The word that nationalists are most often called is ‘racist’. But what does this word actually mean? The dictionary defines it as a belief that ones own race is superior, or as a hatred of other races. By this definition, I am not a racist. Just as you can be proud of your country without being xenophobic, you can be proud of your race without being racist. Why the word is used But the word 'racist' is today used to mean anything from the natural preference for ones own race to a hatred of other races. Some would even label those who believe that racial differences exists and that these differences are at least partly due to genetic reasons as 'racists'. According to some definitions, almost everyone is a 'racist', and by other definitions, almost nobody is. This one word is used to describe many different beliefs and emotions. Isn’t it a little unfair to lump those who would, say, rather live in a majority-White city into the same category as those who wish to destroy other races by genocide? Of course it is, and that's why it's so effective. It triggers a Pavlovian-type reaction in people. Just as Pavlov’s dog salivated when he heard the ringing of a bell, most people will instantly side with the 'liberal' if s/he calls an opponent a ‘racist’, because of the connotations of ‘race hate’ and ‘racist attack’. The Central Committee of the Communist Party (CCCP) in America had a similar idea in 1943, when it issued a directive which said: 'Members and front organisations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics…when obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic…Constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become ‘fact’ in the public mind.' Nationalism is not ‘racist’ I want Europe to remain European. But I also believe that Africa has a right to remain African; Asia has a right to remain Asian. My beliefs and values are ones that I would recommend for all people of every race. Racial separation benefits everyone. I am opposed to racial diversity only within a nations borders. To suggest that this is 'racist' is clearly absurd, because if people hadn’t been racially conscious in the past, diversity wouldn’t exist, as all the races of the world would have mixed together, making a new, mongrel race. The fact that some people prefer to simply shout 'racist!' rather than debate whether importing Pakistanis, Indians, Nigerians and Somalians by the millions is of any benefit to us, is surely just a way of admitting that they don't have much in the way of an argument. It's an ad-hominem attack intended to silence debate. They know that if there were more debates on the subject, the nationalist would win. Hence, the 'no platform' policy. Ironically, those who shout 'racism' the loudest usually support the anti-white racism that exists in Britain today. Indigenous British people are now second-class citizens in their own country. Immigrants from the third world get so-called 'positive discrimination', while Whites are sent to the back of the line. The Afro-Caribbean’s have a Black History Month, which exaggerates and glorifies Black achievements, Black culture, and African history, while White-British history is ridiculed, scoffed at and lied about. The Muslims have an Islamic Awareness Week, while Christianity (the religion of the majority of British people) is completely ignored. It seems that 'racism' is only bad if it benefits White people in any way. If it benefits non-Whites, then it's a good thing. What is ‘diversity’? How can our opponents claim to be fighting for diversity, when melting all the races of the world into one coffee-coloured mass destroys racial purity? The globalists see people as easily interchangeable economic units, and want a world where everyone has the same culture, buys the same things, eats the same food and speaks the same language, because that would be economically convenient for the corporations. But building a 'McDonalds' on every street corner does not create diversity; it destroys it. The diversity that we must preserve is the diversity of the world. Advocates of immigration claim to be in favour of 'diversity', but the result of open borders is to destroy different indigenous cultures. Needs re-defining? Really, the word 'racism' needs to be redefined, since most of the time, those accused of "racism" have never said they believe that there are significant differences between the races, or that they even care about the racial composition of Britain. Those who demand a complete halt to further immigration will probably be accused of racism, whatever their motives for doing so -- even if it's something that is nothing to do with race, such as the economy or the environment. Complaining about ‘Positive Discrimination’, or Politically Correct nonsense like Black History Month can also get you in trouble. Sam Francis (RIP) explains: 'Racism' today has nothing to do with race; it has to do with politics. "Racism" is simply a set of beliefs or actions that oppose a certain political agenda, and that agenda is largely initiated by and closely associated with non-whites and pushed by them and those whites who ally with them. Thus, opposing reparations [for slavery] is itself a "racist" act -- not because the opponents of reparations think all blacks are naturally inferior and therefore should be and should have been slaves, but simply because reparations are now part of the black racial-political agenda, and anyone who opposes that agenda is himself a racist. Opposing affirmative action is also racist -- not because its opponents are said to hate blacks and other non-whites and want to repress and exploit them but for any reason. The same is largely true of supporting Confederate flags and symbols or opposing immigration or arguing for "racial profiling" by police. I recall back in the 1980s, white South Africans would tell me that "apartheid" had been largely abolished in their country and that even radical critics, black or white, would have to recognise that truth. I always tried to make them see that "abolishing apartheid" had nothing to do with racial equality, that their critics had little interest in that, and that what they were really interested in was black domination. "Apartheid" would cease to exist not when South African blacks were able to eat in desegregated restaurants and vote in parliamentary elections but only when they had taken over the government of the country. That is exactly what happened. "Apartheid" ended the day Nelson Mandela and his Communist Party-dominated African National Congress came to power, and not a moment before. "Racism," in its simplest new meaning, is merely opposition to non-white power or to any measure that promises such power or support for any measure or institution that thwarts such power. Often, when debating issues relating to race and multiculturalism, the multiculturalist's reaction is to claim that I am lying, and that I really hate black people, support genocide, etc. Others decide to use ad hominem, attacking the BNP ('full of thugs', 'leader once said...[insert some unreasonable-sounding out of context quote here]', etc) rather than the argument. This is a clear indication that they are unable to counter the arguments that nationalists put forward, and while it is frustrating, it is, in a way, also quite gratifying, because it means that we have truth on our side.

While there are some non-whites who will be able to adapt to our culture, and assimilate, there are also many that cannot, or do not want to. I don’t blame them for this; if I were in their position I would feel exactly the same. Why should we believe that non-whites will have the desire to – or even the ability to – preserve our British culture? Why should we expect them to be inspired by our heroes? Why would they want to abandon their own cultural heritage in favour of ours? Will immigrants even feel the need to learn more than a very basic standard of English, if they are able to immigrate to somewhere like Southall, which is almost entirely Asian? Shoe on the other foot Just imagine if the reverse was happening, and thousands of British people were emigrating to Pakistan. Do you think that they would assimilate easily, and adopt the Pakistani way of life? In very small numbers, the British people would have no other option but to assimilate. But once the level reaches a critical mass – say, 10% - assimilation is no longer necessary, so most would choose not to. That is entirely understandable, and easy for most people to accept. So why should we believe that if it is the other way round, then it will be any different? If millions of British people were emigrating to Pakistan, could the Pakistanis be fooled into believing that this was ‘enrichment’ and that ‘diversity’ was a strength? Would they be ‘tolerant’? Would their politicians support ‘positive discrimination’ favouring the British over the indigenous people? Would they jail their own citizens for inciting hatred against the British immigrants? Of course they wouldn’t; so why do we? Loyalty Many second generation immigrants choose to identify with their ancestral homeland rather than with Britain, but what is most disturbing is the large number of guilt-ridden young Whited who have decided - or been prompted by the mass media and education system - to adopt the dress, speech and mannerisms of Black youths. So rather than the immigrants adapting to our culture, it seems that the opposite is happening. The reason that many non-whites feel no sense of loyalty to Britain is nothing to do with the fact that we aren’t welcoming enough to them or that we promote ‘multiculturalism’ instead of ‘assimilation’ (the Daily Mail's position). It is because their roots are not in Britain that their loyalties lie elsewhere. Immigrants come here for one reason only: to make money. They do not come here because they share our values or admire our country. They do not come here with the aim of assimilation, which makes it almost impossible. Especially, we cannot expect many Muslims to assimilate as their holy book specifically forbids them from doing so. If Asians wanted to integrate, then they would give their children Asian names. I am presently studying for my A levels in the sixth form of a 90% Asian school, but only one or two have British names - this is clearly because their parents want them to identify with their Asian ‘background’ and culture, rather than with their adopted country. Robots Even if assimilation and integration were possible, I wouldn't welcome it because it would only lead to intermarriage and miscegenation. Let’s take a hypothetical situation, and say you were able to create robots that behave exactly the same as people – something that could be a reality in a few hundred years time. Would anyone be saying ‘It doesn’t matter if mankind becomes extinct because the robots behave like us, and are programmed to follow our culture?’ Of course we wouldn’t, because we realise the biological reality of mankind. But how often do we hear ‘The racial makeup of Britain is irrelevant, as long as there is one British culture’? Genetics does matter We must accept the biological reality of race. We must admit that we have genetic interests as well as cultural interests. Our race faces an absolute crisis. In 1900, Whites made up 33% of the population. In 1960, that was down to 25%. Today, it is less than 15%, and we are having less than 7% of the world's babies. We're always hearing from Conservationists about how we must preserve endangered species and sub-species. What about us!? It is entirely natural to feel a greater sense of loyalty to those who are genetically similar to you. If a couple, whatever their racial or political views, were at risk of carrying unwanted defects in their genes - for example, any children they had would have a large chance of having diabetes or other diseases – I’m quite sure that they would rather take the risk and have a child themselves, rather than finding a sperm or egg donor so that they could guarantee having a healthy baby. It is clear that most people would prefer to raise a child that they were related to. Genetics is obviously something that’s important to most people. If genetics doesn't matter, why do so many people who were put up for adoption at birth - even if they’ve had a good and happy upbringing with a caring foster parent - desire to find out who their biological parents are? So why not take this one step further and say that a whole race should try to preserve its existing genes for future generations, rather than reducing whites to a tiny minority by mass third world immigration? Racial reality As the BNP stated in their 1997 Manifesto: ‘The desire that the future generations of our nation look like us, think like us and have our aptitudes and qualities is as basic to human nature as the desire that our own children, grandchildren and great grandchildren should do so.’ Britain belongs to the British people. It doesn’t belong to the liberal elite, it doesn’t belong to the multinational corporations, and nor does it belong to Allah. This is our land, and we shall fight to keep it. And what do I mean by ‘the British people’? Do I mean those who simply hold a British passport, or wave a British flag, or speak our language, or celebrate on St George’s Day? No. I believe that the basis of nationality is ancestry, not just place of birth; blood, not solely geography. We were never asked about whether we wanted immigration, but now voters have the option of the British National Party, which will not only halt immigration, but also will, do their best to reverse what has been done. Part of the reason that racial tension has built up in Britain is because, for many years, white people have been denied a political voice. Now that there is a serious and growing patriotic political party in Britain - the British National Party - instead of (say) shouting abuse at non-Whites, white people can channel their frustrations into a positive source, and do something to change our country for the better by peaceful and democratic means.

There is a widely held view, especially amongst conservatives, who may sympathise with our ideology but are concerned about being 'respectable' and 'moral', that if racial nationalism is accepted among White people, then it will manifest itself in a negative and hateful form. But this is not necessarily true – for example, when the British abolished Black slavery, we were certain that we were superior in many ways to Black people. Preventing conflict Racial Nationalism actually prevents conflict, because it recognises that the best way to avoid racial conflict is to keep the races as separate as possible. Multiracialism will inevitably lead to violence: Brixton and Southall in 1981, Handsworth and Tottenham in 1985, Bradford and Brixton in 1995 and Oldham in 2001, Birmingham in 2005 are just some of the race riots that Britain has had over the last few decades. The longer it takes for us to accept that the multiracial experiment has failed, the more damage will be done to our country. If we do nothing, and third world immigration continues, the tension and violence levels will rise, not fall. Furthermore, if White people continue to fail to promote our own interests, then other groups will simply exploit us more and more as their numbers grow, by demanding even more ‘positive discrimination’, for example. Promoting real Diversity Racial consciousness is not only an expression of love for ones own race, and a wish to preserve it; it is a recognition that every race under the sun is entitled to their own homeland and culture, and a realisation that all races have very different characteristics and qualities that must be preserved. Corporate Capitalists like to see people as economic units that can be easily interchanged, but nationalists believe that there are far more important things in our world than money, and that the preservation of the unique races which nature has taken tens of thousands of years to create (or, if you're religious, which God has created) is far more important than any possible economic benefit from mass immigration. We are more concerned about identity, race and culture. The fact that there is, in fact, no actual economic benefit per capita from mass unskilled immigration just adds to our argument. The only people to benefit from immigration are the immigrants themselves, Labour and other Establishment Parties (who can generally rely on their votes) and the owners of large businesses (since immigrants usually accept lower wages than British people) - at the expense of ordinary workers. Superior? I do not believe that all white people are superior to others in every way. I accept that Sikhs and Hindus in Britain more law abiding that Whites, at present. Black people may be better at certain sports. Orientals may be slightly more intelligent, on average. But just as people prefer to live in their homes with their own family and no one else, not because they believe that their family is superior to other families but simply because it is their own family, I wish to live in a country with my people of my own race, for the same reasons. Of course, our people have a great deal to be proud of, as I hinted at in my first article. We are responsible for great cultural achievements, and huge advances in science. We are a freedom loving people – freedom of speech, respect for women, rule of law, non-authoritarian government, and a conviction that others have rights which must be respected are common principles among White nations. There are, of course, exceptions, but these qualities characterise White societies to a far greater degree than the societies that other races build. There are, obviously, some Black or Asian people who I would rather have living next door to me than some White people. There are some Blacks and Asians who are pleasant, kind, intelligent people. However, we still have a right to keep out all of them, as it's difficult to separate those who are assimilable and those who are not. In fact, we have a right to end immigration solely on aesthetic grounds - I like the way White British people look, and I want my children and grandchildren to look similar to my parents and grandparents. But the strongest argument for racial separation is the idea that people feel more comfortable, happy and secure around their own kind - something that even the 'Commission for Racial Equality' now accepts is true. Does ‘diversity’ make us unhappy? Trevor Phillips has stated "We’ve done work here which shows that people, frankly, when there aren’t other pressures, like to live within a comfort zone which is defined by racial sameness. People feel much happier if they’re living with people who are like themselves." Now, if even the 'Commission for Racial Equality' can accept the obvious fact - that 'diversity' makes people unhappy - then why not try to limit the amount of 'racial diversity' and increase the amount of 'racial sameness' in Britain? If you accept that the British people do not want racial diversity, and if Britain is really a democracy, shouldn't we halt all further immigration because of this? It would certainly seem logical, but Trevor Phillips has previously said that he wants to see the one British political party that would actually do this - the BNP - banned! So multiracialism makes people unhappy, but that shouldn't stop us turning Britain into an increasingly multiracial country. The indifference of the government towards the feelings of the people who elect it really does just beggar belief. Care for your own kind I should point out that just because I’m not a white supremacist, it doesn’t mean that I don’t care about my own people more than I care about others. For example, I care more about the few remaining White farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa who are having their land confiscated and many of whom are being beaten, raped and murdered, than I do about the wellbeing of the native people of those nations. I would grant asylum in Britain to any White person from Zimbabwe and South Africa who wanted it, but wouldn’t dream of letting even a single non-White person immigrate here, for any reason. I’m sure most liberals would find that appalling. But the fact is that we have limited loyalties. Even a card carrying Liberal Democrat will spend hundreds of pounds on expensive birthday presents for their children, knowing full well that the money could be used to save an African child’s life. If it’s natural to care about your own children more than starving children, why is it not acceptable to care about your own race more than those with whom we have very little in common with?

‘Diversity’, far from being a ‘strength’, destroys national pride and identity, and generates tension and conflict. Are there many examples from history of where two different races lived happily in a shared homeland, without the one or both races loosing their own culture, or perhaps more importantly, their very existence as a people in that homeland? We can see every time we look in a newspaper, that the places where people are killing each other most diligently are all places with ‘diversity’ of some sort – religious, racial or linguistic. Just as the Communists thought that they could abolish selfishness and build a society based on the idea of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’; so the Lib-Lab-Con believe that you can abolish racial consciousness and build a society where race doesn’t matter. You can’t. The Communists failed, and the Lib-Lab-Con will fail as well, and the ultimate consequences of multiracialism may well be just as disastrous and deadly as the consequences of Communism. If third world immigration continues, I won’t be surprised if it leads to more and more tension, conflict and race riots. And that won't primarily be the fault of the ‘racists’ - it will be the fault of the media and politicians who have supported the third world invasion. ‘Cultural enrichment’ Culture is about far more than music tastes, personal religious beliefs, or dress. Different cultures have very different ideas about how a country should be run, and when those cultures have to compete, it is a sure-fire way to create division and conflict. What pleases one culture will not necessarily please another. As for the "cultural enrichment" nonsense, are we really supposed to believe that somewhere like Brixton or Dagenham is any more culturally "vibrant" than, for example, Dorset? Real feelings? What do people really think about race? It’s difficult to tell, because race today is very much a ‘taboo’ subject, and people try very hard to convince themselves that they mustn’t make any distinctions on race what so ever. I know this because I too was once a multiculturalist. Perhaps to get a better picture of what our natural feelings are on the issue, we need to look at what people’s views were before race became a taboo subject – perhaps up until soon after the end of the Second World War. Based on ‘liberal’ definitions, most of our grandparents were undoubtedly ‘racists’. Even Winston Churchill has made comments on race and eugenics that would today be condemned as ‘Nazi’. For example: I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. It’s clear that in the past, talk about race was not confined to peoples homes or drunken bars, and anyone could speak openly about it because it was not considered politically incorrect to do so. Before the Second World War, not only did most British people believe that we had a right to keep our own nation ethnically British, but also that we also had a right to rule over and colonise other races. This is not a view I support, but it does indicate that there has been an enormous shift in what people think about race over the past few decades - or at least, in what people are prepared to say about race openly. Until just a few decades ago, in every single country in the world, people had a loyalty to others of their own race and felt a sense of kinship with them, and when something is universal, it is generally considered to be a part of human nature, with few exceptions. It's interesting that, until the middle of the 20th century, the word ‘racism’ didn't even exist. We didn't need a word to describe people who thought that race was important and were proud of their own race, because that was the way that everyone felt. Who would have thought that a word first used by Leon Trotsky would be able to silence debate on race so effectively today? As for my views on colonialism and empire, I am in many ways proud of what my ancestors were able to achieve, but at the same time I think it was right to give the colonised people the choice of whether they wanted independence, as I support the idea of self-determination for all those who want it. (Although, having given them independence, we certainly shouldn't be giving them enormous amounts of foreign aid.) The crisis ahead Within approximately the next sixty years, White people will become just another racial minority in an increasingly ‘diverse’ Britain. By the end of the century, it is likely that there won’t be a single country in the world where White people are the racial majority. We make up less than 15% of people in the world today, but are having only 7% of the world’s babies. The real problem is not so much the numbers, but rather the fact that whites are spread out so much across the globe. If non-white immigration into white nations continues at its present rate, whites will be the Kurds of the future – we will be a people without a homeland. It is likely that, if nothing changes, in the long-term, it will lead to the cultural extinction of the white race - and although it's unlikely that white people will ever become physically extinct (or at least not for another thousand years or so), we will be living unhappy lives as a small, oppressed minority. If things don’t change… We can see from places such as Zimbabwe and South Africa what happens when whites are the racial minority in a multiracial democracy. If whites become the minority in Britain, will the non-white majority promote white British culture, set up an 'Operation White Vote' for us, and give 'positive discrimination' in our favour as we are currently doing to them? Or will they look after their own kind, at the expense of whites, as they are doing presently? Other groups – especially Muslims – look out for their own group interests, in contrast with how most whites are deluding themselves that damaging their own group interests is enriching. That is why George Galloway was elected in the mostly Muslim constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow. As the ethnic minority population grows, we will see many more George Galloway types being elected. This is not a criticism of non-Whites or Muslims - quite the opposite. They are doing what we need to start doing - looking out for their own kind.

Whatever we are told by the mass media, there is nothing wrong with wanting Britain to remain an ethnically British country. Wanting to live in a country with your racial brethren is as natural as wanting to live in a home with your own family, and no amount of multiracial propaganda is going to change that. In the last ten years, approximately 600,000 White people have left multiracial London for somewhere Whiter. The simple truth is that different races do not wish to live together – they never have done; they never will do. There are probably a few individuals who would be perfectly happy if they were the only white person left in the whole country – but the majority do not feel that way. After Enoch Powell gave his famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech on immigration and race in 1968, 74% of the population agreed with his views – yet he was still removed from Heath’s shadow cabinet. Politicians have transformed our country against the wishes of the people. We were never asked whether we wanted to turn Britain into a multiracial country, and if we had been asked, we would have said no. In London, one in four schoolchildren do not speak English as their first language. ‘Red Ken’ may be saying that this is what makes London such a great city, but who wants to send their child to a school filled with asylum seekers who cannot even speak English? Certainly not the wealthy middle class ‘liberals’ who, despite paying lip service to the idea of multiculturalism, almost always live as far away from our ‘vibrant’ and ‘enriched’ inner cities as possible. Invariably, those who lecture us all on the meaning and significance of race and the ‘benefits’ of multiculturalism are those who live furthest away from those multicultural parts of the country on which they lavish so much praise. ‘Race means nothing’ There are some who claim that race doesn't even exist, and that ‘skin colour is the only difference’. I have very little interest in science (and don’t consider scientific arguments for racial awareness to be the most effective), so I won't go into detail about racial differences here, but it's a fact that a DNA test can identify someone's race quite easily. If there aren't average differences between the races, what explains Black athletic success? Why do Aborigine Australians generally have the best eyesight even when bought up in westernised homes? Why is it that Blacks have higher levels or testosterone? Why are Black babies born an average of one week earlier than white babies? Why do Black people have quicker reflexes? Why do Blacks have larger sex organs? Why are Black people at a much higher risk at getting AIDS? Why do Black children reach puberty earlier? Why is it that Black children start walking at 11 months, white children at 12 months, Orientals 13 months? Why is it that different races react differently to alcohol? Why have personality tests consistently found that Orientals are more cautious and less aggressive than other races? Why is the Black illegitimacy rate so high? Why is it, for example, that individuals whose ancestors evolved in South Asia but who were themselves born in the UK have a 40% higher risk of coronary heart disease and diabetes than do whites? Why is it that Oriental Asians have an average IQ of 106, Whites of 100, Southern Asians of slightly less than Whites, and Blacks of less than 88 in Britain? (See Race, Behavior and Evolution by J.P. Rushton) Football It is claimed that our football team would be much worse if not for our Black players. This is probably true - although we never seem to win anything anyway, and the one time that we have won something (1966) we had an all-White team. But I think it’s ironic that those who say that having black players improve our football team - surely an admission that black people have a genetic advantage in competitive sports such as football - are often the same type of people who claim that race doesn’t even exist. And why is it that multiculturalists always point out the racial composition of our sports team if it is multiracial, but are silent if it is not? To be honest, I dislike the fact that Black people can represent my country in sport. It's not that I dislike Blacks or anyone else, but what is the point in a national team if we are represented by people who clearly aren’t English? Although, I can assure any Searchlight readers that I have no problem with David Beckham or Wayne Rooney being in the team! Cuisine Another argument for non-White immigration is that we now – thanks to ‘diversity’ - have many different types of restaurants. But it’s not much of a consolation when you consider that Whites will be a minority in Britain within my lifetime. If Tony Blair was to say 'Yes, we are going to flood Britain with asylum seekers, but don’t worry because you might get a few new restaurants if you’re lucky', nobody would welcome it. That’s why, when politicians talk about immigration, they usually tell us about the ‘need for control’, rather than explain why they’ve already bought in millions of people from the third world, and why they intend to continue to do so (albeit with some sort of ‘control’ to prevent the natives waking up and realising what’s really going on). Even Ken Livingstone wouldn’t consider getting an authentic Indian restaurant in every town a government priority. Anyway, we had Indian restaurants in Victorian times, and our population wasn't very ‘diverse’ back then. And surely we’ve got enough restaurants already; we don't need any more, thank you. Problems with ‘diversity’ Mono-racial nations, such as Iceland (which is 98% Icelandic), do not have the problems that we have. They don't have racist attacks, they don't have race riots or suicide bombings, they don't need positive discrimination, they don't need a Commission for Racial Equality, they don’t need their lottery money to be spent on projects promoting 'diversity' in hope of getting the races to get along with each other, they don't need anti-free speech race-hate laws, they don't need ID cards to stop illegal immigration and diffuse the terrorist threat, because they have a homogeneous population. 'Diversity' is not a strength of Britain, but homogeneity is certainly a strength of Iceland. One last point: Given that Asian and African nations are far poorer than we are, and need far more help than we do, if immigrants are really doing such wonderful things for Britain, as the advocates of white dispossession (or 'multiculturalism', as they call it) insist they are, wouldn’t it be better if they would all return to their native lands and do wonderful things for their own people? Africa needs doctors and teachers far more desperately than we do, yet it is often so-called 'anti-racists' who are suggesting that we should have the right to steal them. I believe that all people should strive to improve their own country rather that emigrating to find an easier life.

In politicians' speeches, on television, in newspapers, and elsewhere, we constantly hear that ‘diversity is a strength’. But we need to be honest about whether the practically irreversible racial demographic changes in our population are changes that we should welcome or ‘politely’ ignore, or whether we have a right to resist the transformation of Britain into a third world country. For what reasons can racial and cultural ‘diversity’ possibly be considered an advantage? The most common reason is that foreign cultures can add to our own, or 'enrich' us, with their music and cuisine. Also, we are told that immigrants often have skills that the indigenous White population does not have, and therefore immigration is an economic necessity. It is claimed that we have accepted immigration for centuries, and should therefore continue to do so. ‘Inventions’ Some people bring up the fact that we have learnt and benefited from the ideas and inventions from other nations. For example, this was recently written in the Opposing Views section of a White Nationalist Internet forum: Cultures from overseas are literally built into the structure of Britain. The obvious example of this is the famous Brighton Pavilion: Mogul Indian on the outside, Chinese inside. But equally, how many of Britain’s best-known and loved buildings rely on the Gothic arch? Westminster Abbey, Durham Cathedral, the Houses of Parliament, the list continues all over the country. None of this would be possible without the development of pointed arches by Arab architects. Some of the most notable symbols of British culture are obvious imports, for example, our national drink is tea (Indian or Chinese), and what could be more English than a game of polo (Indian)? The royal family, everyone knows, is German; even the patron saint of England was Turkish. Now, this may all be true, but is it an argument for importing Arabs, or Indians, or Chinese people, or Turks, or anyone else? Well, if we have benefited from Arab architects, despite not having any significant number of Arabs in our lands until the last few decades, surely it is, in fact, a good argument for racial separation, since it proves that you can benefit from the ideas of other races and cultures, without needing to import in large numbers the races/cultures that created those ideas. Similarly, it's not necessary to house thousands of asylum seekers in Britain to enjoy listening to music originating from Africa or Asia, any more than we need to import thousands of Americans to enjoy listening to music produced in America. We can learn from other cultures without needing to import the races that created those cultures. Perhaps more important is the fact that Britain is responsible for an enormously over-proportionate amount of the world’s inventions and discoveries. It may not be Politically Correct to even think about such things, but could this be due to the ingenuity, creativity, intelligence and hard-working nature of the indigenous British people? If there is even the slightest possibility that it could be, isn’t ‘inventions’ in fact a very good reason for ensuring that we remain the predominant inhabitants of these once-fine islands? British emigrants Another reason given for allowing hundreds of thousands of people to immigrate to Britain each year is that many British people emigrate, to countries such as Spain. But nobody is suggesting that it is good for the Spanish to have whole towns where nobody speaks Spanish or is willing to integrate with the Spanish people. Every nation has the right to protect their own borders, and if other nations don’t, then that is their problem. Who we choose to let into our country is entirely up to us. ‘Trade benefits’ Is 'diversity' good for trade? Jared Taylor explains why this is not the case: On those rare occasions when people actually attempt to defend diversity, the one claim they make with any semblance of conviction is that its advantages will become evident as the world becomes more "international." It will be a great thing to have citizens from all around the world as nations have more and more contact; specifically, our "international" population will boost American exports. Of course, since this view is based on the assumption that people communicate better with people like themselves, it is an argument against national diversity. If it takes a Korean to deal with the Koreans, how are Americans supposed to get along with the Koreans who live in America? If anyone really thought a diverse population is good for trade, we would presumably be adjusting the mix of immigrants in accordance with trade potential. There would be no point in admitting Haitians, for example, since Haiti is a pesthole and never likely to be an important trade partner. After Canada, Japan is our largest trading partner. Does this mean we need more Japanese? No one ever talks about immigration this way, because no one really believes immigration has anything to do with promoting exports. The example of Japan in fact shows just how little racial diversity has to do with international trade. Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. By American standards, Japanese are hopeless "racists," "homophobes," "sexists," and "nativists." They even eat whales. Here is a country that should therefore be a complete failure in the international economy – and yet it is probably the most successful trading nation on earth. Taiwan and Korea are close behind, with China now recording huge trade surpluses with the United States. These countries are even more closed and exclusionist than Japan. If they could ever be made to understand the American notion of diversity, Asians would politely wait until we had left the room and then die laughing. Germany is likewise one of the world's great exporting nations. Who would dream of thinking this was due to the presence of Turkish Gastarbeiter? "We are all descended from immigrants" One phrase we often here is ‘We are all descended from immigrants!’ or even ‘We are a nation of immigrants!’ You hear this especially in America, where Whites are obviously not the natives, but British ‘liberals’ also point out that Britain has had a certain amount of immigration for many centuries, and that those who are not descendent from more recent immigrants are descendent from the various European tribes which invaded Britain around a millennium ago. This is all, obviously, completely irrelevant. The key point is that prior to 1948, almost all immigration had been from European nations - and, in any case, it was not generally welcomed by ordinary people. Until the 1950s, Britain was a homogeneous country; we still had a common language and a racial identity that united us. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a limited number of similar looking people, of a similar ancestry, with similar cultures can integrate after a generation or two, but those from Asia and Africa cannot, and probably never will. To understand this simply requires independent thought and common sense.

There was a recent ICM poll for the Guardian on voting intentions, which put the Conservatives in the lead, on 37%, Labour on 32%, the Liberal Democrats on 22%, and "Other" on 9%. So what? Well, there are some interesting indicators of BNP popularity that are (almost) hidden in that. If you click here and scroll down a bit, you'll see that these are the actual results of the poll: Q1b. If at the next election the Conservatives are led by David Cameron, Gordon Brown leads Labour and Menzies Campbell leads the Liberal Democrats, how would you vote. Would you vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats or for another party? Conservative 27% Labour 24% Liberal Democrat 13% SNP 1% Plaid Cymru *% Green 1% UKIP 1% Other 6% Don't know 27% First of all, there is an obvious pro-Establishment bias in the question. If, for example, they had asked, "If at the next election the Conservatives are led by David Cameron, Gordon Brown leads Labour, Menzies Campbell leads the Liberal Democrats, and Nick Griffin leads the BNP, how would you vote. Would you vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, BNP, or for another party?", then I expect the "Other" figure would have been far higher - at least double, possibly more. Note, however, that the BNP doesn't even get its own category. Which parties make up that 6% in the "Other" category? We're not told, but I would estimate that at least 5% (probably over 5.5%) of it is made up of BNP voters - or certainly far more than the 1% that SNP, UKIP and the Greens are currently on. The only other parties that I can think of which contests General Elections are Respect (which most people have already forgotten about now), and the English Democrats (which very few had ever even heard of in the first place). ICM don't want to give the BNP its own category simply because they don't want people to know that the fourth most popular party in Britain today is a patriotic one. So instead, the impression people will get is that the SNP, Plaid, Greens and UKIP are all more popular than the BNP - which is surely false. Another promising sign is the 27% of people - a large number - who "don't know". These are the people which we need to - and hopefully will be able to - win round to our side. I'm actually quite pleased to see that the Conservatives are in the lead. Before the 2005 General Election, I argued that a Conservative victory would be the best realistic result for British patriots. Remember at this time, the Conservatives were pretending that they intended to do something to limit immigration; I thought that if we got a Conservative government, which (obviously) would not do anything at all about our immigration problem (because it's controlled by business interests which demand cheap labour), then those who were concerned about immigration would have nowhere else to turn to but us, the BNP. While Cameron is not so anti-immigration, David Davis is still actually doing a fairly good job of convincing people that the Tories are still slightly more sensible on immigration than Labour; there are still large numbers of people who believe that there is a significant difference between the two main parties. With a Tory government in 2009/10, people will see no change, and they will learn to hate the Tories just as much as Labour. Then they will have nowhere else to turn but us... Please comment...