Feb 24, 2008

The Case of the United Kingdom (and friends?)

"Our loyal, brave people... should know the truth. They should know that there has been a gross neglect and deficiency in our defences… This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of the bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

- Sir Winston Churchill, 1938

A remarkable document has been produced by our good friends at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the leading forum in the United Kingdom for national and international Defence and Security, founded in 1831 by the Duke of Wellington. So pointed and soaring are its words and concepts we are surprised we did not author it ourselves. In fact we did, in so many words. But as many seem apt to regard the word of high ranking British officials weightier than that of a 108 year old blogging parrot, we shall defer, for their clout and experience more than warrant it. We advise, in particular, our American cousins to consider this essay’s observations carefully, as you are less than a year away from deciding whether to follow Britain further down the path of surrender under President Obama/Clinton, or continuing the fight under President McCain.

“Security is the primary function of the state,” declares the RUSI essay Risk, Threat, and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom, “for without it, there can be no state, and no rule of law.”

Sixty years ago, such plain logic was so engrained in the minds of Western man that it scarcely required penning. Today, in the era of post-Leftist-enlightenment, it is “controversial” as the state no longer sees its rightful role as security guard, but as doting nanny charged with tending the every whim and desire of spoiled and feckless children. This dereliction of duty has not only rendered Britain disarmed militarily, but has inspired the contempt of the British people and drastically eroded their faith in their system of government. Thus the sad case of the United Kingdom. She is a soldier, thrust onto the battlefield, with neither the weaponry nor the will to fight. And, in Western democracies, while security is indeed the primary function of the state, keeping faith that theirs is a state worth securing is the primary function of the people. Neither function is being duly tended. And this, the RUSI report warns, is potentially lethal.

“The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity.”

This statement encapsulates what makes this RUSI report so remarkable to us. British defence officials have made plain their objection to governmental mismanagement and under-funding of the military before. But never can we recall this level of officialdom publicly decrying the erosion of the national character and the perils inherent therein. We and others throughout the blogosphere have been screaming this point for years. Now that it is echoed by Privy Councillors, Vice Admirals, Generals, and Field Marshals will any one listen?

“The confidence and loyalty of the people are the wellspring from which flows the power with which all threats to defence and security are ultimately met,” they rightly remind us.
And diminishment of that flow is inversely proportional to increase in vulnerability. “Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent. We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without.”

This is a crisis we can scarcely afford, particularly in our present circumstances.

“The country’s lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its islamist terrorist enemy, within and without. … The jihadists deploy the power of conviction that comes from a sectarian understanding of religion. They also surf the internet and use it to their advantage and our peril. They are not state-bound, but can take over part or all of a state, as has happened in Afghanistan and Somalia, and as could happen in Pakistan.”

The report lists other risks as well, none of which the authors feel, Britain is particularly well suited to address at present. These include the vanishing Royal Navy, the emerging superpowers of China and India, the politics of climate, the re-emergence or Russia, and Britain’s messy love triangle with Washington and Brussels.

A bleak assessment to be sure. But equally certain is that there is hope. We need look no further than our own history.

“History and experience have been neglected in favour of ‘group think’ and enthusiasm for ideological projects. Public expenditure has been directed in correspondingly perverse ways with clear consequences for our defence and security. All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links between the British people, their government, and Britain’s security and defence forces, than for many years.

What is needed is to reverse the vicious circle and turn it into a virtuous one. Fortunately, our history and experience suggest tried and reliable tools for doing this.

We need to remind ourselves of the first principles which govern priorities in liberal democracies. Defence and security must be restored as the first duty of government."

Various strategies are proposed for accomplishing this. One of particular interest is the formation of a Cabinet Committee not dissimilar to The United States’ Department of Homeland Security. This committee would “draw together all the threads of government relating to defence and security whether at home or abroad. It would be ‘somewhere for anyone to go’ in raising concerns.”

This would come as welcome news to those left to fight Britain’s Street Jihad on their own, with no government assistance, only harassment.

Lastly the authors advocate that Britain reclaim her sovereignty from failing multilateral institutions (if you’re thinking the United Nations, The European Union , and NATO you’re tracking nicely) and place her trust in more proven alliances.

“What are the essential features of alliances worthy of that name? Shared essential values; shared culture, and especially military culture; shared interests; and, most basic of all, trust – trust enough to permit the special intelligence relationships enjoyed by the UK for the last sixty years with Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand.”

Ladies and gentlemen – the Anglosphere.

“Foul weather friends are to be preferred to fair weather friends; and the British people know precisely which are which. The English-speaking world – manifestly close friends – and, less openly, those with interests common to ours, emerge as our main diplomatic resource.”

The echoes of Sir Winston are unmistakable. However, the Britain of his day differs from that of today in that his contemporaries – with a bit of prodding - knew who they were and from whence they came. Such self-knowledge is essential, the report points out, if alliances are to be of any real consequence.

“In making our choices, however, we need to know who we are ourselves and what we stand for. How else should we ourselves be reliable allies to others? Once we know these things and admit them, we can restore our divided house to harmony and thence to security.”

As dismal a portrait this report paints of Britain in her current state, it brings great joy to our heart that such has been compiled and put forth by those who have done it. The nexus of the Queen’s Privy Councillor and Lionheart, of the people and their proud history, of Britain and her true allies is the point at which our “supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour,” begins, that we might, “arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

The power is ours to use if we choose. For as the contributors to this essay declare “The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are.” The question for Britain and all free nations is - after nearly forty-five years of demonizing our histories, mocking our principles, and transferring our responsibilities onto government - do we care?



*Lionheart identifies the RUSI essay “the most important report of this generation.”
*Brits at Their Best offers –as always – outstanding insight and commentary on the RUSI essay.

Feb 19, 2008

The GOP is Dead. Long Live the GOP

John McCain is Winston Churchill? We think not. Nonetheless the comparison is rather in vogue, some less asinine than others. Everyone agrees he is no Ronald Reagan. But then, of course, neither was Ronald Reagan. Rush, Anne, Sean, and Laura are betraying the Party. The Party is betraying Conservativism. What’s a Republican to do?

The identity crises inflicting the American Right at present is providing quite the circus: McCain contorting himself to appear Conservative; pundits pushing a big red nose and smiley face makeover to “redefine” Conservativism; others advocating martyrdom and votes for the Trojan Nag of Stalinism Herself; and GOP loyalists turning on the very individuals who made “Conservativism” a household word.

Painful though it may be, however, this is all quite healthy for the Shining City Upon a Hill, so long as the true source of this pain is accurately identified and addressed. It is not John McCain, GOP loyalists, out-moded Conservativism, Rush, or even Bushie. The source of this pain is your bloody two party system!

We have long pondered what it would take for you Americans to evolve beyond the simplistic understanding of yourselves as merely Republican or Democrat. Could it be the one-two punch of the 2006 and now 2008 elections is just the thing? We can only hope, for the fate of the world is resting upon it.

What is called for is a more scrupulous reconnoitering of your political landscape. Doing so would reveal – we believe – yours is not a two party but a three party electorate falling rather cleanly between the lines of Left, Center, and Right.

Owing to the tectonic shift to the left over the course of the 20th century, what was once known as the Democratic Party no longer exists. In fact, as we have indicated previously, it died decades ago. What you have now, particularly in candidates Clinton and Obama advocating their collectivists policies and government control over virtually everything, are Socialists. In order to remove confusion and sentimentality clouding the minds of an already befuddled and easily hoodwinked public, they ought be formally dubbed so.

This would then allow the beleaguered Republican Party to relax into its actual role as a Centrist party without having to justify itself to its increasingly hostile members of a more Conservative bent.

And as for those Conservatives, what are you waiting for? You have the movement. You have the think tanks. You have the spokespersons. What you don’t have is a formal party nor candidates to represent it. The time is now. Granted it is too late for the present presidential contest; but 2010, 2012, 2014 will be here before you can say Barry Goldwater. It is high time you stop berating the poor Republicans who clearly just want to be everyone’s buddy and take matters into your own hands!

Applying this model then to the current race reveals how ill-served the American electorate is by the two-party rut it has too long been in. Socialism or Centrism, these are your choices. For a population that screams bloody murder if it has fewer than 200 varieties of cereal, toothpaste, bicycles, or lingerie from which to choose you seem oddly complacent in this regard. Clarification and rearrangement of the sort we recommend here – Socialist Party, Republican Party, Conservative Party - just might have the effect of enhancing America’s understanding of her political self and reigniting substantive debate about foundational philosophies of government. Or not.

As one distinctly interested in national defense of the United States and her interests (for we know well that U.S. national security is synonymous with global security) we see no choice but to cast our wildly sought after endorsement to Mr. McCain. We do so under duress, mind you, and with the caveat that going forward, American Conservatives spend a little less time in think tanks and studios, and a little more time on the campaign trail representing themselves and the millions of Americans who believe that limited government, strong national defense, free enterprise, individual liberty, and traditional values are not only the Foundation of, but the future for the Great Republic.



Feb 18, 2008

With a little help from our friends?

Er … France, Germany, Italy, Spain … this would be your cue:
UK's last 1,000 soldiers rushed out to Balkans

Not that you haven’t been extremely helpful so far.



Feb 17, 2008

Diplomacy as It Should Be

Our fellow right wing, hate-mongering, xenophobic, racist, islamophobic, chuck-headed blogger associate Mr. Roger Gardner of Radarsite has been invited by the Pakistani Spectator to comment on the upcoming Pakistani election of 18 February. The election is crucial for Pakistan and the world. Mr. Gardner’s words regarding them are invaluable! I encourage you all to read (below) the wisdom of this very genuine, very American patriot who understands to his core what Thomas Paine and the American Founders articulated, lived, and died for: “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind."

Well done Roger and congratulations!


P.S. We also recommend you read Roger’s interview with the Pakistani Spectator.
Hello again to my new friends at The Pakistani Spectator –

I have been asked to write a few words about your very crucial election there on the 18th of February. This is of course a very difficult assignment for me, in that I know next to nothing about Pakistan’s internal affairs or of your complicated political scene. I also feel that about the last thing you need right now is anyone from America chiming in with their opinions about your complex country or your present elections. So I just won’t talk about any of that.

But perhaps I can talk about what we say to each other about our own election process, and about this volatile and contentious system we share called Democracy. Here’s what we tell each other:

First of all, get out there and vote. If you don’t vote then you don’t have any right to complain about how things are being run. You’ve chosen to opt out of the system, so your complaints no longer have validity. Also, if your candidate or your party loses an election — and someone always does — then learn to live with it. That’s democracy in action. Learn from your defeat. Learn what it is about your message that just isn’t resonating with enough people, or is perhaps being totally rejected. But as much as you might disagree with the elections results, they do after all hopefully represent the voice of the people and you must honor that voice. And we must then put aside our partisan differences and all work together as a UNITED States of America.
Well, it sounds good, doesn’t it?

But, as any of you who have been following American politics lately well know, these ideals are seldom attained. Bitter political feuds still go on, political rivalries still continue and losers seldom just give up their battles and accept defeat graciously and quietly exit the stage.
But, nonetheless, these are our cherished ideals. And despite the fact that we seldom adhere to them, seldom get it completely right, and that nasty partisan wrangling goes on and on and becomes more and more vocal –

OUR DEMOCRACY THRIVES. It works. Cumbersome as it is, as contentious as it can be, it works. There are no coups, no bloody uprisings, no revolutions — not yet, anyway. But there are a lot af angry debates and passionate arguments. And that, it seems, is what it’s all about.
To a lot of us here, our democratic process is similar in a lot of ways to our jury system. It’s not perfect. There are loopholes and flaws. Sometime guilty people get away with murder, and sometimes the innocent suffer. Sometimes corruption and greed are busy at work behind the scenes, and sometimes we can get quite cynical and discouraged about these flagrant abuses of this system of ours.

But, despite it obvious shortcomings, it is still simply the best system out there. It is the best system yet devised to attempt to build a just society. And, somehow, it seems to work.
And this, my new friends, is how I feel about democracy.
Don’t lose hope. Don’t allow those inevitable abuses of the system to destroy the system. In short, participate and vote.

And this particular American wishes you great success in your democratic elections; may the results bring you closer to national — and international peace and harmony.

You have my very best wishes,

Your friend,

Roger Gardner

(Go to the actual link and read the comments from Pakistanis. Most fascinating!)

Feb 14, 2008

The Churchill’s Parrot FATWA - MATIC™

***Increase your blog traffic
***Double your death threats ***
***Make your blog NOTORIOUS!!!!***

Embed the Churchill’s Parrot FATWA - MATIC™ into your blog and watch the outrage explode. It’s FATWA - MATIC™!!!

In honor of the blogosphere-wide celebration of the arrests of five islamaniacs accused of plotting to murder one of the Danish cartoonists who created (some of) the above, we extend this offer ABSOLUTLEY FREE to fans and liberty lovers world wide.

To add the Churchill’s Parrot FATWA - MATIC™ to your blog, simply permalink to this post. (OR – if anyone knows how to make widgets out of these bloody things PLEASE DO, or let us know and we’ll do it: churchillsparrot@gmail.org.)




Feb 13, 2008

The West's Inadvertent Hero?

Regrettably we are forced to announce the cancellation of our star-studded induction celebration of Dr. Rowan Williams – England’s Archbishop of Canterbury – into our Churchill’s Parrot Useful Idiot Hall of Fame. This is not due to the good Archbishop’s proving himself any less of an idiot useful to the advance of the British Caliphate. It is, however, an instance wherein one’s demonstration of idiocy is so profound that it serves to more vigorously enflame opposition to that idiocy than support for it.

In short, the Archbishop sought to bring awareness to the dilemma of Muslims in Britain wishing to live according to Sharia law and their difficulties reconciling this with British civil law. Evidently this is not the tidiest of relationships. The Archbishop inaugurated his mission with an impeccably incomprehensible bit of academic yib-yab at Lambeth Palace last 7 February. As no one present at the lecture was capable of remaining awake through its duration, however, the Archbishop’s comments stirred no controversy. But shortly after the lecture the Archbishop took to the airwaves and reiterated his concerns for Muslims living beneath the boot of British oppression. This then was the spark which ignited the present firestorm. The Archbishop’s subsequent cheeky and half-hearted attempt to douse the flames before the General Synod last Monday has only made matters worse.

The last thing the Archbishop (or for that matter Gordon Brown, Labour, the Socialists, the secularists et al) wanted was to rouse the patriotic passions of the British street by drawing attention to how speedily modern Britain is falling away from her cultural foundations. This is, however, precisely what he has done; a fiasco made all the more hilarious by the good Archbishop’s utter bewilderment at the British people’s reaction to his eloquent jackassery.

In no small way the Archbishop has achieved what this blog and several others seek to do with virtually every post: bring into public-consciousness the acute lethality of multi-culturalist dogma to the existing culture and traditions that have served Britain and the West well for the past several centuries. Furthermore, he may well have re-opened the debate over socialism and how government shoving its greasy fingers into every pie in the land to see it passes the taste test is antithetical to human freedom, human dignity, and Common Sense. A sticky wicket for Lefties is this!

Our personal reaction to all this is mixed. As a Champion of Western Civilization, Chair of the Anglosphere Consortium, and passionate advocate of Britain’s legacy of liberty we are of course delighted at the British people’s visceral and vociferous rejection of this egg-headed suicidal nonsense. As curator of the Useful Idiot Hall of Fame, however, we must admit we are deeply disappointed. Archbishop Williams would have proven a venerable, prolific, and accomplished addition to our roster of dupes, fools, traitors, and cowards whose purpose – whether they know it or not – is to distort Western Civilization’s understanding of itself and loosen its grasp upon its Judeo-Christian moorings.

As the good Archbishop appears to have only strengthened that grasp, however inadvertently, we cannot in good conscience bestow upon him the prestigious title of “Useful Idiot” nor the honor of inducting him into our hall of fame at this time. But never fear; we suspect this story has only just begun!



Feb 6, 2008

The Power of Myth

Initially many of us found the news that over one fifth the British population believed Sir Winston Churchill to be nothing more than myth shocking, breathtaking, unnerving, infuriating, and deeply depressing. However, there is a bright side!

As the Left clips along in its campaign to make the real false and the false real – their gift to progeny - we can at least exploit their moronic constructs to further our own aims. We are here provided a perfect opportunity.

Earlier this year it was revealed that the United Nations was teaming up with Marvel Comics to pit Marvel’s mythological superheroes against the non-mythological evils of our day. (The ironies of this are innumerable, however, in an attempt to maintain our clenched-teeth, smiley-faced, acidly-sarcastic tone for this post, we shall ignore the lot. For now!)

Thus, assuming with a great deal of certainty that the majority of chuck-wits believing Sir Winston to be but a work of fiction also hold the United Nations in highest esteem, we recommend simply re-packaging Sir Winston – his words and deeds – as a modern day superhero and peddling him to the jackasses at Marvel and the U.N. It’s brilliant!

He can fly, he can see through walls, he can envision the future, and he can vaporize evil-doers with mere eloquence. So as not to raise Lefty suspicions we would of course keep our hero innocuous initially, performing your standard acts of super-heroism: hefting school buses off collapsing bridges, pulling jet liners out of irrecoverable nose-dives, intervening in troublesome domestic disputes that sort of thing. Once a fan-base is established, however, we could deftly ease in some actual substance and have Sir Winston unleashing lethal verbiage regarding the evils of Islamo-fascism (POW!); the poison of socialism (DOOF!); and the impotence of modern man (KABLOWIE!).

I shall dispatch my creative team at once to begin work on this delightful venture. Liberated, as we now are, from the constrictions of reality, there is no limit to what we can achieve!



Feb 3, 2008

Anglosphere – To Thy Own Self Be True

This essay began as a response to an e-mail we received from a blogger asking to be removed from our Anglosphere Consortium blogroll because he found the inclusion of Lionheart among our ranks to be distasteful. It has since been written and re-written at least five times, for the points made within it are so bleeding obvious as to seem scarcely worth putting to paper. And yet we believe that, unfortunately, they must be.

To we non-homo-sapiens, you humans are bipedal flightless primates, male and female (mostly), who for some reason have been granted a superior cerebral capacity which renders you capable of acts of profound beauty and profound depravity. That is all. Variations in the degree of pigmentation in your skin, facial features, and place of birth are of no empirical consequence and thus entirely irrelevant. Therefore the only valid means by which to evaluate yourselves - as groups or as individuals - is by how you choose to employ that superior cerebral capacity of yours and the consequences thereof. This has nothing to do with “race,” but only merit. Or as another more eloquent than even I once put it, judging men not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

And yet, ever since some 19th century pseudo-scientist Euro-twit vomited the poisonous fiction of scientific racism into the human consciousness, you have been obsessed with the notion that something other than skin tone and cultural druthers separates you. This notion of “race” has been used to justify human evils from genocide and slavery, to sloth and self-destructive behavior, to affirmative action and mandatory corporate diversity programs. Why? The truth has been revealed, the Declaration made: all men are created equal. Whenever and wherever applied, this proposition has wrought unprecedented peace and prosperity for people of all creeds and colors; whenever and wherever ignored, hatred and bitterness thrive. Yet still too many of you behave hysterically, as though not entirely convinced those words in the Declaration were actually true, when e’re the specter of “race” is conjured. Alas a different and perverse equality descends upon free men, usurping the God-given with an equality of paralysis: the darker skinned by paranoia, the lighter skinned by guilt; all made useless, all for naught. This is folly of the highest order, the tragic fallout of which we are seeing at present in Britain.

Mother England is dying. The birthplace of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and English Common Law is right now experiencing the humiliating consequences of her faithlessness to the principles which made her truly great. Once safely out from under the threat of the Nazi boot, she sought comfort in the seductive arms of socialism. Over the years their tawdry on-again, off-again affair has robbed her of her dignity and treasure, leaving her morally bankrupt and defenseless against fascism’s latest host: Islamism. Now knighted and thoroughly in control, Sir Socialism is quick to slap down what vestiges of pride and patriotism England manages to utter in her own defense and rebuke them as “racist.” As if wanting to preserve one’s way of life in one’s own home was a crime. As if Sharia had anything to do with equal treatment before the law. As if Islam was a "race." Poisonous fiction indeed.

What is happening is very real and it is very dangerous, not only for England but for all Britain and the remainder of the Anglosphere – the United States, Australia, Canada et al - Mother England’s offspring. For the Islamists know if they can make it here, they can make it anywhere (our apologies to Mr. Sinatra.)

My intent in convening The Anglosphere Consortium was to provide a showcase for those blogs and websites endeavoring in their own way to “proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English speaking world.” It should be of no great surprise to anyone then that a majority of these sites dedicate themselves to denouncing the most acute threat to that joint inheritance at present: Islamic fascism and our respective governments’ too often inept and appeasing reaction to it.

“If you take a look at Lionheart’s site it is rather obsessive about Islam,” writes the blogger whose e-mail inspired this post. “That view has its place but if the aim of your group is to promote the Anglosphere then I don’t believe that inclusion of sites such as these will endear people to the cause.”

We sincerely appreciate this blogger’s concern for the popularity of our blogroll. Nonetheless, we ask of what use is it (or of the very concept of “Anglosphere”) if not a forum for we the beneficiaries of the “joint inheritance” to declare our wish to remain free and denounce those who seek to take it away?

The blogger continues. “Here in the UK the Anglosphere - as a political concept - is viewed with suspicion by the centre and centre left, usually seen as a right-wing diversion to undermine the EU, democratic socialism, multiculturalism, or to promote militarism. There is some truth to this but the Anglosphere as a concept is about seeking commonality rather than accentuating difference and whipping up hatred.”

Whipping up hatred? In our view this is rather like accusing firefighters arriving at a burning house of having started the conflagration. Are the incidents of Islamist aggression against Western values and traditions sighted by Lionheart and other members of our blogroll – not to mention countless others throughout the blogosphere - lies? Are we to ignore such crime, such depravity, such outright evil in the interest of “seeking commonality?” Does anyone actually believe the Islamists’ want commonality? No. They want converts or corpses, this they have declared. How this is not of paramount repugnance to anyone who claims to love liberty is unfathomable.

Ultimately however, we discover the core of the blogger’s reticence, which is shared by a large portion of Western population: the “race” thing.

“He (Lionheart) is basically a BNP/anti-Islam blogger,” explains our blogger. “With regret I shall have to ask you to take me off the list because it's not someone with whom I wish to be associated.

Alas the notorious BNP – British National Party. The party of white supremacist, neo-nazi origins. The party that in its own words “unashamedly addresses itself to the issues and concerns of the indigenous British population, and because it seeks to ensure that British people remain the majority population in this country. Opponents point to the fact that the BNP has an all-white membership, and that we address issues concerning white people.” The BNP goes on to point out that in Britain exist many other organizations openly organized along ethnic lines and standing for the rights of their respective communities – Black Britain, Watford Asian Community Care , The Action Group for Irish Youth, Jewish.Co.UK – and that none of these are derided as “racist.” This is true; however it serves only to further demonstrate the asininity of attempting to organize humanity according to “race.”

Our own view on the matter is that while the rallying cry of ethnic heritage may have a certain galvanizing effect initially, it is a rather simplistic and ultimately counterproductive tactic. It is equally simplistic and counterproductive, however, to dismiss common sense because it is, on occasion, expressed by those with whom we “wish not to be associated.” Lionheart is no white supremacist and no new-nazi. That he has expressed commonality with certain aspects of the BNP platform regarding the advance of Islamism and uncontrolled immigration in Britain is true. So have a great many Britons, only they don’t know it. When they are told as much, many change their opinions. Behold, yet again, the specter of “race” making cowards and fools out of free men.

Were the BNP, or the Conservative Party, or Labour, or even the bloody Socialists simply to rid themselves this “race” baggage and instead focus on passionate advocacy of Britain’s true indigenous heritage – her legacy of liberty – the British people would surely rise in their own defense to achieve their next finest hour.

As James C. Bennett, author of The Anglosphere Challenge explains:

“Recent DNA evidence has shown that a substantial core of the British population has a genetic commonality going back over 13 millennia and a surprising cousinage to the pre-Indo-European Basque population of Europe. Throughout its history, Britain has seen waves of settlers arriving and intermingling with this ancient stock. Its daughter nations, and particularly America, have been enormously successful in maintaining the unique template of its society and culture while integrating waves of immigrants, both voluntary and involuntary, into that template. This strongly suggests that the unique strengths of Anglosphere society lie in the template rather than the materials it organizes.” (emphasis added.)

There has always been and will always be room in this template for people of all creeds and colors. There is no room, however, for those who seek – by their own declaration – to smash it. Those among us who hold our tradition of tolerance above all others are easily manipulated by those who despise this template and regard its traditions as laughable; for they know that mere utterance of the word “racist” by non-white individuals or groups is enough to compel many Anglospherians toward immediate and unconditional surrender. This has to stop.

Britons who take exception to uncontrolled immigration in their homeland and the consequent diminishment of British culture are presently without representation in, nor protection of their government. Many are choosing to flee. Those who remain are left with only one political body offering anything other than avoidance regarding the issue: the British National Party. Those who detest the BNP’s racist origins but who also find common ground in the party’s advocacy for British culture are placed in a horrible position. Side with the BNP and be damned as a racist; go it alone and risk being arrested; leave the homeland forever; or accept the current national policy of ignoring the whole bloody mess and hoping it all just goes away.

That the British people are in this mess is profound commentary on the pathetic state of their government; a mess citizens in other nations of the Anglsophere may soon find themselves in should they fail to accurately identify the causes of it

It is said that you must stand for something, or you will fall for anything. When we take for granted the freedom and rights won for us by our ancestors; when we cower from proclaiming their merits to the world, our countrymen, and our own children; when we enfeeble our minds to such a degree that quack theories like “race” can be used to make us suspicious of everything we have ever known and loved; we have made of ourselves fitting prey for the more passionate and bloodthirsty among us.

Allegiance to a common heritage - not racial, but philosophical - has made the nations comprising the Anglosphere the greatest on Earth. And as Sir Winston Churchill instructed in his clarion call for Anglo-American brotherhood 65 years ago, “the price of greatness is responsibility.”

“We do not war primarily with races as such. Tyranny is our foe, whatever trappings or disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must forever be on our guard, ever mobilised, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at its throat. In all this, we march together. Not only do we march and strive shoulder to shoulder at this moment under the fire of the enemy on the fields of war or in the air, but also in those realms of thought which are consecrated to the rights and the dignity of man.”

Anglosphere – know thyself, and to thy own self be true!