).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">It is this specifically German historical, social and political background that makes the appearance of Thilo Sarrazin’s book in Germany so remarkable, and all the more remarkable for its having been written by one of Germany’s top technocrats, a person at the very heart of the German administrative establishment, a person, who whatever his misgivings about the state of Germany, I, for one, would have expected to remain silent. Clearly, Herr Sarrazin has had enough. He instinctively grasps the truth of Solzhenitysn’s eleventh commandment: thou shall not live by the Lie. There is something about Sarrazin that bears the stamp of Martin Luther, Pastor Martin Niemöller and the White Rose students who defied the Nazis in Munich. Moral courage is always inspirational and life-enhancing. Indeed, the fact that Sarrazin’s book has become a best seller in Germany and attracted enormous support for its author may well have prompted Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, publicly to admit (October 2010) that multiculturalism had utterly failed in Germany. Indeed, it has: and not just in Germany.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Sarrazin is well aware that the title of his book will inevitably cause some readers to ask, in all seriousness, whether his central thesis – that Germany is heading towards self-inflicted oblivion – is an accurate reflection of what is happening. The ensuing avalanche of evidence and professional analyses presented by the author left me in no doubt that the suicide scenario is fundamentally accurate. Sarrazin underlines the rather obvious but easily forgotten point that Germany is Germany ‘by virtue of its inhabitants and their living intellectual as well as their cultural traditions. Without the people it would merely be a geographical term’ (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">, p.7). The same is true of England, Denmark, France and Russia. As befits a highly trained and experienced member of the German technocracy, Sarrazin presents a thoroughly well researched set of arguments. Each chapter addresses some aspect of the immigrant problem – poverty, fertility, declining mean IQ and educational standards, spiralling welfare payments, left-wing and intellectual cowardice and the relentless Islamification of Germany - providing the reader with a series of brilliantly written mini-monographs. He examines the various socio-economic, intellectual and demographic trends which are inextricably linked with one another and which lead inexorably to his synthesis and the work’s devastating conclusions. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> is a masterly display of erudition and logical exposition; yet additional reasons why the intellectually lazy and sentimental will hate the author. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Including a detailed introduction, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> comes with a total of ten chapters. What follows is a chapter-by-chapter summary and review-commentary. My aim is to provide as much information and as many translations of key passages as possible for the English-speaking reader and at the same time to offer a ready reference work for students, academics and others alarmed by, to borrow the title of Oswald Spengler’s book, the </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Untergang des Abendlandes</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Decline of the </i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">West, 1918) and what, if anything, can be done to reverse these trends. For those, such as this reviewer, who consider sources and references important, I have numbered every paragraph in this summary for ease of reference. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE">Page numbers in brackets refer to the original German publication (</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE"><i>Deutschland schafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen</i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE">, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, München, 2010, ISBN 978-3-421-04430-3). </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">All translations from the German are mine: all analysis, commentary and any errors therein are also mine. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Before turning to the substance of Thilo Sarrazin’s book I want to deal briefly with the translation of the German title. The main German title of the book has in some quarters been translated into English as </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany is Abolishing itself</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> or </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany is Doing away with itself</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">. The German verb </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>abschaffen</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> can indeed be translated as to abolish or to get rid of something but these translations do not, in my opinion, do justice to the scope, depth and above all the implications of the book’s themes which will become clear below. I suggest, therefore, that a better translation of the main title, one that better reflects the impending German (and Western) catastrophe, would be </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (or even </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Commits Suicide</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> or </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany’s Death Wish</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">). </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">I can only hope that this magnificent book will very soon be translated into English as well as into all the major European languages. That said, having observed and personally experienced the intellectual and moral cowardice and double standards of the left, above all in universities, I have no doubt that those hostile to Sarrazin’s message will do everything they can to distort the findings and to try to prevent this book from ever being translated into any other language in the hope that Sarrazin’s findings do not become too widely known. I pray I am wrong. Meanwhile, until such time as Sarrazin’s book is translated into English, this review-commentary with its selected translations will serve as a provisional, and I hope, a useful reference work.</span></p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Thilo Sarrazin, </b></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i><b>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion: </b></i></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i><b>How we are Putting Our Country at Risk</b></i></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Introduction</b></span></div> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. Germans, especially high-IQ women, are not having enough children. As a consequence, the population of indigenous German – Sarrazin repeatedly uses the word autochthonous instead of indigenous – is dropping below replacement rate. Mean IQ is falling. If this trend continues, immigrants will emerge as the dominant population with serious consequences for the German economy. The problem is clearly stated:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The Germans are, however, gradually consigning themselves to oblivion. A net reproduction rate of 0.7 or less, which we have had for the last forty years, means nothing other than that the generation of the grandchildren will each time be half the size of the generation of the grandfathers (pp.7-8).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. Sarrazin notes that it has not been possible to talk about this in Germany for decades. To do so was to run the risk of incurring some kind of ideological suspicion. As always the left-wing media would denounce any person expressing these fears as a Nazi, racist or xenophobic. Enormous damage has been inflicted on Germany because of this Marxist-imposed silence and the repressive censorship. Some of the subjects that have been banned and driven from public discourse in Germany over recent years are:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i). any discussion of the fact that some 90% of schoolchildren can apparently meet the standards required for university but that only 10% could meet the demands of the mathematics component; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii). any discussion of the fact that not all are intellectually equal; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii). any discussion of the fact that the mean intelligence of Germany is declining because the more intelligent women are having fewer or no children; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iv). any discussion of the fact that the individual is responsible for his behaviour not society (p.9).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. As in the United Kingdom and the USA, the same sort of politically correct censorship has been used to crush arguments hostile to the left/illiberal agenda and where censorship has failed abuse and invective often stemming from the mainstream media made have been deployed against dissenters. For example, if a child, especially an immigrant cannot meet the same standards as indigenous Germans, this is always the fault of society never the immigrants themselves. Here we have a striking parallel with the neo-Marxist propaganda of </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Macpherson Report</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (1999)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i> </i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">and its ideological construct of “institutional racism”. To quote Sarrazin: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">From the sociologically correct but banal acknowledgement that in society everything is related to everything else, the tendency has arisen whereby everything is reduced to social relations and so the individual is relieved morally and in practical terms comprehensively of any burden of responsibility for himself and his life (p.10).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">4. Sarrazin clearly touched a very raw nerve in Germany when he demonstrated empirically that one could indeed live very healthily on the money provided by welfare handouts (p.10). Publication of his data led to his receiving hate mail (p.13). Truth breeds hatred. Nevertheless, people, Germans, must speak out:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">There exists an enormous societal need for the unvarnished truth, but he who meets this need lives politically in danger and easily becomes a victim of the power of the media exercised by those who are politically correct (p.12).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">5. People, notes Sarrazin, are prepared to talk about and to consider the changes of the world’s climate in 100 or 500 years but not the fact that Germany is becoming smaller and less intelligent (p.17):</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Why should we be interested in the state of the climate in 500 years when German social policy amounts to the eradication of the Germans? (p.18).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 1 State and Society: An Historical Summary </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. Sarrazin begins this chapter by stressing the all-important point that nations cannot just be made and remade: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The various ways in which political-development formulations have collapsed show that one cannot simply “create” societies and economies. The economic and cultural development in Central Africa and in the Islamic countries of the Middle East takes a different course from that in East Asia (p.23).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. Sarrazin shows an acute understanding of the implications of the consequences ensuing from the fact that the religious foundations of the state were replaced by human rights. With religion dethroned, as it were, the way is now set for paradise to be built on earth. One of the main consequences is the rise of socialism and other utopian-egalitarian ideologies. Successful societies and states, Sarrazin argues, have three key features. They are:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i). they provide a certain level of external and internal security; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii). they are based on a legitimizing foundation which goes beyond the individual (religion, socialism, ideology, nationalism); </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii). their material and economic success depends on their ability to guarantee some outlet for individual striving (p.31). </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. Sarrazin concludes this first chapter by noting the all important connection between intelligence and motivation. His conclusion is bound to antagonise the multicultural fantasists:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Society is itself an object and can as a consequence of the framework conditions which it sets for itself change its form. If this were not the case then all human societies, like the various chimpanzee tribes in the ancient forest, would be always be at the same level of development, specifically the level of the African bush. All investigations show that national economies, societies and states, are all the more successful, the more hard-working, the more educated, the more entrepreneurial and the more intelligent a population is. Germany has always been near the top on the scale of achievement. However numerous indices would suggest that Germany is dropping down the scale. Whether that is the case, how it manifests itself and whether and how one can counteract or should counteract this trend is the subject of this book (p.34).</span></p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 2 A Glance into the Future: Some Realities and some Wishful Thinking </b></span> </p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><br />1. Critical for this chapter and indeed the book as a whole is Sarrazin’s observation that for any country without significant natural resources, wealth creation comes from the people. Ultimately wealth creation is a product of men’s minds. </span><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. One of the key problems associated with an ageing population is the rising cost of healthcare and this can only be financed by increasing the number of gainfully employed. Since this is highly unlikely one consequence will be that ‘future allocation and financial problems cannot be solved at the level of the national economy by more growth but only by redistribution’ (p.37). This is a very serious conclusion and, if accurate, an alarming one for individual freedom, since it means that growth will be finite or only very slow and that economic measures more appropriate for a full-blown socialist economy will be introduced. This would be another step on the road to serfdom, to allude to Friedrich Hayek’s famous book. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. Sarrazin reports that Germany’s long term productivity trends were intensively analysed in the Berlin Senate. The conclusions are stark:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i). the long term trend was for growth to slow;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii). the structure of consumption is moving away from goods to services (a trend which has been long under way in the United Kingdom and the USA);</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii). the constantly increasing mean age of the working population displaces the concentration of working people to age groups which are far less suited for work requiring innovation and which is physically demanding. As with the first factor this, too, works to reduce the productivity of labour (p.45).</span></p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b><br /></b></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 3 Signs of Decay: A Case Study</b></span></div> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. Sarrazin begins this chapter with observations that pertain to all Western industrialised societies: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The projections for Germany’s development do not look good, since they unmistakably show that the trend to an ever increasing standard of living is broken and that conflicts will increase which, on the one hand arise from the growing number of retired people, and on the other, hand from the decreasing number of gainfully employed people (p.51).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; widows: 2; orphans: 2;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. Mass immigration from Third World states, primarily Turkey, the Middle East and Africa will not solve Germany’s problems. Germany’s economic future lies in its human and above all intellectual capital. These are the keys to the creation of wealth, and are firmly in line with the data and conclusions of Richard Lynn: see, for example, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (1996); </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Eugenics: A Reassessment</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (2001); </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (2006); and </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (2008); and the two studies which Lynn co-authored with Tatu Vanhanen: </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>IQ and the Wealth of Nations</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (2002); and </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>IQ and Global Inequality</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (2006). Sarrazin argues that the MINT-disciplines (Mathematics, Information Technology, Natural sciences and Technology) are the drivers of wealth creation. There is now less work for those who rely on manual labour. We see the same problem in the United Kingdom. Sarrazin also provides compelling support for the pioneering work of Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (1994) and agrees with Murray and Herrnstein that there is a </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">growing gap between the intellectually talented and the less intellectually able (p.58).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. Immigrants from the former Yugoslavia, Turkey and Arab countries are ‘the core of the integration problem’ (p.59) and the majority that live on welfare handouts are from Africa, Turkey and the Far East (p.63). He argues that had Germany not permitted the influx of low-skilled labour the following outcomes would not have been possible:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i). one could not have afforded to transfer the German export model, nor to shift production, abroad; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii) there would have been much greater pressure, as a consequence of a proper family and population policy, to raise the German birth rate; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii) one would never have started the process whereby people were allowed to retire early; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iv) the emphasis on education would have increased (pp.63-64).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">4. In a conclusion that will only offend German xenophiles, Sarrazin notes: ‘The three immigrant groups with the greatest lack of education and the highest social costs are also those who are reproducing themselves the most’ (p.64).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">5. Sarrazin devotes a deal of space to an examination of the failings of the German education system. There is, he says, far too much reliance on audio-visual work and easy text analysis which means that rigour in reading and writing are being lost (p.70). In this regard see Paul </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Fussell, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>BAD: or the Dumbing of America</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (1992) and Allan Bloom, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (1987). Sarrazin cites some truly shocking data which were revealed in a survey of various skills among applicants for jobs across the whole German economy. One finding that really stands out is that 58.2% of those applying for posts in the media were found to have shortcomings in expressing themselves in speech and writing (p.71). This may well be significant in less obvious ways. Those who cannot express themselves accurately in speech and in writing (and in accordance with basic grammatical norms) are often the most susceptible to being deceived and misled by the ideological abuse of language arising from political correctness. They lack the intellectual ability to identify fallacies and readily internalise the politically correct agenda. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">6. Other survey data are just as devastating. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE">Sarrazin cites the results of the </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE"><i>PISA 2006 in Deutschland. Die Kompetenzen der Jugendlichen im Ländervergleich</i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE"> (</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE"><i>PISA 2006 in Germany. </i></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>A Comparison of Youth Competencies in German States</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">). The PISA acronym stands for Programme of International Student Assessment. One part of this survey measured the maths competence of schoolchildren in the German federal states. Berlin, Sarrazin’s state, did very badly. In fact, Sarrazin judged the Berlin results to be ‘catastrophic’ (p.73). Predictably these results led to demands for more money and teachers. Sarrazin’s analysis showed that more money was not the answer: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Although the ratio of schoolchildren to teachers in Berlin was 15% more favourable than the German-wide average, Berlin, together with Bremen, achieved the worst PISA results. In numerous public appearances concerning this theme I laid on a Power Point presentation of the results and maintained that here was clear evidence that school performances were far worse the more teachers were let loose on the schoolchildren. Naturally that was nonsense but it ensured that the theme was guaranteed the necessary attention and finally was part of my successful rebuttal of all attempts to enlarge the number of Berlin allocations for teaching positions. Moreover, I was able to demonstrate that as regards the allocations per schoolchild Berlin was top when compared with other regions of German. This proved that it was not differences in the input of material resources into the education system that were responsible for the differences between the German federal states (p.74).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">7. Even if families are poorer there is no reason, Sarrazin concludes, why parents cannot ensure that children clean their teeth on a regular basis or that they control access to television or read to their children, and visit libraries (p.79). His arguments here are decisive:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">There are therefore no </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>material</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> reasons which make it impossible for the recipients of unemployment payments to achieve among the examined markers the characteristics of a higher social class (emphasis in the original, p.79).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">8. Furthermore, the author quite rightly points out that more permeable an education system is – by that he means one that makes it possible for the gifted and very gifted to realise their potential – the more efficiently such a system realises the potential pool of talent from among the lower social strata. He cites the use of IQ tests in communist East Germany which produced stunning results and ones which were unanticipated and hostile to the egalitarian ethos of a socialist/communist state. Huge efforts were made in East Germany to get as many students as possible from the so-called working class into higher education. In 1954, for example, 12% of students in the science high schools came from the intelligentsia whereas the figure from the working class was 48%. Over the years the percentage of those from the working class continually fell. In 1989, the year of the last assessment 78% of students came from the stratum of intelligentsia and only 7-10% from the working class. A striking thing about these data – noted by Sarrazin – is that in 1989 the percentage of students in West Germany of working class status was 15% (pp.82-83). The conclusion from these data, one which can be drawn from similar observations in the West, is that the more levelling, the less equal the outcomes for the reason that innate qualities such as IQ, motivation, self-discipline and interest will ensure that students with such qualities will do better than those students without them. (Students studying Marxism-Leninism had the lowest mean IQ). Most of these data and research studies were kept secret by the East German regime. In writing this chapter Sarrazin demonstrates a thorough familiarity with the work of Volkmar Weiss, Charles Murray and Francis Galton.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">9. Educational permeability has consequences. To quote Sarrazin: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Regardless of how permeable an education system is the same logic applies always and everywhere: the more permeable the system is the faster and sooner the underclass will bloom intellectually. Those remaining will be those who are only able to acquire simple and middle level qualifications for which there is an ever smaller market demand. This tendency can be observed globally in all industrialised states (p.84)</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">From this he concludes:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">As a result of the negative selection on the one hand, which is all the more unavoidable the more permeable a society is, and the falling demand for simple, less qualified work on the other hand, the part of the population that can be placed in the underclass is growing relatively and absolutely (p.84).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">10. Sarrazin devotes much time to the definition of, and what constitutes, poverty. In modern welfare states it is not material: it is the lack of intellectual resources of the “poor”. Regarding welfare provision in Germany, Sarrazin argues: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The guaranteed minimum wage in Germany is not indecently low but rather indecently close to the other levels of income. This undoubtedly makes falling into the underclass less painful and the existence in the underclass more bearable but, to be sure, furthers the growth and the reinforcing of this class and its gradual decoupling from the rest of society (p.86).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">11. Sarrazin boldly advances politically incorrect conclusions with his application of the work of Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel and Francis Galton to modern populations. Galton was one of the first to realise that if the less intelligent breed more than the intelligent then the mean IQ of a population will be reduced. Sarrazin defiantly nails his colours to the mast:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Among serious scientists there is no longer any serious doubt that human intelligence is from 50% to 80% hereditable. The fact that among various rates of fertility among population groups of different intelligence eugenic or dysgenic effects can arise is no longer fundamentally disputed (p.93). </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">And:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">For the relationship which is under discussion here it makes no difference whether the heritability of intelligence is 40%, 60% or 80% […] With the higher relative fertility of the less intelligent the mean intelligence of the whole population falls. This is currently the problem in Germany and was for some considerable period the problem in the old Bundesrepublik (pp.98-99).</span></p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 4 Poverty and Inequality: </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Lots of Good Intentions but little Courage to Tell the Truth </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. Regardless whether it exists among indigenous or immigrant populations, the question of poverty – relative or absolute - is critical. Can people really said to be poor in the welfare states of the West? Despite his many objections to out-of-control welfare statism raised in </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">, S</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">arrazin insists on some form of welfare provision:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">He who is weak and helpless, he who suffers misfortune, he who is unable to feed himself and his own in a dignified manner, should and must be helped. As human beings and citizens we are obliged to our fellow citizens for that and it corresponds with our perception of what society is (p.103).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Let me play Devil’s advocate. What happens when the numbers rise so that the means to clothe and feed these poor and wretched can no longer be found? If the welfare net is too generous it subsidises the procreation of the less able and less intelligent. The poor and lazy, encouraged by unscrupulous politicians who exploit alleged poverty to secure votes and a class of poverty bureaucrats who derive a living from dispensing other people’s money to the underclass are engaging in a massive game of blackmail. Confronted with the analyses of people like Sarrazin (and many before him), the so-called poor and feckless, aided and abetted by politicians and poverty bureaucrats, will deploy what they regard as their nuclear option: will you, they ask, allow the poor and needy to starve to death? Now it is completely evasive to say in response that this would never happen; that the question’s premise is too extreme; that things would never get that bad. That merely concedes the principle, albeit implicitly, that the poor and needy, at home and abroad, however we define them can lay a claim on the public purse. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. There are two responses that can be offered. First, the question whether the poor and needy should be allowed to die is misleading since the question removes the burden of survival from the feckless and imposes it on the responsible: why are the poor and needy </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>poor and needy</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">? Why should the sexually and demographically responsible and the economically prudent even have to consider an answer to the question, let alone provide material resources? One way to deal with the poor and unemployable would be to provide services and food in government centres under strict supervision (food stamps only and absolutely no, or very little, money). Second, an honest answer is that human beings who engage in reckless and unsustainable personal breeding experiments, who use their breeding habits as a way of extorting money, goods and services from others are indeed </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>free </i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">to suffer the consequences. I do not kill them or their progeny by not agreeing to permit a transfer of my wealth, goods and services: those responsible are the incompetent and reckless parents who do not grasp or do not care that copulation is only the start of parenthood. That is the honest, morally wholesome and rational answer when targeted by poverty hustler-bureaucrats and politicians using moral blackmail. The same arguments also apply to the demented do-goodery of multimillionaire celebrities, models and pop stars who want </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>other people’s money and other people’s taxes</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> to subsidise the reckless and destructive breeding of the Third World.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. Another problem is also evident. Immigrants who live in parallel societies courtesy of German and European taxpayers and who have no intention whatsoever of integrating cannot be considered to be my ‘fellow citizens’. They are aliens among us. Do they meet the conditions laid down by Sarrazin for tax-payer charity when they become poor and needy? Furthermore, Sarrazin’s justification for welfare provision inside Germany will be used – is being used - as the moral basis for the massive transfer of German and European wealth to the Third World. According to xenophiles the starving and diseased in Somalia or Haiti – or wherever the latest Third World disaster happens to be - are our fellow citizens of the world and thus </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>entitled </i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">to our money and support.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">4. The problem of ‘poverty in Germany’ is emotionally driven not analytically (as in other Western states). To quote Sarrazin:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The poverty risk threshold in Germany today is higher than the average net income of Germans at the high point of the economic miracle at the start of the sixties in the previous century (p.105).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">5. Sarrazin is especially effective at disentangling the definitions of poverty. Regarding definitions of relative poverty he notes:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Every increase in economic and income that does not change the distribution simultaneously raises the threshold of relative poverty. Inherent in the definition of relative poverty therefore is the fact that in combatting it economic growth is always a rat race that cannot be won (p.109).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">He then notes that:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The concept of relative poverty has however nothing to do with poverty in the classic sense. Ultimately it draws on something social-psychological. Man assesses his material possibilities and his place in life overwhelmingly in accordance with the social context and in keeping with the old English expression of “to keep up with the Jones” (pp.109-110).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">6. Sarrazin goes to the heart of the poverty question with the following observation, that ‘</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">wherever there is talk of poverty and inequality envy is never far away’ (p.111).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">7. Sarrazin is quite rightly scornful of the pitiful definition of poverty offered by the European Union. The poor are considered to be those:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">[…] who have so few means at their disposal (material, cultural and social) that they are excluded from the way of life which obtains in the town in which they live and which are considered to be the acceptable minimum. According to this definition a prosperous idiot who never learned to read properly when he was at school and is unable to carry on any profession would be classed as poor. Naturally this is rubbish. Access to “cultural and social means” is an expression designed to obscure. It plain German it means: he who has inadequate access to “very few cultural and social means” (politically correct EU speak) is not intelligent, is uneducated and lacks behavioural adjustment. In the EU formulation the person deemed to be poor in this way is relieved of the burden of responsibility for his situation and any moral pressure to do something himself to make any change (pp.113-114).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">This sort of poverty, Sarrazin points out, is not going to be changed or removed by money.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">8. Sarrazin was able to demonstrate – for which he shall never be forgiven – that it is possible to eat well and healthily on the money provided by the German welfare system (Sarrazin and his wife put the feeding plan to the test and had no problems). As a consequence of his experiment the results of which were publicly discussed he received hundreds of hate emails. During the course of making a television programme based on Sarrazin’s experiment, one of the cameramen of a television station told Sarrazin that he had been instructed not to film the inside of any apartments of welfare recipients because they were full of electronic gadgets (p.118). Sarrazin also reports that recipients of welfare payments have above average provision of electronic media (p.118). It is the same in the United Kingdom: rows of houses in estates full of the unemployed and unemployable, all sporting satellite dishes. Sarrazin identifies three reasons why so much emotion is aroused by the recipients of welfare and the bureaucrats and lawyers who work in the field when the provision of welfare is challenged. First, the recipients have a vested interest in the system’s being continued. Second, politicians and the hordes of so-called researchers and media activists also have a vested interest in the system: without it they are out of work. Third, if it is possible to live adequately on the money provided but those who receive this money do not live adequately then the problem of poverty can only be a behavioural problem not some existential catastrophe. It is the last point that triggers the rage and aggression. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">9. Related to this is, once again, the question of envy. To quote Sarrazin:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Numerous artists and many students live on an income which is on the threshold or beneath the socioeconomic subsistence minimum. In spite of this they are happier than most welfare recipients because they do not derive their personal status and place in society from their income level and feel independent (pp.126-127).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">10. Sarrazin fully grasps the acute dangers posed by those trying to impose equality: ‘Equality - and also income equality - has hitherto never been possible without the use of totalitarian methods, something that regularly ends in dictatorship and a bloodbath’ (p.129). The twentieth century provides irrefutable proof of this in the Soviet and other communist experiments.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">11. Proposals have been made in Germany to provide all citizens with a guaranteed income and so remove the need for other handouts. Note here the striking similarity with the British coalition government’s plan to do the same with the state pension: a raised flat rate for all </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>regardless of whether you have ever paid Class 4 National Insurance Contributions</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (October 2010). Sarrazin notes that those who propose this scheme in Germany offer two reasons: (i). the sources of poverty and fear for one’s existence will be removed for all and without discrimination; (ii). most social benefits will be withdrawn, and the bureaucracy that goes with it (p.140). They argue that in an age when the amount of work is decreasing people receiving this benefit will be able to devote their lives to cultural and creative activities (p.141). One of the more devastating responses to these proposals comes from Erich Fromm, cited by Sarrazin: ‘It is not money that makes you happy it is meaning’ (p.146), to which I can add the conclusions of Viktor Frankl based on his experiences in the Nazi camps (see </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Ein Psycholog erlebt das Konzentrationslager</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (1946), translated as </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Man’s Search for Meaning</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">, 1959). </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">12. The fertility of various groups will change the nature of Germany. To quote Sarrazin:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The provision of basic welfare also influences the socialisation and the reproductive behaviour of the underclass. It also essentially determines migration and the willingness of immigrants to integrate. Without the German provision of basic welfare a large part of the immigrants from Turkey, Africa and the Middle East would never have come since for the last 35 years there has been no market justification at all. Without the provision of basic welfare the movement of families would have been much less and Germany would have been only half as attractive for asylum. Without the provision of basic welfare Turks and Arabs in Germany would at the very least have demonstrated a different form of reproductive behaviour. Among Arabs in Germany the tendency to produce children in order to secure more welfare payments is especially widespread and the women in the family who are often incarcerated have basically not much else to do (p.150).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">13. According to Sarrazin, generous welfare payments are especially detrimental regarding the willingness of Islamic immigrants to integrate. Generous welfare provision makes it possible for them to set up parallel societies paid for by Germans (p.150).</span></p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 5 Work and Politics: Concerning Readiness to Work and Work Incentives </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. Sarrazin reminds us that work is an important source of meaning. Small groups of people will find purpose through art and creative work. The bulk of those who subsist on benefits go for the products of instant gratification. Note the truly shocking revelation: ‘No one has to work in Germany in order to get 60% of the middle net income: state provision of basic social security takes care of that. That has consequences’ (p.166).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. Welfare provision in Germany is too generous. Why, he asks, do Poles come to Germany every year to harvest asparagus when there so many unemployed in Germany? The reason is that the German underclass gets more money from not working than from working. We have exactly the same problems in the United Kingdom: why do farmers in Herefordshire and in Lincolnshire have to import migrant workers to pick crops when huge numbers of the indigenous members of the underclass are unemployed? The reason is obvious: the British underclass, like its German counterpart, derives goods and services for nothing and enjoys a higher standard of living for remaining inactive.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. Sarrazin cites the case of a Carola Goetze who with her husband (also unemployed) receives €1,400 per month. She has been offered a steady stream of jobs in Gelsenkirchen but refuses to take them. Sarrazin correctly observes that were welfare handouts not so generous she would have to work. He notes that millions of people from 30, 40 and 50 years old who are quite capable of working will be supported by state handouts from 30 to 50 years (p.177). He sees three ways to stop this exploitation by the underclass of those in paid work:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i) reduce the amount of handouts so as to compel people to seek work; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii) make work more attractive by changing allowances; </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii) those capable of working and who are beneath the statutory retirement age limit only receive handouts in return for services rendered (p.177). </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Sarrazin quite rightly poses the following question: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">One must ask whether it can be really right to guarantee every person in the region of 60% of the mean income without some service in return (p.179).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">4. According to Sarrazin, some estimates of a comprehensive workfare scheme in Germany could create some 1.9 million work placements. Conceding that these estimates remain unverified, he nevertheless concludes:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Totally indisputable and substantiated by all available empirical evidence is, on the other hand, the fact that an effectively implemented compulsion to work, sanctioned by the removal of welfare payments, comprehensively reduces the numbers of those claiming services and considerably so (p.184).</span></p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 6 Education and Justice: Concerning the Difference </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Between Good and Good Intentions </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. The German population, Sarrazin argues, is becoming more heterogeneous and, on average, older, less interested in education and less intelligent (p.187):</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">If one sees the essential resource in “raw material man” for Germany’s future one can only perceive this trend as threatening (p.187).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. Sarrazin says that there are still those who believe that education is the answer to all society’s ills and that ills are due to “society” or “system”. He notes:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The comprehensive advisory literature essentially addresses these education optimists and implies that all and everything – from team efficiency to mathematical understanding – can, fundamentally, be learned if only the material is correctly presented and the corresponding instruction methods are employed (p.188).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. Note the following which could have been taken straight out of Arthur Jensen’s </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (1998):</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">From my own experience I know that reading ability, text comprehension and the general knowledge that is made possible by reading are the core competences for the transmission of education. They also facilitate the access to mathematical and science competences since logical and empirical connections and the stating of problems must first of all be explained so that a starting point for the formal solution of the problem and the level of discourse can be found (pp.194-195).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">4. Sarrazin highlights the decline in reading among Germans and the way in which texts have been made easier. Note the following, which, once again, goes to the heart of the matter identified by Jensen in </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The g Factor</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Only he who has acquired a good and sufficiently interconnected facility for text comprehension and is sufficiently schooled in mathematical-logical analysis possesses the central prerequisites for acquiring the necessary grasp of quite distinct intellectual and conceptual material (p.197).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">5. Sarrazin returns to the PISA Test data once again:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">It is known that correlations do not justify causality. They can though support suppositions concerning a particular cause. So we know that correlations between intelligence and school success amount to some of the highest correlations in psychological diagnosis and – moreover – that measured intelligence is one of the best predictors for school success. It stirred things up in academic circles, therefore, when in 2006 Heiner Rindermann demonstrated that data of all three competences from PISA 2000 and 2003 - reading, mathematics and natural sciences – correlated not only extremely highly with one another but also with measured intelligence. Rindermann posed the question whether the Pisa tests were measuring not merely intelligence. Furthermore he compared the OECD-wide PISA results with the data compiled by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen of the mean IQs of the corresponding states and likewise established a high correlation. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="de-DE">And so Pandora’s box was opened (p.213).</span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">6. Sarrazin notes:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Lynn and Vanhanen had shown that the prosperity of nations was positively correlated with the measured mean intelligence of the peoples (p.214).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">7. Sarrazin argues that given the long-standing permeability of the German education system that goes back to the 19</span><sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">th</span></sup><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> century any talent from the lower classes that was capable of rising higher in socioeconomic terms has done so. He notes therefore that is perfectly logical and in no way an indicator of a lack of justness [or fairness FE] that the leadership stratum of a country comes from the higher socioeconomic classes. However he notes: ‘It is politically correct in Germany to be annoyed about this..’(p.228).The same fake anger and fake concern are to be found in the United Kingdom among those employed in the poverty industry.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">8. Sarrazin informs us that the educational authorities in Germany have decided that in future the results of PISA tests will be not be published in a format that shows the differences between the various German federal states (p.250). </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 7 Immigration and Integration: Expect More, Offer Less </b></span></div><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. Sarrazin begins this chapter by pointing out the dangers posed by uncontrolled, mass immigration, pouring scorn on the German mass media who promote a mendacious and propagandistic view of mass immigration as if it were a benefit. One obvious consequence of the lies and distortions promoted by the mass media in Germany is that there is no open and free discussion about multiculturalism and the impact of immigration on Germany. Politicians know that the slogan – “diversity is our strength” – is a lie, yet they continue to disseminate the lie. This is one reason why the majority of politicians in the United Kingdom, for example, are quite properly regarded as a corrupt, untrustworthy parasite class. Politicians, like many in the public sector, support uncontrolled immigration because they either benefit from staying on message or because they lack the moral fibre to challenge what has been happening to Britain since 1948. Sarrazin notes that these major changes and shifts in population are ‘seldom bloodless’ (p.257). He argues, correctly, that now that the major living spaces of the world, once under-populated, are now occupied uncontrolled migration is no longer possible. He continues:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">[…] the natural population decrease in one country or group of countries may not serve as the basis morally and politically to justify immigration or seizure of land. The territorial principle is an inviolable component of state sovereignty and respect for it serves to maintain peace (p.257).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">To this he adds:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">In the globalised world capital and goods can flow freely. It is however unthinkable that this should also apply to labour since families, societies and peoples depend on the work (p.257).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">And note the following:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Finally, the worker immigration of the 1960s set in train a new wave of European immigration the consequences of which afflict us. Today we know that factories and service industries must move but not people. Ageing and shrinking, like it is, in its cultural substance, the world of the Occident would hardly survive. The geographical and cultural border of Europe can also quite clearly be drawn on the Bosphorus and not, as in many statistics on the Turkish border with Iraq and Iran (p.258).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. Very few Turks who came as workers returned to Turkey, Sarrazin notes, and then they brought their families over from Turkey. This has created a huge, hostile underclass. He argues that the whole guest worker programme was ‘a gigantic error’ (p.259). </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. One of the consequences of allowing unqualified immigrants into Germany, especially relevant for the United Kingdom can be seen in the case of the Nigerian doctor, Daniel Ubani, who, having acquired German citizenship, then tried to relocate to the United Kingdom. One hospital turned him down because his command of English was so inadequate. Eventually he managed to secure a post in the United Kingdom. He then gave a massive overdose of morphine to a patient (a retired General Practitioner) who died. The suspicion has to be that Ubani could not read properly or do basic maths. He then absconded back to Germany. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">4. Sarrazin reports that according to the micro-census in Germany (2007) there are some 15.4 million people with an immigrant background in Germany (p.261). He estimates the number of Muslims in Germany could be as high as 6 to 7 million (p.262).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">5. Sarrazin devotes a fair bit of space to a discussion of the growth in the numbers of Pakistanis and blacks in England and Muslims in France and Germany. For example, Sarrazin comments on the case of Enoch Powell and his remarks made in 1968. Sarrazin lists the problems caused by Muslims in European states. They are:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i). below average integration in the employment market;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii). above average dependence on welfare and handouts;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii).above average fertility;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iv). spatial segregation with a tendency to create parallel societies;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(v). above average religious adherence with an attraction to fundamentalist Islam;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(vi).above average criminality (street crime) and participation in terrorism (p.264).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">6. There are a number of places in </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">where Sarrazin reveals a rather touching faith in the American model of immigration. Note the following, for example:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The Hispanic immigrants strengthen and enrich the Occidental culture and civilization of the USA instead of calling it into question (p.265).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">This completely ignores immigrant organisations such as </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>La Raza</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> and </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>La Reconquista</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> which have no interest in integration. If there is a weak side to this book it is here and elsewhere when Sarrazin cites the American model of immigration. Like the European version of multiculturalism, the US version attaches some special status to non-white immigrants and ignores the fact that too many immigrants do not integrate. Essential reading here is Peter </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Brimelow, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (1996). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">One of the key problems as regards Islam is that </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Islam cannot be separated from Islamism. There is one ideological whole (p.267). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>There is no lay principle</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">7. Sarrazin quite rightly takes the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to task for his grotesque remarks on Islam in Germany (p.270). Schröder made the following claims:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i). According to Schröder we must recognise that Islam has become part of German society and part of European society to which Sarrazin countered: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">No, we do not have to. What we have to recognise is that Muslims who live among us have the same rights as Catholics, members of a Free Church and Jehovah Witnesses to practice their religion: No more no less (p.270);</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii). According to Schröder Islam is not a political ideology but a peaceful religion. That is taught by the Koran. Sarrazin countered: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The Koran teaches the opposite. That is in fact the problem with Islam (p.270);</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii). According to Schröder the concept of the Enlightenment must not be used for purposes of separation. Sarrazin countered: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">On the contrary that’s the problem! The attitude towards the Occidental Enlightenment highlights the very problem (p.270);</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iv). According to Schröder, the way of looking at Muslim states must change. The Turks have fundamentally democratised. Sarrazin countered: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">It is our right and our duty to view Muslim states through Western eyes and to assess them according to </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>our norms</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (p.270, emphasis added).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">8. Christian believers in Turkey are denied the right to build new churches. Before World War One 25% of Turkey were Christian. Sarrazin notes:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Since the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians and several hundred thousand Aramaic-speaking Assyrians in the First World War as well the mass expulsion of 1.5 million Greek Orthodox believers after the First World War this proportion has sunk to 0.2% (p.272).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">9. He notes that in all Muslim states Christians are persecuted (p.272). Dialogue is okay but: ‘</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Certain points are non-negotiable</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (p.274, emphasis in the original).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">10. With regard to Islam and the historical-critical method he notes that Islam remains pre-modern (p.276). Indeed it does. He notes that Islamic scholars sanction the execution of Muslim converts to other religions. Changing one’s religion is, therefore, the test case for Islam’s adaptation to the modern world. He notes: ‘Where this is not possible because of danger and sanctions there can be no talk of religious freedom’ (p.277). Sarrazin cites two British journalists – John Micklethwaite and Adrian Wooldridge – who claim that: ‘The coexistence of various worldviews is a decisive characteristic of the modern’ (p.277). It is not at all clear to this reviewer that this is the case. Up to a point various worldviews can coexist but once religious, cultural and racial rivalry become factors coexistence is no longer possible and the solution to this friction is to be found in war. Nor is coexistence possible in a country such as Britain, for example, where governments have ignored the mass influx of immigrants (legal or illegal) and pursued a policy of coerced racial and cultural integration of various groups at the expense of the white indigenous majority. Note the following from Sarrazin:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Muslims in Germany and the rest of Europe are subject to an alien cultural and religious influence of which we have no oversight never mind control. We tolerate the growth of a culturally different minority whose basis in secular society is exiguous, that does not have our levels of tolerance and which is reproducing more strongly than the host society. We ought not to omit the contradictory movements in the Islamic world and the expansionist tendency of radical Islam, which by the way has nothing to do with poverty and lack of education, as is always repeatedly suggested. The history of Islamic terrorism repeatedly shows that it is precisely educated young men from affluent Muslim families – and also increasingly converts from European countries – that are especially prone to adopt radical positions up to supporting terror (pp.277-278).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">11. He notes the work of the left in creating a climate of fear so that any criticism of Islam is denounced as racism (p.278). He notes the following sequence used by the left: criticism of Islam = Islamophobia = Racism = Anti-Semitism = Right-wing extremism = National Socialism (p.279).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">12. Turks do not integrate. Note the following which will strike a chord with many non-German readers: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">A part of the German population – also the elite – has just not understood the problem. In their everyday life, where they live and work they encounter Muslim immigrants only as cleaners or as alien backdrop on the occasional visit to Kreuzberg in Berlin. A section of the intellectuals and the liberal press even seem to find some secret joy in the fact that Muslim immigration is undermining German society (p.289).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">13. Sarrazin cites some truly horrendous examples of Turks living on welfare. There is the example of some small German town where the population of 300 Turks is derived </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>from just two families</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (p.294). One of them says: ‘we don’t need the Germans’ (p.295). The Turkish ghetto problem is very similar to blacks in the US. Largely unemployed and unemployable, they seek status through violence and robbery and other anti-social behaviour. Crimes in Germany involving immigrants are often suppressed by the mainstream media for the very obvious reason that reporting these crimes would show that the perpetrators are immigrants. We have the same problem in the United Kingdom concerning the prevalence of gun and knife crime in our cities which is essentially a black problem. Regarding the suppression of the truth or just ignoring it (another form of suppression), he notes: ‘Who is actually helped when facts in the public domain are suppressed, facts which those who are affected do not deny? Certainly neither the truth nor clear analysis or integration’ (p.297).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">14. Sarrazin take a long hard look at what is happening in the Berlin district of Neukölln. The district has about 305,000 inhabitants of whom 120,000 are of immigrant background. It is estimated that the total of illegals is 20,000 – 30,000 out of a total illegal population of 150,000-200,000 in Berlin (p.299). He goes on to say that there are many such examples of Neukölln in Germany where immigrants are rapidly displacing the indigenous population. Sarrazin’s devastating point that - ‘A German going through these districts would feel like a foreigner in his own country’ (p.300) – would secure a lengthy standing ovation were it addressed to an indigenous British audience in some of our major cities. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; widows: 2; orphans: 2;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">15. S</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">ome truly horrendous consequences arising from Germany’s generous welfare provision are cited in this book. One observer describes the chaos of life in an immigrant Turkish family: ‘And the flat screen television is always on, always’ (p.305). It seems that one of the classic features of the underclass, be they black, white or Islamic immigrants in Germany is an addiction to television. It is almost as if television, with its relentless diet of soap operas and celebrity trash shows, is deliberately designed to cater overwhelmingly to the underclass of all races in all countries. Television is the narcotic of first choice for the international underclass. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">16. Among male immigrants the combination of low educational attainment, machismo, arrogance towards women and violence is ‘shocking’ (p.306). Sarrazin notes: ‘However, the mantra education, education, education, cuts no ice’ (p.306).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">17. In this chapter there is a sub-section entitled ‘Conquest through Fertility?’ (p.316). Sarrazin cites the remarks of a prominent Turk in Germany who boasted that by 2100 there would be 35 million Turks in Germany (p.317). Sarrazin notes that Turkish politicians are already using the presence of large numbers of Turks in Germany as a way of gaining access to the EU, using their presence in fact as an excuse to interfere in the internal affairs of Germany. This has a striking historical parallel with the way Hitler exploited the presence of the </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Volksdeutsche</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> (ethnic Germans) to interfere in Czechoslovakia.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">18. Sarrazin observes that the rate of population change and displacement can be very rapid:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The displacement of population structures by means of differential rates of reproduction changes the face of the world, separate regions and entire states in historically very brief time spans (p.317).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">19. One thing Sarrazin omits to discuss about the presence of immigrant children in the Berlin schools system is the effect that large numbers of such immigrants have on the educational outcomes and opportunities of the indigenous/autochthonous Germans. For example, in one school in Neukölln out of a total of 654 schoolchildren 80% are immigrants. Given the well documented failure of these children to integrate, which, among other things, means learning to speak and to write German, how is it possible for indigenous German schoolchildren to derive the maximum benefit from their time in school when so many of their classmates struggle with the language of instruction? What we have here is an example of how the opportunities of white children (indigenous Germans) are being sacrificed in an attempt to impose a multicultural curriculum. The same thing happens in England when English history is ignored or rewritten to suit the perceived needs of immigrants. Anyone who remembers the case of Ray Honeyford will know that this was one of his key concerns when he was the headmaster of a Bradford school.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">20. It is in this chapter that Sarrazin delivers what could well be a rallying call for all European nations faced with the same consequences of mass, uncontrolled legal/legal immigration: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Who is here and has legal residency status is welcome. However, we expect that you learn the language; that you earn your living by work; that you are educationally ambitious for your children; that you adapt to the habits and ways of Germany and that, with time, you become Germans – if not yourselves, then at the very latest your children. If you are of Muslim faith, this is okay. You have the same rights and duties as heathen, Evangelical or Catholic Germans. But we want no national minorities. Those who want to remain as a Turk or an Arab and want the same for their children are better off staying in their lands of origin. And those who are solely interested in the blessings of the German welfare state are certainly not welcome here (p.326).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER" lang="de-DE"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 8 Demography and Population Policy: </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>More Children from the Clever Before it is too Late </b></span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. The projected population increases made by the United Nations are truly horrendous. Bearing this in mind, Sarrazin insists that:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The target migration countries have every right in the world to assess immigration exclusively from the perspective of their own advantage (p.339).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. He considers Germany’s situation:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The number of births of the indigenous population [Germany] amounts annually to about 400,000. In other words in 45 years – in only one and half generations – it has reduced by 70%. From a purely physical point of view, the population that has been living since the start of the 1960s has been in a process of dying out. This population has already covered two thirds of the way towards its end, as measured by birth data. This is no complaint but rather instead a value-free, factual, completely indisputable statement (p.341).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. Sarrazin returns – as he must – to the question of why nations decline and die. He notes that nations and peoples can just fade away. To what extent is the Nazi past responsible for inducing a suicidal guilt in Germans which is exacerbated and encouraged by a left-wing media? Typically, he notes, there are two responses to this state of affairs. First, the xenophile multiculturalists welcome the advance to one world in which national boundaries and racial/ethnic identities are lost forever. In the German variation some of these people regret that they were ever born as Germans. Second, there is a view that nothing can be done to stop this development and that there is no point in complaining about it. To which Sarrazin offers a superb riposte and one that highlights the confusion, inconsistency and cowardice of the political class in all Western states: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">That is the majority of politicians in all parties, that get worked up about the fact that the Earth’s temperature will rise by about 2 to 4 degrees in 100 years instead of getting excited about the fact that over the same time span the number of Germans will drop by 80%. To this second group one can say that it is far easier to exert an influence on the German birth rate than on average global temperature. To the first group one must respond by saying: those who cannot attach any special value to the fact that there is a German language and culture must also be indifferent to the fact whether there will be human beings in the future who can continue to carry this language and culture. In any case the friends of multiculturalism are mistaken. There will never be a transnational, global society. As long as mankind exists it will form states and peoples, speak different languages and nurture different habits (p.346). </span> </p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><br />4. Sarrazin identifies five core problem areas (</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Grundlasten</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">) which are related to German demography. They are:</span> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i). The first problem consists in the shift in the age of those of working age and those who are no longer working. In 2005 there were two people in work for very retired person. In 2050 that ratio will be 1:1;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii). The second problem consists in the ageing of the working population. In 2050 two thirds of them will 55 years old and only 20% will be between 25 and 35 years old. This will affect innovation and productivity;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii). The third problem consists in a population shrinkage from generation to generation. A stable state is not conceivable in the long term when in each generation the number of births falls by 36%;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iv). The fourth problem consists in the different fertility rates of the educated and uneducated strata. In only a few generations this has considerable effects on the intellectual potential of society;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(v). The fifth problem consists in the increase of the proportion of those with a Muslim migrant background. This aggravates the fourth problem (pp.346-347).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">5. The consequences of these demographic changes are as follows:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(i). A shift in the structure of the population to the less intelligent;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(ii). a decline in the number of those with high IQ;</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">(iii). a dramatic drop in Germany’s intellectual capital (pp.347-348).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">6. In his analysis of the dysgenic effects of high breeding rates among the low IQ population Sarrazin demonstrates a firm grasp of the main sources. Here are his thoughts on the problem facing Germany: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The example of reproductive behaviour in Germany since the middle of the 1960s not only does not represent any Darwinian natural selection in the sense of the “survival of the fittest” but a culturally determined, negative selection process controlled by human beings themselves which has reduced, relatively and absolutely, and at high rate, the sole replaceable raw material that Germany has, namely intelligence. Rare minerals and elements, such as those required for modern battery technology are no longer available in Germany and Europe. The sole currency with which we are able to pay in world markets are the products of our intelligence (pp.353-354).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">7. Data from the 2008 Microcensus, cited by Sarrazin, show the reproduction rates of woman in the year range from 1964 – 1968. They are:</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Low level of education = 1.86 children per woman</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Middle level of education = 1.45 children per woman</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Higher education = 1.26 children per woman (p.355)</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">8. As regards the lack of children among high IQ women, he notes: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">In general one can say that as regards Germany there is empirical evidence for the fact that the fertility of human beings is all the more higher, the lower the level of their education, socioeconomic status, income and – causally linked with these three points – their IQ. All industrialised societies are going to have to examine these dysgenic effects. The effects are all the greater the wider the gap is between stratum-dependent birth rates and the less immigration, insofar as it takes place, exerts a compensatory effect on the basis of its structure (p.357).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">9. The consequences of the falling birth rate in Germany among indigenous Germans and the levels of Turkish, Arab and African immigration mean that Germans will be reduced to a minority if firm action is not taken (p.360).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">10. He quite rightly notes that population size is a perfectly legitimate question for governments and goes to the heart of so much that is wrong in Germany and in the other welfare states of Western Europe:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The German system of social security – constructed in such a manner that the minimum received by a welfare recipient amounts to 60% of the middle income range – provides Muslim immigrants in Germany, without the imposition of any demands at all and without any work, an income that by the standards of their homeland could only be characterised as fantastic. As a consequence of this the income demands of these immigrants is from the very beginning set at a level way beyond their qualifications. Their high levels of unemployment are accordingly pre-programmed.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Those who migrate to Germany from Africa, the Near East and Middle East want to improve their standard of living. That is guaranteed for them by the German welfare system without their having to work. On the other hand those who migrate to the USA or Canada know full well that only their hands and brains can help them to achieve a better life. Those who do not think they can do that or who are not prepared to make the necessary efforts do not migrate to these countries. There the immigrants represent something of an elite selection. That is not the case in Germany and Europe. In view of the fact that their homelands are poor enough it makes sense for the incapable and the lazy to come to Germany (pp.370-371).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">I suggest that once again Sarrazin adopts a too generous view of immigrants entering the USA, especially from across the Mexican border (p.370). At some stage in the past his view that immigrants had to be self-reliant; that they had the choice of sinking or swimming was true. It no longer applies.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Chapter 9 A Dream and a Nightmare: Germany in 100 Years</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. This final chapter begins with an unequivocal assertion of national sovereignty and the right of Germans to determine their country’s future: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">1. Every state has the right to decide who shall be permitted to move to that state and who shall not be permitted.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. The Western and European values and the respective cultural qualities of its peoples are worth being preserved. In 100 years Danes should live as Danes among Danes and Germans as Germans among Germans when they want it (p.391).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Sarrazin continues:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">I would like, however, my descendants in 50 and in a 100 years time to be still living in a Germany in which German is the day-to-day language and where the people feel themselves to be German; that they live in a country that has preserved and developed its cultural and intellectual capacity; that they live in a country that is firmly rooted in a Europe of nation states. I find that – please forgive me – far more important than the question of whether the level of the North Sea will rise by 10 or 20 centimetres over the next hundred years. I am certain that our neighbours to the east in Poland want that Poland will still be Poland in 50 or a hundred years time in exactly the same way that the French, the Danes, the Dutch and the Czechs want the same thing for their peoples and countries (p.392).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">2. Sarrazin stresses that immigrants are welcome – subject to the requirements of the host country and a willingness to adapt to German folkways and customs – but that importing another mass wave of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East will solve nothing but rather will cause more problems. Germany, he argues, must rely on its own indigenous resources and intellectual capital if it is to maintain itself as a prosperous and German nation. Germany cannot continue to plug the demographic gaps with Anatolian farmers, Palestinian war refugees and various generations of refugees from the Sahel zone (the zone immediately to the south of the Sahara stretching from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Red Sea, FE). He notes:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Germany will not die all of sudden. The Germans will pass away quietly and with the demographically determined exhaustion of their intellectual potential. The German in Germany is becoming increasingly diluted and the intellectual potential is being diluted still faster. Who in a 100 years time will still know </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Wayfarer’s Song by Night</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">? [a poem by Goethe FE]: certainly not the Koran scholar in the mosque next door (p.393).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">3. Sarrazin ends his book with two scenarios: the nightmare and possible salvation. Here is a summary of the nightmare scenario. </span> </p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b><br /></b></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Germany’s Nightmare</b></span></div> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">4. Some scholar, it turns out, claims to have demonstrated that the desire on the part of Germans to insist that immigrants meet a German-language requirement represents a form of latent fascism. Insisting that immigrants master German against their will is, it is claimed, a manifestation of a delusion of German superiority ‘that once before almost destroyed the world’ (p.397). So the German-language requirement for immigrants is abolished. The minister for the family, a young, left-leaning woman, insisted that, given the worldwide population increase, the need to protect the environment and Germany’s questionable past and low birth rate, Germany could make a positive contribution to the future of mankind. Falling population created room for more immigrants and Germany could, she claimed, make a contribution to easing the world situation. If the Germans could no longer produce sufficient engineers then that was not a problem: there were plenty of Indians and Chinese. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">5. By 2015 the rate of immigration was increasing. Most were families coming to join husbands, the rest were economic migrants from Africa. Things meanwhile had become much easier for immigrants. Those immigrants who could reach Germany and committed no crimes for six months ‘automatically acquired approval to remain for an unlimited period as well as being entitled to social services just like every other German citizen’ (p.399).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">6. In 2030 a decision is taken not to provide any breakdown by immigration background in the publication of the PISA tests. This development was greeted favourably since the gaps had become much worse because of the increase in immigration: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">The Association of Progressive Teachers had repeatedly complained about the public discussion of the performance differences, arguing that this amounted to “objective discrimination” against immigrants. The negative self portrait which was created undermined the confidence of the immigrants in their own ability so that poor performance became a self-fulfilling prophecy. One must stop once and for all to talk about performance differences then these differences will disappear by themselves. The public discussion of performance differences regardless whether they were real or not encouraged a racist state of mind and for that reason should be prevented. The Conference of the Minister of Culture was bound by this morally and pedagogically compelling argumentation (pp.399- 400).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">7. Another development was the introduction of American-style affirmative action for Turkish, Arab and African students in 2035. Local businesses were going bust and since value-added tax (sales tax in the USA) was already at 25%, income tax had to be raised. From 2040 there is a marked increase in the number of affluent people leaving Germany. Alongside the exodus of Germans the number of towns and cities under the control of immigrants increased such that over a half of the Bürgermeisters were now of Turkish, Arab or African origin. Naturally, this has a major impact on local politics. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">8. In 2045 there was another fire in the Duchess Anna-Amalia-Library in Weimar. The local administration says that such is the burden of welfare payments that it is unable to provide any financial assistance. The head Bürgermeister of Weimar, an Arab immigrant, announces that the living have a greater claim to money than the dead. The limited funds available are to be used for a new mosque and for the redevelopment of a municipal Koran studies college. In the decades that followed churches, castles and museums fell into disrepair. As Sarrazin notes, ‘The growing number of Muslims were not interested in these cultural places’ (p.401).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">9. In 2080 a desperate attempt is made by the German government to secure funds for the protection of Germany’s cultural artefacts. A member of the Grey Panthers objects. On a trip to Istanbul at Easter 2095 the German Minister for Culture has something of a brain wave when he sees the Saint Sophia Church which for over 600 years has been used by the Turks as a mosque. This, he concludes, is the model for the great German cathedrals. From this arises the first experimental trial in which Germany’s most famous churches and cathedrals, among them, Cologne Cathedral and the Munich </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Frauenkirche</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">, are to be loaned on a permanent basis ‘to the Islamic religious community for future use as mosques’ (p.402). In order not to offend Muslims the crosses were either removed or covered up. This lease plan was successful and in the years ahead other famous German churches such as the cathedrals at Mainz, Wurms and the </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Marienkirche</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> in Lübeck were converted to mosques. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">10. But the language problem would not go away. In a landmark legal decision of Germany’s Constitutional Court handed down in 2035 the court ruled that it constituted a violation of the principle of equality enshrined in the German Constitution when an applicant with an immigrant background was not considered for a job because of German-language deficiencies. Major changes in education then follow based on the claim that it damaged the self-esteem of immigrants when they were expected to speak in broken German instead of being allowed to speak in their native languages. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">11. Sarrazin concludes this nightmare scenario with a retrospective glance: </span> </p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">In 2100 a historian casting a critical glance on the past could note with satisfaction that Germany had solved its demographic problems in an exemplary, and from a multicultural perspective, correct fashion. True enough, Germany in terms of living standards had fallen way below China, and even India had overtaken Germany in per capita income but the Germans had shown the world that the problems could be solved peacefully.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Some Muslim hotheads were now demanding a new national flag, one with a black background, a red crescent and a gold star. That was perhaps a bit too much. But, on the other hand, </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>they had the right</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">: they were indeed the democratic majority. And Germany would at least remain black, red and gold (p.404, emphasis added).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="CENTER"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><b>The Salvation Scenario</b></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">12. Since 2010 the European political establishment had become alarmed by the growth of populist right-wing parties all across Europe. Europe’s voters were well aware that their living standards had dropped and that the Schengen agreement left Europe wide open to illegal immigrants. The prospect of securing generous welfare handouts continued to act as a driver of immigration from the Near East, Middle East and from Africa. A terrorist attack in Berlin in May 2013 led to a dramatic tightening of Europe’s border control regime. In the same year, after the election of a new government, measures in the areas of the family, integration and education were introduced: raising the number of children born to high IQ women; tightening the terms according to which the families of immigrants were allowed to come to Germany; compulsory attendance at schools for all children; for immigrant children there is a special emphasis on the acquisition of German; throughout Germany the required standard in the primary school curriculum for German and mathematics is standardised with that which obtained in 1970. These measures started to deliver the necessary results. From 2025 onwards Germany started to improve in the PISA Test rankings. Reforms in the social welfare payments led to a situation in which the fertility of immigrants dropped. Exemptions from sport and swimming based on religious grounds were denied in 2030. School uniforms had already been introduced in 2020 and headscarves banned. In those parts of German cities long known for housing immigrants women in headscarves were far less visible. Immigration restrictions, the reduction in the number of migrants seeking a life on welfare handouts and the continual moving out of the economically successful was clearly having an effect. The migrant quarters in the big cities were shrinking and far lass Turkish and Arabic were heard on the streets. Germany has been brought back from the brink. Sarrazin concludes:</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Integration seemed to be complete. Historians saw a parallel here with the integration of Polish migrants in the Ruhr in the first half of the twentieth century. So, as then, the essential memory remained the foreign-sounding names of some prominent football players (p.407).</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">13. Finally, what makes </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> so valuable to any thinking German patriot who has had to endure politically correct lying over so many decades on anything to do with immigration and race is Sarrazin’s fearless, rational honesty. Germans reading </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Germany Consigns itself to Oblivion</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> must have experienced something similar to that experienced by a Russian reading a </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>samizdat</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> version of Solzhenitsyn’s </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Gulag Archipelago</i></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> during the Cold War: an exhilarating sense of moral and intellectual liberation which only the honest search for, and confrontation with, truth can deliver. I salute Herr Sarrazin for his moral courage and intellectual acumen: and God bless his great nation in the struggle to save itself from oblivion. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Nun aber los!</i></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><i>-/-<br /></i></span></p>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-81769741013312608262010-09-01T09:38:00.000-07:002010-09-03T11:50:05.937-07:00Blurring the truth - Part 2<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirQT2Tw1encKpOVepN0cVDAMxzyoGXp56S2k3M4kpHxvP90yHRBFyQq6Ag2Gtz5OU_LHYsdEudRTFGTe4b3hkkMdl0SwlssxGnQ6hZfJjTcraErPUm-3W8Rmq10ZjVURAlDuSPqpWf-n2Q/s1600/obama-passport.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 291px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirQT2Tw1encKpOVepN0cVDAMxzyoGXp56S2k3M4kpHxvP90yHRBFyQq6Ag2Gtz5OU_LHYsdEudRTFGTe4b3hkkMdl0SwlssxGnQ6hZfJjTcraErPUm-3W8Rmq10ZjVURAlDuSPqpWf-n2Q/s400/obama-passport.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5511987019338387138" border="0" /></a>In the first part of this article, which I <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/09/blurring-truth-part-1.html">posted to the main blog</a>, I listed the main arguments made by those who I term “The Believers”, when dismissing the claim that US President Barrack Obama has so far failed to prove that he is eligible to be president in terms of the requirement set out in the US Constitution, namely that he is “a natural born American”.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />From what I have read, these arguments are:<br /><ul><li>Obama has produced an official and legally binding document confirming that he was born in Hawaii </li><li>Hawaiian officials have verified Obama was born in Hawaii </li><li>This document has been verified by various independent non-political websites, such as FactCheck.org and Snopes.com </li><li>In 1961, two Hawaiian newspapers carried announcements of baby Obama's birth </li><li>A conspiracy of the type suggested would require too many people to be in on it for it to work </li><li>If there was evidence that Obama was not eligible the Clinton team would have found it and exposed it.</li><li>And (as of last month) the Whitehouse have issued a copy of Obama’s passport, showing he was born in Hawaii.</li></ul>I shall address each one in turn. In doing so, I am not seeking to prove anything other than, despite what the US administration and the media may claim, the question of Obama's eligibility has not yet been answered, and that neither the birthers or the believers have yet won the argument.<br /><br />1) Obama's people have indeed produced a document which states he was born in Hawaii. However, the document is not what those who produced it claim that it is. The web-sites which proudly display (or have at some point proudly displayed) the document, such as Fight the Smears and FactCheck.org refer to the document as “Obama's birth certificate” by doing so they are deliberately misleading the public. The document in question is not a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth it is a “Certification of live birth” which carries different weight legally and, even if authenticated, is not, on its own sufficient to provide definitive proof of citizenship.<br /><br />For example, until they swiftly changed their rules last year, even the Hawaiian Department of Homelands clearly stated on their website that a Certification of Live Birth <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100451">did not constitute adequate proof of citizenship</a> under their program (yet its good enough to become president?!!)<br /><br />Citizenship could be immediately verified by the production of the long form, vault copy, of the certificate, a document Obama could authorise the release of today, but which he has consistently refused to release, and which he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting. Why would he do that? I know he is rich, but why throw money away if he has nothing to hide?<br /><br />Furthermore, significant number of sources has also claimed that it was entirely possible for a Hawaiian certification of live birth to be issued to someone who in fact was not born in that state. I have no idea whether this is true but these claims have never been satisfactorily refuted or tested in court. The believing media have not even challenged this assertion, but have, for their own reasons, chosen to ignore it.<br /><br />2) Those who claim that the secret documents proving Obama's Hawaiian birth have been “verified by state officials” should <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY2lcX-yHFd9sCXod0C7cgd5EiDr8NGSjsm81JwTULyqapJ9m_LDAs4rgpPBdR4jK3UDzUGeSLgFhtud-7-9t8Djm12h4KCNmADCXLSMQeLXIkou9XALy1SI0hnfDkI2LeauZ1BrxegPOy/s1600-h/08-93.JPG">take a look at the odd wording chosen</a> by the state official Chiyome Fukino when verifying the secret documentation, stating that the then Senator Obama's birth certificate was on file, but not actually confirming what it said. She went to the trouble of checking the vault, she issued a press statement intended to settle the question of where the president was born but she didn't say "<span style="font-style: italic;">and it states he was born in Hawaii</span>"!! How odd.<br /><br />Furthermore, whatever she said, is that really good enough?<br /><br />Is it really enough for the media to accept the word of a state official who says in effect “Its okay guys I've seen it, its cool, you don't need to worry you pretty little heads about it” if that satisfies today's “investigative journalists” we are certainly not talking about the likes of Woodward and Bernstein here are we.<br /><br />Or do investigative journalists only ever investigate white, right wing, presidents?<br /><br />Again we come back to the same question, why do we need this pantomime, why do we need state officials telling us that the document exists? why doesn't Obama just release the damn thing?<br /><br />3) A number of websites claim to have verified the Certification of Live Birth as being authentic, the one which is usually quoted is FactCheck.org which touts itself as being “independent”. However, FactChek.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (1), connected to the left of centre Annenberg foundation. As Wikipedia confirms (2), before becoming a senator, Obama in fact worked as president of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, meanwhile his mentor Bill Ayres, the man some credit with being the real author of at least one of Obama's autobiographies, and from whose home Obama announced his presidential challenge, worked for the operational arm of the same Annenberg Challenge.<br /><br />(1)<br /><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/about/">http://www.factcheck.org/about/</a><br />(2)<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy</a><br /><br />Sorry guys, but that's not my definition of “independent”<br /><br />It is also a little bit <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html">odd the way that FactCheck have displayed the Certificate</a> they claim to have verified in such a peculiar manner.<br /><br />They show a picture of the document, which doesn't appear to be stamped or signed. Then they show a close up picture of a signature stamp and a further close up picture of a raised embossed seal. They claim these are all parts of the same document, but there is nothing to actually prove that, certainly I can not see a signature stamp on either of the full sized copies of the certificate they have displayed . no doubt they are all the same document, but it seems rather odd to go to such trouble to prove something and then present the proof in such a sloppy and unconvincing manner.<br /><br />That said, it is true that Snopes.com also claim to have verified the document.<br /><br />Snopes.com is an website which claims to debunk urban legends and e-mail hoaxes run by Barbara and David Mikkleson who also founded the San Fernando Valley Foke law society, so I guess if Dave and Babs say its okay ........!!!<br /><br />To be fair Dave and Babs are well respected and have been verified as free from political bias <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com">(by ….. er … FactCheck.org)</a><br /><br />However, as I have indicated previously, even if the Certification of Live Birth is genuine, which I do not necessarily dispute, that does not, in itself prove anything.<br /><br />(3) One of the most compelling arguments in favour of Obama's claim to have been born in Hawaii is that two newspapers in Hawaii, the Honolulu Star Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser, ran birth announcements shortly after Obama was born. However, sceptical someone may be in relation to the other evidence these announcements are not so easy to dismiss.<br /><br />The believers have a point when they say that nobody would have guessed, in 1961, that little Barry Obama-Dunham would try to run for president 47 years later, so there would be no reason to falsify records. Of course this argument ignores the fact that in 1961 there might have been other reasons why someone might want to ensure their foreign born child or grandchild could be raised as a US citizen rather than in a Kenyan village near the Tanzanian border. There are certainly other possible motives for falsifying birth records than future presidential ambitions.<br /><br />One problem with the birth announcements is that there is no record confirming that Obama's parent (Barrak and Stanley) ever lived at the address, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, (which <a href="http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6085-Kalanianaole-Hwy-Honolulu-HI-96821/617758_zpid/">appears to be up for sale</a> at the moment ) quoted in the notices.<br /><br />Furthermore, these notices are again nothing more than circumstantial evidence, they are not proof of anything other than that someone placed a notice in a newspaper. Nobody can apply for a passport, obtain a loan or even open a bank account on the strength of a 49 year old birth announcement, so, interesting as they may be, are they really enough to grant someone access to the nuclear trigger?<br /><br />4) Those who argue that it would take a huge number of people to support a conspiracy such as what is being suggested might wish to consider how many people there are in their own lives, no matter how closely they work or play with them, whose circumstances of birth they could genuinely claim to know the full details of. In general we believe what people tell us, that is assuming we ever even ask the question. When it comes to the President of the United States there would have to be more, but actually given the circumstances of the Obama presidency, it is quite possible that there would not have to be a huge number of people.<br /><br />Close Obama family members would need to be complicit. However, how many of those are there? Both Obama's mother and father died well before he launched his bid for the presidency, so they are out of the picture. Both his grandfathers were also dead, leaving only his two grandmothers and his siblings.<br /><br />Of the grandmothers, Obama's paternal grandmother, the regrettably named Sarah Obama is alleged to have stated that she was present when he was born in Kenya, I have to admit that I would not bet the farm on the authenticity of the tape recording of what she said, however, it is interesting that no mainstream journalist has ever re-interviewed her to check what it was she actually said.<br /><br />Madeline Dunham, the president's maternal grandmother, made a brief <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX_2K3KVs_Y">appearance in one of Obama's campaign commercials</a>, but bluntly refused to give press interviews or discuss any aspect of the young Barrack's childhood (or so Obama’s people told the adoring press, who naturally believed what they were told). In any event, Mrs. Dunham, suffered from poor health and as we all know died days before her grandson's election triumph. Hence she was never asked the question.<br /><br />His younger half sister Maya Soetoro is nine years his junior and born in Jakarta, would she necessarily know the full details of his birth? I know where I am told my own elder brother was born but I wasn’t there and have never seen his birth certificate. (although I am sure he would show it to me if I asked)<br /><br />As to the Kenyan half siblings, the media tend to avoid interviewing them, as they can frequently be rather embarrassing, after all, at least one brother said he was a Muslim. So we really do not know what they know, what they believe or what they have been told to say.<br /><br />Then, of course, there is Michelle, and as we have all seen, <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/04/slip-of-first-tongue.html">she says his home country is Kenya</a>.<br /><br />Beyond the family, the CIA presumably know where Obama was born, but that assumes they have seen the proof, after all the CIA believed in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, so maybe they believe in an imaginary Hawaiian birth certificate as well.<br /><br />When Obama made his bid to become president it was necessary for the Democratic Party to verify that both he and Joe Biden were nominated and were eligible to serve under the terms of the US constitution. An official certification of nomination was signed by Nancy Peloci and Alice Travis Germond as Chair and Secretary respectively of the Democratic National Convention and sworn before Shalifa A Williamson Notary Public of the State of Colorado on the August 28 2008.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimdbCRwumLyYeWJunBBzaXjiuAZCRv2mUzcDb_O6IiWIktwHAYvr86IMjr3YuDwTOHilvcCdIGhm02YoPnCC0cIANeGDn5GieCSmuBPz9pz2yEB4mbwBNd5HU0cGlvEGBGRHbFCP1pu917/s1600/obama_Biden_certification02.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 305px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimdbCRwumLyYeWJunBBzaXjiuAZCRv2mUzcDb_O6IiWIktwHAYvr86IMjr3YuDwTOHilvcCdIGhm02YoPnCC0cIANeGDn5GieCSmuBPz9pz2yEB4mbwBNd5HU0cGlvEGBGRHbFCP1pu917/s400/obama_Biden_certification02.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5511987608445434722" border="0" /></a> The Nomination paper signed by Peloci and Germond<br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>It was this single document, signed and sworn by two honourable and upstanding ladies which verified Obama’s eligibility and which was used for the purposes of electing him as president.<br /><br />Once that document had been signed and sworn by Nancy and Alice there would be no reason for anyone to question it or to ask for sight of any other documentation. There is no requirement for the candidate to identify himself, he has already been identified and his eligibility verified by Nancy and Alice. Also, everyone knows who he is, or thinks they do.<br /><br />Once he is elected there is no requirement to identify himself before his inauguration, and once the guy has been made president who is going to ask to see his ID?.<br /><br />Even before he ran for president, it would have been entirely possible for Obama to get to where he was without ever having to prove who he was. In the real world where you and I live we need ID, but Obama operated in a rarefied, radical, left wing, anti-racist world where to ask a black person for proof of citizenship would be tantamount to heresy.<br /><br />Far be it from me to accuse Nancy and Alice of being anything other than entirely scrupulous with the truth, but apart from them, and the lady called Fukino from Hawaii, it really was not necessary for many people to know the facts or be involved in hiding them.<br /><br />Also given the congenital political correctness within the US political establishment it is not inconceivable for a bold sociopath with dark skin, a small group of enablers and a media which frantically wanted to believe, to go all the way to the top without ever having to prove who he is. People such as Bill Ayres, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel would know that and may well have exploited it.<br /><br />We can also be reasonably confident that almost everyone in the current administration views the "Natural born citizen" requirement to be a racist anachronism which should no longer be in the constitution (although they dare not say so) hence they probably don't view it as an issue and don't want to know.<br /><br />Therefore the argument that there would have to be vast numbers of people involved in the cover up is not necessarily true.<br /><br />5) The suggestion that the Clinton camp would have exposed him ignores the reality of Democrat politics. If Hilary Clinton had exposed a young black Senator and potential Presidential candidate as lying about his citizenship, the Democratic Party Convention would nave risen up as one and torn her to shreds. In addition she would have lost the black vote upon which any democratic politician depends.<br /><br />Mrs.Clinton could use Obama’s lack of experience against him, she could use his character and even his smoking but never under any circumstances could she use his race. To do so would end her career.<br /><br />6) And the passport, ah yes, the passport, suddenly when things are looking really grim, the Whitehouse decides to<a href="http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=7077"> release a bit of film</a> showing a slightly blurry image of part of the president’s passport (see the top of this posting). How very convenient. (Caution: those of a nervous disposition please note the film includes images of Elena Kagan)<br /><br />Those believers who, earlier this month were crowing about this image and claiming it was the “nail in the birthers coffin” exposed only how easily they are convinced, and how desperate they are to believe. Unfortunately for the believers if this image does anything it adds to the doubts surrounding Obama his integrity and his origins.<br /><br />Nobody doubted he had a passport, he would need one in order to visit all those Muslim countries he goes to in order to make speeches saying how wonderful Islam is and how much America has to apologise for. Diplomatic passports are issued automatically to US senators and it is not entirely clear what identity documents they have to produce in order to receive them. Did, for instance, Obama merely have to produce his famous “Certification of live birth”, or did they just take his word for where he was born?<br /><br />On the film his secretary says that she assisted him in completing an application for a “new” passport after he became President, therefore, he was already head of state when that passport shown on the film was issued. Does America really require its head of state to provide proof of identity before issuing him with a passport? Just how likely is that?<br /><br />Also, why does the film only show us part of the passport and why is the part showing the Issue date and expiry date redacted (blurred out) ..WHY? What exactly is the state secret about the issue date of the Presidents passport, or its expiry date?<br /><br />That is the only information which is blurred out, there is no other information in that section of the passport, so what's the secret? It does not make sense.<br /><br />Also, was it just me or did the section of the West Wing Week Film focusing on the birth certificate seem “staged”? Look at the hand movements of the young man who shows us the passport aren't they rather like someone playing a card trick? We see one bit, then another bit, then another bit, all very quickly and not very clearly, and then it was gone. Hmmmmmmmmmmm I think someone is taking the public for fools!!<br /><br />The passport most certainly does not answer questions, in fact it presents us with even more.<br /><br />During an interview on Monday, Obama rather lost his cool and, when asked again about the number of Americans who suspect he is a Muslim, snapped “I can't wander around with my birth certificate on my forehead!”. No, he doesn’t need to wear it, but he could at least release it, and let us be clear, it is he who is preventing its release.<br /><br />The state of Hawaii may be correct when they say they can only release the birth certificate to someone with what they call “a tangible interest in the vital record”. However, Barrack Obama is that person, they could legally release it to him, and he could release its publication, but instead he has paid out at least a million dollars preventing its publication.<br /><br />What is it he does not want the American public to see? Could it be that the original long form document does actually confirm that a Barrak Obama was born in Hawaii but is there some detail which might suggest the Barrak Obama in the White House is not the same person? We do not know because the document remains in the vault.<br /><br />There are other mysteries. We do not know in which Honolulu hospital the alleged birth took place, two different hospitals have at different times claimed to be the Presidents birth place, and then quietly withdrawn that claim. The birth was only 49 years ago, and although the doctor who delivered his is most likely dead or very old, attending nurses, midwives, orderlies and administrators would probably now only be in their 70's or 80's but none have come forward to say they were there. The birth would have been memorable, in 1961 a white woman giving birth to a black child was by no means as common as it is today.<br /><br />The birth certificate is not the only document which Obama refuses to release, amongst other things, he has not released his school records or his Columbia or Harvard records, although he is under no obligation to do so, previous Presidents have released this information, so the fact that Obama has not adds to the sense of secrecy and mystery surrounding the man who promised transparency during the election campaign.<br /><br />It is also odd that, whilst a number of classmates from his school days in Jakarta have come forward with anecdotes about him, whereas as I understand it almost nobody seems to recall him from Columbia or Harvard. That is, of course, not evidence of anything, it is somewhat unexpected however.<br /><br />In this article I have not sought to prove that President Obama was not born in America, I have no way of knowing whether he was or was not. To be honest I find the birth announcements in the 1961 Hawaiian newspapers hard to dismiss, whereas, on the other hand I can not believe that anyone would spend so much money in order to keep his original birth certificate private if there wasn't something to hide. I also find that the recent “peek-a-bo” release of images of the president's passport to be very suspicious and rather suggestive of desperation.<br /><br />So I am in two minds on the matter. I believe Obama may well be hiding something, but it may not be that he was born outside America.<br /><br />What I am seeking to demonstrate is that those who mock anyone who questions Obama's eligibility and claim the matter has been resolved are very wrong. The matter has most certainly not been resolved, very far from it.<br /><br />___________<br /><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"></span></a><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/">Click here to return to Sarah:Maid of Albion<br /></a><br /></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-25136839265508456112010-08-29T08:10:00.000-07:002010-08-29T16:03:05.737-07:00Standing on the Firm Ground of Ancestral Precedent<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglYBFNyX4oxf50i5cwgIr_eeZ0tdNN_6tT9i2DealmR7h7kmABPNLAeKzzDcxFwdO3-1XfrS6IjL76bvM2CeJ8f28DoF0eXzYxjonYUJDu4phUJEaUJN_7wRSx9Z7I-zhh3grbMbUmFYNb/s1600/Columns.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 299px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglYBFNyX4oxf50i5cwgIr_eeZ0tdNN_6tT9i2DealmR7h7kmABPNLAeKzzDcxFwdO3-1XfrS6IjL76bvM2CeJ8f28DoF0eXzYxjonYUJDu4phUJEaUJN_7wRSx9Z7I-zhh3grbMbUmFYNb/s400/Columns.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5510971148404093458" border="0" /></a><span><span style="font-size:100%;">By </span></span><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/search/label/Mister%20Fox">Mister Fox</a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span>T</span></span>he mainstream parties have bad images - treason, war crimes, corruption, sleaze but are part of the same elites as the media and hold the power. The corrupt MS politicians when exposed are so as individuals but in the case of un-orthodox parties individual cases of bad behaviour are generalised to dehumanise all the members.<br /><br />People are losing their trust in mainstream parties but they see BNP not as a saviour but a threat even while the country is being Balkanised! The elites call it ethnic cleansing when the wrong side like Serbs do it but when they do it to us they call it progress and dehumanise protesters as “racists” and “haters”.<br /><br />Of course the mainstream are going to oppose us and of course they are going to use their political power and influence on us but there is no need for the wider population to hate us. Our opposition to “race replacement”was the normal, natural way of thinking until Hitler made it look evil and barbaric and were seemingly unaware that we have a British tradition. Before Hitler the Conservative party was the national party and many Socialists were patriotic.<br /><br />Is nationalism facing the same difficulty which as after Thatchers comments that people were afraid of being swamped in 1979? Do people believe the Tories will address their concerns? In the late '70s and 1980s support which might otherwise have gone to nationalists certainly went to the Conservatives in particular areas like Essex and East London.<br /><br />It is different now. Immigration directly affects people in areas from Southern England to the north of Scotland in a way that it never did thirty years ago. An indirect effect of the new Tory government will be to galvanise a nationalist movement. The middle-aged and older, comfortably-off, disproportionately concentrated in the Home Counties may have to face reality now gypsies have preferential treatment over land in their areas and realise that a Tory-led government will also be biased against them whatever they say; radical imams are too threatening or taxes too high.<br /><br />In recent years the Tory party abandoned nationalism to promote Globalism. Its traditional supporters are still marooned. There is not a single Conservative councillor in Newcastle, Sheffield, Liverpool or Manchester and the party is hardly any better off in many other places while the working classes or most people in Scotland and Northern England will never be reconciled with them. Where the Liberal Democrats have become the main opposition to Labour they are likely to suffer a fall in popularity due to their coalition with the Tories at national level. Yet no organisation is capable of countering a proper critique of globalisation when we begin to offer a proper one.<br /><br />The Establishment isn't strong, it's weak, and hated by vast sections of the population, possibly a majority as we see from the turn out figures for General Elections, and the results; it has virtually no presence at street level, it's ideas are manifestly bankrupt and it has nearly destroyed our society, our economy and our culture. They only look good by comparison to the inadequates who have led radical nationalism.<br /><br />There is much call for a properly run party and even in its present ineptly run state the BNP got over half a million in the GE. For years polls have showed opposition to mass immigration. There was a poll that showed people agreed with our policies but when they found out which party had the policies would not support it. On the doorstep people tell activists they do not trust the leaders and they will not vote for Nazis. This is because they party was not positioned as the new Nationalist Conservative party, socially and culturally Conservative, but not economically. We should be the successors to the "Nationalist Conservatives" and develop to deal with contemporary issues. There are hard financial times coming because of the MS parties profligacy and we need economic policies to deal with this reality and give our people priority not immigrants.<br /><br />Please be aware - I am not talking about Civic nationalism, but proper nationalism only the traditional British sort not a foreign import. People from all walks of life have expressed concern at the dangers of trying to mix different types of people and the destruction of our identity. All have suffered and some have been openly persecuted. This is not a left versus right issue but common sense versus utopian idealism.<br /><br />I have prepared an overview of honourable politicians and mainstream people like academics, actors, popular entertainers who have voiced fears for the future. It is long and people do not have to plough through it but use it is a resource for research and examples. It shows that the way of thinking the state is bullying us into is perverse and that the instinct to conserve our homogeneity is the natural way for for all peoples.<br /><br />Edmund Burke defined a nation which involves a shared identity, history and ancestry, and continuity: “… it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” A racial world view is a traditional world view and goes back to Anglo-Saxon-Celtic tribal days.<br />The Myth of Racial Equality.<br /><br />Scottish Philosopher David Hume’s essay ‘Of National Character’.had an original 1753 footnote which read:<br /><blockquote>"I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation."<br /></blockquote>Historical figures and leading intellectuals. Elizabeth.1 in 1601 had the “Blackamoors””voided from the realm.” Edward Gibbon, the great historian of the Collapse of Rome, warned of a time hence when minarets would sprout amongst the spires of Oxford. G.K.Chesterton predicted war with Muslims in England in his novel The Flying Inn (1912).<br /><br />The myth of racial equality was also destroyed by Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in Chapter 24 of “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography”(1852): “The Jews...are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man. The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”<br /><br />Putting your own people first was It was the normal, natural view until Hitler.<br /><br />Three-times British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, on 24 May 1929, said: “…that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for our race.”<br /><br />Sir Winston Churchill wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.” Harold Macmillan entered in his diary for January 20th 1955: "More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan! The bill was not ready till June 1955, two months after Churchill had stood down. This is recorded in MacMillan's, “At the End of the Day.”<br /><br />Documents at the Public Records Office record the fifth Marquess of Salisbury: “... we are faced with a problem which, though at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon …With each year that passes, and with the general improvement with methods of transportation, the flow increases. Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time.” Letter to Viscount Swinton March 1954.<br /><br />The records also show Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) trying to bring common sense to bear on the matter. In a letter to Swinton 31/3/1954 wanting deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants, “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”He had a list of all restrictions imposed on Britons by other Commonwealth countries who refused to accept “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependants as he shall bring with him to the island”.Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission. Britain alone allowed anyone in!<br /><br />Enoch Powell refined his views in a speech to the Southall Chamber of Commerce on 4th November 1971, “Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him possession of his native land.”<br /><br />Cyril Osborne Conservative(Louth) began his campaign against immigration in 1954. The open entry to anyone was not brought under any control until the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961).At the second reading Osborne warned “that the world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.” We are seeing this now with boats leaving Africa for Europe. In March 1965 he told the House,”Our children and grandchildren will curse us for our moral cowardice.”<br /><br />Norman Pannell (C) Liverpool,proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries,. Only the U.K. let anyone in: “When I visited Nigeria two years ago as a Member of Parliament without ultimate responsibility for the affairs of that country, I was given an entry permit valid for 14 days and renewable subject to good behaviour.” He also addressed the 1961 conference and stated that Home Secretary Butler had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes, but no action had been taken.<br /><br />Harold Gurden(c) wrote to the Times of 13th December 1960: “On the health question we find the middle ring of the city (Birmingham), where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence.” In 2005 we were told that we now have a record number of TB cases and there are more in London than the usual breeding grounds of the disease abroad.<br /><br />In The Unarmed Invasion (1965) Lord Elton wrote, “We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.” In his autobiography, rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts that he saw in Jamaica for immigrants to come here and it was clear that they were being brought here as cheap labour.<br /><br />Peter Griffiths(c) Smethwick called for health checks on immigrants when he responded to a question in the local paper the “Smethwick Telephone”, “Immigration should be limited to those of sound health who have jobs and living accommodation arranged before they enter.” This was prescient as there was an outbreak of Typhoid in Smethwick in April 1965. In 1964 there had been uproar over the general election at Smethwick which Griffiths won against the trend on anti-immigration . A bomb was planted outside Griffith’s home on 26th October 1965 because of the way he had been de-humanised by press and politicians.<br /><br />In the debate on the 1968 Race Relations Bill Ronald Bell (c)(later knighted) argued that the bill was “very deep and damaging encroachments into the proper sphere of persons decisions.” (Hansard, 23/3/1968). In a speech “This Sceptred Isle” to W.I.S.E. at the National Liberal Club in 1981. We are well on the road back to “presentment of Englishry”, when in the days after the Norman Conquest that it was a defence to show that the injured person was only an Englishman.”<br /><br />In 1981 K.Harvey Proctor(c) announced the Conservative party Monday Club's official policy - to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. The forward to the document was by Sir Ronald Bell.<br /><br />Tony Marlowe MP in Northampton told the Oxford University Conservative Association in 1981, “Hordes of exotic invaders have flooded the continent (Europe) wishing to help themselves to the luxuries of Western living. Nowhere has the pressure been greater than in the United Kingdom. No country has been less prepared to stem the flow than our own. In this land which proclaims free speech free discussion has been stifled by humbug and by the censorship of an establishment unwilling to contemplate the radical cures which alone can reverse the tide.” “What would be unacceptable and should not under any circumstances be tolerated is a policy of suppression and inaction for no policy can be more calculated to bring about the racial holocaust which we should all so earnestly strive to avoid.”<br /><br />In 1993 the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, also called Winston, warned that in the north of England half the population was now Muslim and If our prime minister(Major) believes that 50 years hence “spinsters will still be cycling to Communion on Sunday morning” he had best think again. Rather, "the muezzin will be calling Allah's faithful to the High Street mosque" for Friday prayers. The Times (London) attacked him for a 'tasteless outburst.'" Mr. Churchill was viscously shouted down on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme by presenter John Humphrey’s in what was a despicable attack on an elected politician.<br /><br />John Townend(C) who wrote in 1991, that Government “ministers wanted to turn the British into a "mongrel" race and the Commission for Racial Equality should be abolished.” In 1989, he suggested deportation of Muslims who opposed Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, "England must be reconquered for the English".<br /><br />Another of Sir Winston’s grandsons, Nicholas Soames commented in the Commons. On July 17th 2007 he said, “foreign immigration is now 25 times higher than it has ever been in the past, … The sharp increase in immigration is no accident. To suggest, as Ministers do, that it is all a result of the fall of communism or of globalisation is, frankly, bizarre. The numbers point clearly to a massive increase since the present Government came to power in 1997. Part of the increase is due to their failure during their first five years in office to get a grip on asylum claims, of which more than 60 per cent. were eventually judged to be unfounded. Another part is due to their decision to allow a massive increase in work permits, which have trebled since 1997. At the same time, their decision in June 1997 to abolish the primary purpose rule has led to the number of spouses admitted to Britain doubling from 20,000 to 40,000 a year.” He was accused hysterically of getting his information from the BNP!<br /><br />In 2005 Lord Tebbit former chairman of the Conservative party told e-politix website , “Islam is so unreformed there have been no real advances in art, literature, science or technology in the Muslim world in 500 years, and multiculturalism was in danger of undermining UK society. In the 1980s he disputed the loyalty of immigrants who backed cricket teams from their countries of origin. He claimed if he had been heeded it might have stopped the London bombings. After which he declared that Enoch’s prophecies of racial civil war were right.<br /><br />Labour politicians have also spoken out for their people.<br /><br />Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 west Indians, J.D.Murray and ten other Labour MP’s wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx. Atlee replied, that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” There had been racial battles in 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff.<br /><br />The first actual debate on immigration was in the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1954 in a thirty-minute adjournment debate called by John Hynd Labour M.P. for Sheffield (Attercliffe). “One day recently 700 embarked from Jamaica without any prospect of work, housing or anything else.” He also said the colour bar in Sheffield dance halls because of knife fights was justified. Both Hynd and another Labour M.P. James Johnson called for a committee of enquiry to be set up. Henry Hopkinson(c), Minister of State at the Colonial Office admitted that he had received many letters from worried M.P.’s on both sides.<br /><br />In the Commons in December 1958 Labour’s Frank Tomney, remarked on elected representatives ignoring their constituents. “We have been sent here by the electorate to give expression to issues which concern them.” Fellow Notting Hill MP George Rogers (L) told the Daily Sketch of 2/9/58,” Overcrowding has fostered vice, drugs, prostitution and the use of knives.” James Harrison (L) from Nottingham also supported controls. Mr Tomney was a practical man of humble origins and understood his people, "I have come directly from the benches of a factory to the benches of the Commons". Tomney's defence of his young constituents in the House of Commons debate on the 1958 Notting Hill Race Battles, who were inaccurately represented by their lawyers, stitched up by the police and given excessive sentences by evil Judge Salmon. This was the most noble and heroic speech in the history of the House of Commons.<br /><br />In May 1976 with an influx of Malawi Asians into his Bermondsey constituency, Bob. Mellish, then Labours’ chief whip, told the Commons, “With 53 million of us we cannot go on without strict immigration control.”<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Prominent journalists. </span></span><br /><br />Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, produced Salisbury Paper 9 in 1981,”The Old People of Lambeth”. It was an empirical research into the real living conditions of “whites” rather than another abstract academic study. One elderly man told him, “…its our Queen and our country, why should we be afraid to go out?”<br /><br />Former Sunday Telegraph editor Sir Peregrine Worsthorne has written “even Hitler would not have treated ordinary people with such cruelty.”<br /><br />In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003 Sir Alfred Sherman, former senior advisor to Mrs Thatcher and leader writer on the Jewish Chronicle, recalled a friend in race relations had asked him to take a look at the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60’s, “ I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.”<br />Eminent legal minds.<br /><br />Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary was concerned about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives, “ I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”.(Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.) Incidentally, it was Radcliffe who coined the term often attributed to Enoch: “The alien wedge.”<br /><br />In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented,” It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.” (Guardian, 2 August 1969.)<br /><br />In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published “What Next In The Law”: "The English ....no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out."<br /><br />In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds, "Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people dare not go even with their cars... All immigration must stop... The country is full up. We don't want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life" (India Mail 02.03.95).Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.<br />There have also been scholars.<br /><br />Dr. John Casey who read a paper to the Conservative Philosophy Group which was also printed in the first issue of The Salisbury Review in Autumn 1982. “There is no way of understanding British and English history that does not take seriously the sentiments of patriotism that go with a continuity of institutions, shared experience, language, customs, kinship. There is no way of understanding English patriotism that averts its eyes from the fact that it has at its centre a feeling for persons of ones own kind.” Dr.Casey was persecuted. Marxist professor Terry Eagleton held rival English lectures, campus rent-a-mobs demonstrated and refused to attend his lectures and the Sunday Times of 1st December 1991 printed a photograph that made him look like a wizened crow!<br /><br />Professor Bob Rowbotham in the London Sunday Telegraph of 2 July 2006, referred to the motives of the elites, who were creating what Marx called “A reserve army of labour.”<br />The transformation of Southall was brought about by Wolf’s rubber factory encouraging workers from India.<br /><br />The Socialist intellectual David Goodhart in Prospects (March 1998), quoted Conservative M.P. David Willetts on the Welfare State: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn't do? … Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests... The traditional conservative Burkean view is that our affinities ripple out from our families and localities, to the nation and not very far beyond. That view is pitted against a liberal universalist one which sees us in some sense equally obligated to all human beings from Bolton to Burundi … .”<br /><br />Economist Professor Ezra Mishan exposed immigration as being about cheap labour in the Salibury Review in 1988: “Frequent claims that the new immigrants have in fact reduced the labour shortage in particular sectors of the economy – in particular, the apparent shortages of labour in transport, in nursing, and in what are popularly to be the more menial and less attractive occupations- are naïve. Managers of public services in Britain who, along with some private firms, sent agents to the West Indies in the 1950’s in order to recruit labour were only acting as good capitalists would in such circumstances – attracting lower-paid labour from outside their area in order to prevent wages from rising within it. If it was not for that wages would have risen.”<br /><br />Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, complained to a committee of MPs that it was hard to manage the economy when nobody knew how many people were in the country. .. Less privileged folk of his generation, for whose fears about the future he clearly has a patrician contempt, will pay a heavy price if our unprecedented experiment of mass immigration goes wrong.”<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Popular entertainers</span><br /></span><br />Morrisey complained that immigration had led to the loss of our identity in November 2007: “ British identity has disappeared because the country has been “flooded” by immigrants. He suggested to music magazine NME that immigration was one of the reasons he would not move back to Britain from America .<br /><br />Dame Shirley Bassey was quoted on The Voice of Reason blog as saying: “It's sad that they just let it (Britain) go to rack and ruin, Labour. How? Well, it's violent, isn't it? That's all we read in the papers and see on television”. Why does she think this has happened? "We're letting in too many people. We're an island, for God's sake. And the Britishness seems to have gawwwnnne."<br />Television and film personalities.<br /><br />The veteran Liberal broadcaster Ludovic Kennedy wrote in a book review for “The Oldie”, in January 2004, that there ”are too many black faces on TV, political correctness has got completely out of hand.” Sir Patrick Moore, the world renowned astronomer to remark “The more asylum seekers get the less there is for us.”<br /><br />Early in 2005, Welsh film star John Rhys-Davies who played Gimli in Lord of the Rings told “World magazine ”the Muslim birthrate is a demographic catastrophe, I think that Tolkein says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilisation.” Film star John Hurt praised Enoch: “I think he was just saying: We can’t afford to have any more.”<br /><br />The Sunday Times(London) June 11, 2006 reported that Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. He said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African “Barbary” pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries—a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flight. … “Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned … the process acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet.”<br /><br />The selfish middle classes wanting cheap labour and low restaurant bills are blighting their own children's prospects. Frank Field (L) told the panel on the Moral Maze In August 2006: “The sheer numbers and the attempt to close down the issue. He took the side of the poor natives and talked about this influx pushing down wages and people having to compete for homes. He commented that the panel are well-heeled and the ones who are getting cheap labour.<br /><br />Former MP George Walden (C ) told of how we are being replaced. Writing in the Times of 5th November 2006 Walden noted that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had announced some startling new figures: Britain was taking in 1,500 immigrants a day, while 1,000 Brits left.”<br /><br />In Time to Emigrate(Gibson square Books). Walden was writing advice to his son, who'd just said that he and his wife were thinking of emigrating. Their young son had been viciously beaten by a thug just yards from their front door. As the boy emerged from his coma, his thankful parents started to wonder just how safe their "safe" part of North London truly was.<br /><br />The book is criticism of immigration, not the immigrants themselves but the long term effect immigration is having on our people. It's not the immigrants he objects to bur the elites who are letting them in in such enormous numbers.<br /><br />We have a moral duty to ensure that our children and descendents receive their inheritance that was passed down from our ancestors not distribute it amongst immigrants and the rest of the world. The natural society is organic and evolves naturally among people who belong together. The living honour the dead by passing on what they have inherited to their children, but now we are perversely having our inheritance dissipated by the elites and shared with outsiders and the homes and jobs our children should have are taken by the people brought in as cheap labour.<br /><br /></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-24717626041714880272010-07-14T11:08:00.000-07:002010-07-20T10:50:25.000-07:00How Should We View the Jews?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV0c3G71HvPv8ttNpEEAxbd0xo6JkljuV2z9Nu_LsdywNRJPAaqZjbNCce8z2uboA1C8CXfWW5OUahoWoUVHeENxaGWmmrIMecZtYOqt73bFGLgM-AsxUBVemxnOe2nqZhHd2a5CBskL0l/s1600/Jewish_Menorah.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 288px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV0c3G71HvPv8ttNpEEAxbd0xo6JkljuV2z9Nu_LsdywNRJPAaqZjbNCce8z2uboA1C8CXfWW5OUahoWoUVHeENxaGWmmrIMecZtYOqt73bFGLgM-AsxUBVemxnOe2nqZhHd2a5CBskL0l/s400/Jewish_Menorah.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5493829128538267058" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/search/label/Dr%20D"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >By Dr.D</span></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">O</span></span>ne of the questions that arises repeatedly among those of us in the West is “how should we view the Jews?” Within ourselves, this is one of our most divisive questions, causing much internal strife within Western civilization today. There are so many ways to look at the Jews, that it becomes at times a bewildering task to sort them all out. For example, we can say, “the Jews are, taken all together, only a handful of people, scattered across the face of the earth, and persecuted in many places. How can we have anything but pity for the Jews?” At the other extreme, there are many (besides the muzlims) who say, “the Jews are the source of all of the problems of mankind; get rid of the Jews, and the world will be a better place.” In this latter camp are the proponents of the famous publication known as <span style="font-style: italic;">The Protocols of the Elders of Zion</span>, purporting to be the evil plans of the Jews. In the first group, we find most evangelical Christians, who say things like, “Jesus was a Jew, so how can we possibly think evil of the Jews?”<br /><br />All of us who live in Western society enjoy the benefits of a Judeo–Christian heritage, the direct result of the development of Christendom in Europe over the past two millennia. This is true for non–Christians as well as for Christians in Western society, because this is the basis for our civil law, our customs, every aspect of our culture is grown out of this background. In order to have a basis for an opinion about how we should view the Jews, we should first know something about them.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Who are the Jews?</span><br />We read in Holy Scripture that at the time the Lord God made the Covenant with Abram, giving him his new name Abraham, he also said in <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Genesis 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.</span> By the term, “the Jews,” we mean the “many nations,” the descendants of Abraham as promised by God through his son, Isaac. We might note, however, that in verse 20, God also promises to make of Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, a great nation which is where we get the Arabs. Thus the enmity and jealousy between the Jews and Arabs goes all the way back to this time.<br /><br />God gave the land of Palestine to Abraham and his descendants after him as their dwelling place, but if you know Bible history, it was not a smooth, simple occupation of their new home. Before too long, they suffered a 400 year captivity in Egypt as slaves of Pharaoh, King of the Egyptians. This ended when they were led out of captivity by Moses, who led them into the desert of Sinai, where he received the Law, the 10 Commandments directly from God on Mount Sinai as recorded in Exodus 20. Thus to be a Jew came to be one who followed the Law of Moses.<br /><br />Without going into any details, let it suffice to say that by about the 8th century BC, the once strong kingdom that had been created under the great king David at approximately 1000 BC, was by that time divided into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The nation had split right after the death of Solomon, son of David, and existed as two separate kingdoms for about 200 years. The Northern Kingdom consisted of ten out of the twelve tribes of Israel, while the Southern Kingdom had only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. In 721 BC, the Assyrians swept down from the north and annihilated the Northern Kingdom, This disbursed the peoples of the Northern Kingdom, the so–called 10 Lost Tribes of Israel, up into Assyria, Asia Minor, and some say on into Europe, the first diaspora of the Jews. But this does not mean that they left Judaism behind, only that it began to spread beyond the limits of Palestine.<br /><br />What was left, of course, was the now isolated Southern Kingdom of Judah that lasted another 133 years until 588 BC when it was defeated and the people were marched into exile in Babylon, another dispersion of the Jewish people. In 536 BC, Cyrus, King of Babylon, issued a command to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and this began the repatriation of many Jews. But as with any exile, not all returned, so once again, Judaism was spread outside the borders of Palestine.<br /><br />By the first century AD, there are estimated to have been 2 million Jews in Palestine, and some 5 million Jews living outside of Palestine throughout the Greco–Roman world.[1] The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, along with Masada and other Jewish strongholds will only change these figures by a few hundred thousand at most, probably much less. Thus we may conclude that by the time of Christ, we are talking about a rather large number of people scattered throughout the then known world, but all still practicing Judaism. Judaism is what makes a Jew, at least historically.<br /><br />By the time of Christ, Judaism had evolved into a considerably more complex affair than simply being a descendant of Abraham and a keeper of the 10 Commandments, although these were sort of the minimum requirements. By that time, a multitude of additional “laws” had been added to Judaism, giving it a very legalistic structure. Judaism at this time split into four identifiable parts:<br /><br />1. The party of the Sadducees who were primarily from the upper classes, very focused on the priestly activities associated with Temple worship, and located exclusively in Jerusalem.[2] They tended to have a fairly conservative outlook on Judaism itself, holding to the books of Moses while not acknowledging the Prophets, Wisdom or History books. On the other hand, they were very concerned that Temple worship not be interrupted, and thus were willing to accommodate the Roman government readily.<br /><br />2. The party of the Pharisees are well known to us through the Gospels for their intense focus on keeping all 613 points of the Jewish Law in every detail. The text of the Torah was the thing of central importance to the Pharisees, just as the Sadducees had been focused on the Temple.<br /><br />3. The Essene community was focused on religious purity, particularly purity of the land. They felt that the land was defiled by the presence of gentiles, the Romans, and they withdrew to the Qumran community and other similar sites to seek purification.<br /><br />4. The Zealots were very politically oriented, with kingship as their central symbol. They tended to plot revolution, overthrow of the Roman government, etc. because their focus was on the return of the worldly Davidic kingdom.<br /><br />While these several divisions are primarily associated with Judaism in Palestine, they extend to some extent outside there as well. With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, only one of these segments of Judaism had any real possibility of survival and that was the party of the Pharisees. The Sadducees were tied to the Temple in Jerusalem which had all been destroyed, the Essenes communities were wiped out and the land was even more “polluted” in their eyes by this massive new gentile force, and the hopes of the Zealots were completely dashed. It was only the Pharisees, who were tied only to the written word of the Law and could thus move and bend, who were able to survive. For this reason, most of Judaism as we have it today has its roots in the party of the Pharisees.<br /><br />It has been remarked that Judaism is what makes a Jew, but that requires a bit of qualification at this point. Historically the bare statement was unquestionably true as it stands, but today we have something new. We have two kinds of Jews; there are religious Jews (as you might expect), but there are also cultural, or secular Jews. The first are Jews who continue to follow the classic Jewish religion, in somewhat evolved forms, but still recognizable and traceable from the earlier forms.<br /><br />The modern secular or cultural Jews are people who claim a Jewish heritage, but follow little, or in some cases none, of the the actual Jewish religion. They still see themselves as Jews, they still cluster together and have all of the group characteristics, and they often will bring out some aspect of the Jewish religion at special times, such as for a wedding or a funeral. Otherwise, the actual religion means very little to them and they frequently eat pork and violate all of the other dogma of Judaism. Despite the lack of religious faith, they exhibit practically all of the other characteristic of all Jews.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why Do We Tend To Distrust The Jews?</span><br />One of the questions we ought to consider is just why do we distrust the Jews? On the face of it, it does not make much sense. Very few Jews are violent, very few Jews are known to steal, very few Jews engage in property damage or vandalism. So why do we distrust the Jews?<br /><br />Well, if we look just a little bit deeper, we find that Jews are well known for sharp business dealings, for taking advantage of the unsuspecting, for being “hard hearted” business men. Of course, there are countless many Gentile business men who could be accused of the same things, but somehow, the Jews have been particularly stigmatized in this regard. It is in the area of money and banking that the Jews are particularly frowned upon, since they are often associated with having financed many wars fought by nominally Christian countries. The banking organization associated with the Jewish family Rothschild is particularly blamed for this, many people saying that if the bankers had refused the finances, the wars would not have happened. The correctness of that assertion is debatable all day long. But it definitely causes people to look at this particularly very wealthy Jewish family and say, “they are just in it for the money; they do not care how many die.”<br /><br />But there is a much more significant cause for distrust than simply Jewish financial interests. As observed above, Judaism is what makes a Jew. This means that every Jew, no matter where he lives or what his citizenship may be, feels a strong bond with every other Jew. This is true to some extent with the members of every group, whether it be medical doctors, Roman Catholics, Freemasons, or Boy Scouts, ... or the Jews. But it has shown itself to be uniquely powerful through the ages in the case of the Jews. The Jews in every nation have maintained contacts with Jews in other nations, even in conflict with the interests of their host nations.<br /><br />Except in their own nation state of Israel, Jews have always been in the minority wherever they have lived. Thus they have always thought in terms of survival tactics. On the one hand, that is understandable, but when we as Gentiles look at that, we realize that they are talking about the survival of Jews, not the survival of our nations. The two may be quite different, and that causes us a lot of concern. What is good for the individual Jew, or for a group of Jews, may be deadly for our nation. And we must remember that Jews always see themselves as Jews first, and only secondarily as citizens of whatever nation they may belong to. Thus the Jews are seen as always being potential fifth columnists within our society. It is inherent in who they are. How can you trust someone like that?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">But Are Jews Really Like That?</span><br />Many Jews seem like fine people, people that you can trust and have fair, open honest dealings with every day. How can we suspect a whole people?<br /><br />As a boy, many long years ago, I lived down the street from the family of an Orthodox Rabbi. I often played with one of their sons. On several occasions, on Friday evenings, Mrs. Geller asked me to come into her kitchen to light the gas cook stove for her so she could warm the evening meal for the family. It was a simple matter of striking a match, turning on the gas, and waiting a moment for the flame to catch, but she could not do this because the Sabbath had begun and she could do no work on the Sabbath. She could not do it, but she saw no problem with asking a goy child to do it. She, a member of the Chosen People, could not do this because it violated one of the 613 points of the Pharisaic Law, but she saw no harm in asking me, one of the non–chosen and therefore expendable people, to do this because she was sure I was of no concern anyway. Thus reasons my friend the orthodox Jewish housewife! In the eyes of the Jews, they alone are the elect of God, they alone will be saved, and the rest of us really do not matter at all.<br /><br />One of the most prominent Jews in modern American life is Dr. Henry Kissinger. He has held important positions within the US government, most particularly Secretary of State as well as advisor to several Presidents, etc. He is seen by many as a true public servant, but how well has he really served American national interests?<br /><br />In January, 1973, in the effort to bring the Viet Nam war to an end, Kissinger was the principal peace negotiator for the US in Paris leading to the Paris Peace Accords. One of the several terms of those accords was this:<br /><br /><blockquote>As soon as the ceasefire is in effect, U.S. troops (along with other foreign soldiers) would begin to withdraw, with withdrawal to be complete within sixty days. Simultaneously, U.S. prisoners of war would be released and allowed to return home. The parties to the agreement agreed to assist in repatriating the remains of the dead.</blockquote>While it is certainly true that some American POWs were released and returned home under this agreement, it appears fairly certain that not all were.<br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/24dyajb">http://tinyurl.com/24dyajb</a><br /><br />It appears that a substantial number of the POWs, perhaps a third or more of the total, were kept behind by the Communists for some unknown purpose, perhaps as an intended bargaining chip for some future purpose. That purpose seems to have never materialized, but these men have been simply abandoned by the American government, even though their existence is definitely known. While it would be wrong to try to pin this exclusively on Henry Kissinger, it seems that he would surely be one of those involved in the decision to abandon these men. He negotiated the treaty, and he was the premier Presidential advisor at the time. This is truly shameful in the extreme.<br /><br />In September, 1976, Kissinger played a major role in the downfall of Rhodesia by employing the international political influence of the United States to bring about the end of White minority rule there. He soon thereafter applied similar influence to pressure South Africa in the same way. In both of these countries, the result has led to the genocide of White people and the destruction of those nations as functioning societies. It is very difficult to argue that this served American interests in the world.<br /><br />As a final comment on Henry Kissinger, let me remark that he is a regular participant in the Bilderberg Group which is known to support world government (even though they say that is not their primary goal). Kissinger has thrived personally in America (he was born in Germany), but has he served America well? I think there is reason to question this. His concerns seem to be much more international than American. That comes close to treason.<br /><br />Let me discuss one other specific Jew who has been somewhat visible in American life recently. This is Sholom Rubashkin, a late middle aged rabbi from New York City who served as CEO for a family owned slaughter house in Postville, IA. Around 2003, this plant and one in Nebraska were monitored by undercover agents for the USDA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The result was a finding that the slaughter houses were in gross violation in the way that they were killing the animals. This is described in stomach churning detail at the following site:<br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2hmjrk">http://tinyurl.com/2hmjrk</a><br /><br />More recently, in May of 2008, the Postville plant was raided in a search for illegal aliens. It was a highly successful raid and quite a large group were rounded up for deportation. Many more likely escaped but are thought to have self–deported to avoid being caught. It develops that Rubashkin was apparently fully aware of the illegal status of many of his employees. He did not pay them all of their wages, and they had to continue to work in the hope to collect in dribbles what they were owed. He was charged and convicted and is now in jail. This is described at the following URL:<br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2bopq73">http://tinyurl.com/2bopq73</a><br /><br />One of the very interesting aspects of Sholom Rubashkin, and the reason I bring him up, is to show something about Jewish thought in such situations. Here is a highly educated man, a rabbi, an American citizen from New York City, essentially in exile in the sticks in small town Iowa where he is compelled to run the family business. But when things get sticky, when it looks like the law is going to come down hard on him, where does he plan to go? Well, when he was taken into custody, he was carrying a large amount of money in cash in a suitcase with his passport, and it appears that he was headed to Israel. By the Jewish state’s Law of Return, any Jew can come to Israel at any time, so he would have had a nice, secure place to hang out and watch the sun set over the Mediterranean and forget about the corn fields of Iowa and all of those wetbacks. Gentiles don’t have that option, but Jews do.<br /><br />Rather than talk about individual Jews, what about Jews at large, specifically the modern nation state of Israel? How have they acted towards the US? Are they not considered one of our best long term allies? Well, yes, but ...<br /><br />On the afternoon of 8 June 1967, the USS Liberty was attacked and severely damaged by Israeli jet aircraft while operating in the Mediterranean Sea in international waters off the Sinai. The Liberty was an intelligence gathering ship, covered with antennas, very lightly armed. The attack occurred during the Six Day War between Israel and her Arab neighbors, but it was definitely not a case of mistaken identity. Intercepted radio signals between the pilots and their ground controllers show the pilots reporting that the Liberty was an American ship, clearly flying the US flag, and the ground controllers saying to attack anyway.<br /><br />The heat seeking missiles used by the Israelis went straight for the radio antennas, and quickly knocked them all out, except for one antenna that had not been in use. The Liberty was able to put that one antenna back into service and get out a distress call to the carrier USS America that was operating elsewhere in the Med, and fighters were scrambled to come to the aid of the Liberty. Word got back to Washington where LBJ and his Cabinet quickly met and called back the fighters, leaving the Liberty defenseless, an act of great treachery, the sort of thing one might expect from Lyndon B. Johnson.<br /><br />After the air attack ended, the Israelis sent torpedo boats to the area and fired several torpedoes into the Liberty. They also sent helicopters to shoot up life rafts to try to assure that there were no survivors, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. The USS Liberty did not sink. There were 34 crewmen killed and 173 were wounded, but the ship sailed away to a safe harbor.<br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/louzdo">http://tinyurl.com/louzdo</a><br /><br />The full story on the Liberty has only come out within the past few months. The cover–up in the US was massive, involving many government officials and top military brass, all of which is utterly shameful. But the original aggressive action here, the case of this great loss of life, was the Israelis who wanted that ship sunk. We don’t know to this day what the USS Liberty had that was of such value to the Israelis. We can speculate that the Liberty may have monitored some Israeli activity during the Six Day War that they did not want known. But they did not hesitate to kill our seamen and try to sink our ship in order to achieve their goals, whatever they were. They are that sort of friends.<br /><br />One other comment about how the nation of Israel has acted will probably be sufficient. It is well established that Israel has done spying on the US in just exactly the same manner as have the Russians, the Red Chinese, etc. We know also, that even though we give them massive amounts of money as foreign aid, significant amounts of that money come right back to the US as bribes to try to influence particular members of Congress to secure particular actions. These do not seem like the actions of a true friend, the sort of person one can really trust.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">So, How Should We View The Jews?</span><br />As the Judeo–Christian West, I think that there are several things we can say about how we have to look at the Jews.<br /><br />1. We should see the Jews in some ways like we see the Muzlims; they are always different from us.<br />There is an “otherness” about both Jews and Muzlims that makes them eternally different from us as Western people. We are very foolish if we fail to recognize it. They both have a heritage that takes them both back thousands of years, all the way back to the Patriarch Abraham, and sets them apart from all of the other peoples of the world. They are conscious of this, aware of this, and we must be also.<br /><br />2. We should see the Jews as people we can often deal with productively, unlike the Muzlims.<br />The “otherness” of the Muzlims shows itself largely in a completely perverse nature making it impossible to have any enduring productive relation with them. This is assured by their own Koran that enjoins them not to form friendships with non-muzlims. With Jews on the other hand, there are no fundamental barriers to good working relations, although sometimes things are strained. In most cases, however, Jews and Gentiles have been able to work together in the world of work without conflict.<br /><br />3.We should remember that the Jews do not see the world through Western eyes.<br />This comment requires some qualification in that, many modern Jews do see the world to some extent through Western eyes. Many of them have been educated in the West, in Europe and the US, so they have Western cultural values to a large extent. On the other hand, many of the Jews in Israel have come from Poland, Ukraine, and Russia and do not have very Western views at all.<br /><br />4. We should generally be supportive of the Jews, in an arms–length sort of way, realizing that they are not, and never will be, us.<br /><br />It is delusional to think that Jews will ever be one with us, so while we should wish to be supportive, we have to realize that their interests are not entirely aligned with our own and they will always act in their own interests, not ours; remember the USS Liberty. It is foolhardy to let Jews into our key leadership positions for this very reason. They will always act as Jews first, and as citizens second.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion</span><br />Our view of the Jews needs to one of cautious, somewhat distant, friendship. It needs to be always conscious of their otherness and their own awareness of that fact. We need to be supportive, but not too trusting. It is very important for the Jews to have a homeland of their own, because truly they do not really belong in ours. By this I do not propose the expulsion of the Jews, but I do mean that they should not be trusted with the essential elements of Western society. They are not us.<br /><br />References<br /><br />1. <span style="font-style: italic;">Early Christianity: The Experience of the Divine</span>, Prof. L.T. Johnson, lecture transcript, vol. 1, p. 103<br /></div><br />2. <span style="font-style: italic;">ibid</span>, p. 120.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD ARE NOW CLOSED</span>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-52842311583948804922010-04-12T11:59:00.000-07:002010-04-12T13:08:26.912-07:00Conservative Party Cowardice - An analysis by Frank Ellis<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRPGHkDylkdLJmoPA5IvD0-TDmDmHgDLGCJbbRdcc1r4KZhnmDHOx3lZcMTP5PyJyHfjezejWFMXZtVoSgLN7sQMJYZ2QJU2g_oEBtaDDYGbIaxdv9cU9m4aPCIRQYAt0YFkVMpRM4cKX5/s1600/Tory_hang.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 277px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRPGHkDylkdLJmoPA5IvD0-TDmDmHgDLGCJbbRdcc1r4KZhnmDHOx3lZcMTP5PyJyHfjezejWFMXZtVoSgLN7sQMJYZ2QJU2g_oEBtaDDYGbIaxdv9cU9m4aPCIRQYAt0YFkVMpRM4cKX5/s400/Tory_hang.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5459327739918158946" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Treacherous, Cowardly, Dishonest<br />and Destroying Our Nation: </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Nothing British or Conservative about<br />David Cameron’s Party </span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>You treated your conscience to a dose of guilt and then prayed to someone or other that things would stay the way they were as long as they could. That’s where you went wrong. You should have held fast to your Western contempt. It might have steeled you against disaster. Because that’s what’s brewing for you now, my friend, and you can’t do anything about it. When all is said and done, it will serve you right, and no one will stand up and fight it. Not even your own. Which just goes to show what a decadent lot you really are.<br /><br />Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints (1973)<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">Frank Ellis © 2010<br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" ><br />U</span>ntil very recently the Conservative Party used to believe that its elected members of parliament were charged with a solemn duty to advance Britain’s interests and to protect Britain’s territorial, economic, racial, legislative and political integrity from hostile forces, internal and external. That is no longer the case. What is now quite clear is that the Conservative Party, in pursuit of some Neo-Marxist multiracial utopia, has abandoned its allegiance to the British nation state, the monarchy, the nuclear family, the parochial, and above all to the idea that Britain as a white, north-west European nation is worth preserving. The Conservative Party’s open espousal of the viciously anti-white, racist doctrine of multiculturalism is in fact the most obvious and striking symptom of its moral and intellectual decay. Given that one of the central fallacies on which multiculturalism is based is that all races and cultures are the same then, according to this doctrine, no primacy or superiority can be attached to any indigenous population (only applies to white people): all are equal in ability and potential (though non-whites are recognised to be the bearers of unique spiritual and other intangible benefits which whites are duty bound to accept); all are to be globalised and standardised (though non-white indigenous peoples must be protected and nurtured, whereas whites are to become globalized helots). If you believe in the cult of multiculturalism you are: (i) not a conservative in any tradition, certainly not in any tradition derived from the thought of Burke, Disraeli, Salisbury and Powell; and (ii) you are unfit for any high office let alone worthy of becoming the Queen’s First Minister.<br /><br />One consequence of multiculturalism is that the white population, the people who can rightly claim this land as theirs, are now expected to act and to speak in ways that demonstrate their support and commitment to multiculturalism. In other words, whites, as victims of these ugly policies, policies espoused by Labour and which will be continued if the Conservative Party wins the general election, must show support for something which actively encourages their racial and cultural dispossession. If they cannot bring themselves to state the vile lie – “diversity is our strength” – they must at the very least eschew any public criticism of the ethnic cleansing of whites, especially if they work in the Macphersonised public sector.<br /><br />Since 1997 the changes affecting Britain as a direct consequence of the imposition of the doctrine of multiculturalism have been deep and far-reaching. They have changed this country overwhelmingly for the worse. The Conservative Party has done nothing to stop this Soviet-style agenda from being imposed. When, in the aftermath of the publication of the Macpherson Report (1999), the police were targeted and accused of being institutionally racist, William Hague, whose favourite pose is that of a straight talker, accepted the report’s findings in full. Later, during the 2001 general election campaign, when the outgoing Conservative Member of Parliament for East Yorkshire, John Townend, highlighted his constituents’ justified fears over mass immigration, Hague denounced him.<br /><br />At every stage in this Labour government’s attempts to impose multiculturalism on Britain, the Conservative Party has connived and colluded with Labour. The Conservative Party has had endless opportunities to highlight the Neo-Marxist, politically-correct terror which has infected our society, yet it has done nothing. The odd Conservative MP might come out with the cliché - “this is political correctness gone mad” - just to give the impression to beleaguered constituents that he understands their concerns when some spiteful council decides to ban the flying of the England flag on 23rd April, but he does nothing. When teachers, university lecturers, police officers and nurses have been isolated and attacked often for completely harmless remarks, the Conservative Party remained silent. And let me remind Cameron of the way he treated Patrick Mercer, a former army officer, his erstwhile front bench spokesman on defence. When Mercer pointed out some of the facts of life in the British Army on race and race-related matters Cameron sacked him. Cameron does not deserve good people like Mercer. Sacking Mercer was all about playing to the gallery and demonstrating Cameron’s commitment to the poisonous cult of anti-racism: it was an act of cowardice. I can only hope that Mercer will refuse any post he might be offered in the future.<br /><br />Multiculturalism has not led to the creation of some rainbow-coloured utopia in Britain. On the contrary, it has inflicted enormous damage: alienation, hypocrisy and isolation; bureaucratic and legislative creep; crime; diversity-damage; overpopulation and overcrowding; and the persecution of dissenters in ways that are all too redolent of the former Soviet Union and East Germany.<br /><br />Alienation, hypocrisy and isolation arise from the fear of saying what you think. A country in which you feel unable to say what you really think because you are too frightened or where you are not sure whether your interlocutor can be trusted is well on the way to losing its freedom. When people no longer trust one another the ties of genuine community, as opposed to the unctuous, ingratiating version peddled by the BBC, Hollywood and diversophiles, are dissolved and with them society. One consequence of this is that individuals look to the state for the solution to all their ills when the state has been the architect of their alienation and isolation from one another. This incidentally is also a characteristic of a totalitarian state. Even when people know that multiculturalism hurts them and their country, they cannot bring themselves to admit it and act accordingly. Here are some examples which I have logged over the last fifteen years or so.<br /><br />In 2001, there was a huge increase in street muggings most of which were to do with the theft of mobile phones. One Monday morning, just before I was due to take a class at Leeds University, one of my female students turned up in a very bad state. Her clothing was dishevelled and face covered in tears. She also had all the makings of a nasty black eye. I did all I could to cheer her up. When she had stopped sobbing I asked her what had happened.<br /><br />I learned that when she was walking into the University across Hyde Park, she was attacked. I asked who attacked her. “Just kids”, she replied. I felt she was being somewhat evasive. When I put it to her that she had been mugged by a gang of feral blacks she replied: “Yes, yes, but I’m not racist”. It turned out that the same girl had been badly beaten up by three big black girls in London some six weeks prior to the attack in Leeds. Note her inability psychologically to defend herself. It was if she felt guilty about what had happened. Here is another example. A student came to see me. She told me that she was not up to lessons. I asked why. On the day before she had arrived back in Leeds from London. Just outside the immediate precinct of Leeds Station she stopped to phone her mother to let her know that she had arrived. While on the phone she was punched in the face by a black mugger who stole her mobile phone. She related this incident quite calmly. When I pointed out to her that a lethal response would have been entirely appropriate had she been armed, she wandered off into a mini-tirade about “racism”. The truly alarming thing about these two incidents is not the physical assaults on two innocent young women – bad enough - but the utterly disturbing reaction of the victims themselves to what had befallen them: no healthy, normal and rational desire to see the perpetrators of these attacks punished just utter fear that any remarks that were in anyway critical of the attackers would be construed as “racism”. Relentless multicultural brainwashing in our primary and secondary education sectors is responsible.<br /><br />A few years ago a favourite trick of Asian criminals and thugs in Leeds and Bradford - believe it or not Mr Cameron they do exist - was to use taxi drivers to help them rob students. The robbery works as follows. White students hire a taxi late at night. As the taxi departs the driver, an Asian of some description, speaks on his radio or mobile (in some alien, non-English tongue). What he is doing in fact is to inform some accomplices of the drop off point. The taxi reaches its destination. The student pays, steps out and makes his way home. The taxi departs. Two or three individuals exit the second car. They threaten the hapless student with a knife, forcing him into their car. They drive to Bradford. The student is forced to draw money out of an ATM. As long as he does as he is told he is unharmed, physically at any rate. He is then stripped naked and abandoned. This actually happened to one of my students in March 2000. He was markedly reluctant to acknowledge the racial dimension or even to concede that he had been the victim of a racial assault. It was striking how so many people tried to play down the fact that the attackers were Asians. One can take it absolutely for granted that had the victim been black or Asian and had the attackers been white, the cries of “racism” would have been deafening. Here is one final example from a member of the Leeds faculty. She told me that she had moved from Bradford to York. I asked her why: “I want a better education for my children”. I “deconstructed her discourse”, like one does in these circumstances: “You”, I replied, “do not want your child to be taught in a school where the majority do not speak English because you fear – quite rightly – that this will damage your child’s education”. Her predictable - and utterly cowardly - reaction: “Yes, but I’m not racist”.<br /><br />The examples I have just cited – I could cite more – highlight what for me is the most sinister and alienating aspect of multiculturalism, not the all too obvious and complete failure of multiculturalism, but rather the huge differences between what people say publicly regarding multiculturalism and what they believe and say among a trusted circle of friends (just like the old Soviet Union by the way). I note for example that many of the people who tell me that “diversity” is a good thing avoid this same “diversity” at every opportunity. They flee the inner city to lily-white neighbourhoods or the shires, they marry whites and they socialise with whites. And outside of work they avoid non-whites at all costs. All very sensible, yet very few will openly admit that they do not want to live among blacks and other non-whites. This is one reason why all government attempts to promote racial mixing in housing – and if any government thought it could get away with it to compel the same – are doomed to failure.<br /><br />When you press people about why they make changes in their lives, you tend to get coded responses: “quality of life”, “better education”, “too crowded in London” and “too much crime”. The common denominator is mass, non-white immigration. My quality of life is not improved when we allow immigrants from Africa and Islamic terror groups to come and live here. Nor is it right to allow alien and barbarous practices such as arranged marriages and female circumcision in this country. The education of white English children manifestly suffers if a critical mass of the children consists of immigrants who cannot speak English and who hate us. Mass legal/illegal immigration means that London and other cities are overflowing with people, one reason why there is a housing crisis in London and the south-east of England. The conclusion is quite clear: England is being overwhelmed by legal and illegal immigration and in the process England is being sacrificed so that a corrupt and cowardly political class can act out its racial and social engineering policies.<br /><br />Hypocrisy on the part of the white middle classes is nothing new. Labour politicians who extolled the virtues of the working class and sought to destroy grammar schools and private schools made very sure that their children did not attend what one of Blair’s aides referred to as “bog standard comprehensives”. No, no, their children went to good fee-paying schools and from there to a good university. At every stage, as their children transited the primary, secondary and tertiary education system, the parents who loudly proclaimed their love of “diversity” took all possible measures to ensure that their progeny were, as far as possible, insulated from this wonderful gift of “diversity”. Bog standard comprehensives – the description is all too accurate – overflowing with immigrant children, the dreadful cacophony of alien tongues, freakish behaviour and clothing, lack of order, drugs, savagery, racial violence directed at whites and abysmal educational standards, were for the “masses”, as it were, emphatically not for all the Jemimas, Kates, Charlottes, and Williams, Bens and Joshuas.<br /><br />Politicians of the two main parties know full well that they have no mandate for just letting our country be invaded and destroyed by high levels of legal/illegal immigration. In the first instance they have tried to make a case for the high levels of legal/illegal immigration, arguing that we benefit from it. They have failed, and they know they have failed. No one has ever explained to us, to me, how Britain benefits from allowing our inner cities to be overrun by hundreds of thousands of the Third World’s unemployed and unemployable. Take a look at France’s inner cities. What possible benefits does any white indigenous majority derive from its being racially and culturally dispossessed? When I walk the streets of a major British city observing and hearing the presence of thousands of aliens I do not feel “enriched”. Low-skilled, uneducated immigrants are a massive burden on our country. Sheer numbers are the problem. They bring cruel and bizarre cultural and religious customs with them and diseases - tuberculosis being one – which had long been eradicated, or so we believed, until we allowed the non-white legal/illegal immigrant invasion. Nor, for the avoidance of doubt, do I wish to be invaded by high-skilled, white immigrants either: Britain is full.<br /><br />No person, apart from Third World immigrants themselves and some diversophile extremists really believe that mass non-white immigration is good for Britain. Again, if people really believed that “diversity” was such a wonderful gift, they would not flee it at every opportunity and, of course, they would be demanding lots more of it. Or they might go and live the “diversity” dream in some of Britain’s cities or better still in Botswana, South Africa or Zimbabwe. The key to understanding what people really think and believe is to examine their behaviour rather than paying any regard to their ritual uttering of slogans: “diversity is our strength” and “vibrant multicultural inner city”. When diversophiles who have moved from London to the Somerset levels nevertheless insist that “diversity” is a very nice thing, this is another example of a white who wants to believe in the cult but has come up against the brutal, Third World squalor of London and cannot take it anymore. Something gives. Perhaps he has been mugged by some immigrant from Somalia or his daughter has had to fend off the unwelcome attentions of under age sexual predators at her “bog standard comprehensive”. Or maybe his wife was on her way home on the tube when she saw a gang of blacks threaten a well dressed young man – let’s assume he was an up and coming lawyer – and then stabbed him. His wife was so traumatised by what she saw that she has never travelled on the tube again: she has nightmares; she cannot concentrate at work; she cannot stand it any longer; she delivers her husband an ultimatum: we are leaving London. They move and then she is assailed by guilt. She has always considered herself fairly liberal. One of her friends on hearing that she and her husband had left London told her: “Well, Claire, I never would have guessed you were a racist”. Guilt gnaws away at her, but, encouragingly, there are signs of rebellion. She now starts to see news items in a different way. One day she meets some bloke called Frank in a pub. Frank loves his country and fears for its future. (Frank’s views are, well, frankly hellish). Frank asks her how long she has been living in the village: “Oh just a couple of months, we’ve moved from London”. Frank smells blood. “All that diversity in London got too much for you did it?” Claire cannot help herself: “But that’s racist, how can you say that? My husband and I both think that immigrants add something to our culture”. “Really”, Frank replies, “is that why you’ve done a runner then sweetheart?” Claire is confused, angry: “How dare you call me sweetheart, it’s sexist. It’s the intolerance of racists like you that causes all the problems”. Claire is, of course, intellectually brilliant: she has a first class degree in gender and Sapphic studies and Ebonics and her behaviour is consistent with the indoctrination she received at university (formerly a squalid, polytechnic and a now a squalid, and soon to be bankrupt, “new university”). Terence was right: truth breeds hatred. I have met hundreds of people like Claire. Universities, even proper ones, seethe with such hypocrites. Should I despise their disgusting hypocrisy or should I understand that they are weak, ovine, easily led and frightened and make allowances?<br /><br />Bureaucratic and legislative creep is another destructive consequence of too many racial groups (races) and cultures resident in the same jurisdiction. Societies which are racially homogenous (if they do have racial minorities, they are very small minorities) and, as a consequence, share a great many cultural and ethical assumptions, can leave many areas of their citizens lives unregulated. There is an acceptance that many areas of a person’s life, subject to his obeying the law, are off limits to the state and its agencies. Such a society is blessed. Multiculturalism which is inimical to the liberal-democratic notion of society – the combination of “multicultural” and “society” is an oxymoron – creates tensions, pressures and resentments, which can only be resolved by the introduction and enforcement of harsh legislation. In fact the problems created by a policy of multiculturalism are never resolved – they are insurmountable – and what appears to the legislator and bureaucrat to be a solution is merely another layer of problems. Recommendation 12 of the Macpherson Report defines a racist incident as follows: ‘A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. When just about anything can be construed as “racism”, people will certainly be careful about what they say but the sensible response in order to avoid any chance of one’s being targeted is to avoid members of racial minorities altogether. White flight is just one symptom. This weakens any notion of society and certainly does nothing to promote “community”. More commissions are created and more inquiries are held to ascertain why racial and cultural minorities refuse to integrate and why whites are running away. The result is more punitive and unwieldy legislation all in the name of “diversity” that apparently highly desirable yet permanently elusive good.<br /><br />Multiculturalism has resulted in a huge increase of violent crime, much of it on a scale quite unknown in this country prior to the advent of mass immigration, especially non-white immigration. Gun and knife crime in our big cities is largely, but not exclusively, a black problem. Wherever there are large concentrations of blacks, there is more crime, of all kinds, but especially violent crimes. This pattern can be observed worldwide. The less intelligent who find it almost impossible to hold down a regular job - and for whom in any case there may be no jobs - seek status and rewards through crime and rapine. The glorification of gun crime, drugs and casual savagery exert an especially toxic effect on the low IQ black teenager who lacks the intellectual resources and self-restraint to resist the blandishments of rap and hip hop. The message of rap is very simple: if you want her, take her; if you want something, take it; if someone shows you disrespect, kill them. Huge swathes of our inner cities are now lost to this Third-World barbarism. There is nothing here, absolutely nothing, to celebrate. That such a situation obtains in our inner cities bespeaks the cowardice of politicians and public sector agencies who have refused to acknowledge the gruesome reality. It should also be a matter of utter shame to our politicians; that means people like you Mr Cameron, your oleaginous confidant and black-crime denier, Boris Johnson and your supporters in the BBC and other left-wing media, which either from ideological conviction or from intellectual and moral cowardice, have refused to report the true state of affairs. As black lawlessness becomes ever more the norm in our inner cities, spilling out into the suburbs, white flight will continue relentlessly.<br /><br />Diversity is a neo-Marxist concept which destroys any real sense of community. In order to impose the artificial construct of diversity on the unwilling indigenous white population, diversophiles and xenophiles seek to undermine the English language, the teaching of British history, our institutions and culture. The following examples – a very small sample it must be added - illustrate the ideologically corrupting influence on language of the diversophile agenda. The words that diversophiles have sought to replace are in brackets: “Gender” (“sex”); “gay” (“homosexual”); “faith community/school” (“religious denomination”/ “religious school”); “young people” (“teenager”); “asylum seekers” (“illegal immigrants”); “hate crime”/”racist” (“rational objection to some part of the diversophile/xenophile agenda”); and “militant” (“terrorist”). In all these examples the intention is to deceive. Diversity itself also hides a multitude of cruel and barbarous customs: voodoo and eating human body parts, usually as part of primitive African rituals; importing rare animals; arranged marriages; threatening to murder people who write books that offend Muslims (The Satanic Verses, 1988); murdering people who publicly attack multiculturalism (Pim Fortuyn and Van Gogh in Holland); female circumcision; and intermarriage among close relatives.<br /><br />Mass legal and illegal immigration lead to overpopulation and overcrowding which destroy amenity, denude water resources and lead to the loss of valuable open spaces as a consequence of high density housing (often very expensive and of very poor quality). Mass immigration overwhelms the National Health Service, despite the huge sums of money that have been allocated to this part of the public sector since 1997. I bitterly resent having to pay taxes so that immigrants can come to this country and receive subsidies to implement their aggressive and biologically delinquent, personal breeding programmes. Polygamous breeders can stay in Nigeria.<br /><br />Persecution of those who publicly dissent from the view that diversity is a blessing is now well established in the United States, Australia and Britain. The internal and practical contradictions of multiculturalism, widely perceived, mean that there is enormous and growing opposition to multiculturalism. In the aftermath of the Islamic terrorist atrocities of 11th September 2001 and the 7th July 2005, even government ministers realized that something was badly wrong. Nevertheless, at all levels in our education system, social services and policing the rule is that individuals who speak out against multiculturalism and the mindset of political correctness can expect to be punished. There can be no doubt that the decision to prosecute - to persecute - members of the British National Party (BNP) because the party highlighted some of the less attractive features of Islam was politically motivated and taken at the highest levels of government. If the intention was to break the BNP it clearly failed. The testimony of the two defendants was a master class in the dangers facing Britain. That both defendants were unanimously acquitted on all ten charges was indisputably a major victory for free speech and the truth.<br /><br />Some idea of Cameron’s deep-seated hatred of truth tellers is evident in remarks he made about Griffin at a recent Conservative Party conference. Cameron referred to Nick Griffin MEP as ‘a ghastly piece of filth’. This is an appalling way to speak about an elected official. Moreover, it is highly inflammatory. It is the sort of language that will be heard by some Islamic fanatics who will interpret these cowardly and intemperate remarks as tacit incitement to murder Nick Griffin. I expect such remarks from aliens such as Trevor Phillips, Bhikhu Parekh and Dianne Abbot. However, I do not expect, nor do I wish to hear such language from the leader of the opposition and a potential prime minister of Britain. Nick Griffin has a wife and children. I hope Cameron’s words never come back to haunt him. Cameron would do well to offer Nick Griffin an unreserved and public apology.<br /><br />Supporters of the Conservative Party and David Cameron’s espousal of multiculturalism might like to consider some future trends. The problems associated with immigration are mass - too many - and where there are too many non-white immigrants there will be – indeed there are - too many cultural and racial antagonisms which cannot be solved or rather politicians lack the courage and the will to solve them. It can be stated unequivocally that permitting mass non-white immigration has not created some multiracial utopia. It is not going to either. In America, multiculturalism is pushing the country towards possible racial partition some time in the twenty-first century and will inevitably reduce whites to a minority. Whether an absolute catastrophe can be avoided in this country in the decades ahead remains uncertain. But some of the signs are not good. While one can remain implacably opposed to mass, non-white immigration, one can, in principle, tolerate some very limited level of non-white immigration, subject as always to the test of how the white indigenous population will benefit: lone immigrants have to adapt; they must learn English; they must adapt to our folkways, customs and traditions; they cannot live in ghettos (there are too few of them); and they can, with time, earn acceptance and respect.<br /><br />Large numbers are another matter. They tend to re-create examples of what they have left behind. There is less pressure for all to learn the language and adapt to mainstream British culture and to “the-way-we-do-things”. As numbers grow there is competition for housing, benefits and education. The white indigenous population starts to feel threatened. In Britain this racial transition has been very rapid. It was only twenty years after Windrush when Enoch Powell issued his famous warning. Over forty years on the situation is immeasurably worse. What marks the precise threshold when we cross from low level and tolerable immigration – defined as being tolerable to the white, host society – and move towards to mass non-white immigration is not easy to define even for professional demographers. But one thing can be stated with complete certainty: there is huge unease among the white indigenous population in Britain about the country’s racial make up and what this bodes for the future.<br /><br />Mass non-white immigration can all too easily become self-perpetuating. As the immigrant invasion continues so the notion of what one means by “host society” and “tolerable” changes quite dramatically. Large numbers of immigrants who originate from failed, barbarous, Third-World states (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and sub-Saharan Africa) and who have acquired British citizenship will not necessarily be sympathetic to the hopes and fears of the white, indigenous population. Why should they be? They want to displace them, the aim of any invader. Armed with the right to vote, these immigrants can exert considerable electoral leverage and secure ever more “tolerant” policies towards their fellow non-whites which for the indigenous white may well be utterly “intolerable”. If the main threat to the racial and cultural stability of Britain both in the short and long term stems from mass non-white immigration, mass white immigration is also a threat. Permitting the influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania, which even by the routine and endemic corruption of Brussels are hopelessly corrupt states, only benefits unscrupulous employers and further strains already malfunctioning public services.<br /><br />Whether they are cognizant of it or not, those who permit and encourage mass immigration into Britain are pursuing a huge, unplanned exercise in nation building. Britain’s own failures in this area – Iraq in the 1920s, Palestine, the partition of India, the unnatural and brutal division of Ireland and the meltdown in Iraq post-2003 – have been so disastrous that one would have thought they would have compelled politicians to reject any such plans for Britain. Where there are racial and cultural differences nation building can only be achieved through violence and any such artificially constructed nation will eventually be destroyed in violence. Nations may be seen as a contract which individuals make with their fellows. Where there are too many “others” there can be no contract, then government, often by the application of harsh legislation, must step in to regulate the disputes and allocate resources which should properly be left to individuals making their own decisions. The persecution of whites in the USA in the name of affirmative action and equal opportunities is an example. Swedes have been traditionally willing to tolerate levels of high taxation in order to support the welfare state because their country has always been racially homogenous. Once racial minorities in Sweden become too big and too troublesome, support for high taxation will break down or Swedes like their fellow Europeans will suffer and complain in silence. Racial and cultural differences matter.<br /><br />For the time being, the clear and present danger - to use the American expression - to Britain comes from Islamic terrorism. The extraordinary feature of this terrorism is not the attacks of 7th July 2005 and the others that have been thwarted by the security services but the heroically passive response of the white indigenous majority population to a large, growing and resentful minority in their midst which makes no secret of its hatred and loathing of Britain. One might argue that this is an example of that famous British tolerance. On the contrary, it is not an exercise in tolerance to permit the country, a country one’s ancestors defended from past enemies so that we, today, can live in freedom, to be invaded by the Third World. The reason why white indigenous Britons are not more openly vocal in resisting multiculturalism is because they have seen the despicable and cowardly measures which have been taken against those who dissent. If you are heavily mortgaged with two children, you may decide that keeping your mouth shut is a wiser option. There are however other forms of resistance which are still legal. White flight from racial minorities has already been mentioned. Wealthy parents and those parents prepared to make the necessary sacrifices can send their children to good private schools. Another option is to leave Britain altogether. The trouble is that many of the favoured destinations – Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Spain - have similar problems of their own. In all these countries there are large numbers of whites who collude with non-whites in order to bring about what they believe will be a multiracial utopia. As in Britain, these people are oblivious to historical and contemporary evidence, which shows that multiracial/multiethnic states are inherently unstable.<br /><br />If historical and contemporary evidence shows that multiracial/multiethnic states are unstable, at what stage does a state become unstable, essentially a failing and eventually a failed state, and what happens when it fails? Immigration to Britain even with the loss of whites to emigration cannot continue at the rates we are witnessing. Publicly the government, the BBC and the press might dismiss the BNP as a racist party but they will reflect in private that the BNP is starting to attract voters who until recently would not have voted for such a demonized party. The reason they are now willing to give the BNP a chance is because they see – and they are surely correct in this – that the two main parties have abandoned them. They see the huge mismatch between what politicians say about multiculturalism and what happens in their own neighbourhood. The white who is told that multiculturalism is a good thing for Britain resembles the former citizen of the Soviet Union who was endlessly bullied and harangued with astonishing production figures and about how communism was triumphing over the West while he lived in squalor and amid crippling shortages.<br /><br />The electoral success of the BNP is a warning to the government that the question of legal/illegal immigration will have to be addressed. It will not be enough for tough rhetoric. Tough action is required. One course of action that would be particularly attractive to a beleaguered government would be to declare an amnesty for all existing illegal immigrants, possibly as many as 2,000,000, with the simultaneous announcement of apparently tough new border controls to prevent further illegal immigration. (It is possible that such an announcement made at a time when the BNP - or any other party for that matter - was about to achieve major electoral success might weaken that party’s appeal). An amnesty, essentially an act of appeasement, would be disastrous for Britain. It would simply encourage further mass immigration in the hope that there would be yet another amnesty. The promise of tougher legislation would also be a sham. Existing legislation provides for the expulsion of unwanted aliens and illegal immigrants. Politicians are too frightened to act or want to see the white population overwhelmed and dispossessed.<br /><br />So, unwanted, illegal immigration continues and Britain’s population rises inexorably. What would life be like in Britain when our population rises to 80,000,000 or even 90,000,000? Regardless of whether these new immigrants were white or non-white some of the consequences are clearly predictable. Take the question of housing and private property. These immigrants will have to be housed. If we try to protect our green belt areas already under intense pressure in the South East of England then we shall have to go for very high density housing with all the social and crime problems that go with such housing. Or we may decide to create whole new cities and towns. Planning laws would be dumped. Legislation providing for the creation and protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks would be rescinded. Who knows whether it would ever get that bad but one thing is quite clear: whole areas of Britain which most of us would never regard as being at risk would attract the attention of government desperate to house all these immigrants.<br /><br />Housing on this scale has horrendous cost implications. Who will pay for these immigrants to be housed? Desperate chancellors will resort to desperate taxation measures. One option would be to impose extra taxes on the sale of houses and use the money to pay for these new houses. Compulsory purchase of private land at prices well below what land could command on the open market would become the norm. Single dwellers now own a large part of Britain’s housing stock. In instances where they lived in a dwelling whose total floor space was greater than the government norm (yes there would eventually be such a thing), they, too, could be the target of compulsory purchase orders and be made to live in smaller dwellings situated in diversity-rich areas. Their former houses would then be used to accommodate immigrants with very large families, especially those inclined to polygamy. Or these owners could be compelled to take in lodgers (the rent would be set by government). In short, there would be no limit to what a rapacious and cruel government – Conservative or Labour - could inflict and will try to inflict on whites in the name of diversity. Look at what has already happened.<br /><br />If all these scenarios seem far-fetched then one should consider the way in which the institution of free speech has been progressively undermined in this country and the on-going attempts to weaken its status. If that can happen to free speech, other freedoms are at risk as well. One fictional episode from Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints (1973), a novel which deals with an immigration invasion of the West, stunningly anticipates the degree to which multiracial fanatics will go in order to impose their savage agenda. In Raspail’s novel representatives of something called The Non-European Commonwealth Committee have taken over London and one of their non-negotiable demands is that the Queen’s ‘younger son marry a Pakistani’. ‘To destroy a symbol’, asks the author, ‘or to make it their own?’ (p.286). One might be tempted to dismiss this as gruesome, dystopian satire yet when the Parekh Report, a thinly-veiled and sometimes bitter attack on the white indigenous population of Britain, was launched in October 2000, Kate Gavron, one of those responsible for the launch, opined that: ‘It would have been great if Prince Charles had been told to marry someone black. Imagine what sort of message that would have sent out.’ (The Daily Telegraph, 17th October 2000, p.1). Gavron’s willingness to consider interfering in that most intimate sphere of a person’s life in order to build some multiracial utopia reveals and confirms the same totalitarian impulse which underpins the oppressive provisions and recommendations of The Macpherson Report. Both Macpherson and Gavron – and they are by no means alone – sought to destroy the private world so that there can be no hiding place from multiculturalism. Recommendation 39 of The Macpherson Report is clearly aimed at securing the right to spy on the views of British citizens as a way of imposing a politically correct view of race.<br /><br />It is a certainty that as ever more immigrants pour into Britain harsher legislation will be needed to silence and to discredit opposition. A question that arises here is just how violent Britain’s multicultural future will be. There are two sides to this question. The first and obvious consideration will be the on-going threat of Islamic terror attacks in Britain. A second consideration is organized violence and counter-terror on the part of white indigenous groups which, in the first instance, would respond to the threat of Islam.<br /><br />The official policy of multiculturalism makes the task of Islamic terrorists much easier. Like the black criminal, the terrorists know that the “racist” card can be very effective in deterring the attentions of the police. What in the BBC’s speech code are referred to as “leaders of the Muslim community” are very quick to claim that Muslims are being persecuted and that we the white indigenous population must be sympathetic to Islam - that we must respect it – though they never really explain why people in this country should feel well disposed towards immigrants who hate us so much that they are prepared to become homicide-suicide bombers. This failure to deal with incipient Islamic terrorism and its networks means that some two decades of neglect have made the task of penetrating and destroying these networks immensely difficult. Obvious and easily accessible targets and options for Islamic terrorist organisations seeking to inflict as much chaos and destruction on Britain as possible are: cultural targets; infrastructure targets; and urban insurgency.<br /><br />Cultural targets are not as spectacular as attacks on infrastructure targets but such attacks would be easier to carry out if only because the targets would in most cases be less protected and more easily accessible. Possible scenarios would be the destruction or infliction of severe damage on Stonehenge; Saint Paul’s Cathedral; York Minster; Canterbury Cathedral; The British Museum; The British Library, and the listed buildings associated with, say, William Shakespeare and Sir Isaac Newton. Universities would be very vulnerable and would result in mass deaths. Attacking cultural targets would serve to underline the “clash of civilizations”; that the physical and intellectual embodiment of the West was under attack as well.<br /><br />Infrastructure targets are typically power stations, utilities, oil installations, water resources (poisoning), rail and air networks, hospitals, business and economic targets, computer and information networks. All are vulnerable to attacks. Railway networks are extremely vulnerable. Derailing a high speed train with small amounts of explosive on the track would be easy to carry out and would cause mass casualties and disruption, especially in the South East. Sustained attacks would inflict massive damage on economic and business activity.<br /><br />Britain is especially vulnerable to an Islamic-directed insurgency. The intifada against Israeli troops and the recent insurgency in Iraq provide a template. Well-coordinated attacks on the security forces with the use of explosives, small-arms and rocket launchers are achievable goals for would-be insurgents. The gross failure on the part of the Home Office to police British borders and especially the failure to hunt down, to round up and to deport the 2,000,000 illegal immigrants in this country make the task of the terrorists all the more easier. If some 2,000,000 illegal immigrants can enter Britain, then the task of bringing in weapons and explosives poses no problem for determined and well-funded groups.<br /><br />The post-modern terrorism pioneered by al Qaeda or perhaps the post-modern world in which the organisation has developed provides pointers to some form of lawful and rational armed resistance on the part of the white indigenous population to the facts of the their racial and cultural dispossession. Central to so much of the promotion of multiculturalism and globalisation is the assertion that the nation state is obsolescent and with it the traditional cultures and allegiances associated therewith. Now this view may be the current fashion in British political circles and is certainly an article of faith throughout the bureaucracies of the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) but it commands very little support outside of these tax-payer subsidised organisations. If the British government, for example, despite the obvious and very widespread hostility to the EU in Britain, continues to transfer ever more powers to the large, unaccountable and fiscally corrupt bureaucracies of the EU, why should British citizens be bound by laws made by a government that is not loyal to its own citizens and their perfectly legitimate, cultural, racial and historical interests? Put another way, if the nation state is on the way to becoming an irrelevance in the twenty-first century to whom or to what political entity should the British citizen offer his loyalty (and his taxes)? A British government that quite deliberately connives to allow some 2,000,000 illegal immigrants to enter this country and then fails to remove them is either grossly negligent or pursuing an agenda that it does not wish to see challenged. Either way it violates the contract that exists between the government and the governed. The relentless growth of the EU means that we are less and less governed and more and more ruled, and ruled arbitrarily and unaccountably, by people who at best are indifferent to, or frequently hostile to, the historical, cultural, economic, racial and political interests of Britain. A government that promotes globalisation and multiculturalism because, it believes, among other things, the nation state retains no significance, cannot then selectively arrogate to itself the right to insist that we obey the laws of this allegedly defunct entity. The laws of the nation state only command obedience when the nation state itself is recognised as the sole, properly constituted authority (the national parliament) for the making and enacting of laws. A nation state or rather the government of a nation state that transfers these powers to a third party in the absence of any express and explicit mandate (← another complicated question), foregoes any claim on the obedience and loyalty of its citizens.<br /><br />Bloodless and formal though this argument may be it has long term consequences which may not be bloodless. If we are well on the way to witnessing the final destruction of Westminster’s sovereignty which could not have happened without the willing and aggressively active participation of British politicians – British Conservatives have been by far the most duplicitous - then we are in the middle of truly historical change, certainly as far as England is concerned. The stealthy, treacherous and mendacious manner in which Westminster has been undermined and powers transferred to Brussels could at some stage justify a widespread and determined campaign of civil disobedience (or worse).<br /><br />Projections for the growth of the non-white population in Britain are staggering and the implications for stability are horrendous. There will come a time when even the white middle classes who currently display the most heroic hypocrisy regarding all things multicultural will find that they can no longer insulate themselves from being overwhelmed: there will be nowhere to run to; good private schools will be beyond their means; and it will be very difficult to avoid immigrants because of the sheer numbers. I take it for granted that as the number of non-white immigrants entering this country rises, and the strains, already evident, get worse that laws emanating from Brussels and designed to criminalise all opposition to multiculturalism will become much harsher. We can expect legislation designed to criminalise any spoken or written scepticism of multiculturalism as a matter of course. I do not see how any kind of political and social stability, let alone racial harmony would be possible in Britain were the numbers of non-white immigrants, already large, to spiral out of control. We may already have passed the point of no return.<br /><br />Politicians would be wrong to assume that permanent passivity on the part of the white indigenous majority population is a given. The words of America’s Declaration of Independence come to mind:<br /><br />Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that man-kind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.<br /><br />These are words to inspire us as well. All Britons have the right to resist tyranny, home-grown or foreign, with all means at their disposal. There may come a time where there is no other option. It strikes this author as wholly proper and reasonable that what, in the case of England and then Britain, has taken centuries to build, should continue to inspire the devotion and loyalty of its citizens; that we do have obligations to protect what has been bequeathed to us by time and place; that it is right and proper that we honour our dead; that vast numbers of aliens cannot simply join our tribe and family. Otherwise we, the white indigenous population, and our children, will lose everything. The Conservative Party which used to believe in the sanctity of nation has lost its soul and betrayed us all. Now, this party conspires to reduce us to a mass of human refuse, little better than savages, at the mercy of fate and the racist gloating of the BBC, so that we are the plaything of every apparatchik and venal politician-prostitute.<br /></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-48574896819338771942010-02-28T04:59:00.001-08:002010-02-28T05:05:19.181-08:00Chez MalemaPutting issues of taste to one side, one really has to ask how ANC Youth league leader Julius Malema can afford a home like this.<br /><br />______________<br />Hat tip Dina<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9rfteRCryw_OOpM3xMzrbHdb7pC_TFmk9wbZ8SkHkSa9Wqhves2J4w2OTW62kMTcfIjGiIyj9zmP0jsao06qkF8t-pdBbZkkNe2_n1_hriM7pD_nFWKbzbRDFDpUIlhu2G1qGvNq1-HJm/s1600-h/malema_pad01.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9rfteRCryw_OOpM3xMzrbHdb7pC_TFmk9wbZ8SkHkSa9Wqhves2J4w2OTW62kMTcfIjGiIyj9zmP0jsao06qkF8t-pdBbZkkNe2_n1_hriM7pD_nFWKbzbRDFDpUIlhu2G1qGvNq1-HJm/s400/malema_pad01.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5443278698068755954" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDDPGxp0n1qVVLy49N3HhfBhY26t1EO2aaB75UuhXAs_NAndGSCjfm67_lpVe7VrU7ArirGta-CyD99JUREIMOa-qsl5fT9fxzYSvjNZMgN8QXbjgXRlFPwg5pqDyFgakWxvEPyZwYjfMo/s1600-h/malema_pad02.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDDPGxp0n1qVVLy49N3HhfBhY26t1EO2aaB75UuhXAs_NAndGSCjfm67_lpVe7VrU7ArirGta-CyD99JUREIMOa-qsl5fT9fxzYSvjNZMgN8QXbjgXRlFPwg5pqDyFgakWxvEPyZwYjfMo/s400/malema_pad02.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5443278628442687890" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8ACIXXe-t5_m_EQQvc8Qz84UNc6FbTUoYcCPK0GhK0d2xq84fMuNWZ24t5mI9f5ktJlGqNtvAMPtAKNPKkm8P-6ZsLGSVkbnuPExJ7BXw-nuTOKr1pqT7eaZGi-fQFI5g8g5DpEkoQuZs/s1600-h/malema_pad03.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8ACIXXe-t5_m_EQQvc8Qz84UNc6FbTUoYcCPK0GhK0d2xq84fMuNWZ24t5mI9f5ktJlGqNtvAMPtAKNPKkm8P-6ZsLGSVkbnuPExJ7BXw-nuTOKr1pqT7eaZGi-fQFI5g8g5DpEkoQuZs/s400/malema_pad03.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5443278545839595730" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRnugSo3WNLgaaNtXT_ufK_f9K4wpTdtdK6tyLN_9NXIsUylmaNOt83RHZMSqmcP5pvJavKUS3u_RaRyUkQ7nBBNyLAoUHR1GYlUKEt5qkGozIRlWoJSxBPngTP8s1hHa7jy_w0PTiyYr3/s1600-h/Malema_pad04.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRnugSo3WNLgaaNtXT_ufK_f9K4wpTdtdK6tyLN_9NXIsUylmaNOt83RHZMSqmcP5pvJavKUS3u_RaRyUkQ7nBBNyLAoUHR1GYlUKEt5qkGozIRlWoJSxBPngTP8s1hHa7jy_w0PTiyYr3/s400/Malema_pad04.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5443278444545973282" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgocd58x9PSUk7rHGSPn0QNLtekHKbBjovqMPsQdjxY-MksLjQwQovqSq0_oQDWGE47SfUpcj51X2eidUAqV3WX6THDOTr9u8BOLQZ7Kh4cpP68CkOaDwGKKhjR6EW-QhWgRGJzgPWX2ILT/s1600-h/malema_pad05.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgocd58x9PSUk7rHGSPn0QNLtekHKbBjovqMPsQdjxY-MksLjQwQovqSq0_oQDWGE47SfUpcj51X2eidUAqV3WX6THDOTr9u8BOLQZ7Kh4cpP68CkOaDwGKKhjR6EW-QhWgRGJzgPWX2ILT/s400/malema_pad05.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5443278365773243186" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX4kSzVCWjpImfGvopyiIHVnyrrrNHiSkClzdody5OSxRhqSo8-P5KqyIztiTZqbZWXBHwD5Rg0B8WTIpwbob8Vz_rNJmiHN_nmsYrHSDL3kZWbz393pELbzYjFpmCtuteroXWdZ1BXuFN/s1600-h/malema_pad06.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX4kSzVCWjpImfGvopyiIHVnyrrrNHiSkClzdody5OSxRhqSo8-P5KqyIztiTZqbZWXBHwD5Rg0B8WTIpwbob8Vz_rNJmiHN_nmsYrHSDL3kZWbz393pELbzYjFpmCtuteroXWdZ1BXuFN/s400/malema_pad06.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5443278288681346210" border="0" /></a>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-62612363700004802862010-02-24T11:55:00.000-08:002010-02-24T12:13:33.623-08:00Leeds University: A Curriculum of Errors - By Frank Ellis<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRp-Fexp_19sJ65psPfJNH5C-ySNBBKndhbsgI3LMM3-tgV-60-QNAVz6cRKXI56fW5GHfRhC0SZPx9HGzhF0n8Fi-OloLs18fkh1R95JjpDab1xtTVIbIQQTFccljdDn3lk-hIjuM1PkB/s1600-h/Leeds_Uni.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 315px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRp-Fexp_19sJ65psPfJNH5C-ySNBBKndhbsgI3LMM3-tgV-60-QNAVz6cRKXI56fW5GHfRhC0SZPx9HGzhF0n8Fi-OloLs18fkh1R95JjpDab1xtTVIbIQQTFccljdDn3lk-hIjuM1PkB/s400/Leeds_Uni.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441905564302497170" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Since our inception in 1997, we have broadened our intellectual framework and built on our existing specialisms within gender relations. We now incorporate ‘race’, masculinities, sexualities, queer and trans- theories into our research work which has a core focus on the body.</span> (Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Leeds University)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Please mark for content only – Do not penalise for errors of spelling, grammar or punctuation</span> (written instructions given to Dr Frank Ellis at the University of Leeds before marking a 2nd year grammar exam, 2004-2005)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The University of Leeds has aspirations to world class status</span> (University and College Union, Leeds University)<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">© Frank Ellis 2010<br /></div></blockquote></div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Introduction</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >T</span>he financial crisis which now confronts Leeds University (and other universities) has its origins in the egalitarianism of both New Labour and, it must be said, the Conservative Party. It was after all a Tory government that abandoned the distinction between polytechnics and universities, so imposing unitary status and preparing the way for the influx of large numbers of poorly qualified students into tertiary education. Inflaming this expansionist fever was also an assumption, encouraged by politicians and academics, that all who wanted to go to university, should be able to do so; that, indeed, going to university was akin to a human right. It is no such thing. Potential students have the right to pursue access to a university place, subject to their meeting the academic requirements for entry and being able to secure the necessary funding. If they are unable to meet the entrance requirements, they must seek other avenues of personal advancement. The huge increase in the numbers of students that started to overwhelm universities from the mid 1990s onwards inevitably resulted in course requirements being watered down to accommodate students who earlier would have been rejected. Too many students were granted access to courses for which they were ill prepared and for which they were intellectually unsuited. At the same time, they will have incurred large debts. Even worse, they soon discover in the world of mortgages and council tax that the much vaunted degree in gender studies or film studies does not impress a hard-headed employer. Over the last fourteen years the governing bodies of British universities have behaved in way which bears more than a passing resemblance to those other would-be masters of the universe, the banks, now rightly castigated for their incompetence. For their part, and in pursuit of a sub-prime clientele, the universities encouraged a reckless increase in student numbers regardless of academic ability. In the process they cruelly deceived many applicants about the benefits and costs of higher education, lied to the British taxpayer and will almost certainly have inflicted severe long-term damage on higher education itself. As regards Leeds University, I am bound to ask whether Michael Arthur, the vice chancellor of Leeds University and chairman of the Russell Group of universities, who presided over this porcine rush after fool’s gold, is competent to deal with his own local crisis and the national one that he and his fellow vice chancellors have done so much to create.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Russian Language and Literature at the University of Leeds</span><br /><br />Between 1992 and 2006 I taught in the Department of Russian Studies, part of the School of Modern Languages and Cultures (SMLC), at Leeds University. In addition to my specialist Russian media course, based on a study of Marxist-Leninist ideology, censorship and post-Soviet media law, I used to teach two general courses on nineteenth century and twentieth century Russian literature, courses running over the academic year based on the novels of Dostoevsky, the twentieth century Russian novel, and one on Solzhenitsyn, as well as language teaching at all levels. I also prepared a special subject course on Russian war literature. Over this period expansion was primarily driven by egalitarian considerations, referred to in educational bureaucratese as ‘widening participation initiatives’, and pushed hard by ambitious senior university figures anxious to ingratiate themselves with their political masters. I was able to witness first hand the consequences of this expansion on academic standards and to gain some insights into its impact on financial planning in the SMLC.<br /><br />Now most people will take it for granted that Russian literature in British universities is read and studied in Russian. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Very few first-year students come to university with a Russian A level, and even when they do, such has been the decline in the A level over the last 15 years or so, that the top grades do not tell an admission tutor a great deal about a student’s abilities. Teachers in secondary education have presided over a deliberate and systematic inflation of A Level grades with the aim of undermining confidence in the examination. They have succeeded. Teachers generally, and teachers’ unions specifically, detest the sorting effects of examinations. Indeed, many teachers hate examinations and undoubtedly would, if they could get away with it, abolish them completely and rely on course work. I frequently encountered students at Leeds with A and B grades at A Level Russian whose knowledge of basic Russian grammar was pitifully weak. These students, and remember these are the students, who on paper are supposed to be the best linguists, are unable in their first year at university to cope with reading even short Russian novels in Russian let alone something substantial. This is an appalling indictment of modern language teaching in our secondary system and when I left Leeds University in 2006 there were no signs that the situation was improving.<br /><br />In fact, the situation may never improve while universities collude with politicians to accept students who are unable to meet the demands of higher education. The majority of students who study Russian at university these days study the subject <span style="font-style: italic;">ab ovo.</span> Most of their effort will be applied to gaining sufficient mastery of the language and they will have little time or interest in reading a major Russian novel in Russian. Another factor must be taken into account. In 1993, Leeds University, in keeping with other universities, went over to what is known as a modular system. The modular system allocates a certain number of credits to a module and the student must amass a minimum number of credits in order to qualify for his degree. The modular system also provided for students to do a course outside of the main subject. One direct consequence of the modular system was to reduce the amount of time available in the curriculum to cover material in any depth.<br /><br />A look at the twentieth century Russian novel course highlights the problems of the modular system. Students taking this course would have to read and study four novels. Typically this would be Vasilii Grossman’s <span style="font-style: italic;">Life and Fate</span> (1988) or<span style="font-style: italic;"> Forever Flowing </span>(1970), Boris Pasternak’s <span style="font-style: italic;">Doktor Zhivago</span> (1957), Mikhail Bulgakov’s <span style="font-style: italic;">Master and Margarita </span>(1966-1967) and Andrei Platonov’s <span style="font-style: italic;">The Foundation Pit</span> (1987). Set texts would vary according to their availability in English translation. <span style="font-style: italic;">Doktor Zhivago</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Life and Fate</span> are substantial novels, the others only marginally less so. Given the other demands of the curriculum, it is beyond the reach of most students to start reading the prescribed texts at the beginning of the module. Most students make decisions about what to do at the start of the academic year and leave themselves very little time to get the reading done <span style="font-style: italic;">before </span>the relevant class begins. One consequence of this is that when the twentieth century Russian novel course begins with, say, <span style="font-style: italic;">Life and Fate </span>hardly any students will have started to read this major novel, let alone have completed it and made the necessary notes. Given that about four weeks will be allocated to the study of <span style="font-style: italic;">Life and Fate</span>, seminars based on this novel are predictably one-sided affairs. A small group of students who have read the novel and the lecturer end up doing all the talking. Students who have not read the novel or in some cases not even bothered to buy a copy are not able to make any useful contribution in class. Another factor conspires to reduce the material covered. The twentieth-century Russian novel course is assessed on the basis of two essays which have to be written on two of the set texts. Many students, having decided on which set texts they will write their essays, do not bother to read the other two and often do not bother to turn up in the class in which they are taught. This is common practice and something I found deeply dispiriting. I soon discovered that the way to deal with lazy and incompetent students was not to let allow myself to get angry with them. If they want to borrow money to waste their time and absent themselves from core classes, they are free to do so.<br /><br />The modular system is designed to be open to students from other departments in the university. For example, a student in the Department of English taking a course in the nineteenth-century English novel might well wish to study the Russian novel or a student majoring in Russian history might want to study Solzhenitsyn. Students from these departments tended to be of a much higher intellectual calibre than students majoring in Russian studies and given that there was great financial pressure to attract such high quality students, then this was another factor that favoured studying literature in English translation. My experience of teaching Russian literature in English translation leaves me in no doubt that high quality students who are not studying the Russian language but who study Russian literature in translation can produce exceptionally good work.<br /><br />A Russian department in which, for whatever reasons, Russian literature is primarily read in English translation and not in the Russian original is an imitation of a Russian department: it is a façade, an academic Potemkin village. Lecturers in the English Department could argue that since the Russian department does not offer Russian literature in Russian but in translation the case for a dedicated Russian department has been greatly weakened. In my opinion they have a point. A Russian department’s status in the university and the wider academic world depends, among other things, on its expertise in analysing and interpreting the primary texts in the Russian language, an expertise which it is duty bound to impart to its student body. If the transmission of that expertise is neglected out of non-academic considerations – administrative, time-tabling convenience and financial pressures – then that status is undermined and the justification for retaining a dedicated Russian department is further weakened. The trend towards reaching literature in translation makes a strong case for teaching <span style="font-style: italic;">all literature in translation</span> within a large department, possibly the English Department, or maybe a new entity, the Department for the Study of World Literature in Translation. Russian literature would then enjoy no unique status but would simply be one of a number of foreign literatures to be read. Moreover, if a student had no interest in literature – and many do not – and his sole aim was to learn Russian then there is no need to retain a Russian department. He would simply be sent to the University’s Foreign Language Centre or some such entity where much of his pursuit of Russian could be self-directed (or he could pay for private tuition). Likewise, experts in the Russian economy, history, media and philosophy would be allocated to the various departments specialising in economy, history and so on assuming there was any kind of need, and, of course that the departments designated as potential hosts wanted additional staff.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">SMLC Deficits</span><br /><br />Evidence that financial restructuring of SMLC (including compulsory redundancies where necessary) was required was clear well before the onset of the current recession. The scale of the problem was set out in a three-page briefing paper, SMLC Briefing Paper, which was given to academic members of staff of SMLC in January 2005. For example, in June 2004 SMLC was instructed to make cuts of about £200,000 per annum while generating another £200,000 per annum. The projected budgetary deficits for the next 5 years made in 2004 were as follows:<br /><br />2004-2005: £422,000<br />2005-2006: £474,000<br />2006-2007: £471,000<br />2007-2008: £368,000<br />2008-2009: £246,000<br /><br />Despite the scale of these budgetary deficits, the SMLC set a whole range of future and ambitious academic priorities: maintain the number of languages on offer in its undergraduate and post-graduate courses (offering new languages from South Asia); secure student numbers; achieve the highest possible score in the Research Assessment Exercise 2008; develop international activities and on-line teaching; develop its regional profile through widening participation initiatives; invest in the skills of all staff; develop interdisciplinary teaching and courses; and deploy new and existing resources to achieve the best results (<span style="font-style: italic;">SMLC Briefing Paper</span>, January 2005).<br /><br />Three points can be made here. First, bear in mind that the peak years for the projected deficits coincide with the peak of the boom and subsequent bust and one can appreciate that the attempts by SMLC to cope with budgetary deficits predicted <span style="font-style: italic;">before </span>the boom ended will have been made extraordinarily difficult if not impossible. Note that the document concludes with the following observation: ‘The effect of our very large deficit will be to delay attempts to undertake the necessary steps to meet our priorities. Thus any university support to help us reduce our deficit is regarded as essential for the future development of what is the UK’s largest institutional provider of modern languages’ (<span style="font-style: italic;">SMLC Briefing Paper</span>, January 2005). Second, the university (tax payer) cannot be expected to offer endless financial support to schools and sub-divisions that cannot pay their way. Third, and in some ways, this is the crux of the whole funding crisis the SMLC ambitions set out above clearly require an immediate scaling down. This should have been obvious in January 2005. In 2010 it is survival-critical and unavoidable. For example, why is it essential that SMLC remain ‘the UK’s largest institutional provider of modern languages’?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Some Possible Changes</span><br /><br />Now is the time to reshape the whole academic year. I offer some suggestions. A few years ago I put it to some students that their academic and financial interests would be best served by reducing the length of the degree course to 3 years, possibly 2 years. At the present time students spend too much time away from the university, time which makes an insufficient contribution to their degree course and which costs them money in travel and paying for vacant accommodation. Long student vacations should be one of the first things to face the axe. Students gain nothing from paying for a three-year/four-year degree course and then spending six months out of every academic year on vacations. Far better that student vacations be reduced from six months to six weeks for the whole year and that students be compelled to work longer hours and more days per week (including Saturdays). The same should apply to academics since the current academic year is designed to suit their needs not those of students. There are indeed academics that need time free of teaching in order to pursue worthwhile academic research, but many find it too demanding and time-consuming. The solution to this problem is to re-write contracts so that those who are able and wish to pursue research can and that those who prefer to concentrate on teaching and administration are free to do so. Rewritten contracts can set out the medium and long-term targets required in both cases.<br /><br />Modern-language students in most British universities spend part or all of their third year abroad. It is taken for granted that the time they spend there is excellent value for money: there are, it is claimed, dramatic improvements in the language being studied; institutional links are established and fostered; students experience different cultures first hand. In short, it is argued, the benefits are indisputable: they need no justification. I disagree. The arrangements currently obtaining for the dispatch of students to their chosen country are: (i) expensive; (ii) represent an unacceptably large drain on staff time (read money); (iii) unnecessarily lengthen the time spent acquiring the degree; and (iv) and perhaps worst of all do not deliver the academic benefits used to justify the time and trouble. There are undoubtedly benefits to be had from time spent in a foreign-language environment, but, and I regard this as the key to the way ahead, the claimed benefits can be delivered in Britain at greatly reduced cost and without the administrative burdens.<br /><br />Among modern-language teachers one finds an almost mystical faith in the power of the time spent abroad to improve the language skills of even the least able students. Time spent abroad is in itself no guarantor that the command of, say, German will improve. Discipline and application are necessary. It is by no means clear to me how the student whose poor attendance and weak language work in Britain will suddenly improve when abroad, especially when the temptations and excitement will almost certainly overcome what little self-discipline he has. We might consider whether all students should go abroad. There is a strong case for using the time abroad as way of rewarding those students who meet certain academic standards before being awarded a place abroad; divisive no doubt, but those who work harder than others surely deserve the rewards. A reduction in available places would save money and time. Competition for a reduced number of places would be fierce and would raise standards. In this option time spent abroad would be seen as an indicator of academic quality control, conferring superior status on selected students. The pursuit and enjoyment of some of the cultural and less rigorous educational benefits - museums, making friends, concerts and internal travel - can come after the degree has been acquired and at the former student’s own expense. In any case, most of the languages offered by SMLC at Leeds and other similar departments are the languages of EU states: French, Portuguese, Spanish, German and Italian. Travel to and from these states has never been easier and means that a mandated year for language learning is not required within the degree course. Physical access to the Middle East (Arabic), Russia, China and Japan is not as easy as to EU states but not insuperable. However, the Internet and satellite television properly used - <span style="font-style: italic;">al-jaziira</span> is outstanding - are excellent and cost-effective substitutes. The opportunities provided by the Internet, satellite television and other electronic media should be seized and fully exploited. In view of the fact that SMLC will now have to abandon its ambitions to remain ‘the UK’s largest institutional provider of modern languages’, Russian, Chinese, Arabic and Japanese departments should be considered for closure or downsizing.<br /><br />The key to the mastery of any language to degree standard is regular and serious reading in the target language. Unfortunately, students no longer read. They read as little as possible in English and only a fanatically dedicated handful will attempt something such as Gogol’s <span style="font-style: italic;">Dead Souls</span> (1842) in Russian, let alone <span style="font-style: italic;">The Brothers Karamazov </span>(1879-1880). Students who acquired their degrees before the introduction of the modular regime had no excuse for not reading major works of literature, such as <span style="font-style: italic;">Dr Zhivago </span>or <span style="font-style: italic;">Ivan Denisovich </span>(1962) in the original Russian. In the days of the modular supermarket, any tutor who was foolhardy enough to demand that students read the set texts in Russian would soon be addressing rows of empty chairs. The trouble is that some of those chairs should not be occupied in the first place. Students who do not wish to immerse themselves in the great canonical Russian texts are denying themselves an opportunity to experience Russian culture in a way which is quite unique. Given the constraints on time and other resources, the most efficient and cost-effective way to linguistic mastery and cultural understanding is through reading. Reading does not require that the student be located in Moscow, Krasnodar or Volgograd, despite the claims of modern language departments’ promotional literature and however desirable it may appear to a student. A table in a quiet and cold room in Leeds will do just fine. Students who wish to spend a year in Moscow can do so as part of their gap year before they attend university or after graduation. In an earlier age, when student numbers were much smaller, the leisurely passage through a modern language degree course with a year abroad was feasible. In straitened financial circumstances, circumstances which will continue to impose their discipline on universities for years to come, the year abroad can either be retained for small numbers of high-achieving élite students (ideally) or abolished. It cannot continue in its present form.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion</span><br /><br />Not all student applicants are equally endowed with the necessary self-discipline, interest, determination and intellectual ability to be able to pursue a worthwhile course in tertiary education. These arguments against mass higher education are not new. They were made during the expansion of higher education during the 1960s and those who advanced them were soon vindicated. The latest round of expansion which started to accelerate in the mid 1990s has proved to be even more unwieldy and threatening to the university ethos. Higher education is now expected to be inclusive which means that it must host a miscellany of pseudo-intellectual misfits – gender studies and black studies are two obvious examples - which are hostile to notions of intellectual rigour, objective truth, evidence and, above all, as this author can personally attest, to free speech and academic freedom. Gender studies and black studies have no place in a university: they are little more than grievance factories; they should be targeted for immediate closure. Vice-chancellors, university secretaries, the heads of departments and schools, who do not defend the essentials of a university for reasons of ideological and financial expediency, or who fail out of plain cowardice to confront the charlatans, cease to preside over a university. They also signally fail to discharge their academic, fiscal and moral duties. Now universities must retrench and face the consequences of their greed and unjustified ambitions. Like the rest of the public sector in UK plc, more than one premier league football club and the banks, universities must learn to live within their means. In the long period of austerity which awaits us all they would also do well to reflect on the purpose of their ancient institutions.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-54686821605283207982010-01-24T10:54:00.000-08:002010-01-25T02:40:07.523-08:00Google translation of HS.fi articleThe following is a Google translation of <a href="http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Nettirasismia+halutaan+kitke%C3%A4+uusilla+s%C3%A4%C3%A4nn%C3%B6ksill%C3%A4/1135252244859">this Finnish newspaper article</a> dated Jan 19 2010, it is a bit garbled but you should be able to make some sense of it<br /><br /><h1> Web racism and hate crimes is to eliminate the new provisions </h1> <div style="text-align: justify;" class="dates"> <p class="date"> 19.1.2010 11:31 | Updated: 19.1.2010 16:55 </p> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><script type="text/javascript">$("div.additionalContent a").click(function () { if (this.href.indexOf("kartta") == -1) { if(this.href.indexOf("grafiikka") != -1) { var newWindow = window.open(this.getAttribute('href'), '_blank'); if (newWindow) { if (newWindow.focus) { newWindow.focus(); } } } else { var t = this.title || this.name || null; var a = this.href || this.alt; var g = this.rel || false; additional_tb_show(t,a,g); } return false; } }); $(document).ready(function(){ additional_imgLoader = new Image(); additional_imgLoader.src = tb_additional_pathToImage; }); </script> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> Racist crimes do not want to be greater effort to root out. Justice Ministry working group proposes that racism in addition to other influences, could constitute grounds for more severe. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">For example, ill-treatment would result in more severe penalties for the ordinary, if the agent is irritated by the victim's sexual orientation, disability, religion or belief. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">Racist motive as an aggravating circumstance has been since 2002. Task Force concluded that police records of racist motives up quite often, but the right judgments, they appear less frequently. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">"Motive is often difficult to obtain evidence. The current act is ambiguous and therefore problematic, says task force member," state prosecutor <a class="nimi" href="http://www.hs.fi/haku/?haku=Mika+Illman">Mika Illman</a>. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> The committee submitted its report to Minister of Justice <a class="nimi" href="http://www.hs.fi/haku/?haku=Tuija+Braxille">Tuija Brax for</a> (vihr.) in Helsinki on Tuesday. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> <span class="votsikko">The committee proposes the law</span> Also, changes that would facilitate the Internet, the lack of racism. By law to make it clear that the mere provision of internet links to racist websites can be incitement to ethnic. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">The law would introduce a new criminal offense outrageous incitement to ethnic. As such could be considered such as incitement to genocide in terrorism or the purpose of establishing a murder. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">Aggravated kiihottamisrikos would provide up to four years in prison. Today, incitement to ethnic or can bring up to two-year sentence. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> <span class="votsikko">Racist arguments presented</span> especially a lot of online chat rooms, where the dialogue can revitellä name brands shelters. For example, Cello ampumistapaus triggered an avalanche of racist messages. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">Brax the consultation is to consider how the debate would clarify the liability of officers of columns. Magazines are responsible for the website, but the so-called free sites in the lively discussions taking place, of which no one shall be held responsible in general. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> "What should be done to communities that do not remove the racist messages even if they are repeatedly invited to," asks Brax. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">According to a presentation to the Community could be held liable as a racist crime, such as agitating, or discrimination. In this case, would be a corporate penalty. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph"> <span class="votsikko">Legislative Council</span> <a class="nimi" href="http://www.hs.fi/haku/?haku=Ilari+Hannulan">Ilari Hannula</a> that racist attitudes can easily lift their heads, especially during the recession. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">"Hate crimes and racism are on the increase. The attitudes should be affected at all levels, including criminal law," Hannula said. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">The Working Party recalls that freedom of expression must not trample on the name of anti-racism. The law should specify the areas in which freedom of expression is particularly secure. These are the science and art as well as current and historical events coverage. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">"The supplier liable for the other statements in interviews given to endanger the freedom of expression and not to debate the use of socially significant issues", the group says. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="text-align: justify;" class="articleParagraph">Reforms put forward by the Working Group is expected to enter into force by the spring of next year. Reforms in the Finnish legislation into line with the EU made solutions.<br /></p><p style="text-align: center;" class="articleParagraph">__________________<br /></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/01/death-of-free-speech-in-europe-more.html">Click here to return to "The Death of Free Speech in Europe? - More disturbing news from Finland"<br /></a><br /></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-89786854900679351802009-12-19T07:06:00.000-08:002009-12-19T08:00:11.414-08:00Mending Broken Bones: Russian Nationalism and the Fate of Russia - By Frank Ellis<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_X7B38Nk8nxiWKOtwvfaAklJeiZyP1nXF-Nc5mdYAHHD1eUKyWi_UAZH_qrOCkgkkaF_8Kv_B6lzGlRSPBpV7PwEJ5kJzQ4JgNp0xV5PRtBm5-UKiOxQth41ZkoHg6H5p5vwic0vgrGi-/s1600-h/mother_Russia.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 274px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_X7B38Nk8nxiWKOtwvfaAklJeiZyP1nXF-Nc5mdYAHHD1eUKyWi_UAZH_qrOCkgkkaF_8Kv_B6lzGlRSPBpV7PwEJ5kJzQ4JgNp0xV5PRtBm5-UKiOxQth41ZkoHg6H5p5vwic0vgrGi-/s400/mother_Russia.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5416970066905746882" border="0" /></a><meta equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P.sdfootnote { margin-left: 0.5cm; text-indent: -0.5cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; font-size: 10pt } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } A:link { color: #0000ff } A.sdfootnoteanc { font-size: 57% } --> </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="center"><b>Mending Broken Bones: Russian Nationalism and the Fate of Russia</b></p> <blockquote></blockquote> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"> <span style="font-size:85%;">He who wishes to serve the proletariat must unite the workers of all nations, fighting relentlessly against bourgeois nationalism and his </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>own</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> and that of others. He who defends the slogan of national culture belongs in the ranks of the nationalistic philistines and not among the Marxists.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"> <span style="font-size:85%;">Vladimir Il’ich Lenin, ‘Critical Observations on the National Question’ (1913)</span></p>
<br /><p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"> <span style="font-size:85%;">Patriotism is a feeling of total and permanent love for one’s Motherland, with a readiness to make sacrifices for her, to share her misfortunes, without any obsequiousness, without any support for unjust claims, and openness in the assessment of her flaws, sins, and repentance for them.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1cm; margin-right: 1cm; margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"> <span style="font-size:85%;">Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Russia in Ruins</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> (1998)</span></p><div style="text-align: center;">
<br />© Frank Ellis 2009 </div> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><b>Introduction</b></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><span style="float: left;font-size:300;" ></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I</span></span>f you wish to grasp something of the Russian spirit/soul (<i>dukh</i>/<i>dusha</i>) - Russians have a great deal to say about both – Russian culture, history and thought all of which contribute to the sentiments of national identity and have forged the way Russians feel and reflect upon ideas such as Fatherland (<i>Otechestvo</i>) and Motherland (<i>Rodina</i>), I know of no better way than to read the work of Russia’s greatest writers. Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852), Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883), Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), Fedor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) and in the twentieth century, Anna Akhmatova (1888-1965), Boris Pasternak (1890-1960), Vasilii Grossman (1905-1964), Viktor Astaf’ev (1924-2001) and, for me, the great moral and intellectual titan of the last century, the unashamed patriot, Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), are a surer guide to the nature of Mother Russia than so much of Western historiography and its commentariat. On the other side of this divide, and hostile to any assertion of a unique Russia, and committed to her destruction, stand the revolutionary fanatics of the late nineteenth century and their heirs, the Bolsheviks, who crucified Russia in the name of class war and internationalism, and whose social engineering together with their Maoist comrades marks the apex of twentieth-century genocide. In this protracted battle of ideas and so much blood and suffering we can find some kind of insight into what it means to be a Russian in the early twenty-first century.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">Of all the nineteenth-century Russian writers who have concerned themselves with the nature and essence of Russia and her place in the world, Dostoevsky remains the most prophetic, and disturbingly so. <i>The Devils</i> (1871-1872) and <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i> (1879-1880) are uncompromising assertions of the nature of good, evil, man’s need of God, and to borrow an idea from Viktor Frankl, man’s search for meaning (man’s <i>desperate</i> need for meaning). It is Dostoevsky’s view that without the nation (Russia) and without the God that cares for Russia, the people are rendered mere raw material vulnerable to the machinations of ideological fanatics. Here then is a point of attack for those who wish to subvert and to destroy the nation: tell the people that the nation is an abomination; attack the culture that nurtures and sustains it; turn the next generation against their mothers and fathers. One reason why Dostoevsky was regarded with profound suspicion throughout the Soviet period was because he clearly understood the nature of the revolutionary movements that had emerged in Russia and to where their creed would lead. In fact, <i>The Devils</i> is core reading, if you wish to understand the mindset of the modern terrorist and the self-loathing which seems to be such a prominent feature of the left-liberal psyche.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">In the twentieth century, the obvious defender of Mother Russia, her religion and folkways was Solzhenitsyn. Virtually all his major works, from <i>One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich</i> (1962) which made his name, to <i>First Circle</i> (1968), <i>Cancer Ward</i> (1968), <i>Gulag Archipelago</i> (1973-1975-1976) and <i>August 1914</i> (1971 & 1989), are imbued with a profound love and understanding of Russia. In two long essays published after his return to Russia in 1994, <i>The Russian Question at the End of the 20</i><sup><i>th</i></sup><i> Century</i> (1994) and <i>Russia in Ruins</i> (1998), Solzhenitsyn analyses what he quite rightly calls ‘Russia’s endlessly cruel century’<span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a></sup></span>, exploring, <i>inter alia</i>, the nature of Russian nationalism and the manner in which, beginning with Lenin after 1917, all forms of Russian national identity and consciousness were suppressed or opportunistically co-opted by the party. The value of these two essays for the theme of Russian nationalism as a whole is that they provide a thorough historical overview of the trials and tribulations of Russian nationalism in the twentieth century from before 1917 through the Soviet period and beyond. Moreover, and I think this is important: they are the thoughts of a man who experienced the Soviet concentration camp system first hand.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">Strong nationalist sentiments or patriotic feelings of any kind especially those which have grown over a long period and are deeply embedded in the national culture are a major obstacle to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism (and multiculturalism). Any attempt to reverse these social affinities and loyalties would, if it relied on purely peaceful means, take decades even centuries to overcome, if at all, and despite the view among the party that the victory of communism was inevitable - capitalism in all its forms was doomed - Lenin was not going to wait until the peasants, bourgeoisie, landowners and emerging industrialists, the “masses” in the jargon of class war, were persuaded of the benefits of the common ownership of the means of production and gratefully abandoned the pursuit of profit and private property. 1917 was Year Zero, the <i>tabula rasa</i>, when the errors of some two thousand years of man’s history were to be rectified by the teachings of Marx and Lenin, at least in Russia, to begin with. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><b>The Nation</b></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">The question here then is what makes a nation? What are its main constituent parts? Can a nation be instantly remoulded according to some Marxist-Leninist or multiculturalist blueprint? Nations – England, France, Germany and Russia – do not spring up ready made: nations are born and there must have been a time when the nation did not exist. We can take it for granted that the people who formally coalesce into the nation, either through war, habit, assimilation or some other form of commerce, do so because they share things in common. These are language: blood (genes); shared territory; expanding family and kinship ties; some founding event that brought them together (4<sup>th</sup> July 1776 in the case of the USA); and a history of shared oppression and liberation. Or maybe they enjoy the great blessing of occupying an island which binds its inhabitants together and over the centuries they have looked to the sea for profit and security. Each nation believes that it is blessed by God; that God has selected it for some special purpose; that in its hour of need God will protect them. In this regard can there be anything more desperately moving, dignified and inspiring than the words of the Boer Covenant made with God before the Battle of Blood River in 1838? Likewise, Churchill’s magnificent defiance in that summer of the Spitfire and Hurricane touched something very deep inside all those who listened to him. Faith, sense of national purpose, hardships overcome and national humiliations inspire art, the myths, the stories, histories and epics that the nation creates for itself which in turn inspire our children and their children and provide succour in adversity. During the Russo-German War 1941-1945, Tolstoy’s <i>War and Peace</i> (1865-1869) was endlessly read, and during the darker days of Stalingrad Soviet propaganda unashamedly appealed to Russian military campaigns of the past, to the deeds of Alexander Nevskii, Alexander Suvorov and Mikhail Kutuzov.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>The Bolshevik Assault: Russkii & Rossiiskii</b></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">What I have cited is, I grant, a sketch of a complicated area but the thrust is clear: the nation emerges and survives; it is precious thing. If, as in the case of England, it has survived the centuries, it must possess toughness and tenacity. Yet, the historical changes that create the forces which facilitate the birth of a nation never rest. No nation can take its survival for granted. In this regard we must see the historical forces unleashed by Marx and Engels which were picked up and amplified by Lenin and his successors into Marxist-Leninism as an example of those forces which are inimical to the nation state and its survival. How does the Marxist-Leninist, in the case of Russia, set about destroying the nation state? If the nation state is indeed made up of some or all of the constituent parts I have listed then the communist nation killer must unravel the work of the centuries. After 1917 this meant that Russia was attacked on many levels: the symbols and substance of culture; language; history; education; and religion. Bolshevik propaganda devoted much time and effort to discrediting the idea of Russian patriotism as something bourgeois and counter-revolutionary. It must be pointed out that this assault on national identity and culture to which Russia was subjected was by no means confined to the Russians: Ukrainians, Belorussians, Kazakhs, Chechens, Volga Germans, Estonians, Letts and Lithuanians and Jews were denied expressions of their histories and expected to celebrate Soviet internationalism and to make it the focal point of their emotional and intellectual allegiances. To quote Lenin once more: ‘Marxism is irreconcilable with nationalism whether it is the most “just”, “pure”, subtle or civilised. In the place of any form of nationalism Marxism advocates internationalism, the merging of all nations in a higher unity, which grows before our eyes with every extra kilometre of railway line that is laid, with every international trust, with every workers’ union (international in its economic activity, and so in its ideas and aspirations)’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">The clergy of the Orthodox Church were prime targets of Bolshevik terror. Priests were arrested, harassed and executed; churches were destroyed and deliberately defiled and abandoned as relics of an age whose time has past. One of the most remarkable men of Russia’s Church was Father Pavel Florensky whose fate typifies the savagery used against the Church. His main theological work, <i>The Pillar and Ground of Truth</i>, was first published in 1914 and was widely perceived as a major contribution to Russian religious thought. In fact, Father Florensky was far more than a theologian: he was a physicist, engineer, inventor and historian and is often referred to as Russia’s Leonardo da Vinci. Yet, as far as the Soviet secret police was concerned, he was a dangerous traditionalist and enemy of the Bolsheviks.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">A central theme in the flood of party-sponsored hatred directed at Father Florensky and the Trinity-Saint Sergei Monastery where he worked and lived was that the priests, and the aristocrats who had sought sanctuary there, represented the old Russia. They were the past which the Bolsheviks had to destroy or to discredit in order to consolidate their power and so be able to carry out their communist transformation of Russia. Eventually, Father Florensky was arrested and exiled. After this spell of exile he returned to teaching, publishing, <i>The Imaginary in Geometry</i> (circa 1932/1933). Falsely accused of being a member of a counter-revolutionary organization, he was arrested again in 1933 and sentenced to 10 years in a corrective labour camp under the catch-all provisions of Article 58 of the Soviet Criminal Code. After enduring many unspeakable torments at the hand of the Bolsheviks, he was eventually shot on 8<sup>th</sup> December 1937 in the Solovetsky monastery. The case of Father Florensky is symptomatic not just of the hatred that the Bolshevik state felt for the Orthodox Church and its deep roots in Russian history and in the nation’s spiritual life, but of general hatred directed at all forms of moral and intellectual excellence. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="justify">Independence and self-sufficiency were other virtues that were attacked by the Bolsheviks. The collectivization programme, Stalin’s Final Solution of the Peasant Question, carried through in the early 1930s was intended to destroy once and for all the ancient rural way of life and to impose party rule on the countryside. This human catastrophe from which agriculture has yet to recover resulted in the deaths of some 11,000,000 peasants. Ukraine suffered the most with circa 6,000,000 being deliberately starved to death and to this extent it was also a genocidal attack on all forms of Ukrainian cultural and national identity. In Andrei Platonov’s <i>The Foundation Pit</i> (1987) which was banned for most of the Soviet period, being finally published during the <i>glasnost’</i> years, collectivization is portrayed as a form of madness, a plague of Biblical proportions. We largely see it through the lens of grotesque and black humour yet Platonov is unable to maintain this detachment permanently and through the cracks in the façade we witness the slaughter of a people in slow motion as they starve to death in prolonged agony. Russia under the Bolsheviks is a world in which nothing seems to make any sense, a precursor of the Maoist insanity that will tear China apart. Meaning has been banned or exiled. Birds, plants and insects just want to die and people engage in bizarre, Pythonesque behaviour as chaos and madness take over the world. Among the gruesome kaleidoscope of party-inspired insanity we find flashes of terrifying loneliness and sadness as some of the characters remember Russia before the Bolshevik calamity. Here are the thoughts of a peasant who has been orphaned, as it were, by the revolution: ‘His homesick mind kept imagining a village in the rye, the wind blowing up above as it gently turned the sails of a wooden mill and ground the corn for his peaceful daily bread. That was how he had lived until, recently with ample food in his belly and family happiness in his soul...’<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a></sup> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">One element of the assault on Russian national identity concerns the two Russian-language adjectives which are used to signify Russian. To Westerners this may sound too arcane to be taken seriously yet it is a matter of great import and in fact has some obvious parallels with nationality adjectives in the West. The Russian language uses two adjectives to represent Russian. The first adjective is <i>russkii</i> which refers to the language, a Russian male, female (when suitably inflected), literature and history. <i>Russkii</i> is the marker for ethnicity (race). The other adjective is <i>rossiiskii</i> which is intended to transcend the narrowness of ethnicity (race) so as to include, for example, non-ethnic Russians who are citizens of the Russian Federation. The noun that corresponds to the adjective <i>rossiiskii</i> and which is derived therefrom is <i>rossiianin</i> (nominative singular) and <i>rossiiane</i> (nominative plural).</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">In <i>Russia in Ruins </i>Solzhenitsyn points out that after 1991 a sustained effort was made by the media to inculcate the use of <i>rossiiane</i> (citizenship) instead of <i>russkie</i> (ethnicity/race).<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote4sym"><sup>4</sup></a></sup> The artificial nature of <i>rossiianin</i> is clear. To quote Solzhenitsyn: ‘Not a single non-Russian citizen of Russia, in answer to the question “who are you?”, will refer to himself as a “<i>rossiianin</i>”, but with precision will say: I am a Tartar, I am a Kalmyk, I am a Chuvash or “I am a Russian” (<i>russkii</i>), if in his soul he truly feels himself to be such’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote5sym"><sup>5</sup></a></sup> The use of <i>rossiiskii</i> by the state media is intended to support a supra-nationalism, yet, as in the United Kingdom, it is the majority, in this case the English, who suffer. Some time ago, Gisela Stuart, the German-born, Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham Edgbaston expressed concern at the increasing use of “English” by her constituents, instead of “British”, to denote their national identity. Since she can never be English, she presumably finds it threatening that so many English people are casting off the incubus of Britishness, which used to be a highly effective form of supra-nationalism; and one that inspired loyalty. Mass immigration, combined with the imposition of multiculturalism, has destroyed this category or severely weakened it, possibly beyond recovery. And, of course, what the British National Party means by “British” is not the same thing as the BBC and the Conservative and Labour parties. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">According to Solzhenitsyn, the general contempt for <i>russkii</i> goes back to the period immediately before 1917. Already among the intelligentsia or their imitators, there exists a general enmity and indifference towards the nation state, the very idea of the national (well documented in the work of Turgenev, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky). One wonders just how many of these people who publicly sneered at Russia before 1917 and sought to ingratiate themselves with the revolutionaries by indulging in poses and pretences of radical politics, were later purged and murdered by the Bolsheviks as “enemies of the people”. Solzhenitsyn refers to a perceptive article written by Petr Struve, ‘The Intelligentsia and the National Face’, which was published in the Petersburg paper, <i>The Word </i>(10<sup>th</sup> March 1909). Struve argues that the Russian intelligentsia has immersed itself in <i>rossiiskii</i> and in the process it has covered up or hidden its national visage: ‘Nationality is something far more indisputable [than race or the colour of one’s skin], and at the same time something subtle. It does not become us to dissemble [with regard to the sense of Russian national feeling] and hide our face. I, and every other Russian, we have a right to these feelings […] The more clearly that is understood …the fewer misunderstandings there will be in the future’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote6sym"><sup>6</sup></a></sup> There were to be no misunderstandings in the future, since unlike too many of the Russian educated class which was playing a game, Lenin was murderously serious and intended to destroy the Russian national consciousness so eliminating a rival to Bolshevism. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="justify">At the 10<sup>th</sup> Party Congress in 1921 the elimination of Russian chauvinism was declared to be one of the party’s main tasks. Anatolii Lunacharskii, The People’s Commissar for Enlightenment, in an article entitled ‘The Idea of Patriotism is an Idea which is utterly False’, stated that the ‘the teaching of history towards creating a sense of national pride, national feeling and so on must be discarded: the teaching of history which thirsts after examples of the past to find good patterns to emulate, must be discarded’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote7sym"><sup>7</sup></a></sup> The result was a deliberate policy of targeting Russian history, culture and language. Such indeed was the fervour to transform Russia in the 1920s that a certain Ilia Ivanov approached the People’s Commissariat of Enlightenment with the suggestion that Russian citizens be crossbred with African apes.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote8anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote8sym"><sup>8</sup></a></sup> All the measures taken by the Communist Party after 1917 to destroy Russian national consciousness and indeed all attempts to solve the nationalities question with regard to non-Russians would be fully consistent with some of the attributes of genocide set out by Raphael Lemkin in the 1940s.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><b>Nationalism Post 1945</b></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">Even though Stalin and the party had successfully exploited Russia nationalism during the Great Fatherland War (1941-1945) in order to save the Soviet regime and then deployed it against Jewish cultural figures and doctors in a wave of vicious anti-Semitism, before he died in 1953, the imperatives of holding a vast multinational empire together required the re-assertion of Soviet internationalism at the expense of Russian national identity. It was one thing to encourage Russian nationalism with the Germans closing in on Stalingrad, it was quite another to encourage the same for too long after 1945, with the start of the Cold War. The reasons are clear enough: if the Russians can promote their national identity, then so can Ukrainians, Volga Germans, Kazakhs, Jews and Chechens. In fact this was already happening. It is not widely known in the West that various mixtures of Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Belorussian separatists and nationalist groups waged an insurgency against the Red Army and the internal security troops of the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB) which only came to end in the 1950s. Again, it was expedient to use nationalism against the occupying Germans but it came with obvious dangers for the stability of the Soviet empire. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">A speech delivered by the chairman of the KGB, Iurii Andropov to the Communist Party in April 1973, the full text of which was published only as recently as 2003, reveals the depth of concern among the Soviet politburo for the threat posed by religious and nationalist groups operating inside the Soviet Union. Suslov reported that the KGB had successfully carried out a series of ‘prophylactic measures’ against those engaging in ‘the most evil nationalism’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote9anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote9sym"><sup>9</sup></a></sup> He noted that in Ukraine, Armenia, Latvia and Lithuania a number of these nationalists had been prosecuted. Interrogated, they confessed that they were supported by organizations based in the West. Moreover, noted Suslov, ‘Western subversive forces place considerable emphasis on exploiting Zionism in their anti-Soviet aims’. ‘And here, it goes without saying, it is not so much a matter of Jews emigrating to Israel, the scale of which is not that large, as much as the attempts to create a so-called “Jewish question” in order, once again, to be able to exploit it so as to discredit the Soviet system’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote10anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote10sym"><sup>10</sup></a></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">
<br /></p><i><b>Glasnost’ </b></i><b>and After</b> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">The mass publication of long-forbidden novels and the almost endless stream of revelations about Stalin’s terror and genocide which characterised the <i>glasnost’</i> period (1985-1991) did not, as Gorbachev had hoped, rescue the Soviet system: it completely destroyed any residual credibility and led to the final collapse of the Soviet experiment which had started in 1917. <i>Glasnost’</i> gave a massive boost to the many and justified nationalist grievances among the Soviet republics. All sensed that the Soviet empire was mortally wounded: that the time had come to reassert their national identities and culture. Precisely this scenario had been envisaged by the American historian, Richard Pipes, over two decades previously. In 1967, he had written: ‘On the other hand, all the evidence available both from within the Soviet Union itself and from historic parallels with other countries indicates that the nationalism of the minority peoples of the USSR (like that of the Russians themselves) has grown and intensified since 1917. There is a great deal of nationalist frustration in the Soviet Union. Unless the Soviet rulers face up to it and begin the process of decentralization voluntarily, it is likely someday to explode in a most destructive manner’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote11anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote11sym"><sup>11</sup></a></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">Among Russians the loss of empire, of great power status, acquired with so much sacrifice and the realisation that communism had killed so many and maimed so much, prompted a search for an answer to a question that periodically recurs in Russia’s history ever since it was first posed by Alexander Herzen in his novel, <i>Who is to Blame?</i> (1845-1846). Unfortunately in seeking answers to an old question, nationalists of various hues have shown themselves to be highly susceptible to conspiracy theories along the lines that; communism had been a huge Masonic-Zionist plot; or that all Russia’s ills could be laid at mysterious foreign plutocratic forces backed by NATO. The similarity between the theory of a Masonic-Zionist plot to account for Russia’s plight and the German nationalist explanation of the <i>Dolchstoßlegende</i> (the stab-in-the-back legend) used to justify the defeat in World War One, later to become official Nazi party ideology, hardly needs to be stressed. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">If certain nationalist groups, notably <i>Pamiat’</i> (<i>Memory</i>), went off the rails in looking for answers to Russia’s plight rather than acknowledge the fact that the West, whatever else it did or may have done, did not inflict the ideology of Marxism-Leninism on Russia, so did those who favoured market shock therapy and with it the message of universal human values. To this end Russia and her people were reviled and subjected to the kind of loathing that were it directed at any other ethnic (racial) group would bring forth accusations of Nazi-style racism. Solzhenitsyn provides some samples: in ‘that country’ – ‘the whole people blend into a reactionary mass’; ‘the emphasis on any truth residing in the people is self-deception’; in that country even ‘Christian foundations are practically always interwoven with the depths of moral baseness’; ‘More evil has been brought into the world by Russia than by any other country’. Russia is variously described as ‘human pigsty’ and ‘a cesspit’. Russian Orthodoxy is described as ‘a Hottentot religion’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote12anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote12sym"><sup>12</sup></a></sup> As Solzhenitsyn points out this trend could be found in the underground publications of <i>samizdat</i>. Thus: ‘The Russian idea is the main component of Bolshevism’; ‘the Russian people are oppressors and therefore do not deserve the right to nationalism’. Russian nationalism is described as ‘racist Russianism’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote13anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote13sym"><sup>13</sup></a></sup> The village prose writers, the <i>derevenshchiki</i>, who had called attention to the decline of rural life, were singled out as extremists and the organisers of pogroms. This group, incidentally, includes, two outstanding writers, Valentin Rasputin and Viktor Astaf’ev. In <i>The Damned and the Dead</i> (1992-1994), a war novel that rivals Grossman’s <i>Life and Fate</i> (1988) in its moral and spiritual profundity, Astaf’ev develops the theme that the German invasion was divine punishment for Russia’s abandoning God. Russia’s salvation, he argues, is to be found in Russia’s rediscovering the sense of the sacred. This is not the message that Russia’s secular Westernizing liberals wanted to hear. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">Nationalist groups have responded vigorously to what they regard as the organised denigration of Russia by foreigners and domestic, xenophile propaganda. <i>Russian National Unity </i>(<i>Russkoe Natsional’noe Edinstvo</i>) and <i>The Movement Against Illegal Immigration </i>(<i>Dvizhenie Protiv Nelegal’noi Immigratsii</i>) exemplify this resistance though in markedly different ways. <i>Russian National Unity</i> was founded by Alexander Barshakov in 1990 and derives much of its purpose and inspiration from Russian Orthodoxy, or rather Barshakov’s particular interpretation thereof. In 2003, Barshakov told his followers that: ‘Our people have been chosen to preserve true Orthodoxy in the world until the Second Coming’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote14anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote14sym"><sup>14</sup></a></sup> The appeal to the doctrine of the Third Rome promulgated by <span lang="en-US">Philotheus of Pskov in the sixteenth century is obvious. Philotheus interpreted Rome’s and Byzantium’s succumbing to apostasy as a shift in </span>political and religious power and influence. As he famously noted: ‘<span lang="en-US">two Romes have fallen, the Third Rome stands and a fourth Rome there shall not be’. According to Barshakov, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Russian National Unity</i></span><span lang="en-US"> was targeted by the Russian authorities, who feared his growing fame and reach. Barshakov suspected traitors (Judases) and in December 2006 started again, forming </span><span lang="en-US"><i>The Alexander Barshakov Movement</i></span><span lang="en-US">. Membership is open to anyone who shares the movement’s ideology and who ‘believes A. P. Barshakov’.</span><sup><span lang="en-US"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote15anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote15sym"><sup>15</sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-US"> In a brief statement which explains the need for the new organization, Barshakov’s comrades state that: ‘The new movement best meets our aim – the purging of Russia and opposition to the Satanic manifestations of modern civilization, and equally the operational principles of our organization and our striving for loyalty and harsh discipline’.</span><sup><span lang="en-US"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote16anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote16sym"><sup>16</sup></a></span></sup></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><span lang="en-US"><i>The Movement Against Illegal Immigration </i></span><span lang="en-US">has much in common with the views expressed in </span><span lang="en-US"><i>American Renaissance</i></span><span lang="en-US">. The preamble to their programme for dealing with legal and illegal immigration goes to the heart of the matter. Immigration is not a right but a privilege and one which is quite rightly subject to the interests of the indigenous population not the would-be immigrant: ‘We are the masters in our own home and the master himself has the right to decide in which room to accommodate a guest, for how long and indeed whether to let him in at all. This is particularly the case, if someone turns up at your home solely with the purpose of robbing you or trying to drive you out of your own home’.</span><sup><span lang="en-US"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote17anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote17sym"><sup>17</sup></a></span></sup><span lang="en-US"> The organization also calls for the deportation of illegal immigrants and harsh penalties for those who enter Russia illegally. It also demands that all persons who have entered Russia since January 1991 with the intention of living there or seeking employment should be required to take examinations in Russian language, history and culture. It also recommends that official government posts should be denied to people who have resided in Russia for less than 15 years. The charter and various policy recommendations set out by </span><span lang="en-US"><i>The Movement Against Illegal Immigration</i></span><span lang="en-US"> are rational, responsible, enforceable and long overdue. They provide a ready model for other nations threatened by mass immigration. </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">The various manifestations of Russian nationalism that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union were and remain part of the wider struggle to define post-Soviet Russia and the direction she should take. Another question, which the Bolsheviks claimed to have solved, re-emerged after 1991, where did Russia belong: was she a European nation, Asiatic or somewhere in the middle? Are the political institutions of Western liberal democracy suitable for Russia? One solution that gained some support was Eurasianism (<i>evraziistvo</i>). According to Solzhenitsyn this is the view that ‘Russia belongs organically belongs to Asia and that Russia’s future must be built on the basis of kinship and unity with Asia’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote18anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote18sym"><sup>18</sup></a></sup> Solzhenitsyn’s response to Eurasianism is characteristically blunt. It is, he argues, a sign of weakness, a lack of moral, intellectual and spiritual courage in Russia’s history; it would be renunciation, denial of everything Russian and would result in Russia’s being swallowed up in the growing Muslim population: ‘If you are threatened with national extinction then salvation is not be found here [Eurasianism]. If we manage to stand our ground then it shall only be on the stony path of our own resources, on the extensiveness and duration of our statehood, culture and Orthodox faith. And if we do not stand our ground, that means we go under’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote19anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote19sym"><sup>19</sup></a></sup> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><b>Russian Honour</b></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">The dissolution of the Soviet Union created another problem for Russians and their survival as a people the importance of which for Russians and Russian strategic thinking the West does not seem fully to understand. When the Soviet republics declared their independence, millions of Russians scattered throughout the old Soviet Union were abandoned to their fate. Solzhenitsyn refers to these Russians as the <i>otmezhevannye</i>, the ‘unacknowledged or forgotten ones’. Despite all the talk and propaganda of the Soviet version of multiculturalism, enshrined in floods of propaganda and slogans, resentment towards Russians festered underground and has now come out into the open. The way these Russian minorities in the former Soviet republics have been treated may well be one factor contributing to the explosive, often violent resentment towards non-Russian groups in Russian cities today. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">Solzhenitsyn is probably correct when he asserts that there is no example in history whereby a government has sacrificed so many of its people. The plight of the 7,000,000 Russians in Kazakhstan is especially bad. When Russians had somehow managed to return to Russia from the newly independent republics, they faced a wretched existence, rejected and despised by their own people. Solzhenitsyn interprets this behaviour as another ominous development: ‘And this is the most terrible sign of the decline of our people. There is already no sense of national unity, no well-disposed desire to accept our brothers, to help them. The fate of the rejected refugees is a terrible prediction of our own, all Russian fate’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote20anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote20sym"><sup>20</sup></a></sup> One might put a cynical slant on this situation and argue that Russia has deliberately been unwelcoming to Russians trying to return since as pawns in the calculus of <i>Realpolitik</i> they are more useful where they are. They provide a ready-made <i>casus belli</i> if it ever suited Moscow and, of course, they provide plenty of opportunity to accuse those states that harbour large Russian minorities of being guilty of persecution. Or is Solzhenitsyn closer to the truth? Perhaps the real reason fellow Russians have been abandoned is indeed spiritual exhaustion and apathy. I wonder whether the silence on the part of the West to stand up for oppressed white minorities in South Africa and Zimbabwe is part of the same problem.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">The presence of large Russian minorities cast adrift in what are independent nations some of which aspire to membership of NATO has potentially very serious military consequences. The proposal that Ukraine or Georgia should be permitted to join NATO is a direct assault on Russian national pride. It incenses the Russian government who quite rightly ask what purpose other than to threaten Russia this NATO expansion serves. Fear, honour and interest are, according to the author of the <i>History of the Peloponnesian War</i> (c.440-404 BC), the three main reasons states go to war. Russia’s relations with all the former Soviet republics are affected by the Thucydidean triad. The red line for Russia is Ukraine. Kiev occupies a special place in Russian history and Russia does not want to see Ukraine join NATO. Sevastopol is another sore point. The Russia-Ukraine agreement which provides for joint use of the naval and harbour facilities expires in 2017. Ukraine does not want to renew this agreement and Russia will not want to leave. Sevastopol reminds Russians of the way they stood up to the British and the French in the Crimean War, and the city’s place in Russian literature has been secured by Lev Tolstoy’s <i>Sevastopol Stories</i> (1855-1856), his account and observations of his time at the front as an artillery officer. How this matter will be resolved is anyone’s guess. Russia might simply refuse to go, or go, subject to Ukraine’s not joining NATO or ever permitting any troops other than those of Ukraine to be stationed there. Whereas Russia might tend to confine its treatment of the Baltic states to the occasional bout of cyber war and diplomatic awkwardness, I have no doubt that Russia would exploit the presence of Russian minorities in Ukraine to protect what it sees as legitimate cultural and historical interests. Above all it is a question of honour. War between Russia and Ukraine is a very real possibility. Bear in mind that Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty commits all members of NATO to aid another in the event of an attack. The moment Ukraine enters formal membership negotiations with NATO will be the moment when diplomatic tension and the risk of war will rise dramatically since this will be the most propitious opportunity for Russia to launch a pre-emptive strike before membership is sealed with an exchange of signatures and the provisions of Article 5 come into effect. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">The end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War inspired a remarkable consensus – remarkable for its optimism, historical ignorance and naïveté - that the future belonged to liberal democracy. According to this thesis which had first been postulated in an article by Francis Fukuyama in 1989, and then expanded into a book (<i>The End of History and the Last Man</i>, 1992), liberal democracy and the free market triumph over communism, marked the end of history. Part of the package was the assumption that universal human values would also triumph and that all states had to adopt them or would adopt them. Anticipating Pat Buchanan’s scathing references to the Western advocates of ‘democratic fundamentalism’<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote21anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote21sym"><sup>21</sup></a></sup>, who, regardless of innate and long-standing cultural and historical differences in other states, seek to impose liberal democracy (the American version) on the rest of the world, Solzhenitsyn has criticised those in Russia who propagandized the ethos of universal human values as ‘radical democrats’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote22anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote22sym"><sup>22</sup></a></sup> When the Soviet Union invaded the socialist states of Eastern Europe or threatened to, in order to suppress any manifestations of independence and the possibility that these states – East Germany (1953), Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Poland (1970 & 1981) - might break away from the Soviet sphere of influence and the Warsaw Pact, such military action was justified as rendering ‘fraternal aid’ to socialist states in distress. These interventions were widely condemned for what they were: blatant acts of aggression. Solzhenitsyn, ever alert to what he sees as a double standard and hypocrisy, points out that under the banner of spreading universal human values and democracy, NATO attacked Serbia. These he says, are not referred to as aggression but as ‘peace-keeping operations’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote23anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote23sym"><sup>23</sup></a></sup> Solzhenitsyn has a point. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">
<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><b>Race and Nation</b></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">My reading of Solzhenitsyn suggests to me that although he is not oblivious to the question of race in the formation and survival of a nation he tends to fall back on a person’s self-definition as the decisive criterion (see above). For example, he cites, with obvious approval the remarks made by General Petr Wrangel during the Civil War on what it means to be Russian: ‘ “He whose heart is Russian is with us”. One cannot put it more precisely. Nationality does not directly reside in blood but in one’s heartfelt allegiances and in the spiritual cast of one’s personality’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote24anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote24sym"><sup>24</sup></a></sup> Such an approach might be acceptable with very low numbers of enterprising, Russophile immigrants. Under the pressures induced by mass immigration it patently collapses. Russian culture, soul, language, patriotism and all the other manifestations of the Russian nation are the product of people - Russians - not Somalis and Chinese. There are, in fact, good grounds for the view that patriotism and other forms of group loyalty have a biological basis (see, for example, J. Philippe Rushton’s published research on genetic similarity theory). So, biological and genetic factors cannot just be ignored as if they were of no consequence, and, indeed, at a moment in man’s history when so much is now known about them, with much more to come, the sole reasons for continuing to ignore biological and genetic factors in immigration policies can only be due to wilful obscurantism and the ideological, relativist exigencies of multiculturalism.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">Not all Russians share the Solzhenitsyn view. In <i>The Study of Race: The Science of People’s Inherited Differences</i> (2<sup>nd</sup> edition 2007), a thoroughly researched book, Vladimir Avdeev sets out an exceptionally detailed case for the importance of race not just as a genetic and biological phenomenon, but as the decisive factor in the evolution and survival of a nation, and even as a way of understanding and preventing conflict. In the preface to the first edition, Dr A. N. Savel’ev, a deputy of Russia’s State Duma, pays full tribute to Avdeev’s work and acknowledges its significance. He readily notes that the study of race can be jeopardised by ignorant xenophobes, but he points out that: ‘xenophilia, the abnormal love for everything alien and hatred for one’s own, for one’s own nation and its culture’ is just as dangerous.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote25anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote25sym"><sup>25</sup></a></sup> In the preface to the second edition, Dr Valerii Solovei, who is affiliated to the Gorbachev Foundation, highlights the central problem facing any researcher in the field of race that would be instantly recognizable to anyone living in the West: ‘When I first saw Vladimir Borisovich Avdeev’s book, <i>The Study of Race</i>, my reaction to the title was somewhat ironic: this is just another pseudo-scientific tract concerning the mysticism of “blood” and “soil”. The instinctive, immediate character of this reaction points to the considerable moral and cultural burden associated with the term “race”, which <i>a priori</i> arouses negative connotations. Put simply, <i>any</i> judgements to do with racial matters are perceived from a position based on a presumption of mistrust, a lack of scientific rigour and even of a reactionary nature. Moreover, this response is expressed far more strongly among the class of professional, intellectuals in the arts to which the author of these lines belongs than among the public at large’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote26anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote26sym"><sup>26</sup></a></sup> The publication of Avdeev’s book in Russia highlights that in contemporary Russia there is greater intellectual freedom to discuss these themes than in the West. I could not imagine any elected official in the USA writing a positive appraisal of Michael Levin’s <i>Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean</i> (1997 & 2005) or J. Philippe Rushton’s <i>Race Evolution and Behaviour</i> (2005). Whether the publishing success of Avdeev’s book in Russia will exert any influence on Russian policy towards immigration and related areas remains to be seen. Yet there can be no doubt that many of Avdeev’s conclusions on the nature of race and racial matters directly pertain to the survival and prosperity of Russia as a <i>Russian</i> nation. Racial awareness and the measures recommended by <i>The</i> <i>Movement Against Illegal Immigration</i> are consistent with one another. The organization’s blueprint to deal with illegal immigration contains no explicit reference to race yet there is a strong presumption that race matters and that if the necessary measures are not adopted (or something along those lines) Russia will cease to be Russian. Nor are these fears that far removed from Solzhenitsyn’s defence of Russians and their rights. Without the Russian people ‘there is’, he notes, ‘no one to bear the responsibility for the preservation of the state. The fate of the Russian people will determine the fate of Russia as well’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote27anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote27sym"><sup>27</sup></a></sup> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><b>Conclusion</b></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">One can readily acknowledge that patriotism and nationalism can be abused and exploited for unwholesome ends but they are not inherently sinful. The desire on the part of Russians to preserve their great nation, their culture, and the agonising over her future, is <i>normal</i>. Indeed, every nation has the right to protect itself and ensure its survival. That is why a nation’s young men have always gone to war. As the Russian sage reminds us, ‘Love for one’s country is just as natural as love for one’s own family’.<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote28anc" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote28sym"><sup>28</sup></a></sup> That love, as in the nations of the West, has been trampled on, mocked and marginalised as something unwholesome, even wicked in pursuit of something unattainable; something that is construed and propagandised as progress yet always breaks down or can only be maintained with coercion and terror (but not indefinitely). Russia now finds herself in the aftermath of the many decades of terror which was initiated with the self-inflicted Great October Catastrophe of 1917 which ended in 1991. Many generations will come and go before finally Russia overcomes this terrible legacy.<i> </i> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify">In the last line of a short poem that has appealed to Russian and non-Russian observers of Russia ever since it was published in 1866, Fedor Tiutchev (1803-1873) tells us that: ‘One can only believe in Russia’. Writing as an Englishman, I believe in Russia. I venture, though with some trepidation, to assert that the path to Russia’s overcoming her infernal, communist century and finding her way home lies in her returning to her spiritual roots, above all to her national Church, to her organic forms of art, to the forms of internal governance that best suit Russia’s needs not the ideological platform of multiculturalism and the noisome, meddlesome importuning of the European Union and the United Nations. Institutions indigenous to Russia are the ones that will nourish and sustain her and the nation since they encapsulate the national soul. All else is confusion, penury, sorrow, the road to extinction.</p> <div id="sdfootnote1"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote1anc">1</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Alexander Solzhenitsyn, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Rossiia v obvale</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> (</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Russian in Ruins</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">) Russkii put’, Moscow, 1998, p.3.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote2"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote2anc">2</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> Vladimir Il’ich Lenin, ‘Kriticheskie zametki po natsional’nomu voprosu’ (‘Critical Observations on the National Question’, 1913), </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Sochineniia</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, volume 20, OGIZ, Moscow, 1948, pp.17-18.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote3"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote3anc">3</a> <span style="font-size:85%;">Andrei Platonov, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>The Foundation Pit</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> (</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Kotlovan</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i> </i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">trans., Robert Chandler and Geoffrey Smith, The Harvill Press, London, 1996, pp.69-70.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote4"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote4anc">4</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.174.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote5"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote5anc">5</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.175.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote6"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote6anc">6</a> Cited in <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, pp. 129-130.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote7"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote7anc">7</a> Cited in <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.134. .</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote8"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote8sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote8anc">8</a> <span style="font-size:85%;">Dmitri N. Shalin, ed., </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Russian Culture at the Crossroads: Paradoxes of Postcommunist Consciousness</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, Westview Press, Colorado and Oxford, 1996, p.106. </span> </p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote9"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote9sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote9anc">9</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> A. N. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">IAkovlev, ed. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>et al</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Lubianka: organy VChk-OGPU-NKVD-NKGB-MGB-KGB 1917-1991 spravochnik</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, in the series “Demokratiia”, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Rossiia. XX VEK, Dokumenty</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, Mezhdunarodnyi fond, Moscow, 2003, p.727.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote10"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 0.42cm;" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote10sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote10anc">10</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> A. N. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">IAkovlev, ed. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>et al</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Lubianka: organy VChk-OGPU-NKVD-NKGB-MGB-KGB 1917-1991 spravochnik</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, in the series “Demokratiia”, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Rossiia. XX VEK, Dokumenty</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, Mezhdunarodnyi fond, Moscow, 2003, p.728.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote11"> <p class="sdfootnote" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote11sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote11anc">11</a> Richard Pipes, ‘ “Solving” the Nationality Problem’, <i>Problems of Communism</i>, September – October 1967, vol. XVI, Special Issue, Nationalities and Nationalism in the USSR, p.131.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote12"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote12sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote12anc">12</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.141.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote13"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote13sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote13anc">13</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.140.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote14"> <p class="sdfootnote" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote14sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote14anc">14</a> See <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><u><a href="http://barshakov.com/propaganda/integration.php">http://barshakov.com/propaganda/integration.php</a></u></span> (site visited 22nd June 2009).</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote15"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote15sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote15anc">15</a> See <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><u><a href="http://barshakov.com/organization/index">http://barshakov.com/organization/index</a></u></span> (site visited 22nd June 2009).</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote16"> <p class="sdfootnote" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote16sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote16anc">16</a> See <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><u><a href="http://barshakov.co./organization/foundation">http://barshakov.co./organization/foundation</a></u></span> (site visited 22nd June 2009).</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote17"> <p class="sdfootnote" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote17sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote17anc">17</a> See <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><u><a href="http://dpni.org/articles">http://dpni.org/articles</a></u></span> (site visited 7th July 2009).</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote18"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote18sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote18anc">18</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.44.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote19"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote19sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote19anc">19</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.45.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote20"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote20sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote20anc">20</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.71.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote21"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" align="justify"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote21sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote21anc">21</a><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Patrick J. Buchanan, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;">, Crown Publishers, New York, 2008, p.420.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote22"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote22sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote22anc">22</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.28.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote23"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote23sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote23anc">23</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.29.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote24"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote24sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote24anc">24</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.174.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote25"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote25sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote25anc">25</a> <i>The Study of Race</i>, pp.5-6.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote26"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote26sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote26anc">26</a> <i>The Study of Race</i>, p.8 (emphasis in the original).</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote27"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote27sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote27anc">27</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.132.</p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote28"> <p class="sdfootnote"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote28sym" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=2127052189436218483&postID=8978685490067935180#sdfootnote28anc">28</a> <i>Russia in Ruins</i>, p.154.</p> </div>
<br /><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Click here to return to Sarah: Maid of Albion</span></span></a>
<br />
<br />Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-16693976050105769722009-09-27T04:11:00.000-07:002009-09-27T04:25:59.215-07:00The Mythology of Nelson Mandela<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqz58P6TY9DAdZpzGega4VYI4f-mJnyH6UhHywnKSnLsACmOWsmdKAV6vaCTS2NEPuTuZBH4Yw8PUMJX1HwP48-FPMzr0wyQ6f2NxCBdZaeoim5EyijdmfEQb9cVah8lto1SCf-SeuIqpA/s1600-h/Nelson_close.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 256px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqz58P6TY9DAdZpzGega4VYI4f-mJnyH6UhHywnKSnLsACmOWsmdKAV6vaCTS2NEPuTuZBH4Yw8PUMJX1HwP48-FPMzr0wyQ6f2NxCBdZaeoim5EyijdmfEQb9cVah8lto1SCf-SeuIqpA/s400/Nelson_close.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5386104113614796738" border="0" /></a>By <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/search/label/August%20Pontneuf">August Pointneuf</a><br />_____________________________________________<br />Originally posted to the main Sarah: Maid of Albion blog under the title <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/mandela-myth.html">"The Mandela Myth"</a><br />_____________________________________________<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Mandela is widely held to be “one of the greatest statesmen in the world”. This seems to be based on these six pillars:</span></span> </div><p style="margin-left: 18pt; text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><ol start="1" style="text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;" type="1"><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">Martyrdom</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:100%;">. A closer look at this “self sacrifice” is not convincing. Mandela was jailed following an open trial, under one of the best judicial systems. It has never been suggested that this trial was perverted or corrupt. He was found guilty of contravening the laws universal to the land, and more than that, he had promoted a policy of terrorism. He had plans to disrupt law and order and impose a terrorism which would result in the maiming and death of many good and law abiding persons, children and elderly. When subsequently imprisoned he was offered release provided only that he would renounce his support of violence. He would not. Accordingly he remained in prison. Later, by the most extraordinary inversion of innate justice he was awarded the Nobel Prize for <i><span style="font-style: italic;">peace</span></i>. It may well be that the Nobel Prize committee will, in retrospect, attempt to distance themselves from it.</span></li></ol><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="margin-left: 18pt; text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US"> </span></b></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><ol start="2" style="text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;" type="1"><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">He saved South Africa from a blood bath.</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:100%;"> When persons spoke, prior to independence, of an impending “blood bath” they were imaging the events as they had previously occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. These past “blood baths” were not as much exercises in retribution (the veiled threat to South Africans) but simply sprees of looting and rapine. There was probably no possibility whatever of South Africa as a whole rising in this way, because of a well formulated social infrastructure, with an effective police force (operating entirely within an open judicial system) and the other components of a stable society. </span></li></ol><div class="im" style="text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"> <p style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Such was the relationship between the communities under apartheid rule in South Africa that an intrinsic stability, and for that matter mutual respect, existed.<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref1"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn1" title=""><sup>[1]</sup></a> There were, of course, the well recorded “insurrections”, but a critical look at the numbers will demonstrate that these were by a minute percentage of the population. “<i><span style="font-style: italic;">The Blood Bath will come…”</span></i> was an emotively convenient threat, much along the line “if you don’t give me your ball, I will ask my daddy to beat you up”. This phrase and its implied emotive threats, was something conjured by those who were intent on destroying an existing system by inducing fear. </span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 18pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 54pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Far from demonstrating that Nelson Mandela was responsible for “preventing a blood bath”, the evidence points in the opposite direction. He founded and was the head of an organization which promoted bloody massacres of civilian populations.<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref2"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn2" title=""><sup>[2]</sup></a> Not only that, he was leading the ANC which effected a bloody suppression on their own “recruits” in the ANC army-in-exile. </span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-size:100%;">The truth and Reconciliation Commission ruled that these ANC activities were a “gross violation of human rights”<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref3"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn3" title=""><sup>[3]</sup></a> </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 54pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">A blood bath did occur, </span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:100%;">but<b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></b><i><span style="font-style: italic;">after</span></i> “independence” and <i><span style="font-style: italic;">after </span></i>universal suffrage, when Mandela was in command. Part of this was black on black violence during the build up to the first election, reported to have claimed more than 20,000 black lives. Did Mandela stop that blood bath? Short answer; no.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 54pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">The slaughter still continues with the selective execution of isolated (white) farmers by the thousand and the phenomenal homicide, mostly associated with robbery.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 54pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Under a “liberated” black government the “blood bath” happened more slowly than the other African atrocities. The difference was that “world opinion” did not want to believe that this was happening <i><span style="font-style: italic;">after</span></i> an “independence” which they had promoted. Slowly accumulating statistics of killings do not make headlines. </span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 54pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">The looting of South Africa did occur</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:100%;"> but in a different way from the rest of Africa. What distinguished the looting of South Africa from other historic rampages in Africa was that it was slower and politically engineered, under the leadership of Mandela. The initial looting was by “cold theft” engineered by the ANC by the subtle stripping of the assets under various legislated ploys such as “black empowerment” and “affirmative action”. This was followed by massive corruption, embezzlement and fraud perpetrated by individual members of the ANC, on their own account. </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 54pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Later the avalanche of confrontational crime, murder, hijackings and wide spread theft cascaded throughout the country as criminals began to appreciate that under a black government there were now no longer the same restraints against lawlessness as there had been under white government.</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: 6pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <ol start="3" type="1"><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">Mandela exemplified pacifism, </span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:100%;">as claimed in his</span><span lang="EN" style="font-size:100%;"> well publicized comment: </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="font-style: italic;" lang="EN-US">“Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC , MK <span style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);">(</span><a style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe" title="Umkhonto we Sizwe" target="_blank">Umkhonto we Sizwe</a><span style="color: rgb(102, 204, 204);">)</span> was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be created soon, so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.</span></i><i><span style="font-style: italic;" lang="EN">”</span></i></span></li></ol> <p style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN">Mandela founded the MK, and became its leader immediately after he had been acquitted from his first trial. This gives credibility to his initial arrest since. Mandela <i><span style="font-style: italic;">had </span></i>been actively promoting terrorism. This earlier acquittal underscores the judicial objectivity of Mandela’s first trial, such that he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted (although it subsequently became clear that he was intent on promoting violence). </span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN">The reason for what Mandela called “<i><span style="font-style: italic;">the initial passive resistance</span></i>” was not that he did not want violence but simply because there were no funds to run a military campaign. Mandela was hardly the organiser it is claimed that he was. Further he had little support from the black population, despite the consistent emotive rhetoric about a “suppressed people”. At that date the <i><span style="font-style: italic;">“armed struggle”</span></i> was an empty fantasy. It was later conceded by the ANC that this was no more than a propaganda strategy primarily geared towards mobilizing mass political support. Mandela was simply garnishing inability with virtue</span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 18pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN"> </span></b></span></p> <ol start="4" type="1"><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN">Mandela was dispassionately objective</span></b></span><span lang="EN" style="font-size:100%;">. This attribution later allowed him to act as an international mediator over a wide range of political and legal issues. How objective was he? A demonstration of his lack of impartiality was his speech in Havana on 26 July 1991. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela" title="Nelson Mandela" target="_blank">Nelson Mandela</a> supported the Cuban version of the battle of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><cite><i><span lang="EN">Cuito Cuanavale</span></i></cite></span><span lang="EN" style="font-size:100%;"> by saying: <i><span style="font-style: italic;">“The defeat of the apartheid army </span></i>(at Cuito Cuanavale)<i><span style="font-style: italic;"> was an inspiration to the struggling people in South Africa! Without the defeat of </span></i>(sic)<i><span style="font-style: italic;"> Cuito Cuanavale our organizations would not have been unbanned! The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today! Cuito Cuanavale was a milestone in the history of the struggle for southern African liberation!"<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref4"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn4" title=""><b><sup><span style="font-weight: bold;">[4]</span></sup></b></a> </span></i></span></li></ol> <p style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN">Chester Crocker, with his backing of CIA knowledge, and with arguably a more arms-length objectivity, saw it quite differently<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref5"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn5" title=""><sup>[5]</sup></a>. If one accepts Chester Crocker’s countering opinion, Mandela’s views can be regarded as grossly distortive “Black Consciousness Propaganda”. </span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 18pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US"> </span></b></span></p> <ol start="5" type="1"><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">Nelson Mandela personified opposition to black oppression</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:100%;">. Undoubtedly Mandela was symbolic to the large and unsuccessful peasant populations, implying that they, also, via their vicarious surrogate, Nelson Mandela, could triumph over the white civilization. This re-ignited the symbolism of Mahatma Gandhi, who also had a reputation for passifism. Ironically he was also a lawyer, who obtained, from the British Government, the benefit of training in law. But his “passifism” must also be doubted.<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref6"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn6" title=""><sup>[6]</sup></a></span></li></ol> </div><p style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Far from “rescuing” the masses from impoverishment the income of most peasant South Africans has decreased since “independence”. Small numbers of selected elite blacks, on the other hand, have become exceptionally wealthy</span></span></p><div class="im" style="text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"> <p style="margin-left: 18pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US"> </span></b></span></p> <ol start="6" type="1"><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">He exhibited supreme statesmanship as President of South Africa</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:100%;">. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prior to the release of Nelson Mandela and the truce offered to the ANC, Mandela and the ANC were approached by South Africa’s very successful financial and industrial cohort. This was as an “economic truce within a political truce”. It must be remembered that the entire population of South Africa, in distinction from the rest of Africa and most of the rest of the world, were the beneficiaries of the extraordinary successful system evolved by Colonialism. In pre-independence meetings with ANC, notably in Lusaka, the high probabilities are that the cohort wanted to explain to the ANC that they would be inheriting a jewel. It would have been pointed out to them that damaging this financial axis would damage the entire country, probably in an irreparable fashion. Those affected by damaging the South African economy would be the most vulnerable, the poorest. </span></li></ol> </div><p style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">There could have been no other reasons for the Lusaka meeting other than that portrayed here. Paternal, as it might have been, for Mandela to heed this cautioning from the people then in power was vital to the future welfare of the entire population of South Africa and beyond.</span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">The preservation of South Africa’s economy depended upon Mandela’s leadership.With huge international and internal support no politician could have had a stronger mandate than Nelson Mandela. </span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Despite such support, and despite august warnings, Mandela failed totally to protect the existing structures, and within a short period after “independence” it became clear to the financial and industrial core of South Africa that the ANC would proceed on its own agenda, which would destroy the industrial/financial infrastructure of South Africa<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref7"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn7" title=""><sup>[7]</sup></a>. </span></span></p><div class="im" style="text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"> <p style="margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">This resulted in the financial axis, exemplified by Anglo American, Liberty Life and Old Mutual, rapidly exiting. While powerful companies in South Africa had sufficient resources to relocate into the First World many lesser businesses did not and remained trapped. Therefore individuals, seeing themselves threatened, emigrated en masse<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref8"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn8" title=""><sup>[8]</sup></a>, thus further reducing the professional and other skilled resources of the country, and so by a cascade damaging the financial benefit which had made black South Africans the best cared for, best educated, healthiest and most affluent in (at least) sub-Saharan Africa.</span></span></p> </div><p style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Once in office Mandela took control of only one portfolio, Race Relations, which was unlikely to be controversial, and could hardly fail. However, in the circumstances, this instantly invested him with more virtue. He took some interest in the military where he tried to ensure the language of operation was not English. He was rapidly over-ruled, having displayed an astounding lack of common-sense, let alone a lack of statesmanship. For the rest he delegated to his ministers showing little interest in their management, and so effectively abdicating any leadership.</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;font-family:courier new;"><div class="h5"> <p style="margin-left: 36pt;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Therefore Mandela’ failed as a politician by not recognizing the extraordinary infrastructure which he, and the ANC, had inherited. He failed protect it and failed to support the existing structures in a way which could multiply South Africa’s past success. The jewel which was South Africa – in stark contrast to the rest of Africa - should have been obvious to the blindest. But Mandela permitted the progressive erosion of the South African infrastructure by nepotism and crime at an administrative level and by gain-seeking individuals - primarily those with political connections to him – and who were (nominally) under his “statesmanship”. Most of the “statesmanship” purported to originate from Mandela’s office was in reality orchestrated by the now defunct Thabo Mbeki. An illusion of his political capacity was thrust upon him by a surge of world wide emotion which obscured his limited intrinsic abilities, </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 36pt;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Mandela abandoned his role as leader of the country after the least possible period, and while it still needed stable leadership. However he was in office long enough to accumulate a substantial wealth, which further distanced him from the increasing poverty of the population under his control.<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref9"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn9" title=""><sup>[9]</sup></a> </span></span></p> <p style="text-indent: 36pt;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">No saintly asceticism here.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN-US">Conclusion.</span></b></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:100%;"> The greatest condemnation that must be leveled at Mandela was his failure to accept that with universal franchise all playing fields had been leveled. He failed to demand that the future success of individuals and groups would depend upon their intrinsic capabilities. Instead, he over-saw an astonishing exercise which effectively said that the groups coming into power should have their past inferiority recognized by being given advantageous benefits, in the form of black empowerment, affirmative action and similar. This shows the hollowness to his oft quoted statements </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 36pt;font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="font-style: italic;" lang="EN-US">“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve”. </span></i></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">Further, those persons who had previously created the successful socio-financial axis were intentionally and unfairly discriminated against.<a name="11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftnref10"></a><a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=v0lxBnHNwXQ&am=X7V4pcX3cBGIB_Xi0fy0_Rd5XA#11f9eb0ab4795c59_11f87cf85fb13756__ftn10" title=""><sup>[10]</sup></a> This inflicted a substantial deprivation of human rights and an injury to those individuals who had historically created for their communities from the parched earth of what had been a derelict country when they arrived.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">This paper aims to be factually correct. To ensure veracity Mandela and others are invited to respond correcting any inadvertent errors.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US">August Pontneuf</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="" lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US">References:</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">[1]</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-ZA">In a separate essay it will be posed that the black population, if extremists are excluded, fully recognised that the basis of apartheid was no more than the natural, and expected, protection by the white population of their complex culture, and material social creation. The indigenous population recognised that apartheid was not a system of malice, and far from exploiting the indigenous culture, it offered the opportunity for the indigenous population to enter the realm of capitalist Christian Democracy. </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">2</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><cite><i><span lang="EN">Report (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_%28South_Africa%29" title="Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)" target="_blank">Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)</a>) <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">2</span></b>: 333</span></i></cite></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN">. <a href="http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/TRC%20VOLUME%202.pdf" title="http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/TRC%20VOLUME%202.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/<wbr>report/finalreport/TRC%<wbr>20VOLUME%202.pdf</a><cite><i>. "THE CONSEQUENCE IN THESE CASES, SUCH AS THE MAGOO’S BAR AND THE DURBAN ESPLANADE BOMBINGS, WERE GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THAT THEY RESULTED IN INJURIES TO AND THE DEATHS OF CIVILIANS.”</i></cite> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-ZA"> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">3</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN"><a href="http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/TRC%20VOLUME%202.pdf" title="http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/TRC%20VOLUME%202.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/<wbr>report/finalreport/TRC%<wbr>20VOLUME%202.pdf</a><cite><i>. "THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ‘SUSPECTED AGENTS’ WERE ROUTINELY SUBJECTED TO TORTURE AND OTHER FORMS OF SEVERE ILL-TREATMENT AND THAT THERE WERE CASES WHERE SUCH INDIVIDUALS WERE CHARGED AND CONVICTED BY TRIBUNALS WITHOUT PROPER ATTENTION TO DUE PROCESS BEING AFFORDED THEM, SENTENCED TO DEATH AND EXECUTED.".</i></cite></span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">4</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale#cite_ref-52%23cite_ref-52" title="" target="_blank">^</a></span></b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN"> <cite><i>Castro Ruz, Fidel Alejandro and Mandela, Nelson (1991). How Far We Slaves Have Come. N.Y.: Pathfinder Press. pp. 18–20. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0873484975" target="_blank">ISBN 0873484975</a>.</i></cite> </span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">5</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><b><span style="font-weight: bold;" lang="EN"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale#cite_ref-14%23cite_ref-14" title="" target="_blank">^</a></span></b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN"> <cite><i>Crocker, Chester A. (1992). <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=9D1xAQAACAAJ&dq=High+Noon+in+Southern+Africa:+Making+Peace+in+a+Rough+Neighborhood" title="http://books.google.com/books?id=9D1xAQAACAAJ&dq=High+Noon+in+Southern+Africa:+Making+Peace+in+a+Rough+Neighborhood" target="_blank">High Noon in Southern Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood</a>. W.W. Norton. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0393034321" target="_blank">ISBN 0393034321</a></i></cite>. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=9D1xAQAACAAJ&dq=High+Noon+in+Southern+Africa:+Making+Peace+in+a+Rough+Neighborhood" title="http://books.google.com/books?id=9D1xAQAACAAJ&dq=High+Noon+in+Southern+Africa:+Making+Peace+in+a+Rough+Neighborhood" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?<wbr>id=9D1xAQAACAAJ&dq=High+Noon+<wbr>in+Southern+Africa:+Making+<wbr>Peace+in+a+Rough+Neighborhood</a><cite><i>. "In early October the Soviet-Fapla offensive was smashed at the Lomba River near Mavinga. It turned into a headlong retreat over the 120 miles back to the primary launching point at Cuito Cuanavale. In some of the bloodiest battles of the entire civil war, a combined force of some 8,000 UNITA fighters and 4,000 SADF troops destroyed one Fapla brigade and mauled several others out of a total Fapla force of some 18,000 engaged in the three-pronged offensive. Estimates of Fapla losses ranged upward of 4,000 killed and wounded. This offensive had been a Soviet conception from start to finish. Senior Soviet officers played a central role in its execution. ... Huge quantities of Soviet equipment were destroyed or fell into UNITA and SADF hands when Fapla broke into a disorganized retreat... The 1987 military campaign represented a stunning humiliation for the Soviet Union, its arms and its strategy. ... As of mid-November, the UNITA/SADF force had destroyed the Cuito Cuanavale airfield and pinned down thousands of FAPLA's best remaining units clinging onto the town's defensive perimeters."</i></cite> Crocker was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Reagan Administration</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">6</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-ZA">Gandhi, also famed for pacifism</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN"> actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians in Natal into the army, during the Zulu war. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">7</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-ZA">Anglo-American Corporation has moved almost all its gold interests out of South Africa.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">8</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-ZA">Semi-official figures state that one quarter of the white population has emigrated. The true figure will be considerably higher.</span></span></p> <p style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US">9 The number of “Mandela Trusts is obscure, but there are at least three. Best known is the Mandela Children’s Fund. Totally separate and less known is the Nelson Mandela Trust holding funds available to Mandela personally. One of the scams relating to “Nelson Mandela Signed Artwork” was expected to make for the Nelson Mandela Trust (i.e. Mandela personally) 200,000,000 rand in two years. Clearly there are immense funds in Mandela’s purse.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;"><sup><span lang="EN-US">10</span></sup></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-ZA">See <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/parallels-from-past.html">“T</a><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/parallels-from-past.html">he comparison of Nazism with the ANC”</a></span></span></p><p>______________________</p><p>Related articles: <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion2.blogspot.com/2008/06/mandela-legend-and-legacy.html">Mandela the Legend and the Legacy</a></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-ZA"><a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/parallels-from-past.html"><br /></a></span></span></p> </div></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-30620087795295409302009-06-29T11:39:00.000-07:002009-06-29T11:56:45.250-07:00One man's icon<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcImiYbn8ct_IS-6JxxKjmOqBbhwskgYrisgi8KidkIFS0RRgqIcvyOvDmP15wo2fDEUgsJKknwzv39WZBOuREhE0T393-QIdrltVIicmbQBcx9e22YfWJzj3yzslAUirj3eDTpmjxqQ2B/s1600-h/Jackson.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 305px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcImiYbn8ct_IS-6JxxKjmOqBbhwskgYrisgi8KidkIFS0RRgqIcvyOvDmP15wo2fDEUgsJKknwzv39WZBOuREhE0T393-QIdrltVIicmbQBcx9e22YfWJzj3yzslAUirj3eDTpmjxqQ2B/s400/Jackson.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5352821300717268610" border="0" /></a>Is it just me, but can anyone else imagine any circumstances where the death of an aging white rock star would have become an event of international mourning if he had been accused of paedophilia twice and had admitted sharing his bed with pre-pubescent boys?<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbamlJzu0lavdLM1KjaR8Gxw4jNqb9MA4xNTdn6gNIQ0u-JHF2Ry03Ur7AtexgafDpfwqZMekHscDQAN3HupzySnb3huDjb73FnXBOc2ELBVi1ulGPE3gT8oQBFkkN3HJUFS-zFCgZG7zD/s1600-h/jordy_neverland.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 271px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbamlJzu0lavdLM1KjaR8Gxw4jNqb9MA4xNTdn6gNIQ0u-JHF2Ry03Ur7AtexgafDpfwqZMekHscDQAN3HupzySnb3huDjb73FnXBOc2ELBVi1ulGPE3gT8oQBFkkN3HJUFS-zFCgZG7zD/s400/jordy_neverland.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5352824296404415410" border="0" /></a> One person who the media have studiously avoided interviewing is the - now grown up - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson">Jordy Chandler </a>(above), I wonder what he makes of the current circus?<br /></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-66496281080297942282008-08-25T12:17:00.000-07:002008-08-25T12:21:56.574-07:00A denial of greatness<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvB8dQG423D474pq06OWr7Dq3im6u_uXIj9hObVSjaNCngneIBu8YW6nU39ymE_ky5RAX6iGAifuW6s0cZw0v5tFCoQbAauKG7_Py7trUuyyiJqqZvCzV1HmEaMx4QeAiF0ce9NdpbNGXV/s1600-h/beijing_bus2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5238537088494961970" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvB8dQG423D474pq06OWr7Dq3im6u_uXIj9hObVSjaNCngneIBu8YW6nU39ymE_ky5RAX6iGAifuW6s0cZw0v5tFCoQbAauKG7_Py7trUuyyiJqqZvCzV1HmEaMx4QeAiF0ce9NdpbNGXV/s400/beijing_bus2.jpg" border="0" /></a><div></div><div align="justify"><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />What does it say about us as a country? More importantly what future has a nation which has rejected its past?<br /><br />What was the purpose of Saturday's excruciating performance? Will it attract visitors to Britain? Will it attract investment? I doubt it<br /><br />Do tourists come to Britain to “embrace our multicultural society” or do they come in search of our heritage and our history.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. </div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-71978601393685133462008-08-23T13:33:00.001-07:002008-08-23T13:39:54.249-07:00Publicising Paedophilia<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvYnW6wJ1ApYPN5G9ql6fp-CPW1-1-Cdo_RgVe6D9qrhSTJbL8mM_tW6HCsGdDcGh_tubg-ZEIJLBx7-AG9DzDUcuQJ3UWvuRN9-j7sEXvBCuRzUjlvLdZPsGo_Sl_RG16MFsPq7w0TTNa/s1600-h/Gary_Glitter2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5237814177479973202" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvYnW6wJ1ApYPN5G9ql6fp-CPW1-1-Cdo_RgVe6D9qrhSTJbL8mM_tW6HCsGdDcGh_tubg-ZEIJLBx7-AG9DzDUcuQJ3UWvuRN9-j7sEXvBCuRzUjlvLdZPsGo_Sl_RG16MFsPq7w0TTNa/s400/Gary_Glitter2.jpg" border="0" /></a> As the world's most famous living <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/glitter-returns-to-face-music-906532.html">convicted paedophile </a>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.<br /><br />The <a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Gary-Glitter-On-Plane-Back-To-London/Article/200808315084334?lpos=World%2BNews_7&lid=ARTICLE_15084334_Gary%2BGlitter%2BOn%2BPlane%2BBack%2BTo%2BLondon">flashbulb frenzy </a>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 th<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2538090.ece">ose they do not.</a><br /><br />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 <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7561915.stm">obscure individuals</a> with no famous past will find their faces plastered across the front pages and TV news stories if they are exposed as a paedophile.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-62852163018382049432008-08-23T13:25:00.001-07:002008-08-23T13:32:56.067-07:00To kill the killers?<div align="justify"><br /></div><div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpJx8z40GLqXSK_faDPTdJyT4fmsbdpMWanVqyq8AfMdsN3lYzW4lNUs_8hfPcOEzX-sL4R6t4qxociqa_W4PPk5uZSin7KIUaFJtDVb2VgM5mvGiuU4_vst3X_Y2wlHzv6HNAIIN2Kik/s1600-h/duncan.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5237812076209384754" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpJx8z40GLqXSK_faDPTdJyT4fmsbdpMWanVqyq8AfMdsN3lYzW4lNUs_8hfPcOEzX-sL4R6t4qxociqa_W4PPk5uZSin7KIUaFJtDVb2VgM5mvGiuU4_vst3X_Y2wlHzv6HNAIIN2Kik/s400/duncan.jpg" border="0" /></a> Reading the reports from Boise Idaho whilst the jury deliberate on the fate of convicted paedophile and child murderer <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/22/duncan.verdict.ap/index.html">Joseph Duncan III</a>, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />There are many reasons why people kill, none are forgivable, but not all killers are as irredeemably damned as Joseph Duncan.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/evans_christie.htm">executed</a>.but also, because I doubt it's effectiveness as a deterrent.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, who would they hang?<br /><br />Consider for a moment the opinion much of the British public have of <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article501407.ece">Maxine Carr</a>, 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_West">Rose West</a> and <a href="http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/famous_criminal/33/home/1/Myra_Hindley.htm">Myra Hindley</a>.<br /><br />Were her fate to be left to the Madame Defarges in the public galery it would not be a happy one.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1402527.stm">Jamie Bulger</a>? 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://wfmz.com/view/?id=315737">accused</a> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case">false rape claims</a> were made against three Lacrosse players in 2006, to know that racist mob justice comes in many shades in the 21st Century.<br /><br />As society, we must never allow the law of the mob to decide what is justice.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /></div><div align="justify"><br /></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAlti6a6xtMEVQ-OWIaYn5EjTStMfz6TokofPVwbs2Bj2YKqUE7c6eMcjsMcmsqbUejDwSAm-64kF2iNuMGAik5q2qI1PaaSlOKhpc1FYL8mj6OqxBdA0lwaRQ1q5jZQ39vx7FxNKeSbp4/s1600-h/Kriss_Donalds_killers.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5237812350154744002" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAlti6a6xtMEVQ-OWIaYn5EjTStMfz6TokofPVwbs2Bj2YKqUE7c6eMcjsMcmsqbUejDwSAm-64kF2iNuMGAik5q2qI1PaaSlOKhpc1FYL8mj6OqxBdA0lwaRQ1q5jZQ39vx7FxNKeSbp4/s400/Kriss_Donalds_killers.jpg" border="0" /></a>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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />I can ask myself these questions in the face of my fine words, but can only answer, I don't know.Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-17516786141055118422008-08-11T02:03:00.001-07:002008-08-11T04:56:59.322-07:00Appeal For The 'Heretical Two'<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi60eNARblQMVt5i0eMbT_1GTXVf-_4NXzEcH20PL1nol11_ZPR7pCYgeMKPDV1A3GVmZOyhMJJcQjewswcFy_fk5pgXnckp4u2V2QvkFdjQVOOxSGdDXWLCNhda4WaGSe9o54q2Wb8eutC/s1600-h/justice.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5233183401098018978" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi60eNARblQMVt5i0eMbT_1GTXVf-_4NXzEcH20PL1nol11_ZPR7pCYgeMKPDV1A3GVmZOyhMJJcQjewswcFy_fk5pgXnckp4u2V2QvkFdjQVOOxSGdDXWLCNhda4WaGSe9o54q2Wb8eutC/s400/justice.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="justify">As readers may recall, <a href="http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-law-for-them.html">Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle</a>, the 'Heretical Two' are currently in custody in California after appealing for political asylum in the USA.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2008/08/5000-appeal-for-heretical-two.html">Home of the Green Arrow </a><br /><br />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.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />In Britain that can be a criminal offense, surely that can not be right.<br /><br />For that fact alone, I believe these men deserve our support, for without free speech there is no freedom.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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 <a href="http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Racehate-pair-flee-to-US.4291680.jp">Yorkshire Post</a> on July 16. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />The fact that it is happening is something which all of us, whatever our political affiliations, should find very frightening.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">________________________________</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><em>‘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.’</em> Sir Stanley Unwin </div><div align="justify"></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-15903654160510995262008-08-09T06:26:00.001-07:002008-08-09T06:39:18.515-07:00To blame for Africa<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidBaXMRKeQa8UwbEawRhznzFZ8yg2BdjQ5UcQHJHp7i3ZVJAowoqXo5DTpD87jKc5ir3bvBzL9NqLsbfc7wQ-N5wDQRlRout_T8-QPbaSHCrgyF_JffvRxiLG2MjFjEoNjwfIbUGcr_eK0/s1600-h/rwanda.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232508865723341858" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidBaXMRKeQa8UwbEawRhznzFZ8yg2BdjQ5UcQHJHp7i3ZVJAowoqXo5DTpD87jKc5ir3bvBzL9NqLsbfc7wQ-N5wDQRlRout_T8-QPbaSHCrgyF_JffvRxiLG2MjFjEoNjwfIbUGcr_eK0/s400/rwanda.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="justify">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 <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7545168.stm">claims by the Rwandan government </a>that France played an active role in the genocide during the early 1990’s, are troubling, not least because of the wider implications.<a name="zls.48"></a><a name="zls.49"></a><a name="zls.50"></a><a name="zls.51"></a><a name="zls.52"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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.<br /><br /><a name="zls.53"></a><a name="zls.54"></a><a name="zls.55"></a><a name="zls.56"></a><a name="zls.57"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">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.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a name="zls.58"></a><a name="zls.59"></a><a name="zls.60"></a><a name="zls.61"></a><a name="zls.62"></a>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.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a name="zls.63"></a><a name="zls.64"></a><a name="zls.65"></a><a name="zls.66"></a><a name="zls.67"></a>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?.<br /><br /></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a name="zls.68"></a><a name="zls.69"></a><a name="zls.70"></a><a name="zls.71"></a><a name="zls.72"></a>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.<a name="zls.73"></a><a name="zls.74"></a><a name="zls.75"></a><a name="zls.76"></a><a name="zls.77"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Patriotic_Front">Rwandan Patriotic Front</a>.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a name="zls.78"></a><a name="zls.79"></a><a name="zls.80"></a><a name="zls.81"></a><a name="zls.82"></a><br />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.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a name="zls.83"></a><a name="zls.84"></a><a name="zls.85"></a><a name="zls.86"></a><a name="zls.87"></a><br />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 <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/britain+to+stop+training+kenyan+soldiers+after+insurgency+crushed/2363667">Mount Elgon region </a>of Western Kenya, not to mention the outbreak of tribal violence earlier this year demonstrated, can have some problematic outcomes.<a name="zls.88"></a><a name="zls.89"></a><a name="zls.90"></a><a name="zls.91"></a><a name="zls.92"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a name="zls.93"></a><a name="zls.94"></a><a name="zls.95"></a><a name="zls.96"></a><a name="zls.97"></a><br />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 <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/1574246/Inside-Kenya-The-tribal-slaughter.html">exploded into tribal violence </a>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.<a name="zls.98"></a><a name="zls.99"></a><a name="zls.100"></a><br /></div><div align="justify"><br />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.<a name="zls.101"></a><a name="zls.102"></a><a name="zls.103"></a><a name="zls.104"></a><a name="zls.105"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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?<a name="zls.106"></a><a name="zls.107"></a><a name="zls.108"></a><a name="zls.109"></a><a name="zls.110"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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?.<a name="zls.111"></a><a name="zls.112"></a><a name="zls.113"></a><a name="zls.114"></a><a name="zls.115"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />Our troops in Kenya have already been confronted with ludicrous and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/27/kenya.military">palpably trumped up charges</a>, 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?<a name="zls.116"></a><a name="zls.117"></a><a name="zls.118"></a><a name="zls.119"></a><a name="zls.120"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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.<a name="zls.121"></a><a name="zls.122"></a><a name="zls.123"></a><a name="zls.124"></a><a name="zls.125"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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.<a name="zls.126"></a><a name="zls.127"></a><a name="zls.128"></a><a name="zls.129"></a><a name="zls.130"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />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 name="zls.131"></a><a name="zls.132"></a><a name="zls.133"></a><a name="zls.134"></a><a name="zls.135"></a></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />A century and a half of comparatively benign rule and relative prosperity were forever lost forty years ago in an ill begotten, and premature, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_of_Change_(speech)">wind of change</a>. 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.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a name="zls.136"></a><a name="zls.137"></a><a name="zls.138"></a><a name="zls.139"></a><a name="zls.140"></a><br />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.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2127052189436218483.post-68812866299877837742008-08-09T06:02:00.000-07:002008-08-09T06:23:02.553-07:00One law for them<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqTOMspsfTQwx-kIPgk2ZhTALWlKkxts-wL_cY7y6XnuSrh1WWPzqb78m7HLDyYWxQNE3MOv8z2esxg5ctvfqlaRupGCMeUA2LMoJjxhqrhLhAEljqcHIpyyqXd-ABmA6jkqBMGfFhPO6d/s1600-h/blind_justice2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232502860817006130" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqTOMspsfTQwx-kIPgk2ZhTALWlKkxts-wL_cY7y6XnuSrh1WWPzqb78m7HLDyYWxQNE3MOv8z2esxg5ctvfqlaRupGCMeUA2LMoJjxhqrhLhAEljqcHIpyyqXd-ABmA6jkqBMGfFhPO6d/s400/blind_justice2.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> (First posted <a href="http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-law-for-them.html">20/07/2008</a>)</span><br /><div></div><br /><p align="justify">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 <a href="http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Racehate-pair-flee-to-US.4291680.jp">claimed political asylum<br /><br /></a>.Given that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment">first amendment </a>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.<br /><br />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?.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In modern day Britain, telling the truth is no defence against hate crime charges.<br /><br />The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1976">1976 race relations act</a> 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.<br />_________________________________<br />Some of Sheppard and Whittle's writing remains available on their website heretical.com, 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.</p><p align="justify">09/08/2008 - Update Sheppard and Whittle remain in prison, Anyone wishing to write to them can do so at:</p><p align="justify">Sheppard, Simon, </p><p align="justify">0800006404, 4B B2 </p><p align="justify">C/O Santa Ana Jail</p><p align="justify">PO Box 2200362 </p><p align="justify">Civil Center Plaza</p><p align="justify">Santa Ana</p><p align="justify">CA92701USA </p><p align="justify"> </p><p align="justify"> </p>Sarah Maid of Albionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11685494924450312124noreply@blogger.com0