On the eve of British forever-EU undeadness, Bulgaria provides an object lesson

There’s a scene in the first Steptoe and Son movie where Albert, caught ill in Spain while on Harold’s honeymoon, says he wants to go home where he can be seen by a British doctor. When Harold points out that doctor in question is a Pakistani, Albert replies “it counts as British”. What the older reader might recognise is a British cultural attitude, common in the 70s, engendered by knowing the very different Empire than hitherto had existed, based out of the only place in the world that had developed the principle of individual sovereignty so thoroughly at the expense of the power of the state, into which the considerable middle classes could venture (not just from the source, but also from India, being the prime example) and make their fortune. This cultural attitude was sound in law. From a basic self-defence perspective, it is not up to government to bestow the citizenship of a country on a foreigner – this is up to the citizen to do so through marriage. For marriage, read relation that bore offspring. For offspring, read household, estate and plantation slaves and servants. It should be self-evident that Empire by millions of common folk spreads a right to the mother-country far and wide.

There is no equivalence with regards the EU – of which Britain is contrarily a conquered province – and therefore with regards people from the EU being in Britain.

At the crux of the desire to see a no deal Brexit as opposed to a negotiated Article 50 treaty is opposition to the extent of the legality, through the latter, that will protect what appears not only to be the granting of rights, so that EU citizens – foreign nationals – currently in the country can access the British welfare state, but also rights in perpetuity to EU citizens (through chain-migration whenever free movement ever ends) to move to and live in Britain, and eventually perhaps become British citizenry. With hundreds of thousands of EU citizens already having applied for settlement status, Brexit of any form as the Government will deliver it isn’t going to solve the problem that caused it: the importation of a Government client population, the reduction of the British middle class and the displacement of the British working class: ultimately, the transformation of Britain into a cosmopolitical entity [see this article for explanation of term] for ease of world government.

This storing up of trouble is an issue that has been expressed before at FBEL, with a concern that essentially there is a festering wound in the British body politic that the Government has no interest in applying salve to – and as such, is guilty of dereliction of duty. So, the same sentiments here expressed were previously presented as follows:

Basically, the idea that foreign nationals have rights in the UK (meaning free movement and access to the welfare state) at any and all times even without considering the hostility of their home state – the EU – towards the British people, must be a lawfully dubious one as the issue stands alone; all things being proper, government’s sole responsibility is to protect citizenry from foreign powers, and arguably the British Government’s granting perpetual rights to EU citizens is a fundamental failing of this duty. In any case, when such things are awarded on the basis of a grand deceit and a fraud (EU immigration is fundamentally about destroying British national identity in pursuit of globalist governance), then there can be no defence of them.

The lying to foist the EU on the British continues, as you will see, dear reader (if you cannot already). In any case, consider “Her Majesty’s most gracious speech” on the opening of Parliament on 14th October:

My Government remains committed to ensuring that resident European citizens, who have built their lives in, and contributed so much to, the United Kingdom, have the right to remain.

The vital thing to appreciate is that by having a necessity to “protect the rights” of EU citizens, the UK Government is creating a means by which Britain must be subject to EU jurisprudence (specifically, the superiority of the European Court of Justice). EU citizens only have a right to be in the UK by dint of EU legislation. EU citizens in Britain serve as a beachhead for EU supremacy.

When it uncoils eventually, this article will be about a particular contribution from EU citizens that is entirely unwelcome, and yet is an aspect of a desperate secret regarding the nature of Eastern Europe that the British Government basically covers up. But since the Queen raises the point, let’s spend a moment to demolish the idea that EU citizens contribute positively at all. If they are conscientious workers, as years of corporate-media’s “Britons are lazy” propaganda would have us believe, being predominantly low skilled labour, then they more often than not merely contribute to the maintenance of corporate profits. They more often than not will be engaged in services and products that are in no way essential, and wouldn’t be needed if buyers would just change their habits (car washing, for instance). Any taxes they collectively pay will not counterbalance the huge general welfare bill that immigration to Britain from the EU causes – all the while causing displacement from full time employment (because while there is a glut of labour, employers can parcel out employment into zero hour contracts). [See the FBEL article, Coming soon: The Cheated, for more along these same lines].

Once and for the lesson must be learnt: EU citizens are not going to be allowed to remain in Britain because of their contribution, but because they cause a necessity for EU supremacy.

Now to the crux of this article, which was prompted by reports of a display of Bulgarian national character at a football match against the English football team in Sofia – ironically, on the same day that the Queen was insisting on the rights of Bulgarians, amongst others, to be in Britain. FBEL has been a lone voice in the wilderness with regards concern about the threat to social stability and cohesion from the importation, into an ethnically diverse nation, of people from countries that have collective white-supremacist Messiah-complex psychosis [the term explained here]). Today [15th October], in the immediate aftermath of the football match, the UK Government appears keen to impress, through a question asked in the Commons and by mouthpiece journalism (such as this from the BBC), that the monkey noises aimed at black players and the Nazi salutes was something that stemmed merely from a problem relating to football.

This treatment would be par for the course within what appears to be a strategy of covering up the culturally ingrained racial prejudice of Eastern Europe which, if it wasn’t such a well kept secret, would surely create an aggrieved and sizeable British constituency – a good portion of which, arguably, might otherwise have been pro-EU, but instead would see their “social justice” principles offended by immigration for the purpose of creating cosmopolitical Britain. Apart from plain old omission by corporate-media, the tactic used by British Government has been to deploy a decoy: it has tried to trigger people into reacting along the lines they have long been familiar with through conditioning, and to have agents and agencies of Government shout louder to accuse Britons of anti-European racism, with measures taken to an extreme in the case of the “Harlow Brexit Murder” [covered at FBEL here].

In the past year or so, there has been a trend to insisting upon the existence of what might be called Brexit bullying; the title of a November 2018 Huffington Post article provides a taste: Young Eastern Europeans Are Reporting Increased Racism And Xenophobia After The Brexit Vote. As a matter of fact, the Independent has very recently produced a piece which accelerates the narrative into one where teachers are accused of not acting against the Brexit bullying, but also actively participating in it, so that the children of EU migrants are having no sense of belonging to the UK.

However, the following is an extract from the earlier article:

One of the most concerning aspects of the study [of 1,000 Eastern Europeans aged 12-18… carried out by researchers from the universities of Strathclyde, Plymouth and Durham] was the reports from the young people on the increasing levels of racism and xenophobia in their neighbourhoods since the Brexit Referendum. This had changed the way they felt about their neighbourhoods and the UK- and was a trigger point for some to think about moving, perhaps to another country. Half of the young people in the study said they have seen more racism and discrimination since the Brexit vote and over 75% said they experienced personal attacks, from verbal abuse, being told to ‘go back’ to their country or being called names, such as ‘terrorist’, ‘prostitute’ or ‘bin scrappers’…

To protect themselves, young people said they started avoiding speaking their home language in public, learnt to put on a local accent or tried to ‘blend in’ through the clothes they wore or their appearance. Fears of discrimination and attacks leads young people to deny who they are and their multicultural identity.

The last paragraph of the extract really gives the game away in terms of the agenda of the study, which will be an operation in support of what UK Government is doing when it exploits immigration from Eastern Europe: the balkanisation and cosmo-politicisation of Britain. If any of the study is true, then the complaint against Britons is actually that they have little tolerance for failure to assimilate. Conversely, then, what this seems to be saying is that Eastern Europeans should be convinced of their right to be accommodated – as effective colonialists, as it happens, because post-Brexit they will be under the political jurisdiction of the EU.

Machiavelli wrote that when a Prince has acquired through conquest new territory “differing in language, customs, or laws, [then] there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them”. A solution for efficiently subduing the troublesome new territory, says Machiavelli, is colonisation:

A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being poor and scattered, cannot hurt.

While this is serious enough – and lots of Britons might recognise their experience of being in the EU from Machiavelli’s description of a conquered country – there is the extra matter of the Eastern European “Kurganist” (or Aryan) superiority complex, and where it is distributed in Britain so that it might exacerbate an already economically sensitive situation. Do British children, when (and if) they exact their hurtfulness upon the offspring of Eastern Europeans, feel as if they are provoked to it, or are they acting out of irrational hatred learnt from their parents? On the balance of things, the author thinks it could be the former option. Moreover, are teachers really picking on Eastern European children, or are they merely expecting assimilation before school age, and are unwilling to sacrifice general welfare†  by accommodating the consequences of EU colonialist mentality?

Obviously as part of the same operation, Hope Not Hate was active at the same time in casting aspersions about “UK teenagers”, and their supposedly innate racism that sees them becoming involved in British far-right extremism. In February 2019, the Independent reported content from Hope Not Hate’s annual “State of Hate” statement:

Research by counterextremism group Hope Not Hate found that children as young as 13 were becoming involved in a new wave of organisations that are gathering support online.

“The trend towards younger, more violent Nazis is a real concern and needs to be monitored closely,” researchers said.

“The threat of far-right terrorism comes from both organised groups, like National Action, but increasingly from lone actors who get radicalised on the internet.”

…The State of Hate report said the government’s 2016 ban caused members to fracture into a series of spin-off groups continuing the same ideology.

Two – Scottish Dawn and NS131 – have been banned and The Independent understands that security officials are discussing whether to proscribe other alleged factions.

But for now, neo-Nazi groups including the System Resistance Network, Sonnenkrieg Division and Order of Nine Angles continue to operate across England and Wales.

Now, at FBEL – over the course of two years – there has been an effort to document what is actually a Government-created hoax of British “far-right” extremism verging on terrorism focussing mainly on the operation that is National Action. Appearing to be generated out of the British Army, National Action mainly appears to have been for the purpose of demonising Brexit, but it is also abundantly clear, now an opportunity from a different set of circumstances has arisen to use it, that it is eminently useful for the mitigation of Eastern European racial prejudice. In a piece published the day following the England-Bulgaria football match, The Telegraph, attempted to characterise the behaviour as “populism” and would remind its readership “before… [turning] to the subject of Eastern European xenophobia”, that the growth area of terroristic activity in Britain is linked to the “far-right”. The idea, then, is to ask Britons to look at the planks in their own racist eyes, and to deflect away from the troubling core concept, which is the European Nazi-dom [the term explained here].

The supposed follow-up operation to National Action that was the System Resistance Network was also dealt with and dissected here at FBEL – and discovered to be an over-hyped damp squib that couldn’t be found to have more than one individual being active in its name. At the same time,  there was a promise made to look into the emergent Sonnenkrieg Division, which came to the author’s notice when three individuals, who were arrested on suspicion of “terror offences”, were alleged to be members. Two of these were jailed in June 2019, while the third appears not to have been charged.  Michal Szewczuk, who was 19 at the time of his sentencing, and Oskar Dunn-Koczorowski, who was 18, “were both said to be of Polish descent” (source), but inevitably described as being “members of [a] British neo-Nazi group” (source).

In what is actually a narrative-devastating turn up for the books, the one documented example of teenage radicalisation into Sonnenkrieg Division membership turned out to be a case that reflected the reality of Eastern European neo-Nazism. Indeed, it has been noted before at FBEL that the street presence of National Action had to be supplemented by Eastern Europeans, and specifically Polish, living in Britain to increase the appearance of numbers on the ground. The corporate-media has mentioned the phenomena from time to time, such as in one 2015 opinion piece at The Guardian.

Back in Poland, there has very recently been overt and well attended expressions of Nazi-tendency; the FBEL article, The New Intermarium & New Promethiesm, and the reckless UK Government (linked to above) featured a November 2017 rally in Warsaw. This rally gets a mention in a January 2018 article at Deutsche Welle (“Islamophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic and white supremacist banners at November’s Independence Day rallies raised fears about the rise of the far right in Poland”), which retails how the Polish Government was looking to prosecute a reporter who had filmed a neo-Nazi group for the purpose of exposing it: the supposed crime was the “public propagation of fascism”. DW reports that:

The film, which aired on Saturday evening, shows the group waving Nazi flags, burning a large swastika and wearing Wehrmacht, unified armed forces of Nazi Germany uniforms as part of the celebrations to mark the 128th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler.

People who have been following this will know that the Polish Government, presumably as wary as the British Government regarding the containment of dirty secrets and for the same reasons, is very sensitive about the country’s demonstrable Nazi history, and the extent of the Polish collaboration with the Neuordnung Europas, to the point of being desirous of rewriting history (and criminalising those who would oppose it). The Guardian article (from 2016) that the author randomly chose for evidence of this phenomenon contained a pertinent extract:

Last week the Princeton historian Jan Tomasz Gross – who wrote in September 2015 that Poles during the second world war killed more Jews than they killed Germans – was questioned by a prosecutor on the charge of “insulting the nation’’.

Another truth is that more Poles fought for Germany than fought with Britain, but try finding it clearly spelt out on the internet. Moreover, Britons these days are given the impression in popular history – or what we might call propaganda for the rehabilitation of Poland and other Nazi-dom countries now in the EU – to attribute British survival in World War II to Polish and other European airmen serving in the RAF.

As stated above, the lying to foist the EU on the British continues.

† In 2018, statistics from the Department for Education (DfE) showed 28 per cent of four and five-year-olds lacked the necessary early communication skills on commencing their school career. This data does not appear to be broken down into demographics, but by previous accounts, one can make an educated guess as to the root of the problem:

New data revealed that English is not the first language for the majority of pupils in more than 2,000 primary and secondary schools in the UK.

While in more than 200 schools, nine out of ten pupils did not speak English as their first language.

Now critics have warned the rising numbers could place a huge strain on schools, with English speaking pupils receiving less attention as teachers struggle to accommodate the needs of others.