Search This Blog

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

BRUSSELS Bureaucrats Waste £225Million Plus of Taxpayers’ Money pro‑EU Propaganda

BRUSSELS bureaucrats were slammed yesterday after it emerged they plan to spend more than £225million of taxpayers’ money next year on pro‑EU propaganda and spin.
The shameless plans were discovered in the small print of proposals for an inflation-busting 4.9 per cent rise in the EU’s total budget for 2012.
The details emerged on Europe Day – an annual ­commemoration of the first step taken in 1950 to create the union. It drew ­demonstrators on to the streets of Britain to shred the EU flag in a major snub to Brussels’ demands for it to be flown across the entire bloc.
Mats Persson, director of the Open Europe thinktank, said: “Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for PR exercises that vainly try to make them love the EU. The EU needs reform, not more spin.”
Nearly half the proposed budget, £115million, would be spent on administration and more than 1,000 staff in the EU’s communication division.
A further £84million would go on “informing about policy”, while some £25million is earmarked for events and publicity to promote Europe.

Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for PR exercises that vainly try to make them love the EU
Mats Persson, director of the Open Europe thinktank
Within the proposed package, £31million would be spent over the next four years on “information events” aimed at ­journalists to help “connect” the Commission with the ­people by ensuring they can provide “reliable and timely” coverage of the EU.
Ukip leader and Euro MP Nigel Farage said he feared a “sinister” attempt to “indoctrinate” journalists, adding: “Do they think journalists, or the public, are stupid? No amount of money or PR can make people like the EU or stop the press reporting the political reality of Brussels.”
A Commission spokesman said the communications budget added up to less than 0.2 per cent of the overall EU draft budget.
Yesterday two Government departments flew the EU flag. Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable hoisted it over his offices in Westminster and it was also raised above the Department for Communities and Local Government. Downing Street, however, refused to fly the flag.





Ukip member Ken White organised a protest against Europe Day in Maidenhead, Berks, where a pair of garden shears were used to shred the EU flag.
He said: “Why should the EU demand we fly their flag. The whole thing is so undemocratic. We must fight this.”
A protest also overshadowed yesterday’s celebrations at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. In a major embarrassment for the EU, politicians from the UK, the Netherlands, France and Denmark held up their national flags.
Mr Farage, who led the ­protest, said: “We have never voted for this EU flag or anthem, nor has anybody else in Europe voted for it. It has no legitimacy whatsoever.”
Europe Day commemorates the anniversary of French Foreign Minister ­Robert Schuman’s call for a coal and steel community – the forerunner of the EU.

Tuesday, 10 May 2011

Changes to French immigration law mean sick could be deported

Changes to French immigration law mean sick could be deported

Changes to French immigration law mean sick could be deported

It’s a well known fact that the NHS wastes billions of pound every year treating people that shouldn’t be in the UK in the first place when, at the same time, many native Britons are denied vital drugs because they are too expensive.
Below is an interesting article published a few days ago on Radio France International about a plan to prevent immigrants getting treatment in France.
Maybe its time for Britain to do the same.
Louise (not her real name), a 42-year-old Nigerian woman, is sitting in a hospital room in Argenteuil, a northern Paris suburb. She’s been here for several days.
Doctors have figured out that she has a stomach infection, but they are running more tests because she is HIV-positive.
Louise came to France in 2008, because she says she had problems with the Nigerian government. Even though her request for political asylum from France was turned down, she is still living here legally, because of her medical condition.
She says she had no idea she had the disease until doctors performed medical tests when she arrived in France.
“I had to do blood tests, urine tests,” she explains. “The nurse then asked me to come see her. She said ‘I’m very sorry your result is no good’. I say ‘what happened?’ She said, ‘you are HIV-positive’. I started crying.”
When she talks about being HIV-positive, Louise becomes very quiet and her eyes tear up. She says she has had to have psychological treatment, because she was considering suicide when she found out.
“When I came to France I was a normal person. If someone had told me four or five years ago that I have this illness, I would have slapped that person,” she says.
Her situation is not unusual. Dr Pascal Reveau of the Comede, a group that helps immigrants obtain medical care France, says most immigrants who have HIV or hepatitis don’t realize they are ill until after they arrive.
“Ninety per cent of them discover their status here in France,” he explains. “This means that less than ten per cent know they are infected, and they did not come here to get their HIV or hepatitis treated.”
In other words, people come to France for other reasons – often like Louise, they are asylum seekers. It is only once they discover they are sick that they apply for a residency permit for medical reasons.
Some 6,000 people do so each year, most for post traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), according to Dr Reveau. Others have hepatitis, HIV/Aids or other, non-transmittable problems like hypertension, diabetes and asthma.
Authorities determine whether or not someone should get a residency permit by asking a doctor for a certificate that answers three questions: Is the person suffering from a disease? Is the disease life-threatening? And is the treatment accessible in the home country?
This third question is key. The law as it currently stands refers to the accessibility of the treatment in the home country, which is determined by looking at country reports from institutions like UNaids, the WHO and the EU.
The modified law would change the wording slightly: instead of asking
‘Is the treatment accessible?’, it asks ‘Does the treatment exist?’
This is a subtle word change, but one that Dr Reveau says makes all the difference.
“Accessibility is a precise, public health expression,” he says. It has a specific meaning, unlike existence. “Existence is something either very broad or very narrow, and it depends really on the people who will be interpreting it. Existence could mean that the drug appears on a list in the country. But this of course has nothing to do with availability, affordability and accessibility. It could not be in the country because of problems with the organisation of the health system, because the drugs are not stored properly.”
He’s worried that in a climate of budget cuts and rising anti-immigrant sentiments in France, the mere existence of a drug in a country will mean more foreigners will be denied the health care they need.
This, he says is not just bad for people who are sick, but detrimental for French taxpayers as well. If they are not treated, they will end up in hospital emergency rooms.
“The less they will treat themselves, the more they will come to emergency services, and the more it will cost,” he says. “We think this is very dangerous for the health system in France.”
It will also cost more, he says, because more cases will end up in court on appeal.
Regardless of the cost, though, for Reveau, the issue is an ethical one.
“The way you treat the foreign people is the way you will treat the people who are not foreign,” he says. “The way I treat my human counterpart is the way I will be treated also. So what is my future?”
The French Senate and Parliament are at loggerheads over the bill, so on Wednesday a reconciliation committee meets to find a compromise.
GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

The Games They Play – Council Tries to Dupe Candidates into Signing “Equality Contracts”

The Games They Play – Council Tries to Dupe Candidates into Signing “Equality Contracts”

By Cllr Clive Jefferson – The letter below was sent to all our candidates in the Amber Valley one week before election day. The “Derby Racial Equality Council” is another taxpayer-funded quango set up to harass the indigenous people of our Nation and is just another string to the bow of the forces amassed against us.
The contract urged all council candidates to sign it to “demonstrate [candidates’] commitment to serving Derbyshire [sic] diverse communities”.
The threat implied in this outrageous letter was that they were going to publish the replies they got and send all the details to the local and national media. What an outrageous thing – to ask a candidate to sign up to what in effect is a contract to promote multiculturalism if elected.
We advised our candidates to reply that they where standing for election to promote the rights of the indigenous population and not to promote the failed multicultural
experiment forced on our people by groups such as the Derby Racial Equality Council.
This is just another example of the forces and the finances arrayed against our candidates and is a timely reminder just why we stand by our principles against such people and such organisations.


If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

Monday, 9 May 2011

You Get What You Vote For! When You Vote Labour

You Get What You Vote For

On the day after the elections, violent Muslims promising more terror attacks in Britain took to the streets of London, just after the verdict for the inquests into the 7/7 bombings was announced.
Muslims clashed with police outside the US embassy in Westminster as they staged a mock “funeral service” for Osama bin Laden.
Protesters held signs that proclaimed “Islam Will Dominate The World” and “Jihad: To Defend The Muslims” and warned that vengeance attacks were “guaranteed” after reports of the al-Qaeda leader’s killing by American forces.
The protest was organised by Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary, who has praised both the 7/7 and the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The former leader of the outlawed al-Muhajiroun and member of the poppy-burning Muslims Against Crusades extremist group demanded that the US return bin Laden's body to relatives.
Choudary said: "There will be one million Osamas. Muslims will remember Osama as a great man who stood up against Satan. Many will want to emulate his acts.”
Another protester, Abu Muaz, 28, from east London, added: "It is only a matter of time before another atrocity – the West is the enemy.”
The demonstration was especially insensitive because it came on the same day as the verdict on the 7/7 inquests was reached, just three miles away, at the Royal Court of Justice.
The verdict released by Lady Justice Heather Hallett recorded that the 52 victims had been “unlawfully” killed when four Muslim terrorists attacked three London Underground trains and a bus in 2005. The coroner also criticised MI5's handling of terrorist cases, warning that poor record keeping could allow flawed decisions to slip through with "dire consequences".
The clashes come just after the “news” that London has become a hotbed for terrorism, after a WikiLeak cable revealed 35 Guantanamo Bay detainees had received terrorist training in London mosques.
In other parts of the UK, Muslims held public “funeral prayers” for bin Laden. In Cardiff, a reported 100 people held a “service” in the city’s Despenser Gardens.
Organiser Abdul Haq, 26, said the prayer was held “out of respect to bin Laden as a senior Muslim”.
Haq said whether bin Laden was a terrorist or not was “irrelevant” as “first and foremost he was a Muslim” who should have been tried in a Sharia court.
“People can be offended or upset, but at the end of the day a Muslim was killed and we are offended that his body was not handed over,” he said.
The huge numbers of terrorist and pro-terrorist Muslims in Britain is a direct result of decades of LibLabCon open-door immigration policy. The traitor parties’ refusal to deport openly terrorist-supporting radicals, coupled with their illegal wars in Muslim lands, will ensure that the Muslims’ threat of another terrorist attack in Britain will surely become a reality.
If you voted for anyone other than the British National Party – or didn’t bother to vote at all – you got what you voted for, and you will get a lot more of it.
If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

Sunday, 8 May 2011

Muslims’ Paranoid Victim Mentality

Muslims’ Paranoid Victim Mentality 

May , 2011 

By Amil Imani
As a group, Muslims are paranoid and suffer chronically from the disease of victimization. That is, they either victimize the helpless whenever and wherever they can, or scream murder against the strong. This mentality is one of the many bequests that Muhammad left for his Ummah.
Recall that Muhammad himself bemoaned his victim plight in Mecca, packed his bags and fled to Medina where the Jews were not as vicious as his own Quraish tribe operating the lucrative tourist business of the idolaters.
Then the infighting started in earnest among the various factions, as soon as Muhammad died. People began jockeying for power and doing their Muslim-best to destroy their competition. Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law was elbowed out of the way by the more powerful disciples of the Prophet and had to wait his turn to head the already fractured and feuding Ummah.
A number of the faithful resented the fact that Ali was not allowed to take over the reign. Some felt victimized by Omar and his powerful conspirators and hated Ali for not standing and fighting like a man. Some real stand-and-fight Muslims decided that Ali should be punished and he was knifed to death on his way to the mosque.
The death of Ali was the real stirring of the hornet’s nest, so to speak. All kinds of power struggle, infighting and bloodletting started among the followers of the religion of peace.
Ali’s boys, namely Hassan and Hussein, decided to salvage their dad’s honor by standing and fighting like a good Muslim should, as well as enjoying the perks that come with being the leaders of the gang.
So, a real fight was joined. On the one side was Yazid with his mighty army and wealth, and on the other side were Hassan and Hussein with their rag-tag band of followers. Hassan was killed unceremoniously in short order, but Hussein was not about to bow out. Hussein started a dialogue with his adversary, Yazid.
Hussein: I am the rightful inheritor of the house of Muhammad. I demand that all believers, including you Yazid, accept me (bayat) as the head of the Ummeh.
Yazid: Nothing doing man. Muhammad’s Ummah is not a family business. It is the faith of Allah that must follow his laws. The people select the most righteous man as the head of the faith, just the way the Caliphs did. The faith of Allah is based on meritocracy and not heredity.
Hussein: You are wrong, Yazid. My granddaddy started the business, my daddy gave his life for it, my brother was murdered to claim it, and I intend to take what is rightfully mine.
Yazid: Hussein, you seem to be just as stubborn as Hassan. You are not amenable to reason, so let the sword of justice settle our dispute.
So, you know the rest of the story. Hussein stubbornly refused to relinquish his claim to the powerful Yazid and ended up with his head cut off by Shimr, impaled on a spear and presented to Yazid as a trophy.
The followers of the house of Ali and his lineage, a minority of about 10 percent of the Muslims, felt victimized by the evil Yazid. Since there was very little these lovers of Ali’s house could do to materially change things, they assumed the role of victim. Year after year, century after century, they commemorated the victimization events of the time of Hussein, have beaten and slashed themselves bloody for their ancestors not going to the aid of Hussein, and bloodied themselves all aimed to atone for their ancestral sins.

A young boy flagellating himself during the festival of Ashura, when Shia Muslims commemorate the death of Hussein, grandson of Mohammed.
Well, the Yazid-Hussein bloody drama was some 1400 years ago. Isn’t it time to let go? Why is it, particularly to Iranian Shias, that they just keep on continuing and promoting the tragic events associated with two Arabs fighting for personal power?
We Iranians don’t have a dog in this fight. In fact we should rid ourselves of all Islamic stains, Shia, Sunni, or whatever, and with it stop playing victims of one power or another. Playing victim may give psychological relief but doesn’t solve any problems on the ground. And problems of the ground we have aplenty.
Again, give it up my countrymen. Enough playing victim: victims of the Jews, our perennial excuse that we have been using to victimize them whenever we can; victims of America; victims of the Crusaders. We are victims alright: victims of Islam that invaded our land and implanted a raft of pathological ideas in our heads.
Victimization is an Islamic disease. Islam, irrespective of sects, either victimizes the people it can, or plays victim to the real or imagined oppressors. This victimization mentality is at the root of Muslims’ backwardness and primitiveness.
We Iranians are descendants of an optimistic, enlightened, and positive people. We are the children of Cyrus the Great and not blind slaves of an Arab cult called Islam. Islam has brought us nothing but misery. Let go of Islam; bury it along with the memories of two Arabs, Yazid and Hussein, who fought for leadership. Don’t bloody yourselves for ten days every year to bemoan Hussein’s plight. All of Islam is not worth one drop of an Iranian’s blood. And blood we have given to this blood-sucker Islam by [the] barrel-full.
–§–
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen, a pro-democracy activist, novelist, essayist and literary translator who writes and speaks out for the struggling people of his native land.

Saturday, 7 May 2011

The Con-Trick Which is Our Fractional Reserve Banking and Money-System

The Con-Trick Which is Our Banking and Money-System PDF Print E-mail
Written by Mark Haynes   originally publish at http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/
sad-bank-cat_120_x_134In light of the Con-Dem coalition’s planned imposition of austerity measures, meaning severe public spending cuts and tax rises, and the consequent destruction and damage to many of the British people’s lives and living standards, I thought we should examine our banking/money-system and it’s history, which has lead our nation to such a ruinous state of affairs.
We have in this country (and much of the world), a debt-based money-system built on the fractional reserve lending principle, where banks are allowed to lend usually up to ten times the amount it has on deposit in loans. The history of this system can be traced back to medieval times, when in some fateful moment a moneylender realised that the essence of any viable money-system is confidence, and that once this confidence had been established, a very lucrative magical money-trick could be performed.
Goldsmiths dealt with precious metals, and out of necessity provided safe storage for this treasure, which people out of fear of robbery would deposit with the goldsmith. (2) The goldsmith’s started to charge a fee for this safe-keeping service, and to loan out coin and bullion to the community. They became moneylenders who realised that once they established trust in the community and a reputation for integrity and honesty they could issue promises to pay on paper backed by the real wealth in their vaults, these Goldsmith’s notes were the next stage in banking development when the paper receipts for coin/bullion deposits began to be used as the medium of exchange and means of payment. The goldsmith/moneylender next discovered that as long as the people believed in the convertibility of their promises to pay into gold or silver, such promises could be issued far in excess of any actual physical holding of precious metal. Experience taught the moneylender that only one in ten of his clients at any one time would actually come to demand payment in their physical gold or silver money. This being the case the moneylender could make loans totalling ten times the value of the coin and bullion reserves in his vaults, charging interest on these loans, safe in the knowledge he would not have to produce the physical coin/bullion to his clients.
With this discovery the fractional reserve banking system was born, whilst it lead to an unprecedented economic expansion, it also gave control over this expansionary credit system to the bankers/financiers
(1)The numbers in your own bank account were all created, essentially out of nothing, not by the Bank of England or the Royal Mint, but by commercial banks.
(2)The banks are able to create this ‘number money’ through the accounting process that they use to make loans, using a business model known as ‘fractional reserve banking’. Rather than taking money from a saver and lending it to a borrower (as per the common understanding of banking), they simply write new numbers into the bank account of a borrower – effectively creating new money.
Without seeing the process in action, it can be a little hard to believe, so below are a few quotes ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ which confirm this amazing fact:
“…by far the largest role in creating broad money is played by the banking sector… when banks make loans they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed the money.” – Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 2007 Q3
Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That is, banks extend credit by creating money.” – Paul Tucker, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England & member of the Monetary Policy Committee
… changes in the money stock primarily reflect developments in bank lending as new deposits are created.” – Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p378
“…the banking sector plays such an important role in the creation of money. Changes in the terms for deposits will affect the demand for money, while changes in the terms for loans will affect the amount of bank lending and hence money supply.” – Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p383
The money-creating sector in the United Kingdom consists of resident banks (including the Bank of England) and building societies.” – Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p405
Bank deposits (the numbers in your bank account) now make up 97.4% of the total quantity of money in the economy[1].
By volume of payments, bank deposits are used for 99.91% of transactions and transfers5, with cash being used for just 0.09% of transfers [2].
Consequently, the physical currency issued by the state has been almost entirely replaced by a digital currency issued by private companies. The UK’s money has been privatised.
The ‘Rules of Money’
Under a fractional reserve banking system, there are two ‘rules of money’:
When a bank makes a loan, it increases the amount of money in the hands of the public8 (by increasing the total quantity of digital bank deposits). When a member of the public repays a loan, it reduces the amount of money in the hands of the public (by decreasing the total quantity of digital bank deposits)
Consequently, through excessive lending between 2000 and 2008, banks were able to double the money supply in just 7 years – an increase in the total money supply from £884 billion to £1,674 billion [1].
All the ‘Money’ in your bank account represents someone else’s debt since all the number money in your account was created by banks making loans, this means that for every pound in your bank account, someone else is in debt by an equal amount. In fact, due to compound interest, the public’s debts are now greater than all the money that exists in the economy.
According to Bank of England figures, if the UK public collectively took all the money in our bank accounts and used it to pay down our debts, we would end up with no money at all and still owe £306billion (plus interest) to the banks! [3]
In other words, we now have a debt-based money supply issued entirely by private, profit-seeking companies. Our money supply has been effectively privatised. The damaging effects of this system to the economy and society are numerous and severe.
Implications of Fractional-Reserve Banking
There are two important implications of fractional reserve banking that affect everything that happens in our economy and society:
Banks have the power to shape Britain’s economy through their monopoly on the supply of money to the public and to businesses. If they invest wisely in productive businesses, they can help the economy to grow, but if they choose to pump the money (bank deposits) that they create into housing and commercial real estate, we get destabilising asset price bubbles and a severe financial crisis.
Judging by their track record, should we entrust this huge power and responsibility to an industry concerned solely with short term profit, rather than the health of the wider economy?
As the sole suppliers of money to the public, if banks lend, the economy functions. If they don’t, it grinds to a halt (as in the credit crunch). Our economy is completely without a stable, permanent money supply, and entirely dependent on the mood of the banking sector.
Who Should We Blame?
Many people are angry at the banks, or individual bankers. But the truth is that it is the government who sets that ‘rules of play’, and successive governments have failed to reform the banking system at the right time. Instead, after every crisis, the government and authorities focus on getting back to business as usual. They focus on ‘getting banks lending again’ without questioning why we are all so dependent on bank debt to keep the economy functioning.
So we should blame all those successive governments who have repeatedly failed to fix the banking system, but the pressing concern is to do something about it. But we also need to make sure that they don’t make the same mistake again. We need to make sure everyone understands how the banking system really works, how money is created, and how we can fix the system.
When British Freedom comes to power it should take back from the private banking cartel the sovereign right of a duly elected government to create the nation’s money-supply, issuing it debt-free into the economy.
It should end the taxpayer subsidy of this corrupt, fraudulent banking system built on debt and usury.
(1) http://prosperityuk.com/2002/05/money-for-the-people-by-the-people/
(2) http://hubpages.com/hub/Growth-of-Banking
(3) http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/whats-wrong-fractional-reserve-banking/

Osama bin Laden mock funeral: Fury erupts outside US Embassy in London | Mail Online

Osama bin Laden mock funeral: Fury erupts outside US Embassy in London | Mail Online: "
  • Radicals warn 'it is only a matter of time' before another atrocity
  • EDL member burns Bin Laden effigy among extremist Muslims
A protest by hundreds of Osama Bin Laden supporters sparked fury outside the US Embassy in London today as they staged a mock 'funeral service' for the terror leader.
Police stepped in to separate the protesters and members of the English Defence League amid threats of violence from both sides.
Radicals carrying placards proclaiming 'Islam will dominate the world' branded US leaders 'murderers' and warned vengeance attacks were 'guaranteed'.

Friday, 6 May 2011

Bolton Local Election 2011 Analysis Sorry ! Peoples Boltonstani Islamic Soviet Triumph

So the Marxist, sorry! Labour Party have gained full dictatorship powers, sorry! Majority on the Bolton Local council, sorry! Now soon to be called the Selected Boltonstani Peoples Islamic Soviet.
Well what will that soon mean for the sheepeople of Horwich who went to the polls believing they were voting for the labour party of 40 years ago?  And that in some way they thought they were teaching the Conservative Liberal Government a lesson.
For one thing it will mean that the colonisation and replacement of its indigenous population of Horwich that has already begun will begin in earnest, in order to secure future labour victories and to suit the purposes of their majority Asian members and backers, whom these Marxist fools believe really back their view of society!
And that any one especially those who live in a Bolton at Home tenancy  and whom wishes to oppose the colonisation, or any other marxist project could be considered thought crime and could be evicted by the terms of the new tenancy agreement article 6.4 , that allows the local Housing officers Sorry! Soon to be called political Apparatchiks, to be accuser! Judge and Jury! On spurious alleged racist incidents or in reality thought crimes!
And if you are not a Boltonstani peoples republic tenant you will find the trade Union funded 3rd party groups such as searchlight hacking your computer and putting false messages on your facebook pages then presenting such pages to the Local Boltonstani Evening Newski, and forming spurious residents groups to spread deception about you to your neighbours and employers.
In reality the election of any labour elected representative to any political office means a death sentence to your culture your Christian Heritage and faith in our view ourselves as a people LITERALY! just look at the cases were Muslim grooming of young white girls for sex by getting them addicted to drugs, do you think these Marxists will do anything to defend your children, or from other sexual perversions NO! They do not want to upset their policy of community cohesion, which by the way only exists in their perverse minds! Or the promotion of the cult of the sodomite!
For they are not they labour of 40 years ago, nor are you sending a message of protest to the government, you are voting for a anti British racist ideology who’s only ideal is to supplant our way of life and create a Stalinist nightmare society , were the morality of the nation is set by them for their political purposes. That in turn is doomed to failure only to be replaced by an Islamic state, for as it say in the Bible in the Book of Romans , “ They thought themselves so wise they became fools”! In effect they cannot see the viper held to their chest!
For heavens sake people wake up! Your future and the future and freedoms of your children and grandchildren are in jeopardy!

Another savage blow against freedom in the European Union

Another savage blow against freedom in the European Union and Denmark. Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society and The International Free Press Society, was yesterday found guilty of hate speech under the Danish penal code. His crime – as  previously written about by UK Journalist here,  here and here – was to draw attention to child abuse  and violence against women in Muslim culture. The day after the interview, he stressed that his opinions were about Islam and not intended to refer to all Muslims.
The trial was a Stalinist show trial in which Hedegaard was unable to mount a defence, because under the Fascists Orwellian rules of the Danish legal system he was in effect convicted before his trial took place. In the lower court, however, he was acquitted – but only on the technicality that he had not  known that these remarks, made in an interview, would be made public. A higher court, however, has now decided that Hedegaard did know that his remarks would be made public.And so he has now been convicted of racism.
This technicality should not obscure the terrifying  real issue. The Danish court has convicted Hedegaard of racism for drawing attention to violence in Muslim families. The message Denmark has thus sent out is that it is racist and a crime to seek to defend Muslim women and children from the phenomenon of ‘honour violence’.
Where are the Liberals and western feminists and defenders of free speech now?

State Betrayal of Young White Girls in Blackpool,

Following his earlier article on the betrayal of young white girls in Blackpool, Mister Fox continues to focus on the threat posed by Muslim paedophiles. 
There is a yawning gap between the elites and the people; between what the elites say is happening and the truth, the reality. They will do anything in their power, no matter how dishonest and deceitful to hide or distort the truth.  A recent video of an EDL supporter being mocked by opponents through youtube is a example of how functionaries of the elites try to discredit those who see what is really going on and want to rescue young White girls from widespread organised rapes.  The victim had had a few bevvies and did not express himself clearly.  The truth is that large numbers of our women are being abused, lured into prostitution, gang-raped and worse by outsiders, Our elites know it is happening but try to cover it up or ridicule those few honourable people who try to stop it, such as the unfortunate victim of Youtube  sting.
He was objecting to something deeply evil which is being covered up by the police and obfuscated by elites.  He did not pronounce the “p” very clearly in rape so  it sounds like ray. The autotune changed his words to “They’ve got Muslamic ray guns” when what he meant was “ They’ve got Muslamic rape gangs”.  He was there to defend our young girls – an honourable and  noble cause.
His mockers are trying to keep it covered up.  They are the real haters, imaging how much one must hate a people to cover up the rape of its women
He said Iraqi law but obviously meant sharia law.  The original interview was with Iranian broadcaster Press TV which is an Iranian state broadcaster funded by government and acting against us within our own country.  The voice over mocked the EDL.  (1)
You only need to look at their present and previous presenters, Trotskyists, corrupt British politicians and fanatical Jew haters. They once tried to interview Green Arrow and other patriots to stitch them up. Andrew Gilligan, media elite, of the Evening Standard who made his name by exposing the WMDs and the “sexed up” document was involved.
Several Establishment functionaries like comedian Russell Howard have also bullied this lad obediently mocking what the elites don’t like.  He would not dare mock what elites promote like, he would not mock Islam, or his career would be terminated as was that of massively popular Benny Hill.
Benny’s ITV series was cancelled by cultural elite Michael Grade because it wasn’t “politically correct.” Twenty years later  Royal Mail rejected a stamp in his honour to commemorate the 50th anniversary of ITV.
The interview was a clear case of media misrepresentation. In the original Press TV interview, when the lad says “rape gangs” the rape part is distorted but he immediately follows up with the sentence that 15 year old girls are being raped.   What he says in his inebriated fashion is correct, Islam is spreading throughout Europe, they do want sharia law and very young white infidel girls are being raped all around us some as young as 11 and we do want to keep Britain British.  He is a British hero! (1)
The most serious social problems problems we are facing have been imported into our country by our political masters. For years, they have covered up crime against us while they themselves live in safe and exclusive areas.  Meanwhile they have introduced Race laws which they have fostered upon us, enabling “aliens” to prosecute Whites who remonstrate with them, for racism.  The elites have systematically set up about oppressing and persecuting White British people till they need real courage and will to throw off their shackles and protect children from what is going on
Totalitarian edicts are imposed upon us by the likes of Judge Macpherson with his Stalinist anti-police report and Sir David Calvert-Smith, who in 2005, led an inquiry for the Commission of Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales  deal with “racism”. Calvert-Smith did not investigate whether the police were racist or not:  “racism is a given”, the deeply prejudiced man zealot insisted.  Such men turned the police into an anti-White force biased in favour of ethnics.   Those who defended the young girls from rape are  the ones who are prosecuted.  The rapists know it, and it t gives them confidence to do whatever they want.  In a natural society where immigrants were not given favourable treatment over natives by the legal system they would not dare do what they do.(2)
The anti-White racism in the police was introduced by Judge Macpherson, Sir David Calvert-Smith and fast-tracked, careerist chief police officers.
By exposing what is happening as I reported in my last article, the  Times must have re-found their old zeal to crusade for social justice. That is what they once did so well, in 1855 W.T.Stead broke a major story when he exposed the trade in child prostitution. As now the government knew of the problem but turned a blind eye, then to protect the trade’s upper class clientèle  now to stop a civil war.  Stead’s article: “The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon” opened respectable society’s eyes to London vice — dirty brothels, women procuring children, drugs, and padded rooms, where upper-class rakes could enjoy “the exclusive luxury of revelling in the cries of an immature child.”
But after 60 years of  ‘anti-racist’ propaganda and brainwashing is anyone listening?  From the time they were schoolchildren our people have been taught to think brown people are wonderful and to trust them.  They are educated by the state so young White girls think its racist to shun the advances of older Muslims. But it’s their assailants who are racist; it is they who see white girls as slags and “easy meat” who because they are not Muslim but from a rival community can be used for sex and prostitution, even as young as 11, while the predators protect their own children.
People are told we, Nationalists, make lies up because of our “hate” and racism: They lump us all together, Traditional Conservatives, EDL and BNP under the same labels. However, its the other way round and finally evidence is now coming to light which vindicates us.
However, a few years ago we were mocked for saying what what has now been revealed:
On 21st December 2005 the UAF alleged “… false BNP claims of so called racist targeting by members of the Muslim population of young white girls for sex and prostitution in Yorkshire, West Yorkshire police have said that after thorough investigation they have found “no evidence of systematic abuse of young women.”
“In Bradford the BNP have sought to wage a racist and anti-muslim campaign – particularly with the suggestion that there was a large-scale phenomenon of exclusively Asian men grooming white school girls for sex.” they went on to claim  “The reality is, however, that the so-called phenomenon is a myth.” they most likely knew that statement was a lie when they made it, but what is the well-being, or indeed the lives of a few white girls, when the future of the multiracial dream is at stake
Furthermore, West Yorkshire police claimed they “do not accept that there is a major problem of this nature in this county and have not seen any evidence to sway” them from this view. The behaviour of Yorkshire police should be investigated because in 2003 they claimed to be looking into grooming of young girls. (3)
The TUC and Searchlight published a guide to fighting “racism”: stating “The impression that the far right make up lie after lie is an important task. We want to be in the position that voters simply don’t trust anything the far right say.”
So whilst those who should have been protecting society were engaged in discrediting the BNP, the crimes against the white community continued:
Apart from grooming children, there are many of rapes of older women.  We even  have sex traffickers.  Their poor young victims are conned into thinking they are going to find a better life, instead they are sold into slavery, exploited and abused, just like our girls, the difference is, no-one cares about our girls, the government hasn’t put together a huge operation to stop the offences taking place in our own country as they don’t want to start a race war.
Some newspaper reports about delaying the famous Channel Four Edge of the City documentary:
The Mail 28 May 2004 reported:

“Channel Four has announced today it is not going to show a British National Party (BNP) European election broadcast amid fears it would stir up racial hatred.
The five-minute television broadcast features the mother of a teenage girl who claimed her daughter was drugged and gang-raped by Asian men in Keighley, West Yorkshire.
It was based on claims made by a Channel 4 documentary that Asian men in Bradford are grooming and targeting white girls as young as 11 for sex and drug abuse.
This programme was also pulled after West Yorkshire Police said it would risk inciting community disorder in the area.  A Five spokesman said today: “Having viewed the European Parliamentary Election Broadcast submitted by the BNP, Five has taken the decision not to transmit it as we feel it is likely to stir up racial hatred, as prohibited by the existing Programme Code.” (3)
On 9 August 2004, The Guardian’s Anthea Milnes interviewed programme maker Anna Hall who was  “was devastated when her Channel 4 film, which investigated allegations that young white girls in Bradford were being groomed for sex, was used as right wing propaganda.”
Propaganda … “and the chief constable of West Yorkshire warned that its screening could provoke community disorder in the run-up to the local and European elections.”
The controversy centred on the film’s claims that men – most of them British Asians – in Bradford and neighbouring Keighley were grooming under-age white schoolgirls for sex.
The explosive grooming story nearly didn’t make the short list. Hall had already filmed several other stories through the children’s department which she was unable to screen for legal reasons. “We weren’t looking for this issue,” she says. “It just kept surfacing. Social workers said, ‘You can’t do that story because it’s too difficult.’ What did they mean by ‘too difficult’? Too racially sensitive?
The social workers she spoke to were appalled and frustrated, but also frightened of becoming targets of violence if they spoke out publicly, as were the mothers she spoke to.
What emerges from these women’s accounts, and from the testimony of two girls, one of them currently being groomed, is disturbing. Men from Bradford’s Asian community, they claim, are targeting girls from 11 or 12 years up, taking them out in their cars, and giving them alcohol and gifts. The girls are flattered into believing that the men love them. Subsequently, they might be given heroin and crack cocaine and date-rape drugs, raped vaginally and anally, and in some cases, abducted and gang-raped… Many of the girls either do not think they are being abused, or have been so heavily drugged that they cannot recall clearly what has happened, or are intimidated by what will happen to them and their families if they do speak out.
Groups such as Unite Against Fascism, the 1990 Trust, and the National Assembly Against Racism began to flood Channel 4 with requests to delay transmission. The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Colin Cramphorn, joined the call, and Channel 4 complied. Both the police and Channel 4 stressed that the issue was the timing, so close to local and European elections. The mainstream press were quick to respond, accusing Channel 4 variously of naive scheduling, of handing a political coup to the BNP, of being politically motivated in withdrawing the film, of cravenness, and of self-censorship.”
The police blurred the truth since 2004 by claiming the grooming was being done by both whites and Asians in the area, whereas in fact the overwhelming majority involved were Asian. They tried to prevent civil war breaking out but all they have done is inflame the Whites they tried to deceive.
In 2007 The Times reported:

“It was a very uncomfortable scenario, not least because many of these crimes had an identifiable racial element: the gangs were Asian and the girls were white. The authorities, in the shape of politicians and the police, seemed reluctant to acknowledge this aspect of the crimes; it has been left to the mothers of the victims to speak out.
I was told by one police officer that he did not ‘want to start a race riot’ by arresting Pakistani men for sexual offences,” Maureen said. During the six months that Jo was in the clutches of these men, they raped, beat and abused her to the point where, says her mother, she did not even know who she was any more. Eventually, after she was attacked by Hussain and Naveed with an iron bar, Jo somehow found the courage to report them to police, and they were arrested. The case took 16 months to come to court. In the meantime, other pimps, undeterred by the impending trial, continued to go about their business.”
The police have a duty of care to the public so what tough measures did they take? Lancashire police sent letters to 70 men who were believed to be spending an unusual amount of time with young girls. The letters warned the men that the girls are underage as if they didn’t know! The men are required to sign the letter, confirming they have received and read it.” 
In 2009 Three men were been jailed for a total of 18 years for the “calculating and evil” sexual abuse of a young teenage girl.  A court heard they saw the 14-year-old, who was running wild, as easy prey and plied her with drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. Mohammed Zackriya, 21, of Springfield Road, Keighley, was jailed for eight years for oral rape and five offences of sexual activity with a child.
Zackryia’s barrister, Nikki Peers, said the girl was sexually experienced from an early age as if it were a justification for his behaviour.
Judge Benson lifted an order prohibiting the media from reporting how the jury were quizzed briefly over any connections they may have with the far-right British National Party before the trial started.  A concern had been expressed that BNP leader Nick Griffin’s explosive claims several years ago that gangs of Asian men were grooming white girls for sex might influence their judgement.” (4) When the police are not intimidated or stopped from above they can protect young girls as the Telford police did. “Eight men from the Pakistani community in Telford, Shropshire appeared in court on Friday charged with a wide range of serious sexual offences, including trafficking girls within the UK for sexual exploitation. It is the first time anyone has appeared in court in Britain charged under Article 58 of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, which outlaws trafficking within the UK..
.
The campaign  My Dangerous Loverboy commenced last April, following the arrest of five of the Telford men, that the charges brought against them represented “a really significant breakthrough” in the recognition of internal trafficking as a real issue in Britain today.
 

“The girls are disoriented, cut off from family and friends and systematically raped by large groups of men,” Virginia Heath wrote on the campaign group’s website. “They often wake up with no idea of where they are in the UK, let alone how to escape this nightmare world.
The men in court yesterday deny more than 50 charges against them. According to the Shropshire Star, the alleged offences took place between 2007 and 2009.
The “internal trafficking” charges relate to the alleged transport of girls to a variety of locations – including a college, a fish and chip shop and a churchyard – where men paid to have sex with them. Police claim the girls were not always paid cash in exchange for sex, but instead were given food, alcohol and mobile-phone credit.” (3)
If White men try to protect our women they are warned off by the police, and branded racist by the local papers. Unless men, women and children protest in groups to confront the Muslims and the police they will get no justice – the law is against them.  What the mother said at the end is a verdict on Judge Macpherson and David Calvert-Smith: “The police kept quiet in order not to feed a growing racism, or out of fear of being labelled racists themselves” at 2:05
Alison Shaw exposed the attitude of young Pakistanis to young White women in Britain. (5)
The threat is apparent now because the truth is starting to come out and people are realising how dire the situation is. Foreign Criminal gangs have a walk-over in Britain with only a small percentage brought to ‘justice’, housed in prisons at our expense, before being unleashed to start again. These infiltrators are working  in care homes, at airports (despite repeatedly threatening us with terrorism), they are doctors, teachers, taxi drivers (pushing their White competitors out of business), post office workers, public transport staff, drug gangs, child abusers and muggers. As more cases involving rape-gangs with similar names or suspects of Asian appearance, people realise that there is a race war against us nurtured by the elites with one-sided oppressive race laws, education and media falsification of the truth. Hence the need to prevent the public perceiving what is happening.
As evil has crept out of the shadows into the limelight, will those it aims to destroy rise up in defiance? The audacity wakes the spirit of our ancestors which has lain dormant, but is now rousing ready to burst forth. We have it in our power, if we have it in our hearts, to defend this Land our forefathers fought for, to combat the biggest internal threat in our history.
As it stands we are demographically doomed in 50 years, unless we change things now.
We have to tell the truth. Tell the truth and shame those who don’t want to hear it; shame those who prefer the comfortable lie to the uncomfortable truth; shame those who prefer the fashionable spin to the harsh reality. (6)
I urge you to research for yourselves and when convinced join the resistance against state oppression of our anger to save our people.  We still officially have the democratic right to protest and we are responsible for protecting our communities from attack by rival communities who do not belong here.

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

The anti-English racism of Manchester Cathedral

The anti-English racism of Manchester Cathedral

 May 2011: Traditional celebrations for St George's Day took place across the North West of England on April 23rd thanks, in part, to an initiative from Nick Griffin MEP who funded the stalls set up in many towns and cities which gave out English flag cakes and key rings, along with a special St George's Day leaflet.

Nick paid for the patriotic stalls from his English Fair Fund to which he gives 10% of his MEP's salary each month. The fund was set up to support good causes and help to keep British traditions alive and British heritage maintained.
In stark contrast to Nick's effort, the clerics at Manchester Cathedral are doing their best to change the tradition of St George, using an Afro-Caribbean puppet as the English Patron Saint which to lead a 'multi-cultural carnival procession' through the city.
This led to the expected outcry from patriotic Britons who inundated the British National Party's MEP with letters and emails accusing Manchester Cathedral of anti-English and anti-White racism.
He also received a letter from a member of the Cathedral community who expressed her dismay and anger at what had taken place.
She wrote:
"I attended the services over the St George's Day and Easter weekend and have to report that there was a deliberate programme of 'doing-down' the indigenous population.
The Dean, the Very Reverend Rogers Govender, and the Canon Theologian, Canon Andrew Shanks, were instrumental in promoting this agenda.
At the Easter Service, the baptism of a mixed race child took centre stage, and there was a specially orchestrated procession around the church with the mother of the child, a Nigerian and her imposing family, leading the way while the the White father and his relatives walked two paces behind.
The Resurrection of Christ is the most important celebration in the Christian Calendar, but apparently not in Manchester where it appears that it's more important to celebrate the huge change that has taken place in the demographics of the British population by 'celebrating' the growing influence of Black people in our society.
I was prepared to give the Cathedral Clergy the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore. The Dean, who is an ethnic Indian from South Africa, is pursuing his own divisive agenda. He is blatantly anti-British and anti-White.
Andrew Shanks is also promoting anti-White colour prejudice and Religious Pluralism. In the past I have protected him from criticism, but not anymore. He must now face the wrath of the public for his actions.
Please help make your constituents aware of this campaign to undermine our British identity and traditional Christian values."
Nick urges his constituents to write to the Cathedral and voice their concerns about the RedCrosse - A 'Celebration' of St George, and the 'blessing' in the Cathedral of the Afro-Caribbean effigy of St George.
Manchester Cathedral, Victoria Street, Manchester M3 1SX.
Tel: 0161 833 2220
www.manchestercathedral.org.

Tuesday, 3 May 2011

The Realistic Nationalist Economics Versus Capitalism And Socialism

Nationalist Economics: Realism Versus Capitalism And Socialism PDF Print E-mail
Written by BC1959   
If a mainstream lending institution had agreed to loan £100,000 to a farmer to purchase machinery, seed, or livestock, the result under Nationalism would be an immediate benefit to both the farmer, and his or her customers.
This would be specific for the local community, and cut out unnecessary long distance transportation of produce. Under Capitalism, the farmer may be lucky to break even, and struggle to offer local customers any of his produce, mainly because Capitalism in its raw, internationalist state, would make it almost impossible for the farmer NOT to sell bulk, or wholesale, to a major supermarket.
Under Socialism, the farmer would have no choice but to take the loan, and probably not buy seed, machinery or livestock, but feed previous loans required simply to survive, as Socialism is the most costly of all alien ideologies. His abilities would be hindered due to the interest rates that always go hand in hand with Socialist regimes... remember the 70's? Some might say we are actually in a Socialist/Marxist regime anyway.
If the same loan was agreed under Nationalism, let's say for a young couple hoping to gain access to the property ladder, the young couple would be able to stay local, and not face an unwanted move. Also, such loans would not mean a couple need to rent property in a downwardly mobile area, far away from family and localised work.
Under both Capitalism and Socialism, they are thrown to the dogs of internationalist opportunism. Both Capitalism and Socialism, have always ended up getting people into serious trouble in home buying or renting. With the leftists, they regard a world population as rightfully and equally able to expand family ties where ever, and when ever they want to, shrinking the opportunities for home grown youngsters and others, and thus competing for home, career, and resources, any such couple would find no solace or stability. Under a Capitalist ''liberal free market economy'' structure, they may well initially be alright, but if the market takes a ''high'' turn, then costs are always unimaginably out of reach, and loans to gain access to the (as now) high cost of down payments for example, prove that even this option is unsustainable, and destroys local economies and communities.
So, we are left with Nationalism.
(1) A British National Party government, would halt elitist second and third home ownership, and promote ''local homes for local people''.
(2) A Nationalist government would also employ a policy of ''local economy over global economy,'' therefore taking the risk out of the equation of staying local. Economic policy under Nationalism, would also require the re introduction of guilds and apprenticeships, and rebuild independent and self-contained industries.
(3) Imports would be curtailed, and self-employment would be promoted, aiding the SME sector (Small to Medium Business) who, in turn would gain from local knowledge and ''preferred supplier'' organised labour and its relative skills base.
Anyone reading this, must also take into account of China. A recent report has given one particular reason for China's take-over from America as an industrial superpower, through its use of strict import duties and producing products that others and their own markets either want, or need. Indeed, through import tariffs, China ensured its growth was not impaired by our own standards. It did what we once did, and accepted certain businesses, but not mass product importation. Britain was once, and could be again, a force to be reckoned with, but it can never happen without the right mentality. And that mentality would probably mean, the world hidden powers operating very damaging sanctions and trade restrictions. We must remember that possibility if we are to take our nation and its institutions back from the brink of permanent compound debt.
Simplicity is always the best policy. Nationhood is hated by the world leaders. Internationalist policies are forging ahead, so we must realise that it is RIGHT NOW that we need the skills, trade, and communications between our own, not when it is too late. Income on an individual basis could be sustained through cutting out altogether, the bureaucratic and troublesome ''contract of employment'' option. Everyone except those in the forces, and the emergency services, would be reclassified as ''Self-Employed.'' Thus, no benefits would be abused, and no foreigners would want to come here, because it would not benefit them to do so. Other options would be linked to how long a person's family has been here. Secondly, only fellow Europeans would be given opportunities to fill any reasonable skills shortages, and firstly, these would be relatives who may want to return to their home country or country of ancestral heritage.
A system of ''engineering what we need first'' is another option. Sales, therefore taxes, would reflect each other. If exports or new ideas are impressively sustainable, then a Nationalist government would ensure a home grown workforce, and local would regions benefit. This would increase pride in achievements, and taxes would be lowered to accompany the ''new economic'' era.
There is no need for high taxes, if a nation consists only of its mainly indigenous, hard working folk. Taxes are currently high, as is borrowing through sheer ''socio-political engineering''. We do not need, nor want, high costing labour or workers, who need housing, benefits, and other national resources that could be used by our own. We would then have the ability to pay debts off, then ''write down'' costs to suit. A 16 year old, working for a period of three years as an apprentice or Guild aided funding, for a new engineering company for example, is far less costlier than a 16 year old, who came here for no other reason but to be used as a shoe-in for other family members later.
National debt would also be a thing of the past, even with the threat of ''international sanctions'' railed against us just like Austria a few years ago, we could, and should, operate a system whereby the banks would be nationalised. This would then give us the opportunity to produce our own money, and offer a thing I call a ''life of the loan interest'' contract. The interest would be about 5% on borrowings, both commercial and personal, over the whole loan's lifetime. A business, individual, or couple, requesting a loan for whatever reason, would then enjoy a providential and mutually beneficial lump sum, and not fall into serious debt.
Let's use that £100,000 as an example. Ten years at 5%, would only require a total payback of £105,000. The banks, not being driven by greed or even profits, would of course be able to pay its staff, and any costs, based upon a non-bureaucratic, simplified system. The debtor would also enjoy freedom unknown up to this point in time. This not only improves economic independence, but ensures local communities stay sustainable and together.
Our banking system would NEVER play the stock markets, or invest peoples money anywhere. A separate ''inventions bank'' would be set up, providing funds based upon a 1% charge from ''bank charges'', and this would be added to by patriotic businesses, wealthy ones with the interests of the nation at heart, whereby they themselves would invest in entrepreneurs and inventions, thus side stepping future problems, such as the ones we face now.
We have our hands tied behind our backs, and global investors dictate policy based upon their greedy requirement for cheaper labour, products, and ever increasing inroads into our nation's green belt and industrial power base. People would be offered bonds, and would then play a role in ensuring the new, state owned Nationalist banks are people led, not profits led. Work, and home life are linked, so any surplus produce, manufactured items, and finance, would immediately be streamed into the local economy. Over and above that, we could provide other nations with both surplus, and knowledge of how to become independent themselves. As Nationalists, we need not be selfish, and all nations would be once again enthralled by British ideas, manufactured products, and a sound, political, cultural, and socio-economic ideology.
To make all this work, even after hateful sanctions and threats, we would need to rid ourselves of the sham democracy we now endure. A series of 'referendums'' would overhaul the current system. Thus, not only would our economic policy be one that is based upon need, not greed, but the actual wishes of the masses, would ensure we all got as near as is possible, to getting what we want from our then government. Community gardens could replace the now, and often abused system of allotments. These gardens would give unskilled families an opportunity to sell their organic, or at least fresh, ''home grown'' surplus to locals. No tax would be taken, and traditional green grocers and other small professional traders, would mutually and beneficially benefit from a source close to them. Food imports would also be heavily curtailed, and seasonal fresh produce would replace the ridiculous system now in place, whereby food is taken around the world, some it from here, and imported right back into it's country of origin in some cases.
Although this is meant to simply be a snapshot, already we see a picture that takes into account the evils of globalist opportunism, and outright hatred through sanctions. Whilst at the same time, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Closely knit communities, mutual co-operation, and bringing back a sense of belonging, will ultimately give the next generation the inheritance we had stolen from us. Money should stay local, and incomes should be taxed only in proportion to what is necessary regarding local services. Without mass immigration, and without bureaucratic top down institutions and government, we can ease the lives of millions of our people. Economics and global finance has made everyone and all regions on earth unstable.
Pressure brings with it health risks, health risks bring economic pressure in the form of national debt and increase costs in health care. Without all of this, a nation like Britain could within a few short years, be completely free of the shackles of debt, serious crime, and foreign wars to bleed us dry.
Nationalist economics is free from red tape, and will bring in money through a renewed sense of ''Made In Britain'', which not that long ago, brought wealth and jobs to all areas. Fishing will be protected, and once again, this industry will be protected EU law, and foreign trawlers. Obviously, Britain under the British National Party, would not endure the federal union now imposed upon us, and we would immediately withdraw from the EU.
All produce caught here, will be used here firstly, then surplus fish stocks will be sold to others. Income from exports will be added to the ''Inventions Bank'', and will swell the jobs market via foreign nations once again, actually wanting British goods as they once did. There is nothing complex about economics, nor any other policy, it has been made purposely complex, because hard to understand issues and laws, lead to high taxes, fines, and a system whereby only the rich and foreign benefit.
A single source of outgoings, and income is all that is required, and nothing more complex than looking after our own first is necessary. Simple, but look at the difference. Nationalist economics means wealth for the nation, and health to mind and body, all else is a smokescreen.

Revaluating the Voting Franchise


Revaluating the Franchise

By The Horwich Nationalist 
What with all the drivel spouted over the referendum on the question of the AV voting system between the traitorous Marxist elites of Britain, and whether it should have been a fully proportional system or not.
Perhaps the real question should be not the voting system but the franchise itself?

What! Eh! I hear you say, and why are their no pictures to explain what you mean from the Labour voters trying to understand this!
Well I will try, for me the system of just allowing any adult to vote in the so called democratic system is to me just a recipe for the disaster we now see inflicted upon our once great nation.

For in a universal franchise the envious mob can be more easily exploited by those who seek only power to suit their own perverse and selfish ways, by appealing to the baser politics of envy that they knew would appeal to the flawed Human character, as seen in the rise of the Socialist Labour Party in the early 20th century after the universal franchise came into being.

As it allowed those either unwilling in many ways to educate or better themselves to vote and have a say in the National interests, an interest that they had no real understanding of or interest in only the interest of self and personal  gratification. This in it’s self allowed those intent on destroying this nation both financially and culturally to appeal and manipulate the new universal franchisees. Into allowing the gradual erosion of influence and power in the political sphere of those persons whose cultural and economic interests were dependant welfare of the nation and who's power was broken through through the burden of taxation by the myth that is was for wealth distribution? I could site many other reasons of why the universal franchise will and can never work.
But I would rather suggest an alternative to it. And that would be that the case for a single vote per head of a contributing household to the national welfare.

For example only one vote would be allowed the nominated head of the household
1, it can be either male or female in the case of single parents, (so we can get the feminists accusations out of the way.)
2, which has at least one British born Citizen Adult in 12 months tax contributing full time work or on a practical valid educationional course, or is retired with at least 5 years British tax contributions or are registered disabled.
3 had been a tax non British born contributing Citizen for at least unbroken 10 years. (Gets the anti immigrant claims out of the way.)

With this system those who had a vested interest in the welfare of the Nation and their own circumstances together would only be allowed to vote. It also would make families more politically aware by making them consider whom they voted for and what the vote cast on behalf of them all in the household would really mean, in effect the electorate would become more responsible for their own actions in considering why and whom they elect,!

Stop looting the Third World of its skilled People

Stop looting the Third World of its skilled workers


56dab2b3675237b0ba79395c67ee9ae4_L
This was Andrew’s sole contribution today, but it was his fifth of the week. He spoke to a hearing in his Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) on the subject of Legal Migration: Seasonal Workers and Intra-Corporate Transfers
He said:
“To allow immigration – even to encourage it – is seen as a liberal policy, a kind policy, an altruistic policy even a generous policy. It presupposes that there is an autonomous desire among the world’s peoples to transport themselves from familiar people and places to the unfamiliar.
The desire to move is often a function – a consequence – of: war; economic disruption; – both possibly caused by the West – and  exaggerated expectations of wealth fostered by the entertainment industry.
The motivation of those who encourage immigration are far from altruistic and far from generous. They want ‘flexibility’ of employment, which means the right to ditch workers when unwanted.  Seasonal workers fit the bill; seasonal workers are disposable workers.
Seasonal workers and intra-corporate workers are types of migrants that reveal the motivation of employers and the politicians who dance to their tune.  Both categories of workers are seen, not as human beings with autonomous desires and choices but as factors of production that can be bought and sold and moved around at whim. Indeed they are slaves without the fixed costs.
The conditions of work for seasonal workers are often below minimum acceptable standards. Rosarno was a particularly bad example but I suspect it was not unique. The other piece of information we brought back from Rosarno was that there were unemployed local workers, on scemes, who were being paid less than the minimum wage. If there is a need for seasonal workers, that work should be given to the local unemployed, who would work on proper contracts of employment on or above the minimum wage.
I know that Intra-Corporate workers are often contrasted with the less skilled seasonal workers but they too are bought and sold and moved at the whim of their employers. They are simply more expensive factors of production.
The developed world defends its recruitment of skilled third country – often Third World – workers because it needs their skills. I have news for the developed world: so do their own countries and they have paid for their education and training!
We are not content to rob the Third World of its health service employees. Their sick can be left to suffer and die. We are also looting their employees with valuable business skills that provide the only hope for their countries to develop economically.
The Third World is part of this world and is not a well of resources to be exploited by Big Business.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Islam Has Expired writes Amil Imani

Islam Has Expired

Islam Has Expired



Islam has expired, according to Muhammad himself, writes Amil Imani.
“How long your faith shall endure?” Muhammad was asked.
“En salahat ummati fa laha yom. Va en fasadat fa laha nesfe yom. Val yomo ende rabbeka alfe sanaton men ma taedoon” – if my Ummeh becomes righteous, it shall last one day; if corrupted, it shall last half a day. “And a day of your lord is equivalent of a thousand years of your accounting,” he replied.
This account is as recorded by a contemporary chronicler of Muhammad. So, even if his Ummeh had lived up to his standards of righteousness, one thousand years have come and gone. Yet, a greatly fractured system of belief called Islam is still around as judged by over a billion who call themselves Muslims.
Muhammad’s allusion to “righteousness” and “corruption” deserves a close look. All things on earth are subject to a limited life span, be they bacteria, trees, mountains, humans or ideas – including religions. Renewal seems to be a core principle of the planet earth and its inhabitants. And in order for renewal to take place, the old by necessity, must give way.
The moment a new entity is formed, an array of forces work to end it. Death, in effect, is pre-birth. Without death, everything freezes in place. Death often provides the raw material for the new birth. The death and decay of a tree, for instance, supplies the needed nutrients for the seed to grow: the Newtonian physics’ obsolescence provided the foundation for Einstein’s relativity theory.
Death and renewal are also fundamental to religion. It is for this reason that many religions promised renewal in the person of another savior or the return of the same person. The Jews, for instance, expect the Messiah; the Christians long for the second coming; and some Muslims pray for the appearance of the Mahdi, while other Muslims supplicate God for “Rejateh Hossain,” – the return of Hossain.
What Expires Religions?
The death of a biological entity is caused by trauma, viruses or bacteria. Viruses and bacteria are major killers of humans and present great challenges to medicine. They can be deadly and have the uncanny ability to mutate. Yet, they are there for their mission of ending life.
Poorly understood and little appreciated are psychosocial viruses – PSVs. As is the case with their biological kin, psychosocial viruses also work to corrupt any idea, mental functions or belief and help supplant them with new ones. Various forms of mental disorders are the result of interaction between the PSVs and the person’s pre-disposition for the condition. Not all mutations caused by PSVs are pathological. Many serve to advance the human enterprise. Without the contributions of the beneficial PSVs humanity would still be stunted in its development at the level of day one.
In the case of Islam, a special group of PSVs set out to work the minute Muhammad launched his faith, and mutation rapidly followed. First, there was the Islam of Mecca or the Islam of Meekness. For thirteen years, Muhammad’s teachings, as recorded in the early Suras of the Quran, were about many good things. Very few people became attracted to what he preached. In fact, the people scorned the man, harassed him and eventually made him flee his hometown of Mecca for Medina. Then a major mutation took place: the Islam of Medina or the Islam of Tyranny arrived on the scene. The Quran Suras of Medina are replete with exhortations of intolerance, exclusivity, and sanctioning of violence against non-Muslims. This mutation deeply appealed to the temperament of the Arab savages and they flocked to Muhammad’s faith.
The PSV of the time of Muhammad continued to mutate as it reached other peoples and other lands. Each peoples’ own ideas and beliefs – their cognitive immune system – responded differently to the invader. Some completely resisted the assault and defeated it. Others were overwhelmed and forced into submission. Yet some of the vanquished, over time, managed to repel the invader while others incorporated it to various extents into their own system of belief. In due course, the mutation among the vanquished people has become so divergent that some of the variants can hardly be recognized as the progeny of the original.
Islam of today is composed of a dozen major sects and hundreds of sub-sects and schools. Just two examples should demonstrate the fact that Muhammad’s Islam has expired and decomposed.
One branch of Sunni Islam, the Wahhabi for instance, has interbred with the Pashtune culture of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the result has been the Taliban version of Islam: a most reactionary, repressive and savage “religion.”
On the Shiite side, for example, there is a sect of the Ghulat Alavi that holds only to one of the five pillars of Islam: the Shehadah, an Islamic credo that says, “I testify that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” This sect does not subscribe to the remaining four pillars of praying five times a day, fasting one month a year, pilgrimaging Mecca at least once in a lifetime, and paying the religious tax of zakat. The Alavi women are allowed participation in all religious events and are not required to don the hijab – a stark contrast to the Taliban who deny even rudimentary education to women and forbid them from leaving home without the accompaniment of a male relative.
The Ghulat Alavis deify the Imam Ali and the other Imams. They particularly revere the Imam Ali and worship him as a co-rank of God. They profess, “Ali khoda neest, valee as khoda joda neest” – Ali is not God, but he is not apart from God. This very same sect places Imam Ali above the Prophet Muhammad.
In conclusion, Muhammad’s dating of his faith notwithstanding, the facts conclusively show that Islam has expired. Over time, its component parts have undergone drastic mutations to the extent that the only thing that all Muslims have in common is the name of Islam and the Quran.
–§–
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen, a pro-democracy activist, novelist, essayist and literary translator who writes and speaks out for the struggling people of his native land

Daily Telegraph, An attempt to smear by association

Mr & Mrs Andrew Brons MEP

An attempt to smear by association


April 2011:
Earlier this week, Andrew Brons wrote the following letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph. As of this morning, the letter still hadn’t been published.
Andrew wrote:
“The use of the word extremist in two quite different contexts, by no less a figure than your deputy political editor, deserves comment, if nothing else.
“In an article on the AV campaign (25th April) reference was made to, “extremist parties, such as the BNP”. It would be curmudgeonly to point out that extremist is a noun and that it is the job of adjectives (extreme in this case) to describe the following noun, so I shall not do so. In this context the word extremist is used to mean, disapproved of greatly by the Political Class and its journals but without any suggestion that the party named is involved in violence, other than as a victim of it. It therefore tells us everything about the writer and nothing about the person or party described.
In an article on London, as a hub of Al Qaeda (26th April), the word extremist is used to denote those who plot acts of terrorism against civilians and attacks on British servicemen in Afghanistan.
The use of the same word to describe two quite different phenomena is, at best, a sign of slovenly thinking and, at worst, an attempt to engage in smear by association.
Yours faithfully
Andrew Brons”