Search This Blog

Saturday, 30 October 2010

The UK's Left Wing Political Elites As They Really Are, Communists!

The Left Wing Elites As They Really Are, Communists!

If you feel your self being attracted to what is more commonly called Socialism or is in reality Communism the consider what the leading proponents of this wicked ideology are quoted below. please do not be fooled by their so called platitudes of liberty and justice that is just a smokescreen you can see below what would be in store for us all if they eventually get their way!
perhaps we should send a copy of this and ask the EHCR chairman Trevor Phillips, to explain why he supports the ideology of communism, and also to answer if any of the below quotes could be in any way justified  and if the persecution of a legitimate political party through the British Courts is motivated by the political ideology that he supports so openly?

“It is slavery which has given value to the colonies… Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance. Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country.”
- Karl Marx
(Letter to Annenkov, December 28, 1846) “… the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
- Karl Marx
(“The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848) “We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
- Karl Marx
(“Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849) “The present generation resembles the Jews whom Moses led through the wilderness. It must not only conquer a new world, it must also perish in order to make room for people who will be equal to a new world.”
- Karl Marx
(Gyorgy Lukacs, History and Class Consciousness [MIT Press, 1972], p. 315) “We say to the workers: you will have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and national struggles not only to bring about a change in society but also to change yourselves, and prepare yourselves for the exercise of political power.”
- Karl Marx
(Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne, 1852-3, Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 403) “Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.”
- Karl Marx
(“Forced Emigration,” New York Daily Tribune, March 22, 1853) “England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating – the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia… When a great social revolution shall have mastered the results of the bourgeois epoch… and subjected them to the common control of the most advanced peoples, then only will human progress cease to resemble that hideous, pagan idol, who would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain.”
- Karl Marx
(“The Future Results of British Rule in India,” New York Daily Tribune, August 8, 1853) “Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.”
- Karl Marx
(“The Russian Loan,” New York Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856) “All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.”
- Friedrich Engels
(“The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849) “People have learned by bitter experience that the ‘European fraternal union of peoples’ cannot be achieved by mere phrases and pious wishes, but only by profound revolutions and bloody struggles… Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness…”
- Friedrich Engels
(“Democratic Pan-Slavism,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, February 15, 1849) “Then there will be a struggle, an ‘inexorable life-and-death struggle,’ against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and ruthless terror – not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!”
- Friedrich Engels
(“Democratic Pan-Slavism, Cont.,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, February 16, 1849) “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.”
- Friedrich Engels
(Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader [W. W. Norton, 1978], pp. 730-3) “By destroying the peasant economy and driving the peasant from the country to the town, the famine creates a proletariat... Furthermore the famine can and should be a progressive factor not only economically. It will force the peasant to reflect on the bases of the capitalist system, demolish faith in the tsar and tsarism, and consequently in due course make the victory of the revolution easier... Psychologically all this talk about feeding the starving and so on essentially reflects the usual sugary sentimentality of our intelligentsia.”
- V. I. Lenin
(Michael Ellman, “The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1934,” Europe-Asia Studies, September 2005, p. 823) “[Use] rifles, revolvers, bombs, knives, knuckle-dusters, sticks, rags soaked in kerosene for starting fires... barbed wire, nails (against cavalry)… or acids to be poured on the police... The killing of spies, policemen, gendarmes, the blowing up of police stations... [must start] at a moment’s notice.”
- V. I. Lenin
(“Tasks of Revolutionary Army Contingents,” Collected Works, Vol. 9, pp. 420-4) “We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.”
- V. I. Lenin
(“Lessons of the Moscow Uprising,” Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 174) “... there are times when the interests of the proletariat call for ruthless extermination of its enemies in open armed clashes.”
- V. I. Lenin
(“Lessons of the Commune,” Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 478) “He who accepts the class struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in every class society are the natural, and under certain conditions inevitable, continuation, development and intensification of the class struggle… To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme opportunism and renounce the socialist revolution.”
- V. I. Lenin
(“The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution,” Collected Works, Vol. 23, pp. 78-9) “War to the death against the rich and their hangers-on, the bourgeois intellectuals... ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat’ – this is the practical commandment of socialism... [Our] common aim [is] to clean the land of Russia of all vermin, of fleas – the rogues, of bugs – the rich, and so on and so forth.”
- V. I. Lenin
(“How to Organise Competition?” Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp. 411, 414) “Not a single problem of the class struggle has ever been solved in history except by violence... The class struggle did not accidentally assume its latest form, the form in which the exploited class takes all the means of power in its own hands in order to completely destroy its class enemy, the bourgeoisie...”
- V. I. Lenin
(“Report on the Activities of the Council of People’s Commissars,” Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp. 459-61) “We can’t expect to get anywhere unless we resort to terrorism: speculators must be shot on the spot. Moreover, bandits must be dealt with just as resolutely: they must be shot on the spot.”
- V. I. Lenin
(“Meeting of the Presidium of the Petrograd Soviet With Delegates From the Food Supply Organisations,” Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 501) “Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the most cruel revolutionary terror?”
- V. I. Lenin
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 57) “... prepare eveything to burn Baku to the ground, if there is an attack…”
- V. I. Lenin
(Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive [Yale University Press, 1996], p. 46) “... carry out merciless mass terror against the kulaks, priests and White Guards; unreliable elements to be locked up in a concentration camp outside the town.”
- V. I. Lenin
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 103) “The uprising of the five kulak districts should be mercilessly suppressed… Hang (hang without fail, so the people see) no fewer than one hundred kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers... Do it in such a way that for hundreds of versts [km] around, the people will see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucker kulaks.”
- V. I. Lenin
(Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive [Yale University Press, 1996], p. 50) “About three million must be regarded as middle peasants, while barely two million consist of kulaks, rich peasants, grain profiteers... Ruthless war on the kulaks! Death to them! ... [Class struggle entails] ruthless suppression of the kulaks, those bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who batten on famine.”
- V. I. Lenin
(“Comrade Workers, Forward To The Last, Decisive Fight!” Collected Works, Vol. 28, pp. 53-7) “I am confident that the suppression of the Kazan Czechs and White Guards, and likewise of the bloodsucking kulaks who support them, will be a model of mercilessness.”
- V. I. Lenin
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 119) “Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.”
- V. I. Lenin
(The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky [Foreign Languages Press, 1972], p. 11) “... when people charge us with harshness we wonder how they can forget the rudiments of Marxism.”
- V. I. Lenin
(“Speech to the All-Russia Extraordinary Commission Staff,” Collected Works, Vol. 28, pp. 169-70) “... catch and shoot the Astrakhan speculators and bribe-takers. These swine have to be dealt [with] so that everyone will remember it for years.”
- V. I. Lenin
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 201) “When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party... we say, ‘Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position...’”
- V. I. Lenin
(“Speech to the First All-Russia Congress of Workers in Education and Socialist Culture,” Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 535) “Russians are too kind, they lack the ability to apply determined methods of revolutionary terror.”
- V. I. Lenin
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 203) “Use both bribery and threats to exterminate every Cossack to a man if they set fire to the oil in Guriev.”
- V. I. Lenin
(Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive [Yale University Press, 1996], p. 69) “Treat the Jews (express it politely: Jewish petty bourgeoisie) and urban inhabitants in the Ukraine with an iron rod, transferring them to the front, not letting them into the government agencies (except in an insignificant percentage, in particularly exceptional circumstances, under class control).”
- V. I. Lenin
(Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive [Yale University Press, 1996], p. 77) “It is precisely now and only now, when in the starving regions people are eating human flesh, and hundreds if not thousands of corpses are littering the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the confiscation of church valuables... I come to the categorical conclusion that precisely at this moment we must give battle to the Black Hundred clergy in the most decisive and merciless manner and crush its resistance with such brutality that it will not forget it for decades to come… The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing for this reason, the better.”
- V. I. Lenin
(Richard Pipes, ed., The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive [Yale University Press, 1996], pp. 152-4) “There is nothing immoral in the proletariat finishing off the dying class... in one month at most this terror will assume more frightful forms, on the model of the great revolutionaries of France. Our enemies will face not prison but the guillotine [which] shortens a man by the length of a head.”
- Leon Trotsky
(Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution [Vintage, 1990], pp. 791-2) “Root out the counterrevolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps... Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service...”
- Leon Trotsky
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [HarperCollins, 1996], p. 213) “We have to run a hot iron down the spine of the Ukrainian kulaks – that will create a good working
environment.”
- Leon Trotsky
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [HarperCollins, 1996], p. 183) “These Cains [Don Cossacks] must be annihilated, no mercy must be shown to any settlement that gives resistance. Mercy only for those who hand over their weapons voluntarily and come over to our side... You must cleanse the Don of the black stain of treason within a few days.”
- Leon Trotsky
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [HarperCollins, 1996], p. 156) “More and more we hear the voice of the workers and peasants, saying: ‘we must exterminate all Cossacks, then peace and calm will come to South Russia!’”
- Leon Trotsky
(Peter Holquist, Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis, 1914-1921 [Harvard University Press, 2002], p. 178) “[We propose] the creation of a penal work command out of [work] deserters, and their internment in concentration camps.”
- Leon Trotsky
(Richard Day, Leon Trotsky and the Politics of Economic Isolation [Cambridge University Press, 1973], p. 29) “As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the ‘sacredness of human life.’”
- Leon Trotsky
(Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [New Park Publications, 1975], p. 82) “The bourgeoisie today is a falling class... We are forced to tear it off, to chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon utilized against a class, doomed to destruction, which does not wish to perish. If the White Terror can only retard the historical rise of the proletariat, the Red Terror hastens the destruction of the bourgeoisie.”
- Leon Trotsky
(Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [New Park Publications, 1975], p. 83) “Repression for the attainment of economic ends is a necessary weapon of the socialist dictatorship.”
- Leon Trotsky
(Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [New Park Publications, 1975], p. 159) “... the road to socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the state... Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the state, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of state, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction...”
- Leon Trotsky
(Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [New Park Publications, 1975], p. 177) “What, however, is our relation to revolution? Civil war is the most severe of all forms of war. It is unthinkable not only without violence against tertiary figures but, under contemporary technique, without murdering old men, old women and children... There is no impervious demarcation between ‘peaceful’ class struggle and revolution. Every strike embodies in an unexpanded form all the elements of civil war.”
- Leon Trotsky
(“Their Morals and Ours,” New International, June 1938) “... if the dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of the class is armed with the resources of the state in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the backward layers of the proletariat itself.”
- Leon Trotsky
(“Moralists and Sycophants Against Marxism,” New International, August 1939) “All the parties of capitalist society, all its moralists and all its sycophants will perish beneath the debris of the impending catastrophe. The only party that will survive is the party of the world socialist revolution…”
- Leon Trotsky
(“Moralists and Sycophants Against Marxism,” New International, August 1939) “We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.”
- Grigori Zinoviev
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 114) “But couldn’t this correlation [of political and social forces] be altered? Say, through the subjection or extermination of some classes of society?”
- Feliks Dzerzhinsky
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 252) “Do not believe that I seek revolutionary forms of justice. We don’t need justice at this point... I propose, I demand, the organisation of revolutionary annihilation against all active counterrevolutionaries.”
- Feliks Dzerzhinsky
(Michel Heller and Aleksandr Nekrich, Utopia in Power: A History of the USSR From 1917 to the Present [Hutchinson, 1986], p. 54) “[The Red Terror is] the extermination of enemies of the revolution on the basis of their class affiliation or of their pre-revolutionary roles.”
- Feliks Dzerzhinsky
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 114) “We do not wage war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look during an investigation for evidence that the accused acted, by word or deed, against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is: to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions should decide the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.”
- Martin Latsis, Cheka commander
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 114) “As far as the bourgeoisie are concerned, the tactics of mass extermination must be introduced.”
- Martin Latsis
(Bruce Lincoln, Red Victory: A History of the Russian Civil War [Simon and Schuster, 1989], p. 160) “Sooner or later we will have to exterminate, simply physically destroy, the Cossacks, or at least the vast majority of them.”
- I. I. Reingold, Bolshevik official
(Peter Holquist, Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis, 1914-1921 [Harvard University Press, 2002], pp. 166, 194-5) “... we are conducting a struggle not for the Cossackry but against the Cossackry, before us stands the task of the Don’s complete conquest and extinction.”
- Iosif Khodorovskii, Bolshevik official
(Peter Holquist, Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis, 1914-1921 [Harvard University Press, 2002], p. 195) “Considering the experience of a year of civil war against the Cossackry, we must recognize the only proper means to be a merciless struggle with the entire Cossack elite by means of their total extermination... Therefore it is necessary to conduct merciless mass terror against wealthy Cossacks, exterminating them totally; to conduct merciless mass terror against all those Cossacks who participated, directly or indirectly, in the struggle against Soviet power...”
- Bolshevik order
(Peter Holquist, Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis, 1914-1921 [Harvard University Press, 2002], pp. 181) “[The Cossack threat] makes vital the question of the complete, immediate and decisive destruction of the Cossackry as a specific cultural and economic group, the destruction of its economic foundations, the physical elimination of the Cossack bureaucrats and officers (indeed, the entire counterrevolutionary Cossack elite)... and the formal liquidation of the Cossackry.”
- Bolshevik order
(Peter Holquist, Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis, 1914-1921 [Harvard University Press, 2002], p. 192) “... anyone who dares to agitate against Soviet authority will be arrested immediately and confined in a concentration camp.”
- Bolshevik order
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 179) “It is essential to safeguard the Soviet Republic from its class enemies by isolating them in concentration camps.”
- Bolshevik order
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], p. 179) “Workers, the time has come when either you must destroy the bourgeoisie, or it will destroy you. Prepare for a mass merciless onslaught upon the enemies of the revolution. The towns must be cleansed of this bourgeois putrefaction... all who are dangerous to the cause of revolution must be exterminated... Henceforth the hymn of the working class will be a hymn of hatred and revenge.”
- Bolshevik order
(George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Clarendon Press, 1981], pp. 113-4) “1. Citizens who refuse to give their names are to be shot on the spot without trial; 2. The penalty of hostage-taking should be announced and they are to be shot when arms are not surrendered; 3. In the event of concealed arms being found, shoot the eldest worker in the family on the spot and without trial; 4. Any family which harboured a bandit is subject to arrest and deportation from the province, their property to be confiscated and the eldest worker in the family to be shot without trial; 5. The eldest worker of any families hiding members of the family or the property of bandits is to be shot on the spot without trial.”
- Bolshevik order
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [HarperCollins, 1994], pp. 343-4) “[Lenin] is talented, he has all the qualities of a ‘leader,’ but also, what is essential for that role, an absence of morality and a purely lordly, merciless attitude to the lives of the masses.”
- Maksim Gorky, Soviet writer
(Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [HarperCollins, 1996], p. 184) “I assume that most of the 35 million affected by the famine will die.”
- Maksim Gorky
(Michel Heller and Aleksandr Nekrich, Utopia in Power: A History of the USSR From 1917 to the Present [Hutchinson, 1986], p. 121) “The half-savage, stupid, difficult people of the Russian villages will die out... and their place will be taken by a new tribe of the literate, the intelligent, the vigorous.”
- Maksim Gorky
(Michel Heller and Aleksandr Nekrich, Utopia in Power: A History of the USSR From 1917 to the Present [Hutchinson, 1986], p. 121) “Experiments on human beings are indispensable... Hundreds of human guinea pigs are required.”
- Maksim Gorky
(Stephan Courtois, The Black Book of Communism [Harvard University Press, 1999], p. 751) “In order to oust the kulaks as a class, the resistance of this class must be smashed in open battle and it must be deprived of the productive sources of its existence and development... That is a turn towards the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class.”
- Joseph Stalin
(“Concerning the Policy of Eliminating the Kulaks as a Class,” Krasnaya Zvezda, January 21, 1930, Works, Vol. 12, p. 189) “There is, of course, a certain small section of the population that really does stand in fear of the Soviet power, and fights against it. I have in mind the remnants of the moribund classes, which are being eliminated, and primarily that insignificant part of the peasantry, the kulaks… Everybody knows that in this case we Bolsheviks do not confine ourselves to intimidation but go further, aiming at the elimination of this bourgeois stratum.”
- Joseph Stalin
(“Talk With the German Author Emil Ludwig,” Bolshevik, April 30, 1932, Works, Vol. 13, pp. 113-4) “The abolition of classes is not achieved by the extinction of the class struggle, but by its intensification. The state will wither away, not as a result of weakening the state power, but as a result of strengthening it to the utmost, which is necessary for finally crushing the remnants of the dying classes... we have routed the kulaks and have prepared the ground for their elimination.”
- Joseph Stalin
(“The Results of the First Five-Year Plan,” Pravda, January 10, 1933, Works, Vol. 13, p. 215) “Of course, we are far from being enthusiastic about the fascist regime in Germany. But it is not a question of fascism here, if only for the reason that fascism in Italy, for example, has not prevented the USSR from establishing the best relations with that country.”
- Joseph Stalin
(“Report to the Seventeenth Party Congress,” Pravda, January 28, 1934, Works, Vol. 13, pp. 308-9) “I know how much the German nation loves its Fuhrer; I should therefore like to drink to his health.”
- Joseph Stalin
(John Lukacs, June 1941: Hitler and Stalin [Yale University Press 2006], p. 55) “... the peasant is adopting a new tactic. He refuses to reap the harvest. He wants the bread grain to die in order to choke the Soviet government with the bony hand of famine. But the enemy miscalculates. We will show him what famine is.”
- Stanislav Kossior, Ukrainian communist leader
(Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow [Arrow Books, 1988], p. 221) “The unsatisfactory course of sowing [grain] in many areas confirms that famine still hasn’t taught reason to many kolkhozniks [collective farmers].”
- Stanislav Kossior
(Andrea Graziosi, “The Soviet 1931-1933 Famines and the Ukrainian Holodomor,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 27, 2004, p. 106) “We know that millions are dying. That is unfortunate, but the glorious future of the Soviet Union will justify that.”
- G. I. Petrovsky, Ukrainian communist leader
(Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow [Arrow Books, 1988], p. 324) “A ruthless struggle is going on between the peasantry and our regime. It’s a struggle to the death. This year was a test of our strength and their endurance. It took a famine to show them who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay.”
- M. M. Khatayevich, Ukrainian communist leader
(Victor A. Kravchenko, I Chose Freedom [Transaction Publishers, 1989], p. 130) “People are getting increasingly aware, especially in the famine-affected areas, of what is happening; they hate idlers and thieves. The conscientious collective farmers want these idlers and thieves killed by hunger.”
- Oleksandr Odyntsov, Ukraine agriculture commissar
(Stanislav Kulchytsky, “Lessons From Melbourne Meetings,” The Day, Ukraine, April 28, 2009) “The collective farmers this year have passed through a good school. For some, this school was quite ruthless.”
- Mikhail Kalinin, Soviet head of state
(William Henry Chamberlin, “Famine Proves Potent Weapon in Soviet Policy,” Christian Science Monitor, May 29, 1934) “Political impostors ask contributions for the ‘starving’ of Ukraine. Only degraded disintegrating classes can produce such cynical elements.”
- Mikhail Kalinin
(William Henry Chamberlin, Russia’s Iron Age [Little, Brown and Company, 1934], p. 369) “... no compassion and sniveling humanism can be shown toward enemies of socialism. To ‘pity’ a kulak, a speculator, a traitor, an enemy of the people, is to feel sorry for the wolf that will respond to the pity with fresh crimes and acts of treachery… the supreme act of humanism is the destruction of these vicious snakes dispatched by fascism into the land of socialism.”
- Vladimir Stavsky, Secretary of the Soviet Writers’ Union
(Robert C. Tucker, Stalin in Power: The Revolution From Above, 1928-1941 [W. W. Norton, 1992], p. 576) “Better that ten innocent people should suffer than one spy get away. When you cut down the forest, woodchips fly.”
- Nikolai Ezhov, NKVD commander
(Roy Medvedev, Let History Judge [Columbia University Press, 1989], p. 603) “[It is] better to condemn a hundred innocent persons than let one guilty person escape.”
- Dolores Ibarruri (“La Pasionaria”), Spanish communist politician
(Victor Alba, The Communist Party in Spain [Transaction Publishers, 1983], p. 256) “You are protesting against Jewish capitalism, gentlemen? Whoever protests against Jewish capitalism, gentlemen, is already a class-warrior, whether he knows it or not. You are against Jewish capitalism and want to beat down stock exchange jobbers. That’s all right. Stamp on the Jewish capitalists, string them up from the lamp-posts, trample them underfoot...”
- Ruth Fischer, German communist leader
(Mario Kessler, “Leon Trotsky’s Position on Anti-Semitism, Zionism and the Perspectives of the Jewish Question,” New Interventions, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994) “The National Socialist Party, like all other socialist organizations, has within its ranks a number of convinced and honest people. Dedicated to a cause we reject, they pledge to it their lives. This courage and bravery we honor and respect.”
- Hermann Remmele, German communist spokesman
(Abraham Ascher and Guenter Lewy, “National Bolshevism in Weimar Germany: Alliance of Political Extremes Against Democracy,” Social Research, Winter 1956, p. 468) “Young Socialists! Brave fighters for the nation: the Communists do not want to engage in fraternal strife with the National Socialists.”
- Heinz Neumann, German communist leader, speaking at a Nazi rally
(Abraham Ascher and Guenter Lewy, “National Bolshevism in Weimar Germany: Alliance of Political Extremes Against Democracy,” Social Research, Winter 1956, p. 478) “[Resolved: that] the revolt of the oppressed peoples in the colonies against imperialism has always been accompanied by destructive attacks against the national minorities when they aided the imperialist regime, and that the revolt of the Arab masses in Palestine against the imperialists had been and would in the future be accompanied by a war of annihilation against the Jewish minority, as long as it cooperated with the British imperialists.”
- Palestine Communist Party
(Resolution of the 7th Party Congress, 1932; quoted in Zachary Lockman, “The Left in Israel: Zionism vs Socialism,” MERIP Reports, July 1976, p. 8) “Moscow is convinced that the road to Soviet Germany leads through Hitler.”
- Soviet Embassy in Berlin
(Robert C. Tucker, “The Emergence of Stalin’s Foreign Policy,” Slavic Review, December 1977, p. 582) “There are magnificent lads in the SA and SS. You’ll see, the day will come when they’ll be throwing hand grenades for us.”
- Karl Radek
(Robert C. Tucker, “The Emergence of Stalin’s Foreign Policy,” Slavic Review, December 1977, p. 587) “One can accept or reject the ideology of Hitlerism, just as one can any other ideological system, that’s a matter of political views… it is not only senseless but criminal to wage such a war as a war to ‘destroy Hitlerism’ under the false flag of a struggle for ‘democracy.’”
- V. M. Molotov
(Robert C. Tucker, Stalin in Power: The Revolution From Above, 1928-1941 [W. W. Norton, 1992], p. 602) “Look at World War II, at Hitler’s cruelty. The more cruelty, the more enthusiasm for revolution.”
- Mao Zedong
(New York Times, August 31, 1990) “If we were to add up all the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements and rightists, their number would reach thirty million... Of our total population of six hundred million people, these thirty million are only one out of twenty. So what is there to be afraid of? ... We have so many people. We can afford to lose a few. What difference does it make?”
- Mao Zedong
(Li Zhisui, The Private Life of Chairman Mao [Random House, 1994], p. 217) “It is a very good thing, and a significant one too, to exterminate the bourgeoisie and capitalism in China.”
- Mao Zedong
(Philip Short, Mao: A Life [Henry Holt, 1999], p. 447) “You’d better have less conscience. Some of our comrades have too much mercy, not enough brutality, which means that they are not so Marxist. On this matter, we indeed have no conscience! Marxism is that brutal.”
- Mao Zedong
(Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story [Jonathan Cape, 2005], p. 411) “Let’s contemplate this, how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world. One-third could be lost; or, a little more, it could be half... I say that, taking the extreme situation, half dies, half lives, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.”
- Mao Zedong
(Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story [Jonathan Cape, 2005], p. 428) “We are prepared to sacrifice 300 million Chinese for the victory of the world revolution.”
- Mao Zedong
(Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story [Jonathan Cape, 2005], pp. 457-8) “Don’t make a fuss about a world war. At most, people die... Half the population wiped out – this happened quite a few times in Chinese history... It’s best if half the population is left, next best one-third...”
- Mao Zedong
(Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story [Jonathan Cape, 2005], p. 458) “There should be celebration rallies when people die... We believe in dialectics, and so we can’t not be in favor of death.”
- Mao Zedong
(Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story [Jonathan Cape, 2005], p. 457) “Deaths have benefits. They can fertilise the ground.”
- Mao Zedong
(Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story [Jonathan Cape, 2005], p. 457) “People say that poverty is bad, but in fact poverty is good. The poorer people are, the more revolutionary they are. It is dreadful to imagine a time when everyone will be rich... From a surplus of calories people will have two heads and four legs.”
- Mao Zedong
(Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story [Jonathan Cape, 2005], p. 428) “The weeds of socialism are better than the crops of capitalism.”
- Mao Zedong
(Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story [Jonathan Cape, 2005], p. 643) “I ask you, Ladies and Gentlemen, for permission to bow down before the memory of all the innocent people killed, not by the enemy, but by our own hands... While destroying the landowner class, we simultaneously condemned to dreadful death numberless old people and children... A slogan has been put out: Better kill ten innocent people than let one enemy escape... Let me recall here some fundamental principles of justice... [such as:] The responsibility falls on the guilty person only, not on wives, children or relatives.”
- Nguyen Manh Tuong, North Vietnamese dissident
(“Concerning Mistakes Committed in Land Reform,” Speech to the National Congress of the Fatherland Front, Hanoi, October 30, 1956, in Hoang Van Chi, ed., The New Class in North Vietnam [Saigon: Cong Dan, 1958], pp. 135, 138, 142-3) “In the [North Vietnamese] agrarian reform, illegal arrests, imprisonments, investigations (with barbarous torture), executions, requisitions of property, and the quarantining of landowners’ houses (or houses of peasants wrongly classified as landowners), which left innocent children to die of starvation, are not exclusively due to the shortcomings of the leadership, but also due to the lack of a complete legal code. If the cadres had felt that they were closely observed by the god of justice... calamities might have been avoided for the masses.”
- Nguyen Huu Dang, North Vietnamese dissident
(“It is Necessary to Have a More Ordered Society,” Nhan Van, Hanoi, No. 4, November 5, 1956) “... we had to make the people suffer, suffer until they could no longer endure it. Only then would they carry out the Party’s armed policy.”
- Senior Viet Cong defector
(Jeffrey Race, War Comes to Long An [University of California Press, 1972], p. 112) “We’ve been worse than Pol Pot, but the outside world knows nothing.”
- Vietnamese communist boast
(Nguyen Van Canh, Vietnam Under Communism, 1975-1982 [Hoover Institution Press, 1983], p. 207) “Ho Chi Minh may have been an evil man; Nixon may have been a great man. The Americans may have had the just cause; we may not have had the just cause. But we won and the Americans were defeated because we convinced the people that Ho Chi Minh is the great man, that Nixon is a murderer, and the Americans are the invaders... The key factor is how to control people and their opinions. Only Marxism-Leninism can do that.”
- Mai Chi Tho, Vietnamese communist politician
(New York Times Magazine, March 29, 1981) “I propose the immediate launching of a nuclear strike on the United States. The Cuban people are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause of the destruction of imperialism and the victory of world revolution.”
- Fidel Castro
(Fedor Burlatsky, “Castro Wanted a Nuclear Strike,” New York Times, October 23, 1992) “If the [Soviet nuclear] rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York...”
- Che Guevara (UPI, December 10, 1962) “What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims... advancing fearlessly towards the hecatomb which signifies final redemption.”
- Che Guevara
(Hugh Thomas, Cuba, or the Pursuit of Freedom [Da Capo Press, 1998], p. 1417) “... if any person has a good word for the previous government, that is enough for me to have him shot.”
- Che Guevara
(Hugh Thomas, Cuba, or the Pursuit of Freedom [Da Capo Press, 1998], p. 1470) “Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine... We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it... we must attack him wherever he may be; make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move... He will even become more beastly, but we shall notice how the signs of decadence begin to appear... How close we could look into a bright future should two, three or many Vietnams flourish throughout the world with their share of deaths and their immense tragedies...”
- Che Guevara
(Message to the Tricontinental [OSPAAAL, 1967]). “The rebel’s weapon is the proof of his humanity. For in the first days of the revolt you must kill: to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time... once the last settler is killed, shipped home or assimilated, the minority breed disappears, to be replaced by socialism.”
- Jean-Paul Sartre
(Preface, Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth [Penguin, 1967], pp. 19-20) “Auschwitz means that 6 million Jews were killed, and thrown onto the waste heap of Europe, for what they were: money-Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews... Antisemitism is really a hatred of capitalism.”
- Ulrike Meinhof, German Red Army Faction terrorist
(Paul Lawrence Rose, German Question/Jewish Question: Revolutionary Antisemitism From Kant to Wagner [Princeton University Press, 1990], p. 304) “In the new Kampuchea, one million is all we need to continue the revolution. We don’t need the rest. We prefer to kill ten friends rather than keep one enemy alive.”
- Khmer Rouge slogan
(Pin Yathay, Stay Alive, My Son [Touchstone, 1987], p. 148) “We need only 2 million troops to crush the 50 million Vietnamese; and we still would have 6 million people left.”
- Khmer Rouge broadcast
(Stephen J. Morris, Why Vietnam Invaded Cambodia [Stanford University Press, 1999], p. 104) “Lenin taught us to be merciless towards the enemies of the revolution, and millions of people had to be eliminated in order to secure the victory of the October Revolution.”
- Nur Muhammad Taraki, Afghan communist dictator
(Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World [Penguin, 2006], p. 389) “We’ll leave only 1 million Afghans alive – that’s all we need to build socialism.”
- Sayyed Abdullah, Afghan communist prison governor
(Sylvain Boulouque, “Communism in Afghanistan,” in Stephane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism [Harvard University Press, 1999], p. 713) “We are doing what Lenin did. You cannot build socialism without Red Terror.”
- Asrat Destu, Ethiopian army political commissar
(Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World [Penguin, 2006], pp. 467-8) “[In a civil war] whole classes of people will disappear. The people will obliterate some classes and then these classes will know the fury of the public.”
- Daniel Ortega, Sandinista leader
(Wall Street Journal, October 12, 1984) “The triumph of the revolution will cost a million deaths.”
- Shining Path slogan
(Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Peru, August 28, 2003, General Conclusions, para. 21) Q: In 1934, millions of people are dying in the Soviet experiment. If you had known that, would it have made a difference to you at that time? To your commitment? To being a communist?
A: ... Probably not...
Q: What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of 15, 20 million people might have been justified?
A: Yes.
- Eric Hobsbawm, British communist historian
(Times Literary Supplement, October 28, 1994) “To the grave with all the Yids!”
- General Albert Makashov, Russian communist politician
(The Guardian, UK, November 5, 1998) “We would be better off with only 6 million people, with our own people who support the liberation struggle. We don’t want all these extra people.”
- Didymus Mutasa, Zimbabwean ruling party official
(Washington Post, January 1, 2003) “Absolute power is when a man is starving and you are the only one able to give him food.”
- Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwean dictator
(The Times, UK, July 9, 2004) 

Label and Identify the barbarically slaughtered meat for Consumers

Identify the barbarically slaughtered meat

 OCTOBER 2010: 
ANIMAL Rights activists have been writing to Nick Griffin in significant numbers urging him you to continue supporting the accurate labelling of meat products which have been ritually slaughtered and not-pre stunned.

 They have pledged their support for Amendment 205 of the 'Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers', which was supported by a majority the European Parliament on the 16th June 2010, and which calls for all meat products that have not been pre-stunned to be labelled as 'Meat from slaughter without stunning'.
However a campaign has now been launched by the Muslim and Jewish media to get Amendment 205 struck out and to keep ritually slaughtered meat being sold, unlabelled, on the open market.
Animal welfare groups warn of the power of the pro-ritual slaughter lobby and urge MEPs to resist being pressurised on the issue. They believe that it is essential that consumers can take a fully informed decision about the products available, and urge MEPs to support regulations that are put to the European Parliament that require accurate labelling of ritually slaughtered products.
Responding on behalf of the MEP, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield, wrote:
"Mr Griffin’s view generally, is that this kind of issue should be a matter for national governments to decide, rather than responsibility and control being delegated to the over bloated supra-national bureaucracy that the European Union has stealthily developed into.
"However, he has pledged to utilise his status as an MEP for the North West of England to represent wherever possible the best interests of his constituents, and sometimes this means that he must act on a particular proposal to ensure that the final draft presented for a European Parliament decision, is shaped according to what he considers to be the best outcome for the British people.
"Mr Griffin considers that the slaughter of animals without prior stunning - as demanded with ritual slaughter - is a barbaric practice that inflicts unnecessary and unacceptable suffering on the animal. Under Islamic law, it is not permissible to stun the animal prior to slaughter; the animal must be fully conscious at the point of slaughter. The animal is strung up by its hind legs and, whilst fully conscious, its throat is sliced open and the blood allowed to drain away. According to veterinary surgeons, some animals can take up to four minutes to lose consciousness or die, so the experience can be absolutely horrific.
"If you have a strong constitution and can stomach the sight of shocking material, there is an informative (if very disturbing), video and report on the practice of ritual slaughter on the British National Party’s website, which can be accessed at http://bnp.org.uk/news/bnp%E2%80%99s-derek-adams-releases-bombshell-halal-slaughter-video .
The British National Party has long campaigned for the banning of ritual slaughter in Britain and has utilised its website, national newspaper, and campaign literature to expose the secretive and underhand introduction of Halal meat into the British food chain.
Given the level of cruelty associated with ritual slaughter, Mr Griffin believes it is the right of the consumer to be informed whether the meat they are purchasing has been slaughtered in this fashion, so they may exercise their choice as to whether to opt instead for products that are derived from the more humane pre-stunning method of slaughter. If the opportunity is provided to the European Parliament as anticipated in December, he will therefore vote in support of Amendment 205, which will make it necessary for meat and meat products derived from animals that have been ritually slaughtered (i.e. without prior stunning) to be labelled as such.
It is possible, however, that Amendment 205 will be struck out by the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee prior to December. The Halal meat industry has grown significantly in Britain and Europe and the Muslim community is conducting a high pressure lobbying campaign to persuade ENVI Committee members to reject this amendment. Fortunately, Mr Griffin sits on the ENVI Committee and will, of course, use his influence to encourage the other Committee members to hold firm to their principles and retain Amendment 205.
Mr Griffin thanks you for taking the time to share your views on this matter with him."
Euro News on Radio Red White and Blue

A Real Danger for America

A Danger for America

In the lead up to next Tuesday's Mid Term elections in the USA, American readers might wish to take note of this cautionary posting at The American Thinker.

The Democrats' Final Recourse: Massive Vote Fraud
By Selwyn Duke
The reports are rolling in from all over the country. A Craven County, NC resident attempts to vote a straight Republican ticket, but his choices come up straight Democrat four times, despite receiving assistance from poll workers. In NC's Lenoir County, registered Democrat Ervin Norville also tries to vote straight Republican but finds that his ballot has the names of several Democrat candidates selected. Boulder City, NV resident Joyce Ferrara says that when she and several others went to vote for Sharon Angle, they found that Senator Harry Reid's name was already checked off. In Dallas County, TX's congressional district 30, Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson's name was the only one on the ballot in a few locations (no, she isn't running unopposed). And some states have been late in mailing out military absentee ballots, whose recipients, interestingly, are known for their Republican leanings.

These happenings are generally referred to as "mistakes" and "glitches," but if that's all they are, then we're witnessing a truly historic anomaly. Because either the mainstream media is now suppressing stories of mistakes and glitches benefiting Republicans, or the laws of probability have suddenly been rescinded and tossed coins are coming up donkey tails every time. Welcome to American elections, Venezuelan style.

Click here to continue reading at the American Thinker

Friday, 29 October 2010

Bookmark 8 November to Support “Demonstration in London Day,” BNP Activists Told

Don’t Forget To Bookmark 8 November as “Demonstration in London Day,” BNP Activists Told

British National Party activists have been reminded to bookmark Monday, 8 November as “demonstration in London” day when party leader Nick Griffin is back in court on the trumped up legal case brought by the race-Gestapo Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
The case, brought initially by the EHRC over the BNP’s membership rules, has since expanded considerably as that taxpayer-funded quango has constantly shifted the goal posts of its demands in an attempt to financially exhaust the party.
When the BNP changed its membership admission qualifications to bring the case – and costs – to an end, the EHRC then filed new papers claiming that the linking of belief in the party’s policy to membership was discriminatory because ethnics would not feel at ease with a policy which called for the maintenance of an indigenous majority in Britain.
This was an astonishing argument which means that if, say, a BNP-supporting person wanted to join the Labour Party, he or she could do so without having to agree to support the Labour Party’s policy.
As mad as that logic is, the BNP leader then used his powers in terms of the constitution to uncouple the link between membership and support of the party’s policy, once again in an attempt to end the case as quickly as possible.
This did not, however, fit in with the ECHR’s plans to bankrupt the party through endless court battles, and that body, headed up by Trevor Phillips who once boasted of having a bust of Lenin on his desk, then filed new papers claiming that Mr Griffin did not have the power to unilaterally amend the constitution in that manner.
Of course, the EHRC were wrong, and they probably knew it, but even so filed their papers in the full knowledge that it would once again cost the BNP money to defend this ridiculous allegation.
After yet another legal round, the EHRC was then forced to admit that the BNP leader was empowered to amend the constitution – but then promptly filed new papers saying that the clause suggesting house visits for new members was “indirect discrimination” which would still make would-be ethnic members uncomfortable.
The pattern throughout has been clear: not to achieve “equality” or “fairness” (otherwise the EHRC would have taken the hundreds of black or Asian-only organisations to court as well) but rather to financially destroy the BNP through repeated legal battles.
In that sense, the EHRC has been partially successful, and it is only been due to the astonishing patience and generosity of its supporters that the BNP has been able to carry on for as long as it has.
“No matter what happens on 8 November, and no matter what financial pressures are brought to bear on this party, our pledge to the cause of Britain is this: that we will never give up,” Mr Griffin told BNP News.
“The enemies of Britain think they can break us financially. They think that if they keep us in court, the party will stop functioning if it is bled dry. I want to tell them this: our movement is stronger than that.
“Our movement will continue no matter what, because we are motivated by a noble spirit which is foreign and inexplicable to our enemies.
“Our cause comes from within us, and the strength to carry on is a fountain which their financial pressure cannot break.
 “Nothing, and I repeat, nothing, not financial pressure, not legal cases, not their media-smears, will break us. We will carry on in one form or another until we have secured the right of our people to live in peace and freedom in their homeland.”
* Activists are urged to be outside the court in London on 8 November to show they support and defiance of this ongoing attempt to destroy the BNP. Details will be provided later on this website.
* The BNP’s fighting fund to ward off this evil attack on our existence – which is very serious and does indeed threaten the future of this party – is still in urgent need of your support. Any donations, which can be made by clicking on the donate button on the right, will be gratefully received.
Dontate through this link https://www.bnp.org.uk/donate.html

White People Blamed for "Asylum Seeker" Deaths Left Wing Slur

The Latest Slur: White People Blamed for "Asylum Seeker" Deaths

White people have been blamed for the deaths of “hundreds if not thousands” of “asylum seekers” who have perished trying to illegally enter Britain by the lottery-funded far leftist “Institute of Race Relations” (IRR).
The bizarre allegation is contained in a new report by the IRR, titled “Driven to Desperate Measures: 2006-2010” by a researcher named Harmit Athwal.
According to this report, which has of course been widely repeated in the controlled media, “The IRR has catalogued a roll call of death of the 77 asylum seekers and migrants who have died either in the UK or attempting to reach the UK in the past five years as a consequence of direct racism or indirect racism stemming from policies.”
By “racism” the IRR of course means “white racism” and therefore is directly blaming white people for the 77 deaths it has catalogued.
In addition, the IRR report said, "hundreds if not thousands" or people had perished making desperate journeys to the UK as stowaways on planes, lorries and ships.
The list produced by the IRR is even more bizarre than the initial allegation. Apparently, some 15 “asylum seekers” died “taking dangerous and highly risky methods to enter the country.”
An observer might ask how that could be blamed on white people. Mr Athwal provides us with the answer: “With legal barriers in place to prevent them securing visas or work permits to enter legally and sanctions applying to aboveboard carriers, the desperate stow away on planes and lorries or attempt to cross the channel in makeshift boats or cling to trains.”
In other words, people who do not want to follow the legal route to enter Britain, are the victims of “white racism,” according to the IRR.
Mr Athwal’s report claims that another 44 died as “an indirect consequence of the iniquities of the immigration/asylum system – by taking their own lives when claims were not allowed, by meeting accidental deaths evading deportation or during the deportation itself, by being prevented medical care, by becoming destitute in the UK.”
Thus, in the world of the IRR’s analysis, white people are also to blame for nonwhites who commit suicide, die in accidents and who become destitute.
The level of vicious, unfounded “blame whitey” and vicious anti-white racism displayed in this ignorant IRR report takes on a more sinister meaning when it is considered that these outrageous allegations have been repeated, without question, in the pages of the controlled media and will doubtless now be used as future “research” to prove how wicked and bad white people are.
The British National Party rejects this “blame whitey” attitude as racist, bigoted and a vicious lie.
White people are not to blame because other people seek to break immigration laws. White people are not to blame because other people commit suicide after breaking immigration laws.
White people are not to blame because other people die in accidents or become destitute.
In fact, there is no justification whatsoever for anybody to seek “asylum” in Britain in the first place. 
The right of asylum is only applicable in the first safe country bordering the one which the “refugee” is fleeing. Once that “refugee” leaves the first safe country and crosses dozens of other “safe” countries to reach Britain, they are no longer “asylum seekers” but simply illegal immigrants.
* Other funders of the IRR, as named in their latest annual report, include the Allen Lane Foundation (set up by the founder of Penguin books); the City Parochial Foundation (a London charity supplied with taxpayer millions); the European Programme on Integration and Migration (which is funded by a number of European foundations, including the Barrow Cadbury Trust, and the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund); the Garden Court Chambers (a London-based law foundation); the Heritage Lottery Fund; the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust; and the Methodist Church.

Denied NHS healthcare after a lifetime of service to the country

Denied healthcare after a lifetime of service to the country

OCTOBER 2010: 
HARDLY a day goes by at Nick Griffin's Constituency Office without there being a call on the telephone or correspondence in the MEP's mailbag, drawing attention to how Britons are being treated as second class citizens in their own country.


 It sometimes seems as if the Government has concerns only for the welfare of newly-arrived immigrants to these shores and doesn't give a damn for the well-being of British people, especially the elderly who have served this country throughout their lifetime.
A letter last week was from a family whose elderly mother was being denied Fully Funded NHS Continuing Healthcare (FFNHSCHC) by the North Lancashire Primary Care Trust after a fall at home left her with almost no cognitive function.
The lady, an 86yr old widow of a retired RAF Officer who served as aircrew in WWII, and herself a former wartime Auxilliary Nurse, has been refused for FFNHSCHC and told that her family are responsible for any onward movement to a nursing home.
"The Primary Care Trust are failing to ensure that my mother receives all the care that she needs and is threatening to take her possessions to pay for any future care," a distraught son told his MEP.
Responding on behalf of Nick Griffin, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"I am sorry to hear of your mother’s ill-health and share your outrage over the way she is being treated by the administrators of the North Lancashire Primary Care Trust.
You mention that your mother has almost no cognitive functions and is fully dependent on the healthcare she receives in hospital, so it would seem that she should qualify for the free package of fully funded continuing care that is provided by the National Health Service.
As a former wartime auxiliary nurse, and the widow of a retired RAF officer, the automatic right to free healthcare should be absolute. In addition to serving their country, both will, no doubt, have paid a lifetime of National Insurance contributions and it is criminal that essential care is now being denied to your mother in her hour of need.
I know from the huge amount of correspondence that Mr Griffin receives from constituents that people cannot comprehend how this Government can believe that it is defensible to deprive our vulnerable elderly of the care they deserve, yet consider it justifiable to continue to waste millions of pounds of public money on foreign aid and welfare benefits for newcomers to our shores who haven’t paid a penny into our social protection funds.
I fully agree with your view that it is unfair and morally unacceptable, moreover, for Lancashire Primary Trust to assert that it is your mother’s responsibility to fund the move to a nursing home - before the appeals process has been concluded.
I note that you have already lodged an appeal against Lancashire PCT’s ‘non-entitlement’ decision, on behalf of your mother, and I hope that justice is served with a successful outcome.
In the meantime, may I refer you to some support services that may be able to offer you and your mother advice and help? If you are not already in touch with the NHS Patient Advice and Liaison Services (PALS), it might be helpful to contact them. PALS provide information for people who are concerned about the care patients are receiving, including the transfer arrangements from hospital to other care facilities, and can also help to resolve complaints. There is a PALS office in the Royal Lancaster Infirmary - telephone number: 01539 795497. Email: pals@mbht.nhs.uk .
The Citizens Advice Bureau can also offer informed advice about care options and appeals procedures. They can be contacted at: Oban House, 87-89 Queen Street, Morecambe L A4 5EN. Telephone: 0844 499 4197 (advice line); 01524 400405 (appointment booking line only). Email: post@morecambecab.co.uk .
Caring for a loved one is an immensely rewarding task but it can also create intense stresses and strains on the carer. The Carers Federation offers a confidential support and information service for carers: their website can be found at www.carersfederation.co.uk/ . Email info@carersfederation.co.uk .
Please do not hesitate to contact Mr Griffin again if you require any further assistance."

Thursday, 28 October 2010

LibDems Bask in Victory as David Cameron Indicates Conservatives Will Retreat over “Immigration Cap”

Liberal Democrats Bask in Victory as David Cameron Indicates Tories Will Retreat over “Immigration Cap”

Yet another Conservative election promise seems set to be watered down as Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable celebrated yesterday at the Confederation of British Industry’s annual conference in London that David Cameron was “listening” to business complaints about the proposed “immigration cap.”
The immigration cap policy, a pathetic attempt by the Tories to con the voters into thinking that they were serious about stopping the immigration invasion, has come under fire from the very beginning from the Liberal Democrats, with Mr Cable in particular leading the charge to get it reversed.
Earlier, Mr Cameron told the CBI conference that the “coalition will not impede” businesses who seek to recruit non-British persons to work in Britain.
Obviously not realising the inherent contradiction in his words, Mr Cameron told the CBI that “As we control our borders and bring immigration to a manageable level, we will not impede you from attracting the best talent from around the world.”
That comment was widely interpreted, even in the Tory media, of indicating a shift away from the key Conservative pledge of bringing down net immigration.
When he addressed the CBI a short while later, Mr Cable could hardly contain his glee at Mr Cameron’s remarks.
“The Government is listening to the complaints of business about its proposed immigration cap,” Mr Cable said. “The message has been heard loud and clear.”
Previously, when Mr Cable has said that the immigration cap was “very damaging” to the British economy, Mr Cameron and Downing Street spokesman had slapped him down, declaring that “there was no evidence a cap would be damaging to business.”
The slavishly pro-Tory Daily Mail announced that “David Cameron opened the door to a new wave of immigration yesterday by signalling that the Government will let businesses bring in more staff from overseas.”
The Mail continued: “His words brought claims that the Tories are watering down their tough stance on new arrivals to placate the Liberal Democrats.”
The extremist leftwing Independent newspaper went even further, claiming that a deal had already been worked out which would herald a major retreat on the issue by the Tories.
“Plans for a stringent cap on numbers of immigrant workers are to be softened in the face of warnings from business leaders that it could prevent them from bringing the brightest foreign talent to Britain,” The Independent said.
“Ministers are close to a deal on an issue that has deeply divided the coalition partners, The Independent understands. Ministers are considering two options: they could allow firms to transfer staff from offices overseas to Britain for limited periods without counting towards the limit, or allow them to take on highly qualified foreign staff in return for paying a high visa fee. Cabinet ministers will meet shortly with a view to announcing the policy by December,” the paper reported.
Ironically, the immigration cap, even if implemented as originally promised, will do nothing to avert the real problem, namely the ethnic cleansing of British people from their ancestral homeland.
The “cap” is based on the “balanced migration” nonsense as it seeks to bring “net immigration” down to 1990s levels. What this “net immigration” actually means is that the number of people leaving the country is only slightly superseded by the number of people entering the country.
In other words, if 500,000 white British people leave Britain in a year, then it will be “balanced migration,” Tory-style, to allow 600,000 Third World immigrants into Britain that same, year.
This insane policy is based upon the belief that Third World immigrants will “become British” by learning the language and dressing like British people. This bizarre idea, known also as “cultural nationalism” or “civic nationalism” denies any ethnic identity to nationhood and believes that anybody, from anywhere, can become “British,” “Chinese,” “African” of even “American Indian” simply by changing their language and dress.
Furthermore, this “balanced migration” nonsense also fails to take into account the far higher birth rates of Third World immigrants, who are multiplying at a rate 15 times faster than the native indigenous British population.
Only the policy of ethno-nationalism, as espoused exclusively by the British National Party, offers an answer to the immigration invasion.

UKIP Voters Betrayed As UKIP MEPS Vote for More EU Power

UKIP Supporters Stabbed in the Back Again As UKIP MEPS Vote for More EU Power

In yet another shocking betrayal of their core supporters and their own party’s supposed policies, eight UKIP MEPs have voted in favour of a European Parliament motion authorising increased EU power and taxation.
Observers were astounded when UKIP MEPs Nigel Farage, John Agnew, Marta Andreasen, Gerard Batten, John Bufton, Derek Clark, William Legge and Paul Nuttall all voted in favour of the Parliament's position on the 2011 draft budget on 20 October.
That budget’s paragraph four contained the clause which said that “the European Union should be endowed with the necessary financial means to attain its objectives.”
The full section reads as follows:
“Motion for resolution, para 4:
Considers that following the entry into force of the TFEU, which strengthens EU policies and creates new fields of competence — notably Common Foreign and Security Policy, competitiveness and innovation, energy policy, space, tourism, the fight against climate change, sport and youth, social policy, energy policy, justice and home affairs — the European Union should be endowed with the necessary financial means to attain its objectives and therefore requires both branches of the budgetary authority to be coherent and consistent as regards increased financial capacities.”
By voting in favour of this budget, the UKIP MEPs aligned themselves with the Socialists, Greens, Liberals, hard Left and Federalist parties in the European Parliament, to equip the EU with the financial means (at UK taxpayers' expense) to meet its objectives of “ever closer union.”
Even the Tories voted against this amendment, as did Nikki Sinclaire, Morten Messerschmidt and several others from the EFD group (to which UKIP is affiliated), along with BNP MEPs Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin.
One UKIP MEP at least did not stab all UKIP supporters in the back. Godfrey Bloom voted against the motion, while three other UKIP MEPs: David Campbell Bannerman, Trevor Colman and Mike Nattrass did not bother to turn up for the vote.
It is reported that Mr Farage’s decision to vote in favour of the motion has caused even further dissent within UKIP’s ranks and might affect his chances of retaking the UKIP leadership.
In any event, the disgraceful betrayal of British taxpayers and UKIP supporters will undoubtedly plague that party for a while to come and it is hoped that more of its members will realise that the British National Party represents the only consistent and reliable anti-EU party in Britain.

The Genocide of a Nation: British People Being Ethnically Cleansed by Islamic Colonisation



The Genocide of a Nation: British People Being Ethnically Cleansed by Islamic Colonisation

The British people are being subjected to a calculated genocide through ethnic cleansing caused by Islamic and other Third World colonisation, as evidenced by the news that Mohammed (or variants thereof) was the most common name for newborn boys in England and Wales last year.
The figures, released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), did not provide any clues about the total number of Muslim female babies born in Britain last year.
When it is calculated that their numbers will be approximately the same as the male birth rate, the extent of the Islamic colonisation of Britain becomes evident.
According to the ONS figures, there were 7,515 babies born last year with the name Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed or Mohammod.
This compares with the second ranking name of Oliver, given to some 7,364 babies.
Even without the different spellings, Mohammed was the most common boy's name in the West Midlands and the fourth most popular in London during 2009.
During 2009 there were 3,300 boys named Mohammed, 2,162 Muhammads, 1,073
Mohammads, and 980 called either Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamed or
Mohammod.
While the Islamic colonisation of Britain is the most overt sign of the murder of our nation as a result of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem-supported policy of mass Third World immigration, it is not the only threat to the continued existence of the British people.
The baby names list do not, for example, reveal how many other Third World births are recorded under that listing. To gain some idea of the overall racial imbalance, other sources have to be consulted.
National Health Service figures  released in August this year showed that the number of immigrant-origin live births — which are an underestimate of the actual numbers — indicate that Third World population-origin births will be form an outright majority of all babies born in Britain by the year 2030.
These NHS figures claim that of the 652,638 deliveries in 150 NHS Trusts in England last year, an average of 62 percent were to mothers who were classed as “white British.”
This means that 38 percent of all live births in 2009 were supposedly of immigrant origin.
This figure contrasts strongly with a 2005 Office for National Statistics report which said that 36 percent of all births in England and Wales were not “white British” (“Birthweight and gestational age by ethnic group, England and Wales 2005: introducing new data on births” by Kath Moser, Office for National Statistics).
Given immigration levels since 2004, and natural reproduction rates amongst immigration groups (for example, an August 2008 ONS population report stated that, on average, ‘foreign’ women have 2.5 children each, rising to 3.9 for those from Bangladesh and almost five for Pakistani women), it is highly unlikely that the number of immigrant births have only climbed two percent in the period 2005 to 2009.
Even if the figures released in August are accurate (which they appear not to be), they are still evidence enough that Britain faces imminent colonisation via the womb.
Even if a reproduction increase rate of “only” two percent every four years is maintained for the non-ethnically British segment of the population, they are set to become an outright majority in twenty years’ time.
The immigrant increase will of course be greater than two percent as their numbers are increasing exponentially.
Nonetheless, even taking the unaltered growth projection rate of two percent every four years, the growth pattern appears as follows:
2005 = 36%; 2009 = 38%; 2013 = 40%; 2017 = 42%; 2021 = 44%; 2025 = 46%; 2029 = 48%; 2033 = 51%.
Britain stands before the precipice. Will the British people choose to live, or will they choose extermination through colonisation?
The choice is clear, but time is short.

Migrationwatch Urges ConDem Govt to “Come Clean” over Its “Secret” Deal to Give British Jobs to Indian Workers

From the BNP Newsroom

Migrationwatch Urges ConDem Regime to “Come Clean” over Its “Secret” Deal to Give British Jobs to Indian Workers

Migrationwatch UK’s Sir Andrew Green gave further evidence of his increasing disenchantment with the Conservative Party with a new press release which accused the ConDem regime of “secretly” negotiating an EU Trade Agreement which will give British jobs to Indians and urged the Government to “come clean” on the topic.
Sir Andrew was in fact referring to the EU’s Mode 4 agreement which was first brought to the public’s attention by the British National Party’s Nick Griffin MEP, who asked a question in the EU Parliament on the topic in July this year.
That issue aside, Migrationwatch’s statement is to be welcomed as it could signify — for the second time in less than a month — a realisation by Sir Andrew and many other Conservative Party supporters that David Cameron has pulled the wool over their eyes and has no intention whatsoever of stopping the immigration invasion.
“At just the time that the government is calling on the private sector to create jobs, they are negotiating in secret an agreement between the EU and India that would allow an unlimited number of Indian specialists to do work in Britain that has not been first offered to British workers,” Sir Andrew said in the statement.
“The EU/India Free Trade Agreement due to be signed in December will permit Indian corporations to transfer specialist staff to EU countries, notably the UK, without any upper limit on numbers,” he continued.
The Migrationwatch statement went on to point out a number of “potentially serious implications for Britain” which it listed as follows:
- The initiative will be in the hands of Indian companies who win a service contract in the EU.
- There is, apparently, to be no limit on numbers.
- Staff only have to have worked for one year with the Indian company concerned.
- There is no test to see if a British worker is available.
- The concessions become irreversible by individual member states because they will have been granted under the trade arrangements which are matters for Commission competence.
- The UK will be the main target of Indian companies, largely for language reasons, but also because they are already well established here.
- The period that workers are allowed to stay will, in theory, be limited to three years but, in practice, it will be impossible to find and return any who overstay.
“This Agreement could, of course, present very serious problems in implementing a cap on economic migration,” Sir Andrew continued, reminding his flagging Tory readers that the ConDem government claimed to be committed to that cap.
“The concessions under it would have to be operated outside any cap or the level of the cap would have to be adjusted to allow for demand for Intra Company Transfer visas from India,” he pointed out, meaning of course, that the Agreement made a mockery of the entire cap concept.
Mr Griffin’s original EU Parliament question also raised the topic of the depression of salaries in Britain which such an influx would inevitably create.
“Clearly, the mass movement of labour across borders will create dire downward pressure on middle- and high-income wage earners in the relevant service industries. It will also create a significant new wave of potential immigration, as a proportion of the new workforce will seek permanent entry and the inclusion of dependents,” Mr Griffin said in July this year.
Sir Andrew's statement echoed these sentiments: “There may be scope for a minimum salary but such conditions are notoriously hard to enforce.
“It is time the Government came clean about what is in this agreement,” Sir Andrew said.
“It looks as though the Indians are about to drive a bullock and cart through Britain's immigration system despite government talk about creating jobs in the private sector.
“There is no point in a limit on economic migration if specialists from India are excluded from the cap by a separate agreement,” he said.
“British IT workers are already suffering the impact on jobs of tens of thousands of Indian IT staff working in Britain; we already have 48,000 unemployed British IT specialists.”
Under the Lisbon Treaty, Britain has veto against the trade agreement and it is expected to be implemented by mid-2011.

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

100 Hours Picking up Rubbish in Toxteth: Liverpool’s Peter Tierney Reports from the Front Line

Five Weeks Picking up Rubbish in Toxteth: Liverpool’s Peter Tierney Reports from the Front Line

Liverpool City Council caters to the black minority vote in Toxteth by according that community special privileges which encourage anti-social behaviour, reports local British National Party superactivist Peter Tierney.
Mr Tieney, who has just completed 100 hours community service after being infamously and unjustly convicted of defending himself and fellow BNP supporters from an attack by a crazed leftist, provided the details on the Liverpool BNP blog.
“I’m proud to say my 100 hours' community work has been completed and I can now return to the community a ‘reformed character',” the ever-cheerful Mr Tierney wrote.
“My whole 100 hours consisted of painting, clearing rubbish, litter picking, gardening or delivering leaflets.
“I spent 5 weeks involved with this interesting scheme, placed with a small workforce, although, during my stay, I went out with various teams of mixed gender, race and age groups.
“Most of the time, we were assigned to the Toxteth area of the city, doing either gardening in The Caribbean Centre, or to clean away indiscriminate fly tipping.
“This consisted of an assortment of rubbish, three-piece suits, beds, kitchen units, garden waste, loads that seemed to appear in the street overnight. I even came across half a sheep’s head,” Mr Tierney said.
“I noticed a reoccurring pattern of events. It seemed that what the scheme was actually doing in the community was ‘encouraging fly tipping’.
“The Toxteth area is well aware of its pampered status and certain people were definitely taking advantage of it.
“Yet I do understand why Liverpool Council does pamper and appease this area. The power to run the Town Hall is held here, with the cherished minority vote.”
Mr Tierney also revealed that the authorities are well aware of the racial connotations of the area.
“When I was first interviewed for probation, I was asked some interesting questions, such as ‘do you have any enemies in this area' and ‘are there any areas dangerous for you to be in?'
“My reply was, ‘I am English, Christian and in England — shouldn’t I be able to go anywhere?”

Express Newspaper and Some Conservatives Try to Steal BNP’s Popular Anti-Foreign Aid Policy

Express Newspaper and Some Tories Try to Hijack BNP’s Popular Anti-Foreign Aid Policy

The controlled Daily Express newspaper and a small element of the Conservative Party are trying to hijack the British National Party’s highly popular anti-foreign aid policy as public resentment of that blatant swindle grows.
The Express has now carried two stories demanding that the foreign aid budget be cut while British people at home face massive front line service cuts, directly echoing BNP policy and public pronouncements on the matter.
In addition, some Tory MPs have expressed their misgivings over the issue and a poll on the main Tory activist website has shown that over 70 percent of their readers support the BNP’s policy of halting foreign aid completely.
In addition, the Express newspaper carried out an opinion poll of its own readers which revealed that 98 percent agreed with the BNP’s policy.
The Express pointed out that the decision to increase the foreign aid budget “will cost every British family £2,000 over the next four years.”
Chancellor George Osborne revealed this past week that the amount of taxpayers’ cash sent abroad as foreign aid would to rise to £12.6 billion a year over the next four years. The BNP had earlier calculated that the foreign aid spend would rise to £13.1 billion, based on a 0.7 percent cut of the Gross National Income (GNI).
The difference between the two figures is likely attributable to Mr Osborne having access to the very latest GNI figures, but the relative accuracy of the BNP estimate is still remarkable.
According to one of the Express’s indignant articles, this increase in foreign aid “could pay for around 200 new schools, eight new hospitals, or the cost of locking up an extra 97,368 criminals every year.”
The Express went on to claim that the £3.7 billion annual rise is “equivalent to £500 a year for every household in Britain or £2,000 over four years.”
Some backbench Tory MPs, including Philip Hollobone, Philip Davies and Peter Bone,  all clearly rattled at the extent of the growing public anger, have at last spoken out against the foreign aid spend.
Their indignation is however false, as the ring fencing and commitment to increase foreign aid was part of their party’s election manifesto which they all endorsed.
Ironically, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell insisted that the doubling of aid to countries such as Afghanistan and Yemen would “prevent them becoming terrorist havens.”
Mr Andrew is talking nonsense. Firstly, there are no recorded terrorists of Afghan or Yemen origin having carried out attacks in Britain, and secondly, it has been proven over and over again that the vast majority of foreign-originated terrorist plots against Britain come from Pakistan.
At the same time as the increase in foreign aid was announced, Mr Osborne cut an extra £7 billion from welfare benefits, upped the pension age was hiked for five million workers and announced that nearly 500,000 British civil servants would lose their jobs.
In addition, rail fares will increase by 40 percent as subsidies are withdrawn, and prison and police budgets will be cut by up to 20 percent.
Another £200 million has been set aside for off-shore wind farms, £1 billion for a “Green Bank” and a further £1 billion for other environmental schemes including “a commercial scale carbon capture and storage project.”
Treasury figures showed that average earners on annual salaries around £24,000 will suffer the most from the cuts, despite Mr Osborne and David Cameron claiming that the cuts are “fair.”

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Republic of MOLDOVA: Pieces of silver to surrender its independence?

MOLDOVA: Pieces of silver to surrender its independence?"

moldova_map.jpg
 OCTOBER 2010: 
THIS was a contribution I made under the Catch the Eye procedure to a debate on Implemented Reforms in the Republic of Moldova*.
It was my fifth speech of the week in the chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
"The number of net recipients of EU funding is currently just under half of the total membership. As we extend membership to more and more, even poorer, Eastern states, the proportion of net recipients will increase to perhaps two-thirds of total membership. This will, self-evidently, be at the expense of net contributors. However, it will also be at the expense of current members that are net recipients.
"Easing of visa restrictions, we are often told by advocates of that easing, has nothing to do with migration, by which they mean legal migration. It will have everything to do with illegal migration - the trafficking of people to work for less than the minimum wage and less than minimum working conditions. It will also deplete that country of people of working age, who might otherwise help to pull that country out of its poverty.
Moldova declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Does it really wish to surrender its independence to the European Union, however much it might receive in pieces of silver?"
* Moldova is not yet a candidate country or even yet listed as a potential candidate country. However, it is already  a recipient of EU funding under the EU's Neighbourhood and Partnership policy. The EU never tires of saying that this is not given to encourage EU membership but that is clearly false. It was admitted during the debate that Moldova's eventual membership was the long term aim.

White Racism Excuse Blamed for Ethnic Peers’ Expense Cheat Prosecution

White Racism” Blamed for Ethnic Peers’ Expense Cheat Prosecution

It was inevitable: white people have been blamed for the exposure of the expenses hearing committed by three ethnic members of the House of Lords, “Baroness” Uddin, “Lord” Bhatia and “Lord” Paul.
An inquiry this past week found that all three had wrongly claimed a total of nearly £200,000 by deliberately registering properties they rarely or never stayed in as their “main home” which allowed them to claim parliamentary overnight allowances.
The Lords Conduct and Privileges Committee recommended that Ms Uddin, who has failed to apologise or repay £125,000 in illegitimately claimed expenses, be barred from Parliament until April 2012.
“Lord” Bhatia, who has repaid £27,000, was suspended for eight months, and “Lord” Paul, who returned £42,000, for four months.
The Committee ruled that both Ms Uddin and Mr Bhatia had not acted in good faith, but that while Mr Paul was described as “grossly irresponsible and negligent.”
During the House of Lords debate to formally implement the bans on the three, another ethnic “Lord”, Waheed Alli said the investigation had been based on racism — and he, of course, meant white racism.
“It cannot have escaped your attention that the only three members of the House who were referred to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and subsequently investigated under these procedures were all Asian,” Mr Alli said.
He went on to argue that the suspensions should not be imposed because the peers “were the victim of racial bias.
"In the rush to apologise for the expense system for which we should all be embarrassed, it should not be at the cost of justice or fairness for all regardless of race,” he said.
Bangladeshi-born “Baroness” Uddin was investigated over claims she had never stayed at her designated main home, a flat in Kent. She was able to claim £30,000 a year in tax-free expenses by designating her family home, which is four miles from Westminster, as her second home. She has now agreed to pay back £125,000 in wrongly claimed expenses.
Indian-born “Lord” Paul, a major Labour party donor, has agreed to pay back £40,000 after he admitted that he never spent a single night at an Oxfordshire flat that he registered as his main home while claiming money in overnight expenses for a London property.
Tanzanian-born “Lord” Bhatia has a £1.5 million home in south-west London but in 2007 he “flipped” the designation of his main home to a two-bedroom flat in Reigate, Surrey, which used to be lived in by his brother. Reigate is just beyond the M25, the boundary used to define qualification for expenses.
On one occasion he was said to have been unable to remember the address of the property he designated as his main home. He claims that he acted within the rules as he believed the flat had been his main home. He has now agreed to pay back £27,000 in expenses.
Mr Alli is of course simply lying in this blatant attempt to save his fellow ethnics’ heads. In fact, a number of rotten members of the House of Lords have already been investigated and censured, including Tory peer Lord Hanningfield (real name Paul White) was charged in February with six counts of making dishonest claims for travelling and is due to appear in a criminal court within the next few weeks.
Furthermore, the Crown Prosecution Service also investigated Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who only escaped prosecution by the skin of his teeth.
Last year, two Labour peers – Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott – were also suspended from the House of Lords for six months for misconduct after being found guilty by a Lords committee for willingness to change laws in exchange for cash.
A number of other members of the House of Lords were also forced to pay back wrongly claimed expenses, and the only reason that the three ethnic “Lords” have been so dramatically censured was the amount and blatancy of their wrongdoing.
The British National Party rejects the notion that white people are to blame for everything that goes wrong with the ethnic community, and dismisses Mr Allia’s allegations with the contempt they deserve.

British Self-sufficiency drive key to revitalising UK farming

Self-sufficiency drive key to revitalising UK farming


OCTOBER 2010: NICK Griffin has been asked by an association of farmers from the north of his constituency to support local wildlife initiatives in the North West.


 The association is concerned that the Government's need to cut spending will reduce the amount of public funds going towards conservation.
It wants to see the Government redistribute the costs of conservation by doing much more to make polluters pay for the damage they do to the environment or by making people who benefit from the natural world, pay for some of the services they currently receive for free.
Writing to the MEP, a farmer from Cumbria warns:
"It is critical to protect agri-environment spending as this is the key means of maintaining Sites of Special Scientific Interest, halting the loss of habitats and restoring biodiversity. "The Higher Level Scheme in particular is the crucial, science-based programme for delivery of these goals. In addition, due to the high European contribution to these schemes, scrapping them would mean more money would be sent back to Europe than would be saved, which would make cuts here a poor deal for the UK taxpayer.
"There are other ways to improve the cost-effectiveness of countryside payments. For example, the Single Farm Payment, which cost £1.6 billion in England in 2008, is an inefficient use of taxpayer funds. It does not cost-effectively achieve income security for farmers, food security or high environmental standards."
The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy is due to be reformed in 2013 and the association wants the UK Government to demand more for its investment.
Responding on behalf of the MEP, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"The Coalition Government’s Spending Review 2010 is likely to have a significant and damaging effect on many areas of British life, and the withdrawal of essential funding is of great concern to many service-providing organisations.
"You are quite correct to highlight the absurdity of the current system, whereby a decision by our national government to save money by cutting agri-environment spending may actually result in a net deficit of funds due to the consequential loss of EU grants.
"The British Government is bound so inextricably by European Union community-wide policies and finance schemes, that the decisions made in our national parliament can be undermined, contradicted or rendered negative as a result of this national subservience and interdependence with the EU. Indeed, Westminster is so restricted by EU rules and regulations that there is hardly an area of policy where the British parliament remains entirely sovereign. The cost of this suffocating relationship is, moreover, exorbitant, with British taxpayers enjoying funding rebates which constitute a drop in the ocean compared to the tsunami of public money that is gifted annually to the European Union and re-distributed to the benefit of numerous other European nations.
"Mr Griffin and the British National Party believe that decisions on policy matters in economic, social and political spheres should be made by the British Government, with reference primarily to the best interests of Britain and the British people. This includes, of course, assessing how to spend British taxpayers’ money in a fair, efficient and co-ordinated way, so that overall policy pledges are upheld.
"In order to ensure our national sovereignty and the right to determine our own destiny, the British National Party demands an immediate withdrawal from the European Union.
"With respect to agricultural policy, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies will be phased out following our withdrawal from the EU and replaced, initially, with the British system of subsidy that existed prior to 1973.  
"A healthy nation depends on a healthy environment and healthy food. The British National Party envisages a strong agricultural sector and vibrant farming communities as vital to the nations’ well-being. The regeneration of the family farm as the core structure of our agricultural sector will be encouraged; emphasis placed on quality, self-sufficiency, environmentally sustainable rural communities and (where feasible) decreased reliance on petrochemical products. To protect the environment from damage a “polluter pays” policy will be adopted and the work of the Countryside Restoration Trust will be supported and promoted.
"In short, gaining freedom from European Union control is an essential precursor to implementing co-ordinated, economically and environmentally sustainable agricultural policies."

The BNP's Andrew Brons MEP Interview with Student Direct

  Interview with Student Direct

andrewbronsflags.jpg

THIS is an interview that Andrew Brons conducted with the student newspaper Student Direct in 2010. 
What is your take on this week's change to the whites-only rule employed by the BNP?
"We did not have a 'whites only' clause. We had an 'indigenous population only' clause. This was almost certainly legal under existing law but would not be legal under the Governmentís Equality Bill. I believe that all organisations should have the freedom to decide freely on their membership. This is the essence of the right of freedom of association. That right has been recognised in the case of feminist organisations that do not admit men and the state-funded Association of Black Police Officers that does not admit white officers.
The change to our Constitution was in response to a potentially very expensive civil legal action by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, which was ostensibly pursued to safeguard the right of ethnic minorities to join a party that they did not wish to join! The real (and admitted) reasons for the legal action were:
1. to try to create division in our ranks;
2. to cause us to spend money and valuable time contesting the action;
3. to help small Nationalist parties that have no chance of electoral success to poach our members. It is interesting that an unholy tacit alliance has been formed between the National Front and the EHRC, under which the EHRC agrees not to take action against the NF and that organisation agrees to do as much damage to the BNP as it can. Fortunately, its impact has been minimal."
What has the feedback been from your constituents?
"The response to the changes from our constituents has been minimal. They are interested in our policies and not in the internal machinery of our Party."
Nick Griffin described the body which forced the change as a fundamental outrage, but do you think it's a change which would have come eventually anyway?
"Nick Griffin did not describe the Equality and Human Rights Commission as a fundamental outrage. He described the use of a state-funded body to harass an opposition political party, at the behest of the Government to be an outrage.
I do not know whether or not the change would have occurred anyway. It could certainly be argued that the indigenous population clause was not really necessary because there was no desire on the part of ethnic minorities to join."
Do you agree that, with the change, the BNP can't be called racist anymore?
"I do not use the Trotskyist word 'racist', which was coined to denigrate British and other people of European descent. Whilst there have been attempts to provide scholastic definitions of the word, it is widely understood to mean 'hating people of other races'. We do not hate anybody on account of his race and we have never hated anybody on account of his race. Our opponents will continue to refer to us in insulting language because they are incapable of reasoned argument against us and use insults as a substitute for argument."
Do you think that, had the rule remained in place, it would have been possible for you to represent all your constituents in Yorkshire and Humber?
"I have made it quite clear from the outset that I shall represent all of my constituents, regardless of their personal politics or their ancestry or background. However, there are two distinct forms of representation: representation of political views; and redress of individual problems or grievances. No MEP or MP can represent the political policies of all constituents. MEPs and MPs have a duty to represent the political policies on which they were represented. However, an MEP or MP must represent all constituents on personal problems or grievances."
Do you anticipate attracting more, non-white members to your party now?
"I do not anticipate that many members of ethnic minorities will seek to join the BNP Some are in favour of our policies and will wish to do so but I suspect that they will be few in number. Some were already in touch with us and have already indicated that they will join. Those who seek to join on behalf of hostile organisations or who state that they are seeking membership to cause disruption or damage to the Party (see the remarks of Simon Woolley) will be rejected, not because of their race but because of their hostility to the Party."
How do you perceive race relations in the north: good or bad? What, given the feedback you get from your constituents, is the predominant mood?
"How do I perceive race relations in the North of England? I do not believe that there is any hostility to immigrants, individually or collectively and I am glad of that. However, there is opposition to the phenomenon of immigration and to the presence of such a large number of immigrants. The vast majority of people are sophisticated enough to understand that the blame for immigration lies with the Government and previous governments and not with immigrants who have simply taken an opportunity proffered to them."
Do you feel whites who may feel disenfranchised feel with the current government? What sort of complaints do they have?
"British people do feel that they have ignored by the so-called main political parties, not just on immigration but also on the European Union, on economic policy (particularly the embracing of the Global Economy), on law and order and last but not least on the aggressive wars being waged against Muslim states. The BNP is completely opposed to such wars. They result in the deaths of our first rate troops, the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and (in the near future) in Iran too. They also help to radicalise Muslims at home and abroad."
With the terror arrests in the north over the last year, do you think the government is doing all it can to combat terrorism? Especially in light of subsequent releases of suspects.
"The Government and previous governments are the main causes of terrorism. They invited large numbers of Muslims to our town and cities. They were never capable of being assimilated into the general population. However, successive governments have helped to radicalise them by adopting a partisan stance on the Middle East (we believe in taking a completely neutral stance) and waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both parties are now looking forward with undisguised glee at a war against Iran.
The use of so-called 'clean skins' necessitates keeping a vigilant watch on the communities from which terrorists come - the innocent as well as the guilty. However, I am utterly opposed to any ill treatment of suspects or connivance by the authorities with their ill treatment by other countries (extraordinary rendition)."
Given that some of those arrests took place in Bolton, where race must remain a delicate issue, do you think it serves any useful purpose within that area for them to cancel BNP debates? Or do you think such things should be tackled head on, resolved only through dialogue? Can you tell me what your take is on this decision, and what feedback you have received?
"I am opposed to all bans on proper debate. I would be equally opposed to the banning of radical Muslims, as long as they do not incite violence. The bans on the rights of the BNP are orchestrated by the Labour Party because they have no answer to our policies."