Tuesday, 10 December 2013

Ethnic British Children Are Being Written off

An Ofsted report reveals that ethnically British children are being written off by the State. Sky News reports in an article dated 11 December 2013, that “progress in education by white children – particularly those from poor backgrounds – is slower than all other ethnic groups”.

The education body’s chief inspector is to officially announce that children of ethnic British origin are being written off far too often, and that many are reduced to poverty.
Sir Michael Wilshaw is set to announce that high expectations should be for all children and not just for particular ethnic groups.

Sky report: 

Writing off the Ethnic British People in Britain
The British State has dedicated enormous resources to accommodate mass immigration. Immigrants have been overtly privileged by being given free council houses and weekly welfare cheques as soon as they arrive in Britain, such as is the case with asylum seekers. Ethnically British people wait even 10 years or more to receive a council flat. Indeed, mass immigration came about at the expense of the British People who originally lived in Britain, and now we are being written off after having been reduced into poverty to pay for mass immigration.

We also pay £50 million a day to the European Union in the form of tributes to foreign powers. EU law overrides British Law, we are no longer a sovereign State. Within 30 years, we ethnic British may be a minority in our own Country, written off, and this after paying for everything and incurring a £1.4 trillion public debt too.

Families of different ethnic origin tend to have many more children than ethnic British families do, and so they receive a lot more money from the State such as in the form of child benefits and larger houses to live in.

Written by D. Alexander

Saturday, 7 December 2013

Nationalism and Socialism as Opposed to Exploitation

Part 3
Fair Trade

The values of nationalism and socialism in Britain should make clear that unfair exploitation of workers is unacceptable in British production and trading standards.

The criteria used by the Corporate Establishment to earn high and unreasonable profit margins are contrary to true British values. To give one example, platinum is sold worldwide at the same market price, and yet Australian platinum miners earn at least ten times more than their counterparts in South Africa. Platinum miners in this country may even earn $12 a day, working underground and breathing the dust they are drilling from the rocks. Clearly, in the case of South Africa, large amounts of profits are siphoned off into the stock exchange scene and do not remain in the economy of the country of production.

In Britain, we would not like to be treated in this way, but the Establishment, including the highly acclaimed “head of the Commonwealth”, of which South Africa is a member, will ignore such issues from their agenda.

Another example is the production of textiles in India, Bangladesh and Indonesia, where the workers earn perhaps a few dollars a day and the products are exported to Western countries. Almost the entire textile production in Britain – and the West in general – has been closed down and transferred abroad, so as to guarantee a greater income to the Trade Name and High Street Establishment.

As a result we have mass unemployment, and workers in other countries earn only a fraction of that which would have been the salary of a British or Western worker. Corporate greed and speculation results in an unfair society, it is manifest in world trade and responds only to one law: how to earn more money through exploitation. Workers’ rights are not respected, but indeed are openly abused. Or workers are simply laid off and sent home and the production is transferred abroad to cheap-labour economies at fractional prices.

True British Socialism and national honour cannot accept this. A code of fair international production and trading standards would be essential once our Country has embraced Prosperity. We could not accept unfair exploitation either at home or abroad as a means of furthering our national economy.  

Written by D. Alexander

Part 1: Will Britain acquire a national and social identity?

Part 2: Nationalism and Socialism in Britain as opposed to extremism

Monday, 2 December 2013

Nationalism and Socialism in Britain as Opposed to Extremism

Part 2
Being Opposed to Extremism
The idea of British national and social values comes from nationalism and socialism in reference to Britain. It opposes the extremism of capitalist greed, such as corporate chief executives using shareholders’ revenues to greatly inflate their salaries when the masses of people are quite clearly in a state of increasing financial grievance.  

British national and social values also oppose the extreme views of the Left that tries to water down national sovereignty and national identity, always speaking out for the right of any number of millions of people from all over the world to immigrate to Britain and trying to forcefully impose mass immigration on us by denying the British People a vote on European Union membership.

These extreme policies reached their climax under the premiership of T. Blair, who secretly imposed an agenda of mass immigration to Britain while knowing that it was not the wish of the British People. Blair is known to have lied in order to pursue his agendas, and is also known to have stated that he considered the British People racist and that mass immigration would break the will of the People.

The same T. Blair embarked in wars against other countries, namely Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and in so doing he proved that the system he represented pursues a policy of violent aggression against other countries. He also became extremely rich after leaving the office of Prime Minister, acting as “advisor” to foreign governments and companies. However, he left office just shortly before the great financial crash of 2008, and he also left behind the legacy of the turmoil he took part in creating in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
A Fair Society
Elderly people should not be left to die of thirst, and patients should not be left to drink water from flower pots in hospitals. Those who care for them in homes or hospitals should not be given “targets” that see overstretched staff in cash-strapped institutions leaving patients to suffer or die in misery. Carers should be given a mission to care for the vulnerable, and the State must be sure that the nurses are well trained, whole-hearted and sufficient in number.

Vulnerable children should not be abandoned to child-groomers and rapists, but cared for and protected. Disabled people should not see their incomes cut due to spending cuts, or the services made available to them reduced due to a bankrupt State, and they should not be forced out of their homes due to an extra room which a cynical government considers to be “too much”.  

Unborn children should not be diagnosed in their mother’s womb to see if they are “unworthy of being born”. Abortion should not be “the answer to poverty”, and elderly people should not be made to choose between heating their room and eating a hot dinner.

True Socialism cannot espouse the cold indifference of the corporate greed society or the “financial target” mentality of a bankrupt state intent on making figures sum up at no matter which human expense.

Yet this same Socialism cannot afford to sacrifice the rights and the needs of the British People to the demands of millions of young, able, fit people from half the world rushing over to Britain – often with their whole family – to cash in on the available jobs, on the benefits and on the social services that we offer.

These people do have their own country, very often these are fertile lands, and they are countries where the population density is considerably lower than in Britain. To simply come over to Britain and claim asylum and be carried on cushions into a council house from day one, and given the weekly welfare cheque, while British people wait even ten years to receive a council flat, is outrageous. It is, quite simply, not fair. And it is not fair that millions of people can come over and take a job with all the attached benefits, while millions of British people are consigned to unemployment.

The Cruel, Arrogant Establishment
The same Establishment that from 1914 to 1918 sent millions of British men to the slaughter against our brethren of Germany later imposed a cruel destiny on the German People. They were humiliated and made to suffer, and they were made to pay for everything. Today, we British are being made to pay every day £50 million to the European Union, large sectors of our productive industry have been transferred abroad, and we are forced to hand over millions of our remaining jobs to people from foreign countries coming over with their families to colonise our Country, while we pay for everything.

Our economy is being bled to death and we are being made to pay when there is no money left to hand over, even when our public debt increases by around 150 to 200 billion pounds every year. An extremely incompetent and arrogant string of governments has smashed the British economy and bankrupted it, and they have signed away British sovereignty to foreign powers.

They have tried to change our ethnic and cultural identity into that of a tiny, bankrupt global village; they have sown the seeds of sedition within Britain by implanting opposing ideologies; they have sown the seeds of discord between different cultures, something that once we did not have. They have enriched our society to the extent that we are totally bankrupt save the rich, who get ever richer, and to the point that we have whole communities being indoctrinated with world views that are completely contrary to those of Christianity.

Unless we assert our right to be a British, Christian Nation, and to bring an end to mass immigration and also to capitalist greed, our Country will fall. We do not need war and persecution but need to avoid war and stop persecution and prevent the fall of our British Nation. We are being persecuted by the cynical party-establishment that swears an oath of allegiance to one and the same private family member.

We need a periodically elected Parliament giving a pledge to the People, a Parliament that does not hand over our Sovereignty to foreign powers and that does not hand over our Country to foreign peoples. We are being denied the democratic right to become a truly sovereign People.

Written by D. Alexander

Part 1: Will Britain acquire a national and social identity?

Part 3: Nationalism and Socialism as opposed to exploitation

Sunday, 1 December 2013

Will Britain Acquire a National and Social Identity?

Part 1
A combination of extreme capitalism – where bankers in the London City continue to grant themselves higher incomes from share companies’ profits – and extreme left wing mass-immigration policy, could be resulting in a shift of British sentiment towards nationalism and socialism. 

The desire to be rid of the get-ever-richer mentality of the company directors, and also to put an almighty end to the endeavours of the “import the whole world” brigade, could herald a new era of national redemption.

British People may Be Banned from Working in Britain
If you are British, you most likely cannot work as a seasonal fruit picker. Hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans receive work permits from the British Government to pick our fruit in our Land. We are categorically excluded. Capitalist extremism carried out by the British Government discriminates against British people on account of our ethnic origin and our attitude.

A vast proportion of factory employment in England is given to people specifically on account of their being from other countries and not Britain. Numerous factory employers recruit only among Eastern Europeans.

The Loony Left and the Tiny Global Village
We are being yelled at because it is not enough that millions of people have immigrated to Britain, while we have millions of unemployed Brits and our landscapes are rapidly disappearing and becoming housing estates. We are shouted at because we do not want millions more immigrants here.

Yes, we want our Country with its natural landscapes, the farms and the woods, while other people have their own country. We also want to leave the EU, which we never voted for anyway. We are being constantly told that we cannot leave the EU, that we have no right to decide our own laws and that everyone from 27 other EU countries has the right to come over and settle here, and that there is nothing we can do about it.

Supremacist Domination
As a Christian, I do not believe that our Country Britain should be pursuing a policy of building and maintaining a nuclear-armed arsenal, as I do not have intentions of invading another country, or getting militarily involved in foreign countries’ problems that really do not concern us. This is somewhat the opposite of the loony Left supremacist T. Blair, who invaded no less than three countries.

Paying Tributes to Foreign Powers
Similar to Germany in the 1920s, Britain is forced to pay £50 million a day to foreign powers, whose laws override British Law. We have millions of unemployed, and millions of people come over and take our jobs and colonise our Country against our expressed will. There is nothing we can do about it and we must pay up, and large sectors of our productive economy have already been dismantled and transferred to other countries.

We Could Lose our Country Forever
At this rate, in thirty years we will have become an ethnic minority in our own Country, we will have been disinherited and we will have paid for it all too. The extremely rich capitalist elite won’t mind, and the loony Left who are looking forward to becoming an ethnic minority will think it’s great.

So what happens if the majority of us do not want this? And what happens if we do not want an elected Parliament that swears an oath of loyalty to a private family member rather than giving a pledge of loyalty to the People of Britain?

Can one private family claiming to be the head of half the world, or the loony Left who profess the tiny global village, force us into submission? What happens if they keep transforming our farms and woods into housing estates for millions of immigrants until a famine breaks out and we have not enough food? What happens if the State, with £1.4 trillion public debt, adding to the £1.4 trillion private debt, falls apart under the relentless burden of ever more people coming over and settling down here?

Written by D. Alexander

Part 2: Nationalism and Socialism in Britain as opposed to extremism

Part 3: Nationalism and Socialism as opposed to exploitation

Sunday, 3 November 2013

Daily Express Petition: No to New EU Immigration

Crusade to Defend Young British People from Betrayal
The Daily Express has initiated a crusade to prevent mass immigration of Romanians and Bulgarians to Britain. The Government has planned to open the doors to a mass rush of people from Romania and Bulgaria, to take effect as of 1st of January 2014. From that date, the floodgates of Romania and Bulgaria will be opened, and millions of desperate people could start migrating from these two EU countries, fleeing their land and coming over to Britain to take jobs, accommodation and benefits, and to access all our social services for free.

Accustomed to a minimum wage of 154 to 170 euro a month for 40 hours a week work, or to unemployment, millions of people in Romania and Bulgaria see Britain, known to them as “the UK”, as a haven to flock to in mass. They want to get to the employment market, where the minimum wage is over six pounds an hour, and where housing benefits and job-seekers allowance, child benefits and free social services are to be offered them on a golden platter.

We in Britain do not want them to flock over, we have our own people who are entitled to employment, housing and social services. We believe that Romanians and Bulgarians can fare well in their own country, where they have plenty of fertile land and the chance to promote agriculture and industry. Unlike many arid countries in Africa, where people live in semi-desert countryside, where rain is scarce, where the soil is not so fertile or indeed is barren, Eastern Europe is fertile.

One Million Unemployed Young People in Britain
There are one million unemployed youth in Britain, aged between 16 and 24, and the Government is intent on betraying these people so as to give away their rights and chances to millions of people from Romania and Bulgaria.

The Wording of the Express Petition:
"We petition the Prime Minister to defy the EU and keep in place labour market controls on people from Romania and Bulgaria indefinitely and not to let these controls expire on December 31 2013 as he currently plans."


On 27 November 2013, the Daily Express delivered 150,000 signatures to 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the British Prime Minister. As the petition exceeds 100,000 signatures, the Prime Minister is obliged to officially respond to the petition with a statement. Technically, this may require a discussion in Parliament and a vote.

Currently, Parliament asserts that there is nothing the British Government, or the House of Commons, can do to prevent anyone from Romania and Bulgaria moving to Britain and settling here, as the EU laws override British Law. Strictly speaking, this is Treason, as per British Constitution no foreign Parliament may exercise authority over Britain. But royal consent has been given to all EU treaties to which Britain is signatory, and consequently the monarch has signed away British Sovereignty to foreign governments and peoples.

As a result, millions of Romanians and Bulgarians could become immigrants in Britain, they could even be given money by foreign powers to come and settle here in order to support themselves, from a free ticket to the UK to the sum necessary to buy a house here. 
However, many would be looking at receiving free accommodation paid for by the British State, plus job-seekers allowance and children's allowance. 

The governments of Romania and Bulgaria will be eager to transfer 1 million Roma to the UK, many of whom will claim asylum as refugees, similar as to Roma from the Czech Republic and Slovakia who claim asylum in the UK and Canada on the grounds of ethnic persecution. 
And yet, anyone fleeing Romania and Bulgaria to head to Britain for the easy way out is in effect a refugee, someone fleeing a minimum wage of 170 euro a month - or indeed unemployment - in order to work for the British minimum £6+ an hour, or to get free housing and all attached benefits, with trimmings and dressings, that go with "living in the UK as an immigrant from Eastern Europe".

Our last farms may be bulldozed over and our last woods uprooted to build housing estates for the mad rush to "the UK" from every failed economy in Eastern Europe. They come over with the knowledge that "there is nothing the British can do about it", as our Sovereignty has been handed over with royal consent to foreign powers, indeed to half the world and their dog. 

Written by D. Alexander

The Evolution Theory Is Scientifically Impossible

Explaining how evolution of individual cells into complex species is contrary to scientific laws.

Brief Introduction to the Theory of Evolution
Following the evolutionary theory, all living species derive from one common ancestor in the form of an independent single cell. This in turn descended from amino acids which had evolved from hydrogen atoms, whereas the hydrogen atoms had developed from photons.

There were various consecutive passages between each phase, one being the big bang, another the transformation of some atoms into others previously inexistent, for example hydrogen into helium. As a result, human beings would be descended from single hydrogen atoms and ultimately from null-mass photons.

The theory is presented on the basis that random evolution came from nothing, or from something that was before the universe, and that any given period of time – preferably expressed in billions of years – made it possible.

The result is: null-mass matter evolved into the universe, and into planet Earth, into mountains, oceans, the air we breathe, into animals and human beings.
The theory asserts that there was no Creation.

We would need to ask whether science can originate from non-intelligent and random evolution; and also, whether science could evolve into different laws following the same idea of random evolution starting from nothing.

The Evolution Theory Examined in the Light of Science

1. Cell Reproduction
How cells divided … and remained cells.

A single cell is the smallest unit of organic life. Likewise, a single atom is the smallest unit of non-organic material, be it solid, fluid or gas.
Iron is non-organic and is listed in the periodic table of elements. Wood is not, as it is organic, being a cellular organism. Although organic materials are not listed on the periodic table of elements, they are each composed of many atoms. All cells consist of atoms, but being organic they have a genetic code and reproduce. Atoms cannot evolve into living cells, but they are part of the cell structure.

Some forms of life consist of one independent single cell. These are microscopic organisms such as bacteria. In order to multiply, a single cell replicates its genetic code to bring about a division into two identical cells, a process known as mitosis. There is no form of mating between single cells, no masculine and no feminine.
Other forms of life are made up of numerous different kinds of cells all forming one complete organism, for example a person.

The many cells that form a complex cellular organism interact as part of the one entity. They multiply following the same rule that there is no masculine or feminine and no reproductive involvement between cells, except where particular cells match their genetic code to create a complete new multicellular organism by way of an embryo, a process known as meiosis. In this case, however, it is not for the reproduction of a single cell, or of two cells, but of a multicellular entity, such as a person.

Every form of organic life has a genetic code, also called DNA, and this is true as much for a single cell as for a complex organic entity, be it a tree, an animal or a person.
Human beings, like all complex multicellular organisms, have a comprehensive genetic code which is used to procreate offspring. This will be made up of the same kind of cells, and will have the same kind of form and characteristics, as the parents, both male and female, and will be either male or female.

The sexual reproduction cells within the male and the female, for example of humans, do not follow mitosis to duplicate into identical copies in the reproduction process, because these cells are not procreating themselves, but the human being. To do this they follow the process of meiosis, whereby the parental DNA is reduced to half, and the two halves of the father and the mother match to form one embryo that inherits a combination of paternal and maternal DNA.

As we can see, reproduction of single cells is one thing, reproduction of complex multicellular organisms such as humans is something else, hence the difference between mitosis and meiosis.

As procreation through meiosis is only possible between members of the same species, in the case of humans the child will have genes originating from each parent. Genes from some form of preexisting ape species are not present in humans, which however would have been the case if humans descended from apes.

2. One Single Cell Transforming into a New Species
Give a microscopic cell a billion years, and you may have one hundred billion microscopic cells, but not one horse.

A single-cell organism, one that divides into identical cells in order to multiply, could not have evolved into a complex organism comprising numerous different kinds of cells, such as a horse.
Cells can adapt within limits, remaining single entities, but they would not evolve into a horse, as this would be a single-cell horse that multiplies itself through binary division into two identical horses. Being a multicellular creature, a horse quite evidently did not evolve from a single cell, no matter now many millions of years or imaginary proto-species were to be thrown into the calculation.

A passage of evolution from a single-cell organism that divides into two identical cells, to the state of mating between a male and female belonging to a complex multicellular species, is impossible. Once a cell ceased to multiply through identical replication, without further reproduction it would eventually die, as its genetic code, or DNA, could not develop a male and female reproductive system.

Cells – with the exception of meiosis – continue to form exact copies of their DNA in order to multiply, even when part of complex organic life. Once the process of DNA replication and consequent cell division ends, they die out.
The idea that life evolved from the mitosis division of singular cells into complex organisms that procreate through meiosis, contradicts the laws of science.

It would make more sense to explain cell mutation as an instantaneous process, perhaps expressed in seconds, minutes or days. A virus can infect a cell and cause a mutation within it, rapidly spreading to other cells. It may take days, weeks, months or several years for a contagious virus to infect large numbers of members of a species.

This form of cell mutation contradicts the idea of natural selection, as it tends to deteriorate, not improve, the condition of a species, be it plant, animal or mankind. The idea that cell mutation takes place over millions of years, indeed billions, is not a scientific observation, but the contrary to scientific research.

3. Different Single Cells Combining into a New Species
Put together in a laboratory any combination of differing cells, and they will remain distinct.

The lifespan of a cell is relatively short. It is not long enough for diverse kinds of cell to combine and form a complex species that develops a pair of eyes, a nose, a mouth, a brain and reproduces through mating. Not even by throwing millions of years into the equation. Cells would die out once they ceased to replicate their DNA to form identical cells.

Body cells can only exist as part of a multi-cell body, such as, for example, the blood cells. As they have no function outside the body and could not have previously existed in any state or condition, they could not have combined with other cells to from the first body before it came into being. There were no blood cells prior to the first form of life that required blood and tissue in order to live.

It is also impossible for a species to come into existence and then develop its various cells at a later stage according to their required function, in the same way as a house did not stand before the bricks that were used to build it were placed together.

Science can only accept that individual forms of cell constituting the body of an animal or a person came to organic life for the first time when the body first came into being, not having had any possibility to exist otherwise.

The idea that differing singular cells at any time in the past randomly combined into a new organic proto-species that developed a distinct metabolism, and also eyes, nose, mouth, ears and brain, while the original cells maintained their own former identity, is equally unviable as the idea that such cells transformed into a new species and lost their original identity.
Neither theory has scientific credibility. However, the evolution theory would appear to present both these options as credible.

All the cells that were united into each new species were placed there by design, for they could not have formed a union through any unintelligent scientific process, nor could they have been developed by the multi-cell organism after it came into existence, as without these cells it would never have existed in the first place.

Conclusion: Evolution or Creation
1. An evolutionary process from identical division (mitosis) to mating (meiosis) as a form of procreation is scientifically impossible:
a single cell copies its genetic code that then multiplies into identical cells, whereas multicellular species procreate through the matching of parental DNA.

2. No cells have ever combined in order to form a species:
cells serving specific functions within the body of a person, an animal or a plant, could not have existed individually outside of a complex organic body. As they could not have been developed after the body first came into existence (a body with no cells?), they must have been created at the same time as the species within which they perform their functions.

3. Cell mutation is more or less an instantaneous event:
it usually leads to degenerating consequences that negatively affect a species, and is caused by viruses. It has nothing to do with natural selection. Cell mutation is not expressed in very long periods of time, as in millions and billions of years, but in short periods, as in seconds, hours and days.

4. Cell adaption does not bring about the end of a cell, but preserves it:
no cell has ever adapted by developing into a multicellular species, or by bringing its own identity to an end in any other way. Cells preserve their identity. Consequently, so too does a multicellular species.

5. Cell regulation governs the preservation of the body's health:
cells that do not respond to regulation signals can cause cancer, which is a form of cell mutation leading to the body's deterioration.

6. Cell timespan will determine the length of time a cell may live:
cells are subject to time as an aging process, but time does not bring about cell mutation. A member of any species will eventually die, hence, beyond the stage of biological development, time has, ultimately, a deteriorating effect on any living body.
Cells do not transmute over periods of time, but age and die.

7. Cell interaction is essential for maintaining a species:
the interaction of cells within a member of a complex multicellular species is vital in assuring its biological existence. Were cells to act randomly, as is proposed in the evolutionary theory, the whole organic interaction would fall apart. Plants, animals, persons would die, all species would come to an end.
Random evolution and scientifically researched life on Earth are two opposite things. The first does not exist, the second does.

8. Cell evolution is unknown to science:
cells are not known to change their functional mode in a way that improves life within a species. If they function incorrectly, as in cancer, or are negatively affected, for example by a virus, the body degenerates to whichever extent; if they function correctly, the body maintains its ideal performance. Sufficient sleep, exercise, diet, clean fresh air and the absence of stress have important beneficial effects on cells.

The idea that the body can pass from a status of maintaining its ideal condition – within the limits of health and age – to actually improving and changing its condition, somewhere along the lines of natural selection, is conjectural.

For example, an ape will not “improve” its condition by “developing” into a human. A fish will not develop legs to walk on land, or wings to fly.
The cells within a species maintain life at an ideal standard – as intended for each particular species – dependent on their correct functionality, which is in correlation with transformation of energy.

Written by D. Alexander

Sunday, 20 October 2013

Creation Upheld in the English Church

The Evolution Theory
An apology by the Church of England to Darwin in 2008 appears to establish the belief that people descend from animals – and ultimately from mono-cells - and therefore were not created in the Likeness of God.

The belief that natural selection favours those who are more adapt in the struggle for life and eliminates those who are weaker may of-course become a double-bladed sword.

The English Church and Creation
The Church founded in England has its origins in the Gospel, it was established in Canterbury by King Ethelbert on account of the Christian Faith of his Consort Queen Bertha.
This Church was not founded by Henry VIII and does not have a hereditary supreme governor as does Henry VIII's establishment.

Reneging on the doctrine of Faith which maintains that mankind was created in the Likeness of God as a distinct creation, distinct from all other creations of God, means showing a weakness and succumbing to doubt.
In the struggle for life, the English Church maintains steadfast the Faith in our Saviour Jesus Christ, of whom it is written in the Gospel according to Saint John:
In the beginning the Word already existed, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
From the very beginning the Word was with God.
Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him.
The Word was the source of life, and this life brought light to humanity.
Gospel according to John, 1:1-4, Rainbow Good News Bible, edition 2004.

The Creationist Faith is the only true Faith, as explained in the Gospel, and the Coming of our Saviour to Bethlehem is the birth of the divine Word among mankind.
To give in to the evolutionist theory and the public pressure challenging the Faith may have seemed the easy way out, but, as the struggle for life dictates, only those who hold true to the end will have overcome the hardships.

The English Church upholds that we have a common Creator who created all things and gave life, and that mankind was created in the Likeness of God distinctly from the rest of Creation.
We did not evolve from mono-cells or from any other variant of cells, and we do not descend from apes or from any other form of animal.

For the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as one day. In this respect, the term day in the Old Testament can mean even a very long period of years, and so the period of time in which the universe and Earth were created, as too the animals living on it, may be very long indeed.

Mankind, however, has not been around for tens of thousands of years, neither in the form of man, nor in the form of a predecessor species. Our history in fact dates back around 6,000 years.
This is regardless of how many millions of years it may have taken for the Creation of the universe, the Earth, and animals both extinct and present.

Similarly, the English Church cannot evolve from its original conception in the sixth and seventh centuries into another church, and thus the process of natural selection will inevitably favour the Church that is built following the original plan.

As the struggle for life of the Church is in the care of God Almighty, so too is its natural selection determined by God.
Thus the One Faith in the Creator has to be consistent with the Gospel of the divine Son who is our Saviour.

The English Church will never renege the words of Saint John:
Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him.

Our Church remains true to the words in Genesis:
Then God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us.”
Genesis 1:26, Rainbow Good News Bible, edition 2004.

Written by D. Alexander

Saturday, 21 September 2013

Royal Mission of the English Church

The English Church professes Faith in Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Jesus is King, being Son of the Most High and born to the royal family of David from the Virgin Mary.

The Church in Kent
The foundations of the English Faith came about in the sixth century through a royal marriage, when Prince Ethelbert of Kent married Princess Bertha of France. As a result of this marriage, Ethelbert, who became King of Kent, converted to the Christian Faith of his Consort, Queen Bertha.

The first English church in form of a building was established in Canterbury – at that time the capital of Kent – and was dedicated to Saint Martin of Tours. King Ethelbert's conversion to Christianity was in virtue of the Gospel imparted unto him by his wife, Queen Bertha.

The English Church has never ceased to exist after being conceived in the Spirit in Canterbury, and its original conception and subsequent foundation cannot be altered.

The Church in Northumbria
A further foundation of the English Church came about during the seventh century in Northumbria, when King Oswald, whose capital was in York, called over Christian missionaries from the Celtic Church of Scotland and Ireland to bring the Christian Faith to his people. This English Church of the North was conceived in the Spirit through the Gospel which the Celtic missionaries brought to Northumbria.

Union in the Gospel
The union of Canterbury and York within England is the union of the English Church, united in the Christian Faith. The royal origins, together with the determination to be a Church dedicated to Christ our Saviour, are undeniable proof that our English Church has a royal mission: to impart the Word of Christ our Saviour to the English People and to be a Light to nations across the seas.

The foundations of our Church can never be taken away from us; and were even our House to crumble, we would rebuild it on the very same foundations on which Christ first edified our Faith: through a royal marriage and through missionaries, through the preaching of the Gospel of our Saviour.

Written by D. Alexander

The English Church

Saturday, 24 August 2013

The Way Towards a New Constitution in Britain

Mortal People
The form of Monarchy I advocate would exclude mortal people having an air of “omnipotence” within the Institutions, it would exclude a private family receiving almighty-like reverence and hereditary privileges that make no sense to Democracy and civil administration.

We should leave Omnipotence to God and dedicate ourselves to living in, and for, a fair society.
This way, we would cure ourselves of believing that mortal people should be revered as “almighty-like” when in reality they are mortals!

Head of State
I firmly believe the house of Windsor should all become normal people, no longer considered as head of the Church of England, nor as head of the State, nor as head of the Government, nor of Army, nor of Police.
The British Monarchy should be that of Jesus Christ, while we remain a United Kingdom that believes in the Celestial Monarchy.

We should have no mortal person as monarch. and no mortal person should receive the title of “head of State”. No human should represent the Country as if they were its “head”.

The Cabinet should not be able to make important decisions without consulting Parliament, and the idea of Governing Authority at national level should rest with elected Parliament.

We should have direct Democracy, whereby each local community has the right to vote by way of referendum on important local issues concerning their community, and similarly the Nation has the right to vote by way of referendum on important national issues.

Written by D. Alexander

The British People do not Want War Against Syria

We Said NO to War Against Syria
A few men in the British Government appear to want to propel Britain into war against Syria. The majority of the British People do not want our Country to support terrorists or rebels at war against Syria, we do not want our Country Britain to become militarily involved in the Syrian war.

We do not stand with the Government in its quest to interfere in Syria on the side of rebels and terrorists, we do not agree that our Country be dragged into that war.
The Government appears to be determined to ignore our wishes and may sacrifice our security in the name of a foreign war waged by rebels and terrorists. The Government is following an agenda of its own that has nothing to do with Prosperity in Britain.

Written by D. Alexander

The Muslim Attack Will Come from the North

Friday, 23 August 2013

Syria and the Muslim Attack

The Muslim Attack Will Come from the North
If a Muslim attack should strike Europe, it will come from the North, from North of the Alps. I take this to mean it will be planned and triggered from within the West. It will affect Britain, Europe and North America.

Are there obscure elements within the West that are planning something that will cause a Muslim attack?

Personally I believe some elements within Western governments are stirring up war in the Middle East and that this could lead, eventually, to a Muslim attack.
Non-sectarian governments in Arabic-speaking countries in the Middle East and North Africa seem to have been on the receiving end of Western government interference in the name of “democracy”. Extremist Jihadist groups appear to be becoming stronger because of it.

William Hague the British Foreign Secretary
William Hague the British Foreign Secretary appears to be singing from the same hymn-sheet as the Syrian rebels, and meanwhile he appears to know who carried out a chemical attack on civilians in Syria without any evidence or prior research. He does not appear to have had any problem with British passport-holders traveling to Syria to fight for extremist Jihadist groups and then returning to Britain.

Is William Hague following a personal agenda as Foreign Secretary that jeopardises Britain's security?
It does certainly seem to be the case.
What he might manage to spark off could have catastrophic consequences for the West.

If we do not speak out now, tomorrow may be too late.
The Government that has given Britain austerity, while increasing the public debt from £750 billion to about £1.2 trillion in three years, and that does not have a clue how to sanely govern Britain's economy, appears to be fomenting the war in Syria.

Are we the British People to be led like dumb sheeple down the path leading to catastrophe?
What I do know is that the Muslim attack, if it comes, will come from the North, from within the West, and precisely from north of the Alps. The meaning seems to be that it will be triggered off from the North.

Will a Muslim chemical attack be carried out in the North, within the West, for example in Europe?

Were there plans to carry out a chemical attack in Syria that we are being kept unaware of by Western Governments?

Written by D. Alexander

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

The Falkland Islands or Gibraltar

The Dispute Between Spain and Gibraltar
In August 2013, a dispute arose between Spain and Gibraltar.
The quarrel stems from differing views on fishing and on how to prevent the depletion of fish stocks in the sea water in the area. It immediately became a dispute between Spain and Britain.

However, the Spanish government is seeking to involve the Falkland Islands by proposing a kind of diplomatic alliance with Argentina that would unify these two countries' quarrels with Britain.

The Falkland Islands are not Gibraltar
The view on Celtic Britannia is that the Falkland Islands may not be dragged into the quarrel between the governments of Spain on one side and Gibraltar and Britain on the other.

It would be a serious breach of international Law if the United Nations were to accept to involve the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands and their territory in an argument that does not relate to them. It would be an even greater breach of International Law if this meant jeopardising their security and integrity.

The British and Spanish governments should seek to preserve good relations between the Peoples of Britain and Spain. Both should underline the need to preserve the right of the island people of the Falklands to be kept out of a dispute to which they are not party.

Written by D. Alexander

Thursday, 8 August 2013

British Party: Textile Production in Kent

Proposal made to Kent County Council in June 2013.
Receipt of this proposal was acknowledged.

By way of this letter I wish to present the following proposal to improve Kent’s economy.

Textile Production in Kent
The establishment of a textile industry in Kent producing clothes and footwear would create local employment within the County, offering the retail market products made at fair prices.
At present, retail sales of textile products in Kent are almost entirely reliant on cheap-labour import from the Far East, with High-Street brands charging unreasonable profits. Shoes made in India are sold at prices that do not reflect the factory wages paid in that country, for example £50 to £80 a pair; clothes made in China are sold at prices significantly above that which one would expect to pay for the standard Chinese factory wage, for example trousers at £25 a pair.

Clearly there is a High-Street policy of making large profits on manufactured goods produced in the Far East at very low wages, normally calculated at around £30 to £60 a month. These items could be produced in Britain at standard UK wages - even above minimum wage - and still be sold cheaper than the current retail prices, while leaving reasonable profits for manufacturer and retailer.

Manufacturers and High-Street retail chains have progressively closed down industrial production in Britain and transferred it to the Far East at wages that are fractional compared to those of the UK. However, they are earning large profits by selling the products at a cost many times higher than when purchased from the factories of origin in countries such as India, China and Bangladesh.

This policy, which has contributed to widespread unemployment in Britain, is also in complete disregard of the carbon footprint concerning transport over long distances, going against the spirit of Britain’s carbon emission laws.

Fair Trade and the Right to Employment
As fair trade, combined with the right to employment for local people at honest and fair wages, is the objective of this presentation, I propose that the County Council assess the introduction of skills and training facilities in Kent where local people can learn the basic skills required to produce textiles, clothes and footwear, and also the establishment of factories at district level where production could take place.

The same idea could also apply to other sectors of industrial production which have been almost entirely transferred to the Far East and in particular to China, such as electronics. Indeed, the list of industrial production transferred abroad to cheap-labour factories is long and covers a wide range of manufacture.

By following this proposal even in its initial phase, namely the establishment of a textile industry in Kent, many thousands of permanent jobs could be created, ensuring a decent income for local workers and their families, reducing the burden on the benefit system and contributing to a steady income of revenues.

The purchase of clothes and footwear made locally at fair wages – and sold with reasonable profit margins – could also become part of a future awareness among many people, in particular as the current ongoing financial crisis is partly a result of the dismantling of traditional production and its systematic outsourcing to cheap-labour economies.
Such items could be sold cheaper than the products made in India and China that evidently have huge corporate profit-margins attached to them.

In the sincere hope this presentation will be of interest to the County Council, I look forward to hearing from you.

The reply from Kent County Council did not accept the proposal. Yet it is a fundamental part of economic Prosperity. British Party is the only one that offers Prosperity, as no other party in Britain will. This is quite evident, as councils are elected along party lines and clearly the proposal for sane economy is not accepted by other parties. 

Written by D. Alexander

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

The Monarchy: Jesus King of Britain

If there is a challenge between the Fair Lady and the house of Windsor as to who is Monarch over Britain, how would it end?

The Road to Christ's Church
The Church of the Fair Lady indicates the road leading to Christ's Church, as Jesus Son of God is rightful Monarch of Britain. The foundations of this Church are there.
Now let us suppose that the Church had been ripped down under the reign of the queen. And let us suppose that Jesus had the Church rebuilt following the original plan.
Who then is rightful Monarch of Britain and Defender of the Faith, the queen, or Jesus our Saviour?

Prosperity from High
Prosperity comes from the High City, it does not come from the house of Windsor. So if the queen has decided to hang on and pass the throne to her descendants, the Church of Christ will not accept that those who tore it down impose their authority over it.
The great controversy will come to a conclusion when it is accepted that Jesus is Monarch of Britain and that the Fair Lady In High has established the English Church in the Name of Jesus Christ.

The English Church
It is proven that Henry VIII never established the English Church, and neither did the Pope. Henry VIII tore down many English priories, stole from English churches and confiscated Church estates. He used the proceeds to wage wars.

Under the authority of the queen, Christ's Church was torn down along Folkestone Road, and it was not the house of Windsor who rebuilt it.
The English Church is not under the authority of the queen or her family, for Jesus Son of God is Saviour and Monarch of Britain.

The queen and her family may claim many things, but they cannot take the Keys of Prosperity from the Fair Lady.

Written by D. Alexander

The English Church