Tuesday, 19 June 2007

Diversity destroys Society.

According to the mantra of the politicians, the liberals and the Labour Party, diversity is something that is good for society.

According to those that study the actual impact of diversity on society, it is in fact destructive of society and communities.

Now even newspapers like The Telegraph are picking up on this as a reality.


In the article entitied 'People in Mixed Race Areas feel Isolated ' the article explains the devastating effect that diversity has on traditional communities.

"People in ethnically mixed areas are less trusting of their neighbours and live a more isolated existence, research from a New Labour "guru" has found.

The greater the diversity, the looser the community bonds and the more withdrawn local residents become, says Robert Putnam, an American academic based at Harvard.
Prof Putnam's research shows that people who live in such areas retreat into their shells. They spend more time watching television, volunteer less and take little part in community activity.

"Diversity does not produce bad race relations or ethnically defined group hostility," Prof Putnam says in an article setting out his findings. "Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can make a difference."

He added: "The impact of diversity is definitely greater among whites, but is visible as well among non-whites."

This is not some radical or even new idea - the pernicious effect of multi-cultural and multi-racial communities on indigenous societies and social cohesion were recognised centuries ago ;


Sociologically, the first theorist to identify this change was the Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), who emphasized the tendency for mass urban societies to break down when the social solidarity characteristic of tribal and national societies disappeared. Ibn Khaldun saw dramatically the contrast between the morality of the nationalistic and ethnically unified Berbers of North Africa and the motley collation of peoples who called themselves Arabs under Arabic leadership, but did not possess the unity and sense of identity that had made the relatively small population of true Arabs who had built a widespread and Arabic-speaking Empire.

Later it was Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936) who introduced this thought to modern sociology. He did so in his theory of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1887). This theory revealed how early tribal or national (gemeinschaft) societies achieved harmonious collaboration and cooperation more or less automatically due to the common culture and sense of common genetic and cultural identity in which all members were raised. This avoided major conflicts concerning basic values since all shared a common set of mores and a common sense of destiny.

However, as history progressed, larger multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies began to develop, and these Tonnies described as being united by gesellschaft ties. These were not united by any common set of values or historical identity, and collaboration was only maintained due to the need to exchange goods and services. In short, their existence came to depend on economic relations, and as a result of the diversity of cultural values, the lack of any "family feeling," and the emphasis on economic exchange and economic wealth, conflict over wealth and basic values was likely to disrupt the harmony of such societies at any time. In political terms, liberalism developed to eulogize the freedom of individuals from claims to national loyalty and support for national destiny, while Marxism grew out of the dissatisfaction felt by those who were less successful in achieving wealth and power, which now came to represent the primary goals of the individuals who were left at the mercy of the modern mass gesellschaft society. Nationalism and any sense of loyalty to the nation as a distinct ethnic, kinship unit came to be anathematized by both liberals and Marxists.

New Labours ideological guru is Robert Putnam of Harvard University, the man who invented the phrase Social Capital. Yet Robert Putnam has created his own nemesis as a result of his research. A liberal by nature, his research to support the foundation of multi-racial and multi-cultural societies as functional models for liberal societies has in fact revealed the devastating effect that multi-culturalism and multi-racialism have had on traditional communities.

As stated in the following article, (1) " The Harvard Professor was making a point about “social capital”, the commodity he drew to global attention in “Bowling Alone”. In the book, he argued 20th century trends such as working women, the growth of television and urban sprawl meant people were more disconnected from families, friends and civic society than ever before. Instead of church on Sunday or the monthly bridge club, they stayed home or even went bowling - alone.

Now, after several years of further research, Putnam has come up with a more disturbing picture of contemporary American life: the more people of diverse ethnic backgrounds live in a community, the lower the level of trust among the community’s citizens.

This is, as he knows, an extremely contentious finding in a climate of growing concern about immigration in the US. It is potentially more controversial in Europe, which is struggling to cope with Islamic communities that can be actively hostile to Western democracy at their most extreme, and even in more moderate forms often prefer to live apart rather than integrate.

Putnam makes an important distinction between two different types of social capital: Bridging, in which an individual from one religious, ethnic, or class group, does something for someone in another group for an expected return, and bonding, when people who are “like us” – white Irish Catholic police officers, say, or black Alabama Baptist labourers – act in the expectation of a return.

The second kind, says Putnam, can “lead to Bosnia or Beirut” at most, and ever-wider social distance in wealthier societies.

It makes for close and warm relations among the “in” group but can freeze out or even make enemies of those considered “out”.

His diversity research reveals not just that bonding capital is strong and bridging capital weak in ethnically diverse communities, but also that both are weak in such societies: distrust permeates all relationships and people try to “minimise the hits on them from the society around them” by withdrawing into private space, often in front of a television ".

Yet even though Putnams finding destroy the entire liberal ideology which he supports, he then says that in order to solve the paradox at the heart of Liberalism, that traditional societies must surrender their entire culture, language, history, traditions and entire way of life, as he says here (2)

" In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: "What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us."

This is crypto-Marxist, revolutionary social engineering at its most extreme. It is the start of the journey that Stalin took to the Gulags, the first step on the path that Pol Pot took to the Killing Fields, the highway to hell of Mao to the Lagaoi. It is the same sort of utopian nonsense that led to the crimes of Communism as detailed in the Black Book of Communism.


The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, maintains that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". Using unofficial estimates he cites a death toll which totals 94 million. The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows: 20 million in the Soviet Union, 65 million in the China, 1 million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power." It explicitly claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including fascism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forvced labour. It does not include "excess deaths" due to lower or higher than expected mortality or birth rates of the population.

A more detailed history of repressions described in the book includes:

Soviet Union: executions of hostages, prisoners, rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922; the famine of 1922; the deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920; the use of the Gulag system in the period between 1918 and 1930; the Great Purge; the deportation of kulaks from 1930 to 1932; the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933; the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, Moldavians and Bessarabians from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945; the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941; the deportation of the Crimean Tatars on 18 May 1944; the deportation of the Chechens in 1944; the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.
Cambodia: deportation and extermination of the urban population of Cambodia.
China: the destruction of Tibetan culture.

In other words Putnams solution to the crisis in liberalism is to embrace the same revolutionary communist social engineering that led to the communist barbarism of the 20th Century and create a New Model British Society, either that or Britain will end up as Bosnia with its own inevitable civil war.

Putnam states that in order to prevent multi-cultural and multi-racial countries ending up with civil wars then the Importing countries ( Britain in this case that is importing in millions of immigrants ) must surrender the British way of life IN ITS ENTIRETY in order to accomodate the incoming immigrants who will also be expected to surrender their ancestral culture in its entirety.

In other words according to Putnam the end result of Liberalism IS THE DESTRUCTION OF BRITAIN AND THE BRITISH WAY OF LIFE either through civil war or by the deconstruction of British society itself.

As part of Putnams Plan to ensure that multi-racialism and multi-culturalism do not lead to civil war, then the leaders of Multi-Cultural societies must force the indigenous people to surrender their entire culture and heritage and create Politically Correct versions of Britishness that fit into the New Model British Society plan. At the same time all immigrants into the country must also be forced either to surrender their ancestral traditions or embrace Politically Correct versions of their religions and cultures that can fit into the New Model British Society. This is to create a new form of Britishness that is neither British, nor recognisable as anything like Britain. All this in order to satisfy the delusions of Mr.Putnam and the multi-culturalists.

One can now see why Gordon Brown is so keen on creating a new form of Britishness that 'celebrates diversity'.

Add to this the other loopy idea of Mr.Putnam, so beloved of the propagandists of the Liberal Fascists regarding the so called ' benefits of immigration for Britain', that Exporting societies ( The Third World ) benefit from losing their doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, teachers and their entire intellectual elite to the West in the midst of the present AID's, literacy, disease, war and food crises, then one can see that Putnam really has no moral centre.

He regards the systematic extermination and eradication of the indigenous culture and way of life of Britain ( and the world ) against the express wishes of the British people as a price worth paying to satisfy his own desire to prove himself and his innane theories right. This is Fascism at its most extreme. The fact he is the guru of the New labour Party reveals both the disturbing psychology of those that rule this country, but also their fascist plans for the future of this country.

Multi-Culturalism is, as Putnam says, the path towards a Beirut or a Bosnia in Britain.

The next time that Gordon Brown, or his foppish doppleganger'Call me Dave' Cameron, starts to tell the media that they want to create a new version of Britishness be prepared.

First the Liberals came for the BNP and the so called 'racists' - and you cheered them on.

Then they came for the Nationalists, the Patriots and the Constitutionalists - and you kept silent.

Then they came for anyone who dared protest - and you were taken too.

Dont say you werent warned.

(1) http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10007552.shtml

(2) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html


Wednesday, 13 June 2007

The Wall Comes Down

The Wall Comes Down.

There are moments in history when one can visibly see the wall that divided the people from the political elite coming down. 1989 was such a moment when we watched the Berlin Wall being smashed down by Germans citizens who had been divided from one another since the end of the Second World War by East German Soviet Union politicians.

This week the first leaks in the wall of liberal lies that has separated this country from reality could finally be seen. This trickle is the first sign of an imminent flood that will soon undermine the entire liberal consensus and its foundations.

The first moment of truth being set free from amidst the snarl of lies was a report from the Ministry of Justice published here ; http://www.justice.gov.uk/called Diversity and Fairness in the Jury system.

As reported in the Times (1) this report reveals that " Jurors of all races are more lenient to ethnic minority defendants in court in an attempt to compensate for perceived bias in the criminal justice system, according to a report published today.

Black and ethnic minority jurors are significantly less likely to convict a black or Asian defendant than a white defendant in certain cases.

"Race leniency" appeared to reflect a belief among black and Asian jurors that the courts treat defendants more harshly if they are from an ethnic minority, the report said.

It said that jurors attempted to deal with the perceived bias in the criminal justice system by trying to create a "level playing field" for ethnic minority defendants.

But the report, by the Ministry of Justice, said that such bias appeared to operate only in cases where race was not a factor in the prosecution.

"White jurors showed some same-race leniency towards white defendants, but again this was present only in cases where race was not an explicit element of the case," it said.

"Both black and Asian jurors showed leniency for the black defendant, but there was no evidence of leniency for the Asian defendant by either Asian or black jurors."

In other words, the constant lie repeated ad neaseum by Liberals, the BBC and the Labour Party for years that poor Ethnic Minorities are not getting fair trials in court due to racism was nothing but the biggest load of BS we have ever been forced to swallow as a society.

The second big lie is the one promulgated by the Liberal Elite and its political lackeys that stop and search by the Police is evidence of police racism. In 1995 the then Met Police Cheif Paul Condon revealed that 80 % of muggings in London were by blacks. This report has now vanished down the Internet memory hole, I have spent twenty minutes trying to find copies of the article but they have vanished.It appears they didnt fit the big lie that the politicians want to portray that the police and criminal justice system are racists.


For ten years we have had imposed upon the institutions of our nation a racist, violent and revolutionary Marxist ideal called Institutional Racism. This doctrine was a revolutionary plan to take over the institutions of our society in a way that bypassed the requirement for a political mandate.

Instead of the people voting for change via the political the process, the process was imposed via the institutions of society.

Political Power is an illusion, unless it can be applied.

Political Correctness and the lie of Institutional Racism allowed the left to take power at the level of the institutions who apply power in our nation without any electoral mandate for them to do.

It has enacted a revolution in our nation, whilst millions of people scuttled past with their heads down and kept silent.

One of the defining lies of Institutional Racism, and one that has been accepted with uncritical obedience by the so called ' chattering classes' is that the Court system is institutionally racist and oppresses those poor, dear, ethnic minority chappies and chappesses.

This lie is the basis of the 'Suffering Noble Ethnic' image of ethnic minorities in this country that the liberal idiots like to portray to the public. The fetishised image of the noble and suffering ethnic minority victim of white injustice is the defining symbol of the Post-Imperial guilt stricken idiot and Multi-Cultural Society.

It has in fact become a syndrome amongst the liberals, that can be recognised and clinically assessed. Read the article here ;

Psychology and White Ethnocentrism Kevin MacDonald http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/

This syndrome is the ' Suffering Ethnic Syndrome' seen in all those white politically correct liberals such as those white idiots that wore chains and carried ' I am sorry ' signs on their chests during the ending of slavery events.


As a result of this syndrome the ' Suffering Noble Ethnic Image' is the basis of every form of apologistic BS that can be imagined. This is why we live in an Idiocracy not a Democracy, for we are ruled by idiots and their drooling minions.

When ethnic groups shoot fellow members of their ethnic groups in gang shootings to make money from drugs to sustain their Bling Lifestyle - then according to the Liberal Elite its white racism that drives them to do it and a racist court system that puts them in prison. They are never responsible for their own actions, and its always the fault of 'whitey'. This retarded racist nonsense is what goes for mainstream political debate in todays Idiocracy.

When ethnic and religious groups comprised of middle class and university educated zealots blow up tube trains that kill scores of people for their extremist Islamist agenda then its white racism that drives them to do it and their inability to get 'justice ' in the institutionally racist 'system' that drives them to cause violence, never their own extremism.

When ethnic groups form a far greater percentage of the prison population than whites, then it is Institutional Racism that is responsible for them being put in prison not their own criminality. No ethnic is ever responsible for their own actions when they can always blame 'Da Man' for their own problems.

When ethnics are stopped and searched by the Police for suspected involvement in muggings then it is institutional racism that is responsible for them being stopped and then arrested and imprisoned for any crimes they may have been involved in. Even when the evidence is clear, the person who tells the truth must be smeared and libelled.





In every BBC, ITV and Channel 4 crime drama the token ethnic minority in the show is always innocent and it is an institutionally racist justice system that has put them in prison for their crimes.

The endless permutations of this 'Suffering Ethnic Syndrome' afflict our society at every turn.

White Juries are even slandered as racists for daring to imprison ethnic minority criminals.

White Liberal Judges, like His Honour Judge Timothy Clayson, who gave derisory community service to scum like these here

and the white liberal judge who gave the derisory sentences for the violent racist scum here ;


Then believe the image of the ' Suffering Noble Ethnic' and our community gets NO JUSTICE.

Because they are also victims of this syndrome, they thenpass derisory sentences on ethnic scum and thereby secondary victimise the victims of their crimes and the white community as a whole.

On every front our community is under attack.


This term Institutional Racism was coined by Stokeley Carmichael a member of the Black Panthers and a radical Marxist. This man was a hero to the self hating, white, middle class university radicals of the pathetic 1968 generation. The 1968 Generation were the nadir of the West, a mewling, whining ,self hating cabal of over educated idiot savants, whose activities have almost destroyed the West but who now work as news reporters, university academics and lawyers making millions from the public purse as part of the Servile State.


Stokeley Carmichael was as vicious a racist as one can find. He hated white people. He coined the phrase 'Black Power' and ' Burn Baby Burn' to describe how whites needed to be murdered and burnt out of black areas of the city. He was the prototype of the ethnic cleansers we have seen in the Balkans.



Lee Jasper an adviser for the London Mayor on racial issues who also sits on the London Policing Boards has also used the BLACK POWER salute of Carmichael and shouted Black Power ! in a recent documentary by Kenan Malik - review here ;


I wonder if Red Ken would still employ an white employee who worked on the race relations boards of London who did a Nazi Salute at the camera and shouted WHITE POWER ! whilst being interviewed for a TV documentary - of course not, but hey Lee Jasper is black and black fascism is socially acceptable isnt it.

Yet for a decade we have had to endure the systematic undermining of our national institutions in the name of combating Institutional Racism. It was like watching the 'co-ordination' process of the Nazi Regime under Hitler.


Gleichschaltung (literally "equal switching", meaning "making the same", "bringing into line") is a the term for the process by which the Nazis successively established a system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce. One goal of this policy was to eliminate individualism and resistance to the process by forcing everybody to adhere to a specific doctrine and way of thinking and to control as many aspects of life as possible using an invasive police force with the remit to police all sections of society at the same time.

In the UK our version of the Gestapo was the Commission for Rcial Equality, who had the remit to investigate and control all public authorities as regards Institutional Racism.

In a subversion of all legal norms those institutions werre forced to try and prove a negative - that they werent Institutionally Racist. But seeing as they had already been declared as being Institutionally Racist without any evidence at all, and thereby could not prove the negative that they were not institutionally racist, then they were unable to stop the CRE from ordering them to do whatever it wanted them to do.

The CRE Race Relations Gestapo then controlled the State.

All sections of society were forced to adopt the 'Institutional Racism' ideology and then allow 'diversity advisers' to enter those institutions and change them so that ethnic groups and other favoured minority groups, such as Islamic extremists and
Marxists, were promoted and put in power within those institutions.

All the time the gutless liberals and the gutless reactionary right of the Tory Party all played three monkeys and refused to stand in the way of this revolution without a democratic mandate or remit in our society.

Every time someone dared to stand up to this wave of thuggery against our society, they were called racists until they either capitulated or some gutless jellyfish sacked them from their jobs.

It was like witnessing 1932 again, this time though with the Rainbow Flag of diversity flying over the Council Offices, instead of the Nazi Swastika. Those that dared protest were called racists.

New laws were passed such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the religious hatred laws that allowed the courts to arrest and imprison anyone who dared whisper anything that was considered 'racist' by the self appointed Guardians of Society.

Thought Criminals were hunted down and then exposed for a Public Hate process, where the media brought down hatred on their heads and tried to ruin their lives.

Living through this process was like drowning in a sea of stupidity. Everyone become a marionette with a mission to fulfil, and middle class white liberals donned the jackboots of diversity and began to act like Gauliters in our own communities enforcing diversity.

Racial Dissidents were jailed and paedophiles and child rapists set free.

Last year the police CAUTIONED 230 child rapists, yet imprison people at the merest hint of a sugestion of them being involved in racism - UNLESS THEY ARE ETHNIC MINORITY RACISTS of course, and then they get suspended sentences and community service for their race crimes against whites.

We even had our own Holocaust going on at the same time as the Political Correctness and Instiotutional Racism co-ordination process was underway in British society. This was the Abortion Holocaust that began in 1967 and that has murdered six million of our British citizens in the abortion clinics of the state since then.

They have built a Wall and taught us to call it freedom.

The Wall began the moment we stepped foot outside our front doors and surrounded us our entire lives. No one could escape the Wall, it cast a shadow over us everywhere we went and over everything we did and said.

The Wall was painted in pretty rainbow colours so that children could be shown the Wall and indoctrinated into thinking it was the basis of their liberty and freedoms.

Yet if you dared peer closely at the Wall one could see thousands of holes like pockmarks in the Wall itself.

These were those who opposed the building of the Wall faced public execution and their social destruction.

Each one of these pockmarks in the Wall represented a life ruined.

But the Wall is coming down.

Slowly the shadow cast by the Wall is lifting.

(1) http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1923647.ece

Tuesday, 5 June 2007

Earning British Citizenship

The proposal being aired by Gordon Brown and his team of sycophantic political pygmies for a 'British National Holiday' must be satire - they cannot be serious. This will be nothing more than another nauseating attempt to force us to 'celebrate' the multi-cultural version of 'Britishness' that the government regards as the only acceptable version of Britishness.

Britishness will be depicted in government propaganda as some multi-cultural slush that we are all supposed to gag on at the same time and then say how wonderful it is.

The government must think we are pigs who can be fed any old slop in the trough.

I can just imagine local council Diversity Officers patrolling the streets on British National Day and forcing people to wave plastic Union Jack flags and smile for the cameras like in the staged pictures of the Chinese people under the Maoist regime ( with rifles trained being on them from behind the cameraman and lorries ready to load them up and take them to the Lagoai if they didnt 'celebrate' their gratefulness to Mao enough ).

You can just imagine the Diversity Officers going around saying to immigrants looking sullen in the street during the British Day celebrations ' you zere, you arent celebrating enough, you best smile for ze camera or you vill have a point deducted from your Citizenship Record Card ' and then the locals being told ' Ve know zat you were not celebrating enough in public as ve have CCTV footage of you not looking happy at ze celebrationz, you vill know go to ze bottom of ze local housing list you racist pig dogz '.


My favorite peice of blather was the section where it states "Under a points-based system, credit would be given to migrants for doing voluntary work but lost for breaking the law ".

I can just imagine the terrorists of Al Qaeda in their nice middle class homes supplied by Leeds Council saying to themselves " Best we quit the Jihad lads, Ruth and Gordon might deduct a few points from our Citizenship Report Card and we might have to stay claiming housing benefits, family credit, unemployment benefit and child benefit a bit longer ".

I bet they are terrified by that threat.

These proposals come from a Labour government that has done more than any other government in history, apart from the Tory government of Ted Heath who took us into the EU and Thatchers government who signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty, to destroy this country through signing us up to every idiotic supra-national treaty scrawled by some International Socialist / Capitalist idiot.

Under their 'leadership' they have been busy too getting their hands in the till and ravishing their secretaries to have ever put the interests of the country first.

Now that Gordon is taking over from Phoney Blair, then it appears that a national debate on protecting British Identity is back on the agenda the same way that immigration was back on the agenda for Thatcher in 1979.

We all know what happened next dont we.

Gordon is just trying to do a 'Thatcher in Drag ' - if you look closely you can almost see him tottering about in the same pair of high heels she wore.

Hopefully 'Once Bitten, Twice Shy' is a maxim that is actually correct.

These proposals come from the Fabian Society, who are the single most dangerous group of terrorists in UK history.


The symbol of the Fabian society is a Wolf in a Lambs coat.

They are nothing more than Communist revolutionaries who embraced the Gramscian Long March instead of the Leninist revolutionary Model. They saw that revolution through the market was more easily achieved than revolution with machine guns. Its nothing more than an organisation of bed wetting middle and upper class schoolboys playing at being 'revolutionaries' so that they can shock Mummy and Daddy at how 'wadical' they are.

In the words of Lenin , they are truly the 'Useful Idiots'.

They have created in this country 'The worst of all possible worlds ' - we today have Political Correctness dominating the Public Sphere of society and Consumerism dominating the Private Sphere of society. We are trapped between the Scylla of State Socialism and the Charybdis of Consumerism.

The taxes of the corporations are then used by the government to subside the Servile State and the army of lickspittle lackeys that depend like parasites on our money.





I have some real proposals for British Citzenship.

First we must shut the doors to the country completely and let no more immigrants in.

Then we must deport EVERY SINGLE illegal entrant, bogus asylum seeker, people trafficker, those naturalised immigrants with criminal records, sex slave, economic migrant, terrorist, terrorist supporter, campaigner for Sharia Law, apologist for terror etc etc.

Once a few million of the scroungers, criminals and terrorists are deported then we can begin to review the status of those legally here.

We need to undertake an immediate Population Audit to find out who is here, and then deport all those who shouldnt be here.

All those who have Naturalised Citizenship status that has been awarded by all previous bent governments will have their citizenship status reviewed. If they have committed a single crime then under the principle of Legus Sanguinus they, and their dependents will be deported and returned to their ancestral homelands.


Lets stop pretending that the 'rights' of Naturalised Subjects and Subjects of the Crown allowed to settle in the UK are the same as the constitutional rights and liberties of the Indigenous people who are the Natural Citizens of the British National Community. They arent.

Citizenship can only be inherited via Jus Sanguinus or earnt after a lifetime of service to the nation. The current system where terrorists like Abu Hamza can enter the nation on a false passport and then claim all the welfare benefits and civil and constitutional rights of Natural Citizens of the UK is absurd.

At the moment British citizenship is handed out by the government to anyone who enters the country like condoms are handed out by teachers to children at primary school.

Citizenship should only be awarded to immigrants after a lifetime of service to the nation such as through joining the Armed Forces, being a doctor, Nurse, an employer of British people or those who have served the community for a lifetime and who have contributed to British society, the British economy or British society.

They should apply for Naturalised Citizenship status and then detail why they deserve it.

Just because they have managed to climb a fence at Calais, hide inside a lorry, get past the slumbering officers on duty at Customs and then be driven by Police Officers armed with ethnic phrase books, cups of coffee and doughnuts to the nearest Left Wing lawyer ( who is busy getting rich on our legal aid money ) or asylum seeker support group funded by the National Lottery who then stands them before some lefty bastard judge in a court who then rules in their favour, doesnt mean they have a right to stay in the country or have citizenship given to them.

The government and the liberals contention that the constitutional rights and civil rights of the indigenous Natural Citizens of the British National Community are the same as any fence jumping illegal immigrant is racist nonsense.

We are the indigenous peoples of this land, the First Peoples, and our ancestors fought and died for our civil rights and the British Constitution. The Social Contract that defines the power of the State is written in our blood.

The sacrifice of their lives that our ancestors made so that we can be free must never be betrayed.

The fact that the government and left wing and liberal parasites are prepared to take away OUR rights and liberties to try and appear to look tough on illegal immigrants, is the logic of the criminal and the Liberal Fascist.

The more the government uses the immigrants, who enter the country because of their political pathy, as an excuse to remove more of our liberties and rights - then the more we drift into a Fascist Scoiety in the name of Liberalism.

The Liberal Consensus of the 20th Century is over. It is as dead and buried as the vile monsters like Mao and Trosky that gave birth to it, and its evil twin Political Correctness.

Whilst faith in Communism and Socialism no longer exists, the spectre of it still haunts the left wing intellectual retards that infest our universities and media.

Those who use the rhetoric of Political Correctness should be regarded as mere accomplices of the Socio-Cide done in its name. The derelict Gulags and Lagoai of the Socialist Experiment are filled with the restless ghosts of those hundreds of millions who fell in the name of Socialism and its pimp sister ( and silent accomplice ) Liberalism.

Their moral high ground is built upon the graveyards they filled with the victims of their crimes.

Their Ivory Towers are built on foundations of terror and genocide.

If they think they can use their pseduo-moralistic bullshit to try and terrify us into silence , then it aint gonna work.

The era where the Marxist-Leninist 'Terrorism of the Word' and the use of words like 'racism' can be used to silence debate is over.

The Left have created and use words like 'racism' as part of a Pavlovian attempt to condition and terrify the population into silence. By screaming at an opponent words like 'racist' it means they dont have to debate, they merely have to scream at them in order for the debate to end. At the same time as they began using words like racism the Left also undertook a Cultural Struggle designed to destroy society - and words like Racism were designed by them to be used in order to discredit their opponents and prevent them winning a debate based on rational discourse.

By using words like 'racism', which have no meaning other than as emotive statements which can be used as the basis of an Ad Hominem attack on their opponent, then this means rational and logical discourse can be ended.

As soon as some liberal or left wing moron screams ' wacist ' at you, with their chin wobbling and their demented eyes bulging, then it merely confirms that you have won the debate and they cannot win it.

Citizenship and Citizenship Rights

If a problem exists with Naturalised Citizens or British Subjects, such as terrorism or criminality, then the rights of Naturalised Citizens and Subjects of the Crown must be removed, not the constitutional and civil rights of the Indigenous British people who are the Natural Citizens of the National Community.

Just as the law already recognises the existence of differential types of citizenship based on Jus Solis, Jus Sanguinis and Lex Sanguinis then the rights attached to those types of Citizenship must also be clarified and classified.

Natural Citizens are those indigenous people of the British National Community whose ancestry can be traced back to the Act of Settlement 1701 and this includes those from closely related European stock who have integrated directly into the indigenous community. This is the basis of Jus Sanguinis. They and their descendants inherit their citizenship status. Only they should have the right to apply to a Constitutional Court System to appeal laws passed by governments that change the British Constitution. These are the indigenous people defined as the 'Permanant Population' in the Treat of Montevideo and therefore their role is to ensure that transient British governments are not able to our remove rights and liberties protected under the British Constitution. We should also regard those descendants of British citizens living in countries such as Zimbabwe as British also under the principle of Lex Sanguinis, even if they hold a Zimbabwe passport. If they ever need asylum in the UK, then we should offer them it.
Natural Citizens should have the right to demand referenda on lawspassed by government that change the British Constitution. The fact that there were no referenda for the Nationality Acts (which changed the definition of citizenship), for our entry into the EU and for the removal of civl liberties and rights enshrined under the British Constitution by the Labour Government means those laws are not 'legal'. For such fundamental changes to the British Constitution to occur the permission of the people must be sought and gained via a referendum. In the absence of such a mandate from the people then the law is void. The role of the Natural Citizen in the British State is to guard the British Constitution from those who would seek to change it. The constitutional principle of Parliamentary Sovereignity does not allow a transient politicians in a transient political party elected under a transient mandate from a minority of the population to claim a right to change the British Constitution. Those laws passed in the past therefore that have chagned the British Constitution without a referendum are unlawful and Ultra Vires. Therefore the Natural Citizens of the country are entitled to have referendums in relation to those issues and if they do not give a mandate, then the laws should be ruled as null and void and non-functional. That way we can take back our country from the EU via a constituional path. Our entrance into the EU was never legal in the first place.

Naturalised Citizenship Status is for those who have given a long period of service to the UK aand British society and who have not broken any of the terms of the Social Contract with the State and the people since they arrived here. They are defined by Jus Solis and are awarded their citizenship status only after a lifetime of service to the UK. Because these people are also defined under Lex Sanguinis as permanent citizens of their ancestral homelands with a permanent Right of Return, regardless of their British citizenship status then their right to remain a Naturalised Citizen is predicated on them obeying the Social Contract. In the event they dont, then they get deported back. They have the same civil and legal rights as all Natural Citizens except they cannot apply to the Constitutional Courts to challenge laws passed by the government that change the British Constitution. Once awarded Naturalised British citizenship then this status can be passed onto their children and they then have Inherited British Naturalised Citizenship Status. Those who inherit Naturalised British Citizenship from Naturalised British Citizens may have their citizenship status revoked for offences such as terrorism, treason, serious criminal offences and other serious breaches of the Social Contract. Those who have served in the British Army, as doctors, nurses and who have served the British nation and people would be entitled to claim Naturalised Citizenship Status by right. This is their reward for loyalty and service to the community.

Subjects of the Crown are those living under the protection of the Crown whilst they stay here until either given Naturalised Citizenship Status or they are deported. They have the same civil and legal rights as both Natural Citizens and Naturalised Citizens but may be removed at any time if in breach of the Social Contract. They must learn to speak English, contribute to British culture and protect the British Way of Life. If they dont, then they get deported. They must earn the right to become Naturalised Citizens. Here a points system may be useful, but the important fact is that the primary imperative for them to become Naturalised Citizens will no longer be purely economic. The era when globalist economists or international socialists used immigrants as cheap labour to undercut UK workers will end. They will only be allowed to settle when they have skills that benefit the WHOLE of British society, not just employers and wage cutters.

We stand for Hard Integrationism as opposed to Liberal Integrationalism - in that those who are rightfully here are here solely to contribute to British Society, and not form colonies or live as colonists amongst us. If they wont do what we expect them to do then they will be deported. We are not here to pander to them, they are here to contribute to OUR society.

The time when the law and politicians confused all three categories of citizenship status will end on the day the BNP comes to power.

We are not frightened by demented left wing, middle and upper class, middle aged, white public school morons screaming ' wacist ' at us. Its like water off a ducks back to us, their invective and hate has been thrown at us for years and we have become immune to their nonsense.

Unlike the other establishment parties that wet their trousers at the first mention of the word
' racism' fired at them from the froth flecked lips of the left wing rent-a-mobs that breed like flies in the corpses of our universities, and then roll over like dogs and show their bellies to the enemies of Britain, we will fight them and we will resist them.

If the corporate media and the big media barons think they can carry on using their power to damage us, our nation and our vote by spreading lies about us so that they can keep in power the corrupt political elite who run the country and who once in power then reward the media bosses with tax breaks, then they had better think again.

When we take power then the era of capitulation and surrender to all the enemies of this nation, both internal and external, ends.

Those who seek to prevent our programme of national liberation will be resisted.

Our revolution will be a revolution based on the Rule of Law and enacted via the democratic system.

We will be voted into power with a mandate for change, and change is what we will deliver.

Monday, 4 June 2007

The Tyranny of the Minorities

The State as a mechanism of the nation is defined in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933 Article 1.

This treaty defines a 'State' as requiring ;

1) A Permanent population

2) A defined territory

3) A government

4) A capacity to enter into relations with other states.

The British Constitutional Nation State has possessed these features since the creation of the English Nation in the 10th Century, from which it derives, and is therefore one of the oldest continuous constitutional nation states in the world.

The primary component of any Nation State is its people, this being its permanent indigenous population.

The permanent population of any state are the indigenous people and the indigenous community of that nation who historically formed the nation and the state itself. These people are the Natural Citizens of the State.

The indigenous people create the State and the State derives its authority only from it representing the interests of the indigenous People.

A permanent indigenous population is not composed of transient migrants, refugees, naturalised subjects or guest workers utilising modern global transit systems to enter and exit nation states at will.

The permanent population and citizenry of Britain are solely those people who are descendants of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and closely assimilated Northern European population of the British National Community whose ancestors first created the British State at the time of the Act of Settlement 1701, and whose ancestors fought for their rights as enacted in Magna Carta and the Bill Of Rights. They alone are the Natural Citizens of the British Constitutional Nation State and National Community who possess Constitutional Rights as well as individual civil liberties and civil rights.

The fundamental basis of British society, which is the British National Community, did not arise as the result of a mutual social contract between unrelated individuals rationally trying to maximize their best economic interests, but is rather that of an tribal association whose most ancient form is the extended family as the basis of an ethnic National Community.

The National Community is not defined by politics or economics, it is defined by ethnicity. The National Community is defined as a mode of organic sociality deriving from a tribal or national (gemeinschaft) basis as in the theory of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1887) put forward by Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936).

The National Community exists in opposition to Modern Society. Modern society's practical, technological, mechanical and functional social relations, in which social organization within the British nation state is based solely on individuality and individual interests or aggregated social, political or economic interests regulated by the Rule of Law.

The National Community existed as a real organic collective before the artificialities of modern civil society were constructed and is therefore superior to it. Society and the State are the creations of the National Community, and therefore it must primarily serve the interests of the National Community.

The function of the State is to serve the National Community and to ensure the Rule of Law.

The role of the State in the Social Contract as a functional mechanism within British society is to uphold and defend the historical constitutional laws and rules of the indigenous People that govern and regulate the actions of the Crown, the government and Judges when they exercise their authority and create and apply the laws of the country against both the individual and the National Community.

This process ensures we live in a free and democratic society based on the Rule of Law.

The State is a constitutional mechanism that prevents society, the politicians, civil servants and judges from betraying the people by breaching the rules of the constitution itself. The State ensures that society, the Crown, the legislature, executive and the Judges all stay within the rules and laws of the Constitution settlement and thereby the State defends the basis of the Rule of Law and civil society itself.

The constitutional framework of the State is the foundation of liberty itself.

The constitution is the body of ancestral laws, historic rules and processes that defines the Social Contract and the Environmental Contract between the indigenous people, the government, society and the State.

The essential roles of the State are to ensure internal security, defend the people from external and internal aggression, ensure individual our sectarian interests do not threaten order within Society and to defend national community rights and individual civil liberties.

In the Anglo-Saxon legal system which is the basis of British and English Law and Politics the word 'Folc' from which comes the word Folk means not just the Anglo-Saxon people, it also means the English nation itself.

The Anglo-Saxon word ' Cynn ' means ;

1) Kin

2) Family

3) Race

The word ' Maegd ' means ;

1) Kindred

2) Folk

3) Tribe

All these words share a linked meaning where the families, the folk and the Nation are one.

Therefore we can see that the fundamental basis of British society is not the result of a mutual contract between individuals rationally trying to maximize their best economic interests, but rather that of an tribal association whose most ancient form is the extended Anglo-Saxon families and Celtic families and their respective tribal groups.

We can also see through genetic research, history, migration studies and cultural linkage that the racial root of all the families of the permanent population of Britain are derived solely from the Northern European racial group that have existed in Europe from at least as far back as the Neolithic. This is proof that units of individual family groups solely from the Celto-Norse Northern European racial group were the ethnic basis of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, that the Anglo-Saxon tribes were the basis of the Anglo-Saxon Folk and that the Anglo-Saxon Folk are the English of the English nation.

This dynamic process also created the indigenous British people of the British Nation who are an amalgam of the European Celtic and Norse tribal groups as defined by ethnicity, geography and culture. In 738 A.D St. Boniface reported that the continental Saxon tribes said of the English people ' We are of one blood and one bone ' proving that the consciousness of a racial community existed linking the Anglo-Saxons and the Germanic tribes of Europe into one unified tribal group.

Therefore in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition the ' permanent population ' of the British nation is the indigenous Anglo-Saxon Folk of Great Britain and the indigenous Celtic tribes of Britain and those fellow racial Europeans absorbed into the British National Community who are descendants of the Celtic and Germanic tribes of Europe. The laws of the dooms of King Ine of Wessex who came to power in AD 688 confirm that indigenous Celtic Britons and Anglo-Saxons were both protected as equals under the Kings laws.

The laets of Kent also show a similar absorption process taking place in South East England as the two populations began to intermarry.

The nature of the British legal and political are also linked to ethnicity.

The historical liberties of the British people are the liberties solely of the indigenous people of Britain. The etymological source of the word 'Justice ' is Latin and it represents a Roman legal concept not an indigenous legal tradition.

The Roman concept of ' Justice' is postulated on the belief that there exists a set of universal abstract principles capable of being codified into an authoritative body of law against which empirical phenomena can be rationally measured to arrive at a 'just' result in the event of conflict. It also implies the existence of a judge with the authority and capability to act as an impartial party adjudicating all legal disputes based upon the application of those universal abstract principles.

In the Anglo-Saxon legal system any legal conflicts in the local community were decided using the local historic laws of the indigenous local people instead of universal abstract principles, they were also based on local precedent and custom rather than the direct application of any abstract universal legal principles, they utilised a jury of peers from the same community instead of a judge independent of the country and the people themselves conducted the legal trials according to local their edicts and laws as opposed to the decrees of any central political or legal authorities.

In the writings of Tacitus it states that the Kings of the tribes of Germany possessed no right of arbitrary power or unlimited power.

The restrictions on their right to exercise power were based on local custom and precedent and the Kings were controlled by their Councils. The local Anglo-Saxon tribes had councils that advised the King in the form of the Witan Gemoot and the ' micelra gesomnunge Godes theowa ' these being the wise men of the Anglo-Saxon tribes and the religious leaders of the tribes.

The Witan councils were even able to remove a King and depose them from their throne if they abused their powers. The King reigned only with the consent of the people as expressed through the will of the Witan. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles reveals that in the year AD 757 ' Cynewulf and the Witan of the West Saxons deprived Sigebryht of his kingdom for his unrighteous deeds, except Hampshire '. This showed than an English King could only rule with the consent of the council of the Witan.

It was only during the reign of King Aethelbert in the late sixth century that the ancient laws and customs of the Anglo-Saxon people were written down and tribal custom was slowly replaced with a semi-formal legal system of laws of the Anglo-Saxon peoples given the authority to be applied in legal proceedings before the Witan or local courts under the authority of the Crown.

These laws were written down in English, not in Latin, and there was no attempt to produce a codified legal system with universal legal principles to be applied in all cases. These were English laws for the English people. Local custom and precedent were seen as operating alongside the Kings legal authority and power to decide procedural rules. It was because a crime was seen not just as an attack on the victim but also as an attack upon the Kings Peace and also an affront to the Kings power in his realm that the legal procedures in the trials of criminals of early British society gained their authority and were applied in the Kings name.

It is to King Alfred The Great of Wessex who began to reign in AD 871 that we can see the birth of a dynamic process of consolidating a set of English laws acceptable to all the English people both Celtic and Germanic. The adoption of the disparate customs and laws of the various Anglo-Saxon and Celtic tribes of England into one formal English Law Code was an attempt by the King to unify the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and Celtic tribes into one English nation residing under the protection of the Kings Peace. Two hundred years later when William of Normandy conquered England he swore at his coronation to uphold not only the laws of Edward his cousin and predecessor but also the laws of King Alfred The Great.

The British State is the guardian of the British National Community and derives its authority within the nation from the ancient customs and laws of Anglo-Saxon England and the Celtic tribes from whose peoples was first formed the English nation and society. Its function as part of the Social Contract in British society is to uphold the historical constitutional laws and rules that regulate the actions of the Crown, the government and Judges when they exercise their authority and create the laws of Britain.

The State is not the Crown, the government nor the politicians. The State is the process that ensures the Crown, politicians, the judges and the government all abide by the law. The State ensures that the power of the Royal Prerogative is exercised only within the constitutionally defined Rule of Law. A constitutional system based on the rule of law is a prerequisite for the evolution and existence of a civil society and for the maintenance of civil liberties. Countries with Sharia Law cannot create civil societies. Nor can nations who have surrendered their sovereignty to supra-national institutions and international corporations be said to be democracies nor civil societies.

The Social Contract is the indissolvable bond between the people, the national community and the State, it is not under the dominion of either Crown, government, Judges nor politicians. Governments and politicians, Judges and Civil servants are transient functionaries that operate under the control of the State. The State exists to ensure the people are the masters of their government.The States primary operational role is to ensure internal and external security against aggressors and terrorists and also that the rule of law is maintained so that the ' war against all ' that Hobbes defined as the nature of a society without a state does not tear the country apart.

Even the Minimal State is also a national security state. Internal national order ensures the threat from external aggression is minimised. The State is the primary bulwark from internal tyranny and external invasion. It is in the interests of the people and national security that society is regulated by the State rather than controlled by the media, corporate state governments, the global corporations, the US, the EU, the UN, the WTO, the Bilderbergers, the international bankers, international socialists, one world liberals and Dar Al Islam.

We will restore power to the people and end the tyranny of the minorities.The following are also the anti-thesis of the Constitutional State as these are minorities exercising power over the majority for the benefit of minorities ;

The corrupt political parties and their corporate backers and the QUANGO state structures they have created ;

The ethnic minority pressure groups - the CRE and the Race Relations Industry

The international immigrant criminal gangs

The Muslim Political lobby groups that want Sharia law in the UK

Politically correct Media and BBC, Channel 4 etc

The Judges and the Attorney General, ACPO, CPS, DPP etc

The EU and UN - supra-national institutions.

The banks and financial institutions - WTO and World Bank

The oil companies and energy corporations

The Far Left intellectuals and academics who espouse universal rights based on internationalism

The Reactionary Capitalist elite that espouse globalism and international capitalismEach of the above have undermined our democratic society.

The right of the State in the past to delegate power to foreign institutions such as the EU and UN also means the State in the name of the People has the right to repatriate those powers whenever it wishes. This is the basis of the sovereignty of Parliament itself.

The right of the State to include foreign peoples as citizens of the State in the past also means the State has the power to change the legal status of those foreign peoples as citizens of the State if required by circumstance relating to their wrongdoings or by a free vote of the people themselves.

The State is also responsible for educating the individual about their rights and liberties and hence ensures the liberty of the individual and the community itself.

If the State did not educate the individual about the constitution then they would have no rights, for they and the community would remain ignorant of the fact that such rights even existed.

The whole operation of the concepts of Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty depends entirely on the interaction of the State and the constitution with the people. The freedom to attain ones own goals according to ones own will and also the freedom from being coerced to fulfil anothers goals at the expense of our own ambitions are both dependent upon the State operating as a mechanism involved in the regulation of social relations between the citizenry and the government.

Any nation that has open borders cannot be an Open Society.

The fact that the British nation state has millions of illegal immigrants in the country means we cannot operate or exist as an Open Society.

Any nation that seeks to save the world merely ends up betraying its own people.

In Modern Britain we cannot live in an Open Society as we have allowed millions of illegal immigrants, bogus refugees, foreign criminals and other illegal entrants in the country that threaten national security.

People do not live in an Open Society if they live in fear of suicide bombers, foreign criminals, immigrants colonising their areas and terrorists. The basis of an Open Society is predicated on the freedom from fear.

The presence of the terrorists in the nation allows the Liberal Fascists to pass ever more laws that destroy the basis of the Open Society. The Politicians are as dangerous to liberty as the Terrorists.

Both laws and bombs kill liberty.

Only by the State removing those illegal entrants and terrorists that threaten the people can the threat from the politicians be removed.

An Open Society can only exist in nations that control their borders and rigorously police who comes in and out of the country and who also prohibit foreign religious groups and alien ethnic groups from organising to challenge the demographic, cultural and social, economic, political supremacy of Every Open Society must resist all those forces that threaten the constitutional structure and settlement of the State.

Political freedom and civil liberties in an open society depend upon nationalist policies and a strong constitutional state structure. If the intellectual elite in any society is obsessed only with the rights of individuals or aliens then it is an Ideological Open Society as opposed to a Functional Open Society. We support an National Community as opposed to an Open Society. An Open Society in a nation existing under the dominion of globalisation is neither free, nor a community nor a society. The indigenous people are deracinated and relegated to the status of economic units merely squatting on the land. Community is transformed into colonies of immigrants and Society is replaced with wage slavery and the black economy.

The nation is not free when terrorists roam the streets and the government pass ever more laws to remove our civil rights and liberties.

The National Community is concerned with using the mechanisms of the State, government and the Market in as minimal manner as possible to ensure the ancestral rights and individual liberties of the families and individuals that form the micro-communities of the Nation are protected and promoted both from internal threats and external aggressors.

A National Community is based on defending and securing the organic realities of the nation as opposed to internationalist ideological constructs. The National Community is concerned with securing the borders of the nation state, protecting the national environment, removing illegal aliens and illegal entrants, making sure people have decent homes, adequate health care, schools, that helps the old the disabled and the poor and that seeks to secure the civil rights and the civil liberties of the British people above all others.

The National Community is based on the organic reality of the people and the environment of the nation both being dependent upon the other for survival. It recognises the importance and validity of the physical laws that govern human societies and seeks to live within the sustainable natural limits of its own environment. It ensures the citizens and subjects of the nation reap real social and economic benefits as opposed to the hollow 'intellectual ' benefits of living in poverty in an Ideological Open Society that invites the world to live within its borders.

In the Ideological Open Society the concept of universal rights is more important than Community Rights.

In the Ideological Open Society if 200 million Chinese fled to Britain and claimed refugees status, then each of them would have the exact same Citizenship rights as those Britons whose ancestors have resided here for thousands of years. Even though the influx of aliens would destroy Britain both socially and environmentally and destroy all the civil rights and liberties of those of us already living in Britain, the proponents of the Ideological Open Society would still allow them to stay and bestow upon them full British Citizenship status.

The Social Contract that forms the functional basis of the National Community also demands the power of the State to secure and perpetuate its own existence. The fundamental rules that the British State exists to protect are non-negotiable rules, they are the constitutional core of the Nation state itself and form the framework of governance and society itself. Human dignity exists in modern societies only through a strong State that exists only to serve the interests and secure the interests of the British people themselves and the British national community.As Alain de Benoist wrote in Terre et Peuple 18 (Winter Solstice 2003)

" First, there is the notion of community, which Ferdinand Tönnies developed in opposition to his concept of society. In distinction to a society's mechanical [or functional] relations, in which social organization is based on individuality and individual interests, community defines a mode of organic sociality. In Max Weber's term, this notion is an ideal type, for every collectivity, in different proportions of course, possesses traits that are distinct to both community and society. Based on Tönnies work, but with reference to Aristotle, there has arisen a communitarian school of thought, whose principal representatives are Alasdair McIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Michael Sandal. This school highlights the fictitious character of liberal anthropology, insofar as liberalism posits an atomized individual who exists anterior to his ends, that is, an individual whose rational choices and behavior are made and motivated outside a specific socio-historical context. For the communitarian, [by contrast, the extra-individual forces of larger social or communal ties] are what constitute and motivate the individual. Identity, thus, is that which we choose to be before we even recognize who we are, being that inherited framework which defines the horizon of our shared values and lends meaning to the things of our world. As a specific moral value, then, identity is anterior to any universal conception of justice -- although the liberal believes such a conception ought to trump every particularistic sense of the good. Communitarianism, then, responds to liberalism's dissolution of organic ties and the crisis of the nation-state it provokes, for liberal society is no longer able to generate sustainable forms of sociality. In reaction, communities of all sorts, whether inherited or chosen, now seek to reassert themselves in public life and to break out of the private, individualistic sphere in which liberalism has sought to confine them " .

In the article 'The French New Right in the year 2000' Alain De Benoist and Charles Champetier write

" Liberalism embodies the dominant ideology of modernity. It was the first to appear and will be the last to disappear. In the beginning, liberal thought contraposed an autonomous economy to the morality, politics and society in which it had been formerly embedded. Later, it turned commercial value into the essence of all communal life. The advent of the "primacy of quantity" signalled this transition from market economics to market societies, i.e., the extension of the laws of commercial exchange, ruled by the "invisible hand," to all spheres of existence. On the other hand, liberalism also engendered modern individualism, both from a false anthropology and from the descriptive as well as normative view based on a one-dimensional man drawing his "inalienable rights" from his essentially asocial nature continually trying to maximize his best interest by eliminating any non-quantifiable consideration and any value unrelated to rational calculation.

This dual individualistic and economic impulse is accompanied by a Darwinian social vision which, in the final analysis, reduces social life to a generalized competition, to a new version of "war of all against all" to select the "best."

Aside from the fact that "pure and perfect" competition is a myth, since there are always power relations, it says absolutely nothing about the value of what is chosen: what is better or worse. Evolution selects those most apt to survive.

But man is not satisfied with mere survival: he orders his life in a hierarchy of values about which liberals claim to remain neutral. In the 20th century, the iniquitous character of liberal domination generated a legitimate reaction: the appearance of the socialist movement. Under the influence of Marxism, however, this movement became misdirected. Yet, despite their mutual hostility, liberalism and Marxism basically belong to the same universe and are both the heirs of Enlightenment thought: they share the same individualism, even the same universal egalitarianism, the same rationalism, the same primacy of economics, the same stress on the emancipatory value of labor, the same faith in progress, the same idea of an end of history. In almost all respects, liberalism has only realized more effectively certain objectives it shares with Marxism: the eradication of collective identities and traditional cultures, the disenchantment of the world, and the universalization of the system of production. The ravages of the market have also triggered the rise and growth of the welfare state. Throughout history, the market and the state have appeared on an equal footing, the latter seeking to subject inter-communal, non-market exchange, which is intangible, to the law of money, and to turn homogenous economic space into a tool of its power. The dissolution of communal bonds, spurred by the commercialization of social life, has necessitated the progressive strengthening of the welfare state, since it is entrusted with the redistribution necessary to mitigate the failures of traditional solidarity.

Far from hindering liberalism, these statist interventions have allowed it to prosper by avoiding a social explosion, thus generating the security and stability indispensable to exchange. In return, the welfare state, which is nothing but an abstract, anonymous and opaque redistributive structure, has generalized irresponsibility, transforming the members of society into nothing more than recipients of public assistance, who no longer seek to overthrow the liberal system, but only to prolong the indefinite extension of rights with no quid pro quo. Finally, liberalism denies the specificity of politics, which always implies arbitrariness of decisions and plurality of goals. From this viewpoint, the term "liberal politics" appears to be a contradiction in terms. Seeking to form social bonds on the basis of a theory of rational choice that reduces citizenship to utility, it ends up with an ideal "scientific" management of global society by technical experts.

The liberal state, all too often synonymous with a republic of judges, is committed to the parallel goals of abstaining from proposing a model of the good life while seeking to neutralize conflicts inherent in the diversity of social life by pursuing policies aimed at determining, by purely juridical procedures, what is just rather than what is good. The public sphere dissolves into the private, while representative democracy is reduced to a market in which supply becomes increasingly limited (concentration of programs and convergence of policies) and demand less and less motivated (abstention). In the age of globalization, liberalism no longer presents itself as an ideology, but as a global system of production and reproduction of men and commodities, supplemented by the hypermodernism of human rights.

In its economic, political and moral forms, liberalism represents the central bloc of the ideas of a modernity that is finished. Thus, it is the main obstacle to anything seeking to go beyond it. "

In the same article they write " Human existence is inseparable from the communities and social groups in which it reveals itself. The idea of a primitive "state of nature" in which autonomous individuals might have coexisted is pure fiction: society is not the result of a contract of men trying to maximize their best interests, but rather of a spontaneous association whose most ancient form is undoubtedly the extended family. The communities within which society is grounded are constituted by a complex net of intermediary bodies situated among individuals, groups of individuals, and humanity. Some are inherited (native), other are chosen (cooperative). The social bond, whose autonomy the classical right parties have never recognized, and which should not be confused with "civil society," is defined, first and foremost, as a model for individual actions, not as the global effect of these actions. It rests on shared consent and is prior to this model.

Membership in the collective does not destroy individual identity; rather, it is the basis for it. When one leaves one's original community, it is generally to join another one. Communities are constituted and maintain themselves on the basis of who belongs to them. Membership is all that is required. There is the vertical reciprocity of rights and duties, contributions and distributions, obedience and assistance, and a horizontal reciprocity of gifts, fraternity, friendship, and love. The richness of social life is proportional to the diversity of the members: this diversity is constantly threatened either by shortcomings (conformity, lack of differentiation) or excesses (secession, atomization). The holistic conception, where the whole exceeds the sum of its parts and possesses qualities none of its individual parts have, has been defeated by modern universalism and individualism, which have associated community with the ideas of submission to hierarchy, entanglement, or parochialism. This universalism and individualism have been deployed in two ways: the contract (politics) and the market (economics). But, in reality, modernity has not liberated man from his original familial belonging or from local, tribal, corporative or religious attachments. It has only submitted him to other constraints, which are harsher, because they are further away, more impersonal, and more demanding: a mechanistic, abstract, and homogenous subjugation has replaced multiform organic modes.

In becoming more solitary, man has also become more vulnerable and more destitute. He has become disconnected from meaning, because he can no longer identify himself with a model, and because there is no longer any way for him to understand his place in the social whole. Individualism has resulted in disaffiliation, separation, deinstitutionalization (thus, the family no longer socializes), and the appropriation of the social bond by statist bureaucracies.

In the final analysis, the great project of modern emancipation has resulted only in generalized alienation. Because modern societies tend to bring together individuals who experience each other as strangers, no longer having any mutual confidence, they cannot envision a social relation not subject to a "neutral" regulatory authority. The pure forms are exchange (a market system of the rule of the strongest) and submission (the totalitarian system of obedience to the all-powerful state). The mixed form that now prevails is a proliferation of abstract juridical rules that gradually intersect every area of existence, whereby relations with others are permanently controlled in order to ward off the threat of implosion. Only a return to communities and to a politics of human dimensions can remedy exclusion or dissolution of the social bond, its reification, and its juridification. "

In the article Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: A sociological view of the decay of modern society' Alain De Benoist writes " Fundamentally, classical liberalism was a doctrine which, out of an abstract individual, created the pivot of its survival. In its mildest form it merely emphasized individual freedom of action, and condemned excessive bureaucratic involvement by government. But praiseworthy though its defense of individual freedom was, its claim that the ideal system is that in which there is the least possible emphasis on nationhood leads to situations which in fact endanger the freedom of the individual. In its extreme form, classical liberalism has developed into universal libertarianism, and at this point it comes close to advocating anarchy. From the sociological standpoint, in its extreme form, modern internationalist liberalism defines itself totally in terms of the gesellschaft society of Tonnies. It denies the historical concept of the nation state by rejecting the notion of any common interest between individuals who traditionally shared a common heritage. In the place of nationhood it proposes to generate a new international social pattern centered on the individual's quest for optimal personal and economic interest.

Within the context of extreme liberalism, only the interplay of individual interests creates a functional society - a society in which the whole is viewed only as a chance aggregate of anonymous particles. The essence of modern liberal thought is that order is believed to be able to consolidate itself by means of all-out economic competition, that is, through the battle of all against all, requiring governments to do no more than set certain essential ground rules and provide certain services which the individual alone cannot adequately provide. Indeed, modern liberalism has gone so far along this path that it is today directly opposed to thee goals of classical liberalism and libertarianism in that it denies the individual any inalienable right to property, but still shares with modern liberalism and with libertarianism an antagonism toward the idea of nationhood. Shorn of the protection of a society which identifies with its members because of a shared national history and destiny, the individual is left to grasp struggle for his own survival, without the protective sense of community which his forebears enjoyed since the earliest of human history.

Decadence in modern mass multi-cultural societies begins at a moment when there is no longer any discernable meaning within society. Meaning is destroyed by raising individualism above all other values because rampant individualism encourages the anarchical proliferation of egotism at the expense of the values that were once part of the national heritage, values that give form to the concept of nationhood and the nation state, to a state which is more than just a political entity, and which corresponds to a particular people who are conscious of sharing a common heritage for the survival of which they are prepared to make personal sacrifices.

Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel truly free, and truly protected. Men cannot live happily alone and without values or any sense of identity: such a situation leads to nihilism, drug abuse, criminality and worse. With the spread of purely egotistic goals at the expense of the altruistic regard for family and nation, the individual begins to talk of his rights rather than his duties, for he no longer feels any sense of destiny, of belonging to and being a part of a greater and more enduring entity. He no longer rejoices in the secure belief that he shares in a heritage which it is part of his common duty to protect - he no longer feels that he has anything in common with those around him. In short, he feels lonely and oppressed. Since all values have become strictly personal, everything is now equal to everything; e.g., nothing equals nothing.

A society without strong beliefs," declared Regis Debray in his interview with J.P. Enthoven in Le Nouvel Observateur, (October 10, 1981), " is a society about to die." Modern liberalism is particularly critical of nationalism. Hence, the question needs to be raised: Can modern liberal society provide strong unifying communal beliefs in view of the fact that on the one hand it views communal life as nonessential, while on the other, it remains impotent to envision any belief - unless this belief is reducible to economic conduct ? ".

Universal rights do not exist and cannot be claimed by immigrants because we do not live in a global society, we live in the British Nation and therefore possess British national civil and constitutional rights.

We live in Britain and therefore the civil rights of the British people are geo-specific and not universally applicable to all peoples. The British Nation State is a geo-specific entity, therefore the constitutional and civil rights of Britain can only be claimed by those citizens of the British State.

Then there is the two definitions of British Citizenship itself - Natural Citizens and Naturalised Citizens.

Natural Citizens of the National Community possess Constitutional Rights as well as civil liberties and civil rights. Jus sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood") is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be passed to any individual born to parents who are National Citizens of that state.

It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"). The principle of Active Citizenship and Community Rights requires that Natural Citizens are able to utilise the constitution of the State to control the actions and activities of elected governments and other sections and systems of society.

The indigenous people of Britain as the Natural Citizens of the National Community and the State are entitled to Constitutional Rights. Natural Citizenship bestows not just rights and entitlements but also imposes duties and obligations.

Constitutional Rights are the constitutionally defined civil rights of Natural Citizens as enshrined within the Social Contract which exists between the indigenous permanent population based on familial descent from the first creators of that society and the State.

In the modern globalised system citizenship is determined not by birth or by the State but by economics, ideology and international dynamics ranging from civil wars to climate change.

Unless the indigenous peoples of the British nation are given Constitutional Rights that recognise the importance of our rights as a Community and that allow them to repatriate their sovereign power from all supra-national political, religious, economic and corporate elites and end the dynamic of de-nationalisation then they will eventually be dispossessed of their own country.

This process of the de-nationalisation threatens the very existence of the United Kingdom as an ethnic, cultural, political, economic and social unity of the British nation itself. Therefore the State must become the mechanism that ensures that Constitutional Rights are protected and Natural Citizens empowered to reverse this process. De-Nationalisation must be followed by Re-Nationalisation.

In the British Constitutional State the laws and rights that apply to the Natural Citizens include the constitutional laws of the UK. The People are the Guardians of Liberty. They should be able to claim direct rights relating to the Constitution in public law cases against the government and to defend themselves in legal cases using the constitution.

Why should Britons lose their right to free speech and the right to enjoy their own property because of politically correct Race Relations Laws designed to silence debate on mass immigration into Britain.

Why should we lose our right to criticize Islamic fundamentalism just because Islamic terrorists are bombing British cities and Saudi Arabian oil billionaires are supping in Downing Street with the Prime Minister ?

We must enact and empower Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and restore total power to the British Constitution.

We must also restore Unrestricted Free Speech. We must restore our traditional constitutional liberties.

Natural Citizens also in the future should have to agree by referendum to any laws that change the constitutional nature or structures of the British State. Natural Citizens will have Constitutional Civil Rights and these will be Direct Claim Rights against the government. They will be able to use the Constitution against the government and the laws of transient political parties in government in civil and criminal cases eg in Race Relations Acts that limit free speech, that say they cannot discriminate against people, that limit their right to use their property as they wish.

The liberties of our ancestors are our sacred heritage.

Those whose ancestors were the creators of the State, are the masters of the State. It is only in their best interests that the government must act at all times. The State and the government are merely mechanisms for the preservation and promotion of the interests of the people that created them. Their function is to serve the society that gives them form. Through the Constitutional State the Naturalised Citizen becomes the Guardians of liberty for all the people. The Naturalised Citizen depends on the Natural Citizen to monitor, defend and protect society from all internal tyrants whether in Ermine, suits, uniforms or a wearing Crown.

The British constitution is the foundation of the Social Contract. For those with Natural Citizenship the British constitution is a living process, an active set of principals that can be claimed directly against the State itself in a court of law if the State is itself changing any of its own historical structures, rules, precedents and processes either directly through Parliament in the form of laws or indirectly such as through the activities of semi autonomous regulatory processes of the international and national economic, political, social and cultural systems. The role of the indigenous people in the Social Contract is to ensure the State is acting in accord with the interests of the people. Only by the people remaining loyal to the State and defending the Constitution can the People defeat the threat of internationalism.

Where the State has exercised its legislative authority in the past to alter the constitution of the UK without seeking the opinion of the Natural Citizens in the form of REFERENDA , then such laws are inherently null and void. They have to agree to any laws that change the constitutional nature or structures of the British State.

The failure of the State to give its indigenous citizens their Constitutional Claim Rights in the past to fairly challenge the laws passed by the politicians in the past thereby nullifies the existence of all present laws passed to the detriment of the people and the nation. Whenever a law in the past has changeds a constitutional rule then express permission for this change must have been given by the Natural Citizens via a referenda run according to equal access to the media and funded by the government. If that did not happen, then that law today has no legal basis.

That's is why we must also regulate the power of the media to ensure that they cannot campaign for specific political parties because of their own sectarian financial interests or causes antithetical to the national interest or the interests of the Natural Citizens. The failure of the British political system to make the Constitution an active principal for its citizens to challenge laws on a par with the right of Parliamentarians to pass laws means the laws that have been passed by the politicians do not derive their authority from the People.

The ultimate authority for the legitimacy of all laws is not the state, the government or the politicians - IT IS THE PEOPLE.

The right of the people to challenge the laws of the politicians is the basis of democracy. In the party political system the politicians are either the instruments of sectarian social interests, ideology or capital, they are not the defenders of liberty or the constitution.

No ESTABLISHMENT politician goes into politics to defend the British constitution or the civil rights of the people, they are chasing pensions, directorships, honours and titles.

They use their governmental power to create laws as an instrument of those that fund them and support them, such as the trade unions and big business.The State is not safe in the hands of the politicians without a constitutional checking mechanism, in their hands the torch of freedom becomes the firebrand of tyranny. Naturalised Subjects should have the same civil liberties as the Natural Citizens and they can also claim their rights to use the ECHR and HRA 1998 to stop the government unlawfully interfering with their civil liberties and freedoms to do all that which is not prohibited by law.

Natural Citizenship is held solely by the indigenous peoples as defined under the concept of Jus Sanguinus. They should hold Passports with English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Anglo-Irish or as Indigenous British.

Naturalised Subject status is Jus Solis status. This applies to all immigrants. They are subjects of the government under the protection of the Crown.

They have to abide by the rules of the Social Contract both with the Natural Citizens and as regards their duties to the State.

The social contract with all those Naturalised Subjects that were allowed to enter the UK was predicated on certain fundamentals ;

1 ) That they accepted under the British constitutional system that it was the British politicians that invited them and that if they wished the British people and the politicians they elect would always have the right on our democratic system to ask them to leave. Also that they did not come here to become colonists as opposed to subjects or seek to organise to impose their culture or ways on us and our society. The rights of the indigenous majority are the basis of our national Democracy.

2) That they did not break the law when in the country and that they remained as lawful subjects of the State. That they must obey the law or leave.

3) That they did not assist the enemies of the British State or be involved in terrorism or supporting terrorism in any way.

4) That they entered the country lawfully and did not assist others to enter the country illegally.

5) That they did not organise politically to impose their religion or culture on the British state and British society. This Land is our Land.

6) That they pledged exclusive loyalty to the British nation and people before their loyalty to their religion or country of birth.

7) That they pledged to conform to our ancestral constitution, culture, traditions and way of life in our land.

8) That they would not use the political or legal systems to undermine the constitutional structure of the British State or seek to use the law, religion or politics to undermine the constitutional structure of the British state.

9) That they would not use their liberties to threaten liberty itself and our society.

10) That they owed their exclusive loyalty to the British people and Nation and not any ideological, national or theological third party.

11) That they understand that Democracy is the rule of the majority. The rule of minorities is the anti-thesis of democracy.

Those immigrants and Naturalised Subjects that have breached or exploited these rules are in breach of their citizenship rights and therefore are liable for deportation and removal from the country in the name of National Security and returned to their ancestral lands under the principle of Lex Sanguinis and the Right of Return as defined under the Leges Sanguinis laws of those nations they came from.