What You Always Thought

The Leftist British Establishment, and Subsequent Political Bias in the Media

2011-03-02T10:55:00.001-08:00

Click here to

download the

paper.

The British Establishment of today is corrupt, leftist, thoroughly unpleasant, and leaning towards existing solely as a regime of liberal fascism. That’s the point I’m trying to make within this project. Whilst exploring the controversial tendencies of our beloved British Establishment, I aim to expose the radical and extremist measures that are taken by said Establishment to violently oppose smaller political parties through the use of their greatest asset – the media.

This document aims to explore the British establishment on two distinct levels :-

- How is the Establishment leftist?

- How does the Establishment enforce leftist politics through the mainstream media?

- How does it affect the British National Party?

Throughout the document, I will be referring to an interview I gave to Cheryl Dunn, the newly-appointed North East Regional Organiser for the British National Party. A dedicated activist, and a dedicated nationalist, she has provided me with key points that support my theory about the Leftist Establishment.

Chapter 1 – What is the British Establishment?

The British Establishment has changed. Britain was once a powerhouse for industrial activity, community spirit, hope and prosperity –something supported by the Governments and Establishment prior to the 1948 British Nationality Act. It seems that since then, when mass immigration was first implemented in Britain that everything has changed – and I don’t just mean the people.

The Establishment in Great Britain to many has become a ‘soft touch’, though I believe the problem’s much worse. Instead, I thoroughly believe that Britain is now subject to an incredibly unpleasant, leftist and treacherous Establishment that’s systematically destroying everything that Britain used to be.

So how can we define the Establishment, and what does Britain’s Establishment actually consist of? And what does it do?

The term ‘Establishment’ is particularly controversial, and is certainly a rather scary word to some. The idea that there really is a hidden force in British politics and society that seems to regulate everything from racial make-up, to cultural diversity is indeed a worrying thing. But it exists. It refers to a group of elite people, organisations and even businesses that have an unprecedented power over a nation. The British Establishment can easily be defined by the leftist politics of the last decade, and indeed the leftist politics that currently exist under the ConDem regime.

The Establishment, however, also includes Bureaucrats and bigots that work in British political departments, and Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations) - for instance, the huge amount of control that is found within the supposed ‘Equalities and Human Rights’ Commission currently headed by Trevor Phillips. Needless to say, the corruption, fascism and power that comes from this Establishment is funded by the taxpayer – most of whom don’t even realise what is actually going on.

A brief breakdown of the British Establishment can be seen as followed:

- Leading politicians (Whether that’s MPs, MEPs, or otherwise), including the Cabinet, and of course the Prime Minister

- Senior Civil Servants

- Chairs and workers of Commissions

- Financiers, bankers, and those involved with the regulation of the British economy

- Governors of the BBC (which is something this paper will focus on particularly)

Bella Abzug, once member of the US House of Representatives, was a prominent feminist of the 20^th century who sums up the nature of this paper in one of her most famous quotes: - “The Establishment is made up of little men, very frightened”.

Whilst this is indeed in reference to the United States Establishment, her comments sum up precisely the point I’m trying to make. The Establishment (no matter what country we’re discussing, as it is true that Establishments all over the world prove to be corrupt, even amongst the strongest of ‘democracies’) is made up of liars, con artists, and men who are scared that their dream of a multicultural, multiracial world and even eventually a European super-state (through consistent expansion of the European Union) will not become a reality; they become the very thing that they supposedly oppose. Fascists.

According to the earlier mentioned Cheryl Dunn, the Establishment can be described as follows:

“The Establishment, as the name suggests, is that which has developed over time and "established" itself. This is not necessarily formed by one identifiable group of people, politicians or civil servants but refers to all those people who have, over time, assumed or ascended into some form of authority or power. The defining characteristic of the Establishment as I would see it is not money or class but rather a need to protect and maintain the status quo and remain THE Establishment. It is interesting that within the Establishment, various factions (such as political parties) are happy to publicly despise each other and plot each other's demise, but when a robust-enough threat to The Establishment appears, they will combine to protect themselves and each other if required.”

Chapter 4 will look more closely about the fascism that currently exists within the leftist British Establishment, and how it affects smaller parties (and not just the British National Party).

Chapter 2 - Leftist Politics in the British Establishment

This is the face of democracy in the United Kingdom. It’s a sad state of affairs when members of a legitimate British political party are violently attacked by State-funded, Labour-funded, and MP-supported organisations like the supposed ‘Unite Against Fascism’.

This alleged anti-fascist organisation is the perfect example of how leftist, fascist politics are being normalised by the British Political Elite. The organisation believes that by violently opposing British political parties and organisations that stand up for the culturist rights of native British people (The English, Scots, Irish, Welsh – or perhaps, the Norse, the Celts, and the Anglo Saxons)

The question to many, however, seems to be ‘How can fascism be at all associated with leftism?’ A question like this can be forgiven, given the modern misconceptions about Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is generally assumed that the National Socialism of the 1940s was a right-wing agenda, when it couldn’t be further from the truth.

Leading Scholars of Fascism, including Eugen Weber, A. James Gregor, Renzo De Felice, Zeev Sternhell and George Moss, have already suggested that Hitler’s regime was not fascist – but that’s neither here nor there. In fact, Sternhell once wrote, in response to the 1963 book ‘Fascism In Its Epoch’ by Ernst Nolte, the following:

“In some ways, Ernst Nolte's approach recalls that of Gerhard Ritter and Friedrich Meinecke: Thomas More, for Ritter, Machiavelli, for Meinecke, and now Maurras, for Nolte, are so many proofs of the universality of evil, so many proofs that it was almost by accident, by a mere conjunctionof political circumstances, that the Nazis arose in Germany” – suggesting that Hitler had no real ‘fascist’ agenda, and his ideology simply arose due to political and social circumstances at the time. So Hitler, despite common belief, wasn’t necessarily fascist – though whether or not he, and his regime, was fascist is a matter that would only affect the arguments of leftists. Proving that large political and ideological misconceptions happen all the time – which is certainly the case of culturist groups in the United Kingdom, thanks to a leftist elite that continually lie to the electorate. If Hitler was fascist, then the leftist Establishment would be incorrect to suggest that organisations like the British National Party, British People’s Party, National Front, the movement ‘English Defence League’ and other nationalistic and culturistic groups were essentially ‘Nazi, fascist’ groups would be incorrect. If Hitler was a fascist, which is the general consensus under a loose, modern ‘definition’ of fascism (that remains as unclear as ever, with no real definition of the word ever actually existing), then the leftist Establishment’s claim about nationalist and culturist groups would still be true. We need to stop living in an era that treats Nazism, Fascism, Nationalism and Culturism as one thing.

The truth about Nazism is long and complex, but for the purpose of comparing the modern British Establishment to Nazism, I will take the opportunity to describe one of the most distinct reasons why Hitler and the Nazis were seen as right wing, when their socialist and left wing tendencies were substantial parts of their policy and agenda. We know that for decades, the left has been guilty of cherry-picking facts in order to create an opinion (Of course, we know that this is still true today, where the left has cherry picked facts to create an opinion – just look at the decades of covering up Muslim rape of young white girls, in order to avoid the BNP being proven right after their publication of ‘Racism Cuts Both Ways’ in 2001. The Third Reich was guilty of cherry picking facts, in an effort to make Nazism appear as the opposite of popular forms of Communism at the time.

The Third Reich accomplished this by exaggerating the roles of industrialists and conservatives, and hence shrinking socialist and leftist aspects of Nazism to mere trivia.

This just goes to show that the British Establishment’s knack for cherry picking facts to create an opinion is along the lines of Nazi deceit. Even Cheryl Dunn, previously quoted BNP National Organiser is quoted as saying:

““The country's political elite are now happy to mix-and-match policies in the interests of attracting votes.”

Of course, the idea of cherry picking facts and presenting them out of context is also a great way of attracting votes from a new part of the electorate.

People might struggle with the idea that the Establishment is leftist particularly because incumbent Government exists primarily of Tories. Of course, the statement seems more believable given than the Government is in fact a coalition, consisting of Liberals also – but even with a Tory Government I suspect that we would see the same liberal, fascist and violent politics in place. Why? Because David Cameron openly supports the UAF, and their chairman, the thoroughly deceitful and bigoted Sayeed Warsi constantly speaks about the evil of the BNP.

The very fact that they believe that multiculturalism is right, and believe that it should have (as it was) been imposed without any democratic mandate means two things – the old gang parties are both liberal and opposed to democracy. This is disgusting, unBritish and not welcome in a democracy. The problem is that people don’t seem to be able to see what’s happening right under their nose.

The leftism arguably became more prominent after the rise of the Labour Party. Here, Cheryl Dunn of the British National Party agreed with me once again, saying:

“The Establishment has, since the rise of the Labour Party, certainly moved more to the left than in previous centuries. Many of the policies now adopted as mainstream can be described as post-Marxist and even members of traditionally right-of-centre groups would now be accepted as primarily leftist.”

It doesn’t matter if the Tories are supposed to be conservative, the LibDems liberal, and Labour populist. These are the old gang parties that want nothing other than to gain power – no matter what they have to do. Just look at the coalition disaster between the Tories and LibDems. Was it not just in May 2010 when Nick Clegg claimed in his election broadcast that it was ‘time for promises to be kept’

Finally, I also asked Cheryl about her opinion concerning alleged leftism within the Establishment, and she replied with:

“ Prior to the 2010 General Election, Mrs Gillian Duffy questioned the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the economic viability of uncontrolled immigration. She was branded a "bigot" by Mr Brown and the other parties were quick to condemn him for his duplicity and poor manners. The same leaders of these political parties were previously equally quick to call Mr Nick Griffin and the British National Party bigoted when they asked a similar question, however. Once it became apparent that the public sympathy was with Mrs Duffy not only for the way she had been ill-treated by Mr Brown but also on the factual nature of her question, Immigration became a key factor in discussions prior to Polling Day.”

Chapter 3 - How do Leftist politics, liberal fascism and the media affect smaller opposition parties like the British National Party?

The British National Party is undoubtedly the most targeted political party in British history. Despite tripling its vote in the 2010 General Election, and obtaining close to 1 million votes in the last European Election, the Political Elite have stopped at nothing to destroy the British National P arty. All this occurs in what we perceive to be a ‘democracy’, a system in which everybody should have a voice. That is the essence of democracy, and our political heavyweights have done nothing but disrespect the whole system.

What better example to provide you with than David Cameron referring to Nick Griffin as a scumbag during his annual Conservative conference. It seems that despite the BNP’s legitimacy and increasing amount of votes, the politicians of Westminster are refusing to accept that people really do want change. And not the kind of change that David Cameron referred to in his election campaign.

S0 how exactly is the British National Party, as a smaller opponent to the established Political Elite, affected by leftist British politics? One such kind of leftist bullying is racism. Now, racism might not seem like the usual leftist trait, but consider this.

Leftist states like the UK absolutely adore the idea of multiculturalism. At least, the Political Elite do, not so much the working class people and traditionalists, however. This idea of multiculturalism is a classic leftist trait, and with it comes horrific levels of racism. The idea of multiculturalism is the idea that all cultures and races can live harmoniously within one state, accepting each other’s values and gradually destroying the indigenous culture and religion. This genocide of a whole race of Anglo, Saxon, Celtic and Norse people was endorsed by the Tony Blair government, and was indeed started under his administration.

Multicultural policies first began in the United Kingdom from the 1970s and 1980s, though Tony Blair’s government was a real corner stone. During 2004, the amount of immigrants who became British citizens reached a record of 140,795. This was a 12% increase over 2003 figures, and since then, it seems that it hasn’t stopped.

Now, this multicultural scheme (which wasn’t democratic, as there was no mandate, and no will from the public – it was simply a racist tactic enforced upon the people without a referendum) is the main leftist trait that currently affects the British National Party. The British National Party is the only real party that is standing up for the rights of the indigenous white people of these islands (of course, apart from extremist and unacceptably racist parties like the National Front and British Peoples Party).

Given the nature of the party, the racism that is the destruction of the indigenous races and the constant ignoring of these people and their rights has a dramatic effect on the success of the party. Naturally, there are millions of racial foreigners in this country that immediately would never consider voting BNP. Why? Potentially because the Labour Government brought them here. If not, it’s because of the lies spread by the leftist media because of anti-white racism. Anti-white racism is very much present these days, and is evident in the recent scandal involving Jack Straw.

Jack Straw, Labour politician, recently raised concern about the cover up of Muslim gangs attacking and raping young white women. It seems interesting that Labour should suddenly pick up on this racism that was ultimately their fault (given that they were responsible for the cover up) when it was actually a Britihsh National Party document that announced this racist scandal back in 2001. Of course, the Establishment don’t want you to know this – hence the recent censorship of Derek Adams, BNP candidate in the Saddleworth election, on the BBC’s North West politics Show when he mentioned the 2001 document and the Labour cover up.

2001 saw the release of ‘Racism Cuts Both Ways’, a document produced by the BNP that aimed to outline the anti-white racism that was occurring in Britain that is affecting the lives of millions of Brits, as well as the success of the British National Party as the only alternative political movement in the UK.

Of course, one of the best examples of Establishment and Leftist bullying is the recent Equalities and Human Rights Commission case against the British Natioanal Party. This followed the incident whereby the EHRC ordered the BNP to change its membership rules (which, at the time, only allowed indigenous British people to join the party), or face legal charges. The commission suggested that the party was breaking the Race Relations Act by only allowing indigenous peoples to join, even though there is a large array of organisations out there that offer membership exclusively based on race, one of which is the Black Police Association. It seems that not only was this argument flawed, in that the BNP is there initially to represent the indigenous people anyway, but also incredibly bias and unfair. It seems that interest groups like the Black Police Association that are blatantly in favour of Tony Blair’s multicultural child are not affected by this Race Relations Act. That’s class A leftist bullying, which again points the finger at fascism. This is the British Establishment controlling an interest group and a political party, and attempting to change their values.

This isn’t democracy, and nor is this fair.

In the end, the BNP held an Extraordinary General Meeting that allowed members to vote in favour of the membership rule change anyway. But it didn’t end there. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission came back with a second attempt to bankrupt the party through expensive legal hearings, and further time wasting. The commission suggested that even though the party constitution had changed, there was scope for ‘indirect discrimination’, and this alone was worth further legal costs. Of course, this was a BNP victory given the sheer nonsensical nature of the hearing.

So what does this show? Quite clearly it shows the influence that Britain’s Leftist Establishment has on the British National Party. Commissions and Quangos like the EHRC have near unlimited funds, whilst the British National Party has to rely on funds provided by the members. Blatant attempts to bankrupt a party so that they are ‘out of the way’ are totally unacceptable in a democracy.

Chapter 4 – Can things change?

So can things change? The idea that someday in the United Kingdom there will be a Nationalist government seems pretty absurd to many people. However, with the recent rise of Nationalism throughout Europe, including Holland (once the most liberal country in the world) and France, I believe that the UK is destined to follow in their footsteps.

In order for this to happen, however, things must change. The only way I can see them changing, is if people begin to realise what exactly the British National Party stands for, and if the people can wake up to the realisation that the media is lying to them, is incredibly bias, and the Establishment is working against the will of the people.

I believe that this can only happen if the Establishment continues to work against the will of the people, and the media continues lying. Eventually, the lies will become more obvious and the effects of the corrupt and unpleasant Establishment will become even more noticeable. I believe that then, the people will realise, and the people will turn to Nationalism – their only hope.

Chapter 5 – Commentary

Ever heard a Pakistani person cal themselves a ‘British Pakistani’ ? Probably. In fact, I recall an Indian, or a Pakistani (or wherever) on the Nick Griffin/Question Time saga say that they are incredibly proud to be a ‘British Pakistani’. So what’s wrong with this? Let’s analyse it.

Consider what the racial foreigner actually means by ‘Pakistani’. Obviously, they are referring to their ethnic background or racial origin. Ethnically they are different to what they prefer to call the ‘white British’. The BNP acknowledges that – they’re ethno nationalists, of course they do. Though by these racial foreigners, these hypocritical scumbags, admitting they are a ‘British Pakistani’ they are openly agreeing with BNP policy. They are accepting that they are ethnically Pakistani, but civically British.

This is precisely what the BNP has been saying for decades, and it is only ever accepted when the ultra left and the foreigners say it – primarily because people overlook what the things they say actually mean! As soon as the ethno nationalists say the same thing, they are instantly branded racist or fascist. By the new meaning of the word, I’m happy to admit that I am a racialist – in that I accept that race is an important and defining characteristic of a person – but certainly by no means am I a racist. Certainly by no means, is any person aligning perfectly with the BNP a racist. As Andrew Brons said in his first Sky News Interview after the BNP EU breakthrough, ‘we hate nobody’.

So why am I so bothered about the ‘British Pakistani’ and ‘British Indian’ matter? Simply because it should work both ways. With a Pakistani admitting that they are only civically British – what does that make me?

By their own admission, it makes me a British Briton. ‘British’ meaning I’m civically British, and Briton defining my race. I am an ethnic Briton, as much as Trevor McDonald is presumably African, and that Sayeed Warsi is ethnically elsewhere – wherever that incapable and racist Muslim woman is from.

If we’re going to take care of such a small minded and frankly racist bunch of racial foreigners, in a way that they are allowed to acknowledge and appreciate their own ethnic heritage (think about Black History month) then as Arthur Kemp once said – ‘we claim that same right for ourselves!’

The British derive from the majority ethnic population prior to the 1948 British Nationality Act. Back in 1947, prior to mass immigration and the population change of our country, the majority population consisted of ‘white’ people. These peoples’ stock consisted mostly of Celtic, Norse and Anglo Saxon ethnicities.

Just because we British happen to be white, however, does not mean that all white people are ethnically British. This is what seems to confuse the lefties and the racial foreigners. The media and the leftist bigots would want you to believe that the BNP considers every white person British, but that’s absolutely not true.

What’s important to note with this matter of homogeneity and indigenous peoples, is that the BNP hasn’t made all of this up. This is a matter of facts. It is not a matter of ideology, opinion or anybody’s manifesto – indigenous people of different lands exist. End of story.

Consider the Maoris of New Zealand. Earliest evidence of these people living in their ethnic homeland is merely 700 years old – yet these people are internationally recognised as indigenous, and are protected by law. Now consider us forgotten British people. The ethnic British have lived in the British motherland for over 10,000 years – significantly longer than the Maoris in New Zealand. Yet we’re not recognised as indigenous in our own motherland.

So, to you who do not believe in an indigenous people of Great Britain, do share with me why you don’t believe. Denying an indigenous people existing in Great Britain is like denying that cheese exists.

It seems to me that the British people do not understand that they are an indigenous people.

I quote Andrew Brons, MEP in saying ‘Racism is terrible and must be codemned’. British public need to now peer through these permeable walls of lies created by the media, and see that the British National Party is not racist, but instead, Labour cronies who have destroyed our great nation. I once again quote from the Racism Cuts Both Ways documentation:

“The fact that council housing is refused to homeless white families living in sub-standard bed and breakfast accommodation in favour of so-called ‘asylum seekers’ and immigrants, means that this form of racism is now endemic across the country.”

If that’s not racism, I don’t know what is. And if the fact that nearly one third of white people have learnt to expect to be treated worse than other groups by at least one of eight public services (including police, prisons, courts, Crown Prosecution Service, probation service, local housing organisations, schools or GPs) is not a subsequent effect of prejudice for the indigenous people by the British Government (A government packed to the brim with racial foreigners who seem to still be convinced that the BNP want to send them home, and in turn, scare monger the British Public into thinking the BNP are Nazis), I also don’t know what is.

Justice at Last

2011-02-03T04:02:00.000-08:00

Apologies for the lack of posts, but this proves an interesting read:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12353863

What is the British Establishment?

2010-12-09T15:53:00.000-08:00

I'm currently writing my Extended Project on the leftist British Establishment and subsequent political bias in the media. Managed to rattle out this rather last minute. I'll probably continue updating the blog with each chapter.

--------

The British Establishment has changed. Britain was once a powerhouse for industrial activity, community spirit, hope and prosperity –something supported by the Governments and Establishment prior to the 1948 British Nationality Act. It seems that since then, when mass immigration was first implemented in Britain that everything has changed – and I don’t just mean the people.
The Establishment in Great Britain to many has become a ‘soft touch’, though I believe the problem’s much worse. Instead, I thoroughly believe that Britain is now subject to an incredibly unpleasant, leftist and treacherous Establishment that’s systematically destroying everything that Britain used to be.
So how can we define the Establishment, and what does Britain’s Establishment actually consist of? And what does it do?
The term ‘Establishment’ is particularly controversial, and is certainly a rather scary word to some. The idea that there really is a hidden force in British politics and society that seems to regulate everything from racial make-up, to cultural diversity is indeed a worrying thing. But it exists. It refers to a group of elite people, organisations and even businesses that have an unprecedented power over a nation. The British Establishment can easily be defined by the leftist politics of the last decade, and indeed the leftist politics that currently exist under the ConDem regime.
The Establishment, however, also includes Bureaucrats and bigots that work in British political departments, and Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations) - for instance, the huge amount of control that is found within the supposed ‘Equalities and Human Rights’ Commission currently headed by Trevor Phillips. Needless to say, the corruption, fascism and power that comes from this Establishment is funded by the taxpayer – most of whom don’t even realise what is actually going on.
A brief breakdown of the British Establishment can be seen as followed:
- Leading politicians (Whether that’s MPs, MEPs, or otherwise), including the Cabinet, and of course the Prime Minister
- Senior Civil Servants
- Chairs and workers of Commissions
- Financiers, bankers, and those involved with the regulation of the British economy
- Governors of the BBC (which is something this paper will focus on particularly)

Bella Abzug, once member of the US House of Representatives, was a prominent feminist of the 20th century who sums up the nature of this paper in one of her most famous quotes: - “The Establishment is made up of little men, very frightened”.
Whilst this is indeed in reference to the United States Establishment, her comments sum up precisely the point I’m trying to make. The Establishment (no matter what country we’re discussing, as it is true that Establishments all over the world prove to be corrupt, even amongst the strongest of ‘democracies’) is made up of liars, con artists, and men who are scared that their dream of a multicultural, multiracial world and even eventually a European super-state (through consistent expansion of the European Union) will not become a reality; they become the very thing that they supposedly oppose. Fascists.

Chapter 4 will look more closely about the fascism that currently exists within the leftist British Establishment, and how it affects smaller parties (and not just the British National Party).

The Hypocrisy of Racial Foreigners and Moronic Leftists

2010-11-17T15:51:00.000-08:00

How can I prove that racism and hypocrisy exists in modern Britain amongst those who believe they are anti-racism and anti-discrimination? It’s really quite easy. You must simply listen to the things that ethnic ‘minorities’ say, which the ultra leftist and fascist British people agree with.

Ever heard a Pakistani person cal themselves a ‘British Pakistani’ ? Probably. In fact, I recall an Indian, or a Pakistani (or wherever) on the Nick Griffin/Question Time saga say that they are incredibly proud to be a ‘British Pakistani’. So what’s wrong with this? Let’s analyse it.

Consider what the racial foreigner actually means by ‘Pakistani’. Obviously, they are referring to their ethnic background or racial origin. Ethnically they are different to what they prefer to call the ‘white British’. We [the BNP] acknowledge that – we’re ethno nationalists, of course we do. Though by these racial foreigners, these hypocritical scumbags, admitting they are a ‘British Pakistani’ they are openly agreeing with BNP policy. They are accepting that they are ethnically Pakistani, but civically British.

This is precisely what the BNP has been saying for decades, and it is only ever accepted when the ultra left and the foreigners say it – primarily because people overlook what the things they say actually mean! As soon as the ethno nationalists say the same thing, they are instantly branded racist or fascist. By the new meaning of the word, I’m happy to admit that I am a racialist – in that I accept that race is an important and defining characteristic of a person – but certainly by no means am I a racist. Certainly by no means, is any person aligning perfectly with the BNP a racist. As Andrew Brons said in his first Sky News Interview after the BNP EU breakthrough, ‘we hate nobody’.

So why am I so arsed about the ‘British Pakistani’ and ‘British Indian’ matter? Simply because it should work both ways. With a Pakistani admitting that they are only civically British – what does that make me?

By their own admission, it makes me a British Briton. ‘British’ meaning I’m civically British, and Briton defining my race. I am an ethnic Briton, as much as Trevor McDonald is presumably African, and that bitch Sayeed Warsi is ethnically elsewhere – wherever that horrific, fascist little hag is actually from.

If we’re going to take care of such a small minded and frankly racist bunch of racial foreigners, in a way that they are allowed to acknowledge and appreciate their own ethnic heritage (Black history month, anyone?) then as Arthur Kemp once said – ‘we claim that same right for ourselves!’

The British derive from the majority ethnic population prior to the 1948 British Nationality Act. Back in 1947, prior to mass immigration and the population change of our country, the majority population consisted of ‘white’ people. These peoples’ stock consisted mostly of Celtic, Norse and Anglo Saxon ethnicities.

Just because we British happen to be white, however, does not mean that all white people are ethnically British. This is what seems to confuse the lefties and the racial foreigners. The media and the leftist bigots would want you to believe that the BNP considers every white person British, but that’s absolutely not true.

What’s important to note with this matter of homogeneity and indigenous peoples, is that the BNP hasn’t made all of this up. This is a matter of facts. It is not a matter of ideology, opinion or anybody’s manifesto – indigenous people of different lands exist. End of story.

Consider the Maoris of New Zealand. Earliest evidence of these people living in their ethnic homeland is merely 700 years old – yet these people are internationally recognised as indigenous, and are protected by law. Now consider us forgotten British people. The ethnic British have lived in the British motherland for over 10,000 years – significantly longer than the Maoris in New Zealand. Yet we’re not recognised as indigenous in our own motherland.

So, to you who do not believe in an indigenous people of Great Britain, do share with me why you don’t believe. Denying an indigenous people existing in Great Britain is like denying that cheese exists, or that Anne Widdecombe looks like a weeble.

Cross

2010-04-02T10:15:00.000-07:00

An uninformative and rather quick post -

I'm just expressing how immensely pleased I am to hear that Nick Griffin has decided that every BNP publicity document, ie leaflets etc, will feature the Christian Cross on them.

He also mentioned how we have nothing to be ashamed about, and should display these crosses with pride - as they are our heritage and our identity in this sense must be preserved. It'll cause a stir with high-rank Christians I'm sure, but people must understand we're here to preserve Britain's cultural values.

I'd love to see a Celtic Cross on there, something which I sometimes wear on my lapel - but perhaps that would stir up some confusion with the BPP.

2010-03-27T08:17:00.000-07:00

To political prisoners: I II III
To world peace activists: I II III
To Christians in Britain and America: I II III
To culturists: I II III
To victims in Afghanistan: I II III

I II III

UAF thug Weyman Bennett finally arrested for violent crimes

2010-03-22T16:34:00.000-07:00

During recent protests in Bolton, from both the English Defence League pests and the Unite Against 'Fascism' thugs, leader Weyman Bennett was finally arrested on conspiracy to commit violent crimes.

It's been a long time coming. The UAF like to claim they're peaceful protestors, but from images from the BBC and other news sources, we clearly see that they're not so peaceful (But of course, we knew this anyway).

Obviously, Weyman Bennett isn't all too pleased.

I quote:

"Officers came up to me as soon as I arrived and said they would arrest me. They are hostile to anti-racists and there needs to be an investigation.

"Police neutrality needs to be questioned."

I, for one, struggle to believe that Police officers (Who are - ironically - subject to fascist tendencies of the establishment, whereby they cannot join the BNP) could possibly be against anti-racism (or indeed, supposed anti-racism, given the UAF's love for white discrimination and oppression).

It must be said, however, that the EDL are just as bad. There is no need for these kind of violent rallies. What the EDL stand for is good, but their means of protesting is far from acceptable, and they are not at all associated with the British National Party.

I'm taking great pleasure in the thought that the three leaders (Clegg, Brown and Cameron) must be kicking themselves, given their little funded fascist pet Bennett, is being portrayed to the public as the fascist, violent thug he really is.

I quote Winston Churchill himself, when I say that 'The anti-fascists of the future, will be the real fascists'. We're living in that horrific future.

Burka Debate - Transcription

2010-03-19T16:33:00.000-07:00

Apologies for spelling mistakes/ poor grammar. It was written to reflect precisely how people were saying things.

This is a debate held earlier in the year, with about 100 or so students - needless to say, 99% of them were against my 'evil racist nazi opressive' views. I very much felt like Nick on Question Time, I'm sure!

It was good fun, however. I look forward to stirring up some controversy with small minded liberals, once more.

-----

Transcript of a Debate as to whether Burka’s should be banned.
Saqib: First debate back then should we ban the Burka or the Nikab now if you’re not sure what we’re talking about here is the traditional muslin muslim um(2) sort of female clothing which covers the front of the face but leaves a gap for the eyes thats the one we’re talking about we’re not talking about a scarf which leaves the face clear or and we’re not talking about total covering we’re talking about(1) face covering with a gap for the eyes. Yeah it is Nikab but it’s called Burka by alot of people which the Uk independence party sort of did on tele talking about a Nikab meaning a Burka so to avoid any confusion now we’re talking about complete face covering with a gap for the eyes should we ban that(1) Just to give you a little update on whats going on now in france its looking like they are going to ban for because public workers and in public places in certain places as well like schools and colleges um(1)they have had a a committee of mps report to say yeah it should be banned over here we’ve got the Uk independence party and several others join the debate and thats what we’re going to talk about today so i think a good starting point would be(2) the PRO ban why should we ban this article of clothing then jack and connor if you want to kick it of
| then |
Jack: | i consider| i have two main problems with the burka er(1) i see it as more of a face well i say face of the islamification of the west an er to me this restricts the culture and religious freedom freedom of the er indigenous people in these countries er this is short term diversity you’ll say we still have the indigenous acting there culture and the we should have racial foreignrers acting theres and in the long term this destroys diversity in our own country my other problem is i don’t consider it Islamic in the sense that it is not in the qu’ran and it was first introduced by the Taliban
Saqib: (3) Anything anyone would like to add to that?
Connor: Um(1) yeah actually its just drawing on jacks point the actual burka itself wasn’t origionally part of the muslim faith(1) and it was actually created before(1) the Islam faith was in existence really its been used for years origionally its purpose was to protect people when they were in sand storms that is the original purpose of the burka and also another purpose was to protect the women of child bearing age from raids where women we’re taken by um(1) some Islamic groups so those were the main purposes of the burka in the first instance and um(1) in Britain these days neither of those purposes would be applicable to(1) um muslim women
Saqib: Okay so your saying its not really needed for its functions okay right can we have an opposition function then
Adele: oh right its just you said racial foreigners but a very lot of people um who are british who have been here for gene | rations | |no no not converts|
Jack: |Converts|
Adele: British (1) who have been here for generations who’s choice it is to earn their keep who have been born here and not just come into the |country|
Jack: | if you look down the lines essentially they have|
Adele: | well | thats the same of everybody
Jack: | Well | yeah everybody has but im considering before the 1948 british nationality act im considering say third generation immigrants anyone that comes in with a different faith that is a faith that isn’t the norm in this country
Adele: | what do you mean the norm?|
Jack: | I mean um anglo sorry(2) |Christian|
Adele: Christian right
Jack: |Yeah|
Adele: so well I think the assumption that people who come from somewhere else come from that kind of place where they are bringing that in thats not________another thing is when you think its not qu’ranic um I mean in in past history obviously they would have worn you know the veil would have been worn actually in England aswell by women there was a real thing about veiling it doesn’t mean its not qu’ranic(1) um the interpretation the qu’ranic interpretation of full veiling it is in the qu’ran theres a line about when you address the wives of the prophets you must do so from behind a curtain now that’s taken by some people(1) as an assumption that they are made to wear it or what about freedom of choice what about the fact you can wear anything you want in this country
Jack: |my point|
Im saying in the short term that its diversity they have their freedom to practise there own culture I have nothing against that
Adele: |its not culture its religion|
Jack: well I consider culture apart of religion (1) okay but In the long term if we carry on at this rate I think we are going to see a lot of white flight of the indigenous men in these countries
Adele: you what sorry |white|
Jack: |white flight| its where immigration has increased increased increased its not stopped since 1948(1)
Adele: |yeah|
Jack: and if immigration continues you’ll see the indigenous population moving to countries like Australia
Saqib: |Right can i|
Can I just interrupt there(1) jack can you tell me the link then whats the link between immigration and the veil whats the
Jack: | it didn’t | originate in England did it it originated
Against the Ban : [muffled yells]
Saqib : RIGHT! Hang on hang on hold on a sec should we only have clothing clothing which originated on these shores then?
Adele: well we’d all be walking round like Knights then
Audience: [Laughter]
Adele: we might as well don a suit of armour what would
Saqib: |Right!| Hang on hang on bit of a question here should we only wear clothes that originated on these lands then jeans would be out of the question
Jack: I I I think in a perfect world yes but because we have immigration(1) because we have immigration and faith and culture as come with them man evolved a dress style and as I say like with white flight we see more people who don’t practise that faith moving to another country
Adele: | why would you move| why wouldn’t not embrace diversity
Jack: |it makes some uncomfortable|
Girl one: | can I just say|
2% of people in this country are muslim and less than a quarter of that 2% veil so I just don’t understand why it offends you so much(1) why does it offend so much to make YOU personally want to ban it I mean aren’t you going to upset the people who are doing it for their religion what grounds are you so offended by it
Connor : can I just say your statistic that 2% of muslims in Britain is actually incorrect there are 2 million muslims
Girl one: yeah that’s 2%
Audience: [laughter]
Connor: the population in Britain is 60 million 2 million is certainly not 2%
Girl one: |well that’s the stat I got|
Connor: well that’s wrong
Girl one: I’m not arguing with you
Saqib: Shall we stick to roughly 2-3% of the population is muslim whatever it is it’s a small amount of people we’re talking about lets make that quite |clear |
Jack: |I’d say nationally| that is quite a small number
Adele: |what what| upsets you about it whats do you think the danger is
Jack: okay consider an area like London yes it’s a small population nationally but its focused in specific areas because with immigration you generally go to poorer areas yeah so you have to consider these areas(1) so you can go to these places Nigel farage no sorry it wasn’t it was Lord pearson said it was sad not to see a white face in a lot of these places
Adele: |why is it a shame|
Louise: | why is it a shame| not to see a white face?
Adele: | are there not enough white people everywhere else|
Louise: do you not think that’s abit racist it’s a shame not to see a white face
Jack: |No no(1) im very disappointed to hear that word its not about racism
Louise: But you’ve just said its shame not to see a white face
Jack: | absolutely yes| as much as
Louise: |But that’s a racist comment| | it is|
Jack: | if you went to china(1)| if you went to china would you think it was a shame if everyone was white I bloody well would think so
Adele: |if I went to china| I wouldn’t be very upset by that I’d just think oh bloody hell whats going on here that’s quite interesting
Jack: | I think its treacherous by the government| transform the government
Louise: |no|
Saqib: alright can we hold for a second we’ve got hands up from
Michelle: |right just two points| im confused your making a distinction between the colour of faces and saying its not a racial comment which is just clearly illogical and secondly your saying Christianity is okay but another isn’t I don’t see why you’ve approved Christianity but all of a sudden islam isn’t okay
Jack: |I’m not approving either|
Michelle: | well you said | Christianity it’s the norm and it’s a middle eastern religion
Jack: | like I said |
Michelle: |same as islam|
Jack: like I said culture involves religion and culture are found in different countries and in each country it differs now if you start changing parts of culture you’ll change the whole country
Michelle: |culture| isn’t a static thing that remains the |same culture is something| which is ongoing and changing
Jack: | no its not| it doesn’t progress but its changes and not all change is good
Saqib: Okay on that note lets take some questions from the back there im pointing at the back
Bethan: you keep mentioning indigenous people what do you mean by that
Jack: anglo saxon celtic norse
Adele: |so when| you gonna put a stop on it
Jack: stop on what
Adele: well like kind of with(1) you know theres many people coming from everywhere all over throughout history when are you going put a stop on it and say right now these people are indigenous
Jack: what do you mean a stop
Adele: |well your| going to have to put a stop because you know(1) people have come into England you know forever and so where are you going to put a stop on that and say now these people are indigenous and everyone that comes here after this time is not indigenous
Jack: |are you looking| thousands of years into the future
Adele: |no abso| no its an ongoing process
Louise: |well nobody is indigenous then|
Jack: | yes nobody is of pure race| but I think we are getting on a completely different matter here
Saqib: yeah a good point by jack um can we take a point over there
Audience girl: I think the issue is that that what would you include as indigenous my family aren’t British my family are Lithuanian and Romany
Jack: I’m majority stock I am anglo saxon celtic norse which makes me indigenous just like a Chinese person who is indigenous in you know in there own country in china
Saqib: Right we’re digressing slightly from the topic lets try to stick to the burka and the nikab please(1) yes?
Audience boy 1: um I was just wondering they say that the burka isn’t an indigenous piece of clothing for England but in the Christian faith veils were wore when they went to mass so that they were in a respectful dress for mass and if you like many churches today the older generations like to wear hats(1) so why shouldn’t we ban something that is also practised within the indigenous faith the of England why should we ban something purely because it isn’t from the church of England
Jack: |Well| do you see anyone preaching faith wearing veils today
Audience boy 1: |yeah| | yeah I do| nuns for example
Jack: yes
Audience boy 1: nuns wear veils my auntie went to a convent for twelve months to become a nun she decided things were going badly in the family and she came back and she still veils when she goes into church
Jack: no er well in public places id still agree that nuns shouldn’t have to wear well shouldn’t wear the veil at all
Adele: eyyy
Louise: | who | are you to say(1) who are you to sit there and tell people what they can and cannot wear
Audience: [laughter and clapping]
Saqib: Right calm down a bit there
Audience: [laughter continues]
Saqib: theres a question here should the state because it would be a law passed by the state(1) should the state be able to govern what we wear connor
Connor: um I don’t I think its beginning to happen I mean I saw an abysmal BBC interview if you’d let me finish sorry
Audience: [laughter]
Connor: I saw an abysmal BBC interview a woman was banned from going into tesco in her pjamas and you should of heard this woman she was absolutely livid even though she was going into tesco early in the morning at half past 10
Louise: | you compare| pjamas to a religious dress
Connor: | I’m making a point|
Saqib: it’s linked its linked about what clothing you wear louise so I think its fair enough
Connor: and also this affects all young people the hoodie this has been an um(1) unbelievably um significant all of our lives many people have been banned from going into shops wearing a hoodie and this has led to the negative portrayal of youth in the media as a hoodie in some respects because of the fact that muslim women are being seperated from the rest of the british community because of what there wearing negative portrayal in the media of the burka referring to muslim women is highly possible in the future I think that this is something which by banning the burka could possible
Saqib: so you think it will help unity will help cohesion because we’ll be wearing similar clothing to each other
Connor: yes
Saqib: Louise
Louise: aren’t you by banning the burka thought even causing more islamaphobia and increasing like like not accepting its like you don’t want to accept it its not apart of your culture
Girl two: |why not other religions too|
Jack: we’re talking about the Burka
Girl two: yeah but your only targeting islam there are many other religions what about the sikh turban
Connor: |remember| we’re talking about the burka it covers the face
Girl two: | its not just the burka| other religions have things that cover
Jack: |we we are talking about the burka| but in the sense of other religions I don’t think its right you should only show your eyes that’s my whole point
Adele: why why don’t you think its right what don’t you like about it
Jack: |Right let me show you|(2) in july 2005 the London bombing yassin omar he took on the burka twice once when he fled the scene of the crime and a day later fled in one into the midlands he er was a bomber er Awarna Muhammad abdul adez garzi tried to flee the red mosque complex in Islamabad where he helped [inaudible] which is an organisation in opposition to authority to topple the government
Adele: right right you’ve got two instances of hiding your identity by wearing a burka
Jack: | there are many more|
Adele: |yeah but you could | of just you could just worn a false moustash
Audience: [laughter]
Adele: you can’t I don’t think the burka banning females from wearing the burka is really gonna you know you’ve got two instances of where people have escaped by concealing their identity you could have worn you know a false beard or a you know anything you can disguise identity in many ways what im saying to you is you’ve got these to random situations of hiding identity if terms of the females that wear you know there been no crimes committed in this country by Burka wearing women
Saqib: I think that’s a really interesting point actually jack?
Connor: I’ve got an example of that(1) if I could just highlight heria shinuf’s case she was actually no sorry heria shintoof she was in John lennon airport and concealed inside her burka had a pen drive with 7,000 files for the brothers of the mukadeem including an explosives manual and instructions
Adele: |Right| |Right| well what I’ll say with that is that she didn’t need the burka to conceal that she could have put it somewhere far more ingenius
Audience: [laughter and clapping]
Connor: look my point is she is a muslim woman using the burka to her advantage
Adele: |no | shes not she could have concealed it anywhere
Connor: [inaudible]
Adele: |she could have concealed it anywhere|
Saqib: one person at time(1) connor(1) adele calm down a second
Audience: [laughter]
Saqib: the first point that was important there how many actually burka wearing females are out there committing crimes then though we have an example im not sure its too many um not convinced on that at the moment have you got anything to reply to that(1) is it the burka wearing women that are the danger to this country at the moment?
Audience: [laughter]
Saqib: if the flash drive was concealed in a pocket would we have to ban jeans?
Girl two: aren’t there far more many women who are concealing things and sneaking them into airports who are just not wearing burkas
Jack: no absolutely but what we’re saying here the burka is an aid
Girl two: |[inaudible]|
Jack: |we’re we’re talking| about on instance here and you’ve got a decent argument against it but you’ve got to consider other instances there are known jewellery thef thefts wearing burkas
Adele: | go on tell me then| who’s robbed jewels wearing a burka
Jack: | a Somali murder suspect in the uk| fled from the Israelly justice and a member of the taliban who fled from the forces in Afghanistan its not just one instance
Girl two: | that’s that’s exactly why|
Adele: |but you cant|
Saqib: |Right ok ok ok!| we’ve got a hand up here can we have a question
Audience boy 2: Theres known instances of people robbing places and um committing crimes wearing stockings on there heads are you going to ban stockings
Audience: [laughter]
Jack: how many people to you see walking round the er streets wearing stockings over their faces
Louise: |because its not a sign of religious or worship I don’t know how you can compare it
Jack: | if you saw someone| going down the street with a stocking on there head or a bag with swag written on it I would say to you yeah there a robber If I saw someone walking down the street wearing a burka I would say no there a muslim
Louise: [inaudible shouting]
Adele: |well well| whats the problem with it then.
Jack: |they can use that against us [inaudible]|
Louise: |[inaudible]|
Adele: |[inaudible]|
Jack: |if you just listen to| what im saying
Saqib: | Can! Can we| try not to have people all talking at once(1) wanna come back on that point then?
Audience boy 2: so your saying your comparing someone wearing a burka in its what it represents is the same as the cartoon stocking on the head and swag bag(2) is that what your saying everyone(1) well to that if you take that too its ultimate point
Jack: |yeah| |imagine| how a burglar might dress dark clothing um might have one of those er
Audience: |[laughter]|
Saqib: your laughing but generally at night burglars would wear dark clothing so they don’t stand out
Jack: and they generally cover their face you look them and think ok there something going on there but then you look at somebody wearing the burka and think ok that’s a muslim you have no idea that they perhaps have done something
Girl one: |what they perhaps have done something|
Adele: | you must walk round suspicious of everyone| hey whats that dog done
Saqib: | okay OKAY| lets take that young lady at the front there okay a question from the audience shh
Audience girl 2: don’t you feel like its your social responsibility to(1) increase equality in the world
Connor: | how can we| be equal when they are wearing clothing which distinguishes them from everybody else
Audience girl 2: |because its your job to treat them like human beings|
Louise: |Can I|
Connor: it should be should be a muslim womans responsibility yeah to try to contact through facial expression you know get involved with society a daily mail journalist
Louise: |yeah but its their choice whether to or not|
Audience girl 2: | you should accept them either way|
Connor: | a daily mail journalist| said it stopped me from seeing what went on to my left and to my right the material is hot and airless and I could no longer communicate with people
Louise: yeah I agree with that
Connor: | how can she be equal| if she cannot communicate like everybody else
Louise: | its freedom of choice| they want to be equal
Jack: |how can they want to be equal| if there changing themselves
Adele: |you mean equal| meaning everyones the same equality isn’t about people being the same its about people being allowed to be what they are they are equal but different theres nothing about us having to dress the same to be equal with celebrate our differences
Jack: | I I really| don’t think we should tell people how to dress
Adele: but you are doing!
Jack: | its about them covering their face|
Adele: |inaudible|
Saqib: | okay calm down again!|
Connor: | sorry can I just say I think| you’ve got a point lets just make everyone equal lets just let naturists who want to conceal everything nothing even go to school naked lets let them go on the bus naked everyone should be equal
Saqib: | Okay right| I’ve got a hand up at the back yes young lady
Bethan: right so If you say the burka poses problems with communications what can like the(1) side against the ban think can eleviate that if it causes these problems
Girl one: well because with communication obviously the burka allows you to communicate one a deeper a level because you have to listen to someone your forced to listen to them without the exteriors of appearance coming into it yer your forced to connect to someone on a deeper level because you can only listen to them
Adele: can I just say as well you imagine how many people walk around with their ipods on you know doing that kind of thing and their not communicating its your choice if you don’t want to if you want to be sort of quiet and kind of(1) its not preventing you from communicating if you have the choice and you want to be say for instance quite quiet or whatever that’s you choice isn’t it
Saqib: yep communications not a necessary thing
Adele: no you don’t have to communicate if you don’t want to
Saqib: okay young lady at the back I know you’ve had you hand up for ages you’ve been very patient
Audience girl one: a while ago you compared the hoodie to the burka however the hoodie has had quite a lot of instances of people actually doing violent acts whereas the burka its only the minority who have so I don’t see how that is comparable due to the like amount of people who have commited crime wearing a hoodie or have stole or hurt someone
Connor: |okay if you if you were to compare|
Jack: |how many people are wearing a hoodie in this room | and how many have committed crimes wearing them
Girl one: | well how many feel hoodie is a part of their religion|
Connor: one one question for you bethan you know you’ve got to think of it this way if you were to compare someone who wears a hoodie and conceals the back of their head and someone who wears the burka who conceals the back of their head and most of the face you know a burka is more concealing
Louise: so what(1) does it really matter I don’t see how you get so offended by it
Saqib: louise we’ll have to move on we’ve got quite a lot of people with there hands up now young amn
Audience boy 3: your saying that your afraid that people cant see their face is thatis that your point
Connor: im im(1) right the thing is you know expression you know you’ll be able to see my expression you’ll be able to see im angry im sad everything but with a burka on you wouldn’t be able to tell whether I was enthused whether I was talking you know
Girl one: | so what| you don’t need to express yourself through facial expressions
Connor: | right then lets have women| wearing the burka then expressing themselves via dance [inaudible]
Jack: |[inaudible]|
Saqib: | right one person at a time please!| you wanna come back on that one
Audience boy 3: so you trying to say we need to see facial expression so then should we ban beard and long hair?
Connor: | yeah yeah| the thing is you can see them smile cant you
Audience: laughter
Saqib: right hand in the middle please(2) sorry can we stop the mini conversations going on please
Audience girl 3: the people wearing burkas at the moment maybe for protection maybe for another reason but are you willing to make those people feel so uncomfortable so vunerable in our society
Connor: I think there are instances of people who are vunerable with the burka on I mean one of the main problems is there are some young muslim british girls who in their youth have been made to wear burkas imposed by religion I was imposed to go to church when I was young this is a similar instance and these young british muslim girls have suffered abuse ah ah ah at home cuts bruises everywhere and there teachers couldn’t even no this was going taking place because they have black cloth concealing their bodies they were being abused and they were being hurt and no-one knew about it
Jack: | I also|
I also think aswell that people who do wear the burka(1) whos to say they don’t feel vunerable perhaps that’s the reason that they wear it because it is out of choice it isn’t you know it isn’t a part of the qu’ran(1) it’s choice
Saqib: right we’re coming onto something important can you just keep your hand up for a second can we have a response to a symbol of oppression?
Louise: you said its oppressive it’s a symbol of oppression but isn’t it oppressive to tell women what they can and can’t wear?
Jack: | its not about | they can’t wear its about what they cover their face with that’s not clothes that’s not clothing!
Louise: |it is!|
Jack: |not in | western society!
Louise: | what do you mean not| in western society?
Adele: |ehhhh|
Jack: | they walk round with cloth| on their face that’s not clothes
Louise: |[inaudible]|
Adele: |[inaudible]|
Jack: |[inaudible]|
Saqib: |RIGHT one at a time one at a time please!|
Louise: your just causing greater a division within society
Jack: | I think| there pretty good at causing divisions already
Louise: | No no!| your trying to cause a big divide I mean how are you going to police women wearing the burka oh its an on the spot fine
Jack: yeah
Adele: [inaudible]
Louise: I I don’t understand how you’ve got the nerve or ordacity to sit there and dictate what women can and can’t wear when it’s a sign of there religion its free choice
Jack: | I think|
Audience: [clapping and cheers]
Saqib: right a question from the front
Audience boy 4: you say its not clothing but I don’t think you know when you see little chavvy girls going into pier in their hot pants you know up the bum I feel that that’s clothing either so if your going to ban the burka you need to ban hot pants and little slaggy girls who are wearing nothing but covering the nipples
Audience: [laughter and chatter]
Saqib: im not sure about your your terminology there
Audience: [laughter]
Connor: when a girl is wearing barely nothing you can still see their facial expression
Audience: [laughter]
Audience boy 4: so would you rather see someone and know shes a slag or like
Saqib: | Emerit!|
Audience: [laughter]
Audience boy 4: or be able to like know someone’s at least respecting themselves even if other people are being all like tarted up they can still show how they feel through there eyes or like how they speak(1) you can see someones happy through there eyes if they smile or something but
Saqib: okay that’s a fair point thanks Emerit for a really good point er keep your hands up please will yer and I’ll get to you as soon as I can(1) President whittaker?
Audience: [one person claps and audience laughs]
Sam: er don’t you agree that abuse er related to the burka and wearing the burka are two different issues
Jack: er yes but we’re saying they interlap were saying that there is abuse and burkas can continue abuse
Sam: don’t you think that alcohol abuse would mean we should put a ban on alcohol then
Connor: | there are steps being taking to | stop alcohol abuse this would be a step to prevent abuse of the burka!
Sam: I think your abusing !civil rights
Saqib: okaay thanks for you comment there can we have a quick point there?
Audience girl 4: urm you were talking about how children can be abused in their homes and cover it with the burka can I point out for a start the burka only covers the face for starters it doesn’t actually cover the whole body(1) and a lot of teachers now actually have training to spot people who are being abused especially young children and if a young child
Connor: |they communicate through facial expression right|
Audience girl 4: yeah but you can still communicate through eyes kids can still talk to each other actually more teachers need to spot(1) children being abused when they speak to other children in the playground its not difficult to listen to other children
Saqib: okay okay that’s a good point
Girl one: | can I just say| if if your saying that these women are being oppressed and forced into wearing the burka by
Connor: | there not being forced|
Jack: |[inaudible]|
Girl one: by husbands and their dads or whatever what do yer think will happen if you ban the burka there gonna be imprisoned in their own homes there not gonna be allowed to go out if their weak enough to be forced to wear the burka by their fathers or whatever
Jack: |exactly they should be| able to leave there houses and they should be able be comfortable
Girl one: | there not going to be if you ban it|
Jack: | banning it them is the only way|
Adele: | are you gonna go round checking all there houses|
Girl one: | [inaudible]|
Saqib: okay okay thanks adele thanks jack common we’ve got a point here or question sorry
Audience girl 5: its just the the point about how(1) like one of your main points is that well children can be abused and its covered up by cloth children can be abused who just wear western dress and you don’t spot it the way to spot abuse is by talking to children and you can still talk to a child and form a relationship with a child regardless of what they wear
Connor: |okay hypothetically hypothetically|
Audience girl 5: |no NO! as person who works with young people my focus on a child isn’t on what your wearing oh your covered in cloth so I’m not going to talk to you
Connor: | okay so| can I ask you a question right you working with a quiet girl whos wearing a burka shes quiet she doesn’t want to talk about her problems shes got a massive cut down the side of her face which you cant see but she isn’t talking about her problem what do you do then?
Audience girl 5: orite with all due respect with somebody who forms a relationship with children and young people in that environment you build up trust you have to have trust
Connor: |yeah but there are still quiet people|
Audience girl 5: no! how are you going to have trust between a youth worker and the people if when they come in you go no sorry you can’t come in because your expressing yourself through your clothes get out(1) its ridiculous
Audience: [clapping]
Connor: I don’t think a quiet girl who been abused wearing the burka she wont be able to fully demonstrate her problem
Audience girl 5: |there are there are| quiet girls who are abused sexually and I cant see that but you still talk to them it the same like people who are abused commonly the places they are abused they do it in places which are cover up by normal clothes so I think that point is just completely invalid
Jack: well not really how many people just come straight up the day after and say my dad raped me how many people?
Audience girl 5: | sorry how is that how is that connected|
Audience: [laughter]
Jack: |[inaudible]|
Audience girl 5: | I think you missing the point|
Saqib: | hey okay guys okay I think we’re digressing again!| can we try and keep to the burka a question put your hand up please
Audience girl 6: I don’t understand the point about little kids wearing the burka works because you don’t veil till adolesance anyway(4)
Jack: this isn’t the main point the the
Audience: [laughter]
Jack: no its not its something that we’ve discussed it doesn’t mean that it is our main point our main point I have to say is the security risk and we’ve told you about the prisoners that have escaped the terrorist that have escaped
Girl one: | their weren’t any women|
Jack: | Yassi omar|
Adele: | that’s a man|
Audience: [laughter]
Saqib: okay okay
Louise: |how many| muslims [inaudible]
Connor: | [inaudible] she wanted to blow up her and her [inaudible]|
Louise: |HOW many muslims [inaudible]|
Adele: |she could have put it | somewhere more exciting
Audience: [laughter]
Saqib: Cummon eyy
Adele: | she didn’t need a burka|
Louise: |[inaudible]|
Saqib: | okay| thankyou question please from

I'm no poor cretin. And specific Liberals make me laugh.

2010-02-13T05:16:00.000-08:00

The write up of the Baroness Warsi conference shall be here soon, as promised. I'll also see about uploading the audio.

But the reason for this post is this:

Anybody who believes that the British National Party is jingoist - is merely a fool!

(For any of you liberal students who think you're right about everything - a jingoist is somebody who believes their country is superior)

The British National Party loves culture - that's why we have an alliance with the likes of the French Front National.

Being British does not make you superior. It makes you British. And everybody should be proud to be of their ethnicity, and indeed an integral part of their culture - as much as any British person.

Being British does not make me better than any French man, Spanish man, Chinese man.

Racism - an unrelated and disgusting regime

2010-02-10T12:57:00.000-08:00

Undoubtedly, racism is largely associated with the right - and you wouldn't be far wrong to say that all radical right-wingers (and I do mean, radical, not those who are leaning right, or predominantly right), but neo-nazis like Combat 18, a party who takes its name directly from Adolf Hitler himself (1 - A, 8 - H, alphabetically, respectively).

This, however, should not mean that right wingers are bad, irrational, extremist racists. Of course not - they make as many fair points, policies, and express valid ideologies, as those centre-right, centre-left, or extreme left. These opinions, and they are opinions, are just spread through communities of people, and in a perfect world, an equal amount or proportion of the population would be in favour of each political party that hoards different values (However, this circumstance would be far from perfect in a democratic world, as nobody could come into power through elections).

Opinions, however, are easily tainted (like I mentioned recently on my What You Always Thought blog). These ideologies that each offer their benefits, and each offer their disadvantages (though respective political parties would rather you think there are no disadvantages - what was that, Immigration was a great way of diversifying our culture, filling up new jobs, modernising and enforcing equality? Look at the mess we're in now.) - like protectionism on the right, and populism on the left, which can be portrayed quite easily by opposing parties as bad things, when they may well in fact be more beneficial than thought. There are two main forces behind the poisoning of opinion, and massive, unfair misrepresentation, present only to completely annihilate smaller opposing parties (which is one of the most definitive factors of fascism - though, the status fascism has to be extensively argued).

Fascism, up until the Second World War, where the ideology was ruined by Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust, was considered a Utopian vision, as was comminism. Which is interesting, given that communism and fascism are thought to be direct opposites of the left and the right. Doesn't this lead the way to proving that fascism has been poisoned over the years, from the abomination that was Adolf Hitler, and the years of false portrayal from the uber-liberal left (I'll perhaps pick up on the antics of the uber-left another time).

It's poisoned opinions. Media misrepresentation, and Media lies. Of course, must we forget Media bias? You need only watch Andrew Brons speaking on Channel 4 news, to see the blatant bias involved with the British National Party. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5rI3H0m5gU). Frankly, it's disgraceful that a valid politician of a valid and peaceful political party is constantly interrupted in favour of an MP of a more mainstream party (that's ruined the country, might I add), and verbally attacked by someone who is meant to be impartial (note the language, the twisting of words and the colloquialisms involved in a news broadcast
, aimed solely at Andrew Brons, and not Margaret Hodge.

This leads perfectly to my point regarding racism. I take my words here from Mr. Andrew Brons himself, as they are worded so perfectly.

Racism has many meanings, but most commonly it is believed to refer to racial hatred, and 'Racial hatred is unpleasant and must be condemned'. To hear this from Andrew Brons himself surely should be enough to bang through the skull of any BNP hater, and scream 'You've got us all wrong, yet you refuse to accept what is right in front of you'.

Continued, 'We must maintain the homogeneity of our own people'.

And that is precisely it.

The British National Party does not hate people of other races, or from other countries, or even those of other religions. There are Jewish member, and a convert Muslim even stood for the BNP further north!

Yet the media would like you to think so. If you were to watch the interview that I provided a link to, you will hear Krishnan comment on the 'fact' that the BNP want to send immigrants home. That is simply not true - but it is the sheer fact that he media, biassedly, bring up these things that are simply not true, that hold the party back. The party are stuck with the ignorance of modern voters who refuse to allow change. And it is this ignorance, that holds the leash on the open mindedness of our voters. Our voters are practically controlled by the media, and it is the media who have portrayed this great party as a racist organisation.

And this is simply not true.

The BNP believe that everybody has the right to their own culture. Those indigenous have the right to go about their own business and their own culture, without imposing cultures affecting their lives and indeed affecting their own culture.

Homogeneity of the indigenous is also very important - and it's this conservatism, if you will, which is often mistaken for racism. Immigrants and the children of immigrants are quite welcome to stay in our island country under a BNP government. There is no issue, and it's amazing to think that the media have made it seem like there is. The only issue is further immigration, leading to the irreversible and inevitable destruction of British culture, British heritage, and the indigenous Britons as a community. Monoculture would be the ultimate feat of treachery by any government, and this is why the BNP are fighting to avoid it.

There is nothing racist about fighting for the rights of people indigenous to their own country. If the BNP were racist, they would be instead enforcing the ideology that only indigenous Britons have the right to practice their own culture - and foreigners, whether in their own country or not, do not. But they don't. And this is why they are not racist.

The British National Party are a nationalist party, and hold great respect for other nationalists all over the world. Patriotism is a marvellous thing. It is not a discriminatory thing. Patriotism is the love for your own country, and that extends all over the world. Not just the United Kingdom.

If the word racist is going to be thrown around, then instead, it should be looked at this way.

The opposite of racism is loving all races, and believing all races have equal rights (I'd like to just point out that this is an ideology shared by BNP members alike, anyway).

So, if races were allowed to live amongst multiracial and multicultural societies from here onwards, and allowed to create multiracial families and communities - race, after a long period of time, would simply not come into the equation. Because there would be no race. There'd be monoculture. A monorace.

And to see the world the same, everywhere, with diverse culture little more than a historical interest, and the marvellous races of this nation non existent, would be a very sad day.

And anybody who enforces this, is in turn, racist themselves.

So how can a party that embraces other cultures, but enforces a traditional culture in their own land, be racist?

Don't call me a bloody Nazi! Why the BNP=/=Nazis

2010-02-07T11:29:00.000-08:00

As touched on earlier in my other blog, Fascism is both difficult to define, and difficult to associate with a political organisation (Which I understand is particularly difficult to understand, thanks to the pests of the Unite Against Fascism, an organisation that knows as much about the party as a Labourite who refuses to share a room with anybody associated with the party. An organisation formed by a racial foreigner, who to me seems somewhat scared that the BNP would force him back to his country of derivation, which is of course, not what would happen under a British National Government). There are many variations of definition, and by combining popular definitions I, very briefly, deduced that the British National Party does not seem to fit the criteria of Fascism, nor does it seem to hold any Fascist ideologies.

What is interesting is that those who believe the BNP are Fascist, also tend to believe that they are Nazis. This is blatant ignorance and lack of understanding! The Nazis were not a Fascist organisation, and were in fact, largely anti-conservatism, anti-traditionalist, and indeed, pragmatic.

So, if I were to pretend that I was ignorant for just one moment, and claim that the British Nationalists were Fascist, then I could completely rule out any chance of them being at all associated with Nazism. Undoubtedly, the Nazis were an organisation of hatred, passion, prejudice and racism. But unlike what the ‘Hope Not Hate’ campaign would believe, the British National Party is an organisation of Nationalism, Passion, and Victory. That is, a desire for victory of the indigenous British Population once again obtaining their identity, and the restoration of the glory of the United Kingdom.

Sure, Nazis were pro-Germany as the British Nationalists are pro-Britain, but this ignorant observation surely cannot apply, as all horse-fanatics, Microsoft-Bums, and Apple-fanatics would be Nazis. Which is absurd which ever why you look at it.

It is also noted in mainstream media, that Nick Griffin is a man of the right. And I don’t completely deny that, and neither should any nationalist with an ounce of intelligent. The British National Party is without a doubt right-leaning, but I would not go as far to say that us British Nationals are far right, or even extremist-right. In fact, there are several aspects of the party that would imply that it was left-leaning, and even a Conservative party member wrote on their official website of the left ‘traits’ of the British National Party, and how it is of the up most importance that they should be stopped. We know that’s not true, but we do know that mainstream politicians openly acknowledge that the BNP is not either extremist right, or extremist left.

And this is precisely why the British National Party is very much far from being at all associated with Nazism. Time and time again I read bias articles concerning the British National Party, written even by indigenous persons who may well have been racially discriminated against in the past, and yet, do not recognise this. And it is the British National Party themselves who want to out this anti-white racism! So essentially, these people are shooting themselves in the foot.

Documentation published last year, the ‘Racism Cuts Both Ways’ campaign, features an article by Chairman Nick Griffin MEP, and I quote:
“You wouldn’t know this if you believe the propaganda of the mainstream media or the lies of the old party politicians. But most people who live in the real world will already have experience of being discriminated against. We all know that ‘positive discrimination’ denies perfectly well qualified individuals a fair chance when it comes to a job or a promotion. We all know of poor white areas that are left to rot while councils throw millions of pounds at ‘ethnic’ areas. We all know that Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative politicians use our money to give asylum-seekers luxury homes while homeless ex-servicemen sleep on the streets.

What many people don’t know, however, is that the indigenous peoples of Britain are not just the victims of such official anti-white racist bias. Huge and growing numbers also suffer criminal racism in its cruellest forms. Unreported by the mass media, ignored by schools, covered up by the old politicians- our people are the silent victims of an epidemic of racist violence, sexual exploitation and murder.”
If standing up for your own race and believing that every (NOTE THE EVERY) race has the right to not be treated as second class citizens in their country of derivation, and to be able to go about their own culture without mass imposition of foreign cultures affecting their way of life, then shoot me down now. Because I must be terribly ‘racist’.

Time and time again I quote Andrew Brons in saying that Racism is terrible and must be condemned. The British public need to now peer through these permeable walls of lies created by the media, and see that the British National Party is not racist, but instead, Labour cronies who have destroyed our great nation. I once again quote from 2008 documentation:

“The fact that council housing is refused to homeless white families living in sub-standard bed and breakfast accommodation in favour of so-called ‘asylum seekers’ and immigrants, means that this form of racism is now endemic across the country.”

If that’s not racism, I don’t know what is. And if the fact that nearly one third of white people have learnt to expect to be treated worse than other groups by at least one of eight public services (including police, prisons, courts, Crown Prosecution Service, probation service, local housing organisations, schools or GPs) is not a subsequent effect of prejudice for the indigenous people by the British Government (A government packed to the brim with racial foreigners who seem to still be convinced that the BNP want to send them home, and in turn, scare monger the British Public into thinking the BNP are Nazis), I also don’t know what is.

And finally, just to pick up on something I mentioned earlier. I told you that the Nazis were not a Fascist organisation, and were in fact, largely anti-conservatism, anti-traditionalist, and indeed, pragmatic. I could easily argue that the British Nationalists are far more conservative than the Conservative party themselves, and indeed, in this case, the British Nationalists stray further from Nazi ideologies.

The EDL thugs are NOT the BNP, and nor do we want them to be!

2010-02-05T05:01:00.000-08:00

I'm beginning the process of merging my two blogs into one, simply because I find the articles generally overlap a little too much. So here's an article from Defying Perception.

These people are not the respectable indigenous subjects they seem to think they are. Their unacceptable behaviour and riots, riots near identical to that of the UAF pests, bring shame upon their organisation - and as much as I'd be pleased to see this organisation torn to pieces, I'm beginning to wish that they weren't all over the media.

More and more often is the British National Party being caught up in the media, and whilst recent victories have been made, the BNP are still struggling to stop the confused public seeing them as the violent thugs we see in protests like this.

The BNP is not the EDL.

The English defence league, already described by Nick Griffin (Chairman, BNP, MEP) as nothing more than a 'honey trap', organised by either the state or the far-left, is nothing more than a band of violent thugs fighting for what, in some areas, is right. The real problem is their belief that the British National Party is bad, and the means by which they 'express' their views.

Take a look at the photograph below.

In a protest organised by the far left, liberal, nansy pansy pests of the UAF (Who do not seem to understand the word Nazi, or indeed, Fascism) and the thugs of the English Defence League, we see a pitiful stand against the British National Party - a legitimate political party, with national electorate support, which ultimately, has nothing to do with either of these organisations.

It's these inconsiderate, ignorant, and frankly opressing campaigners that do not cease to confuse the British public - and this is what needs to be recognised these days. Be it by the police force (though, it is perfectly legal to express political view and distribute material in the streets - hence, I'd suggest a system by which organisations must steer clear, and out of different areas to one another, when preaching to the people), or simply by media coverage, and better explanation of who these campaigners are, and what exactly they're doing.

But of course, in a society where smaller political parties are opressed, and violent thugs are allowed to roam the streets, doing little more than disrupting unhappy shoppers, we can never expect good cover from the media, but even worse, we can never expect fair cover.

It's becoming more and more apparent that the Great British public seem to think the English Defence Leage are associated with the British National Party, and it is of the upmost importance that the word is spread that they are not.

The British National Party is peaceful, it's members are respectable, and never, would violence become a core component of it's political strategy.

Baroness Warsi - An experiment.

2010-02-04T06:56:00.000-08:00

I'm currently at a conference regarding politics, economics, the media and young people. Baroness Warsi is due to speak soon. Let's see if she can go five minutes without complaining about the BNP. I'll try my best to record, upload and transcribe, but I believe I'll be receiving a DVD copy of the event. Stay tuned.

Fun with David Cameron. (Bahaha)

2010-01-23T06:10:00.001-08:00

I'm awaiting a photograph of a bloody hilarious graffiti version of one of those, that I saw around the Liverpool area. I'll upload it as soon as I have it.

Why the UKIP phonies are aiding my faith in the rise of ethnic Nationalists

2010-01-18T15:40:00.000-08:00

We've all heard it before. 'UKIP is BNP for posh people'.

Whilst this really...isn't that true (Ie, it's not the same as the BNP by any means - but it's quite possible a lot of voters vote UKIP so that they're not branded racist, if they share SIMILAR concerns.), I certainly think it doesn't rule out the possibility that it could well be in the future.

UKIP, admittedly, does reasonably well at elections. Granted, generally better than us ethnic nationalists.

And it seems that UKIP is getting more and more controversial. They recently adopted the BNP's two year old burka policy. Lord Pearson himself even claimed that it's a shame 'you struggle to see a white face around in some areas'.

But UKIP get nowhere near as much bad press as the BNP.

We all know a lot of the bad press can come from absolute fabrications, to misinterpretations of quotes by the man himself, Nick Griffin - so in essence, the bad press isn't at all relevant to the party. But indeed, it does a lot of harm.

But I have high hopes for the BNP. I have high hopes that the media will be forced to back off, and I certainly hope that Blue State Digital will slowly slip away from their discriminatory regime in this particular area of politics.

And all because UKIP is often seen as, so to say, 'reasonable'. If UKIP carry on like this, more and more people will be thinking 'Well, they seem to be doing a lot of what the BNP does...maybe I should check out the BNP instead' or merely, 'If UKIP are doing it, then what's wrong with the BNP?'.

Hopeful and idealist, I know. But who knows. These phonies could work in our favour if they carry on adopting our policies.

But hey, whilst I'm being idealist. Perhaps Lord Pearson will see the light and join the BNP...

The Establishment hates your Grandma - and other short stories.

2010-01-13T15:23:00.000-08:00

So as we know, the British National Party have promoted efforts to help the elderly during this particular winter that's been horribly effected by Global Warming. I mean, the heat, it's unbearable.

Of course, that's sarcasm. We're experiencing one of the coldest winters, with weather mirroring that of the winter of 1963! And what's happening to Britain's elders? Well, as Yahoo just kindly pointed out to me, they're dying.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100113/tuk-charity-contacted-before-pair-died-6323e80.html

We're faced with two evils here. We're faced with the inability to provide a service that should, by default, be provided by the Age Concern. And we're also faced with the blatant ageism of the LibLabCon. With hypocritical, feminist maniacs like Harriet Harman in cabinet, how could ageism like this occur in modern day?

It's astonishing that the Government seem to think that the elderly, who may well have fought for the good of this country during the second World War, have the ability to last without either food or heat. It's this leftist optimism that's killing thousands of elderly during the winter months, when they still have many productive years ahead of them as friends, family, and a reflection of how Great Britain used to be great.

It's initiatives from the British National Party, like this (http://bnp.org.uk/2010/01/bnp-puts-pensioners-first/) that really make me smile. And more so, stories of War Heroes being helped personally by the BNP helplines, when charities could do little else than offer no support whatsoever.

Let's just draw up a list, then. The Establishment hoards:

- Racism aimed towards the indigenous population (White flight, 'good' racism, and ethnic cleansing from large areas of London.)
- Sexism (Through Harman's ridiculous 'Equalities' Bill)

And now, indirect ageism!

Treating the elderly with such little care, but handing out wads of cash to young immigrants, coming here to scrounge, or two work - in order to help our ageing population. Isn't it strange how an intelligent man like Gordon Brown (Granted, he is actually a clever man when it comes to academia) can't realise that immigrants do indeed, also age.

Alarming deanglicanisation of England in the name of cultural 'diversity'

2009-12-30T15:47:00.001-08:00

Lord Street, in Southport, is a beautifully Victorian Place. It keeps its period features, and its British charm - with a well-used bandstand, and Victorian Tea Shops like Nostalgia.

The buildings also strike you as wonderfully British, and historical.

So isn't it a shame when you see, in the centre of Lord Street, a building opened in the 1920s as a bank, converted into an Italian Restaurant?

Now this could be taken the wrong way.

I'm not against Italian Restaurants. I don't hold some strange prejudice against Restaurants of this particular variety - as of course, if we were to survive as a Nationalist country, it'd be wonderful to still experience other culture (in this case, food) whilst living a typically British life.

My point is this. In a country of concrete cities, multicultural, brown hellholes, do we need the remains of our British Heritage converted to multicultural parades?

What a magnificent building, and what a magnificent waste! Only next door to this grand, unused bank building, is another bank. How about we put this work of art to good use, whilst retaining its British heritage? At the very least, have the restaurant serve English food.

When I die, I'd rather not be buried in an Italian-themed coffin, with Italian flags, and ragu flung over me.

So, councils of Merseyside, Southport. Where's your loyalty to your Country? Or is it that you're just too scared to be branded racist?

I already know the answer.

Anti-White Racism

2009-11-19T15:28:00.000-08:00

I’m near sure that a large percentage of the British population, or more precisely, the indigenous population, have encountered a cruel, disgusting, treacherous and down-right unpleasant act whereby those of alien derivation are hired by firms, over indigenous British subjects.

And by this, I am most certainly not talking about cheap labour from illegal immigrants – thought I do not deny this is a terrible issue seemingly ignored by Labour government. I mean, only recently several immigrants got into the country through France, UNDER a coach full of immigration officials! How absurd does it get?

No, I am not talking about ‘good racism’, an ideology kept by large organisations and government agencies – and now, the Equalities Bill, that encourages organisations to hire ethnic minorities, and even favour women particularly over men! – I am talking anti-white racism. Because simply, this is what it is. I touched briefly on the fact that Harriet Harman’s Equalities Bill includes the idea that in the case of two equally qualified individuals, a woman should get the job. This is yet another example of government hypocrisy. And on a slightly different note, I find it rather amusing that Harriet Harman, notorious man hating slag, has the word ‘man’ in her name. I take a tiny, tiny amount of pleasure in that.

I cannot give you the example of which I am specifically referring to, when it comes to indigenous subjects not getting a job, but t let me tell you of a recent merge between two quangos (an attempt to bypass Cameron’s bid to strike down as many quangos as humanly possible), where jobs are being reallocated. Where experts in their fields are being demoted, and people are fighting for promotions.

This is where I foresee the problem, and indeed, the problem is already occurring.
It is seen as racially ‘considerate’ to hire people of an ethnic minority. It is an attempt by organisations to render the possibility of being called racist obsolete, non-existent, when in fact, these organisations, both private and governmental, are performing treacherous acts of racism in doing so.

This is anti-white racism, and it’s a terrible issue leading to the inevitable social decline of the indigenous British professionals, left jobless in their native homeland, whilst an immigrant worker who *may* well have limited experience, enjoy the white man’s income.

I say ‘may’, because it’s not definite that an immigrant or racial foreigner is less qualified than an indigenous Briton. To say such a thing would be racist and awful. I’m talking about times when this DOES happen.

I refer to Enoch Powell when I say that the black man (here mentioned to simply stand for all ethnic minorities) has the whip over the white man, and in Liblabcon government, who knows how long it will be until immigration reaches an American level. I’m not saying immigration is bad for the USA, because that is a rather unusual case. The United States were founded on immigration. Great Britain, not on such a large scale.

We can, however, also study anti-white racism in a number of modern cases.
I’m sure we all know about the English Defence League’s latest antics in Manchester, which brought about race hate riots from hundreds of Muslim thugs (please, do remember that when I say this, I’m not referring to the whole muslim population. I think it a shame that I have to clarify this, but people get the wrong idea as soon as they see the word ‘Muslim’ followed by a noun. I’m also not condoning the unacceptable behaviour of the EDL – for all I care, they can battle to the death with muslim extremists, because I’m sure they have more tricks up their sleeves than a group of chav thugs who think the BNP do things the wrong way.)

These riots showed us something, yet the British public haven’t interpreted it correctly. I wait for the day that they do.

The Muslims that take part in these riots have no respect for British culture – otherwise, they wouldn’t be so bothered by the EDL, because as much as the EDL do things wrong, they stand for the interest of Britain and its culture. So either these Muslims are ill informed, or just blatantly disrespectful to the land in which they live, and receive the benefits of a soft touch government.

This blatant ignorance towards the culture of us indigenous is denying us of our right to practice our way of life in our native homeland – in turn, meaning they are discriminating on the grounds of race. The grounds of us being white.

We should be scared of the Equalities Bill. Created with the "intention to prevent racism and encourage equality", or so they say, it will increase racial discrimination of white people no end - and I find slight comfort in the fact that the British National Party is the fastest growing political party in the UK, and hopefully us Nationalists will soon be able to rid of this evil, nonsensical tripe and restore Great Britain to its former glory.

"It's our duty to help the Asylum Seekers under EU law" - but apparently the mentally ill ex-Military Service Personell are fine

2009-10-12T06:12:00.000-07:00

I recently had the chance to listen to Wigan MP Neil Turner speak. He covered issues regarding expenses, and his recent trip to Fiji, but what I felt more fitting for discussion was the matter of homeless ex-Military Personell being swept aside whilst our Government hands out benefits and council housing to bogus Asylum Seekers and, even, Immigrants without any work ethic.

So I asked him "With 30,000, on average, persons leaving the military every year, and a vast majority of the homeless on the streets of Londonbeing ex-Military Service Personell - can you justify the sheer amount of immigrants and bogus Asylum Seekers claiming benefits and receiving Council housing?"

He did express his concern regarding illegal immigrants, but his passion for the EU and it's policies it imposes didn't surprise me for a Labour Party MP.

According to Mr. Turner, it is our duty as a nation to take in these Asylum Seekers, give them a luxury life, for nothing. Give them income, for nothing. Give them houses, for nothing. Provide schooling support for their children, and health services - for nothing.

But apparently, for somebody who fought for their country, risked their lives to save what civilisation we have - do not qualify for these Government handouts, despite the sheer amount they have done for their country.

The non-indigenous, of alien culture, who have done nothing for our country, take priority.
Fair enough. He is a Labourite - we've come to expect nothing less these days.

But this is the shocking part. I told Mr. Turner that roughly 30,000 people leave the Military Services each year - and a substantial amount of the homeless on the streets of London, are ex-Military. Mr. Turner's excuse regarding these ex-Militants, was that an overwhelming majority of these people have mental illnesses.

Now that's not surprising, given that these poor chaps have seen what they've seen in war, and experienced a drastic change in environment upon returning home. I'm also sure that the fact these people, in a first world country, live in poverty affects their mental stability.

But apparently, this justifies them sleeping on the streets. Thank Mr. Neil Turner for that 'insightful' comment.

Now, Mr. Turner did tell me that the Labour Party is making strides to combat the amount of homeless ex-Military Service Personell, and that they've achieved a lot over the past few years.
But isn't it interesting how the British Legion is almost on the bones of it arse, and despite its prejudice views against the British National Party, it has accepted large donations from the Party to help these people.

Does this really show a caring Government who's funding an organisation like this?
It doesn't, and Labour clearly isn't doing enough. Their filth and lies ooze through the media, be it subtle - their filth and lies ooze through the teeth of their Politicians, and the day this god-awful Government is brought to its knees is the day when I celebrate a new day, of freedom of speech and prioritised rights.

Inhumane Halal Slaughter

2009-10-05T09:54:00.000-07:00

I was recently intrigued to read an article regarding the study performed at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hanover University in Germany, headed by Professor Wilhelm Schulz. The study intended to 'prove wrong' allegations that Halal Slaughter is in actual fact inhumane.

The results were as follows:

'Slaughtering with a knife (The Islamic Method)

1. The first 3 seconds from the time of the slaughter (in the Islamic Method) as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any recognisable pain during or after the incision.

2. During the following 3 second, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep-unconsciousness. This is due to the large quantity of blood gushing out of the body. The sudden and profuse bleeding from the incision on the neck causes a shock resulting in a state of unconsciousness due to severe shortage of blood supply to the vital centers located in the brain.

3. After the above-mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.

4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving out a maximum amount of blood from the body, thus resulting in hygienic meat for the consumers.

Captive Bolt Pistol (CBP) Stunning Method

1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.

2. But EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.

3. The hearts of animals stunned by CBP stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Islamic method, resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.'

As convincing as these results seem to be, I'm still not ready to accept this as dead proof.

As I'm sure you know, my blog focuses on the logic of scenario, rather than dead figures and statistics, as I try and keep these to a minimum. I'm attempting to make for light reading, but nevertheless, reading with a message, and I hope that what I write forthwith does make a good point.

See, this research tells us that the moment a Muslim slits the throat of an animal, there is a reading that shows absolutely no pain. Apparently, when you slit the throat of an animal, it doesn't hurt.

In order to accept this preposterous idea I'd need to read further research, because I'm more than sure if you ask a person who had suffered through an experience whereby their wrists had been slit, they would not be able to tell you that they did not feel any pain - because a deep wound in the skin and flesh would merely indicate that pain has occurred, and I'm afraid I refuse to believe that an animal would feel no pain, simply because they die so quickly.

But for you who are willing to accept this as truth, then I tell you this.
Humane slaughter involves at least an ounce of dignity for the animal.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm sure most meat-eaters would agree with me that it's a great shame that we have to kill the animal. I hate to see the slaughtering of animals on the likes of television, and I hate even the thought of it.

That's why I feel slightly better to know that modern western methods of slaughter involve a stunning method, making the animal unconscious and unaware of what is happening to it.

There is a greater amount of dignity involved when an animal's last moment is essentially where it 'falls asleep', as opposed to its last moment being the time in which a muslim attacks the poor thing with a knife.

Whether or not you believe there is greater pain involved in stunning or not, surely you as a person would rather see out the end of your life with the slightest dignity - so why is an animal any different?

It's precisely the same with intensive animal farming, like I'm sure you've seen scattered all over the television and media over the past year. Animals deserve a right to a good life, they deserve dignity, and they deserve the right to die with an ounce of dignity. It is the sheer greed and inconsiderateness of modern farmers that go about this awful practice, and under a British National Party government, we would see the end of this.

Back on topic, at the festival of Eid, we see thousands of animals cruelly slaughtered using the halal method, to mark the end of their fasts.

Can you really justify these huge amounts of animals being, one, slaughtered by such huge numbers for purely religious reasons and, two, slaughter by this horribly inhumane method again, purely for religious reasons.

These animals are not only slit at the throat, but chained to whatever will hold them still and withhold their sheer strength as they try their hardest to flee for their lives. Whether or not these poor animals die in pain, their final moments should not be filled with fear, unsurety and hatred for their human companions.

Just think about this.

Do these animals really deserve this? Please, help do something about it, and sign the following petition.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/halalslaughter

The religious slaughter at the festival of Eid:

Labour's Most Recent Shot in the Foot

2009-09-16T04:15:00.000-07:00

What you see here is the work of Gerald Kaufman, Jewish, Labour Member of Parliament for the Longsight area in Manchester.

Your eyes do not deceive you. This is the destruction of a grave yard. A place where people pay their respects to those deceased, bulldozed, with plans to turn it into a car park.

The image outlines in red, a grave stone, cruelly ground into the earth, soon to be tarmaced over in favour of a car park.

A car park for muslims.

You see, not only is this a destruction of a graveyard. It's destruction of our heritage. A place of God, for those indigenous people of our country who proudly go about their faith with dignity, and no harm to others, is being converted to a Mosque for the use of those not indigenous, and those not of our traditional faith.

Those who are willing to live in our country, should be willing to accept and live by our customs.

There is no doubt that this is a disgusting feat of treachery, and the blame is directly upon Labour. And of course, the Member of Pariliament, Mr. Gerald Kaufman.

He need hang his head in shame. He has allowed for the destruction of memories of those deceased, loved ones of those of the area. How is this at all right?

This is a mile stone. This is where we really see New Labour stabbing us in the back. You voted them in. You fell for their lies. It's time for change, and time to fix this mess we are in.

It's time to fight back. Indigenous persons should not have to shout to be heard. Our governing bodies should not be favouring those not indigenous. And christ, they should not be favouring a foreign-derived religion.

Where is the respect for those who have deceased? Where is the respect for our own people?

It's nowhere to be found - and if we carry on allowing these Liblabcon pushovers to run the country, then no doubt we will soon be an Islamic state. And ultimately, we will surely be run by an Islamic government.

Gordon Brown's Perverse Apology

2009-09-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

There is no need to clarify that what happened to American computer scientist Alan Turing was disgusting. Perhaps not the fact that he underwent chemical castration - but more so for the reason why he did.

Chemical castration is an effective way of killing sex drive, and in some cases it is a logical solution.

But alas, Alan Turing was given this medication because he was gay. It's awful, yes. It should never have happened.

But do consider this.

He was treated under the law. Perhaps the law was flawed - but nevertheless, what he underwent was the legal subsequent action, and perfectly just at the time. Homosexuality was illegal, and he was treated.

It's certainly very sad, and it's only right that Gordon Brown acknowledges this as such a terrible, terrible thing. But in no way should he have apologised.

After a petition that gained the interests of thousands, generated online on the Number 10 official website, Gordon Brown officially apologised for what happened to Alan Turing very recently. He apologised for the legal actions of our governing body, essentially telling the world 'well, we can look back and think that we were wrong, and I'm sorry that our people of that time acted upon the law and did what was right at the time'.

This is preposterous. One should never apologise for doing the right thing. Even though we can look back and say that it was wrong.

On a different note, if you're interested in signing a petition that's worth while have a look at the below link.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/halalslaughter

Your Opinion: Why it's not really yours, and who you can blame

2009-09-12T14:49:00.000-07:00

Free speech is no more. There's simply no denying it. The sheer fact that those who work in Quangos are not allowed to be politically active is simply preposterous. Those working for a government agency (but of whom are not necessarily in favour of the party ultimately in charge of said agency), cannot choose to support a party which would change the place that they work. Change the country. Change bloody everything.

They simply have to conform. Carry on working without a voice, in the hope that those who are able to support the party that they feel are the right choices, can gain enough awareness to bring in the party without their own help.

Since when was this a dictatorship? Since New Labour, of course.

Of course, opinion can be never forced out of you. It's there with you, whether or not you are free to voice it.

But then the question arises. Where did this opinion come from?

This is where the most influential modern power comes in. And no, it's not the government. I need not expand when I say that near enough everyone detests Labour in our current circumstances. I am of course, referring to the media.

The media, in the form of broadsheet newspapers, is something that can be argued has changed a hell of a lot. But I'd disagree. Instead, tabloids have come about, branching off from the old fashioned informative and sometimes opinionated broadsheets. If you're into tabloids, then there is no doubt that their mindless rantings have affected you over the years.

They may not be directly applying an opinion, but with stories that follow on from other stories (ie, the on going case of a 'famous' couple that recently split up.), an opinion or a belief can be formed. And this is the issue. For example, it is more than likely that you (assuming you fit the criteria I have already mentioned.) have chosen a 'side' with this recent break up of the famous couple. The writer may emphasise on good and bad points, of each of the individuals, and an inequality (or an imbalance) will inevitably lead to an opinion forming in your mind, based on these very much trivial pieces of information. Information that isn't important. This is a very basic example of how these ridiculous, gossipy and tastless prints can choose your opinion for you.

If I then focus on broadsheets.

Obviously they offer a somewhat more cultural, intellectual view on current affairs. Current affairs that actually matter - not 'which celebrity had an affair with my next door neighbour's doctor's brother.). I'm talking of Politics.

Whilst a vast majority of the time, the aim of a broadsheet is to inform, it can also do exactly that which I have described in my section about tabloids. They form your opinion.

Take, for example, the British National Party. As described in my other blog, http://www.defyingperception.blogspot.com/, the BNP can be considered a very much misrepresented party. A victim of national newspapers, each with something to say, something to add, something to persuade and poison perception. A simple visit to the BNP homepage would outline their policies, and how amazingly logic they are. In fact, let me expand.

If I told you that there was a party that wanted to preserve British culture, I'd imagine you'd agree that that was a good thing.

If I told you that there was a party that wanted to make St. George's day a national holiday, I can't imagine that you would oppose that.

If I told you that there was a party that, instead of fossil fuels, wanted to make huge efforts to switch to wind power and hydrogen - you can't possibly complain.

And then, the matter which all newspapers, broadsheet or tabloid, like to focus on. Immigration.

If I told you that there was a party who respected those of another culture, another race - and is quite happy for current immigrant-derived persons, and first generation immigrants, to stay in the country, as long as they are willing to accept our own culture (which a large proportion do anyway), but wanted to cease immigration because of the adverse effects it was having on the culture of our nation - I can see how this can cause controversy. But it cannot be defined as racist. It simply cannot.

And there's you thinking they were a racist organisation.

You need to remember. All forms of media are not only there to inform the people, but make money. And after years of lies, the media is willing to play on whatever it can get, to rake in the cash. Even if it means distancing the people from the party they need to vote for. In many ways, the media is holding back society, and is equally to blame for the awful perception of the BNP in this, the modern day, as the liblabcon.

It's not your opinion. It's media lies, it's filth, distortions and myths that have been spoon fed to you through the media since before our current millenia. Nobody understands what is true any more. And this is why the party must do all that it can do to out these media lies whilst it is in the spotlight. Whether it's bad publicity from the flawed committee that is the EHRC, or good publicity from the chairman appearing on Question Time - the time is now. The time to fix these false perceptions.

And it's time for you to get your own opinion.

Feminism and Eqaulity

2009-09-12T03:41:00.000-07:00

What you see here is the biggest flaw in modern labour. Their absurd policies behind, their lack of respect towards their own people aside - you are looking at the feminist who is happy for men in her own constituency to be discriminated against, in favour of a woman-strong government.

Feminism has always claimed to be about 'making women equal'. But alas, that is no more. Whether or not it was true in the first place, there is no more need to battle for women's equality - as it already, simply, exists.

Feminism is a much more radical movement nowadays, and our own Equalities Minister is doing a bloody good job at outing the discriminatory and unjust ideologies that these extremists believe are right.

Generalising is a terrible thing - but Harriet Harman obviously thinks otherwise. She believes that men are incapable of running Government by themselves. That's clearly a sexist statement.

She also proposes that 50% or more (remember the 'or more', that's important.) of top government positions should be held by women. Fair enough, equality would state that there be an equal amount of men and women in government positions, but this is not what she is proposing. She is proposing that either an equal amount, or larger proportion, of women should have power. Note that it obviously doesn't work the other way around. This is all the evidence we need to conclude that our own Equalities Minister is sexist. But then again, what did we expect from New Labour?

Feminists believe they are above the law. Abigail Adams, feminist extraordinaire, herself said

"If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

And that is still relevant today. Feminists believe that if the law is not, in the slightest, in favour of them, they have to go against these laws and fight for what is right. No! They have the right to fight for what is right, by perhaps becoming an activist for a party that could change such discriminatory laws, but not in fact defy the law.

A law which is has of course implemented means that order gender equality, and continue to promote such. Women are no longer stuck at home. Women can now vote.

It seems to me that the time for feminism is long gone - and achieving those last minute victories (which may include income differences between men and women - which has recently been pointed out to me), should not rely on feminism. It should be left to a logical government. A government which should be in power, but clearly isn't.

The way forward isn't extremism. Radical Feminism. No. It's having faith in Government, or taking action to help other parties which could help you if they gain power - rather than acting amongst many, many angry women who do no more than infuriate and cause controversy.