Good for Mr Deacon.
It's no good 'holier than thou' councillors foaming at the mouth - their views have led this Country into a terrible mess where the whole English way of life is threatened and social, housing and health facilities are collapsing.

Nationalist views are on a higher moral level than the traitors to this country who adopt their simplistic superior attitude. Let them debate the issues in public if they feel so confident their failed policies are better.

Why is it Mr Councillor Aislinn Lee that the people like you, who claim to be so ‘democratic’, have the most problem accepting that democracy can mean your opponents also take office?

Democracy? You two and Deacon talk about democracy, following his comment: 'England was a white country - we think it should be returned to that.' Doesn't democracy also mean that people of all races and religions get treated exactly the same?

Councillor Simon Deacon won DEMOCRATICALLY the seat on his parish council. The Fascist boot-boys of the Anti-‘Nazi’ League are to stage this demonstration in a clear display of their contempt for the democratic process.

Oh hark at it, the National Front having a go at facists. What next? Budget airline's claiming rail operators take passengers for granted?

I think its great we have the National Front in St Albans i would have voted for him good luck to the National Front and the BNP for the coming elections.

Instead of listening to the biased clap trap of political stooges and hacks of all shades, why not visit the National Front website and read their policy documents.
You may discover they are not a two horned monster party, just a growing group of ordinary people who care about patriotic traditional and native British values and want their own land back from foreigners.
Every other people on the planet have their own land, why do we British have to see ours flooded by other values and races who even whilst they are minorities, demand that we give up our ways and rights to theirs.
Why can't these critics of the NF open their eyes and take a look at what the NF has to say about children, families, global warming the EU and dozens of other issues.
When Simon Deacon says he wants to help his area on local issues, he means exactly that.
Give the man a chance. You could be pleasantly surprised.

http://www.national-front.org.uk

It's a little sad that our Grandfathers fought German nationalists to ensure personal freedom in Europe only to have it continue to be popular here at home.

Many of these people seem frightened of foreigners yet the country is and always has had a variety of intermixed cultures.

To be British in the purest sense of the word you would have to be Welsh, Scottish or maybe Cornish. The Romans came in 55AD, they brought immigrants from all over their empire. Then there are the English - some German tribes who migrated to the British Isles after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Then there are the Vikings and Danes who repeatedly invaded and held the Eastern half of the country for a long time. And then later there are the Normans who took over and replaced the English aristocracy.

Which Englishness or Britishness is being referred to? This country was never one race. This was originally a "white country" but what is skin colour? It does not prove or disprove someone’s capabilities or character.

Nationalism seeks to utilise such meaningless tags as skin colour or the size of one's nose to identify people of a different background and then dehumanise them to the point where they can be treated inhumanly with no remorse to better the position of the nationalists themselves. If the situation were reversed, such as in South Africa, those nationalists would be devastated.

For everyone who can understand the inclusive argument and wishes to ban nationalism .. OK - so this guy got in - 1 of 9 filled seats? If his opinions and attempted acts are against the will of the council then he will be outvoted. Have some faith in the balancing of the democratic system.

For anyone thinking that Nationalism is a good thing, just think - if your skin were a different colour or your features betrayed a non-local heredity, would you care for your children any less? Would you feel physical or emotional pain any less?

Nationalism is wrong because it seeks to highlight the differences that are less easy to accept rather than taking pleasure is the variety of human culture.

I personally love Indian and Chinese food, black inspired music, East-Asian electronics and the Germano-American Father Christmas….don’t you guys?

Unfortunately for Joey, his past will catch up with him now that he is in the public spotlight. Just like his candidate in Caddington Derek Godfrey was this week exposed as a nazi extremist from the Mosley Days.

There is an asian member of the parish council elected alongside Mr Deacon. Does this mean he would prefer she be deported ?

Karl from St Alban's earlier post is full of the mischievous nonsense the establishment wants us to believe.
Firstly the intimation that all the British men who volunteered for military service during the Second World War did so because they wished to fight against ideals now promoted by the National Front and thus in favour of those promoted by the modern political 'elite' displays a warped ignorance. Britain in the 1930's was by modern standards (and I assume by those of Karl) a 'racist' state lording it over the natives in far off places in what was still the largest empire the world has known. My own father joined the TA before the war (thus ensuring immediate mobilisation on commencement)because he believed Germany to be a threat to Britain's well being. He and thousands like him did not volunteer for the mass immigration that followed the end of the war or the series of increasingly draconian race laws intended to silence them and their descendants.
Secondly Karl's grasp of History and anthropology is very poor. The tribal groups that he lists can in no way be described as separate races. All would come under the classification of Caucasian. Within the Caucasian group they are also of closely related North West European origin. But what is more important, these tribes over a long period of time established the related ethnic identities of the Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English. These peoples are entitled to their own individual identities and living space. The real evil lies with those who now seek to deny them this and at the same time talk them out of existence.
As for the claim that 'meaningless tags' such as skin colour and size of nose somehow 'dehumanises' people is just an attempt at emotive rubbish. I have no problem with being seen as a big nosed white ethnic Englishman and judging by the amount of black pride and other ethinic cultural groups in this world they don't mind being labelled. either. Objections to this are not only childish but in their own way 'dehumanising'.
One point I do agree with Karl on is taking pleasure in the variety of human culture. But that is exactly what the policial establishment and international capitalism is working to destroy. Our identities lost we become more compliant. Our future lie as mass consumer slaves to commercialism.

Howard

You are clearly distorting what I said in a number of points. You also seem to have some reading but to have completely missed other important aspects of this...

1. Why does the "establishment" want us to believe "mischievous nonsense"? This is an elected government that in some way represents the people. You could make argument that the government does not represent the people well enough but it is elected to a set of "best to date" rules. If you wish to change or improve those rules then you must stand, be elected and motion for an alternate set of rules to be implemented.

2. Although the intelligence services of the allied nations had information that the Nazis were beginning to murder Jews, in addition to the mentally handicapped, homosexuals and other groups of people (e.g. anti-establishmentarians, though often falsely accused), it was considered to be information that should not be divulged to the public. Hence, the initial purpose in going to war for most British servicemen was to protect British interests in Europe, among our allies and elsewhere in the World among our colonies. However, there was never a point at which the enemy was not known to be a nationalist, propagandist movement in Germany.

4. Neither of my own grandfathers, one Englishman who fought in Burma and India and the other, a German who had a protected occupation in London, ever supported the National Front. My grandfather who fought in the Far East had an enormous respect for the cultures that he came into contact with. My grandfather in London dis-associated himself and his family from his German roots to the point where he never taught my father German.

5. The purpose of what you describe as “mass immigration” has, at least in part, been to support the country’s business and infrastructure. I fully agree that this small group of islands is becoming over-populated now. However, basing who should and should not be let in on race is ludicrous. The decision should be made on ability to contribute, service to the country and asylum need, as it already is. Changes to the volume of immigrants could be made, especially in the light of modern technology allowing significant amounts of work to be performed outside of the countries borders but this would not remove the asylum requirement.

6. History and anthropoly … oh dear – you are way off the mark. I guess I should not have used the term “race” as I should have realised that someone would mis-construe the point and start thinking I was trying to base my arguments on race theory. Unfortunately I was being lazy. Racial type is not a binary system. People who say that “You are or are not this race” are wrong. Race and ethnicity are analogue properties. When you define a “race” it is only an extreme of diversity. To utilise over-used “racial” stereotypes to make a point, a red-haired, heavily built Scotsman is as different from a short, swarthy Italian as that Italian is from a tall dark skinned Zulu. We are all different. “Race” itself is the tagging mechanism I was describing as being wrong.

To put it as simply as I can, there is no such thing as “race” in this context – we are all variations within the human species. "Race" in this context is a "theory" applied by the mis-guided, not some innate property of a human being.

Caucasian or Caucasoid “race” is one of these “racial” characteristics that is too often ill-advisedly used. It originally refers to “divisions” based on skull shapes in Western Asia but has come to mean anyone of the “white races” in Europe, Asia, the middle East and North Africa.

7. Treating anyone differently is going to cause emotions among those people and others that care about them or their rights. You yourself clearly find this an emotive issue given the language you have used yet accuse me of it as if that validates you and others discounting my arguments. Your emotion and your arguments are sacrosanct?

8. I did not at any point say that physical traits de-humanised but that using those physical traits to label people was de-humanising. Whether you are a "big nosed Englishman" or otherwise is irrelevant to your capabilities and character. I stand by that statement and that the political right-wing seek to use these perceived traits to dehumanise for their own purposes, however, I have no issue with people celebrating their diversity, including the British celebrating their own diversity.

I thank you for your comments and applaud you for having tried to make a coherent argument, however, towards the end of your commentary you seem to have become a little confused about which argument you are making.

Racial or ethnic prejudice and intolerance have nothing whatsoever to do with globalization or commercialism. We'll leave that discussion for another day perhaps?

Hehe - Howard - I just re-read my original posting to see where I made this "mistake" (in your view) to describe the tribes of Europe as different races.

I used the word once and didn't describe the different European tribes as races. If you re-read my original post the only point at which I used the word race, I wrote "Which Englishness or Britishness is being referred to? This country was never one race."

I apologise that I did not use quotes to highlight my distaste for the word.

Also, just to point out a lack of clarity in my latest post - I may not defined the craniology argument. To clarify -

The previous "race" term used by race theory and indeed by the Germans during the Second World War, for "white Europeans" was Aryan. The Aryans were a tribe of people from the Steps of Russia. They were horsemen and reputed to have had blond hair and blue eyes though clearly the archeological record would find it difficult to prove that from the bones.

Unfortunately for the racists, what defined an Aryan in the archeological record, was bone structure and the bone structure was found to be very common amongst the beautifully dark skinned inhabitants of Northern India.

A change of term was required! The term opted for by race theorists was "Caucasian". This was a term defined by the supposed "science" of craniology which sought to show that the size and shape of a person's skull would intimate information about the individuals capabilities and character. This is tantamount to finger reading the bumps on someone's skull to determine their future...hilarious!

Needless to say that serious science no longer accepts craniology in the modern age, though there may still be some whacked out practitioners. Unfortunately the term Caucasian has stuck. It actually referred originally to the people who live in or near the Caucasus mountains in Western Asia, who are indeed largely white skinned but rarely, if ever, blond.

Most modern questionaires on racial origin, whose purpose is usually an intention to track the racial balance of corporations or similar institutions, use the words, "white" or sometimes the pair, "white European" and "white other".

So, as you can read, my argument that "race" doesn't exist in this context is supported by race researchers. Exactly what defines one "race" from another is not even agreed by those for whom it is important.

For the rest of us I think we just have to sit back and laugh at those for whom such trivialities are fundamental to their outlook on life. At least, we can laugh until the next Hitler gets into power and starts to torture a kill for such an obscure purpose.

In that event we have to back up our right to tolerance with our mettle.

Rgds

Karl

Good Evening Karl
I am glad to see you have found the time to reply at length twice to my original posting - don't you have a job? (joke! before I get an added 1000 words of further response). I will attempt to deal with your points in the order you made them.
1)We may have an elected government but the elections are not an open or honest process. Parties largely disguise their agenda's and the media operates to promote their own bias and vested interests and use their, not insubstantial, powers to demonise or misrepresent those that oppose their preferred system.
No party thoughout the 1950's, 60's 70's or 80's or 90's had put in their election manifestos a policy to encourage mass immigration and change the face of Britain, yet this has happend.
The political establishment simply will encourage any 'mischievious nonsense'that supports their agenda.
2)I have no basic disagreement with you here and you seem to verify what I have already said.
3)There was no 3.
4) I acknowledge your own grandfathers and many of our World War II veterans do not support the ideals of the Nation Front. However many do. What I object to is the dishonest, oft repeated line, that these ideals are what they all volunteered to fight against.
5) The idea that mass migration supports our economic infrastructure is really a moot point. Immigration has never been just targeted to meet specific skills shortages (that has just been an excuse)it has been a virtual open door policy that is increasingly changing the nature of our society. Of course it suits certain businesses in that it provides cheap sources of labour in order to compete in world markets as we dance to the globalist's tune.
It is also in a way self defeating as more people require more goods and services.
The question is why have we been subjected to large scale immigration? To answer we need to recognise what has happended in World since the offer the last 60 years. The increasing power of global capitalism has gone hand in hand with the errosion of national sovereignties and the rise of the European Union as a supra-national state (another thing our 'elected' governments have been deceiving us about. Nationalism of sovereign states (i.e. those who want to put the interests of the nations before those of global capitalism and supra-national governments)are not to be tolerated.That why the smear of potential Nazi murderer is thrown at Nationalists who oppose globalist ideals. Communists(whose doctrine that has been responsible for the largest genocides) get away without any stigma and 'ex' Communists can pass seamlessly into the media and government.
A great way of undermining a nation and its identity and unity is to change its character by mass immigration. This statement may be laughed off, by those who wish to close their eyes, as as a silly conspriracy theory but is very real and what is happening thoughout Europe.
6)Your original statement 'This country was never one race' is suggestive of there being in existance different races. However you now now gone on to deny the very existance of races claiming 'race researchers'support this theory. Well I am sure that some do. I am certain that many don't. I am also aware which of these two groups has the most academic freedom.In any event I and most people can see the differences in 'racial' groups, or whatever you like to call them for ourselves. I can also see the difference between a Rottweiler and a Poodle even if some academic tries to prove otherwise.
I any event I look forward to you progressing this 'no such thing as race' theory with the Campaign for Racial Equality and the Government. As there is 'no such thing' we can not discriminate on the grounds of something that doesn't exist. Please put your 'race researchers' in touch with them and the two groups can drown in their own semantics.

Finally in dealing with points 7 and 8 all I want to do is acknowledge that we both have different standpoints and are unlikely to agree. Mine is purely from the wish to preserve the identity and land of what I regard as my own people in a world that is destroying both.

Best Wishes

Karl,

I'm afraid you are slightly incorrect about the existence of race.

Whilst we are all variations on a spectrum of difference, there are phenotype clusters that constitute what is historically called race; more accurately "ethnicity" or "racial phenotype.

Evidence from mitochondrial DNA has been used by universities, such as Oxford, to generate maps of populations that can be differentiated between as clusters.

Within a phentype is included characteristics such as nose shape, hair type, blood types, and skeletal characterstics, such as those of the skull.

There is a myth going round that there is no such thing as race, due to the misreporting of some research done in Brazil. Some mis-cite evidence saying that the differences between races are the same as the variations within races, and fail to include the important part that these are different TYPES of differences.

I'm not going to go on, but try having a little explore of this site if you want to find some interesting (and academic) links:
http://racialreality.shorturl.com/
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/

Howard and Jack

Thanks for your responses – this is fun!

Howard – as you point out – I do have a job to do so I will respond to you a little later. You do make some good points but again have got your arguments confused and again have mis-represented my comment. We certainly do not agree on point 2 though perhaps it’s a subtle argument that needs clarification – watch this space!

To answer Jack first, his mail being the smallest so quickest to respond to in my tea break…

If you re-read my 2nd and 3rd posts you’ll see that I don’t deny the existence of “race” theory”, only “race”.

Thanks for the links but I notice that they are posts on the same website. Looking at the rest of this site confirms that this site is biased towards identifying the differences between genetic “races”, magnifying them and using those unproven differences to foment racial conflict. Furthermore, the specific articles you have quoted only support the existence of “race theorists”, not even of a scientifically accepted “race theory”.

Unfortunately, the Internet can have the unintended effect of providing pseudo-validation of any opinion if you look hard enough.

You’ll see in the first link that it includes an acceptance that it’s stance is unbalanced and dismisses the opposing view, out of hand, which was also written by an eminent scientist. To quote –

“This paper was even written up in the New York Times (with obligatory "opposing view" that doesn't amount to much).”

If you read the NY Times article to which the website refers, which itself quotes original sources you will see that the original intention of Dr Risch was to point out that “self-identified” race was useful in identifying ethnic differences in susceptibility to disease and responses to drugs. He himself does not condone the use of “racial differences perpetuate discrepancies”. If you do some further research into the doctor’s other interviews / writings, you will find quotes where he tries to clarify his meaning. An example of this is “I'm not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways.” (from http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010014).

Risch is certainly no race theorist, he is simply a geneticist whom has been mis-quoted. I completely agree with genetic theory which would support the fact that groups with a specific set of genetic mutations exist based on environmental conditions, migrations and the original gene pool size or variation. Within communities that have become isolated from the larger part of the population of humans by some natural barrier, possibly: a river, a mountain, a desert or simple distance, genetic differences become magnified. A further barrier interestingly cited in some writings is ethnic xenophobia.

Classic examples of genetically isolated groups with identifiably different physical include US rednecks and the ruling families of Europe. This effect multiplied by several thousand years or more is what is being referred to as “race” but that is an over-simplification of genetic variation, with questionable intentions.

Risch unwisely uses the term “race” to try to identify whether a particular medically problematic gene or gene set is likely to be borne by a specific individual for medical purposes. His comments are not intended to support “racial” theory pertaining to nationalism.

In my own comment I use the term “an extreme of diversity” to describe the localised ascendance of specific sets of genes. However, any reference to “race” misses the point. Zoological classification of human beings is an imposed idea, it is not present in the human population, even at a genetic level.

David Deutsch gives a readable, yet reasonably detailed view on evolutionary theory in his books, “The Blind Watchmaker” and “The Selfish Gene”.

To try to put it briefly though, with respect to genetic “race” –

Each individual has a set of genes that define their physical characteristics though most genes have no visible effect on the body.

There are a collection of genes (or gene sets) that do have a visible effect on the human body. An example of these would be the gene set that cause a body to have eyes of a particular colour. One gene may make one’s eyes green but the visibility of it’s effect is clearly dependent on the presence of a set of genes that cause one’s body to have eyes in the first place.

Taken as a whole, all the gene sets that define the physical characteristics of an individual could be used to define a class of humans (or “race”) but significant variation between humans at a genetic level is evident even within a so-called “race”.

The very fact that in different populations these “racial” characteristics are shown to be divisible shows that they are not controlled by one gene and there is no super gene, defining a race, that travels through the generations. Genetic “race” does not exist.

I’ve described this as best I could with my example of a Scotsman compared to an Italian compared to a Zulu in one of my previous comments. Even the visible differences within a specific “race” (as defined by the term Caucasian) are so great that they are comparable between that “race” and a specific example of an alternate “race”.

These variations renders any “race theory” meaningless.

I repeat the argument of my previous post –

‘there is no such thing as “race” in this context – we are all variations within the human species. "Race" in this context is a "theory" applied by the mis-guided, not some innate property of a human being.’

There is no material in what you have provided to describe different “TYPE”s of differences (your capitalization). Please refer to writings on evolution to understand how differences occur and you will see that what you perceive as “TYPE” of differences are merely a collection of more minor differences controlled by individual genes.

Thanks for your response!

So Jack - I am not "slightly incorrect" about the NON-existance of "race" at all.

;o)

Rgds

Karl

GOOD LUCK TO THE NF. GREAT RESULT.

My definition of race: http://www.national-front.org.uk/nativebriton.php

I challenge anyone to contend this.

Hehe - I guess if the NF get another candidate elected within the next 32 years then they will have made an improvement on the last 32 years.

You guys are free entertainment - clearly some unresolved childhood issues.

Lets give the guy a chance, after all what can he actually do? Parish councils are generally ineffective, weak and populated by busy bodies with "nothing better to do." They are an unnecessary tier of unneeded bureaucracy. Usually the only time we see them is when they are standing by a hole in the road blaming someone else for local problems or rejoicing in their success in installing a new litter bin in the park! The phrase "get a life" springs to mind.

Having now had a chance to review Mr Lee's inciteful article "My Definition of a Native Briton", I really don't know quite what to say.

I'm glad he points out that he is not an anthropologist as I would have naturally assumed with his carefully researched commentary on inclusivity in Europe and his interest in the vast diversity of the human race that he is - or at least is studying for an academic qualification in the field.

I won't approach and applaud him on all his wonderfully astute points however, I do wish to congratulate him on his European inclusivity. To highlight the sameness between the British and their continental "race, stock and blood" is remarkable as I was not aware of this aspect of the NF's stance on European peoples. I am glad to know that the NF supports the metric system of Europe as retaining the outdated and clumsy imperial system is detrimental to British trade.

It is laudable that he stresses that Europeans are "largely inseparable", "tied by nature" and "bonded by blood". This makes me feel more safe over any risk of Eastern European criminals coming to the country. Now understanding that they are my brothers, I will welcome them with open arms, including the gypsy populations of central and Eastern Europe and indeed, peoples from the Southern regions of the old USSR such as Georgian "Caucasoids" are brothers to the British, I will welcome these individuals to Britain irrespective of any past criminal activity.

I am glad that he highlights the religious similarity between those Europeans and the other peoples of the world in their paganism, excluding modern day christians, being non-pagan. Again this is a stance of the NF that I was unaware of but I am happy to be included in a world society of non-christianity.

I am intrigued to know that he contends that it is an "inescapable fact" that "multiracialism" is "fantastically flawed" as I would wholeheartedly agree with him, the human race is the one race we must support. The British are indeed no nation of mongrels, only a nation of individuals with a wonderfully diverse genetic makeup that he confirms, as diverse as the genetic make up of more than all the varying peoples of the entire British Empire.

I would also contend that the true mongrels are those that deny the inclusivity he supports, such as the "social freaks" - those who cannot socialise easily amongst their fellow humans. They are a problem. Is some form of enforced psychiatric therapy in order?

I am a little confused about his use of the terms "unholy alliance" and "bless them". He had confirmed that us Brits are naturally pagan so why is he using these christian terms? Ah - to more easily express his complex point?

I am also a little confused about his next point about a native species? I understood he was discussing "race" with respect to multiracialism, not animals. Is there some point about local fauna that I have missed?

From this point on, he starts to get a little more confusing. The peoples he has described are gathered under the same umbrella of human foundation. This sounds to me a little like creationsim to me rather than based on genetic diversity? Foundation surely suggests pre-planning - is this christianity coming in again? And hey - who has an umbrella that big? If you did, why not invite everyone under it!

I had never heard of Darwin's Theory of Race - guess that one is not so well advertised as evolution but then please do excuse the guy - this was 150 years ago and with evolution, he has enabled us to understand the evolution of species and the relatedness of all animals and peoples through geneitc similarity. Facts such as all Europeans being genetic variations of an originally African species homonids and our genetic simlarity to Chimpanzees - us sharing much more genetic material with them than we have that differentiates ourselves.

I must now disagree with the last point he has made - nativeness is defined by birth (Oxford dictionary) or the domicile of ones parents, indigenous-ness is defined by birth but surely the fundamental for any immigrant is loyalty to the country.

Surely, it is far better to have loyal citizens than non-patriotic terrorists who may rather have supported the Nazi party in the last World War.

As I said - an inciteful article!

:o)

Karl, Jesus was born in a stable -does that make him a horse?

I have read the article also and can't see many holes in it. I think you have twisted each point to tie in with your deluded, conditioned view.

Do you work for this Marxist state? So programmed are your views you must be a servile state operative.

Erm - no Jesus was a man - some would say the son of God. A horse has 4 legs, is more hairy and much bigger. Not sure the point you were making.

What has Marxism got to do with it? the issue was "race" with respect to nationality and rights to freedom.

With regard to Marxism, if you want the country to have a bigger differentiation between classes, fine. I suspect that you are unlikely to be one of the upper classes as neither am I. However, as I said in an earlier post, if you want political change, the process is there. Lobby your local MP or join a party, get elected and strive for policy change.

No holes in the statement? The only accurate thing in there is that he is no anthropologist.

Amuzingly, he has posted an article on the NF website that supports European integration. I'm surprised that the NF have allowed it to remain on their site since it clearly contradicts their documented policies.

It would seem to me that Mr Lee has written this in 2 or 3 minutes with the intention of angering some and rabble rousing others.

Whichever side your politics, you have to see it as a comedy of errors.

;oD

A native is one indigenous to an area. Ultimately, race dictates the boundaries of this area. Suffice to say that a native to a land or lands is derived from its genetic composition. A White man cannot, of course, be native to Africa, the Middle East or any other such countries; likewise, a Black man, Asian, etc. is displaced in Europe and Scandinavia

The Caucasoid element in the peoples from northern Europe allows for assimilation to the detriment of neither party. They are compatible to one another and native to this area. A native species is one that occurs naturally in a climate that forms its genetic makeup. The origins of the peoples I have described above come from the same aboriginal European race as one another and thus are united under the same umbrella of human foundation.

An entitlement to claim the title ‘native’ is not brought about by the accident or predicament of being born here; having parents or grandparents born here; or by the reliability on having ones passport stamped in what so often ‘defines’ native as being citizenship, rights and supposed loyalty to this country.

I rest my case. Karl will carry this on because he has no friends and wants his own series. He's stamping his feet like a spoilt child, shouting "listen to me, everybody!" -just like all bourgeoisie Reds do.

The article in question was called "MY definition...". I repeat the word "MY". There is a disclaimer on the website stating that people's views do not necessarily reflect party policy. I take it you missed that one, Karl.

If you are upset by my article you'll love this one: http://www.national-front.org.uk/comicalleftwing.php GIVE IT A GO!

Hehe, I can see who is upset hey. All you've done though is to repeat, with some minor ammendments, the innaccurate article you put on the NF website.

I didn't miss the disclaimer - just surprised that the NF allow europhiles to put their opinions on their website as their policies are quite vociferously anti-european integration. I personally find nothing wrong with Europhilia but wonder why if you are so accepting of Europeans then why not of all the citizens of the World.

The Cambridge dictionary on-line describes native as "relating to or describing someone's country or place of birth or someone who was born in a particular country or place".

To be honest your point about someone not being able to be native is ludicrous - an "black" man or an hereditarily Asian man man can be born and survive quite adequately in Europe as is proven by the wonderfully diverse makeup of modern society. A "white" man can be born and survive quite satisfactorily in Africa. The Boers and many British descended people have been living in South Africa for more than a century. The technology of clothing is the key here and is as essential to a "white" man living in Northern Europe as it would be to a "black" man living in Northern Europe.

Interestingly you now say that the Caucasoid "element" - whatever you mean by that - is from Northern Europe. I presume you are aware that the Caucasoid "race" was originally "identified" from peoples living around the Caucasus Mountains in Asia.

I grant you that Caucasoid is now taken to mean anyone with a "white" skin, including Europeans, Modern Australians, a large proporation of US citizens and indeed, South Africans. However, it certainly also refers to the mediterranean peoples of Italy and indeed North Africans such as certain groups commonly found in and around Tunisia.

If the "white" man has become part of the indigenous population of those countries above by virtue of his birth, why can he not become indigenous to the Middle East? I'm sure there are some...

As described in a previous post of mine, climate, is only one factor that affects the evolution, or more accurately retention, of certain genetic traits. The totailty of the gene pool that originally migrated into the area is major factor, later migrations and, as noted in one of my previous posts, ethnic xenophobia. If populations keep themselves sexually separate by only allowing sexual interaction between people of similar genetic traits then they are isolating the gene pool almost as effectvely as an impassable mountain or ocean.

Of course the whole point about "race", as I've clearly stated in previous commentaries is that it simply does not exist in this context and any reference to it has dubious purpose. There is no genetic definition of "race". Collections of genetic traits that are taken by some to describe a "race", are divisible as is proven in all the places where peoples you would describe as of different "races" have interbred, including the modern UK, North America, etc. I can argue this from a point of certainty with you till the cows come home (black cows, white cows, or frisian :o)).

I'm a little unsure of what you mean by "compatible to one another". The human race is one species and so capable of producing off-spring even when the parents are as genetically diverse as aboroginal Australians and Eskimos. Hence, as a human, I am as compatible to a South American Indian as I am to another European.

Hehe - I have many friends of many backgrounds. Fortunately they are inclusive. Unfortunately some are so inclusive as to condone non-diversity in others.

Here we go with the "Reds" thing and ... "bourgeosie". That has no relevance to the argument but suffice it to say that I am neither "Red" nor bourgeois. Nor again am I upper class. As you have started to use Marxist terminology, I am of the class that Marx calls the proletarians, as I presume are you. Or am I being presumtious? The fact that I choose to attempt to better myself by reading is not some kind of class denial.

It's a good thing that you have the opportunity to vent your anger here, otherwise I'd be concerned for people's safety hey! However, your puerile ranting does nothing to enamour others to your cause.

I shall read you other article. I could do with a good laugh!

Hehe - that's brilliant - I've just read Mr Lee's new article. Laugh a minute...

I don't think there's any need for me to respond to any of your "points" - them being the unsupported and directionless ramblings.

Oh dear :`o(

The indigenous population of the archipelago of Great Britain are white tribes, and they're being genocided by the 'Soylent Green' actuality of Asia, India, Africa, and the Middle East.
Why aren't the people of Asia, India, Africa, and the Middle East in the lands of their tribal origins? There are 4-billion Asiatics, 1-billion India, 1-billion in the Middle East, and in Africa the population of the indigenous tribes are in the dying thousands, one would know that running away from national responsibility to Britain is an act of national cowardace.
Instead of using threats of 'racist/ism' manipulation, why aren't the indigenous tribes of Asia, India, Africa, and the Middle East returing to their home-lands, with a copy of the 'Federalist Papers', and the Constitution of the United States of America, with all its articles, and using the same legal manipulation to force their home-lands to become another America. If these people can force, and legally manipulate Britain, and America, therefor, they can do the same in their home-lands, after-all, there's enough of the people of Asia, India, Africa, and the Middle East to create an 'American Revolution' in their home-lands.
This applies to the invaders of the indigenous people in America, the incorrectly named 'Indians', that are now living in 'Concentration Camps' re-named 'Indian Resurvations', i.e., the people of African origin need to go back to Africa to save their county from 'AIDS', the people of Asia, the Middle East, and India need to go back to their home-lands to institute proper food farming, and waste management disposal. And, as I'm a genetic member of the archipelago of Great Britain, along with others also of Nordic/Celtic/Pict genetic origin, have to return to their home-lands, with that same U.S. Constitution. Britain could use a second article law, because self-defense is the first step to self-esteem.
'The National Front', 'The British National Party' are a good start on the road to stopping the genocide of the indigenous white tribes of the archipelago of Great Britain.
Valkyrie Ziege Mourne

Valkyrie

All the Human Race, whether "white" skinned, "black" skinned or otherwise, are related. It makes sense to protect ones borders from criminals and armies but also makes sense to welcome people with strong skill sets in order to remain competitive in the World market.

I'll come back to the "genocided" bit but have you ever actually watched or read "Soylent Geen"? In a futuristic vision where the population are not able to feed themselves from agirculture, the old and sick are given the option of opting for death and their bodies are secretively made into food for the rest of the population.

Are you seriously suggesting that you have evidence of this is happening? Are British people being killed and eaten by these groups? If you have such evidence I think the press would be very interested, I certainly would and would be happy to help you get it published presuming that it is factual.

Going back to genocide... this phrase refers to the mass killing of groups of individuals based on genetic difference. Do you have any evidence that the "white trabes" are being killed by other racial groups? Again, please do share this information!

You self-contradict in your next comment about people of other areas not being in the land sof their tribal origins - are you suggesting the 6 billion you quote are in the UK or Western Europe and the US? OK - I'm being flippant but what defines someone's right to domicile in a particular country? Well most countries accept birth as giving that right. Birth, as a right covers a large number of the people in this country whom you are referring to.

I would agree that running away from national responsibility to Britain is an act of national cowardice. Britain, however, is a political entity which includes large numbers of people of "black" or "dark" skin. Are you now advocating racial tolerance? It is unpatriotic not to do so - the United Kingdom is made up of a very large number of gentically diverse people and in some cases those genetic variations include skin colour in other cases eye colour, hair colour, propensity to male pattern baldness. Patriots support the nation, revolutionaries or terrorists support only that part that they wish to promote.

Ok - your next point is a little barmy. If all non-"whites" need return to the countires that you define as their "home-lands", I'm sure you agree that it follows that all "whites" should return to their "home-lands". So all the "whites" in Australia, North America, Africa, Asia and South America should return to the lands of their fathers, fathers-fathers, fathers-fathers-fath

ers, etc ad infinitum? How do you propose that the UK deal with that influx of peoples?

In what way do "these people" "force and legally maipulate" Brittain. Please explain?

If you read the history books, you'll find that the American Revolution was about the American Colony, owned by Great Britain, throwing off Britain's political control and taxation. Most of the places you mention are continents. India, the only country you mention does rule itself.

The second amendment allows citizens to bear arms and whether correctly or otherwise interpretted has repeatedly allowed madmen to use those weapons to kill innocent children! Is that what you are advocating?

Miss or Mrs Valkyrie, please go back to Valhalla, where you came from!

Its become clear to me reading Karl's posts that his anti white.

How can I be anti-white?

I like all colours equally: red, blue green, turquoise... White is just another colour, pigment (or lack thereof) or the combination of all the colours of the rainbow... depending on how you view it.

I am amazed that there can be anyone so superficial as to think that a man's skin colour (or whatever other trivial genetic variation) has any bearing on that individual's character or right to live in the UK.

I knew Simon Deacon well a few years ago. I knew of his NF affiliations, but that never detracted from the fact that he is a decent, honest, Christian bloke. I just learned today of his new office. I dont expect anybody to give him a chance, which is a great shame. He is a terrific chap.

i thinink its bullshit you have to hide what your about or the way you feel **** I thought we lived in AMERICA.the land of the FREE?its bullshit when you start to question yourself.........

Well Gary, I wonder what "racial" background Mr Deacon would presume you to have by whatever means you have known one-another.

If he perceived that your background was anything but hereditarily European he has stated his aim would be to repatriate you irrespective of whether you were born in this country, had any claim to domicile through service to this country or were at risk of being executed on return to your country.

That's not nice - more terrifying than terrific.

PAUL - This is St Albans in the UK - hehe. Sure - no-one should have to hide who they are or the way they feel.

Mr Deacon may have freedom himself but advicates limiting other people's freedom based on meaingless genetic traits. The NF stands for a reduction in freedom.

Gary C.

I'm an athiest myself, but my understanding of a good Christian is a person of tolerance. A person tolerant of our differences.

Doesn't quite sound like the sort of man affiliated to a race hate group such as the BNP or NF.

Gary H