Britain Worlds Dustbin & laughing Stock?

Nigerians in the Home Office and Pakistanis in the Foreign Office: No Wonder Britain Is the World’s Laughing Stock

April 27, 2010 - By BNP News

Nigerian fraudsters work in the Home Office handing out fake passports, and Pakistanis work in the Foreign Office distributing memos which insult the pope — no wonder Britain is the world’s laughing stock.

The recent arrest of Nigerian passport holder Bridget Idigbe at her place of work at Lunar House, Croydon, was the third conviction in a year for similar offences of a member of staff at the immigration centre.

Ms Idigbe sold passports and travel documents to illegal immigrants after being given the power to grant applications and stamp passports or immigration documents. She was jailed for six years.

The Nigerian national, who was jailed for six years, had worked in the department since 1990.

Her conviction brings to at least 14 the number of Lunar House staff convicted of immigration fraud over the past two-and-a half years. All of those arrested have been immigrants themselves, some of them illegally resident in Britain.

For example, Jahangir Alam was jailed for 14 months in June 2008 for arranging indefinite leave to remain for his brother.

Aisha Ajia was sentenced to three years and six months after a jury delivered a guilty verdict in April 2008 of 11 counts of misconduct.

Nigerian John-Ayo was jailed for nine years in February 2008 for selling 207 travel documents for illegal immigrants to use.

It comes as no surprise then, to learn that what the media call “British Pakistani” Anjoum Noorani was the leader of the Foreign Office’s Papal Visit Team which drew up a document mocking the upcoming papal visit.

According to reports, Mr Noorani has been moved to “other duties” after he gave authorisation for the memo to be sent to Downing Street and three Whitehall departments.

It would not even be possible to conceptualise British people working in the Pakistani Department of Foreign Affairs, or Yorkshiremen running the Nigerian Department of Internal Affairs and issuing permits for other people to enter Nigeria.

Yet this is precisely what is happening in Britain today, courtesy of decades of insane immigration policies pursued by both Tory and Labour parties.

The British National Party is the only political party which demands an end to this madness and a restoration to First World standards and norms in our nation’s civil service — before we are dragged completely down to the level of the Third World.

Vote BNP Election 2010

Where the BNP Stands 2: Defence and Afghanistan

April 27, 2010 - By BNP News

The British National Party is the only political party to demand the immediate withdrawal of all British forces from Afghanistan and it was the very first party to point out that the war against Iraq was based on easily-disprovable lies. It is also the only party which opposes the Tory-Labour-Lib Dem-supported drums of war against Iran.

The following is the complete section on defence from the BNP’s 2010 election manifesto, previously only available in PDF format.

Defending Britain: BNP Defence Policy

The British Army Must be Used to Defend Britain

The purpose of Britain’s armed forces is to protect British interests at home and abroad – and nothing else.

During the recent Iraq War, which the BNP opposed, there were no strategic or commercial interests to defend nor were British citizens threatened.

The same applies to the current war in Afghanistan. This war, according to some estimates, may continue for another 30 years, producing a death toll of British servicemen that will far exceed the worst years of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

It is because we have no interests to defend in Afghanistan that our party demands an immediate withdrawal of our troops from that theatre.

In addition, the BNP firmly opposes the threatened war against Iran. That nation also presents no credible threat to Britain, and we are deeply suspicious of allegations of “weapons of mass destruction” emanating from the same neo-con clique who lied about Iraq’s alleged atom bomb and WMDs.

The Tory/Labour Degradation of Our Armed Forces

Twice during the 20th century, the UK came close to the brink of destruction because of the neglect of our defences. The present weakness of our armed forces is due to a process that has been ongoing for years and the Conservative record is only marginally less appalling than that of Labour. Both parties have undermined and abolished our historic regiments.

Independence of Action and the Rejection of “Collective Security”

There is far too much emphasis on collective security, embracing nations that are not always well disposed to our viewpoint. The opposition from many of our EU allies to our campaign in the Falklands provides a sober example, with the French happily supplying the Argentinians with Exocet missiles.

The integration of our forces with those of other nations, as envisaged by the EU, is dangerous and will cause us to have neither the means nor the freedom to act in defence of our national interests should the need arise.

Commitment to a British Supplied Military and Nuclear Deterrent

The BNP aims to have an independent British military, equipped by British factories in all the essential needs of modern warfare.

Our independent force must include an independent nuclear deterrent and capability. These weapons would remain under British control.

We believe in the strengthening of the British navy, which has been downsized in recent decades. This will be of significance once we regain control of our 200-mile fishing zone.

The UK requires a capability to mobilise units and dispatch them in defence of British interests worldwide. This will entail the development of new aircraft carriers, new transport aircraft and helicopters.

Britain must be prepared to launch limited operations where it is necessary to protect our citizens abroad and not be deterred by ‘world opinion’.

The Falklands campaign was an obvious example where Britain needed to act, but more recently there were clear grounds to rescue people of British descent from the murderous regime in Zimbabwe.

We shall restore many of the historic regiments, particularly those from Scotland, which were disbanded by the Labour government.

We shall also carry out an appraisal of the bureaucracy within the Defence Ministry.

Withdraw from Germany and Renegotiate Our Status in NATO

We shall recall our troops from Germany, where we see little purpose in their continuing presence. The Cold War has long since passed and our troop presence in Germany is superfluous and little more than an insult to the Germans.

We shall renegotiate our presence in NATO to ensure that we maintain independence and neutrality.

Raise Defence Spending: Equipping Our Troops

We will raise spending on defence by one percent over the rate of inflation for the next five years so that our forces may never again be committed to any conflict short of equipment or kit, as has been the case with the shameful deployment in the Tory/Labour war in Afghanistan.

This increase in spending will be even more significant when it is borne in mind that under a BNP government, British forces will not be involved in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran.

Community Award Scheme Will Encourage Social Values and Work Ethics

We will introduce a Community Award Scheme for our young people which will take the form of a compulsory one year period for all school leavers during which they will work in the community as the final element of their education.

This scheme will allow young people to choose between a variety of community service options which might include, for example, caring for the elderly or disabled people, environmental or heritage restoration projects or military training.

The final choice of direction in this regard will be dictated by the school leaver’s scholastic record, preferences and suitability.

These courses would be character building and would instil discipline, social and community values and work ethics in all young people.

Service in this scheme would entitle each individual to receive something back from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as free university education, a properly supported apprenticeship or business training.

1.1 Million Illegal Immigrants Have Invaded Britain, New Report Reveals

April 26, 2010 - By BNP News

A new study by think tank MigrationwatchUK has revealed that there are in excess of 1.1 million illegal immigrants in Britain and that the figure could easily be as high as 2.2 million or more.

According to the report, titled “The Illegal Migrant Population in the UK,” previous estimates of illegal immigrants have seriously underestimated the scale of illegal entry and those who overstay their visas.

“A more plausible estimate for illegal immigrants in the UK would be 1.1 million. If they were granted an amnesty their relatives and dependants would have the right to enter Britain, approximately doubling the numbers concerned,” the report said.

There are four major categories of illegals, the report continued:

(a) people who have been smuggled in or entered on false papers (illegal entrants);

(b) those who come with a visa but stay beyond it (overstayers);

(c) asylum seekers whose cases fail but who stay on in the UK;

(d) children of the above.

“Until May 2005 the Government insisted that no estimate on the actual numbers of illegal immigrants was possible,” Migrationwatch said.

“However, in June 2005, the Home Office published a report which they had commissioned and which arrived at a central estimate of 430,000 illegal migrants in the UK.

“By the time it was published this report was four years out of date.”

Migrationwatch updated its estimate for failed asylum seekers who had not been removed and added an allowance for the subsequent children of illegal residents. This gave a central estimate of 670,000.

“The next, and most recent, estimate was produced by the LSE for the Mayor of London in April 2009. This had a central estimate of 618,000.

“The report added in 219,000 failed asylum seekers from 2001–7 and subtracted 126,000 who had already been granted an amnesty in the same period.

“It also reduced the total by 40,000 to allow for East Europeans made legal by the expansion of the EU in 2004.

“However, its estimate of all overstayers and illegal entrants was only 50,000 (over the whole period).

“The LSE report made a detailed assessment of failed asylum seekers — the only element for which these is a statistical basis. A further 20,000 could be added for failed asylum seekers unlikely to be removed from the intake in 2008–9; this relatively small element is not further discussed.

“The major weakness, however, was its assessment of overstayers and illegal entrants which it estimated at only 50,000 for the entire period from 2001–7.

“Overstayers are generally regarded as a much larger group than those who are smuggled in. Nationalities that are considered to pose a risk of overstaying are required to obtain a visa.

“Visas are issued at a rate of about 2 million a year to visitors, students, spouses etc. Each 1 percent that stays on adds 20,000 a year to the number overstaying.

“The LSE estimate of 50,000 in seven years implies that 99.5 percent of the 12 million who were granted visas between 2001 and 2007 went home at the end of their legal stay. That is highly unlikely.

“The propensity to overstay varies vary widely between nationalities.

“A study of the growth of remittances to Pakistan showed that they had increased by a factor of six since 2001 while the number of Pakistani workers in the Labour Force Survey had increased by only two thirds.

“This pointed to an illegal population of 200,000 from Pakistani alone.

“A similar exercise for the Philippines showed remittances growing in line with their recorded work force in the UK. We take a conservative estimate of 3 percent of the total which gives 60,000 a year.

“There will shortly be more direct evidence of overstaying. As the e-borders scheme comes into effect the Government will know how many people have overstayed their visas.

“By the end of 2010 there should be 95 percent coverage. We expect the numbers apparently overstaying to be of the order of 70,000 a year.

“Some may have gone home by a route not covered by e-borders but the result will be a clear pointer to the scale of overstaying in the UK.

“There are also those who enter illegally.

“In recent years about 10,000 people a year have been removed from the ‘juxtaposed controls’ in France and Belgium.

“If they were not successfully getting through they would not be attracted to Calais in such numbers. There will also be other illegal entrants via other ports. Thus a reasonable estimate of illegal entrants would be 10,000 a year.

“Not all of those who overstay or enter illegally will do so indefinitely; some will decide later to return home.

“We assume that 20,000 a year of the 70,000 (60,000 overstayers plus 10,000 illegal entrants) will eventually decide to return.

“Adding 50,000 a year for the ten years since 2001 to the LSE estimate would give a UK total of 1.1 million (without adjusting for additional children).

“Even this figure does not give the full impact of an amnesty since those ‘regularised’ would have the right to bring over spouses, fiance(e)s and dependant children which could double the number involved.

“Not all will have been in the UK for ten years but since, by definition, they have no documents there is no way to be sure how long an applicant has been here.

“A study of a regularisation scheme for Mexicans in the US in the 1980s found that three quarters of the applications were fraudulent.

“A previous study by Migrationwatch found that the LSE paper understated the additional cost for health and education, apparently on the grounds that illegal immigrants already had almost full access to them.

“They also made the optimistic assumption that only 40 percent would require social housing, even so they calculated that the public subsidy element would be 6.2 billion for the UK.

“The LSE paper admitted that the long-term costs of benefits could be 1.6 billion a year; this would mean that the total net costs up to retirement would, on the basis of their own assumptions, amount to 52 billion.

“Even this figure did not include the post retirement costs which Migrationwatch estimate at 57 billion, bringing the total cost to 109 billion.

“The Migrationwatch calculation which added some allowance, over and above the LSE estimates, for health, education and welfare benefits came to a lifetime cost of the order of £130 billion.

“All these calculations were on the basis of the LSE central estimate of 618,000 illegals, not the revised estimate of 1.1 million.

“The most recent estimate of 618,000 illegal immigrants in the UK severely underestimated the scale of illegal entry and overstaying.

“A more plausible figure is 1.1 million. The first results of e-borders later this year are likely to produce further evidence for such a conclusion.”

Vote BNP Election 2010

THE REAL MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

THE REAL MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

Vote BNP Election 2010

BNP’s Commitment to Britain’s Christian Heritage & freedom

BNP’s Commitment to Britain’s Christian Heritage Draws Applause from Hustings Crowd

April 23, 2010 - By BNP News

The British National Party’s commitment to maintain Britain’s Christian heritage drew loud applause from a hustings crowd in Bridgwater, reports Bridgwater and West Somerset parliamentary candidate Donna Treanor.

“I read the other parties’ manifestos and noticed that not one of them mentioned Christianity, so I pointed this out at the hustings, and none of the other candidates could defend themselves,” Miss Treanor said.

“I then pointed out that the BNP had called for a return to our Christian heritage and values, and the audience all clapped very enthusiastically.

“The BNP will ensure that appropriate areas of public life, including school assemblies, are based on a commitment to the values of traditional Western Christianity, as a benchmark for a decent and civilised society,” she told the hustings, organised by the  Bridgwater’s Mother’s Union.

* An anti-democratic Green party candidate, who does not believe in equal rights for all people, refused to take part in the hustings.

Miss Treanor was unperturbed by his narrowminded bigotry, saying only, “I don’t believe in what the Greens say. They’re a watermelon party: green on the outside and red in the middle — they’re Communists.”

 read more http://bnp.org.uk/

The Origins of Political Correctness Bill Lind,

The Origins of Political Correctness

Bill Lind,

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci  in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse (picture Left). Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

Blogs that linked this article:
Cultural Marxism Deceives Democracies | Things I ReadVote BNP Election 2010

Nu Labours Harman wants you the British extinct in the next 50 years

Let's have a 'Fairer' Society by Getting Rid of British People

Created: Sunday, 25 April 2010 09:34 Author: rugfish |  

Not on your Nelly Harman!
One of Green Arrow and friends roving reporters Mister Fox; passed me an interesting clip today which many of you will no doubt be left speechless by once you have viewed it, so here it is and thank you Mister Fox.

Pop Up Embed " readonly="readonly" type="text"> RATE

The clip shows briefly, Harriet Harman revealing that the sole intention of "Gordon's Plan to change the voting system", is to stop the BNP being elected. (As if we didn't know).
But surely anywhere other than perhaps Zimbabwe, an electoral change which seeks to exclude parts of the populace from gaining power would be illegal wouldn't it?
Not only that, but surely anywhere apart from Zanu-Britain and Zimbawe, it would be non-conducive, possibly unconstitutional, definitely immoral, and certainly only something a scum-sucking dictating son of a bitch Marxist would do, and of course it would be completely 'un-British' wouldn't it?
That said, I guess if you had a scum-sucking Marxist government and scum-sucking vile despicable and disgusting Marxists leading British politics, then you would surely end up with scum in government who hated the British people, who hate democracy, who hate Christianity, who hate white people, and who hate the BNP, and well......I wonder what and who else they hate?
Everything other than what they prescribe as being Zanu-British I guess.
They'll hate people like me too I suppose, because the last thing a scum-sucking Marxist like these lot want is to be revealed for the scum-sucking lying Marxists they are.
Whilst I'm on about scum-sucking liars, thieves, Marxists, dictators and other ugly things, I thought it appropriate to bring news of a fall out at the unelected top of Labour.
This coincides with a fall out at the top of the unelected Conservative party too with Cameron's decision to plant Marxists, aliens and immigrants at the top of politics instead of anyone else by any other name who may actually have the country's interests at heart above their own or have a clue about politics, as he excludes anyone who disagrees with his vapid ideological approach to politics, loves Britain, can point to an Englishman, and holds any British Conservative values.
They are not the 'type' of people Cameron wants, he wants Marxists and anyone will do as long as they think like him.
talking of people who think like him,  Mandelson and Harman have apparently been fighting over the likely future without a Labour Govt, and instead trying to work out how to kill the rest of Britain off whilst under the thumb of a hung parliament.

Two Miserable Marxists

It was while I was reading the article as I tried to hold my sides together, that I couldn't help thinking how miserable these two Marxists looked. I recalled watching Harman through clenched fingers yesterday in the warm up to Mr Griffin's appearance on the special edition of Newnight with Jeremy Paxman, and I noticed a rather strange behaviour from her and from the Conservative lady Theresa May, as they struggled with the possible concept of having to work together. "Oh no"! May cried,.....'we worked with them on the education debate but we don't see eye to eye'.
Harman was equally distained by the idea as she alluded: "What this country needs is a........".
I have to say I went to make another cuppa at that point as I'd really had enough of beating myself up.
But as made my cuppa, I wondered whether either of them considered they might not actually be elected?
Strange thoughts crossed my mind as I considered whether they had considered the impossible outcome that they had not considered, that the electorate may have chose to not consider them.
Why surely if these two have already put aside the British people then surely only a complete moron or Marxist (same thing), could possible place a cross next to any of these lot I thought.
I mean it would be like voting for the executioner with the sharpest axe!
Very quickly I righted my thinking when I concluded that you don't actually need to be elected in this country to have political control, and that Peter Mandelson is proof of it.
What you need is a big mouth to get control in this country but in a nice way, you have to look good when you use it, and you have to get yourself on telly like these do.
Maybe Mr Griffin should have been amongst them to add a bit of rational thinking I thought, but heck there's no chance of that cos this is the BBC!
So, firstly we have the parties fighting amongst each other, and secondly we have them telling us how there'll be a change to the electoral system to keep the BNP and the British people out of power. What a complete mockery of democracy that is!
Then we have these Marxists being interviewed as if they are the only choice people can make, and by constant media coverage they become more prone to making giant gaffs when giving revelations which show their sole argument to restore 'fairness', a proper democracy, and a representative government, is to exclude the British people from the process.
Why do they hate us so much, is it because we tell the truth and reveal their lies?
Well what other reason could it be if not that?
I mean here's another truth for instance, but it could just be my opinion. Make your own mind up but this is mine. I think Harriet Harman is an ugly cow with an ugly mind an ugly mouth an ugly dress sense and an ugly political ideology.
My evidence is above and on other articles written by myself and others, and I see no need to ask who is available to save the British people because I already know who that is. It's a man called Mr Nick Griffin who the media won't show unless it is to ask him stupid questions, and it's the man who all the political parties FEAR! Yes FEAR! For if they did not fear him then they would not be looking to change the system to exclude him and they would permit him airtime to talk about our destruction as opposed to completing the endless question: "Who are the British people", with the same answer everytime...."us".

Further evidence of Harman's ugliness is here and I suggest she sees a dressmaker about her garb, and sees Mr Nick Griffin about a decent politic in which she could join in if she dropped the idea that Marxism will always be in charge of British politics. That could only ever come true, if people like me start to believe we don't exist and continue to vote for the LibLabCon Party, which in my case will never happen.

Who on this planet would wear a 6 inch Stiletto on their

LAPEL unless they were completely off their rocker!?

Nu Labour allows Asylum Seekers to Stay

Hundreds of Thousands of ‘Asylum Seekers’ Remain Permanently in Britain Due to the Labour/Tory PartyApril 23, 2010 - By merciaoriginal post at  http://bnp.org.uk/

Despite the Tweedledee and Tweedledum parties each claiming to be ‘tough’ on immigration, in actuality, between the two, they have granted amnesty to hundreds and thousands of so-called asylum seekers.
The Tories would have the gullible believe that they have clean hands where immigration is concerned and that the present crisis is largely due to Labour’s lack of control, yet it was former Tory leader Michael Howard who, when home secretary, rewarded thousands of ‘asylum seekers’ with residential status.
Howard, whose family originates from Eastern Europe, quietly increased the number of ‘asylum seekers’ granted exceptional leave to remain — from 2,000 in 1991, to 14,000 in 1993.
Later, in 1996, he once again demonstrated Tory duplicity by giving permission for thousands of overseas students and marriage applicants to remain in Britain.
Boris Johnson, the Tory mayor of London, is alleged to want a change in the current residence rule so as to confer a right of residence to all ‘asylum seekers’ who can establish that they have been in the country for at least five years.
Furthermore, it was the Tories who amended immigration and asylum legislation to give failed ‘asylum seekers’ the legal right to remain in Britain pending appeal against removal — legislation at the very root of the asylum-seeker scandal.
As for Labour, it is public knowledge that they have, since being elected to office in 1997, deliberately facilitated mass immigration in a cynical bid to import Labour voters, a covert policy that defecates on the sacrifice of all those Britons who gave their lives in the last war to defend us from foreign invasion and colonisation.
Yet it was ‘former’ Communist Jack Straw, the son of an Eastern European immigrant, who whilst insisting that there was no question of an amnesty, gave the green light for some 30,000 failed ‘asylum seekers’ to be allowed to stay in Britain.
This was every bit as bad a day for this country as it clearly was a good one for Labour’s crumbling electoral base.
Not to be outdone, Labour home secretary and former leader of “Looney Left” Sheffield Council, David Blunkett, is on record as giving permission for 15,000 ‘asylum seeker’ families to remain in 2003.
Since then experts estimate that the Labour regime has given residential status to around 160,000 illegal migrants, many of whom can reasonably be considered as natural Labour “welfare-state” Party supporters.
The British National Party says that our nation’s asylum policy should be in line with international law. This means that people have the right to seek asylum in the first neighbouring safe country to the one they are fleeing.
People who have crossed 20 safe countries to reach Britain are acting in contravention of asylum rules. The BNP argues that there are, therefore, no legal asylum seekers in Britain.

The Marxist Nu Labour attack on Christians Continues

Created: Sunday, 25 April 2010 07:49 Author: rugfish |  

Not him, he's the Pope

Whilst our Marxist govt, David Cameron and Clegg trip over themselves to destroy England and Christianity with their vile and disgusting Marxist beliefs that are unless you are ethnic, gay, Islamic or hell bent on wrecking democracy and the Christian church, then you must obviously (sic) be vile and disgusting.

They the marxists would do well to consider that these vile and disgusting 'Christian' beliefs held by at minimum one third the world's population, were the same beliefs which gave their own vile and disgusting beliefs room to breathe in our world.

Without Christianity it is very likely that the world we see now would be a far different place, and I doubt any of us would be here to shout down the other in our so called - democracy.
I was therefore rattled to find that our foreign office. A place which speaks for this nation. Should parade Britain on the world stage as a debauched society of vile and disgusting Marxist scum as opposed to representing the views of the British people in its dealings with head of the Catholic Church and great Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, in its suggestions that when he pays a visit here to his flock in September.

That he the Pope should be asked to "open an abortion clinic", "bless a gay marriage", take a hard line on child abuse, "launch a Benedict-branded condom", "sack dodgy bishops", and "launch a helpline for abused children".

Personally, I couldn't give a damm for the foreign office or for David Miliband who authorised these Marxist insults to the Pope, as I'm quite content to know that good manners and respect for Christian beliefs, is something only good people do.

Yet I wondered what the British people would think of vile Marxist traitors like Miliband and the shower of Marxists in the LibLabCon, who are parading themselves as being representative of the British people like me, or would they instead think these insults are proper from a government and a political elite which poses itself as British?
Who speaks for Britain - is it Christianity or is it Karl Marx?
For if it is NOT Christianity, then Christians best wake up to the fact that people like we have in the LibLabCon, are plainly trying their very best to persuade them otherwise as they all seek their votes in this election.
Christians (and moral respectable people with no faith), had best get used to the practice of Sharia Law becoming the norm in Britain once Marxists have decimated all things Christian.
Gays, & ethnic immigrants and other innocent people who remain fixed in their notions that the LibLabCon actually represents their beliefs rather than seeking to use them for their own global ends, had best get used to a future for them and their own children, which is wholly exclusive of all things good, and inclusive of all things vile and disgusting, as the global Marxists begin to take their aim through Islam, at them too.
First they came for the BNP then they came for the Christians, then they came for Gays and blacks and then they came for me. Finally they came for Islam and then there were only Marxists, who all happened just by sheer chance to be left in power in the LibLabCon Party under the reign of Satan.
FOOTNOTE,
We strongly recomend the book below, for further reference read the works of Larry Abraham & gerry Allen aslo  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Allen

British National Party Manifesto

Democracy, Freedom, Culture and Identity: The BNP’s Election Manifesto 2010 Is Launched

April 23, 2010 - By BNP News

The British National Party has entered the 2010 general election with one of the most comprehensive and detailed manifestos in its history and will be campaigning on a number of issues which set it apart from all other political parties, Nick Grffin MEP has announced.

“These issues are the conflict in Afghanistan, the immigration invasion of our country, the threat to our security posed by Islamism and the danger of the European Union to our sovereignty,” Mr Griffin wrote in the introduction to the manifesto which was released today.

“The BNP is also the only party to map out realistic and sensible budget cuts which will bring the deficit under control — without cutting front line public services to the British people.

“In addition, the reader will find unique and innovative policies within this document which range from a solution for the housing crisis to restoring British industry, and from building our nation’s IT infrastructure to constitutional reform to guarantee our people’s liberties and freedom,” he said.

The manifesto’s key pledges are:

Defending Britain: BNP Defence Policy

• The BNP will end the involvement of British troops in the Afghanistan war

• The BNP will not allow British forces to become involved in a war against Iran

• The BNP will withdraw our troops from Germany

• The BNP will renegotiate our presence in NATO

• The BNP will raise Defence spending by one percent over the rate of inflation for the next five years

• The BNP will institute a Community Award Scheme for young people

Immigration: An Unparalleled Crisis Which Only the BNP Can Solve

• At current immigration and birth rates, indigenous British people are set to become a minority well within 50 years. This will result in the extinction of the British people, culture, heritage and identity.

• The BNP will take all steps necessary to halt and reverse this process. These steps will include a halt to all further immigration, the deportation of all illegal immigrants, a halt to the “asylum” swindle and the promotion of the already existing voluntary repatriation scheme.

• The BNP recognises the right of legally settled and law-abiding minorities to remain in the UK and enjoy the full protection of the law, on the understanding that the indigenous population of Britain has the right to remain the majority population of our nation.

• The BNP will deport all foreigners convicted of crimes in Britain, regardless of their immigration status.

• The BNP will review all citizenship grants awarded since Labour entered government in 1997, based on that party’s admission that they orchestrated mass immigration to change forcibly Britain’s demographics and to gerrymander elections.

• The BNP will repeal the Race Relations Act and all other far leftist social engineering projects, such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission aimed at enforcing multiculturalism.

• The BNP will regain sovereign control of our borders by increasing funding to the UK Border Agency.

Environmental Protection and the “Climate Change” Theory

• The BNP demands an end to the destruction of Britain’s green belt, caused primarily by housing demand fuelled through mass immigration.

• The BNP will launch a “polluter pays” policy in the fight against environmental damage.

• The BNP will encourage the use of existing “brown sites” for all new building or industrial developments.

• The BNP rejects the “climate change” theory which holds that all western nations need to be stripped of their manufacturing base and pay untold billions to the Third World to build up their industries.

Leaving the European Union

• The BNP loves Europe but hates the EU.

• The BNP demands an immediate withdrawal from the European Union, which is an organisation dedicated to usurping British sovereignty and to destroying our nationhood and national identity.

• The BNP will end the annual multibillion cash haemorrhage Britain pays out to the EU in membership fees and regulatory costs. This money will be spent on building infrastructure in Britain and alleviating poverty and unemployment at home.

Counter Jihad: Confronting the Islamic Colonisation of Britain

• The BNP is implacably opposed to the Labour/Tory regime’s mass immigration policies which, if left unchecked, will see Britain and most of Europe colonised by Islam within a few decades.

• The BNP believes that the historical record shows that Islam is by its very nature incompatible with modern secular western democracy.

• The BNP will ban the burka, ritual slaughter and the building of further mosques in Britain.

• The BNP believes that there should be absolutely no further immigration from any Muslim countries, as it presents one of the most deadly threats yet to the survival of our nation.

• We propose the immediate deportation of all radical Islamist preachers, those proven to have attended any of their inflammatory sermons, and any other members of their community who object to these reasonable security measures.

• The BNP is the only party to identify correctly the twin causes of Islamist terrorism in Britain: (a) mass immigration and (b) a biased British foreign policy which serves to incite Muslims living in Britain.

Renationalising the Welfare State

• The BNP will halt the handout of benefits, housing, education and pensions to foreigners who have not paid into the system.

• The BNP will ensure that the National Health Service is used to serve British people and not used as an International Health Service.

• The BNP will provide education and training for the unemployed to enable them to get back into work.

• The BNP will institute a workfare-not-welfare policy for those who refuse to get back to work.

Freedom for All: The Restoration of Our Civil Liberties

• The BNP will repeal all legislation enacted by successive Labour and Tory regimes which have usurped the British people’s basic civil liberties.

• The BNP will circumvent the erosion of our liberties by the old gang parties under the guise of “fighting terrorism” by dealing with the root causes of Islamist extremism in Britain, namely mass immigration and Britain’s biased foreign policy.

• The BNP will repeal all laws aimed at restricting freedom of speech, including those relating to race relations and religion.

• The BNP rejects ID cards as an undesirable manifestation of the surveillance society.

• The BNP will repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which are exploited to abuse Britain’s hospitality by the world’s scroungers.

• By withdrawing from the EU, the BNP will not permit British courts to be subservient to international bodies or courts which override the law of the British parliament.

Constitutional Change: Protecting and Enhancing Our Heritage

• The BNP will devolve all powers properly capable of exercise to local level and revived county council government.

• The BNP will create an English parliament in Westminster.

• The BNP will create a pan-British parliament to oversee those policy areas currently determined by Westminster and invite the Irish Republic to join as an equal partner.

• The BNP will reform the House of Lords to include non-party political experts and individuals chosen on the grounds of talent and service.

• The BNP will introduce citizens’ initiative referenda to force government to adhere to the will of the voters on specific subjects.

• The BNP will introduce a new Bill of Rights which will guarantee certain basic civil liberties.

• The BNP will enact legislation forbidding interference in the electoral process by third parties not partaking in an election.

• The BNP will restrict the use of postal voting only to those incapable of getting to the polling station on election day.

Democracy and the Media

• The BNP will enact legislation which will hold journalists and their media outlets criminally liable for knowingly publishing falsehoods.

• The BNP will create a media complaints body which will have the power to grant slandered persons or institutions the right of reply with equal prominence plus financial compensation in serious cases.

Culture, Traditions and Civil Society

• The BNP will take steps to promote the traditional British concepts of civility and courteousness by ensuring that they are taught in schools.

• The BNP will oppose the intrusion of non-British and alien cultural influences which undermine our traditional value systems.

• The BNP will encourage the teaching of British history, culture and traditions in schools.

• The BNP will seek to promote the traditional high-street shopping environment over the out-of-town shopping centre.

• The BNP will ensure that National Lottery funding is spent on projects which enhance British culture, rather than degrade it.

• The BNP will introduce formal bank holidays for all of our nations’ patron saints.

• The BNP will take legislative steps to protect Britain’s pubs, which will include tax concessions, smoking rooms under strict supervision and a lowering of tax on alcohol served in public houses.

Time to Get Tough on Crime and Criminals

• The BNP will end the culture where criminals’ rights are placed above those of victims of crime.

• The BNP will abolish political correctness from the police service in favour of real crime fighting.

• The BNP will review the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in order to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from the police service’s duties.

• The BNP will reintroduce capital punishment for drug dealers, child murderers, multiple murderers, murderers of policemen on duty and terrorists where guilt is proven beyond all doubt.

• The BNP will reintroduce the right of householders to defend themselves and their property using whatever means they deem necessary.

• The BNP will establish a penal station for extremely dangerous/violent repeat criminals (including rapists) on the British island of South Georgia.

A Healthy Nation: Public Health and the NHS

• The BNP will end the scandalous situation of NHS underfunding by reallocating money from the foreign aid budget. The reported NHS deficit is £620 million and the current foreign aid budget is £9.1 billion.

• The BNP will increase spending on front line staff while cutting back bureaucracy in the NHS.

• The BNP will end the £2 billion per year “health tourism” scandal.

• The BNP will give priority to employing British people at affordable wages in the NHS and halt the recruitment of Third World-origin staff who are needed in their own nations.

• The BNP will cut waiting times and service difficulties by relieving the immigration burden upon the NHS.

Education for a British Future

• The BNP will reverse the budget cuts on education and prioritise this sector as vital to the rebuilding of our nation.

• The BNP will bring back traditional syllabi and teaching methods to replace the current and obviously failed systems currently being used.

• The BNP will bring back streaming and grammar schools.

• The BNP will bring back academic and sporting competition at all levels of education.

• The BNP will offer free university education to deserving students who have completed their period of Community Service.

Transport: Getting Britain Moving Again

• The BNP will make rail travel affordable once again by reversing the disastrous privatisation process which has grossly inflated ticket prices.

• The BNP will reduce traffic congestion by bringing the immigration invasion under control.

• The BNP will invest in a high speed 200 mph magnetic levitation inter-city rail network.

• The BNP will seek to decrease the price of fuel which is already comprised of at least 63 percent government tax.

• The BNP will charge foreign trucks for the right to use Britain’s road network, as other European nations already do.

• The BNP will encourage and support the development of alternative transportation technologies to ultimately replace the internal combustion engine.

Agriculture: Food and Fisheries

• The BNP will promote British agriculture by gradually phasing out the EU’s CAP subsidies and replacing them with a viable UK system.

• The BNP will forbid the development and importation of genetically modified produce.

• The BNP will encourage the regeneration of the family farm as the core structure of Britain’s agricultural sector.

• The BNP will investigate the need for a massive soil reinvigoration scheme.

• The BNP will outlaw non-stunned ritual slaughter of animals.

• The BNP will bring back our nation’s traditional 200 mile coastal fishing exclusivity zone.

Energy: Fuelling the Nation’s Growth

• The BNP is committed to research into renewable and quasi-renewable energy sources and transmission systems, such as wave power, hydrogen fuel, and nuclear energy.

• The BNP rejects the notion that our nation’s nuclear power stations should be owned by foreign investors.

• The BNP opposes the punitive taxation mandated by the other parties’ adherence to the global warming theory and the “carbon credit” racket.

• The BNP will stop the building of wind turbines which are inefficient and blight the landscape.

• The BNP will investigate clean-burning coal-fired power plants as another method of dealing with increased energy demands.

Foreign Policy: Putting British Interests First

• The BNP will realign British foreign policy to put our nation’s interests first.

• The BNP will undertake not to interfere with the sovereignty of any other nation, and those in the Middle East in particular.

• The BNP would only deploy British armed forces in a conflict in which Britain’s interests were directly involved.

• The BNP will end the foreign aid swindle and reallocate the money saved to help British people.

Housing: Sheltering the Nation

• The BNP will allow local authorities to borrow on the open market to provide housing in their locality.

• The BNP will abolish the Homes and Community and Regional Development agencies and transfer regeneration and housing functions to local councils.

• The BNP will place each local council under a legal duty to build a number of homes set to a percentage of the waiting list total each year. These would only be available to British citizens.

• The BNP will introduce a “local connection test” for any applicant seeking social housing in terms of which they would need to demonstrate a positive and historical link to the area.

• The BNP will create a national infrastructure bank to promote regeneration and national infrastructure renewal.

• The BNP will relieve part of the housing crisis by halting and reversing the immigration invasion.

The Economy: Putting Britain Back on the Road to Recovery

• A BNP government would tackle the national debt problem by cutting expenditure on all projects which do not serve British interests.

• These expenditures which will be cut include the annual costs of £18 billion spent on “global warming,” the £13 billion spent on immigration, the £4 billion spent on asylum, the £15 billion spent on EU membership, the £9.1 billion spent on foreign aid, the billions spent fighting illegal and immoral foreign wars, and the billions spent on “politically correct” social engineering projects.

• The BNP undertakes not to reduce front-line public services while billions of pounds continue to flow out of the country to foreign interests. British people must benefit first from British tax income.

• The BNP aims to relieve the tax burden by raising the personal non-taxable allowance to £12,500.

• The BNP will encourage the family unit by reintroducing the married man’s allowance by as much as £2,500, depending upon the presence of children.

• The BNP will raise the inheritance tax level to £1 million.

• The BNP will work for a reduction in council tax through the slashing of all politically correct council functions and “diversity” schemes.

• The BNP would take some of these savings and invest them in rebuilding British industry and skills through an active protectionist policy as many other European nations already do.

• The BNP will rebuild Britain’s skills base — lost through decades of deindustrialisation caused by successive Tory and Labour regimes — by offering generous subsidies to students who study engineering and science and to institutions offering such education.

• The BNP will ensure that globalist corporations pay their fair share of the tax burden. We will close down the legal loopholes which allow tax evasion through Transfer Pricing and the outsourcing of jobs to foreign nations.

• The BNP will therefore introduce legislation to ensure that a foreign acquisition of any significantly-sized British company is judged to be in the public and national interest before it can proceed.

• The BNP will pass legislation to separate utility (high street) banks from the investment banking sector to prevent a repeat of the credit crisis.

• The BNP will oppose the privatisation of natural monopolies such as Royal Mail.

Creating Local Economies

• The BNP would support local economies by creating a national network of autonomous credit unions.

• The BNP would investigate the viability of voluntary local currencies as a means of assisting local economies.

Pensions: Looking After Our Old People

• The BNP aims to increase the state pension to £150 per week within the duration of the first Parliament.

• The BNP will link the state pension to earnings which will ensure that pensioner incomes keep pace with the cost of living.

• The BNP will reduce the current annual allowance for tax relief on pension contributions from the present amount of approximately £230,000 to £75,000.

• A solution to the public sector pensions crisis must be found through a national conference with all the players — employers and workers’ representatives.

• Part of the solution lies in raising the age of retirement to 68 over a period of years.

• The BNP will enact legislation to ensure that pensions are eligible only to Britons and those who have fully paid into the system.

• The BNP will vigorously oppose the UK taxpayer being called upon to subsidise any pension underfunding crisis elsewhere in the EU.

IT and the Digital Revolution: The BNP’s Vision

• The BNP will reinvigorate the IT sector in Britain with massive investments in technology universities.

• The BNP will institute a policy of protectionism for the local IT industry and jobs.

• The BNP will nationalise the telecoms infrastructure to enable the creation of a not-for-profit 100Mbps broadband service across the country.

• The BNP will invest in technology universities to provide the skills to our people to take their rightful place as world leaders in the IT industry. read more @  http://bnp.org.uk/