The Question of All Questions...

22 February 2005

[The following is a pamphlet currently making its way around the Britain]


which cannot be suppressed any longer,



Is it possible that the British public could have consented to the dispossession of even an acre of their land without war, or the loss of even one British life after the more than one thousand years of war[1] that ensured the security of the Anglo-Saxon peoples, their lands, and their culture? Is it possible that they could have consented to be relegated to the numbers of a minority throughout large swathes of Leicester, Birmingham, South London, East London, Oldham, Bradford, Peterborough, Manchester, et al., with only worse to come? The dead of Edington, Stamford Bridge, Hastings, and the blue-faced English corpses making their bed of the Channel, and the dead of the Boyne, and the Somme and Normandy and cry out 'Never!' It would be a betrayal too great even to consider the implications of the British being outfought, outmatched and outcast on British land, which is to say what, exactly, of a government-approved ethnic cleansing in the name of 'economy'? Notwithstanding George Bernard Shaw's observation that an Englishman is never beaten fairly the question of all questions asks not of mere sportsmen but of politicians: why is the Englishman being litigated against, imprisoned, put at the bottom of housing registers and to the back of the job queue, encouraged to out-breed, robbed, murdered and raped, and prohibited from objecting to such IN HIS OWN COUNTRY? Why is the Englishman denied even the notion of its once being his country? Why did this happen without a single referendum or plebiscite? How could this happen without the British themselves agreeing to it? Parliament can't change our currency without a referendum, so why could it - as it has - alter so profoundly the constitutive population of Britain without one? The 'winds of change' have blown bitterest chaffs Britain's way; the enemy of humanity itself could not have asked for more.

'England's Green and Pleasant Land.' (Blake)

Britain's more-than six million non-white immigrants and descendants of 1948's British Nationality Act are here to enrich the race of Chaucer and Dickens. They are here to fill the jobs nobody else is doing in the land whose world-pre-eminence once staked its fortunes on the output of a few thousand Lancashire girls working in sweat-shop conditions to produce textiles. They are settled here to diversify the length and breadth of an Anglo-Gaelic realm whose law is Romano-German, whose aristocracy own hectares of earth and whose poor live below the breadline, whose literature is Christian, whose monarch is German-descended, whose fortunes are administered not by an African or an Asiatic despotism, but by a constitutional kingship checked by two Houses of Parliament. They are here, with rights equal to in theory, but in practice greater than the native British race. Enrichment? Jobs? Diversity? Rights? A slave has more rights than a White Anglo Saxon Protestant of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Genealogy is indeed a popular 'sport' in twenty-first century Britain one searches the family tree in all earnest for conclusive proof that one is not in fact an Anglo Saxon Protestant. A German Jew, a Fenian terrorist, one-eighth of an orange anything but a Saxon. Milton? Johnson? Mill? Macaulay? Trevelyan? Orwell? Naturally, wops, wogs and Papists every last one of them. Only those persecuted by the Englishman's evil sense of fair play and revolting liberality will be accommodated by the New World Order. A black Prince of Denmark on the stage is something to be celebrated. An 'Asian interpretation' of the meaning of Britishness is called for more urgently than the Second Coming. The success of foreign cuisine and the dominance of multinational fast food restaurants are fêted. The Jewish experience of coming to the UK from Lithuania, Russia, wherever, is placed in the spotlight on the radio and television, and in magazines, papers and books as one among many important but always non-Anglo-Saxon 'perspectives.' And the Briton? How does he feel about a theatre that rejects him and celebrates his debasement? What meaning of his is called to be addressed? What caused the failure of all those fish and chip shops and English tea room and greasy spoon cafes that were wiped out and proclaimed 'a good thing?' What less than the dispossession of his land, the denial of his existence and the rescinding of his privileged freedoms has he experienced? Is it exaggeration to suggest that these questions at the very least would raise nothing but laughter and derision? But god forbid we laugh at a West Indian or a Pakistani! The Smithfield workers wanted a George's Cross for Enoch Powell. Aul' Heathy sacked him anyway, softening and legitimating the coming blow to Anglo-Saxons everywhere, when free speech finally succumbed with 1976's Race Relations Act and its condemnation of 'intent to discriminate,' whatever the fuck that is in newspeak. Feelings won over dialogue in the political realm at last. That was 1968; today, and five million more non-white, non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestant subjects into the bargain, and the deal is almost done Universal Man, well, non-Anglo-Saxon Man, will have risen to the Pantheon at last. In UK 2005, the negative is the positive and 'anyone but an Anglo-Saxon' is the chant.

'You've picked a very bad time to be born.' (Trotsky)

Talk got Enoch fired; popular demonstrations against Heath got the Race Relations Bill passed a mere eight years later; the West Indian Brixton riots of '85 got the Public Order Act 1986 approved, interdicting the make-believe concept of 'incitement'; the Asian riots in Oldham 2001 and the murders of (in 2004 alone):

Donald Hill (by Asians), Lee Walker (by a black), Ernest Meads (by a Turkish Kurd), John Monckton (by blacks), Chris Yates (by Asians), Robert Symons (by a Moroccan), Dan Leahy (by blacks), George MacDonald (by a black), Vincent Swift (by 'asylum seekers'), Stuart Watt (by an Asian), Bernard Hegarty (by a black), D.C. Michael Swindells (same), 82-year old Ursula Craddock (same), veteran of the illegal Iraq War Lee Martin (by Asians), Simon Breed (by a Greek), 15-year old Kriss Donald (by Asians), Anthony Farrell (by Iraqi Kurds), Peter Watkins (by an Arab), Ashley Hedger (by Asians), and Scott Pritchard (same),

saw the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999 reap what it has sown and, indeed nearly saw, and perhaps still may see, the BNP and National Front parties, not open-door immigration or anti-British racism and discrimination, outlawed. When will enough be enough? When will the 'thanking' be over and the begging, our begging, the begging of the British for a mere corner in an English field, really begin? When will we be locked up at last for so much as suggesting that, as we write this, race war is being prosecuted on our city streets against us? Democrats ought to look themselves hard in the eye and ask, what is the difference between gas chamber genocide and genocide that creeps street-by-street (if six million non-Britons in fifty years can by the miracles of spatiotemporal physics be called 'creeping'); what is the difference if the result is the same the extermination of a people, a physically- and culturally-distinct people? Of course, there is no difference so the perpetrators do for themselves the conscionable thing and: one, deny that there is even a British people (Mr. Prescott MP); two, deny that a nation consists of anything other than a bunch of freeloading immigrants (Mr. Phillips); three, deny that there is even such thing as a society (Mrs. Thatcher MP); four, criminalise or otherwise punish all objections to the nurturing of a race problem (Mr Heath MP; Baron Wilson MP); five, talk tough on race and immigration but pledge the councillors of the working-white provinces more refugees forthwith (Charles Clarke MP, Gateshead Labour Party Conference, Feb 2005); and six, deny that any such plan for the permanent settlement of alien races was intended (again Heath, et al. ad nauseum), but 'well, what can one say?' It is too late for apologies 'Extinction by any other name would smell as sweet...'

'The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants.' (Jefferson)

There is a distinct leitmotif developing here and it is the sound of Westminster Commons. Hear this: Party politics was born of man's love of the sinecure. 57,485 per seat per year, not including up to 100,000 for expenses,[2] is a tempting offer for a tug at the reins. And then there's more cash if one makes it to the EU Parliament or the provincial assemblies. All it takes is to sign one's name at the bottom of the candidate forms labelled 'Labour' and 'Conservative' and the votes are flowing in, whether or not one believes in Methodism and 'the working man' or Anglicanism and 'conservatism.' Why? Because politicians are not interested in representing the people, but are very interested in exploiting every opportunity for justifying for themselves higher salaries, more expense allowances, more travel discounts and a firmer sinecure in which to rise above the problems created by social engineering and 'experiments.'[3] Macmillan and Heath long ago proved that the only thing the Tories are interested in conserving is 1948's right of foreigners to settle on British soil in their tens of thousands, viz. the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians, et al. It is a telling clue that in the United States, the world's most capitalist state, and therefore the nation with the most acute division of labour yet achieved, in one hundred and forty years of its industrial dominance, the same two parties two sides of the same coin are still the only contenders in both 'local' and national politics. And that is the crux of our democratic crisis:[4] the more entrenched the division of labour, the more ensconced the people's so-called representatives become in their soulless little benefices on the west bank of the Thames. Outside of politics in bygone times, Cromwell fought on the battlefield, Macaulay composed histories and historical essays, Belloc penned novels, and Grote well, ol' Grote was a banker and an historian of Greece and a philosopher and a Liberal MP for the City of London. This, the fact that Englishmen once felt politics to be a duty and not a luxury, prevented the creation of the kind of self-serving one-trick-pony political class of MPs we see today. Politicians now can't lose even being embroiled in a scandalous disgrace causing their resignation will result in a handsome little income from the after-party sales of the Memoirs, Diaries, and sundry screen adaptations of same. And here we are thinking that the Commons sinecures are themselves the champagne lifestyle of today's sybarite Trimalchios! The real money's to be had in the telling just ask Edwina. As regards the mass-redundancies that have infected this nation since the 1950s, and even before, in the name of 'progress' and 'it's what's "best for the country," Tommy,' can you honestly ever see Parliament voting in its own replacement by super-efficient political computers? That, my friends, is the only way that particular knees-up will be dissolved in the name of higher profit margins and improved growth rates and the power of life and death is in the hands of the beast itself. We British didn't vote ourselves out of existence so don't expect the Commons to return the favour.

'Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.' (Burke)

Meanwhile in England which means not just London the rich get richer, the populace gets darker and the question of all questions returns with a potency that multiplies with each passing minute. An answer: We, the British, will no longer be left to the elements the 60,000 casualties of 'King and Country' of the 1st July 1916 demand revenge for the outrageous crimes committed against the British race in the name of democracy and just rule. Our grandfather's mines, in which they ceaselessly travailed, were too oxygen-deprived; our war-dead lining our shores too numerous; our liberties that were won with work and with blood are just far too precious to be left in the hands of the Commons. We have suffered dispossession in the cause of 'People-rule' if one preserves the mere name, one is preserving precious little, to quote Carlyle. A system that lets mental patients decide whether or not they are insane is no responsible institution but is in fact a criminal enterprise. Quite simply, Parliament's shadowy legislators Lat. legis lator: 'proposer of a law' are kept at the back; the more enigmatic they are, the less responsible to the people they feel. 'They' got their Race Relations Act, which no Briton save an infinitesimal sect of malcontents proposed. The MPs voted for it; miraculously, the people said they preferred freedom of speech. And that George's Cross for Powell, as proposed by the thousands of British workers now undercut by four-million-more cheap immigrant mercenaries? As a voice of the people, 'Powell was always a ghastly sort of democrat,' chimed the local so-called representatives of these dockers and factory hands. Pardon me, did someone say 'democracy'? 'Was is "demokrazie"? My no understand.' This is Britain. Words fail us.

Liberal Democracy confronted

How can an enlightened and time-worn Parliamentary democracy that produced such simple but quietly proud patriots as Lord Russell and Thomas Macaulay have presided over the atrocity that will see declining to minority status within another ninety years the Englishman's England, the Welshman's Wales, and the Scotsman's Scotland? This question is the question of all questions, just as once confronted Germany this same terrible problem. The difference here is that our government is not yet crushed by bombers and by artillery. The governments of the other sovereign states of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon nations of Australia and New Zealand will soon also be challenged for some answers. This challenge will shake to the innermost core the foundations of Western politics; its glaring omission at present serves only to perpetuate the facts herein about this deepest entrenchment of a self-serving political class, a class whose rapacity for free trade economics simply sharpens ever-finer the division of labour into still-more discrete disciplines from which it becomes harder and yet still harder to be extricated. Only Parliamentary politics recognises its right to guild-house protectionism. The formation of craft-guilds under rampant free trade policies is helpless to prevent the overnight collapse of the demand for his craft witness the mass-redundancies in the IT sector across the post-industrial world, or the undercutting of home-trained accountants, solicitors, lecturers and doctors. Our hallowed 'knowledge economy' is a scab in training the races of the developing world to take US, Japanese, German and UK jobs from us for lower pay until their living conditions catch up with, or indeed surpass, our own, upon which the hallowed world economy will take the reverse process, if indeed such as can be called a 'world' still exists by then. All of this moving and shaking, this desire for short-contract workers who put up and shut up, this economic nonsense that is devouring entire races of men, all of this in the UK at least is abetted by: Parliament. Good money ought to be paid to Hindu political graduates to take seats in the Commons for a mere 11,000 a year and thereby save at least 28 million of our tax funds in the House of Commons. Then and only then would we see the rapid abandonment of the scab-economy system by Westminster and its Western government allies. We may yet see the return of the Luddite but he will wear a suit and address you as 'the honourable Mister "X"' as he proceeds to smash the machines that trained those dusky foreign graduates to usurp him.

Only the nationalists ask the question of all questions. Only nationalists propose to answer the question of all questions. All else serve to perpetuate the delay in confronting the perpetrators castigated by the question and remain fraught by the contradictions that assail them. The Communists and Socialists support the immiseration of the working Briton by supporting asylum seekers' right to flood the labour market and drive wages down by their presence (and Blunkett lied about their numbers incessantly anyway). The Conservatives advocate the very free trade system which, in its logical extreme to come, we are only now beginning to taste its bitter fruits. The labour movement laments the export of British jobs but does nothing to pin the blame on the international scab-economy that can train proficient IT managers for a quarter of the cost in a Delhi hovel that prohibits employment rights, and makes obsolete any action the British unions might care to propose. Strikes can't win if they're broken 10,000 miles away. The Liberal Democrats 'disagree to agree' they have no agenda except to exploit the disillusionment and disgust the majority now feels towards the canting scum of the major parties. And the papers one and all have long ago buried English fairness and raissonaiment in the name of some higher 'ideal' or other violent, atomised, terrified, diseased, drunken. Is there any wonder that the Welsh and Scots and Ulstermen want their own Parliaments when England no longer represents the English, never mind the 'other British' that London's Westminster and Fleet Street long ago abandoned as delightful little savages living in their delightful little antique worlds of homogeneity and civilisation in the crooks and corners of the isles? The truth is THE BRITISH WON'T DO JOBS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY ARE, BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY PAY, THANKS TO IMPORTED 'WORKFORCES' THAT DRIVE DOWN WAGES BELOW A LEVEL THAT CAN SUPPORT NOBODY BUT THIRD WORLD MERCENARIES. A not-insignificant proportion of this country once toiled in coal mines for twelve hours a day without daylight before the Tories shut the quarries and had the workers Welsh, Scots, Yorkshiremen, Geordies attacked with truncheons and riot shields for resisting the right to toil as such. And they expect us to believe that we don't want to get our hands dirty of a sudden? Only West London's broadsheet-scribbling pencilmen can be so stupid and effeminate and aloof from the real world and the facts of history as to think such a thing. The sinking wage-threshold is one among many issues that should prick the consciences of the Left, apart from the, er, destruction of the British people. Time once was when Liberal, Tory and Socialist each saw himself as his country's greatest patriot; those times were notable for their lack of rape epidemics, armed robberies and race murders is there a single patriot left in Westminster, in Fleet Street, in the unions and institutions of this shitty little island? We can expect little help from today's party-political triumvirate. But one certainty remains: we, the British spat at, lied about, talked down to, driven from our streets, taxed to pay for foreign immigrants, deprived of rights, not permitted to settle in the countries whence came the immigrants, encouraged to breed out of our own kind, infected with syphilis and HIV in doing so, and, most gallingly of all, are expected by Parliament to be grateful about it we are in no mood for games.

One thing is sure about these criminal acts of condescension:


'The dark eleventh hour

Draws on and sees us sold

To every evil power

We fought against of old.

Rebellion, rapine, hate,

Oppression, wrong and greed

Are loosed to rule our fate

By England's act and deed.'



All Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers since 1948, whether dead or alive, will be arraigned to face the charge of genocide against them in a tribunal court according to the provisions expressed in Article 2 of the UN General Assembly Resolution 260 (iii) 1948, attended by the United Kingdom, to wit:

Genocide is 'the attempt to destroy, in part or in whole, a racial, ethnic, religious or national group,' and 'Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.' This frees prospective justice for the British from the claim that it violates the legal principle of nulla poena sine lege.

The penalty for treason against the British state is death, contrary to the popular belief that the UK has completely abolished capital punishment. The penalty for treason against the British people, from whom came the very state that now lords over them to the degree of 57,485 100,000+ (inc. expenses) per seat in Westminster, will be worse than death! Such infamy follows to the grave and beyond those who passed the British Nationality Act of 1948 (the crux of the entire problem), the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts of 1962 and 1968, and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

-- Long live the British.

[1] (From 876 the year of the Danish attack on Wessex, the last Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Britain to 1945)

[2] This information is plain to see at

[3] Trevor Phillips, the Dutch, and now the Germans (2005) have all admitted that the multicultural 'experiment' has failed. How reassuring. People have been arrested across Europe and America for suggesting the same until it became impossible to suppress the truth any longer, beginning with the daylight murder of Theo van Gogh in Holland. Inviting six-million-and-rising permanent guests (in UK alone), it is conceded, was a 'mistake.'

[4] A healthy democracy doesn't force people to vote under penalty of law (Belgium); doesn't suffer from incrementally-lowering voter turnouts (all of Western Europe, Australia, the US, Canada); nor does it, as the UK has done, implement postal-only voting and thus end 130 years of secret ballot. As 'Uncle' Joe Stalin said, 'It matters not who votes, but who counts the votes' Indeed, as per the postal ballot and the ensuing corruption scandals, the counting is behind closed doors in our Labour-led case.

Back to VNN Main Page