New Year's Wish: a new Magna Carta

by Kevan Stafford

The most effective weapon deployed by the New World Order to control and exploit Western societies is the innocuous sounding ideology of “Political Correctness”.

It has the effect of fragmenting the social and cultural glue which holds societies together as cohesive communities with shared values. If there was one wish which could be granted, it would be for an overriding legislative shield to protect Britain from the immensely destructive effects of Political Correctness, which would also act as an exemplar to other Western nations.

Few people are fully aware of the corrosive origins and aims of Political Correctness – or of its dire consequences. Political Correctness was devised in the 1920s by a group of German-American academics at Frankfurt University. The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia deposed the ruling aristocracy and led to the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922.

However, revolution failed to spread to Europe and the United States as had been hoped; workers in the West preferred to keep their relatively well-paid jobs and were not inclined to risk their lives in armed insurrection.

Accordingly, academics Georg Lukacs, Willi Munzenberg, Carl Grunberg, Herbert Marcuse, Maz Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Leo Lowenthal and Jurgen Habermas, amongst others, devised the ideology of Marxist cultural revolution as a bloodless means of imposing communism in capitalist Western countries. Their proposed tactics involved inculcating a state of hopelessness and alienation in Western societies so that communism would be accepted as preferable.

They called for intensively negative and destructive criticism of every sphere of life, especially traditional Judaeo-Christian values, designed to destabilize and weaken society. Many left-wing Western intellectuals, journalists and politicians joined in and began what has become known as the ‘long march’ through the institutions of power: schools and universities, teacher training colleges, quangos, the media and government itself. Willi Munzenberg declared “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.”

The Frankfurt School advocated amongst other things: huge immigration to destroy social cohesion; the creation of racism offences to stifle opposition to mass immigration; encouraging the breakdown of the two-parent family; emptying of Christian churches; undermining the authority of schools and teachers; teaching infants about sexuality and homosexuality; promoting excessive alcohol and drug use and gambling; promoting an unreliable legal system which is biased against victims; declaring women to be oppressed by men; control and dumbing down of mainstream media, and promoting dependency on state benefits and state employment.

These tactics are still being vigorously implemented by our mainstream politicians, encouraged by the BBC and most national newspapers. They engineered the banking crisis which impoverished our country. They promoted mass immigration making England the most densely populated country in Europe, inveigled us into membership of the European Union (which even its own Chief Accountant called a corrupt and undemocratic organisation!), tricked us into unnecessary foreign wars, and presided over an electoral system which ensures the same old political parties alternate in government decade after decade.

A new Magna Carta would protect ordinary citizens from powerful vested interests and ensure that we have a fair and truly democratic society. Such protection of our civil and economic rights could do worse than start with a reversal of the Frankfurt School’s unwholesome tactics, set out in a Preservation of Culture and Ethnicity Act, to provide:

1. Reverse mass immigration by peaceful persuasion and rewards.
2. Outlaw the implementation or official promotion of damaging mass immigration.
3. Encourage marriage and stable family relationships.
4. Protect and promote Britain’s Christian heritage and values.
5. Teach pupils to respect and cooperate with their schools and teachers.
6. Protect young children from adult concerns until they are ready.
7. Protect people, especially youngsters, from excessive drinking, gambling or drug use.
8. Implement a simpler, speedier, cheaper and fairer legal system.
9. Promote understanding and respect between men and women.
10. Provide independent and impartial oversight of the mainstream media.
11. Provide welfare for state work, and state employment for flexibility.

Frankfurt School

Alternatively, Google “The Frankfurt School”.

Please note that the illustration to this article is not a current government proposal!

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. (Party Member) This superb article and ‘ wish list ‘ could serve as our new brief Policy Document , to be produced for the General Election. It certainly explains the British Democratic Party values and philosophy. Bearing in mind items 3, 4 , and 6 , I feel now is the time to issue a press release declaring that the BDP. are in favour of and will work towards, restoration of the previous legislation known as Section 28. The resulting publicity can only help our decent ‘family values’ party.

  2. The libertarian in me revolts against much of this-too much nanny state.

    • Nationalist parties if they want to be succesful need to be very careful they don’t give any credence to the inevitable left-wing claim we are are all people with strong authoritarian ie ‘fascist’ instincts. There is plenty to oppose libertarian people on ie they who advocate disastrous libertarian economic policies but on other things they are broadly going in the right direction.

      • The accusers on the left are utterly authoritarian of course. PC was designed to utterly crush human freedom under the guise of protecting rights.

        • Yes, many of them are distinctly authoritarian but my point is that there are certain aspects of what is known as libertarianism that DO make sense and nationalist parties should uphold them too.

    • Too many nationalists think to be one you have to support an all-powerful state that interferes in areas which are the private domain of the individual. It’s no surprise then that many ordinary electors are suspicious of our intentions.

      • Which is pretty odd when most of the electors vote for Lab and Con both of which are progressively tightening the screws on everyone in terms of what you can say and do.

        One view of immigration is that it’s intended to create such problems that we all accept a police state. In Angela Merkel’s case and with her background it’s quite plausible.

        I can’t see where most nationalists want to do as you suggest. Many just don’t want some private tastes promoted by the state as a sort of civic religion. The exact opposite to a position of interfering but the two things get neatly muddled up. It’s an objection to interfering presented as interfering.

        I see that the EU is now proposing that people who eat too much should become a state protected group with special privileges and thus with an aura of virtue being rewarded.

        Britain is constitutionally a Christian society so state encouragement of say traditional marriage is in order while rejecting polygamy and sharia law. You can of course argue for secularisation.

        May is now proposing that people who ‘offend’ can be placed in a legal exile where they are gagged. David Davis made a speech about it in Parliament recently which was on the BBC. He said that on that basis May could be exiled for her proposal.

        • I think that generally-speaking people should be able to conduct their private lives without the state intervening and that the state should only do so if some demonstrable harm is caused to others by NOT intervening. The law should tread very carefully in the area of personal relations.

          • This is in principle correct but it all hinges upon what one means by demonstrable harm. There lies the difficulty.

            Should, according to this principle, Muslims not be able to practice polygamy and sharia law among themselves if they wish?

            Nationalists cannot have it both ways wanting a preservation of our way of life while at the same time validating others a million miles away on an equal basis within our shores.

        • Whoever suggested such a thing? You are shooting at strawmen in a determination to suggest that nationalists want to tell everybody what to do. It’s the left and now the fake conservatives who do that – and it’s getting worse every year.

          PC is a giant forcing of opinions on people..

  3. Mostly all in the libertarian movement are anti-white.

    • That is certainly true for many of them but not all. Certain libertarian values ought to be upheld by ALL British governments regardless of their views on other matters. I’m thinking in the areas of free speech and the private lives of individuals.

  4. (Party Member) I see the charlatan Nigel Farage (N.F.!) has been making comments, that we Nationalists have made for years without getting any publicity, about NHS staff not speaking or understanding English.

    As a part of the Common Sense British Democratic Party I would like to point out something obvious that he and the media seem to be missing. It is extremely DANGEROUS for staff providing diagnosis and dispensing drugs with critical dosages!

  5. We keep going over the same ground without the public responding. There is no political problem that has been created by the Establishment that we don’t know how to overcome. Our problem is the hostile media uses lies to stop the public from listening to us.

    But they don’t have to listen to US any more. They can now get the information first hand from and
    Put the public on to these two sites and they will be coming to us in droves.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *