Sunday, January 15, 2012

How To Destroy A Country — Part 3

Below is the final installment of a three-part series by Paul Weston about the deliberate destruction of British culture, and of Western Civilization itself.

Previously: Part 1 and Part 2.

How To Destroy A Country — Part 3
by Paul Weston

Continued from Part 2

Segregate the Generations. In the course of a political argument, an ancient old lady was told by her grandson that she came from a different generation, to which she replied: “No, I come from a different civilisation.”

Paul WestonQuite so. There is little point in controlling the medium of Socialist education if the wisdom of the older “reactionary” generations can still be passed down to the younger. In Africa, the tribal elders are respected and listened to, but in Britain those over a certain age are mocked at worst, or sidelined at best, because they come from a pre-revolutionary era. Those born after 1970 come from the post-revolutionary era, and never the twain shall meet. The educational and media establishments are run in the main by the young or the very young, all soaked in Marxist ideology, and their output is principally aimed only at the young. This is deliberately done in order to ensure the segregation of those who could present an alternative voice to their incessant and twisted Socialist propaganda.

Promote Conformity in the guise of Individualism. Has there ever been such conformity amongst the youth of a democratic nation before? Most young people are politically correct. They have been reared to believe in themselves as individuals, and to hold their own self-esteem (their very high and totally unearned self-esteem) as an intrinsic part of said individuality. But in reality they have been socially engineered into individuals who all believe the same thing. This is because the conformist herd is so much easier to control than the non-conformist individual, particularly so, when the herd mentality just happens to be the ideology of the Socialist State. The heavily propagandised ideology shared by the vast majority of the young is not quite as compassionate as they think, however, because the stark reality of it guarantees their immediate cultural destruction, and their eventual racial destruction.

Brussels riotsCreate an Anarchic Youth. Remove the various traditions and taboos that bound previous societies together; deem discipline in schools to be an archaic bourgeois form of child abuse; promote the ideology of self before group and pleasure before duty; promote licentiousness through early-age sex education coupled with pornographic music videos à la MTV; downplay heterosexual marriage as one of many equally valid lifestyle choices; remove the taboo of illegitimacy and reward it through welfare payments; offer abortions to teenage girls without their parents’ knowledge; promote an ideology of “Me, me , me! Now, now, now!” above outmoded ideas such as sacrifice, thrift, duty, honour, morality, truth, decency and patriotism.

Destroy Competitiveness: This is dressed up with words like egalitarianism and equality, but what it really means is dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is far easier than dragging people upwards. Grammar Schools were elitist, and therefore had to be destroyed, even though the main beneficiaries were working class. Competitive sport meant that for every winner there were several losers, so that too had to be sidelined in some state schools. But the rest of the world does not play by the same suicidal rules. China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?

Destroy Self-Reliance. Building a dependent class is of great importance to left/liberals. Firstly, the dependents will vote for the hand that feeds them the most, and secondly it enables the ruling elite to exercise control they could never dream of exercising over a non-dependent class. This explains why Britain’s public sector is favoured above the private sector by left/liberals, and why the deliberate formation of a permanent state-dependent underclass seems to worry them so little. In 2008-9 the welfare payment bill was actually higher than the total P.A.Y.E. tax-receipts, however. And, quite astonishingly, there are more people registered as disabled (and claiming benefits) than were registered disabled immediately after World War One! This is obviously unsustainable, and confirms Alexander Tytler’s view that democracies collapse when the money provided by the rulers in return for their vote eventually runs out, after which dictatorship inevitably follows. Tytler’s famous quote is as follows:
From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.

Destroy Democracy. Britain is no longer a truly democratic country. 80% of our new legislation is now enacted in Brussels at the behest of twenty-seven Commissioners whom we never elected and can never democratically remove from office. The British government is essentially just a puppet council, allowed to remain in place to reassure the gullible public that we still run our own affairs — which we don’t. In addition, the flooding of Britain by third world immigrants was an undemocratic act. The electorate was never asked if we wished to transform Britain into a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. If we had been asked, we would have said “No!” And, just to rub salt into the wound, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for left/liberal politicians — which, of course, is partially why they were imported in the first place.

EU Skull Dragon

The Labour Party’s introduction of postal voting also means our elections are now influenced by fraudulently obtained ballot papers not only in Britain’s large Muslim enclaves, but also — and this is completely surreal — via proxy votes in Pakistan and Bangladesh! In the 2010 British elections the Conservatives failed to win a majority by a very slim margin, leading Lady Warsi, a Conservative Muslim, to lay the blame squarely on Muslim electoral fraud. When British elections (such as they are, now the EU is the real power) are illegally influenced by Pakistanis in Mirpur, I think we can safely say our democracy is dead.

Immigrants in Birmingham

Introduce Mass Immigration. The white working class betrayed the hard Left when they failed to rise up in the much longed-for proletarian revolution, and they failed to rise up because they had become too affluent. The Marxist solution was to introduce a new, foreign-born “oppressed proletariat” as a means to Socialism’s ongoing march toward total power. The number of third world immigrants runs into the millions. This deliberate dilution of an indigenous people has never before happened on such a scale. If UN guidelines on genocide are taken quite literally, it amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the English.

White children are now a minority in London schools and many schools within other British cities. Demographers predict the indigenous population will become a minority before 2060, with the young suffering that fate even earlier. Feminist ideology has dramatically decreased the indigenous demographic whilst the Islamic population is doubling every decade through continued immigration and a high birth rates. Islam is already a huge problem in Britain, yet, as their numbers grow, so will their demands on traditional Britain, which lives its life in a manner markedly different to life under Sharia Law — which surveys suggest some 40% of British Muslims wish to see enacted.

Why do left/liberals act as apologists for Islam? Hugh Fitzgerald puts it thus: “Nothing shows better the extreme hatred liberals have for Western Civilisation than their unashamed alliance with a movement (Islam) which is mortally opposed to liberalism’s sacred calves — women’s rights, gay rights, abortion and multiple cultures. Yet Islam and the liberal/left are in harmony on the major issues. They are anti-Christian and anti-Jew, they are anti-democracy and anti-individual rights, they are anti-capitalist and they regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same common enemy — Western Civilisation”

Promote Racial Division. The successful integration of happy foreigners with a happy indigenous population is hardly going to foment revolution, hence the ideology of multiculturalism which intentionally divides races and cultures. Multiculturalism was designed to destroy any sense of national pride and patriotism amongst the indigenous population, whilst actively encouraging the same amongst the incoming races and cultures. It also encourages ethnic minorities to believe their lack of success is due to (or if they are successful, in spite of) historical white imperialist oppression and current white Western institutional racism. This makes them united, vengeful, angry and strong. Multiculturalism actively instils guilt in the indigenous white population for our past oppression and current racism, which makes us apologetic, disunited and weak. We can only, it seems, be forgiven our historical racial sins once the ethnic minorities have matched or surpassed the demographic and political power of the indigenous people.

Immigrants at Heathrow

Destroy Native Resistance. New laws have been passed to criminalise those who dare to speak out against their territorial, racial and cultural dispossession. Children are brainwashed into “celebrating” their dispossession with such Orwellian intent that thousands as young as three have been officially noted as possessing “racist” tendencies — a situation we can only expect to worsen as the demographic gap between white and non-white inexorably narrows. Race is the biggest weapon the left/liberals use in their war against traditional Britain, so resistance to that weapon is both criminalised and subsequently labelled the evil of all evils — RACISM — in order to strip us of our only peaceful defence mechanism. Of course there are some racist whites, but they are a statistical minority compared to the ethnic minorities who physically attack whites at a far greater ratio than vice-versa. The only true racists in Britain are the treasonous anti-white politicians, policemen and journalists who seek to cover up the real statistics about racial crime and racial hate.

Use Selective History to counter Native Resistance. British education ignores the crimes of Communism and concentrates only on the crimes of Hitler, portraying him principally as a racist. The evils of Nazism can then be used as an attack against indigenous peoples who protest their cultural and territorial dispossession, by simply labelling the protestors as Nazi racists and therefore no better than Hitler himself. In reality the left/liberals are as obsessed with race — in its diverse form — as Hitler and the Nazis were with race in its pure form. And they are using race with the express intention of achieving what Hitler failed to do — the absolute conquest of Britain, Europe and the West, at the expense of its indigenous peoples.

Distract the Population. This is a tried and tested principle dating back to the Roman times of Bread and Circuses. Just look at the output of the mainstream media, which deals in fantasy and trivia rather than reality and substance. This sadly works just as intended. The majority of Brits have been gradually sucked down into an infantile world of vapid celebrity worship, football, X Factor and gutter sensationalism, all promoted 24/7 by the media establishment. As a direct consequence, they have little interest in matters that really matter.

No doubt the left/liberals will denounce this series of articles as the ranting of a right wing conspiracy theorist. But facts are facts; the Communists did set out to subvert the capitalist West; the anti-Western critical theory of the Frankfurt school is now the ideology of the educational and media establishments; the left/liberal politicians did set out to transform Britain via mass third world immigration; our industry was destroyed, as has been our educational establishments etc. etc. etc., and the people behind this destruction were and are Marxists, leftists, or useful idiot liberals.

Every single one of the deliberately destructive policies I have outlined above could destroy a country over a lengthy period of time, even without the Third World invasion. When they are combined, however, and mass immigration is added to the mix, our destruction is not only assured, it is assured over a relatively small time-span.

UK immigration graph

Consequently, the speed of Britain’s destruction has been astonishingly fast. Anyone over the age of 40-50 will tell you that Britain today is not the Britain they were born into, and that Britain is simply not sustainable in its present condition. But the left/liberals have made a terrible mistake. The future will not be one of Marxist revolution and permanent leftist control. Whilst mass third world immigration may have been their main weapon of choice to destabilise the country, they simply did not reckon with such a rapidly expanding, cohesive and militant Islam.

The future of Britain can logically be one of only two options. A country dominated by Islam, or a country dominated by the right wing, which is rapidly growing as a wholly natural response to the combined threat of Islam and the left. Freedom Parties are gaining ground everywhere, and now include the British Freedom Party. No one knows which side will emerge triumphant in the battle between Islam and the emerging right, but whichever it is, one thing is very strongly assured: they will hold no great regard for the left/liberals — to put it very mildly indeed.

At the beginning of this series, I asked whether the appalling destruction carried out in the name of left-wing ideology was well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence. Perhaps it really was done to realise Georg Lukacz’s dream: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

Or perhaps it wasn’t. It is quite possible it was caused by liberal stupidity of criminal proportions, but all that really matters now is that the damage wreaked by the left/liberals be redressed — and we have little time remaining in which to do so.

Paul Weston is Chairman of the British Freedom Party.

Previous posts by Paul Weston:

2007 Jan 22 The Week Britain Died
    26 Britain’s Dystopian School Children
  Feb 2 Questioning the Sanity of Liberals
  Mar 1 Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits
    31 Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025?
  Jun 26 The Big Story That Isn’t
  Aug 10 An Open Letter to Fellow Europeans
    24 A Brussels Perspective
  Sep 12 Democratic Europe R.I.P.
  Nov 2 The Coming Third World War
    21 Cool War — Warm War — Hot War: Part 1
    29 Cool War — Warm War — Hot War: Part 2
2008 Mar 27 The Face of Moderate Islam in Britain
2009 Feb 9 Wilders in Wonderland
    13 Who is Lord Ahmed?
    25 Temporary Peace Trumps Freedom of Speech
  Jul 1 Muslims, Mosques and Mosquitoes
    2 Islam, the BBC, and Young Children
    8 Review of “A Bridge Too Far”
    17 Socialist Propaganda in British Education
  Oct 15 Multiculturalism Has Destroyed the British Police
2010 Mar 16 Ethnically Cleansing the English
  Oct 7 Banana Republic Britain
    30 “We Will Hold You to Account”
  Dec 5 The Metaphorical Front Line of Islam
    5 The West Needs to Wake Up
    7 Land for Peace — Or Land for a Terror State?
2011 May 20 Why Is This Not Treason?
  Jun 1 One Week in the Death of Britain
  Jul 11 The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain
    29 The BBC, Breivik, the EDL and Islam
  Aug 7 Down’s Syndrome Babies, Sarah Palin and the BBC
  Sep 5 Clone These Men!
  Nov 27 The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip
  Dec 6 One Rule for Them, One Rule for Us
    7 Muslim Misogyny, Feminist Indifference
    13 Interview with Paul Weston
2012 Jan 10 Racism and Media Double Standards in Britain
    13 How To Destroy A Country — Part 1
    14 How To Destroy A Country — Part 2


Anonymous said...

Interesting point about the ultimate end of this policy - either Islam or patriots will rule the day.

But when Islam starts to cause more problems (in the eyes of the traitors who have invited them in, handed them the keys to the house, and told them to make themselves at home)than it has solved (in their eyes) ...

that is to say, should Islam start to really gain power, and to displace the people who wanted it here ...

where, oh where will they go for help?

Anonymous said...

Hey Paul, I am a fan of yours, and hope for your success in British politics. You are clearly very clued in.

But I have a question. Harry's Place regulars commented that the British Freedom Party has a (prominent) member ex prominent BNPer Lee John Barnes.

Is this true

Merlin said...

Well done Paul, I believe you've nailed it quite thoroughly. There are those in positions of influence and power that should be made to stand trial for what they've done. Treason comes to mind.

I look forward to reading more from you.

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure that democracy quote is misattributed to Tytler but great article nonetheless.

Vortac said...

Often does hatred hurt itself! Brilliant point with militant islam as the biggest mistake and the ultimate downfall of anti-Western dogma. Of course, any reasonable individual was worried about Western future even before the present onset of Islamic fundamentalism, but who would have thought 15 years ago it would grow into such a big threat so quickly?

Arathma said...

In the spirit of Martin Luther nailing to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg his Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum (95 Theses) in 1517, a list of protestations should be nailed to the door at Number 10 Downing Street outlining the travesties the British people have endured.

I see the faint images of civil war forming if the elected leaders continue down this path.

Nicely done Paul.

Andrew M esquire. said...

Nice one Mr Weston.

Mozart said...

Well said Sir

Being from America I can look upon England's slow march into a muticultural suicide as something to look forward to.

It seems we/America have some sort of political kinship with the U.K.

America as you well know will/does suffer the same societal sickness as Great Britain. An almost suicidal tendancy to erase all that made a once great country, into something that history has proven will fail, under the enormous pressure of political and monetary pressure.

A great series of articles!


The Osprey said...

"The majority of Brits have been gradually sucked down into an infantile world of vapid celebrity worship, football, X Factor and gutter sensationalism, all promoted 24/7 by the media establishment. As a direct consequence, they have little interest in matters that really matter."

Orwell, in 1984, called this prolefeed

Anonymous said...

I applaud your posting this in an understandable format..
I have been called lunatic, nutcase, whacko and extremist for the last 30 years for saying the same things but now finally people are beginning to actually see the truth. I can only hope it isnt too late to restore this nation. If it proves undoable than I hope for a scortched earth policy that would make Sherman's march look amateurish at best in the hopes we leave our enemies nothing of value or use but their miserable souls.

Yank lll

Anonymous said...

A strong and compelling conclusion to an excellent examination of the strategy that has been employed against the free nations of the world.

To the question of whether the efforts of the left are characterized by well-intentioned stupidity or brilliantly-planned malevolence, I would say that the essential spirit of Marxism has always been a compound of the two.

The idea that freedom--spiritual, economic, and political-- were somehow the enemies of human dignity and prosperity is so utterly preposterous as to boggle the mind of anyone who isn't profoundly mentally impaired. And the motivation for believing that freedom must be the enemy of humanity came of a belief in the innate goodness of humanity...which was incompatible with the obvious effects of leaving humans free to do as they please.

Once a person (motivated by an unjustifiably high opinion of the innate morality of humans) comes to the natural conclusion that freedom of every kind must be the enemy of human aspiration for good, it is only natural that the destruction of freedom--and those who persist in exercising, promoting, and defending it--should become an overriding objective to be accomplished at any cost. Hence the unlimited hatred of the committed Marxist towards all actual good things free people currently choose for themselves.

The stupidity of Marxism is fundamentally the result of a defect in moral imagination, the inability to consider that perhaps humans are mostly bad to others and 'good' only to themselves. The malevolence of Marxism is caused by a similar moral defect, the inability to consider that perhaps other people who seem 'bad' to the Marxist are seeking what could be considered 'good' from a narrow perspective.

Which is why the essential Christian idea of humans as essentially bad and needing redemption is such a central focus of the Marxist attack and such a pillar of Western Civilization's development of liberty.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

#10 Yank III,
thanks for joining me. I know those pityfull looks of others. Though I am the one in my social surroundings
who has a PhD in history and I am considered an "intellectual". People just won`t listen and I am am now sick and tired of giving lessons nobody pays attention to for free.One solution, for sure cynical, is to offer your knowledge - if asked for - in a "seminar" for 180 $ by the hour like any other expert,
or shrug your shoulders and play the candid ignorant.

Sagunto said...

Paul Weston -

"China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?"

Come again?
China's communist elites worship communist "elitism" all right, but I sincerely hope that no one over here is buying this myth about China being successful because of their love of capitalism, a myth that you seem to promote here. Hope I've misunderstood this passage, but I'm afraid that's not the case. And btw, China is currently inflating its own currency, just like other (semi)centralized world economic powers (US/EU) are busy doing. Its figures on "economic growth" are completely bogus, remember that. Isn't it a tad bit ironical to keep coming up with this rather clichéd cold-war "its the commies fault" myopia, and then portray China as some exotic champion of capitalism?

"the right wing, which is rapidly growing as a wholly natural response to the combined threat of Islam and the left. Freedom Parties are gaining ground everywhere, and now include the British Freedom Party. No one knows which side will emerge triumphant in the battle between Islam and the emerging right [..]"

Correction: to this "right"-wing meme, which in reality points to the right progressivist wing of the one (super)party welfare state system, backed by Central Banking and centralized taxation. Not coincidentally the two cardinal parts of the welfare state machine that were demanded in the Communist Manifesto.

Question: Would the BFP, which claims to stand for free markets, get rid of Central Banking and the Income Tax?
Answer: Nope, no indication sofar that they will.

Conclusion: No "right" versus "left" here, just nationalist old Left (for an efficient welfare state without the govt enforced, US imported, Cult of Diversity(TM) and mass immigration) versus internationalist new Left with their penchant for the dissolution of national borders and the establishment of superstate structures.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Paul Weston said...

Re: Lee John Barnes. He was one of the people who intially set up Britsh Freedom, but when I took it over the old guard all stood down.

The Party is now run by myself and Dr George Whale. George is a nice chap and has no historical baggage.

Chiu Chun-Ling: Great comment- thanks.

Dedicated_Dad said...

Oh Once-great Britain, I weep for thee!

We in the former Colonies have one minor advantage that you-lot lack: We haven't yet surrendered our guns!

Further, we have a sizable number of folks who never will - who MEAN it when they say "...From my cold, dead hands!"

Not that this makes ANY of us a foregone conclusion, but at least we have something RESEMBLING a "fighting chance"...

The time is coming - and SOON - when all of us are going to be forced to choose.

Were I trapped in That Place Where Great Britain Used To Be, I'd be doing all I could to learn machinist skills and stockpiling materials so as to be able to build weapons for the fight which is all but INEVITABLE at this point!

I'd also be doing all I could to make some friends among the older gents up in Ireland as well!

As to the rest, I can think of no better words than those of Sam Adams:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."


God help us -- and GOD SAVE OUR REPUBLIC!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the response Mr. Weston.

I just ran across this commentary on China...

I think collapse is a little hyperbolic, but some good information.


The Coming Collapse of China: 2012 Edition

Hal K said...

"The only true racists in Britain are the treasonous anti-white politicians, policemen and journalists who seek to cover up the real statistics about racial crime and racial hate."

This is self-contradictory. By this logic it must be the politicians, policemen and journalists who are committing racial crimes, if they are "the only true racists." But we know this isn't true.

Instead of trying to be race-neutral, we should neutralize the word "racist." This means allowing expressions of white racial solidarity on our side. Most nations are a sub-race of a larger race, so this does not mean giving up more specific ethnic loyalties, which are compatible with a broader racial solidarity.

Just because we allow white racial and sub-racial loyalty, that does not mean we cannot be allied with non-whites who support our culture. If non-whites, who claim to be allied with us, try to prevent white racial loyalty on our side, then we have to ask, why is this? Are they truly on our side?

Paul Weston said...


I have no idea what China's view on capitalism is. China is something of a conundrum - a Communist country that practices authoritarian capitalism so well, it could bankrupt America tomorrow if it called in its debts. it won't of course, because that would kill its market, but all very confusing none-the-less.

I mentioned China simply because they are elitist. Chinese children understand that education is the route to a decent life. Britain just assumes we can have a decent life based on the fact we have always had one. Our educational egalitarianism is based on historical sand.

Regarding British Freedom's economic policies, I would just say I inherited the party. We will be making policy update announcements and manifesto changes in the near future.

Please understand I am not an economist, and will defer to cleverer chaps than myself on this....which rather rules out most economists I would imagine....

Thanks for your input, you always raise good points.

Anonymous said...

The idea of "racism" was always a bit ambiguous and has progressed to the silliness of identifying children that dislike unfamiliar foods or people as "racist".

Properly speaking, "racism" should only mean the (badly constructed and never rigorously formalized) anthropological theory that most cultural differences between distinct human populations were the result of innate genetic characteristics which could be categorized into several broad "races" of humanity (though this was never accomplished in a manner that proved intellectually satisfying even to a majority of technically racist anthropologists, the various categorizations were individualistic and conflicting and none of them gained wide acceptance).

Ideological programs promoting or relying on such theories of cultural differences being largely innate (rather than there being only a restricted range of really innate human behaviors, of which only a small number really varied significantly with identifiably genetic factors) are properly termed racist (and thus rightly dismissed as being based on outdated and discredited 18th century theories).

But the instinct of humans to value their closest relatives and those culturally most identifiably similar to themselves (above those markedly dissimilar, alien, or overtly hostile to themselves and their kin) is nearly universal (only profoundly autistic individuals lack this instinct in any significant degree, and whether this is caused by genetic or environmental factors has not yet been satisfactorily settled). To call such a universal human instinct any kind of "ism" is an abuse of the term.

This "natural affection" of humans for their closer relatives over those with no appreciable relationship is not wholly a bad thing by most rational measures. As "mother love" and filial affection it is generally lauded as an indispensable virtue without which society could not endure (though there are of course ideologues so 'advanced' in their thinking as to suggest that even these must be scrapped as barriers to 'universal brotherhood'). Since no example of a sustainable society in which these feelings were completely abolished can be discovered, it seems imprudent to attempt it.

And without destroying or strongly inhibiting the most obvious examples of this feeling (love of one's immediate family members), it is unclear how much can really be done to inhibit such a powerful and widely-felt impulse, even if we find some of the extended results less than pleasing. Conversely, there is hardly any need for a program of strengthening this tendency except to endorse it as normal, healthy, and natural.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

P.S. I may be tired, but I'm reading my previous post in full knowledge of what I was trying to say and still having difficulty understanding myself...moral thought has never really been my forte, despite being of pressing interest as a major factor in human behavioral dynamics.

Anestis canelidis said...

For the UK it is 1984 but for the USA we are not far behind them. Americans must wake up to the threat of increased Muslim and 3rd world immigration into the USA. We foolishly allow 182,000 legal immigrants a month into our country and then about another 100,000 + illegal immigrants a month. We must stop this insanity or we could end up like Britain. We could lose the America we grew up in but then that is what the Communist left-wing elite want anyway.

Marinco said...

Articles like this are why I come to this website.

God bless the EDL and God bless America!

Hal K said...

"Conversely, there is hardly any need for a program of strengthening this tendency except to endorse it as normal, healthy, and natural."

No. There is a need for a program of strengthening it in whites. Whites do not stand up for themselves as whites. If a white were to say, "I take [such and such] position because I want to support my fellow whites" he would suffer reprisals. Anti-whiteness pervades our culture. The only antidote for it is to allow whites to start thinking explicitly in terms of "what is good for whites."

Anonymous said...

Hey Paul, you might find this article thought provoking on tax policy. It is US specific, but the general idea can be applied across the pond.

If pressed for time, I cut the relevant information, and posted below.

Santoronomics — A Mixed Report Card

by Spengler

Santorum’s program calls for reducing the number of tax rates to only two, namely 10% and 28%, and tripling the personal deduction for each child (to about $10,000). I would go even further and scale Social Security and Medicare contributions to family size; as I wrote three years ago in First Things, “For most taxpayers, social-insurance deductions are almost as great a burden as income tax. Families that bring up children contribute to the future tax base; families that do not get a free ride. The base rate for social security and Medicare deductions should rise, with a significant exemption for families with children, so that a disproportionate share of the burden falls on the childless.” This is simply a matter of fairness. It costs about $400,000 to raise the average American child through grade 12, the government tells us. If everyone spent that $400,000 on vacations instead, and no-one raised children, we would all die of starvation upon retirement. Families that spend that $400,000 (and much more, counting college) are raising the next generation of taxpayers without whom we are dead. Those who fail to have children and spend money on other things are free riders. As a matter of simple equity, they should pay more.

By focusing on family issues, Santorum’s personal tax program gets an A+ on my scorecard.

End Quote

It's basically an improved variation on a theme, of giving benefits to mothers for having children...even direct cash payouts. However this gives productive bedrock of society productive families tax reductions (not handouts) to offset the cost of raising the future generation of the culture/society/nation/civilization.

Much better than importing foreigners and giving them handouts to colonize England.


Sagunto said...

Hi Paul -

No doubt we'll meet again here at the Gates, so there's ample room for future exchanges on key issues (which will have to include ideas about genuinely free markets and the closely related issue of what the role of government should be).

But let me tell you for now, that I really appreciate the way you engage in these on-line discussions. You don't have to answer to questions, or even challenges, posed in the comments section, but still you do and, may I say, often in a truly gentleman-like fashion.

I conclude by giving you the gist of my argument (and concern/reason to believe BF is not a free market party) in the form of a quote:

"[..] Most significantly of all, the confrontation that has erupted is not between liberals and antiliberals but between two postliberal concepts of democracy, one, managerial-multicultural, and the other, plebiscitary national or regional."

From: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy, by Paul Gottfried (2002). Chapter 5, page 122, "Whither the Populist Right".
If you ever find the time to read just this one chapter, please do, and, on my honour, you won't regret it.

From Amsterdam, with respect and appreciation,

Anonymous said...

I scanned quickly so I may have missed his name, but a guy named ANdrew Neather flat-out admitted the goal of successive left-oriented gov't's was to "remove all trace of Britishness".
All this has been going on right before our eyes. It's going to have to come down to a fight, folks. They're not gonna' stop because we ask them to.

Dan Knowles III

Don said...

This was an outstanding essay. I've posted links to all three parts, and added a permalink to GofV in my blogroll. Keep up the great work!

Fifteen Heretics said...

A tremendous conclusion to the three part series and a clarion call to resistance. It’s worthy of space in the British broadsheets to kick off a real discussion about the issues (but of course that won’t happen).

Mozart said...

I want to throw the proverbial hell ya! too Hal K, with regards to the "white" issue. White, is one of those code words, that if used, conjures up scenes of a noose, sit in the back of the bus.

We folks of the pale complexion need to settle down and embrace reality.

Our history/culture/heritage is slowly being relegated to the trash bin, while we sip our cocktails and whine about what's on the boob tube.

There is a consorted effort in play, a malicious war being waged against all things white. Be it family, religion, culture, tradition, history you name if you are pigment challenged, there is a bulls-eye on your heritage.

White guilt like any other guilt is a destructive tool, used to control the oppressed, step up and defend your ground people.

Posterity is counting on it!


Hal K said...

Thanks Mozart. The media double-standard that Paul Weston wrote about in another recent article is an important example of anti-whiteness. Chastising the media for their double standards will not work. We have to stand up for whites as whites.

Another example of anti-whiteness is the lack of white advocacy groups. There are organizations for other ethnic groups and races, but none for whites, in the mainstream at least. We can't fight this by complaining about double standards. The only way to fight it is to create white advocacy groups, or perhaps native British advocacy groups in Britain.

Anonymous said...

The following is an email I received in response after I sent Part 1 of "How To Destroy Country" to a scholarly social scientist:

"I don't have a lot of time to write a sophisticated response to this author's contentions. In short, his main errors are that he does not distinguish between the Frankfurt School's Social Democratic tendencies and Communism. Bernstein wrote the definitive critique of Marxist Communism which was the driving force of the German Social Democrats. His next big error is to miss the equal importance of Sigismund Freud's thinking to Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School would not have had the influence it did if social democratic thinking had not also been prominent among Protestant theologians such as Niebuhr. As you know, there have been important religious currents of thinking that see strong democratic socialistic principles in Christianity and some in Judasim. I have heard important intellectuals who were simultaneously prominent Catholic and Protestant theologians who think this is the case. My wife's old apartment in Hyde Park [Chicago] was a few blocks walking distance from The Lutheran School of Theology and I heard such talks there and in Catholic milieu around The University of Chicago. There was the Catholic Worker movement in the US that had strong bonds with various social democratic movements in the US. I also think that author falsely derives "political correctness" from the Frankfurt School's thinking. Personally, I think it developed later from extremist components of the feminist, gay and lesbian, anti-war, etc. movements of the late 1960s."

(also the anonymous commentator quoted by the Baron in the "End of the Dream" post)

Paul Weston said...

In reply to Anonymous above:

You may well be correct, in an annoying and nitpicking sort of way, that Sigmund Freud played his part. But to involve the old lunatic in a concise article aimed at getting a relatively assimilable message out, would have been a tremendous diversion from the essential facts. It does not really matter what part he and others played on the ethos of the Frankfurt School; the only important factor is how the Frankfurt School panned out.

The scholarly social scientist also disputes the influence and the timing of Polical Correctness, with regard to the Frankfurt School. Quote: "I think it developed later from extremist components of the feminist, gay and lesbian, anti-war, etc. movements of the late 1960s."

No one is disputing that, but where does the esteemed chap think that ideology came from? The answer is Marcuse, ten years earlier, when he was intent on establishing as many divisions in society as possible, in order to further his revolutionary dream, which would be brought about by: "...all the marginalised groups, including black militants, feminists, homosexual militants, the asocial, the alienated..."

I must confess, I am not sure why I bothered replying to this. You must forgive me, my anonymous old chap, if I consider your comment both hair-splitting and a tad pedantic.

Anonymous said...

Hi Paul,

Your critics are your best friends because they show you the points that you must refine in order to strengthen your message for the masses.

Berkeley's point seems to be that the Christian church has been as invested in social democracy as politicians in communism.

Well, perhaps the communists have infiltrated the church in addition to the other social institutions?

Hence, the communist-friendly social democracy movements emanating from the Christian church.

After all, President Obama sat in the pews of a communist Christian church for years.

At Part 2 of your series, Siobahn comments:

"The problem is today’s Church has also been infiltrated by the Left and what passes for Christianity these days is often marxism masquerading as Christianity. I don’t know if you have ever read the biography of Bella Dodd - a high ranking member of the US Communist party who back in the 1930’s personally trained over 1000 men to enter the religious orders and seminaries. In the 1950’s she converted to the Church and gave testimony to Archbishop Fulton Sheen that most of these men were now in the highest positions of the American Church. Soon afterwards came Vatican II and the traitorous clergy already within the Church twisted and perverted it to serve their agenda."

Anonymous said...

I agree with Paul, with this addition.

Social Democrats are a strain of Marxism. Gramsci for example is a precursor, who advocated changing the culture and institutions of society to bring about the conditions necessary for the adoption of socialism. This is a gradualist Social Democrat approach.

The means are different from the Revolutionary Marxist, Communists, but the ends are the same.

They are all playing for the same team.

There is no doubt that there were movements within Christianity and Christian institutions that advocated social democratic and even Marxist politics. Liberation theology for example. Christian institutions were targeted with Entryist tactics by Marxists, Communists, well.



Anonymous said...

Dear Paul,

I want to tell you how much I appreciate your posts and that I wish you and your party well.

Regarding the scholar's email, I think that your points are well taken. However, I forwarded the email largely because of his comments about espousal of socialist and communist ideas by prominent religious figures and groups. This gave the Frankfort School more influence than they otherwise would have had. It's something to consider.


Anonymous said...

I have to say that if "a scholarly social scientist" identifies your "main errors" as not devoting enough time to the fine distinctions of "Social Democratic tendencies and Communism", then you must have done quite well. Particularly as it is "Marxist Communism which was the driving force of the German Social Democrats."

If Communism was admittedly the driving force of the Social Democrats, then I don't see why there is a pressing need for anyone other than scholarly social scientists to distinguish between them.

I do, on the other hand, feel that it is important to distinguish between the value of a movement to approve "whiteness" in general and for each nation to value its own unique ethnic character. I have observed the effort of the Chinese to try and incorporate all Asian backgrounds into support of a single, Chinese dominated racial agenda. It is obvious that, from the perspective of the Chinese government, this is the most desirable arrangement of political affiliation and block-voting power. It is less clear to me that it is the most sane or effective way to address the needs of the Japanese, Korean, or other Asian nationalities.

I do see a common cause for Europeans banding together to assert the validity of their various nationalities, but I would suggest that keeping those nationalities distinct serves each of their disparate needs best, and beyond the common need to regain a sense of the validity of their original national character, their differences form the greater part of what makes each worth defending.

I suspect that, in any given European nation, you will have an easier time promoting the idea of that nation being for people of that particular nationality than of that nation being for "whites". Part of this is for the reason that many people upset by non-European cultural influences on their communities are also upset about the dilution of their national identity by other European influences (though probably not quite as upset, in most cases). Another might be the simple literal flow of saying "Sweden for the Swedes" or "France for the French" is much harder to construct an argument against something so nearly tautological. There is also the matter of such a strategy seeming less to be aimed at a pan-European agenda (of "whiteness") and instead being simply and legitimately national...that is, reserving some independence from the EU as well as addressing non-European influxes.

And the idea of "whites" and "blacks" and so forth really does reek of theories of "race" which are wholly discredited scientifically.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we need to convince some of the religious that they are not evil people if they don't embrace multicultural socialism?


Anonymous said...

Baron, May I re-phrase that last P.S?

It would be better to say:

Perhaps we could convince some religlious people that they can still be good people even if they do not embrace multicultural socialism?


John McNeill said...

Paul Weston,

I don't know if you saw this over at VFR, but I withdrew my criticisms of you and your party. While I'm still not a fan of "cultural nationalism", I'm really impressed with your articles (including this one) and I now realize that you're the right man to lead the British people. I also recognize British Freedom's strategies being based on pragmatism, and it's true that BNP-style ethnonationalism is not an easy sale. However, I'd like to point out that much of the BNP leadership had tainted baggage and questionable ethics. I feel a wise man like you can surpass the failures of Nick Griffin. I also hope your party serves as a place for young nationalists to come and feel supported. Part of what appealed about the BNP in their heyday in 2009 was their sense of nationalist unity; that there was a safe haven for nationalists to gather.

I also hope that British Freedom will plan on working with British cultural organizations that help promote native British pride and cultural awareness. I believe that politics will yield nothing until the British feel like a people again.


What are you suggesting is essentially ethnonationalism, which is a form of nationalism based on shared ethnicity. The definition of ethnicity itself is a term that incorporates both culture and shared genetic lineage. I agree that ethnonationalism is a much more powerful concept than racial nationalism, which is much more abstract and can be contested when you try to define which ethnic groups fall under which racial categories, especially those that are products of historic race mixing.

That being said, there is a legitimate basis for pan-European unity. We Europeans have very similar genetics. If you look at a DNA map of human nations, you will find European ethnic groups are tightly clustered together. There's much less genetic distance between a German, an Irishman, and a Russian, in contrast to the distance between a Chinese and Japanese person. That and our shared civilization makes us feel like we are part of a larger family. Whether you want to call it a race or a super-ethnicity is a matter of debate, but I feel it's in the best interests of native Europeans and their global cousins to realize they are in the same boat and need to work together in order to challenge the hurdles that will be coming in the next few decades.

Besides, I feel that we nationalists from any white tribe will be so few in number that we will have no choice but to band together in order to survive. At this point I don't think anything can reverse our fate of becoming a minority in every country we live in.

Chiu ChunLing said...

It is certainly true that the racial similarity of the indigenous European peoples compares quite favorably even with the overall racial similarity of the people of China, which is considered (rightly or not) a single nation (though with strong ethnic divisions). And I think that the cohesion of Europeans supporting the rights of native nationalities in other European countries is an important strength of Europe.

Still, the argument for a pan-European genetic identity starts to fray as you reach the borders of Europe, which presents a fairly serious difficulty not shared much by individual nations. I also fail to see any distinct advantages over ethnic nationalism. Support for the right of one's own nation to preserve its historic ethnic character translates fairly easily into support for other countries to preserve their own historic ethnic character as long as the cultural component of that ethnicity is not intent on rampaging about and pillaging other nations.

On the other hand, the right to preserve the ethnic character of a population is so compelling to me that I should like to see China broken up into several independent nations, and the United States turned into something much more like a Federation of states (as originally provided by the Constitution of the United States) than a single national entity. Perhaps this preference is partly biased by political and geopolitical considerations of the necessary results of such transformations. Perhaps the same is true of my desire to see Europe less as a single supernational entity and more as a collection of Western nations with similar cultures and ideals in the context of a long shared history.

But perhaps there is a substantial base of European people for whom some similar feeling does affect the political agendas they are willing to support.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

"China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?"

«we» worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology that's why «we» are doing everything to lower the salaries of native europeans... «chinese» salaries, the sinification of europe.

Anonymous said...

I am from the United States. The things you have outlined here are happening, verbatim, here also. The displacement of the white, indigenous people has accelerated since the election of the usurper leftist, Marxist Barack obama.