Wednesday, 10 February 2010

Understanding Racial British Nationalism (Re-published) - Part Two of Two

To the uninitiated who may be reading parts one and two of this series of articles, I am sure you're probably thinking that talking about this ethnic replacement at all is silly anyway, because ‘we are all immigrants’ and ‘we have always had immigration’, that we have 'always been a multiracial society' and that this turn of events we are witnessing is 'nothing new' and a continuation of what has always previously been taking place.

Well, Nationalists take issue with those who trivialise the threat posed to us by laying this claim that the situation is nothing new; that we are a 'mongrel nation'; and that, in the words of the Commission on Racial Equality (Now the Equality and Human Rights Commission) , 'everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant'.

Why do we take issue with these arguments? The simple answer is because they are not true or accurate statements. They are (in the majority) lies and propaganda peddled out to the masses to ensure the current 'race replacement' process goes without objection, so that people don't have to think too hard or deeply about the tricky and emotional topics of race, nationhood, civilisation and future trends. As the saying goes ‘If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it’.

Of course, these matters are never an exact science and there are grey areas to have, but generally speaking, those kinds of topics tend to have a nasty habit of getting in the way of peoples cosy little lives, so they are politely avoided from thought, let alone open discussion. Nobody wants to feel bad, to feel guilty or feel to be against what they are told as being prevailing ‘progressive’ opinion. Politicians are trapped into repeating this world view now, so as to not cause offence or upset to substantial minority populations now here - or because they fear some hysteria led witch hunt for their scalp on a plate. Mostly though, they refuse to acknowledge the issue at all and would prefer to fall for their own lies and self delusions.

Therefore, I'm sure (especially to the non-Nationalists reading this) that you will have all heard MP's, Councillors, the media and other people in various groups and bodies, charities, businesses and such, say that we are a nation of immigrants and rhyme off the Normans, Saxons, Celts, Huguenots etc in an attempt to show it is nothing new. It’s a catchy little line and very easy to repeat on these discussions isn't it? - And that is the desired plan behind its usage. People take it at face value without understanding it or investigating it, and then they repeat it to others as some sort of justification of the monumental transformation that is taking place today.

This repetition of "prevailing" views is something that is easily done, after all. I'm sure we have all done similar at various points in our lives with different things, be it with sports or latest crazes which we don’t really understand but observe superficially from the 'outside' to be seen to fit in. We all like to point score in this fashion, we all like to look intellectual and well informed and we often like to support what is the perceived common consensus by using these catchy hooks and lines. Another example is the pensions/immigration argument for example, which has been totally proven to be unworkable umpteen times over by anyone seriously studying the implications of it. Yet despite the facts not adding up, it is more comfortable and easy to confuse and obfuscate issues by repeating these kinds of lines anyway. Watch any edition of Question Time (or similar political outlet programme) and ministers or other advocates of open borders will slip these commonly peddled sound bites into their arguments. The public tend to quietly absorb this superficiality  and distortion of reality and react  like Pavlovian trained animals to the sound of a clanging bell. It has become so familiar to them it has become "truth" with no further thought required. The role of ethnicity in relation to the history of this country and its 'waves' of immigration is especially obfuscated for the public.

As a result, not many of these people seem to realise that most of these previous "waves" of invasions and immigrations came from the same parts of the European continent and that over many thousands of years (throughout all these events of invasions and settlements) the genetic mix of the Island was only altered by about 4-5%, or that immigration and invasion never amounted to more than a few percent of the population over this entire vast time span. Caucasian (“European”) people have clearly been settled here since the days of the first hunter gatherers after the thawing of the Ice Age.

Technically speaking, due to the fact that there were no fully embedded political institutions and settled ways of life that entirely constituted a nation for immigrants to migrate into before the reign of Edward the Confessor who reigned until 1066, if somebody wanted to be picky, the Norman {'white'} invaders of 1066 could be construed as the first true wave of immigrants coming to an  already established and defined country. However, even they were small in number. Only about ten thousand Frenchman arrived with William the Conqueror, representing approximately one per cent of the population. The total number settling in England never exceeded five per cent of the population, although their long term cultural influence was undoubtedly out of proportion to their numbers.

French Protestants {again 'white'} fleeing religious persecution, known as Huguenots, arrived in Britain’s East End of London in the 16th century for a very short period, and also came after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. However, their overall numbers cannot have exceeded 50,000, representing just less than one per cent of the population at that time. The 'wave' of Jews who began to arrive in London towards the end of the nineteenth century represented an even smaller percentage. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century there were 155,811 Jewish immigrants, and even if we include immigration between the two world wars their numbers would not have been much over 225,000 - representing about 0.5% of the population. It is these kinds of tiny proportions over massive time scales which we have historically seen.

Immigration into this country alone in recent history however, has been adding at least 2% to the population every 2 years - not hundreds of years. Compared with earlier waves of immigration like the Normans, Huguenots and the Jews, it is clear that we are in an unprecedented situation. Immigration was large enough when Idi Amin started hacking to death those with Asian roots in the 1970’s which resulted in large numbers coming to this country, yet the current rate of immigration is equivalent to that two-year movement from Uganda, every single month.

Britain's enviable record of social harmony and stability is born from its historically homogeneous nature and its ability to take in tiny fractional percentages of other peoples (who by today's standards were culturally and ethnically similar in customs and nature) over a long period of time, to the point they amalgamated entirely with the indigenous population and became completely indistinguishable. We no longer have that situation. We have the reverse happening. We are going to be absorbed into them. We are in a process of colonisation, Islamification, and ethnic replacement.

The presence of large ethnic communities (especially those where integration with the host culture is not an aim or desire) is threatening this social harmony, the overall peace and advancement of our country which we have previously enjoyed at the envy of many other nations, whilst at the same time presenting us with the displeasure of slowly being wiped to one side as a rightful ethnic group of this land in the future.

Those who cherish Britain's ancestry, their own racial roots (of which everybody else seems to be able to enjoy and advocate except ourselves), the distinct civilisation which has been brought about by those peoples' temperament and achievements before us, the innovations, the inventions of our civilisation, and the advancement of humankind (which can only properly occur in the stability and freedom accredited to homogeneity) cannot afford to ignore the potential threat that is posed to it by large-scale changes in  demographic composition that has been brought about by large scale immigration from the third world , higher birthrates of these third world immigrants combined with the declining fertility amongst the indigenous population.

This situation, to my knowledge, has ever happened before. No other country in the world seems to have done this to itself at any time of history, never mind one with such a glorious and worthy heritage like ours that has given disproportionately so much to the world. Members of a nation state, to my knowledge, have never previously deliberately set about eradicating their own people both genetically and culturally, and actually started harassing those people who resist it. There isn’t even a word for this phenomenon because it is so unique, but I suppose it could be described a mass self inflicted genocide.

Contrary to popular opinion of our history being one of "tolerance" and "welcoming" immigration, we have never previously been a “tolerant” country at all when it came to these issues either. On every occasion we have either defended ourselves from would-be invaders, fought off battles in the high seas to keep our sovereignty and freedom from slavery, and rioted in the streets as far back as the early 20th century at the presence of other (then minuscule) ethnic groups residing in pockets of busy ports here who were perceived to be not conducive to society. Even the monarchy decided to expel such people from the realm, despite numbers being extremely tiny – under 80 people. The people who we have taken in, who we have welcomed and whom we have blended into our own over the centuries are primarily the ones who were the most like us, and they had no choice but to be blended in.

Resisting mass immigration to Europe is not about “white supremacy”, “master races” or the desire to eradicate others. It is rather more mundanely about our simple continued physical existence. We now live in a world that’s demographically (and economically) dominated by Asians and there is a never ending leakage of surplus populations from the failed continent of Africa (and elsewhere) into European lands. Don’t the White inhabitants have a right to exist and organise themselves for their interests too? Not even in their own homelands? It seems the prevailing answer out there is a firm "NO", even though no other grouping or country would so readily accept the same fate happening to them as what's happening to us.

Numerous studies and world events have demonstrated that people tend to prefer their own ethnic group above others. For example, an international poll which was republished by the Washington Times in 2007 showed that 90 percent of the inhabitants in Egypt, Indonesia and India believed that each country should guard their innate culture and lifestyle, and it revealed that immigration concerned people in 44 out of the 47 countries polled. Guarding your identity both racially and culturally is thus a universal human trait, not just a white trait, yet white nations today are in fact the only ones in the world who are reversing this trend.

Only white nations cling onto the idea of universalism whilst everybody else sticks with their own ethnic group and protects their lands so that they can shape their own destiny - rather than have it altered and dictated to without their consent. In white nations it has even become a state-sponsored ideology to “celebrate diversity,” despite the fact that all available evidence from history indicates that more diversity always leads to violent conflict. This is conflict and violence is especially manifest in the cases where Islam has been thrown into the mix, even within single racial ethnic groupings never mind multi racial societies.

We are now in this explosive cake mixture that’s wreaked havoc around the world – after protecting ourselves from it for so long through our wiser forefathers. Yet strangely, instead of making some firm decisions that are perfectly humane and rational, people have preferred to pretend that it’s going to be different to the experiences of everybody else this time, relying on a cocktail of “hope” and selfishness that if anything happens it will probably be after their own lifespan and as such 'not their problem'.

I was not brought up in a “racist” environment; I certainly did not pick anything up from my parents or my social peers. I still don’t think ethnicity or race does mean absolutely everything in this world, but I can no longer say it means absolutely nothing at all, and if it means more than nothing, then I feel it needs to be taken into account. I don’t think this is an unreasonable thing. This is the grey area, in which every individual will have their own threshold.

What seems truly bizarre with all this though (irrespective of a threshold), is that the change of demographic has been conducted without any real debate, and brought about upon the nation solely with propaganda coupled with censorship of discussion. The greatest social experiment the population of this country has ever been subjected to was never decided democratically by the people. That in itself is quite a feat. The very suggestion that such drastic levels would live here in the future were mocked as alarmist fantasies, but now it is factual and we have been psychologically moulded to celebrate this instead.

The native majority population were never allowed to have a say about whether they wanted to change the country and their destiny forever - and nor were they listened to in 1968 when Enoch Powell warned of the dangers of it, which he had seen first-hand around the world. At that point in 1968, over 80% of the country wanted to stop immigration entirely and they backed Enoch Powell. Ever since then, the overwhelming majority have polled 75 to 80% in favour of drastically limiting immigration year after year.

Yet the opposite of the majority held view has occurred, and immigration has increased year on year. The scale of it has been hidden, denied, and persistently deemed temporary at every wave in an attempt to quell the fears and subdue the population enough not to riot or revolt. They are still at it today, with the publication of views that half of the EU migrants had 'gone home' in the recession, only for it to be revealed a matter of just 6 months later that they had not gone anywhere in fact, and it was all  speculative nonsense designed to quell public disquiet at that moment in time. Time and time again, month in month out, these types of lies and distortions are put forward. It is especially so in the months just prior to elections.

 Even when the Conservatives took up the issues of the National Front in 1978 (which saw Margaret Thatcher come into office on the ‘swamped’ speech) it was still the same. Nothing was done about it; nothing has ever been done about it, despite the wishes of the people being so stark on a repeated basis throughout successive Labour and Conservative governments. Labour are particularly notable for this, as it was the Labour party who opened the gates in their previous reign and it is the New Labour party again that set into motion (during early doors of getting into office) measures to dramatically increase immigration. There is a reason for this.

You don’t get mass immigration for decades unless somebody with power allows this and desires for it to happen. Let’s be under no illusion here either - it is not an accident, an error, an over sight, incompetence of border control or foolishness. This has happened through purposeful and planned ideological measures to bring about a world change, or as some would say, a ‘New World Order’ - something which means abolishing nationhood, along with the structures, the perceptions and the people who classically defined them.

Without going deeply into it, this action serves a purpose both ideologically and financially. Together - between these ideologists and big business interests that have gain to make from this – collusion has taken place to achieve the aims of both interested parties. Also, to construct a new "vision" for the country and the world, it means the removal of the prevailing systems and attitudes. To sow chaos into the country is one method of introducing "solutions" to those self inflicted problems, solutions which help transform society and the country even further in the future. In the mix, we are told lies, we are given false concepts of "celebrating diversity" and being "enriched" etc, excuses about why things are changing, why people are coming, lies on figures, lies on impacts, and no mechanism given to us to stop it. 

There is a crucial point to make here about the disingenuous nature of the values they claim to be upholding and what they have pumped into being the mainstream view. The backers of this pro immigration, pro multiracial, pro multicultural ideology ironically tell everyone that they should “celebrate diversity” within our nations, whilst they are actually actively working to destroy the diversity between nations. They contradict themselves. If you knock enough edges and corners off a cube, at some point in the future it is going to look round. This process of 'rounding' is taking part all over Europe's  nation states. Couple that with multinational conglomerates and their need for endless interchangeable workers and consumers and you may start to see where things are heading.

With immigration in normal terms, there is no doubting that small ethnic additions can occasionally enrich a culture, such as what happened under the Norman invasion - but the question of scale is crucial, and as we know, the pace and scale is off the chart. If it continues, this unfettered mass immigration into Europe would simply stir all the different nations into one indistinguishable global melting pot – at the primary expense of the European peoples who are undoubtedly the Petri-dish of choice. Yet this end result is very much the desire of the people who bring it on. The 'celebration of diversity' which they encourage others to pursue means the exact opposite of what they will in fact achieve long term for the world. Take some time to think about that, as it is important.

This whole 'Nationalism' thing isn’t about being “against” other people or other things in this world. For example, I like the diversity of world cuisine, architecture, customs, and I personally appreciate the Metric system over that of Imperial weights and measures etc, but that does not extend to a wishing to fling open my country’s borders for everybody else around the world to settle here and displace my own people. Britain would no longer be Britain if millions of Indians, Chinese and Africans suddenly arrived on the doorstep. Yet, slowly, this is what has been happening in a steady trickle that’s turned into a flood. It is a weapon-less colonisation by passport, by plane, by lorry, and by womb. No individual one of these people are at fault, but it is happening all the same.

The 'New World Order', Islamic ideology, Communism and why this is being done to us is a much larger issue that will be discussed at a further time, because I'm sure many would be itching to ask "why?", i.e. ‘why this has been set into motion?’, ‘for what purpose?’, and ‘how is it being done?’..... There are explanations for all of this which are perfectly rational and well documented. It is not a "conspiracy theory" either, purely because it is most definitely a fully fledged conspiracy actually in action. Only the degree to which one takes it becomes subject to debate.

The ideology driven orchestrator's and backers of it are really quite horrible and nasty people that need to be challenged by any right thinking person. What is sad, and a tragedy, is that millions of people happily go along with it believing they are morally superior and upholding good deeds when in fact they are being used as gullible pawns in a giant game of chess that is destroying lives, destroying freedoms, and destroying the very diversity they so often claim to support.

Nationalists have been slandered as ignorant fascists, hate fuelled racists, bigots, xenophobes (irrational hatred of other peoples), knuckle draggers, Nazi's, etc for decades simply because they do not subscribe to what is taking place and choose to resist it. But Nationalists are not always borne from ignorance and hatred (as the stereotype suggests) but are instead borne from deep understanding, reading, intelligence, love and care for their own extended family of kith and kin – all signs of a healthy society.

The game has changed, we are in a dire predicament, and we face an ideology (or two, counting Islam) which has severe malice and intent to subdue. Nationalists have known what's going on for decades, yet are still completely misunderstood about just "why" they reject the system, why parties won’t accept members of other races, why they feel the need to be so “obnoxious” and bitter (as they are occasionally seen to be from the outside perspective). Of course there have been some people who have tagged along who have had the complete wrong idea and tainted us all by association, but we cannot be responsible for the idiocy of society at large and those individuals who do bear an unfathomable hostility against others around this world  no matter where they are, for no apparent reason other than they are different to themselves. They and their idiotic actions do not speak for us.

It is long past time to look beyond such idiocy and find out what's taking place higher up the food chain. The only things most Nationalist people "hate" is the process that's occurring, those who bring it on and those who deny the ability to allow people to apply the brakes and reverse the trends. We love diversity, we enjoy that there are other races and cultures, and we can respect them as equals and as partners in the world on a one to one basis. In that respect, we are the exact opposite of what everybody who is against us believes us to be. All we ask for is a different trajectory and different structure of enjoying this so that we can protect ourselves.

Intellectuals have been talking about these topics of race, demographics and culture for a long time. It is not something new, although a new strain is at last emerging from the mysterious shadow that’s dogged Nationalism's past. Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, discussed the threat that comes from the advocates of mass migrations, the multiculturalists and their cultural relativity ideologies (expressed though the "Global Melting Pot" concept) at his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize. 
This is an extract of what he said:

“In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilisation. I do not agree with this opinion...the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”

When coupled with the ideology behind the New World Order globalisation process, Islamification problems, when brought into context of the huge ramifications we are witnessing throughout all the implementations of this process here in this country, and when race is accounted for in rational world context of percentages and indigenous natures, it should hopefully be clear to most people that there is some merit and intellectual debate around ethnocentric aspects of Nationalism, and why parties like the BNP exist in the first place. It is an ideology, a principle, an outlook that is worthy, noble and justified in many respects. Those who would brush such a deep and complex outlook to one side as simpleton driven “prejudice” or “hatred” that’s due to “ignorance” do themselves a great disservice and do the world no favour in perpetuating this nonsense.

Some people do not understand why nationalist parties exist, what drives them, what they are thinking about......yet feel perfectly able to shout their opponents down as being almost ‘hillbilly’ ignoramuses, ill informed hatemonger’s and supremacists that have some crazy genetic purity fetishist desire to take over the world. The irony of such people using the words ‘ignorant’ and ‘ill informed’ etc doesn't bypass me. If people immersed themselves into a voyage of discovery and truly understood the issues going on with these emotive topics and why Nationalists reject the current trends, and if those same people still reject any form of Nationalist principles, I would have at least some respect for them. To not know, or to dismiss it all out of hand as being "silly" because they themselves do not care about anything beyond their own surroundings, their own wallet and their own life-span, shows both their great disrespect and their selfishness as a custodian of the planet. It should not be the people who do not care what happens that get to make all the decisions. 

Not every nationalist is the same, not every nationalist is perfect, not every nationalist party is perfect, but at the moment the British National party is one representation of Nationalism that's been heading in the right direction and speaking up about some of the very tricky and very significant issues taking place that affects the future. These are things which no other party will even admit to be genuine issues to begin with, because they can no longer do so even if they wished – it is too late for them.

I, for one, am glad the British National Party is there to speak out. I wish them success in elections and likewise to all similar European nationalist parties who have their native peoples’ interest at heart.

Well there you go, an insight into racial British Nationalism. Was that really so bad, evil or outlandish?

At no time during writing this article did I feel any urge to sieg heil, don a German WW2 outfit, or eat any babies – something which will no doubt stun much of the establishment media and commentators!

Understanding Racial British Nationalism (Re-published) - Part One of Two

Okay, let’s talk about race and demographics. They are the first things that generally come to mind (or to conversation) when Nationalism is mentioned in the general public arena. Mention the BNP for example (which is but one manifestation of Nationalist ideology out there) and the topic will often immediately turn to that of race and "racism", hatred, thuggery, with suggested imagery of uneducated and unthinking peoples picking ‘scapegoats’ for downturns in the economy etc. It is the most famous issue despite a wide range of policies, principles and concepts under its banner.

So, just what is behind this low level simmer of race and national identity? Just what are these peoples’ objections to people with distinct different backgrounds coming here? What is this alleged hate fuelled Nazi’ism that supposedly fills its entire existence really about? Hopefully, this text may provide some kind of clue. Nobody need agree entirely to what is put forth, and I certainly don’t expect anybody to suddenly alter their views, but even if a few people come away with a better understanding of what the situation is it will have been worthwhile. It isn’t as though this kind of thing is mentioned in society’s every day interactions.

Many outlets are scared to tackle the topic due to the 'hot potato' nature of it all, yet it is an important issue for many people in the country, especially ethnocentric Nationalists like the author of this piece. It is not something which I believe should be marginalised, or something which must be pre-packaged into a pro-multiculturalists frame (of trying to extol the virtues of multi racialism and multiculturalism) before one can speak critically towards the issues. There is nothing necessarily nasty or "racist" (in a horrible way) about the topics concerned, and as human beings we need to be able to identify some basic truths of what is taking place in the world regarding these issues if we are ever going to acquire an informed opinion about the future that they will derive.

It may not be an exciting topic, but it is a serious one to anybody who cares for society after they themselves are dead - and to anybody else who values the efforts of those who have gone before us and laid down their lives to give us our civilisation which we enjoy today. Demographic trends shape our future worlds’ destiny in many ways, so it should not be something that is brushed aside as being completely immaterial.

Whilst an ethnocentric British Nationalist is chiefly concerned with the indigenous peoples of this land, a genuine Nationalist does extend out his hands and thoughts to his fellow European counterparts and the Occidental ('Western') world which was created by European peoples. It is important to remember therefore that the context of race, culture and demographics (from an ethnocentric British Nationalist perspective) is also placed upon the knowledge of what is happening to European peoples as a demographic around the globe, and not just ones immediate location.

We are told we now live in a "global village", but in our view that global village has a two way street running through it. If others believe we should accept this "globalist" construction and always look outwards rather than gaze inwards, they should therefore give Nationalists the right to do this too and let them look beyond their own particular nation state so that they can put their situation into context with the wider world around them. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. When we do look beyond our immediate borders, we see that our counterparts in various European nation states are all under the same conditions as we see ourselves to be in, so naturally we take on the larger picture of this when facing the future and its implications in our own country.

What comes across so profoundly throughout the undercurrent of many of these European societies is the simmering frustration, depression and anger that people feel about their loss of national identity, the growing social fragmentation that's occurring under the weight of third world colonisation (which none of them never asked for by the way), and the utter abandonment by both the political classes and the media to such a degree that it has led to a situation where the normal levers of power are no longer there to give the ordinary people of Europe a means of halting the processes.

It isn't just devout Nationalists who feel this way, people in general are upset about it and it manifests itself in all sorts of ways - consciously, subconsciously, semi consciously. The feeling that a society is in decline is a strong one, and a demonstrated justified and real one which has many different outcomes as to how people adjust or react to it. The process of “White Flight” is just one typical outcome which has been documented as taking place all over Europe and the Occident, and whilst these individuals might not be fully aware of why they have abandoned their traditional location (or rather the fundamental psychology of what lay beneath it or what has caused it) they will move away all the same. Things will have just ‘gone downhill’ to the point they feel alienated, out of place, unsafe, or subject to decaying societal bonds, litter, crime etc that make the idea of a move away to somewhere nicer (almost always more whiter and homogeneous, as it happens) all the more attractive for their own mental well being, and in the case of younger couples there is natures subconscious desire to raise a family in surroundings which suit them better as a nest.

Like it or not, race is a large factor in all this and its affect on the country. It is not only physical but psychological too. If we no longer feel we wish to bring children up into the world around us, because it is “going to the dogs” it has an effect on indigenous future society demographic trends, and if we look at various studies about community interaction it is found time and time again that the more diverse an area is on racial, religious and cultural backgrounds, the more people do not involve themselves with each other, the more they do not contribute to society, the less trust they have for others, and the less charitable they become. Of course, there are exceptions and isolated incidents where this is not the case, but in general it is the truth of the matter - no matter how much people would wish to pretend it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) that way.

Rather than open up all of these issues and offer sensible and practical measures which could have been implemented over many decades to ensure the multiracial and multicultural experiments were working out (or simply stopped to allow adjustments), things have gone the opposite way and escalated the experiment to the point where any raw and honest discussion of this issue is becoming a crime which carries a weightier sentence than paedophilia, rape or murder in today's justice system. Doesn't this just seem truly bizarre? Isn't it odd to anybody else that the crime of holding a different outlook (and the verbal or written expression of that outlook) can be subject to such severe punishments and societal ostracism? People, who support unorthodox views even though they can be well intentioned, are treated with more scorn, disgust and hatred than convicted violent criminals.

Yet what is happening around us now is so extreme and so damaging for Europeans and European civilisation in the future that it means silence is no longer going to be an option.

If we are to avert what we Nationalists see as a grave situation occurring, we have to start addressing these things without fear and without submitting ourselves to the hysteria led circus act that usually accompanies the discussion. That isn't an easy task. There is so much ignorance (and as such, apathy) out there that I often feel intellectually mugged whenever these topics do manage to be broached in the public arena. Those that do take the time to properly investigate and who still do not care about what happens in the future are entitled to their position - but why should the future of European peoples and European civilisations be solely under the auction hammer of those who openly admit they do not care for it, are indifferent to it, or indeed those who are actively hostile to it?.

Let’s not be mistaken here, we are talking about the slow extinguishing of a continent of indigenous peoples, their racial grouplets, and eventually their languages, traditional cultures, religions, outlooks, systems and values along with them. If that sounds far-fetched and not possible, then you haven't been paying attention to the world. If that sounds lunatic, outlandish, and something which only some scary Ku Klux Klan member would say to justify some sort of hate fuelled supremacy movement, then you're definitely wrong to jump to those conclusions. This is real. This is happening. This is something that should be of at least some importance to a great number of people. Yet, despite this, nothing is really said about it in the mainstream. If you have an open mind and the ability to rationally talk about contentious issues, the more you discover about this, the more it becomes truly bizarre that there is this dual world going on which operates under both a cloak of silence and a sleight of hand to make it seem either invisible, inevitable, untouchable or unstoppable.

Let’s not be under any illusion - Caucasian peoples originating from the European continent only account for approximately 12% of the worlds make up – down from about 35% before the first and second world wars. Yes, that 12% figure includes Europe, Canada, New Zealand, America, Australia, South Africa etc. It is going down in percentage terms very fast indeed, and will in some of our lifetimes be around the 8% mark. In every traditionally white country - be it France, Denmark, Britain, Ireland, or wherever - massive scales of immigration and disproportionate birth rates are making the inhabitants of these countries into minority groups in almost all the major towns and cities in the very near future. Some in this country are a mere 5 years away from this; it is not some theoretical projection long into the distant future. We no longer have our own environment from within which we can remain intact, and under such a massive and rapid onslaught of colonisation (via unprecedented people movement and birth rates) there is no way we can possibly secure a future for our own peoples survival - even in our own respective historic homelands that we have all spent many hundreds of years defending.

If we are in a ‘globalist’ world now, as we are told quite often these days, then surely it is ridiculous to speak of Pakistanis and Bangladeshi's, or Chinese or anybody else as being ethnic minorities? There are more non white people in the Asian subcontinent of Pakistan and India alone than there are white people around the entire planet’s surface. Not only are a combination of the worlds other races and cultures expanding quadruple the rate of Europeans, they are also moving beyond the confined boundaries of their (often failed) countries and moving into ours, thus making the indigenous white minority group minorities in their own lands. The lands from which they came remain as they were ethnically, they remain failures because people flee rather than bring about change, and in addition to the negative impact there this also has a negative impact on the societies which they come to – often by means of gradually bringing about the very same problems that they had fled from.

In less than 10 years time, at least three major cities of England will be majority non white. It is estimated that Leicester and Birmingham already are beyond the "Plural" stage, where no group holds a majority. Before 2025, and going up to 2045, white people are due to be ethnic minorities in every single city in the country, and by the end of the century we are to be an increasingly insignificant remnant of demographic - or fully consigned to the history books as a "once lived" group of people. The tipping point will be around 2050 for our total demise from planet Earth. This is it, there's no second chance and no going back, as it will not be able to be reversed in the future. In other countries like France, the Netherlands, Germany etc it is already accepted by those who study demographics that they could be succumbed to Islamic State status before 2065, and a general ethnic minority status (amongst various third world descendants, Islamic or not) well before that time. This is not a fabrication or a joke; it is reality of what is already in the pipeline as things stand today - even if immigration to Europe was stopped tomorrow.

To put the scale and pace of this change into perspective, in the Britain of 1951 - when immigrants were first starting to arrive in significant numbers -there was an estimated "Visible Minority" population fewer than 94,500 in the United Kingdom. This comprised of approximately 30,000 Indians, 30,000 Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, 12,000 Chinese and 21,000 Africans and Afro Caribbean's. A mere combined total fewer than 94,500 people in a nation of many millions, but at the time this was certainly a shocking change in itself. It is also worthy to note that many English peoples children were classified on their census forms as being Indian or of other commonwealth extraction even if they were conceived and born by ethnically English, Scottish or Welsh parents resident in the British Empire - much to the annoyance of the parents upon their return to this country. This is likely to make the numbers of supposed 'visible minorities' even less, or will at least take into consideration a margin of error for greater numbers which would have arrived ‘off the record’.

This means that during the space of approximately 100 years, we will have gone from a pretty much homogeneous white European country of common history and ancestry - with ethnic minorities just starting to appear in their low thousands - to a majority non white country, wiping out the thousands of years worth of ancestry in this comparatively tiny time frame. Yet nobody seems to find this odd, or worth mentioning at all? Not even a well intentioned "Whoa! Hang on a moment!!"? Of course not, for that would be "racist" and "hate fuelled xenophobia" etc, naturally. Only we don’t think so in the slightest. We do not believe that it is right for this to happen, especially in the way it is being done.

Those minority demographics went from under 94,500 in 1951 to over 2.5 Million in 1991 (which is one hell of a jump by anyone's standards) - and that was well before the wide open door was propped even further ajar by the Labour party since coming to office in 1997.

This push by Labour in the last decade alone has given us the biggest population change on the Island since the thawing of the Ice Age. This is how monumental and significant it is. Yet we aren't supposed to notice? We aren't supposed to comment about it? We aren't supposed to care, object, or be negative about it in any way - and we are instead supposed cheer about it, glorify it and embrace our total replacement for all time in our own country? I’m sorry but I find that to be truly insane.

What's more, as stated earlier, each Nation state of Europe is suffering the same fate, yet this is never reported either. Every nation appears to be purposefully kept in the dark about the alarming situation of their European counterparts. If it wasn’t for the advent of the internet, those of us who are currently ‘in the know’ wouldn’t be in the know. Don’t expect to see this subject on the 6 o’clock news schedule any time soon. Jigsaw pieces are randomly scattered around from time to time, but never in a way which explicitly completes a picture of what is happening to Europe as a whole. People naively believe that things will always remain the same as they have been and currently are, and that there is always "elsewhere" to go to if things got uncomfortable. They are in for a shock when they wake up to reality.

In the meantime (whilst this country witnesses this process of ethnic replacement) we see our cohesion as a nation decline in the short to midterm - as can clearly be seen all around us week by week by regular instalments of knife attacks, gang warfare, Islamic fundamentalism, segregation and moral dilemmas about how to recreate and define “Britishness” from this chaotic situation.

It may be tempting to treat each episode of these things as a one off, something local to somewhere else in the country, or such other “chip wrapping” event that passes for news in this fast paced and ever more chaotic world, but what we are experiencing overall through both the major issues, the minor issues and repeated 'isolated incidents' is the beginning of the end to our country and its transition into something else.

The cost of this is dear in material and monetary terms, but taxation, violence, crime increase, increase in deadly disease, over stretched resources and infrastructure collapse are not the sole reasons upon which we should be objecting. It is something much bigger and much more worthy than that level of debating arena, although of course they are all absolutely worthy and justified reasons in their own right and something we also wish to address.