British National Party Develops New UAF Marxist Anti-Fascist Technology

British National Party Develops New Anti-Fascist Technology

The British National Party Newsroom

A new anti-fascist technology is the reason why the far leftist lunatic fringe could only muster a pathetic 28 people to their anti-British National Party demonstration outside the recent party conference, South Wales activist Roger Phillips has revealed.

Some typical UAF Thingy Mi Bobs

rp“The British National Party has devised a new method of keeping these Socialist Workers’ Party and communist freaks at bay,” Mr Phillips said.

“It involves some innovative thinking and careful preparation, but the hopeless turnout by the communists shows that it clearly works,” he said.

The secret to Mr Phillips and his colleagues’ success is revealed in the short video below.

Multicultural Paradigm for Defense against Terrorism has Slammed into a Brick Wall.

Multiculturalism Hits The Wall 

from Sarah The Maid of Albion Blog

Sadly I fear the following article may be a tad optimistic. I doubt our leaders are anywhere near giving up their totalitarian dreams to achieve which Multiculturalism is so vital. However, it is an excellent read and the author makes some very valuable and valid points, which may be very useful to us in the struggle ahead.

Multiculturalism Hits The Wall

By J.R. Dunn

As year ten of the long war looms, the "multicultural" paradigm for defense against terrorism has slammed into a brick wall.

Recent developments reveal a policy in terminal disarray. The public revolt against the TSA, the ridiculous and humiliating Ghailani verdict, the still-simmering Financial District victory mosque controversy, and even the unmasking of the false Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour in Afghanistan have highlighted the absurdity of attempting to meld the "multicultural" worldview with any serious effort against jihadi terrorism. And yet, government officials directly responsible for the defense of the country, from Obama, Holder, and Napolitano on down, insist on maintaining the "multicultural" paradigm despite undeniable evidence of its failure.

Multiculturalism has effectively controlled American security policy as regards terrorism from the very beginning. Islam, we were assured by no less a figure than George W. Bush, was "a religion of peace." Critical resources were invested in curtailing any "backlash" against American Muslims by the evil-minded white Christian majority. Organizations of dubious provenance, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), were appointed official representatives of American Muslims.

What did these attempts to bend over backward under the prompting of an abstract academic intellectual construct accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Bush was excoriated both here and overseas by the very people he was working to protect. The great anti-Muslim backlash never happened (as Jonathan Tobin reminds us). The advocacy groups have all been revealed as fronts for Hamas. Few policies, official or unofficial, have such a pristine record of failure. Few have hung on more tenaciously.

Multiculturalism is the most recent, and perhaps the final, expression of the late 20th-century left-wing ascendancy. It is a completely synthetic doctrine, formulated without reference to any perceptible element of the quotidian world. Although derived in format and rhetoric from the civil rights movement, it has no relationship with the ideas or hopes expressed by King, Abernathy, Rustin, or any other legitimate civil rights leader. While the civil rights movement was founded in opposition to the odious practice of legal racial segregation, multiculturalism had no such concrete agenda. It was based almost completely on abstract academic theories derived in equal part from black racial extremism and Marxism, purporting to define the relationship between the dominant "white" race and all other races.

According to multicultural theory, the "white" race (never further defined) forms a privileged oppressor class, forever and completely at odds with members of other races. The relationship between races is presented only in terms of power, in which the oppressed races became in effect a proletariat awaiting liberation through revolutionary activity. Under these terms, every action taken by the white oppressors is illegitimate, while those taken by the "subaltern" races are justified, no matter what their evident nature and intent. As a global theory, multiculturalism possesses universal applicability under all circumstances. Every aspect of racial and ethnic relations must be seen through the multicultural lens.

It would be difficult to find a theory to beat multiculturalism for sheer vacuity. It ignores the fact that numerous groups among the "oppressor" race, such as the Irish and Jews, have been historical victims, while the "oppressed" races have often victimized in their turn when they have occupied the top slot. (Arab treatment of sub-Saharan Africans marks only one instance.) For these reasons among others, multiculturalism gained no greater a foothold with the American public than its political models, socialism and Marxism. Although the left attempted throughout the late '80s and '90s to force multiculturalism on the country through its activist PC component, the effort went nowhere. Americans as a whole rejected the doctrine as yet another bizarre fixation of the intellectual class.

There were two exceptions -- the academy, whence multiculturalism arose, and the government bureaucracy. On campus, multiculturalism remained one of the weird things that academics believe. In the bureaucracy, it became another expression of bureaucratic stupidity and intransigence, which did not prevent it from having an impact, limited but malignant, on the country as a whole.

That was the status quo in September 2001. After 9/11, the response of the country's intellectual leadership was straightforward: to react exactly as set forth by multicultural doctrine. The U.S., as a white European oppressor state, was obviously at fault. The Islamist jihadis, all members of an oppressed subaltern race, were victims, no matter what appearances might otherwise suggest. The belief system was up and running; all it needed was factoids to be plugged in.

All the same, the response of the left was muted in the immediate wake of the attacks. Only a handful of left-wingers spoke up in their accustomed manner, to scuttle back into the shade and damp when public agreement was not forthcoming. The most notorious of these comments was Michael Moore's posting characterizing the jihadis as "minutemen ... and they will win." A near match came from a nameless, forgotten California pol who asked, "America -- what have you done?"

An angry and disdainful public response momentarily shut down such sentiments. But these comments did speak for tens of thousands of silent true believers. The atrocity was explicable in familiar multicultural terms -- it was "whitey" (America) that was actually to blame for the attack, while the jihadis, far from being murderous thugs, were in truth romantic rebels, so many adorable Ches gazing off into the radiant multicultural future. The left kept its counsel and waited.

CLICK HERE to read the whole article at American Thinker

BOLTON PATRIOT: Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to...

BOLTON PATRIOT: Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to...: "Two British schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and ‘pray to Allah’ during a religious education lesson. Parents ..."

CEHR - Official. British National Party NOT racist ! just REALIST !

CEHR - Official. British National Party NOT racist

Written by Green Arrow

December 2010

I bet the anti-white and anti-British creature Trevor Phillips is not laughing now. In your face Trevor. But moving on. Just something for all us patriots to consider now, especially those members and supporters of the British National Party who have suffered discrimination because of their patriotic political beliefs. Mr Wadham for the CEHR, is quoted on Sky News as saying that the British National Party constitution is now in line with what they originally "requested".  This is a clear admission on their part that the British National Party is NOT a racist organisation.  We could have told them that and they could have saved the taxpayers a bundle of money, not that they care a jot about how much it costs to try and destroy democracy and freedom of speech. Any discrimination now, against individuals for being patriots of the British National Party are now clearly illegal and will open the door to prosecution of those who attempt the shameful kind of persecution that has happened in the past.   This is another major step forward for the British National Party in winning rights for people not to be persecuted for their political beliefs. Get behind the man, get behind the Party that fights for the British People.  Donate to the British National Party by going to their donations page here and give what you can.  They need money to fight the coming elections in May.

(ECHR) Race Gestapo Lose Bid to Kill British National Party & Freedom

Race Gestapo Lose Bid to Kill British National Party

The British National Party Newsroom

The state-funded race Gestapo, known by its official name as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHR), has been defeated in its bid to kill the British National Party.

Nick griffin MEP after the Case

A ruling in the Royal Courts of Justice this morning found against the ECHR which had launched a new action to have party leader Nick Griffin MEP declared in contempt of court.

The British National Party had already complied with an earlier court order to change its membership rules and the ECHR then brought another application claiming that Mr Griffin had not followed the court’s ruling and was therefore in contempt.

The ECHR initially sought to imprison Mr Griffin and seize party assets. This morning’s ruling squashed all of that and found that the party leader was not in contempt of court either.

“This is a great day for the British National Party,” Mr Griffin said.

“We have won a spectacular David and Goliath victory for freedom. This is the fourth time that the politically correct state has tried to jail me, and it is the fourth time that it has blown up in their anti-British faces.

“While the political elite get paid for telling lies, they try to bankrupt and imprison us for telling the truth. Against all the odds, we won again,” Mr Griffin said.

“The High Court has confirmed that the British National Party has acted within the law.

“We are a legal and legitimate political part y which is entitled to organise and campaign for the fair treatment and equality of the British people,” he continued.

“We welcome good people of all races who are willing to help us win fair play and freedom for the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.

“Most important of all, this case forced the ECHR to acknowledge the existence of the native people of our islands as a distinct ethnic group, with the result that all members of that group are at last entitled to the full protection of anti discrimination laws.

“The English people especially are now no longer a non-people in their own country,” Mr Griffin said.

“It was worth going into debt and risking prison to secure this principle.

“But we are not going to prison. We have won.

“So we are going home to celebrate giving the British people an early Christmas present: freedom, equality and the right to be ourselves.”

* The British National Party will be seeking a full costs order against the ECHR for this vexatious action, Mr Griffin added.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.

Welsh Tory and “Independent” Bridgend Councillors Want Democracy Banned

Tory and “Independent” Bridgend Councillors Want Democracy Banned

The British National Party newsroom

Tory and so-called “independent” councillors in Bridgend, south Wales, have joined together to try and suppress all democratic political activity in the town, reports regional organiser Brian Mahoney.

The proposed ban, reported in a local newspaper, is the councils’ response to a recent British National Party stall held in the town centre where local members gathered hundreds of signatures in support of the ‘bring our boys home’ campaign.

“Shoppers and passers-by in Bridgend queued up to sign the petition at the British National Party stall, ignoring the infantile rants of a Labour councillor who was present and who witnessed for himself the queue of people waiting to sign the petition,” Mr Mahoney said.

“Councillor Peter Foley, sitting as an Independent on the council but actually involved with the far-left, violent UAF organisation and known locally for his links to Libya, called for only ‘far-right’ groups [sic] to be banned from political activity in Bridgend town centre.

By this he clearly means the British National Party should be banned, but not the Socialist Workers Party Trotskyites who he supports.

“Conservative councillor David Unwin went further by calling for all political activity to be banned,” Mr Mahoney continued.

“It is not clear if by this he includes the South Wales Police headquarters in the town which each year promotes the political ambitions of the homosexual lobby by flying the rainbow flag each year during ‘Gay Pride’ week.

“What is clear is that Bridgend councillors seek to deny the taxpaying constituents of Bridgend their fundamental rights to freedom and democracy in their own town,” Mr Mahoney said.

“Wales BNP would therefore remind the anti-democratic councillors in Bridgend that political organisations do not require local authority consent to sell or distribute literature on the streets.

“The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 10 states that, and I quote, everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority regardless of frontiers.”

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.

BOLTON PATRIOT: Race Gestapo Lose Bid to Kill British National Par...

BOLTON PATRIOT: Race Gestapo Lose Bid to Kill British National Par...: "The state-funded race Gestapo, known by its official name as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHR), has been defeated in its bi..."

Marxist Socialists and Leftists For a Second Holocaust ?

Leftists For a Second Holocaust 
Paul Bogdanor,

“Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day... Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make them lose their brains.”
- Khaled Mashal, Hamas leader “... the vote for Hamas was actually a vote for peace.”
- John Pilger, far-left journalist and filmmaker It would be difficult to imagine a clearer expression of genocidal hatred than the ideology of today’s jihadist armies. What is even harder to accept is that these bloodthirsty killers, with their graphic incitement to the massacre of millions of Jews, are admired and defended by legions of intellectuals, journalists, agitators and demonstrators on the anti-Zionist left. All sane observers understand that the official program of Hamas, if implemented, would result in an epoch-making bloodbath. One broadcast by Hamas activists announced: “My message to the loathed Jews is that there is no god but Allah, we will chase you everywhere! We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews.” But in the organs of the Israel-hating left, we read that the Hamas election victory is “the best news from the Middle East for a long time” (The Guardian). We read that it is time “to reinforce Hamas resistance [to Zionist ideology]” and its “ethical cry to the world” (CounterPunch). The goal of “reinforcing Hamas resistance” is quite widely shared in the anti-Zionist camp. Left-wing American activists in the International Solidarity Movement openly admit to collaborating with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In the Israeli communist journal News From Within, Jennifer Loewenstein, who is currently ensconced in Oxford University, urges that “Hamas, its allies and solidarity activists abroad genuinely attempt to make a difference.” Editor Michel Warschawski anticipates that the Hamas regime will bring about “Palestinian unity in fighting the Occupation… It may provide new hopes and new confidence.” As these writers know very well, the “resistance” that is to be “reinforced” entails the calculated murder of small children, pregnant women, the elderly and the disabled; the bombing of buses, cafes and restaurants; and occasional attempts to demolish whole skyscrapers. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah’s Hezbollah is another jihadist faction much admired by today’s left-wing anti-Zionists. Claiming responsibility for massacres of Jewish civilians as far afield as South America, a Hezbollah statement pledged “an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth.” Yet Norman Finkelstein – best-selling author of The Holocaust Industry and other classics in the field of Jewish antisemitism – can hardly find the words to express his enthusiasm. “I truly honor [Hezbollah] for having inflicted an exceptional and deserving defeat on their foreign occupiers,” he once exclaimed. “It’s another wonderful chapter in the long and painful struggle for human emancipation and even liberty and certainly one that every human being can take inspiration from.” During the recent war, he echoed the sentiments of countless leftists who marched to the slogan: “We are all Hezbollah.” In his visit to Lebanon earlier this year, Noam Chomsky justified Hezbollah’s military arsenal as a “deterrent to potential aggression.” Lebanese commentators were quick to express their disgust, warning that failure to disarm Hezbollah would lead to war – a prophesy that was fulfilled shortly afterward. Was it in spite of this prospect, or because of it, that Chomsky allowed himself to be filmed greeting the terrorist commanders as long-lost friends? Could any parodist capture the scene of the taxpayer-financed American Jewish professor advising these murderers of Americans and Jews that instead of surrendering their weapons they should “inform the public and get them to understand your position” so that “they will put pressure on the politicians” to capitulate? Writing in the London Review of Books, Charles Glass was impressed by Hezbollah’s ability to use rockets and suicide bombers “intelligently, in conjunction with an uncompromising political programme.” Critics promptly drew his attention to the words of Sheikh Nasrallah: “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” Such statements, replied Glass, “are in all likelihood fabrications.” Surely the “intelligent” masterminds of rocket barrages and suicide bombings could not possibly embrace such an “uncompromising political programme.” After all, the editors of the Lebanese Daily Star were anxious to distance themselves from the journalist who had originally recorded Nasrallah’s outburst. If true, that would be a shocking indictment of their own professional standards, given that in the space of a year they had published no fewer than 170 reports by the employee whose veracity they supposedly did not trust. But Glass would no more share this consideration with his readers than he would mention the antisemitic bloodlust of Al-Manar, or the Shiite scholar Amal Saad-Ghorayeb’s carefully documented conclusion that for Hezbollah, “the Israeli Jew becomes a legitimate target for extermination. And it also legitimizes attacks on non-Israeli Jews.” Even so, Charles Glass can hardly compete with his more flamboyant radical colleagues in his enthusiasm for terrorists and suicide bombers. For the widely read columnist and documentary maker John Pilger – who ascribes Britain’s Middle East policy to the nefarious machinations of a single Jewish businessman – Hezbollah embodies “resistance to rapacious power... humanity at its noblest.” For the political firebrand George Galloway, Hezbollah terrorists are “martyrs and heroes,” while Sheikh Nasrallah’s “name now rings in joy around the world.” The sickening list of far-left apologists for Nazi-style Jew-haters seems almost endless. While the jihadists of Hamas and Hezbollah dream of a second Holocaust, the ayatollahs of Iran are pursuing the means to achieve it. Representative of the “moderates” in the Iranian regime is former President Rafsanjani, who predicts that “the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.” The “extremists,” as everyone knows, take their cue from President Ahmadinejad, with his assurance that “the Zionist regime is headed toward annihilation.” But few tyrants are so depraved that radical leftists will not leap to their defense. Virginia Tilley, academic proponent of the “one-state solution” to the “problem” of Israel’s continued existence, believes that Ahmadinejad’s words promise the sort of “profound political change” that is “necessary to creating a just peace.” Doubtless relying on her professional knowledge of Iranian dialects, she maintains that Ahmadinejad’s threat to “wipe Israel off the map” is correctly translated as a pious hope that the Zionist regime will “vanish from the page of time” – the “just peace” of her imagination. She also contends that Ahmadinejad is not really a Holocaust denier; in her view, “skepticism” about the “Holocaust narrative” arises quite naturally if the “narrative” is used in support of Israel. Noam Chomsky offers further insights: in his mental universe, “Israel and the United States are both threatening Iran with destruction [emphasis added].” The ayatollahs would be “crazy” if they did not develop nuclear weapons to counter the military threat from the West. British communist intellectual Alex Callinicos is equally certain of the correct ideological approach: “If Bush attacks Iran tomorrow, which side are you on?” he asks. “I would be on Iran’s but – as Lenin put it – I would refuse to paint Ahmadinejad in communist colours; in other words, I would be for an Iranian victory despite his anti-Semitic rantings...” Perhaps, in the annals of political lunacy, historians will eventually discover a 1930s leftist who was insisting on the duty of all revolutionaries to side with the Nazi regime, while cautioning that Hitler was not a communist and that a Nazi victory would be desirable in spite of his policies towards the Jews – not because of them. If it seems that these are the isolated opinions of a few individuals, albeit figures of some prominence, it is worth pointing out that Britain’s Stop the War Coalition has informed Iranian refugees that they will not be permitted to speak at its protests, since the movement “cannot allow any statement against the Islamic regime in Iran from the platform.” While left-wing extremists refuse to tolerate Iranian critics of the Iranian regime, respectable universities are quite happy to offer a platform for meetings organized by the most bigoted spokesmen of that very regime. In July I had the memorable experience of attending such a conference at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. The event had two main sponsors. The first was the Islamic Human Rights Commission, described by Melanie Phillips as “the most conspicuous promoter of Khomeini jihadism in the UK.” Its advisory board includes the likes of Mohammed al-Massari, a Saudi exile with al-Qaeda sympathies whose website implores Allah to “grant his mujaheddin victory” over “the Jews, the Americans and the apostates.” The second sponsor was the NEDA Institute, an Iranian body whose main function seems to be the dissemination of “research” that denies the Holocaust. The theme of the conference was the need to do away with Zionism. A newsletter distributed at the entrance applauded Ayatollah Khomeini’s “arguments” for the destruction of Israel. Speakers included three Marxist-Leninist writers (Uri Davis, Michel Warschawski and John Rose) and a notorious left-wing American Jewish antisemite (Jeffrey Blankfort). Apparently they were only too happy to offer their intellectual services to the advocates of a second Holocaust. It must be stressed that the genocidal fanaticism of Hamas and Hezbollah and their Iranian sponsors barely differs from that of al-Qaeda. In the words of bin Laden: “We are sure of our victory against the Americans and the Jews as promised by the Prophet: Judgment day shall not come until the Muslim fights the Jew, where the Jew will hide behind trees and stones, and the tree and the stone will speak and say, ‘Muslim, behind me is a Jew. Come and kill him.’” What is truly incredible is that some radical leftists are so consumed with hatred that they are prepared to make excuses for these mass murderers as well. Three months after 9/11, CounterPunch published a revealing interview with Norman Finkelstein: “it’s payback time for the Americans,” he gloated, adding that “we deserve the problem on our hands because some things bin Laden says are true.” Finkelstein kept a studied silence about the implication of these thoughts for his fellow Jews. Another line of argument was suggested by Noam Chomsky: “It’s entirely possible,” he hypothesized, “that bin Laden’s telling the truth when he says that he didn’t know about the [9/11] operation,” and in any case bin Laden was “courageously fighting oppressors, who are quite real,” although regrettably his crimes were “extremely harmful” to the Palestinian cause. Not content with these observations, Chomsky traveled to Pakistan, where he hastened to assist al-Qaeda’s recruitment efforts by informing his audiences that the Bush Administration was planning to impose mass starvation on the Afghan people. For the gold standard in collaboration with genocidal antisemites, we must look to the radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, convicted last year of providing material support for the terrorism of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. The so-called “Blind Sheikh” was linked to the attempted massacre of 250,000 people in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. The bombers expected that most of the victims would be Jews. Stewart’s actions on behalf of her imprisoned client included refusing to disclaim a fatwa inciting Muslims “to fight the Jews and to kill them wherever they are.” It is of no small significance that she is acclaimed as a martyr by her comrades at the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights, not to mention far-left media such as Z Magazine, CounterPunch and Democracy Now. In Britain, where I live, the anti-Zionist left has broken all records in its promotion of Jew-killers. So deep is the malaise that a major national newspaper, The Guardian, has seen fit to open its opinion pages to the jihadists and their admirers. One fanatic managed to insert a series of columns proclaiming that “Israel simply has no right to exist” and that “martyr-bombers” are “heroes defending the things we hold sacred.” Other op-ed contributors have included a well-known Hamas ideologue, official leaders of Hamas and a member of Hezbollah’s executive committee. Neither these outrages nor The Guardian’s countless libels of Israel and “Zionist” Jews have evoked the slightest dissent from its politically correct readership. The British far left’s infatuation with jihadists has even produced a new political party. In 2004, the country’s leading Marxist-Leninist and Islamic extremist groups announced the formation of RESPECT: The Unity Coalition, which now functions as a national megaphone for antisemites, Holocaust deniers and would-be destroyers of Israel. But is this development any more surprising than the public political romance between Ken Livingstone, the hard-left Mayor of London, and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Middle East hatemonger who demands the mass slaughter of Jews? Or the insistence of the world-famous journalist Robert Fisk that the Bush Administration is controlled by “the Perles and the Wolfowitzes and the Cohens,” and that “I’m amazed that Muslims have been so restrained”? The enthusiasm of today’s radical leftists for the genocidal antisemites of the far right is not without precedent. The opening of communist archives revealed that for decades the Soviet bloc had tried to destabilize West Germany by orchestrating neo-Nazi violence. To embarrass its rivals on the other side of the Berlin Wall, the Stasi created movements such as the “Veterans of the Waffen-SS” and financed a campaign by the “German Imperial Party” to “justify the need for exterminating the Jews.” These examples can be multiplied. It is tempting to conclude, with Ecclesiastes, that there is nothing new under the sun. There is, however, an important difference. Yesterday’s communists sponsored Nazis in the hope of discrediting their enemies. Today’s ultra-leftists think that their alliance with Nazis brings credit to themselves.

British National Party Youth Organisation the Crusaders is a “Civil Rights Movement”

British National Party Youth Organisation is a “Civil Rights Movement”

The British National party Newsroom

The British National Party’s youth organisation, the Crusaders, will work towards being a civil rights movement working for the “preservation of our constitutional rights secured by millennia of struggle,” new organiser Kieren Trent has said.

Speaking after his election to lead the Crusaders at the party’s recent conference, 20-year old Mr Trent said that the “Crusaders demand the same rights granted to every other indigenous peoples across the world.

“Young indigenous Britons feel they are second-class citizens in their own country. Our youth have vast cultural capital that the government and media conspire to hide from them,” Mr Trent said.

“It will be the Crusaders’ task to stop this negative programming and to awaken our youth to their heritage and cultural wealth.

“Inside every young person is a natural feeling of nationhood waiting to be unleashed. Our organisation must instill a feeling of national identity into the downtrodden young people of Britain. Only then can we see a national rebirth,” he said.

Mr Trent also thanked the previous Crusaders leader, Joey Smith, for the sterling work he had done in getting the organisation off the ground.

“The name Crusaders relates to our battle against the onslaught of creeping Islam. I would like then to endorse Nick Griffin’s pledge of increased militancy in future.

“As proven by the recent demonstration I organised in Bletchley against the building of a new mosque, the Crusaders are not going to bow down to the Islamofascist fifth column.

“I live in 21st century Britain. Politics is not a hobby. Young people can no longer choose their political brand based on class alignment or family partisan alignment.

“We are desperately running out of time to save our people from destruction. It is time for every Briton to stand up and be counted and I am proud to say the crusaders are standing up for the indigenous British people and our Christian heritage,” Mr Trent concluded.

for those who are interested in the right age bracket see,

The Crusaders facebook Page 

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.

Are Golliwogs offensive? Only to the Lunatic PC Brigade

Are golliwogs offensive?

Written by The Pilgrim

15 December 2010

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?" This quotation from the book of Jeremiah (13:23) would probably be considered offensive if it were found anywhere other than in The Bible. Apparently Enid Blyton once wrote a story about a black doll that longed to be pink, which was subsequently rewritten as a story about a pink doll that longed to be black.   In a similar vein, the Daily Mail recently reported that “Golliwogs are deeply offensive” – an allegation which lacks any basis in fact. The golliwog (originally written as golliwogg) was the creation of Florence Kate Upton.  A young English woman living in late Victorian London, she took to writing illustrated books for children, but struggled to find a suitable protagonist until the discovery of a rag doll in the form of a black man gave her the inspiration she needed.  Her books, co-written with her mother, were an immediate success, and thirteen Golliwogg storybooks were published between 1895 and 1909.  Before long other writers were writing stories about golliwogs. Upton’s golliwogg was a charming and heroic black man in a minstrel’s outfit, who was accompanied by two wooden peg dolls (white females, apparently neither racist nor sexist).  In the first golliwogg book, the dolls first see him as a “horrid sight”, but they soon realise that he is in fact friendly. Then all look round, as well they may To see a horrid sight! The blackest gnome Stands there alone, They scatter in their fright. With kindly smile he nearer draws; Begs them to feel no fear. "What is your name?" Cries Sarah Jane; "The 'Golliwogg' my dear." Their fears allayed--each takes an arm, While up and down they walk; With sidelong glance Each tries her chance, And charms him with "small talk". Golliwogs were sometimes presented by other writers as mischievous or even threatening, but more often than not they were shown in a positive light.  The original Noddy books featured naughty gollies, which have long since been replaced by the goblins Sly and Gobbo, whereas another Enid Blyton book called The Three Golliwogs featured gollies who were resourceful and friendly.  In the 1960s and 1970s, Ruth Ainsworth wrote books about a golliwog called Rufty Tufty, another example of gollies as friendly protagonists. Jars of Robertson’s jam and marmalade featured gollies on their labels from 1910 to the 1980s, and the company produced golly badges until 2001.  They were commonly portrayed as cheerful characters, and they were referenced in the 1980s in the BBC television show The Two Ronnies.  One of the sketches featured an Arab businessman (Ronnie Corbett) buying marmalade, and the shopkeeper (Ronnie Barker) took pleasure in telling him that the jar had one of his little cousins on the side.  In those days that was considered to be a joke. The eventual demise of the Robertsons’s golly badges was not based on any lame response to political correctness, but rather on an acceptance that their appeal was by this time limited to adult collectors.  Of course to be fair this was indirectly a result of political correctness.  Gollies no longer featured in children’s books, and so they no longer held much appeal for children.  Golly badges continue to be traded, and often fetch high prices. Those of us who care about The Bible should take a stand against the enemies of the gollywog.  Otherwise it may not be too long before the Harriet Harman brigade demand that The Book of Jeremiah be purged of its offensive reference to black people.

Claim: 60 Young White Females Victims of Muslim Paedophile Gangs in Shropshire

Claim: 60 Victims of Muslim Paedophile Gangs in Shropshire

The British National Party newsroom

There are at least 60 victims, all young white females, of Muslim paedophile gangs operating in Shropshire, centred around Telford, a mother of one of the girls interviewed in connection with an attack has told the British National Party.

The hidden epidemic in Shropshire has effectively been covered up by the national media, and only occasional reports have made it into the local county press,” said Phil Spencer, south Shropshire organiser.

“The information about the number of victims came from a response to a new leafleting campaign the British National Party has been conducting in Telford warning of the dangers which the local population face,” Mr Spencer said.

The striking leaflets focussed on one attack in particular, where a Muslim gang from Wellington abducted and raped a young woman in September.

According to reports, the attack began after the victim went into the ‘Flames’ kebab shop in Market Square, Wellington.

The shop has ceased trading since the incident, which saw five Muslims arrested, including an illegal immigrant who needed an interpreter during his court appearance.

In addition, the reverse side of the leaflet contained a list of a number of other immigrant-origin attacks in Shropshire.

The leaflet contains local party contact details, and Mr Spencer said he had been approached by a member of the public who had received one of the leaflets.

“She revealed that her daughter was due to be video interviewed regarding one of the cases mentioned,” Mr Spencer said.

The person, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said that she thought it was “fantastic” that the British National Party was “highlighting these issues and making the public aware of what is going on. 

“Obviously I am not allowed to say too much about the case, but am aware that there is a large ring of people involved not only from Telford but other areas. 

“I was told by the C.I.D that there have been at least 60 victims of this crime just in Shropshire alone,” she said.

Another shocking revelation from this person dealt with the double standards given to Muslim and British offenders.

“I also know that suspects of the Muslim community were bailed until trial.  One of the conditions of their bail was that they do not come back to Telford,” she continued.

“However just the other week when the Eid festival was happening, they were allowed to return to Telford for religious reasons.  I think that was a disgraceful decision that was made by the courts to allow this. 

“Had the suspects been non-Muslim, this decision would never have been allowed,” she correctly pointed out.

The British National Party in Shropshire can be followed on their blog here.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.

The Fundamentalist Luton Connection

The Luton Connection

Written by Finlandia    The British Resistance Site

December 2010

Today we learn that the Stockholm suicide bomber lived and studied in Luton, Bedfordshire: "An Islamic fundamentalist was radicalised in Britain before carrying out a suicide bombing on a busy street in Sweden. Iraqi-born Taimour Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly, 28, blew up his car, then himself, in the capital Stockholm. He had spent much of the last decade in Luton – long known as a hotbed of terrorism – where he studied for a degree and continued living there with his wife and children. Police were searching a property in the town today as part of the probe into the suicide attack" (Mail, 13 December).  Whilst the ghost of Al-Abdaly is enjoying his 72 virgins in paradise, we must once again address the question of how to deter fanatics who are determined to kill themselves. The Israelis have a policy of bulldozing the family homes of terrorists and those who harbour and support them. Contrary to antisemitic leftist opinion, they do not do this for reasons of vengeance or spite, but to make it clear to other would-be killers that if they carry out a mission, their families and communities will suffer after they are gone. The idea is that even if the towel-headed, semtex-clad losers care nothing for their own physical well-being, they might still have some regard for the people close to them, and this might – just might – make them think twice. I would welcome a similar policy here in the UK, so that in the wake of an atrocity the authorities can: Seize all assets of the perpetrator's extended family, then deport them to their country of origin; Investigate the perpetrator's places of socialisation and education for evidence of extremist teaching or indoctrination; Where evidence is found, close down the mosques or madrassas, slash funding to the colleges or universities (bulldozing would not normally be necessary); Immediately deport those responsible for such teaching; Freeze all inward movement of nationals from the perpetrator's country of origin for a period of five years. Whilst we cannot be sure that such a policy would work, it would certainly be worth a try. Excellent informative article, images and videos of the islamificaiton of Sweden can be found over on the NorthField Patriot.

EU hands off our medicines Nick helps Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

EU hands off our medicines

  Martin Wingfield  at Nick Griffin MEP Euro News

DECEMBER 2010: 
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has contacted Nick Griffin over its concerns about new trade agreements which will have a detrimental effect on access to medicines.


 This is what the organisation told the MEP for the North West of England:
"Millions of people in developing countries rely on affordable generic medicines produced in countries like India to stay alive.
"MSF relies very heavily on these medicines to treat diseases such as TB, malaria and other common infectious diseases.
"MSF is concerned that the European Commission's trade policies that will severely restrict people’s access to these life-saving medicines.
"This attack is taking a number of different forms – free trade agreements, international treaties, customs regulations.   
"For this reason has recently launched a campaign called 'EU Hands Off our Medicines', to ask the Commission to drop the damaging provisions it is negotiating in a number of international agreements, like the EU-India FTA and ACTA."
Responding to Medecins San Frontieres (MSF) on behalf of Nick Griffin MEP, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"Mr Griffin notes your concerns that the provisions in the Trade Agreements under discussion could detrimentally affect the production, registration, transportation and exportation of generic medicines and thus seriously impede generic medicines producers in India from delivering more affordable and quality generic versions of medicines for people in developing countries.
In particular, he appreciates your concerns regarding the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the danger that the requirement for data exclusivity could (where no patent is granted under Indian law and thus no compulsory licence gained to lift data exclusivity) create a monopoly that blocks generic producers. It is imperative to ensure that unnecessary and excessive European Union bureaucracy does not interfere with or impede the effective delivery of medical care to people outside of the European Single Market.
He agrees that the scope of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is too broad and that the proposed new enforcement measures are draconian. Moreover, the disturbing scarcity of information about this agreement and a total lack of transparency in the negotiation process renders informed consultation impossible and undermines democratic debate.
Until and unless these concerns are addressed, Mr Griffin will oppose these Agreements."

Islamic Londonistan Strikes Again as “British” Islamist Bombs Stockholm

Londonistan Strikes Again as “British” Islamist Bombs Stockholm

The British National Party newsroom

Britain’s deserved reputation as the centre of Muslim-colonised extremism in Europe has been highlighted again with the suicide bombing in Sweden and the release of new US diplomatic cables which describe Muslims living in Britain travelling overseas for “jihadi tourism.”

As police searched the Bedfordshire house of Iraq-born invader Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly, who the liberal press described as a “Swede,” for evidence related to the bomb attack in Stockholm, the latest leaked US diplomatic cables, from the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, revealed that:

“There is believed to be a certain amount of so-called 'jihadi tourism' to southern Somalia by UK citizens of Somali ethnicity.

“The threat from Somalia is compounded by the fact that within East Africa there is a lack of local government recognition of the terrorist threat."

The cable continued by saying that there were concerns that the ConDem government would take a “simplistic” approach to fighting terrorism.

“Many of the people who will form the new government have been outside of government policy circles for a long time, and they may have a simplistic point of view on CT [counter-terrorism] issues,” the cable said.

Other points of interest in the cables revealed that it was now seriously considered that a “Mumbai-style attack” would inevitably take place in Britain, and that the “highly controversial military operations ongoing in Afghanistan” are a “massive” political issue.

Meanwhile, the investigation into the suicide bombing in Sweden has revealed that the perpetrator, although living in Britain, was actively advertising for a “second wife” on a Muslim internet dating site.

British law currently forbids bigamy — unless the marriages are conducted outside of Britain by a legal system recognised by this country.

Muslims therefore marry multiple wives overseas and then can legally bring them back to Britain and claim child support benefits which would be denied to indigenous Britons with multiple wives.

This “exception” to the rules indicates precisely how far the Islamic colonisation of Britain has proceeded, beyond even the point where Islamists feel confident enough to launch attacks on other European countries.

For example, the 2004 Muslim Madrid train bombers called their spiritual leader, an imam in London, just prior to their joint suicide after being surrounded by Spanish police.

Other attacks by Muslims based in Britain led the French police to derisively call London “Londonistan” in reference to the utterly radicalised and colonised nature of the city.

The latest bombing in Stockholm has shown that ultimately, Islam and western democracy are incompatible.

Either one, or the other, will triumph. Co-existence is impossible. It has become clear that the only salvation for the West lies in a policy which halts and reverses the Islamic colonisation of not just Britain, but all of Europe.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party website.

 

 

Leading European Commissioners say: “Europe Needs More Third World Immigration”

EU Commissioners: “Europe Needs More Third World Immigration”

The British National Party newsroom

Two leading European Commissioners have called for even more Third World immigration into Europe in order to meet what they call “skill shortages” but which in fact are nothing of the sort, as record levels of unemployment in Europe attest.

According to an article written by European Commissioners Cecilia Malmström and László Andor, Europe “needs more immigration if it wishes to remain globally competitive.”

In reality, EU-wide unemployment levels were 9.6 percent in September 2010, according to the EC’s own eurostat website.

With an unemployment rate of nearly ten percent, the suggestion by the EC Commissioners that what Europe needs is even more immigration, is little short of criminal.

Eurostat predictions suggest that the EU workforce could shrink by as much as 50 million over the next 50 years, a projection which is used as an excuse by the liberals to justify ever-increasing immigration.

In reality, even if those figures are correct, the EU currently has a population of 500 million, which means that a reduction of 50 million is “only” ten percent.

The two liberal EC Commissioners somehow believe that a reduced EU-wide population of 450 million will somehow require “between 384,000 and 700,000 IT workers by 2015, and by 2020, between one and two million health-care workers” from outside Europe, is typically flawed and illogical.

Europe does not need a larger population. If anything, overcrowding and congestion suggests that it needs a smaller, more sustainable population, in proportion to its needs and what the environment can support.

The plan to swamp Europe with ever increasing waves of immigrants is not a new EU plan.

In May 2009, the European Parliament passed its “Blue Card” legislation which was aimed at introducing American “Green Card” style immigration processes.

The Blue Card aims to make it easier for those with skills which are in demand to live and work in Europe, as well as to move across national borders.

The EU legislation set a standard series of rights for Card holders and gave favourable conditions for family reunification and rights.

The period of validity of the EU Blue Card was set at between one and four years, with possibility of renewal. After two years in the first country, a holder may move, under certain conditions to another of the Member States.

The new law is supposed to take effect by mid-2011.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.

Friday 17/12/10 is Judgement in EHCR Race Gestapo’s Case: Nick Griffin Calls for Demonstration

Friday is Judgement in Race Gestapo’s Case: Nick Griffin Calls for Demonstration

The British National party newsroom

British National Party members have been called upon to demonstrate once again outside the Royal Courts of Justice this Friday from 9:30 am when judgement will be given in the Equalities and Human Rights Commission court case against the party.

Making the call for a renewed demonstration, Nick Griffin MEP said that he had just received the advisory from the court officials this afternoon.

“Judgement will be handed down at 10am sharp,” Mr Griffin said. “The timing is a surprise to us as all indications were that it was going to be earlier, or failing that, after the new year.

“Nonetheless, we remain confident over the outcome, but need as many supporters as possible to be outside the court once again.

“Please come with banners, loudhailers, properly dressed against the cold and let the establishment know that whatever the decision, the members and supporters of the British National Party remain defiant.”

The Royal Courts of Justice are at the Strand, London WC2A 2LL. Local organisers are requested to make necessary preparations to ensure that as many people as possible are able to attend given the short notice.

Q: What are the nearest underground stations?

A: Temple on the District and Circle lines, Holborn on the Central and Piccadilly lines and Chancery Lane on the Central Line.

 Q: What buses go to the RCJ?

A: Bus numbers 4, 11, 15, 23, 26, 76, 172, and 341 stop outside the RCJ. Bus numbers 1, 59, 68, 91, 168, 171, 188, 243, 521 and X68 stop on Kingsway and Aldwych. Go to www.tfl.gov.uk for more detailed travel information.

 Q: Where are the nearest public car parking facilities?

A: There is parking available in Lincolns Inn Fields and Maltravers St. The nearest car park is in New Court, Carey Street, with additional ones at Drury Lane, Holborn and Shoe Lane.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.

EU backs covert campaign to dupe consumers on ritually slaughtered meat

EU backs covert campaign to dupe consumers on ritually slaughtered meat

  Martin Wingfield  Nick griffin MEP Euro News

 DECEMBER 2010: EUROPEAN Ministers have dropped plans to ensure that halal and kosher meat from animals slaughtered without pre-stunning is accurately labelled.


 Earlier this year MEPs voted in favour of German MEP Renate Sommer’s proposed amendment to draft legislation on food labelling which would mean that meat and meat products from ritually slaughtered animals must carry the label “Meat from slaughter without stunning”.
However, the European Council of Ministers have now approved a draft of new food information regulation that did not include amendment 205.
The latest move to drop the proposal follows a Europe-wide lobbying campaign by the Jewish food lobby group Shechita UK, which has targeted European Ministers representing their various governments at the Council of Ministers.
Shechita UK has argued that unless meat from religiously slaughtered animals is allowed to slip into the general market covertly, this meat will become commercially unviable. Electrical pre-stunning is not allowed under strict Jewish traditions.
To make matters worse the British Government has backed the decision of the European Ministers. Jim Paice MP, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, signalled the UK Government’s intention to oppose the labelling amendment saying that he had recently met with Shechita UK to help him “understand the concerns driving their opposition to labelling”.
This morning on hearing the news while on his way to Strasbourg for a week of voting in the European Parliament, Nick Griffin pulled no punches in condemning the dropping of Amendment 205.
"This disgraceful decision yet again highlights two sad truths of modern British politics: First, that the noisy voices of those who persist in inflicting the most hideous cruelty on defenceless animals in the name of religion continue to drown out the voice of the vast majority who believe in humane killing of animals and equality before the law among the different communities living in Britain.
"Second, that democratically elected MEPs seeking to represent the wishes of thier constituents are continually thwarted and trumped by the unelected bureaucrats who really call the shots in the European Union.
"Both problems illustrate the shocking democratic deficit in the system, something that only the British National Party really works to highlight and is serious about addressing."

http://www.christiantoday.co.uk/article/street.preacher.who.spoke.out.against.homosexuality.wins.wrongful.arrest.case/27225.htm

http://www.christiantoday.co.uk/article/street.preacher.who.spoke.out.against.homosexuality.wins.wrongful.arrest.case/27225.htm