If diversity is real, culturism is necessary.

Latest

The Case for Culturism: Creating a Conservative Long March

You may not have heard of the word, but each one of us nationalists are culturists. Culturism is an important ideology which is often overlooked, and in fact stretches back to the 1800s, with famous British poet Matthew Arnold being the first man to be openly recognised as a ‘culturist’.

The ideology can be easily described by saying that it is the opposite of multiculturalism. We all know what multiculturalism entails, and how it affects our country. But there’s a dirty secret – a secret that multiculturalists don’t want you to know.

Multiculturalists hate diversity.

Multiculturalists make a mockery out of culture by simply suggesting that culture spans no further than food, music and festivals.

It’s when you consider this that culturism gains a greater context. Culture spans much further than food and festivals. Culture has socioeconomic implications, and culturism can have social and economic government policy implications. Our culture includes rights for women, our Church, relative separation of Church and state, freedom of speech, respect for individual conscience and democracy.

We can destroy the left with their own words by constantly bringing them back to acknowledging the importance of cultural diversity.  And, every time they call us racist, we can tell them, no we’re discussing culturism, that’s about culture.  When we ask them if cultural diversity is important enough to merit discussion, and they answer yes, we have steered the conversation onto a ground where we can win.  This beats just denying we’re racist.

This will be easily done because, when you honestly discuss cultural diversity you find that our customs and traditions, our architecture, our family lives, our financial systems and pretty much any kind of institution in Britain which is comparatively different to foreign counterparts are all a part of our culture.   And, in noting this diversity we note that Britain really does have a core traditional majority culture to protect and promote.  We’re not a culturally neutral society that random cultures meet in.  We’re British and western.

Multiculturalists don’t even consider these things, and this is why culturism is so important for improving public awareness and creating a society that isn’t ignorant.

British people really should understand what culture entails.

We can show the British electorate and youth that the multicultural view of the world makes a mockery out of culture, by suggesting that the only differences in the world are food and music.

We can show the world that yes, we can reject multiculturalism and still enjoy Italian food. We can reject multiculturalism and enjoy French opera. These are western.

But, we must reject mutliculturalism because it embraces female genital mutilation and the stoning to death of homosexuals.   Western cultures have commonalities in that they believe in separation of church and state, individual conscience, and democracy amongst others.   As culturists we can protect majority western culture and traditional majority British culture as we distinguish them from Islamic and Chinese culture, which believe in few of our western values.

We can be proud to be British and be British culturists, preserving what we hold dear, whilst respecting our European neighbours, sharing what we have to offer, but at the same time keeping our nations and institutions separate and fundamentally different.

Culturism is the ideology of the people – the ideology which keeps the world so wonderfully diverse, and the ideology which reduces conflict and tension. Culturism is also the true ideology for equality of opportunity. Whilst equality doesn’t exist (as diversity means we are all different), the equal right of all nations to maintain their right to self-determination does exist. All nations are culturist, as they should be, we’re only asking that western nations get to be practice culturism as well.

Culturism and Nationalism

Culturism and nationalism go hand in hand. The two complement one another and work together.  A nation without a corresponding traditional majority culture will fall.  But currently, nationalism has a bad reputation. Not with our predominantly working class voting base, and traditional Old Labour voters, but with those who agree with basic parts of our ideology but are put off by perception created by establishment puppets in the media.

The left have succeeded in tarring the ideology with a plethora of methods. Perhaps one of the biggest has been using the holocaust as a stick to beat us with, telling us the ideology took six million lives – whilst failing to recognise that the holocaust was a result of a twisted, expansionist and bigoted regime that has nothing to do with us real nationalists. German nationalism violated the western culture traditions of respecting individual conscience.  True western culturism protects individual rights.  If the west falls, which nation will champion democracy, freedom of speech, and women’s rights?

But instead of dwelling on this, we nationalists and culturists need to do something. By no means should we abandon our nationalism, but there is no reason why we should not adopt culturism as well – and use culturism to win back public discourse in the media and in education.

We are nationalists and conservatives. We are culturists.

One must recognise that we are not just defined by one ideology. We must use ideologies and ideas alongside one another in order for us to effectively talk about current issues and solve problems – and ethnonationalism is not the solution to all of our problems. Culturism picks up where ethnonationalism is not relevant.

Culture and Race

Naturally, culture derives from a people. A people create a culture. But it must be recognised that culture and race, whilst linked, are two different things.

Culturism hates racism, and so do we. Traditional conservatives often avoid the word racist, and understandably so. But instead of just putting up with these slurs, we instead need to use the word for its real meaning. Racism is race hate, and our beliefs do not equate to race hate. We patriotic Britons and our European brothers and sisters do not hate other races, we are instead concerned with culture. Frankly, the National Culturists don’t care what colour you are. When the Chinese are culturist or the Saudi’s, it doesn’t mean they’re racist towards us.  They are protecting their culture as they should.

Culturism allows us to talk about cultural issues, like the Islamic grooming gang problem, without being called racist. Islamic grooming is a cultural issue, and has nothing to do with race. And opposing Muslim grooming gangs is not an ethnonationalist stance – it is a culurist stance, relating solely to culture and not race. Using this example, we can clearly see that by making the point that opposing Islamic grooming is a culturist cause and not a racial one, we can avoid the common misconception that our problem is with race, when it isn’t in this case and never has been.

Culturism can help us win back public discourse by separating us from racism totally. When we talk about Islamic problems in Britain, our rebuttal to claims of racism is simply this: it’s not racist, it’s culturist and if cultural diversity is real, culturism is necessary.  When we simply deny our racism, we lose.  When we steer the topic towards the reality of cultural diversity, we can win.

Of course this concept is already accepted by nationalists, but rebuttal goes no further than ‘actually, we’re not racist’. Culturism allows us to point out that talking about cultural issues has nothing to do with race and since they’re already dedicated to promoting cultural diversity, they cannot refuse to discuss culture.

Culturism, in turn, provides us with a well-needed term, and an ideology which will help us win back public discourse. These terms can easily spread. Many people agree with us, but are afraid of being called racist.  When given the words culturism and culturist and embolden to talk about the reality of cultural diversity, we will have awoken the silent majority.

More importantly, culturism could allow us to talk about this issue in the media, resulting in a true and open national discussion about this as a culturist issue and not a racial issue (because it’s not and never has been!) – as the British media continues to suggest this is a racial issue by referring to the problem as ‘Asian grooming’.

The media is being fundamentally irrational by suggesting that denouncing grooming is racist – we have a unique chance to show the people that this is a culturist issue – and with nationalism, the people will not understand. Our nationalism relates so heavily with the importance of preserving racial diversity, that the electorate assume that’s all we talk about.

Culturism and Diversity

In terms of the international community, culturism allows us to cooperate and remain separate. Culturism stresses the importance of diversity – but not the ‘diversity’ you’re thinking of. The multiculturalists try and make you believe that diversity is about forcing as many people and cultures to mix in one space. But that’s not diversity at all. That’s just the process of making every country in the world the same multicultural mess, and destroying the sovereignty of many different peoples and cultures in the world.

When we see countries losing their culture, and becoming a part of a larger ‘global community’, we see a distinct lack of diversity. The world is the same and we lose distinct cultures.

We culturists believe that diversity is real, and important. And if diversity is real and important, then culturism is necessary. 

We must not be afraid to use the word diversity. It is our word. It is not a word of the left. The left can use it, but their ideas are based on a fundamental flaw – multiculturalism flies in the face of diversity.

Culturism also allows us to work together with other nations, whilst maintaining our mutual respect. For instance, a culturist economic policy would see Britain maintaining distributist ideals, whilst our American cousins would chase the American dream in their capitalist society. Culturism does not condone forcing ideals on another land. What is good for one country is bad for another.

Culturism is the Next Step

We’ve done well to get where we are. Nationalist policies resonate with the public, but it’s not enough. Culturism is the next logical step. The ideology not only resonates with voters, but it allows us to openly discuss our beliefs without being called ‘racist’.

With culturism, we are given the opportunity to talk about how we are the ones who want to preserve individual freedoms. Culturism, for instance, opposes the inclusion of Sharia law, Sharia banks, female oppression and the violent victimisation of gays. Multiculturalists believe that the inclusion of oppressive cultures and laws is acceptable, and in turn, multiculturalists are promoting sexism and homophobia.

When we use culturism to escape endless ludicrous claims of racism, we can openly discuss cultural diversity, we can speak about how the forced integration of Islam destroys individual freedom and promotes an air of hatred in society – something we see many young people today campaigning against. Culturism, in fighting for western values, gives us common ground with those young people. This is the common ground we need to make use of – and the most effective way to do this is on university campuses.

The Left, unfortunately, have been much more successful in mobilising young people. Successive governments pandering to the left, with educational institutions abiding by left wing rules, preaching Marxist propaganda have meant that sensible, culturist and conservative ideals have been lost. But not all is lost.

Nationalism and traditional conservatism will not get anywhere if we continue like this. Universities will never allow a nationalist or real conservative presence, and without this presence, the youth will never listen. How can we expect to succeed in the future if the youth aren’t being engaged?

A culturist presence, however, can and will exist in universities. This step will allow nationalists, culturists, conservatives and traditionalists to meet and not be discriminated against in their place of study. Universities have “no platform” policies for ‘racist’ societies, but there’s no policy against culturist societies, which openly oppose race hate, and celebrate international diversity. There’s no reason why universities should stop students who celebrate identity from having a voice – but we need to act quick.

The words culturism and culturist can spread quickly on universities and immediately engage students.  Wherever universities only present multicultural courses, students can demand an equal number of culturist courses in the name of intellectual diversity.  Each time an individual professor mentions multiculturalism, students can challenge their teachers by asking if both sides will be discussed.  The culturist perspective can incite student activism.

This door is open for us now, but it’s slowly closing. Culturism is not only our solution to the ‘racism’ problem, but it’s our gateway to engaging the British youth in a way that the ideological right has never done before.

The Key to Cultural Revolution is our Youth

Ever wondered why no matter how far nationalism gets politically, we’re still plagued with constant lies about our core beliefs as racist, and militant reactions from predominantly youth-based movements? No matter how well nationalism does in future elections, we will still be plagued by these reactions. Establishment-sponsored antifa groups, Marxist student groups and ‘hip’, ‘young’ and ‘trendy’ political movements which have become fashionable amongst young people will continue to attack us.

This means more than just putting up with some abuse on the streets, and hassle when trying to make public appearances. This will in fact be the downfall of nationalism in Britain, and in turn, the total destruction of British culture and the genocide of our indigenous people.

Political gains are important, but if we’re looking for long term success, we need to tackle the root of the problem – the British education system, its slandering of all who would take pride in Britain’s traditional majority culture, the student lifestyle, ‘fashionable’ politics, modernity and political ignorance.

Now of course, it’s important to note that the universities have ways of stopping us succeeding with the youth. Without question this has been the primary reason why we have in fact never succeeded in engaging people in university. This does not, however, mean this- is the end for us. As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, conservative, culturist and nationalist ideals have been lost, but all is not lost. There are still ways that we can engage the youth in universities, even when abiding with strict ‘no platform’ policies which we are given. There are a number of factors to consider.

First of all, we need to consider the actual students and the duties that the universities have to protect those students from abuse, discrimination and harassment. That’s right, these discrimination rules can in fact work in our favour. For instance, when slanderous leaflets about myself, which compared me to Anders Breivik, were printed and distributed around campus, a simple trip to related offices on campus resulted in them being taken down and the matter looked into further.

Universities, whilst being incredibly left-oriented, are legally obliged to treat students the same. What’s more, respectful, well-mannered students will also be treated with respect, as long as they put forward ideas and opinions politely and without aggression. In my experience at university, a difference in opinion can often be welcomed by lecturers who really are passionate about debate and diversity of opinion.   And this debate will spread beyond particular classes if we make culturism a known foil to multiculturalism, consistently discussed in national discourse.

What we need to take from this is that if we are to create a counter culture movement, something like the English Defence League will not do. We need to play the system, and work our way up – and that requires us to be strict about the actions of an organisation, and the way in which it approaches issues.

The second thing we need to consider is our actual message. Now, currently, we are totally unable to have any kind of official nationalist presence on university. This is partly because of the misguided view that we condone race hate, which flies in the face of their ‘anti racist’ policies – but it’s also partly because as a movement, we have been unwilling to actually use words which already belong to us. As mentioned earlier on, words like racism, diversity and equality should not only be used by the left. These are our words. As nationalists, we oppose racism (race hate) and promote identity, promote global diversity and believe in equality for nations to benefit from self determination, by adopting the culturist position.

By openly using the words culturism and culturist, we are abiding by policies outlined by universities and student unions. In using a vocabulary that overtly has noting to do with race, we are opening up a whole new platform for culturist, nationalist and conservative views.

This isn’t to say that it will be easy – it won’t. I have been considering this concept for around two years now, and only in the summer of 2012 did I manage to pull off the first stage. It was hard work, and it still is – but it works. By taking into consideration what I have outlined above, we really do have a chance of infiltrating the universities – but we need a thorough and strict direction. This idea is the equivalent of a crowd trying to squeeze through one door. We need to form an orderly queue and do things the right way. By sticking to strict guidelines, we can create the foundations of a counter cultural movement within British universities. Without guidelines, we’ll just create yet another pointless splinter group with people looking to satisfy egos, get their face in the paper and cause a bit of trouble.

I have a plan to realise these concepts, further than I already have done with the help of a small team of dedicated activists and a larger team of supporters and members. I’m going to outline what I propose, what I have already done, and how an organisation called the National Culturists has the potential to change not only the future of British educational institutions, but the future of British politics.

Manifesting These Ideas into an Effective Movement

The National Culturists group was set up in Summer 2012 by myself. I received inspiration from American politician Dr John Press, the founder and former president of the Brooklyn Tea party. Dr Press has become known online as ‘culturist john and through his book ‘Culturism’ and his youtube videos, he has helped improve awareness about the failures of multiculturalism and the importance of culturism.

After realising how effective this word could be, I consulted with nationalist friends and created the National Culturists website. I then set about creating online content to help educate people, and recruit friends from the nationalist sphere to help me spread the word. It has now evolved into an attempt at engaging young people. We have a simple registration system, whereby supporters can show their support by becoming an official member for just five pounds, which helps us cover online advertising costs, website hosting costs, leaflet printing and placard making.

We’ve made the first steps to make this organisation necessary but we are far from ready for taking the action that is necessary.

This September, five patriotic students took to the Liverpool freshers fayre, only to be attacked by a large group of antifascists. Our tactic, however, had myself and another member leading the antifascists round in circles, whilst our secondary team leafleted the fayre without any problems.

October 2012 did not see us set up an official National Culturist society, but we were told that there should be no real issue with setting one up. This was said to me after a conversation with some of the staff from the Student Guild. As I have already outlined, the concept behind a National Culturist society does not go against the guidelines of universities and their Student Guilds.

September 2013 can and must be the time when the culturist movement achieves national notoriety, by setting up not just one, but multiple official societies within universities, and perhaps even groups in colleges. Local community culturist teams would also be necessary in order to help spread the word to the regular voter, as well as helping promote the university cause.

This will be our long march through the institutions, and it will work.

Currently, nationalism is in a political race – and while the left is nearing the finish line, the nationalists of Britain remain at the start line, discussing how its running shoes will provide a competitive advantage over competitors.

The reason for this is that we’re not preparing for the future. The old parties, along with the likes of the SWP and UAF, have been preparing for the future for decades, and today they maintain a stronghold over the youth of Britain, particularly those in education. You literally cannot move through freshers fayres without bumping into Labour societies, Liberal societies, antifascist societies and more. Their early recognition of the importance and power of the youth has put them in the position now where they can dictate who can and cannot have access to students. We have not done enough to counter this, and as previously said, this is indeed because we’ve been stopped.

The National Culturists is, in my opinion, the only way in which we can take action on university campuses. The only way we can be accepted amongst the youth of today is to actually abide by these rules, whilst sticking to our fundamental principles. You might prefer not to, but using ‘liberal’ language is the only way we can win. Young people already associate with ‘liberal’ language, and many words belong to our ideological side anyway.

And, culturism’s associating Nationalism with liberalism is a true, intuitive and simple.  If we do not save the West, all of the liberal left’s values will be smashed.  China will not defend democracy, Islam will not defend freedom of speech or gays.  Nationalist culturism, taken in a world context, is on the forefront of upholding liberal western values.

With a national organisation in place, with a team of people representing all members and supporters, and regulating activity and conduct, we will be able to manage a number of regional branches for students and non-students, as well as political student societies on campus. The regional branches would consist of experienced nationalists, who understand culturism and the direction that must be taken, and these people would be there to help the student societies work effectively.

Student societies will need to abide by rules when in university, in order for the National Culturist cause to be effective and not face criticism. We will need to be on our ‘very best behaviour’, as tiny slip ups could see our potential university societies kicked out by the university. Already, I have been threatened with expulsion for producing a documented what I believe is anti-white racism in my university. This is why an organisation and hierarchy is required. Without it, we will become yet another mess of a ‘group’, like the English Defence League, without s clear direction, with no clear action plan and absolutely no consistency to behaviour, actions and our message.

By ensuring that we simply do what the left have done, we can actually succeed. For too long we have simply dismissed the left, when in fact, we should have been learning from them. There is no shame in saying that they do things better than us – and one thing they certainly do better with is engaging the youth. Their long march through the institutions must be combated with a more effective march, which needs to start as soon as possible – and I believe the National Culturists can do this. But we need your help to succeed. Not only do we need experienced nationalists to help with organisation and with the training and guidance of young people, but we need as many young nationalists as possible to get on board and help us with the task of forming a number of official university societies in September 2013. Without this, the concept of embracing the youth with culturism is simply a concept.

To summarise, nationalism and traditional ideas will only become real competition for Marxist ideals if we do the following:

- Engage the youth.

- Use familiar language that is often associated with the left to our advantage.

- Operate a culturist organisation with a hierarchy.

- Ensure that our representatives provide a consistent message.

- Ensure that our representatives act consistently and appropriately in university. No violence, no trouble – just polite dissenting.

- Use the word culturism and culturist to stress the fundamental difference between race and culture.

 

The Left are Already Scared

Whilst the National Culturists has only existed for less than a year, and in that time done only a few days of action, we are already being recognised as a potential threat to the hold the left has over universities and students. Only recently, the left wing organisations ‘Extremis’ and ‘Student Rights’ have acknowledged us – with Student Rights even taking time to produce a full ‘report’ about the National Culturists.

Through the use of ‘liberal’ language and culturism, we can not only win back public discourse, but we can bypass ‘no platform policies’, engage with the media in a better light and begin the long journey ahead of us to a future with patriotic students who clearly recognise leftist bias and anti-British politics.

The interjection of the words culturism and culturist can successfully challenge the dominance of multiculturalism on our campuses and in our society.

You can read more about what we have done so far on our website www.nationalculturists.org. The content provides clear examples of how our use of ‘liberal’ language can indeed be effective.

If you would like to help us with our cause, please get in touch via our website and tell everyone you know. We need all the help we can get. Furthermore, if you are a student in college or university, or you know people who are, be sure to get in touch or make others aware about our existence. Our movement needs more students to help our current team perform a nationwide attack on Britain’s universities in September 2013.

Democracy is Key to British Culturism

Democracy is one of the most important things about the political existence of the West. Without democracy, we would be lacking an incredible part of British and Western history. Democracy is one of the best things about living in the west, and we should all be proud of it.

To allow people to choose who they want to make decisions is what makes the West such a great place for us to live. As British culturists, we believe that the promotion and preservation of this key political concept is necessary in order for the West to survive – which is why we have to ensure that that conflicting ideologies are not simply allowed to roam free.

See, under democracy, we still have a range of political ideologies operating in the United Kingdom and the west. We have conservatives, liberals, Marxists, culturists, nationalists, capitalists, socialists, distributists, and so many more varieties. Democracy allows us to all operate on the same level, have the same opportunities and be given the chance to voice our opinion to the public – in the hope that the electorate will choose use to make decisions in Parliament.

But what do we do when ideologies that have no historical or traditional root in the United Kingdom and the West become so prominent that they pose a threat to our democratic system? Stop it, of course. Anyone who respects the west would appreciate that we need to ensure that people are all given the same opportunity to voice their opinions.

So why is it that so many young people in Britain today, and career politicians in the old parties, believe that it’s fine for us to go on living in a society that is increasingly under threat by Islamofascism?

Before I go on, I must point out this – Islam is not just a religion. One cannot compare Islam to Christianity, which is a religion that has ties and roots in the very beginning of modern Western civilisation. The Qur’an is in essence a political book, the Mein Kampf of those who do not respect the west, do not respect women and do not respect homosexuals.

It’s also important, before I go on, to say that this is not a direct attack on the right of Islam to exist. Islam is one of many religions and ideologies that exist in the world, that has the right to continue existing, given that so many people value it. It’s important that the incredible diversity of the world is preserved, but that doesn’t mean that the people of Great Britain should sit back and ignore a problem that’s becoming increasingly dangerous to the West.

Under the rules of the Qur’an, one is not allowed to make interpretations of the book, and contradictions are dealt with by the latter statement superseding the earlier. This, in short, means that the rules set out by the Qur’an which do not fit in with a liberal western society are considered the true values of the book.

So the message of this article is threefold:

First of all, democracy is under attack. The west has been at war with Islam for thousands of years, and today we face a very different threat. The threat is our own government, and left wing societies that suggest Islam can co-exist in Britain. When it can’t. Think about it – how can an ideology that suggests there should be a strict state controlled by religion fit in with a society that fundamentally believes in, at least, the relative separation of church and state? How can an ideology that says a woman is worth half a man possibly be compatible within a society that says a woman is worth the same as a man?

If we continue to ignore  the problem, then our western democracy will be put under even more pressure. Islam cannot and will not rest until the west is no longer democratic. Yes, sure, the west is wrong in pushing democracy on the rest of the world (and as culturists we believe this should end immediately), but that does not mean we should sit back and watch while our ignorance annihilates our own democratic system.

Ill thought out list of 'enemies to democracy'

Ill thought out list of ‘enemies to democracy’

The second point is that democracy is a key part of culturism. Recently, the National Culturists were features on a list of ‘enemies of democracy’ by the fascist, unpleasant, bigoted and violent group ‘Searchlight’. On the list were a number of organisations and parties which may indeed be threats to democracy – but to see the National Culturists listed there is simply ludicrous.

With groups like Searchlight, it really does seem like they look at the facts, and respond with ‘NAHHHHH!’. At the National Culturists we value only informed ideas and views, and we do not respect organisations that clearly ignore the definitions of different ideological terms.

 

Democracy is a key part of Western culturism.

 

Without democracy, we would not be the thriving, intelligent, beautiful society that we are – and as culturists we believe in preserving that. As much as Eastern culturists in places like Saudi Arabia may want to preserve their own separate systems and form of government. We believe that all countries have the right to self determination – and as westerners, we have the right and the duty to protect the democratic system.

The final message of this article is that democracy isn’t perfect. In fact, it becomes even more ludicrous to even think that the National Culturists are an ‘enemy of democracy’ when you consider that most culturists believe that democracy can be improved.

Many culturists would agree with me that the current form of democracy in Britain (representative democracy & first past the post elections) results in millions of people not being represented in their own parliament.

Think about it – out of all the parties in Britain, we only really see the main parties making decisions in Parliament. But what about the millions of people that didn’t vote for those parties? What about the millions of people who are members of other political parties?

This is why many culturists would agree with me when I say that Great Britain drastically needs change, and that change must be proportional representation. This is the only true form of democracy that represents all people.

Culturists are far from enemies of democracy. No matter what you might believe in, you deserve the right to be represented in Parliament. And in order for democracy to be preserved, and later improved, we must ensure that it survives. Which is why, as culturists, we oppose fascist ideologies that threaten this system that we hold dear.

Video

(VIDEO) Oppose Militant Feminism and Radical Homosexuality on Campus

Just a quick video outlining some of the core problems in universities, particularly radical feminism and radical homosexuality.

I’ll post a further more detailed text post soon.

Since When Did ‘Modern’ Mean ‘Slags and Man-Whores?’

Time and time again, you hear people making references to religion or traditional institutions – suggesting ‘well, it’s the 21st century and things have changed’…

Too often do we hear multiculturalists claiming that the destruction of a traditional majority culture is perfectly acceptable, simply because time has passed and we live in an era of modernity. It’s disgusting, but it happens – and that’s something we have to deal with in electoral terms, and in terms of a cultural revolution which could only be a matter of years away.

But today I’d like to talk relatively quickly about yet another ludicrous claim that something is acceptable because time has passed – and it refers to sex and sexuality. As a university student, I’m surrounded by masses of young people who dress like they’re confused about their gender, women who sleep with any man they find in a nightclub, and boys who think they’re men swtommy_picaggering around in chinos and weird hats in an attempt at impressing slags and taking home any woman they can find.

Today it seems that sex means nothing at all, and self respect simply doesn’t exist. I’m not here suggesting that young people shouldn’t have sex – but what I am suggesting is that the modern culture of sleeping with anyone with a pulse, grabbing STDs as badges of honour and even manipulating women into getting into bed, is not only revolting, but a sign of even worse things to come.

See, not only is this happening in pretty much every town and city in the country, but it’s being reproduced on television. Naturally, in order to increase viewers, the lifestyles of ‘modern’ young people are being reproduced and promoted on television, suggesting that the future could be even worse – as our young children are being exposed to sex at a much earlier age, and primary schools are now even discussing sex to our toddlers.

I absolutely abhor this new culture. ‘Modern’ students are taking away the significance of sex and relationships, by having what they call ‘open relationships’ or ‘pseudo relationships’. Cheating in relationships is considered the norm, and universities are no longer a place of study – but instead giant brothels with the odd lecture thrown in, full of hungover morons who’ve scrambled to put their pants back on and kick out the slag from their bedroom five minutes before hand.

Why on earth are we accepting this? Why on earth do people really accept that just because we live in the 21st century, this is acceptable behaviour? Since when did ’21st century’ mean ‘a youth full of degenerates, manipulative man whores and slags who don’t respect themselves’?.

Sex is natural, and not something to be frowned at – but sleeping with different people every night, engaging in this new culture of dressing like you’re gender confused and trtumblr_m2ipkdS9HF1rtmaqeo1_1280eating university like a swingers club is certainly something we should frown at.

As a culturist, I believe that primary schools should not be teaching sex on the curriculum. I do not believe homosexuality should be promoted on television. I believe that parents should be stricter with their children, and bring them up to respect the opposite sex (in particular, bringing up boys to actually respect women). I also believe that parents should bring up their children to dress appropriately – because being young doesn’t mean you have to dress like an idiot.

Culturist John: America’s Culturist Superhero

Dr John Press is my friend and political colleague. If you’re interested in finding out more about culturism, you can visit http://www.nationalculturists.org or http://www.culturism.us. John Press also has a video channel on Youtube, which can be found at http://www.youtube.com/culturistjohn.

John also wrote the book ‘Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future’ which is an essential read for anyone interested.

Read below to hear from John Press himself.

John Press – Culturism.us

Culturism holds that majority cultures have a right to protect, promote and guide themselves. All non-western cultures are culturist. We have a right to be culturist as well.

We are losing the rhetorical debate. Injecting culturism and culturist into our vocabulary will help protect the West.

This is how culturism counters the words multiculturalism, racism, and individualism:

Multiculturalists say the West is just a random assemblage of diferent cultures from around the world. Culturism recognizes that western nations have unique traditional core cultures to protect, guide and promote. Multiculturalists ask us to “celebrate diversity.” Culturists don’t think they take cultural diversity seriously enough. At heart multiculturalists think all cultures are interchangeable and only refer to food, festivals and fashion. Culturism, the book, looks at the Aztecs and headhunters to show how diverse cultures can be. But 9/11 should have put the West on notice that not all cultures believe in democracy, individualism, the value of individual lives, the Protestant work ethic, female rights, gay rights, the relative separation of church and state or other parts of western culture. Unlike multiculturalists, culturists think the West has a core culture, think it requires protection, and take cultural diversity very seriously.

Charges of racism are used to silence all of those who would talk about the negative parts of cultural diversity. Worrying about racism makes some sense. But immigration concerns are not about race, they are about culture. Racism is stupid and dangerous. But if diversity is real, culturism is necessary.

Individualism is the third word. Culturism seeks to promote individualism realistically. If the West does not survive, individualism and individual rights will be discontinued. Individual rights being used to protect anti-social behavior can go to destructive extremes. Individual rights are now used to defile our airwaves, claim asylum and avoid culturist profiling. Being a citizen means sometimes considering what is best for the society you purport to love.

Culturism’s definition holds that majority cultures have a right to guide, protect and promote themselves. Multiculturalism has told us that the West has no majority culture to guide, protect and promote. They have also told us to stick up for it is racist. Furthermore, they seek to undermine the West iin the name of indivudal rights. To survive, the West must must be as culturist as other nations.

Protect the West, fight abuse of the word racism, stop multiculturalism, and safeguard individualism,

USE THE WORD CULTURISM – TELL PEOPLE YOU ARE A CULTURIST!!

Earlier Immigrants Celebrate Britain – The Diamond Jubilee 2012


So, the Jubilee has been and gone – and what a weekend it’s been. Queen Elizabeth was rightfully shown complete respect, and the whole nation has celebrated her 60 years on the throne. Her commitment to the role and her wealth of knowledge have made her perhaps the great Monarch we’ve ever had.

One of the great things about Jubilee time is that the whole country seems to come together. Despite usual anti-British and pro-egalitarian politics, it seems that everybody wants to embrace British culture and celebrate Britishness – for once. I personally have been overwhelmed by the amount of foreigners that have been celebrating Britain, the Jubilee and our great traditions. Notably, however, it’s quite often the older immigrants that get involved.

There’s a very good reason for this. Nationalism continually speaks about how even though we have many racial foreigners coming to this country every year, with the intent to destroy and change – we still have many racial foreigners that are happy to vote for the BNP, support Nationalism and remain pro-British. It was nice to joke with a black man in Camden who was wearing a Union Flag hat that he was ‘in disguise’, as in his own words he was ‘obviously not British!’.

Yes, it seems that the older generations of immigrants came to Britain for a jolly good reason – because Britain was British and they wanted to be a part of that. How brilliant is that! How great would it be if the people who have already, perhaps wrongly in many cases, come to this country celebrate British culture and do not attempt to change.

The younger generations, however, are much different. This is largely due to the increased population and influx of Muslims into the country. Of course, taking the word of the Qur’an, it’s important to enforce your religion and ideology onto the country that you are colonising. These days, this is exactly what we are seeing – Great Britain is being transformed before our very eyes, and Britain will soon wake up.

This older generation of immigrants will soon be an important part of the Nationalist and Ethno Nationalist cause. People like Rajinder Singh, notorious BNP member, will be a core part of the Nationalist movement, rising up against the new generation of immigrants that are largely here to play the system and transform our country in the name of greed, selfishness, the destruction of culture and in many cases, in the name of Allah.

So let’s not blame all the immigrants – let’s blame the Establishment and the people who are aiding the cultural destruction of Great Britain. Newer immigrants are our biggest problem – and as Culturists and Nationalists, it’s important for us all (despite race – as long as racial foreigners on our side understand the concept of being an indigenous Brit and non-indigenous Brit) to come together and try and solve this problem. Hatred and fear is not the way forward – Culturists and Nationalists must unite to secure the cultural identity of the future – and the Jubilee weekend has certainly made me feel much more optimistic about the future of Great Britain.

Long live our noble Queen!

The history of the far left and the ‘far’ right

The United Kingdom and the far right

Right wing politics, nationally and internationally, is often associated with terms such as fascism and traditionalism. Two words that strike controversy and immediate opinions amongst the British public – but also two words that are incredibly different, and very much up to interpretation. The interpretation of these two words, and indeed the understanding of them, can be the driving forImagece behind the success of the right (and the far right) in modern politics. Indeed, the interpretation and understanding of the whole rightist ideology amongst the British public has resulted in a rather interesting history of the far right – a history that I argue can’t exactly be called a failure.

Traditionalism can be of course associated with ‘moderate conservatism’, but its  use in the world of ‘extreme’ Christian groups like the American Westboro Baptist Church and other socio-political fronts can often bring about an air of discomfort and disdain amongst self-proclaimed liberals and ‘centrists’, both in the UK and overseas.

Fascism is without question a little more controversial. The term fascism is often used by the modern left (fronts, organisations and parties like the Unite Against Fascism group, Searchlight, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats) as an alternative term for ‘right wing’ or what they see as ‘extreme’ – but in reality, the term is somewhat misunderstood and ill-defined.

Every academic that has attempted to define the term has usually turned to distinct and differing connotations. There are many who believed, and still believe that fascism was no more than a “twentieth-century radicalization of the extreme right” (Griffin, 1991, p.5) which was solely around as an anti-liberal front throughout Europe. Then of course, there are those who see fascism as an ideology or force that hasn’t been around all that long at all. Even “distinct from the radical right and, moreover, a major factor in contemporary history both within Europe and outside it”.  It has also been said that fascism has shifted more towards becoming a cultural system, as opposed to a simple political ideology. (Spurr, 2003, p.1)

It seems that there is no fixed definition of fascism, but there are general feelings around the word. The left seems to claim that so called fascist groups are anti-democracy, right wing and bigoted. In reality, most academic connotations lead towards the idea that fascism is the violent opposition of opinion and ideology. That appears to be the most concise definition that I have found – something that seems to align with the opinions of S. Payne and R. Paxton as well as Nationalist figures like Andrew Brons MEP (British National Party, Yorkshire & Humber) and Morvai Krisztina MEP (Jobbik).

The progression of right wing politics in the United Kingdom

The far right has a long history in the United Kingdom. Arguably the policies of modern rightist movements are reflected in the manifestos of the Old Labour party, but for this piece I’ll be looking at the 1930s onwards.

1932 saw the formation of arguably one of the most notorious far right movements to have ever existed in the United Kingdom – the British Union of Fascists. The movement stuck around for eight years until it eventually dissolved due to unpopularity and violent rallies, but in its earlier years gained a huge amount of support from the public. The party was headed by former Conservative MP Oswald Mosley.

Perhaps one of the best successes of this early rightist movement was the support from the Daily Mail. Never before this time, and not once since, has a far right political movement received such support from an establishment media product. Of course not electorally successful (given the party had never stood in the General Election – and after it’s ‘Fascism next time!’ campaign had proven unable to gain popular support thanks to the view people had of fascism since WWII), the party still proved a perfect front for the people of Britain who were then concerned about the future of the country, its identity and its position in the world. ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts!’ headline epitomises the success, albeit short-lived.

The party achieved incredible feats in a relatively short period of time, proving that the far right was indeed popular with the British public and that the ideologies it contains could be adapted to a more mainstream position.

The party was successful. There is no question about that. Its earlier years show great success, and ignoring the demise of the party you can clearly see how rightist philosophy can engage the British public with ease. Peaking at around 40,000 members (Webber, 1984, p.575) and polling roughly 8,000 votes in the 1937 Bethnall Green, Limehouse and Shoreditch London County Council elections, the party met a miserable demise – but still perfectly represents the success that far right politics once had in the United Kingdom. Though of course, the ultimate demise that came from the eventual lack of media funding and popular support could also suggest that the British public are always destined to reject far right policy. At this stage, who was to know?

Maintaining the connection between rightist ideology and the electorate, appeared to be difficult – although the war time circumstances and violent rallies (Cullen, 1987, p.115) are also contributing factors to the party’s failure.

The formation of the British People’s Party in 1939, however, shows the strength and resilience of the far right. The BPP aimed to continue all of the hard work of the right in the past and gain national support – though on a somewhat different level. Straying away from the ‘fascist’ label, the BPP fought solely for the promotion of what they saw as National Socialist positions. This is true for both this incarnation of the BPP, as well as the late 1970s incarnation and the 2005 incarnation.

The BPP was essentially a splinter group of the BUF, and was founded and led by ex Labour Party MP John Beckett. In truth, the party at this time was incredibly limited. Beckett’s BPP contests only one by-election in Hythe in the same year it was formed, and their candidate John Philby was unable to at least hold his deposit.

Despite continuing the work of the far right, the BPP at this time was unable to gain support and perhaps proved that efforts to implement far right ‘fascist’ policies were futile at a time of war with German National Socialists.

Up until the last couple of decades, it seemed that the far right was going nowhere. It would have been fair to say that the far right only had minimal impact on British politics and when it did, it soon faded away. This changed with the rise of the British National Party – a party often described as far right when in fact, its extensive 2005 and 2010 manifesto prove it to be a somewhat centrist.

The party was founded in 1982 and was then led by notorious Nationalist John Tyndall. Tyndall restricted the membership to the indigenous British, the British race that has inhabited these islands for more than 40,000 years, something that would soon be forcefully changed under the law during the later Griffin leadership.

From 1997 onwards, the British National Party has seen a considerable and steady increase in support. This can be seen in the total vote figures from General Elections. 1997 saw 35,832 votes, 2001 saw 47,129 votes, 2005 saw 192,746 and 2010 proved incredibly successful – with the party gaining 563, 743 votes in total. Thanks to increased support, increased membership, increased publicity (bad publicity, but publicity nonetheless, due to bias and undemocratic NUJ policies), the BNP could contest more seats than ever with 339 candidates trying to gain a place in Parliament. This was a huge increase from 54 candidates fielded just 27 years prior.

Looking at these figures, the British National Party has been by far the most successful rightist movement in British political history – and that success continues. The BNP has emerged an ‘important political force’ (Goodwin, 2007, p.241) and has been ‘highly successful in gaining access to national media’ (Gingrich and Banks, 2006, p.54)  The party is the fastest growing in the United Kingdom (http://bnp.org.uk/news/national/spread-word-%E2%80%93-join-britains-fastest-growing-political-party), and with its two Members of European Parliament and many affiliations, the party shows real promise. If this movement can continue to beat off media attacks, perhaps it will break the tradition of repeated success and failure of right wing movements in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom and the far left

Just like the far right, the far left has an extensive and interesting history in the United Kingdom. Small parties seem to have always existed and periods of disdain and content with the larger parties allow for fluctuations in interest and support for the smaller parties.

Left wing politics is largely considered to be the more liberal, pro-diversity, pro-multicultural, pro-freedom end of the political spectrum, the world over. Though of course it must be considered that incredibly far left regimes and ideologies could be more oppressive than anything else. For instance, Hitler’s regime of Liberal Fascism would hardly be considered to be pro-diversity. It is certainly true that the common conception that Hitler’s administration was of the far-right is simply based on a huge amount of misconceptions, assumptions and untruths. (Goldberg, 2008, p.56)

I mentioned that the Left are generally considered to be the advocates of multiculturalism, and that in turn means the left are internationalists at heart. Internationalism is a progressive movement which suggests that political and economic cooperation across the world will benefit everybody. This effort to enforce free movement of trade and people at all times results in multicultural societies and multi-racial states. Amongst relatively ‘moderate’ leftist organisations, movements and political parties (like the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats), this ideology is considered liberal, centrist and progressive. There is considered to be a huge difference between the left and the far left. I don’t fully agree with that sentiment, but it must be pointed out that society, the media and indeed political parties do like to note a difference between the modern left and the far left which has been in force for many decades, and still remains in force today. The very fact that parties like the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat party support and fund ultra left organisations like Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism begins to show their ultra left leanings. (http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1167/labour-liberal-democrats-and-conservatives-back-hope-not-hat)

The Communist Party

The Communist Party was the driving force of the far left in the United Kingdom for 71 years. Founded in 1920 and only meeting its end in 1991, the party was the largest communist force in Britain. A number of Marxist parties were combined to create the leftist super power, including the Communist Unity Group, the South Wales Socialist Society and the British Socialist Party. Due to its size and alleged credibility, the Communist Party had high hopes. Their primary aim was to achieve ‘mass status’. (Thorpe, 2000, p.779)

A giant for a far left organisation in the United Kingdom, but a repeated failure. The Communist Party was indeed recognised by the British public and did attract some interest, but through the 60s and 70s the party faced rapid decline. Unlike the successful British National Party of the right, time did not prove to be a benefit to the far left movement. The party’s continual attempts to create, secure and maintain an electoral base simply failed each time. A number of seats in local councils across the country were held but otherwise, the party lost credibility and popular support.

Unite Against Fascism

Unite Against Fascism is an openly leftist ‘anti-fascist’ group that campaigns against what they see as bigoted, racist and homophobic groups. In short, Unite Against Fascism tries to defend freedom (a huge liberal desire) by limiting freedom. Whilst it could be argued this isn’t really leftist at all, their far left tendencies appear in their desire to promote parties like the Liberal Democrats and the Socialist Workers Party. The amount of support that UAF and similar groups gain amongst students shows the success they’ve had in establishing a support base. Funded by David Cameron’s Conservative Party (http://uaf.org.uk/about/founding-signatories/) and other major parties, this leftist organisation has a huge effect on the political system and the outcome of elections, by printing and distributing political leaflets and campaign against single right wing parties.

The success of the left is best seen in the modern British Establishment

The British Establishment has changed. Britain was once a powerhouse for industrial activity, community spirit, hope and prosperity –something supported by the Governments and Establishment prior to the 1948 British Nationality Act. It seems that since then, when mass immigration was first implemented in Britain that everything has changed – and I don’t just mean the people.

The Establishment in Great Britain to many has become a ‘soft touch’, though I believe the problem’s much worse.  Instead, I thoroughly believe that Britain is now subject to an incredibly unpleasant, leftist and treacherous Establishment that’s systematically destroying everything that Britain used to be. This is the incredible rise of the far left in the United Kingdom and outweighs, tremendously, the successes of the far right both during history and in recent times. The left controls the political system, our bureaucracy, the media and all establishment assets.

To get a clear understanding of leftism in the Establishment, we must know precisely how to define the Establishment, however.

The term ‘Establishment’ is particularly controversial, and is certainly a rather scary word to some. The idea that there really is a hidden force in British politics and society that seems to regulate everything from racial make-up, to cultural diversity is indeed a worrying thing. But it exists. It refers to a group of elite people, leftist organisations and even businesses that have an unprecedented power over a nation. The British Establishment can easily be defined by the leftist politics of the last decade, and indeed the leftist politics that currently exist under the ConDem regime.

The Establishment, however, also includes Bureaucrats and bigots that work in British political departments, and Quangos – for instance, the huge amount of control that is found within the supposed ‘Equalities and Human Rights’ Commission currently headed by Trevor Phillips. Needless to say, the corruption, fascism and power that comes from this Establishment is funded by the taxpayer – most of whom don’t even realise what is actually going on.

A brief breakdown of the British Establishment can be seen as followed:

-            Leading politicians (Whether that’s MPs, MEPs, or otherwise), including the Cabinet, and of course the Prime Minister

-            Senior Civil Servants

-            Chairs and workers of Commissions

-            Financiers, bankers, and those involved with the regulation of the British economy

-            Governors of the BBC

Bella Abzug, once member of the US House of Representatives, was a prominent feminist of the 20th century who sums up the nature of this concept in one of her most famous quotes: – “The Establishment is made up of little men, very frightened”. (http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/The_establishment_is_made_up_of_little_men,_very_frightened./39873/)

Whilst this is indeed in reference to the United States Establishment, her comments sum up precisely the point I’m trying to make. The Establishment (no matter what country we’re discussing, as it is true that Establishments all over the world prove to be corrupt, even amongst the strongest of ‘democracies’) is made up of liars, con artists, extreme leftists and men who are scared that their dream of a multicultural, multiracial world and even eventually a European super-state (through consistent expansion of the European Union) will not become a reality; they become the very thing that they supposedly oppose. Fascists. The idea of liberal, leftist fascism is particularly interesting but particularly relevant. The far left in the United Kingdom is by far the most prominent and successful political ideology in the United Kingdom.

It seems quite evident that the history of both the far left and the far right is certainly not one of abject failure, but instead, incredible success. On the part of the far left, oppressive ideas have become accepted as ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist’ by a large proportion of the electorate, whilst the far right has gained support amongst those who understand the goals of the leftist Establishment and has built upon discontent incredibly well.

Gingrich, A. and Banks, M., 2006, Neo-Nationalism in Europe and Beyond

 

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1167/labour-liberal-democrats-and-conservatives-back-hope-not-hat

 

http://bnp.org.uk/news/national/spread-word-%E2%80%93-join-britains-fastest-growing-political-party

 

Goodwin, M.J., 2007, The Political Quarterly, Vol 78 – The Extreme Right in Britain: Still an ‘Ugly Duckling’ but for How Long?

Thorpe, A., 2000, The Membership of the Communist Part of Great Britain, 1920-1945

Spurr, M.A, 2003, ‘Living the Blackshirt Life’: Culture, Community and the British Union of Fascists 1932-1940

http://uaf.org.uk/about/founding-signatories/

Cullen, S., 1987, Journal of Contemporary History Vol 22

Webber, G.C., 1984, Journal of Contemporary History Vol 19

http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/The_establishment_is_made_up_of_little_men,_very_frightened./39873/ Date accessed 07/11/2011

Griffin, R., 1991. The Nature of Fascism

Goldberg, J.,  2008. Liberal Fascism, Adolf Hitler: A Man of the Left

The hypocrisy or racial foreigners and leftists – they prove themselves wrong!

How can I prove that racism and hypocrisy exists in modern Britain amongst those who believe they are anti-racism and anti-discrimination? It’s really quite easy. You must simply listen to the things that ethnic ‘minorities’ say, which the ultra leftist and fascist British people agree with.

Ever heard a Pakistani person call themselves a ‘British Pakistani’ ? Probably. In fact, I recall an Indian, or a Pakistani (or wherever) on the Nick Griffin/Question Time saga say that they are incredibly proud to be a ‘British Pakistani’. So what’s wrong with this? Let’s analyse it.

Consider what the racial foreigner actually means by ‘Pakistani’. Obviously, they are referring to their ethnic background or racial origin. Ethnically they are different to what they prefer to call the ‘white British’. We [the BNP] acknowledge that – we’re ethno nationalists, of course we do. Though by these racial foreigners, these hypocritical scumbags, admitting they are a ‘British Pakistani’ they are openly agreeing with BNP policy. They are accepting that they are ethnically Pakistani, but civically British.

This is precisely what the BNP has been saying for decades, and it is only ever accepted when the ultra left and the foreigners say it – primarily because people overlook what the things they say actually mean! As soon as the ethno nationalists say the same thing, they are instantly branded racist or fascist. By the new meaning of the word, I’m happy to admit that I am a racialist – in that I accept that race is an important and defining characteristic of a person – but certainly by no means am I a racist. Certainly by no means, is any person aligning perfectly with the BNP a racist. As Andrew Brons said in his first Sky News Interview after the BNP EU breakthrough, ‘we hate nobody’.

So why am I so arsed about the ‘British Pakistani’ and ‘British Indian’ matter? Simply because it should work both ways. With a Pakistani admitting that they are only civically British – what does that make me?

By their own admission, it makes me a British Briton. ‘British’ meaning I’m civically British, and Briton defining my race. I am an ethnic Briton, as much as Trevor McDonald is presumably African, and that bitch Sayeed Warsi is ethnically elsewhere – wherever that horrific, fascist little hag is actually from.

If we’re going to take care of such a small minded and frankly racist bunch of racial foreigners, in a way that they are allowed to acknowledge and appreciate their own ethnic heritage (Black history month, anyone?) then as Arthur Kemp once said – ‘we claim that same right for ourselves!’

The British derive from the majority ethnic population prior to the 1948 British Nationality Act. Back in 1947, prior to mass immigration and the population change of our country, the majority population consisted of ‘white’ people. These peoples’ stock consisted mostly of Celtic, Norse and Anglo Saxon ethnicities.

Just because we British happen to be white, however, does not mean that all white people are ethnically British. This is what seems to confuse the lefties and the racial foreigners. The media and the leftist bigots would want you to believe that the BNP considers every white person British, but that’s absolutely not true.

What’s important to note with this matter of homogeneity and indigenous peoples, is that the BNP hasn’t made all of this up. This is a matter of facts. It is not a matter of ideology, opinion or anybody’s manifesto – indigenous people of different lands exist. End of story.

Consider the Maoris of New Zealand. Earliest evidence of these people living in their ethnic homeland is merely 700 years old – yet these people are internationally recognised as indigenous, and are protected by law. Now consider us forgotten British people. The ethnic British have lived in the British motherland for over 10,000 years – significantly longer than the Maoris in New Zealand. Yet we’re not recognised as indigenous in our own motherland.

So, to you who do not believe in an indigenous people of Great Britain, do share with me why you don’t believe. Denying an indigenous people existing in Great Britain is like denying that cheese exists, or that Anne Widdecombe looks like a weeble.

The Leftist British Establishment and Subsequent Political Bias in the Media

The British Establishment of today is corrupt, leftist, thoroughly unpleasant, and leaning towards existing solely as a regime of liberal fascism. That’s the point I’m trying to make within this project. Whilst exploring the controversial tendencies of our beloved British Establishment, I aim to expose the radical and extremist measures that are taken by said Establishment to violently oppose smaller political parties through the use of their greatest asset – the media. This document aims to explore the British establishment on two distinct levels :- – How is the Establishment leftist? – How does the Establishment enforce leftist politics through the mainstream media? – How does it affect the British National Party? Throughout the document, I will be referring to an interview I gave to Cheryl Dunn, the newly-appointed North East Regional Organiser for the British National Party. A dedicated activist, and a dedicated nationalist, she has provided me with key points that support my theory about the Leftist Establishment. Chapter 1 – What is the British Establishment? The British Establishment has changed. Britain was once a powerhouse for industrial activity, community spirit, hope and prosperity –something supported by the Governments and Establishment prior to the 1948 British Nationality Act. It seems that since then, when mass immigration was first implemented in Britain that everything has changed – and I don’t just mean the people. The Establishment in Great Britain to many has become a ‘soft touch’, though I believe the problem’s much worse. Instead, I thoroughly believe that Britain is now subject to an incredibly unpleasant, leftist and treacherous Establishment that’s systematically destroying everything that Britain used to be. So how can we define the Establishment, and what does Britain’s Establishment actually consist of? And what does it do? The term ‘Establishment’ is particularly controversial, and is certainly a rather scary word to some. The idea that there really is a hidden force in British politics and society that seems to regulate everything from racial make-up, to cultural diversity is indeed a worrying thing. But it exists. It refers to a group of elite people, organisations and even businesses that have an unprecedented power over a nation. The British Establishment can easily be defined by the leftist politics of the last decade, and indeed the leftist politics that currently exist under the ConDem regime. The Establishment, however, also includes Bureaucrats and bigots that work in British political departments, and Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations) – for instance, the huge amount of control that is found within the supposed ‘Equalities and Human Rights’ Commission currently headed by Trevor Phillips. Needless to say, the corruption, fascism and power that comes from this Establishment is funded by the taxpayer – most of whom don’t even realise what is actually going on. A brief breakdown of the British Establishment can be seen as followed: – Leading politicians (Whether that’s MPs, MEPs, or otherwise), including the Cabinet, and of course the Prime Minister – Senior Civil Servants – Chairs and workers of Commissions – Financiers, bankers, and those involved with the regulation of the British economy – Governors of the BBC (which is something this paper will focus on particularly) Bella Abzug, once member of the US House of Representatives, was a prominent feminist of the 20th century who sums up the nature of this paper in one of her most famous quotes: – “The Establishment is made up of little men, very frightened”. Whilst this is indeed in reference to the United States Establishment, her comments sum up precisely the point I’m trying to make. The Establishment (no matter what country we’re discussing, as it is true that Establishments all over the world prove to be corrupt, even amongst the strongest of ‘democracies’) is made up of liars, con artists, and men who are scared that their dream of a multicultural, multiracial world and even eventually a European super-state (through consistent expansion of the European Union) will not become a reality; they become the very thing that they supposedly oppose. Fascists. According to the earlier mentioned Cheryl Dunn, the Establishment can be described as follows: “The Establishment, as the name suggests, is that which has developed over time and “established” itself. This is not necessarily formed by one identifiable group of people, politicians or civil servants but refers to all those people who have, over time, assumed or ascended into some form of authority or power. The defining characteristic of the Establishment as I would see it is not money or class but rather a need to protect and maintain the status quo and remain THE Establishment. It is interesting that within the Establishment, various factions (such as political parties) are happy to publicly despise each other and plot each other’s demise, but when a robust-enough threat to The Establishment appears, they will combine to protect themselves and each other if required.” Chapter 4 will look more closely about the fascism that currently exists within the leftist British Establishment, and how it affects smaller parties (and not just the British National Party). Chapter 2 – Leftist Politics in the British Establishment This is the face of democracy in the United Kingdom. It’s a sad state of affairs when members of a legitimate British political party are violently attacked by State-funded, Labour-funded, and MP-supported organisations like the supposed ‘Unite Against Fascism’. This alleged anti-fascist organisation is the perfect example of how leftist, fascist politics are being normalised by the British Political Elite. The organisation believes that by violently opposing British political parties and organisations that stand up for the culturist rights of native British people (The English, Scots, Irish, Welsh – or perhaps, the Norse, the Celts, and the Anglo Saxons) The question to many, however, seems to be ‘How can fascism be at all associated with leftism?’ A question like this can be forgiven, given the modern misconceptions about Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is generally assumed that the National Socialism of the 1940s was a right-wing agenda, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. Leading Scholars of Fascism, including Eugen Weber, A. James Gregor, Renzo De Felice, Zeev Sternhell and George Moss, have already suggested that Hitler’s regime was not fascist – but that’s neither here nor there. In fact, Sternhell once wrote, in response to the 1963 book ‘Fascism In Its Epoch’ by Ernst Nolte, the following: “In some ways, Ernst Nolte’s approach recalls that of Gerhard Ritter and Friedrich Meinecke: Thomas More, for Ritter, Machiavelli, for Meinecke, and now Maurras, for Nolte, are so many proofs of the universality of evil, so many proofs that it was almost by accident, by a mere conjunctionof political circumstances, that the Nazis arose in Germany” – suggesting that Hitler had no real ‘fascist’ agenda, and his ideology simply arose due to political and social circumstances at the time. So Hitler, despite common belief, wasn’t necessarily fascist – though whether or not he, and his regime, was fascist is a matter that would only affect the arguments of leftists. Proving that large political and ideological misconceptions happen all the time – which is certainly the case of culturist groups in the United Kingdom, thanks to a leftist elite that continually lie to the electorate. If Hitler was fascist, then the leftist Establishment would be incorrect to suggest that organisations like the British National Party, British People’s Party, National Front, the movement ‘English Defence League’ and other nationalistic and culturistic groups were essentially ‘Nazi, fascist’ groups would be incorrect. If Hitler was a fascist, which is the general consensus under a loose, modern ‘definition’ of fascism (that remains as unclear as ever, with no real definition of the word ever actually existing), then the leftist Establishment’s claim about nationalist and culturist groups would still be true. We need to stop living in an era that treats Nazism, Fascism, Nationalism and Culturism as one thing. The truth about Nazism is long and complex, but for the purpose of comparing the modern British Establishment to Nazism, I will take the opportunity to describe one of the most distinct reasons why Hitler and the Nazis were seen as right wing, when their socialist and left wing tendencies were substantial parts of their policy and agenda. We know that for decades, the left has been guilty of cherry-picking facts in order to create an opinion (Of course, we know that this is still true today, where the left has cherry picked facts to create an opinion – just look at the decades of covering up Muslim rape of young white girls, in order to avoid the BNP being proven right after their publication of ‘Racism Cuts Both Ways’ in 2001. The Third Reich was guilty of cherry picking facts, in an effort to make Nazism appear as the opposite of popular forms of Communism at the time. The Third Reich accomplished this by exaggerating the roles of industrialists and conservatives, and hence shrinking socialist and leftist aspects of Nazism to mere trivia. This just goes to show that the British Establishment’s knack for cherry picking facts to create an opinion is along the lines of Nazi deceit. Even Cheryl Dunn, previously quoted BNP National Organiser is quoted as saying: ““The country’s political elite are now happy to mix-and-match policies in the interests of attracting votes.” Of course, the idea of cherry picking facts and presenting them out of context is also a great way of attracting votes from a new part of the electorate. People might struggle with the idea that the Establishment is leftist particularly because incumbent Government exists primarily of Tories. Of course, the statement seems more believable given than the Government is in fact a coalition, consisting of Liberals also – but even with a Tory Government I suspect that we would see the same liberal, fascist and violent politics in place. Why? Because David Cameron openly supports the UAF, and their chairman, the thoroughly deceitful and bigoted Sayeed Warsi constantly speaks about the evil of the BNP. The very fact that they believe that multiculturalism is right, and believe that it should have (as it was) been imposed without any democratic mandate means two things – the old gang parties are both liberal and opposed to democracy. This is disgusting, unBritish and not welcome in a democracy. The problem is that people don’t seem to be able to see what’s happening right under their nose. The leftism arguably became more prominent after the rise of the Labour Party. Here, Cheryl Dunn of the British National Party agreed with me once again, saying: “The Establishment has, since the rise of the Labour Party, certainly moved more to the left than in previous centuries. Many of the policies now adopted as mainstream can be described as post-Marxist and even members of traditionally right-of-centre groups would now be accepted as primarily leftist.” It doesn’t matter if the Tories are supposed to be conservative, the LibDems liberal, and Labour populist. These are the old gang parties that want nothing other than to gain power – no matter what they have to do. Just look at the coalition disaster between the Tories and LibDems. Was it not just in May 2010 when Nick Clegg claimed in his election broadcast that it was ‘time for promises to be kept’ Finally, I also asked Cheryl about her opinion concerning alleged leftism within the Establishment, and she replied with: “ Prior to the 2010 General Election, Mrs Gillian Duffy questioned the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the economic viability of uncontrolled immigration. She was branded a “bigot” by Mr Brown and the other parties were quick to condemn him for his duplicity and poor manners. The same leaders of these political parties were previously equally quick to call Mr Nick Griffin and the British National Party bigoted when they asked a similar question, however. Once it became apparent that the public sympathy was with Mrs Duffy not only for the way she had been ill-treated by Mr Brown but also on the factual nature of her question, Immigration became a key factor in discussions prior to Polling Day.” Chapter 3 – How do Leftist politics, liberal fascism and the media affect smaller opposition parties like the British National Party? The British National Party is undoubtedly the most targeted political party in British history. Despite tripling its vote in the 2010 General Election, and obtaining close to 1 million votes in the last European Election, the Political Elite have stopped at nothing to destroy the British National P arty. All this occurs in what we perceive to be a ‘democracy’, a system in which everybody should have a voice. That is the essence of democracy, and our political heavyweights have done nothing but disrespect the whole system. What better example to provide you with than David Cameron referring to Nick Griffin as a scumbag during his annual Conservative conference. It seems that despite the BNP’s legitimacy and increasing amount of votes, the politicians of Westminster are refusing to accept that people really do want change. And not the kind of change that David Cameron referred to in his election campaign. S0 how exactly is the British National Party, as a smaller opponent to the established Political Elite, affected by leftist British politics? One such kind of leftist bullying is racism. Now, racism might not seem like the usual leftist trait, but consider this. Leftist states like the UK absolutely adore the idea of multiculturalism. At least, the Political Elite do, not so much the working class people and traditionalists, however. This idea of multiculturalism is a classic leftist trait, and with it comes horrific levels of racism. The idea of multiculturalism is the idea that all cultures and races can live harmoniously within one state, accepting each other’s values and gradually destroying the indigenous culture and religion. This genocide of a whole race of Anglo, Saxon, Celtic and Norse people was endorsed by the Tony Blair government, and was indeed started under his administration. Multicultural policies first began in the United Kingdom from the 1970s and 1980s, though Tony Blair’s government was a real corner stone. During 2004, the amount of immigrants who became British citizens reached a record of 140,795. This was a 12% increase over 2003 figures, and since then, it seems that it hasn’t stopped. Now, this multicultural scheme (which wasn’t democratic, as there was no mandate, and no will from the public – it was simply a racist tactic enforced upon the people without a referendum) is the main leftist trait that currently affects the British National Party. The British National Party is the only real party that is standing up for the rights of the indigenous white people of these islands (of course, apart from extremist and unacceptably racist parties like the National Front and British Peoples Party). Given the nature of the party, the racism that is the destruction of the indigenous races and the constant ignoring of these people and their rights has a dramatic effect on the success of the party. Naturally, there are millions of racial foreigners in this country that immediately would never consider voting BNP. Why? Potentially because the Labour Government brought them here. If not, it’s because of the lies spread by the leftist media because of anti-white racism. Anti-white racism is very much present these days, and is evident in the recent scandal involving Jack Straw. Jack Straw, Labour politician, recently raised concern about the cover up of Muslim gangs attacking and raping young white women. It seems interesting that Labour should suddenly pick up on this racism that was ultimately their fault (given that they were responsible for the cover up) when it was actually a Britihsh National Party document that announced this racist scandal back in 2001. Of course, the Establishment don’t want you to know this – hence the recent censorship of Derek Adams, BNP candidate in the Saddleworth election, on the BBC’s North West politics Show when he mentioned the 2001 document and the Labour cover up. 2001 saw the release of ‘Racism Cuts Both Ways’, a document produced by the BNP that aimed to outline the anti-white racism that was occurring in Britain that is affecting the lives of millions of Brits, as well as the success of the British National Party as the only alternative political movement in the UK. Of course, one of the best examples of Establishment and Leftist bullying is the recent Equalities and Human Rights Commission case against the British Natioanal Party. This followed the incident whereby the EHRC ordered the BNP to change its membership rules (which, at the time, only allowed indigenous British people to join the party), or face legal charges. The commission suggested that the party was breaking the Race Relations Act by only allowing indigenous peoples to join, even though there is a large array of organisations out there that offer membership exclusively based on race, one of which is the Black Police Association. It seems that not only was this argument flawed, in that the BNP is there initially to represent the indigenous people anyway, but also incredibly bias and unfair. It seems that interest groups like the Black Police Association that are blatantly in favour of Tony Blair’s multicultural child are not affected by this Race Relations Act. That’s class A leftist bullying, which again points the finger at fascism. This is the British Establishment controlling an interest group and a political party, and attempting to change their values. This isn’t democracy, and nor is this fair. In the end, the BNP held an Extraordinary General Meeting that allowed members to vote in favour of the membership rule change anyway. But it didn’t end there. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission came back with a second attempt to bankrupt the party through expensive legal hearings, and further time wasting. The commission suggested that even though the party constitution had changed, there was scope for ‘indirect discrimination’, and this alone was worth further legal costs. Of course, this was a BNP victory given the sheer nonsensical nature of the hearing. So what does this show? Quite clearly it shows the influence that Britain’s Leftist Establishment has on the British National Party. Commissions and Quangos like the EHRC have near unlimited funds, whilst the British National Party has to rely on funds provided by the members. Blatant attempts to bankrupt a party so that they are ‘out of the way’ are totally unacceptable in a democracy. Chapter 4 – Can things change? So can things change? The idea that someday in the United Kingdom there will be a Nationalist government seems pretty absurd to many people. However, with the recent rise of Nationalism throughout Europe, including Holland (once the most liberal country in the world) and France, I believe that the UK is destined to follow in their footsteps. In order for this to happen, however, things must change. The only way I can see them changing, is if people begin to realise what exactly the British National Party stands for, and if the people can wake up to the realisation that the media is lying to them, is incredibly bias, and the Establishment is working against the will of the people. I believe that this can only happen if the Establishment continues to work against the will of the people, and the media continues lying. Eventually, the lies will become more obvious and the effects of the corrupt and unpleasant Establishment will become even more noticeable. I believe that then, the people will realise, and the people will turn to Nationalism – their only hope. Chapter 5 – Commentary How can I prove that racism and hypocrisy exists in modern Britain amongst those who believe they are anti-racism and anti-discrimination? It’s really quite easy. You must simply listen to the things that ethnic ‘minorities’ say, which the ultra leftist and fascist British people agree with. Ever heard a Pakistani person cal themselves a ‘British Pakistani’ ? Probably. In fact, I recall an Indian, or a Pakistani (or wherever) on the Nick Griffin/Question Time saga say that they are incredibly proud to be a ‘British Pakistani’. So what’s wrong with this? Let’s analyse it. Consider what the racial foreigner actually means by ‘Pakistani’. Obviously, they are referring to their ethnic background or racial origin. Ethnically they are different to what they prefer to call the ‘white British’. The BNP acknowledges that – they’re ethno nationalists, of course they do. Though by these racial foreigners, these hypocritical scumbags, admitting they are a ‘British Pakistani’ they are openly agreeing with BNP policy. They are accepting that they are ethnically Pakistani, but civically British. This is precisely what the BNP has been saying for decades, and it is only ever accepted when the ultra left and the foreigners say it – primarily because people overlook what the things they say actually mean! As soon as the ethno nationalists say the same thing, they are instantly branded racist or fascist. By the new meaning of the word, I’m happy to admit that I am a racialist – in that I accept that race is an important and defining characteristic of a person – but certainly by no means am I a racist. Certainly by no means, is any person aligning perfectly with the BNP a racist. As Andrew Brons said in his first Sky News Interview after the BNP EU breakthrough, ‘we hate nobody’. So why am I so bothered about the ‘British Pakistani’ and ‘British Indian’ matter? Simply because it should work both ways. With a Pakistani admitting that they are only civically British – what does that make me? By their own admission, it makes me a British Briton. ‘British’ meaning I’m civically British, and Briton defining my race. I am an ethnic Briton, as much as Trevor McDonald is presumably African, and that Sayeed Warsi is ethnically elsewhere – wherever that incapable and racist Muslim woman is from. If we’re going to take care of such a small minded and frankly racist bunch of racial foreigners, in a way that they are allowed to acknowledge and appreciate their own ethnic heritage (think about Black History month) then as Arthur Kemp once said – ‘we claim that same right for ourselves!’ The British derive from the majority ethnic population prior to the 1948 British Nationality Act. Back in 1947, prior to mass immigration and the population change of our country, the majority population consisted of ‘white’ people. These peoples’ stock consisted mostly of Celtic, Norse and Anglo Saxon ethnicities. Just because we British happen to be white, however, does not mean that all white people are ethnically British. This is what seems to confuse the lefties and the racial foreigners. The media and the leftist bigots would want you to believe that the BNP considers every white person British, but that’s absolutely not true. What’s important to note with this matter of homogeneity and indigenous peoples, is that the BNP hasn’t made all of this up. This is a matter of facts. It is not a matter of ideology, opinion or anybody’s manifesto – indigenous people of different lands exist. End of story. Consider the Maoris of New Zealand. Earliest evidence of these people living in their ethnic homeland is merely 700 years old – yet these people are internationally recognised as indigenous, and are protected by law. Now consider us forgotten British people. The ethnic British have lived in the British motherland for over 10,000 years – significantly longer than the Maoris in New Zealand. Yet we’re not recognised as indigenous in our own motherland. So, to you who do not believe in an indigenous people of Great Britain, do share with me why you don’t believe. Denying an indigenous people existing in Great Britain is like denying that cheese exists. It seems to me that the British people do not understand that they are an indigenous people. I quote Andrew Brons, MEP in saying ‘Racism is terrible and must be codemned’. British public need to now peer through these permeable walls of lies created by the media, and see that the British National Party is not racist, but instead, Labour cronies who have destroyed our great nation. I once again quote from the Racism Cuts Both Ways documentation: “The fact that council housing is refused to homeless white families living in sub-standard bed and breakfast accommodation in favour of so-called ‘asylum seekers’ and immigrants, means that this form of racism is now endemic across the country.” If that’s not racism, I don’t know what is. And if the fact that nearly one third of white people have learnt to expect to be treated worse than other groups by at least one of eight public services (including police, prisons, courts, Crown Prosecution Service, probation service, local housing organisations, schools or GPs) is not a subsequent effect of prejudice for the indigenous people by the British Government (A government packed to the brim with racial foreigners who seem to still be convinced that the BNP want to send them home, and in turn, scare monger the British Public into thinking the BNP are Nazis), I also don’t know what is.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.