Multi-Culturalism Creates Violence

This research document below proves that the only way multi-culturalism can work is if social apartheid is imposed.

This also follows the work of Robert Putnam in his book 'Bowling Alone' that proves that the result of communities becoming racially diversified and culturally diversified is that social cohesion and social capital are destroyed.

http://bowlingalone.com/


Diversity does not strengthen a society - it destroys it.

The Broken Society has been caused by Multi-culturalism itself.


This proves my ideology of Cultural Nationalism is 100 % correct.

Multi-culturalism will end in comunal racial and ethnic violence.

The only way to avoid that is if the different racial and cultural communities are forced into different territories and and allowed to develop seperately same as the South African model.

This means either apartheid and colonisation or a civil war in the future.

That scenario of apartheid is unacceptable to the liberal left who imposed multi-culturalism and hence we will merely see a collapse of multi-culturalism and increasing levels of ethnic and racial violence in the future.

The only way to ensure the ethnic and cultural violence is prevented is to demand FULL CULTURAL INTEGRATION OF ALL IMMIGRANTS INTO THE HOST COMMUNITY CULTURE and deport all those who refuse or resist this cultural integration requirement.

On the grounds of National Security then multi-culturalism must be dismantled and all those who refuse to integrate into British Culture totally must be deported from the UK.

Only by demanding full cultural integration can the breakdown of society into communal racial and cultural violence be prevented.

Therefore this research validates my political thesis and ideological position totally.







http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-group-boundaries-key-ethnic-violence.html



(PhysOrg.com) -- History is filled with examples of ethnic violence, the type that erupts when people with differing cultures attempt to live side by side. The Middle East comes to mind, as does Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia. What’s not so common are studies done that show what sorts of things actually work to prevent problems when people of dissimilar backgrounds live next door to one another. Thus, a new study done by Yaneer Bar-Yam and his team at the New England Complex Systems Institute, appears to be particularly relevant. He and his colleagues, describe in their paper on the preprint server arXiv, how a study they’ve done of the ethnically diverse country of Switzerland, shows that political and geographical boundaries have served to keep the peace between the different groups.

Ads by Google

Microsoft® Office 365 - Your Favourite Office Programs Are Now Available Anytime, Anywhere. - www.microsoft.com/office365

Switzerland, the very modern symbol of a peaceful country, might have gone another direction the team finds, were it not for the way the differing groups (French, German and Italian) and religions (Catholic and Protestant) have been physical grouped within the borders of the small country.

Those of German descent make up the largest group, taking up most of the north, central and eastern parts of the country while those with Italian backgrounds live predominately in the south; those of French descent have settled mainly in the west. Not surprisingly, those of the Catholic faith live predominately in the southern and middle parts of the country, due to the influx of those of Italian descent, while those of the Protestant faith live mainly in the rest of the country.

To find out how all these differing groups found a way to get along, the team looked at the geography of the country (mainly mountains and lakes) and how its regions are subdivided. In Switzerland, areas of the country are partitioned into what are known as cantons, which are similar to states in other countries except that each has much more autonomy than is usual. After careful study, the team found that the main reason the groups all manage to get along, is because they are separated from one another. Each canton is comprised of almost all the same types of people, essentially ruling themselves, thus, there is very little overlap. Other areas are separated by lakes or mountains. The end result is that people of differing cultures very seldom run into one another (except in the larger cites of course) and thus friction is averted. The one exception appears to be a little area north of Bern, where violence did erupt in the 1970’s. That problem was apparently fixed by simply redistricting the cantons in that area.

One problem with the study of course is that it doesn’t take into account the history of the land itself. The problems with India and Pakistan, for example, or with Israel and the rest of the Middle East aren’t likely to be solved by building better borders. But, nonetheless, the study does shed a rather bright light on the idea that simple separation can sometimes lead to peace. Not unlike how a schoolteacher might solve a problem between two quarreling youngsters.


More information: Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence, arXiv:1110.1409v1 [physics.soc-ph] arXiv:1110.1409v1 [physics.soc-ph]

Abstract
We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model's success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.


© 2011 PhysOrg.com

Fergal Keane and the Blood on his hands

There was a very interesting documentary on Panorama last night by the leftist journalist Fergal Keane. This was Keane returning to South Africa after he had fled the country after the fall of Apartheid, an option that most WHITE South Africans did not ever have.

Keane was one of the main propagandists for the ANC during his years as a BBC journalist in South Africa.

Like the rest of the verminous journalist sub species ( Homo Ratus ) Keane was one of the first to jump the sinking ship once he had finished gnawing away at its foundations sufficently to ensure it sunk.

It was journalists like Keane with their biased, political pro-ANC propaganda that ensured the world had a distorted and one sided view of South Africa under apartheid.

It was people like Keane who supported the ANC and who propagandised the ANC who now bear the shame and guilt of the way that South Africa has descended into a corrupt and criminal ochlocracy under the control of ANC thugs and killers.

The idea that anthing decent, noble or moral would ever crawl out of the rotting carcass of the ANC was an idea that only idiots like Keane held.

The ANC was a maggot farm of criminals, gangsters, killerss and psychopaths.

The same thing happened with the IRA / Sinn Fein that was also glorified by the pro-Republican liberal elite in the UK.

The idea that a gang of killers, terrorists and thugs would ever abandon criminality and violence was an absurd idea. Instead they got into power and legitimised the ongoing terror at the level of the streets.

Now we see the communities under the jackboot of Sinn Fein ruled by IRA gangsters and killers who hide beneath Sinn Fein and kill at will anyone who dares cross them.

Members of terrorist groups who used violence and murder as part of their political methodology cannot create functional democracies.

Killers and criminals hold the law in contempt. The gangsters and criminals that ran the ANC became gansters and criminals once they got into government.

The idea that communist terrorists would become democrats was an absurd belief. The sociopaths and psychopaths that ran the ANC just became sociopaths and psychopaths in power running South Africa.

The legacy of the ANC's 'victory' over aparheid was not a democracy, but the culture of violence, death and crime that now dominates South Africa as a nation and a society.

The young children the ANC took out of schools and turned into killers, who they trained to put tyres around their fellow Africans necks and burn them to death, who they taught to hate and kill, who they armed and aimed at anyone who stood against them - are now the poison that eats away at Africa.

The legacy of the ANC was not liberation, it is anarchism, gansterism, murder and crime.

The youth brigades that Keane propagandised to the world as the liberators of South Africa, were nothing more than insane criminals and murderers.

It was Keane and his ilk who sought to portray those animals as heroes, who destroyed South Africa and who know bear the blood guilt of the 50 murders a day that afflict that tortured nation.

The violence of the ANC was depicted as glorious, and because of that violence became accepted as part of South African society.

The ANC turned youth into animals and gangsters.

The youth were taught to feed on crime and death, and the trauma of the violence they lived through during the so called ' liberation struggle' turned them into psychopaths and killers.

The legacy of the ANC and its struggle is that they created a nation of insane children who saw violence as a normal everyday thing and who adopted violence as part of their everday lives.

Today the youth of South Africa are unemployed because they are unemployable.

They consume wealth, because they are not capable of creating it.

They do not work as they are incapable of working due to their drug addictions, their criminality, their violence and their stupidity and ignorance due to lack of schooling.

The violence that the ANC inculcated into the youth has now become Inter-generational violence, and every new generation transmits the poison to the next. The whole of South African society has become toxic and transmits that toxin of violence to every new generation that is born.

These poisoned youth are not the VICTIMS of economic inequalities in South Africa between rich and poor - instead they CREATE the economic inequalities in South African society as they create poverty, crime, murder and destroy society itself.

They are like rabid dogs and as long as the virus of violence is allowed to be transmitted in society via the ANC - then the disease will continue to spread from generation to generation.

The ANC killed South Africa but it was people like Keane who killed the future of South frica when they glorified the violence and crimes of the ANC and in so doing ensured that each generatio would regard violence and murder as noble things.

The white liberals that glorify Mandela and the ANC in the West are the mechanisms that ensure the slow death of all future generations of the youth of South Africa, as they transmit the idea that violence is glorious to the youth.

It is the ANC and the legacy of the methodology that the ANC used in their war against apartheid that is destroying South Africa today, not the legacy of apartheid.

It is white liberal wankers like Fergal Keane who propagandised and demonised white rule who are the agents of this crisis.

Keane was shocked to hear a working class Black African wish that apartheid was back and the National government back in charge.

The decent Blacks in South Africa want order, work and food - not more bullshit about the liberation struggle and black rule.

They know ( unlike Keane who fled the country once he destroyed it by getting the ANC into power) that the ANC are a disaster for South Africa.

The white boss man Keane made sure the natives did as he demanded and got their ANC government and then fucked off out of the country and left them to rot whilst the legacy of his liberal delusions destroyed the country and their lives.

It was the propaganda of Keane that still kills the 50 Africans a day that are dead on the streets.

There was never such a crime wave under apartheid and never so many innocent blacks died.

If idiots like Keane hadnt propagandised the ANC and acted as its recruiters and got innocent Africans to join the ANC movement, then the thousands of deaths caused by the ANC waging wars against its enemies during aparheid would not have happened and nor would South Africa be in the crisis it is in today It was white scum like Keane who beat the drum for the killers in the ANC that bear the guilt of the killings today.

Just like that scum Tony Blair sent the country into war after war after war and has murdered hundreds of thousands of pople in Iraq, those like Keane who also propagandised the same wars bear the guilt of doing the same in South Africa.

It was you Keane who glorified ANC crimes and killings.

It was you Keane who created the culture of death and violence in South Africa that was the resut of the ANC existing and coming into power.

It is you Keane who has the blood of the thousands upon thousands of innocent people on your hands.

You beat the drum for the ANC, you propagandised the ANC, you glorified the children dragged from their schools by the ANC and turned into killers and criminals.

It is you Keane and all those liberal filth with their propaganda and lies that bear the guilt and shame of South Africa today.

You and the rest of the liberal media are the Julius Streicher's of your generation, the pimps and publicists of killers and criminals.

The rivers of blood that flood the streets of South Africa can be traced back to the nib of your pen.

The BNP and the ANC - PART 1

Nick Griffin is our Nelson Mandela.

One of the defining features of the Gordon Brown faction within the Labour Party that is now running the country is their defining obsession to ‘take back’ the symbols of Britishness from ‘the Far Right’. Gordon Brown is utterly obsessed with trying to create a politically correct and artificial version of British history and British culture that supports, and thereby promotes, the left wing political view of the Labour Party. He is always banging on about how the left must ’reclaim the British flag’ and promote a modern multi-cultural version of Britishness. As a disciple of the social theorist Robert Puttnam, Gordon Brown realises that unless a functional politically correct version of Britishness is created then the various ethnic tensions and social dynamics within multi-culturalism will mean multi-culturalism will collapse as a functional principle of social organisation at some point in the future.

Along with this attempt to redefine and recapture the symbols of British culture and history by Gordon Brown has been an attempt to describe history in a way that promotes the personalities and causes that they want to see regarded as examples of noble idealism by British society. For Gordon Brown the primary noble personality, and therefore the ultimate socially acceptable role model for whites in the world today, who is lauded for his so called ‘selfless idealism’ is Nelson Mandela. For the liberals and the left Nelson Mandela is a hero, not a terrorist.

They worship him like the Soviets once worshipped busts of Lenin and Stalin. His cause to overthrow apartheid and create majority black rule in South Africa is celebrated as a noble cause and statues to the man are now even erected in Parliament Square.

In this article I will offer a radical nationalist re-interpretation of Mandela’s struggle for black majority rule and explain how the liberals current view on Ethno-Nationalist struggles in Europe is both hypocritical but also logically and morally unsustainable when compared directly to Mandela’s struggles and aims. Whilst the ANC and Nelson Mandela should never be regarded as ’moral’ in any way due to their advocacy and use of terrorism as part of the political process, what is interesting is how the media and the liberal elite have managed to turn Mandela into a ‘hero’ without ever logically analysing what other political white majority movements could also be regarded as ’heroic and noble’ for following similar political aims, though with less criminal political methodology.

The ANC are a racist terrorist organisation based on communist ideology. It is an organisation to be despised and not admired. This article is an analysis of the logical inconsistencies of the Liberals view on the ANC and Nelson Mandela, and should not be taken in any way as implying any support for the ANC or Nelson Mandela. South Africa today is a racist state which has institutionalised racism against its white citizens just as Britain has institutionalised racism against its indigenous people. The purely cosmetic whiteness of South African sporting teams, such as the Springboks rugby team, is used to divert attention away from the ongoing pernicious racialism of the South African ANC government directed daily against its white citizens. Most whites in South Africa live in fear of the day that Nelson Mandela dies for they fully expect a black uprising that will inflict racist riots and pogroms against all whites. The brutalisation of white South Africans by racist criminals, especially racist rapes, is devastating the white community and hundreds of thousands of white South Africans have already fled the country. The New South Africa is becoming a racist terror state, not a representative democracy.

Even within the history of the ANC as regards the non-white population of South Africa we can see a racial dimension at work. The ANC represents mainly the Zhosa tribal group and their main enemy was always the Inkatha Zulu tribal group. Thousands have been murdered in ethnic and political warfare between the two tribal groups. Asians and mixed race people were also despised by the ANC for working with the whites. The whites that joined the ANC were mainly deluded idealists prepared to sing songs about killing whites and plant bombs in railway stations in order to curry favour and rise amongst the ranks of their black comrades. The fact that many of these white supporters of the ANC struggle have now fled South Africa citing the racism of the ANC regime is evidence once again of the idiotic idealism of the far left. The political rhetoric of the ANC is today blatantly racist against whites and the South African government supports the racist pogroms of Robert Mugabe in neighbouring Zimbabwe against white farmers. White farms are being seized by the ANC South African government and white businesses being punitively taxed by the South African government. White owned businesses are forced to hire blacks from the majority population, as opposed to hiring whites from the minority ethnic population as is usual under the rules of political correctness, or be fined by the government.

But it is a fact that the actions of Nelson Mandela and the ANC are defined by the liberals and the left in our country as noble. If this true for the ANC then the cause of the BNP must also noble and heroic. Unlike the ANC and Nelson Mandela though, our hands are not stained with the blood of innocents torn apart by bombs, burning tyre necklaces and bullets used to get into power. Unlike the ANC we in the BNP are a peaceful, democratic, political, social and cultural movement who reject violence and whose actions are at all times within the Rule of Law as defined by the British Constitution. That is in direct contrast to the ANC and the actions of Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela is the most successful Racial Nationalist of all time.

He fought for and won Black majority democratic rule in South Africa in the face of determined opposition from a well organised white minority. Whilst Nelson Mandela and the ANC fought for democratic Black majority rule in South Africa, Nick Griffin and the BNP are also fighting for democratic White majority rule in Great Britain. Both the ANC and the BNP are the political mechanisms of an indigenous rights movement. The BNP represents the indigenous ethnic majority of Great Britain and the ANC represent the native black population of South Africa. The ANC fought against Apartheid as the mechanism of minority rule in South Africa, whilst the BNP fights against Political Correctness as the mechanism of minority rule in Great Britain.

Just as Nelson Mandela has been persecuted and prosecuted by the South African government for his political beliefs, Nick Griffin has also been persecuted and prosecuted by the British government for his political beliefs. As Nelson Mandela has experienced, Nick Griffin has also been charged with ’political crimes’ against the State, this being breaches of the so called Race Relations Acts and the Public Order Act 1986. Unlike the ANC though and also Nelson Mandela, Nick Griffin and the BNP have never used terrorism, murder, bombings and violence as part of their political methodology to attain power. The BNP have always been a political, social and cultural movement that have participated in the democratic electoral process and have rejected all forms of organised political violence even when we have been targeted and attacked by both the Far Left and agents of the State security services. We have never even organised to defend ourselves from the attacks by the organised Far Left in a way that would have ensured we could have dealt with the threats we faced. Even though we were abandoned by the police and the authorities we did not respond in any way to those who attacked us. Like the workers in the Mask of Anarchy by Shelley we merely folded our arms and looked upon those that attacked us with the utter contempt they deserved until their rage died away and they crawled away in shame and baseless pride. This means that the BNP are in fact a more ’moral’ movement than the ANC, and that Nick Griffin is a more ’moral’ politician than Nelson Mandela.

Nick Griffin is in fact Britain’s Nelson Mandela. Like Nelson Mandela and Nick Griffin, all BNP activists and member should be seen as heroic and noble people who selflessly dedicate themselves to the preservation and promotion of their country, culture and kin. According to the liberals and liberal media Nelson Mandela fought for majority black rule in South Africa in order to end minority white rule and create a representative democracy. The goal of the ANC that it frequently proclaimed was to ensure that South Africa was a democracy that represented the interests of the ethnic majority as opposed solely to the interests of its ethnic minority, this being the whites. In a way the BNP and the ANC fight for the same thing, though in vastly different ways, which is the right to organise political, social and cultural representation for the indigenous ethnic majority and to participate in the democratic political system. We are also both indigenous rights movements. Just like the ANC we are fighting against minority ethnic rule. For the ANC the enemy was Apartheid, for us it is Political Correctness.

Both Apartheid and Political Correctness are mechanisms of minority rule. They are both political systems of repression that assert the rights of ethnic minorities over those of the ethnic majority. In Britain, as it was in South Africa under apartheid, the ethnic majority are under direct Minority Rule. This is the Tyranny of the Minorities that is the basis of the burden of Minority Rule that we indigenous Britons are forced to tolerate and pay for. The Tyranny of the Minorities is when the rights and interests of ethnic, political, social and economic minorities within the nation take precedence over the social interests and democratic rights of the indigenous ethnic British majority. This is the basis of our nations system of Minority Rule.

In Britain today we are controlled by a cabal of minorities ; these are the rules of Political Correctness, Middle East oil billionaires that fund the political parties, the laws of the Race Relations Acts and Public Order Acts, the Liberal Consensus, Media Corporations, Leftists, Globalists, Dhimmi-Politicians, Sharia Socialists, immigrant lobby groups, Liberal Judges, PC vicars and religious faith leaders, religious pressure groups, corrupt union bosses, foreign corporations and supra-national political institutions such as the EU, ECJ, ECHR, WTO and NATO. Each of these groups represent only the rights and privileges of factions and minorities within the nation and do not the interests of the ethnic majority of British citizens.

Pressure group politics and professional lobby groups dominate the democratic consultative processes, whilst the functions of the legal system and the outcomes of legal cases are dependent upon those ethnic groups and other organisations that are financially able to access the legal system.

The New Apartheid in 21st Century Britain is based on Political Correctness. Just like apartheid was in South Africa, political correctness in Britain is a political mechanism designed to empower minority groups at the expense of the majority ethnic group. It is part of the Cultural Struggle and Racial Struggle of the left to subvert and destroy our native indigenous British society.

Over the decades a succession of minority Conservative and Labour governments have controlled the country via minority rule in order to advance their own sectarian interests. Not once has any of those governments had the democratic legitimacy of having the direct approval of over 50 % of the British population. The total electorate in the 2005 general election registered to able to vote was 44, 245, 939 in a country with a population of nearly 60 million - that means nearly 16 million people are not even registered to vote. 61.3 % of the total electorate able to vote actually bothered to vote. The present unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown runs a government that was voted into power in 2005 with just 54.95 % of seats in Parliament with just 35.3 % of the vote and with the support of only 21.59 % of the British population ( not including the 16 million who did n ot register to vote). 79% of the British people did not vote for the present government, but the voices of the silent majority are not heard in the political process. Only 8 candidates in the whole country got more than 50 % of the votes cast in their favour - and hence had a democratic mandate. Labour won the election with a vote of 35.3 % of 61.3 % of those that actually turned out - not even a majority of those who bothered to vote. With a simple majority in Parliament the minority rule politicians can control the entire country.

That is not a legitimate democratic system. Neither is that a democratic mandate to rule, that is the very definition of Minority Rule and it is the capture of democracy through the capitulation of the majority to either apathy or alienation. These minority governments both left and right then undertake political programmes that primarily represent and reward the sectarian interests that support the parties themselves. The Labour Party passes laws to help the unions that fund it and gives knighthoods to the foreign businessmen that also fund it, whilst the Tories represent the interests of the global corporations and the foreign businessmen that fund its political campaigns. Neither of the three big parties represent the People, they represent only sectarian factions within society. The Trades Unions represent only the financial interests of the union bosses who grow rich on membership fees of the unions and also the sectarian political interests of the political groups the unions support. The only people the unions do not represent is the interests of British workers. They represent the interests of Cuban and Chinese workers, globalisation, asylum seekers, immigrants and ethnic minorities and do not ever represent the interests of British workers.

Minority Rule is also enforced in the New Apartheid British state by the Race Relations Acts and the Equality Department that contains the C.R.E. The C.R.E and the rest of the state funded race relations industry are mechanisms designed to empower immigrants and ethnic minorities at the expense of the indigenous ethnic majority. The role of the C.R.E. is to ensure that the law pro-actively discriminates against the ethnic majority and that we white indigenous Britons become second class citizens, and a racial underclass, in our own country. The C.R.E pro-actively works with the government and private companies to ensure that ethnic minorities are fast tracked and promoted into jobs they are not qualified for whilst whites are denied jobs and systematically penalised because of their colour and race. The C.R.E recommends new race based laws to the government that it wants to see put on the statute books. These new laws are designed to promote Positive Discrimination policies and Affirmative Action programmes that accelerate the disenfranchisement of the indigenous British people from the economic process. The C.R.E, the media and the Police all ignore and minimise racial attacks on whites in Britain,whilst race attacks against ethnic minorities are turned into political crusades to demand the removal of ever more rights for whites. The Police are routinely dragged before Employment Tribunals for racism against white officers and white applicants for jobs are denied interviews they are qualified for so that under qualified ethnic minorities can benefit from affirmative actions plans.

In the New Apartheid of Political Correctness a whole new system of totalitarian Minority Rule has been constructed that just like under classic apartheid is a classic fascist race based system and that rewards a person solely on the grounds of their colour or racial background and not on individual merit. Indigenous white Britons in Britain are now nothing more than second class citizens in their own country, and that second class status is now fully enshrined in the law itself.

Another mechanism of Minority Rule is the takeover of our democratic system by the media. The media propagandise the political parties that the public are conditioned into voting into power. The media decide who wins elections, not the people. Through their power to control public opinion, to selectively present facts and ideas to the public and their almost total control of public debate on political issues, the media effectively control who the public vote for. It is the minority of plutocrats, corporations and leftist editors and journalists that control the media who unilaterally decide what is politically acceptable in our society and thereby who gets elected into power. It is the media liberals and leftists in papers like the Guardian who advertise the governments politically correct Servile State jobs whose self appointed experts then tell us that we cannot have closed borders because immigration benefits our society and at the same time imports in ever more new Labour Party voters. It is the media capitalists in papers like the Daily Mail that support ‘controlled immigration’ as it brings in cheap workers and lowers British workers wages and thereby benefit’s the corporations that advertise and sell their products in the Daily Mail. The media do not represent the interests of the British people, they represent and promote the interests solely of the corporations or factional interests that own the media and the puppet political parties the media control. The role of the media is to ensure that the interests of the majority of British citizens are not represented by political representatives that they are conditioned into voting into power. The media promote and advertise only the political parties that they own. Then once in power those elected politicians then reward their media and corporate masters with laws that profit the corporations that own the media. Only the corrupt and the servile ever get elected into power by the media. The agenda of the media is to prevent political change, not represent the interests of the British people or the British nation. The role of the Media is to ensure that their own factional interests, left, right and liberal, are allowed to control the political development of society by denying access to any political parties that threatens media minority rule over the British electoral system. It is the media that says we cannot close the borders of Britain, that we cannot deport immigrant illegals and criminals, that we cannot scrap political correctness and the Race Relations Acts. It is the media that demands our total adherence to the totalitarian creedo of Political Correctness by labelling anyone that dares speak out as a ‘racist‘. It is the media that calls those political parties like the BNP that demand the removal of illegal immigrants and convicted immigrant criminals ‘racists’ and then use their pages to demand that the public not vote for them. It is the media that bears the primary responsibility for our plight.

Another aspect our Minority Rule is the takeover of the so called ‘independent’ legal process by minority groups and supporters of Political Correctness. The liberal Judges that have infiltrated the British legal system now routinely overrule British statute laws with bogus ’human rights’ arguments that put inane theories on universal human rights before the actual national security interests of the majority of the British people. Other Judges have political interests that interact with their judicial roles. The recent libel case involving the BNP activists Chris and Barry Roberts was heard before Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, a long time member of the British Communist Party and President of the British Institute of Human Rights with links to Liberty and Amnesty International, is a case in point. Under the dicta enshrined in the Pinochet Principle in Re Pinochet (1998) the Judge should have withdrawn from the case as a long time member of the Communist Party can scarcely be said to be ambivalent to nationalism and nationalist activists in their court. This rule for Judges is in place in order to ensure that there is no chance of any judicial bias in legal cases. The law requires that Judges ‘ Must not appear biased or impartial ‘ . The Judges adherence to the Communist cause in the Barry and Chris Roberts case meant the Judge was not fit to hear a case involving well known Nationalist activists for the BNP involved in a libel case against a well known Communist election candidate and Communist supporter - this being the convicted liar and thief Gerry Gable of the Searchlight magazine. Instead of withdrawing from the case the Judge, and the other two judges on the bench hearing the appeal, found against the BNP members and at the same time ‘clarified‘ the position of the libel laws in the UK to ensure that the Roberts brothers and others in the future did not come under its protection. The Roberts Brothers were not told of the Judges political affiliations. This is the same Judge who said that too many black males had their DNA held on the Police computers and that therefore everyone in Britain should be required to provide a sample of their DNA to the police to hold on their computers. The role of Judges in the modern legal system is to repress and remove the rights of the ethnic majority and create a ’legal’ apartheid state where we, the indigenous British, are legally recognised as a racial underclass in our own country. Other judges, such as Sir Henry Hodge the husband of Margaret Hodge the Dagenham MP and vociferous critic of the BNP, who is jointly responsible for allowing the convicted immigrant murder Learco Chindamo to stay in the country after he is released from prison, place the interests of immigrant killers before the safety of society as a whole. Other judges blocked the Home Offices’ attempt to appeal the decision not to deport Chindamo after his release.