Share |

Tuesday 25 May 2010

Blogging Break

Greetings readers! It's time for a short break. Blogging will resume in a little over a week and a half.

Sunday 23 May 2010

Electoral Prospects for Geert Wilders and the PVV

Electors go to the polls in the Netherlands on 9 June to cast their ballots in the country’s general election. Nationalists and anti-Islamists across Europe will be watching with expectation to see how Geert Wilders and his Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) fare. Although opinion polls indicate that the popularity of Wilders and the PVV has fallen slightly in recent months, they are still indicating an increase in support from the last election in 2006 during which the PVV secured nine of the seats in the 150-member House of Representatives. Even with a slight dip in support for the PVV, it is anticipated that they will take between 16 and 20 seats next month which would make them the fourth largest party. Last time they came fifth, but this time around the Netherlands’ Socialist Party is predicted to take 9 or 10 seats rather than the 25 that they won four years ago.

Wilders has of course gained worldwide renown for his brave stand against Islamism and the Islamisation of his country, but as well as drawing attention to the immense social costs that this has imposed upon the Netherlands, he has also been highlighting the economic expense of mass immigration. A new study released this month validates Wilders’s position, for it estimates that mass immigration costs the Netherlands a net 7.2 billion euros a year. This is a fact that the other Dutch political parties have sought to bury, so perhaps the release of these figures will assist Wilders in the electoral campaign and increase his projected share of the vote and number of parliamentary seats.

Scandalously, Wilders is currently facing prosecution in his home country for ‘hate speech’ owing to the content of his short film Fitna which shows Islamist terrorist acts juxtaposed with verses from the Qur’an which justify and call for violence against non-Muslims. This prosecution is baseless and clearly politically motivated. Freedom of expression in Western societies should be sacrosanct, although in recent years of course we have seen this right eroded owing to the ascendancy of multiculturalism, cultural relativism and political correctness which have assumed a hegemonic position amongst our governing elites. The loss of will on the part of our political, educational and cultural elites to defend our national cultures and broader Western civilisation has allowed Islam and its exponents to make headway and entrench itself in our societies. Wilders and kindred brave politicians, writers and artists across Europe are our only hope of resisting and rolling back the tide of Islam.

If the BNP is to make a true breakthrough in the UK it would do well to consider the position of the PVV and learn from its positive pro-Western pro-individualist and libertarian agenda. Mutterings about such parties and the wider counterjihad movement as being part of some fantastical ‘Zionist plot’ are very much misplaced.

For those who have not watched Fitna, the film can be accessed below.

Friday 21 May 2010

Dissecting the Coalition Government's Programme Part 1: Immigration

Traditional Conservatives beware: Cameron has betrayed you. Despite all the talk of a “cap on immigration”, if you look at the substance of the coalition’s ‘programme for government’ issued yesterday, you will see that its practical effect will be to continue the process of ethnic displacement of indigenous Britons as mass immigration will not be stemmed. Indeed, Cameron’s talk of a ‘cap’ was never intended to halt this process, but rather to win votes from those deeply concerned about the immigration issue.

Although the Liberal Democrat policy of an immigrant amnesty is not present in the statement, the generally lax provisions that it contains and obligatory counterfactual assertions about the economic benefits and cultural ‘enrichment’ arising from immigration mean that it is highly palatable to members and supporters of the junior coalition party. However, I would wager that this sense of satisfaction is not shared by many Tory backbenchers, let alone their constituency parties and supporters.

As was pointed out repeatedly during the election campaign, a cap upon immigration is meaningless whilst there is freedom of labour mobility within the EU. Without withdrawing from the EU we cannot control our borders. Moreover, remaining in the EU will not only allow indigenous Europeans to settle in our country, but all of those illegal immigrants who pour through the EU’s porous borders, most notably from the Islamic world. So, despite the programme asserting that there will be ‘an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work’ this is a fraudulent statement as the EU is effectively open to such migrants. They will continue to come to the UK, and in increasing numbers. As the Pub Philosopher has noted:
Throughout the election campaign, David Cameron was always careful to make sure he referred to a cap on the number of economic migrants, not the number of immigrants.

In truth, this is not a cap on immigration at all, it is just a cap on the annual number of work permits.
This means that a cap will be placed upon those outside of the EU who seek to legally apply to be economic migrants, but it will not by definition apply to those who arrive illegally. Moreover, a glaring omission from the statement pertains to a source of much of our most problematic immigration: chain migration from Pakistan, Bangladesh and other states with a culture innately hostile to the British and their way of life. This will mean that the process of Islamisation that has already struck deep roots in many of our towns and cities and has had such a detrimental impact upon our national life will accelerate and its proponents will become ever-more emboldened and vociferous. The Guardian, unsurprisingly, is delighted that these fountainheads of demographic woe will not be choked off:

The limit is carefully worded to refer to non-EU economic migrants to reassure minority ethnic groups that it will not cover the much larger numbers coming to Britain for family reunion purposes.
I support the right to such family reunion too: in the ancestral land of ethnic origin with no right of readmission to the UK.

Many who come to the UK without documents deliberately lie about their age and claim to be ‘children’, although to any objective onlooker they are not. Such ‘children’ will not be detained, so expect many more war-traumatised Afghan thugs and jihadi sleepers to enter the country. As for a Border Police Force, given the basic open doors immigration policy advocated by the coalition, it will be toothless. Furthermore, taking into account Cameron’s genuine conversion to political correctness, it will likely be shackled by anti-racism directives to ensure that it does not employ the ethnic profiling that it would require to be effective.

In sum, the coalition’s immigration policy applies no effective controls to mass immigration, and neither is it intended to do so. For the sake of our future as a nation and, more concretely, for the sake of our collective and individual physical security, mass immigration, particularly from culturally incompatible states, needs to be stopped and reversed.

If you are a member or supporter of the Conservative Party, I would ask you to stop and take stock of what you are actually supporting. Just what is conservative about your party? What exactly does it seek to ‘conserve’, other than the New Labour project? It long ago adopted a course that was against the national interest by promoting deindustrialisation and the globalist takeover of our economy, but now it has also embraced with the zeal of the convert the cultural revolution of the New Left; actively promoting the dispossession of indigenous Britons through removing their birth-right to their land and their freedom to determine their own culture and demographic destiny.

I call upon Conservatives to disown their party and to instead lend their support to a credible, moderate nationalist party that favours no class over any other but seeks instead to put our common interest first, and to revive a sense of hope and self-respect in ourselves and our culture that has for so long been denigrated by our political elite. As a nationalist party, it believes in one nation, like Disraeli, and looks to your confidence and support to help build a better future. That party is the British National Party. Learn the truth about the BNP by reading its manifesto, rather than relying upon the distortions propagated by its opponents.

The full text of the coalition's statement on immigration is reproduced below.

The Government believes that immigration has enriched our culture and strengthened our economy, but that it must be controlled so that people have confidence in the system. We also recognise that to ensure cohesion and protect our public services, we need to introduce a cap on immigration and reduce the number of non-EU immigrants.
• We will introduce an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit.
• We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.
• We will create a dedicated Border Police Force, as part of a refocused Serious Organised Crime Agency, to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. We will work with police forces to strengthen arrangements to deal with serious crime and other cross-boundary policing challenges, and extend collaboration between forces to deliver better value for money.
• We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.
• We will apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU Member States.
• We will introduce new measures to minimise abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes, and will tackle human trafficking as a priority.
• We will explore new ways to improve the current asylum system to speed up the processing of applications.

Wednesday 19 May 2010

Pakistan blocks Facebook

Well, it would seem that a Pakistani court is not overly pleased about tomorrow’s designation as Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. It has therefore ordered that access to Facebook be blocked in Pakistan until 31 May, owing to the fact that members of the social networking site have been collaborating in this imaginative retort to Revolution Muslim’s thinly veiled death threats against South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. What will happen next? As they are de facto outposts of Pakistan, how about a ban on Facebook for insulting Islam in Dewsbury, Burnley and Bradford? Now, what would Rowan Williams have to say about that?

Not being of an artistic bent, I’ve borrowed a Motoon from someone else.

Enoch Powell and the 'Lost Voices of Britain'

The blogger British Activism has produced a fascinating video compilation detailing the views of ordinary British people about the phenomenon of mass immigration and the concomitant transformation of our country. Spanning the period from the 1960s to the 2000s, the message conveyed by the voices that you will hear remains surprisingly constant: we were never asked about the policy of mass immigration; mass immigration is causing serious problems, yet our politicians won’t listen; we feel like strangers in our own country; the incomers won’t integrate; we don’t bear ill will towards immigrants and the immigrant population, but they have their ways and we have ours, so why do the politicians encourage them to come? We don't want mass immigration. Why are our views ignored?

Listening to the tone of these British voices is instructive. In the interviews from the 1960s and early 1970s, a certain freedom and lack of inhibition can be detected, whereas in the voices from the last decade can be heard a tenor of despair and fear. As the immigrant population has multiplied, grown in confidence and acquired political muscle and special legal privileges, the English in particular (for they and their land have been the primary victims of this influx) have felt themselves increasingly marginalised.

Enoch Powell of course, was the man who bravely drew attention to the negative impact of mass immigration in his famous speech delivered in Birmingham on 20 April 1968. The press dubbed it the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, and this is the label that has stuck ever since. If you were to believe the “chorus of execration” that Powell correctly predicted would follow the delivery of his speech, you could be forgiven for believing that Powell was some kind of fiend. However, if you have not read his speech in full, I would urge you to do so. The first time I read his words I found them to be revelatory. Here was a man, a brave man, who viewed the role of the politician as being one of public service, eloquently articulating the concerns of his constituents and the wider British public with respect to mass immigration. Moreover, he foresaw the long-term consequences of this policy and thus felt powerfully moved to express his foreboding. He was right. The prescience of this highly educated and humane man, as well as his character, have been unjustly pilloried and stigmatised by a hostile political class and mass media ever since.

Watch live streaming video from britishactivism at

Tuesday 18 May 2010

EDL Website Removed: Islam placed above the Law in the UK

Aeneas of the International Civil Liberties Alliance yesterday published an article about an alarming development concerning the EDL: its website has been ‘taken down for telling the truth about Islam.’ It is deeply worrying that the EDL site has been removed by officialdom. The concepts underpinning the Racial and Religious Hatred Act were deeply flawed, and it was evident at the time that it was introduced that at some future date it would be used arbitrarily to stifle criticism of Islam. Strangely, despite the hate-filled verses of the Qur’an urging violence against anyone who resists Islam, our authorities have effectively deemed that this book and its attendant belief system are beyond criticism. Although the Qur’an can without doubt be objectively classified as ‘hate speech’, it has been placed above the law.

Thankfully, the EDL Extra blog is still up and running, and I urge you to visit and read some of its excellent articles:

The disappearance of the EDL site comes less than a fortnight after Simon Bennett pulled the plug on the BNP website. Now that a replacement is up and running, will the authorities attempt to shut that down too? I fear that Cameron and Clegg will introduce beefed-up ‘hate speech’ legislation which will firmly entrench Islam’s privileged position in our country. Where is this leading? To the political internment of all who oppose Islamisation? Given the fact that exceptionally violent Muslim gangsters effectively dominate the inside life of many of our prisons, such a fate would make life in the Soviet gulag look appealing by comparison. The future suddenly looks a lot bleaker, but we must not give up. To give up is not an option. Our redundant out-of-touch political elite will try to destroy us, but we shall survive and we shall win.

Here is Aeneas’ article in full:

English Defence League Website Apparently Taken Down For Telling The Truth About Islam

By Aeneas • on May 17, 2010

Today the English Defence League Website has been suspended, apparently because of an article that describes, using suras from the Quran, how Islam looks on the Kuffar (non-Muslims). This latest act of censorship is reminiscent of the way Geert Wilders’ short film, Fitna, has been demonised for revealing truth. Wilders juxtaposed Quranic quotes with acts of terror, the article in question did not even go that far. It seems that the thought police are about their work again, suppressing debate, denying reality, and bolstering established interests.

Apparently the reason provided for this blatant act of censorship was that the article ‘contravenes UK racism laws’. If this is the case then it means one of two things, that the Quran itself contravenes UK racism laws or Islam has an exemption from UK racism laws, and is treated as a special case. Since the Quran is still available for sale on the shelves of UK bookshops it must mean that the latter is true. That being so effectively means that the UK is already under a form of Sharia law which demands that Islam is above criticism and completely outside the realm of rational debate. When the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was put before Parliament the British people were assured that freedom of expression would not be a casualty. It would appear that the British people were seriously misled and that the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was nothing other than a Sharia enabling act designed specifically to usher in a period of Islamic rule.

Promoting hatred is wrong and if our legislation exempts religiously inspired hatred then the laws currently on the statute book is not fit for purpose. All the law seems to do these days is empower those who want to undermine freedom and equality before the law, and discriminate against those who want to protect the British way of life. This is wrong and is an affront to our democratic system of government because it acts as the handmaiden of tyranny. Far from promoting multiculturalism, such legislation is effectively promoting the monoculture of Islam. Our legal system has effectively been subverted and is now simply a crude instrument of Islamic da’wa.

It is amusing to think of the great and the good cowering in their holes simply because they are chilled to the bone over the revelation of the truth. They construct a picture of the world that is not based on reality but on their feelings, and their desire to push forward the programme of globalisation without regard to culture or popular will.

The elephant is in the room, and the EDL is pointing to it. The ‘elite’ is acutely aware that the EDL is fully capable of mobilising large scale support and making it impossible for them to continue to hide their distortions and false premises. They worry that the truth will be revealed to the masses with such clarity that only the imbecilic and the corrupt can deny its presence.

It seems that the authorities really fear the EDL, and fear it because it occupies the intellectual high ground. Those who currently rule Britannia perhaps spent too much time in the smoky haze of the 1960s if they imagine that people cannot see what they are up to and that people will fail to peacefully oppose them and their nefarious scheming.

Sunday 16 May 2010

BNP Policy: an Election Winning Formula

The most recent BNP General Election Manifesto outshone those of all its competitors by far. It was full of excellent policies, and having reread it today, I am somewhat taken aback by how much of it I agree with. The manifesto contains 125 key pledges, out of which I agree with all but six (and a half). What a pity that the public did not get to learn of its contents! As I have mentioned previously, the BNP has basically got it right in terms not only of values and objectives, but also of policy. The key task is getting this message out to the electorate. One reason that the BNP’s opponents must be so hysterical about the party is that they realise just how electorally successful it would be if the electorate knew the truth about its platform.

As for my quibbles, they are few, but they are still worth drawing out into the open for discussion. Two I mentioned in my last piece but one: gun ownership and the South Georgia penal colony. In headline terms, these can be (and were) spun in a negative fashion so should have been avoided. Personally, I would therefore recommend that these two policy pledges should be dropped. The reinstatement of the ‘right to bear arms’ would worry me, as surely this would make it easier for the criminal fraternity to acquire and publicly carry firearms? The situation is bad enough as it is, and our focus should be upon removing those weapons that are already in circulation rather than legally adding to their number.

Many party members and supporters would also be unhappy about the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment. In principle, should guilt for the most serious crimes as outlined in the manifesto be demonstrated ‘beyond all doubt’, I would support the limited use of capital punishment. However, miscarriages of justice can always occur, so I, and many others, would feel uneasy if this were to be something that was to be included as a definite ‘pledge’ rather than an issue to be subject to debate should the party be in a position to legislate. This is certainly a position that others and I could support. I would also need some clarification with respect to the proposed use of ‘corporal punishment’ and what precisely this would entail, as I suspect that juries would be less willing to convict if such punishments were to be meted out. Personally, I am not in favour of this form of punishment.

In the section entitled ‘Environmental Protection and the “Climate Change” Theory’ the manifesto states:

The BNP rejects the “climate change” theory which holds that all western nations need to be stripped of their manufacturing base and pay untold billions to the Third World to build up their industries.
As I have written previously, I do not think that this stance will resonate with the public. The party should certainly highlight where this issue is being abused by political parties and the government to further objectives which are against our national interest (as it has done in the manifesto), but the BNP should not therefore draw the erroneous conclusion that the science is basically a ‘sham’ or a ‘hoax’ designed to ‘swindle’ the British people. By all means, take a measured and sceptical attitude towards claims made about ‘climate change’, but do not dismiss the science out of hand.

Likewise, it seems that the party may have made a similar mistake with respect to science and agribusiness. There can be no doubt that certain corporations have sought to dangerously abuse GM technologies by attempting to patent seeds and livestock, but this is a separate issue entirely from the science itself. Yes, by all means make it illegal for companies to take out such patents, but keep an open mind as to the prospective benefits of some aspects of GM. However, we should be cautious and ensure that there are strict safeguards surrounding GM research and any subsequent introduction of resultant products into the food chain. I therefore beg to differ with the party’s pledge to ban the ‘development and importation of genetically modified produce.’

With respect to the section entitled ‘Pensions: Looking After Our Old People’, one pledge is that ‘the BNP will enact legislation to ensure that pensions are eligible only to Britons and those who have fully paid into the system.’ Generally speaking, I am in agreement. However, what does ‘fully paid into the system’ mean? What if, for example, a spouse has married a native Briton and has integrated fully into British society but has not lived the whole of her or his adult life in the UK: what entitlement would they have to a pension? It would strike me as fundamentally unjust were they to be disqualified. This would, I am sure, be a matter of concern for many people. I am not of course referring to those who have come here through chain migration to marry spouses who possess no deep historic roots in our country.

Other comparatively minor points with which I disagree are raising the motorway speed limit to 90mph, as many older and smaller cars are not capable of being driven safely at this kind of speed for a protracted length of time, and increasing the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million which should not be a priority given the current parlous state of the nation’s finances.

Besides the points outlined above, I am happy with the manifesto as it stands, although some of its language would benefit from a slight rephrasing dropping terms such as ‘old gang parties’, ‘swindle’ and ‘scroungers’ and replacing them with rather less tabloid-inflected terms.

As all of the major parties are wedded to the woeful policy of PFI, it would be well worth the BNP concentrating upon the wastefulness of this approach to financing public works and the lack of accountability associated with such schemes. It could emerge as a champion of transparency and public accountability through doing so. Overall though, the policies are just what the country needs. It’s now simply a question of alerting people to their existence and winning elections.

Wednesday 12 May 2010

How can the BNP improve its electoral Prospects?

As I write this evening, David Cameron has become the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and we await confirmation that the proposed coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats has been approved by the parliamentary membership of the latter party. This arrangement may hold, but then again, it could quite readily fail. We shall have to see. There thus exists the possibility that the country will have to return to the polls before the natural term of a parliament has elapsed, and the BNP needs to be prepared for this eventuality. The BNP needs to learn some lessons from its performance last Thursday so that it can up its game and make a substantial advance.

Yes, it is true that Nick Griffin managed to win an historic high in terms of the overall number of votes won in Barking last week, netting a total of 6,620, but alas, this was accompanied by the fact that overall turnout in the constituency increased and the BNP’s share of the vote fell. Granted, there may well have been some irregularities with postal votes which acted to the detriment of the BNP’s performance, but there were also deeper factors at play. Some of these it will be possible to address, others unfortunately, such as the changing demographic composition of areas like Barking arising from the outmigration of indigenous residents and large-scale immigration coupled with higher birth-rates amongst immigrant descendents, will remain beyond the party’s influence.

Some BNP members and supporters have highlighted that if the Liberal Democrats were to realise their long-cherished dream of introducing proportional representation for Westminster elections, this could work in the party’s favour. Had a ‘pure’ version of this system been in place last week, the BNP could have secured 12 or possibly 13 MPs with its national share of the vote. However, the Conservatives have been discussing the possibility of a referendum on the single transferable vote and have not mentioned proportional representation as a potential option. If the single transferable vote system were to be adopted, this would in all likelihood make it harder for the BNP to win seats than under the present first-past-the-post system. Irrespective of whether proportional representation is introduced or not, if the BNP is to realise its potential as a political force, it needs to finally get to grips with some internal issues that in the eyes of most electors have accorded it pariah status.

Yes, it is true that the BNP is opposed by a truly mind-boggling united opposition: all of the mainstream political parties, the entirety of the mainstream media, the trade union movement, fringe leftist parties such as the SWP and Respect, and third-party organisations and campaigns such as Searchlight, Hope Not Hate, Love Music Hate Racism, the UAF and Nothing British as well as the anti-British quango the EHRC (Equalities and Human Rights Commission). All of these are united in a visceral hatred of the BNP, and their combined might brings to bear immense propaganda resources that the party itself cannot hope to effectively counter. However, there is one quite straightforward thing that the BNP can do to draw the venom from this attack and render it largely impotent: rid itself of the shadow of the Tyndall years and accusations of neo-Nazism and ‘Holocaust denial’. The party could achieve so much if it honestly and openly distanced itself from the continuous stream of 'Nazi' allegations and concentrated on driving home the message that the BNP is a 'moderate nationalist party'. Without doing so, it'll never be able to achieve a breakthrough, even if our country were to be in such a dire position as to be on the brink of civil war.

Of course, the relentless barrage of negative propaganda about the party from the aforementioned organisations may not have had an impact upon the allegiances and views of staunch party members and supporters, but we would be foolish to think that the general public's perception of the BNP has not been very negatively affected by this attack. Besides the propaganda, a number of genuine internal issues in recent months haven’t helped either. The peculiar affair surrounding Mark Collett; the violent physical ejection of a Times journalist from a party meeting; the loss of a number of prominent figures such as Alby Walker who then went on to attack the BNP and Simon Bennett taking out the party website two days ahead of the election were all priceless gifts to the party’s opponents which fed genuine public mistrust and suspicion. If the BNP wishes to be taken seriously as a party fit for government, party members need to behave impeccably. Mark Collett and others of his ilk must thus never be readmitted.

There needs to be a debate about how to neutralise this opposition and alter public perceptions (i.e. alert them to what the BNP actually stands for, rather than what it is said to be) beginning now. There is no time to be lost owing to the rapid and increasing pace of demographic and cultural change and displacement within our country. Whenever the next election comes, the men and women who speak on behalf of the BNP must be able to confidently, politely and robustly rebut opposition smears relating to neo-Nazism and sundry related matters.

There are many ways of presenting the nationalist message, and how this is communicated requires serious re-examination if the party wishes to be viewed as credible by an educated middle-class audience. The general tone of rhetoric employed hitherto might well go down well in the convivial atmosphere of a pub, but it sounds out of place in the general public arena. I in no way advocate that the party should ditch any of its core policies and principles or seek to abandon any one class in favour of another, for as nationalists we by definition wish to afford the best opportunities for all to realise their potential, and we should not neglect the welfare of our less fortunate compatriots who languish in poverty, unemployment and squalor. Nonetheless, our message needs to be communicated in a way that resonates with a middle-class audience and readership, as well as with those whom our political elite have readily confined to the margins of society and who have to date been subject to the worst effects of mass immigration, Islamisation and multiculturalism.

In terms of policy, I agree with a good 90% of the BNP manifesto, but some elements, I have to say, appear just plain outlandish and alienate voters. Honestly ask yourself: how much appeal do policies such as liberalising gun ownership laws and opening a penal colony in South Georgia possess? Why insert these into a manifesto brimming with good ideas? It just turns people off and leaves the party open to ridicule. Who wants to be thought of as a neo-Nazi gun-obsessed wacko who’s turned on by the idea of opening a sub-Antarctic labour camp? I’m not saying that that is what the typical BNP member is, but this is the sort of impression that most non-supporters possess. How many people out there want more liberal gun laws? How often have you heard someone say that this is a serious issue of concern? This is not a vote-winning issue and vote-winning issues are what the party needs to concentrate on if it wishes to grow and gain elected representatives. There are plenty of vote-winning policies in the BNP’s manifesto, but liberalising gun laws is definitely not one of them: it is a definite vote loser. If some members of the party have a particular penchant for firearms, this sort of measure can be discussed at a later date after the BNP has won MPs, but certainly not before such a time.

A number of presentational gaffes need to be avoided in future. I realise that having someone appear in costume on St George’s Day and inserting the Marmite image in the initial version of the party political broadcast were light-hearted affairs, but unfortunately the mainstream media picked up on these to portray the party as being just plain daft and amateurish. Moreover, the Marmite fiasco has resulted in an unnecessary court case which will drain the party of much-needed funds. As for the content of the final election broadcast, I realise that the BNP is a small party with very modest resources which relies upon the enthusiasm and dedication of its members to make these stretch a long way, but please re-shoot scenes which do not work. If the BNP wishes to screen broadcasts which ostensibly feature interviews with party members and supporters telling the voters about why they support the party, never have them reading in stilted robotic fashion from cue cards. If they are to be scripted, at least get them to rehearse ahead of shooting and ensure that they can deliver their lines naturalistically. Furthermore, make sure that they speak to camera, so it looks as if they are addressing the viewer instead of some random location in the street out of shot.

There is also time to avoid a PR disaster in the making which relates to a comment recently made by Nick Griffin in which he stated that after the election all BNP literature would feature a Christian cross to emphasise the party’s ties to our country’s Christian heritage. Why? This is not the USA. British (and I mean indigenous here) people are not overly bothered about religion (except Islam, which all true Britons rightly despise if they become acquainted with its reality), and to overtly associate the BNP with Christianity will only serve to make it seem totally out of touch and irrelevant. If it wants to succeed in Ulster or the US Bible Belt then fine, but if it purports to be a nationalist party in England and the other constituent nations of the British mainland, then it had better realise that we are no longer living in the seventeenth century. If anyone needs objective proof of this fact, just look at the abysmal performance of the Christian Party in this election.

This is a particularly odd tack for Nick Griffin to take given that he himself is not a Christian. As British nationalists we should be secular, but publicly celebrate our national festivals that arise from a combination of Christian and pagan traditions. Many of us are atheists and agnostics, so kindly leave religion out of the equation unless you are attacking Islam which is absolutely essential, for it sees no divide between the temporal and the ‘spiritual’, which is why it is completely incompatible with our culture and others. Otherwise, people’s religious beliefs and affiliations or lack of them are a matter for personal conscience.

Another recent policy tack which will possess only a limited degree of electoral traction, and runs the risk of backfiring badly, pertains to ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’. Calling all of the science a ‘hoax’ or a ‘scam’ might well be music to the ears of oil company executives, but once again, it jars with most people and certainly with the overwhelming majority of scientists. Just because ‘climate change’ is being used by our mainstream parties to justify ramping up foreign aid, domestic deindustrialisation and introducing ‘green’ taxes doesn’t mean that the science is necessarily being invented to justify policy. All it means is that our government, as well as the governments of many other countries, sees this as a useful pretext for implementing other agendas that they already possess, such as creating transnational institutions of political and economic governance. The BNP should therefore not adopt a strong position either way on the scientific basis of ‘climate change’, but should constantly and unfailingly highlight the political abuse of the ‘climate change’ rationale for implementing undesirable policies that work directly against the national interest.

As our domestic oil reserves are declining and international supplies are growing less secure and more expensive, developing new technologies not dependent upon oil are good in and of themselves, for they reduce national vulnerability to external geopolitical factors and will be cleaner. If other countries are convinced of the necessity of introducing such technologies, why shouldn’t we profit from this by selling such new technological expertise and products? Furthermore, moving away from an oil dependent economy will help to undermine the source of vast wealth underpinning Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia which ultimately funds global jihad and Islamic proselytisation, including in the UK.

There is a genuine environmental crisis and the BNP should highlight this. It however, is not ‘climate change’, for if anthropogenic climate change is indeed a reality, it is simply a by-product of global overpopulation. This must be constantly reiterated along with the corresponding fact that the UK has no further ‘carrying capacity'. Thus to take further immigrants is both irresponsible and, in the long term, dangerous.

The BNP needs to concentrate on a few core positive messages which will enable it to broaden its base of support and appeal. These must be communicated using temperate language to emphasise its moderate nationalist agenda. Always refer to the BNP as a “moderate nationalist party”. The words ‘moderate’ and ‘nationalist’ must appear together as frequently as possible, so that listeners become accustomed to pairing the two, instead of ‘far-right’ which is currently the undesirable descriptor habitually associated with the noble terms ‘nationalist’ and ‘nationalism’. Who could possibly object to a moderate party with a moderate agenda?

The term ‘anti-globalist’ must be used as frequently as possible. The Conservatives, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Greens must all be referred to as ‘globalists’. ‘Globalists’ and ‘globalism’ must be transformed into pejorative terms by highlighting the very real and negative aspects of this ideology and its attendant processes. Nationalists and nationalism on the other hand, stand for freedom, self-determination and democracy. Our ideology is positive, which is why globalists and the globally owned media hate us and our values: we are the little people standing up against the lies and vested interests of corporate power. We, as nationalists, are the real anti-globalists, not the Greens. Only nationalism and national stewardship can guarantee respect for national natural resources and ecosystems. A respect for our natural environment, on land and at sea, should be an integral part of our nationalism. The landscapes, flora and fauna of our isles and surrounding seas are ours in trust to be tended and passed on to future generations in good condition.

We need to stress the following key messages: the BNP is a party of peace and wants an end to unnecessary wars; the BNP is a party of neutrality that seeks to maintain good relations with neighbouring countries; the BNP seeks to preserve the best of British heritage and culture, whilst developing a dynamic hi-tech science focused manufacturing economy; the BNP believes in upholding individual liberties and the right to free speech; the BNP believes that the British people, like all peoples, are sovereign and possess the right to self-determination; the BNP seeks to enhance the quality of life of the British people through focusing upon per capita rather than aggregate economic measures; the BNP recognises that sustainable development requires a sustainable demographic policy.

The above are just a few suggestions, but as you can see, you don’t need to lapse into the language of ‘race’ or even overtly mention ‘immigration’ to adequately defend our way of life, sovereignty and demographic integrity, for the solution to these issues is implicit in the arguments themselves and the language used to express them. Nonetheless, it will be important not to neglect directly referring to the unsustainable nature of immigration and its very real negative impacts upon our economy, housing, environment and culture. Also ensure that a clear differentiation is made between those immigrants who have been assimilable, and those who have not (i.e. Muslims in particular).

Multiculturalism, Islamisation and the colonisation of our country can all be effectively blocked and reversed adhering to the aforementioned principles and can be communicated as genuinely ‘progressive’ for our people and our voters. Islamisation can be countered by vigorously adhering to secularist arguments but, importantly, Islam must be singled out as different from all other religions because of its refusal to sever the temporal from the spiritual. Islam must never be referred to in a false (i.e. favourable) light. Furthermore, never miss the opportunity to stress the fact that Islam is incompatible with British and wider Western civilisational norms as well as being deeply misogynist.

The New Left has successfully undermined longstanding cultural norms and nullified rational thought through its perversion of language. We can defeat it through using language to gradually move public perceptions towards our position. However, we have an advantage, for our position does not rest upon a fabric of lies. Our language must rest upon truth and rational argument, and if our voice is allowed to be heard, eventually a large section of the public will come around to our way of thinking. When debating with opponents, either verbally or in writing, we should concentrate upon the facts and not make ad hominem attacks. When they use ad hominem attacks against us we must calmly highlight what they are doing, and ask them to address the ‘facts’ of the issue under discussion.

There is plenty of corroborating evidence from politically neutral organisations such as Migration Watch, the Optimum Population Trust and Civitas that we can use to back up our policies on immigration, the environment, economics and education. We must always seek to make good use of non-partisan sources of information.

Alas, the nationalist vote remained split last week. Although the BNP beat UKIP in the majority of cases where the two parties fielded a candidate apiece in the same constituency, UKIP still gathered a greater national vote share than the BNP owing to its larger number of candidates: 917,832 votes (3.1% +0.9% compared to 2005) versus 563,743 (1.9% + 1.2% compared to 2005). Furthermore, although a very small party, the English Democrats also tucked into a 0.2% share of the national vote winning 64,826.

If the next General Election were to happen in the next year or two, it is unlikely that the BNP would have sufficient resources to field candidates in every seat with the requisite funding and feet on the ground to make this a worthwhile effort. If such an eventuality were to occur, it would make good sense to come to a temporary nationalist pact with UKIP, whereby the BNP could concentrate its resources on those constituencies (typically urban) likely to provide the largest return for effort invested, and for UKIP likewise to devote its resources to large rural seats where the BNP’s appeal is comparatively weak. Such a pact has been mooted previously, but unfortunately was rejected by UKIP. However, such an agreement should be explored afresh if resources are limited.

If the BNP can rid itself of the media ‘Nazi’ tag this will be an achievement which should help to destigmatise the party and open up the opportunity for more members to join. Unfortunately, as one anonymous visitor to this site has commented, the mass media and all politically correct organisations will never be able to accept the respectability of an ethno-nationalist party, so the inappropriate term ‘far-right’ is just something we’ll have to put up with. After all, this is also a label that our hostile ignorant media (the BBC, Guardian, etc) also apply to Geert Wilders and the PVV as a smear intended to place him and his party beyond the pale of respectability. UKIP itself is stigmatised as ‘extreme’ even though in reality it is a moderate, conservative civic nationalist party.

The above are just some observations on how the BNP might attempt to extend its appeal through communicating key nationalist messages in a palatable fashion to the British public. These are offered in a spirit of friendly criticism, and are not meant to detract from the very real progress that has been made by the party in recent years and the central role that Nick Griffin has played in this process. Nonetheless, the BNP now needs to shift up a gear and to avoid the pitfalls of the past.

Sunday 9 May 2010

Mark Steyn in Conversation: America Alone

In the following video Mark Steyn discusses his book America Alone with Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution. Steyn has been pilloried by much of the mainstream media for being 'alarmist', 'racist', etc for his warnings regarding the rapid Islamisation of Europe. In this interview he clearly outlines how this process is integrally connected to a Europe-wide demographic crisis which prompts policy makers to promote mass immigration from the Islamic world in an effort to solve the resultant problems that this poses for social-democratic welfare states. This process is being further assisted by a leftist attitude of cultural and ethnic self-loathing coupled with an admiration for the 'exotic' Islamic other expressed through official multicultural diktat. Watch, reflect and take action.

BNP Performance in the May 2010 General Election

As the BNP is not fielding a candidate in Thirsk and Malton which has yet to go to the polls owing to the death of the UKIP candidate, results for all of its 338 contested seats are now in. These provide a clear and completely unambiguous message: the BNP has stood still since 2005. If we strip out the gross increase in the BNP vote and look at its average share in constituencies contested, we see that there is next to no difference. In my article of 14 April entitled BNP 'Top 10' General Election Targets I gave an outline of what we should expect to see if we were to claim that the BNP had made progress. To this end I wrote:

Taking into account the aforementioned figures, what might we expect in terms of a likely overall result for the BNP in May 2010? General elections are not EU elections and thus parties that appeal specifically to nationalism and anti-EU sentiment tend to do better in the latter than in the former. I will therefore start with the most conservative estimate of the BNP vote, projecting a repeat performance of 2005 with an average of 1620 votes per candidate which would yield 528,120 votes. If we assume (simply for the sake of direct comparison, for the situation will not repeat itself) that the total number of votes cast for all parties nationally came to the same sum for 2005, this would give the BNP a 1.9% share of the vote.

As the party would have achieved this result by standing in only circa half of the available Westminster seats, this would equate to a rough national share of 3.8% which would match the party’s position in many polls. Although the sum total would thus be far more impressive than 2005’s tally of 192,746, it would mean that the BNP would have been treading water. It therefore needs to achieve substantially more votes and a correspondingly higher share of the national total to indicate that it has achieved a significant breakthrough. When considering the current combination of toxic factors - mass immigration, economic crisis, Islamisation, the war in Afghanistan, the expenses scandal, multiculturalism and the loss of sovereignty to the EU - which have made large swathes of the electorate either hostile towards the mainstream political parties or apathetic about politics in general, and the lack of willingness on the part of the said parties to discuss any of these issues other than the economy, the threshold of success, I would suggest, needs to be set at a minimum of 970,000 votes. This would equate to roughly 7% of the vote. If the BNP manages to garner in the region of 1.5 million votes or above, it will truly have emerged as a political force with serious prospects.
The actual national result for the BNP was as follows: total votes received 563,743; share of vote 1.9%; average vote per BNP candidate 1,668. This result is startlingly close to that of 2005, with the aggregate tally almost directly correlating with the increased number of seats contested.

Many BNP members and supporters have tried to portray this as an ‘advance’ and a good result of sorts, but they really should not fool themselves into thinking that this is the case. Given our national circumstances, this showing was, to put it mildly, less than adequate. Furthermore, if one digs a little deeper and examines BNP performance in the ten key target constituencies that I singled out last month, we see that in those in which it has previously done well, its share of the vote has generally dropped. Furthermore, the BNP’s performance in the local elections has been woeful: rather than taking control of the council in Barking, it has lost all of its councillors.

The results for the ten aforementioned target seats are as follows:

Barking                           6,620 14.8% -2.1% 3rd place

Stoke-on-Trent Central   2,502 7.7% +0.1% 4th place

Thurrock                         3,618 7.9% +1.8% 4th place

Keighley                          1,962 4.1% -5.0% 4th place

Salford & Eccles        2,632 6.0% +6.0% 4th place

Stoke-on-Trent South      3,762 9.4% +0.4% 4th place

Burnley                            3,747 9.0% -1.3% 4th place

Dagenham & Rainham 4,952 11.2% +6.8% 3rd place

Dewsbury                        3,265 6.0% -5.2% 5th place

Dudley North                   1,899 4.9% -6.0% 5th place

No MPs, no second places and only two third places. Of the ten results detailed above, the vote decreased in five constituencies and increased in the other half. However, the BNP had not previously stood in Salford and Eccles, so Tina Wingfield’s reasonable 6.0% vote share cannot be counted as a real increase. The results in Barking, Keighley, Dewsbury and Dudley North are undeniably bad. To see the BNP beaten into fifth place in Dewsbury by a Muslim Independent candidate is particularly galling. In Dudley North, despite the controversy surrounding the recently cancelled mega mosque and associated protests, the BNP came in behind UKIP and lost over half of its share of the vote compared to 2005. According to UK Polling Report, the BNP saved 72 deposits.

These are not results befitting a nationalist party on the verge of a breakthrough into the mainstream. What they demonstrate, along with the poor performances of UKIP (917,832 votes with a 3.1% share) and the English Democrats (64,826 votes with a 0.2% share), is that there exists the need for a single credible nationalist party in British (more particularly, English) politics. My next article will examine the reasons underpinning the BNP’s failure to make a breakthrough at this election together with some suggestions as to how it, or a nationalist successor party, could make genuine headway in British politics through articulating a clear, credible and moderate nationalist programme.

Friday 7 May 2010

Tohseef Shah defaces a War Memorial, Harry Taylor leaves Cartoons in a Prayer Room: Who receives the harshest Sentence?

The following article taken from the National Secular Society website highlights the absurdity of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006. On the one hand, we have the example of the hate-filled Muslim Tohseef Shah who defaces one of our war memorials with militant Islamist sloganeering who is deemed to have lacked a ‘religious motivation’ for his crime, whilst Englishman Harry Taylor is prosecuted for leaving cartoons in a prayer room. One law for them, and another for us, even under our own legal system! Another report on the Harry Taylor case can be accessed in the Liverpool Echo in which the details of the sentence differ somewhat from the National Secular Society report, stating that 'Judge James suspended a six-month sentence for two years, but he warned Taylor: “I don't give people a second chance.”'

One law for Tohseef Shah and another for Harry Taylor
A Muslim man who daubed a war memorial with an incitement to kill Gordon Brown and with the message "Islam will dominate the world" was cleared of a religiously aggravated offence, because the Crown Prosecution Service said there was no religious motivation in the crime.

Instead, Tohseef Shah, 21, was given a two year conditional discharge and an order to pay the local council £500 compensation.

Three weeks ago, Harry Taylor was given a two year prison sentence for pinning a few innocuous cartoons on to the wall of a "prayer room" at Liverpool John Lennon Airport because the offence was deemed to be religiously aggravated. He was also given an ASBO which forbids him carrying with him religiously provocative material.

Shah sprayed the words 'Islam will dominate the world – Osama is on his way' and 'Kill Gordon Brown' on the plinth of the memorial in Burton-on-Trent in December. He was arrested after his DNA was found on the discarded spray-can but refused to give an explanation for his actions or show any remorse, a court heard.

A file was sent to lawyers at the Counter Terrorism Division of the CPS in London to see if there was a racially or religiously motivated connotation. Despite the fact that it specifically cited Islam, the CPS said that it did not. The CPS said Shah's offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.

Shahid Malik loses Seat!

This is excellent news. The gloating Islamo-supremacist Shahid Malik has been ousted from his Dewsbury seat by Conservative Simon Reevell. Although the Tory share rose by a modest 3.3%, Malik's dropped by 8.4%. Much of this drop I suspect was the result of Khizar Iqbal's candidature. Evidently many of the towns Muslims opted to vote for this man instead. Disappointingly, the BNP vote slumped considerably here by 5.2% to 6%. Part of the reason for the decline must have been that many non-Muslim voters desperately wished to be rid of Malik, and who can blame them. Good riddance Shahid. The results in full are:

Simon Reevell (Conservative)                      18,898     35.0    +3.3
Shahid Malik (Labour)                                17,372     32.2     -8.4
Andrew Hutchinson (Liberal Democrat)       9,150      16.9     +3.2
Khizar Iqbal (Independent)                          3,813       7.1      +7.1
Roger Roberts (British National Party)         3,265       6.0      -5.2
Adrian Cruden (Green)                                   849       1.6      -0.5
Michael Felse (English Democrats)                  661       1.2     +1.2

Majority 1,526      2.8

Turnout 54,008     68.5     +9.2

BBC Polling 'Scandal'

Why does the BBC think that it's such a scandal that hundreds of people in various locations couldn't cast their vote because they turned up to polling stations too late? If these idle slugabeds cannot be arsed to get to the polling station in good time, that's their lookout. Surely the mature voters interviewed by Kirsty Wark in Sheffield had been through enough elections to know what the rules are? Pathetic. Anyone could be mistaken for thinking that they'd turned up late on purpose to cause a fuss and thereby disrupt the course of the election.

The real scandal in this General Election that the BBC have not bothered to get that upset about is that of widespread postal voting fraud which is particularly characteristic of certain so-called 'communities' (i.e. Muslim colonies of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc). Now, why might this be?

Thursday 6 May 2010

Washington and Sunderland West Result: BNP take 5.1%

This is a new seat that according to Wikipedia 'is provisionally ranked as the 28th safest Labour seat in the United Kingdom, and the 11th safest Labour seat in England.' Unsurprisingly therefore, this was a secure Labour hold. The results in full are:

Labour Sharon Hodgson             19,615    52.5%
Conservative Ian Cuthbert           8,157      21.8%
Liberal Democrat Peter Andras    6,382      17.1%
BNP Ian McDonald                     1,913      5.1%
UKIP Linda Hudson                    1,267      3.4%

Turnout was 54% which was a 7% increase on the notional result for the 'seat' in 2005. There was a swing to the Conservatives of 11.6%. This takes the average swing from Labour to the Conservatives of 9.9% for the first two seats. The BNP vote share of 5.1% is better than their position suggested in national opinion polls, and as in Houghton and Sunderland South, UKIP have come behind the BNP. Although these are early results, this underscores the need for a single united nationalist party in the UK.

Houghton and Sunderland South Result: BNP take 5.2%

As expected, Houghton and Sunderland South was the first constituency to declare its result. The vote shares were as follows:

Labour                    19,137 (50.3%)
Conservative           8,147 (21.4%)
Liberal Democrat    5,292 (13.9%)
Independent            2,462 (6.5%)
BNP                       1,961 (5.2%)
UKIP                     1,022 (2.7%)

Disappointingly, the BNP came in fifth place behind an Independent. Still, the 5.2% share was a small increase on the 3.8% secured in 2005 in the predecessor seat of Sunderland South. The BBC for some reason reported the result as representing a 2% decline in the BNP share of the vote. This is either an 'error', or a straight lie. This was a Labour stronghold, but represented an 8.3% decline on the vote that they achieved in 2005 in Sunderland South. The Labour majority was 10,990 on a turnout of 55%.

Will John Bercow lose Buckingham?

Buckingham is a Tory heartland seat and although Bercow is ostensibly free of party ties he was a member of the parliamentary Conservative Party until he became Speaker of the House of Commons. Parliamentary tradition demands that the Speaker’s seat remains uncontested, but a number of the upstart parties and independents have decided to break with this convention and field candidates.

Bercow achieved a towering 57.4% of the vote in 2005, with both Labour and the Liberal Democrats polling to within a whisker of each other with 19.9 and 19.7% of the vote respectively. UKIP trailed in fourth place with 3% of the vote. This time however, it is UKIP’s Nigel Farage who is the main challenger to Bercow. Few think that Farage can win the seat, and whatever the result, Nigel will not be at the count tonight owing to his unfortunate aviation accident earlier today (he and his pilot are astonishingly lucky to have escaped with such minor injuries). Still, some voters may wish to vent their spleen on Bercow for the ‘flipping’ of his second home. Perhaps we could therefore see Farage take 20% of the vote. UKIP are likely to outperform the BNP candidate Lynne Mozar by some distance, as being deep Tory country, UKIP’s primarily Eurosceptic conservative stance is likely to appeal more to traditional Conservative supporters than the BNP’s more egalitarian nationalist programme.

Prospects for the English Democrats in Doncaster

The national mass media were in shock last year when Peter Davies of the English Democrats became the town’s directly elected mayor. Attacked as populist, xenophobic and homophobic, he wasn’t bothered by any of these slights. Nowhere else had the tiny party achieved anything recognisable, so perhaps it is unsurprising to find that the English Democrats are standing a candidate in each of the three seats in the Doncaster area: Lawrence Parramore (Doncaster Central); Bernie Aston (Don Valley) and Wayne Crawshaw (Doncaster North). Presumably, Davies’s exposure will have given the English Democrats a high profile amongst local people so it is in these seats that we are likely to find them garnering most votes.

Unfortunately, the English Democrats will probably take some share of the nationalist vote from the BNP which is also contesting each of the aforementioned seats. Furthermore, to complicate the situation for those of a nationalist inclination UKIP are also standing in all three. If any of them take upwards of 10% of the vote in these seats, they’ll be doing extremely well. However, I don’t expect radical breakthroughs for any of them here owing to the nationalist vote being split and this being Labour’s heartland.

Other BNP Target Seats to Watch: Dagenham and Rainham, Stoke-on-Trent South and Barnsley Central

Well, time and tide wait for no man and I’ve only made it to outlining the BNP’s prospects in what I consider to be eight of its top ten seats rather than the whole lot. Still, an analysis of prospects in Morley in Outwood was also added to the mix. So, in which other seats should we expect a strong BNP showing?

Dagenham and Rainham
So, starting with the final two of my unfinished top ten we come to Dagenham and Rainham with odds from of 33/1 on the BNP winning the seat. If it does, I’ll probably have a coronary, but we should see a healthy poll for the party here. It is a new constituency so there’s nothing to go on by way of direct comparison with 2005 and I have no time to trawl through ward-level stats to gain an indicator of possible BNP support. Still, this is where the BNP have chosen to field Michael Barnbrook, brother of BNP London Assembly member Richard. Labour BNP-baiter Jon Cruddas looks likely to be the favourite, but as this is East London the BNP should do pretty well. At an absolute minimum it should be looking at 5% of the vote as an absolute minimum, but 10-15% and a third place or above would in my opinion constitute a decent showing. UKIP are also contesting Dagenham and Rainham.

Stoke-on-Trent South
BNP campaigning in Stoke-on-Trent has according to Simon Darby's blog been going well, and besides anticipating a strong vote for Simon Darby himself in Stoke-on-Trent Central we should see fellow party member Michael Coleman increase the party’s share of the vote. The BNP stood here in 1997, 2001 and 2005, increasing their total number of votes and vote share on each occasion as follows: 1.2% (568); 3.8% (1,358) and 8.7% (3,305). A share of 12% or above would be a respectable result. It’s a solid Labour seat and is likely to remain in that party’s hands. As in Dagenham and Rainham, the BNP will also be vying with UKIP for the Eurosceptic nationalist vote.

Barnsley Central
The BNP have enjoyed rapid growth in the South Yorkshire borough of Barnsley in recent years, and it’ll be well worth watching their performance here. Unlike in many of West Yorkshire’s towns and cities, Barnsley has pretty much escaped Islamic colonisation, but the locals are all aware of the fate that has befallen other Yorkshire towns such as Keighley, Halifax and Dewsbury and are keen not to have that experience repeat itself on their patch. Barnsley Central was first contested by the BNP in 2005 when they won 4.9% (1,403 votes) of the poll, but in the local elections of 2008 they polled very strongly and took second and third place in a number of wards. Barnsley Central is comprised of 8 wards, but in 2008 only half of these held elections. Nonetheless, the results in these four point to a likely significant increase in both the overall number of votes captured by the BNP today as well as a greater vote share: Central – 621 (3rd place); Cudworth – 650 (2nd place); Monk Bretton – 668 (2nd place) and Royston – 392 (3rd place). This gives a total of 2,331 from half of the constituency’s wards.

A reasonable result for BNP candidate Ian Sutton would therefore be 4,000 votes and upwards with a 14%+ share of the vote. This is solid Labour territory, but is certainly a seat in which the BNP stand an excellent chance of muscling the Conservatives into fourth place, for the latter polled only a little over 13% at the last two parliamentary elections and less than 10% in 1997. The Liberal Democrats have been only marginally more popular than the Tories, so there is an outside chance that we could see Ian Sutton taking second place. UKIP are likely to come last in fifth place.

Wednesday 5 May 2010

Voting Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat? Don't!

Thinking of voting for Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats? Why would you wish to vote for these clone parties? Watch this and think again. If you are an indigenous Briton and have any self respect, how could you bring yourself to vote for them when it means your self-abasement and submission before Islam and other races? Do you really hate yourself and your own people so much? Wake up! They care not for you, and they'll deliver us into a state of servitude in our own land if you let them. For the sake of your children and your grandchildren if not for yourself: vote nationalist. Vote BNP.

Dudley North: BNP Target Seat Number Eight

Although Dudley North hasn't been given such good odds as Dagenham and Rainham by (40/1 as opposed to 33/1), I think that the BNP will probably have a stronger showing in the former. One of the major reasons underpinning this judgement is the recent controversy in Dudley over the proposed Mega Mosque, which although rejected by the local council, was given the go-ahead by central government. However, the strong opposition of the non-Muslim local population backed by two demonstrations by the EDL, one of which took place last weekend, appears to have caused the plans for the mosque to be dropped. However, there have been a number of reports originating with the EDL that many local Muslims were tooled-up with weapons over the weekend and threatened to riot unless the police brought the protest to a swift end. This the latter did, using armed officers.

Understandably therefore, local tensions are running high. For years now, and especially since last year, ordinary Britons, particularly in England, have grown increasingly concerned with the manner in which Muslims have been courted by our mainstream politicians and given preferential treatment by the police and much of the mainstream media. This has given birth to the EDL as a popular counter-jihad street movement and has also energised the BNP vote in many constituencies over the past decade. Although UKIP purport to oppose Islamisation, the BNP is the only political party in the UK to make counter-Islamisation one of its main planks of policy, and it's not shy about mentioning this. Wherever significant concentrations of Muslims live amongst or next to the native population, the BNP does well owing to its willingness to articulate the many problems experienced by the local indigenous population which are directly attributable to Islamisation.

Dudley North was BNP Deputy Chairman Simon Darby's former constituency target in the past two parliamentary elections. In fact, Darby has an even longer association with the seat, having stood as the National Democrats candidate in 1997. Once he moved to the BNP however, he polled more healthily, upping his share from 1% in 1997 to 4.7% in 2001 and 9.7% in 2005. This time, Ken Griffiths is representing the BNP, but he also has competition from two other candidates who can be classed as nationalist: Malcolm Davies of UKIP and Kevin Inman of the National Front. Malcolm Davies stood in Dudley North in 2005 and polled 4.7%, so is likely to score a similar share this time. However, he may well receive EDL endorsement as he led initial opposition to the construction of the Mega Mosque. Up until 2007 he was a Dudley councillor who had originally been elected as a Liberal Democrat. Evidently, he disapproved of the latter's Euro-servile stance and jumped ship for UKIP.

The National Front haven't stood in the seat since 1997 when they took 1.2% of the poll, and I should imagine that they'll take a similar share this time. The majority of voters who support nationalism realise that the BNP is the most credible of the nationalist parties and won't waste their votes on Inman. Interestingly, Kevin Inman was until recently a member of the BNP. Only last May he featured in a BNP website story on campaigning ahead of the EU elections, where he was described as 'Black Country Deputy Organiser'. Presumably, Inman's decision to leave the party for the National Front was in some way connected with the BNP's move towards the mainstream and its decision to admit ethnically non-indigenous members. In fact, the National Front have decided to stand against the BNP in a number of seats this year, but they will be doomed to being beaten by the BNP by a healthy margin wherever they stand.

Dudley North has been a solid Labour seat for many years, although Labour's share of the vote has eroded slightly since 2001 and must be expected to decrease again tomorrow. In 1997 they polled 51.2%; in 2001 52.1%, and in 2005 44.2%. This time, the full slate of candidates is as follows: Ian Austin (Labour); Mike Beckett (Liberal Democrat); Graeme Brown (Conservative); Malcolm Davies (UKIP); Ken Griffiths (BNP) and Kevin Inman (National Front). The results for 2005 were:
  • Labour                      18,306    44.2% (−7.9)
  • Conservative             12,874    31.1% (−3.4)
  • Liberal Democrat       4,257     10.3% (+1.6)
  • BNP                          4,022      9.7%   (+5.0)
  • UKIP                        1,949      4.7%   (N/A)
The BNP should be aiming for a minimum of third place with at least 15% of the vote. This target is readily in reach. I urge anyone living in Dudley North who wishes to send out a strong signal that you are dissatisfied with the mainstream parties' reaction to Islamic intimidation of the local population to vote BNP tomorrow. The more votes that Ken Griffiths receives, the stronger will be your message to the political class who are content not only to ignore your woes, but to exacerbate them by pandering to the Islamist bullies. Vote for a brighter future. Vote for peace. Vote BNP.

Burnley: BNP Target Seat Number Seven

Burnley has provided a strong showing for the BNP in recent years. Last June Sharon Wilkinson won its first county council seat, building upon its previous success which has seen four councillors elected at the local government level. Like many of England’s northern towns, Burnley has issues arising from the presence of a significant Pakistani and Bangladeshi population. Although traditionally a Labour bastion, Labour were wiped out at the county level last June losing all of their six Burnley county seats: one to the BNP and five to the Liberal Democrats. This demonstrates that Labour’s Julie Cooper could see her party’s majority eroded significantly, with the seat prospectively offering a tempting prize for the Liberal Democrats.

The BNP polled strongly in Burnley in both the 2001 and 2005 General Elections, taking 11.3% (4,151 votes) and 10.3% (4,003 votes) of the vote respectively. It is likely that its dip in vote share in 2005 was connected to the strong performance of Harry Brooks, who ran under the banner of Burnley First Independent, taking 5,786 votes (14.8%). Brooks would have attracted the votes of many disgruntled electors, some of whom would probably have voted BNP. The other significant change between 2001 and 2005 which provides a pointer to a possible surprise in the seat on Thursday was a significant decrease in the Labour vote and corresponding rise in that of the Liberal Democrats, with the former falling from 49.3% to 38.5%, and the latter rising from 16.2% to 23.7%. Admittedly, this still leaves a large gap between the two parties, but the electorate’s dissatisfaction with Labour conjoined with the Clegg surge and the eclipse of Labour in Burnley by the Liberal Democrats at last year’s county elections must make this a strong target seat for the latter party. offer odds of 33/1 on the BNP taking the seat, but what will be the likely BNP performance this time around? As in 2005, two independent candidates are standing, but Harry Brooks is not one of them. Normally, independents take a low percentage of the national poll, and the other independent candidate to run in 2005 – Jeff Slater – won only 1% of the vote. On this occasion I would not expect either independent to poll more than 1-3% of the vote. This should leave scope for the BNP to increase its share of the vote, particularly when considering their advance last year.

The full slate of candidates standing is as follows: Richard Ali (Conservative); Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrat); Andrew Brown (Independent); Julie Cooper (Labour); Andrew Hennessey (Independent); John Wignall (UKIP); Sharon Wilkinson (BNP). This seat is most certainly not a Conservative target, as in 2005 the Tories took only 10.8% of the vote, only just ahead of the BNP. The BNP must therefore be looking to beat the Conservatives into fourth place this time around, and I think that this is a realistic objective. Labour will either hang on by the skin of their teeth or lose the seat to the Liberal Democrats, with the BNP taking third place, possibly on 15% of the vote, with the Conservatives sinking back into fourth and UKIP battling it out for fifth place with the two Independents. UKIP fielded candidates in both the 2001 and 2005 elections, but performed weakly attracting only 2.3% and 1% of the total respectively.

Tuesday 4 May 2010

EDL Rooftop Protest and the March for England

In the following video clip the United Defence League's spokesman outlines what happened to the EDL rooftop protesters in Dudley. He claims that local Muslims told the police that they would riot if the EDL protest was not brought to an end by police action. Importantly, include Saturday 22 May as a date for your diaries, as a 'March for England' is taking place in London involving the EDL, the English Democrats, UKIP and sympathetic supporters from countries such as Holland.

Dewsbury: BNP Target Seat Number Six

Dewsbury, as many people know, is the parliamentary constituency of the repellent expenses abusing Labour Islamic supremacist Shahid Malik. Like many other seats, Dewsbury has seen boundary changes since 2005 which leaves Malik in the position of defending a reduced notional majority owing to the loss of traditionally Labour Heckmondwike and the acquisition of the traditionally Tory Denby Dale and Kirkburton wards.

The BNP polled very strongly here in 2005 with David Exley taking 13.1% with 5,066 votes, hot on the heels of the Liberal Democrats who secured 14.6%. However, the UK Polling Report blog notes that one of the strongest BNP areas has been lost to Batley and Spen owing to boundary changes. Still, we can expect the BNP to do very well here, as Dewsbury is home to a large colony of Deobandi Muslims concentrated in the Saville Town and Ravensthorpe areas. Over the past year there have been a series of attacks on the local white population by Muslim youths which is symptomatic of the long-term social dislocation in the town caused by the refusal of the Islamic incomers to acculturate to English social norms. They have instead adhered to their imported fundamentalist Deobandi interpretation of Islam.

This time around Roger Roberts, a BNP councillor for Heckmondwike since 2006, is the party’s Dewsbury candidate. Mr Roberts joined the BNP in 2004 after 45 years in the Conservative Party. It is probable that the Conservatives will take the seat from Labour, but the BNP should be battling it out with the Liberal Democrats to take third place. If they can achieve this and take 15% of the vote, this would be a solid achievement. However, it is difficult to tell what impact the Clegg surge will have on the Liberal Democrat vote here. The BNP took many votes from Labour in 2005, and I suspect that this time around they’ll take a few more, but the Liberal Democrats could also take a good chunk of Labour’s support. This may make it harder for the BNP to take third place, but then again, the local specificities within the constituency (i.e. the well-publicised attacks on the local indigenous population by Muslim youths) may play in their favour.

Unlike in 2005, Dewsbury electors will also be able to vote for another nationalist party, although of the civic nationalist variety and far smaller and less serious than the BNP – the English Democrats. It is a great pity that they have also chosen to run in this seat, as they could shave a percentage point or two off of the BNP total. The full list of candidates standing in Dewsbury is: Adrian Cruden (Green); Michael Felse (English Democrats); Andrew Hutcheson (Liberal Democrat); Khizar Iqbal (Independent); Shahid Malik (Labour); Simon Reevell (Conservative) and Roger Roberts (BNP). Hopefully part of Labour’s Islamic bloc vote will also sheer off and attach itself to Khizar Iqbal. Whoever wins this Thursday, I shall relish seeing Malik turfed out of his seat. Hopefully this will bring an end to his political career. have odds of 28/1 on the BNP taking the seat.

Today Programme is Barking Mad

This morning's report on the electoral campaign in Barking was as far removed from the BBC's obligation to be impartial as could be imagined. The Today Programme reporter did his utmost to talk up Margaret Hodge's prospect of winning the seat and sought out as many voters as possible who had something negative to say about the BNP. He also made the most risible comment of the parliamentary campaign that I have heard so far - that many in Barking may be considering voting Liberal Democrat in order to deal with its housing problem! As the Liberal Democrats wish to provide an amnesty to an estimated 1.1 million immigrants and would wish to see many more immigrants flood into the country, any indigenous voter considering casting their ballot for this party should have their head examined. The Liberal Democrats would give priority in housing allocation to any immigrant family/individual which they deemed to have greater legitimate needs than the local population, leaving the latter to rot.

Unsurprisingly, owing to the BBC's unrelenting hostility towards the BNP and its associated tendentious distorted reporting of the party, Richard Barnbrook refused to allow the Today Programme the opportunity of interviewing Nick Griffin or any of the BNP team working in the constituency. The manner in which this report was conducted could readily be interpreted as an attempt by Radio 4 to subvert the democratic process in Barking. My message to the disgruntled voters of Barking is this: if you want your situation to change for the better, vote BNP and return Nick Griffin to Westminster, for the other parties don't give a damn about you and will definitely place the needs of immigrants before yours.

Monday 3 May 2010

Salford and Eccles: BNP Target Seat Number Five

Tina Wingfield is contesting Salford and Eccles for the BNP taking on Labour's Hazel Blears. Salford and Eccles is in effect a new seat, as there have been extensive boundary changes since 2005, with the old Salford seat losing Broughton but gaining part of the former Eccles seat. Both Salford and Eccles had returned Labour MPs, but as the BNP only stood candidates in two of the constituency's wards in the last local elections in May 2008 it is not possible to make any baseline projections vis-a-vis the BNP vote. The BNP stood in neither constituency in 2005, but UKIP scored 4.8% in Salford and 4.9% in Eccles.

Nonetheless, this will be a seat to watch, as Blears was a high profile abuser of the expenses system, flipping between properties to maximise her financial return. Her reputation and standing suffered accordingly, with an opinion poll carried out in May 2009 by the Express in her then constituency of Salford suggesting that the BNP would win the seat with 38.4% of the vote. Voters will still be angry with Blears, but to what extent will this anger have abated since last year? Whatever the case, we should expect the BNP to make a strong showing in the seat, especially when considering that Blears's campaign has been beset with undesired controversy following last week's revelation that one of her campaign team volunteers - a Nigerian named Rhoda Sulaimon - had overstayed on her visa and was due for deportation after the election.

Tina Wingfield, wife of senior BNP member Martin Wingfield (Communications Officer for Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons and parliamentary candidate for Workington) is a solid candidate who should stand the party in good stead. She has a Degree in Social Sciences and possesses expertise in housing and mental health-related issues.

BNP Candidate Tina Wingfield

Unfortunately, two other nationalistically-inclined parties - the English Democrats and UKIP - are standing in Salford and Eccles, so this will probably shave a few percentage points from the prospective BNP vote. The full list of candidates is: Hazel Blears (Labour); Richard Carvath (Independent); David Henry (Trade Unionist and Socialist); Stephen Morris (English Democrats); Duran O'Dwyer (UKIP); Norman Owen (Liberal Democrat); Matthew Sephton (Conservative); Tina Wingfield (BNP). As this is in effect a new seat, it really isn't possible to estimate shares of the vote, but as it incorporates wards taken from two solid Labour seats, this is very much Labour home territory. The election in Salford and Eccles will therefore be very much a judgement on the (un)popularity of Hazel Blears. The BNP should be looking to score a minimum of 15%, probably much higher. is currently offering odds of 50/1 on Tina Wingfield taking the seat.

Dudley Mega Mosque Scrapped

Congratulations to all of the Dudley residents who signed a petition opposing construction of the mega mosque and to all of the EDL members involved in the demonstrations against this project. The cancellation of this scheme is a first symbolic victory for the British people in rolling back the tide of Islamisation. No more mosques! No more madrassahs! No more 'interfaith centres' (i.e. covert Islamic centres)!

The following report is taken from the Express and Star newspaper:

Dudley mosque plan is scrapped
Monday 3rd May 2010, 11:30AM BST.

Plans to build an £18million mosque in Dudley town centre have been scrapped, the Express & Star can reveal today.

The scheme to build a mosque with 65ft minaret on derelict land in Hall Street attracted huge protests, but has now been ditched by the Dudley Muslim Association.

Deputy council leader, Les Jones, told the Express & Star today the DMA had agreed instead to redevelop the existing mosque in Castle Hill, after months of delicate negotiations.

The proposal has been dogged by controversy from day one and two petitions of more than 50,000 signatures were gathered in opposition.

People objected saying the mosque would dominate the skyline and be out of keeping with the town’s medieval character. They also objected to the mosque being built on land designated for employment use.

Despite Dudley Council throwing out the application in 2007 it was granted at an appeal the following year by a government inspector.

In 2009 the council launched a High Court bid against the inspector’s decision but the judge upheld the ruling, granting outline planning permission.

Councillor Jones said since then the council has been in talks with the DMA.

He said: “We have reached an agreement with the DMA not to develop on land in Hall Street.

“The current mosque is not really fit for purpose and we have been working with them to come up with some plans and would have been looking to submit an outline planning application in the next few months.”

Today’s announcement comes as a handful of anti-mosque campaigners scaled the walls of the derelict factory in Hall Street for a rooftop protest.

Councillor Malcolm Davis, who has campaigned against the mosque plan, said: “I’m delighted with the outcome. If it has taken months of negotiation to achieve this result then I applaud that.”

By Heather Loat

EDL/United Defence League's Message for UAF

In the following video a spokesman for the EDL/United Defence League delivers a message to the UAF informing them that their days are up. Amusingly, he outlines how the tables have been turned on the UAF's Martin Smith through using tactics (albeit non-threatening, which is where the crucial difference lies) normally utilised by the UAF to bar the BNP from pubs and other meeting places. Members of the EDL have already turned up at 'open' UAF meetings to peacefully ask questions, which has caused consternation amongst UAF members. The EDL/United Defence League will henceforth turn up at all such meetings wherever possible as well as at the peculiarly entitled 'Love Music, Hate Racism' events staged by UAF and confederate organisations. Watch the video, and have a chuckle.