Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Friday, 30 September 2011

Requiem for a darkening island

This is the kind of tripe which passes for journalism in a sick and dying society. If, as Johnston claims, a net inflow of migrants to this country of fifty thousand per annum is not mass immigration, then nothing is. The very phrase 'net migration', so beloved of UKIP, betrays the traitorous, anti-English ideology of the Establishment. What they seek to avoid at all costs is to acknowledge that the indigenous people of these islands, the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish, have any greater right to be here, any greater stake in our society, than any ethnically alien 'refugee' or economic migrant from the Third World.

A Conservative Home Secretary, Maudling, who is quoted in the article, said, in a mealy-mouthed manner, in 1971, “If we are to get progress in community relations, we must give assurance to the people who were already here before the large wave of immigration that this will be the end and that there will be no further large-scale immigration.”  Note that he refers to his own people, the indigenous British, only obliquely as included amongst "...the people who were already here..." in order that the earlier non-white immigrants who had arrived during the late 1940s, the 1950s and 1960s should be regarded as having an equal interest in ending the mass immigration of others of their race and ethnicity.  The big lie that any opposition to the colonization of our homeland, and our gradual dispossession of it, expressed by the English, or other indigenous British, is in some way illegitimate, must at all costs be maintained.

The Left is rewriting Britain's immigration history

The last Labour government threw open the borders well before Poland joined the European Union.

By Philip Johnston

26 Sep 2011

'We got it wrong”. If this is not quite the slogan for Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, it is the message the leadership wants the public to hear, though without having to apologise for the mistakes made by the last government. What they really mean by this phoney self-flagellation is this: if we spent too much, it was with the best of intentions; if we borrowed too much, well so did everyone else; if the economy went down the pan, blame the bankers.

And as for immigration – it was all the fault of the Poles. “I think we underestimated the level of immigration from Poland which had a big effect on people,” said Ed Miliband.

But hang on a second. Labour came to office in 1997 and Poland did not join the EU until 2004. Yet whereas in 1996, net immigration to the UK was 40,000, by 2003 it was 150,000. It is now about 250,000. As even a cursory glance at immigration graphs will show, the beginnings of this rapid rise long predated the accession to the EU of the former Soviet bloc countries of eastern Europe.

True, the figure rose again after the Poles joined and the Labour government decided in its wisdom to allow the new arrivals to come and work in Britain, even though it could have denied them access for up to seven years – as Germany and France did. Whitehall officials estimated that only 13,000 workers from the East would come looking for jobs; in the event it was half a million, which makes even Treasury growth forecasts look like a paragon of accuracy.

But the fact remains that net immigration had almost quadrupled before the enlargement of the EU. Mr Miliband’s mea culpa is, therefore, just so much hot air. He is trying to give the impression that apart from under-estimating the influx from Poland and the other new members, it was really all beyond Labour’s control.

In fact, the last Labour government did more than “get it wrong” on immigration: either wilfully or recklessly, it ripped up a national consensus that had prevailed since the early 1970s. Next month, in fact, sees the 40th anniversary of one of the most seminal pieces of legislation of the post-war years, the 1971 Immigration Act.

It was fashioned to take the heat out of an incendiary political debate over levels of immigration that were far smaller than anything we are seeing today. The issue had exploded in the late 1960s with Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech and his subsequent dismissal from the shadow cabinet by Edward Heath.

But the Tories could not evade a subject that was causing deep disquiet in the country and when Heath took office in 1970 it was on a promise to reduce significantly the number of people coming from what was then called the New Commonwealth, essentially the Indian sub-continent, for whom there had previously been free admission to the UK.

When the Immigration Bill received its second reading in the Commons on March 8 1971, Reginald Maudling, the Home Secretary, said: “If we are to get progress in community relations, we must give assurance to the people who were already here before the large wave of immigration that this will be the end and that there will be no further large-scale immigration.”

The controls introduced by the Act put an end to mass immigration. From that point on until the mid-1990s, net immigration to the UK ran consistently around or below 50,000 per annum.

This was a level that secured widespread public approval; and even if a few fringe parties continued to bang on about it, immigration was no longer a mainstream political issue, The 1987 Conservative manifesto’s entry amounted to just a few sentences and read: “Immigration for settlement is now at its lowest level since control of Commonwealth immigration first began in 1962. Firm but fair immigration controls are essential for harmonious and improving community relations.”

By 2005, however, the Tories were accusing the government of “losing control of the borders” and promising new limits, quotas and frontier checks. “We need to ensure that immigration is effectively managed, in the interests of all Britons, old and new,” said the manifesto – echoing the words used by Maudling in 1971.

So, Labour did more than simply “get it wrong”. It undermined the fundamental basis of the 1971 settlement, which was to ensure that immigration did not become a source of friction within communities, as it clearly has done once more. Politicians have always felt it necessary to emphasise the economic benefits of immigration, even though a House of Lords committee showed these to be a myth.

But they often shy away from discussing its social significance – the impact on communities of a rapidly changing demography about which Maudling spoke 40 years ago.

For the first time since the Norman Conquest, the population is growing primarily because of immigration. This has had a significant impact on schools and hospitals, on infrastructure and housing, especially in London and the South-East, where most immigrants settle.

None of this was planned for. Moreover, despite a recent fall in emigration, far more British people are departing these shores than are returning after a period abroad. So the ethnic mix of the country is changing faster than at any time in our history.

All this happened without any discussion; nobody was asked at an election to support a new policy to replace the 1971 Act. When, in 2001, the Tories tried to get a national debate going they were howled down as racists.

Now the best the Labour leader can come up with is that his party “got it wrong.” So, that’s all right then.

Thursday, 29 September 2011

It takes more than a flag

It's interesting to note that Mr Tilbrook re-launched his civic 'nationalist' party as the English Democrats in 2002, the year in which the British National Party won its first district/borough council seats, in Burnley.

It is also worth noting that Mr Tilbrook appears to be not only the Chairman and Leader of the English Democrats, but also its National Treasurer and National Nominating Officer to boot.

How democratic is that?  As democratic as the German Democratic Republic (DDR) perhaps.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robin Tilbrook

Robin William Charles Tilbrook[1] (1958, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)[2] is a solicitor and English politician, the chairman and founder member of the English Democrats.[3][4]


He was a member of the Conservative Student Association and a member of the Conservative Party,[5] at one time a Conservative candidate for Ongar Town council.[citation needed] He founded the English National Party in 1997,[2] and then relaunched the party as the English Democrats in 2002 to campaign for an English Parliament.[6] He is also the nominating officer and treasurer.[7] He has stood as a candidate for the English Democrats in local, parliamentary[5] and European elections. Standing in Epping Forest, he received 1.4% of the vote in the 2005 General Election, 4.4% at 2005 County Council elections,[8] 18.2% in the 2007 District Council elections,[9] and 11.3% in the 2009 County Council elections.[10]

He gained 2.01% of the vote as the lead candidate for the Eastern region in the 2009 European elections.[11][12] He says of the English Democrats that "We're hoping to do what the Scottish National Party managed to do in the 1970s and break through to being able to influence what happens in Parliament about England".[13][14] Tilbrook says "his party agitates for anyone living in England. His notion of Englishness is akin to American notions of "Americanness" - that you can be from any ethnic background and still wrap yourself in the flag."[15] He has criticized spending on St. Patrick's Day in London when he says too little is spent on St. George's Day.[15] He argues that the money given by the UK to the EU is given to other parts of the country at the expense of England, which makes his party Eurosceptic.[16]

Education and work

He was educated at Wellington College, Berkshire,[17] gained a BA (Hons) in Politics and Economics from the University of Kent at Canterbury, and then studied at the College of Law, Chester.

He was a Coldstream Guardsman, and has worked in a factory, in junior management, and as a teacher at primary and secondary level.  He is a solicitor[18] in Willingale, Essex.[5]

On 27th September 2011, he was awarded Honorary Freeman of the City.[19]

Personal life

He is the son of Brigadier Thomas William Tilbrook (deceased) (Queen’s Royal Irish Hussars) and Jacqueline Tilbrook (née Mackillican).   He is a member of the Church of England, and is married with two girls and a boy.[2]

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

"Good work, that!"

The following comes from the English Democrats' web site.

I wonder what those unspecified "...eminent services" rendered by Mr Tilbrook to "the local area" were, and whether they had anything to do with weakening the British National Party.

Who knows what honours await Mr Tilbrook in the event of his 'false flag' English Democrats killing off a genuine nationalist party.

"Arise, Sir Robin."

Robin Tilbrook made Freeman of the City

Written by Administrator

Today English Democrat Chairman Robin Tilbrook has been awarded the Freedom of the City of London. Robin attended Guildhall where he was made a Freeman of the City of London by the order of the court of Aldermen.

One of the oldest surviving traditional ceremonies still in existence today is the granting of the Freedom of the City of London. The Freedom of the City of London was first recorded in 1237 but dates back to Saxon times. It is closely tied to the role and status of the Livery Companies. From 1835 the Freedom "without the intervention of a Livery Company" has been bestowed by a general resolution of Common Council.

The status of Freeman is still thriving in many other towns and cities in England. Each town or city where the admission of Freemen is carried out has its own regulations and customs for admission. The English Democrats are committed to preserving English traditions such as this.

The grant of honorary freedom in the United Kingdom is governed by the Local Government Act 1972. The 1972 Act enabled the councils of cities, royal boroughs, boroughs, and parishes with the status of a royal town, to confer the status of honorary freeman on "persons of distinction and persons who have, in the opinion of the council, rendered eminent services" to the local area.

Robin was presented with an impressive sealed certificate by the Chamberlain of the City. Robin said: 'I am delighted to be a part of an ancient English tradition, the historical roots of which go back to the time of King Alfred the Great.'

Tuesday, 27 September 2011

Tweedledumb, Tweedledumber and Tweedledumbest

Time for a little 'Spot the Difference' competition.

The following is the English Democrats' policy on immigration, copied from their own web site.

"We support a points system for entry to the UK which is based on the Canadian and Australian model.

"Points should be awarded for, among other things: educational and professional qualification; family links with England; financial resources; the ability to speak English. In other words, entry should be determined by our needs as a society and the ability of newcomers to be absorbed into the prevailing public culture."

Note the implicit assumption that our society needs immigration, and that we cannot cope without it.  And this at a time when millions of our own people are without a job, or a home of their own.  The English Democrats appear to believe, without explicitly stating it, that immigration is a necessary part of the solution to society's problems, rather than, as all true nationalists know, the fountain-head of all of society's ills. In politics it is always necessary to read between the lines and to examine what is not said, as well as what is said.

And now for the Conservatives' stated policy on immigration, taken from their own web site.


"The Government believes that immigration has enriched our culture and strengthened our economy, but that it must be controlled so that people have confidence in the system. We also recognise that to ensure cohesion and protect our public services, we need to introduce a cap on immigration and reduce the number of nonEU immigrants.

"We will introduce an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work.

"We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

"We will create a dedicated Border Police Force, as part of a refocused Serious Organised Crime Agency, to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs.

"We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.

"We will apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU Member States.

"We will introduce new measures to minimise abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes, and will tackle human trafficking as a priority.

"We will explore new ways to improve the current asylum system to speed up the processing of applications."

Sounds impressive doesn't it?  At least it does to the politically naive and inexperienced. The more politically astute should understand that once the principle that the mass immigration of ethnic aliens to our country has been and is both unnecessary and undesirable, is cravenly surrendered, one is on a slippery slope without any firm foothold.

Those with longer memories will remember Mrs Thatcher's promises to address the swamping of our country by foreign incomers. They will also remember the way in which those promises were cynically broken once they had served their purpose of seeing off the electoral 'threat' posed by the popularity of the National Front in 1979.

Anyone who wishes for another thirty years of the colonization of our homelend by ethnic aliens should certainly support either Lib-Lab-Con or one of the Establishment's 'false flag' safety valves, such as UKIP or the English Democrats. Of course, as a former member of the British National Party, if you'd like actually to join one of these parties then your options are considerably limited.  The English Democrats might accept you as a member, but only if their chairman is convinced that you are not a 'racist' (read nationalist), in their terms.

If the English Democrats were serious about stopping immigration, in view of the fact that this is what a substantial majority of the electorate want, then they would say so.  Furthermore, they would not have 'bought into' the despicable demonization of the BNP grass roots by the 'mainstream' media.

The fact is that this party is an insult to the name English. This is a party not for the brave, but for cowards. This is a party for the political soft-option merchants, who have no heart for the fight.  These carpet-baggers congratulate one another on their new-found 'respectability' and newly-won 'friends' in the left-liberal media, as if this were a sign of their political nous, instead of the clearest possible indication of their betrayal of the cause.

Remove the Cross of St George from the flag of England and you have the English Democrats' real standard: the White flag of Surrender.

If you are wet enough for their toff of a chairman to be able to shoot snipe off your back, then you're probably acceptable to them.  Otherwise, as a proud, truth-telling patriot, you'll be regarded as beyond the Pale. 

One would have hoped that long-serving members of the BNP, particularly those who had occupied positions of prominence within the party in the past, would have had more self-respect than to hawk themselves and their reputation, such as it was, to the enemy's camp, no matter what provocation and injustice they had suffered.  They were not, by any means, the only ones to have been unjustly victimized.  This should not change one's political outlook.  It ought to have made them even more determined to stay and help the continuing fight to oust Griffin, rather than, by apostatizing, providing him with a ready-made, ex post facto rationalization for his oppression, however implausible.

Saturday, 24 September 2011

If the trumpet sound uncertain who will arm for battle?

We shall be vindicated by history

Our Nick which art in Brussels...

Cult of personality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.[1] Cults of personality are usually associated with dictatorships. The sociologist Max Weber developed a tripartite classification of authority; the cult of personality holds parallels with what Weber defined as 'charismatic authority'.

A cult of personality is similar to hero worship, except that it is established by mass media and propaganda. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

While the cult of personality generally applies to the enhancement and promotion of a political or religious doctrine, it stands to reason that it is also asserted in everyday situations where popularity is used to advocate conformity to philosophies and lifestyles, and even products and attitudes, by way of peer pressure and herd mentality.


Throughout history, monarchs and heads of state were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, for example, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, Tibet, Thailand, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.

The spread of democratic and secular ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of photography, sound recording, film and mass production, as well as public education and techniques used in commercial advertising, enabled political leaders to project a positive image like never before. It was from these circumstances in the 20th century that the best-known personality cults arose. Often these cults are a form of Political religion.


Personality cults were first described in relation to totalitarian regimes that sought to radically alter or transform society according to radical ideas.[2] Often, a single leader became associated with this revolutionary transformation, and came to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation without whom the transformation to a better future couldn't occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as that of Adolf Hitler.

Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, not all personality cults are dictatorships (some are nominally democratic), and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example, during the Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime, images of dictator Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) were rarely seen in public, and his identity was under dispute abroad until after his fall from power. The same applied to numerous Eastern European Communist regimes following World War II, although not those of Enver Hoxha and Nicolae Ceausescu (mentioned below). Similarly, in North Korea and Thailand, there exist very successful cults of personality. In North Korea, there is actual semi-worship of both the father (Kim Il-sung) and his ancestors, some estimates going as far as suggesting that citizens of North Korea believe that Kim Il-Sung (proclaimed Eternal President four years after his death) created the world, and that his son, current "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il, can control the weather[citation needed]. In Thailand, strict laws keep people from expressing negative opinions of the royal family. Authors and bloggers who do such things have been sentenced to long jail terms.


The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Hirohito, Mao Zedong, Nicolae Ceauşescu, Saparmurat Niyazov, Ho Chi Minh, Muammar Gaddafi, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, François Duvalier and Juan Perón. Other leaders who have been described as the focus of such cults include Siad Barre of Somalia, Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, Jean-Bédel Bokassa of The Central African Republic, and Enver Hoxha of Albania.

During the peak of their regimes, these leaders often were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, with artists and poets legally required to only produce works that glorified the leader and his regime.

The term cult of personality comes from Karl Marx's critique of the "cult of the individual"—expressed in a letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss. In that, Marx states thus:

“ From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me... Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute. ”

Nikita Khrushchev recalled Marx's criticism in his 1956 "Secret Speech" denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress:

“ Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.[3]

This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.

We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book. ”

Some authors (e.g. Alexander Zinovyev) have argued that Leonid Brezhnev's rule was also characterized by a cult of personality, though unlike Lenin and Stalin, Brezhnev did not initiate large-scale persecutions in the country. One of the aspects of Leonid Brezhnev's cult of personality was Brezhnev's obsession with titles, rewards and decorations, leading to his inflated decoration with medals, orders and so on.[4] This was often ridiculed by the ordinary people and led to the creation of many political jokes.

Journalist Bradley Martin documented the personality cults of North Korea's father-son leadership, "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung and "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il.[5] While visiting North Korea in 1979 he noted that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il.[5] Kim Il-sung rejected the notion that he had created a cult around himself and accused those who suggested so of "factionalism".[5] A US religious freedom investigation confirmed Martin's observation that North Korean schoolchildren learn to thank Kim Il-sung for all blessings as part of the cult.[6] Evidence of the cult of Kim Il-Sung continues into the 21st century (despite his death in 1994) with the erection of Yeong Saeng ("eternal life") monuments throughout the country, each dedicated to the departed "Great Leader", at which citizens are expected to pay annual tribute on his official birthday or the anniversary of his death.[7]

Saparmurat Niyazov, who was ruler of Turkmenistan from 1985 to 2006, is another oft-cited cultivator of a cult of personality.[8][9][10] Niyazov simultaneously cut funding to and partially disassembled the education system in the name of "reform", while injecting ideological indoctrination into it by requiring all schools to take his own book, the Ruhnama, as its primary text, and like Kim Il-sung, there is even a creation myth surrounding him.[9][11] During Niyazov's rule there was no freedom of the press nor was there freedom of speech. This further meant that opposition to Niyazov was strictly forbidden and "major opposition figures have been imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or have fled the country, and their family members are routinely harassed by the authorities."[8] Additionally, a silhouette of Niyazov was used as a logo on television broadcasts[12] and statues and pictures of him were "erected everywhere".[13] For these, and other reasons, the US Government has gone on to claim that by the time he died, "Niyazov’s personality cult...had reached the dimensions of a state-imposed religion".[14]

A personality cult in the Republic of China was centered on the Kuomintang party founder Dr. Sun Yat-sen, and his successor, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. Chinese Muslim Generals and Imams participated in this cult of personality and One Party state, with Muslim General Ma Bufang making people bow to Dr. Sun's portrait and listen to the national anthem during a Tibetan and Mongol religious ceremony for the Qinghai Lake God.[15] Quotes from the Quran and Hadith were used by Muslims to justify Chiang Kaishek's rule over China.[16]

University of Chicago professor Lisa Wedeen's book Ambiguities of Domination documents the cult of personality which surrounded Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Numerous examples of his glorification are made throughout the book, such as displays of love and adoration for the "leader" put on at the opening ceremonies of the 1987 Mediterranean Games in Lattakia, Syria.

Juan Perón, elected three times as President of Argentina, and his second wife, Eva Duarte de Perón, were immensely popular among many of the Argentine people, and to this day they are still considered icons by the Peronist Party. The Peróns' followers praised their efforts to eliminate poverty and to dignify labor, while their detractors considered them demagogues and dictators. To achieve their political goals, the Peronists had to unite around the head of state. As a result, a personality cult developed around both Perón and his wife.[17]

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was another well known example of a cult of personality. Saddam had portraits of himself made all over the country, some showing him as Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Saladin, reinforcing his personality cult in one of the most secular Arab countries.

King of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej, also had his portraits all over the country. Before a movie is played in the theater, people are required to pay respect by standing during a song praising the king. Those who do not stand have been charged [18].

Another example is that of Romania's political power structure in the 1980s, which was a cult of personality surrounding Nicolae Ceauşescu and his wife, Elena Ceauşescu. Nicolae Ceauşescu rose to power in 1965, but by 1971 the regime had reasserted its Stalinist legacy in socioeconomic and cultural matters. Ceauşescu was increasingly portrayed by the Romanian media as a creative communist theoretician and political leader whose "thought" was the source of all national accomplishments. His tenure as president was known as the "Golden Age of Ceauşescu". In the 1980s, the personality cult was extended to other members of the Ceauşescu family, including his wife, Elena, who held a position of prominence in political life far exceeding protocol requirements. By the mid-1980s, Elena Ceauşescu's national prominence had grown to the point that her birthday was celebrated as a national holiday, as was her husband's.

Sri Lanka under Mahinda Rajapaksa is a more recent example of cult of personality. Rajapaksa has portraits of himself around the country and state controlled media has been used to liken Rajapaksa to King Dutugemunu, an ancient king of Sri Lanka. His regime, being increasingly considered dictatorial, controls the country's economy, judicial system, politics and media primarily through nepotistic appointments of family members and also through fear and violence.

In a 2004 article on personality cults, The Economist identified Togo's Gnassingbé Eyadéma as maintaining an extensive personality cult, to the point of having schoolchildren begin their day by singing his praises.[19] Similarly, Cambodian schoolchildren in French Indochina at one point in the early 1940s began their schoolday with prayers to Marshal Philippe Pétain, opening with the words, "Our father, who art in Vichy".[20]

We, the Management...

Iron law of oligarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. It states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons behind the oligarchization process are: the indispensability of leadership; the tendency of all groups, including the organization leadership, to defend their interests; and the passivity of the led individuals more often than not taking the form of actual gratitude towards the leaders.


Robert Michels found that, paradoxically, the socialist parties of Europe, despite their democratic ideology and provisions for mass participation, seemed to be dominated by their leaders, just like traditional conservative parties.

Michels' conclusion was that the problem lay in the very nature of organizations. The more liberal and democratic modern era allowed the formation of organizations with innovative and revolutionary goals, but as such organizations become more complex, they became less and less democratic and revolutionary. Michels formulated the "Iron Law of Oligarchy": "Who says organization, says oligarchy."[1][2]

At the time Michels formulated his Law, he was an anarcho-syndicalist.[2] He later gave up his socialist convictions and became an important ideologue of Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, teaching economics at the University of Perugia.[3][4]


Michels stressed several factors that underlie the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Darcy K. Leach summarized them briefly as: "Bureaucracy happens. If bureaucracy happens, power rises. Power corrupts."[2] Any large organization, Michels pointed out, has to create a bureaucracy in order to maintain its efficiency as it becomes larger—many decisions have to be made daily that cannot be made by large numbers of unorganized people. For the organization to function effectively, centralization has to occur and power will end up in the hands of a few. Those few—the oligarchy—will use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power.[1][2]

This process is further compounded, as delegation is necessary in any large organization, as thousands—sometimes hundreds of thousands—of members cannot make decisions via participatory democracy. This has been dictated by the lack of technological means for large numbers of people to meet and debate, and also by matters related to crowd psychology, as Michels argued that people feel a need to be led. Delegation, however, leads to specialization—to the development of knowledge bases, skills and resources among a leadership—which further alienates the leadership from the rank and file and entrenches the leadership in office.

Bureaucratization and specialization are the driving processes behind the Iron Law. They result in the rise of a group of professional administrators in a hierarchical organization, which in turn leads to the rationalization and routinization of authority and decision making, a process described first and perhaps best by Max Weber, later by John Kenneth Galbraith, and to a lesser and more cynical extent by the Peter Principle.

Bureaucracy by design leads to centralization of power by the leaders. Leaders also have control over sanctions and rewards. They tend to promote those who share their opinions, which inevitably leads to self-perpetuating oligarchy.[1] People achieve leadership positions because they have above-average political skill (see charismatic authority). As they advance in their careers, their power and prestige increases. Leaders control the information that flows down the channels of communication, censoring what they do not want the rank-and-file to know. Leaders will also dedicate significant resources to persuade the rank-and-file of the rightness of their views.[1] This is compatible with most societies: people are taught to obey those in positions of authority. Therefore the rank and file show little initiative, and wait for the leaders to exercise their judgment and issue directives to follow.


The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to "social viscosity" in a large-scale organization. According to the "iron law," democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible.

Examples and exceptions

An example that Michels used in his book was Germany's Social Democratic Party.[2]

The size and complexity of a group or organization is important to the Iron Law as well. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Green Party of Germany made a conscious effort to try to break the Iron Law.[5] Anyone could be or could remove a party official. There were no permanent offices or officers. Even the smallest, most routine decisions could be put up for discussion and to a vote. When the party was small, these anti-oligarchic measures enjoyed some success. But as the organization grew larger and the party became more successful, the need to effectively compete in elections, raise funds, run large rallies and demonstrations and work with other political parties once elected, led the Greens to adapt more conventional structures and practices.

One of the best known exceptions to the iron law of oligarchy was the now defunct International Typographical Union, described by Seymour Martin Lipset in his 1956 book, Union Democracy.[6]

Lipset suggests a number of factors that existed in the ITU that are allegedly responsible for countering this tendency toward bureaucratic oligarchy. The first and perhaps most important has to do with the way the union was founded. Unlike many other unions (e.g., the CIO's United Steel Workers of America, USWA, and numerous other craft unions) which were organized from the top down, the ITU had a number of large, strong, local unions who valued their autonomy, which existed long before the international was formed. This local autonomy was strengthened by the economy of the printing industry which operated in largely local and regional markets, with little competition from other geographical areas. Large locals continued to jealously guard this autonomy against encroachments by international officers. Second, the existence of factions helped place a check on the oligarchic tendencies that existed at the national headquarters. Leaders that are unchecked tend to develop larger salaries and more sumptuous lifestyles, making them unwilling to go back to their previous jobs. But with a powerful out faction ready to expose profligacy, no leaders dared take overly generous personal remuneration. These two factors were compelling in the ITU case.

Lipset and his collaborators also cite a number of other factors which are specific to craft unions in general and the printing crafts in particular, including the homogeneity of the membership, with respect to their work and lifestyles, their identification with their craft, their more middle class lifestyle and pay. For this latter point he draws upon Aristotle who argued that a democratic polity was most likely where there was a large, stable middle class, and the extremes of wealth and poverty were not great. Finally, the authors note the irregular work hours which led shopmates to spend more of their leisure time together. These latter factors are less persuasive, since they do not apply to many industrial forms of organization, where the greatest amount of trade union democracy has developed in recent times.[7]

The inevitability of oligarchy

Robert Michels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Michels (9 January 1876, Cologne, Germany — 3 May 1936, Rome, Italy) was a German sociologist who wrote on the political behavior of intellectual elites and contributed to elite theory. He is best known for his book Political Parties, which contains a description of the "iron law of oligarchy." He was a student of Max Weber, a friend and disciple of Werner Sombart and Achille Loria. Politically, he moved from the Social Democratic Party of Germany to the Italian Socialist Party, adhering to the Italian revolutionary syndicalist wing and later to Italian Fascism, which he saw as a more democratic form of socialism. His ideas provided the basis of moderation theory, which delineates the processes by which radical political groups are incorporated into the existing political system.


Michels, from a wealthy German family, studied in England, Paris (at the Sorbonne), and at universities in Munich, Leipzig (1897), Halle (1898), and Turin. He became a Socialist while teaching at the University of Marburg and became active in the radical wing of the Social Democratic Party of Germany; he left the party in 1907.

Michels was considered a brilliant pupil of Max Weber. In the early twentieth century, he achieved international recognition for his historical and sociological study, Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie. Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens, which was published in 1911. Its title in English is On the Sociology of political parties in modern democracy: a study on oligarchic tendencies in political aggregations. In this study, he demonstrated that political parties, including those considered socialist, cannot be democratic because they quickly transform themselves into bureaucratic oligarchies. In Italy, he associated with it:sindacalismo rivoluzionario, a leftist branch of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI).

Michels criticized Karl Marx's materialistic determinism. Michels' socialism was more empirical, borrowing from Werner Sombart's historical methods. Because Michels admired Italian culture and was prominent in the social sciences, he was brought to the attention of Luigi Einaudi and Achille Loria. They succeeded in procuring for Michels a professorship at the University of Turin, where he taught economics, political science and socioeconomics until 1914. He then became professor of economics at the University of Basel, Switzerland, a post he held until 1926.

After World War I, he joined the Fascist Party, led by Benito Mussolini, the former leader of the Italian Socialist Party. Michels was convinced that the direct link between Benito Mussolini's charisma and the proletariat was in some way the best means to realize a real proletarian government without political bureaucratic mediation. He spent his last years in Italy as professor of economics and the history of doctrines at the University of Perugia and occasionally lectured in Rome where he died on May 3, 1936

Friday, 23 September 2011

The Ego has landed

The following exchange of posts comes from the British Democracy Forum, on 25 July 2011, the day of the BNP leadership election count.

Based upon my reading of a number of his posts, I believe that the poster with the user name Mafeking is a veteran nationalist and an old colleague and friend of the late founder of the British National Party, John Tyndall.  Again, based upon my reading of a number of his posts, I believe the poster with the user name High Road to be Eddy Butler.

I agree with Mafeking's criticism of Butler's call for BNP members not to renew their membership of the party.  As far as I am aware, I was the first, of the erstwhile supporters of Butler's unsuccessful leadership challenge, publicly to distance myself from this advice and to promulgate advice directly to the contrary: that members should renew their membership, as it fell due for renewal. This advice to renew was subsequently also promulgated by the BNP Reform 2011 web site.

Again, as far as I am aware, I was also the first of Butler's erstwhile supporters, publicly to censure him, in writing, over his public promotion of the English Democrats, a rival and civic 'nationalist' political party.  BNP Reform 2011 subsequently issued a statement, drafted by myself, reprehending Butler's misconduct. This misconduct had included the disloyalty of publicly disparaging the prospects of a successful challenge to Griffin's leadership in 2011, and pouring scorn on those of his (Butler's) former supporters who were preparing to mount such a challenge.

I disagree with Mafeking's (and reportedly Lecomber's) opinion that a legal challenge to the unjust suspensions and expulsions which accompanied and followed Butler's leadership challenge would necessarily have helped to oust Griffin.  We have observed Griffin's delaying tactics when faced with litigation, and have noted the latitude he has been allowed by the courts.

I have been asked, since Butler went off the rails following his unjust expulsion from the BNP (he was denied a tribunal to which he was entitled, on the spurious grounds that he had less than two years' continuous membership of the party) whether I now regretted having supported his leadership challenge last year.  My answer was an emphatic "No!"  Despite all his faults and failings (and no-one is free of these) Butler would have been an improvement on Griffin, whose character unfits him for any position of trust whatsoever.

High Road: You obviously don’t know that Butler was expelled by Griffin from the NF in 1986. That Griffin joined with the pro C18 types in the BNP in the mid 1990s and that is one reason why Butler left the BNP in 1996. Butler had a rapprochement with Griffin around 1998 when Griffin professed to agree with his analysis. Butler got back involved and then found Griffin’s [...] and fell out with him again in 2000 and he joined the Freedom Party, only to come back to the BNP in 2003 as he says he felt he had to help with the success the BNP was enjoying then.

Yet an ‘old timer’ like you says:

“Nicholas Griffin - a man seen through by any with eyes to see, but not seen through at all by Mr Butler, not for years, until Nicholas Griffin's malice fell upon his own head.”

And why did Nick Griffin’s malice fall upon Butler’s head?

Could it be because Butler was about to expose Griffin’s financial wrong doings? Or do you have some other explanation that everyone else is ignorant at of?

Take a look at this one example NNF expert:


Also Mafeking you demonstrate abject ignorance of the dynamics within the BNP. If Butler had not increased pressure by all the means at his disposal, including telling people not to donate, not to be active not to renew and even by mildly promoting a rival party, do you seriously think that Griffin’s regime would have suffered the constant rate of attrition that it has. People like Kemp and Moffat would still be sucking on Griffin’s teet [sic]. Brons would never have stirred.

That is the simple fact.

Butler was fighting pretty much single handedly and had to do what he could with limited means. Let’s presume for a moment that you are a genuine old time nationalist. What exactly have you ever done to bring down Griffin? Anything at all?

Mafeking: Dear me, Mr Butler, your ego is quite as unable to tolerate criticism as ever it was.

I shall ignore your hagiography of yourself to remind you of previous statements of mine, namely that I (with others) strongly urged John never to admit the likes of Nicholas Griffin in to our party, and that when John appointed Nicholas Griffin to the editorship of Spearhead that was the cause of a sharp breach between us. When Nicholas Griffin's biting of the hand that fed him was revealed, that breach was healed, and - like others - I sank time and a good deal of money in to the effort to see Griffin off.

We were, of course, baulked by those, such as yourself, who, with prior knowledge of Nicholas Griffin's infamous character and history, set about deposing the party's founder in favour of a person you knew very well to be unfitted to the least amount of power, it being a certainty that he would abuse and misuse it - which he promptly did!

I have also told you of how, while you again returned your support to Nicholas Griffin as he and Mr Lecomber sought to expel the party's founder, I again reached for my wallet and made substantial contributions towards underwriting John's legal costs. Did you so much as raise a finger in defence of the founder you so fecklessly betrayed? Not a bit of it.

While it is the case that in the summer of last year you began at last to tell something of the truth of Nicholas Griffin, for some of us, objects of your scorn, it was too little and by far too late, and pre-empted [sic] only when Nicholas Griffin's spite and malice was directed upon yourself. What will never impress is that you knew so much long before this, and acted as Griffin's creature in all you did, yet then affected that you did so with a peg affixed to your nose.

You are to be thanked for the information you have since delivered, but in light of your associations with another political party I and particularly those others who placed trust in you are entitled to pose the question as to whether the interests of that other political party were not, all along, the covert but primary agenda to which you kept.

Your advice, rejected all along by me, that the BNP be abandoned and memberships either resigned or not renewed has proved the most disastrous advice yet given in this entire saga, and handsomely negates any good you may have intended.

Attack me by all means, call me a liar, question my record, pick at a faulty memory, do all that if you must and will, but it will never change the fact that the singular reason why Nicholas Griffin remains Chairman of the BNP today is your failure to lead or encourage in the matter of mounting legal challenges to the expulsions and suspensions (something upon which even Mr Lecomber agreed with myself and others was most urgently necessary), and for giving the worst advice that ever one "nationalist" gave to another.

Thursday, 22 September 2011

In, out, in, out, shake it all about...

Eddy Butler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [Illustrations omitted].

Eddy Butler is a former National Elections Officer of the British National Party and has been dubbed the party's "elections guru" by its newspaper, Voice of Freedom.[1]

Butler was originally the Tower Hamlets organiser for the National Front but, after having been expelled from that party by Griffin, in 1986, joined the British National Party (BNP) in the same year.[2] Butler first came to prominence in the early 1990s when he was party organiser in Tower Hamlets. Whilst in charge here Butler masterminded the 'Rights for Whites' campaign, a locally-based initiative that sought to highlight council bias against the White British. The campaign, which initially presented itself as independent before linking directly to the BNP, was instrumental in building up support for the party in the area, which culminated in the election of Derek Beackon as a councillor in Millwall in 1993.[3]

Butler's success brought him promotion within the party and he was soon appointed National Elections Officer. Whilst in this position, in 1994, he was the victim of a knife attack, allegedly carried out by members of Combat 18.[4] Butler also became closely associated with party 'modernisers' such as Tony Lecomber, Michael Newland and others associated with The Patriot magazine. Butler left the BNP in 1996 only to rejoin in 1998. As a member of the Bloomsbury Forum, Butler was closely linked to the founders of the Freedom Party and joined that party in 2001.[5]

Although appointed as the Freedom Party's Campaign Director, Butler subsequently returned to the BNP, in 2003, and again as its National Elections Officer played a part in delivering success at the 2006 local elections. In 2009 he was the party's lead candidate for the European Parliament election in the Eastern region, in which the BNP's party list achieved 6.1% of the vote. He was the party's candidate for Harlow in the 2010 General Election.[6] and also a candidate in Barking and Dagenham in the London borough council elections, held on the same day.

On 18 June 2010, Butler announced that he would challenge the current leader, Nick Griffin, for the leadership (office of National Chairman) of the BNP the following month. On 11 August 2010, it was announced that he had not obtained the very large number of nominations (840) required to trigger an election.

On 13 October 2010, Eddy was expelled from the BNP, allegedly for breaching the party's code of conduct.[7]. He was denied a disciplinary tribunal, to which he was entitled, on the spurious grounds that he had less than two years' continuous membership of the party at the time of his alleged offence(s).

On 4 August 2011 Eddy Butler announced he would be joining the English Democrats Party [8]


1.^ "May 3rd 2007: The Campaign Starts Now!" article from The Voice of Freedom

2.^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3igG5AUl_U

3.^ N. Copsey, Contemporary British Fascism: The British National Party and the Quest for Legitimacy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 55-6

4.^ N. Copsey, Contemporary British Fascism: The British National Party and the Quest for Legitimacy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p. 66

5.^ N. Copsey, Contemporary British Fascism: The British National Party and the Quest for Legitimacy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p. 69

6.^ http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/harlow

7.^ http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/10/expelled.html

8.^ http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2011/08/way-ahead-english-democrats.html

Accentuate the positive

Acknowledgements to AmericanRenaissance.com for the following text of a recent speech by Alex Kurtagic.  Mr Kurtagic provides some useful insights and even where he goes wrong, does so in an entertaining manner.

Masters of the Universe

Alex Kurtagic, September 13, 2011

[Editor’s Note: This speech was delivered at a conference held by the National Policy Institute in Washington, DC on September 10, 2011. In our opinion, it was the best and most interesting talk.]

Two years ago I asked the question, “What will it take?”

How bad will it need to get, before the inconvenience of changing things becomes preferable to more of the same?

I asked this because for many years we’d been hearing about a collapse that would cause a great uprising and magically solve all our problems.

The theory was that Whites in the West tolerated their displacement because they were too comfortable, because they felt prosperous, and risking their lifestyles by speaking out against multiculturalism, against racial quotas, against the slander coming from Hollywood and Madison Avenue, seemed not worth the trouble.

People found it easier to keep quiet and isolate themselves economically.

And in 2009 it seemed the collapse was about to happen. And yet, despite the biggest economic crisis in eighty years, life carried on just like before.

More immigration, more laws, more regulations, more surveillance, more bureaucracy, more political correctness, more money printing, and more and higher taxes to pay for it all.

Not only that, but elections were held afterwards, and the same politicians, with the same policies, were returned to power.

So the question remains, “What will it take?”

The Challenge

Those who have made it their mission to educate our fellow citizens.

Not only does the ideology of radical egalitarianism permeate all institutions of power, but this ideology is so entrenched as a quasi-religious orthodoxy as to be impermeable to reason.

No matter what facts or data or arguments are presented against this ideology, no matter what degree of perversion and corruption are revealed in association with the ideologues, no matter what obnoxious effects it has on the individual, it seems impossible to dislodge this ideology from the seats of power.

One can tell millions of citizens about the negative effects of diversity and multiculturalism, one can show them mountains of data, one can underline why and how this matters in a society, why and how it impacts on them personally, and many will openly or otherwise agree with what one says; but very few to speak in public against diversity and multiculturalism, and any statement is very quickly neutralised with accusations of racism.

Any debate about diversity and multiculturalism, let alone any debate about the reasons why it’s important to have the debate, quickly degenerates into Byzantine discussions about whether or not something or someone is racist.

In education, those who go against the prevailing orthodoxy are systematically purged or marginalised.

And during elections we are presented with two or three nearly identical options, all founded on the same ideological principles. All with the same record of failure, all staffed by mediocre politicians, all infested with known liars, sell-outs, and opportunists.

And yet, even with everyone fed up with them, even with genuine alternatives available, the same two or three parties get voted into power election after election.

For over 100 years, people like us have been saying the same things, making the same arguments, presenting ever growing mountains of data, ever more facts to support our position; and yet for over 100 years, our camp has been in retreat, dwindling in numbers, losing influence, and growing ever more marginal.

Europe saw various revival movements during the first half of the 20th century.

But they were defeated politically and militarily. Much of the knowledge they produced was ignored, banned, maligned, or destroyed.

So the question arises, given what is happening to us, and given that the end product of the progressive egalitarian project is the end of us, what can we do to turn the tide? What must we do to alter the course of our society?

Left Mysticism

There are many reasons why we have not been more successful.

One of them is that certain ideas lost legitimacy after the last world war, even though those ideas were much bigger than any political movement.

Another reason is that loss of legitimacy resulted in a loss of access to institutional resources; it became more difficult for those ideas to look important.

And yet another reason was that as the equality zealots gained the ascendancy, they were able to use all of the institutional resources of the state to reconfigure how we see the world, how we learn about the world, and even how we think about the world.

And they also redeveloped the status system in our society, so that their ideas were elevated and enthroned, and those of their enemies scorned and reviled; so that their chums were promoted and praised to the skies, and their enemies demoted and ostracised as enemies of civilised society.

And through their control of institutions and the status system, they were able to encode their values and ideals.

Their values and ideas became a system of symbols.

And because symbols have emotional resonance, because they operate at the pre-rational level, at the emotional and instinctive level, the values and ideals of the Left became something a person felt, rather than something a person thought or thought about.

If we ask someone to explain how humans are equal, and if they’re able to explain it at all, we get mantras, stock phrases, hearsay, and circular reasoning, but no real explanation.

“We are all human. We all bleed red. There’s more genetic variation between individuals than there are between races.”

It’s not something a person actually thinks, or does any research on, it’s something he overhears, something he feels is right, or ought to be right, because it feels good, and it feels good to be accepted in society, and it feels good to be seen as a good person.

And when we tell him that he’s wrong, that humans are not equal, and he protests, it’s not because he’s done any research—in fact he doesn’t want to look at the research—not unless it’s convenient; it’s because he feels it’s morally wrong, or because he fears social sanction, disapproval, shame.

Thus the Left has mystified its values.

And through this mystification, the Left has made its system impervious to reason.

In doing so, its proponents effectively became the masters of our universe.

They set its boundaries, determined its laws, defined its appearance, and fixed its cosmological constants.

The Messenger is the Message

Thus those on our camp who have based their strategy for change on educating our fellow citizens, on presenting them with the facts and the arguments, have for the most part been confirming the views of people who are already agree with us.

Where there has been a conversion, most likely it’s been because of some external factor.

The facts and the arguments don’t go to the individual. The individual comes to the facts and the arguments.

The reason is that humans are rarely persuaded by facts and arguments. Rather they are impressed by their source.

In other words, the message is the messenger; and the messenger is the message.

This is why it’s said that in a society the bulk of individuals follow whomever is in charge. Even when those in charge are hostile.

They are awed by their masters not because they are reasonable, but because they are powerful and masterful, because they control their universe, because they control access to status and resources, because they are dangerous, or else because they represent an idea that is seductive, that somehow inspires them.

And they are not likely to oppose their masters because deep down they want to be like them, they want to be among them, they want to have what they have, or they want to be part of that idea, they want to be with the winning team.

The only time they oppose their masters, or discard the idea is when they cease to seem masterful, when there’s no longer a mystique around them, when they start looking weak and pathetic and all too human, when they look like they can be replaced—when something more seductive is on offer.

But the question remains: how did this hostile movement of proletarian anti-Traditionalism achieve mastery over our civilisation?

How did this hostile movement gain followers in the first place, not only among the rabble who stood to gain the most from their hatred of aristocracy, but also among the most able and the most intelligent, the ones who stood to lose the most?

Love for Abstract Principles

We speak of our society having been hijacked by organised minorities.

But the fact is this: their ideas of radical egalitarianism, of modernity, of progress, of globalism, as perverse as they may seem to some of us today, go with the grain of Western culture.

Western culture is individualistic, therefore Western man is not very ethnocentric.

He is less tribal, less racial, than other peoples of the world.

Likewise, Western culture is unique for its moral universalism, and Western man tends to become enamoured of abstract universal principles—liberty, equality, brotherhood, democracy, and so on.

Love for abstract principles is linked to a highly developed moral sense, which comes with a highly developed guilt complex.

Like all humans, Western man is tribal and has racial instincts, but they tend to put them aside in favour of principles, or individual utility—whatever they are at a given point in time and space.

For Western man, a much higher level of existential threat is needed to bring racial instincts to the surface.

So what we call White ethnomasochists don’t see their actions as being against their racial or even their group interests; they see them as being moral, as being high minded.

Reason Doesn’t Motivate

Humans, generally, are not motivated by rational self-interest.

Humans are motivated by the need to belong, and the need for status and self-esteem.

We want to fit into a community with whose members we identify and where we feel good about ourselves.

We are also motivated by inborn emotional tendencies.

And we humans also like to dream and fantasise, and are motivated by our own dreams and fantasies.

They may take the form of a religion, the form of a mythology, or art, or literature, or cosmology.

We dream and fantasise about what could be, about what ought to be, about how we would like to be.

It’s how we create meaning in our lives.

In the West, these daydreams often revolve around abstract principles.

Facts Don’t Persuade

At the same time there is too much information.

Too many sides to an issue, too many versions of the same story.

Most people don’t have the time or the energy to research it, to try and discover the truth, to distinguish fact from fiction, knowledge from propaganda.

The result is that most choose the data that flatter their vanity, that make them feel good about themselves, that make them feel part of their chosen community.

And they reject data that seem inconvenient or embarrassing, or that come from a source with which they cannot personally identify.

Thus, if we are to be engaged in the most difficult project that can be attempted in a society, which is fundamentally to change the dominant ideology, to overthrow the ruling order, we have to begin by accepting our fellow citizens as they are, and not as we would like them to be.

In this case, we have to accept that the individual is not generally open to persuasion. Not unless he is already looking to be persuaded.

Most want to be confirmed in their beliefs. They don’t want us to disrupt their world.

And it’s no good saying “Oh, they need to wake up and smell the carcass.”

Humans will sooner keep on dreaming than wake up—after all, their dreams are nice and feel good, while reality is ugly and feels bad.

If we are to cause a change of allegiance, from one paradigm to another, we have to think in terms of seduction and inspiration.

As I noted before, humans are much more open to be inspired and seduced, than they are to be persuaded through facts and reason.

This is why when the Lindt company is trying to sell you chocolate, they don’t tell you how it will meet your nutritional requirements for the day; they tell you it’s going to make you feel good. Never mind how, or why.

Few care about the chemistry.

Few want the experience demystified with hard scientific facts.

This is not to say that reason, reality, or the facts, are not important, because they are.

But they are not a method of changing a person’s mind.

They are a method of confirming a person whose mind is already made up, and probably made up since before he was born.

Positive Motivation

So, how then, do we motivate our fellow citizens to proclaim an unconventional allegiance, with all the risks this entails?

Earlier I said that humans tend to be impressed by the masterful.

They come to an idea because the messenger is somehow seductive.

They want to be like him. Or with people like him.

I also said that they want to belong and to feel good about themselves.

If we are not being more successful selling our message, it’s because we are offering none of the above.

Instead, many on our side offer an endless litany of complaints about how the world has gone wrong, about how we are in decline, about how we have less and less power in our society.

Anyone looking into our camp often sees wall-to-wall negativity, pessimism, fear, paranoia, despair, and lamentation.

It all amounts to one big, long wail of self-pity.

The despair is such that the mantra we often hear on the fringes of the Right is “worse is better.”

Not because the people saying this have real solutions, but because they’re hoping the collapse will fix everything.

That is not the attitude of the masterful, of the powerful, of people who shape events.

That is the attitude of people shaped by events. The attitude of a loser.

Defeatism is a prelude to defeat.

To succeed, we have to project an image of success.

That means getting rid of the negativity.

Speaking not in terms of what we’ve lost; but in terms of what we’re going to gain; in terms of what kind of society we want to build, in terms of what happens next, not what happened before.

A winner learns from the past, but he’s always looking to the future.

He’s always facing the sun. And we are solar people. We have brought light into this world. We must not forget who we are.

We must not become slaves of the darkness.

A winner’s image is an indispensable part of a winning formula.

Alternative Society

And a winning formula means acting as if.

Acting as if we are already there.

Which implies operating like an alternative society, offering access to a parallel universe, physical and metaphysical.

Access to a different cosmology, a different system of symbols, a different way of understanding life.

The new nationalism looks like an establishment in waiting.

Not like fearful cynics who are waiting for a collapse, but like people who are building something new and important, that makes the collapse desirable because it opens the way for what comes afterwards, because it opens the way for a golden age.

Rather than looking like conservatives fighting the tide of progress, we have to be the tide—the tide that sweeps away the old and decrepit left, that sweeps them out of power, sweeps them into the landfill of history, never to rise again.

Radical and Traditional

It’s not a contradiction when some of us say that we are radical and traditional.

We are radical because we seek fundamental change—we’re not looking for reforms; we’re looking for something entirely new.

At the same time we are traditional, because our project is rooted in Tradition, even if it is futuristic.

This is why we are not conservatives: conservatism is the negation of the new; Tradition is the ongoing affirmation of the old, of the archaic. And therefore it’s endlessly regenerating. Constantly renewing.

Can Be Done

Now, when some of us speak of transforming the culture, of reconfiguring it in order to make our politics possible, many are intimidated by the scale of the task.

It seems to them a godlike undertaking, more fantasy than reality.

But this is not so.

We don’t have to be too old to remember how our culture was reconfigured by the radical Left.

It has been done before. Within living memory.

How does one transform a culture?

The process begins very simply.

It begins with pen and paper, with brush and canvas, with a man and his musical instrument.

It’s in the hands of a creative minority, who create because it’s in their nature, because it’s a compulsion, and because they are impatient with the world around them and dream of something else, they fantasise about something new.

The artist, the painter, the philosopher do what their nature compels them to do.

Over time there is a body of work.

Over time they meet others like themselves.

And they start having gatherings, and forming clubs and associations.

And in time these aggregate with others of a similar mould.

In time they develop into a current. In time they develop into a movement. And in time they emerge as a counter-culture. As a rival and competitor to the existing establishment.

This is when the struggle becomes political, and enters the political arena.

And it becomes a struggle between two opposing forces, two colliding cosmologies, two conceptions of the universe. One representing the past, another representing the future.

Only one of them becomes master of the universe.

Politics is the Last Stage

You will notice that politics is the last stage.

This is why political parties like the BNP in Britain, the Front National in France, the NPD in Germany, remain marginal, despite the obvious failures of the Left.

Politics is the last stage. Politics reflects the culture. Politics is the art of the possible.

So our politics will not be possible until we control the culture. And because we don’t control the culture we are in the period before politics.

The Left is approaching the period after politics, because their ideas have been dominant for a long time, and by now they have failed on every level. They are running on autopilot.

And now they are increasingly worried and desperate, because they can sense their own weakness, they can sense the boredom and the discontent seething underneath, the potential for a revolution.

They have failed aesthetically, criminologically, culturally, demographically, economically, politically, socially. They have failed on every front.

And by now they are vulnerable on all fronts.

War on All Fronts

This is why our project is a war on all fronts, and why it needs multiple angles of attack.

There is room for individuals of every inclination, man and woman, young and old, with different talents and abilities. Which means that anybody can wage the war in some way or another.

Some will do it as writers, others as artists, others as business people, others as protesters, others as patrons.

But to attract real talent we have to provide opportunities for talent. Which means business and professional opportunities.

Because in our economic era, being economically independent from the system, and having alternative sources of status recognition, means being intellectually and spiritually independent.

And to be attractive we have to be image conscious—because a picture speaks a thousand words.

If we want our fellow citizens to see, we have to help them visualise.

We have to show them what we mean, and we have to do it in less than a second.

Most people make up their minds about something or someone in less than a second.

They won’t read a 400-page book. They won’t even read an article. Not unless they’ve already decided to do so.

What captures their attention is what resonates with them at the level of instinct, of emotion, at the animal level, at the spiritual level.

The way music resonates. The way a landscape resonates. The way a film resonates.

Man is the symbolising animal, he operates in symbols, structured sounds and images.

That’s why a person’s authority is instantly obvious. It’s in the way he looks. The way he sounds. The way he carries himself.

Often he becomes a symbol of authority.

So to become masters of our universe once again, to rise as new masters as the old ones fall, a new nationalism needs to look like it deserves the sceptre of power.

It needs to symbolise a new beginning. And it needs to symbolise it now and always, and not wait for the collapse to clean the slate.

We don’t know when that collapse will come, or what it will look like, or even if we’ll notice it.

But if and when it does, it will clean the slate for everyone, for every competing group, and there are many others who are looking to have a bite at the cherry after the liberals are gone.

Islam is looking to dominate in Europe, and in the West. And Islamists are also hoping for a collapse.

We cannot expect a collapse to solve our problems. In fact, we shouldn’t be focusing on the collapse at all.

We should be focusing on the world we want to see after the collapse, the world we want to see tomorrow. And we have to be building it today.

Because if and when that collapse comes, if we are not ready, if we are not there, looking like the world is ours for the taking, someone else will be, and they will become the masters of our universe.

Focusing on the world of tomorrow gives us an added advantage, which is the same advantage that the utopian Left enjoyed in years past: the advantage of having a sense of mission, a greater purpose.

It’s not a 9-5 job, where a person lives for the next weekend, for the next paycheque, dragged along by involution in the Kali-Yuga. It’s about mastery over our lives, mastery over our destiny, mastery over our past, present, and future.

Being traditional also gives us an advantage that the Left doesn’t have because they are anti-Tradition: the advantage of belonging, of being part of a community of people with whom we feel at home; of having a home and a family to which one can always return; of having a past and a future; of life with meaning, because we are part of something greater than ourselves, that is timeless and transcendental.

With the Left a person is always homeless, always a stranger, always a meaningless atom in a sea of Formica, PVC, neon, polyester, and reinforced concrete.

One final advantage is that the citizenry is fed up.

The individuals now in charge, in education, in the media, in politics, have amassed such a stupendous record of failure, have committed so many abuses, have lied and stolen so blatantly, that tax payers will be receptive to something new if they see something viable.

At the moment they keep voting the same politicians back into power because they are not impressed by the alternatives. They are choosing the least worse option.

So it’s not as if we are not given plenty of material to work with.

Concluding Remarks

I would like to wrap this up by underlining the key ideas I would like you to take back at the end of this conference.

If you want to help bring about fundamental change, and are actively involved in the process, I ask that you incorporate in your approach a few basic principles:

One—think irrationally. Humans have the capacity for reason, but they use reason in irrational ways.

They often have irrational motivations, which they rationalise after the fact. But they are irrational.

So to reach our fellow citizens we have to understand their motivations, and not be irritated by them when they differ from ours.

We have anticipate their needs so that we can meet them, anticipate their fears so that we can dispel them, anticipate their desires so that we can fulfil them. Especially if they are irrational.

Two—impress to inform, don’t inform to impress.

Often a person who sits through a speech doesn’t pay attention to half of what is said, he remembers only one or two phrases, one or two concepts. And not for very long.

But when there is an able speaker the listener is nearly always impressed by the delivery, he likes the energy, he likes the emotions roused in him. Therefore he listens.

We often comment on the speaker, less on what he said.

So aim to be impression oriented, to be effect oriented.

Marketing and information campaigns are not about information.

They are about eliciting a reaction, inducing and maintaining a state of mind, opening the mind to an idea—among people who are overloaded with information, who don’t want to be disturbed, who are wrapped up in their own lives.

That’s why marketing and information campaigns aim to be iconic.

That’s why they reduce everything to a soundbite, a slogan, an image, or a jingle that is infectious.

Facts are important, but at this stage they are subsidiary, because a mind remains closed so long as the spirit remains unmoved.

Three—think in pictures. Help people visualise what you are offering. A picture speaks a thousand words, and it’s a lot easier to remember. And much more difficult to argue against because images resonate at an emotional and spiritual level.

Four—be positive. No one wants to be around a person who complains all of the time, who is always negative, who is always doom and gloom. Humans respond to optimism, because they want to feel good.

And our people in the West are crying out for a renaissance. So be positive, and focus on the future.

It’s about where we came from and where we are going, not about where we are.

Five—enjoy the struggle. You will be more creative, and you’ll have more energy, and you’ll get more people interested in you, if you enjoy what you’re doing.

Because if you enjoy what you’re doing and you’re good at it, you feel confident. And everyone likes that.

So think irrationally, impress to inform, think in pictures, be positive, and enjoy the struggle.

Thank you very much.

[Editor’s note: Mr. Kurtagic is a novelist and essayist based in Britain. His website is here. A chapter from his most recent novel, Mister, was posted here on the AR website.]

(Posted on September 13, 2011)

A blueprint for the salvation of our nation

 "The Eleventh Hour not only provides us with a blueprint for the salvation of our country; it also tells the inspiring story of what can be achieved by one remarkable man of vision who has set his face implacably against the national death-wish with which so many of our so-called leaders seem to be afflicted. It is a book that should be read by all Britons who have a genuine love of their country, and indeed by patriots all over the world who feel about their own countries in the same way. The book may not become a best-seller in the immediate future; but I believe that in the years beyond it will take its place as the most outstanding testament written by a British Nationalist." RONALD RICKCORD (APRIL 1988)

Product Details

Hardback or Paperback: 549 pages

Publisher: Albion Press

ISBN-10: 095136863X

ISBN-13: 978-0951368633


Steven Books & Tapes

League Enterprises (SB).

27, Old Gloucester Street




Website: http://www.stevenbooks.co.uk/

Email: info@stevenbooks.co.uk

Bloomfield Books

26 Meadow Lane


Suffolk CO10 2TD

Telephone: 01787 376374

"And Tyndall is an extraordinary person. After meeting him, there can be little comfort for those who would choose to think that...[his movement]...is led by fools with loud mouths and small brains...He is, I think, an honourable man...These are his faiths, passionately held, and he flaunts them. It is a quality that sets him apart from many contemporary politicians and one that, at a time when people are increasingly disillusioned with the deviousness and bartering of the current political scene, makes him all the more potentially dangerous. Were he simply a political opportunist, it would be easier to dismiss him." SALLY BEAUMAN, SUNDAY TELEGRAPH MAGAZINE

Give a dog a bad name and hang him

The following is an extract from the Wikipedia article on Jared Taylor


Taylor believes that white people have their own racial interests, and that it is intellectually valid for them to protect these interests; he sees it as anomalous that whites have allowed people of other ethnicities to organize themselves politically while not doing so themselves.[13] His journal American Renaissance was founded to provide such a voice for white interests, as well as to convince whites that this enterprise is a legitimate one.[14] Taylor's beliefs are based on his view that human beings are essentially tribal by nature, and that people are instinctively loyal to those of their own race. As a result of this, he believes that societies comprising many ethnic groups cannot be as successful as those that are racially homogeneous.[7]

Taylor has summarized the basis for his views in the following terms:

Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society—language, religion, class, ideology—it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century... Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse.[15]

He has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote "when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight."[16] Taylor believes in the direct link between race and intelligence, where blacks are generally less intelligent than whites, and whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians, as expressed in The Bell Curve. Taylor has said in an interview:

I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter.[17]

Taylor has made remarks on the growing number of non-whites in Europe, America and Australia.

Taylor has also given support to Hans-Hermann Hoppe's attempts to persuade libertarians to oppose immigration; he generally approves of Hoppe's work, although he sees the pursuit of a society with no government at all to be "the sort of experiment one might prefer to watch in a foreign country before attempting it oneself".[18]

In a speech delivered on May 28, 2005, to the British self-determination group, Sovereignty, Taylor said of his personal feelings to interracial marriages, "I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don't want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg."[19]

Taylor is one of the only American white nationalists to oppose antisemitism.[citation needed] In his 1983 book Shadows of the Rising Sun, he denounced imperial Japanese links to Nazi Germany. At the first American Renessiance conference, held in Atlanta in 1994, rabbi Mayer Schiller was the dinner speaker. In 1997, he removed Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis from the groups' e-mail list.[20]


Taylor's views have been described as racist by some academics, political commentators, journalists, and various other organizations.[21][22][23] Taylor himself refutes any accusation of racism; he claims that his views are reasonable and moderate, and that they were considered normal by most key figures in American history.[7]

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Taylor as "a courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist — a kind of modern-day version of the refined but racist colonialist of old."[24] A 2005 feature in the Pittsburg Post Gazette described Taylor as "a racist in the guise of expert"[25]

Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, writers in the Intelligence Report (a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center), has written that "Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy. He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen." They have also stated that "American Renaissance has become increasingly important over the years, bringing a measure of intellectualism and seriousness to the typically thug-dominated world of white supremacy".[20]

Taylor's views have drawn accusations of racism from various academics, political commentators, journalists, and activist organizations.[26][27][28]

Conservative author and National Review contributor John Derbyshire, while not condoning all of Taylor's work, has said that Taylor is a "polite and good-natured man," but that he is a "dissident" whose opinions "violate tribal taboos."[29]

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

Ten years ago today

The 'mainstream' media, like the police, are always ready with an excuse (however implausible) with which to insult the intelligence of white people when they are challenged over their institutional anti-white racism.


"The media was criticised for their lack of coverage of the Ross Parker case in comparison to similar racist murders occurring in the UK, such as the case of Anthony Walker and that of Stephen Lawrence.[7][45] The BBC later admitted that "it was a mistake not to report the case of Ross Parker more extensively", noting the "stark" parallels with the Walker case though also suggesting the story had been "squeezed out" by other news such as a conviction of the killer of Danielle Jones. However it was noted that in hindsight that the crime was "worthy of coverage" "by any standards".[45] Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Kelvin McKenzie expressed similar sentiments, with the latter criticising newspapers including his own employer, The Sun. He stated, "if you believe you're a victim of an ethnic minority and you're white there is nowhere to go. Editors are so liberal that they are scared to be seen that they're moving to the right of their paper". Ross' mother Davinia Parker expressed similar concerns that white vicitms of race crime are ignored stating "because we are white, English, we didn't get the coverage"[9][46][47] In 2006 a Times article by Brendan Montague on racist murders in Britain stated searching newspaper archives shows "an almost total boycott of stories involving the white victims of attacks" whereas "cases involving black and minority ethnic victims are widely reported".[8]

"Others have noted that the lack of coverage is not simply a media issue. Peter Fahy, the spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers states “a lot of police officers and other professionals feel almost the best thing to do is to try and avoid [discussing such attacks] for fear of being criticised. This is not healthy.”. Montague suggests the lack of police appeals in cases involving white vicitms may be a cause of the lack of media coverage.[48]

"The organisation who did cover the case also faced some criticism. The government's East of England office produced a controversial secret report by Dr Roger Green examining race relations in Peterborough. The document suggested that the Peterborough Evening Telegraph had a history of insensitivity and coverage of the case was "possibly adding to any climate of racial and communal unrest". However such concerns were completely rejected by the police and local community representatives who praised the newspaper's approach.[49]"

From the Wikipedia article entitled "Murder of Ross Parker"

Jared Taylor: Defend our White Identity!

Mr Jared Taylor, of American Renaissance, argues well when he is not stumbling over his words.

I remain sceptical about his claim that Jews and Koreans are the most intelligent people in the world.  I have not examined any evidence which may support it in Herrnstein's and Murray's 1994 book, The Bell Curve, but on the face of it: if the claim were true one would have expected the Industrial Revolution to have occurred in European Russia (because of its many Jews), or in Korea, rather than in England where it in fact occurred.  Perhaps this particular assertion by Mr Taylor is a sop to his detractors in the American Establishment, a way of saying: Look, I'm really not a white 'supremacist' - so be nice to me!

However, the main thrust of Mr Taylor's disquisition, that white people, Caucasians, are a victimized and shrinking majority in their own homelands, is self-evidently true.  This holds true for Europe, Australasia and (as regards victimization) Southern Africa, no less than for North America.

Saturday, 17 September 2011

Protest and survive

Acknowledgements to the web site of the defunct Freedom Party for the following book review

The Great Immigration Scandal

By Steve Moxon

Imprint Academic 2004

Reviewed by Michael Newland

‘Systematic abuse of procedure and open invitation to fraud allowed by the Home Office at ministerial and top management levels extend across the whole of migration.’

Enoch Powell observed that matters of vital importance to humankind are contested at the limits of human endeavour.

Most vital events in history invite the invention of counter factuals. Seemingly trivial changes, as a result either of chance events or a different decision by the leaders, would have led to an entirely different result. A small publishing industry thrives on discussing ‘what might have happened’. A recent BBC documentary, for example, suggested that Rasputin might have been murdered for fear that he would persuade the Romanovs to seek an armistice with Germany - leaving that nation free to concentrate its forces on the Western front, and perhaps winning the Great War.

Are Britain and its people to be terminated by mass immigration? Are we to end up like the American Indians marginalised and sidelined?

I have a little private joke about areas of the country becoming ‘reservations’, as native Britons flee in the face of living as foreigners in the cities. Far-fetched? The head of the Commission for Racial Equality has called for black children to be taught separately. The thin end of a very long wedge indeed.

Opinion among those who do not believe in a future multiracial multicultural paradise divides between those who say “too late”, and those who argue that almost any situation can be turned round given the political will.

The difference between the outlook for the British people and that faced by American Indians in the 19th century is not simply in the resources available to us to defend our continued existence. The Indian tribes had no hope of resistance against European weapons and numbers. Counter factuals are difficult to imagine in that case.

The present British struggle is obviously not military. The vital and critical difference for the British is whether the will exists to resist, or even adequate comprehension of the bad faith of our own leaders. The Indian tribes understood very well what would happen to them when the first transcontinental railway was built in the 1860s, and made a futile attempt to attack it. A similar outcome for the British people is just as certain if immigration policy is not changed.

For decades, the British appear to have been lulled into a sense of false security by deception about immigration on the part of every government, both in respect of numbers and concerning the intention to allow mass immigration on a permanent basis.

For example, the last census figure for the numbers of Chinese in Manchester was 8,000. But when a civil servant gave evidence on oath, in a trial concerning Snakehead gangs, he revealed what he said was ‘highly classified’ information in that the real numbers were between 40-50,000!

But those who claim to be able to divine the inevitable outcome for us with certainty are arguably wrong. Neither the eclipse of our own people nor a last minute 1940-style ‘Battle of Britain’ survival story is certain. We are not fatally technically disadvantaged like the Red Indians. Our fate will be decided by our comprehension of our situation, and by our ability to organise ourselves politically. All that can change rapidly as a result of events unforeseen either in nature or effect. The Dutch political situation was radically altered by the murder of a politician and a journalist. The unexpected can trigger a sea change.


One Sunday in March 2004, the Sunday Times published damning revelations about how immigrants from Eastern Europe were being allowed into Britain in blatant contravention of the ‘strict’ controls which the Labour government claimed were in place.

For the first time, a civil servant who had worked within the immigration service, had blown the whistle on how things were actually done. The one-legged Rumanian roof tiler, supposedly coming to Britain to start a building business, became a tabloid cause celebre.

Steve Moxon worked in the immigration service for some months on a daily basis at the level of assessing and approving applications for entry to Britain. He handled and processed the documents upon which individual decisions were based. The incredible extent of the deception, deliberately engineered by the most senior levels of government and the civil service to fool the public into believing that there are substantial controls on immigration into Britain, is laid out in his book.

Moxon’s book is a crash course on immigration, the realities of policy, and the many false arguments, both social and economic, which have been thrust upon the British to deceive us. It’s a damn good read whatever your previous level of appreciation of the monstrous imposition made upon the British people by those supposedly paid to serve us.

Three examples from the many in the book, concerning how immigration controls actually work, give the flavour of what Moxon found working for the immigration service in Sheffield.

It is now widely known from recent press reports that many of the ‘language schools’ which immigrants claim to be coming to Britain to join as students are bogus. But when Moxon attempted to make elementary checks on schools named by migrants in their applications, by looking to see if they had a working telephone enquiry line or web site, he was told he was showing excessive zeal and given an official reprimand.

Students visiting Britain are supposed to be here under strict controls about working. Yet, when Moxon saw clear evidence from bank statements that the rules were being ignored, he was told not to bother in characteristically suggestive, but deniable in its implications, civil service language. He also deduced that the immigration control branch of government is deliberately under-staffed to ensure its ineffectiveness.

He was further reprimanded for questioning the extension of visits to Britain in order to obtain medical treatment, when it was very likely that NHS treatment would be obtained illegally.

Why then are things like they are? Why have Britain’s political leaders put themselves into a position where they can be found out rather than openly pursuing what they appear to believe in.

The embarrassing pursuit of their own creature comfort is one motive. It is only recently that the leftish political establishment has been willing to make the kind of hubristic admission made by Will Hutton on television. Britain needs immigrants to provide nannies. Right-on Will. And don’t forget those of us suffering life without butlers. You just can’t get the staff since the war.

Recognition that there is little support for what they doing, and so a disinclination to admit to it, is another motive. But, as Moxon says, the motive goes far deeper than political tactics, or nannies for wealthy Labourite apparatchiks. The leftish establishment has retreated into its own incestuous in-group in the face of the failure of its own favoured ‘vanguards’ - like the working-class and students - to stay true to the cause.

The establishment lives in a state of denial like a failing but arrogant military staff pushing symbols of non-existent or defeated armies round a map table.

The working-class is implacably opposed to immigration, and the students generally not absorbed by politics in the way they once were. Getting a good job is now the preoccupation, not upsetting the social order.

It is easy to see the attractions for people of power and influence, deserted by their own political troops and living on borrowed time, in seeking some new constituency of followers prepared to listen - and one which lends itself to romanticism. The religious fervour with which heretics about migration are pursued betrays the psychological imperative behind it.

As Steve Moxon says, the migrant is now the championed figure in politically correct thinking - ‘another class of saviour for the cause being the disadvantaged person from outside the core of the capitalist world untainted through never having declined to grasp the chance when offered of ‘rising up’ against the bosses’.

Those pesky working-class and students, corrupted by capitalist false consciousness, no longer deserve even the courtesy of having laid out for them the intentions of the superior and socialist class who, chosen by fate, alone guard the truth in their lonely position of responsibility.

The sheer looniness of imagining that immigrants in the main have any enthusiasm for anything other than making money, and using their own numbers and solidarity as a lever for their own advancement, betrays just how far the Guardianista class have retreated from reality.

Neither of the two main strands of argument employed to justify mass immigration holds water.

Just about every speech by a major political leader during the last decade appears to include as de rigeur a ‘tribute’ to mass immigration and ‘diversity’. Political leaders appear to think it too risky not to mention the subject on every occasion ad nauseam. But how any society can hold together when it is the policy to create the maximum division among its members in their aspirations as to the social fabric?

The head of the CRE, Trevor Phillips, now says that multiculturalism is not such a good idea after all, and that separatist projects would no longer be funded. He presumably does not see racially separate teaching arrangements as separatist. Maybe he really does now reject multiculti, but the numbers able to form critical masses of varying ethnic composition, and pursue separatism whether government likes it or not, are now so great that it will make little difference what he thinks.

Moxon cynically thinks it likely that Phillips’ remarks are merely the pretext for more resources being directed towards ethnic groups. If that is the case, then it will be said that the Government is funding integration. As always, the real reason will be to buy votes.

Question diversity as a justification for immigration and the standard switcheroo will appear. Britain’s prosperity depends on migrants - ‘labour shortages’, and so on.

Moxon’s book includes a very good rapid tour of the detailed arguments for mass economic migration - every one of which is easy to deflate.

Anyone who has had the misfortune of trying recently to get a job through Labour’s Job Centres in the main national melting pot - now dubbed ‘Londonistan’ by the politically aware - can see what is happening at least among smaller employers. Nearly every one of them has expectations of being able to get his work done - and often skilled work - at farcical wages associated with ‘foreign students’. The black economy is creeping into the white-collar workplace. Often employers are imbued with inflated ‘animal spirits’ about the low wages they can expect to pay. Even the fabled ‘students’ sometimes cannot be found to fill the job. Shelf-fillers in London are now paid 10% less than in other areas of the country with lower living costs.

The leading immigration economist, Professor George Borjas, joked that economists have no difficulty in agreeing that an increased supply of labour will lower wages. Until the increased labour supply is attributed to immigration, when economists become mysteriously tongue-tied!

As Moxon says, increasing numbers of local British workers feel it is simply not worthwhile to work for the wages now being paid. This creates a ratchet. Existing workers disappear into the benefits system or crime (or both), and the near three million classified as sick. Immigrants are brought in to meet supposed shortages of staff, who further force down wages and encourage more to give up on work. Past immigrants are themselves disadvantaged by those coming in later as the ratchet tightens.

Particularly duplicitous is the Labour claim of ‘staff shortages’ based on the half-million or so advertised vacancies. As any economics text book can tell you, there is something called ‘frictional unemployment’. Jobs take time to fill. Advertising, locating potential staff and interviewing them cannot be done in a day.

Even if there were an infinite number of the unemployed available to fill vacancies there would still be a substantial number of job advertisements. Half a million is only a percent or two of the total number of jobs, and in a fast changing and mobile economy certainly no indication of labour shortages in itself. And especially not when a large proportion of the jobs are part-time or temporary.

‘Active promotion of mass net immigration into an already crowded and fully developed economy is unique to Britain’ says Moxon.

But the Labour Government is caught in a trap of its own making.

To admit the error of its ways would be politically calamitous when its entire policy is based around immigration both as a social device - ‘diversity’ - ‘vibrant multiculti’ - and as a supposed economic necessity. The Tories - witness Michael Howard’s recent speech (January 2005) - have more latitude after towards a decade in opposition.

Cui bono?

A coalition of strange bedfellows certainly benefits for now from the destruction of British society. Labour expects to be rewarded with votes from immigrants. The remnants of the ideological left hope for a new revolutionary political army made up of foreign mercenaries. Many employers, consumed by short-sighted greed, want foreign workers for low wages. Some of the middle-class enjoy cheap servants. But a growing majority are becoming aware that preserving their own social fabric is matter of importance to them even if they still have little grasp of the economic pup being sold to the country.

Blair appears to attribute Labour’s increasing unpopularity to managerial failure. Perish the thought that the ideology - such as it is being a rag bag of fashionable leftish sloganising and some half-baked economics - might be calamitous.

But people are waking up says Moxon, and there will be a big political score to settle.