Category Archives: Immigration

The Ethnic Cleansing of the English by Paul Weston

Posted on April 14, 2011 | Leave a comment

The vast majority of the heavily propagandised English populace remain blissfully unaware of the continental shift in immigrant demographics and birth rates that will relegate them to ethnic minority status in their homeland within twenty years.

If the brainwashed recipients of a progressive education and 24/7 cradle-to-grave state-sponsored brainwashing could remove their liberal blinkers and gaze in horror at their surroundings through the eyes of their grandparents, then they could only have themselves to blame, because their dispossession was carried out in full view of those that would not see, and in retrospect how could there be any outcome other than gradual extinction when one considers exactly what our socialist rulers have carried out over the last few decades?

1.		Identified a small yet wealthy country populated by a rapidly declining indigenous race representing less than 1% of the global population, and whose territorial homeland makes up less than 1% of global habitable area.
2.		Established a Welfare State with a legal requirement to provide free housing, food, education, health, translation services and pin money to those in need, with the most needy being judged solely on the number of children they have.
3.		Thrown open the doors of this tiny country to the teeming billions of the poverty-stricken third world, whilst making sure the multiple wives of Muslim males fully understood that the more children they produced, the bigger the house and welfare cheque they would receive from the State, even though polygamy is illegal in England.
4.		Encouraged the new arrivals to take pride in the culture and religion of the third-world country they had escaped from and “educated” them into developing an unhealthy animosity toward their host country’s imperialist and oppressive past.
5.		Demonised the ancient and indigenous population as institutionally racist from the age of five and enacted “hate” laws which are then predominately used to criminalise and silence the indigenous people who speak out against their territorial and cultural dispossession.
6.		Praised multiculturalism as a positive and Islam as a religion of peace, then sat back to watch the results of their social experiment — what could possibly go wrong?

Liberal progressives residing in fine mansions on Hampstead Heath will tell you nothing could go wrong; that mass immigration is nothing other than a positive boon, an unarguable and incontrovertible truth that must be patiently and condescendingly explained to the uneducated and the unwashed, even as the Arabella Allendes and Montmorency Guevaras over-glamorise and under-pay the scurrying, forelock tugging, cute little brown people whose multi-hued efforts in tending to the gardens, kitchen, laundry and children of the servant owning socialist class enable the latter to do the more important things in life, such as denouncing capitalism in between producing money making yet soul-destroying reality TV shows.

For the white working class, however, those long-forgotten stalwarts of the country who failed to play their designated role in the long term plans of Mr Marx and Mr Engels, thereby earning the enduring hatred of the cuckolded intellectuals, it means nothing other than population replacement, or in the cruder yet more honest language of the betrayed working man rarely encountered at progressive Hampstead dinner parties, ethnic cleansing.

Is this too strong a description? Patricia Morgan of The Salisbury Review doesn’t think so. In 2006 she wrote an article entitled Ethnic Cleansing in East London which focussed primarily on Tower Hamlets and the dispossession of white working-class Londoners who, having survived Adolf Hitler and the Luftwaffe, subsequently failed to hold back the tidal wave of Socialism and multiculturalism so avidly promoted by the British Labour Party.

Article continued here.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Globalization, Government, Identity, Immigration, Social Criticism

To love your country, make it more lovable by Michael Kennedy

Posted on April 9, 2011 | Leave a comment

Nationalism for the people.

Nationalism is often associated with an unwavering national pride, with a love of country, of their nation and unquestionable loyalty. Strong feelings of patriotism, which would be more accurately termed strong feelings of allegiance are usually just called ‘Nationalist’ feelings and these are often caricatured in the media as an unwavering support of the country, regardless of facts, regardless of what the country is doing to people abroad or at home. My country right or wrong. Perhaps in the true sense of the word, someone who simply accepts as true all the time, without question or analysis, that their country or nation is supreme, superior, the leading example of civilisation could be called a bigot, but nationalism is distinct from simple minded support. After all, it is amazing how many people in the world just happen to be born in the country they believe is the best in the world. Just as its quite amazing how many people just happen to be born into the ‘one true religion’.

Nationalism is world outlook. An ideology. A belief that the nation is the most logical basis to build a state or country around, as opposed to other modern ideologies which build states and countries based on the acceptance of certain premises, or simply define and build them by who holds particular documents, or who pays taxes, or who belongs to a particular religion. While modern liberalism states that a country is nothing more than an aggregate of participants, of which the background and cultural heritage of the participants is meaningless (and at the same time very meaningful in multicultural terms, an odd paradox), nationalism states that a country is defined by the very people which founded it, and that it is an organic entity.

A nationalist country is a country which defines itself by the people. Finland for example doesn’t define what a Finn is, but a Finn defines what Finland is. Likewise, Japan isn’t a country which makes its inhabitants Japanese, but the country Japan is founded upon the Japanese culture and ethnicity. The people define what Japan the state is. Many countries around the world exist on this premise. Ireland, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Mongolia, Fiji, these are countries which came into existence, not as blank administrative states which just ‘happened’ to be then filled with people of a particular type, but as creations of a particular type of people. Modern liberalism and its Marxist Socialist big brother work hard at denying this fact, in trying to ‘prove’ that nation states are artificial constructs, but the fact that these nation states happen to comprise of people who are ethnically and culturally and linguistically related, and that these relations existed long before the nation state was formalised, make this theory laughably absurd. Italy may be a relatively modern creation, but the shared cultural, linguistic and ethnic heritage existed long before. Italy was created because these ties existed. The creation of Italy is not considered the construct of an abstract state, but the unification of Italian states into one nation state, the result of efforts by Italian nationalists. Yugoslavia on the other hand was a single state created from Pan-Slavic ideals, a statist idea which tried to combine various (though closely related nations) into a single state. Italy still exists, Yugoslavia does not.

So a nationalist can be thought of in a strict sense, as one who holds the belief that the nation (in the literal sense) is the most appropriate basis for building political entities on. This is in opposition to the liberal ideal where a country (a term they use interchangeable with nation, as if they are the same thing) is simply an administrative entity, a resource which could consists of any type of citizen or any combination. More importantly, a nationalist works for the betterment of their nation, for its evolution, its cultural growth, its well being, prosperity and sustainability. One cannot improve their own home if they don’t admit there is room for improvement.

To a nationalist, if Australia’s population was to be replaced, then it would no longer be an Australian nation. We might have a government and political entity called a country under the name of Australia, but the Australian nation would have essentially been supplanted with another one. The globalist opponents of nationalism do not recognise that there is more to being a member of a country than simply having citizenship papers or a passport or having a tax file number. For them, to even suggest otherwise makes one a racist bigot. Clearly the ideas of nationalism are incompatible with the idea that a nation of people shouldn’t have a country they can call their own.

For Nationalist Alternative, we quite simply believe that there is more to being Australian that simply being a tax payer, or following the cricket team, or having a passport. We believe that Australia is defined by a particular group of people, NOT vice versa.

Nationalism vs ‘blind patriotism’.

But does a nationalist have to love his or her country? Is it necessary to be a nationalist to believe that your country is the best there is, that all is good? Is it necessary to defend your governments actions against critics? Holding the belief that a state needs a deeper, more significant definition that simply being a group of people who hold ideas of ‘mateship’, eating meat pies and watching football, doesn’t mean that one has to necessarily hold the idea that their country is the best there is, that it must be supported despite what it does. The actions of the state, of the government and even of many of its citizens are distinct from what the nation is. What the country has become is again distinct. A nationalists wants the best for their country, but will acknowledge if there is a sorry state of affairs. To criticise Australia’s involvement in the Afghanistan conflict isn’t to go against the nation, but to criticise the state. To many modern conservatives, who have also adopted the ’state is the nation’ formula, one must support the country regardless, but a nationalist knows that the armed forces are doing the bidding of an administration, not the nation, and realises that there is no contradiction at all in opposing what the troops are doing, but still being committed to their nation.

Likewise, a nationalist may indeed feel dismay at their country, even so far as to hate what its become. Take for example a lady who’s husband has taken to alcoholism. She may still love him, may still support him, because he is her husband. But she doesn’t have to love what he has become, what he is. She knows deep down that he perhaps is not the best man in the world, she knows what he’s doing is wrong and damaging to both him and her. But she cannot in good conscience lash at out those who criticise him, nor lie to herself and belief that these criticisms aren’t true. Inside she may be torn between sticking by the man she met and fell in love with, and the man he has become, destructive, despotic and distant.

To love your country, make it more lovable.

For people to love a country, it must be lovable. It must provide fair opportunities for those who work to create them, a space to live, breath and be and to respect the national identity. Nationalism isn’t about simply stating that ones country does this, its about making ones own country like this. True nationalists don’t just wave flags at cricket matches, they set about making their country one they would be proud to support and live in. They oppose those manipulate the state to the detriment of the nation. A nationalist works for his or her people, and cannot improve their nation, if they don’t admit there is room for improvement.

There is little doubt that Australia has become a less likeable country, and there is little doubt that Australians still want to call this place home. Many Australians grew up seeing a generation comfortably calling this country home, being able to buy a ¼ acre block in the suburbs to call home from doing an honest job. Now they struggle to call an apartment home despite both them and their partner working. Single Australians would have a much harder time of it. Australians struggle to move to work and back home in Sydney and Melbourne, fighting traffic. The urban sprawl has laid waste to what were ones green fields, valleys and places children used to play in and enjoy nature. The night sky is disappearing from the orange glow of the city. Wages are dropping relative to the value of the dollar. People in productive jobs are watching fat cat executive ship them off overseas to line their pockets further, and the divide between the rich and the middle class grows exponentially. The politicians in power have utterly no vision, no policy and no compassion for Australians except for photo opportunities during a crisis. Suburbs which were once pleasant places to live are turning more and more into third world habitats. The very face and culture of Australia is becoming more and more alien, as the demographic make up broadens. Multicultural policies are creating suburbs where people are distant from each other, where there is no longer a community, but aggregation of people. Australians are increasingly become submerged in an environment which just doesn’t feel like home. Australians are increasingly losing a place which politically and socially is home.

For one to want to work positively for their community, they must feel attachment to it, but all the trends are moving to remove any attachment. Town planning in new urban areas is purely functional and pragmatic, with the seemingly sole purpose of maximising developer profit. The new suburbs springing up on the outskirts of Melbourne are among the most culturally desolate, isolating, anti community areas in Australia.

You cannot restore a sense of love of country by winning the cricket, hosting the ashes or having a diversity day. You cannot demand patriotism, as if it were a switch that could be flicked. You must work toward building a nation that people can be proud of, that they feel attachment to. To have Australians love and support their country, you have to work at making it worthy of support.

This is the true heart of Nationalism. Building and maintaining a country which one would want to be in. It is for this reason that Nationalist Alternative seek to redress issues of unaffordable housing, silly multicultural principles, unsustainable population growth through immigration and economic injustice. We support our nation, and want the state to be worthy of the people within the nation. For us, Australia isn’t defined by the government, but by the Australian people, as discussed in our manifesto. Our country is for our people, for ourselves, just as we believe that every other peoples of the planet should have a place they can call home, that they can be proud of. There is no need to say ‘my country is the best in the world’, but there is definitely a need to say ‘my country is the best one for ME’, something that ideally every human should be able to say, or at least aspire for.

http://natalt.org/2011/04/04/to-love-your-country-make-it-more-lovable/

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Democracy, Globalization, Government, Identity, Immigration, Loyalty, Social Criticism

Women Are Our Allies by Alex Kurtagic

Posted on August 30, 2010 | Leave a comment

A frequent complaint among traditionalist White political activists is the under-representation of female involvement in pro-White campaigning. Certainly, one factor favoring male interest in this political endeavor is the fear that a world run by White radical traditionalists would deny women economic autonomy, relegating them to the traditional roles of mother and housewife. And to a large degree women can be forgiven for being nervous, because, not only is this caricature perpetuated by the establishment culture, but one sees little in the literature associated with White Nationalism that does anything other than substantiate the caricature: invectives against butch feminist excess are twinned with lamentations at the plummeting White birthrate and a longing for the pre-feminist social order. When one considers that many women today view the older order as stupefying, mummifying, and (where marriages were loveless or abusive) a serotonin suppressor, it is not surprising that they regard the White Nationalist proposition as a backward step into a dark age of subaltern womanhood.

We can legitimately argue about how liberal feminism may have contributed to lowering the social standing of stay-at-home mothers; about how the economic structure of modern society may be discouraging family creation; and about how women who would rather stay at home raising their children are perhaps being forced into the labor market, and put under overwhelming time pressure, in order to make ends meet. Yet, it seems to me that if the preservation of European culture in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand is to benefit from greater female involvement, both the discourse and campaign materials aiming to further this cause would need to demonstrate exactly how the lives of White women in general would improve in a post-liberal Western world. Doing so would not only make the face of this cause more attractive, would not only make it appealing to twice as many people, but it would also deprive the enemy of talent — the talent of the highly intelligent and very capable White women who, for lack of knowing better and a viable alternative, currently choose either to join, or at least not to challenge, the enemies of European civilization.

The argument needs to be made that it is not just that we “don’t mind” if women work, but that we actually respect and admire women who — and indeed want them to — exercise and cultivate their talents, wherever these may take them. It needs to be emphasized that we do not differ from the feminists in our attitudes towards female employment: we differ from them in our attitudes towards female unemployment. For feminists, marriage is oppression, and stay-at-home motherhood slavery; for us the former is a partnership between two complementary parties, and the latter — if done by choice — a meritorious enterprise for which there is no equiparable substitute.

The presence of visibly powerful women is probably more consistent with traditional European societies than the caricature perpetuated by modern feminist sociopathy: particularly in North Western European societies women have enjoyed higher social status than their counterparts in Asia. Indeed, in many Asian societies, particularly those under the heel of Islam, women live in silent servitude, virtually erased by the veil, legal and economic exclusion, marital abuse, and domestic confinement. It follows, then, that highlighting female visibility and power, however ironic this might seem given the critiques of feminism emanating from the Right, needs to be a core element in any campaign for the preservation of European culture. It follows also that any such campaign needs to highlight how White/European women will be better off in a society that is distinctly European in character.

This is not incompatible with male strength and dominance, or with femininity. My experience has shown that, in fact, even the most assertive, strong-willed women admire and respect assertive, masculine men; these women seem generally contemptuous of the neurotic, effeminate, whining, unmasculine (White) losers they so often see in modern American cinema and television. Interestingly, my experience has also shown that at least some such women, who seem to cluster on the higher IQ percentiles, are naturally feminine, indeed deeply romantic, but have felt compelled to adopt traditionally male survival strategies due to the growing scarcity of worthy mates. They are products of feminism only in a negative sense, for they are indicative of the depression of male status caused by feminist excess, not of the elevation of female status that followed the industrial revolution. (Admittedly, other processes besides feminism have contributed to the displacement of masculinity among White males.)

The degree to which the Europeanness of our societies is an important and valuable asset finds its most dramatic proof in the treatment women receive in many non-European cultures. Earlier I mentioned the civic erasure of women in not a few Islamic societies; yet this seems tame in comparison to some of the forms of suppression and abuse practiced in parts of Africa and South Asia. In the former we find various forms of genital mutilation, attached to notions of pre-marital chastity. In the latter we find acid attacks — not as rare acts of psychopathy, as in the relatively recent case of former model Katie Piper — but as common results of family disputes and female rejection.

Many of those immigrating to Europe come from regions of the world where women suffer from low social status, little or no real civic recognition, and a type or a level of abuse that until recent decades was rare or unknown in our part of the world. Combined with the long-term decline in Europe’s indigenous population, the net effect is a convergence between culture and demographic composition, and between our culture and the culture in the immigrant population’s countries of origin. In the United Kingdom, we are increasingly seeing this reflected in the statute books: female genital cutting was once unheard of in this country; but by 1985, after decades of Commonwealth immigration, the practice had become common enough to warrant legislation criminalizing its practice. In a multicultural context this type of negative legislation easily goes in tandem with a positive (and sometimes conflicting) counterpart. Already we have witnessed the principal leader of the Church of England and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales expressing their willingness to accommodate Sharia Law as a ‘supplementary’ or ‘alternative’ jurisdiction or form of dispute resolution.

Viewed in against this backdrop, developing an acute preoccupation with preserving the Europeanness of our societies, and the doubly negative impact of its loss on women, should make perfect sense among Western women today. It does not — at least yet — because presently the pervading belief in the mainstream of culture is that Europe’s complexion will remain predominantly White, despite Third World immigration; and that Europe’s character will remain predominantly European, even if immigration results in a dramatic change in complexion. One worries that by the time events disprove this belief, the transformation will have gone past the point of no return. And it is quite possible that, by the time traditional European culture is replaced by a mish-mash of African, South Asian, and Islamic components, no one, except a vestigial White minority, will be surprised or even care about it. This is because by that point the dominant ideology will legitimize the direction of cultural change as a reflection of the attitudes, worldview, and sensibilities of the dominant non-White majority. Demography is destiny, as they say.

Should nothing be done, within the lifetime of individuals born this century White Western women could well find themselves in a situation comparable to that of their less fortunate analogues in the Third World. In other words, the trend towards ever-greater equality, now apparently unstoppable, could undergo a reversal, ironically not despite the drive towards equality, but because of it, as it is the ideology of egalitarianism that is promoting the multiculturalization of our seats of government. (We have already seen Muslims reach ministerial positions in the United Kingdom.) We can easily conceive a scenario where the ideology of egalitarianism is co-opted by ethnic minorities in their struggle for power; and where the ideology is jettisoned — if not necessarily in theory, certainly in practice — by one of these minorities as soon as it becomes the majority and gains political hegemony. Reversals of this nature begin gradually, under the surface, initially unnoticed by most because they are eclipsed by the dominant ideological trend and the general noise of everyday life; but once the conditions are in place, and the necessary critical mass has been achieved, the transition can occur rather suddenly — this pattern of reversal is evident in the history of the fall of the Roman Empire in 5th century, and we saw it repeated during the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe only two decades ago.

With non-White births amounting to anywhere between 40 to 90% in many parts of the country — which happen also to be the most populous — the demographic critical mass could be reached within a generation or two. I am 40, so this means I am likely to witness it at an age when I will not be strong. A cogent articulation of White Nationalism would from this perspective be the best guarantor of the social, economic, and civic freedoms enjoyed generally by women in the contemporary West. Thus, it is perhaps the absence of adequate information, rather than the absence of power advantages, that are preventing White women from taking their own side. It would be a mistake to neglect half of our constituency because of the cartoonish hostility and adversarial atmosphere engendered by sociopathic feminism; doing so would play into the enemy’s hands, for the rainbow coalition thrives on our divisions. Graphically and prominently emphasizing our conception of women as our allies and partners, as complementary to ourselves, rather than as competitors or opponents, as the feminists have done, would be of great service to any movement with ambitions of saving the West.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Kurtagic-Women-As-Allies.html

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Feminism, Identity, Immigration, Social Criticism, Women