HARDLY a week goes by without someone in the media bickering about alleged discrimination by some organisation or employer on grounds of race, gender, sexuality, age, physical handicap or whatever. Most of this is sensibly ignored by a public bored stiff with egalitarian claptrap and whining victimology. It is time to pay the closest attention, however, when the social engineers seem bent on reconstructing Britain's armed forces and police to accommodate the feminist and multi-racialist agendas.

Our military and law-enforcement agencies exist to safeguard our independence as a sovereign nation-state and to uphold those principles likely to ensure the security of our homeland and survival of our people as a recognisable entity in the world. Indeed, those who serve in these organisations are expected to put their very lives on the line, if so required, in the discharge of their official duties. Of course, proper discipline within these organisations obviously demands obedience to "lawful" orders; that is to say, orders consonant with official policy. Moreover, it is tacitly assumed that such orders demand unquestioning obedience and that any departure from them has to be punished as a more or less serious disciplinary and perhaps even criminal offence.

"Lawful" or right?

But whilst, in the short term, orders may be "lawful" in a strictly legalistic sense, they only reflect the prevailing political regime's values and priorities, and are subject to amendment or abolition when another regime takes over (it is generally agreed that no government can be bound by the actions of its predecessors). "Theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do or die" is a romantic notion that was fatally damaged by the Nuremberg dictum which said that obedience to lawful orders was no defence against accusations of "crimes against humanity"- itself a very nebulous concept open to any number of interpretations by different political regimes. Assuming that the British people are at least as humane as anyone else, they are therefore entitled to regard certain actions as crimes against their own best interests.

The individual serviceman or police-man may choose to ignore what might be called the "patriotic imperative", and seek advancement through unquestioning and zealous obedience to official directives regardless of context, circumstance, or long-term consequences for the country whose best interests he is assumed to be protecting. The type is all too revoltingly familiar; history abounds with monstrous examples of officious inhumanity and stupidity. And most of us know from experience that blind obedience to authority is an infallible mark of the moral imbecile and unprincipled opportunist. By contrast, our most illustrious national figures have all had the "Nelson touch", knowing when to turn a blind eye to inept official signals.

As for personal loyalties, these differ widely between individuals in their order of precedence. There is loyalty family, friends, employer, colleage, moral code, intellectual and aesthetic standards, for example. These, along with religious, political and tribal/traditional imperatives, do not always square with official directives, therefore each individual must have courage of his convictions in decide the most appropriate and honourable response to those orders which, in his judgement, deserve to be disobeyed or subverted. Such resistance to ostensibly lawful commands may be active or passive, but the more intelligent, resourceful individuals will usually find ways of frustrating radically unacceptable directives without exposing themselves to official retribution.

Matter of conscience

It is all a matter of personal conscience: to be or not to be a Vicar of Bray or a "man for all seasons"; and the verdict of history is plain enough for anybody. So consider the predicament of any honourable British patriot confronted with official directives to accept aliens, feminists and homosexuals as equals in every respect and to show no discrimination whatsoever towards them. Convinced to the marrow of his bones that this policy is totally incompatible with the survival of his race, nation and culture, does he resign or rebel, or passively resist it in one way or another? No self-respecting British patriot will tamely subordinate him to an alien, feminist or homosexual capacity whatsoever; so if finds the policies and programmes of "political correctness" repugnant as a of principle rather than personal expediency, then he cannot in all conscience become an agent, active or passive of their implementation. So, regardless of renegade legislation or corrupt official directives, the true patriot will remain loyal to the timeless imperatives of race, culture, chivalry and nation. He will recogise that, in all social transactions loyalty and discrimination the indivisible sides of any honest coinages.

Throughout history, rank-and-file subordinates have contrived to subvert, frustrate or temper the impact of corrupt arid oppressive regimes ideologies, often at great personal cost.In so doing they proved themselves men of honour and principle and not mere apparatchiks or mechanics of social engineering.

True patriotism is a matter of kinship, character and culture, not political ideology. Allegiance to any regime and observance of any law is therefore conditional upon their legitimacy as agents and instruments of the subject's own genuine patriotism. So, whatever your role under the present political regime, and whatever official directives it applies, you have a sacred duty to ignore, frustrate, subvert and sabotage any measures which are manifestly unpatriotic and inimical to the survival of all that is best in our race and culture.

Of course this entails an element of risk, but then without some risk there is no such thing as courage, is there? But you will also need enough prudence and guile to avoid being too easily exposed and incapacitated by officialdom. Like so many, you may have thought the Battle for Britain ended in 1945, when in fact all that happened was the cessation of armed conflict with Germany and Japan. The present war for national survival has to contend with a less overtly hostile, but no less deadly, enemy. He (and just as often she) is wearing the uniform of official respectability, is well entrenched in the Establishment, in academia, the mass media, arid in all manner of bureaucracies and offices of the obedient servants of governmental perfidy and promoters of national decadence.

Knowing the enemy

You must get to know this enemy very well, since good intelligence is the first rule for winning any war. You must then exploit every opportunity to inflict maximum damage to his cause and protect the best interests of your kith and kin. While you're about it, don't expect much in the way of official preferment, short-term benefits, job security or media approval - in fact you could even end up in jail for thought-crimes. And if you're ever tempted to envy the darlings of the present establishment and wonder if you're missing out on life's prizes, try to remember that there is no honour without loyalty to the best that we know. And that means always discriminating in favour of your own race and nation - than which none better have yet emerged on this planet. Fail in this, and you are unworthy of anyone's trust or respect, whatever your official status, worldly successes or social graces. Expediency is the first refuge of every scoundrel.

Therefore let every important choice be seen to honour your illustrious ancestors, to cherish your national heritage and to deserve the respect of your descendants; otherwise you belong with that odious motley who might just as well "peep about to find themselves dishonourable graves." Loyalty, like charity and altruism, begins at home and merges seamlessly and naturally into genuine patriotism.