Share |

Wednesday 24 June 2009

Iranian Émigrés Demonstrate in Leeds

A crowd of Iranian émigrés some 100-150 strong gathered in front of Leeds City Art Gallery today to protest against President Ahmedinejad. Forming a vociferous circle, they chanted angry slogans in Farsi, with a large Iranian tricolour flag (lacking the central device of the Islamic Republic) draped against a neighbouring wall as a partial backdrop; a striking banner bearing an image of Ahmedinejad rather ‘dashingly’ attired in the uniform of a Waffen SS Officer arrested the eye. Quite what they were chanting I cannot say, for I do not speak Farsi; but it evidently was not complimentary to the recently re-elected Iranian President.

It was refreshing to see that the women amongst the group were not hiding their feminine charms beneath folds of impenetrable cloth, but were bareheaded and stood as equals amongst their male compatriots. The apparent secular orientation of these people suggests that they would welcome a somewhat more radical change of regime in Iran than that which would be brought about if Moussavi were to come to power. Many amongst them must have spent long years in enforced exile, longing for the day when they can return to their homeland which for so many years has been subjected to the vicious rule of an Islamofascist regime. Their hopes may be running higher than for many a year, but will they be realised? It is too early to say.

Monday 22 June 2009

Brutal Race Hate Crimes in Bradford

This month, Bradford has borne witness to two extremely ugly anti-white racist attacks, yet unlike the incidents in Belfast involving gypsies, they have received scant media attention. The most recent incident, which occurred on 17 June, involved an attack upon an 89-year-old pensioner in Lister Park Bradford by a group of four youths aged between 15 and 18. The victim is now suffering from several broken bones and had her handbag (which contained £30) stolen. Whereas the BBC’s Look North regional news programme made no mention of the ethnicity of the attackers, a teletext report claims that they were either “eastern European or Asian”. Anyone who knows Lister Park and Manningham will be aware that this most certainly is not an area frequented by migrants from Eastern Europe, but that it comprises part of Bradford’s Pakistani colony.

On 9 June an elderly couple in their mid sixties (once again, white English) were subjected to an horrific attack by four Asian males (code for Pakistanis again?) after they had accidentally clipped the wing mirror of their attackers’ car. They punched 66-year-old Mrs Bell in the face and left her lying on the ground in a pool of blood. According to the Daily Mail, Sean Duggan from West Yorkshire Police claimed that “nothing was said by them to suggest that the attack was racially motivated.” If Mr and Mrs Bell had been an elderly Pakistani couple beaten up by a gang of four young white men in the same circumstances, can you imagine a police spokesman saying that it wasn’t “racially motivated”?

Where is the media outrage about these attacks? Why the national political silence? Where are the so-called voices of “the community” expressing their revulsion at these crimes and calling upon their fellow Pakistanis in Bradford to seek out these violent scum and bring them to justice? Whereas we indigenous Britons and Irish are expected to feel and express intense collective guilt and remorse with respect to the anti-Roma actions of a few teenagers in South Belfast, nothing is expected of the Pakistani colonisers when it comes to condemning two brutal racist attacks against our elderly citizens.

So far, three suspects have been apprehended with respect to the Lister Park attack. These three, together with their accomplice and those who attacked the Bells, should be provided with harsh exemplary sentences and deported from the UK to their land(s) of familial ethnic origin as soon as they have served their time, with no right of readmission to the UK. Those Muslims of non-indigenous stock who likewise commit minor crimes should also be deported in such a fashion, with the same stipulation of non-return to the UK. Our people should no longer be left to feel defenceless in the face of such vicious unprovoked aggression by young colonisers.


Friday 19 June 2009

Hazel Blears: "Little Ray of Sunshine"?

Hazel "flipper" Blears has survived an attempt by members of her local Labour Party to deselect her as parliamentary candidate for Salford. It will be interesting to see in what fashion the constituents decide to annihilate her at the next General Election. Blears has been one of the most smug, irritating and unprincipled careerists in a Government which has been filled with smug, irritating and unprincipled careerists. If she truly is Labour's "little ray of sunshine", she's the UV ray that that causes the mutation that gives rise to malignant melanoma.

A Sunday Express poll last month named the BNP as the party that would win the seat with 38.4% of the vote if an election were to be held. This may well be overstating the case I suspect, but it will be very interesting indeed to see how many votes the BNP parliamentary candidate reaps in the constituency when the election eventually does come. If Blears does let the BNP in, she will for once have done our "communities" a great favour by letting someone into office who will be willing to address the problems that she and her kind have for so long pretended do not exist.


Thursday 18 June 2009

Jan Sobieski’s Memory Betrayed?

Over at the Islam in Europe blog it has been revealed that Poland is preparing to make a range of legal concessions to Muslims. It states:

Polish Muslims will be granted the right to take days off on Muslim holidays, Muslim marriages contracted in a mosque will have equal status to civil marriages and Muslim clergymen will be able to issue "halal" certificates, confirming that a product is permissible according to Islamic custom.” [1]

Jan Sobieski and his winged hussars may have played a vital role in turning the tide of Muslim Ottoman expansionism at the Second Siege of Vienna in 1683, but it seems that his descendents feel sufficiently complacent vis-à-vis the Islamisation of Europe to make Muslims feel completely at home in Poland. One would have thought that the experience of other countries within the EU such as the UK, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, would have shown Poland that making Islamic colonisers welcome is not a good idea. What would Jan Sobieski and his men have thought of this? Pity the Poles for the grave mistake that their politicians are about to make.


Belfast: Roma not Romanians

Well, the truth is out. It transpires that the “Romanians” reported as having been attacked in Belfast in recent days are something very different: Roma, or gypsies as we have traditionally known them. The omission of their ethnic identity from initial reports is significant, for the presence of a large group of Roma would (owing to their negative cultural traditions, if they may be euphemistically termed as such) excite rather more discontent than a similarly-sized group of Romanians. Whereas the latter would in all likelihood fall into the category of employment-seeking migrants, the former most probably would not, if we exclude the traditional ‘occupations’ in which Roma specialise. Most Romanians themselves would not feel very happy about being confused with Roma.

The anger amongst local Belfast people may therefore have very tangible and justifiable roots if a number of these Roma have been engaging in their traditional ‘occupations’. This does not of course justify the use of violence against the Roma incomers, but it does go a long way to explaining why it has arisen. As James Delingpole in the Telegraph notes, this is typical of the misleading politically correct reporting that has long brought the BBC into disrepute. The ethnic rather than the civic (I use this term in the most formal of senses with respect to the Roma of course, for it is difficult to think of an ethnic group less respectful of the wider societies in which they reside) identity of these people is likely to be central to the significance of this story, and should therefore have been highlighted from the outset.

For further details see:

Sunday 14 June 2009

We're all Native Americans now, apparently

Dr Alice Roberts is a very comely young woman, it must be said; but having watched her present the final episode of The Incredible Human Journey on BBC2 this evening, I do wonder what peculiar thoughts must be passing through her pretty little head. Why? Well, throughout the programme she kept referring to "our ancestors" when speaking about the initial peopling of the Americas many millennia ago. Now, if you have managed to escape going to school in the past twenty years or so and thus avoided the politically correct nonsense that must pass for history these days, you will realise that we in the UK (with the exception of a tiny number of individuals who hail from native American stock and settled here in very recent history) have no kin relations with the aboriginal populations of the Americas whatsoever. We are not their descendants, and they are not ours.

So, why employ the phrase "our ancestors"? Surely it would have been factually accurate and more appropriate to refer to them as "the ancestors of the native American peoples"? Well, her preference for this peculiar linguistic usage was revealed during the closing section of the programme when she stated that "we are all Africans under the skin" thus repeating and reinforcing the only publicly permissible line with respect to race in the UK these days: that race is superficial and only skin deep. She also implied that our future was to be one in which we recognised this unity, and embraced it on the physical level. I would mourn such a passing of our species diversity, for a future without the European variant of female beauty as exemplified by the person of Dr Roberts herself, would be an impoverished one. Likewise, I daresay that most East Asians and Africans would feel a similar sense of loss if their physiological types were to be doomed to extinction.

The diversity of genetic lines and morphological variations within the human species which manifest themselves clearly in the major racial divisions is something worthy of preservation and of true celebration. Humans have adapted themselves to a wide range of environments and developed regional concepts of beauty determined by sexual selection for secondary physiological characteristics. If we were to imagine the arrival of a biologist from another planet, he, she (or it) would have no problem in discerning the clear racial divisions that exist within the human family, just as we recognise different breeds of sheep, cows and dogs. Race is not a social construct: it is a genetic and biological reality.

Recognition of the reality of human diversity and difference does not entail hatred of "the other", although alas, the doctrinaire leftist assertion that it does is the one that is publicly accepted and propagated, as is a denial of the value of the rich fund of genetic variations contained within the human species. In my opinion however, it would be a tragedy if humans were to be reduced to a single miscegenated mass. Whether the dogma of the desirability of mass miscegenation can be dislodged from its current position of supremacy is debatable, given the shrill tone of those who would use violence to ensure that it takes place. It is to this project of racial dissolution and intermixing that the BBC subscribes, and pushes in all of its programming with the backing of the Government. Thus do we stumble towards a genetically impoverished future in which the Caucasian variant of human beauty sadly faces state-sanctioned and aided extinction.

The Times Reflects on Luton

The journalist David James Smith opens his article in today's Times by recounting a revolting incident in which a dunderheaded local white youth "fly-kicked" Lakhbir Singh in the back, having mistaken him for a Muslim. Thankfully, it seems that no lasting physical harm has been done to the Sikh Mayor of Luton. Smith then goes on to imply that the recent anti-Islamist demonstration in the town (initially planned by March for England which withdrew its support when it realised that it was likely to be hijacked by thuggish elements) that degenerated into a threatening mob incited by menacing masked football hooligans, was in some way associated with the BNP. It is of course the recent success of this party that has prompted Smith to write his piece.

Given that the BNP has repeatedly declared that it will use the ballot box alone and emphatically dissociates itself from violence of all sorts, Smith's attempt to attribute this disorder to the BNP is baseless. It would be more appropriate to lay the blame at the feet of the Government which continues to advocate limitless mass immigration, panders to Islam and enforces multiculturalism with ever-increasing fervour. Smith's piece indicates that he possesses not the slightest insight into the real, deep and justifiable sense of grievance felt by sections of the indigenous British population. The tired cliches of multicultural narrative are deployed in the requisite places: an enumeration of the successive waves of migrants who have settled in Luton; an attempt to portray Sayful Islam and his confederates as isolated extremists within a "moderate" Islamic community; the insinuation that the Lionheart blogger Paul Ray is guilty of "inciting racial hatred" and so on.

Smith's article attempts to retrieve and resurrect his tattered multicultural ideal through an embrace of the Islamist coloniser: "But it is the Asians, particularly the Muslims, who have made Bury Park their own, and turned it into a vibrant, dynamic outpost of south Asia. In a town of 184,000 people, around 35,000 are of south-Asian origin, and just under 30,000 are Muslim." As you can see from this quote, Smith has unwittingly acknowledged the de facto colonisation of this part of the town (i.e. "turned it into a vibrant, dynamic outpost of south Asia") but cannot bring himself to name this process. He also feels compelled to use that dreadful term beloved of the exponents of multiculturalism: "vibrant". Just what does "vibrant" mean, and why is this term never applied to our own people and culture?

Smith goes on to interview hatemonger Sayful Islam, the man behind the protest against the 10 March homecoming parade of the Anglian Regiment. Unsurprisingly, Smith's national self-loathing leads him to frame Sayful in a rosy aura: "Sayful Islam sounded measured and far from fanatical throughout our conversations." If Smith thinks that this sort of reporting and the sympathies that it betrays will help to combat the rise of the BNP, he is utterly delusional. This is evidently a piece written by a materially comfortable cossetted ageing trustafarian, who possesses the financial wherewithal necessary to insulate himself from the pathological aspects of enforced multiculturalism. Any chance that he lives next to Bury Park? Pah!

Reference: David James Smith,"Fear and hatred on the streets of Luton",

Saturday 13 June 2009

The Ostrich and the Nationalist

Almost a week has passed since the BNP made a significant political breakthrough, and today, the Times and the Daily Mail have published some interesting pieces which go beyond the anti-BNP smear routine and search instead for some explanations. Some commentators it would seem, are beginning to acknowledge an unpleasant reality that only nationalist politics can change for the better.

Michael Collins and Max Hastings both recognise the core reasons underpinning the rise of the BNP:
  • Mass immigration on a scale and at a pace hitherto unknown
  • Enforced multiculturalism
  • A lack of a political voice in the mainstream political parties for the white working class, which has gone from being portrayed as "the salt of the Earth" to "the scum of the Earth"
  • The ability of much of the middle class to shield itself from the negative aspects of immigration which have been painfully experienced by the indigenous working class

Collins and Hastings look at this question from what I would term respectively traditional Labour and Conservative perspectives, but it is Michael Collins who truly understands and empathises with the ignored and demonised element of the indigenous population; for he, like myself, hails from such a background, and thus understands its culture and ways of thinking. Collins has perceptively written: "With multiculturalism came heavy-handed anti-discrimination laws and the McCarthyism of a race industry that appears to attach no value to a racist crime when the victim is white." Unlike Hastings, he is willing to acknowledge and name an ugly phenomenon in which many otherwise respectable and humane individuals feel free to invest their emotions and pent-up frustrations.

Collins is right to single out the necrotising influence of "race industry" McCarthyism on the national body politic, for it is something that increasingly permeates our working lives and acts as a poisonous influence in politics and the mainstream media, leading to the deliberate neglect of pressing and deeply difficult problems because people fear the stigma of being branded a 'racist'.

A nationalist of the level-headed sort, in other words, someone who attaches positive worth to membership of their own national community and wishes to advance the common weal of his or her compatriots whilst maintaining friendly relations with other nations, sees what is happening in the UK today and does not shy away from identifying and naming the unwelcome phenomena generated by mass immigration. On the other hand, we have people of an ostrich-like disposition, who when confronted with the facts choose to close their eyes, cover their ears and bury their heads in the sand. Alas, there is only so long that any creature can survive without drawing breath and leaving itself vulnerable to predators, so the poor ostrich will one day have to extract its head from the ground or die from oxygen starvation or predation.

Elements within the middle class are particularly prone to fall victim to the appeal of race-industry McCarthyism, and I was horrified this week to hear an otherwise friendly and seemingly rational colleague launch into a vitriolic attack on the "working-class scum" who had contributed to the election of a BNP MEP. Tellingly, he will never attack anyone else upon the basis of race or religion. We live in a society which sanctions and encourages self-hate. In officially endorsed demonology, only members of the white working class may be stripped of their humanity and declared personae non gratae in their homeland.

Michael Collins acknowledges the resonance of Enoch Powell's message amongst the older members of the working class, and although I was but a babe in arms when Powell made his most famous speech, I grew up in a Labour-voting family which always concurred that "Enoch was right". Such sentiments were of course declared beyond the pale at university, and it was there that I first encountered the middle-class guilt and national self-loathing that I found completely alien, and to which I have never been able to reconcile myself. As was the case for dissidents in the former Soviet Union, I have of necessity had to hide what I think to avoid losing my job and, in many instances, friends who have drunk deep of the well of national self-loathing. Such is the nature of the "world turned upside down" which has been created by the political elite over this past 40 years or so.

Will the age of the ostrich pass? I hope so, but I have my doubts; for nurturing the ostriches are the predators: the pullulating masses of the burgeoning Islamic colonies and the powerful globalist interest in the mainstream media. The Labour Party seems content to import voters from overseas to replace the indigenous working class from which it is increasingly alienated and, as Collins notes, "[i]t will take more than new homes and jobs to bring them back." Hopefully, Labour will have lost them for good, for it is unworthy of their support. Given that the Labour Party appears so intent upon governing a nation of Pakistanis, Somalis, etc, why don't its MPs and ministers seek office overseas, and leave us to mend our broken and ailing society?

Links: "The BNP rise is about identity", Michael Collins:

"BNP in power - immigration and this insidious conspiracy of silence", Max Hastings:

For a sympathetic treatment of the white working class detailing its marginalisation and demonisation read "The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class", Michael Collins, Granta Books, London, 2005.

Monday 8 June 2009

Where now for Nationalist Politics?

In sending two MEPs to Brussels, the BNP has made a significant political breakthrough in the teeth of a ferocious campaign co-ordinated by its political opponents and their allies in the trade union movement and the mass media. On last night's election special, the BBC commentators David Dimbleby and Nick Robinson were visibly discomfited by the victory, an upwelling of visceral loathing detectable in their voices. This morning, John Humphreys launched into a predictable attack on Nick Griffin, focusing on 'racism' and holocaust denial that was in equal parts disdainful, dismissive and uncomprehending.

The intensity of the hate emanating from these pampered media pundits is quite alarming, as was the attitude of the baying mob of anti-BNP protesters surrounding Manchester Town Hall last night. The BNP is routinely stigmatised as being a party of "thugs", "boot boys" and "ill-educated, irrational knuckle-draggers". Well, it does strike me as a touch ironic that those levelling such epithets appear all too ready to don the apparel of thuggishness whenever their anti-fascist amour propre is 'affronted' by the presence of a BNP member or two. These soi-disant 'anti-fascists' need reminding that in a democracy it is the voter who decides who will or will not take office; it is not for a manipulated mob intoxicated with a misplaced sense of moral outrage to dictate to us who shall be our representatives.

Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons face a daunting task, for it is their lot to explode the negative myths that have stymied the chances of the BNP in particular, and nationalist politics in general in this country. They must be ever vigilant, for not only will they continue to be subject to constant sniping and smears from the powerful in the media and politics, but also from rogue violent leftists, who could endanger their physical safety.

Now that a foothold has been established in the EU Parliament, can this position be used by the BNP to speak directly to the British electorate? Will the controllers of the mainstream media permit this to happen? Probably not, for they know that if this were to be allowed, its message would resonate strongly with our people. The BNP may have scored a modest 6.2% of the total vote in Britain, but the combined nationalist vote (taken here as being represented by the Eurosceptic parties but excluding the Tories) comes to 25%, or 3,795,632 votes. This vote (excluding the BNP) breaks down as follows:
  • UKIP - 16.5%
  • English Democrats - 1.8%
  • United Kingdom First - 0.5%
I have excluded No2EU voters from this total (another 1%), for it is unlikely that they would vote for a self-declared nationalist party owing to the anti-nationalist pathology of many on what is termed "the Left".

If only this vote could be marshalled by a single party it could become a serious contender for national government, for it is not far short of the victorious Conservative share of the EU vote at 27.7%. Many who voted Tory would also be attracted to a viable nationalist party. I am not of the opinion that David Cameron's politically correct stance possesses much deep-rooted appeal for traditional Tories. For all of his talk of multiculturalism being "divisive" and something that should be swept away, Michael Gove is preparing the Party for a huge expansion in state-funded Muslim faith schools after the next General Election. Dave's posturing against multiculturalism and political correctness is nothing more than chaff thrown up to distract the misty eyes of his traditional elderly followers in the shires.

There is thus much to play for in the years ahead in the sphere of nationalist politics in the UK. The situation is complicated of course by the increasingly divergent political scenes in Scotland and Wales and the separate situation in Northern Ireland. Any successful nationalist party will therefore be based upon its appeal to English nationalism, and the three contenders for the nationalist cause are: the BNP, UKIP and the English Democrats. The first two are well-known, whereas the last is not.

The mass media are willing to give UKIP airtime and relatively positive publicity, for they know that it is in part competing directly with the BNP for the popular vote. The English Democrats are a very small party indeed, possessing a little over a thousand members as well as the newly-elected Mayor of Doncaster. Their share of the EU vote in 2004 was 0.7%, but this time around they more than doubled this to 1.8%. In some regions, their appeal to the nationalist vote may have prevented the BNP from gaining a seat: in the West Midlands for example, the BNP polled 8.6% and the English Democrats 2.3%; the combined total of 10.9% would have taken the BNP very close to the 12% which secured the Liberal Democrats a seat, so in this instance, the English Democrats may have cost the BNP an MEP. In the North West Euro constituency they also secured 2.4% of the vote, and with a slightly larger share could have denied Nick Griffin his win.

Although the policies of the English Democrats will not appeal to the mainstream media, the fact that they can serve as a potential spoiler for BNP candidates will ensure that the latter's opponents will do all they can to provide publicity for this new nationalist micro-party. Similarly, the fact that the BNP has made a modest electoral breakthrough will ensure that the media also devotes more airtime and column inches to UKIP between elections than it has hitherto.

We need an effective and viable nationalist party now! Unlimited mass immigration continues; the Lisbon Treaty threatens our sovereignty, and our mainstream politicians court the Islamist vote and continue to enforce and entrench multiculturalism. All of these factors must be stopped and reversed. Which party rises to the challenge and manages to break the hegemony of the British political establishment remains to be seen. The prospects do not appear rosy, but they are far better today than they were this time yesterday.

Sunday 7 June 2009

James Purnell: Another Dhimmi Traitor

Hats off to James Purnell for fully displaying his obsequious deference to Islam on his constituency blog, and thereby confirming how utterly unfit he is for public office. He has done so by calling for the honouring of the memory of Robert 'Reschid' Stanley, a Muslim convert and twice Mayor of Stalybridge in the 1870s. Apparently, Purnell posted the article following a campaign within his constituency to give "full recognition" to this nineteenth-century fool who "may have been the country's first Muslim mayor." Now, I wonder who would have been behind such a campaign?

As well as being a brazen attempt to bolster his Muslim bloc vote, this selection of a minor facet of local history for public commemoration is symbolic of a dangerous shift in political power within certain areas of the UK brought about by the demographic displacement of the indigenous population. We live in a country where the mainstream media constantly reiterate the message that "we are a multicultural, multifaith and multiracial society" and, increasingly, that "we always have been". This is an out-and-out piece of pernicious tendentious distortion, but many people, particularly in the younger generation, are increasingly accepting it as truth. So, we can but hope that thanks to this piece of dhimmi posturing Purnell's constituents will be able to see him for the traitor he is: a man willing to sell out the interests of the indigenous population to hostile colonisers for the sake of his own political interests.

Electors of Stalybridge and Hyde remember: it is in your power to eject this English-hating traitor at the next General Election, and to ensure that views such as his do not destroy the future well-being and security of your children and grandchildren. Teach this man a lesson in humility, and ensure that office remains forever beyond his grasp.

To view Purnell's nauseating encomium in honour of the shameful former Mayor of Stalybridge, please visit

Saturday 6 June 2009

Surprise Nationalist Win in Doncaster

There has been a surprise win for the English Democrats in Doncaster, with Peter Davies (father of the Shipley Conservative MP Philip Davies) being elected Mayor and beating Labour into third place. This is not a fact that has pleased Don Valley MP Caroline Flint, but Mr Davies's victory demonstrates that Labour is not safe from electoral challenge in what are considered to be its most robust bailiwicks.

Doncaster has been mired in a succession of financial scandals for years, and Mr Davies's appeal to traditional Labour voters has evidently been rooted in his strongly populist programme for the town which includes: slashing his own mayoral salary from £62,000 to £30,000; reducing the number of Doncaster councillors from 63 to 21; getting rid of translation services for immigrants and axing (according to a quote in the Yorkshire Post) "politically correct non-jobs and encouraging the former employees to seek meaningful employment." This potent cocktail evidently possessed widespread popular appeal.

This is the first significant electoral success for the English Democrats and, as can be seen from the nature and focus of the Davies agenda, much of the Party's policy overlaps heavily with that of the BNP. Unlike the BNP however, the English Democrats are not subject to the unremitting media attacks co-ordinated by Searchlight, the mainstream political parties and their media allies. However, their performance in local council elections has attracted scant success compared to the BNP.

Davies came second in the first round to an independent candidate, with 16,961 votes to 17,150. However, the result was determined by second preferences. Given that the BNP candidate had polled a healthy 8,175 votes, I am certain that these proved pivotal in securing victory for the English Democrats. The final result came in at 25,344 to 24,990.

Although this election is encouraging insofar as it demonstrates that nationalist politics can have a powerful appeal to the electorate in England, my concern is that this result could raise the profile of the English Democrats and thereby fatally divide and cripple the emergence of a viable nationalist party in England. Only if the BNP achieves a breakthrough and obtains at least one MEP this year will there be a chance for it to overcome the media blackout and get its message out to the wider public. It is certain to resonate strongly if the barrage of anti-BNP propaganda can be neutralised and Nick Griffin or other leading BNP figures can secure airtime on Question Time. However, I anticipate that the BBC will continue to operate a no-platform policy for the BNP on this programme and its radio equivalent Any Questions.

The nationalist challenge to the established parties can only be effective if there is a single electable nationalist party, but the BNP faces serious obstacles if it is to become this party. The media-inflated UKIP is used to siphon off many disgruntled nationalist voters and effectively channel them into a cul-de-sac, for UKIP is ultimately a globalist free-trade party. The English Democrats are closer to the BNP in terms of their policies, but accentuate civic rather than ethnic nationalism and, as their name suggests, seek only to operate in England. Time will tell which of these contenders evolves into the credible nationalist party that we so desperately need. In the meantime, I wish good luck to Peter Davies in his new mayoral role.

For further details see: and

Apocalypse Now for Labour?

Now that most of the county council election results are in, there can be no doubt that the electorate in England has passed a damning judgement upon the Labour Party. Not only has it lost the four councils that it had previously controlled, but also the number of councillors it possesses in each county has collapsed in a quite breathtaking fashion. Although this electoral annihilation has been most pronounced in the South, the Midlands and the North can hardly be said to offer Labour much by way of hope.

In numerical terms the Tories are the clear victors, with the shires painted an almost uniform deep blue and the Liberal Democrats losing control of Devon and Somerset in their Wessex heartland. However, projections suggest that the total share of the national vote for the Conservatives will be only 38%; rather low for the main opposition party given the Government's parlous position. Still, the first-past-the-post electoral system means that this bodes well for Conservative prospects at the next General Election.

We have yet to view the results of the EU ballot, but on Sunday evening I expect to see a result that is even worse for Labour than that received in the county elections. Labour could quite readily slump to third or fourth position in terms of its share of the vote. Although we may still be trapped in the era of two-party politics with respect to Westminster, proportional representation for the EU elections shows that the electorate prefers to vote for other parties closer to their views and values when there is the prospect of their votes being translated into elected representatives.

There has of late been talk of parliamentary reform, including proportional representation. If such a system were to be introduced for either the Commons or the Lords, we could see the Labour Party sink into insignificance as many of its supporters permanently desert it for the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the BNP. UKIP is essentially a protest party that possesses no currency outside of the EU electoral machine, so I do not anticipate that it will become a long-term player in British politics. Moreover, UKIP, owing to its free-market focus, is more likely to attract disgruntled Tories than Labour voters.

Labour's lack of a distinctive ideological vision, other than the desire to cleave to power and to undermine our national sovereignty and solidarity, begs the question: just what is the point of the Labour Party? It is authoritarian, anti-libertarian, anti-national, anti-white and anti-male. It seeks to meddle in the affairs of other countries militarily and diplomatically where we possess no vital national interest, and its upper hierarchy is deeply enmeshed in the murky world of international finance. In this, I see nothing positive. This muddled and ugly concoction may appeal to certain ethnic bloc votes, but it has nothing positive to offer the British elector.

Purnell's move against Brown appears to have been precipitate given that Johnson and Mandelson have thrown their support behind the Prime Minister. Which Labour MP would honestly wish to hold a General Election before the last possible date, given the likelihood that they themselves would lose their parliamentary seats? It is my guess therefore, that Brown will seek to hang on for as long as possible, and that on the 6th of May 2010 the electorate shall bid a permanent farewell to the Labour Party as a party of national government.