Share |

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Why you ‘should’ vote for Nick Clegg

‘Cleggstasy’ is a freshly-minted neologism, and as the word suggests, indicates a collective public mood that is euphoric, frenzied and hallucinatory, for how otherwise would a party with policies which directly contradict the will of the majority of the people in the UK be riding so high in the polls? Let me elucidate. Apparently, Clegg is popular because he looks better on TV than Gordon Brown. Well, who wouldn’t? He is popular because he speaks with conviction, unlike marketing man and plastic Tory David Cameron. Once again, who wouldn’t (well OK, Gordon Brown perhaps)? He is popular because of that borrowed meaningless phrase ‘it’s time for change’ and the Liberal Democrats are ‘outsiders’. No they’re not, they’re in Westminster and are part of the tripartite party consensus on the EU, immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness, globalism and Islamisation. He has an attractive wife. True, but what’s that got to do with anything?

The majority of the electorate wishes for immigration to be drastically reduced if not choked off altogether, whereas the Liberal Democrats see nothing wrong with the population skyrocketing beyond 70 million and care not from where the immigrants come. The majority of the electorate wished for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, whereas the Liberal Democrats wish to see the UK completely submerged within the nascent EU superstate and for the pound to be replaced by the Euro.

So, if you’d like to see Islam in Ilfracombe, minarets in Minehead, Afghans in Ayreshire, yashmaks in Yeovil, Pakistanis in Penrith and Somalis in Stroud, vote Liberal Democrat. If you’d like to lose your sovereignty to an EU that the Liberal Democrats and Labour wish to see include Turkey and then the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, then vote for the party of Clegg and wait for your country to fall to Islam. If you think that your quiet shire town needs ‘enriching’ with an admixture of Nigerian knife-crime, yardie turf wars or Muslim misogyny, then vote Liberal Democrat. If you are indigenous British, hate yourself, your family, your culture, your nation, your ethnic group, your race and your civilisation, then vote Liberal Democrat. To paraphrase David Steel in a bygone age, Clegg’s message to Liberal Democrats might be: ‘Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for shariah!’

If you want to stop the above nightmare from unfolding, then do not vote Labour or Conservative, for they will both tread the same path as the Liberal Democrats although not quite as quickly (yet admittedly, Labour are trying their damnedest). The only way that you can stop this nullification of nationhood, this removal of our rights and our culture is to vote BNP. Granted, if there’s no BNP candidate in your area then vote UKIP, or failing that, English Democrat; but on no account vote for the three main parties or the suicidal policies of the Greens, for the latter are akin to those of the Liberal Democrats but on steroids, except with respect to freedom of speech (they would outlaw criticism of Islam) which they wish to see removed. Vote for the Green Party if you’d like to embark on a bad acid trip from which you’ll never come down.


  1. EU stooge parties the lot of em. Fabians, Frankfurt School, Common Purpose, the list of subversives is nearly as long as the acts of treason committed.

    We need rid of the status quo, not the preservation of it!

  2. True Jack. All too true. And you know what, as if all of this was not galling enough, I have to work amongst a mixture of traitors and fifth columnists every day of my professional life. I know that two of them, at least, are Common Purpose 'graduates'. It does not do my blood pressure any good. I spend each working day mutely seething.

  3. Lee John Barnes advocates voting Lib Dem if the BNP is not on the ballot and he has a point: he thinks things are still not bad enough at present for people to wake up, so they must be made to experience even worse things under the Lib Dem to make them see the light.

  4. Barnes makes some interesting points, but I'm not so sure that the Lib Dem reform of the electoral system would automatically translate into a potential 60 seats for the BNP. I suspect that if they do come to an understanding with either Labour or the Conservatives, all will seek in some way to ensure that the new system is engineered in such a way as to keep the BNP out.

    On the other hand, Barnes is correct in noting that Lib Dem policies would be guaranteed to push more people towards the BNP, as swathes of Britain that have not suffered from the worst effects of mass immigration, particularly from the Islamic world, would be exposed to them. Still, it turns my stomach to countenance such a situation. Then again, as things stand, this eventuality will come to pass as current trends gradually transform the whole of the UK. Perhaps therefore, it is best to steel oneself for the inevitable trial to come, and vote Lib Dem if there is no BNP (or UKIP or English Democrat) candidate standing.

  5. It is inevitable that the government for the next five years will come from any or some of the Lib-Lab-Con axis, so things WILL get worse, your stomach WILL turn, and the screws on the BNP WILL be tightened post election regardless of who comes into power. Under the circumstance, the best the BNP can hope for is winning a clutch of seats and a Lib-Con coalition forming the next government. Taking Barnes' logic a step further, such a coalition will make BOTH the Lib Dem and the Con reveal themselves to be Nu Labour clones at the same time.

    The BNP developed ways to bypass the traditional media. Post election, they need to build on that experience to develop a state within a state ala Hizbullah within Lebanon so as to bypass the traditional power structure. They are mugs to be playing by rules that are stacked against them.

  6. It is true that the real game changer will be the next (although we may have another within the next year or two should there be a hung parliament) General Election in 2014 or 2015 once the electors realise that the Lib Dems are not a 'breath of fresh air' but pretty much identical to Labour and Conservative. The question is, will nationalists by then have taken the necessary step of uniting into a single cohesive party? Furthermore, will the governing parties and the EU allow this to happen?

    In many constituencies across the UK, electors with nationalist sympathies are able to choose between candidates from the BNP, UKIP and the English Democrats. For me, the BNP have the best vision and the most thought-through programme, but the resources brought to bear by their opponents in an attempt to stigmatise and crush them are immense. The rationale used by the three largest Westminster parties, the trade union movement and wider anti-nationalist movement (which encompasses campaigns and organisations such as UAF, Searchlight, Hope Not Hate and Antifa), is that the 'BNP is a Nazi party'. The shadow of the Nazi fetishism displayed by some of the party's early members continues to hang over it, despite the fact that it has now opened up its membership to non-white members. Still, its opponents don't let the facts get in the way and continue to beat them with the Nazi stick. People in the UK are therefore immersed (and have been for a long time) in anti-BNP propaganda that causes them to reflexively identify the party with Hitler. Obviously, this is not a good thing.

    UKIP is basically a party of disgruntled Tory Eurosceptics, a fact attested by Lord Pearson's offer to disband UKIP last autumn should David Cameron guarantee a referendum on continued membership of the EU. Although the mainstream media habitually portray UKIP as 'the BNP in blazers', UKIP are not a real party; it is a protest vehicle lacking in any ideological depth or positive vision for the future. Although Lord Pearson has made positive noises about the need to tackle Islamisation, his offer to David Cameron (who actively courts the Muslim vote and has imposed Muslim candidates on Tory constituency parties) shows that Pearson and his party cannot be relied upon. UKIP voters, supporters and some members on the other hand, should be targeted by the BNP for incorporation into an enlarged party.

    The BNP is missing out on recruiting a great deal of talent because so many people are in effect debarred from joining. This situation, as I'm sure you're aware, arises from the strong social, economic and legal deterrents against doing so. Expressing sympathy for the BNP will lead to social rejection and stigmatisation (close friends will even express revulsion), it will ruin your chances of promotion at work and possibly lead to dismissal (particularly in the public sector) and makes you vulnerable to having race-hate charges brought against you by malicious ethnic minority colleagues with an axe to grind. The latter use such legislation to undermine more capable indigenous colleagues and to hide their own incompetence.

    It could be the case that it will become illegal to hold nationalist views. In effect, this is already the situation in the public sector where we are continuously subjected to the all-pervasive ideology of 'diversity' which has become embedded in personnel policies and training. It is impossible to retain your job unless you pay lip-service to the diversity dogma. Many of my colleagues have internalised this nonsense completely, and have lost the ability to make objective judgements. Any questioning of mass immigration, any facet of multiculturalism or Islam will elicit a reflexive frenzy of hate.

  7. The BNP are increasingly mentioned in the workplace. Certain colleagues invoke their name as part of a ritual cursing routine in which those addressed are expected to join. If you do not, you are looked upon with suspicion. Most of my colleagues participate in this 'five-minute hate', but I remain silent. A number of them already view me with distinct suspicion as a consequence, especially the ones who expatiate upon how marvellous Cuba was when they last visited.

    Why do I mention my situation in the workplace? I mention it simply as an illustration of how difficult it is for nationalists of any complexion to hold down a job in many of Britain's workplaces, but particularly in the public sector. We are vulnerable to being purged from our positions and rendered destitute. Once in such a situation, how do we find work and how can we contribute towards realising a positive nationalist political vision when we struggle to keep a roof over our heads?

    Your suggestion regarding building parallel power structures is one to which I have given some thought, but not much. Nonetheless, you are right in seeing this as a necessity. If the state rejects its own people, then the people must build their own state within a state. Such an effort though would be fraught with difficulties and vulnerable to state-sponsored sabotage, but for the time being, the focus needs to be upon securing the best possible nationalist result in this election and prepare for the next. Some way needs to be found of drawing away support from UKIP and directing it towards the BNP. My instinct would be for the BNP to focus upon showing up UKIP for what they are: disgruntled Tory Eurosceptics who favour the most wealthy elements in society rather than the nation as a whole.

  8. Your colleagues remind me of inquisitorial Maoist Red Guards waving Mao's Little Red Books in the air and accusing innocent men and women of the thought crime of counter-revolution during China's Cultural Revolution. I suppose the BNP is counter-revolution, in that it seeks to reverse the Gramscian revolution taking place in British institutions.

  9. An all too apt an analogy I'm afraid, although generally it is manifested in a slightly more subtle routinised fashion. There is a tacit understanding that certain favoured words and phrases from the Newspeak lexicon should be employed which I steadfastly refuse to use. Here are a few of these terms alongside their Oldspeak equivalents in brackets: 'diversity' (Balkanisation); 'communities' (settler colonies); 'positive discrimination' (anti-indigenous discrimination); 'BME' (immigrant population); 'far-right' (nationalist); 'Interfaith Centre' (dhimmi-funded Islamic proselytisation centre); ‘right thinking’ (dogmatically politically correct).

    The New Left’s Gramscian revolution is all but complete in the UK’s public sector, and is based upon the deliberate propagation of collective ethnic, racial, cultural and civilisational guilt. This is now embedded in the educational curriculum from pre-school through to postgraduate study and is woven into the fabric of every public sector organisation as well as the content of all BBC-produced television and radio. So successful has this New Left project been, that the majority of ‘educated’ people in the UK will look askance at you should you suggest that this politically correct multiculturalist edifice has been deliberately and gradually constructed. This is testimony to its success, as well as to its chilling totalitarian essence.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.