There is a political ‘project’ to create a New British State, in which the ancestral rights of the native ethnic people are to be denied – their fundamental right to determine the future of their own homeland nations is to be refused. Dissent is being criminalised.
The creation of a new British State (the ‘Project’) is: unconstitional; contrary to law; contrary to natural justice; unethical; unnecessary; impracticable; and is demonstrably failing. It is also treason.
The political State is, to all intents and purpose, making seditious war (in stealth) against the native inhabitants of these islands.
Ethelfleda (scourge of the Vikings), with her young nephew Athelstan (destined to be the first King of all England) at her side.
An overview of the history behind our present dire circumstances, that justify a call to resistance, is provided in the research document ‘Treason, Genocide and Resistance‘.
In the city set upon slime and loam
They cry in their parliament ‘Who goes home?’
And there is no answer in arch or dome,
For none in the city of graves goes home.
Yet these shall perish and understand,
For God has pity on this great land.
Men that are men again; who goes home?
Tocsin and trumpeter! Who goes home?
For there’s blood on the field and blood on the foam,
And blood on the body when man goes home.
And a voice valedictory – Who is for Victory?
Who is for Liberty? Who goes home?
[From: 'The Flying Inn', by G K Chesterton, 1914]
Multiculturalism and diversifism are ideological deceits – lies concocted to conceal an intention for denationalisation, colonization, and for population replacement and genocide against the native English people. This is a fundamental betrayal of the indigenous community and, especially, a betrayal of the “dead and the unborn“. For an English person to knowingly engage with these deceits is to be complicit in the greatest of treasons.
This ‘project’ is an illegal act of a self-serving political State, corrupted by power and of cowardly disposition, acting against the native people. It is an affront to the rights and entitlements of the peoples to an ancestral homeland and of having the freedom of self-determination. The recognition of indigenous identity, and the guardianship of the native people’s lawful and natural right to a homeland and chosen way of life, is fundamentally a matter only for those people. It is entirely non-negotiable.
Therefore not only do we have a right to resist this treasonous ‘project’ – we have a moral duty to do so.
The Charge of Treason
A charge of Treason is made against the many and various members of the political State. The charge is that they have engaged in treasonous acts against the peoples of these island – the native inhabitants.
These unlawful acts have included (but are not limited to) acts of oppression and malevolent destruction of nationhood and ethnicity – by the imposition and aggressive enforcement of the cult of diversifism directed against those of the first people of these islands.
The political State has introduced perverse Statutes (in Law) with the clear intention of divesting the people of these islands of what is their’s (and that of their descendents) by reason of birthright. The political State is attempting to use the apparatus of the State to end the State’s constitional obligations to protect and promote the inalienable rights of the people in their own lands.
The rights of ‘the people’, the English, to native title to their land (these islands) is established in Common Law and custom. It cannot be denied in Law – and all are subject to this Law. The State and the Crown are required and constrained by constitution and custom to act within the Law. The State must be the servant of the native people of these islands. The State must be subject to our Law and act in our interest – otherwise it has neither legitimacy nor authority.
The Crown, as Head of State, swears an Oath to the people of these islands (the ‘subjects’ of the Crown) to uphold their birthrights as the native people – of, in particular, their inheritance of Land, Law, Freedom and Church.
Those that aid or support diversifism are complicit in misprision in treason. Those who have sworn an Oath to serve the Crown, and have aided or supported diversifism have broken their Oath and are complicit in Treason.
Those that commit Treason, commit Treason against the people of these islands – against those of the first people, the native inhabitants.
Undoing The Treason
Not only must The Great Treason be opposed and stopped – it must also be undone.
An English resistance has the authority of native entitlement; of precedent set in ancient Constitutional agreement; of Natural Law; and of a powerful moral argument. The Resistance is a lawful act against an unlawful and treasonous State.
The objective of the Resistance is therefore to end the Great Treason; to bring the treasoners to account; and to undo the harm done to us and our land by these evil people.
The Great Charter of 1215 gave us the principles upon which the Resistance may be pursued. Article 61 of the Charter provides for the action of lawful rebellion. The Great Charter refers to “all the people of the land” – communa tocius terre – and does so in terms of Article 1 of the document with specific reference to “all freemen of the realm“. However this needs to be seen in the historical context. It is unambiguously a Charter for the freedom of English people. Clearly it does not provide a warrant for anyone resident in England to engage in rebellion (reference Articles 50 and 51). It does not extend to the treasoners (obviously) or to the treasoners’ collaborationists and auxiliaries.
Genocide is ‘the deliberate extermination of a people or nation’. This involves the destruction of their culture, the theft of their land, and ultimately the physical elimination of those people.
The English, as indigenous inhabitants of the British Isles, are experiencing the preliminary stages of organised genocide. This process involves: the ‘deconstruction’ of their culture and social institutions; the false stereotyping of the English people as “mad, bad and violent “; and State incitement of racially motivated violence against ‘white’ people (including murder). There is clear evidence of State encouragement of: anti-white hatred; of population displacement, replacement and colonisation (ethnic cleansing); of deliberate cultural destruction; and of the use of Statute law to suppress dissent within the indigenous population.
Genocide by a Treasonous State
The indictment summarises the manner in which the treasonous State (the UK Government) is pursuing a policy to ensure “there are no indigenous people in Britain”.
According to the United Nations Convention on Genocide  genocide is a crime under international law, where the prescribed punishment is not subject to the limitations of time and place. The UN Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts commited with the intent to: destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group; deliberatedly inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Already the UK Government is actively pursuing the first two of the above three methods of genocide against the English people.
Sir Karl Popper (one of the greatest social and political philosophers of the 20th Century) was of the firm belief that it was the spiritual breakdown occasioned by Marxism that led to the growth of Fascism in Europe in the 1930s . The treasoners and appeasers are now collaborating with those hostile to our spiritual (Christian) tradition – to assist in genocide.
The head of the British army, General Sir Richard Dannatt has observed: “We can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life.” He went on to say “We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it.” Most relevant to the historical ’dimension’, he continues: “When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country. Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind. There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in” .
“Peace Through Diversity“
[Metropolitan Police Service and Greater London Authority, 2nd Annual Peace Talks, 2006]
Rear Admiral Chris Parry warns: “Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant … [the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communications on phones and the internet” . In his speech, Rear Admiral Perry identified the most dangerous flashpoints by overlaying maps showing the regions most threatened by factors such as agricultural decline, booming youth populations, water shortages, rising sea levels and radical Islam. In particular he stressed that these mass population movements could lead to the “Rome scenario” – a reference to the collapse of the western Roman empire in the 4th and 5th centuries under repeated blows from groups such as Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Suevi, Huns and Vandals surging over its borders. Rear Admiral Parry went on to say he was not labelling any particular group as threatening stability, but observed that there were already more than 70 diaspora groups in Britain.
Many of the ‘leading figures’ of political science and cultural theory, within academia, actively involved in promoting the political ideologies of multiculturalism, identity politics, diversifism and cultural Marxism, target the native ethnic British people (and the English people in particular) for unjustified opprobrium .
False Stereotyping - ‘Mad, Bad and Violent Britons’
‘Research’ work, including studies sponsored by Goverment departments and agencies, use bogus methods (including Marxist-Freudian ‘psycho-sociological’ pseudo-science) to demonise the indigenous (white) population of Britain. These studies, highly regarded within academia, portray the British people as “melancholic“, “violent“, “self-loathing” and “manic”  – with a prediliction for indulging in a “morbidity of heritage” . As one recent ESRC-funded piece of ‘psychoanalytical social’ research opines: “there is something quintessentially mad about British identity and it is based on thousands of years of hatred of the Other” .
Much of this so-called ‘research’ is little more than sophistry – the clever construction of narrative. There is much quoting from like-minded academics, but little original work on verifiable source material. And, not surprisingly, we find much of the arguments expressed only within a Marxist world view (of European colonialism, in particular). There is a noticeable avoidance in dealing with facts. This is perhaps not surprising given that the facts show the English to be extraordinary tolerant (of ‘others’) and law-abiding.
The truth is that an English person, or Briton, is much less likely to commit a racist crime, and more likely than expected to be a victim, than a person from the minority ethnic community (as shown by Home Office, Police, CPS, and British Crime Survey data). Most interestingly official data (Home Office, Ministry of Justice, BCS) shows the native community to be the most law-abiding of all the (identified) ethnic groups (within England and Wales) – in respect of the serious criminal offences of: murder (including interracial and racist murder); violence against the person; sexual offences; robbery; drugs offences; and burglary. This research concludes: “It appears, in particular, that the white community is being unfairly demonised in this respect, as the evidence shows that it is this community that exhibits the least propensity for serious criminal behaviour, the greatest (by far) tolerance towards other communities, and the least inclination (again, by far) for racist or interracial homicide” .
In terms of racist violence the ‘white’ (native) community suffers almost double the numbers experienced experienced by the ethnic minority communities of 75,300 against 47,100 for 2004 to 2005). There are more white victims of racially motivated homicide, and more white victims of interracial homicide, than there are ethnic minority victims – despite the ethnic minority community being less than 10 per cent of the total population (196 victims vs. 109 victims between 2003 and 2006)  .
The fact is that the likelihood of a member of the minority (BME) community making a violent racist attack against a member of the ‘white’ (English) community is approximately 30-fold greater than an English person commiting a violent racist attack against a member of the BME community. The evidence is that this extraordinary situation is the result of decades of anti-white (anti-English) hatred being whipped-up within the BME communities by the treasonous political groups.
The culture of anti-white bigotry – a consequence of ‘false stereotyping’ – is endemic within State agencies such as the Home Office and Police Service. Even the Crown Prosecution Service observes: “The police were more likely to identify the cause as a racist incident where the defendent was white than when the defendent was African Carribbean or Asian” . Both the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service portray ‘hate crime’ as “typically committed by white people” – even though (as the actual crime data shows) such crime is far less typical within the white community, when compared to such crime within the ethnic minority communities.
The Macpherson Report (February 1999) into police investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence (in April 1993) is widely regarded (especially by those who have not read it) as having ‘proved’ the existence of racism in the police service and in (white) British society generally. Unfortunately the Macpherson Inquiry was little more than a political circus. It is worth quoting at some length the conclusions reached by academics Norman Dennis, George Erdos and Ahmed Al-Shahi: “Although the Inquiry had the appearance of a judicial procedure, it came close to the Stalinist show trials of the 1930s. Rules of procedure and evidence were relaxed, and indeed no evidence of racism in the police who dealt with the case was ever produced. Witnesses were harrased by members of the Inquiry team and by the crowd in the public gallery. They were urged to confess their guilt and repent … They were even asked to testify to the existence of the racist thoughts of other people” .
It is clearly a part of the institutional thinking within the Crown Prosecution Service that racist crime is commited (only) by white people . A detailed analysis of ant-white racialist ideology that appears to underpin much of the CPS institutional thinking is available here .
We also find this form of bigoted thinking extending down to the regional and local centres of law enforcement. In a press release issued just 4 days after the London 2005 suicide bombings a joint meeting between representatives of a local (city) constabulary and no less than 7 different ethnic minority support agencies clearly identifies those that “behave in racist and hateful ways” as white people – and only white people .
This extreme bigotry directed towards white people is encouraged by publications from State sponsored/endorsed organisations (such as the National Civil Rights Movement) that portray white people as the only perpetrators of racial violence (assaults and homocide) . Unfortunately this misrepresentation also extends into academia. For example, a book used widely as ‘teaching material’ and recommended as ‘required reading’ within our universities attempts to portray all racist crime as being perpetrated by white people. The authors go on to falsely declare that: “All studies show that the majority of victims of racist violence are Asian” . That is untrue. Notably the authors used the British Crime Survey (1991) for their analysis of racist violence; however they would have known that it was only after 1994 that the BCS data included white victims of racist crime.
The overwhelming evidence is that the majority of victims of racist violence are white. The overwhelming evidence is also that the problem is getting rapidly worse (for the white population) – especially in terms of racist and interracial killing
Acquiescence to Anti-White Violence
The State seeks to justify and excuse the extraordinarly disproportionate number of violent offences against white people (by members of the BME community) on the ridiculous basis that white people form the majority population . Clearly this is a crude attempt at deceit since these State agencies must know the number of victims should be proportionate to the size of the offenders’ community – not the other way around.
The suggestion is clear – that the white community should expect to have to suffer hugely disproportionate numbers of racist attacks against members of their community, for the reason that they are in the majority.
The path down which this sort of racialist thinking takes us is chilling in the extreme.
Encouragement of Anti-White Hatred
The political ideology behind this surreptitious ethnocide has a need for a heretical ‘other’ to legitimise the belief. Dr. Kaufman of the University of London observes: “Multiculturalism as a Left-wing movement is problematic without a dominant ethnic group against which to define itself” . And, of course, that ‘dominant group’ is the white, indigenous population.
The highly offensive remark by BBC Chairman Greg Dyke towards the members of a boardroom meeting – of their being “hideously white” – is well known. Unfortunately this is a quite typical attitude of members of the political and cultural elite. Professor Ted Cantle, a senior race relations adviser for the Labour Government (and who wrote the definitive report on the 2001 riots in Bradford and Oldham) descibed in 2006 parts of the country as being “unhealthily all white“, a phrase that appeared to be an attempt to unfairly place the blame for ethnic tensions on the white community .
State Sponsered Ethnic Cleansing
A major policy of the New Labour Government is to encourage an ‘immigration’ policy that is resulting in the massive dislocation, relocation and replacement of the indigenous native population. In fact ‘immigration’ is an incorrect description for a process that is, to all intents and purpose, that of colonization. The Government’s anathema towards a majority indigenous population – that may one day decide to demand its right for self-determination – has resulted in a policy of piece-meal ethnic cleansing. Many parts of England now have almost no native English remaining.
Sometimes the mask of the political elite slips, and we see the real agenda. And increasingly the truth is beginning to emerge. In October 2009 the former Govrnment adviser Andrew Neather revealed that the Labour Party’s mass immigration policy was largely driven by political ideology. In February 2010 a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act produced a Government document  that clearly showed that the principle purpose for mass immigration was political – to force massive social change.
Mr. Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones is widely celebrated by the media and political establishment as the ‘Black Farmer’. He has recently been selected as Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Cheltenham, in Wiltshire. In a recent magazine article he is quoted as saying: “Our parents established beachheads in the cities; it is now up to our generation to move out of those beachheads and claim the rest of Britain as our own.” . Clearly he believes that allusions to invasion and occupation to be a most appropriate metaphor for mass immigration. It is a policy of colonization – aggressively pursued.
And, of course this is a very insightful and accurate description of the nature of mass immigration. It is an invasion in which the indigenous people are being dispossed of their homeland – a form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and denationalisation made possible by an unprecedented act of betrayal by those charged with the responsibility of defending the rights and interests of a sovereign people.
Suppression of Dissent
The weapon of choice for the political elite, against any members of the indigenous population who show dissent against loss of their homeland, is the charge of ‘racism’. This usually carries with it the implied, or actual, threat of arrest, interrogation, prosecution – and a long spell in prison.
It may seem strange, on reflection, that this form of particular insult, or motivation for a criminal act, should be given such extraordinary weight by the State. For example, for a person to be abused or assaulted because they are disabled is just as distressing (if not more so) than to suffer the same fate because of one’s racial appearance. They cannot help their disability. And yet there is no State sponsered crusade against ‘disability-ism’.
Of course it is not the insult that counts, it is the taboo subject. Somebody can be incredibly rude and hurtful to people without the police intervening, but the extreme left have negotiated a special taboo when it comes to physical characteristics such as race. This is because it suits their social programme of destroying homogenous nations. The powers that be do not have a social engineering interest in disabled people. The pursuance of ‘racism’ as the ultimate taboo is the means to a political end. This is about changing the face of a nation.
Those that express an opposition to this State-sponsored genocide are accused of ‘racism’, and are threatened with (or experience) unlawful assault and to false-imprisonment by the political police.