Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
But information is available to those who know how to look for it. In addition to the media sources I cited earlier, there were a couple of other reports, which I have become aware of since my broadcast. There was a September 29 Reuters report from Moscow, revealing that two of the three men arrested there already had been released by the police. Can you imagine turning people loose who were involved in that sort of activity? It certainly sounds as if the people who kidnapped, raped, and tortured Russian children have some powerful friends. That September 29 Reuters report, by the way, is in addition to the September 27 Reuters report from Naples I quoted during the broadcast.
And in London the October 1 issue of the Guardian published a reasonably detailed story. The Guardian newspaper has a web site -- guardianunlimited.co.uk -- where you can view the story. The Guardian news report contains one interesting piece of information of which I previously was unaware: most of the kidnapped Russian children, says the Guardian, were little boys rather than little girls. I had just assumed that they were all little girls. So if the Guardian is correct, then most of the wealthy perverts in the West who kept this filthy business going with their money are homosexuals. That may be another reason, besides the Jewish domination of organized crime in Russia and the Jewish domination of the media here, why this story was blacked out so thoroughly.
One of these days I'll have to do a broadcast on the homosexual brotherhood, the homosexual mafia -- and on the phenomenon of homosexuality. If homosexuals were merely men confused about their sexuality, such a broadcast wouldn't be worthwhile. But there is, unfortunately, much more to it. Homosexuals are profoundly abnormal people, and their abnormality, their sickness affects much more than their preference in sexual partners. They have an abnormal way of looking at the world, an abnormal way of thinking, in which sexual sadism and other things that are abhorrent to normal people become attractive. They really aren't just like normal people except for their sexual orientation. People who believe that homosexuals ought to be allowed to be scout leaders or school teachers need to be worked over with an oak table leg and then sentenced to 20 years of hard labor in order to straighten out their thinking. Well, we'll talk about that another time.
Sometimes when a person is suffering from a disease it may be helpful to him if he can examine another person who has had the same disease for a longer time and is showing the symptoms to a greater degree. In this way he may at least have some forewarning of what to expect as his own disease runs its course.
Britain -- the United Kingdom -- is probably between five and ten years further down the slippery slope of Political Correctness than the United States is. Three hundred years ago many of the independent-minded types left Britain and came to the North American colonies, while the more docile and obedient folks stayed in Britain. This is reflected today in a greater degree of authoritarianism among the descendants of those who stayed home than in the descendants of those who came to the colonies. Which is to say, there is an even higher percentage of lemmings in England today than in the United States.
In view of this, it is not surprising that the program initiated 60 or so years ago to convert the entire planet into a global plantation under the benevolent dominion of the Chosen few and their superrich allies in the multinational corporations has made a little more progress on some fronts in the United Kingdom than in the United States. On the political front, I suppose we've sunk to about the same level. Over here we have Bill Clinton, and over there they have Tony Blair, who is approximately as great an embarrassment to real Englishmen as Bill Clinton is to real Americans. Over here our government is packed full of Jews, but the same is true over there.
On the demographic front we seem at first glance to be worse off than they are. About 30 per cent of our population is non-White compared to only 7 per cent of theirs. But that's deceptive. In 1950 our population was only 10 per cent non-White, and virtually all of those were descendants of Black slaves we failed to dispose of properly when slavery was abolished here after the Civil War. So the percentage of non-Whites in the United States has tripled since the Second World War. But there were practically no non-Whites in Britain before the Second World War. They all have come flooding in since the breakup of the British Empire in the 1950s. Many urban areas in England today are as heavily polluted by non-Whites as the worst urban areas in America, and the growth of multiculturalism in England probably has been more of a cultural and psychological shock for the English than the equivalent phenomenon has been for Americans.
At the same time, however, many of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom are taking to multiculturalism with a disgusting degree of lemming like enthusiasm. There is a limp-wristed variety of very fashionable educated English ladies and gentlemen whose principal aim in life is to be on the cutting edge of every degenerate and destructive trend and fad that comes along. The latest fad is to redefine what it means to be "English" or to be "British." The trendies are raising a hue and cry about the "racism" inherent in those designations. Those terms aren't inclusive enough, they believe. Some of the newer residents of the United Kingdom may feel left out and have their feelings hurt.
I'll read you the first sentence -- and a couple of other sentences -- from an Associated Press report of October 11 from London:
"Britishness" and "Englishness" are racially coded terms with a Whites-only connotation, an independent commission said Wednesday in a report that called for a rethinking of the nation's self-image. . . . "Britishness, as much as Englishness, has systematic, largely unspoken, racial connotations," the report said. "Whiteness nowhere features as an explicit condition of being British, but it is widely understood that Englishness, and therefore by extension Britishness, is racially coded. 'There ain't no black in the Union Jack,' it has been said.'"
This report was commissioned by an outfit called the "Runnymede Trust," described by the Associated Press as "an independent organization devoted to promoting racial justice." Unfortunately, we have outfits like that in the United States also, but they seem to be a little more obnoxious and a little more of a problem in England. Typically they are made up of the very fashionable liberal trendies I mentioned earlier, a token member or two of the royal family, a handful of wogs and Blacks, and a few churchmen. The Christian church in England has become at least as malign a force as in America and has its hands in every racially destructive business that comes along. And the royal family has been a joke for several generations now. But to the authoritarian-minded English, the church and the royal family lend credibility to outfits like the Runnymede Trust, and the recent report undoubtedly has even more Englishmen than before feeling guilty about the fact that Alfred the Great wasn't a Rastafarian and Henry the Eighth wasn't a Pakistani.
The chairman of the committee that wrote the report is a wog, one of the millions who came flooding into England with the dissolution of the Empire after the Second World War and now wants to be considered an "Englishman." He is Professor Bhiku Parekh, and he was bold enough to say:
There is a very important role for a common national culture and a common civic nationality. But we are requesting that this common culture . . . be discussed and renegotiated.
So Professor Parekh believes that the meaning of Englishness needs to be renegotiated. Sounds a bit Orwellian, doesn't it? But, believe me, the English lemmings are willing to go along.
And so are those Chosen few who tell the lemmings which way to go. One of these Chosen few who has been heard from in connection with the report is "Lady" Kate Gavron, wife of the filthy-rich and very Jewish publisher, "Lord" Gavron. She is the vice-chairman of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, the committee of the Runnymede Trust, which produced the report. "Lord" Gavron became a lord, by the way, by donating 500,000 pounds -- that's three-quarters of a million dollars -- to Tony Blair's last election campaign. That's the way one becomes a "lord" or a "lady" in England these days.
When the report was released two weeks ago "Lady" Gavron remarked that Prince Charles should have married a Negress as a symbol of his support for multiculturalism. The Royal Family, she announced, should take the lead in promoting racial integration. Last week she repeated herself when she told the London Telegraph:
It would have been great if Prince Charles had been told to marry someone black. Imagine what message that would have sent out.
Yes, imagine! That's in the October 17th issue of the Telegraph.
"Lady" Gavron also told the Telegraph. that the present Royal Family sends out "the wrong message about Britain today." She complained that "they're all white. It is part of a very unattractive hierarchy." She had a similar complaint about the aristocracy in general, which she believes is "too Anglo-Saxon." She said, "Anything hereditary is completely anachronistic and illogical." Her views on Britain's history were similar:
We need to acknowledge that there are different ways of looking at history. The problem with the Empire was the inequality of power. It was something we did to the Indians and Africans, not with them.
Well, despite the eagerness of the lemmings to go along with the report, there has been some dissent. A few tradition-minded Englishmen are offended by the whole idea of redefining what it means to be English, but they are being kept in their place by the more progressive-minded politicians and bureaucrats, as well as by the twitterings of the fashionable set, for whom "Lady" Gavron is an ideological arbiter. The Guardian, a very liberal London newspaper, in an October 12 editorial, sniffed at those Englishmen who failed to appreciate the report's recommendation for more inclusiveness:
They evidently do not understand what it means to feel excluded: don't feel the individual pain, don't reflect on the social consequences.
Well, the author of that editorial, a Hugo Young, is one of those very fashionable, limp-wristed Englishmen I mentioned.
Trevor Phillips, who is the chairman of the Greater London Assembly and also is one of the authors of the report, dismissed the dissent as "knee-jerk reactions of little Englanders." By "little Englanders" he means those who are fond of the idea of England by itself, rather than as an integral part of the New World Order. Phillips also said:
St. George was a Palestinian, and Richard the Lionheart didn't get around to learning English.
To call St. George a "Palestinian" is as misleading as the effort to label the Greek Cleopatra a "Negress," because she was a queen of Egypt. Oh, and, by the way, Trevor Phillips is an "Englishman" of the Caribbean/African variety, another result of the breakup of the Empire.
So guess who entered the dispute as a peacemaker, reconciling the traditionalists and the progressives? None other than Tony Blair's very Jewish Home Secretary Jack Straw. Said Straw:
I do not accept the arguments of those on the nationalist right or the liberal left that Britain as a cohesive whole is dead. Britishness has become inclusive, with people happily defining themselves as black British or Chinese British.
And now you really should not be surprised when I tell you that it was Jack Straw himself who in early 1998 launched the committee of the Runnymede Trust that produced the report. As in America, also in Britain Jack Straw's tribesmen have their hands up to the elbows in every piece of destructive filth which comes along. That we should expect from what we know about his Chosen tribe. What is disappointing and maddening is that we have so many trendy fools among our own tribe who are ready to follow with mindless enthusiasm wherever the Jew leads them.
Well, in Britain this sort of thing has been coming for a long time. For more than a century now English monarchs have been appointing Jews to the House of Lords. At the beginning of this sorry process in the 19th century, it was necessary that they first declare themselves Christians, as in the case of Benjamin Disraeli, for example, but eventually all that was necessary was that they make themselves useful to the monarch in some way, and monarchs all too often found that a little extra cash was very useful. So we have had the ridiculous spectacle of "Baron" Rothschild and "Lord" Disraeli, "Earl" of Beaconsfield, and the camel-faced "Lord" Gavron and all too many others without a trace of Englishness in them declaring themselves to be English aristocrats. These days the process of becoming an aristocrat has become even more degraded because it is the prime minister rather than the monarch who chooses the new lords and ladies, and prime ministers usually are even more in need of ready cash than are monarchs.
Well, as I said, although many Englishmen are not happy about the concept of Chinese Englishmen and Negro Englishmen, they have left themselves open to the present situation. In the first place, they not only fought enthusiastically on the wrong side of the Second World War but were to a large degree responsible for there being a Second World War, which for a while after the war they actually believed they had won, just because they had participated in the destruction of their hated economic rival Germany. That was the war, remember, which sanctified the notions of "equality" and "democracy" and made the dissolution of the British Empire a logical necessity.
And in the second place, the English, because of their somewhat greater tendency toward conformity and ideological fashionableness than those of us on the other side of the Great Water have been easier victims of the Jewish racket to make "racism" a greater sin than child molesting. The average Brit today is even more terrified of being thought a "racist" than is the average American and also is more willing to go along with whatever destructive foolishness the fashion-conscious lords and ladies, led by the likes of Jack Straw and Kate Gavron, are pushing at the moment.
Well, unfortunately, we over here are on the same slippery slope that the Brits are on. We also fought on the wrong side of the Second World War and then blindly began implementing the ideas inherent in the
slogans we mindlessly parroted during that war. A more serious and troubling aspect of all this than the gullibility and lemming-like nature of the masses of our people on both sides of the Atlantic is the decline in morale on the part of our more aristocratic elements: our stronger, prouder, and more independent-minded elements, who in less democratic times used to provide our people with genuine leaders and keep the lemmings from going too far astray.
The British aristocracy -- that is, the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, the Anglo-Celtic aristocracy, the Anglo-Norman aristocracy -- really has gone downhill since the time of Henry the Eighth, and the decline hasn't been entirely due to lax breeding habits. We've suffered the same sort of decline in leadership morale over here since the time of Patrick Henry and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It's not that our leaders have been tricked into believing the egalitarian claptrap promoted by Jews like Jack Straw and "Lady" Gavron. It's more that they are willing to tolerate the sort of wickedness now that they wouldn't have tolerated a couple of centuries ago. They're less willing to stand up and speak out against evil. They've lost most of their civic courage. How long has it been since there has been a much needed assassination of a prime minister over there or a President or congressional leader or media boss over here? We tolerate every sort of treason and destructive wickedness imaginable rather than rebel against it.
Well, you know, I probably rage against this sort of thing too much. I complain too much about the growing worthlessness of the lemmings and the growing lack of responsibility on the part of those who should be leading them in a healthy, positive direction, but aren't. I suppose my comments are useful to some degree if they help people think about the problems we face, but on both sides of the Atlantic we need to do more than think about our problems and complain about them. Where leadership is lacking we need to step forward and provide leadership.
Lemmings behave the way they do because they have been persuaded that that's the way they're supposed to behave, that that's what is expected of them. They are not consciously evil or consciously depraved. They just don't have minds of their own. They always let other people decide for them what is right and what they should think and what they should do. And the wrong people have been deciding these things for them. We need to begin taking the responsibility of deciding away from the media bosses and the politicians. We can't do this all at once, and we certainly can't do it for all of the lemmings now, but we can begin affecting the way some of the lemmings think and behave. And we can do this by standing up and speaking out and by setting the right example with our own behavior.
When you make a public statement of any kind, never apologize for being White, never apologize to non-Whites for anything, never disclaim racism, never seem weak, never compromise on fundamentals, never waffle. Be strong and sure and self-confident. Do right and fear no one. The lemmings will begin following.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page