Monday, 12 October 2015



Equality, a concept which has been working on the Western psyche for some two or three centuries, has now, having infiltrated itself into our very bones, become weaponised against us in our every thought, word and deed.

Who can argue against Equality?  Who can gainsay such a noble aspiration, seeking as it does to recognise the Divine Soul within all Humanity?

But how shall we apply it?  Shall all tall people be made equal with the short?  How shall it be applied between those of different abilities or accomplishments?  And of course how should it be applied between different cultures an value systems?

Equality before the law, and equality of opportunity are simple, because they can actually be observed and controlled to the degree of quality and quantity of their realisation.

But beyond here, as they say, lies nothing.

I am not the equal of Michelangelo, Proust or Elizabeth I.  In the realm of human endeavour there is infinite diversity of accomplishment.  An infinite variety of aptitudes and inclinations, unique in every individual.  And yet in many areas of life the Equality agenda is being enforced.  Achievement is not rewarded so as not to hurt the feelings of those who have not achieved.  Everyone has to feel good whether they have done anything worth feeling good about or not.  Gay ‘families’ which cannot produce children are considered equal to old fashioned heterosexual ones that serve to deliver the next generation of our people.

(I shall address the matter of male/female equality in a separate piece, but for now let me address that of cultural equality.)

This is also being applied to the populations of European countries as a whole, who are being told repeatedly that they are no different from the muslim hordes who are consolidating their position here in Europe.

The definition of Equality, has slid towards first ‘the same’ and now ‘complete interchangeability’, which removes the value of the individual and their uniqueness.  Thus true diversity is attacked and blended out.

This is a background mindset which has been used to justify the importation of a foreign demographic.

In most countries throughout the world, you only have citizenship if it is your ancestral home, so you have it by right.  Migrant workers and businessmen have visas for the length of time they need for their work and then leave.  In Syria for instance, I have just heard it said by a guest on R314, even when someone from abroad marries a Syrian, it is only the children who have full citizenship.

It is, or used to be, accepted conventional wisdom that a country’s population benefited from and inherited the fruits of their forebears, and hopefully prospered so that their posterity could build on this further and so on down the generations.  The idea of large numbers of non related population groups entering that society and staying there permanently would have seemed ludicrous and alien to that nation.  From a psychological point of view, there is a complete difference between how an indigenous people regard a country’s heritage, and incomers.

Absorbing literally millions of outsiders of an historically oppositional culture and thinking of them as ‘Equal’ is pushing the limits of my conceptual abilities.

We are bound by this notion that ‘all souls’ are equal. 

Perhaps in the sight of God, but here on Earth us mortals have to deal with inconvenient practical issues such as law and order and distinguishing between genuine cases of need and jihadist infiltrators.

And we hear ludicrous arguments such as ‘It’s only an accident of birth that you are European, we have as much right to be there as you.’  I don’t where to start with nonsense such as this.  It seems to propose a kind of universe where anyone can and is anything without any history, experience, or qualification.  There is no continuity, no thread connecting the meaning and purpose of your life.  ‘Abdullah had a dream of living in Europe’.  As if abandoning your ancestral people and claiming a place amongst another people to whom you have no connection were a perfectly normal thing to do.  The Cultural Marxists don’t recognise family, kin or tribe.  Hey, we’re all human, we all bleed, right?  What’s yours is mine, okay? 

We have met the enemy, and believe me, they are not us.

There are entirely different civilisational streams going on here.  To suggest that they could be equal is not only wrong, but dangerous.  And they are definitely not the same.  The culturally Marxist eroded values of the West imagine that their values of pathological altruism will be reciprocate by the new arrivals.  That they just need to be hugged and given a good job.  It is beyond the understanding of many that the ideology under which they have often spent their entire lives entails the premise that everyone else who is not part of islam must be subjected to it or die.  Predators and enemies exist, and are not just our own paranoid projections that we need to get over.  You cannot convert an enemy who is determined to be resistant to your compassion.  He will only despise your weakness.

It is not a happy time when the pathological altruist meets the jihadist, or even just a simple muslim women in a sack.  The liberal is unable to understand that these people are foundationally opposed to our way of life.  To them, ‘Equality’ is submission on your knees to their vile dogma.

I shall have to post a piece specifically dealing with that subject soon, but for now I shall contain myself to the opposite natures of islam and our own dying continental religion, Christianity.  Clearly they are not equal.  One forgives, and one conquers.  One is softness and charity, the other sternness and steel.  ‘Strike off the fingertips of the Unbeliever’ (Surah 8:12)

They could have been deliberately crafted as natural opposites, and there are those that believe they were.

The thing is, that in Nature, there is very little Equality.  Or at least of the sort that Leftists desire.  Although there is one type of Equality that is fundamental to the physical existence of the universe, and that is the Law of Entropy.  Heat tends to move from areas of greater intensity to those of lesser, thereby equalling its distribution.  This will one day result in the heat death of the universe it is thought.

However, there is in the world a force which, while it does not entirely negate the effects of entropy, nonetheless does work against it, and this is the force we know as life.

It is argued that since life involves drawing energy in and concentrating it in forms and structures within the organism, its existence cannot be accounted for by purely mechanical laws.

The bit I really like is that the concentration of energy through extraction and refinement is exactly what Alchemy was all about, in both the spiritual as well as the material realms.  The extraction and development of Essence.

The Prima Materia of raw matter, or the inexperienced or ignorant person must go through the refining and improvement process, as in smelting of metal from ore and working it with hammers.

Passage through rites which lead to progression on one’s soul path advances one in wisdom and in worth.  The coward who flees the battle and is hunted down after the battle like a dog is of less worth than the peasant who faces his death at the hands of the barbarian with a pitchfork in hand when the reavers come for him and his family.

There are qualities that are better, and there are those that are worse.

And so it is with peoples and their cultures.  Europe has distilled perceptions and ideas through the primacy of Reason and won a balance of freedom of expression with good manners and tolerance.  Within the parameters created by what was loosely known as Christendom.  I don’t consider myself a Christian any more, but for a thousand years or more it was the basis of a coherent civilisation.  So long as it was able to see itself as the guardian of special value not found elsewhere in the world, and protect that, it was a viable morphic field.

But over the generations during my own lifetime this has been lost.  The European civilisation which was to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction, possibly the greatest collective moral achievement of the entire history of the human race, has somehow lost its confidence to the degree where we are now incredibly blamed for all the ills of the world, rather than thanked and appreciated for all that we have done as a family of peoples and civilisation.

The weaponised use of the concept of Equality has led to the total infiltration of European civilisation, a demographic time bomb which will cause immense problems in the future.  Ecological models of introduced species to islands such as Australia or Britain demonstrate how damaging to the ecosystem these can be.  Human communities are no different.  We should remember the Red Squirrel.

There is much discussion of how this serves the global corporations with cheap labour and so forth, but the greater goal is clearly to destroy the European civilisation and its peoples for it is they who have the potential to subvert and remove the global elites.  Without their obsession with ‘standards’ and ‘ethics’ we would have Bhopals every week in the developing world.

‘Equality’ in the manner of the Cultural Marxists is nothing else than the attempted radical disempowerment of the whole of the human race.  It seeks to remove us from our roots and homogenise us into one global McDonalds culture.

Europe has become like a soft fruit, ripe and juicy to be plucked, sweet to the taste.  But I think there is a hard stone at the centre on which the teeth of the invader will break.

‘The stone which was rejected has become the foundation block’.  That stone is both the essence and the seed of a new generation which will grow again.

Sunday, 11 October 2015

Tolkien and Islam

Tolkien and Islam

It is well known that Tolkien said that he ‘cordially despised allegory in all it’s forms’.  However he was not always entirely true to this.  ‘Leaf by Niggle’ a well loved short story of his is clearly and unambiguously allegorical, and probably semi-autobiographical in its expression of what seems likely to be his own feelings about his work, constantly erasing and reworking, refining but never complete or satisfied.

It is also clear from his writings and the great amount of work that has been done on the sources of his huge range of imagery that his work is filled with imaginative versions of things he had known and seen in his life.  I have made a small contribution on this subject myself
of local landscapes and landmarks that are likely to have had some influence as sources since they are things that he experienced in his daily life, and which bear striking resemblances to actual locations and things in Middle Earth.

Allegory can blend with unconscious reference and half remembered image so that a piece can be a combination of many ideas.  Tolkien did not deny that there was a moral meaning to his tales and it is clear that his world is a representation of the Catholic universe before the Incarnation of Jesus.  (I think he might have even said that.)

Just as with, in The Hobbit, he drew unashamedly from literary sources such as the Eddas and Beowulf, we should not be surprised if in his works there are unconscious references to the historical world that we know, or simply contextual embedding of geographical patterns and the cultures that inhabit them.

The geography of Middle Earth in the Third Age has an overall layout which is reminiscent of Europe and the Middle East, as it might have been after the sinking of Atlantis, the race memory which he translated into the Fall of Numenor.  The languages were where it all started and these principally began with Finnish, Welsh and Norse tongues, and his world is built around the kind of people he thought would speak them.

So it is not pushing Tolkien too far in my view to suggest that the geographical and cultural references may have more detail, texture and depth than the simple and obvious facts of the Shire representing England and so forth.

As an Art Therapist I have spent much time looking at images and finding hidden material.  Some might be my own projection, but some were undoubtedly there waiting for me to find.

Ever since I first saw the map of Middle Earth in The Lord of The Rings as a child, I have always been aware of the similarity in shape between Mordor and Turkey.  One detail alone may be coincidence, but when others conform with it, the hypothesis is supported.

The separation between Mordor and Gondor is defined by the Great River which passes between them, like the Bosphorus, and Gondor stands like Constantinople facing towards the East.

Tolkien wrote LR and his whole legendarium to be a mythology for England, since it had lost so much after the Norman Invasion.  While I am content to acknowledge that it was intended as an inspiration to the English people, and a reworking of myths into literature somewhat in the way that Vaughan Williams turned folk song into symphony, it does not seem impossible that there may have been deeper purposes.

He was a lifelong Catholic from the days of his childhood when his mother converted.  It is also well known that he felt a deep sense of regret at the loss of Anglo-Saxon culture, almost as if it were something that had only happened recently and that it was his duty to restore.

Would it be so impossible that in someone so conscious of the racial, linguistic and cultural history of the peoples of Northern Europe, resonances of the various invasions from the East might be found embedded in his imagination?

The great fear of Europe was from the East.  Attila, the Saracens, Turks, Genghis Khan and the Ottomans.  Can we project that the threat of Sauron might in any way be comparable to these?  In archetypal form, these things are near identical.  It might be considered not very politically correct to suggest as much, but Tolkien clearly describes the inhabitants of Mordor, the Orcs, as swarthy and slant eyed.  We must accept that this is probably how the mediaeval Europeans saw those from the Middle East who were continually trying to invade and take over the West.  And their weapons are scimitars.

Victory for Sauron would mean the end of everything for the West.  Sauron is seen as the Antichrist, (or had Melkor not already taken that part, Satan).

A picture is building here of a demonic power, residing in a country to the East that resembles Turkey (and beyond), with swarthy inhabitants wielding scimitars.  It is the will of Sauron that all must submit to him and acknowledge him as master.  Any treaties would be worthless.  He would always make more complaints and aggression against the men of the West, as he has always harried and preyed upon them and coveted their lands.

Are you, dear reader arriving at the same conclusion as I have done?  That the demonic power of Mordor characterised by the Will of Sauron is archetypically identical with none other than that of Islam today?

I am not suggesting that this is an intentional meaning from Tolkien, but rather that it is unconsciously prophetic.  Perhaps a repeating cycle that he characterised, and which has come round again.

One last point I would like to add is to remind the reader of both Tolkien’s Catholic faith, and his devotion to the survival and meaning of Anglo-Saxon culture.  To suggest that he would agree with the current Pope that Christians should abandon their past and embrace the muslim hordes who press like orcs at our gates is to my mind, absurd.  Such a course will clearly lead to the end of European civilisation, indeed probably the European peoples.  During the Crusades, the then Pope declared Mohamed and Islam were the AntiChrist.  Saruman in the books symbolically represents the Pope who has submitted his will and is now working for the success of the Enemy.  The Lord Denethor represents the collective will of the Europeans, against this, but despairing.  I have seen a muslim site which suggested that Aragorn represented the Mahdi.  I think not, since Aragorn came to free the West from domination, but all the Mahdi would do is subject it perpetual slavery. 

If Tolkien felt so much grief about the loss of a root culture 900 years ago, how much more would he grieve for the loss of Christendom and his own people?

I would assert that it is plain for any who study the works of the Professor that he would have no truck with the politically correct movement which seeks to open the doors to invaders and betray our people.  In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that his great work, The Lord of The Rings, voted the nation’s most popular book at the millennium, is no less than a prophetic warning from the levels of deep racial memory and the collective unconscious.

Islam is the hordes of Mordor, and Sauron the guiding will of their demonic mentor, Mohamed.

There may be more symbolic meaning in the stories and images, but so far, this much is clear from many years of consideration, and I wouldn’t be surprised if thousands of Tolkienists the world over have thought it too.  But it is time to reserve those thoughts no more and speak the truth, that Islam is the Will of Sauron. 

You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my shamanic rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp ‘Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey’ (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) at 

 My other blogs

Deconstruction of politically correct material, such as feminism and immigration.
Includes complete index of recordings of the entire procedings of the Leeds Trolleybus Vehicle System Public Inquiry 2015 and blog entries for over fifty days of the Inquiry.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

The Colonisation of England

The Colonisation of England

I had one of ‘those’ conversations on social media yesterday.  It can be found at

It arose out of a posting on the BBC Three page on Facebook.


Do shares = support? We look at Britain First in We Want Our Country Back. 

There were various postings about what horrible people Britain First are and so I put in that while it is the case that BF are indeed problematic in many ways, the actual case about colonisation is one others such as myself feel great concern about.

I followed with this.  I was actually picking up a theme from another thread from the same site Is Britain Racist? In which immigrants claimed to be ‘English’, but these topics overlap and interpenetrate to such a degree that it is difficult sometimes to keep them apart.

Claire Rae Randall This whole anti-white agenda which the BBC runs is absolutely unacceptable. People whose ancestry comes from Asia or Africa cannot be 'English' when they are not even European, or white. The BBC is deliberately attacking the ancestral majority of our nation. Why shouldn't the people whose ancestors built this country remain the dominant demographic in their own country? Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, but hey, Europe for Everyone! No-one is flooding Nigeria, or Pakistan, or China with millions of non indigenous people and calling them Nigerian, Pakistani or Chinese! So why should these immigrants get to call themselves English and sneer at us? And if we are so racist, how come they all want to come here? Nothing to do with the welfare benefits or high standard of living which they can get from living in our countries, I'm sure.

[And this cartoon I found recently.]

This precipitated a torrent of abuse in which I was vilified with salvoes of choice epithets which are standard ammunition in the arsenal of the antifa brigade, without actually addressing the genuine concerns which even Britain First should be allowed to express.

It is very important I have found in such circumstances to maintain one’s cool, and not descend to the depths of your opponents.  All they have is abuse, while it is my firm conviction that I have a moral case for the defence of my people and civilisation. 

One question is all it takes.  I actually asked three, but the fact that they wouldn’t even touch the first shows their weakness.  Jeers they have a-plenty but arguments they have none.

The three questions are as follows.  First, how many immigrants should we accept and at what population size should we close the door?  Second, how will you feel when you are the last European on your street?  And third, how will you feel when your child is the last European child in their class?

To be sure I am drawing this more widely than just England or Britain, as it seems the whole of Europe is beset by this invasion at the present time.

We live in a world of practical limitation, and so we must think about the first question.  It is much worse in Germany, France and Sweden, where no go areas are spreading and there is an epidemic of immigrant perpetrated rape on in indigenous white European women.

But even here in Britain, the enclaves are quite advanced.  London is now less than 50% native population, and major cities such as Birmingham have a muslim presence which is beginning to flex its muscles.

There have been at least five million non indigenous people arrive in this country since the late nineties, many have had children and they are a seriously growing demographic.  If we keep accepting migrants and our already swollen population also continues to grow, how many should we set as a limit to that population?

It is just a simple question.  I guess I don’t really expect the antifa to engage with the second and third as these are probably too challenging and raise too much cognitive dissonance between their Cultural Marxist programming and their basic racial and animal survival instincts.

In online ‘debate’, there are certain strategies which it is important to adhere to.  I’m not an expert, but I have learnt some things.  Never respond to abuse, but instead reply politely pointing out that they have not answered your question but that they have resorted to unjustified abuse etc.  Then repeat your case or restate it from a slightly different angle.

I am actually staggered to find how little these people have to work with.  Like hyenas they pack together to attack someone who dares speak outside of the Politically Correct trope.  ‘Racist’ ‘scum’ and ‘nazi’ are the standard fare, and I find that responding pointing out politely that they have no basis in evidence for actually making these slurs against you, and then getting back to the question ~ ‘How many?’

Once they have exhausted their ad hominem attacks, since they will not reply to the question, they are forced to make some pathetic attempt at reason and argument as to why it is apparently so wonderful that we are being flooded by unlimited numbers of people from a diverse selection of places in the world with which we have no history, no shared culture, language or religion.

First we get the ‘It’s great all that diversity, don’t you like a curry?’ which is easily batted away with a reply that there were plenty of curry houses thirty or even forty years ago, without the demographic overload.  The point being that a small number of immigrants from different cultures can be enriching up to a point, but beyond that point the host culture starts to become eroded.  I hear that many first generation immigrants who have been in Europe for a long time recognise that this is the case, (mostly West Indians and Indians I am thinking of) they aren’t keen on an ever increasing and more dominant islamic culture from Pakistan and the Middle East.  They obviously like the white Anglo dominated society, which is what they came her for!

Economic benefits are cited, although with so many native Brits unemployed I find this hardly worth the time of day.  Anti-English English like to sneer at the working class for not getting on their bike and trying harder, but I find this derogatory attitude to one’s own people a cheap shot.  We have for too long supped at the table of the mainstream media who have sneered at the English people as no more than football hooligans.

Then we get to the meat.  ‘Well your people colonised the world!’   (You might like to compare the different arguments and see how they are not all entirely consistent with each other, such as how, if there is no such thing as race, our ‘race’ can be held responsible for anything.  Rather, the concept is only employed when considered useful, otherwise it is only a ‘construct’.)  Well, there are British colonies around the world, which were set up by people who left our shores often centuries ago, and are certainly not representative of the native British, or English peoples.  And huge numbers of today’s migrants aren’t even from territories that Britain had occupied. 

The Ottoman Empire enslaved whole nations and subjected different peoples to slavery for five hundred years, and was only dissolved less than a hundred years ago.  Is Turkey being asked to pay reparations?

The same with the war in the Middle East which Blair and Bush forced on the world.  Huge numbers of Europeans marched in opposition to this, and yet we are to be held responsible and made to pay reparations in the form of giving our country away to people from, well anywhere really, not just the Middle East.

I like Stefan Molyneux’s example of the hornet’s nest.  If while on a picnic, father espies a hornet’s nest and goes poking it with a stick, and the hornets come out (a good metaphor for islam I would venture), in the way that hornets do, and sting everything in sight, including father’s poor children and their mother, then the ‘payback’ model of why we are having to put up with so much immigration is satisfied.  Justice is seen to be being done when the innocents related to the perpetrator are made to suffer.

Oh, and then there is the ‘England is a nation of mongrel immigrants anyway’.  Apparently the various invasions that these isles have experienced are justification for another.  Having spent hundreds of years getting over the traumatising effects of small numbers of racially similar groups from the European continent invading and taking over, but eventually becoming broadly reconciled between these groups as over the centuries they have gradually blended and the differences have become blurred and even forgotten or lost, it is now proposed that we engage in the whole business all over again. 

However, this time, we don’t have a sparsely populated island with only a few million occupants, we have an increasingly overcrowded one. 

This time, the arrivals are not to be counted in the thousands or even tens of thousands over generations or centuries, but in the hundreds of thousands and the millions.

This time, they are not closely related and racially similar groups from Europe, but widely diverse groups from all over the world.

This time, they are not, as our most recent conquerors the Normans were, Christians, but mostly of a religion that has been at war against Christianity for almost the entirety of its 1,400 year history.

And of the refugees which we have taken in over the centuries, the largest group were the French Protestant Huguenots, who were a finite limited number over a specific time frame, racially similar and of a similar Christian religion.

And so, because this nation has been invaded or offered hospitality on occasion, we are to be morally bound to accept unlimited numbers of racially different muslims who act in many ways as if they are indeed as much invaders as were the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings or Normans.

The abuse continues with assertions about one’s lack of ‘racial purity’ due to the above, and one is obliged to counter that genetic studies have shown that many English people have as much as 87% of their DNA from the founders who first came up to this land at the end of the Ice Age, and so qualify as a ‘First People’.

It is most important that one does not allow the impression to form that one believes that one’s people is better than another’s.  Indeed, one must make it clear that in the interests of true diversity, it is necessary for each people to have a land and territory of their own.  Loving one’s own people does not have anything to do with hating another.  White identity in no way necessitates racism against other groups.

I would use the example of Nigeria, a country I know well from my childhood.  There are three regional tribal groups, the Hausa/Fulani in the north, the Yoruba in the West, and the Ibo in the East.  They will all consider themselves to be Nigerian, but beyond that, tribal identification is of paramount importance.

Now as a child I lived in Nigeria for some years and returned periodically until my father retired.  I don’t know how easy it is for a Brit to gain Nigerian citizenship, (probably more difficult than it is for a Nigerian to gain UK citizenship) but if I were to go there and work and seek residency it might be possible.  They certainly don’t have tens thousands of British seeking citizenship, of that I’m sure.

Now if I were to do this, and knowing and having a love for the country since my childhood, I could call myself a Nigerian citizen.  I might even call myself a Nigerian at a pinch, although I feel that is pushing is a little, however, wherever I might live in that country, I could never be a Hausa, or a Fulani, or a Yoruba or an Ibo.  It’s simply not possible.  They are primary ethnicities which depend on tribal ancestry.

And as is the way I regard my own English ancestral ethnicity.  Immigrants are now claiming this identity for their own, and many such as I find this unacceptable.  If I appropriated a Hausa identity from living in Hausaland, I would be taken to task, and so it should be either way.

The Balkanisation of Europe is being taken on in numerous ways.  The deconstruction of the English so as to make way for the colonisation of our homeland by others is an essential part of this.  If the nice cop of ‘vibrant multiculturalism’ and ‘economic need’ isn’t persuasive enough, the nasty cop of ‘racist imperialism’ and the ‘mongrel nation of immigrants’ is sicced on us.  We must be denigrated into submission.

So, as a humble keyboard warrior I see it as my duty to defensively deconstruct these attacks on our people and throw them back at the anarchists who seek to destroy the work of two thousand five hundred years of European culture since the emergence of the cultural theme of Reason among the Greeks.

It is vital to understand that the antifa hordes are not operating from real consciousness or an understanding of the problems of migration that are being discussed.  They have been conditioned over a lifetime of schooling and watching the BBC to have no sense of their own identity or culture, and that any remnant which they do have left is to be a source of guilt and shame.

Pay no heed to the fact that if you are English, then you are a proud member of the first people who stood against perhaps the most ancient institution in the world, which all nations, cultures and civilisations had practised, that of slavery, and abolished it within our jurisdiction.  And if you are of European descent, you can be proud that your people followed the lead of Britain in abolishing it in yours.

And yet, the native people of Britain, the Scots, Welsh, Irish and English are perpetually vilified as racist.  Here we see Cultural Marxism at work, because it works most effectively when it reverses the truth, and makes it a lie.  The British races are not racist.  If is was understood, there was a mass movement to spread the benefits of reason and science to the whole world in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and while some of this may have been misguided, the impulse was well meant.  My father built roads, bridges, and housing in Africa, which would otherwise have never been built, but he would be called a racist exploiter even when he was an employee of the Nigerian government.  Cultural Marxism snaps at the heels of white European, or English self doubt.  We always want to do better, so question ourselves.  This opens the door for colonisation of the mind, which is the precursor to colonisation of one’s territory.  As the master strategist Sun Tzu wrote in his classic ‘The Art of War’, the cheapest victory is one which is bought without fighting, but only by having undermined the will  of the enemy to resist. 

The Cultural Marxists are employing this method, and we must fight back, by speaking the truth, by speaking politely and by believing in our own right to survive.