A little video relief from the usual offerings here, featuring Muse's 'Uprising' with a decent accompanying video (visual reference to vaccines excepted – nothing more than anti-scientific paranoia).
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Safeguarding the Future of the English: Your Children and Grandchildren
Headlines come and headlines go, but one of the many negative themes that recurs time and again is the demographic decline of the English and the native British more generally in the United Kingdom, when compared to the burgeoning immigrant and immigrant-descended population. Today’s story in the Daily Express, revealing a 40% increase in the country’s non-white population in just 8 years, taking it from 6.6 million in 2001 to 9.1 million in 2009 (and that’s just taking legal immigrants and births to the settled non-white population into account) should serve as a salutary warning to those native Britons who view this process with a blasé indifference. The report goes on to note “that British whites will become a minority in Leicester, Birmingham, Bradford and Oldham “perhaps by 2016”.”
Why should this be a matter for concern you may ask yourself; after all, isn’t it ‘racist’ to object to such a transformation? Well, if you are English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, why would you wish to place yourself, as well as your children and their descendents, at a comparative disadvantage in your own homeland in the labour and property markets? Why would you proffer legal and material advantages to immigrants and what is currently the ethnic minority population over the interests of yourself and your own flesh and blood? Are you comfortable with the real prospect of your children and grandchildren becoming an ethnic minority in their own country? Well, our ‘equalities’, ‘diversity’ and 'human rights' legislation ensures that such discrimination does take place, and that minority status will await the English if nothing is done to remove these harmful laws.
The Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties introduced these unjust laws that discriminate against the indigenous population, particularly indigenous males, and they will rabidly defend and extend the sphere of their operation to the detriment of their own people whom they purport to represent. As they will not defend us, and as yet there is no political party standing in the wings with the imminent prospect of power, we must do what we can to combat and reverse this negative process of the displacement of our indigenous rights and interests.
The first step to take, which all native Britons should be willing to sign up to irrespective of any other political differences that they might hold, is to recognise that the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish are the indigenous peoples of their respective homelands, and that as such, their interests should take primacy within these historically constituted territories. This of course can only be achieved if we gain legal recognition of ourselves as being the native peoples of these islands, and for us to achieve this, we must unceasingly demolish the officially promoted myth that the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish do not exist as distinct ethnic groups and nations. To do this of course, we must bring about a change in the consciousness of our peoples so that the official lie of our non-existence is rejected. We must therefore start a campaign for the recognition of our peoples as indigenous, and for this status to be enshrined in national and international law. Moreover, this campaign for indigenous rights must involve our neighbouring European cousins, so that the French, Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, Poles, etc, are all recognised as the indigenous peoples of their respective nation-states and accorded a concomitant right to determine their own futures. The interests of indigenous peoples everywhere should serve as the bedrock of all policy making.
The colonisation of our countries, our demographic displacement and the destruction of our national cultures and cohesion must be rejected. We need to start a campaign for the recognition of the English as the indigenous people of England, and thus should launch a carefully worded petition which we can spread via Facebook, email and other online platforms to ensure that policy makers and the mainstream mass media are compelled to sit up, listen and act.
Why should this be a matter for concern you may ask yourself; after all, isn’t it ‘racist’ to object to such a transformation? Well, if you are English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, why would you wish to place yourself, as well as your children and their descendents, at a comparative disadvantage in your own homeland in the labour and property markets? Why would you proffer legal and material advantages to immigrants and what is currently the ethnic minority population over the interests of yourself and your own flesh and blood? Are you comfortable with the real prospect of your children and grandchildren becoming an ethnic minority in their own country? Well, our ‘equalities’, ‘diversity’ and 'human rights' legislation ensures that such discrimination does take place, and that minority status will await the English if nothing is done to remove these harmful laws.
The Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties introduced these unjust laws that discriminate against the indigenous population, particularly indigenous males, and they will rabidly defend and extend the sphere of their operation to the detriment of their own people whom they purport to represent. As they will not defend us, and as yet there is no political party standing in the wings with the imminent prospect of power, we must do what we can to combat and reverse this negative process of the displacement of our indigenous rights and interests.
The first step to take, which all native Britons should be willing to sign up to irrespective of any other political differences that they might hold, is to recognise that the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish are the indigenous peoples of their respective homelands, and that as such, their interests should take primacy within these historically constituted territories. This of course can only be achieved if we gain legal recognition of ourselves as being the native peoples of these islands, and for us to achieve this, we must unceasingly demolish the officially promoted myth that the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish do not exist as distinct ethnic groups and nations. To do this of course, we must bring about a change in the consciousness of our peoples so that the official lie of our non-existence is rejected. We must therefore start a campaign for the recognition of our peoples as indigenous, and for this status to be enshrined in national and international law. Moreover, this campaign for indigenous rights must involve our neighbouring European cousins, so that the French, Dutch, Germans, Norwegians, Poles, etc, are all recognised as the indigenous peoples of their respective nation-states and accorded a concomitant right to determine their own futures. The interests of indigenous peoples everywhere should serve as the bedrock of all policy making.
The colonisation of our countries, our demographic displacement and the destruction of our national cultures and cohesion must be rejected. We need to start a campaign for the recognition of the English as the indigenous people of England, and thus should launch a carefully worded petition which we can spread via Facebook, email and other online platforms to ensure that policy makers and the mainstream mass media are compelled to sit up, listen and act.
Saturday, 7 May 2011
English Democrats' Performance in Doncaster
Given that the national figures for the English Democrats local election performance are not currently available, and the party’s website contains next to no information on this theme, I thought that it might be interesting to see how it fared in Thursday’s elections in Doncaster. I have chosen to look at this borough because the town elected the English Democrat Peter Davies as its Mayor in 2009, which would suggest that local people have at least heard of the party, which may well not be the case elsewhere. It could be expected therefore, that this greater public awareness might translate into a higher potential vote (although then again, as with many parties there could be a negative incumbency effect in play), so having scoured the local press and compiled the voting figures for each of the borough’s 21 wards, I have produced a table for the borough which can be found at the end of this article.
Labour was the only party to contest each ward, and unsurprisingly managed to take all but three council seats. The Conservatives took two, and the Liberal Democrats one. Although the English Democrats contested only twelve seats, this was one more than the Liberal Democrats managed. The full results for the borough are shown below. What this doesn’t show is that the average English Democrat share of the vote in the wards it contested was 16.2%, which is very respectable for a nationalist party. The English Democrats beat the BNP in the two wards where both parties were standing: by 512 to 153 in Edlington and Warmsworth, and by 394 to 288 in Stainforth and Moorends. They did not contest either of the wards in which UKIP were standing, whereas both UKIP and the BNP contested Mexborough, with the former taking 255 votes and the latter 265.
As can be seen from the overall number of votes and the average number of votes per candidate, the English Democrats did comparatively well on each count, coming in fourth place ahead of the Liberal Democrats. English Democrat candidates netted an average of 642 votes, compared to the Liberal Democrats’ 520. Although they took no council seats on this occasion, they did secure three second and six third places. The highest share of the vote achieved was 23.3% (four candidates exceeded 20%), whereas the lowest was 9.5%. In Doncaster at least, the English Democrats appear to have demonstrated that it is possible for a party appealing to English nationalism to make a breakthrough. Interestingly, in last year’s General Election the three parliamentary constituencies contested by the English Democrats yielded the following percentages:
Party Vote Share Wards Av. Vote
Labour 37,921 46.50% 21 1806
Conservative 15,750 19.30% 20 788
Independent 9,501 11.70% 13 731
English Democrats 7,703 9.50% 12 642
Liberal Democrats 5,723 7.00% 11 520
Community Group 1,686 2.10% 4 422
BNP 1,302 1.60% 4 326
UKIP 847 1.00% 2 424
Green 794 1.00% 2 397
Trade Unionists & Socialists Against Cuts
268 0.30% 1 268
Labour was the only party to contest each ward, and unsurprisingly managed to take all but three council seats. The Conservatives took two, and the Liberal Democrats one. Although the English Democrats contested only twelve seats, this was one more than the Liberal Democrats managed. The full results for the borough are shown below. What this doesn’t show is that the average English Democrat share of the vote in the wards it contested was 16.2%, which is very respectable for a nationalist party. The English Democrats beat the BNP in the two wards where both parties were standing: by 512 to 153 in Edlington and Warmsworth, and by 394 to 288 in Stainforth and Moorends. They did not contest either of the wards in which UKIP were standing, whereas both UKIP and the BNP contested Mexborough, with the former taking 255 votes and the latter 265.
As can be seen from the overall number of votes and the average number of votes per candidate, the English Democrats did comparatively well on each count, coming in fourth place ahead of the Liberal Democrats. English Democrat candidates netted an average of 642 votes, compared to the Liberal Democrats’ 520. Although they took no council seats on this occasion, they did secure three second and six third places. The highest share of the vote achieved was 23.3% (four candidates exceeded 20%), whereas the lowest was 9.5%. In Doncaster at least, the English Democrats appear to have demonstrated that it is possible for a party appealing to English nationalism to make a breakthrough. Interestingly, in last year’s General Election the three parliamentary constituencies contested by the English Democrats yielded the following percentages:
Doncaster North
5.2% (fifth, behind BNP on 6.8% and ahead of UKIP on 4.3%)
Doncaster Central
4.4% (fourth place, with BNP on 4.2% and UKIP on 3.4%)
Don Valley
4.0% (sixth behind BNP on 4.9% and UKIP on 4.4%)
The English Democrats have of course done better than the BNP and UKIP this time around because they fielded more candidates in Doncaster, yet this does not account for the fact that their average number of votes and share of the vote in wards contested was higher than for either of the latter two parties. The BNP is in meltdown and UKIP as an Atlanticist Tory party will only ever exert limited appeal to a non-Tory social constituency. Given the SNP’s notable victory on Thursday, and the possible future break up of the UK, the English Democrats look to be best placed ideologically to take advantage of the situation and to become England’s natural nationalist party. Naturally, it would be absurd to extrapolate any general conclusions for the whole of England from this one case study, but Thursday’s experience in Doncaster does suggest that the English Democrats could become a significant force in English politics were they to enjoy greater public recognition. Doncaster Council Election Results: Thursday 5 May 2011
Party Vote Share Wards Av. Vote
Labour 37,921 46.50% 21 1806
Conservative 15,750 19.30% 20 788
Independent 9,501 11.70% 13 731
English Democrats 7,703 9.50% 12 642
Liberal Democrats 5,723 7.00% 11 520
Community Group 1,686 2.10% 4 422
BNP 1,302 1.60% 4 326
UKIP 847 1.00% 2 424
Green 794 1.00% 2 397
Trade Unionists & Socialists Against Cuts
268 0.30% 1 268
March for Freedom in Cologne
A ‘March for Freedom’ has taken place in Cologne today. Around 1,000 marchers took to the streets of the German city to demonstrate in support of freedom of expression. As an anti-Islamisation demonstration organised by the Pro-Cologne movement, it drew the unwanted attention of anti-German leftist protestors, and some 10,000 police were drafted in to ensure that there was no violence. Members of Pro-Cologne have previously been physically attacked by self-styled ‘anti-fascists’. No information has been provided on the size of the counter-demonstration.
Representatives of kindred movements from other European countries were there to lend support: Jacques Cordonnier from France’s Bloc Identitaire; Filip Dewinter from Belgium’s Vlaams Belang, and Susanne Winter of Austria’s Freedom Party. Videos of the protest can be accessed at the following PI article (be warned, these are in German without subtitles).
Representatives of kindred movements from other European countries were there to lend support: Jacques Cordonnier from France’s Bloc Identitaire; Filip Dewinter from Belgium’s Vlaams Belang, and Susanne Winter of Austria’s Freedom Party. Videos of the protest can be accessed at the following PI article (be warned, these are in German without subtitles).
Friday, 6 May 2011
Leicester South by-election Result Announced: Labour Hold
It’s been a long wait, but at last the Leicester South by-election result has been declared. The winning candidate was Jonathan Ashworth of the Labour Party, which is no surprise. Ashworth took 57.8% of the vote, up from the 45.6% won by his predecessor Peter Soulsby last year. Today of course, has seen the Liberal Democrats take a real drubbing nationally, but contrary to an earlier report that I'd seen, their candidate Zuffar Haq (a Muslim this time around unlike the Sikh Parmjit Singh Gill who stood last year) held onto second place, beating the Tory candidate Jane Hunt. Nonetheless, both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates saw their shares of the vote decline by 4.4% and 6.3% respectively.
As for the UKIP candidate, Abhijit Pandya, who incensed the ire of the Leicester Mercury recently because of his blog postings critical of Islam, unfortunately he trailed in fourth, beating only the Monster Raving Loony Candidate, which cannot be adjudged to be much of a consolation. When I last drafted this piece, there was a claim on the Bloggers4UKIP site that Pandya had attracted only 1.11% of the vote, thus managing to propel UKIP downwards from 1.5% last year! However, this proved not to be the case, and he actually slightly increased the share of the vote to 2.9%, although in numerical terms UKIP only took 994 votes, up 274 on 2010. It would thus appear that he did attract some support from those who last year lent their support to the BNP, who had previously taken a 3% share. Given the fact that the BNP did not on this occasion field a candidate, presumably owing to the state of near meltdown in which the party finds itself, UKIP should have been looking to do better than this. That it did not, suggests that something went seriously wrong with their campaign. After all, the Monster Raving Loony candidate took 1.6% of the vote.
The electorate had evidently been convinced that Pandya overdid it with his repatriate unemployed Muslims stance. That said, UKIP also fared badly in Leicester's mayoral election, their candidate trailing some considerable distance in seventh place behind the Greens and an Independent. This poor performance should hold lessons for UKIP and the small nationalist parties in England.
The final figures for the Leicester South by-election are:
As for the UKIP candidate, Abhijit Pandya, who incensed the ire of the Leicester Mercury recently because of his blog postings critical of Islam, unfortunately he trailed in fourth, beating only the Monster Raving Loony Candidate, which cannot be adjudged to be much of a consolation. When I last drafted this piece, there was a claim on the Bloggers4UKIP site that Pandya had attracted only 1.11% of the vote, thus managing to propel UKIP downwards from 1.5% last year! However, this proved not to be the case, and he actually slightly increased the share of the vote to 2.9%, although in numerical terms UKIP only took 994 votes, up 274 on 2010. It would thus appear that he did attract some support from those who last year lent their support to the BNP, who had previously taken a 3% share. Given the fact that the BNP did not on this occasion field a candidate, presumably owing to the state of near meltdown in which the party finds itself, UKIP should have been looking to do better than this. That it did not, suggests that something went seriously wrong with their campaign. After all, the Monster Raving Loony candidate took 1.6% of the vote.
The electorate had evidently been convinced that Pandya overdid it with his repatriate unemployed Muslims stance. That said, UKIP also fared badly in Leicester's mayoral election, their candidate trailing some considerable distance in seventh place behind the Greens and an Independent. This poor performance should hold lessons for UKIP and the small nationalist parties in England.
The final figures for the Leicester South by-election are:
- Labour 19,771 (57.8%)
- Liberal Democrats 7,693 (22.5%)
- Conservatives 5,169 (15.1%)
- UKIP 994 (2.9%)
- Monster Raving Loony 553 (1.6%)
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Leicester South by-election Result: Interesting?
Today’s big electoral story, for Liberal Democrats that is, is the referendum on the Alternative Vote. No thank you. I voted against. Elsewhere across the country, people have headed to the polls in local elections across England and for those to the devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies. Note the absence of an opportunity for the English to express themselves in their own parliament.
I cannot recall a previous occasion when I have been so bored by an election campaign. Dull squabbling about AV, and Ed Miliband prattling on as if the Labour Party provided an alternative to the mess that the country is in, when in fact they’d make things still worse. Amidst all of this soporific irrelevance and the charade of tripartite political ‘difference’, there is one slightly interesting contest taking place today: the Leicester South by-election. Why is it interesting? Quite simply because the UKIP candidate is deemed to have said something truthful (i.e. unacceptable to mainstream politicians and the media) about the negative reality about Islam in the city, and across the UK in general. The candidate – Abhijat Pandya – has spoken out in favour of the EDL, denounced Islam and multiculturalism, advocated the forced repatriation of Muslims on benefits, and sought to overturn the ban on Geert Wilders entering the UK. All of these attitudes, statements and actions are in my opinion very positive, and I applaud Pandya for these. Pandya himself is UKIP’s Head of Research, a practising Christian and the son of an East Asian immigrant from Uganda.
Depressingly, Leicester of course is widely expected to become Britain’s first minority white city, and the ethnic and confessional composition of the Leicester South constituency makes Pandya’s candidacy all the more interesting, for according to the 2001 census, it was at that time only 61.2% white and 19.3% Muslim. Sadly, the Muslim share of the population will have grown since then. The Leicester Mercury shamefully attacked Pandya for a recent blog posting in which he criticised Islam, so it will be very interesting to see whether this actually plays to his favour or detriment. One may assume that the majority of remaining English people in the constituency who have not internalised the ethnic self-hatred propagated by political correctness will react positively, as perhaps will many amongst Hindu and Sikh residents, who together made up 12.8% of the constituency’s population in 2001.
At the General Election last year, six candidates contested Leicester South. This time around, both the BNP and the Greens have dropped out, but a Loony candidate has entered the fray. UKIP polled poorly last year, taking only 720 votes, some 1.5% of the total, way behind the BNP’s 3% share with 1,418. However, I would anticipate that most of those who voted BNP last time would have switched to UKIP on this occasion. Pandya should therefore take at least 5%. If he could break the 10% barrier, this would be a real achievement. It is unlikely however, that Labour will lose its stranglehold on the seat, for last year, despite the party’s dreadful national performance, the elected MP managed to secure 45.6% of the vote, with the Liberal Democrats trailing in second place on 26.9%. However, it would be a pleasant surprise if at some time in the early hours of tomorrow morning it were to be announced that “Abhijat Pandya has been duly elected as MP for Leicester South."
I cannot recall a previous occasion when I have been so bored by an election campaign. Dull squabbling about AV, and Ed Miliband prattling on as if the Labour Party provided an alternative to the mess that the country is in, when in fact they’d make things still worse. Amidst all of this soporific irrelevance and the charade of tripartite political ‘difference’, there is one slightly interesting contest taking place today: the Leicester South by-election. Why is it interesting? Quite simply because the UKIP candidate is deemed to have said something truthful (i.e. unacceptable to mainstream politicians and the media) about the negative reality about Islam in the city, and across the UK in general. The candidate – Abhijat Pandya – has spoken out in favour of the EDL, denounced Islam and multiculturalism, advocated the forced repatriation of Muslims on benefits, and sought to overturn the ban on Geert Wilders entering the UK. All of these attitudes, statements and actions are in my opinion very positive, and I applaud Pandya for these. Pandya himself is UKIP’s Head of Research, a practising Christian and the son of an East Asian immigrant from Uganda.
Depressingly, Leicester of course is widely expected to become Britain’s first minority white city, and the ethnic and confessional composition of the Leicester South constituency makes Pandya’s candidacy all the more interesting, for according to the 2001 census, it was at that time only 61.2% white and 19.3% Muslim. Sadly, the Muslim share of the population will have grown since then. The Leicester Mercury shamefully attacked Pandya for a recent blog posting in which he criticised Islam, so it will be very interesting to see whether this actually plays to his favour or detriment. One may assume that the majority of remaining English people in the constituency who have not internalised the ethnic self-hatred propagated by political correctness will react positively, as perhaps will many amongst Hindu and Sikh residents, who together made up 12.8% of the constituency’s population in 2001.
At the General Election last year, six candidates contested Leicester South. This time around, both the BNP and the Greens have dropped out, but a Loony candidate has entered the fray. UKIP polled poorly last year, taking only 720 votes, some 1.5% of the total, way behind the BNP’s 3% share with 1,418. However, I would anticipate that most of those who voted BNP last time would have switched to UKIP on this occasion. Pandya should therefore take at least 5%. If he could break the 10% barrier, this would be a real achievement. It is unlikely however, that Labour will lose its stranglehold on the seat, for last year, despite the party’s dreadful national performance, the elected MP managed to secure 45.6% of the vote, with the Liberal Democrats trailing in second place on 26.9%. However, it would be a pleasant surprise if at some time in the early hours of tomorrow morning it were to be announced that “Abhijat Pandya has been duly elected as MP for Leicester South."
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Sky News Report: Infamous Five arrested at Sellafield
It would seem that our wonderfully ‘vibrant’ multicultural experiment might have spawned a group of five interested in exploring the potential of nuclear power in England, but not with a view to meeting any energy deficit or cutting emissions of carbon dioxide. Rather insultingly, the five London residents (they’re not Londoners) have been described as ‘Asian’ males in their twenties. Why doesn’t the media come clean about this and stop insulting ethnic Chinese and Japanese, as well as Hindus and Sikhs, and just tell us that these men are Muslims of sub-continental extraction, rather than tarring all people of Asian origin with this brush? I am tired of having to read between the lines in reports about these people. I’d wager one of my front teeth that it transpires that they’re Muslims. One source has described them as Bangladeshis, although the police have failed to confirm this (which suggests that they are). Maybe these men were prospecting for a new ingredient for an extra-hot phal which would illumine the darkened interiors of the restaurants of Brick Lane, but then again, they could well have had much more nefarious purposes in mind.
It’s not clear whether the five had decided to visit Sellafield with a view to honing their amateur photography skills by taking portraits of this ‘beautiful’ site, or whether they were staking it out for an attack or theft of nuclear materials. We’ll probably find out by digging through the small print of an obscure press release in a year or two. They could well be members of the bin Laden fan club with a taste for Islamist terrorism, or, irrespective of what they actually are, ‘victims of institutional racism’ for the Guardian. I can already hear Mehdi Hassan smacking his lips over this one, and getting ready to verbally chastise we infidel ‘cattle’ once again for our filthy, impudent kufr intolerance. The Birmingham Post however, reports that the arrests have triggered police raids on four houses in East London.
Still, over to Sky for some footage of Sellafield’s ‘beauty’ and a little commentary on the arrests:
UPDATE
The latest Sky video report below provides a little more detail about the enthusiastic photographic chroniclers of the nation's nuclear facilities:
It’s not clear whether the five had decided to visit Sellafield with a view to honing their amateur photography skills by taking portraits of this ‘beautiful’ site, or whether they were staking it out for an attack or theft of nuclear materials. We’ll probably find out by digging through the small print of an obscure press release in a year or two. They could well be members of the bin Laden fan club with a taste for Islamist terrorism, or, irrespective of what they actually are, ‘victims of institutional racism’ for the Guardian. I can already hear Mehdi Hassan smacking his lips over this one, and getting ready to verbally chastise we infidel ‘cattle’ once again for our filthy, impudent kufr intolerance. The Birmingham Post however, reports that the arrests have triggered police raids on four houses in East London.
Still, over to Sky for some footage of Sellafield’s ‘beauty’ and a little commentary on the arrests:
UPDATE
The latest Sky video report below provides a little more detail about the enthusiastic photographic chroniclers of the nation's nuclear facilities:
Monday, 2 May 2011
French Lessons for British Nationalists
If only we had a nationalist politician as articulate as France’s Front National Leader Marine Le Pen! Why don’t we? Why don’t we have an organised nationalist political party as popular as the Front National? Le Pen is currently predicted to beat Sarkozy in the first round of the French presidential elections next year, and as can be seen in her confident handling of an interview with Russia Today in the video at the end of this article, the messages and policies that she proposes would apply equally well to the UK.
Why indeed, are we lagging behind virtually all other countries in Europe in spawning a popular nationalist party? Witness the recent electoral successes of the True Finns, the Sweden Democrats and the PVV. All have made groundbreaking advances in their respective countries, showing that they possess the potential of becoming the leading political forces in their nations.
Here in the UK, much of the problem lies with the widespread illusion that the Conservative Party is a nationalist party. It is not. It is instead a globalist multiculturalist party, concerned primarily with protecting the narrow material interests of the most privileged stratum within our fractured society. There is nothing else that this party wishes to conserve. The illusion of the Conservative Party as a nationalist party is fed by its ideological globalist multiculturalist bedfellows in the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, and most importantly of all, by the Tory press such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Telegraph.
The Conservative Party under Thatcher and Major waged a class war that destroyed the material security of vast sections of the British working class, decimating entire industries and communities in the process: coalmining, shipbuilding, steel and manufacturing in general. Once they had laid waste to the economic underpinnings of our nation and transformed us into a speculative debt-fuelled property-obsessed service economy, along came Labour and Brown to propel us further in this direction. Moreover, Blair and Brown opened two further fronts - ideological and demographic - in the war against our people, denying in fact that we even exist as a people, as a nation. Enter the ‘diversity’ dogma, millions of immigrants and special privileges for Islam in the form of legislation protecting religious minorities.
Labour’s kulturkampf continues under the Cameroons, and yet people are still gulled by Cameron’s empty rhetoric about ditching multiculturalism, controlling immigration and giving the UK a greater say over our relationship with the EU, whilst in fact the Condem Coalition continues to promote the first two, and Cameron reneged over his promise to allow the electorate a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. Most parliamentary Conservatives today are either enthusiastic advocates of EU membership, or do nothing to promote our withdrawal.
The other reason for the failure of a nationalist party to take off in the UK is the fact that we have not hitherto possessed a credible vehicle for the nationalistically-inclined voter. For all the talk of smears directed against the BNP, it is an unfortunate truth that the party under Nick Griffin has been run into the ground by its leader with a startling dictatorial incompetence. According to Eddie Butler, who challenged Griffin for leadership of the BNP last year, the party’s membership has slumped from a high of 15,000 in May 2010 to around 8,500 by the end of last month. Regular purges and the promotion of sycophantic incompetents, unnecessary court cases, dubious accounting practices, chronic indebtedness, general amateurishness expressing itself in outlandish policy declarations including a manifesto commitment to the general ownership of automatic weaponry and the opening of a penal colony on South Georgia, as well as the intemperate behaviour of some of its members, have allowed the party to squander the groundswell of support that was building in its favour until 2009.
The efforts and hopes of dedicated nationalists who risked much professionally by joining the party have been very poorly rewarded. With a set-up such as this, the BNP hardly needed the combined opposition of the mass media, Searchlight, Hope Not Hate and UAF to end up in its current debacle. Granted, the negative impact of the propaganda constantly pumped out by these opposition groups was certainly a significant hindrance, but even if none of this had existed, the internal flaws that I have mentioned would still have crippled the prospects of the party and deprived it of credibility in the eyes of the electorate.
Many of the more talented senior members of the party left, some to set up the British Freedom Party, which unfortunately itself suffered an internal spat which left it in brief legal limbo until the splinter faction finally broke away to form the Freedom Democrats. From what I have seen, the British Freedom Party has struck the right note (although I have reservations about its commitment to the death penalty) through its realistic formulation of a policy of cultural nationalism that places it very much in line with the PVV in the Netherlands and Die Freiheit in Germany. If one takes its policy declarations to be its yardstick, the British Freedom Party deserves to succeed. On the other hand, if one considers the behaviour of some of its leading founding members, this assertion is cast into doubt. From what I have seen of the policy proposals put forward by the Freedom Democrats, they would be best off joining the disaffected Atlanticist Tories who comprise UKIP.
A new challenge is being made to Nick Griffin’s leadership of the BNP by Richard Edmonds backed by Eddie Butler. They hope to salvage the party, but Butler himself has encouraged many members to leave and join the English Democrats. Indeed, a number of former BNP members, such as Chris Beverley in Morley, will be standing for the English Democrats in the local elections this week. Even if the Edmonds challenge is successful, the BNP looks pretty much dead in the water, with a dreadful public image, not to mention massive debts and serious questions hanging over its accounting procedures. Shockingly, patriotically minded printers who produced the party’s election literature last year have yet to be paid.
The political landscape in the UK is of course highly fragmented owing to the devolutionary settlement imposed by the Labour Party, thus there are different political dynamics at play in the four constituent parts of the country, so in reality any British nationalist party will draw almost all of its support from within England, from the English. With the BNP (certainly for now) out of the frame, we are thus confronted with a shoal of contenders seeking to gobble up the nationalist (here loosely defined to encompass its ethnic, cultural, civic and racial variants) vote: British Freedom Party; English Democrats; Freedom Democrats; National Front; UKIP. All of these have benefited from the turmoil within the BNP, but their prospects are limited.
The Freedom Democrats are in my opinion stillborn and will be gone within a couple of months. Their handful of members will probably join what appears to be their natural home: UKIP. Alternatively, some of them may wish to throw in their lot with the English Democrats. The National Front will gain a few disaffected members from the BNP and will field a few more candidates than it has in recent years, but to no avail, as its ‘brand’ is more tarnished than that of the BNP. The interesting part of the nationalist dynamic lies with the relative fortunes of the British Freedom Party and the English Democrats. The former, as a completely new party, stands at a disadvantage in that it will possess almost zero public recognition, whereas the English Democrats enjoy the advantage of having been established for longer, as well as possessing regional party structures and a certain amount of low-level public visibility. The election of Peter Davies as English Democrat Mayor of Doncaster has certainly raised the party’s profile in Yorkshire. The English Democrats are rather like UKIP for the English, but a centrist civic nationalist rather than an Atlanticist Tory party, and thus possess the potential to appeal to a wider social constituency.
However, it is the British Freedom Party that for me possesses the most fully developed policy platform, as well as a more cohesive ideology than either the English Democrats or UKIP. That said, this fact is rather marred by the maladroit handling of 'dissent' within the party, which basically boiled down to a clash of personalities that precipitated the creation of the Freedom Democrats. Civility costs nothing, and yet two leading members of the BFP lacked the grace to display this towards Gary Marshall, Michael Simpkins and a number of their colleagues who were summarily expelled, thus also betraying what appears to be a negative dictatorial manner of acting à la Nick Griffin carried across from their former party - the BNP. This is a great shame, as I, and I am sure many others, had hoped that the BFP would take from the BNP that which was good by way of policy, and add a genuine democratic and participative element to the party. Clearly, this has not transpired. If disagreements had been handled with tact, this unnecessary split could have been avoided.
Still, I hope that where possible these small parties choose to coordinate their efforts and avoid standing against each other (although I do not think that UKIP will oblige) so as to maximise their electoral impact and thereby allow them to utilise their scarce resources to the best affect. Which do I support? Pragmatically speaking, that very much depends upon the choice presented to me at the ballot box, which may well be no choice at all. Prior to the split, my support would have been lent to the BFP with reasonable confidence, but now, I am veering in the direction of the English Democrats. Many nationalists may decry such a stance, claiming that the English Democrats are cod nationalists as they are not ethno-nationalists, but they possess many good policies which would help move the general frame of public political debate away from the anti-nationalist paradigm. Politics is the art of the possible, thus if the opportunity should afford itself this Thursday morning, I shall be voting for the English Democrats. Failing that, I shall cast my vote for any of the other broadly-defined nationalist parties listed above.
Why indeed, are we lagging behind virtually all other countries in Europe in spawning a popular nationalist party? Witness the recent electoral successes of the True Finns, the Sweden Democrats and the PVV. All have made groundbreaking advances in their respective countries, showing that they possess the potential of becoming the leading political forces in their nations.
Here in the UK, much of the problem lies with the widespread illusion that the Conservative Party is a nationalist party. It is not. It is instead a globalist multiculturalist party, concerned primarily with protecting the narrow material interests of the most privileged stratum within our fractured society. There is nothing else that this party wishes to conserve. The illusion of the Conservative Party as a nationalist party is fed by its ideological globalist multiculturalist bedfellows in the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, and most importantly of all, by the Tory press such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Telegraph.
The Conservative Party under Thatcher and Major waged a class war that destroyed the material security of vast sections of the British working class, decimating entire industries and communities in the process: coalmining, shipbuilding, steel and manufacturing in general. Once they had laid waste to the economic underpinnings of our nation and transformed us into a speculative debt-fuelled property-obsessed service economy, along came Labour and Brown to propel us further in this direction. Moreover, Blair and Brown opened two further fronts - ideological and demographic - in the war against our people, denying in fact that we even exist as a people, as a nation. Enter the ‘diversity’ dogma, millions of immigrants and special privileges for Islam in the form of legislation protecting religious minorities.
Labour’s kulturkampf continues under the Cameroons, and yet people are still gulled by Cameron’s empty rhetoric about ditching multiculturalism, controlling immigration and giving the UK a greater say over our relationship with the EU, whilst in fact the Condem Coalition continues to promote the first two, and Cameron reneged over his promise to allow the electorate a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. Most parliamentary Conservatives today are either enthusiastic advocates of EU membership, or do nothing to promote our withdrawal.
The other reason for the failure of a nationalist party to take off in the UK is the fact that we have not hitherto possessed a credible vehicle for the nationalistically-inclined voter. For all the talk of smears directed against the BNP, it is an unfortunate truth that the party under Nick Griffin has been run into the ground by its leader with a startling dictatorial incompetence. According to Eddie Butler, who challenged Griffin for leadership of the BNP last year, the party’s membership has slumped from a high of 15,000 in May 2010 to around 8,500 by the end of last month. Regular purges and the promotion of sycophantic incompetents, unnecessary court cases, dubious accounting practices, chronic indebtedness, general amateurishness expressing itself in outlandish policy declarations including a manifesto commitment to the general ownership of automatic weaponry and the opening of a penal colony on South Georgia, as well as the intemperate behaviour of some of its members, have allowed the party to squander the groundswell of support that was building in its favour until 2009.
The efforts and hopes of dedicated nationalists who risked much professionally by joining the party have been very poorly rewarded. With a set-up such as this, the BNP hardly needed the combined opposition of the mass media, Searchlight, Hope Not Hate and UAF to end up in its current debacle. Granted, the negative impact of the propaganda constantly pumped out by these opposition groups was certainly a significant hindrance, but even if none of this had existed, the internal flaws that I have mentioned would still have crippled the prospects of the party and deprived it of credibility in the eyes of the electorate.
Many of the more talented senior members of the party left, some to set up the British Freedom Party, which unfortunately itself suffered an internal spat which left it in brief legal limbo until the splinter faction finally broke away to form the Freedom Democrats. From what I have seen, the British Freedom Party has struck the right note (although I have reservations about its commitment to the death penalty) through its realistic formulation of a policy of cultural nationalism that places it very much in line with the PVV in the Netherlands and Die Freiheit in Germany. If one takes its policy declarations to be its yardstick, the British Freedom Party deserves to succeed. On the other hand, if one considers the behaviour of some of its leading founding members, this assertion is cast into doubt. From what I have seen of the policy proposals put forward by the Freedom Democrats, they would be best off joining the disaffected Atlanticist Tories who comprise UKIP.
A new challenge is being made to Nick Griffin’s leadership of the BNP by Richard Edmonds backed by Eddie Butler. They hope to salvage the party, but Butler himself has encouraged many members to leave and join the English Democrats. Indeed, a number of former BNP members, such as Chris Beverley in Morley, will be standing for the English Democrats in the local elections this week. Even if the Edmonds challenge is successful, the BNP looks pretty much dead in the water, with a dreadful public image, not to mention massive debts and serious questions hanging over its accounting procedures. Shockingly, patriotically minded printers who produced the party’s election literature last year have yet to be paid.
The political landscape in the UK is of course highly fragmented owing to the devolutionary settlement imposed by the Labour Party, thus there are different political dynamics at play in the four constituent parts of the country, so in reality any British nationalist party will draw almost all of its support from within England, from the English. With the BNP (certainly for now) out of the frame, we are thus confronted with a shoal of contenders seeking to gobble up the nationalist (here loosely defined to encompass its ethnic, cultural, civic and racial variants) vote: British Freedom Party; English Democrats; Freedom Democrats; National Front; UKIP. All of these have benefited from the turmoil within the BNP, but their prospects are limited.
The Freedom Democrats are in my opinion stillborn and will be gone within a couple of months. Their handful of members will probably join what appears to be their natural home: UKIP. Alternatively, some of them may wish to throw in their lot with the English Democrats. The National Front will gain a few disaffected members from the BNP and will field a few more candidates than it has in recent years, but to no avail, as its ‘brand’ is more tarnished than that of the BNP. The interesting part of the nationalist dynamic lies with the relative fortunes of the British Freedom Party and the English Democrats. The former, as a completely new party, stands at a disadvantage in that it will possess almost zero public recognition, whereas the English Democrats enjoy the advantage of having been established for longer, as well as possessing regional party structures and a certain amount of low-level public visibility. The election of Peter Davies as English Democrat Mayor of Doncaster has certainly raised the party’s profile in Yorkshire. The English Democrats are rather like UKIP for the English, but a centrist civic nationalist rather than an Atlanticist Tory party, and thus possess the potential to appeal to a wider social constituency.
However, it is the British Freedom Party that for me possesses the most fully developed policy platform, as well as a more cohesive ideology than either the English Democrats or UKIP. That said, this fact is rather marred by the maladroit handling of 'dissent' within the party, which basically boiled down to a clash of personalities that precipitated the creation of the Freedom Democrats. Civility costs nothing, and yet two leading members of the BFP lacked the grace to display this towards Gary Marshall, Michael Simpkins and a number of their colleagues who were summarily expelled, thus also betraying what appears to be a negative dictatorial manner of acting à la Nick Griffin carried across from their former party - the BNP. This is a great shame, as I, and I am sure many others, had hoped that the BFP would take from the BNP that which was good by way of policy, and add a genuine democratic and participative element to the party. Clearly, this has not transpired. If disagreements had been handled with tact, this unnecessary split could have been avoided.
Still, I hope that where possible these small parties choose to coordinate their efforts and avoid standing against each other (although I do not think that UKIP will oblige) so as to maximise their electoral impact and thereby allow them to utilise their scarce resources to the best affect. Which do I support? Pragmatically speaking, that very much depends upon the choice presented to me at the ballot box, which may well be no choice at all. Prior to the split, my support would have been lent to the BFP with reasonable confidence, but now, I am veering in the direction of the English Democrats. Many nationalists may decry such a stance, claiming that the English Democrats are cod nationalists as they are not ethno-nationalists, but they possess many good policies which would help move the general frame of public political debate away from the anti-nationalist paradigm. Politics is the art of the possible, thus if the opportunity should afford itself this Thursday morning, I shall be voting for the English Democrats. Failing that, I shall cast my vote for any of the other broadly-defined nationalist parties listed above.
Behold the Hydra’s Head!
Behold the head of the hydra! Osama bin Laden is dead! Which heads will now sprout in its place? What will happen to his vast wealth, which has helped to fund al-Qaeda’s operations around the globe? Answers to these questions are unlikely to become known for quite some time, but whilst there is some cause today for celebration, we must remember that this is the death of only one man, albeit a symbolically very significant one. Al-Qaeda will not cease to operate and, more importantly, neither will the Islamisation of Western nations.
The greatest threat to the well being of our country emanates not from Islamist terrorists, for such people can be readily rooted out and eliminated should we choose to rid ourselves of them, but from the ideologies of globalism, cultural relativism, ethnic and racial ‘guilt’ and their attendant ideological policing mechanism of political correctness. These ideologies are of course propagated by the nascent transnational oligarchy to which our leading politicians and members of our media class belong. They formulate the attendant policies and messages which are then transmitted to the public through the legal and educational systems and the mainstream mass media organs of television, radio, the press and online rolling news. These policies and messages bludgeon our native populations, and seek to inculcate a sense of guilt and subservience in the face of the exotic ‘other’, none being more exotic and alien than the figure of the Muslim.
Without the cankered ideology of our ruling class - in effect a masochistic creed of anti-White race hate masquerading as ‘tolerance’ - our futures would not be in jeopardy, for the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and every other European nation (I exclude Albania and Thracian Turkey from my definition of European, for they are Muslim) would not therefore choose to allow mass immigration to take place. We would not be allowing the propagation of Islam within our borders, just as we would not be allowing the propagation of Muslims themselves through chain migration and the acceptance of aggressive colonists from Africa and the Middle East risibly posing as ‘refugees’.
If our peoples chose to ditch multiculturalism and its associated ethnic and racial self-loathing, then the question of the Islamisation of our nations would be decided in an instant, and this process thrown into firm and permanent reverse. Islamisation would be but a dark historical episode to be held up to future generations as an admonitory example of what can go wrong with a society when it chooses to allow barbarism an equal footing with civilisation, and to denigrate the latter as being in some sense culpable for the ills of mankind. This misplaced sense of collective guilt is but a hangover from the Christian past of the European peoples, and we would do well to expunge ourselves of this.
Yes, rejoice for Osama bin Laden is dead, but we must be unflinching in our efforts to ensure that doctrinaire Islam and its exponents are removed from all European nations and their daughter societies forever. We have yet to defeat the greatest twin threats to our national futures: globalism and the demographic jihad waged through the womb and by migration. On these two fronts, we currently have nothing to celebrate, for we are losing. It is up to us however, to ensure that a day of celebration on this score will occur, and that it will happen in our lifetimes. If it does not, there is little likelihood that it will happen at all.
The greatest threat to the well being of our country emanates not from Islamist terrorists, for such people can be readily rooted out and eliminated should we choose to rid ourselves of them, but from the ideologies of globalism, cultural relativism, ethnic and racial ‘guilt’ and their attendant ideological policing mechanism of political correctness. These ideologies are of course propagated by the nascent transnational oligarchy to which our leading politicians and members of our media class belong. They formulate the attendant policies and messages which are then transmitted to the public through the legal and educational systems and the mainstream mass media organs of television, radio, the press and online rolling news. These policies and messages bludgeon our native populations, and seek to inculcate a sense of guilt and subservience in the face of the exotic ‘other’, none being more exotic and alien than the figure of the Muslim.
Without the cankered ideology of our ruling class - in effect a masochistic creed of anti-White race hate masquerading as ‘tolerance’ - our futures would not be in jeopardy, for the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and every other European nation (I exclude Albania and Thracian Turkey from my definition of European, for they are Muslim) would not therefore choose to allow mass immigration to take place. We would not be allowing the propagation of Islam within our borders, just as we would not be allowing the propagation of Muslims themselves through chain migration and the acceptance of aggressive colonists from Africa and the Middle East risibly posing as ‘refugees’.
If our peoples chose to ditch multiculturalism and its associated ethnic and racial self-loathing, then the question of the Islamisation of our nations would be decided in an instant, and this process thrown into firm and permanent reverse. Islamisation would be but a dark historical episode to be held up to future generations as an admonitory example of what can go wrong with a society when it chooses to allow barbarism an equal footing with civilisation, and to denigrate the latter as being in some sense culpable for the ills of mankind. This misplaced sense of collective guilt is but a hangover from the Christian past of the European peoples, and we would do well to expunge ourselves of this.
Yes, rejoice for Osama bin Laden is dead, but we must be unflinching in our efforts to ensure that doctrinaire Islam and its exponents are removed from all European nations and their daughter societies forever. We have yet to defeat the greatest twin threats to our national futures: globalism and the demographic jihad waged through the womb and by migration. On these two fronts, we currently have nothing to celebrate, for we are losing. It is up to us however, to ensure that a day of celebration on this score will occur, and that it will happen in our lifetimes. If it does not, there is little likelihood that it will happen at all.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
A spirited German Woman stands up to Islamism
The main segment of the following video (hat tip to Up Pompeii) was taken on a mobile phone in Frankfurt on 22 April, and depicts a frustrated and angry German woman named Heidi berating her compatriots for their failure to stand up to Islamism in Germany and to protect the freedoms that Germans today enjoy. Her outburst was prompted by the holding of a Salafist rally in the city which drew some 1,500 Muslims to listen to the likes of the Jamaican Muslim Abu Ameena Philips and German Muslim convert Pierre Vogel call for the extermination of all homosexuals in Germany.
As can be seen from the following interview on the English Version of the Politically Incorrect website, her anger was fuelled by the fact that a protestant church in the city had actually allowed itself to be used as a base by Philips, Vogel and their supporters. Moreover, she had just been trying to explain the fundamental differences of the examples of Christ and Mohammed to some Muslim girls, drawing attention to their widely differing treatment of adultery: the forgiveness shown by Christ and the death sentence given by Mohammed. This was the trigger for a Muslim man standing next to Heidi to aggressively intervene and try and shut her up. What you see in the video below is how she reacted.
We all know that those who take a robust public stand against Islam place themselves in considerable peril not only from doctrinaire Muslims, but also (in the UK at any rate) from the police. Unfortunately, had Heidi said what she did in the UK, I think that she would probably have been arrested and would be facing a charge for ‘hate crime’. Witness the disgraceful 70-day prison sentence given to Cumbria man Andrew Ryan for burning a copy of the Qur’an, and contrast this with the £50 fine handed out to Emdadur Choudary for burning poppies and calling for the overthrow of the British state. The words “Britons never, never, never shall be slaves” now ring very hollow indeed. We have been reduced to second-class status in our own homeland.
In her speaking, Heidi broke the multiculturalist taboo that keeps all European peoples gagged. May her words resonate with the German people and help bring to an end the unfolding Islamic nightmare that threatens to snuff out freedom everywhere.
As can be seen from the following interview on the English Version of the Politically Incorrect website, her anger was fuelled by the fact that a protestant church in the city had actually allowed itself to be used as a base by Philips, Vogel and their supporters. Moreover, she had just been trying to explain the fundamental differences of the examples of Christ and Mohammed to some Muslim girls, drawing attention to their widely differing treatment of adultery: the forgiveness shown by Christ and the death sentence given by Mohammed. This was the trigger for a Muslim man standing next to Heidi to aggressively intervene and try and shut her up. What you see in the video below is how she reacted.
We all know that those who take a robust public stand against Islam place themselves in considerable peril not only from doctrinaire Muslims, but also (in the UK at any rate) from the police. Unfortunately, had Heidi said what she did in the UK, I think that she would probably have been arrested and would be facing a charge for ‘hate crime’. Witness the disgraceful 70-day prison sentence given to Cumbria man Andrew Ryan for burning a copy of the Qur’an, and contrast this with the £50 fine handed out to Emdadur Choudary for burning poppies and calling for the overthrow of the British state. The words “Britons never, never, never shall be slaves” now ring very hollow indeed. We have been reduced to second-class status in our own homeland.
In her speaking, Heidi broke the multiculturalist taboo that keeps all European peoples gagged. May her words resonate with the German people and help bring to an end the unfolding Islamic nightmare that threatens to snuff out freedom everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)