Re :- " The nature of Ealing and London have and continue to be changed beyond description without any permission sought nor advised by the powers that were, by the composition of the population being changed." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This afternoon I went to Uxbridge on the bus along the Uxbridge Road, stopping off at Southall en route. Hanwell has gone largely to "not of this continent", Southall we know all about, but Hayes has now gone and so it seems has Uxbridge, judging by the persons in the streets and shops. Possibly not all live there but there is more than a fair representation. So locally we have Shepherd's Bush market taken over completely, all along the Uxbridge Road to Acton and beyond. Ealing Central is possibly 50% european, West Ealing far less so, Brent is 75% non Brit, Hounslow long since known as Little Pakistan. Most of the privately owned shops in all those areas are not of our culture, all halal meat sold. And before some say " so what ", the following is a small extract written by a cyber friend and sent to me today :- 1. What is patriotism?2. The value of patriotism3. Tribes are natural4. Nations are tribes writ large5. The importance of a national territory6. The democratic value of nations7. What the individual owes to the nation8. The liberal internationalist9. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism 5. The importance of a national territoryA national territory is essential to the well-being of the nation. . The fate of the Jews after they lost theirs is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes otherwise. The ideal is a territory which is controlled entirely by the nation , a population which is overwhelmingly comprised of people who are true members of the national “tribe” through their parentage and upbringing. The prime example of such a state is the pre-union England, which was the first true nation state.The next best choice is for a nation state containing different peoples who each have de facto their own national territory. Britain is a first rate example of such a state, with the four home nations having their own national territory. Being formally master in your own house is best, but simply having a territory in which you form the majority on the ground is a great consolation and benefit . That applies even to a people such as the Kurds who are divided between Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Being the dominant population they have both the reassurance of their physical control of the territory - boots on the ground - and the consoling possibility of converting that demographic dominance into political control in the future.6. The democratic value of nationsPolitically, nations are immensely valuable because the nation state is the largest political unit which allows any meaningful democratic control. Indeed, it is arguable that representative government at the national level is the only real opportunity for serious democratic control because representative bodies below the national level are always subject to the national government or a supra-national authority, while a supra-national authority signals the end of democratic control. More of that later.Only in a country where there is a sense of shared history, culture and communal interest can representative government function, even in principle, as a conduit for the interests of the entire population. In a country which is riven by ethnic and racial difference representative democracy invariably deteriorates into a mass of competing groups all struggling for their own advantage. Policy making and its execution becomes fragmentary and it is impossible to construct a coherent approach to promoting the common good. In a nation state with a large degree of homogeneity the political process is concentrated instead upon policies which affect all, , or at least the overwhelming majority, of the people. For example, before post-war mass immigration fractured Britain , the great political questions were ones related to class. Policies were put forward which either were intended to better the situation of the working class or to resist change. Either way, the policy was designed to service the entire population not merely a part of it.Once a country’s sovereignty is breached through treaties which commit countries to bow to the will of supra-national bodies , as has happened with the constituent countries of the EU, democratic control withers on the vine because mainstream politicians of all stamps begin to formulate their policies within the context of what the supra-national body allows not in the interests of the country.. Eventually, a situation is reached, as has been reached in the case of the EU, whereby all parties with an opportunity for power sing from the same policy hymn sheet. At that point representative government becomes a shell and democratic control is gone because there is no opportunity to vote for any party which will change matters. That is so because the grip of the existing elite is so tight on all the levers of power, most importantly the mass media, that no new party can even get a serious hearing.Where the form of government is parliamentary, the difficulty is enhanced by the fact that very large numbers of candidates must stand to both be taken seriously and have any chance of forming a majority. This imposes an immense organisational and economic burden on the new party, not least because the party will lack experienced politicians as candidates and party bureaucrats. Add in things such as first-past-the-post voting in individual constituencies and the deposit of £500 for each candidate which is at risk of being lost in the vote does not reach 8% of the total, and the British system is just about the best armoured against new parties gaining a foothold in government as any in the world.Democratic control is vitally important to maintaining the integrity of the nation. There is only one general political question of importance in any society, namely, how far can the masses control the abusive tendencies of the elite? Elites as a class are naturally abusive because it is in the nature of human beings to be selfish and to look for their own advantage and that of those closest to them. That does not mean that no member of an elite will break ranks and go against their class interest. What it does mean is that an elite as a whole will not change its spots , not least because the sociological shackles are too strong for most of those members of the elite who might be tempted to go against their class interest will be dissuaded from doing so because of the group pressures within the elite, for the elite will develop a “tribal” sense of their own, with those outside the elite seen as a separate social entity. The less democratic control there is over the elite , the more the elite will engage in behaviours which are detrimental to the coherence of the “tribe” as a whole because the elite will seek their own advantage rather than that of the nation. . Before the rise of the nation state, the abuse was generally much in evidence because elites commonly took the form of monarchs and subordinate rulers in the forms of territorially based aristocracies presiding over territories which contained various national/ethnic groups, the members of which were seen as subjects not part of a national whole. The common and deliberate policy of such elites was to “divide and rule”. Territories were also frequently subject to changes of ruler through conquest, a change of royal favour (in the case of subordinate rulers), inheritance or marriage contracts. In such circumstances there was little opportunity for the masses to exercise any form of control over their rulers because there was no unity of feeling or sense of commonality amongst the peoples they ruled and the sense of “tribe“ was localised. . It is noteworthy that arguably the most dramatic popular rising in Europe during the mediaeval period took place in England (the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381), the one large kingdom in Europe at that time with a broadly homogenous population and a territory which enjoyed meaningful central Royal control.With the creation of the nation state there arose the possibility of democratic control, note, I say possibility not certainty. The creation of a sense of nation within a single territory responsible to a single ruler in itself provides the circumstances whereby dissent can be focused and power and influence removed from the monarch and diffused to an ever larger part of the population. That is precisely what happened in England , with first the gradual accretion of powers by Parliament , especially over taxation, then with the development of Parliamentary government after 1689 and finally with the extension of the franchise from 1832 onwards. By the beginning of the 20th century a large degree of democratic control had been established because the elite were working within the nation state , were dependent on a mass electorate and were having to produce policies within a national context. That control lasted until the early 1970s when the elite found another way of breaking it by moving politics from the national state to a supra-national power, the EU. Once that was done, the abusive tendencies of the elite could re-assert themselves, as they have done in spades.7.. What the individual owes to the nation Membership of a nation places a natural duty on the individual to support the nation. Patriotism should be viewed as a matter of utility, an absolutely necessity for the maintenance and coherence of a society. The idea that a society can survive which is merely a collection of deracinated individuals has no basis in history or observed human behaviour today. It is a very great privilege to be part of a nation, for it is the place where you automatically belong. Just as a family is the place where most people can find automatic support so is the nation. In fact, the nation is even more reliable than a family because no one can remove the nationality which has been imprinted into a person while a family can reject a member. In an advanced country such as Britain membership of the nation state is valuable indeed, for materially at least it is still (just) a fully fledged life support system. .That which is valuable needs to be defended, because what is valuable is always envied by others and will be stolen if possible and destroyed if not. The state recognises this by expecting its nationals to fight to protect the national territory against an overt invader. The principle can be extended to other things such as opposing mass immigration (a surreptitious form of conquest) and defending the nation’s vital industries.Being patriotic by my definition does not mean constantly and stridently asserting a nation’s achievements and superiority to other nations. It merely, means looking after the national interest in the same way that an individual looks to their own interest.8. The liberal internationalistLiberal internationalist ideology is diametrically opposed to what Nature has decreed. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay it states that homo sapiens is a single species whose atoms, the individual human being, are interchangeable. For the liberal internationalist discrimination is the dirtiest of words and a word which he interprets to the point of reductio ad absurdum.That is the theory. In practice, the liberal internationalist complains if discrimination only when it effects those whom it includes within the protective embrace of political correctness. Those outside that embrace may be abused and vilified as strenuously as . Most perversely this attitude frequently results in members of a majority actively discriminating against their own people. Nowhere is this behaviour seen more sharply than in the attitude of the British elite towards the English to whom they deny any political voice - a privilege granted to the other parts of the UK - and actively abuse them by representing English national feeling as a dangerous thing.The liberal left internationalists may have made truly immense efforts to portray nations as outmoded relics at best and barbarous survivals from a less enlightened past at worst, but despite their best (or worst) efforts they have not changed the natural feelings of people because these feelings derive from the general biological imperative common to all social animals: the need to develop behaviours which enhance the utility of the group.But if our elite have not destroyed the naturally patriotic feelings the people they rule, they have tainted them by suppressing their public expression through the use of the criminal law (incitement to racial hatred etc) and civil law (unfair dismissal through racial discrimination etc) and by the ruthless enforcement of their liberal-left ideology throughout politics, public service, academia, the schools, major private corporations and the mainstream media. So successful have they been that rarely does any native dissent about immigration and its consequences enter the public realm , while it is now impossible for anyone in a senior position in any public organisation or private organisations with a quasi-public quality, for examples, charities and plcs, without religiously observing the complete elite ideology which has solidified into what is now called political correctness. The consequence is that people have developed the mentality common in totalitarian regimes that certain feelings, however natural, are dangerous and should be the subject of self censorship. People still have the feelings but they are withdrawn from public conversation and increasing private discourse.It is important to understand that even the most vociferous liberal does not believe in his or her heart of hearts that humanity is a single indivisible entity whose atoms (the individual) are in practice interchangeable. They wish it was so but know it is not so. However, the ideologically committed continue to live in hope that minds and behaviours can be changed by what they are wont to call “education”, for which read indoctrination. The rest go along with the idea because it has been built into the structure of the elite and the doubters prize ambition and their membership of the elite above honesty.Incredible as it may seem to those who witness their public posturing, liberal internationalists experience the same fears as everyone else, an unsurprising fact because they have the same biological template. This is what drives them to live in a manner which is directly at odds with their professed ideology. Look at the life of a white liberal and you will find that they arrange their lives so that they live in very white, and in England, very English worlds. They do this in two ways. They either live in an area which is overwhelmingly white - the “rightest of right-on” folk singers Billy Bragg chooses to live in the “hideously white” county of Dorset - or a gentrified white enclave is created on the outskirts of an area such as Islington which has a significant ethnic content to its population. The latter tactic allows the white liberal to luxuriate in the faux belief that they are “living the diversity dream” whilst in reality encountering little if any of the “joy of diversity” they are so vocally enthusiastic about.These people socialise in worlds which are almost entirely white. ( The drippingly pc BBC presenter Adrian Chilles described in 2003 how he realised this when he looked at his wedding photographs which were taken only a few years before. With a guest list of several hundred he was unable to find a single non-white face staring out at him. )The only ethnics they have equal or extended contact with are those they meet in their work, ethnics who are middleclass and westernised. They will also be few in number , for even the workplace of the white liberal will be very white in most instances.9. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotismIt is of course impossible to consciously force someone to be patriotic but there is no need to because the natural instincts of human beings is to be patriotic. All that needs to be done is to remove the constraints placed on national expression by the liberal internationalists and the natural instincts will re-assert themselves . That can be done by the political elite changing their tune towards a defence of the nation and the nation state. Let the political; rhetoric alter and the public mood will soon swing towards the patriotic.All treaties which restrict the power of a government to act in the national context must be thrown away. In the case of Britain that means leaving the EU and repudiating treaties such as the UN Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights.The institutionalisation of political correctness within public service must be destroyed., both by dismissing all those employed explicitly to enforce such views (who are de facto political commissars) and by repealing all the Acts which both provide powers for officials and those which restrict free expression. I say political correctness in its entirety because the various strands of political correctness support each other, most notably in the general attack on “discrimination”. Leave anything of the “discrimination” culture intact and it will be used to bring in multiculturalism by the back door. It would also require many of the de facto political commissars to be left in office.Public office, both that held by politicians and officials, should be restricted to those with four grandparents and two parents as nationals born and bred. This should be done to prevent any lack of focus because of the danger of divided national loyalties.Mass immigration must be ended. Immigrants in a country illegally should be removed in short order where that can be done. Where possible, those legally in a country who cannot or will not assimilate fully , should be re-settled in their countries of their national origin or the national origin of their ancestors or in other countries where they will be in the racial/ethnic majority. Those who are in a country legally but who are not required because they do not have scarce skills which cannot be supplied by the native population, should be sent back to their countries of origin - there would be few from countries who could not be returned because they would be definitely identifiable as coming from a country and few countries will refuse to receive one of their nationals even if they do not have a passport.
Tony Price ● 6853d