Lies About Fascists or National Socialists in the English Defence League

 

NO! Fascists or National Socialists in the English Defence League?

EuropeNews July 2011
By Henrik R. Clausen

For people dealing seriously with the threat of Islamism in the West, two of the most common slurs are those of being either “Fascist”, “Nazi” (National Socialist) or “Extreme right-wing”. The English Defence League, probably the broadest based and most influential anti-Islamism movement in Europe today, certainly had their share of those, on top of extensive government harrassment
Now, if one pauses for a moment, these frequently repeated slurs are quite puzzling. Before we examine each of them, let us take a clip from the EDL Mission Statement:

Promoting Democracy And The Rule Of Law By Opposing Sharia The European Court of Human Rights has declared that “sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy”. Despite this, there are still those who are more than willing to accommodate sharia norms, and who believe that sharia can operate in partnership with our existing traditions and customs. In reality, sharia cannot operate fully as anything other than a complete alternative to our existing legal, political, and social systems. It is a revolution that this country does not want, and one that it must resist. Sharia is most definitely a threat to our democracy.

That's a pretty clear pro-democracy statement, and one may wonder how one could sanely oppose a purpose like this? One obviously interested party is the Islamists, whose intention to implement Islamic law anywhere possible would be seriously impaired by opposition. Another is those who do not understand the real intention of Islam in its fundamental form, to submit as much of the world as possible to Islamic rule. That would include people who are so joyfully naïve that they cannot imagine such sinister intentions to be possible.
Another clip from the EDL Mission Statement reads:

The EDL is therefore keen to draw its support from people of all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices. Under its umbrella, all people in England, whatever their background, or origin, can stand united in a desire to stop the imposition of the rules of Islam on non-believers.

That would address slurs of 'racism' and other stuff. Note the “all political persuasions” bit – the EDL is not a political party with an agenda of “Big Government” or “Small Government”. What matters is countering religious – specifically Islamic – intimidation. Most Westerners would find the notion of forcing Sharia law upon anyone in the West that by default they'd be fine with any move to oppose it. Still the EDL is subject to much slander, explicit or implicit, as in this Guardian article.
And further:

Working In Solidarity With Others Around The World The EDL is keen to join with others who share our values, wherever they are in the world, and from whatever cultural background they derive.

This is an internationalist outlook, not a British supremacist one. Any concern that the EDL might secretly the return of the glory days of the British Empire should be put to rest by this.
Now, talk can be cheap, missions statements deceptive, and it could turn out that these sane-sounding intentions are really a cover for something sinister. This is where you have investigative journalists examining things undercover, like Sigurd Ericson did with the English Defence League. In his report published at EuropeNews, he gave them a clean bill of health with regards to racism, fascism and violence-prone. Talking to both leadership and the rank-and-file of the EDL, he found that it consists of straight English citizens concerned with the threat of Sharia in Britain, and working in line with the EDL Mission Statement to counter it.
In any case, it is good to know the substance of what the EDL is being accused of promoting:
First Fascism, an ideology out of post-WWI Italy: Fascism is totalitarian, in that it regulates every aspect of the citizens' lives. It is single-party, in that the “perfect” system needs no dissent. It is authoritarian, believing in the wisdom of one supreme leader. It is violent, in that its adherents freely apply violence to implement it, then later war to glorify it. Finally, it forbids any opposition to the fascist state.
Mussolini, the head of the original Italian fascist movement, was an active socialist before World War I, but was expelled from the socialist party for his pro-war attitude. Originally devised as a total welfare state (thus the term 'Totalitarian'), the fascism turned out not to viable in practice, degenerated into opportunism, and eventually disgraced itself entirely through the alliance with the National Socialists of Germany.
Since fascism is explicitly anti-democratic and the EDL explicitly pro-democratic, blaming the EDL for being 'fascists' fails a simple “Check the facts” test. Anyone making that charge should back it up with extensive and detailed evidence, not merely personal opinions and judgements.
Next up is “Nazism”, or more correctly, “National Socialism”, an ideology out of post-WWI Germany. In contrast with fascism, which has been emulated in a variety of forms both before WWII and later, National Socialism doesn't really transplant well, neither in space or in time, from Weimar Germany to anywhere else. If one studies the circumstances of Weimar Germany, for instance in the excellent book When Money Dies (whose prime concern is the hyperinflation), the inapplicability of National Socialism under any other circumstances becomes quite clear. The anti-Capitalist sentiment of National Socialism in Germany might have some resonance with the extreme left in some places, but largely comes across as a confused and incoherent, including a profound misunderstanding of capitalism, as this quote from an original National Socialist flyer (propaganda nausea alert) shows:

What does anti-Semitism have to do with socialism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with socialism? Socialism has to do with labor. When did one ever see him working instead of plundering, stealing and living from the sweat of others? As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.

The English Defence League has pre-empted any slurs about Nazi sympathies through creating an explicit Jewish Division. That should send any self-respecting National Socialist scrambling for the exit, and cause any allegations about such sympathies within the EDL to vanish in a puff of logic and laughter.
However, having an explicit Jewish branch opens the door to a different class of problems, that of Jewish supremacists, who are more interested in defending Israel than in defending England. While obviously unrelated to the idea of a National Socialist agenda, this can be difficult in itself:
Just recently, the leader of the EDL Jewish Division, Roberta Moore, quit the position, quoting that “she had been offered work on "an international level" elsewhere”, complaining that the EDL ”had been hijacked by elements who wanted to use it "for their own Nazi purposes". ”, and posting the subtle slander ”"I sincerely hope that the leaders will get the strength to squash the Nazis within,"”
These are serious allegations, but fortunately they fly in the face of common sense. Not only has the EDL made quite a few moves (racial inclusiveness, Jewish Division, pro-Israel rallies) that would scare away any self-respecting Nazi. It also makes no sense that Britain, who carried out the heaviest lifting during World War II would be home to any meaningful pro-Nazi sentiment.
Also, given the fact of the Holocaust and the endorsement of the Holocaust by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, it makes little sense to accuse an anti-Sharia movement of having sympathies for the National Socialists. Doing so incurs a burden of proof to lift, or the allegations become libel – and in the case of the National Socialists, even blood libel. Failing to provide adequate evidence for allegations as severe as these constitutes intellectual dishonesty. Further, internal disagreements as to how much the EDL should concern itself with the plight of Israel should never degenerate into drawing the Nazi card inside an organisation that has already distanced itself solidly from Nazi ideology.
Third up is the most mysterious and intangible of allegation, that of “right-wing extremism”, which is a really badly defined epithet.

1. One interpretation is that this means National Socialism, but given the details above, that does not make the remotest of sense.
2. Another interpretation, looking at the origins of “Left” and “Right” in the French Revolution, is that it means adherents of the “Ancién Regime”, protecting the special rights of royalty and nobility. But while the EDL is likely to have its share of monarchists in its ranks, there is no evidence to support this idea.
3. A third interpretation of the “Far right” label routinely applied to the EDL is that it means dismantling the welfare state and revert to a minimalist state, in line with what Ron Paul is promoting in the US. Since the EDL spans all political orientations, that is nonsensical as well.

In short, the slur “Extreme right-wing” makes no sense and should simply be disregarded. In recent days, the situation in the EDL has drawn a bit of commotion in the blogosphere. The latter of these articles is woefully uninformed, as the concerns raised there have been addressed a year ago, including on this video The John Snowy Shaw Show. Some of these articles are superficial, some are an avalanche of details of questionable relevance. One can pore over these for hours, trying to figure out who did Right and who did Wrong. But quite honestly:
Why waste your time nit-picking when the house is on fire? For as Reagan is often quoted for:

The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.

The bottom line: The English Defence League is the broadest and most effective anti-Jihad and anti-Sharia movement on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. It has achieved much in a mere two years, and continues to operate in spite of government harassment and systematic slander from the establishment. The EDL deserves emulation – the highest form of flattery - not vilification.

Tory Lies on “Human Rights Act” as Third World Invasion of Britain Speeds Up under ConDem Government

More Tory Lies on “Human Rights Act” as Third World Invasion of Britain Speeds Up under Coalition Government

Posted at http://bnpideas.com/

The Tory election promise to completely repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA) has been formally thrown out of the window as new official statistics show that the immigration invasion of Britain has actually speeded up since the coalition government took power.

The latest trick by the Tories has been to “announce” via a leak to one of their lackey newspapers that a “consultation paper [is] to be launched within days will open up a debate on the future of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees ‘the right to a family life’.”

In the Conservative Party’s general election manifesto, David Cameron said quite specifically that to “protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights.”

Note that nowhere was it said that a “portion” of the HRA would be removed. The promise to revoke the entire act and replace it with a Bill of Rights has, like every other election promise made by Mr Cameron and his gang, simply been broken and ignored.

To make matters worse, the Section 8 part of the HRA which the Tories are now claiming to want to “review” is in reality merely a reflection of European Union law in this regard.

Britain, by virtue of its EU membership, is therefore obligated to enforce EU regulations, no matter what UK law on the topic actually says.

In other words, a person in the UK who makes an asylum appeal on the basis of a “right to life” will only have to appeal to the EU’s judicial arm for a ruling, instead of the UK court system.

Because Britain’s legal system has been completely undermined by the Tory-Labour-LibDem policy of being in the EU, revoking Section 8 of the HRA without withdrawing from the EU is pointless chicanery on the government’s part.

* Meanwhile, new figures from the Office for National Statistics have revealed that Britain’s population was 62.3 million in mid-2010, up 470,000 on the previous year. This is the highest annual growth rate since mid-1962, the ONS report said, inadvertently revealing that despite Mr Cameron’s pledges to the contrary, the immigration invasion has continued unabated since the coalition government took power.

The ONS report went on to reveal that “natural change” accounted for an increasing proportion of total population change since 2002. This “natural change” is the birth rate.

- In 2005, the ONS issued a separate report which said that 36 percent of all births in England and Wales were not “white British” (“Birthweight and gestational age by ethnic group, England and Wales 2005: introducing new data on births”, Kath Moser, Office for National Statistics).

- This 2005 birth rate figure does not include births to second and third generation immigrant mothers. Figures released by the ONS in January 2009 revealed that the Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years. Their population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society (“Muslim population ‘rising 10 times faster than rest of society’”, the Times, 30 January 2009).

- An August 2008 ONS population report stated that, on average, ‘foreign’ women have 2.5 children each, rising to 3.9 for those from Bangladesh and almost five for Pakistani women (“Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock”, Telegraph, 11 July 2008). When these figures are added in, the immigrant birth rate is estimated to be around 50 percent of all live births in England and Wales.

- The majority of the ‘new immigrants’ are not from Eastern Europe, as is often widely claimed. According to the ONS figures, immigrants from Eastern Europe had 25,000 children in Britain in 2009 — an absolute minority of the just over 700,000 live births (“Number of foreigners in UK hits record 6.7m”, BBC, 8 December 2009).

- According to the Birmingham City Council, 61 percent of all primary school children in greater Birmingham are of Third World origin (“Asian pupils outnumber white children in Birmingham primary schools for the first time”,Birmingham Mail, 26 Jan 2010).

- Over 300 languages are currently spoken in London schools. Some of the most established of these are Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi, Cantonese, Mandarin and Hokkien (“Languages across Europe”, BBC).

- Some 150 languages are spoken in schools in Reading, an indication of the extent of the invasion in Berkshire (“150 different languages spoken in Reading schools”, Reading Post, 8 February 2010).

- A 2007 report from Manchester University predicted that white British people would become a minority in Leicester this year (2011) and that white people would be a minority in Birmingham by 2027.

Ludi Simpson, a social statistician at Manchester University, said the Pakistani population in Birmingham was likely to double by 2026, but with two-thirds of this increase due to the younger age profile of Pakistanis, rather than increased immigration — in other words, the birth rate of immigrants already present in Britain.

- David Coleman, professor of demography at Oxford University, warned in November 2010 that white British people will become a minority in their own country by 2066.

He said that white indigenous British people will make up half the population by then, and immigrant birth rates mean white British children will be in a minority of youngsters even sooner.

Writing in Prospect magazine, Prof Coleman warned the huge numbers of foreigners landing on our shores will “transform” the UK. He said official projections estimate the UK’s population will rocket to 77 million by 2051 – and 85 million by 2083.

“On those assumptions the ‘white British’ population would decline to 45 million (59 per cent of the total) by 2051.

“Were the assumptions to hold, the ‘white British’ population of Britain would become the minority after about 2066. It’s a milestone that would be passed much earlier in younger age-groups.”

Even if the number of immigrants was cut so that new arrivals matched the number of Brits who left (the so-called ‘balanced migration’ policy), the white British population would still fall below 50 per cent by the end of the century.

All these statistics taken together show that the non-British ethnic population is increasing in number exponentially, and given current immigration and birth rates, will utterly overwhelm the indigenous population of Britain well within the next 50 years, and more likely within 30 years.

Britain’s future as a First World nation will thus be decided within the next 20 years. Now, more than ever, the British National Party is needed to provide the political leadership whereby the oncoming catastrophe is to be avoided.

BIG MONEY & WALL STREET FINANCIERS AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

ESSENTIAL READING

WALL STREET
AND THE
BOLSHEVIK
REVOLUTION
Since the early 1920s, numerous pamphlets and articles, even a few books, have sought to forge a link between "international bankers" and "Bolshevik revolutionaries." Rarely have these attempts been supported by hard evidence, and never have such attempts been argued within the framework of a scientific methodology. Indeed, some of the "evidence" used in these efforts has been fraudulent, some has been irrelevant, much cannot be checked. Examination of the topic by academic writers has been studiously avoided; probably because the hypothesis offends the neat dichotomy of capitalists versus Communists (and everyone knows, of course, that these are bitter enemies). Moreover, because a great deal that has been written borders on the absurd, a sound academic reputation could easily be wrecked on the shoals of ridicule. Reason enough to avoid the topic.

Fortunately, the State Department Decimal File, particularly the 861.00 section, contains extensive documentation on the hypothesized link. When the evidence in these official papers is merged with nonofficial evidence from biographies, personal papers, and conventional histories, a truly fascinating story emerges.

We find there was a link between some New York international bankers and many revolutionaries, including Bolsheviks. These banking gentlemen — who are here identified — had a financial stake in, and were rooting for, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Who, why — and for how much — is the story in this book.

Antony C. Sutton 

Chapter I

THE ACTORS ON THE REVOLUTIONARY STAGE

Dear Mr. President:

I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people...

Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.

Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book.

The contradictions suggested by Minor's cartoon have been brushed under the rug of history because they do not fit the accepted conceptual spectrum of political left and political right. Bolsheviks are at the left end of the political spectrum and Wall Street financiers are at the right end; therefore, we implicitly reason, the two groups have nothing in common and any alliance between the two is absurd. Factors contrary to this neat conceptual arrangement are usually rejected as bizarre observations or unfortunate errors. Modern history possesses such a built-in duality and certainly if too many uncomfortable facts have been rejected and brushed under the rug, it is an inaccurate history.

On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to "go political" and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist.¹ Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Therefore, an alternative conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.

Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose — and it is only hypothesis at this point — that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?

Apart from Gabriel Kolko, Murray Rothbard, and the revisionists, historians have not been alert for such a combination of events. Historical reporting, with rare exceptions, has been forced into a dichotomy of capitalists versus socialists. George Kennan's monumental and readable study of the Russian Revolution consistently maintains this fiction of a Wall Street-Bolshevik dichotomy.² Russia Leaves the War has a single incidental reference to the J.P. Morgan firm and no reference at all to Guaranty Trust Company. Yet both organizations are prominently mentioned in the State Department files, to which frequent reference is made in this book, and both are part of the core of the evidence presented here. Neither self-admitted "Bolshevik banker" Olof Aschberg nor Nya Banken in Stockholm is mentioned in Kennan yet both were central to Bolshevik funding. Moreover, in minor yet crucial circumstances, at least crucial for our argument, Kennan is factually in error. For example, Kennan cites Federal Reserve Bank director William Boyce Thompson as leaving Russia on November 27, 1917. This departure date would make it physically impossible for Thompson to be in Petrograd on December 2, 1917, to transmit a cable request for $1 million to Morgan in New York. Thompson in fact left Petrograd on December 4, 1918, two days after sending the cable to New York. Then again, Kennan states that on November 30, 1917, Trotsky delivered a speech before the Petrograd Soviet in which he observed, "Today I had here in the Smolny Institute two Americans closely connected with American Capitalist elements "According to Kennan, it "is difficult to imagine" who these two Americans "could have been, if not Robins and Gumberg." But in [act Alexander Gumberg was Russian, not American. Further, as Thompson was still in Russia on November 30, 1917, then the two Americans who visited Trotsky were more than likely Raymond Robins, a mining promoter turned do-gooder, and Thompson, of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The Bolshevization of Wall Street was known among well informed circles as early as 1919. The financial journalist Barron recorded a conversation with oil magnate E. H. Doheny in 1919 and specifically named three prominent financiers, William Boyce Thompson, Thomas Lamont and Charles R. Crane:

Aboard S.S. Aquitania, Friday Evening, February 1, 1919.

Spent the evening with the Dohenys in their suite. Mr. Doheny said: If you believe in democracy you cannot believe in Socialism. Socialism is the poison that destroys democracy. Democracy means opportunity for all. Socialism holds out the hope that a man can quit work and be better off. Bolshevism is the true fruit of socialism and if you will read the interesting testimony before the Senate Committee about the middle of January that showed up all these pacifists and peace-makers as German sympathizers, Socialists, and Bolsheviks, you will see that a majority of the college professors in the United States are teaching socialism and Bolshevism and that fifty-two college professors were on so-called peace committees in 1914. President Eliot of Harvard is teaching Bolshevism. The worst Bolshevists in the United States are not only college professors, of whom President Wilson is one, but capitalists and the wives of capitalists and neither seem to know what they are talking about. William Boyce Thompson is teaching Bolshevism and he may yet convert Lamont of J.P. Morgan & Company. Vanderlip is a Bolshevist, so is Charles R. Crane. Many women are joining the movement and neither they, nor their husbands, know what it is, or what it leads to. Henry Ford is another and so are most of those one hundred historians Wilson took abroad with him in the foolish idea that history can teach youth proper demarcations of races, peoples, and nations geographically.³

In brief, this is a story of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but a story that departs from the usual conceptual straitjacket approach of capitalists versus Communists. Our story postulates a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit. The final human cost of this alliance has fallen upon the shoulders of the individual Russian and the individual American. Entrepreneurship has been brought into disrepute and the world has been propelled toward inefficient socialist planning as a result of these monopoly maneuverings in the world of politics and revolution.

This is also a story reflecting the betrayal of the Russian Revolution. The tsars and their corrupt political system were ejected only to be replaced by the new powerbrokers of another corrupt political system. Where the United States could have exerted its dominant influence to bring about a free Russia it truckled to the ambitions of a few Wall Street financiers who, for their own purposes, could accept a centralized tsarist Russia or a centralized Marxist Russia but not a decentralized free Russia. And the reasons for these assertions will unfold as we develop the underlying and, so far, untold history of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath.⁴

Footnotes:

¹"These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you: and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, lot its exploitation" (Chicago: Public Publishing, 1906), p. 157.

2George F. Kennan, Russia Leaves the War (New York: Atheneum, 1967); and Decision to Intervene.. Soviet-American Relations, 1917-1920 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1958).

3Arthur Pound and Samuel Taylor Moore, They Told Barron (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1930), pp. 13-14.

4There is a parallel, and also unknown, history with respect to the Makhanovite movement that fought both the "Whites" and the "Reds" in the Civil War of 1919-20 (see Voline, The Unknown Revolution [New York: Libertarian Book Club, 1953]). There was also the "Green" movement, which fought both Whites and Reds. The author has never seen even one isolated mention of the Greens in any history of the Bolshevik Revolution. Yet the Green Army was at least 700,000 strong

YOU CAN CONTINUE TO READ THIS BOOK BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK,
CONTINUE READING
 OR IF YOU WISH YOU CAN PURCHASE IT VIA AMAZON ,

Mass Murder Based on Lies: 1.4 Million Iraqi Dead on the Hands of the Liberal Labour-Tory Elite

Mass Murder Based on Lies: 1.4 Million Iraqi Dead on the Hands of the Labour-Tory Elite

New research on the war in Iraq has revealed that 1,455,590 people have been killed as a result of the as a result of the illegal invasion of that nation by the British and American establishment.

This figure does not include the 4,466 American soldiers and the 179 British soldiers who died in that war.

The war, it will be recalled, was initiated because it was falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks and that Iraq had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons with which it was threatening the world.

As conclusively proven since then, all these claims were lies.

The blood of all the Allied soldiers and the 1.4 million Iraqis therefore lies directly on the hands of those politicians who caused the war.

In an explanation of how the 1.4 million figure was calculated, the independent American lobby group “Just Foreign Police” said that in a “country such as Iraq, where sufficient reporting mechanisms do not exist, there is a scientifically accepted way to measure demographics including death rate: a cluster survey.

“Cluster surveys provide reliable demographic information the wake of natural disasters, wars and famines. Cluster surveys give us the data about deaths in Darfur, accepted for example by the U.S. government as one basis for its charge of genocide. They are used by U.N. agencies charged with disaster and famine relief.

“In Iraq, there have been two scientifically rigorous cluster surveys conducted since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. The first, published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, estimated that 100,000 excess Iraqi deaths had resulted from the invasion as of September 2004.

“The second survey, also published in The Lancet, updated that estimate through July 2006. Due to an escalating mortality rate, the researchers estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis had died who would not have died had the death rate remained at pre-invasion levels. Roughly 601,000 of those excess deaths were due to violence.

“As with all statistical methods, the Lancet surveys come with a margin of error, as do opinion polls, for example. In the second survey, the researchers were 95 percent certain that there were between 426,000 and 794,000 excess violent deaths from March 2003 to July 2006. 601,000 is the most likely number of excess violent deaths.

“As of January 2008, a poll from the British polling firm Opinion Research Business contributed to our understanding of the Iraqi death toll, confirming the likelihood that over a million have died with an estimate of 1.2 million deaths.

“Just Foreign Policy accepts the Lancet estimate of 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths attributable to the U.S. invasion and occupation as of July 2006.

To update this number, we need to obtain a rate of how quickly deaths are mounting in Iraq. For this purpose, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) provides the most reliable, frequently updated database of deaths in Iraq. (The IBC also usefully provides a database of all violent Iraqi deaths demonstrable through press reports and thus relatively undeniable.)

“The IBC provides a maximum and minimum. We opted to use the midpoint between the two for our calculation. We multiplied the Lancet number as of July 2006 by the ratio of current IBC deaths divided by IBC deaths as of July 1, 2006 (43,394).”

The Lancet study already demonstrated that, as of July 2006, the deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq rivalled the death toll of the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

This is a valuable tool for British National Party activists to use: the next time any of the Labour-Tory-Lib-Dem politicians criticise our party, just point out to them that we are not responsible for mass-murder on a grand scale, unlike the other parties.

Left- Liberalism and the Decline of Britain : Then and Now Part 2

Then and Now. Part 2 of 3

Written by Tim Heydon

‘All  men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake up in the day to find it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.’ - T E Lawrence ‘The Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ Left- Liberalism and the Decline of Britain The changes which have occurred in our country over recent decades have been attributed to different causes.  Some have pointed to Britain’s diminished role in the world which has induced a mood of retreat and defeat in the political class,  tending to make it  look for a new direction in  Internationalism and Globalisation. It has been  suggested that the growth of an omnipresent and too easily milked welfare state  has sapped character; investing  people with an unhealthy reliance on the state  and an attitude of entitlement which has undermined norms of honesty, self reliance and self respect. It has it is said, provided  a man-made comfort- blanket which has dulled spirituality and undermined religion. Alternatively there is the suggestion that a kind of moral and spiritual torpor has occurred linked to the rise in living standards. Then there are those who point to a widespread alienation of people from the economy and the political process, and so on.  But a key factor must surely be the growth in influence of left-liberalism. Left-Liberalism is the Key Left-liberalism is an extremist ideology characterised by commitment to radical individualism and  to radical equality, meaning equality of outcomes.  These commitments are mutually exclusive, because freedom of individuals must lead to inequality. The commitment to equality takes precedence and, therefore whilst promising freedom, this ideology destroys it.  The State as arbiter of equal treatment steps into every aspect of existence. It must, because since actual equality cannot exist in a free society, political coercion is required to make people behave as if it did. The State drives out personal freedom of choice wherever it intrudes, including the most fundamental freedoms of all: freedom of speech and freedom of association at almost every level from the nation downwards. Such freedom as the State allows is restricted to increasingly narrow areas of private life, such as sexuality and personal relationships. The undermining of the traditional family and of parental authority over their own children is in line with the drive of those drunk on state power (and their own) to weaken social structures which stands between individuals and the power of the State in the enforcement of ‘equal rights’. Emotional Immaturity The demand for unfettered personal autonomy is ultimately the result of emotional immaturity; of an adolescent focus on the self.  It involves a refusal to admit that a person cannot exist in any great isolation – live in a kind of sealed-off personal moral bubble; that what we are and how we behave affects others. The Denial of the Claims of Society There is little acknowledgement that beyond certain limits the blessings of individual freedom become licence which can work to the detriment of all. Nor is there any real acknowledgement that an individual owes a duty to the rest of society (from which as Hegel and his intellectual heirs have pointed out every individual has obtained his or her very idea of selfhood and indeed the basis of the individual’s intellectual, political and spiritual life), to contain personal freedom within these limits From Classical Liberalism to Libertarianism In what follows we will analyse  the two strands that make up modern left-liberalism; an extreme conception of liberalism (personal freedom) and equality. First, extreme liberalism. The emphasis on the extreme personal autonomy of  modern Liberalism which demands that freedom of the will comes before the  (denied)  claims of society      (eg,‘a woman’s right to choose’ and the demand for euthanasia) has come about  because the traditional restraints of religion, custom and sense of community which curbed a corrupting excess of liberty in the classic liberalism of John Stuart Mill have progressively been cast aside as the insistence on individual freedom  has been driven forward under its own internal dynamic. The denial of Mill’s restraints has been encouraged by a virulent secularism underpinned by nihilist marxisant philosophy.  Far more than most, Liberals tend to be atheistical. The Drive to Maximum Personal Autonomy The natural outcome of the drive to its logical conclusion of individualism is that few restraints are left. For the liberal, restraints are an unnecessary infringement of personal liberty. Unnecessary because  the liberal has an optimistic view of human nature.  In the right conditions, left to themselves, the natural goodness of people will ensure that they will work out any problem or disagreements satisfactorily in the end. Therefore extreme personal autonomy poses no threat to civil society but instead enhances both it and the individual. It is this type of thinking that has produced libertarianism, an extreme form of  liberalism closely adjacent in its outcomes to neo-Marxist left-liberalism Libertarianism Libertarianism is a form of liberalism which believes in freeing people not merely from the constraints of traditional political institutions, but also from the inner constraints imposed by their allegedly mistaken attribution of power to ineffectual things. ‘The active libertarian is engaged in a process of liberation and wages war on all institutions through which man’s vision of the world is narrowed or focussed– among them  the institutions of the family and the customs of social, especially sexual conformity. ‘In economics, the Libertarian holds to a radical form of the theory of  laissez-faire ( including globalisation, meaning the free flow of capital and labour leading to  multiracialism and multiculturalism ). The belief is that economic activity must be actively liberated from the needless bondage of political restraints in order to achieve  true prosperity’. (Roger Scruton  ‘A Dictionary of Political Thought’.  Pan Books 1983 p271) The attitude that the restraints of religion and long-established tradition actually inhibit a civilised society (There are strong reasons for thinking that civilisations are in fact founded on religion or spirituality and decline if they decline) are so out of kilter with common sense and most people’s experience of life that the question arises: why do intelligent people believe it? Intelligence and Education is no Substitute for Experience It is in fact significant that it is indeed intelligent, educated and comfortably off middle class people who do. Ordinary people who are less influenced by ideology but while perhaps not being able to articulate their ideas, tend to have a nitty gritty apprehension of the reality of liberal social policies born of personal everyday experience. They are inclined to take an extremely cynical view of a society which has chased out the internal disciplines of religious morality and the external disciplines based on the possibilities of human wickedness. Not for nothing has it been said that a liberal is one who has the education to appreciate other people’s cultures and points of view and the income to get away from them. A Gross Misreading of Human Nature Liberals often have a naturally sunny view of human nature, thinking the best of people at all times. Nice, but how naïve, some might say – and they would be right. There was precious little evidence of the natural goodness of humanity in the Gulags or the Nazi Death Camps or the killing fields of Cambodia or the mud and shell holes of the Somme or the centuries- long cruelties of the Roman Amphitheatres or the wholesale exterminations of Genghis Khan or the genocides of the Muslims in their conquest of India, or the Japanese butchery  in the Rape of Nanking and elsewhere, for example. But the modern liberal’s natural inclinations when it comes to assessing human nature are underpinned by the gross misreading of it by their ultimate Guru, the 18th Century French thinker Rousseau. According to   Rousseau, human beings are born naturally good and  if they behave badly it is because they are corrupted by their institutions. The idea that uncivilised people are morally superior to those in more advanced societies goes back at least to the Roman author Tacitus who compared the morals of the barbarous Germanic tribes of his time favourably compared to those of Rome.  Now Rousseau, spurred on by tales brought back by the explorers who were then opening up previously unknown areas of the world brought this idea into prominence. Rousseau’s Ignorance In reality, Rousseau  was unaware of how ‘savages’ actually lived – for example he knew nothing of the human flesh eating habits of the constantly warring tribes of Papua New Guinea. What he seems to have done is to accept the ideal of a Christian society as the norms of humanity in its ‘natural; ie modern social-structure –free state , dispensing with utterly realistic concomitant Christian doctrine of original sin; of the natural tendency of individuals towards selfishness and evil. Far from a naturally good humanity being made bad by its environment, modern anthropology shows the contradictory fact that human institutions have underlying similarities based on factors common to human nature. Fundamentally, people are not made by their institutions. It is they who make those institutions.

Political and Cultural essay : Then and Now. Part 3 of 3 by Tim Heydon

Then and Now. Part 3 of 3

Written by Tim Heydon

‘The new dark ages are already upon us. This time, however, the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time…’Alasdair MacIntyre  ‘After Virtue’ Why has Left –Liberalism appeared with such devastating potency in Britain in recent decades? As we have seen in Part Two, there has existed in Western Civilisation a tendency to push forward  personal freedom against the  restraints of religion and tradition which were relied upon  by  John  Stuart Mill’s  Classic 19th century version of  Liberalism to continue a civilised society.  In the post Imperial era this push on its own might well have resulted eventually in the obliteration  of the old morality and social standards, without however, the overwhelming focus on equality which we now see. The Fall of the Soviet Union However more was required for the suddenness and completeness of the destruction of the old moral and cultural order, indeed its reversal, which has been the story in recent decades. The impetus for this was provided by the fall of the Soviet Union which had two main consequences for politics in the West in general. This event gave our present social disintegration its strongly leftist, egalitarian flavour. First it removed a Marxist enemy of the West which was clearly not of the West; it was the exterior enemy. This made many in the West relax their guard as far as internal Marxist dangers were concerned. Second, leftists now diverted their ideological energies from supporting revolutionary communism and the Soviet Union to other means to ensure the hoped-for Utopia of Equality. Recapitulation In Part Two we saw that the radical individualism which is a feature of our society is derived from a sunny view of human nature natural to many liberals, underpinned by the philosophy of Rousseau. We saw that liberals assume that because of this natural goodness, left to themselves in the right conditions people will be able to work things out for themselves.  We also saw that the nihilism of many liberals allows them not just to dispense with the social structures of family and so on and to deny the realities of race, sex, culture and religion but to encourage it. The Poisonous Synthesis of Extremes:  Personal Autonomy and Equality Modern leftism believes all of this also. For both Liberals and Leftists the key is ‘in the right conditions’. But while for Liberals these mean a minimum of state control, for the neo-marxist Left, they imply massive state interference, Political Correctness, to ensure equality of power and of esteem.  In the noxious synthesis of Liberal extreme autonomy and Marxist extreme social equality, which is what we know as Left-Liberalism, equality trumps freedom as it must. Thus:- ‘And the answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress…I firmly  believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain natural beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the people  on millions of other lives also.’ - Andrew Marr,  BBC Journalist ‘Tabula Rasa’:  The Environmentalist Fallacy The environmentalist fallacy that what is required to ensure a just society, meaning a society not of equal opportunity but one of equals (this allows ‘affirmative action’ ie discrimination against whites and the better off) is to adjust social structures is derived from the ‘Tabula Rasa’ or ‘Blank Slate’ theory of the 17th Century English philosopher John Locke which is often seen in the company of Rousseau’s ‘noble savage,’ humans – are- naturally- good theory.  Locke said:- ‘Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store, which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it, with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience: in that, all our knowledge is founded; and from that it ultimately derives itself.’ - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding .                                 Moving on From Locke The notion that the mind is a blank slate on which experience writes was early amended by Leibnitz, who said in effect;  yes, blank - ‘except for the intellect itself.’ And Kant posited a theory of knowledge in which reality is created in the mind when information from the environment is acted on by its pre-existing characteristics. Kant’s position has been overwhelmingly supported by findings in modern science (including recent discoveries in genetics) which stress the way in which inherited factors in human nature affect an individual’s reactions to experience. Left-Fascists cling on to the Blank Slate because they long to write on it. Given that the blank slate and its attendant theories have been largely outdated for so long, why did radicals continue to use it to underpin so much of their thinking?  Because, like Andrew Marr quoted above, they were dying to write on these blank slates. The idea of remaking people, of bossing them around - for their own good, of course - is the fundamental impulse of left-liberalism, and the left glories in the idea that human abilities and personalities could be putty in their hands. Their fascist desire to control and mould others and their quasi-religious need for a ‘politics of meaning’ makes them close their eyes to the falsity of their creed. Because we are Blank Slates we can and should be written on - by Leftism The idea of the blank slate  together with that of  the natural goodness of humanity are the basis of the Left-Liberal view that human beings can and should be moulded and ‘perfected’ – be returned to their natural state of goodness – by social engineering.  People can be made to be ‘equal’ as they can be made to be good. All the divisions of race, sex, ability, character and indeed any aspect of what sensible people recognise as facts of ineradicable human nature are illusory and can be abolished if the social environment is suitably adjusted. Hence all the inhuman, failed social engineering of Left-Liberalism designed to alter people’s environments whilst ignoring them as human beings with inborn characteristics, plus the thought police of Political Correctness which go with these attempts and are a part of them. Hence mass immigration and multiculturalism and the destruction of Western  Civilisation. Overthrowing Society The means for the overthrow of Western Civilisation on the fall off the Soviet Union were already strongly established in the West. There was of course Fabian socialism in Britain. More immediately importantly though  was the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’, an institute of Marxism, which was set up in pre-War Germany with the specific intention of finding a way to bring about a Marxist victory in the West. It was to do this in the light of the clear failure of the Western working classes to adopt communist ideas of the revolutionary overthrow of society. This group transferred to America on the outset of war where it was attached to the University of Columbia as an ‘Institute for Social Research’. There, it formed a strategy to undermine Christianity and the culture of the West, in anticipation that this would lead to the triumph of the radical left. Adherents of this School, third raters like Horkheim, Fromm and Reich together with the likes of Adorno, Gramsci, Marcuse and others became the heroes of 1960’s radicalism. Privileged, Pampered Students The students who flocked to the new British Universities at that time came from the most privileged, affluent and pampered generation in our history.  They personally had not had to survive a world war or struggle through the hardships of economic depression as their parents had. In the manner of adolescents and especially those who have been spared the harsh realities of life that had tutored their parents, they fancied themselves better educated and morally superior to the older, wiser generation. Adolescents Rebelling Against their Parents They seized on the ideas of these leftists as a stick to beat the older generation with. They thought that through reading them and the higher nonsense of nihilist leftist philosophers like Foucault they had the key to a deeper truth  (conveniently overlooking the fact that this philosophy denied the existence of objective truth)  hidden from ‘ignorant’ older people.  It is those susceptible youngsters, their attitudes preserved in an aspic of delayed emotional adolescence who now form the political and cultural elites of our country and who are destroying it. The ‘Capture of the Culture’ The strategy for the overthrow of the West and its reconstruction on Marxist lines was to bring it about, not through debate or armed struggle, but by means of the ‘capture of the culture’ by people who shared their views. In a deliberate reference to Mao Tse -Tung’s  historic communist campaign, Gramsci  referred to this as the ‘Long March through the Institutions.’ Once their sympathisers were in place in the instruments of opinion formation – the universities, the government bodies, the art institutes, the entertainment industries and the schools - the people of the West could be worked upon by the stealth means of ‘cultural conditioning,’ Critical Theory The elements of the ‘new Proletariat’ identified by the School; minorities of any and every kind who were said to be ‘oppressed’ by the majority because of  power relationships which were claimed to be ‘unfair’ were to be played on, encouraged and harnessed. The tools to be used included ‘Critical Theory’, which is a destructive, constant criticism of all the main pillars of Western Society:  Christianity, the nation, the family, tradition.  Repetitive negativity alone would engender a sense of cultural pessimism and rejection in the population, counter to its deeper feelings, even when there was every reason to cherish much of what they had. The BBC and Critical Theory One can see Critical Theory at work just by turning on the BBC and watching a documentary which denigrates some British hero or aspect of our history or society. Christmas and Easter, the great popular festivals of the Christian Church, are favourite times for programmes seeking to belittle Christianity. Cultural Marxism in Action As for the Marxist elevation of their new ‘proletariat,’ this can be see endlessly on film and television: strong women physically defeat or dominate weaker, less capable, foolish or evil men (Sigourney Weaver in the Alien films is a good example).  Blacks and other ethnics, preferably women, portrayed as doctors, lawyers, senior policemen and holders of other middle class positions of authority confront the incompetence foolishness, stupidity and criminality of lower class whites, preferably male; ethnic minorities and homosexuals are show as repositories of decency and moral probity as compared to the ignorance and unpleasantness of ordinary whites; corrupt clergymen and well-meaning do-gooders such as the Salvation Army are bested by dropouts; and so on and so on. The Schools are the main Theatre of Marxist Indoctrination It’s all lies – pure, mind-bending propaganda.  But the most important area for the ‘Long March’ has been the schools.  For the Frankfurt School, what children learned was not as important as that they had the right attitude. Children could and should be conditioned to reject their parents’ values as outdated and evil. And it is witness to the success of the strategy of the ‘Long March’ that while they actually know less and less, and behave more and more badly, this is what much of the youth of today thinks of their elders, at least until they  mature sufficiently to have the confidence to reject this indoctrination. Leftist Ideology: A towering Castle of Cards built on a Lie Upon the lie of the blank slate, mediated now by philosophical nihilism, has been built every leftist notion of the inherent equality of humanity, every initiative of the left to ‘improve’ the rest of us (in their own image). Because they run counter to the truth about human nature, all these initiatives are doomed to failure sooner or later, varying only in the damage they do in the meantime. On the grand scale, the blank slate as been responsible for the worst mass murders in history by radical regimes in the hands of power maniacs bent on transforming humanity,  from the French Revolution through the slaughterhouse that was the Soviet Union to the killing fields of Pol Pot, and the 60 millions dead at the hands of Mao. It’s all the fault of White Men On the domestic scale, the blank slate is responsible for every policy which sees the under representation in any area of our society of some ethnic or other group in society as evidence solely of discrimination, or ‘oppression,’ or some other aspect of the social environment, including education, to the complete exclusion of innate factors such as differing abilities, levels of intelligence, temperaments and inclinations which themselves are viewed as products of unequal environments. Founded on Lies Left-Liberalism is founded on lies. Its belief in extreme individualism is contradicted by its own adherents in their need for their individualism to be authenticated by others (they tend to be ‘individual’ in the same uniform way) and by the group nature  of its neo-marxist analysis. The equality it seeks is an unattainable fantasy that can be approximated only by means of what it is for the present stopping just short of:  true Stasi-like oppression. The Political Correctness  and ‘human rights’ it wants to impose as  secular substitutes for the fast depleting stock of Christian morality built up over centuries which it assiduously attacks, has no defensible foundation  in philosophy without religion or even in the will of the people. As we are seeing, the relegation of traditional morality and customs to the dustbin of history is producing moral squalor and social disintegration on an historic scale. A Civilisation betrayed by Extremists It is extremism which has brought about the historic crime which is the agenda of destroying the most successful civilisation that the world has ever known. A truer, better course would have been to steer between the extremes; the course of moderation indeed which Britain above all other societies had succeeded in establishing before it fell into the hands of the weak, the treacherous and the extreme. Summoning up the Will to defeat this Evil If the people of our country do not summon up the will to throw off this insidious evil, this pernicious cancer spells the end of us.  We will continue to lie like the cowering denizens of the crumbling Roman Empire at the mercy of barbarians bringing with them the new Dark Ages. They will take from us and trample underfoot everything we have known and have loved and cared for and substitute for it –what? Even they don’t know. They just ‘hope’ on the basis  only of their fatuous and discredited  ideologies. But the reality of what we see so far as morality and traditions crumble and aliens are imported to replace our people is a steep decline in the quality of life and of social relations in what was once the most civilised society of any significance on the planet. There is about our disintegrating country and the West in general the unmistakable stench of decay. The future seems very dark indeed.

Bradford – Multiculutural Hypocrisy Central

Bradford – Hypocrisy Central


By Lee Barnes

In what can only be described as a triumph of integration in our multi-cultural society, a Pakistani and British Pakistani only club will soon be opening soon in Bradford.

Supported as you would expect by the local Labour party Bradford Lord Mayor, Councillor Naveeda Ikram, the local paper quotes club president Iftikhar Ahmed:

“The club will be totally non-religious and non-profit-making. It will be a sports and social club, a club promoting pride in our Pakistan heritage. Anyone with Pakistan heritage can join… Membership is open to all Pakistanis or people of Pakistani origin, says Mr Ahmed – as long as they are aged over 18.”

Wonderful.

The stench of a sickening double standard hangs over this racist club like flies over dog muck.

There are only two communities in this country who have not a single ethnic-based community centre, club or venue for them to promote pride in their ethnic and national origins – and those are the White Indigenous English community and the White Indigenous British community.

No doubt if some enterprising members of our communities decided to open such a community centre to promote pride in our communities, then you can imagine that very soon house bricks would be thrown through the window by the wonderfully ‘tolerant’ UAF at the exact same time as some politically correct brown-nosing dullard in the local police would be kicking the front door down to raid the place in search of ‘racists’.

You can just imagine the scene if someone submitted a planning application to Bradford council to build a community centre for the White Indigenous English community. It would be like introducing a fox into a chicken coop full of fat, stupid chickens.

Trevor Phillips in the Equality Commission and his fellow quangocrats would instantly be demanding it be shut down in the same vigorous manner as certain oddballs in society demand the eradication of ‘racist’ hot-cross buns and ‘xenophobic’ pigeons who defecate on multi-cultural monuments. In fact one could be sure that Trevor and his fellow race relations industry extortionists would not cease in their constant whingeing and whining until the proposal vanished into the memory hole forever or they succumbed from gradual oxygen deprivation.

Then the local Labour Party would be organising a series of demonstrations demanding it be shut down by invoking as many nightmarish visions they can which they assert would result if the community centre was opened, everything from global climate change to invasions of big nasty wasps or the Daleks.

The local media would then print stories designed to cause fear in the community, ranging from defining it as a new Hitler’s Bunker to it being the nerve centre of SPECTRE and other evil James Bond villains.

Yes folks, this country is in the grip of a pathetic and pernicious double standard so obvious that only the truly stupid can pretend it does not exist.

(1) http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/9116985._Positive_Pakistan__group_launched_in_Bradford/
 

Left Wing UAF Loving Anti-BNP journalists losing jobs all over the country

Anti-BNP journalists losing jobs all over the country

 by Giuseppe De Santis.

Oh such wonderful news, it is nothing less than a delight to see more of the UAF supporting journalists being sent down to the ‘dole office’, to sit with the victims of the current crop of traitors in government.
This is an article from Press Gazette published a few days ago.
Press Gazette

Eleven journalism jobs could go at the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, Trinity Mirror confirmed today.
It is the latest in a series of editorial jobs cuts in regional newspapers which have emerged across the country today (see related stories below).
The company is bringing the paper’s printing time time forward by around three hours to reach the “critical lunchtime period” and moving to a single edition.
In a statement the company said: “The proposed changes will mean a restructure in the editorial department of the title with the potential loss of 11 jobs.”
Trinity also announced printing of the title is being shifted to its site in Teesside – which could result in the loss of a further 15 jobs at its Newcastle printing site.
The managing director of NCJ Media – a subsidiary of Trinity – David Simms said: “This restructure aims to help our newspapers and websites come through the recession and ensure a future for our media brands in the North East.
“We are committed to achieving as many of these potential redundancies as possible by voluntary means.”
A staff consultation begins today.
Earlier today it emerged that six editorial jobs are under threat at Teesside’s Evening Gazette, also published by Trinity Mirror, where there are plans to restructure the newsdesk and reduce the number of senior editorial positions from six to three.

But the good news doesn’t end here.
Press Gazette

Trinity Mirror has announced that up to seven editorial jobs could be cut at its North West and North Wales division.
The company said the cuts were the result of the creation of a new publishing unit in Cheshire and North Wales and a shake-up of its senior management team, which will see the departure of veteran Cheshire editor-in-chief Eric Langton.
The new unit will be led by publishing director Rob Irvine, who currently manages Trinity Mirror’s titles in North Wales.
In his new role he will oversee titles including the Daily Post Wales, Chester Chronicle, North Wales Weekly News and several websites and special publications.
The publishing team will mainly be based at the company’s Llandudno Junction office, but the company said reporters, production journalists, photographers and advertising representatives will continue to be based at offices across the Cheshire and North Wales regions.
A number of other roles in advertising, sales and administration are also at risk of redundancy.
Warren Butcher, managing director of Trinity Mirror North West and North Wales, said: “The restructure of our management, commercial and editorial teams is vital to ensure the development of our multimedia publishing business across Merseyside, Cheshire and North Wales.
“We have entered into a period of consultation with all staff affected by the reorganisation and we hope to achieve as many of these redundancies as possible by voluntary means.”
Commenting on Langton’s departure, Butcher added: “Eric leaves after an outstanding career in daily and weekly journalism going back over 40 years and taking in frontline experience as a reporter, news editor, sub-editor and, since the 1990s, as editor.
“In his time as editor he has successfully battled serious illness whilst developing a range of multi-award-winning titles. We would like to take this opportunity to wish Eric success and happiness in future and to thank him for a huge and remarkable contribution to many of Trinity Mirror’s regional newspapers.”

Let’s hope this is only the beginning.
GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

UK Population Rises by Highest Amount for 50 Years Due to Immigration

Population Rises by Highest Amount for 50 Years

 |  News Team @ http://www.bnp.org.uk/

Record levels of net immigration and high third-world birth rates have increased the UK’s population by the highest yearly amount for almost half a century.
The population increased to an official figure of 62.3 million in June 2010, a rise of 470,000 (0.8 per cent) over the previous twelve months, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The increase was the largest since the ‘baby boom’ year of 1962.
The news should serve as another wake-up call to the British public about the true nature of the self-styled ‘anti-immigration’ Tories, who have already presided over a record influx of immigrants into Britain in their first year in office.
The soaring population is down to two factors – a massive influx of immigrants and the far-higher birth rates of the non-Europeans living here.
It means the population is growing at four times the rate of the 1980s, when it averaged just 0.2 per cent a year – and it has rocketed by 3.1 million people between 2001 and 2010.
Net migration accounted for an extra 230,000 people added to the population for 2009–10.
The rest was due to so-called natural change – the difference between the numbers of births and deaths – which has been considerably spurred by the comparatively high fertility rates of non-European immigrants.
The total number of births for the year was 797,000, the highest since 1991. Around one in four of those was to non-UK-born mothers.
ONS figures state that the average UK-born woman has 1.84 children, while women living here who were born abroad have about 2.5 children. Of course, the former figure is misleadingly inflated by the amount of non-ethnically European immigrants already here.
According to the 2011 report of US Census Bureau data, whites have the lowest birth rates of any race. The white birth rate in the United States is 11.6 per 1,000 of the population. In contrast, the ‘American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut’ birth rate is 15.3, the black birth rate is 16.9, the ‘Asian or Pacific Islander’ 17.2 and the Hispanic 23.4 per 1,000.
Additionally, all of the top 100 countries by fertility rate, as ranked by the UN, have majority non-white populations.
Clearly, this shows that, in order to keep Britain truly British, a policy of merely stopping immigration is not enough, let alone just reducing it to the ‘tens of thousands’ a year, as the Conservatives have pointlessly promised to do.
Only the British National Party’s policies of deportation of illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and bogus asylum seekers – and the offering of resettlement grants to people of foreign descent – will be able to halt and reverse the ethnic cleansing of our people.
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.

Asian Grooming of British Children : A Worse Truth Hidden in The Figures

A Worse Truth Hidden in The Figures

Written by Sarah:Maid of Albion

The headlines in This weeks papers and on TV announced that the results of a recent investigation had revealed that 28% of those involved in the sexual grooming of young, and predominantly white children, on our streets are Asian, more than “one in four”.  The report was widely accompanied by predictable urgings from politicians, police and media multicultural advocates that we should not place too much significance on the ethnicity of those involved. However, are the headlines themselves actively under reporting the true scale of Asian involvement in this crime? The report identified a total of 1,217 suspects, however, in the case of a significant number of those (464) the ethnicity of the perpetrator is recorded as "unknown", therefore they can not be included in any meaningful assessment of the composition of offenders. Every media outlet had attempted to pretend that those of "unknown race" must all be white, but the figures do not support that assumption. The ethnicity is known in the case of 758 offenders and of these 346 are Asian (just under 46% of the total). Given that those whose ethnicity is known is the only sample upon which the racial make up of offenders can be assessed, and as a further 40 of those who’s race was identified were either black or Chinese, the headlines could, with even greater accuracy have announced that “Less than half of all child sexual grooming suspect are white” (On the basis that whites who make up just under 90% of the population, amount for only 48.5% of those who’s ethnicity has been established)     Even if all those whose race is currently unknown turned out to be white, Asians, who according to official figures make up less than 6% of the population, would be massively over represented in the figures.  However, as whites make up less than half of the known offenders, how likely is it they make up 100%, or even the majority, of the unknowns? Multicultural advocates argue that the research is "poor and incomplete" and, therefore, misleading, but this is only true in that the manner in which it is being presented significantly under represents the disproportionate levels of offending on the part of non-white (primarily south Asian) offenders, whilst at the same time dishonestly over-represent the numbers of white offenders. Another factor of note is the absence of any figures relating to Arabs, Turks, Albanians and East Europeans amongst the offenders. In view of the degree to which such groups feature amongst sex criminals, this inevitably leads one to speculate whether the researchers have followed the example of the FBI and included them under the single category “white”, so as to inflate the number they can pass off as native Britons. The media will lie and lie and twist and squirm, however, the glaring fact is the research suggests that native white Britons are at least twenty times less likely to be involved in the disgusting crime of child sexual grooming than are the mass ranks of newcomers to our country.

UK Ethnic Cleansing : Is It Too Late to Save the British People from Extinction?

Is It Too Late to Save the British People from Extinction?

  News Team at http://www.bnp.org.uk/

By Maid of Kent –
With the shocking figures released by the Office for National Statistics showing that 1 in every 8 people in Britain today is foreign born, the British people need to face the realisation that time is fast running out before Britain ceases to be the homeland of our people.
These ONS figures of course do not include illegal immigrants living here, nor do they include ‘temporary visitors’ such as foreign students who may never leave.
While the figures reveal the horrifying extent of the recent mass invasion of our country, in that 12.5% of the known UK population were not born here, they deceptively mask the true extent of the colonisation of our country by races from across the earth to the horrifying point that the indigenous British races will shortly become insignificant minorities in the lands that their ancestors have lived in exclusively for thousands of years.
When that happens, the Britain that was built by these indigenous British races will disappear to be replaced by a country formed by the traditions and cultures of those who are rapidly replacing us in our homeland.
The deception of these ONS figures is that they differentiate only between foreign-born people living in the UK and British-born people living here, giving no indication of the ethnic origins of those born here.
Due to this deliberate lack of ethnic distinction in the statistics for the 7 out of every 8 people who were born here, the figures will give many Britons the mistaken idea that those 7 out of every 8 are descended from the indigenous races of Britain, while the truth is far from this figure.
The ONS figures showing that 1 in every 8 people living in the UK is foreign born will include many elderly immigrants who have lived in Britain for decades, but do not reveal the millions of British-born children and grandchildren of these immigrants who are counted in the other 7.
With many Britons showing a great interest in the history of their own family origins by researching their ancestors, they will know that the descendants of one couple from a hundred years ago can today number hundreds of people. By applying the knowledge that we have gained from such personal research, we can get a true idea of how many British-born descendants of immigrants populate our country.
By exposing the lack of ethnic distinction in the ONS figures and the absence of the British-born but non-indigenous population in these statistics, it is easy to show why many British people feel like aliens in their own homeland.
Added to the 1 in 8 of the population who is foreign born, we can perhaps easily estimate that another 4 in 8 are British born but of non-British ethnicity. Perhaps even more. The conservative figure of 4 in 8 would, added to the 1 in 8 who is foreign born, lead to a total of 5 people in 8 being of non-indigenous origin.
That would mean that 3 people in every 8 – 37.5% of the population – are indigenous British people, already a minority in their own homeland.
If these are the overwhelming results from a 65-year-old ‘experiment’ in mass immigration, how much longer do the British people have as any significant presence in the country named after their race?
With the horrendous birth rates of non-indigenous people in our country – encouraged and financed by a benefits system paid for by us – the total destruction of a British Britain is only a few short years away.
When you live in an area still mainly populated by indigenous Britons, but drive past schools where the majority of pupils are of non-indigenous origin, and drive past Bus Stops where of a crowd of about 30 people there are 4 white faces, or visit the maternity ward of your local hospital and have a hard time finding one white face – then you will realise that the future of the British people in their own homeland is grim.
While the British people have had to endure – because it is ‘racist’ to criticise these invaders – a host of horrendous and non-British practices and traditions brought to their country by these immigrants, like halal slaughter, forced marriages, honour killings, institutionalised corruption, criminal activities and gang warfare, to name a few – what hope can we have of maintaining any part of our culture and heritage when we are an insignificant minority in Britain?
That these invaders and their British-born children and grandchildren ignored and refused to accept our culture and traditions when we formed a majority of the population doesn’t lead to much hope that they will acknowledge them in any way when we are a minority.
Rather, they will continue to force us to accept their way of life until, through weight of numbers, their way of life must become our way of life.
While the politicians from the Lib/Lab/Con parties and their apologists celebrate this ‘diverse’ Britain and with it the decimation of the native people of Britain, their culture and their homeland, these people would be horrified if a similar ethnic replacement happened anywhere else, especially in the lands that these invaders have come from.
Can we imagine the uproar among these people if 62.5% of the population of Africa were white Europeans? Or if India, Pakistan or China were invaded and colonised to the same extent?
The damning indictment of these supposedly liberal and progressive politicians is that the results of their mass immigration policies have been the same as Hitler’s ‘Lebensraum’ policy in Eastern Europe – the removal of the native races and extinction of their cultures to be replaced by an imported population.
It is ironic that the enablers and supporters of the mass immigration that has been forced down the throats of the British people, while calling the British National Party ‘fascist’, should have achieved results that the Nazis would have admired.
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.

The World Mocks as Cameron supports Sodomites Festival in London

Horwich Nationalists

Once the mark of a Conservative Prime Minister was of some one who held most sacred the history and Christian morals and the traditions of the nation.

 
But who would have believed even just 20 years ago that a conservative Prime Minister of the nation once called Great Britain  would have given his support to a group of sodomites and associated sexual perverts openly parading and promoting their perversion around the streets of London, in the open view of men women and CHILDREN! And not only that, but they are not satisfied by insulting every decent sensibility on these islands they have to add blasphemy against our Christian faith to their campaign as you can see from the banners in the above picture taken from their website 

Well i am afraid to say that time is now upon us and that the present conservative ,( with a small c ), prime minister of the fractured and falling apart province of the EU known as the UK has done so. In a letter to this London pride outfit he says the following ,

From the Prime Minister, David Cameron

“The Beatles sang that All you need is love. Richard Curtis showed on film how it was all about Love Actually. The best times in our lives are when we feel most loved so it’s a pleasure to support this year’s Pride London and its theme Carnival of Love.
With love has to come respect and acceptance, that’s why the Government’s work to tackle homophobia and transphobia is so important.  By enabling civil partnerships to take place on religious premises, deleting convictions for consensual gay sex, launching the largest ever transgender survey, tackling bullying in schools and focusing on homophobia and transphobia in sport the government, in conjunction with groups across the country, is working to create a society based on the values of fairness, dignity and respect.
Pride London is also focusing on ‘Love without Borders’, this is a commendable idea, and the UK has an important leadership role to play.  British Embassies in countries such as Poland and Estonia have supported Pride events, at the UN the Foreign Office played a vital role building support for a major statement in support of the human rights of LGBT people, we helped secure a Presidential pardon for a same sex couple in Malawi who had held an engagement ceremony and we continue to raise the issue of gay rights with the Ugandan government and Prime Minister.
[For more information please visit http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/human-rights/equality/lgbt-rights/]
At home, tackling hate crime remains key.  The police are now collecting data on hate crimes against LGB&T people and True vision, a website with information about such crime that also enables online reporting, went live in February.  Despite the progress made there’s always more to do and every instance of homophobia or transphobia is one too many and we all need to work together to tackle it.
The UK has just been named by the International Lesbian and Gay Association as the number one place in Europe for LGBT equality.  This position has been reached after years of dedicated work and is something we can all be proud of.  Next year will see the Olympic and Paralympic Games, The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and World Pride take place in London; as the eyes of the world turn to us it provides a perfect opportunity to celebrate our rich diversity and spread a little love.
I hope you all have a fun and safe time celebrating Pride London.”

Cameron has surrendered the last shred of decency and common sense of the conservative party, and openly given up on the hope of many Conservative voters that he would some how stop and reverse the moral decline of this once Christian Great Nation.
the evidence to prove them that conservative voters reliance on him is now open to all,  as he states in his last paragraph of this Government validation of  the Homsexual perversion.
 "The worlds eyes will be upon us next year" and as the homosexuals take centre stage in the world pride event that coincides with the Olympics the Jubilee and other events. 
I for one will be closing my eyes and hide my face in shame as the worlds eyes will mockingly look at the moral collapse of of our nation as the Gay parade opens the Olympics and as you say cameron "spread a little love" and no doubt the AIDS that go's with it!