Nationalists - The best form of defence is to attack

We nationalists have what you might call, 'a situation' and Nick Griffin needs to attack.

It's a situation which appears to be that we nationalists are always 'defending' what we see as a rightful cause to uphold the ideals of western civilisation, of our right to democratic control of politics, of  the preservation of our sovereignty as a people, and of the very essence of our history  as a people which brought us to the point where we could call ourselves the indigenous people of Britain.

All these things are in jeopardy of not only being eroded but of being completely obliterated by the powerful elite who control our lives. Yet we know they have no mandate from the people or any real premise on which to build an argument against our beliefs, for no elite since the dawn of time has ever been able to control the minds and will of their populace. We are many and they are few.

History tells us that such a thing is not only impossible but that it is also fraught with danger to the elite itself which perches itself on a self-made precipice without any real moral authority other than that which it gave itself simply because it could. Yet, our government was not elected.

An example of a very early attempt to control the populace which went badly wrong, is the story of Moses. 

Another, Jesus and his Christian disciples, another the Gauls who eventually sacked Rome, another the one time slave Spartacus who broke his chains and gathered an army, another the French revolution, another the Russian revolution, and so on and so on and so on, as this is the way mankind, has survived the scourge of oppression as they collectively decided never to be slaves but rather to be free.

Yet just as we know many cannot be led into slavery against their will, we also know that many are blind to its approach and have often willingly accepted it in their ignorance.  This has been as a result of fear, or of  greed, or from persuasion and tricks, or from the sheer weight of opposition against them, and I doubt this will ever change as there will perhaps always remain those amongst us who want to remain unenlightened and to remain with the ignorant belief that their  own world will be more comfortable if they just keep their mouths shut.

Then there are nationalists who will never accept the views of those who seek to create a one world government by an order of control with an  aim to end national sovereignty along with the obliteration of the very essence of who we are as well as our right to call ourselves indigenous.

This is not an 'idealism' or an ideology it is simply a scientific and political fact that we exist as indigenous people in free nations, yet there are those who seek to convince us otherwise as they attempt to stigmatize, insult and use outright state sponsored subversion and propaganda to stop the rise of freedom in our lands.

The recent case by the British govt which used its political and legal arms of the EHRC and appointed judges to break nationalism in Britain with its illicitly motivated actions against the British National Party, is a case in point. It reflects an overwhelming absorption of the government - those elites who placed themselves into power without mandate to 'smash the BNP' - in what amounts to a persecution in modern times which is no different to the tale of Moses or the others I mentioned.

The state wants you to think and act as it wants or you will be persecuted. It's really that simple and the path  of its own destruction is a forgone conclusion if history is to continue to repeat itself.

Now we have 'a situation' where the leaders of a political party are threatened with what amounts to a criminal action for holding a belief. 

A belief which I say is fundamental, it is factual and it is political, but is in stark contrast  to  the beliefs of those who bring the action, for only a communist or other demagogue  who is bent on appealing to the masses on the basis of his own prejudices, emotions and fears whilst using the arms of state along with its tools of propaganda could possibly augment such an undemocratic action whilst hailing himself to be prime minister when his position is not the subject result of the majority and is tenuous at best given the underlying crimes of ballot fraud which were perpetrated at that so called election.

The time to act as defenseless and helpless children is over when you can clearly see that persecution by the state is actually happening, that your route to democratic freedom is blocked, and as history shows us, the best form of defence is to attack.

Moses acted by gathering his people to lead them to the promised land. Spartacus did the same, but was caught and crucified. The Gauls raised an army to sack Rome, whereas the French and Russians revolted and took charge under the weight of people power.

They acted on their fundamental beliefs and they won victory as a result of their actions.

Today we have a legal system which if used properly should show political gain for freedom.

We have at our disposal the full weight of the Human Rights Act, the United Nations Charter on indigenous people's rights, 122 MP's in the last parliament who signed an Early Day Motion to acknowledge the rights of indigenous Britons, and we have the European Courts of Justice, notleast the ballot box itself which is a matter of legal contention as to whether there exists any mandate for the action, and a system of complaint against the government itself yet we remain defensive instead of using these places to attack.

Let us move forward in time a little here.

The scenario occurs where as a result of state persecution, nationalism is banned. i.e. It becomes illegal to be a patriot and illegal to argue the case (just as those 122 MPs did), to gain our fundamental rights which are in any event enshrined in the United Nations Charter and Human Rights Act as well as every morally superior thought which possessed free thinkers such as Moses and Spartacus who both held a fundamental belief that as a people seeking freedom their cause was justified. i.e. The choice to die on your knees as a slave or erect as a free man.

It happens to be the situation that Nick Griffin MEP could be jailed for his beliefs, yet will his beliefs suddenly evaporate if his body is moved from one place to another? Did the beliefs of Nelson Mandela fade in the 25 years he was imprisoned? I think not.

In fact if such a thing should happen then as history shows us Nick Griffin will stand to gain more support for his belief that freedom is a thing we need to hold on to lest it is killed by an elite who want only to control our thoughts and actions so we think what they would have us think in a society and a people which they own. 

This is not a democracy it is a thunderous regime of oppression where only those who obey can ever be left without stigma and persecution if they 'think' to be free.

It is of paramount importance that nationalists attack with every legal means at their disposal through the media, the legal systems and through those international bodies which are there for our protection otherwise we will remain the subjects of persecution and stigma in a state controlled myth which we would otherwise know as a democracy. 

Such actions if taken by these legal routes, will either bring more support or it will help others to see that the  very institutions which they think are there for their protection, are in fact part of the means government uses to suppress them. 

Mr Griffin needs to make a legal attack

If honest men like Nick Griffin and Simon Darby are to claim victory for our cause then they need help to attack the people who are persecuting every free man walking in Britain for the next one  to be persecuted for your thoughts will be you unless you stand with them in the cause to preserve the rights of men to think freely about their political beliefs.

Someone please tell me how The Council of Europe is able to say that Islam is political extremism disguised as religion, and that its "National political expansion into other states under the disguise of Islam should be brought to light", if those who agree with this interpretation are to be oppressed and persecuted for agreeing with it.

Doesn't the British govt agree with the Council of Europe, and if not then why?

Is it still possible to ask questions of government in this 'liberal' society  or maybe because it is not living up to its own rhetoric but is rather feeding the populace propaganda, lies and deceit just like in the times of Moses, it is with fear of persecution we ask such questions.

Is it unacceptable for me to ask why a politician should attach himself to a criminal gang calling itself Unite Against Fascism, and to 'Operation Black Vote', in a society which is said to be multicultural or is it appropriate for me to ask why if that politician feels it acceptable to sign up for Operation Black Vote, why we cannot have an Operation White Vote too. After all, they are the ones - David Cameron and Nick Clegg - who are making the distinction on colour in politics which I think needs to be brought out in a legal attack or in the course of defence to any action which may or may not arise in future as a result of state sponsored persecution by the EHRC against the indigenous people of Britain.