Threat to Western Liberal Democracies by Islam

A Response to Cameron by Dr. Frank Ellis

Thursday, 10 February 2011 22:25

From: Dr Frank Ellis To: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP Date: 9th February 2011 A.D. Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech at the Munich Security Conference February 2011 Concerning the Threat to Western Liberal Democracies by Islam and Islamic-Sponsored Terrorism Dear Mr Cameron I am writing to you in connection with the speech you delivered at the Munich Security Conference last week since its subject matter pertains not just to the security of the United Kingdom and other Western European states but also to the long-term survival of the indigenous population of this country itself: the ultimate security question. You begin your speech by seeking to reassure fellow member NATO states that despite the dire condition of the UK economy Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% defence-spending target. In general terms that is good. However, the standard government line notwithstanding – Labour as well as Tory – Britain is not made safer nor is our national security enhanced by the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan. The NATO presence in Afghanistan has, I believe, more to do with the nuclear ambitions of Iran. Now, you begin your discussion of the terrorist threat in the UK by saying that some of these attacks are carried out ‘by our own citizens’ and that the perpetrators, Muslims, ‘are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens’ (my emphasis). But these Muslim terrorists do not regard me, us, as ‘their fellow citizens’. Indeed, they are correct: I am not one of ‘their fellow citizens’. Nor do I wish to be. Formally these people may have acquired a British passport but in what way can these people be regarded as ‘our own citizens’ when they live in parallel societies paid for by the white indigenous population and are at best indifferent to, and at worst murderously hostile, to the interests of the host indigenous population? If I went to live in Munich and started to make demands of indigenous Germans that they adapt to my folkways, habits and customs and threatened to kill them, would Germans regard me as one of their own? I doubt it. True, Europe has suffered from terrorism before the arrival of Al Qaeda and its imitators. The key difference is however that groups such as The Angry Brigade (England) IRA (Northern Ireland), The Red Brigades (Italy), Direct Action (France) and Baader-Meinhof & RAF (West Germany) were all home-grown groups. People who were active in the IRA belong to the tribes of the British Isles. Muslims have no such claim. They are alien. Islamic terrorism would not be a problem in the United Kingdom had we maintained strict control over our borders and not permitted the huge influx of immigrants from Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Somalia.  This was and remains a direct consequence of the cult of multiculturalism, a cult that preaches the poisonous view that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans have as much right to live in Britain as the white indigenous population. You say that: ‘Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries’. Who exactly needs to wake up? Millions of people throughout Europe who over the last 40 years have seen their cities turned into Third World slums, who have witnessed, and suffered from, the relentless influx of immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, who have seen their institutions – police, armed forces, health services – corrupted by multiculturalism, who have seen their primary and secondary schools and universities turned into centres of politically correct indoctrination, where to be white, middle class, heterosexual and Christian is to suffer a constant stream of insults and barely concealed hatred, where, on the other hand, to be black or non-white is to enjoy special, protected-species status since non-whites are supposed to be bearers of some wonderful gift (referred to as diversity) and a source of great wisdom. Those of us all over Europe need no lectures from you Mr Cameron on what has been happening.  If they are not exceptionally wealthy and have no choice but to endure the daily grind of commuting into our large cities or may actually have to live there, white people are confronted every day of their lives with the consequences of ‘vibrant multicultural diversity’ and have been for a long time. Take it from me they hate it and where possible they will avoid it all costs (white flight). If they work in the public sector and have large mortgages they will endure the consequences of the cult in silence, confiding their fears only to a trusted few. All over Europe an unaccountable class of political-functionaries has sought to impose the alien cult of multiculturalism on the white indigenous populations. Your call that we need to stand up to Muslims - and it is not just Muslims – comes far too late and is, in any case, thoroughly dishonest. The danger to the white indigenous population posed by mass non-white immigration has been evident for a long time and politicians of all parties have either encouraged this process of dispossession or have been too cowardly to speak out in public. When, in his famous speech, Enoch Powell warned of what was to come he was mocked, derided and abandoned by people like you.  The damage done to the indigenous population, its history, culture and future may now be irreversible. I pray to God that I am wrong; that it is not too late to save our nation. Your attempts to distinguish between Islam as a religion of peace and Islamic terrorism are doomed to failure. Such is the overwhelming collectivist ethos of Islam and the complete absence of any respect for the dissenting individual that Muslims resident in this country who do not take part in acts of terrorism are not going to break ranks with the extremists. For Muslims the rule of law, free speech and liberal democracy are alien Western abstractions that mean very little. Given the choice between the rule of law, free speech and the civil society and Islam - in any shape or form - Muslims resident in this country will support the cause of Islam. There is no love for the British: we are just a source of welfare payments and material provision that would be impossible in Pakistan and Somalia (the reason immigrants come here). You state the following: ‘It is vital that we make the distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again people equate the two’. Again, your attempt to separate religion from ideology is doomed to failure for the obvious reason that Islam, the ideology-religion, recognises no lay principle: it is all or nothing; it is Islam for the believers; Dhimmitude for the rest. Consequently, whatever action Western governments take to neutralise what they believe to be the purely political, ideological aspect of Islam, will always be interpreted as an attack on Islam as a whole. Indeed, such measures will be an attack on Islam as a whole since Islam does not recognise the division between state and civil society; the right of the individual to resist its collectivist ethos (just like communism incidentally). The other factor that makes Islam a threat to the Christian West is the birth rate among Islamic immigrants resident in the West. The huge increase in the Muslim population throughout the West may well turn out to be the decisive factor that overwhelms the white indigenous population in their ancient lands, reducing them to a suppressed minority. In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World. You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: ‘hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy’. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World.  Egypt’s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable. Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following: Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values. For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of “we” does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of ‘we’ refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population ‘to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong’. If, according to you, the ‘we’ failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this ‘vision’? If they have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa?  That these millions of immigrants have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of ‘vision of society’. You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that ‘instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone’.  National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is ‘open to everyone’ is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult’s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others. Do Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Zulus want to share their national identity with me? Of course not: and why should they? It is their exclusive property. Nor do immigrants wish to share their identity with white Europeans.  When, in 2008, he addressed a large Turkish audience in Cologne, the Turkish Prime Minister, Reccep Erdogan was quite clear by what he understood on the question of integration. He told his audience: ‘I understand the sensitivity you show towards the question of assimilation. Nobody can expect that you tolerate assimilation. Nobody can expect that you submit yourself to assimilation. Then assimilation is a crime against humanity.’ Erdogan’s vision of how he expects Turks to behave in Europe is just one of a number of reasons why a Muslim non-European state such as Turkey can have no place at all in the EU. You argue that Muslims are attracted to extremism from a sense of not belonging. Again you claim that this is the failure of ‘the wider society’. You might like to ask yourself why indigenous Britons - ‘the wider society’ - do not wish to engage with Muslims. Here are some of the reasons why indigenous, white Christian (or heathen) Britons want nothing to do with Islam: Tuesday 11th September 2001;  Thursday 7th July 2005;  suicide-homicide bombers;  sharia;  jihad;  the obscene practice of female circumcision;  so-called honour killings;  stoning women to death;  polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls;  extreme censorship; hatred of free speech;  welfare parasitism;  mosques;  continuing, active terroristic hatred of white European host societies;  and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey). I am not convinced that you are serious about combatting the damage done by multiculturalism. If you are then the following measures should be taken: (i). in the interests of clarity and in order to remove any remaining ambiguities you shall publicly state that multiculturalism has failed in the United Kingdom and that it shall no longer be promoted as policy, above all in education, so that white indigenous children are not denied their history, culture and national pride to which they are entitled and that where such subjects are taught they are not taught in away that denigrates the great achievements of Britain across the entire spectrum of human endeavour; (ii). the government shall acknowledge that the Macpherson Report (1999) has had a disastrous effect on policing especially in large cities with large black populations and shall publicly disown the report’s central conclusions and recommendations; (iii). the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 shall be repealed along with all other legislation which aims to stifle free speech under the banner of preventing ‘hate speech’ and which leads to the persecution of white critics of multiculturalism; (iv). the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the successor body to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), shall be disbanded immediately; (v). the government shall set a limit on the number of immigrants skilled or otherwise, who are permitted to work in this country. The option of working in this country implies no right to citizenship; (vi). the government shall make it clear in a statement that there shall be no amnesty for illegal immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom; (vii). the government shall issue a personal apology to Mr Ray Honeyford, the former Bradford headmaster who warned of the dangers of multiculturalism in 1982 and who for his honesty and professional decency was vilified by xenophile extremists and abandoned; (viii). with immediate effect the government shall ensure that efficient and relentless border control and surveillance (entry and departure) shall be implemented. Such measures will include the explicit use of racial profiling; (ix). the government shall take all necessary measures to ensure that illegal immigrants are hunted down, rounded up and immediately deported. Where possible the government shall aggressively seek to recover the costs associated with the deportation from the illegal immigrants themselves: property, bank accounts, valuable metals (gold, platinum), cars and so on; (x). those employers who employ illegal immigrants shall be subject to severe financial penalties and where judged appropriate terms of imprisonment; (xi). the government shall remove all welfare payments from the huge underclass so that the recipients of state benefits are obliged to work (this removes or weakens the incentive from employers to hire illegal immigrants); (xii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom; (xiii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that the provisions of Sharia are incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of the United Kingdom and that the exercise of Sharia shall not be permitted within the United Kingdom and that any of judgements as may be made by Sharia courts shall enjoy no legal or special cultural status; (xiv) the government shall initiate an International Church and Mosque Comparison Study (ICMCS). The aim of ICMCS shall be to ascertain the status of Christian churches, artifacts and believers in all Muslim states and the degree to which Christians endure persecution and terror. ICMCS will pay very close attention to the status of Christianity in those states that provide the main Muslim immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom. A key part of ICMCS will be to ascertain whether the number of mosques existing or planned in the United Kingdom is too high relative to the number of immigrants themselves and whether the number of Christian churches in the immigrant homelands is too low. Finally, I challenge the Prime Minister David Cameron MP or a senior member of the government to debate multiculturalism and the challenge posed by Islam, immigration and related problems with me on prime time live television. The terms and conditions of any debate (time, format, audience selection; lighting, citing of cameras, among other things) shall be a matter of discussion and formal written agreement between Ellis, Cameron and the television broadcaster. Yours sincerely Frank Ellis Login Follow the discussion

Treason

This text was inspired by the essay "Why Is This Not Treason?" by the brave English activist and patriot Paul Weston and is partly based on comments I left at the blog Jew Among You.

In 2009 it was revealed that the ruling Labour Party had purposefully flooded Britain with several million immigrants, without consulting its citizens, in order to socially engineer a "truly Multicultural" country. The huge increases in migrants over the previous decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt to radically change the country and to "rub the Right's nose in diversity," according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said mass immigration was the result of a deliberate plan, but ministers were reluctant to discuss this for fear that it would alienate the party's "core working class vote."






Lord Glasman [a personal friend of the Labour Party leader] in 2011 stated that "Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration" and there's been a massive rupture of trust." He admitted that the Labour Party had sometimes been actively hostile to the white natives. In particular, they tended to view white working-class voters as "an obstacle to progress."

To my knowledge, these shocking revelations of a Western government virtually launching a full-front attack to crush its own people have so far not caused a single word of protest from political leaders or mass media in any other Western country, although these acts could be construed as a policy of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing targeting the white majority population. In my country's mass media, these public admissions from Neather were hardly mentioned at all, although journalists never miss an opportunity to warn against the dangerous tide of "white racism and xenophobia" that is supposedly sweeping the Western world today.

I have since come to suspect that the reason for this shameful silence is that the authorities in all Western countries without exception themselves follow similar, deliberate policies of dispossessing Europeans and therefore see nothing wrong in what the British government did.

Also in Britain, immigrant gangs, especially Muslims, of sexual predators have exploited and abused hundreds of girls as young as 12 ” usually white ” who are plied with drink and drugs and then raped, abused and degraded. If the girls refused their advances they were threatened with hammers or thrown out of cars. Many such attacks were filmed by the men as "trophies."

In November 2010, a teenage girl from Birmingham, England, was arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after allegedly burning an English language version of the Koran. In Britain, if Muslims or other immigrant groups rape white girls, the police are often reluctant to do anything about it because they don't want to be perceived as "racists," but if native girls, who are being actively displaced and driven out of their homeland by the authorities, do anything that might upset the feelings of Muslim immigrants they get arrested immediately.

In June 2007, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with Chancellor (and PM-in-waiting) Gordon Brown and Conservative Party leader (also future PM) David Cameron, met Muslim leaders at a conference organized by the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme. Blair opened by defending Islam as a religion of "moderation and modernity," announced a government fund to aid teaching of Islam and to train imams and designated Islamic studies as "strategically important" to the British national interest. Timothy Winter, a lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge, said that "The question facing British society, and society as a whole, is not how we encourage minorities to engage with western countries, but how those countries define themselves as a collage of different religious cultures."

In other words: Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Spain and other Western countries with white majorities are no longer nations with a distinct heritage, only random spaces on the map just waiting to be filled with a "collage of different cultures."

I could add here that North American authorities and mass media are little better than Western European ones, and sometimes worse. The USA was the first Western country, in 1965, to open its borders to mass immigration from the entire world as a matter of ideological principle. US authorities have been promoting similar policies elsewhere in the West ever since. The concepts of "white privilege" and "Whiteness Studies" were also developed in and spread from the USA. In conflicts between native Europeans and non-native colonizers, US authorities have repeatedly shown that they will go against the interests of native Europeans.

The more I look into the matter, the more I have to wonder whether the USA today has become the Anti-White Empire. If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down:

1. The Unites States Government.
2. The European Union.
3. The Muslims.
4. The anti-white Leftists controlling Western academia and mass media.
5. The anti-white bias and genetic Communism aggressively promoted by Hollywood and the American entertainment industry.

3, 4 and 5 are common to the entire Western world. Number 2 is exclusive to Europe, whereas number 1 and 5 are specifically North American, and both of these affect the rest of the Western world to a very substantial degree.

Simple mathematics thus indicates that the USA is at least as much to blame for the now-ongoing ethnic cleansing of whites as is the EUSSR.

I read essays by the "America Alone" crowd represented by Mark Steyn.
Europe faces very serious problems, but so does North America, and it's not immediately clear who is worse off.

Western Europe will probably burn because of Multiculturalism and mass immigration, but so will the USA.
 If we look at the transition to a non-white majority rather than Islamization, the USA is further down that line than the worst-affected areas in Europe, like France or England.

I started out writing about Islam, and I still stand by every statement I have ever made about Islam and Muslims. Yes, the Islamic creed by itself is inherently violent. No, it cannot be reformed, and Islam in any way, shape or form does not belong in the West. Islam, and all those who practice it, must be totally and physically removed from the entire Western world.

The Chinese are different from us. I don't want my country swamped by them because that would spell the end of my nation, but at least they don't have a religion saying that it is a God-given right for them to wipe out my culture and massacre my people. Muslims do.
 They clearly top the list of violently hostile peoples who do not belong in Western lands.

Nevertheless, as much as I loathe Islam it is merely a secondary infection. It would not be able to threaten us the way it does now had it not been for the aggressive cultural AIDS breaking down our immune system beforehand.

 The real mental virus that is killing the white West today is the post-Enlightenment construct we call the Idea Nation or Proposition Nation.

The two Western countries most historically responsible for developing and spreading this doctrine are the USA and France.
 It makes sense that these very same countries are also currently at the forefront of Western demographic decline.
The Idea Nation concept stipulates that every single country, or at least every single Western country, is nothing but a random space on the map, an empty bowl just waiting to be filled with shopping and human rights.

The American proponents of this concept tend to focus more on the former aspect whereas the French, and the French-inspired organization known as European Union, emphasize the latter somewhat more. That is also the major difference between the two.
The love-hate relationship between the Americans and the French tends to obscure how much their countries have in common.
In both of them, the country has transformed itself into a Multicultural Disneyland where the white majority is being stripped of its rights, its identity and ultimately perhaps its very existence, all with the blessings of the state.
 The end result is remarkably similar in both cases:

The dispossession of whites and the organized destruction of European culture.

Since January 2010, France has been engaged in a "debate" on national identity which has evolved into an exercise in government-sponsored propaganda calculated to remind white Frenchmen that they are nothing.

Minister of Immigration and National Identity Eric Besson in talks on "national identity" chose to debate national identity mainly with men of North African origin. He stated that "there is only a France where the blood is mixed," thereby erasing the existence of a distinct French nation.

For Besson, "France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion; it is a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There is no ethnic Frenchman; there is only an ethnically mixed France."

The French novelist Jean Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints, thinks that the state has become the enemy of the nation in most Western countries and warns that "All of Europe marches to its death" because of a shared fallacy: the Idea Nation. He fears that the ruin of his people by those who welcomed or refused to resist the ongoing invasion is nearly irreversible:

"I am convinced that the fate of France is sealed, because ˜My house is their house' (Mitterand)", inside ˜Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian' (Chirac), because the situation is moving irreversibly towards the final swing in 2050 which will see French stock amounting to only half the population of the country, the remainder comprising Africans, Moors and Asians of all sorts from the inexhaustible reserve of the Third World."

In his essay The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic from 2004, Raspail shows how the Open Borders lobby confuses the French nation, which comprises a distinct ethnic group of European blood, with the French Republic. France was from the outset a country of common blood, but in recent years "the Republic, which is only one shape of government, is synonymous for them with ideology, ideology with a capital '˜I', the major ideology."

The American and French models are "different" in the same way as the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks were "different." Whereas the former argue about the most efficient way to implement genetic Communism, the latter argued passionately over how to best implement economic Communism. Heated debate between sects over minor ideological differences is a Western specialty that could successfully be viewed as a secularization of older Christian practices. This should not, however, obscure how much these various sects have in common.

The USA and France have both come to define themselves as "universal Republics" and are currently in the process of committing suicide because of this. Virtually the entire political Left as well as the "respectable" establishment Right throughout the Western world have fully accepted the Idea Nation as the ideal and agree on 90-95% of the goals. The so-called political debate we see on the newspapers and on the TV screens merely addresses the remaining details of how a Multicultural society should be implemented or what the New Man should look like.

 It is an insane ideological beauty contest on how best to dismantle the white West.

For example, there is a transatlantic "debate" of sorts regarding the best manner to integrate Somali Muslims: How much welfare state gives the best result? Should they learn their own language in school? The continued mass immigration and colonization of Western lands by alien ethnic groups is already implied and treated as given. Practically nobody asks whether Somali Muslims are inherently so different from Europeans culturally and yes, genetically speaking that perhaps they don't belong in Western countries at all. Maybe there simply is no Swedish, Dutch, German, Swiss, Italian, British, French, Canadian, American or Australian way to absorb such alien nations because the mental differences are just too great to bridge.

Asking such questions will immediately get you excluded from polite society if not physically attacked. This is because you challenge the very basis of the Idea Nation and by extension the foundations of the ruling ideology. This will be seen as a betrayal by those who are in power.

In addition to the USA and the EU, the twin Enlightenment Empires, we also have some junior partners in this process. Sweden, for instance, with its famous welfare state has created an international image for itself as a "model nation." As a result, loyalty is no longer expressed to the Swedish nation as a biological reality, since this has been ideologically abolished and historically erased. Instead, loyalty is expected and expressed to the ideals the state is supposed to uphold, in Sweden's case Socialism and anti-white Multiculturalism.

In older times, a "traitor" was someone who betrayed his nation. In this context, a nation was a people who saw themselves as a distinct entity and ethnic group, complete with visual symbols like flags. Today, this viewpoint is considered obsolete by the ruling Western oligarchs, an ancient evil that must be ridiculed and stamped out at all costs, including use of indoctrination in the education system and the mass media coupled with legal intimidation and professional harassment of dissenters who dare to adhere to traditional ties of loyalty.

A person who demonizes his culture and promotes the colonization of his country by other, even openly hostile peoples, is no longer considered a traitor, as he previously would have been. On the contrary, he is applauded by those in prominent positions in politics, academia and the mass media. The person who is treated as a traitor is anyone who shows any signs of loyalty to traditional nations that constitute hated rivals of enlightened universalism. For this reason, parties such as the Sweden Democrats have been harassed for years, not because they betray the people who historically inhabited their country, but precisely because they don't.

The English traditionalist philosopher Roger Scruton has noted that "buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe.

The political Èlite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs."

He thinks that members of the ruling Western Elite are immune to xenophobia, the fear and hatred of foreigners, but at the same time suffer from a severe case of what Scruton calls oikophobia, the repudiation and fear of home, the urge to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions of your own people. "The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of oikophobia that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe."

The native peoples of Europe are now deeply anxious about their future, often with very good reason as their lands are being flooded with outsiders and they are being turned into strangers in their own cities. When people are in a state of anxiety they may pose a threat, both to themselves and to those whom they fear. Roger Scruton warns that if the ruling Multicultural elites will not discuss these matters and continue to put all blame for the growing tensions on the xenophobia of the indigenous population while ignoring the oikophobia which is a major contributing factor, a likely long-term effect of this situation could be a popular explosion.





Treason in a nation-state meant disloyalty to the heritage, freedom and continued existence of the distinct nation or ethnic group who traditionally inhabited that country's territory. Treason in an ideological state or Idea Nation means disloyalty to the ideals upheld by the state. The practical consequences of these different outlooks are huge. Judged according to the former definition, it is no exaggeration to say that the governments of every single member-state of the European Union, and indeed all Western countries, commit treason every single day.

Is that statement too harsh? Considering the fact that the white majority population that has shaped these countries and created successful societies there is being purposefully displaced by mass immigration sanctioned by the ruling elites, the answer to that question is no. Yet none of these governments have so far been charged with treason. Why not? Because the courts, as well as the laws and legal definitions upheld by the court system, are controlled by Globalist groups who adhere to the Idea Nation and uphold the latter definition of treason.

Europeans have fought, and paid with large amounts of blood, for over 1300 years to keep Islam out of the Continent. The European Union is now actively promoting stronger cultural, economic, legal and demographic ties between Europe and the Islamic world and is clamping down on any opposition to this policy among native Europeans as "racism and Islamophobia."

In accordance with traditional values this would have to be considered one of the greatest betrayals in the history of European civilization, but not a single leading individual associated with these policies has so far suffered substantial harassment for participating in this. On the contrary, in this age of anti-European agitation and Western self-destruction, treason can make for a lucrative career path with few if any dangers or negative side-effects attached to it.

The only ones who have to fear for their reputation, freedom and lives in Europe today are not those who want to allow continued colonization of their Continent but rather those who resist this development, such as Geert Wilders, who stands trial for defending his nation's freedom.

An alternative view vis-à-vis the Idea Nation, and frankly, the only one that makes sense in light of human history and biological realities, is that a nation consists of a group of genetically related people with shared historical experiences, a roughly similar outlook and cultural background as well as emotional ties to their ancestors and to the land they live on.

As Sam Francis reminded us, "every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are ” come to think of it ” totalitarian states. The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France. When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that's left is the state."

Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.

The main reason why we are threatened by outside forces today is because of the notion that our countries should be glorified shopping centers where anybody should be free to enter as they desire. As long as this situation continues, we will never be able to defeat our enemies

Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam. The only way to restore sanity to our countries is to restore the concept that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage. Unfortunately, those who champion the Idea Nation concept have become so deeply entrenched in positions of power throughout the Western world that this struggle has the potential to trigger a pan-Western civil war, or a Multicultural world war.
Posted by Baron Bodissey

Our Heritage - Patriotic lesson I

In the multicultural mishmash we live in today, perhaps it is useful, to remember our history.
Our Language contains our past  - but for the invading colonial enrichers most of our English idioms are meaningless gibberish
So to preserve our heritage here is the "inside" information :-

Where did "Piss Poor" come from?

They used to use urine to tan animal skins, so families used to all pee in a pot
And then once it was full it was taken and sold to the tannery...
if you had to do this to survive you were "Piss Poor".
But worse than that were the really poor folk who couldn't even afford to buy a pot...
They "didn't have a pot to piss in" and were the lowest of the low.
The next time you are washing your hands and complain because the water temperature
Isn't just how you like it, think about how things used to be.
Here are some facts about the 1500s
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May,
And they still smelled pretty good by June. However, since they were starting to smell,
Brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor.
Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water.
The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water,
Then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children.
Last of all the babies.
By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it.
Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the Bath water!"
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath.
It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals
(mice, bugs) lived in the roof.
When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof.
Hence the saying, "It's raining cats and dogs."
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house.
This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings
Could mess up your nice clean bed.
Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection.
That's how canopy beds came into existence.
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt.
Hence the saying, "Dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery
In the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing.
As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door,
It would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entrance-way.
Hence: a thresh hold.
(Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire..
Every day they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables
And did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers
In the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day.
Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while.
Hence the rhyme:
“Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old”.
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special.
When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off.
It was a sign of wealth that a man could, "bring home the bacon."
They would cut off a little to share with guests
And would all sit around and chew the fat.
Those with money had plates made of pewter.
Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death.
This happened most often with tomatoes,
so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Bread was divided according to status.
Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle,
and guests got the top, or the upper crust.
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky.
The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days.
Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial.
They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around
and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up.
Hence the custom; “of holding a wake”.
England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people.
So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave.
When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive.
So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell.
Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be,
“saved by the bell” or was "considered a dead ringer”.
And that's the truth.

Meanwhile back at the ranch