National security is the first duty of any government, so if it fails in this it can succeed in nothing else.  This at once raises questions about what we really mean by
‘national security ’, and how best to achieve and maintain it.  The authentic ‘nation’ is not an arbitrary construct defined by politicians but an organic entity comprising three elements:
1.    A centuries-old community bonded by kinship and common ancestry ;
2.    A homeland with long-established boundaries;
3.    A robustly self-governing constitution. 

From which it follows that any actions which significantly diminish one or other of these elements is a direct threat to national identity let alone security.  Accordingly, all the fashionable cant about European integration and multi-cultural societies is
manifestly treason as that word has always been understood; though it may not be against the law as defined by a regime which itself is inherently disloyal to the fundamentals of nationhood.    Such a regime is now in office at Westminster, with a pseudo-opposition which actually shares the same disloyalty to those fundamentals.
From this fundamental standpoint we can therefore define ‘national security’ as
maintaining the common ancestry/kinship of the British population within its present geographical boundaries and an entirely self-governing constitution.
None of this is negotiable with other countries, other races, the EU, the UN, pseudo-national factions or IRA terrorists; it is the bedrock of national identity and survival.
And therefore any actions threatening to erode or dilute this fundamental status warrant the most dedicated resistance by the British people; no less resolute than that shown by our most illustrious ancestors and by the immense sacrifices of two world wars.   Anything less would be gross disrespect to our noblest ancestors and a betrayal of our children’s’ future welfare.  .
So how does the present government and its fellow-travellers go about the business of national security?  The answer can be summarised as follows:
       
·    It opens the borders to millions of aliens , mostly from outside the
sphere of European civilisation;
·    It engages in negotiations for the government of Britain by foreign agencies like the EU and UN ;
·    It is ready to negotiate the division of the United Kingdom into separately-governed Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland entities...
·    It released scores of IRA terrorists from prison and gave highly-paid government jobs to their leaders;
·    It introduces legislation to suppress public resistance to the above measures.

And meanwhile the chattering classes denounce the house arrest of a few Muslim terrorist suspects as a threat to our civil liberties.  Some threat, when it is soberly estimated that at least 11 per cent (over 200,000) Muslims in this country approved of the Twin Towers atrocity in New York, and at least 40 per cent (over 800,000) support Osama bin Laden.   And here note that a recent official circular warned the British public to be on the alert against terrorist attacks, but somehow failed to mention that the threat was from the section of the Muslim population who support Al Qa’eda!

 We also have the ongoing debate about whether or not a national identity card
should be introduced, ostensibly for ‘security’ reasons, when it is perfectly obvious that the insecurity is overwhelmingly associated with conspicuous aliens.
And just by way of ‘closing ranks’ against the threat to national security, the government enforces the admission of aliens to every agency and office in the country, including the police and security services.  .
 
From all this we can draw only one conclusion: that the main threat to the security of this country is a renegade ‘Establishment’ comprising the government, its pseudo-opposition, supportive bureaucracies and the complicit mass media. Which means that the indigenous population has next to no protection against the most likely
sources of terrorism within our borders.  There is not the slightest reason to believe that having a more visible police presence in central London, and recruiting a few aliens to MI5, will make the public feel anything like as secure as it did during WW2 .  And sending a few thousand British soldiers to Iraq, Afghanistan and other remote regions does nothing whatsoever to safeguard this country, when vastly greater numbers of aliens - many of them certainly hostile - are entering yearly.
Leading figures in the renegade regime are easily-enough identified; but that regime is maintained in office by a more or less complicit electorate.   The ‘enemy within’ is therefore not a conspiratorial clique like the readily-spotted villains in a Hollywood production.   Anybody and everybody whose behaviour in and out of the polling booth endorses departure from the fundamentals of British nationalism is a de facto renegade.  It is generally acknowledged that not more than 15 per cent of the population is directly involved in governmental decision-making and legislation; the rest are more or less willing collaborators or ‘fringe’ dissidents; the proportions varying from time to time with changes in the socio-economic climate .  Those proportions have become increasingly vague over the last year or so, as evidenced by voter apathy and cynicism, especially among the young; indeed, the over -fifty electorate is three times more likely to use its vote.  This being so, it makes every kind of sense to concentrate nationalist electioneering on the older generation, most of whom tend to be small ‘c’ conservative and traditionalist with grave doubts about the country’s future .  These voters have to be persuaded that the best possible legacy they can leave their progeny is a nationalist government.  Anything else is calculated to wipe out their own hard-won achievements and make a mockery of all the values they tried to uphold.
Meanwhile one can only wonder how long it will take to persuade people that those responsible for creating the conditions for Muslim terrorist outrages in our towns and cities are not in remote Afghan fastnesses but in Whitehall offices.
No need then for ‘Dad’s Army’ frolics or ‘Spirit of Dunkirk’ speeches through the cigar smoke.  The enemy is not just over the horizon but right here in the heartland of our towns and cities; in our governing bureaucracies and institutions; in our schools and colleges; in our newspaper and broadcasting media; in our trade union leadership;
in every division and department of our society.  And those who try to divert attention elsewhere are themselves agents of insecurity.  Accordingly, in the words of John Donne, ‘Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee’
                                                                                   Frank Kimbal Johnson .February 2005