TUC Pushing for Turkish EU Accession

An email arrived today from Unionlearn entitled "Working Together Trade unions in Turkey and the European Union" (inconsistent capitalisation and dodgy grammar preserved from the original). It made no attempt to hide that its intent is to facilitate the accession of Turkey to the EU, and to thereby open up the British labour market to limitless numbers of Turkish Muslim immigrants. The email is relatively short, so I shall quote it in full with original grammatical errors preserved, for its contents are highly revealing re the anti-democratic intentions of the TUC and its desire to mould the opinions of affiliated union members to enable the implementation of a plan that evidently has already been decided upon. The following italicised text is reproduced verbatim:

The European Trade Union Confederation is supporting an important and ambitious project Civil Society Dialogue: bringing together workers from Turkey and the European Union through a shared culture of work, and your trade union organisation is one of the project partners.

The aim of the project is to reinforce contacts and mutual exchange of experience between the trade unions of Turkey and trade unions of EU Member States, with a view to ensuring better knowledge and understanding of one another.

One way of assisting this process is to identify and address existing impressions and prejudices that Turkish and EU workers may have of each other.

This is why the ETUC and your organisation are interested in your opinion and would like you to dedicate a few minutes to filling in this questionnaire.

Download questionnaire: http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/extrasUL/Education/questionnaire_EN.doc

If you should be so moved, visit the above site, complete the questionnaire and send the completed item to Sean Bamford at Congress House. However, I daresay that you may well be branded by the researchers as possessing certain prejudices that need to be dispelled and corrected by orthodox thinking (i.e. doublethink). "Prejudice" is a peculiar term to employ with respect to Islam, for the more I have learned of it in terms of its core texts, philosophy and practice over many years, the more I have come to find it utterly repellent. My attitude should therefore be more accurately rendered as post-judice, for I have made up my mind having examined the evidence. The TUC however, is not interested in promoting truth; it is interested in promoting politically correct ideology.

Whatever the nature of the majority of the responses that this questionnaire elicits, you can be sure of the fact that they will have no influence whatsoever upon the intentions of the TUC and the wider ETUC. Their course is set upon Turkish EU accession and the further demographic destabilisation and Islamisation of our European homelands that this would be certain to engender.

As well as the socialist shibboleths about equality, international class solidarity, combating racism and Islamophobia (sic), the trade union leaders will employ the specious argument re the need for a young workforce to compensate for an aging European population. The UK, the Netherlands and many other European states already possess populations in excess of their long-term carrying capacity, and if the shock of Peak Oil finally arrives before a new source of readily usable and cheap renewable energy is harnessed, we will struggle to feed the population that we already possess.

The justification of mass immigration rests upon the logic of the pyramid scheme, for the young immigrants in turn will grow old and require younger carers. Even if they were culturally compatible, such as Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Serbs, the question of numbers alone would in the long term cause us all to sink into immiseration. Given that the proposed main source countries and regions of future mass immigration are Islamic (Turkey, North Africa, the Middle East and of course places with so-called traditional links such as Pakistan and Bangladesh) our future will not be one in which we are cared for in our dotage, but one in which we will be treated either as dhimmis (if we are lucky), geographically displaced or murdered.

If you are a trade unionist, please acquaint yourself with the reality of Islam: it is an imperialist creed of violence and implacable intolerance, not a religion of peace as its apologists claim. There are of course many secular Turks who care little for Islam, but they are fighting a losing battle in their homeland. Let us by all means provide such good people with our verbal and moral support, and co-operate in the international sphere with those Turkish representatives who embody positive non-Islamic values, but let us remain as independent nation-states. We must leave the EU and we must regain control over our national borders. The old political categories of Left and Right are redundant. The new primary axis of political moblisation and affiliation is that of nationalism versus globalism. In the UK, only one political party possesses positive nationalist solutions to the problems that the country faces: the BNP.

David Miliband: a Traitor and a Fool

David Miliband is a traitor. This man is a dangerous extremist who must be removed from office. He created a team within the FCO to pump out anti-UK propaganda in order to facilitate the removal of our national sovereignty and our subsequent absorption into the EU. This in itself is treachery, but his plans for the EU and their consequences for the historic peoples of Europe are even worse.

Miliband the elder is a strong advocate of Turkish entry to the EU. He wishes to see Middle Eastern and North African Muslim states become associates of the EU, and for them to gain eventual full membership. If he is not removed, our fate will be dhimmitude. Like locusts, these hostile aliens will eat up all that is of value in our nations and transform them into unrecognisable wastelands. Our ways of life, our cultures, our freedoms, our histories shall all be destroyed. Their memories shall be execrated and erased. We as European peoples will become lesser beings in our own lands, lorded over by implacably cruel Islamic overlords who will compel us to convert or murder us in our millions. Geert Wilders knows this, as did Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn. All have been slandered by the British media (particularly the BBC) as "right-wing extremists", "racists" and "fascists".

If you have ever voted for the Labour Party or are still a member, wake up! Miliband and his colleagues wish to lead us into a perpetual bondage the like of which our people have never known. The atrocities of William the Bastard would pale before those that would await us under Islamic domination. Islam divides humans into believers and non-believers, a categorisation akin to the Nazi ubermensch/untermensch or the Communist proletarian/bourgeois dichotomies. In each case, members of the former categories are given dominion over the lives and fates of members of the latter. In each instance, the second of each pairing is singled out for annihilation in a quest for ideological purity.

The difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim is nothing more than a matter of time: the former is prepared to wait to achieve domination through demographic means, whereas the latter aims to force the pace of the process through acts of political violence. The approaches therefore respectively resemble those of the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. Both paths lead to the same destination: the annihilation of we non-Muslims.

This terrible future is not inevitable. We can stop it peacefully, but we can only do so by first becoming aware of this threat and then taking control of our borders and giving no concessions to Islam in the UK and the other states of Europe: no more Muslim immigration; not one more mosque and no inward investment from Saudia Arabia channeled through so-called religious 'charities'. We must alter the teaching of our younger generation so that the truth about this odious anti-human ideology is known from the outset: Islam is an imperialist death cult. Islam is an enemy of reason. Islam is the scourge of women. Islam is an ideological cancer. Islam is not the answer to anything.

Watch Miliband prattle here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9cufg_david-miliband-calls-for-better-rel_news

See him bleat how we must "understand Islam" and respect that there are many ways of living our lives in accordance with "universal values." It matters not that what he says is nonsense, a mere act of doublethink. Of course, he does not mean "understand" in the real sense of the word; what he implies is that we should "defer to", "submit to" and "surrender to" Islam. This man is a liar. This man is a fool with no understanding of geopolitics and no respect for the indigenous citizens of the country in which he resides. He is a self-interested careerist; a dunderheaded cosmopolitan who does not understand that Islam is like cyanide: the smallest drop added to the most innocuous of drinks transforms its nature for the drinker quite radically.

He calls for a "coalition of consent" between the Islamic and non-Islamic world. This is an excursion into meaningless and dangerous fantasy. There can be only three explanations for his attitude: 1) he does not comprehend what Islam is and the deep intrinsic significance that it possesses for its adherants; 2) he is a closet Muslim convert; 3) he is an unprincipled sociopath. Then again, he could be all three. For further details, take a look at the following Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6329983.ece

Slay the Fascist Beast! Its Name is New Labour

The Labour Party is a shell: its form remains, but its contents have long since undergone a process of putrefaction and liquefaction. The antennae of this monstrous crustacean flicker and twitch as its fetid innards disintegrate and ooze outwards. Soon, the light will fade from the unfeeling gaze of its leader's single functioning eye as one mighty last spasm shatters its form into a myriad of stinking pieces.

Recent polls show Labour's support dissolving faster than any principles that its leading members may once have held. All that the ruling clique of this former representative party possess in abundance is the will to power (or should that be the will not to be dislodged from power?).

Having feathered comfortable nests for themselves within the state (what remains of it) apparatus of the United Kingdom, these self-serving, self-interested agents of national dissolution, globalisation and Islamisation are rattled by the prospect of losing office. They may possess power in the formal sense of the term, but all authority they have lost, except in the eyes of their globalist admirers in the EU, the US of A and the behemoth corporate players of the transnational financial system. That the electorate of the United Kingdom is currently in a furiously febrile mood fuelled by the recent parliamentary expenses scandal is beyond doubt, but quite how this shall manifest itself at the forthcoming polls for the EU Parliament on 4 June it is difficult to divine.

The question of the abuse of expenses is but the latest in a litany of indignities heaped upon the electorate by the current Labour administration: national bankruptcy; the erosion of civil liberties; the curtailment of free speech; the ceding of sovereignty to Brussels; historically unprecedented levels of immigration; cronyism; the politicisation of the police; pointless wars; ongoing privatisation and Harman's legislation promoting active discrimination against indigenous heterosexual males. This collection of misdeeds is staggering in its scope, scale and application. That this Government has survived so long as it has is testimony to the forbearance of the average UK elector, but also to the unrepresentative nature of an electoral system that delivers a healthy majority to a political party that received only 35.3% of the votes cast at the last General Election, representing a mere 22% of the electorate.

It is well known that the parliamentary Labour Party is unrepresentative of its activist base, and that its leadership is in turn unresponsive to and contemptuous of the opinions of its backbenchers. So, all in all we see that a minority clique within a minority of the Labour Party with a minority public mandate is intent and able to inflict its programme of misgovernment upon us until the bitter end. In so doing it will wreak the maximum social and economic damage that time will allow.

How, given the aforementioned, has the Labour leadership decided to revitalise its disillusioned rank and file? What on Earth could possibly move them to campaign for such a blatantly undemocratic, anti-British, anti-working class party? What otherworldly superhuman powers could possibly move decent people to campaign on behalf of such a craven, corrupt, blood-soaked administration? Like many an organisation based upon faith, it has reason to resort to calling forth demons.

In this case it knows that the faithful will always respond to the call to slay the fascist beast, and the Party does not let the fact that such a creature does not exist obstruct its efforts at political mobilisation. So, the spectre of the BNP is invoked and bedecked with the mandatory accoutrements of leftist demonology: crypto-Nazism, racism, anti-Semitism, etc. From there it is but a short step to evoking the emotional resonance and warmth of memories of comrades long since fallen who fought in the international brigades and who liberated Belsen and Auschwitz. Meaning is restored to the grassroots activists who feel that their support and campaigning has taken on a noble purpose and mission. Of course, this is naught but illusion: comforting fables for the well meaning but wrong-headed, fed to them by a cynical leadership that understands and subscribes to the logic of Robert Michels's iron law of oligarchy. Thus are decent people duped and transformed into the hate-filled, bile-flecked myrmidons of UAF, Antifa and Searchlight.

What the members of the Labour leadership know and what they truly fear is this: that the members of the British National Party are (with a few exceptions, for all parties contain exceptions) not as they are portrayed. They fear the BNP not because it is a fascist party, but because its policies would exert a powerful appeal to Labour voters were they to overcome their prejudices and learn what they are. So far as I am aware, only one of the two aforementioned parties has advocated a succession of aggressive military interventions overseas (Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq), and it is not the party conventionally labelled with the epithet of "fascist" by its many detractors. This is why Labour and their confederates in the political mainstream insist upon the "no platform" policy.

If Labour activists wish to campaign against a powerful party of vested interests which seeks to subvert democratic norms, individual rights and liberties and to wage wars of aggression, they should look a little closer to home and reconsider the lies that they have been peddled for so many years by their leaders. Slay the fascist beast! Its name is New Labour.

A Note on Terminology and National Identity

One topic that in recent years has never been far from the headlines has been a preoccupation with Britishness and the question of what it means to be British today. This debate of course has nothing to do with a putative “crisis of national identity”, for we native Britons do not possess an identity crisis, as we are perfectly well aware of who we are. No. It is only those who are UK passport holders but self-consciously not native British who are experiencing anything resembling a crisis of identity, together with our political leaders who claim not to understand the nature of the British and Britishness.

Jonathan Wynne-Jones, a religious affairs correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, last Friday penned a short piece entitled “How does Britain solve its identity crisis? ” The occasion for its writing was prompted by this week’s forthcoming debate on British identity being held by the Islamic Quilliam Foundation. As has become standard practice in the mainstream media when mentioning Islamism, Wynne-Jones attempted to stigmatise patriotic Britons and accord them a pariah status equivalent to that of the Islamists by stating: “It could not come at a more opportune time - right-wing extremism is on the rise and the threat posed by Islamic radicals is persistent and real .” [1]

The numerous comments left in reply to his piece made clear the preponderant opinion of his readers: multiculturalism and mass immigration are to blame for this mess. Correct.

However, this understanding of the situation is not permitted to be articulated by mainstream political and media figures. Gordon Brown himself stated in a Radio 4 programme entitled “Britishness” on 31 March this year that in the past too much emphasis had been placed upon institutions, race and ethnicity. For him, “tolerance, liberty and fairness” are the vagaries upon which modern British identity should be constructed. If we were to define ourselves by “race and ethnicity" he claims, "this would be a disaster” because of the multiethnic composition of the country [2]. Surely, by Brown’s own measures of “tolerance, liberty and fairness” he has sorely failed to live up to his own definition of Britishness?

A standard argument of relatively recent provenance employed by advocates of multiculturalism and mass immigration has been that there is no such thing as the British or the English because “we are a nation of immigrants.” This specious assertion is based on the fact that the country has experienced multiple waves of immigration over millennia. What the proponents of this argument conveniently overlook is that these separate streams of people have become organically fused into a set of indigenous national communities: the English, the Welsh, the Scots, the Cornish and the Irish.

Although Daniel Defoe rightly noted that the English are "a mongrel race", one salient fact about this "mongrelism" is always overlooked by the exponents of multiculturalism: the native English (excepting a few scions of the Norman aristocracy) know not whether their forebears were Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, ancient British tribes or Romans etc, because all of these intermarried and fused to produce a common culture. The peoples who contributed to this fusion shared a number of civilisational and genetic commonalities, so to equate this native organic national development with the politically-directed demographic change that we are experiencing today is fundamentally flawed and dangerous. It is unlikely that these isles have ever undergone such a rapid transformation of their cultural and genetic stock since they were repopulated by humans at the end of the last glaciation.

Ask a Pakistani UK passport holder what they are and they’ll tell you that they’re a Pakistani. They like the UK passport though, because it gives them access to a better standard of living than they'd be able to access back in their true homeland. They, like many of the immigrant groups that have surged into the UK over the past 60 years, have been encouraged to retain their separate identities both from without (by British politicians and state agencies), and from within (by religious and social norms regulating exogamy and attitudes to people of other belief systems and races). Although there has been some intermixing between the indigenous population and the incomers, generally speaking we have witnessed the growth of de facto colonial outposts of external cultures and national groups. Those who have successfully assimilated have been from closely related peoples and cultures such as the Poles, Serbs, Ukrainians, Hungarians, etc who fled from Communism and Nazism.

As can be seen from the above, the traditional "mongrel nation" is something completely separate and distinct from the multicultural ersatz Britishness for which the Labour Party, the BBC and their ilk are constantly questing. Given that we are forever being force-fed multicultural Newspeak by the mainstream media and politicians, we need to be able to articulate a clear and unambiguous position that refutes the pseudo-concepts through which they wish to refashion public consciousness. The following are therefore some suggestions as to objective terminology that can be used in their stead:

Briton
A native inhabitant of Britain and its associated smaller isles, or one who has become fully assimilated culturally and biologically through intermarriage. A native inhabitant is a member of one of the native peoples of Britain, these being: the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Cornish. Britons may also be resident overseas temporarily or permanently.

Britishness
That which is characteristic of native Britons and their territory, i.e. cultural, genetic and geographical

British Stock
This is defined through descent: the Britons and their direct descendants elsewhere in the world such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Britain
The island of Britain, excluding the island of Ireland.

The United Kingdom
The legally defined political union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The British Isles
Britain, Ireland and the associated small islands comprising this archipelago.

UK Citizen
Anyone who is entitled to hold a UK passport.

Colony instead of “Minority Community”
The preferred term for so-called “minority communities” that are geographically concentrated outposts of peoples and associated social and ideological structures not traditionally found amongst Britons, e.g. Pakistani colonies in Bradford, Dewsbury and elsewhere. Colonies seek to recreate the external national homeland or an idealised version of it in the UK. To this end, chain migration encourages the genetic expansion of established colonies and the displacement of Britons.

Population instead of “Community”
In the case of immigrant populations such as the recently arrived Poles and Lithuanians who do not wish to create colonies, the term ethnic minority population should be used instead of community, because “community” carries implications of permanence and group membership, leaving the way open for the articulation of group specific rights. Members of immigrant populations should possess individual rights, but not rights as legally recognised lobby groups.

Ethnic Minority instead of “BME – Black and Minority Ethnic”
This term is preferable to that of BME (black and minority ethnic), as it is the one employed in more objective scholarly literature dealing with such matters. BME is a New Labour neologism freighted with baggage, as it has emerged from the activities and ideology of ethnic minority political agitators. Ethnic minority can also be legitimately employed in those areas or cities (such as Leicester) where Britons are being threatened with ethnic minority status. In Leicester we will therefore shortly be able to speak of the English as an ethnic minority.

Familial Homeland
For Britons, this would be Britain. For UK passport holders descended from immigrant populations who have not fully integrated and assimilated as described in the definition of “Briton”, this would be whichever country their family had originally inhabited, e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, etc.

Asylum Claimant instead of “Asylum Seeker”
Not all of those who claim asylum are actually seeking asylum, thus the suggested change in terminology to provide an objective appraisal of all who state that they are “asylum seekers” before the veracity of their claim can be ascertained.

Sectarian Affiliation rather than “Faith Community”
The former individualises a person’s choice about which faith or none they choose to affiliate to. The latter, containing as it does the term “community”, like the instances of this term mentioned above, carries within it the assumption that by dint of its existence its members should be accorded certain recognition. Take away the term “community” and we are left with a group of people agitating (e.g. Muslims) for special treatment, which can then be dismissed more readily as we will not have accorded them the dignity of a collective personality.


Sources:
[1] How does Britain solve its identity crisis? -http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/jonathanwynnejones/blog/2009/04/17/how_does_britain_solve_its_identity_crisis

[2] Gordon Brown in “Britishness”, Episode 1, Radio 4, 31 March 2009 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jcjjp

The BBC and Overpopulation: Stupid, Ignorant or Deliberately Misleading?

This week, Sir David Attenborough, a man of great integrity who has done so much to bring natural history to the British public through his enduring love and knowledge of the subject, announced that he was joining the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). Rightly concerned about the unsustainable rate of global population growth he told the Times: “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people.” [1]

Sir David’s patronage of the OPT, which promotes a voluntary maximum of two children per family, is very much welcome. As Edward Wilson has noted, we are currently experiencing one of the most, if not the most, rapid mass extinction event in the history of life on Earth [2]. Its root cause: the explosion of global human population which entered its current phase circa 1750 and, as Sir David notes, has trebled within his professional lifetime.

Thomas Malthus, in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), long ago predicted that without checks and balances on human population growth (either voluntary or involuntary) we would as a species eventually outstrip the land’s capacity to support our pullulating species. Critics of Malthusianism have stated that his predictions have been repeatedly falsified, as to date food production has always stayed one step ahead of demand. Mass starvation has thus been averted. It must be conceded that thanks to a number of developments such as the eighteenth-century agricultural revolution, the mechanisation of agriculture, the introduction of new methods of food preservation (canning and freezing) and the later Green Revolution, we have indeed as a species managed, with a few localised famines here and there, to feed ourselves. To suppose that this can be maintained indefinitely, or that this is even desirable, is folly.

Before moving on to explaining why Malthus will ultimately be proven correct, I will deal with a frankly irresponsible article written for the BBC website by Michael Blastland entitled “How can a graph be so very wrong?” [3]. Seemingly prompted by Sir David’s patronage of the OPT, Blastland’s article seeks to demonstrate that the OPT’s concerns are essentially baseless, using past projections of the UK’s population growth to demonstrate that population prediction is not an exact science. True. This is undeniable. He then goes on to state that the average number of children born to families in Bangladesh has reduced from circa 7 in the 1970s to 3 today, noting that this “changed in a way that took the rich world 200 years.” He also mentions a potential UK population of 78 million. This prospect does not seem to bother Blastland, despite the fact that the OPT notes that the carrying capacity of the UK is circa 20-25 million.

Our current global, and indeed national, population levels have only been able to reach their existing scale thanks to energy-intensive agriculture, i.e. oil-based fertilizers, mechanised systems of production, processing, and transit. Without relatively cheap oil, the entire system collapses. Our civilisation is predicated upon the availability of this vital commodity. Last year, a few bad grain harvests in different parts of the world such as Australia, coupled with rocketing oil prices and increasing consumer demand in China and other developing economies, led to the current spike in food price inflation. For all the talk of potential “deflation”, the price of food in the UK continues to track upwards, and as global demand grows and our currency depreciates (thanks to the devaluation of Sterling euphemistically termed “quantitative easing”), it will continue to do so.

With current population levels the UK cannot feed itself sustainably. With the mass immigration promoted by our mainstream political parties we could be confronting the very real prospect of national starvation at some point in the future as the global economy realigns and our economic purchasing power declines relative to that of other nations. This is why Blastland’s article, presumably endorsed by the BBC, is reckless. We should be aiming for a balanced demographic policy, with the goal of reducing our national population to circa 20-25 million over the next century or so. This is readily achievable without any draconian or inhuman measures. For this to succeed, mass immigration needs to be halted and reversed.

We should seek to take a less anthropocentric perspective, and acknowledge that there is intrinsic worth in the rich biodiversity of our Earth. With the loss of each species, our own lives become more impoverished.

Globally, it will be the business of other states to deal with their internal demographic issues, but we should not provide a safety valve for their domestic pressures. Either states and individuals can choose to regulate their populations voluntarily, or the age old checks and balances which, as Jared Diamond noted, brought about the collapse of the Maya, the Easter Islanders, the Greenland Norse and others, will engulf us all [4].

Sources:
[1] 'David Attenborough to be patron of Optimum Population Trust', http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6087833.ece

[2] Edward O. Wilson, 'The Diversity of Life', Penguin, 2001.

[3] 'How can a graph be so very wrong?', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8000402.stm

[4] Jared Diamond, 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive', Penguin, 2006.

What Really Underlies the “No Platform” Policy?

The recent cancellation of hustings in the Wanstead by-election thanks to the refusal of the Labour candidate to share a platform with the BNP candidate once again brings to the fore the “no platform” policy that has been adopted towards the BNP. Although Labour candidates are the most likely to adopt this stance, representatives of the other two mainstream political parties frequently advocate and use this tactic. The “no platform” policy has also been officially adopted by the National Union of Students (NUS). Furthermore, whenever and wherever a public platform is afforded to BNP members, organisations such as Searchlight and UAF turn up in an attempt to prevent their views from gaining a public hearing.

The justification adopted by all of the aforementioned advocates of the “no platform” policy is that they object to the BNP as a fascist organisation that denies the historicity of the Holocaust and incites hatred of ethnic minority groups and homosexuals. If indeed it were the case that the BNP possesses this set of beliefs, it would get nowhere, as very few sane members of the electorate would support such a party. Contrary to the seemingly Anglophobic sentiments of the “no platformists”, the English electorate (for it is the English specifically whom they appear to fear) is not imbued with latent genocidal urges which can be activated to catastrophic effect by the simple act of exposing them to the ideas of the BNP. What they are really afraid of is affording the public the opportunity of discovering that the BNP are not as they are portrayed. What the “no platformists” truly fear is the potential popularity of what the BNP actually say, rather than that which they are said to say.

The BNP is the only political party in the UK with potentially broad appeal that unequivocally rejects globalism, free-market fundamentalism, multiculturalism, Islamisation and EU membership. It is the only party that opposes untrammelled mass immigration. Contrary to the mainstream media’s negative propaganda about the BNP, it is a party that possesses a broad range of policies that put to the fore the interests that should be at the forefront in any true democracy: the well-being of the people and the representation of their stated interests and concerns. When a political system purporting to be a democracy actively works against the interests and wishes of its native electorate in favour of a narrow political class acting in tandem with a transnational financial oligarchy, it ceases to be a democracy, and becomes a sham.

Today, the mainstream compass of permissible political debate is so narrowly defined that large swathes of the indigenous population feel alienated from the political process. The BNP can provide a solution to this alienation through acting to ensure that the core concerns of electors are finally acknowledged and acted upon. Just as the advent of the printing press generated intellectual ferment and liberated early modern society from the ideological diktat of the Church, so the internet is affording ordinary people the opportunity to access alternative viewpoints which are not controlled by the dominant media and economic interests within society. Despite the increasing powers of surveillance employed by our Government to police cyberspace, we are still currently free to debate alternatives to an increasingly discredited ideological hegemony which is beginning to crumble in the face of an increasingly ugly reality.

Another BBC Blindspot

It is interesting to see that the BBC yesterday ran an online story on Dr Mary Boulsted's bemoaning of the fact that traditional English lessons were "dying out" and instead being replaced with regimented lessons in "literacy". Two primary reasons were noted as underpinning this shift: Ofsted's rigid insistence that this should be the focus of attention, and the fact that children today lack the attention spans necessary for reading literature rather than mere extracts. The latter is said to arise from their immersion in the world of computers which, it has to be said, does not as yet seem to have lead to the emergence of a proliferation of erudite young bloggers.

There is of course one other extremely pertinent factor that was completely missing from the article and which goes much further towards explaining this 'mystery': our changing national demography, viz, the rapid growth in the number and proportion of children from largely monoglot immigrant groups for whom English is not a mother tongue. Teachers as a matter of necessity have to expend considerable time and effort in ensuring that many children acquire the basics of English before being able to move on to inculcate (if they are then left with sufficient time) a love of our language's rhythms and rich literature. If therefore you are a parent of indigenous stock who has a child that attends a school with a significant admixture (or indeed majority of) non-English speaking children, your child will receive an inferior education to the one that he or she would receive in a traditional British school where the pupils are English native speakers.

That the BBC chooses to ignore this highly salient fact is unsurprising, for this jars with their insistence that all immigration by definition "enriches" our culture and makes society more "vibrant".

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7992662.stm

Obama Urges the Islamisation of Europe

Following a week of savouring the fawning lickspittle attention of various EU leaders, Barack ‘Bob the Builder’ Obama today displayed his crass ignorance and overweening arrogance by telling the EU that Turkey should become a full member of the fledgling super-state. Two Obama quotations from this evening’s BBC News at 10 demonstrate the danger of this man’s thinking: “Turkish membership [of the EU] would broaden and strengthen Europe’s foundation” and “[w]e maintain our deep appreciation of the Islamic faith.” Presumably, he has never heard of Balkanisation and the bloodshed that it has engendered? What, moreover, is the nature of his "deep appreciation of the Islamic faith"? These words chilled me to the marrow. He, like our mainstream politicians, is in thrall to the lies propagated by the “diversity is strength” mantra. This is pure doublethink.

Given that the UK unfortunately remains a member of the EU and that the citizens of member states have the right to live and work where they wish within its borders, we know that our already unsustainable flood of mass immigration would turn into a deluge should Turkey join. Furthermore, a very high percentage of these immigrants would be ‘devout’ Muslims. This new wave would be radically unlike the culturally compatible East Europeans who have arrived in recent years, and would have an entirely negative effect upon our country.

The UK’s Muslim population is already growing at a rate ten times faster than that of any other group in society [1], and the accession of Turkey would rapidly accelerate this process. Given the disproportionate chilling influence that the population of 2.4 million Muslims currently exerts on our national lives and liberties, I fail to see how admitting hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) more would lessen social tensions and safeguard our freedoms. It would in all likelihood lead to intense political repression of those who object to this process, and a burgeoning confidence in the Muslim colonies that have effected this change. Our children are already taught lies about Islam being a 'religion of peace' which soften them up for later conversion or subjugation. If Islamisation is not halted and reversed, it will lead to the extinction of individual liberties, independent thought and the rights of women in the UK and other European countries.

Kemal Atatürk may have done his best to build the Turkish state upon secular nationalist foundations, and many Turks still share and vigorously support his vision, but Turkish society is deeply cleft between the defenders of Atatürk’s legacy and the proponents of Islamic reaction. Chief amongst the threats to the secular Turkish constitution is the APK led by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who in recent years stated that “[d]emocracy is the train that we shall ride to our destination.” Just which destination is that? A sharia-governed Islamic state of course.

David Miliband has made it clear that not only would he like to see Turkey join the EU, but he would also like the states of North Africa and the Middle East to become members. If this were to happen, our last vestiges of freedom would be well and truly snuffed out, as Europe’s population and political institutions would be overwhelmed by the Islamic demographic tide. It would be a case of submit, fight or flee. No wonder Miliband has his very own propaganda unit within the FCO, which, according to one insider, was established "to combat the negative stance taken by sections of the UK media towards the EU [2]." As the Russian saying has it, "a fish rots from the head down", and the stench of decay under the Labour administration stinks to high heaven. We are living under a Government which appears to be intent upon the self-liquidation of national sovereignty.

Obama’s attitude towards Turkey underlines the urgency of the need for the UK to leave the EU. Contrary to what Obama says, Islam and the West do not possess “common values.” More Muslims in Europe will mean more intimidation of, more violence towards and more displacement of indigenous Europeans.

We have seen what happened to Serbia. Would the US and its allies at some future date be prepared to destroy a nationalistically inclined UK or other independent European state that sought to break away from the Islamising nightmare that Washington and Brussels wish to unleash upon us? In the EU elections on 4 June this year, there is only one option: vote BNP to preserve national sovereignty and halt Islamisation.

Sources
[1] Muslim population 'rising 10 times faster than rest of society', January 30, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article5621482.ece

[2] Confidential personal communication.

North Korea's Damp Squib Excites Presidential Ire

President Obama is not pleased with North Korea. Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il has been a very naughty boy, for he has been caught playing with rockets. This morning’s failed satellite launch demonstrates that North Korea still has some way to go before it becomes capable of producing its own nuclear-armed ICBMs. That it is seeking such a capability is certainly not welcome news, but then again, we have some rather more tangible threats closer to home.

Not only is there Iran, which is developing nuclear weapons and has demonstrated an effective missile capability through the recent launch of its first satellite, but also there is Pakistan, which possesses both warheads and delivery systems. Pakistan is also developing an IRBM capability that would enable it to deliver nuclear weapons over a distance of 4,000 km or more. Pakistan is deeply unstable, and as population pressures grow, so will the appeals of an already strong militant Islamism. In all likelihood, it is only a matter of time before an Islamist regime takes power in the country. Muslim millenarianism equipped with such modern technology would be a truly fearsome prospect; at last, Islam would possess the means of ushering in its own version of the apocalypse.

Even if an Islamist regime does not establish itself in Pakistan, sympathetic elements within ISI could enable Islamists to acquire their own nuclear materials for deployment against non-Muslim nations. This to me is a rather more terrifying prospect than an ICBM-equipped North Korea. Admittedly, for the Japanese, things must look rather different.

Jacqui Smith seeks Solace at the Muslim News Awards for Excellence

Last night, Jacqui Smith managed to escape the media furore surrounding the expenses scandal and her husband’s taste for salacious home entertainment by stepping into the limelight at the Muslim News Awards for Excellence. There, she along with Nick Clegg, Dominic Grieve and Hazel Blears, doled out awards to Muslims selected by such ‘authorities’ as the Respect Leader Salma Yaqoob.

In a collective act of cringing obeisance to the UK’s burgeoning Islamic population, representatives of the three main political parties made fawning speeches in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with Muslim voters. David Cameron, although unable to attend, sent a special message. That we should place no trust in Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem (or should that be Lib-Dhimm?) politicians when it comes to resisting the Islamisation of our country is amply demonstrated by their own words. Jacqui Smith stated:

"Promoting dialogue and understanding is crucially important at a time when we see those on the extreme fringes of society peddling an empty ideology of isolation, fear and hatred.” [1] “The Muslim News Awards are an important opportunity for us all to recognize and show our appreciation for the valuable contribution that British Muslims make to our shared society.” [2]

Echoing Gordon Brown’s message that the Awards were now “a well-established event in our national calendar”, David Cameron’s contribution stated that “[o]ver the years the Awards have firmly established themselves in the national calendar, and have helped us to celebrate the huge contribution which British Muslims make to each and every aspect of our society.” [2]

However, the prize for most fawning mainstream politician of the evening must be awarded to Nick Clegg, who stated “These prestigious awards not only provide an opportunity to acknowledge the excellence of the individual nominees in their respective fields, but they also encourage us to reflect upon the valuable social, cultural, and economic contribution made by the Muslim community in the UK.” [2]

What were these awards for?
Having read these encomia, perhaps you are inquisitive to learn what the recipients of these awards had done to merit such attention? Well, they included recognition of such good works as:

• developing a distinctly Islamic calligraphic style of street graffiti

• karate and kickboxing

• alternative therapies (i.e. anti-scientific nonsense for the soft-headed) for “black and minority ethnic people”

• a special dhimmi award (although not described as such) for the Reverend Gilleasbuig MacMillan of St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, who in October 1991 stopped a “Service of Repentance” to allow Muslims to pray in the Cathedral “next to the altar,” which was followed by allowing “[t]he Adhan, the Muslim call to the prayer, [to be] . . . made from the pulpit.” Muslim prayers were then “performed in the midst of a Christian congregation of over 1,000.” [2]

MacMillan’s actions are startling. Can you imagine such a thing ever happening in a mosque? Of course you can’t. I may be an atheist, but I understand that the precedent that MacMillan established does not bode well for the future of his Church. His gesture has of course since been followed up by other unspecified acts of misplaced kindness towards the Muslim population.

Who bankrolled the event?
Who, you might ask, is behind these awards? Well, this was not done on the cheap, for 800 were invited to attend at the Grosvenor Hotel in London. Award sponsors included the Crown Prosecution Service, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and Communities and Local Government. Admittedly, there were also some private sponsors, but the above list emphasises the heavy role of the state. So, the UK taxpayer has footed much of the bill for this useless propagandist junket.

This was yet another officially sponsored initiative to help brainwash people into thinking that Islam is a normal and acceptable part of life in the UK today. What in fact this did demonstrate, is the bankruptcy of all of our main political parties when it comes to tackling the problem of Islam in the UK and the non-Muslim world more widely.

The proponents of the Islamic political project take two approaches to achieving their ends: the swift and the slow. The former focuses upon terrorist acts and highly visible political activity, whereas the latter wends its way to its destination through demographic change engendered by differential birth rates and patterns of migration. Either way, if these approaches go unchallenged, we lose. We still have time to ensure that the toehold that Islam has in these isles is reversed peacefully, but for this to be achieved, we need the political will. In mainstream politics, this is manifestly lacking, so we have no alternative but to turn elsewhere. Let us hope that the days of such award ceremonies are numbered.

Sources:

1 - Muslim 'unsung heroes' honoured, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7972892.stm

2 - Ninth Annual Ceremony recognises the very best of British Muslim Achievement, http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/index/press.php?pr=263

Radio 4’s Bizarre Obsession

Earlier this week Radio 4 engaged in some frankly bizarre speculative deliberations to mark that most august of events, Barack Obama’s 65th day in office. Well, naturally, this was seen as cause for some celebration by the Radio 4 ‘commentariat’, so we were treated to the Today Programme devoting Wednesday’s edition to pondering how long it would be before the UK would have its own Obama in the form of a “black Prime Minister”. To this end, they drafted in a US academic who, much to Sarah Montague’s disappointment, opined that there would not be a black Prime Minister in all likelihood for at least another twenty years.

Instead of recognising that the absence of a dusky-hued PM is down to the fact that the majority of the UK population is still, despite the efforts of the incumbent Government, still of indigenous stock (a term that the BBC pretends not to comprehend), Montague et al had to wring their hands and look for explanations elsewhere. Their preferred explanations unsurprisingly consisted of the same tired old set of misapprehensions founded upon a belief in the twin bogeys of “institutional racism” and the innate “racism” of the indigenous inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Having thus outlined their delusional worldview as if it were the real state of affairs, the discussion then led to predictably emotive pleading for special programmes to cultivate the requisite ‘talent’ in “black communities” and to fast-track black parliamentary candidates using positive discrimination.

There are a number of good reasons why we haven’t had a black PM and why we’re unlikely to have one. The proportion of dark-skinned UK passport holders remains a minority nationally; furthermore, they are encouraged by the Government and the media to channel their political efforts into communalist and sectarian modes of action and expression, thereby reinforcing existing tendencies to produce correspondingly narrowly focused ‘community’ political leaders. By definition, ethnic-minority communalist and sectarian activists are unfit for public office, because they pursue their own narrow agendas (which they perceive to be legitimate) to the detriment of the wider interests of society. Contrary to the opinion of Radio 4’s guest academic, I am not of the opinion that Keith Vaz is a man of integrity who is fit for high office.

Multiculturalism encourages anti-nationalism and a culture of grievance amongst immigrant, particularly ‘black’, populations. Such a mindset cannot produce policies and actions conducive to the national good. If we are talking about “black” in the narrow sense of people of Afro-Caribbean or African stock, the population of the former is small, and a significant proportion of this minority is governed by an anti-intellectual culture which does not encourage academic achievement. Unsurprisingly therefore, the number of potentially gifted politicians is exceedingly low, a matter compounded by the fact that the state is generally viewed with hostility by this group. As for those of black African descent, their presence in this country really is of very recent provenance, so it would be ludicrous to expect that they would have become involved in national political life. Furthermore, their primary allegiances will in the majority of cases remain overseas.

The assumption of the Radio 4 presenters was that having a black PM would be a good thing in itself. Why? Call me foolish if you will, but I think that political leaders should be chosen upon the basis of intelligence, ability and a congruence between their policies, beliefs and values and my own, not because they are held to represent an allegedly oppressed minority. Like the Marxists of old who held that there was some innate nobility in the proletariat which embodied universal human values derived from its “oppression”, the multiculturalists of today hold that ethnic minorities are intrinsically morally superior to the indigenous population, as the former are designated ‘victims’ of discrimination and oppression. Whereas the Marxists singled out the bourgeoisie for elimination, the multiculturalists have chosen the indigenous population. I for one, look forward to the day when we have not a black Prime Minister, but a Prime Minister who looks after and actively promotes the interests of the indigenous peoples of the United Kingdom.

Sign of Panic on the Left: No2EU

An article penned by René Lavanchy in yesterday's Tribune claimed that any members elected on the No2EU “left-wing anti-EU platform” will not take up their seats in Brussels. Labour MEP Glyn Ford was not impressed, and asserted that this RMT-sponsored initiative could endanger his and other Labour members’ seats, and thereby let in their political opponents, including the BNP. Ford’s mendacious self-serving pleading does nothing to undermine the key reason for the creation of No2EU: another attempt by the Left to undermine potential support for a confident BNP.

The No2EU website itself makes it quite clear that one of its primary objectives is to divert anti-EU support that would otherwise gravitate towards the BNP: “Vote No2EU - Yes to Democracy to oppose the BNP and resist the threat to exploit the current economic crisis to promote racist political ends.”

My guess is that alarmed by the collapse of UKIP, sections of the Left have taken it upon themselves to stand anti-EU candidates in a straightforward exercise to siphon off a percentage of the BNP vote, which given the system of proportional representation, could have a real negative impact upon the BNP’s prospects of gaining MEPs. It will also be interesting to see how much media coverage Libertas receives should it decide to field many candidates in the forthcoming European elections. Despite UKIP’s recent effective collapse, it will continue to receive more coverage from the BBC than the BNP, as most likely will this new No2EU diversionary operation.

Sources:
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2009/03/26/no2eu-campaign-says-‘our-meps-won’t-take-up-seats’/#comment-8298

http://no2eu.com/keepoutthebnp.html