Articles like this are why BR is the only established 'British Nationalist' site I can possibly support (despite disagreeing on the nature of the 'British' identity). I was one of the first dozen or so members on the EDL forum when it first arose. A year or so later after it had grown to harbour thousands I decided to post a thread explaining the Rothschild/Zionist threat to England. My post didn't once mention the 'J' word, yet I was given a lifetime ban within minutes. At that moment the truth about the EDL was confirmed and I have been speaking out against them (but not their members who are yet to learn the truth) since.

The Monarchy's plans for an openly Jewish King or Queen: http://endzog.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-great-...

We have an occupied Parliament, an occupied throne and an overall occupied country. They are about to unleash economic hell upon us to distract and destroy. Sometime after that there will be a war between natives and invaders, because our kinsmen are too stupid to realise who the real enemy is. Maybe, if there are any of us left, we can have a crack at fighting the Talmudic aristocracy whilst fending off attacks from the colonisers who will have by then overwhelmed us in numbers.

The only option is to detach - starve the beast and prepare for hell.

There are 2 reasons we can't match the Muslims in protest numbers:
1) The Muslims are not made to feel like social outcasts if they protest in favour of something tribal. We whites, however, are. This is pathetic, but it's an unfortunate component of (white) human psychology. It is not that people don't care - it is that we pay too much attention to those who say we're not allowed to care.
2) Work! Thousands of Muslim men do not work - a far higher percentage than white men. Speaking for myself, between work, commuting, looking after a family and all else, I don't have the time or money to join in protests that the media won't pay attention to.

I think this article could be more understanding of the practical and psychological differences between the natives and invaders. We must remember that ZOG does everything in its power to obstruct 'us' and to empower 'them'.

Like I said mate - I do believe the British nations have a certain bond and shared history. Yes there's been mixture - but perhaps less than many of us assume there was. I suppose it all boils down to whether you believe the Saxons mostly displaced the Britons or simply came to rule over them. Again, millions of Englishmen believe the latter. If you compare the AS invasion with the Norman invasion - after the AS invasion the whole of England spoke a Germanic language whereas after the Norman invasion the common people didn't adopt the language of the Normans. Additionally, the Old English word for foreigner was 'Wealsc' - so if there were still Wealsc in England that the AS interbred with or ruled over, why did Wales become a separate country? Why did England get its name (meaning land of the Angles)?

Anyway, this is a pretty big topic. I just don't want British Resistance to lose out on support because of its denial of the various nations and (indigenous) identities upon these isles.

This is irrelevant. Appearance is largely irrelevant. We're all Northern Europeans, yes, but unless you're advocating the unification and blending of all white peoples it is important to acknowledge the sub-groups within Europe: Germanics, Celts, Latins, Slavs etc. Then even within those sub-groups you have recognisable ethnic groups. The English are culturally and genetically closer to Germans than the Welsh. And that's not to say the English should give preference to Germans over Welsh or anything like that - it's just a fact which expalins why 'Britain' is not a nation - it is a political construct. A nation is a folk group with a common origin, language and culture. English at its heart is a Germanic language, Welsh is Brythonic, Gaelic is Celtic. How can you say we are one people anymore than the English are one people with the Germans? By this logic we might as well leapfrog 'British Nationalism' and go straight to 'European Nationalism' with open borders across Europe. Personally I want England for the English, Wales for the Welsh etc... I want my country flooded with Poles little more than I want it flooded with Muslims.

Besides, as I said before. It isn't me you need to convince. Have a stroll around the Nationalist corners of the net - you'll find that the English increasingly do not want to be 'British' anymore. My point here is made with the interests of the 'Octopus' at heart. I don't want to see it fail simply because it is out of touch with the desires of the constituent nations. Nationalists over the age of 40 may often identify as 'British' but I can tell you that the younger generations are reclaiming their 'Englishness'. It may well be that many regulars on the BR website only support 'British Nationalism' because it is the only type of Nationalism that has ever really been offered. Asked to choose between two identical movements - one 'English' and one 'British' I believe most would choose the 'English' option.

As I say, uniting Britain's nations at this stage is fine. But consideration should be given to a clause whereby later down the line the UK can devolve.

Today's pursuit of truth is the path of most resistance. I, like many patriots, abhorred Hitler as little as a year ago. I do not yet adore him, for I am still sifting through the truth. But the important thing is that we put the pursuit of truth above all else no matter how uncomfortable the findings may be. Not everyone has it in them to be guided by the pursuit of truth. They suffer from cognitive dissonance. The real question is - why would anyone CHOOSE to exonerate National Socialism other than for an EXTREMELY good reason (such as the trith)? Why would anyone CHOOSE to make a social leper of themselves over misguided conclusions?

The Anglo-Saxons are the same as the Bretons are the same as the Gaels? "Imaginary different races"??!!?!?

As hard as I might try not to be, it's still going to be condescending of me to suggest you do a bit of reading. Besides, whatever you choose to believe about how many indigenous ethnic groups there are in the British isles, that doesn't change the fact that millions of us identify as 'English', 'Welsh', 'Scottish' and 'Irish'... not 'British'.

I have nothing against Scotland, Wales and Ireland. We have a special relationship, but no more so than the Scandinavian countries do with each other. So why not acknowledge that we are (basically) four different ethnic groups (aka 'nations) living on the same set of islands and let us each govern ourselves. This is the logical conclusion for true Nationalism in Britain, for 'nation' refers to a people, and only the most ill-informed believe that Brits are one people.

I admire greatly what British Resistance are doing, but I believe there are increasingly more anti-Unionists in British Nationalism than there are pro-Unionists. Sadly, many good, anti-Zionist, intelligent people won't support this initiative because they oppose the Union that vehemently.

...that is unless the manifesto makes allowances for full devolution once this union of nations is reclaimed?!?!

I don't really understand your question Heechee. Of course this is for people to decide. The problem is that if a BRITISH Nationalist Government took office, then by its very nature they are not going to give people the option to fully devolve for that would also require the dissolution of the Government itself.

Admirable stuff. I, and others, just wish there would be consideration given to a clause for a disbanding of the United Kingdom after the UK is freed from the clutches of the Zionists. Many of us believe that, far from the Union being what made us great, there may have been a Zionist element to its formation and endeavours (a first step towards one-World government if you will); or at the very least, it endangers true Nationalism by denying the self-determination of the different nations (ethnic groups) who inhabit the British isles.