AddThis

Share |
Showing posts with label Ken Livingstone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Livingstone. Show all posts

Monday, 9 April 2012

Mayoral Elections May 2012


Understandably, when it comes to the forthcoming mayoral elections the gaze of the media has thus far largely been directed towards London, the place where the concept of a directly elected mayor was put to the test for the first time in 2000. It is and will be a contest dominated by the personalities of Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone, the only men to have held the office to date. Already it has proven to be an exceptionally bad tempered race, with personal animosity boiling over into the well-publicised “fucking liar” incident in which Johnson lost his rag with Livingstone during a live radio debate. Although Johnson is a rich man, the subsequent publication of his personal earnings and tax details for the past three years, when compared to Livingstone’s, shows that he has paid his way whereas Livingstone, thanks to a little creative accounting, most certainly has not. Johnson’s fury therefore possessed some justification.

Livingstone was a trailblazer of divisive multiculturalist identity politics, helping to create an ethnically and culturally fragmented capital that whilst in our country is largely no longer of it; a city defined by geography rather than by people and community. Having nurtured the emergence of distinctive self-conscious ethnic blocs, it is to them that he now largely appeals, championing ‘minorities’ over the indigenous population. Andrew Gilligan and others have noted Livingstone’s poisonous embrace of Islamists in recent years, as well as a succession of remarks that indicate an apparent antipathy towards Jews. Having witnessed Galloway’s successful mobilisation of the Muslim bloc vote in Bradford West, it is a certainty that Livingstone will tap into this same demographic in London, appealing to the electors of Tower Hamlets and other such areas, using the Islamic Forum of Europe to help deliver the “community” votes that he requires. Galloway’s victory was to a considerable extent founded upon the willingness of Muslims to vote and the apathy of the non-Muslim indigenous population. Given that neither Johnson nor Livingstone enjoys a commanding lead in the opinion polls, Livingstone’s ability to tap into the growing Muslim bloc vote could provide him with the advantage that he requires to edge ahead of Johnson. This is the ugly political reality that characterises our capital today.

For all of the metropolitan media’s obsession with London, life and politics do exist outside of the capital, and mayoral elections also will be taking place elsewhere on 3 May, notably in Liverpool and Salford. Doncaster, which produced something of a surprise in its mayoral election of 2009 by returning the English Democrat Peter Davies (quite why a man would praise the Taliban for their “family values” is puzzling), will be holding a referendum over whether it should retain or abolish the office of elected mayor. With none of the mainstream political parties igniting voter enthusiasm, the time would seem to be ripe for other parties to make a breakthrough, so perhaps either of these elections might produce a surprise result. However, the personality and background of each of the candidates is as likely to be just as influential as any party label.

In Liverpool a mayoral debate will take place on Thursday 19 April, with the opportunity being open for all candidates to contribute. However, given their antipathy towards free speech and democracy, the self-styled “Liverpool Antifascists”  have stated that their supporters are planning to hold a demonstration outside of the debate’s venue – Mountford Hall – because they claim that “three fascist candidates” will be present, with one from each of the following parties: “the British National Party, English Democrats and National Front.” The recent demise of the BNP has resulted in groups and campaigns describing themselves as “antifascist” seeking to find new targets for their activities so as to justify their ongoing existence, and it is thus unfortunate for the English Democrats that they are but the latest to be singled out for stigmatisation by Liverpool Antifascists, Hope Not Hate and UAF.

Contemporary politics, in England in particular, has grown stale and offers prospective voters no real choice. This fact is reflected in the dismal approval ratings of the leaders of the main political parties and low voter turnout. Clearly, there is room for a new party that seeks to provide a credible and moderate nationalist programme aimed at improving the lot of our citizenry as a whole, and our people in particular. Although such a party does not yet exist, a decision has been taken to bring it into existence, and work is currently underway with respect to its organisation, structure, constitution and policy. A team is being brought into being and an announcement regarding its launch will be made within the next couple of months. The next set of local and mayoral elections therefore, should be rather more interesting than those scheduled for this May.

Thursday, 19 January 2012

MPACUK: Not keen on the EDL


Hardly a surprise, given that the stated mission of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee is to increase the power, influence and voice of the Ummah in the UK. Why however, they should not understand that a people in their own homeland – the English in England – should wish to resist Islamisation, is a question that should perhaps be answered by a psychiatrist, for it is not a logical position. Islam is not part of English identity and is incompatible with it, unlike for example Druidry, Wicca, agnosticism, atheism and Christianity. It is so incompatible, that any native who converts effectively renounces their ethnicity and declares themselves in opposition to the interests of their kith and kin. Thankfully, some who convert are bound to later realise the error of their ways and see their digression as either an aspect of youthful folly or as behaviour characteristic of a vulnerable interlude in their lives when they lost their sense of self-respect. 

Anyway, returning to MPACUK: what has been discomfiting its supporters of late? On their site I stumbled upon the following extracts taken from a piece entitled ‘Silence Isn’t Golden’ (I wonder if they think that ‘The Tremeloes’ are haram?):

In the latest news, the so-called English Defence League has set its eyes on areas which it has previously not marched at, such as Walsall and Bristol. To add insult to injury, they now have a formal political voice, via an agreement with the British Freedom Party. The BFP is also Islamophobic and the resources on their site point to the usual Islamophobic propaganda, as used and encouraged by terrorist Anders Breivik and their ilk.

It is pathetic that the most of our mosques ever seem to do is to tell people to stay in their homes and to not go out onto the streets. Furthermore, they tell the Muslims that to engage with the EDL thugs is mindless and pathetic. However, what many of them fail to realise is that when we go inside our homes, they will come knocking on our homes and destroy them. They have absolutely no dignity for any buildings in which Muslims are occupants as demonstrated by their recent march outside East London Mosque. 
I too find it an ‘insult’ that marches by the EDL are nowadays required to highlight Islamisation in Walsall and Bristol, for it is depressing that Islam has put down roots in these corners of England. Bristol apparently now has a sizable Somali colony. What benefits could possibly accrue from poor old Bristol acquiring a population of some 15,000 Somalis? Narcotics abusers who are keen on khat might find their presence a welcome addition, but who else I ask, other than anti-White Anglophobes? 

The BFP, particularly of late, may have adopted a somewhat Neocon tone, but it is rather hysterical or cynical (perhaps both) for MPACUK to seek to associate it with the name of Breivik. If the party was of the same ilk as Breivik after all, I would be extremely worried, for Breivik chose to massacre not Muslims, but native Norwegians.

It is telling that the author of this particular MPACUK article thinks that some mosque leaderships are “pathetic” for telling “people to stay in their homes and to not go out onto the streets.” This suggests that this individual has been picking up bad political habits from anti-English campaign group UAF and their SWP controllers, such as making slanderous allegations about the violent intent of EDL protestors. The writer has evidently been spooked by SWP propaganda, which serves to illustrate the highly destabilising and dangerous role that the Trotskyist Left plays in Britain today. It seems eminently sensible to me that the mosque elders he has chosen to chastise recommend that demonstrations should not be met with counterdemonstrations, for such occasions are bound to become overheated, particularly when the agents provocateurs of the SWP are present. The latter lust for violence, and clearly and willingly incite it.


Laughably, multiculturalist convert Boris Johnson is described as “Islamophobic”, but the author concludes their fearful piece in calling for Muslims to vote for Ken Livingstone in the next London mayoral elections. Well, at least on this count the author is correct: Ken will be a compliant dhimmi.


Ultimately, this MPACUK piece, as well as the existence of MPACUK itself, reminds us that we do have a problem with imperialist Islam in our country today. However, tempting as it may be, it would be myopic and not overly productive for a political party to become overly fixated upon attacking this manifestation of our multiculturalist malaise. The growth of Islamic militancy and of the population that gives it succour is a symptom of the globalist outlook of our political class and the associated policies that have been imposed upon us. The issue of Islamisation could be dealt with readily and peacefully enough should the political will be present. Thus it falls to us to discredit and remove the ideology of globalism, replacing it with a democratic nationalism in which the economy is made to serve our people, and not our people an unaccountable global market ruled over by transnational financiers. 


Not an organisation that I would care to endorse